Loading...
TC 02-26-07 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 h F "w MEMORANDUM F� TO: Frederick County Transportation Committee FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Transportation Planner RE: February 26, 2007 Transportation Committee Meeting DATE: February 20, 2007 The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, February 26, 2007 in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Dent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The agenda for this meeting is as follows: AGENDA 1. Rural Roadways Ranking System 2. Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program Grants 3. Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO) Activity Update 4. Article distribution 5. 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 Rural Roadways Ranking System Staff has implemented the additional changes requested by the committee at the January 29, 2006 meeting. Attached please find the following information; 1. Program guidelines 2. Existing Scoring Sheet 3. Scenario 1; This is the program as it stands with the results that were presented to this committee and the Board of Supervisors on the adoption of the Secondary Road Improvement Plan. 4. Scenario 3; This is the scenario in which the current weight given to distance was corrected for the items of horizontal and vertical curvature and increased scores were given for how long the roadway had been on the list. This is the scenario that the committee requested staff to change further to consider distance in the category of occupied structures, and to increase the number of categories for traffic count. 5. Scenario 6; This the new scenario created as mentioned above. Staff is seeking a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for what changes, if any, to make to the ranking system. RATING SYSTEM POLICY Adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on October 7, 1997 The following prccedures are intended to delineate the steps necessary for the application of this rating system policy. Adherence to these procedures will ensure consistency in the application of this rating system policy for existing and future hard surface road improvement project requests. This policy shall be effective following the adoption of these procedures through a public hearing process held by the Board of Supervisors and shall only be altered through the same process. Information pertaining to the rating system application for each hard surface road improvement project shall be maintained in the Frederick County Planning Department database system. The Board of Supervisors shall have the authority to revise the Hard Surface Road Improvement Projects section of the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan subsequent to the application of the rating system to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Frederick County. RATING SYSTEM REVIEW AGENCIES • Candidate projects shall be rated by the Frederick Count-, Planning Deparnnent, die Frederick County Transportation_ Committee, and the Virginia Depart merit of Transportation (VDOT). • One rating sheet shall be prepared for each candidate project by each review entity. • The Frederick County Planning Department shall rate each candidate project. • The Transportation Committee members shall rate each candidate project within their respective magisterial districts. • The VDOT Residency shall rate each candidate project through information received from the Maintenance Supervisors for all roads within their respective maintenance districts. RATING SYSTEM APPLICATION METHODOLOGY • Candidate projects shall be rated utilizing the following information and methodology for each category: 1) Average Daily Traffic Count - utilize the most recent traffic counts for each candidate project provided by the VDOT Residency. 2) Occupied Structures - utilize the Frederick County Planning Department addressing database and digital mapping system to determine the total number of occupied structures that have direct access to, or whose only means of ingress and egress from a private road is achieved by each candidate project. 3) Physical Road Conditions/Safety a) Surface Width - obtain surface width data for each candidate project through the VDOT Residency Maintenance Supervisors. b) Shoulder Width - obtain shoulder width data for each candidate project through the VDOT Residency Maintenance Supervisors. C) Horizontal Curvature - horizontal curvature is determined to be deficient if sight distance around the curve is limited by cut sections or vegetation traveling at normal driving speeds. 2 RATING SYSTEM APPLICATION METHODOLOGY (Continued) d) Vertical Curvature - verdcal curvature is determined to be deficient if sight distance is significantly reduced or eliminated due to the rise and fall of the road segment traveling at normal driving speeds. e) Drainage - candidate projects shall be determined to have good, fair, or poor drainage utilizing the following guidelines: Good: Pipes are of adequate size and number. Water drains away from the roadway and creates no problem with surface maintenance. Ditches are of adequate size which produce no flooding within the roadway. Fair: Pipes are of adequate size; however, additional pipes may be needed. Water drains away from the roadway with minimal maintenance problems. Drainage ditches are in good condition, require little maintenance, and produce no flooding within the roadway. Poor: Pipes are not adequate in size or number. Ditch lines are inadequate and require extra maintenance. Water does not drain from the roadway effectively, creating maintenance problems and flooding. f) Accident Data - obtain police accident report data reflecting property damage and personal injury from the VDOT Residency Traffic Engineering Division. 4) School Bus Travel - utilize information reflecting current or proposed school bus travel routes for each candidate project provided by the Frederick County Public Schools Transportation Supervisor. 5) Time On Road Plan - utilize information from current and previously approved Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plans maintained within the Frederick County Planning Department to determine when candidate projects were incorporated. 91 RATING SYSTEM POINTS APPLICATION • Total points are determined for each category element. A cumulative total is obtained for each candidate project utilizing the total points derived from each category element. • The cumulative total for each candidate project is provided to the Frederick County Planning Department by all review entities. An average is determined for each candidate project utilizing the cumulative points from each review entity sheet and dividing by three. All candidate projects are ranked from the highest cumulative point average to the lowest cumulative point average within their respective classification. • If two or more candidate projects have the same cumulative point average, a tie -breaking . system will be utilized. Each affected candidate project will be compared to the others starting with the category of greatest weight and working through the categories of lesser weights respectively until the tie is broken. • The cumulative point average for each candidate project shall be final. Any citizen request or Board action which results in the alteration of a previously rated and ranked candidate project will require a new rating application by all review entities. The altered candidate project will then be incorporated into the Hard Surface Road Improvement Plan accordingly. HARD SURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN FORMAT • The Hard Surface Road Improvement Projects section of the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan will reflect the candidate projects with the highest cumulative point average that can be incorporated into the VDOT Six -Year Fiscal Plan based on available funding. This information will be provided to the Frederick County Planning Department by the VDOT Residency. • All remaining candidate projects will be placed on an Unscheduled Hard Surface Improvement Projects list which will be incorporated within the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan. Candidate projects incorporated into this section of the plan will be ranked from the highest cumulative point average to the lowest cumulative point average. 4 HARD SURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN FORMAT JContinued) • The VDOT will advise the Frederick County Transportation Committee when funding is available for the inclusion of new candidate projects within the Hard Surface Road Improvement Projects section of the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan. All candidate projects placed on the Unscheduled Hard Surface Improvement Projects list, as well as newly requested candidate projects, will be reviewed by all review agencies to determine current conditions. Appropriate ranking for all candidate projects will be determined at that time and placed accordingly. NEW PROJECT REQUESTS • A written request must be provided to the Frederick County Planning Department which describes the location of the candidate project, the origin and terminus of the segment, and a petition signed by at least 51 % of all property owners fronting on the proposed segment indicating their willingness to participate in right-of-way dedication should the project receive favorable recommendation by the Board of Supervisors. • The Transportation Committee shall recommend new project requests which meet this criteria after determining that the candidate project includes a segment of a state route that has a rational origin and terminus. PROJECT REMOVAL • Road improvements projects shall be removed from the plan once VDOT has notified Frederick County that the project has been funded and advertised for bid. • The Board of Supervisors may remove projects from the plan if VDOT has provided notification that right-of-way efforts have been ceased. 5 HARD SURFACE PRO.TF.C'T RATING SYCT>ti'm GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES Road Name: Route Number. From - To: Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) (2) 76-100 3 X (2) (3) 101-150 3 X (3) (4) 151-200 3 X (4) (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1-10 3 X (1) (2) 11-25 3 X (2) (3) 26-50 3 X (3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) (3) 12.1'-14' 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) (1) 16'+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) (3) i' 4 X (3) (2) 2' 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) Horizontal Curvature (1) for each occurence 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) (2) fair 4 X (2) (3) poor 4 X (3) f) Accident Data (1) 1-5 per year 4 X (1) (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel (1) Yes 5 X (1) (0) No 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) 3 11+ yrs. 2 X 3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES cenario 1 - 2006 Rankings used for Recently Adopted Secondary Improvemen 2006 Rank Narne 1 Chestnut Grove Rd 2 Indian Hollow Rd , 681 678 805 *608 X� 685 *600 1.62 2.5 15 9 3 Ridings Mill Rd 709 636 735 2.7 9 4 Pack Horse Rd 692 *600 671 1.4 12 5 Hollow Rd 707 WV Line 610 1.6 12 6 Carter Ln 6291 631 625 1.8 15 7 Laurel Grove Rd 629 622 *622 2.5 9 8 Fletcher Rd 733 50 707 1.3 12 9 Warm Springs Rd 676 677 *677 0.83 15 10 North Sleepy Creek 734 *522 *522 1 9 11 Canterburg Rd 636 640 641 1.5 6 12 Fishel Rd 612 600 600 1.6 3 13 Babbs Mountain Rd 730 654 677 0.9 6 14 Clark Rd 638 625 759 0.8 9 15 Wright Rd 661 669 WV Line 1.84 9 16 Middle Fork Rd 695 *522 WV Line 0.9 3 17 Old Baltimore Rd 677 676 672 1.2 15 18 East Parkins Mill Rd 64450 Clark Line 0.81 15 19 Heishman Rd 607 600 *600 0.78 9 20 Huttle Rd 636 709 735 1.1 9 21 Woodside Rd 671 669 WV Line 0.3 15 22 South Timber Ridge 696 522 694 1.3 9 23 Cougill Rd 634 635 11 0.25 15 24 Timberlakes Ln 811 671 *671 0.25 15 *denotes approximate terminus, see individual scoring sheet for detail I 71 5 5 Ian 41 128 79 78 74 73 73 61 IBM` K® a®®`®®IIIIIIIIIIIIN E.®®IIIIIIIIIIIMI. IIIIIIIIIIIIN E® IIIIIIIIIIIIN ��M © ®���'°® o® ® IIIIIIIIIIIIN a�®��® emm I 71 5 5 Ian 41 128 79 78 74 73 73 61 Scenario 3 - 2006 Rankings adjusted with Increased Time Weight and Distance Correction 2006 ` Rank Rank Nampa 1 9 Warm Springs Rd _ 2 5 Hallow Rd - 3 4 _ 4 6 Pack Horse Rd Carter Ln - 5 1 Chestnut Grove Rd _ 6 21 Woodside Rd - 7 10 North Sleepy Creek _ 8 8 Fletcher Rd 9 17 Old Baltimore Rd '10 18 East Parkins Mill Rd 11 16 Middle Fork Rd _I2 12 Fishel Rd _13 14 Clark Rd 114 2 Indian Hollow Rd 15 11 Canterburg Rd 16 19 Heishman Rd 7 15 Wright Rd _18 7 Lairel Grove Rd _19 23 Cougill Rd 20 3 Ridings Mill Rd 21 20 Huttle Rd 22 13 Babbs Mountain Rd 22 241 241ITimberlakes South Timber Ridge Ln 676 677 *677 0.83 15 12 12 12 3.61 3.61 8 4 5 12 87.23 707 WV Line 610 1.6 12 9 16 12 3.13 3.13 12 0 5 8 80.25 692 *600 671 1.4 12 9 8 8 5.71 2.86 12 4 5 12 78.57 629 631 625 1.8 15 9 8 12 2.78 2.78 12 4 5 8 78.56 681 805 685 1.62 15 12 4 12 5.56 4.32 8 4 5 8 77.88 671 669 WV Line 0.3 15 3 12 12 3.33 3.33 12 0 5 12 77.67 734 *522 *522 1 9-6-12 12 6.00 3.00 12 0 5 12 77 733 50 707 1.3 12 9 12 12 3.85 3.08 8 0 5 12 76.92 677 676 672 1.2 15 9 16 16 1.67 0.00 8 4 5 0 74.67 644 50 Clark Line 0.81 '15-6 12 12 2.47 2.47 8 4 0 12 73.94 695 *522 WV Line 0.9-3-6-12 -1.6-3 12 4.44 2.22 12 4 5 12 72.67 612 600 600 6 16 12 5.00 0.63 12 0 5 12 71.63 638 625 759 0.8 9 3 12 12 5.00 5.00 8 0 5 12 71 678 *608 *600 2.5 9 6 4 12 4.00 2.80 12 4 5 12 70.8- 636 640 641 1.5 6 9 12 12 4.00 2.67 8 0 5 12 70.67 607 600 *600 0.78 9 3 16 12 3.85 2.56 12 0 0 12 70.41 661 669 WV Line 1.84 9 912 16 1.09 1.09 12 4 5 0 69.17 629 622 *622 2.5 9 6 12 12 2.40 2.40 8 0 5 12 68.8 634 635 11 0.25 15 3 4 12 0.00 8.00 8 0 5 12 67 709 636 735 2.7 9 9-4-12 3.70 2.22 -8-0-5 12 64.93 636 709 735 1.1 9 6 4 12 3.64 0.91 12 0 5 12 64.55 730 654 677 0.9 6 6 12 16 5.56 4.44 8 0 5 0 63 696 811 522 671 694 *671 1.3 9 9 4 8 2.31 1.54 12 0 5 12 62.85 0.25 15 9 4 12 0.00 0.00 8 0 0 12 60 *denotes approximate terminus, see individual scoring sheet for detail cenario 6 - 2006 Rankings adjusted with Increased Time Weight and Additional Distance Corrections *denotes approximate terminus, see individual scoring sheet for detail 2006 " Rank Rank Name 1 9 WarmSprings Rd 676 677 *677 0.83 15 3.61 12 12 3.61 3.61 8 2 21 oodside Rd 671 669 WV Line 0.3 15 2.50 12 12 3.33 3.33 12 4 5 12 78.84 3 18 East Parkins Mill Rd 644 50 Clark Line 0.81 21 1.85 12 12 2.47 2.47 0 5 12 77.17 4 5 Hollow Rd 707 WV Line 610 1.6 12 1.41 16 12 3.13 3.13 8 12 4 0 12 75.79 5 10 North ;Sleepy Creek 734 *522 *522 1 9 1.50 12 0 5 8 72.66 6 4 Pack Morse Rd 692 *600 671 1.4 12 1.61 8 12 6.00 3.00 12 0 5 12 72.5 7 6 Carter Ln 629 631 625 1.8 15 1.25 8 8 12 5.71 2.86 12 4 5 12 71.18 8 8 Fletcher Rd 733 50 707 1.3 12 1.73 12 12 2.78 2.78 12 4 5 8 70.81 9 14 Clark [Rd 638 625 759 0.8 9 0.94 12 3.85 3.08 8 0 5 12 69.65 10 19 Heishman Rd 607 600 *600 0.78 9 0.96 16 12 5.00 5.00 8 0 5 12 68.94 11 16 Middle Fork Rd 695 *522 WV Line 0.9 3 1.67 12 12 3.85 2.56 12 0 0 12 68.37 12 1 Chestnut Grove Rd 681 805 685 1.62 15 1.85 4 12 4.44 2.22 12 4 5 12 68.33 13 17 Old Baltimore Rd 677 676 672 1.2 15 1.88 16 12 16 5.56 4.32 8 4 5 8 67.73 14 23 Cougill Rd 634 635 11 0.25 15 3.00 4 1.67 0.00 8 4 5 0 67.54 15 12 _ Fishel Rd 612 600 600 1.6 3 0.94 16 12 12 0.00 8.00 8 0 5 12 67 16 2 Indian Hollow Rd 678 *608 *600 2.5 9 0.60 5.00 0.63 12 0 5 12 66.56 17 7 Laurel Grove Rd 629 622 *622 2.5 9 0.60 4 12 12 4.00 2.80 12 4 5 12 65.4 18 11 Canterburg Rd 636 640 641 -1.5-6 1.50 12 12 2.40 2.40 8 0 5 12 63.4 19 24 Timberlakes Ln 811 671 *671 0.25 18 9.00 4 12 4.00 2.67 8 0 5 12 63.17 20 15 Wright Rd 661 669 77V Line 1.84 9 1.22 12 12 16 0.00 1.09 0.00 8 0 0 12 63 21 20 Hu Rd 636 709 735 1.1 9 1.36 4 12 1.09 12 4 5 0 61.4 22 1 Babbs Mountain Rd 730 654 677 0.9 6 1.67 3.64 0.91 12 0 5 12 59.91 23 3 Ridings Mill Rd 709 636 735 2.7 9 0.83 12 16 5.56 4.44 8 0 5 0 58.67 24 22 South 'Timber Ridge 696 522 694 1.3 9 1.73 4 12 3.70 2.22 8 0 5 12 56.76 4 8 2.31 1.54. 12 0 5 12 55.58 *denotes approximate terminus, see individual scoring sheet for detail ITEM #2 Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program Grants The Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program provides funding for a comprehensive initiative including planning grants, implementation grants, and research to investigate and address the relationships among transportation, community, and system preservation plans and practices and identify private sector -based initiatives to improve those relationships. States, metropolitan planning organizations, local governments, and tribal governments are eligible for TCSP Program discretionary grants to plan and implement strategies which improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce environmental impacts of transportation, reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure investments, ensure efficient access to jobs, services and centers of trade, and examine development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector development patterns which achieve these goals. Authorized funding for the TCSP Program is $25 million in FY 2005 and $61.25 million per year for FY 2006 through 2009. These funds are subject to the obligation limitation. The Federal share payable on account of any TCSP project or activity shall be 80% or subject to the sliding scale rate [23 USC 120(b)]. Through our membership in the WinFred MPO Technical Advisory Committee staff has directed MPO staff to prepare application for work on Eastern Route 37. Staff is seeking a recommendation of Board Endorsement for those applications which total $3,000,000.00 for Environmental and Preliminary Engineering work on the project. In addition, independent of the MPO effort staff is preparing and seeking recommendation of Board endorsement for applications totaling approximately $3,000,000.00 for the Tevis Street Extension, Senseny Road, and Fox Drive intersection with Route 522. These are all projects from the Secondary Road Improvement Plan for which funding has not yet been secured. Attached please find a summary of the program guidelines for this federal grant Attachment 1, Page I of 7 TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNITY, AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION PROGRAM BACKGROUND: The Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program provides funding for a comprehensive initiative including planning grants, implementation grants, and research to investigate and address the relationships among transportation, community, and system preservation plans and practices and identify private sector -based initiatives to improve those relationships. States, metropolitan planning organizations, local governments, and tribal governments are eligible for TCSP Program discretionary grants to plan and implement strategies which improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce environmental impacts of transportation, reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure investments, ensure efficient access to jobs, services and centers of trade, and examine development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector development patterns which achieve these goals. Authorized funding for the TCSP Program is $25 million in FY 2005 and $61.25 million per year for FY 2006 through 2009. These funds are subject to the obligation limitation. The Federal share payable on account of any TCSP project or activity shall be 80% or subject to the sliding scale rate [23 USC 120(b)]. Additional information on the TCSP Program can be found at the following links: - http://www.fliwa.dot.gov/tcsp/index.html ov/tcsp/index.html - http://www.ffiwa.dot.gov/tcsp/pi tcsp htm - http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/secI117.htm - http://www.fhwa.dot. og v/tcsp/projects.html STATUTORY REFERENCES: SAFETEA-LU Section: 1117. FUNDING: Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Authorization $25M $61.25M $61.25M $61.25M $61.25M Funded by contract authority; funds are not transferable. Funds are subject to the overall Federal -aid highway obligation limitation. [1117, 1102] Funds are to be allocated by the Secretary to States, metropolitan planning organizations, local and tribal governments, ensuring an equitable distribution to a diversity of populations and geographic regions. FEDERAL SHARE - The Federal share payable on account of any project or activity carried out under 23 USC 120(b) shall be 80% or subject to the sliding scale rate. Attachment 1, Page 2 of 7 OBLIGATION LIMITATION: The TCSP funds are subject to obligation limitation; however, 100 percent obligation authority is provided with the allocation of funds for the selected projects. The obligation limitation reduces the available funding for the program under the provisions of SAFETEA-LU section 1117 discussed above. ELIGIBLE USE OF FUNDS: Funds may be used to carry out eligible projects to integrate transportation, community, and system preservation plans and practices that: 1. Improve the efficiency of the transportation system of the United States. 2. Reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment. 3. Reduce the need for costly future investments in public infrastructure. 4. Provide efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade. 5. Examine community development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector development. Eligibility is broadly defined as a project eligible for assistance under Title 23 or Chapter 53 of Title 49, or any other activity the Secretary determines to be appropriate to implement transit -oriented development plans, traffic calming measures, or other coordinated TCSP practices. PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA: The Secretary of Transportation will make grants for projects from States, metropolitan planning organizations, local governments, and tribal governments, with priority consideration given to projects that: • Have instituted coordinated preservation or development plans that promote cost-effective investment and private sector strategies, • Have instituted other TCSP polices such as those addressing high-growth areas, urban growth boundaries, "green corridors" programs that provide access to major highway corridors for controlled growth areas, • Address environmental mitigation, and • Encourage private sector involvement. FHWA has not established regulatory criteria for the selection of TCSP projects; however, FHWA notes that the following criteria are also considered in the evaluation of candidates for this program: • Expeditious completion of project - Consideration is given to requests that will expedite the completion of a viable project. This is a project's ability to be expeditiously completed within the limited funding amounts available. • State priorities - For States that submit more than one project, consideration is given to the individual State's priorities. • Leveraging of private or other public funding - Because the annual requests for funding far exceed the available TCSP funds, commitment of other funding sources to complement the requested TCSP funding is an important factor. • Amount of TCSP funding - The requested amount of funding is a consideration. Realizing the historically high demand of funding under this program, modest sized requests for funding (generally less than $1 million) to allow more States to receive funding under this program are given added consideration. Therefore, two independent projects totaling less than $2 million might be more likely to be selected than one large project. Attachment 1, Page 3 of 7 • National geographic distribution of funding within the TCSP Program - Consideration is given to selecting projects over time among all the States competing for funding. • Congressional direction or guidance - Often Congress specifies in the legislative process that funding be designated for specific projects. This congressional intent is honored provided that the designated projects meet the statutory eligibility criteria for the program. PROJECTS DESIGNATED BY CONGRESS: Since FY 2000, Congress has been fully designating all of our available TCSP funding for specific projects that they list in the Statement of Managers in the conference report that accompanies the annual transportation appropriations act. In addition, Congress has established a provision in the annual transportation appropriations act that declares these listed projects eligible for TCSP funding "notwithstanding any other provision of law." Therefore, the projects designated by Congress in the Statement of Managers are selected for TCSP funding provided the proposed work in the application submitted by the State falls within the description of the designated project, as listed in the Statement of Managers. SOLICITATION PROCEDURE: Projects Not Designated by Congress Prior to FY 2000, usually around January of each year, a memorandum was sent from the FHWA Headquarters Office of Planning to the FHWA division offices requesting the submission of candidate projects by States for the following fiscal year's funding. This solicitation was also posted on FHWA's website at http://www.fhwa.dot ov/tcsp/projects html. The FHWA division offices provide this solicitation request to the State transportation departments, who are the agencies that submit the applications for this program. The State transportation department coordinates with local agencies within their State to develop viable candidate projects and submits the candidate applications to the FHWA division office. After the division office has reviewed the submission and ensured that the submission and all applications meet the TCSP Program requirements, they send the applications to the Office of Planning in Headquarters. Candidate projects are due in FHWA Headquarters usually in July. The specific timetable for the solicitation process for any particular fiscal year is provided in the solicitation memorandum. The candidate project applications are reviewed and evaluated by the Office of Planning, and an allocation plan is prepared for presentation of the candidate projects to the Office of the Federal Highway Administrator, where the final selection of projects for funding is made. The announcement of the selected projects and the allocation of funds are usually accomplished by the middle of November. • Projects Designated by Congress When Congress fully designates all of our available TCSP funding for specific projects that they list in the Statement of Managers in the conference report that accompanies the annual transportation appropriations act, FHWA does not solicit for applications from the State transportation departments until after passage of the annual appropriations act. At that time, we know the extent of the Congressional designation of funds, and will solicit applications only for those designated projects. Attachment 1, Page 4 of 7 Because it is often October or November before the annual appropriations act is passed, the solicitation for applications from the State transportation departments may not be issued until November or even December. With applications due a month or two after that, it may well be March or April before awards are actually announced and funds available for allocation. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: • Projects Not Designated by Congress Only State transportation departments may submit applications for funding under this program. The following information must be included to properly evaluate the candidate projects. The appropriate division office must submit the applications by electronic mail in Microsoft Word format. Those applications that do not include these items are considered incomplete and will not be considered in the evaluation selection process. 1. State in which the project is located. 2. County in which the project is located. 3. U.S. Congressional District No.(s) in which the project is located. This is the U.S. Congressional District, not the State district. 4. U.S. Congressional District Member's Name(s). This is the U.S. Congressional District representative, not the State legislature. 5. Project Title — This should be a very short project description that readily identifies the project, or is commonly used to describe the facility or project. 6. Project Location — Describe the specific location of the project, including route number and termini, if applicable. Also include appropriate local jurisdiction in which the project is located. 7. Project Abstract — Describe project work that is to be completed under this particular request, and whether this is a complete project or part of a larger project. (Maximum: 4 Sentences) 8. Project Narrative — This should include a list of the needs for the project and how each of those needs will be addressed by completion of the project. Other transportation benefits that will result from completion of the project, such as improved public safety, economic development, community enhancement, etc., should be described. (Maximum: 2 Pages) 9. Amount of Federal TCSP Funds Requested — Indicate the total cost of the proposed work along with the amount of TCSP funds being requested (the maximum Federal share for this program is 80 percent). The State may request partial funding (less than the 80 percent maximum), committing a larger portion of State or local funds. If the State is willing to accept partial funding of the request, that should be indicated. Partial funding along with the commitment of other funds will be used to determine leveraging of funds and allow funding to more projects since the requests far exceed the funding available. 10. Commitment of Other Funds — Indicate the amounts and sources of any private or other public funding being provided as part of this project. Only indicate those amounts of funding that are firm and documented commitments from the entity controlling the funds. 11. Previous TCSP Funding — Indicate the amount and Federal fiscal year of any previous TCSP funds received for this project 12. Project Administration — Indicate whether the project is being administered by the State transportation agency, a county or other local jurisdiction, or another Federal Attachment 1, Page 5 of 7 agency. This information is needed to determine to whom to allocate the funds if the project is selected for funding. 13. Project Schedule — The anticipated project schedule (assuming the requested TCSP funding is provided) is required. The schedule should show how the work will be commenced in the fiscal year for which the funds are being requested, and the anticipated completion date of the work. Applications should only be submitted for projects that are ready to advance if the funding request is met. If the State desires to submit additional information such as maps pictures copies of support letters etc., those items must be submitted by hard copy to the FHWA division office, who will submit them to the Office of Planning. This additional information should be identified by the State and Project Title that matches items 1 and 5 of the electronic application. These additional items are not required and are not to be sent electronically. Any support letters should be addressed and sent to the Federal Highway Administrator, who is the official ultimately responsible for selecting projects for funding. • Projects Designated by Congress Only State transportation departments may submit applications for funding under this program. The application for each project must include the following information so that a proper evaluation may be made of all candidate projects. Those applications that do not include these items are incomplete and will not be considered in the evaluation and selection process. The application for each project must be submitted electronically in Microsoft Word format. 1. State in which the project is located. 2. County in which the project is located. 3. U.S. Congressional District No.(s) in which the project is located. This is the U.S. Congressional District, not the State district. 4. U.S. Congressional District Member's Name(s). This is the U.S. Congressional District representative, not the State legislature. 5. Project Designation (Title) — This should be a very short project description that readily identifies the project, or is commonly used to describe the facility or project. 6. Project Location — Describe the specific location of the project, including route number and termini, if applicable. Also include appropriate local jurisdiction in which the project is located. 7. Project Abstract — Describe project work that is to be completed under this particular request, and whether this is a complete project or part of a larger project. (Maximum: 4 Sentences) 8. Project Narrative — This should include a list of the needs for the project and how each of those needs will be addressed by completion of the project. Other transportation benefits that will result from completion of the project, such as improved public safety, economic development, community enhancement, etc., should be described. (Maximum: 2 Pages) 9. Amount of Federal TCSP Funds Requested — Indicate the total cost of the proposed work along with the amount of TCSP funds being requested (the maximum Federal share for this program is 80 percent). The State may request partial funding (less than the 80 percent maximum), committing a larger portion of State or local funds. If the State is willing to accept partial funding of the request, that should be indicated. Partial funding along with the commitment of other funds will be used to Attachment 1, Page 6 of 7 determine leveraging of funds and allow funding to more projects since the requests far exceed the funding available. 10. Project Administration — Indicate whether the project is being administered by the State transportation agency, a county or other local jurisdiction, or another Federal agency. This information is needed to determine to whom to allocate the funds if the project is selected for funding. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AWARDS / ALLOCATION OF FUNDS: After the applications are received and projects are selected for funding, it is required that Congress be notified before the funds are allocated to the States. When this Congressional notification process is completed, the Office of Planning will issue an announcement by email to all FHWA division offices, announcing the TCSP projects that will be funded and the amount of funding for each project. At that time, States may request that funds be allocated for any projects for which the funds are ready to be obligated. The State transportation agency shall send an email to the FHWA division office indicating the project, the amount requested for allocation, and the date by which the funds will be obligated. The Office of Planning will issue the allocation memorandum within a few days of receiving the allocation request from the division office. STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Coordinate with State, metropolitan planning organizations, local, tribal, and Federal agencies within the State to develop project applications. 2. Ensure that the applications are completed for candidate projects in accordance with the submission requirements outlined above. 3. If required, establish priorities if submitting more than one project. 4. Submit the applications electronically to the local FHWA division office on time so that the submission deadline can be met. 5. Submit request to FHWA division office for allocation of funds, after awards are announced, and when project funds are ready to be obligated. FHWA DIVISION OFFICE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Provide the solicitation memorandum and this program information to the State transportation agency electronically to facilitate their electronic submission of applications. 2. Request candidate projects be submitted by the State to the FHWA division office electronically to meet the submission deadline established in the solicitation. 3. Review all candidate applications submitted by the State prior to sending them to FHWA Headquarters to ensure that they are complete and meet the submission requirements. 4. Submit the candidate applications electronically to FHWA Headquarters Office of Planning as outlined in the solicitation memorandum. Include the following with the transmitting email message: a. Statement from the division office that the State's submittal has been reviewed by the division office and that it meets the submission requirements. b. State transportation department submission email or letter to the FHWA division office. c. Each Microsoft Word TCSP grant application as a separate attachment. Attachment 1, Page 7 of 7 5. Forward award announcement to the State. 6. Forward allocation requests from State to the Office of Planning, via email to Kenneth Petty (kenneth.petty a dot.gov). FHWA HEADQUARTERS PROGRAM OFFICE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Solicit applications from the States through annual solicitation memorandum. 2. Review applications and compile appropriate program and project information for the Office of the Federal Highway Administrator. 3. Issue award announcement via email to all FHWA division offices. 4. Allocate funds upon receipt of request from State through the FHWA division office. FHWA HEADQUARTERS PROGRAM OFFICE CONTACT: Kenneth Petty, Transportation Specialist, Office of Planning Phone: (202) 366-6654 Fax: (202) 493-2198 Email: kenneth.petty@dot.gov * * * PROCEDURES FOR FY 2007 * * * For FY 2007, it appears that Congress may pass a continuing resolution at FY 2006 funding levels through the end of FY 2007, without any specific designation of the funds. Therefore, we are anticipating an open competition for these FY 2007 TCSP funds for the first time since FY 2000. The procedures for "Projects Not Designated by Congress" outlined above shall be used. If the situation changes and Congress does designate our funding, the procedures will be adjusted accordingly. Scenario 1 - 2006 Rankings used for Recently Adopted Secondary Im 2006 Rank Name 1 t Grove Rd 2 Iollow Rd 681 678 % 805 *608 N%� 685 *600 ' 1.62 2.5 '� 15 9 3 ill Rd 709 636 735 2.7 9 4 rse Rd jFfl 692 *600 671 1.4 12 5 d 707 WV Line 610 1.6 12 6 629 631 625 1.8 15 7 rove Rd 629 622 *622 2.5 9 8 Rd 733 50 707 1.3 12 9 Warm Springs Rd 676 677 *677 0.83 15 10 North Sleepy Creek 734 *522 *522 1 9 11 Canterburg Rd 636 640 641 1.5 6 12 Fishel Rd 612 600 600 1.6 3 13 Babbs Mountain Rd 730 654 677 0.9 6. 14 Clark Rd 638 625 759 0.8 9 15 Wright Rd 661 669 WV Line 1.84 9 16 Middle Fork Rd 695 *522 WV Line 0.9 3 17 Old Baltimore Rd 677 676 672 1.2 15 18 East Parkins Mill Rd 644 50 Clark Line 0.81 15 19 Heishman Rd 607 600 *600 0.78 9 20 Huttle Rd 636 709 735 1.1 9 21 Woodside Rd 671 669 WV Line 0.3 15 22 South Timber Ridge 696 522 694 1.3 9 23 Cougill Rd 634 635 11 0.25 15 24 Timberlakes Ln 811 671 *671 0.25 15 *denotes approximate terminus, see individual scoring sheet for detail ements Plan 11111111M., ITEM #3 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Activity Update There are a number of initiatives underway at the MPO about which the Committee should know. 1. Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Plan No additional meetings have taken place or been scheduled. 2. Local Assistance Projects The Subcommittee in charge of these projects, which includes Supervisors and Transportation Committee Chairman Chuck DeHaven and Transportation Planner John Bishop, has held the kickoff meeting for the Route 37 interchange study and the Route 11 access management study. Staff is now working to compile data required by the consultant for the studies. 3. Multimodal Corridor Studies The MPO policy committee has not yet acted upon these applications, but is expected to do so at their meeting on February 21, 2007. 4. Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program Grants As mentioned in an earlier agenda item, the MPO is going to be making applications for this federal program for Eastern Route 37 environmental and preliminary engineering work. 5. Staffing Staff has recently learned that the Executive Director (Mr. Stephen Kerr) of the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission is resigning effective March 2°d. Mr. Kerr acts as primary staff person for our MPO activities. County staff is sure that, though locality staff may need to take an increased role in managing ongoing efforts listed above, they will not be allowed to fall behind. This item is for information and discussion. No action is required. ITEM #4 Artide Distribution Staff has included a number of articles from statewide news outlets for your consideration. 5 Myths About Suburbia and Our Car -Happy Culture - washingtonpost.com washingionpostcom 5 Myths About Suburbia and Our Car -Happy Culture By Ted Balaker and Sam Staley Sunday, January 28,2007; B03 They don't rate up there with cancer and al-Qaeda -- at least not yet -- but suburban sprawl and automobiles are rapidly acquiring a reputation as scourges of modern American society. Sprawl, goes the typical indictment, devours open space, exacerbates global warming and causes pollution, social alienation and even obesity. And cars are the evil co-conspirator -- the driving force, so to speak, behind sprawl. Yet the anti -suburbs culture has also fostered many myths about sprawl and driving, a few of which deserve to be reconsidered: LAmericans are addicted to driving. Actually, Americans aren't addicted to their cars any more than office workers are addicted to their computers. Both items are merely tools that allow people to accomplish tasks faster and more conveniently. The New York metropolitan area is home to the nation's most extensive transit system, yet even there it takes transit riders about twice as long as drivers to get to work. In 1930, the interstate highway system and the rise of suburbia were still decades away, and yet car ownership was already widespread, with three in four households having an automobile. Look at any U.S. city and the car is the dominant mode of travel. Some claim that Europeans have developed an enlightened alternative. Americans return from London and Paris and tell their friends that everyone gets around by transit. But tourists tend to confine themselves to the central cities. Europeans may enjoy top-notch transit and endure gasoline that costs $5 per gallon, but in fact they don't drive much less than we do. In the United States, automobiles account for about 88 percent of travel. In Europe, the figure is about 78 percent. And Europeans are gaining on us. Pagel of 4 dl c,,e±aa,z,-_r t The key factor that affects driving habits isn't population density, public transit availability, gasoline taxes or even different attitudes. It's wealth. Europe and the United States are relatively wealthy, but American incomes are 15 to 40 percent higher than those in Western Europe. And as nations such as China and India become wealthier, the portion of their populations that drive cars will grow. 2. Public transit can reduce traffic congestion. Transit has been on the slide for well more than half a century. Even though spending on public transportation has ballooned to more than seven times its 1960s levels, the percentage of people who use http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dynlcontent/article/2007/01l261AR2007012601589_p... 1/30/2007 5 Myths About Suburbia and Our Car -Happy Culture - washingtonpost.com Page 2 of 4 it to get to work fell 63 percent from 1960 to 2000 and now stands at just under 5 percent nationwide. Transit is also decreasing in Europe, down to 16 percent in 2000. Like auto use, suburbanization is driven by wealth. Workers once left the fields to find better lives in the cities. Today more and more have decided that they can do so in the suburbs. Indeed, commuters are now increasingly likely to travel from one suburb to another or embark upon "reverse' commutes (from the city to the suburbs). Also, most American commuters (52 percent) do not go directly to and from work but stop along the way to pick up kids, drop off dry cleaning, buy a latte or complete some other errand. We have to be realistic about what transit can accomplish. Suppose we could not only reverse transit's long slide but also triple the size of the nation's transit system and fill it with riders. Transportation guru Anthony Downs of the Brookings Institution notes that this enormous feat would be "extremely costly" and, even if it could be done, would not "notably reduce" rush-hour congestion, primarily because transit would continue to account for only a small percentage of commuting trips. But public transit still has an important role. Millions of Americans rely on it as a primary means of transportation. Transit agencies should focus on serving those who need transit the most: the poor and the handicapped. They should also seek out the niches where they can be most useful, such as express bus service for commuters and high-volume local routes. Many officials say we should reconfigure the landscape -- pack people in more tightly -- to make it fit better with a transit -oriented lifestyle. But that would mean increasing density in existing developments by bulldozing the low-density neighborhoods that countless families call home. Single-family houses, malls and shops would have to make way for a stacked -up style of living that most don't want. And even then the best -case scenario would be replicating New York, where only one in four commuters uses mass transit. 3. We can cut air pollution only if we stop driving. Polls often show that Americans think that air quality is deteriorating. Yet air is getting much cleaner. We miss it because, while we see more people and more cars, we easily overlook the success of air- quality legislation and new technologies. In April 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency reported that 474 counties in 31 states violated the Clean Air Act. But that doesn't mean that the air is dirtier. The widely publicized failing air-quality grades were a result of the EPA's adoption of tougher standards. Air quality has been improving for a long time. More stringent regulations and better technology have allowed us to achieve what was previously unthinkable: driving more and getting cleaner. Since 1970, driving -- total vehicle miles traveled -- has increased 155 percent, and yet the EPA reports a dramatic decrease in every major pollutant it measures. Although driving is increasing by 1 to 3 percent each year, average vehicle emissions are dropping about 10 percent annually. Pollution will wane even more as motorists continue to replace older, dirtier cars with newer, cleaner models. 4. We're paving over America. How much of the United States is developed? Twenty-five percent? Fifty? Seventy-five? How about 5.4 percent? That's the Census Bureau's figure. And even much of that is not exactly crowded: The bureau says that an area is "developed" when it has 30 or more people per square mile. But most people do live in developed areas, so it's easy to get the impression that humans have trampled http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dynlcontentlarticle/2007/01l261AR2007012601589_p... 1/30/2007 5 Myths About Suburbia and Our Car -Happy Culture - washingtonpost.com Page 3 of 4 nature. One reed only take a cross-country flight and look down, however, to realize that our nation is mostly open space. And there are signs that Mother Nature is gaining ground. After furious tree chopping during America's early years, forests have made a comeback. The U.S. Forest Service notes that the "total area of forests has been fairly stable since about 1920." Agricultural innovations have a lot to do with this. Farmers can raise more on less land. Yes, American houses are getting bigger. From 1970 to 2000, the average size ballooned from 1,500 square feet to 2,260. But this hardly means we're gobbling up ever more land. U.S. homeowners are using land more efficiently. Between 1970 and 2000, the average lot size shrank from 14,000 square feet to 10,000. In truth, housing in this country takes up less space than most people realize. If the nation were divided into four -person households and each household had an acre, everyone would fit in an area half the size of Texas. The United States is not coming anywhere close to becoming an "Asphalt Nation," to use the title of a book by Jane Holtz Kay. 5. We can't deal with global warming unless we stop driving. What should be done about global warming? The Kyoto Protocol seeks to get the world to agree to burn less fossil fuel and emit less carbon dioxide, and much of that involves driving less. But even disregarding the treaty's economic costs, Kyoto's environmental impact would be slight. Tom M.L. Wigley, chief scientist at the U.S. Center for Atmospheric Research, calculates that even if every nation met its obligation to reduce greenhouse gas, the Earth would be only .07 degrees centigrade cooler by 2050. Wigley favors a much more stringent plan than Kyoto, but such restrictions would severely restrict economic growth, particularly in the developing world. Nations such as China and India were excluded from the Kyoto Protocol; yet if we're serious about reversing global warming by driving less, the developing world will have to be included. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that during the 20th century the Earth's temperature rose by 0.6 degrees centigrade and -- depending on which of the many climate models turn out to be closest to reality -- it expects the temperature to rise 1.4 to 5.8 degrees by 2100. What does the IPCC think the effects of global warming may be? Flooding may increase. Infectious diseases may spread. Heat -related illness and death may increase. Yet as the IPCC notes repeatedly, the severity of such outcomes is enormously uncertain. On the other hand, there's great certainty regarding who would be hurt the most: poor people in developing nations, especially those who lack clean, piped water and are thus vulnerable to waterborne disease. The IPCC points out that the quality of housing in those countries is important because simple measures such as adding screens to windows can help prevent diseases (including malaria, dengue and yellow fever) from entering homes. Fragile transportation systems can also frustrate disaster recovery efforts, as medical personnel are often unable to reach people trapped in flooded areas. Two ways of dealing with global warming emerge. A more stringent version of Kyoto could be crafted to chase the unprecedented goal of trying to cool the atmosphere of the entire planet. Yet if such efforts resulted in lower economic growth, low-income populations in the United States and developing countries would be less able to protect themselves from the ill effects of extreme heat or other kinds of severe weather. http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dynlcontent/article/2007/01l261AR2007012601589_p... 1/30/2007 5 Myths About Suburbia and Our Car -Happy Culture - washingtonpost.com Page 4 of 4 Alternatively, the focus could be on preventing the negative effects -- the disease and death -- that global warming might bring. Each year malaria kills I million to 3 million people, and one-third of the world's population is infected with water- or soil -borne parasitic diseases. It may well be that dealing with global warming by building resilience against its possible effects is more productive -- and more realistic -- than trying to solve the problem by driving our automobiles less. ted.balaker@reason.org sam.staley@reason.org Ted Balaker and Sam Staley are coauthors of "The Road More Traveled. Why the Congestion Crisis Matters More Than You Think, and What We Can Do About It" (Rowman & Littlefield). © 2007 The Washington Post Company Ads by Google Free HP Photo Calendars Starring Your Photos, Made Easy Brilliantly Simple, Learn More www.hp.com http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dynlcontentlarticlel2007/01l261AR2007012601589_p... 1/)0/2007 HAMPTON ROADS News (Printable Version) Pagel of 4 viie?apeane r 0poIrtS 70/o d9nop In crashes in areas r an'Ked or, Iljt By CINDY CLAYTON, The Virginian -Pilot © January 29, 2007 Last updated: I 2:.%2 NO CHESAPEAKE - Stepped-up police enforcement, road improvements or automatic timing at traffic lights - or a combination of those factors - likely helped increase safety at many of the city's intersections last year. The number of crashes citywide was down 7 percent, despite an increase in fatalities: 17 in 2006, up from 12 in 2005. The intersection of Centerville Turnpike and Mount Pleasant Road topped the police department's 2005 list of the city's worst crossings, with 29 crashes, but it saw a dramatic drop to 18 in 2006. Construction around the major crossroads near the Navy's Auxiliary Landing Field at Fentress ended last year. City officials and those who use the road credit improvements with the reduction in crashes. " The turning lanes are probably the reason," said Doris Bennett, who owns Bennetts Corner Bakery with her husband. Living through last year's construction was a "nightmare," Bennett said, but additional turn lanes now help traffic flow better. Intersections along North Battlefield Boulevard and in Greenbrier dominated last year's crash list, probably because of the high volume of traffic, said Eric Martin, city engineer. The Greenbrier Parkway and Jarman Road intersection across from Greenbrier Mall topped the list, with 30 crashes. Entrances to malls and shopping centers have high volumes - and " more collisions because there are more opportunities for collisions," Martin said. Police have stepped up enforcement of red-light running at the Jarman crossing, and city engineers plan to install brighter bulbs in the signals and realign the poles to reduce confusion, Martin said. At that intersection and others along Greenbrier Parkway, the city's Smart Traffic system automatically senses how many vehicles are moving between signals and readjusts timing of the lights, Martin said. This year, the city will accept bids for an expansion of the automatic traffic system to other roads and add cameras and electronic signs, Martin said. The city also wants to tie into a similar state system so information can be shared. Engineers plan to add a light on Greenbrier Parkway at the entrance to Chesapeake City Park, he said. A median break will be closed on Volvo Parkway near Battlefield Boulevard, the site of 20 crashes last year. That intersection will get an extra turn lane, as will Wal-Mart Way where it meets Battlefield. The busy Wal-Mart thoroughfare makes the list annually, but dropped to 16 crashes last year from 21 in 2005. http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/print.cfm?story=118391 &ran=9347 1/29/2007 HAMPTON ROADS News (Printable Version) Page 2 of 4 Stephanie Way and Kristina Way both got traffic lights last year at Eden Way, dropping them off the police department's crash list. Nearby Crossways Boulevard also will have a light installed where it intersects Eden Way, Martin said. Chesapeake has several other improvements planned across the city, including Western Branch. Some have been spurred by what engineers learned from accident reports, Martin said. Others are necessary because of development. "The traffic grows in different parts of the city as land and subdivisions grow," Martin said, "and we just need to be mindful of where it's happening." Reach Cindy Clayton at (757) 222-5201 orcindy.Clayton@pilotonline.com. http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/print.cfm?story=1183 91 &ran=9347 1/29/2007 HAMPTON ROADS News (Printable Version) HE 25 WORST INTERSECTIONS Chesapeake's most dangerous intersection has been in the top five for several, years, despite efforts by police to crack down on load r , driving there;. Overall, crashes chapped r -� percent citywide last year. �-2 4 CHESAPEAKE J 1 ?Iiiie?S 5 NUMBER OF CRASHES Greenbrier Pkwy. 2005 /Jarman Rd. 2006. North Battlefield Blvd. 2005 /Great Bridge Blvd. 2006 Capri Circle 2005 /Portsmouth Blvd. 2006 Cedar Rd. 2005 /Dominion Blvd. 2006 0 North Battlefield Blvd. 2005 /Volvo Pkivy. 2006 j 0 Eden Way North 2005 /Greenbrier Pkwy. 2006 •] South Military Hwy.- �- 22005 NOT ON UST _ /Old Greenbrier Rd. 200€ CentervilleµTurnp" Ne South j 2005 :A j /Mount Pleasant Rd. 2006 I` 144 200 /South Military Hwy 2006 I11D north Battlefield Blvd. 2005 /Wal-Mart Way 2006 4 _ I Canal Dr. 2005 NOT ON LIST /George Washington Hwy. 2006 canal Dr. 2n0s °!nr ci ti 11 Page 3 of 4 http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/print.cfm?story=1183 91 &ran=9347 1/29/2007 HAMPTON ROADS News (Printable Version) © 2007 HamptonRoads.com/Pilot0nline.com Page 4 of 4 http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/Print.cfm?story--1 18391&ran=9347 1/29/2007 That Little Voice Telling You To Skip I-95? It's Your Car - washingtonpost.com Pagel of 3 washincgtwpastcom That Little Voice Telling You To Ship I-95? It's Your Car On -the -Button Navigation Devices a Goal Of Grants Proposed in Va. to Ease Traffic By Eric A Weiss Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, February 20, 2007; A01 It's cold, it's dark, you're tired, and the last thing you want to face is one more backup on Interstate 66. Imagine if your cellphone or vehicle navigation system knew about one and directed you to Route 50 because it would shave 11 minutes off your ride. As regional transportation planners seek to widen highways and build Metro lines to increase options for commuters, leaders in Virginia are trying to get that kind of please -say -it's -so technology into the hands of drivers to get more out of the roads they have. "We need help," said Pierce R. Homer, Virginia's transportation secretary. To that end, the budget proposed by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) includes $20 million for technology "challenge grants" to generate ideas about reducing congestion. Homer said the ideas could include ways to clear accidents more quickly or encourage telecommuting. But the holy grail of the effort is providing an accurate, real-time picture of traffic conditions on all roads -- technology that could start appearing in this area by the end of the year. Some companies are using information from cellphones and E-ZPass transponders to fine-tune technology that could give drivers information so precise they would know the best exit to take and where to find alternate roads with favorable traffic lights. When drivers are backed up on the Dulles Toll Road, they would know whether Route 7, for example, would be better. Managers could use the same information to better time cars merging onto roads and to create a steady traffic flow, eliminating the typical bottlenecks. Traffic data are limited to roadside cameras and sensors buried in the pavement. These are expensive to install and maintain and are generally limited to interstates and major highways. And the information they provide -- it is 6 p.m. and the Capital Beltway is jammed -- is hardly a revelation. Radio, television and Internet reports, which rely on much of the same information, are not much better. To make the leap forward, companies are trying to tap into widely used technology, such as cellphones, Global Positioning System units and E-ZPass transponders. Cellphones constantly emit signals in search of transmission towers, and those signals could be used to track drivers as they travel -- or sit in traffic. Instead of the thousands of road sensors on major highways, there could be millions of cellphone signals painting a detailed portrait of the region's comings and goings, on Interstate 270 or in a suburban cul-de- sac. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dynlcontentlarticle/2007/02/ l 9lAR2007021901163_p... 2/20/2007 That Little Voice Telling You To Skip I-95? It's Your Car - washingtonpost.com Page 2 of 3 "The melding is happening now," said Bryan Mistele, president and chief executive of Inrix, a Microsoft spinoff based in Kirkland, Wash., that develops real-time traffic information. Inrix takes data from government road sensors, adds it to GPS readings from commercial vehicles and taxis and combines it with other information that might affect traffic, such as sports, concert and school schedules, construction projects and weather reports. The goal is not just to show real conditions but also to predict what will be, say, the best route to Dulles International Airport at 7 p.m. on a Friday or around Redskins traffic on a Sunday afternoon, Mistele said. Anyone buying a new BMW with a navigational system gets Inrix service, and Virginia uses the company's data in its 511 traffic information system. Mistele predicted that in five years, "everybody will have ubiquitous access to this information and will know the best time to leave in the morning and the best route to take home." IntelliOne, an Atlanta-based company, has been operating a cellphone -based test in Tampa for 18 months and hopes to launch its service in other markets -- including Washington -- by year's end. And, yes, the company is interested in taking up Kaine's challenge. Chief Executive Ronald Herman said national package delivery companies searching for ways to save fuel and cut time stuck in traffic are accelerating its research. Because the system would know your destination, it could tell you that taking an early exit onto an alternative road with four lights will actually save 15 minutes," he said. "That is where the level of data is." Still others say using toll -tag readers to track car speeds is another promising approach. Additional tag readers placed over highways would read E-ZPass transponders without deducting a toll. Tracking the time it took a tag to travel between two readers would help determine cars' speeds. Sixty mph, no problem. Ten mph, time to find a different route. Part of the Kaine program's mission is to learn how to make the Washington area's traffic quagmire a laboratory for new technology and get local companies involved. A recent summit in Northern Virginia called by Homer and Aneesh P. Chopra, the state's technology secretary, tried to bring private -sector and government officials together. The $20 million, which faces an uphill battle in the General Assembly, would be a small inducement. The money would be split between Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, and regional technology groups would determine which firms got it. In addition to improving commuters' options, having real-time information could also help government traffic planners tweak roadways and signals to pack more vehicles on each mile of highway. "It all goes back to the data. You need to know quantitatively what is going on out there," said Catherine McGhee, co-director of the Smart Travel Laboratory at the University of Virginia. "We can't tell you to take Route 50 because I-66 is blocked, because we're not confident of our data on 50," McGhee said. "Our goal is to tell you there's a problem and here's what to do about it -- like take Metro, or bus number 37, and your travel time will be this. Or go to the telecommuting place at the http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dynlcontent/article/2007/02/ l 9lAR2007021901163_p... 2/20/2007 That Little Voice Telling You To Skip I-95? It's Your Car - washingtonpost.com Page 3 of 3 intersection of X and Y." She said traffic data could be used to better control highway ramp merges, a major cause of jams. By using sensors monitoring highway flow, ramp signals could be timed to send the maximum number of vehicles onto highways without stopping traffic -- although that approach could leave hundreds of drivers waiting on on -ramps for long stretches. McGhee said real-time information could also be used to adjust speed limits to create "artificial slowdowns" that, counterintuitively, would keep traffic moving faster. Traffic moving constantly at 45 mph is better than that speeding along stretches of open road, then ending in bottlenecks. Once traffic stops, it takes a lot longer to get going again. Because 50 to 60 percent of congestion is caused by accidents and other incidents, being able to quickly find out where and when traffic is stopped would make quicker responses possible. Better information can also help planners time traffic signals on arterial roads and respond to changing conditions, such as keeping shoulder lanes open later during days of heavy traffic. "Flipping the switch once you have the data is the easy part," Chopra said. "Getting the info is the hard part., © 2007 The Washington Post Company Ads by Google Traffic Real-time local traffic on the web, by email, or by phone - Freel w w.Traffic.com GPS Fleet Tracking Keep your employees accountable Improve your profits www.geoterix.com More Than GPS Tracking Real Time GPS Tracking Device You Intsall in 30 Seconds. www.sagetracker.com http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dynlcontentlarticle/2007/02/ l 9lAR2007021901163_p... 2/20/2007 Printer -Friendly Version Tim+esD spatch.com ,f NEW. Gc! %Iouc Shov in s in E 7 ue Wrcineg,* Road, budget issues intertwined Pagel of 2 Assembly set to adjourn in four days, but progress is slow on some top priorities BY MICHAEL HARDY AND JEFF E. SCHAPIRO TIMES -DISPATCH STAFF WRITERS Tuesday, February 20, 2007 The transportation tussle is linked to the budget battle. Legislators can't settle one without solving the other. "They are intertwined, because they're both about money," said Del. Leo C. Wardrup Jr., R - Virginia Beach, a negotiator on a road -and -rail fix as well as spending in the year ahead. With the General Assembly set to adjourn in four days, delegates and senators are finding slow going on the defining issues of the 2007 session: transit and the budget. Talks on both are "moving along pretty well ... but there are a lot of moving parts," Wardrup, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, said yesterday. A likely trip -up: the continuing dispute over general funds. They're designated by law for police, schools and human services, but the House wants to steer some to transportation. Some of these funds are not in the House version of changes in the two-year, $74 billion budget. The Senate budget relies on the disputed funds for their statutory purpose. Senate Finance Committee Chairman John H. Chichester, R -Northumberland, said this issue has to be decided before both sides can reach terms on transportation. Wardrup's Senate counterpart, Republican Martin E. Williams of Newport News, said he believes transportation negotiators can quickly complete their work. "It's not like there are 100 items between us; it's four or five sticklers," said Williams. But a Democratic conferee, Sen. Phillip Puckett of Russell, disagreed. He said agreement on transit is imperiled by the House -Senate split over the House plan to divert $250 million a year from the general fund. "What are they going to do about that general fund money?" Puckett asked. "Until they do, there's no deal." The Senate alternative to the House's general fund raid: Raising $334 million annually from a $150 one-time fee on all newly registered vehicles. Both chambers have endorsed $2 billion in bonds, but they differ on how to repay them. http://www. richmondtimesdispatch. comiservlet/S atellite?pagename=Common%2FMGArti... 2/20/2007 Printer -Friendly Version Page 2 of 2 Yesterday, proponents of the House plan, including several senators, plotted to jump-start a scheme to generate $350 million a year through a dramatic expansion of horse -race gambling. Colonial Downs is pushing for wagering on recorded races through a network of 11,000 video machines at the state's only track in New Kent County and its nine betting parlors across the state. The proposal, which failed again yesterday in a hostile House committee, could be revived, perhaps today, in the Senate. But should it clear the Senate, the bill might again fall short in the House. Del. John S. "Jack" Reid, R -Henrico, among the sponsors of the ponies -for -pavement plan, said the latest setback doesn't mean the bill won't live to run another day. "I hope not," he said, when asked its potential demise. But Sen. Charles J. Colgan, D -Prince William, a budget negotiator, said that even though he backed the horse -racing measure, gambling is an unreliable way to finance highways and mass transit. Colgan urged the House and its Senate allies to identify proven cash sources: "They've got to come up with something innovative -- and it's not horse racing." Contact staff writer Michael Hardy at mhardy�timesdispatch.com or (804) 649-6810. Contact staff writer Jeff E. Schapiro at jschapiro@timesdispatch.com or (804) 649-6814. This story can be found at: http:lLwiqw.timesddatch.com/servle�Satellite? page name= RTD/M.GArticWRTD BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149193287632 http://www.richmondtimesdispatch. com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Common%2FMGArti... 2/20/2007 ITEM #5 Other BuSi es.-