The URL can be used to link to this page

TC 01-26-09 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEIVIORANI2ti1-A� TO: "ederici: ('onu dttc-. MOM: John A. Bl'sljop, AICP, Deputy Dir,��ctoy - Trans, onatior- RE: .lanuan, 26, 6009 Transportation Committee �Jceting DATE: January 5 6, 2009 The Jl°redcr dk, Conrty hn 3porfatioji Coii]rlirLttit', k,611 g at 8 30 am. on ! ggda�', .ipnuan. ' 26, 2009 in t kk first f.on" Gic,I �+I)y 10UM Of fi�.E: .'.aZCt � ri. � i�i'7"iTv F�1t2':Ill�i.�tlf'il Pk'.;diag, 10"' Norti, Kent Street, Winni_Kzr t, ` 1'Tia4i.a A 143 F N D A T. 'bIPO y ransit Stud -v 2. Ti.ti Staadards 4.i:pd.ate ., Artic.;e Review°. 4. +' bhee Pleaset (ii'l_� 1 '.,I�r /.. tpariTnt-.1 if you a ':.lt',Zb ,— IC." a -ac -11a is time. jiac1i m--nts 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Item 1: MPO Transit Study This is a follow up item from the December meeting of the Transportation Committee. Attached please find Technical Memorandum #3 which details some of the alternatives being submitted by the consultant. Staff is seeking feedback to forward to the Board of Supervisors at their next meeting. 2 Transit Services Plan for Winchester -Frederick Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Memorandum ##3: Service Alternatives, Organizational Alternatives, and Funding- Mechanism December 1, 2008 Prepared for Me: Winchester Frederick County Metropolitan Planning Organization 4920 Elm Street, Suite 350 +Bethesda, MD 20814 *(301) 951-8660+FAX (301) 951-0026 i .5: lit'itld rl\'t'> 11 lel liil-Iai-!S ` j iir-Mill] M llE: Technical Memorandum #3": Service Alternatives, Organizational Alternatives, and Funding Mechanisms INTRODUCTION The first two technical memoranda prepared for the Winchester -Frederick County Transit Services Plan documented transit needs in the region and outlined the services currently available. The development of these data collection and analysis reports showed that there are unmet transit needs in the study area. The purpose of this third tecluiical memorandum is to provide a series of service and organizational alternatives that could be implemented to meet these needs. Service alternatives are presented first, followed by the organizational alternatives, and a discussion of potential funding mechanisms. SERVICE ALTERNATIVES There are several service alternatives that should be considered for implementation. These alternatives address a number of unmet transit needs, including those related to the fixed -route service network based in Winchester, those related to the more rural portions of Frederick County, those addressing corridor needs, and those addressing commuter needs. Each alternative is described, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each, and a cost estimate. The cost estimates are conservative, using the fully allocated costs (i.e., including all administrative and operating costs). The alternatives are not presented in any particular order of priority. Service Alternative #1 - Extend Fixed -Route 'Transit Services A major finding from both the land use analysis and the public opinion survey was that there are several important transit origins and destinations that are relatively close to the existing fixed -route transit network, but are not served. These areas r ",;; 3-1� d ii_.. _`Jt':'1'liciCl\ typically include the major travel corridors through the City of Winchester that extend into the County. In looking at these areas, the following corridors should be considered for service extensions: Route %/Berryville Avenue The demographic analysis showed a geographic area of high transit need located East of I-81 and south of Route 7. This area includes a number of townhomes and apartments, including Park View Apartments, Park Place, Brookland Manor, Windstone townhomes, Ash hollow Estates, Pioneer Heights, and others. Also in the corridor is the Regency Lakes development, which was mentioned by survey respondents and is a high density modular home community. The Gateway Center, which includes a Martin's grocery store and several other neighborhood retail shops is also located in this corridor. One way to serve this area would be to extend the Berryville Avenue Route to make a short loop, following Valley Mill Road and then turning left into Greenwood, and left back onto Route 7. The bus could then pull into the Regency Lakes development and stop at the community center, than back out to Route 7 and serve the Gateway Center. The route would then come back into Winchester as it does currently. Another consideration for this route is to use it to serve the Salvation Army and the Huntington Manor Townhouse conununity adjacent to Fort Collier Road (close to Route 7). Figure 3-1 shows these two options. In making these route extensions, the Berryville Avenue route will almost double in length, making it a stand-alone route. Advantages ® Provides transit service to many high -need, high density housing areas that do not currently have transit services. o Provides transit service to the Gateway Center, which was requested on the survey and serves a number of local shopping needs (and employs people as well). ® Would likely produce sigiuficant ridership, with both new origins and destinations. Disadvantages 0 Would result in major route re -structuring. rioure 3- PROPOSED BERRY ;TILLE AVENUE EXTENSIONS � 522 Round -)utc Lengths (Nmiles): Existing Rcrryvil1. Nvcnuc Route: 5.4 Proposcd ROLlite 7 I_xtc Proposed Fort Collier Rd [ixtcnsion: 1.6 4 Ncu• Route \vitl] Both },xtcnyions: j t wi Y O 4 • kc',-� - t • E.� • 6t 7 -. Yvil!o kvr 1 J Legend V y - lierr?vilicAve i�ottte -ALljo r TripC�CI1Cr.itOl:ti ^^ - I'rolxtncu fxtcn�inns 4, Multi I nit I lousing S4:ry'urIIighway f. )ohT'r:inin titt'eet Major L'mhlm•ro Railroad .. -; :lgcdical f acitit}• WinchcAcr Urbanized Area --- !.ducational 1-acilitt' Park I ]ave arc ti I.rkc, Pond. River tint rntnent service i I , Y l soman tic,vicr a�rnc�• i ;r~ {�r�' O Shiil]I]in}; t t f Miles Pharm:lct Park lIt(9i"1116"'t'�':I ld FU-1klII is' 1, 1j': Costs o If this route extension were to be implemented, the cost of the Berryville Avenue Route would approximately double, from about $84,500 a year (including the new extended service hours) to about $169,000. This is based on 3,986 operating hours at $42.39 per hour. This route extension would likely require an additional vehicle. Extend Valley Avenue Route to Creekside Station/Rubbernlaid This alternative is relatively simple, and would likely not result in additional costs. The Valley Avenue route currently turns around by going around a block and coming out at Armour Dale Road. The proposal is to extend the route by .8 miles to instead turn around at the Creekside Station, which is also across the street from the Rubbermaid Plant. This would add significant retail and employment opportunities for this route. Figure 3-2 shows this route extension. Advantages o Serves additional retail and employment areas. Does not involve any other jurisdictions. • Is relatively cost neutral, assuming there is time in the schedule for this extension. There is the potential to save some time by not going around the turn -around block or by not entering Ward's Plaza. Disadvantages o May not be time in the schedule for this extension. Costs • Would add minor incremental costs associated with the seven -tenths of a mile extension, which could be mitigated by not going around the block for the turnaround and by not entering Ward's Plaza. If the costs are not mitigated, the costs associated with this extension are approximately $7,600 annually (9% of the route mileage). Extend the Annherst Route to WalMart Many of the survey respondents indicated that they would like to see the Amherst Route extended to the new Walmart on Route 50 West (just to the west of the intersection of Route 50 and Route 37.) This extension would add 1.9 miles round trip ;, 3-4KFHq Figure 3-2: PROPOSED VALLEY + AVENUE ROUTE EXTENSION Rolmd-"lTrip Route Lengths (Miles): `---�"'. Existing \'alley A enuc ROUCC: 7.7 Proposed Extcnsinn to Creckside StationrRuhhermaid: 0.8 ti rte' \eye IZOUte with Extension: 8.4* �r *Does not equal sutra of existing route and proposed extension ti a because t•aute lengths were rounded up to the nearest tenth. � ! Z ro E U p p n '•� 4 'r rte' ,�. 11 3' cam. 9 V 0 t F�, e ]_bend t �;allcy AvWue Rimte 'Major Trip Genctators Proposed Exrension to c reelcside Sta. Ru6hcnt'1110 \lupi ('nit Housing Vajm I IIghway i ll1h } I'dnling ~[feet ] MaJor Employer Railroad f¢5 Medical Facility Winchestcr l )rL.uli=cel Are.( y Educ3tiopal Faciliq' Air wrt Pari: (.lcunnlcnt Sct•s•icc N I.al fond.!tier f� i liunialSetliceAgency Q Shopping Grocery Store Pharinar�. 0 oz oa I I I fall: "es . 3-J to the route, or about a 34% increase from the current route length of 5.6 miles. Figure 3-3 shows this extension. Advantages ® Adds a major destination into the route network. Disadvantages • This extension would make it difficult for the Amherst Route to complete its round trip in 30 minutes (new route length would be 7.5 miles and the average system -wide operating speed is 11.3 miles per hour). This would result in route re -structuring. ® Would add expense for only one new destination, albeit a significant one. Costs ® This extension would cost about $28,700 annually, based on the mileage increase of 34%. Extend Service to the Millwood Ave/522 South Corridor There are a number of significant transit destinations that are Iocated in this corridor, including a number of hotels and retail centers (Delco PIaza), the Virginia Employment Commission, counseling services, and the Airport Industrial Park. The Apple Blossom Mall Route could be extended to service this area. The extension is shown in Figure 3-4 and is 4.7 miles in length, making the entire route 11.6 miles round trip. This would result in the route taking a full hour to complete, rather than the current 30 minutes. Advantages e Provides transit services to significant transit destinations that are not currently served, including the Virginia Employment Commission. ® Will extend the route network and increase ridership. Disadvantages ® Significantly alters the Apple Blossom Route, which will result in route re- structuring. F H Figure 3-3: PROPOSED AMHERST ROUTE EX T ENSIOW Round Trip Route Lengths (Miles): Existing Amhersr Route: 5.6 Proposed Extension to Wal Mart: 1.9 New Route with Extension: 7.5 woo i Sn'roi Rp ,t g CIS 4 �'v7ifi,o A�•ww ' )♦� r Qr 5Q` 3. 50 r r V' ^ a � Legend _.,. Andicrst Route kla-*)r'i-rip Generators s i `� I'rclExlscu E xtcnsiun to \\ ,d \fart ., Multi 1 Ina I Imising V f . \�Ixjor l lighaa;� � Job 1 t•ainin;; y \\"Enchesm. I h-hanLecl Area ' . 11 . liducational i'acility 50 TLPark °I tycarc 50 I. ke Pond, I n•t•r c5 522 _ Cao i\nincm.ser ice ElLiman ticlllu lhcnl N Q Shopping u Grocc•ryStore / Pharmacy z �= Figura 3-4: PROPOSED APPLE BLOSSOM MALL ROUTE EXTENSION 50 � Round Trip Rmite Lengths (\d�): �.4 misting Apple Blossom Mall RoAC Proposed Exrension to New Route with Extension: 'f ork jr, rj 0 6.9 f Corridor: 4.7 11.6 6p� 1.Cniild a — — Apple Blossom Mall Roure - Intension to Millwood Ave 522 S. Corridor M jor Ifighway Pte:} Street ` ' Railroad .. _ � \Allll'hl'SCCL' i l'IkU11�Cd Al2d ,:Airport 522 Lake. Pond; Rifer `�•: h,)or Trip Generaol-t- :'al \fulls Unk [JOUSing # ]nbTlaining � \lajor Lnlplclyer 50 LiP Medical Facility " e _ a LCILI(Aiomd Facility CL 8L - , Da\vave ("Wernment ~elute Human Sen ice Agency .,irpc, rRcs�J Q Shopping Q O oceLy Store (} Phal-111M Park \i 3 f `I':, iil'.._, 87"iii Tllil�iill \(_ 1i :717Si11 Costs ® This extension (using hours as benchmark) will cost about $84,500 per year; including the new longer operating hours. ® This extension will likely require an additional vehicle. Service Alternative #2 - Adjust Fixed -Route Services There are two changes that could be made to improve the current fixed -route network, regardless of expansion. These are discussed below. Change the Pairs to Link Apple Blossom with Amherst There are ongoing trip needs for Shenandoah University students to get to the Valley Medical Center on Amherst Street. This trip need is not currently met, because the riders have to wait 30 minutes at the transfer location to access the Amherst Route after coining downtown on the Apple Blossom Route. By linking the Apple Blossom Route and the Amherst Route, this trip need can be met without additional cost or changes to the actual routes. Advantages o Meets a trip need that has been identified without incurring additional cost. ® Would be relatively easy to implement. Disadvantages • The only disadvantage is that this alternative requires changes to the routing pattern, which will be disruptive. Costs © This change is cost -neutral, other than the costs of re -printing schedules. Re -Configure the Trolley Route The Trolley Route is not performing as well as a fixed -route should. A more in- depth analysis of the route needs to be done before specific alternatives can be presented. KFH Group staff will work with Winchester Transit, if this alternative is chosen, to develop specific routing alternatives for the Trolley Route. The goal of any re -structuring will be to increase ridership while keeping the costs neutral. 3-9 FH K :111c,. "LmL;;'�w AiechliIlI!;III Service Alternative #3 - Further Increase the Days and Hours of Service When asked if additional days and hours of service are needed in the current Winchester Transit service area, 64% of the respondents indicated that service was needed later in the evenings and 44% indicated that service is needed on Sundays. Winchester Transit has recently extended service until 8:00 p.m., which addresses a portion of the evening trip needs, but does not address the need to get people home after a retail job (i.e., nine or ten p.m.) A longer span of service on Saturdays was also requested. Sunday service is also an issue for current riders, as they do not have mobility options on Sundays. It should be noted that increasing hours or days of service could be incrementally or partially implemented (i.e. implement on the busiest route(s) that have specific destinations that are open late and/or on the weekends.) Advantages o Providing later service hours allows people to access employment opportunities at retail locations and allows people to attend community meetings and cultural events that are typically held in the evening. ® Additional hours of service on Saturdays would increase opportunities for retail workers, who typically work Iater than 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. UP Sunday service would meet a variety of trip needs, including retail employment, shopping, and worship. Disadvantages o Would add service during times of the day/days of the week that may not generate high ridership and would involve significant cost. Costs ® If three vehicles are used to provide service (as is currently the case), along with one Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit vehicle, every hour of service extension will cost approximately $170 (assuming all three vehicles are extended). If services were extended Monday through Friday from 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., it would cost about $ 43,000 annually. a If services were extended until 9:00 p.m. on Saturdays, the amival cost would be about $ 35,000. ® Sunday services, for an eight-hour service day using three vehicles (plus an ADA vehicle), would cost about $ 71,000 annually. a.4� i -If Ia'ti1w, 1u',"ji.1i11�7T1.`: Service Alternative #4 - Increase the Frequency of Service Stakeholders and survey respondents indicated a need for more frequent transit service. Increasing transit frequency from hourly service to 30 -minute service would make the route network more appealing for choice riders, as well as more convenient for all riders. This alternative is one of the costliest alternatives, as it doubles the vehicle operating hours. Advantages Provides more convenient mobility options for current riders. Q Increases the attractiveness of the system for choice riders. e Will increase ridership. Disadvantages • Doubling the service will not double the ridership, thus the productivity measures (i.e., trips per hour, trips per mile) will decline somewhat. o Significantly increases costs without adding any new geographic areas of service. Costs ® Increasing frequency Monday -Friday, from hourly to 30 -minutes would cost about $456,000 annually (operating costs) and require tluuee additional vehicles, assuming the current route network is maintained. Service Alternative #5 - Improve Passenger Amenities Survey respondents indicated that they would like additional shelter from inclement weather and additional seating at the bus stops. Future passenger amenities may also include real-time transit information (i.e., "Nextbus") technology, and wireless Internet Access. Passenger amenities improve the transit experience for riders, increase the visibility of transit in the area, and can help attract choice riders. Costs s Benches and shelters vary considerably in cost, depending upon their quality, size, and complexity (i.e., lighting). Benches are generally between $500-$800 each, while shelters range from $2,000 to $20,000. Winchester Transit's FY 2009 Capital budget includes $50,000 for five shelters. 3-11 Service Alternative #6 - Provide Corridor Service on Route 11- Local The need for transit services between Winchester and Stephens City and the need to connect to Lord Fairfax Community College in Middletown were articulated by stakeholders and survey respondents. This corridor was served by the transit demonstration project in 2004-2007 and ridership did not meet expectations, however, with more collaborative route and schedule planning (specifically with stakeholders from Lord Fairfax Community College), and shared funding, this corridor should be looked at again for service. Additional research concerning the specific route and schedule of the demonstration project is needed to ensure that past errors are not repeated. Stephens City also exhibits high relative transit needs, specifically to the north of Route 277 and to the east of Route 11 and Route 81. A short diversion to serve local Stephens City needs should also be considered for this route. Figure 3-5 provides a map of this route. Advantages o Meets a need that was articulated during this study process and previous transit studies in the region. • Allows full access to Lord Fairfax Community College from the major population centers in the study area. This will greatly help current and potential community college students who either do not drive or do not have access to a car on a regular basis. Opens up additional employment and commerce options for people who live in the corridor. ® Provides service for Stephens City. Disadvantages e Previous service in this corridor was not deemed successful. Costs 4 Using Winchester Transit's costs, a 12 -hour service span Monday to Friday and an eight hour service span on Saturdays, would cost about $148,000 annually (assuming one vehicle is devoted to the service). If the route operates on a deviated schedule, there would not be an additional expense for ADA paratransit. If the route is fixed, there would also be a need to provide ADA paratransit services within 3/4 mile of the route for people with disabilities. KFH 3-12 commm Figure 3-5: PROPOSED CORRIDOR SERVICE ON ROUTE 11- LOCAL 4. Legend AM o'c", ' . - 11 t;: 0 07, Proposed Corridor Service on RMIre II fA)Cal Winchester Transit estq,,r d r X"�' N ['1jor I lighwav Railroad em Cit)' Of \-Vj nchorcr G Winchester Urbani::cd Area 'edal C m 1. 0 Airport Park Lake, flond, River Surrounding C()Llnt)' Major Trip Gener. Multi Unit Housing job Training Iajor Employer Medicat Facility Educational Facility Government Serk ice 50 Human Service Agcncy ........... Shopping 0 Grocery Store I oil 0 Pharmacy io Park Stephens City Round-*rrip Route Length (Miles): Proposed Corridor Service on Route I I - Local: 2.5,2 Middletown 0 3-13 N 0 0.5 -1��'77i•11.1t't?i' di.-ttl "'tilltilIl�`-\!':'i'll',il..'.ills o A vehicle would need to be purchased for tlus route. Service AIternative #7 - Provide Regional Corridor Service There is currently no intercity bus transportation provided throughout the I- 81/Route 11 Corridor throughout the Shenandoah (from Harrisonburg to Martinsburg). This alternative is proposed to re -instate intercity bus service through the corridor by using federal rural public transportation funds to subsidize the service. It should be noted that in order to take advantage of this program, service would actually have to connect to a current intercity terminal, which would extend service from Charlottesville to Hagerstown. Section 5311 funding for rural public transportation has a 15% set-aside (5311(f)) that is intended to be used to fund intercity bus transportation in corridors where there are intercity bus needs, but the ridership is not high enough to fully support a private enterprise operating the services. These projects typically offset a portion of a private intercity bus carriers expenses to provide service. A discussion with Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit (VDRPT) staff and potential private carriers will be needed to discuss the feasibility of tlis option. While this alternative includes areas outside of the study area, it would benefit residents, businesses, and visitors to the City of Winchester and Frederick County. Advantages o Provides regional public transportation through the Shenandoah Valley corridor, o Could be provided with little to no local funding, assuming there are 5311(f) funds and a willing and able private carrier. Disadvantages Implementation of this alternative is somewhat out of the control of the City or the County. Costs ® The cost for this option needs to be further researched. The costs are highly dependent upon whether or not there is a willing private carrier to offer this service and how much public money the carrier would need for the service to be sustainable. KFH 3-14 r:= tll :,. _',l,']'],uli1\'�'b.17'll� 11i11�11ii�� ..1':'1i11111=1T1 Service Alternative #8 - Improve Commuter Infrastructure and ,Services Eighty-three (39%) of the survey respondents indicated that they think additional long-distance commuter service is needed to Washington, D.C., followed by Northern Virginia (80) and Connections to Metrorail (76). It should be noted that the survey was taken before the Valley Connector Route (#57) was implemented. The #57 picks up at the Waterloo Park and Ride, which is actually in Clarke County. Thirty-three percent of the survey respondents think that additional park and _ ride lots are needed. It should be noted that there are not any formal park and ride commuter lots in the study area. The following service and infrastructure alternatives are geared to the needs of the long-distance commuter: Support and Expand the Valley Connector, as Ridership Dictates The Valley Connector recently implemented the #57, which provides service from the Waterloo Park and Ride (Intersection of Route 340 and Route 17/50, east of the study area) to the Rosslyn Metrorail Station and Washington, D.C. This route is currently being subsidized by a demonstration grant from VDRPT. This basic connection meets the need articulated by survey respondents; however, it does not originate in Winchester/ Frederick County. It would better meet the needs of Winchester -Frederick County residents if it originated in the Route 7 Corridor. The FY09 total cost for this project is $264,000. Fare revenue is expected to offset the costs by $75,240. The net deficit is being funded by the State's Demonstration Assistance Program ($179,322) and the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission ($9,438). A private transportation operator provides this service (S & W Tours). The focus of this alternative is to consider the expansion of this route into Frederick County/City of Winchester to better meet the needs expressed by survey respondents and to consider an additional vehicle if this route is successful. There Will also be a need to look at additional funding options if the passenger revenues are not covering the cost of the service. Advantages o Provides a link to Northern Virginia, the Metrorail, and Washington, D.C. These were the three most frequently requested commuter destinations on the survey. 3-15 ON 3%. tr 3. ii+.'1';lcifl ':'c 11"it! iiTltliil<` 11c1`c"11:'111 AIlows a transit option from the region, which can help reduce traffic congestion in the corridor. Disadvantages The only disadvantage is cost, particularly if fare revenue is not sufficient when the demonstration funding period is over. Costs Assuming comparable costs for additional services, each new route would be expected to have a net deficit of about $189,000 for the first year. Additional ongoing support may also be needed, depending upon the ridership. Explore Park and Ride Opportunities In order to support the vanpool, carpool, and fledgling commuter bus program in the region, additional park and ride lots should be considered. Opportunities for developing new park and ride lots can come from: o New shopping, commercial, and mixed-use developments - negotiating for park and ride lots through the development review process. ® Existing shopping areas - contacting owners to see if arrangements can be made. ® Road improvement projects - there are several in the pipeline in Winchester and Frederick County and the potential to add park and ride opportunities should be considered during design of future road projects (i.e., particularly interchange projects). The survey indicated that park and ride opportunities were desired in the Route 7 Corridor, Stephens City, Route 50W, Route 50E, Route 522N, and Route 522S. Service Alternative #9 - Provide Countywide Demand -Response Public Transportation An important transit need articulated by stakeholders was for rural general public transportation, particularly for senior citizens and people with disabilities. It was mentioned that any level of service would help, even if it were provided on different days to different areas of the County. Since the beginning of this study, a new service has been initiated by. the Shenandoah Area Agency on Aging (SAAA). The r Kr service, Well Tran, provides this type of service for senior citizens. Services are offered in the City of Winchester, Frederick County, as well as in Clarke, Page, Warren, and Shenandoah Counties. This service is funded in part by a New Freedom grant. Countywide demand -response public transportation could be provided through the following mechanisms: Contract WUWSupport Well Tran to Expand their Program Well Tran has started a demand -response transportation program in the region and it would make economic sense to expand and support this new program, operating in a coordinated manner, rather than starting a parallel service. There are a couple of ways that this could work - the SAAA, as a private non-profit, could apply for rural general public operating assistance under the Federal 5.5311 program (flows through VDRPT), and the County could match these funds to support an expansion of the program that would include general public riders, and not exclusively seniors. Alternatively the County or a new entity could be the applicant for rural general public funds and could pass them through to SAAA to support the program (in addition to local matching funds). Advantages o Supports an existing program. * Fosters a coordinated approach to providing community transportation, which is currently one of the criteria used in making state and federal funding decisions. Less confusing for passengers- can brand one program. for all types of riders. ® Cost effective - shares the burden of the support systems such as scheduling, dispatching, training, marketing, etc. Disadvantages The County would not have direct control over the program, but an agreement concerning the County's level of involvement with decision- making could be crafted. A contractual arrangement could also be crafted, with the terms specifying the level of involvement for all parties. Contract with a Private Operator Alternatively, the County or a new regional entity, could contract Ja7ith a private operator to provide this service. The County/new entity would apply for funding and a. bid process would be conducted to choose an operator. .'TI.i,ItiV:c: aI-IC ru-.1(.fini' .iitvh" lisII)s Advantages ® The private operator would oversee all day-to-day operations, relieving the local jurisdictions of this responsibility. Disadvantages O Duplicates the efforts of the SAAA to provide countywide demand -response transportation. 0 May be confusing to riders - which program should they call for service. Provide Services Directly The third option is for service to be provided directly through one of the organizational alternatives detailed in the next section. This option assumes that one of these structures will assume responsibility for transit in the region. Advantages o Would provide a seamless system, assurning that the new entity also oversees fixed -route transit in the urbanized area. m Would offer coordination potential with ADA paratransit, again assuming the new organization also oversees fixed -route transit in the urbanized area. ® Would limit confusion for public riders - one stop shopping for local public transportation. Disadvantages ® Duplicates the efforts of the SAAA to provide countywide demand -response transportation. Costs ® While there may be cost differences among the three identified mechanisms to provide service, we do not have historical data to accurately identify which of the three would be the most cost effective. We have used the known hourly operating costs for the current local transit provider to estimate the cost to provide rural general public demand -response transportation. UH 3-18 ® The operating cost to provide countywide demand -response transportation will vary directly with the level of service desired. The following scenarios are offered for consideration (using the hourly estimated cost of $42.59): o One vehicle, M -F, five holidays: $86,900 annually o Two velicles, M -F, five holidays: $173,800 annually o Three vehicles, M -F, five holidays: $260,700 annually o Four vehicles, M -F, five holidays: $347,000 annually +� The capital costs also vary directly with the level of service. One community transportation vehicle costs about $45,000. Capital costs are eligible for funding assistance - see section on financing below. Summary of Service Alternatives Table 3-1 provides a summary of the service alternatives. ORGANIZATIONAL ALTERNATIVES A variety of organizational alternatives can be considered to meet current and future regional transit needs, encourage more efficient coordination of transportation services, and promote more effective integration of land use and transit planning. These alternatives are: o Maintain Current Organizational Structure o Create a neer Transportation District ® Create a new Service District © Create a new Regional Transit Authority This section reviews each option and describes the potential advantages and disadvantages of each. In addition, overriding issues that need to be considered, no matter which option is ultimately selected, are discussed at the end of this section. Maintain Current Organizational Structure Winchester Transit is currently the only public transportation provider in the study area that serves local transit needs. An obvious organizational option is to maintain the operation of transit services by the City of Winchester through the current Winchester Transit structure. This alternative would be the simplest by maintaining the existing administrative and operational staff and current vehicle fleet, with expansion as needed based on the service improvements chosen. 1 . 3-19 KFH x'abfie 3-1: SUMMARY OF SERVECE ALTERNATIVES ERNATIVES Service Alternative i Purpose #1 -,Extend Fixed -Route Transit Services Route 7j Berryville Avenue Valley Avenue to Creekside Amherst Route to WalMart Apple Blossom Mall to 522 South Corridor #2- Adjust Fixed -Route Services Link Apple Blossom with Amherst Re -Configure Trolley Route #3- Increase BayslHours of Service To 9:00 pm, Monday through Friday To 9:00 pm, Saturdays Sunday Services, eight-hour span w N O Serve high need area and identified transit destinations. Serve additional destinations articulated by the public. Serve additional destinations articulated by the public. Serve additional destinations articulated by the public. Provide link that was articulated by the public. Improve performance. Provide retail workers and others with evening travel options. Provide retail workers and others with evening travel options. Provide mobility for riders on Sundays. Annual Operating Cost Capital i Needed I Potential Funding Options $0 1 0 1None needed $0 1 0 11None needed Fares, S.5307, JARC, State $43,000 None Operating, City of Winchester Fares, S.5307, JARC, State $35,000 None Operating, City of Winchester Fares, S.5307, JARC, State $71,000 None Operating, City of Winchester Fares, S. 5307, JARC, State $84,500 1 vehicle Operating, Frederick County Fares, S. 5307, State Operating, City $7,600 None of Winchester Fares, S.5307, State Operating, $28,700 0-1 vehicle Frederick County Fares, S.5307, JARC, State $84,500 1 vehicle E Operating, Frederick County $0 1 0 1None needed $0 1 0 11None needed Fares, S.5307, JARC, State $43,000 None Operating, City of Winchester Fares, S.5307, JARC, State $35,000 None Operating, City of Winchester Fares, S.5307, JARC, State $71,000 None Operating, City of Winchester Service Alternative #4 Increase Frequency of Service Monday -Friday, 30 minute Headways #5 Improve PassengerAinenities #6- Corridor Service to Middletown #7- Regional Corridor Service #8- Improve Conirnuter Services 'fable 3-1: SUMMARY OF SERVICE ALTERNATIVES Annual Operating Capital Purpose Cost Needeci Provide more convenient travel options and potentially attract more choice riders. Provide a more comfortable transit experience. Serve a major travel corridor, Stephens City, and the Community College. Provide mobility in the Shenandoah Valley. Potential Funding Options Fares, S.5307, State Operating, City $456,000 3 vehicles jof Winchester Benches and capital only I shelters S.5309, City of Winches' CFares, Pre -purchased fares frorn LFCC, S.5307, S.5311, FARC, State $148,000 1-2 vehicles Operating, Frederick County, n.a. Provide an alternative to driving for Valley Connector Expansion long-distance commuters. $189,000 Support carpool, vanpool, and Park and Ride Lots commuter bus users. Varies n.a. IFares, S.5311(f) Fares, State Demonstration n.a. funding, CMAQ(?) VDOT, developers, City, and n.a. County Service Alternative # 9- Countywide Deinand-Response i able 3-1: SUMMARY Oxr SE tRVICE ALTERNATIVES Annual Operating Capital Purpose Cost Needed 1 vehicle, M -FI 2 velucles, M -F1' 3 vehicles, M -F Provide needed mobility for people 4 vehicles, M -F who cannot or do not drive. Potential Funding ©ptictis $86,900 1 vehicle $173,800 2 vehicles $260,700 3 vehicles Fares, S.5311, State Operating $347,000 4 vehicles funds, Frederick Countv T !\4 ', 7: ;it`.'iliriCll'C.. �iili: ! Ll`?LliiiS' .11`:!l:a'.1S1ilS The existing structure could serve as the foundation for a regional transit system, with system expansions taking place tlu-ough an inter -governmental agreement with Frederick County. The City would remain the operator, with additional funds provided by Frederick County to serve areas outside of the City. This strategy would provide customers with seamless regional services, and offer access to the many destinations and needed services in the area. Advantages o Easy to implement, requiring only an inter-goveriunental agreement to expand the base of service into Frederick County. o Allows for seamless connectivity from County -services to the City's route network. Disadvantages o Does not create "ownership" for the County - only an intergovernmental agreement. ® The City continues to have the major responsibility for transit, even with an expanded service area. ® May not be an effective structure to address the rural public transportation needs in the region. o Does not create a transit -specific entity that could be quasi -independent and potentially raise revenue. Create a New Transportation District In Virginia, local goveriunents have a number of different ways to come together to create joint enterprises to perform public functions, including the provision of public transportation. The Transportation District Act of 1964 and the Virginia Code Chapters 15.2-4504-4526 provide the authority for jurisdictions to create a Transportation District. This statute is summarized as follows: Chapter 15.2-4504 to 4526 Chapter 15.2-4504• Procedure for creation of districts- single jurisdictional districts; application of chapter to port authorities and airport commissions. "Any two or more counties or cities, or combinations thereof, may, in conformance with the procedure set forth herein, or as otherwise may be provided by lave, constitute a transportation district... A transportation district may be created by ordinance adopted by the governing body of each r:,. i ... ..' participating county and city—Such ordinances shall be filed with the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Chapter 15.2-4506. Creation of Commission to Control Corporation Chapter 15.24507. Members of transportation district coininissions. This would appear to state that the commission members must be appointed by the governing bodies of the members, but need not be members of the governing bodies (if the commission is one with powers set forth in subsection A of 15.2- 4515). Chapter 15.2-4515. Powers and functions generally. This includes preparation of a transportation plan, construction and acquisition of facilities, power to enter into agreements or leases with private companies for operation of facilities, and the ability to contract or agreement within the district (or with adjoining governments) regarding operation of services or facilities. An example of a regional Transportation District in Virginia is the Potomac and Rappaharuzock Transportation Commission (PRTC). PRTC is comprised of five jurisdictions: Prince William and Stafford Counties and the Cities of Manassas, Manassas Park, and Fredericksburg. PRTC was established in 1986 to help create and oversee the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) commuter rail service and also to assume responsibility for bus service implementation. Currently, PRTC offers a comprehensive network of cornrnuter and local bus services in Prince Williarn County and the Cities of Manassas and Manassas Park, as well as a free ridematching service. A Transportation District would be a new legally recognized agency comprised of the City of Winchester and Frederick County, and have all of the powers necessary to operate a regional transit system. These responsibilities include the power to prepare transportation plans, construct and acquire the transportation facilities included in the transportation plan, operate or contract for the operation of transportation services, enter into contracts and agreements, and administer public transit funds. A Transportation District would be governed by a Commission, with the composition determined by the participating jurisdictions. This governing Commission would deterrnuze an equitable funding allocation among the participating jurisdictions. A new Transportation District could assume ownership of the existing Winchester Transit system and personnel, or a new Transportation District could set regional transit policies and determine services but contract for services to avoid the need to develop new operational capabilities. r,: 3-24 KFH KIM9=1 Tobi fY1�t"1';.,itl\"t` ,Illi; .'I'lli 711 e','�1<1111S1T1S Advantages • With the existing Virginia Code already in place, enabling legislation is not required. ® Seamless transit services could be provided. a Would create an entity completely focused on public transportation, with ownership from both the County and the City. ® Would raise the profile of transit services and needs throughout the region. • Would be able to effectively address both urban and non -urban public transportation needs. Disadvantages w Creates a now entity that will have a variety of adiniiustrative and financial needs that are currently provided by the City (i.e., accounting, legal, cash flow management, human resources, risk management, insurance, etc.) A The creation of a Transportation District does not provide any new revenue opportunities. Create a New Service District Virginia Code Chapters 15.2-2400-2403 also provides local governments in Virginia with the authority to establish a regional entity, in this case a Service District. Similar to a Transportation District, it would be comprised of the City and County. A major difference, however, is that a Service District could generate additional revenue through the ability to levy higher property taxes within the service district. The development of a Service District would not require enabling legislation. This statute is surmnarized as follows: Chapter 15.2-2400 to 2403 Chapter 15.2-2400. Creation of Service Districts: Provides authority for "any two or more localities" to form a service district by ordinance; requires public hearing. Chapter 15.2-2401. Creation of Service Districts by Court Order in Consolidated Cities: Courts can order the creation of service districts in any city which results from the consolidation of two or more localities. Chapter 15.2-2402. Description of Proposed Service District: Lists elements required in the ordinance or petition to create a service district—naine, boundaries, purpose, facilities, plan for providing, and benefits. 1, KFH r: 3-25 CEMM e_';l'itll''S;II16 ,11ii11_ _.i'_chlil] nn Chapter 15.2-2403. Powers of Service Districts: Lists 13 powers of a service district. Subdivision 2 states that "in addition to services authorized by subdivision 1, transportation and transportation services within a Service district, including, but not limited to: public transportation systems serving the district;" are authorized. Subdivision 3 provides authority to own facilities, equipment, property, etc, to provide such services. Subdivision 4 authorizes the district "To contract with any person, municipality or state agency to provide the governmental services authorized by subdivisions 1 and 2." Subdivision 6 authorizes districts to levy and collect property taxes to pay for the services authorized. Service Districts can be created by a single city or county, or by combinations of cities and/or counties. Service Districts are governed by a development board or other body, with responsibilities agreed upon by the participating jurisdictions. Service Districts can construct, maintain, and operate the facilities and equipment that are necessary to provide a wide range of services, including public transportation systems. However, according to VDRPT no jurisdictions in Virginia have used this organizational approach for the delivery of public transit services. Similar to a Transportation District, a Service District could operate transportation services or enter into contracts and agreements and administer public transit funds. Advantages • With the existing Virginia Code already in place, enabling legislation is not required. o Seamless transit services could be provided. o Would create an entity completely focused on public transportation, with ownership from both the County and the City. Would raise the profile of transit services and needs throughout the region. * Would be able to effectively address both urban and non -urban public transportation needs. ® Would have the ability to raise revenue. Disadvantages * Creates a new entity that will have a variety of administrative and financial needs that are currently provided by the City (i.e., accounting, legal, cash flow management, human resources, risk management, insurance, etc.) ® The mechanism outlined in the statute for raising revenue (property taxes) may not be politically palatable. ® There are no other examples in Virginia that are using this approach for delivery of public transit services. ':f'..,.., ....'r 3-26KFH Create Regional Transit Authority (RTA) A RTA would provide for the widest range of options and would have the fewest limitations. It would be a true regional entity that could include the City of Winchester and Frederick County, and be a legal entity that would have all of the powers necessary to operate and expand transit service and facilities and provide for the development of new dedicated transportation funding source. The responsibilities of an RTA can be limited to transit, or they could be expanded to other transportation services and facilities. There is precedent in Virginia for establishment of a RTA. The Northern Virginia and IIampton Roads areas have established authorities, and recently in Williamsburg, James City County, the City of Williamsburg, the College of William and Mary, and the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation partnered to form a Regional Authority. A chief consideration in this decision to was the involvement of private institutions, not a consideration for the Win -Fred area. RTAs are also under consideration in the Charlottesville and Fredericksburg areas. However, the creation of an RTA would require a strong regional consensus and subsequent enabling legislation. Many aspects related to formation of an RTA would need to be considered and determined, including the role and structure of a goverivng board. In addition, the work to establish an RTA may be beyond what is really needed for an organizational structure to operate transit services in the Winchester area. Advantages ® Provides the ability to develop a dedicated funding source. a Seamless transit services could be provided. a Would create an entity completely focused on public transportation, with ownership from both the County and the City. A Would be able to effectively address both urban and non -urban public transportation needs. Disadvantages Requires legislation to be enacted by the Virginia General Assembly. ® Creates a new entity that will have a variety of administrative and financial needs that are currently provided by the City (i.e., accounting, legal, cash flow management, human resources, risk management, insurance, etc.). © Maybe too formal a structure for the current situation. Jurisdictions may feel loss of local autonomy. " TH r 3-27 Ful \ l•'l'11cllli 111 - Summary of Organizational Alternatives Table 3-2 provides a summary of the organizational alternatives, allowing comparison with regard to important considerations. Table 3-2: Summary of Organizational Alternatives KFH 3-28 Option 1 Option 2. Option 3 Option 4 -asR�' Maintain ,. . Create a new Create a Create a Current Transportation New Serx, ice New A Organization ry a i a1 Structure District District Regional Transit Authority Process to Inter- Form Establish Legislation Establish Entity governmental Commission service district enacted by to Support agreement with by ordinance the Virginia Regional Transit between City composition and governed General Services and County determined by by Assembly City and County development board or other body Transit City of New New Service New regional Operation Winchester Transportation District entity Responsibility District comprised of comprised of City and 11 City and Count Count Administrative Use current Creates new Creates new Creates new Structure Winchester entity entity entity Transit structure Ability to Raise No No Yes Yes New Revenues KFH 3-28 i IV; t; is ;ift.'i'iiati\'LR:lllu r iilili7!t', Aia'.'!lailiSill� OVERALL ISSUES AND CONSIDERA`i'IONS No matter which organizational alternative is selected, there are overall issues that would need to be considered. Naming(Branding If a regional transit system is implemented, a new name for the system could be considered that would help identify the services as regional in nature. A potential "Win -Fred Transit" system would help ensure customers, elected officials, and others are aware that regional services are available. Service Provision (in-house or contractual) Future transit services could continue to be provided directly by the City of Winchester or through one of the alternative organizational structures presented in this section. Conversely, a decision could be made to contract out for transit services. There are examples of both in Virginia, for instance transit services in Blacksburg are operated directly, while in Roanoke transit services are provided through a contractual arrangement with a private transportation firm. Countywide Transportation Needs With mobility needs throughout Frederick County, there needs to be consideration of how the rural transportation services will be provided and coordinated with the ultimate organizational structure in the City of Winchester area. Possibilities include provision of these services directly through one of the regional structures discussed in this section, or through another agency such as the SAAA by expansion of their WellTran services in Frederick County. Funding of these services, no matter the provider, will need to be determined. Coordination with Human Service Agency Programs As outlined in Technical Memorandum #2, a variety of human service agencies provide transportation for the people they serve and/or work with Winchester Transit to meet the transportation needs of their customers. Whichever organizational structure is eventually selected, this entity will need to work closely with these human service agencies, and ideally lead efforts to coordinate transportation services and potentially have the capability for human service agencies to purchase transportation as opposed to operating services directly. KF:.. 3-29 }`111h'11FW. .\1_'C111111li1i1.S Coordination with Commuter Programs Currently long-distance commuter programs are under the direction of the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission through their Valley Commuter Assistance Program. In order to ensure that a cohesive transit network is available in the region, it will be important that any organizational alternative that focuses on local transit needs works in close collaboration with the Valley Conunuter Assistance Program. FUNDING MECHANISMS In recognition of the importance of financing public transit in the region, this section reviews the typical funding strategies used for urban and rural general public transportation. Public transit is generally funded in the United States through a partnership arrangement between the federal goverrunent, state governments, local governmental or quasi -governmental entities (i.e., authorities), and riders. Federal transit funding programs are categorized by the type of service area (i.e., rural, small urban, or large urban). There are also federal funding programs that target specific user groups such as people with disabilities and low income people. For both urban and rural programs, the total program expenses are calculated. Fare revenue and advertising revenue (if applicable) is then applied to the expenses. The net deficit is then used as a basis for federal, state, and local funding. Federal Financial Assistance The City of Winchester and specific areas of Frederick County form an urbanized area, meaning that there is a population center of over 50,000 people. Transit funding categories are based on urbanized areas, as they are a more accurate gauge of the size of a city (rather than strictly the population of the city), since in different cities and states the lines between city borders and the urbanized area of that city are often not the same. This is certainly true in Winchester and Frederick County, as documented in the needs analysis. The Winchester -Frederick County Urbanized Area receives a federal transit funding allocation each year from the S.5307 program. As a "small" urbanized area (i.e., under 200,000 people), these funds are apportioned to the Governor for distribution. The FY 2008 allocation bras 623,511. For FY 2009, Winchester Transit progranuned $373,500 in operating assistance from this funding source. The allocation is based on population and population density in the urbanized area. In small urbanized areas, these funds can be used for operating (up to 50% of the allocation) with a matching ratio KFH3 1i t ti i L'1li�IT1<.? \1:'�:Ii,111i5111S of 50 percent federal, 50 percent local. For capital items, and specific "capitalized" expenses (planning, preventive maintenance, and ADA paratransit), the matching ratio is 80 percent federal and 20 percent local. Funds can be carried over for up to three years, which agencies often do to save for capital replacement. Capital funding is also available through the federal S.5309 program, which is the bus and bus -related facilities program. This program provides capital assistance for new and replacement buses and related equipment and facilities. Eligible capital projects include the purchase of buses for fleet and service expansion, bus maintenance and administrative facilities, transfer facilities, bus malls, transportation centers, intermodal terminals, park-and-ride stations, acquisition of replacement vehicles, bus rebuilds, bus preventive maintenance, passenger amenities such as passenger shelters and bus stop signs, accessory and miscellaneous equipment such as mobile radio units, supervisory vehicles, fare boxes, computers and shop and garage equipment. Funds for the Section 5309 program are distributed on a discretionary basis by each State. Earmarks also flow through this program. Federal plarming assistance is also available in urbanized areas under the 5.5303 program and these funds generally flow through the Metropolitan Planning Organization. In rural areas, federal financial assistance is provided through the 5.5311 program. The State is the recipient of 5.5311 funds, with local governments and non- profit agencies serving as the subrecipients. 5.5311 funds can be used for operating and for capital. When used as an operating subsidy, the matching ratio for 5.5311 is 50% federal and 50% local. When used as a capital subsidy, the matching ratio is 80% Federal and 20% local. These funds are currently not being applied in Frederick County. There is also a component of the 5.5311 program (5311(f)), which provides assistance to support intercity bus service in rural areas where there is demand, but not enough fare revenue to be self-sustaining. There are also three federal programs geared to specific user groups. These are the Sections 5310, 5316, and 5317 programs. The 5.5310 program provides financial assistance for purchasing capital equipment to be used to transport the elderly and persons with disabilities. 5.5310 funds are apportioned annually by a formula that is based on the number of elderly persons and persons with disabilities in each State. VDRPT is the designated recipient for S.5310 funds in Virginia, and private non-profit operators of services for the elderly and persons with disabilities are eligible subrecipients through an amlual competitive selection process. The 5.5310 program provides 80% of the cost of the equipment KFH 3-31 1 `t l t.1: r`:IiC'1'lldtli :'�: ;liltd t llll�lil-�' \i','iid1L'S711F purchased, with the remaining 20% provided by the applicant organization. Several of the human services agencies that provide transportation in the region and noted in Technical Memorandum #2 utilize vehicles funded through the S.5310 prograrrr. The S.5316 (Job Access and Reverse Commute - JARC) program provides funding for developing new or expanded transportation services that connect welfare recipients and other low income persons to jobs and other employment related services. JARC program funds are allocated to states through a formula based on the number of love= -income individuals in each state. DRPT is the designated recipient for JARC funds in areas of Virginia with populations under 200,000 persons, and recipients of S.5307 and S.5311 program funds are eligible subrecipients through a competitive selection process. Projects are eligible for both capital (80/20 match) and operating (50/50 match). The JARC program could be a consideration for several of the proposed service alternatives, including increasing the days and hours of service and extension of the Berryville Avenue Route. The S.5317 (New Freedom) program provides funding for capital and operating expenses designed to assist individuals with disabilities with accessing transportation services, including transportation to and from jobs and employment support services. Projects funded through the New Freedom program must be both new and go beyond the requirements of the ADA of 1990. Similar to the JARC Program, VDRPT is the designated recipient for New Freedom funds in areas of the State with populations under 200,000 persons. Eligible subrecipients of the New Freedom Program are both operators of public transportation services and non-profit organizations. Projects are eligible for both capital and operating expenses. The match for federal New Freedom funds is 50% for operating projects and 20% for capital projects, though VDRPT has provided significant State funds in previous application cycles. As noted in Technical Memorandum #2, the SAAA was recently awarded a New Freedom grant from DRPT to iritiate a new "WellTran " program for seniors and people with disabilities that will include service in the City of Winchester and Frederick County. Any project funded through the S 5310, JARC, or New Freedom programs must be derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit -human services transportation plan, and in Virginia specifically through a Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan (CHSM). Therefore, any services funded through these three programs must meet one of the identified strategies included in the Northern Shenandoah CHSM plan (which many of the proposed service alternatives do): 1. Continue to support capital needs of coordinated human service/public transportation providers. UH r. ,. 3-32 lk� ilr.6,'� an llil, .Ali?lh,Li"11=;1Y1` 2. Expand availability of demand -response service and specialized transportation services to provide additional trips for older adults, people with disabilities, and people with lower incomes. 3. Build coordination among existing public transportation and human service transportation providers. 4. Expand outreach and information on available transportation options in the region, including establishment of a central point of access. 5. Provide flexible transportation options and more specialized transportation services or one-to-one services through expanded use of volunteers. 6. Establish or expand programs that train customers, human service agency staff, medical facility personnel, and others in the use and availability of transportation services. 7. Establish a ride -sharing program for long-distance medical transportation. 8. Expand access to taxi and other private transportation operators. 9. hnplement new public transportation services or operate existing public transit services on a more frequent basis. 10. Bring new funding partners to public transit/ human service transportation. 11. Provide targeted shuttle services to access employment opportunities. State Financial Assistance The State of Virginia provides support for transit programs through a variety of programs, including the following: ® Formula Assistance: Supports costs borne by eligible recipients for operating related public transportation expenses. Up to 95% of eligible expenses. In FY 2009 the City of Winchester is receiving $167,355 in assistance from this program. 4 Capital Assistance: Supports costs borne by eligible recipients for public transportation capital projects. Up to 95% of eligible expenses. ....... KFH i 1�1 �,.i:-i�T�'i,'k;tl\%{'y: �Ulii FT!I11111iS' .\1:-'CritllllSlil�: Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Commuter Assistance: Supports administration of existing or new local and regional TDM or Commuter Assistance programs. Up to 80% of eligible expenses. In FY 2009, the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission is receiving $150,000 from this program. Demonstration Project Assistance: Assists communities in preserving and revitalizing public or private public transportation service by implementing innovative projects for one year of operation. Up to 95% of eligible expenses. The Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission is receiving $179,322 from this program in FY 2009 to support the new commuter bus program. Technical Assistance: Supports planning or tecl-mical assistance to help improve or initiate public transportation related services. Up to 50% of eligible expenses. o Intern Program: Supports increased awareness of public transportation as a career choice for aspiring managers. Up to 95% of eligible expenses. m Transportation Efficiency Improvement Funds (TEIF): Supports reduction in demand for new/expanded transportation facilities that serve single occupant vehicles and initiatives at the state, regional and community level that demonstrate innovative approaches to reducing traffic congestion. Up to 80% of eligible expenses. The Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission is receiving $120,400 from this program in FY 2009. ® Senior Transportation Program: For FY09, VDRPT provided State funds to support new transportation services for adults 60 years of age and older through the Senior Transportation Program. The overall objective of this program is to increase the quality and quantity of coordinated transportation services available for older adults. Operators of public transportation services and non-profit organizations were eligible applicants for the program. In FY09, Virginia allocated $100,000 for the Senior Transportation Program, with awards no less than $5,000 and no more than $10,000. Funding for the Senior Transportation program beyond FY09 has not been authorized, but if available in future years may be a consideration for the service alternatives such as the countywide demand -response transportation. r ,: 3-34K" F H Local Funding Options The mechanisms used to match federal and state funds can be derived from a number of sources including city/county general revenues, particular taxes or fees locally authorized to support transit, and human service agency contractual revenue. 'FH Item 2: TIA Standards Update Staff will update the Committee on the most recent meeting with officials from the Top of Virginia Builders Association regarding the attached draft of the TIA standards. Traffic Impact Analysis Standards Draft 4 11/24/08 A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is required in order to allow County Officials and staff the opportunity to assess the impact of a proposed development. The TIA should provide sufficient information to allow this assessment to take place. Any application that includes a TIA, as determined by planning staff, which does not meet the standards laid out herein shall not be considered complete. These TIA standards shall be applicable to rezonings, masterplans, subdivisions, and site plans. When a TIA is required Any action that meets the thresholds outlined in the Virginia Department of Transportation Chapter 527 regulations shall require a TIA (see attached VDOT table). Additionally, Frederick County may choose to require a TIA under the following scenarios; For Site Plans: When one has not been done previously AND the development is expected to generate 100 or more vehicle trip ends in the peak hour. For Master Plans and Subdivisions: When a TIA that models the development that is being master planned or subdivided has not previously been done. If item one has been satisfied, then none of the following items would apply. 2. Any proposed action that is expected to generate 1200 or more vehicle trip ends per day or 100 or more vehicle trip ends in the peak hour and has not previously had a TTA done for similar or greater trip generation. Additionally, staff may require a TIA for any level of traffic generation on corridors facing significant congestion or safety concerns as determined by the professional judgment of the planning staff. 3. A change in use that, while not resulting in greater trip generation, results in a significant change in trip demographics or peak travel times resulting in an unstudied impact on the transportation system. For Rezonings: All rezoning shall require a TIA unless waived by planning staff. Process and Report Requirements 4 1. Submit a determination form to planning staff which will be used to determine whether the project requires a TIA and whether it will require a VDOT Chapter 527 submittal. 2. Each TIA will be required to undergo a formal scoping meeting with VDOT and County Staff at the regular VDOT engineers meeting. The applicant shall be responsible for scheduling the scoping meeting and it will be the responsibility of planning staff to make sure they are in attendance. Applicants will not be required to re -scope the project due to a failure of planning staff to attend the original scoping meeting. 3. Each submittal must include the following: a. All required VDOT copies and payment for Chapter 527 submittal, and all items on the attached checklists which can be found in the Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Administrative Guidelines published by VDOT in September, 2007. Utilize the subdivision plat or site plan package checklist for master plans. b. 1 paper copy (or PDF on CD) and 1 CD with modeling files. If submitting PDF copy of the report, both report and modeling files may be on the same CD. 4. Each TIA must include the following; a. An executive summary which summarizes the development, significant findings of the TIA, and impacts of proposed mitigation b. Sections on existing traffic, existing traffic with build out year background traffic, existing traffic with build out year background and development generated traffic, existing traffic with full background traffic, and existing traffic with full background and development traffic. In certain situations it may be appropriate to eliminate some of the above scenarios or to have other scenarios included; the planning staff in concert with VDOT is enabled to make these modifications at the scoping meeting with the applicant. c. The TIA must include all proposed access points, with details about access type. d. Accident Data for the most recent 3 year period to include accident type and severity e. Appendices that include output report sheets from the analysis software grouped according to location. f. Planning staff and/or VDOT may require additional analysis as required by the uniqueness of each development. Technical Details 1. Trip generation must be determined using the most recent addition of the ITE Trip Generation Report unless agreed to by VDOT and planning staff. Only trip generation methodology approved by VDOT and planning staff at the scoping meeting may be used. 2. The TIA must depict a worst case scenario allowable under the proposed zoning as determined by planning staff. The applicant may depict a less than worst case scenario if their proposed proffers would limit their development activities to uses that produce equal or less traffic than what is depicted in the TIA. 5 3. Only scenarios approved by VDOT and planning staff may be included in the TIA. If the applicant wishes to include other scenarios in their presentation to the Board of Supervisors and/or Planning Commission, that will be allowable. 4. Existing signal timings provided by VDOT must be used for existing conditions. However, where existing signal timings are not operating optimally as demonstrated by the applicant and agreed to by VDOT, an improved signal timing plan may be used if that plan will be provided to VDOT. 5. Level of Service (LOS) must be considered for all movements and approaches and shown graphically in the report. 6. When level of service does not meet the requirements of the comprehensive plan, the report must include suggested improvements that would meet the requirements of the comprehensive plan. 7. When a new signal is proposed, arterial level of service must be analyzed. This must include a signal progression analysis if warranted. 8. When conditions of existing or existing with background scenarios result in level of service F, additional analysis must be done when development traffic is added in so that the impacts of the new development may be considered. Items to include when doing this comparison are intersection capacity utilization, changes in delays, queue lengths, and vehicle to capacity ratio. Planning staff could also consider additional analysis that would depict the development impacts in this situation. 3 Item 3: Article Review TH RUL STREET ARW. Transportation Aid Levels Decried • Article • Comments :MORE W POLITICS)) Byt CHRISTOPHER CONKEY Some Democrats and interest groups protested that the economic -stimulus proposal unveiled by the House Tuesday doesn't allocate enough funding for transportation projects, setting the stage for a heated debate in the weeks ahead. The House bill would provide about $43 billion for roads, transit and airport projects, well below the $53 billion recommended by House Transportation Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D., Minn.). Many House members had figured the transportation component of the bill would exceed $85 billion, as the price tag of the overall package swelled to $825 billion in recent weeks. Some members of the House transportation committee objected to the proposed level of investment during a Democratic caucus session Thursday, and several members later spoke out during a committee meeting. Highways and Transit Subcommittee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D., Ore.) suggested the committee draft a letter or resolution to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi objecting to the transport section of the stimulus bill. Rep. Oberstar suggested the committee "mobilize those practitioners of infrastructure" at a hearing next week to demonstrate the need to increase spending levels on shovel -ready projects. "Then I think we make the move on the House leadership and the incoming Obama administration," he said. President-elect Barack Obama has pushed for an economic -stimulus package to help jump-start the economy, which has slid into recession. He had pledged to set aside funding for infrastructure projects, both to help cash-strapped local governments create jobs and to bolster the country's aging transportation networks. Special-interest groups from labor unions to businesses also voiced objections. Environmental groups criticized the proposed spending for mass -transit systems and intercity rail projects, which was about $7 billion less than Mr. Oberstar had recommended. They have argued that expansion of mass -transit systems could help ease problems posed by climate change, congestion and oil consumption. Critics noted that the stimulus bill would spend three dollars on highways for every one dollar spent on mass -transit systems. When hearings begin next week, environmental groups said, they would push to lower that ratio or even put funding for transit on an equal footing with highways. About the only interest group in the transportation world that seemed satisfied Thursday was one representing highway users. About $30 billion of the roughly $43 billion directly provided for roads, transit and aviation would be set aside for highway projects. Intercity rail would get about $1 billion, compared with the $5 billion recommended by Mr. Oberstar. Airports would get about $3 billion, a little more than half of what Mr. Oberstar requested. "Why is transit continuing to take a back seat to highways?" asked Kevin Sheys, a lawyer who represents commuter rail and transit agencies. "The disproportionate amount of highway spending could cut against a lot of things they're trying to do on energy efficiency." Write to Christopher Conkey at christopher.conkey(a)wsi.com Democrats Finishing Up Stimulus Proposal President -Elect Is Expected to Tout Plan Tomorrow By Paul Kane Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, January 15, 2009; A04 Congressional Democrats are putting the final touches on an economic stimulus package worth almost $850 billion, hoping to have the details ready in time for President-elect Barack Obama to promote it during a trip to Ohio tomorrow aimed at building public support for the recovery plan. With its cost estimate almost tripling since shortly after Obama's November election victory, the stimulus package is expected to include at least $300 billion in tax cuts and nearly $550 billion in domestic spending, making the price tag of his first major legislative initiative almost equal to the annual cost of funding all federal agencies. Democrats vowed to support the broad outlines of Obama's initial ideas, but they continued to alter the details of the plan. Support continued to slip for his tax -relief proposals for businesses -- which were initially intended to appeal to Republicans -- and preliminary spending plans showed that more than half of the new domestic spending would go to the states to provide budget relief for health, labor and education services. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D -Calif.) told reporters that she hoped to announce the plan today and have her committee chairmen take up the tax and spending packages late next week, with the goal of sending the new president a final bill for his signature by mid-February. Obama plans to tout the stimulus proposal tomorrow at a wind -turbine manufacturer in Bedford Heights, Ohio. The destination is steeped in symbolism both politically (Ohio provided critical support to the Democrat in the general election) and for its policy significance, because Obama and Pelosi have deemed renewable energy funding a hallmark of the stimulus plan. On Tuesday, Obama attended the weekly luncheon of Senate Democrats and mounted a strong defense of his plan to include $300 billion in tax cuts in the proposal. "We can't do it all with spending. We have to have tax cuts," he told Democrats, according to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I -Conn.), who supports the plan. But the form of Obama's proposed tax cuts has come under steady fire from congressional Democrats as they put their own cast on the legislation. First, they objected to a proposed $3,000 tax credit for businesses that saved or created a job, which many considered too ambiguous to implement. Now, House Democrats are pushing to eliminate a provision that would allow businesses to write off current losses on taxes paid as long as five years ago, which would have provided an immediate cash windfall to those companies. Senate Democrats favor, at a minimum, exempting from that plan financial institutions that have already received cash infusions from the earlier $700 billion rescue plan from that tax break. In place of those business credits, Democrats expect to include a "patch" for the alternative minimum tax, a provision meant to prevent upper -middle-class wage earners from moving into a higher tax bracket. The AMT was designed 40 years ago to ensure that the wealthiest Americans were not able to shelter their earnings from the Internal Revenue Service. Estimates peg the cost of this year's AMT fix at $70 billion, if not more, and congressional leaders and 'key members of the tax -writing Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees would prefer to deal with it now rather than make it part of an end -of -the -session crush, as has happened in recent years. Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), the Ways and Means chairman, said yesterday that plans for including the AMT provision in the final legislation sent to Obama are "more than tentative." The additions to the legislation have caused Democratic budget hawks to warn that the bill may include too many programs that are not intended to produce jobs -- Obama's goal for the plan -- and could inflate the nation's $1.2 trillion deficit. Rep. Jim Cooper (D -Tenn.), who opposes the AMT patch unless tax increases or spending cuts are included to pay for it, said the tax provision has "no emergency associated with it" and argued that leaders are using the recession to avoid a fight on a touchy subject. "I'm not aware of the AMT [fix] having any stimulative effect," said Cooper, a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 51 fiscally conservative Democrats. In the Senate, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has won support for a college tuition tax credit that could cost more than $10 billion. The House and Senate plans are likely to vary slightly, requiring a conference committee to iron out the differences in early February, if both chambers approve the measure as expected. The House hopes to vote on the legislation in the last week of January, with the Senate beginning deliberations the first week of February. Yesterday, Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee privately reviewed the spending plan, which sources said includes $80 billion in funding to states for education programs and about $90 billion for Medicaid assistance. The proposal also includes about $85 billion worth of infrastructure spending, most for highway and bridge construction. It would also increase funding for unemployment insurance and food stamp programs. More than half of the spending program probably would be routed through state governments, then to municipalities and local authorities, said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), an appropriator. Mayors had wanted the bulk of the money sent directly to them. But lawmakers, forbidden from designating "earmarks" in the spending plan, determined that routing the money to governors would make sure it is awarded based on need. "To get it distributed equitably and immediately, much of it has to first go through the governors," Moran said. Z affic jarns, fatalities among worst 'headaches' I I C,, 0110,, , , —0 TRIP 1/14/2am WAS! A.G Y- A uaw reDat Neasen Q rj'-,,:y iir.67y h,,, AAS i: i 0 TRIi I�-,,-,Uied "A:T�( rica's Tco Five "Fa I `ieadaches - ':rid MY :Ge!'tifies C,-( .)ling roads and bei JCS, grovv1rg, troffic jams. Crowded transk systems ind rail cam, an umcwpaloy hiq!l ,ate of U-af-ic t -.rushes and �atq:ities, �rkd Jer-It Ij.,Ij4 - o -i �i e Fat;o ,.,,!. . �!, as M Cup rve transp�,.",at;o:i !,,eL�daches ail�rl� , i! -:,e f-epori. pres(hbes Me reradjes Ax the nations tr2,n3porsvert hearuac:ies, which in��ojje n-ioviri�� rnMIPOTHOP CV .,L% QeM, p�-iLt:ng .:oei;ip;(-,,ed vvon(e:-s Vdti `Jit i -e Joi) !-'I the col isudohon seaal, us;!'g iLit= rojt !n�.w, 1% and J'AnAnq a 1 VqJ00 awn Is Ocuxeri- sl�reteqv vv,:! privik-:e ;j -�,Y';to�- that "D k%wcve :nwhYo, ;Mr, cnd the Mhor; C;: : : -,)acfs, F)r!dgas ;:,r�d t -a -.Sic "Yaor On Tor transpartaM Reec'eches iC -.re (.,:� di: : rlrn:jiose ro?riefl's we can see '-,ro-n tie acGnol-;,:lc wwxvy RgIlation hek,:j so;.igh.t r)x/ ReIden VReact Mrnm Sm OS aria ;ea6\,, i:o e thOLIS.' -ds of read y- twqn hqhway TMoas mt can suoport 1.8 KhOn jcbs," said Exemdve 70ector .-)hn hors!ey noww transr. rtaixi Anestrents Kh huld Jr praerve awe" Tdt wily 17eip ;:he foi lears." heau�,L!Fet; ai e. HeNFAM MMAnt opt: AgKlp and da&hg rVaQ :q dies w.c. t-a"Isi'r s,,-, iOTls �Mnl .adyew an 47 qM: OV0500 23 POK"A of M n Sony syers 300 so 1200MV MV: or 1.:!!Y Obskey, n1d n SgNY lol ( r AP n&AM! Q Insk Oussis ,.ad ad cui m ve evyUnd M- Cy tie or M V va oMi We neK zN lens. - Hee the Nurna Pq Largenee � uaUs, lighovoys aw tanK syle-.;s. F.hL r!e!c'or,'-� i b-i1q:2F a. -Id UnMr sykarns ;m in"eannoy oveMooenni and corgavel kadQ is qj-'ity of :!ie a!-:,�, ecoricri,,ic heads&es Q the form of le;,cer rush hours, ceskN TY,Wbuns in Mqht muiemept and overcrowded rmnYt Loses apd rail cen. i-!Liobe,, i7at;,-.,QNe: and QyKen -v�jrc �-�iari 4�[.OfiC �iv'sv�fere. :o.,ic�n lb.%e A!�:r-.)�cjl I N:7 rbl- i'�Al'I'Of Ls -e%7 QUINS ;V WKy 50 yqaM, 1 iS SQ no to MAI ..w _-e'! by rnl1."2 33!et,,,, %030e Numbe. Qum Coryod is unsicy LAP syvan Q.m.Qnq dwnS nds ol Vp v"ispKady: rJ,',t-�p to Mmy ;CV05 1� POPOMM w art econvK:: z'l-',Mty ,r vv -,ra ten an Te Tar na%nN roads, undyes and pubk ta lot Mncems. Soce 1591 QS. popnMen and vokkle. twva Measles Oy peicent, Me LransT MM has increased vy,she sarna level s;ncc 1933L1 ai?d + Ho:adaC,`Ie Ni-ffbpr Fhe- Tvalonel costs are OsJoj. Grivus are iosing $243 IJMM each yen as a revult of Osve! en reaKs ':hat are cungested, delicie',t or I?ck de,,irable z:a-Fety Feawre,3. Ti' -)e cosi,-sof materia:s [.!se(! 5.; road, Nyhviall dK iAcge coiskuRan rove io.•-reFsed -')y 55 perce!-,t oie.- the !est. five yzars, fztir•z` she ebling Wo Q. Un and unds-fusiv n 5wpoaAkll -�jgei'S 3! trC- feCe!-a�: jevssJal-e 10 Own- I waWu nwd K cwbie in Ina-K gy,KcanUy :Ir the n'� A-e Sig.'-:JCEFWith a efficient SnAce LC:71' soumes J ;0K hai" tr2n5purt3d7r headacrzes ai Jiiable. I. he Up five vb=oo�vbur 5eaOsQ Nfever; are: jamny Q `ter Q IC: KOQ Wo-, P -MoQ01 41 C n 'f -L:, qCj" :SYa-e K "n. �K70 C.Wx OWF Ova - AT, �� 4, 5 1 0 1 § :qz AW'. PON i5l; 57c; 011 .�� tc jN7 41 M w 7Ars�A ; f Pa V"n' r FCA'"no. '35 &n Or 7VnF 2�nhn' On Map in ujo�v 1-_� 3;-'j E06 0hu On A 0 7 '�q�wj�r I! A To 7?QAnqv ii the i :"n":'_ ca3�;qyw ser0; 0.yy 01 V QMened A W5,71 ivry:"Wicp mad �:. aPr'i- W/ 27 800 pbs, uuT At! e se,101_ &PC ik ReCOYnAC 5nt 92 duWaS QT .:!Ji` .n t;'ie r6-,-;VIA 1 17.6; :P rnnwoy oa�vv P1 ._Us,(..':. anew (' ---, r! - -'' '12J �'� - -8-6�_ ;L.7;7'�' � 1 :A j —s-LI _ v, c no:,_n% 10; new to YZIN 20 t S in A_ .is j: 1 iF a y,�Ptq W,- yrjVy _L /.7;2I: Enz, 7vves 6"'JUL'� �A"' Culo! W! WC can" .Aden inonasn" n aniol vV so.'ss to "11W 005 L N �4w"ea ewur=g' Pt P"lulles. Y ja Fou'. - '�_ i, -'-C "�Ccon 0 na ova �_10 c_-i ,:oy �-_ b:i;id ;j,id rddye trial Ask 4;ngar, ora ezvATnrnCnV5y SaVVY drU tone less tkna. TranspxtaVan agencies a7 Me ori v" wovYoe mono wgrWary !,roqr-'s. ;--. f? veprq Kgn-zy and z.r;cge r,'esigps, co�str.jccicr LeQnQeS & :.i -,.,L.z-:a[s a;Gt :z:s,!ocfjer a,!.� s t;,--ie Tercepairs, and - annadv Winter 4vw like a down qaTAenk c5 U'"..: Ar'l_rar`_:, J; __ . r'�t?GS 'I.�'""'::,li,3te;v, 0 _a_- _EE ory-wro .,K,N ;a als A toz joy A�n� jmqwmalz .rasp ucn fe j %�Swnenr Cn't Pyyvvy 1 , �s "I to my !y atoll VOIN;W ! zay. : M MaGur, :r,, "'.a a r am tag -xqo Werai sai An, 7-n: qw7a _,7c._ eV ace tie C.ne A I on!"e07 oed& zxons a Run 10, :"onjes an oppamunr? :�; -_C'_ o" I lc". .)g, 7i 7:- ,r -,C C) : noVrg L S: '1C e a.-1 vva: hio,!1ways, btidges 00 ;IWAC WbIN FlOnY 02aP%nW3Qe prorosais oave bcc.: sc- torch iv: of naw jaws to r � a.-id'-..-'.-,-j'_;0;' 'ef=4s "Ry_�avmq our 10010 Lransoonatca !Wa62U0E wK go a ww; way I.jimards re:;�'ving the !-iat;or-'s ecol-joiTJC now5das hy anKng 'Gi)s i;- '::,c sh,: `_ zirL: iog4i.rr.: arc hy lacreatnu !:at;or-!'s pru'u(:'_:vi`y no )A. cxecui:ve :Iir2cbor. 0, tl7a 'Ccor. co.Wry isteo laby for P"Wra: r0au and thdqn Condoons, wuic ;Eve!,,--, safety -Ws, 040sk UAV ISO pHd0was, 17a"Spylawn f" Ky an! we cwnomn VMz"- 11 Va. seeks Route 460 proposals By the Associated Press N BAWOR-i Va. - The state is asking for detaiied proposals to build a new U.S. ;-route 460 between Petersl,urg and Suffolk. in 2006, '.,Iii -e firms submitted proposals to build the nw✓ highway at a cost of more than $ i billion. They proposed payiN (cr it through tolls, loans and state -issued bonds. Tile Vffl�inia DepailrneriT of Transportation says the rec;uesi for detailed t,ropo:;;als calls for carts and other ch -manges ��ges in light of he current inanl;ial sitoatioin. DC in 2003 be gap a study to realign Route 460, a floc=+ng-p cne hu ricane evaa.:EiL n ;OL!fa ti-2"'also carries a lot of truck iraffic. The I- reg;ect has stalied due to a lack .:,f stark: funds. Staie officials hope to bund the road witl a oubNc- pri-vate partnership. P> Info: nfratio l from: Daily Press, http://v✓ ,v.dailypres y.com 12 ( .l B S, P vDi i having to cwt Back on Snow Removal <<Back If the roads gets icy, clearing the interstates and major roadways are VDOT's first priority, but you may see a big difference in way the agency handles secondary roads. Budget cuts are cutting into the department's snow removal money. VDOT had to cut $5 Million from their budgets so they had to re -think how they handle inclement weather. They say they'll now be proactive in keeping the primary roads clear but getting to secondary roads is no longer a priority. The change has people who live on secondary roads concerned like Duane Asal. He says, "A lot of people live on secondary roads, you know. You've got to take the main roads to get to where you are going but everybody lives on the Secondary Roads, thats not real safe." Chris Smith lives five miles down a rural road from 460 and says "I don't know what to expect, if we have any snow." VDOT says this winter they'll be pro -active and focusing on putting down an anti -icing agent a move that should also save them manpower and money. Taya Jarman, a VDOT spokesperson says, "With anti -icing, this should eliminate some of the work force as far as having to have people out there and sanding and salting the roads." Concerned taxpayers say they're worried about getting kids to and from school. Billie Clary says, "My main concern would be for the school bus transportation system, the majority of our children live on secondary roads and school buses need room to pass and conditions on the road to be safe." VDOT says even though they've made changes, their goal this year is the same as it was last year and the anti -icing agent should help keep roads from icing up making them easier to clear, but they can't put it down if it rains. 13 Item 4: Other 14