TC 06-22-09 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Transportation Committee
FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation
RE: June 221, 2009 Transportation Committee Meeting
DATE: June 15, 2009
The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, June
22, 2009 in the first floor meeting room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107
North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. At 9:30, the Transportation Committee meeting will be
adjourned and immediately followed by a joint meeting of the Transportation Committee and
CPPC to discuss a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that is transportation focused. That item
will be coming to you under another memorandum.
AGENDA
1. TIA Standards discussion
2. TIGER Grants Opportunity
3. Update on Inland Port Truck Traffic
4. Article Review
5. Other
Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting.
Attachments
JAB/bad
107 North hent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
0
•
•
Item 1: TIA Standards Discussion
As directed by the Committee, staff has coordinated with the Top of Virginia Builders
Association on the final language item of concern. The attached draft contains the language that
was agreed upon, and should be ready for action.
If the Committee agrees that the policy is ready for action, it would be appropriate to recommend
the policy to the Board of Supervisors and update be made to the ordinance referencing the new
TIA policy.
2
Traffic Impact Analysis Standards
Draft 6 06/15/2009
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) may be required 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, which
does not meet the standards herein, shall not be considered complete.
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;
All rezoning will require a TIA unless waived by Planning Staff.
2. TIA's for Master Plans will be held to the VDOT Chapter 527 standard for
Subdivision Plat, Site Plan, or Plan of Development.
3. Any other proposed action (other than site plan) that has not been previously
approved by the County and is expected to generate 100 or more residential vehicle
trip ends in the peak hours or 250 commercial vehicle trips in the peak hour, where a
TIA has not been completed for a similar or greater trip generation. Additionally,
staff may require pa w a TIA on corridors faeing experiencing significant
congestion or safety concerns when doeumentation of tHi-weeptable delays. is,
4. A change in use that has not been previously approved by the County and, 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 as determined by VDOT or the County.
Process and Report Requirements
Submit a determination form to Planning Staff which will be used to determine
whether the project requires a TIA or a VDOT Chapter 527 submittal.
2. Each TIA will be required to undergo a formal scoping meeting with VDOT and
County Staff. The applicant shall be responsible for scheduling the scoping meeting
with the above agencies. A re -scoping meeting will not be required in the event that
one of the agencies is absent.
3. Each submittal must include the following:
a. All required VDOT copies and payment to VDOT for Chapter 527 submittal.
b. All items on the checklist 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).
c. One paper copy (or PDF on CD) and one CD with modeling files. If submitting
PDF of the report, both report and modeling files may be on the same CD.
d. Planning Staff will distribute all copies to VDOT for review within ten business
days and will provide comments and or approval of the TIA within four weeks of
submittal.
4. Each TIA must include the following:
a. An executive summary which summarizes the development; significant findings
of the TIA; and results of proposed mitigation
b. Sections on existing traffic, existing traffic with design year background traffic,
existing traffic with design year background and development generated 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 are entitled to make modifications at the scoping meeting.
c. The TIA must include all proposed access points, with details about access type.
d. Accident Data for the most recent three-year period to include accident type and
severity if readily available from the State Police.
e. Appendices that include output report sheets from the analysis software, grouped
according to location.
£ Planning Staff and/or VDOT may require additional analysis, 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 a variance is granted by VDOT or the Planning Staff. Only
trip generation methodology approved by VDOT and Planning Staff may be used.
2. The TIA must depict the maximum traffic generated by the proposed zoning as
determined by the Planning Staff. If the proposed proffers limit the development
activities to uses that produce equal or less traffic, a less than maximum impact may
be used.
3. The applicant may include other applicable scenarios in their presentation to the
Board of Supervisors and/or Planning Commission.
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 is provided by the applicant.
5. Level of Service (LOS) must be considered for all signalized 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 mitigate the impacts of the
development as required by the Comprehensive Plan.
7. When a new signal is proposed, arterial level of service must be analyzed, including a
signal progression analysis if warranted.
0
8. When conditions of existing or existing with background scenarios result in a level of
service F, additional analysis must be completed, including development traffic to
determine the impacts of the new development. Items to include in this comparison
are intersection capacity utilization, changes in delays, queue lengths, and vehicle to
capacity ratio.
5
0
•
•
Item 2: TIGER Grant Opportunity
Attached please find the federal register notice regarding the Department of Transportation
TIGER grants. The Tiger Grant is $1.5 Billion in additional stimulus funding for transportation
that will be awarded on a discretionary basis. The grant awards are to be between $20 and $300
Million, though there is a waiver for smaller projects. Staff will be coordinating with the County
Administrator's office and any other pertinent agencies to develop a number of applications in
keeping with Frederick County transportation priorities such as Route 37.
Applications for your review and recommendation to the Board of Supervisors will be presented
at the July meeting of the Transportation Committee. The application deadline is September 15.
2
23226 Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 94/Monday, May 18, 2009/Notices
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.9
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11468 Filed 5-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 6618]
In the Matter of the Review of the
Designation of Revolutionary
Organization 17 November, as a
Foreign Terrorist Organization
Pursuant to Section 219 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, as
Amended
Based upon a review of the
Administrative Record assembled in
this matter pursuant to Section
219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C.
1189(a)(4)(C)) ("INA"), and in
consultation with the Attorney General
and the Secretary of the Treasury, I
conclude that the circumstances that
were the basis for the 2003 re-
designation of the aforementioned
organization as a foreign terrorist
organization have not changed in such
a manner as to warrant revocation of the
designation and that the national
security of the United States does not
warrant a revocation of the designation.
Therefore, I hereby determine that the
designation of the aforementioned
organization as a foreign terrorist
organization, pursuant to Section 219 of
the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall be
maintained.
This determination shall be published
in the Federal Register.
Dated: April 22, 2009.
James B. Steinberg,
Deputy Secretary of State, Department of
State.
[FR Doc. E9-11550 Filed 5-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 6617]
In the Matter of the Designation of
Revolutionary Struggle aka
Epanastatikos Aghonas as a Foreign
Terrorist Organization Pursuant to
Section 219 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, as Amended
Based upon a review of the
Administrative Record assembled in
this matter, and in consultation with the
917 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
Attorney General and the Secretary of
the Treasury, I conclude that there is a
sufficient factual basis to find that the
relevant circumstances described in
section 219 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, as amended (hereinafter
"INA") (8 U.S.C. 1189), exist with
respect to Revolutionary Struggle (aka
Epanastatikos Aghonas).
Therefore, I hereby designate that
organization and its alias as a foreign
terrorist organization pursuant to
section 219 of the INA.
This determination shall be published
in the Federal Register.
Dated: April 29, 2009.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-11546 Filed 5-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 6619]
In the Matter of the Designation of
Revolutionary Nuclei, a.k.a.
Revolutionary Cells a.k.a. ELA a.k.a.
Epanastatiki Pirines a.k.a.
Epanastatikos Laikos Agonas a.k.a.
June 78 a.k.a. Liberation Struggle
a.k.a. Organization of Revolutiona
Internationalist Solidarity a.k.a.
Popular Revolutionary Struggle a.
Revolutionary People's Struggle.k.
Revolutionary Popular Struggle a a
Foreign Terrorist Organization
pursuant to Section 219 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, as
Amended
Based upon a review of the
Administrative Records assembled in
this matter pursuant to Section
219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C.
1189(a)(4)(C)) ("INA"), and in
consultation with the Attorney General
and the Secretary of the Treasury, I
conclude that the circumstances that
were the basis for the 2003 re-
designation of Revolutionary Nuclei as
a foreign terrorist organization have
changed in such a manner as to warrant
a revocation of the designation.
Therefore, I hereby revoke the
designation of the aforementioned
organization as a foreign terrorist
organization, pursuant to Section 219 of
the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189).
This determination shall be published
in the Federal Register.
Dated: April 29, 2009.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-11549 Filed 5-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 6616 ]
Determination and Certification Under
Section 40a of the Arms Export Control
Act
Pursuant to section 40A of the Arms
Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2781), and
Executive Order 11958, as amended, I
hereby determine and certify to the
Congress that the following countries
are not cooperating fully with United
States antiterrorism efforts: Cuba,
Eritrea, Iran, Democratic People's
Republic of Korea (DPRK, or North
Korea), Syria, Venezuela.
This determination and certification
shall be transmitted to the Congress and
published in the Federal Register.
Dated: May 8, 2009.
James B. Steinberg,
Deputy Secretary of States, Department o f
State.
[FR Doc.. E9-11545 Filed 5-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary of
Transportation
[Docket No. OST -2009-0115]
Interim Notice of Funding Availability
for Supplemental Discretionary Grants
for Capital Investments in Surface
Transportation Infrastructure Under
the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act and Request for /
Comments on Grant Criteria
Transportation ("OST"), DOT.
ACTION: Interim Notice of Funding
Availability, Request for Comments on
Grant Criteria.
SUMMARY: On February 17, 2009, the
President of the United States signed the
American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (the "Recovery Act") to,
among other purposes, (1) preserve and
create jobs and promote economic
recovery, (2) invest in transportation
infrastructure that will provide long-
term economic benefits, and (3) assist
those most affected by the current
economic downturn. The Recovery Act
appropriated $1.5 billion of
discretionary grant funds to be awarded
by the Department of Transportation
(the "Department") for capital
investments in surface transportation
infrastructure. The Department is
referring to these grants as "Grants for
Transportation Investment Generating
Economic Recovery" or "TIGER
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 94/Monday, May 18, 2009/Notices 23227
Discretionary Grants." This notice
requests that applications for TIGER
Discretionary Grants be submitted by
September 15, 2009, from State and
local governments, including U.S.
territories, tribal governments, transit
agencies, port authorities, other political
subdivisions of State or local
governments, and multi -State or multi -
jurisdictional applicants ("Eligible
Applicants"). The funds provided by
TIGER Discretionary Grants ("Grant
Funds") will be awarded on a
competitive basis to projects that have a
significant impact on the Nation, a
metropolitan area, or a region.
The Recovery Act allows for up to
$200 million of the $1.5 billion to be
used to pay the subsidy and
administrative costs of the
Transportation Infrastructure Finance
and Innovation Act of 1998 ("TIFIA")
program, a Federal credit assistance
program, if it would further the
purposes of the TIGER Discretionary
Grants program. The Department is
referring to these payments as "TIGER
TIFIA Payments." The Department
estimates that $200 million of TIGER
TIFIA Payments could support
approximately $2 billion in TIFIA credit
assistance. Applicants for TIGER TIFIA
Payments will be required to submit an
application pursuant to this notice and
a separate TIFIA loan application.
Additional details are included below in
Section VI (TIGER TIFIA Payments).
Unless otherwise noted, or the context
requires otherwise, references in this
notice to TIGER Discretionary Grants
include TIGER TIFIA Payments.
This notice announces the availability
of funding for TIGER Discretionary
Grants, project selection criteria,
application requirements and the
deadline for submitting applications.
However, because this is a new
program, this notice also requests
comments on the proposed selection
criteria and guidance for awarding
TIGER Discretionary Grants. The
Department will take all comments into
consideration and may publish a
supplemental notice revising some
elements of this notice. If the
Department determines that no
substantive changes need to be made in
this notice, the Department will respond
to all comments when it publishes a
Federal Register notice announcing the
successful applications. If substantive
changes are necessary, the Department
will publish a supplemental Federal
Register notice and request for
applications by June 17, 2009.
Depending on the nature of the
comments and the number of initial
applications received, the Department
may award funds based on the initial
applications without publishing a
supplemental notice. In addition, in the
event that this solicitation does not
result in the award and obligation of all
available funds, the Department may
decide to publish an additional
solicitation.
DATES: Comments must be received by
June 1, 2009. Late -filed comments will
be considered to the extent practicable.
Complete applications for TIGER
Discretionary Grants must be submitted
by September 15, 2009 (the
"Application Deadline"). Due to the
need to expedite the grant award
process to meet the requirements and
purposes of the Recovery Act, the
Department will evaluate all
applications and announce the projects
that have been selected to receive Grant
Funds as soon as possible after the
Application Deadline, but no later than
February 17, 2010. In addition, in the
event that this solicitation does not
result in the award and obligation of all
available funds, the Department may
decide to publish an additional
solicitation.
ADDRESSES: For Comments: You must
include the agency name (Office of the
Secretary of Transportation) and the
docket number [OST -2009-0115] with
your comments. To ensure your
comments are not entered into the
docket more than once, please submit
comments, identified by the docket
number [OST -2009-0115], by only one
of the following methods:
Web site: The U.S. Government
electronic docket site is
www.regulations.gov. Go to this Web
site and follow the instructions for
submitting comments into docket
number [OST -2009-0115];
Fax: Telefax comments to [OST -
2009 -0115];
Mail: Mail your comments to U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Docket
Operations, M-30, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590; or
Hand Delivery: Bring your comments
to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions for submitting comments:
You must include the agency name
(Office of the Secretary of
Transportation) and Docket number
[OST -2009-0115] for this notice at the
beginning of your comments. You
should submit two copies of your
comments if you submit them by mail
or courier. For confirmation that the
Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, has received your
comments, you must include a self-
addressed stamped postcard. Note that
all comments received will be posted
without change to www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, and will be available to
Internet users. You may review the
Department's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published April 11, 2000, (65 FR
19477), or you may visit
www.regulations.gov.
For Applications: Applications must
be submitted to the TIGER Discretionary
Grants program manager electronically
via e-mail at TIGERGrants@dot.gov.
Applicants should receive a
confirmation e-mail, but are advised to
request a return receipt to confirm
transmission. Only applications
received via e-mail as provided above
shall be deemed properly filed.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information concerning this
notice please contact the TIGER
Discretionary Grants program manager
via e-mail at TIGERGrants@dot.gov. A
TDD is available at 202-366-7687.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
addition to announcing funding
availability, project selection criteria,
application requirements and the
deadline for submitting applications,
this notice also requests comments on
the proposed selection criteria and
guidance for awarding TIGER
Discretionary Grants. The Department
will take all comments into
consideration and may publish a
supplemental notice revising some
elements of this notice. If the
Department determines that no
substantive changes need to be made in
this notice, the Department will respond
to all comments when it publishes a
Federal Register notice announcing the
successful applications. If substantive
changes are necessary, the Department
will publish a supplemental Federal
Register notice and request for
applications by June 17, 2009.
Depending on the nature of the
comments and the number of initial
applications received, the Department
may award funds based on the initial
applications without publishing a
supplemental notice. In addition, in the
event that this solicitation does not
result in the award and obligation of all
available funds, the Department may
decide to publish an additional
solicitation.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Selection Criteria and Guidance on
Application of Selection Criteria
23228 Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 94/Monday, May 18, 2009/Notices
III. Evaluation and Selection Process
IV. Grant Administration
V. Waiver of Minimum Grant Size
Requirement
VI. TIGER TIFIA Payments
VII. Contents of Application
VIII. Project Benefits
IX. Reporting Requirements
X. Certification Requirements
XI. Questions and Clarifications
I. Background
On February 17, 2009, the President
of the United States signed the Recovery
Act in order to, among other purposes,
(1) preserve and create jobs and promote
economic recovery, (2) invest in
transportation and other infrastructure
that will provide long-term economic
benefits, and (3) assist those most
affected by the current economic
downturn.
The Recovery Act appropriated $1.5
billion of supplemental discretionary
grant funding for TIGER Discretionary
Grants. These funds are available for
obligation to Eligible Applicants until
September 30, 2011. Pursuant to the
Recovery Act, TIGER Discretionary
Grants are to be awarded on a
competitive basis to projects that have a
significant impact on the Nation, a
metropolitan area, or a region.
Projects that are eligible for TIGER
Discretionary Grants under the Recovery
Act ("Eligible Projects") include, but are
not limited to: (1) Highway or bridge
projects eligible under title 23, United
States Code, including interstate
rehabilitation, improvements to the
rural collector road system, the
reconstruction of overpasses and
interchanges, bridge replacements,
seismic retrofit projects for bridges, and
road realignments; (2) public
transportation projects eligible under
chapter 53 of title 49, United States
Code, including investments in projects
participating in the New Starts or Small
Starts programs that will expedite the
completion of those projects and their
entry into revenue service; (3) passenger
and freight rail transportation projects;
and (4) port infrastructure investments,
including projects that connect ports to
other modes of transportation and
improve the efficiency of freight
movement. Federal wage rate
requirements included in subchapter IV
of chapter 31 of title 40, United States
Code, apply to all projects receiving
funds.
The Recovery Act specifies that grants
funded under the program may be no
less than $20 million and no greater
than $300 million. However, the
Recovery Act gives the Department
discretion to waive the $20 million
minimum grant size for the purpose of
funding significant projects in smaller
cities, regions, or States ("Smaller
Projects"). The term "grant" in this
provision of the Recovery Act does not
include TIGER TIFIA Payments.
Pursuant to the Recovery Act, no
more than 20 percent of the funds made
available under this program may be
awarded to projects in a single State.
The Department must take measures to
ensure an equitable geographic
distribution of funds and an appropriate
balance in addressing the needs of
urban and rural communities. TIGER
Discretionary Grants may be used for up
to 100 percent of project costs, but
priority must be given to projects for
which Federal funding is required to
complete an overall financing package
that includes non -Federal sources of
funds. Priority must also be given to
projects that can be completed by
February 17, 2012.
The Recovery Act permits up to $200
million of the $1.5 billion appropriated
to be used for TIGER TIFIA Payments at
the Department's discretion if it would
further the purposes of the TIGER
Discretionary Grants program. TIFIA is
a Federal credit assistance program that
provides secured loans, loan guarantees
and lines of credit to borrowers for up
to 33 percent of the costs of major
surface transportation projects.
On March 20, 2009, the President of
the United States signed a memorandum
for the heads of executive departments
and agencies on ensuring responsible
spending of Recovery Act funds. The
memorandum directs the Department to
develop transparent, merit -based
selection criteria to guide the
commitment, obligation and
expenditure of TIGER Discretionary
Grant funds.
The memorandum directs
departments and agencies to award
TIGER Discretionary Grants to projects
with a demonstrated or potential ability
to: "(i) Deliver programmatic results; (ii)
achieve economic stimulus by
optimizing economic activity and the
number of jobs created or saved in
relation to the Federal dollars obligated;
(iii) achieve long-term public benefits
by, for example, investing in
technological advances in science and
health to increase economic efficiency
and improve quality of life; investing in
transportation, environmental
protection, and other infrastructure that
will provide long-term economic
benefits; fostering energy independence;
or improving educational quality; and
(iv) satisfy the Recovery Act's
transparency and accountability
objectives."
The purpose of this notice is to solicit
applications from Eligible Applicants
interested in receiving funds under this
program and to request comments on
the selection criteria and guidance
outlined in this notice.
H. Selection Criteria and Guidance on
Application of Selection Criteria
This section specifies the criteria that
the Department will use to evaluate
applications. The criteria incorporate
the limited statutory eligibility
requirements for this program, which
are specified in this notice as relevant.
This section is split into three parts.
Section A (Selection Criteria) specifies
the criteria that the Department will use
to rate projects. Additional guidance
about how the Department will apply
these criteria, including illustrative
metrics and examples, is provided in
Section B (Additional Guidance on
Selection Criteria). Section C (Program -
Specific Criteria) explains how the
Department is going to use certain
program -specific criteria to help
differentiate between similar projects
(for example, multiple bridge
replacement projects, or multiple New
Starts projects). The program -specific
criteria will not be rated as the selection
criteria are rated, but rather will be used
to assign priority among similar projects
during the evaluation and selection
process. As stated below in Section
VII(F) (Contents of Application,
Selection Criteria), applicants should
address both the selection criteria and
the program -specific criteria in their
applications.
A. Selection Criteria
TIGER Discretionary Grants will be
awarded based on the selection criteria
as outlined below. There are two
categories of selection criteria, "Primary
Selection Criteria" and "Secondary
Selection Criteria."
The Primary Selection Criteria
include (1) Long -Term Outcomes and
(2) Jobs Creation & Economic Stimulus.
The Secondary Selection Criteria
include (1) Innovation and (2)
Partnership. The Primary Selection
Criteria are intended to capture the
primary objectives of the TIGER
Discretionary Grants provision of the
Recovery Act, which include near-term
economic recovery and job creation,
maximization of long-term economic
benefits and impacts on the Nation, a
region, or a metropolitan area, and
assistance for those most affected by the
current economic downturn. The
Secondary Selection Criteria are
intended to capture the benefits of new
and/or innovative approaches to
achieving programmatic objectives.
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 94/Monday, May 18, 2009/Notices 23229
1. Primary Selection Criteria
(a) Long -Term Outcomes
The Department will give priority to
projects that have a significant impact
on desirable long-term outcomes for the
Nation, a metropolitan area, or a region.
Applications that do not demonstrate a
likelihood of significant long-term
benefits in this criterion will not
proceed in the evaluation process. The
following types of long-term outcomes
will be given priority:
(i) State of Good Repair: Improving
the condition of existing transportation
facilities and systems, with particular
emphasis on projects that minimize life-
cycle costs.
(ii) Economic Competitiveness:
Contributing to the economic
competitiveness of the United States
over the medium- to long-term.
(iii) Livability: Improving the quality
of living and working environments and
the experience for people in
communities across the United States.
(iv) Sustainability: Improving energy
efficiency, reducing dependence on oil,
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
benefitting the environment.
(v) Safety. Improving the safety of
U.S. transportation facilities and
systems.
(b) Job Creation & Economic Stimulus
Consistent with the purposes of the
Recovery Act, the Department will give
priority to projects that are expected to
quickly create and preserve jobs and
stimulate rapid increases in economic
activity, particularly jobs and activity
that benefit economically distressed
areas as defined by section 301 of the
Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 3161) ("Economically
Distressed Areas").
2. Secondary Selection Criteria
(a) Innovation
The Department will give priority to
projects that use innovative strategies to
pursue the long-term outcomes outlined
above.
(b) Partnership
The Department will give priority to
projects that demonstrate strong
collaboration among a broad range of
participants and/or integration of
transportation with other public service
efforts.
B. Additional Guidance on Selection
Criteria
The following additional guidance
explains how the Department will
evaluate each of the selection criteria
identified above in Section II(A)
(Selection Criteria). Applicants are
encouraged to demonstrate the
responsiveness of a project to any and
all of the selection criteria with the mos
relevant information that applicants ca
provide, regardless of whether such
information has been specifically
requested, or identified, in this notice.
Any such information shall be
considered part of the application, not
supplemental, for purposes of the
application size limits specified below
in Section VII(A) (Length of
Application).
1. Primary Selection Criteria
(a) Long -Term Outcomes
In order to measure a project's
alignment with this criterion, the
Department will assess the public
benefits generated by the project, as
measured by the extent to which a
project produces one or more of the
following outcomes.
(i) State of Good Repair: In order to
determine whether the project will
improve the condition of existing
transportation facilities or systems,
including whether life -cycle costs will
be minimized, the Department will
assess (i) whether the project is part of,
or consistent with, relevant state, local
or regional efforts to maintain
transportation facilities or systems in a
state of good repair, (ii) whether an
important aim of the project is to
rehabilitate, reconstruct or upgrade
surface transportation projects that
threaten future economic growth and
stability due to their poor condition, (iii)
whether the project is appropriately
capitalized up front and uses asset
management approaches that optimize
its long-term cost structure, and (iv) the
extent to which a sustainable source of
revenue is available for long-term
operations and maintenance of the
project. The application should include
any quantifiable metrics of the facility
or system's current condition and
performance and, to the extent possible,
projected condition and performance,
with an explanation of how the project
will improve the facility or system's
condition, performance and/or long-
term cost structure.
(ii) Economic Competitiveness: In
order to determine whether a project
promotes the economic competitiveness
of the United States, the Department
will assess whether the project will
measurably contribute over the long-
term to growth in employment,
production or other high value
economic activity. For purposes of
aligning a project with this outcome,
applicants should provide evidence of
the long-term economic benefits that are
provided by the completed project, not
the near-term economic benefits of
construction that are captured in the
t Jobs Creation & Economic Stimulus
n criterion_. In weighing long-term
employment benefits, the quality of jobs
supported will be considered as well as
number of jobs and whether these jobs
are expected to provide employment in
Economically Distressed Areas. Priority
consideration will be given to projects
that: (i) Improve long term efficiency,
reliability or cost -competitiveness in the
movement of workers or goods, or (ii)
make improvements that allow for
expansion, hiring, or other growth of
private sector production at specific
locations, particularly Economically
Distressed Areas. Applicants may
propose other methods of demonstrating
a project's contribution to the economic
competitiveness of the country and such
methods will be reviewed on a case by
case basis.
Economic competitiveness may be
demonstrated by the project's ability to
increase the efficiency and effectiveness
of the transportation system through
integration or better use of all existing
transportation infrastructure (which
may be evidenced by the project's
involvement with or benefits to more
than one mode and/or its compatibility
with and preferably augmentation of the
capacities of connecting modes and
facilities), but only to the extent that
these enhancements lead to the
economic benefits that are identified in
the preceding paragraph.
(iii) Livability: Livability investments
are projects that not only deliver
transportation benefits, but are also
designed and planned in such a way
that they have a positive impact on
qualitative measures of community life.
This element of long-term outcomes
delivers benefits that are inherently
difficult to measure. However, it is
implicit to livability that its benefits are
shared and therefore magnified by the
number of potential users in the affected
community. Therefore, descriptions of
how projects enhance livability should
include a description of the affected
community and the scale of the project's
impact. In order to determine whether a
project improves the quality of the
living and working environment of a
community, the Department will
qualitatively assess whether the project:
(1) Will significantly enhance user
mobility through the creation of more
convenient transportation options for
travelers;
(2) Will improve existing
transportation choices by enhancing
points of modal connectivity or by
reducing congestion on existing modal
assets;
23230 Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 94/Monday, May 18, 2009/Notices
(3) Will improve accessibility and
transport services for economically
disadvantaged populations, non -drivers,
senior citizens, and persons with
disabilities, or to make goods,
commodities, and services more readily
available to these groups; and/or
(4) Is the result of a planning process
which coordinated transportation and
land -use planning decisions and
encouraged community participation in
the process.
Livability improvements may include
projects for new or improved biking and
walking infrastructure. Particular
attention will be paid to the degree to
which such projects contribute
significantly to broader traveler mobility
through intermodal connections, or
improved connections between
residential and commercial areas.
(iv) Sustainability: In order to
determine whether a project promotes a
more environmentally sustainable
transportation system, the Department
will assess its ability to:
(1) improve energy efficiency, reduce
dependence on oil and/or reduce
greenhouse gas emissions; applicants
are encouraged to provide quantitative
information regarding expected
reductions in emissions of CO2 or fuel
consumption as a result of the project,
or expected use of clean or alternative
sources of energy; projects that
demonstrate a projected decrease in the
movement of people or goods by less
energy-efficient vehicles or systems will
be given priority under this factor; and
(2) maintain, protect or enhance the
environment, as evidenced by its
avoidance of adverse environmental
impacts (for example, adverse impacts
related to air quality, wetlands, and
endangered species) and/or by its
environmental benefits (for example,
improved air quality, wetlands creation
or improved habitat connectivity).
Applicants are encouraged to provide
quantitative information that validates
the existence of substantial
transportation -related costs related to
energy consumption and adverse
environmental effects and evidence of
the extent to which the project will
reduce or mitigate those costs.
(v) Safety. In order to determine
whether the project improves safety, the
Department will assess the project's
ability to reduce the number, rate and
consequences of surface transportation -
related crashes, and injuries and
fatalities among drivers and/or non-
drivers in the United States or in the
affected metropolitan area or region,
and/or its contribution to the
elimination of highway/rail grade
crossings, the protection of pipelines, or
the prevention of unintended release of
hazardous materials.
Evaluation of Expected Project Costs
and Benefits: The Department believes
that benefit cost analysis ("BCA"),
including the monetization and
discounting of costs and benefits to a
common unit of measurement in present
day dollars, is an important discipline.
For BCA to yield useful results, the
Department believes that full
consideration of cost and benefits is
necessary. These range from factors
traditionally considered, including fuel
savings and travel time benefits, to some
that have not traditionally been
considered, such as greenhouse gas
emissions, water quality impacts, public
health effects, and others. In addition, to
be fully useful, BCA should attempt to
capture the dynamic effects that
transportation investments can have on
land use and household budgets. The
systematic process of comparing
expected benefits and costs helps
decision -makers organize information
about, and determine trade-offs
between, alternative transportation
investments. The Department has
responsibility under Executive Order
12893, Principles for Federal
Infrastructure Investments, 59 FR 4233,
to base infrastructure investments on
systematic analysis of expected benefits
and costs, including both quantitative
and qualitative measures.
Therefore, applicants for TIGER
Discretionary Grants are generally
required to identify, quantify, and
compare expected benefits and costs,
subject to the following qualifications:
This requirement will be waived for
applicants seeking waivers of the $20
million minimum grant size
requirement for Smaller Projects.
Any applicant seeking a TIGER
Discretionary Grant of more than $20
million but less than $100 million must
include in its application estimates of
the project's expected benefits in the
five long-term outcomes identified in
this Section II(A)(1)(a). The lack of a
useful analysis of expected project
benefits may be ground for denying
award of a TIGER Discretionary Grant to
any such applicant.
Any applicant seeking a TIGER
Discretionary Grant in excess of $100
million must provide a well-developed
analysis of expected benefits and costs,
including a description of input and
output requirements and other
methodological standards used for the
analysis. The analysis should indicate
the value that was assigned for
qualitative measures, in addition to
quantitative measures. Where
information on costs and benefits,
including consideration of externalities,
is of sufficient quality and completeness
to allow for a robust assessment of a
project's benefit cost ratio, this analysis
should be presented. In doing so,
applicants should discuss the effects
that better or more complete
information would be likely to have on
the benefit cost ratio presented and the
reasons such information was not
available for analysis. Where quality or
completeness of data is not sufficient to
allow a meaningful assessment of
whether a project's benefit cost ratio is
positive or negative, applicants should
discuss the data limitations that lead to
this conclusion and present a qualitative
comparison of costs and benefits. The
lack of a useful analysis comparing
expected benefits and costs for any such
project may be ground for denying
award of a TIGER Discretionary Grant to
such an applicant.
The Department is still considering
how best to implement this requirement
for applicants seeking TIGER
Discretionary Grants in excess of $100
million. The Department therefore
requests comments on appropriate input
and output requirements,
methodological standards, and other
characteristics of this analysis.
Comments are also requested on how
this approach might best be applied to
criteria that do not readily lend
themselves to monetization. As soon as
possible after the comment period, DOT
will publish more detailed guidance on
the analysis required for applicants
seeking TIGER Discretionary Grants in
excess of $100 million.
In all cases, if it is clear to the
Department that the total benefits of a
project are not reasonably likely to
outweigh the project's costs, the
Department will not award a TIGER
Discretionary Grant to the project.
Consistent with the broader goals of the
Recovery Act and the specific
appropriation for the TIGER
Discretionary Grants program, the
Department can consider some factors
that do not readily lend themselves to
monetization, including equity, and
distributional, geographic and other
considerations.
Evaluation of Project Performance:
The Department also encourages
applicants with the requisite
wherewithal to provide a plan for
evaluating the success of the project (or
a program of projects) and measuring
short- and long-term performance,
specifically with respect to the
economic recovery measures and long-
term outcomes specified in this notice.
(b) Job Creation & Economic Stimulus
In order to measure a project's
alignment with this criterion, the
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 94/Monday, May 18, 2009/Notices 23231
Department will assess whether the
applicants should indicate whether the
The Department reserves the right to
project promotes the short- or long-term project's procurement plan is likely to
revoke any award of TIGER
creation or preservation of jobs and
create follow-on jobs and economic
Discretionary Grant funds and to award
whether the project rapidly promotes
stimulus for manufacturers and
such funds to another project to the
new or expanded business opportunities
suppliers that support the construction
extent that such funds are not timely
during construction of the project or
industry. A key consideration in
expended and/or construction does not
thereafter. Demonstration of a project's
assessing projects under this criterion
begin in accordance with the project
rapid economic impact is critical to a
will be how quickly jobs are created.
schedule. Because projects have
project's alignment with this criterion.
Applicants are encouraged to provide
Consistent with Section 1602 of the
Recovery Act (Preference for Quick-
different schedules the Department will
consider on a case-by-case basis how
information to assist the Department in Start Activities), the Department will
making these assessments, including the assess whether a project is ready to
much time after award of a TIGER
Discretionary Grant each project has
total amount of funds that will be
expended on construction and
proceed rapidly upon receipt of a TIGER before funds must be expended and
construction -related activities by all of
Discretionary Grant, as evidenced by:
(i) Project Schedule: A feasible and
construction started. This deadline will
be specified for each TIGER
the entities participating in the project
and, to the extent measurable, the
sufficiently detailed project schedule
demonstrating that the project can begin
Discretionary Grant in the project -
specific grant agreements signed by the
number and type of jobs to be created
and/or preserved by the project during
construction quickly upon receipt of a
grant recipients and will be based on
construction and thereafter. Applicants
TIGER Discretionary Grant and that the
Grant Funds will be spent steadily and
critical path items identified by
applicants in response to items (i)
should also identify any business
enterprises to be created or benefited by
expeditiously once construction starts;
the schedule should show how many
through (vi) above. For example, if an
applicant reasonably anticipates that
the project during its construction and
once it becomes operational.
direct, on -project jobs are expected to be
National Environmental Policy Act
Consistent with the Recovery Act, the
created or sustained during each
calendar quarter after the project is
requirements will be completed and
final documentation received within 30
Updated Implementing Guidance for the
American Recovery and Reinvestment
underway;
to 60 days of award of a TIGER
Act of 2009 issued by the Office of
Management and Budget ("OMB") on
(ii) Environmental Approvals: Receipt
(or reasonably anticipated receipt) of all
Discretionary Grant, this timeframe will
be taken into account in evaluatin the
g
April 3, 2009 (the "OMB Guidance"),
and federal laws guaranteeing equal
environmental approvals necessary for
the project to proceed to construction on
application, but also in establishing a
deadline for expenditure of funds and
opportunity, applicants are encouraged
to provide information to assist the
the timeline specified in the project
schedule, including satisfaction of all
commencement of construction. The
Department's ability to obligate funds
Department in assessing (1) whether the
Federal, State and local requirements
and completion of the National
for TIGER Discretionary Grants expires
on September 30, 2011.
project will promote the creation of job
opportunities for low-income workers
Environmental Policy Act process;
In compliance with the Recovery Act,
through the use of best practice hiring(iii)
Legislative Approvals: Receipt of
the Department will give priority to
programs and utilization of
all necessary legislative approvals (for
projects that are expected to be
apprenticeship (including pre-
example, legislative authority to charge
completed on or before February 17,
apprenticeship) programs; (2) whether
user fees or set toll rates), and evidence
2012. For purposes of this solicitation,
the project will provide maximum
of support from State and local officials,
"completed" means that all of the
practicable opportunities for small
including relevant governor(s) and/or
TIGER Discretionary Grant funds
businesses and disadvantaged business
mayors. Evidence of support from all
awarded to the project have been
enterprises, including veteran -owned
relevant State and local officials is not
obligated and expended and
small businesses and service disabled
required, however, the evidence should
construction of the project is
veteran -owned small businesses; (3)
demonstrate that the project is broadly
substantially complete.
whether the project will make effective
supported;
The ability of the grant recipient to
use of community-based organizations
(iv) State and Local Planning: The
complete the project by this date must
in connecting disadvantaged workers
inclusion of the project in the relevant
be clearly demonstrated in the project
with economic opportunities; (4)
State, metropolitan, and local planning
schedule. The Department will give
whether the project will support entities
documents, or a certification from the
priority to projects that utilize
that have a sound track record on labor
appropriate agency that the project will
innovative contracting approaches that
practices and compliance with federal
be included in the relevant planning
encourage accelerated project delivery.
laws ensuring that American workers
document prior to award of a TIGER
The Department will consider projects
are safe and treated fairly; and (5)
Discretionary Grant;
that are not expected to be completed by
whether the project implements best
(v) Technical Feasibility: The
February 17, 2012, but these projects
practices, consistent with our nation's
technical feasibility of the project,
will not be rated as highly under this
civil rights and equal opportunity laws,
including completion of substantial
criterion.
for ensuring that all individuals—
preliminary engineering work; and
2. Secondary Selection Criteria
regardless of race, gender, age,
NO Financial Feasibility: The viability
disability, and national origin—benefit
and completeness of the project's
(a) Innovation
from the Recovery Act.
financing package (assuming the
In order to measure a project's
To the extent possible, applicants
availability of the requested TIGER
alignment with this criterion, the
should indicate whether the
Discretionary Grant funds), including
Department will assess the extent to
populations most likely to benefit from
evidence of stable and reliable financial
which the project uses innovative
the creation or preservation of jobs or
commitments and contingency reserves,
technology (including, for example,
new or expanded business opportunities
as appropriate, and evidence of the
intelligent transportation systems,
are from Economically Distressed Areas.
grant recipient's ability to manage
dynamic pricing, rail wayside or on -
In addition, to the extent possible,
grants.
board energy recovery, smart cards, real-
23232 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 94/Monday, May 18, 2009/Notices
time dispatching, active traffic
management, radio frequency
identification (RFID), or others) to
pursue one or more of the long-term
outcomes outlined above and/or to
significantly enhance the operational
performance of the transportation
system. The Department will also assess
the extent to which the project
incorporates innovations that
demonstrate the value of new
approaches to, among other things,
transportation funding and finance,
contracting, project delivery, congestion
management, safety management, asset
management, or long-term operations
and maintenance. The applicant should
clearly demonstrate that the innovation
is designed to pursue one or more of the
long-term outcomes outlined above and/
or significantly enhance the
transportation system.
(b) Partnership
(i) Jurisdictional & Stakeholder
Collaboration: In order to measure a
project's alignment with this criterion,
the Department will assess the project's
involvement of non -Federal entities and
the use of non -Federal funds, including
the scope of involvement and share of
total funding. The Department will give
priority to projects that receive financial
commitments from, or otherwise
involve, State and local governments,
other public entities, or private or
nonprofit entities, including projects
that engage parties that are not
traditionally involved in transportation
projects, such as nonprofit community
groups. Pursuant to the OMB Guidance,
the Department will give priority to
projects that make effective use of
community-based organizations in
connecting disadvantaged people with
economic opportunities.
In compliance with the Recovery Act,
the Department will give priority to
projects for which a TIGER
Discretionary Grant will help to
complete an overall financing package.
An applicant should clearly
demonstrate the extent to which the
project cannot be readily and efficiently
completed without Federal assistance,
and the extent to which other sources of
Federal assistance are or are not readily
available for the project, including other
funds made available pursuant to the
Recovery Act. The Department will
assess the amount of private debt and
equity to be invested in the project or
the amount of co -investment from State,
local or other non-profit sources.
The Department will also assess the
extent to which the project
demonstrates collaboration among
neighboring or regional jurisdictions to
achieve National, regional or
metropolitan benefits. Multiple States o
jurisdictions may submit a joint
application and should identify a lead
State or jurisdiction as the primary
point of contact. Where multiple States
are submitting a joint application, the
application should demonstrate how th
project costs are apportioned between
the States to assist the Department in
making the distributional
determinations described below in
Section III(C) (Distribution of Funds).
(ii) Disciplinary Integration: In order
to demonstrate the value of partnerships
across government agencies that serve
the various public service missions
forwarded by the Recovery Act and to
promote collaboration on the objectives
outlined in this notice, the Department
will give priority to projects that are
supported, financially or otherwise, by
non -transportation public agencies that
are pursuing similar objectives. For
example, the Department will give
priority to transportation projects that
create more livable communities and are
supported by relevant public housing
agencies, or transportation projects that
encourage energy efficiency or improve
the environment and are supported by
relevant public agencies with energy or
environmental missions.
C. Program -Specific Criteria
The Department will use certain
program -specific criteria in the
evaluation and selection process to help
differentiate between similar projects.
Similar projects are those that have
similar characteristics and satisfy the
eligibility requirements of existing
programmatic structures (for example,
two urban light rail projects eligible to
participate in the New Starts program).
To the extent two or more similar
projects have similar ratings based on
the selection criteria outlined in Section
II(A) (Selection Criteria), the program -
specific criteria will be used to assign
priority among these projects.
Projects will not be given specific
ratings of "highly recommended,"
"recommended" or "not recommended"
for applicable program -specific criteria;
rather, the Department will use the
program -specific criteria to rank similar
projects. To the extent otherwise similar
projects can be differentiated based on
the selection criteria, program -specific
criteria will not be given any weight.
The program -specific criteria are not
intended to limit the number of similar
projects that can receive TIGER
Discretionary Grants.
Program -specific criteria will only be
applied to the types of projects
identified below. Any other type of
project will be differentiated from other
similar projects solely based on the
r selection criteria outlined in Section
II(A) (Selection Criteria). The
Department will use the following
program -specific criteria, where
applicable, to assign priority among
similar projects:
e 1. For bridge replacement projects,
program -specific criteria are the
following criteria found in 23 CFR 707:
Total daily truck and non -truck traffic,
bridge sufficiency ratings, and bridges
with load or geometric restrictions.
2. For transit projects, program -
specific criteria are as follows: Bus and
rail fleet purchases that are within
established FTA spare ratio policies,
rehabilitation and replacement of assets
that have exceeded the useful life span
as identified in FTA policy, and/or the
proposed project's rating under the New
Starts and Small Starts program criteria,
as applicable (a copy of the criteria used
for this program is available at ht1p:11
www. fta. dot.gov/planning/newstarts/
planning environment 5615.html).
3. For projects involving port
infrastructure investments, program -
specific criteria are, for both current
state and post -project completion, the
port or system's:
(a) Passenger and/or freight
throughput, storage or processing
capacity, including but not limited to,
capacity movement (in tonnage, TEU
(twenty -foot equivalent unit), barrels,
etc.) across the dock, storage capacity on
the terminal, and gate throughput;
(b) Demand for services or demand for
capacity (in the case of post -project
completion, projections or estimates);
(c) Efficiency (e.g. time savings,
including vessel turnaround, gate and
dwell times, and/or cost savings);
(d) Reliability and/or resiliency,
including but not limited to, ability of
the facility or system to recover from
natural or man-made disasters and
provide necessary services;
(e) National security or National
interest aspects of items (a) through (d)
above including but not limited to
movement of Department of Defense
assets and strategic location; and
(f) External factors that may influence
or limit items (a) through (e) above
(channel or berth maintenance or
deepening and other navigation issues,
road, rail or waterway factors that could
represent bottlenecks and backups, etc.).
4. For TIGER TIFIA Payments,
program -specific criteria are the eight
statutory selection criteria used by the
Department's TIFIA Joint Program
Office to evaluate and select projects
(these criteria have been assigned
weights through regulation, as indicated
below):
(a) The extent to which the project is
nationally or regionally significant, in
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 94/Monday, May 18, 2009/Notices 23233
terms of generating economic benefits,
supporting international commerce, or
otherwise enhancing the national
transportation system (20 percent);
(b) The extent to which the project
helps maintain or protect the
environment (20 percent);
(c) The extent to which TIFIA
assistance would foster innovative
public-private partnerships and attract
private debt or equity investment (20
percent);
(d) The creditworthiness of the
project, including a determination by
the Secretary that any financing for the
project has appropriate security
features, such as a rate covenant, to
ensure repayment (12.5 percent);
(e) The likelihood that TIFIA
assistance would enable the project to
proceed at an earlier date than the
project would otherwise be able to
proceed (12.5 percent);
(f) The extent to which the project
uses new technologies, including
Intelligent Transportation Systems
(ITS), that enhance the efficiency of the
project (5 percent);
(g) The amount of budget authority
required to fund the Federal credit
instrument made available (5 percent);
and
(h) The extent to which TIFIA
assistance would reduce the
contribution of Federal grant assistance
to theproject (5 percent).
In addition, approval for TIFIA credit
assistance requires the receipt of a
preliminary rating opinion letter
indicating that the project's senior debt
obligations have the potential to attain
an investment-grade rating. Complete
details regarding the TIFIA selection
process can be found in the program
guide, which can be downloaded from
h ttp://ti fia. fh wa. dot.govl.
III. Evaluation and Selection Process
A. Ensuring Responsible Spending of
Recovery Act Funds
On March 20, 2009, the President of
the United States signed a memorandum
for the heads of executive departments
and agencies on ensuring responsible
spending of Recovery Act funds. The
memorandum directs the Department to
develop transparent, merit -based
selection criteria to guide the
commitment, obligation and
expenditure of TIGER Discretionary
Grant funds.
In accordance with the memorandum,
the criteria specified in this notice help
ensure that TIGER Discretionary Grants
will be awarded to projects with a
demonstrated or potential ability to: "(i)
Deliver programmatic results; (ii)
achieve economic stimulus by
optimizing economic activity and the
number of jobs created or saved in
relation to the Federal dollars obligated;
(iii) achieve long-term public benefits
by, for example, investing in
technological advances in science and
health to increase economic efficiency
and improve quality of life; investing in
transportation, environmental
protection, and other infrastructure that
will provide long-term economic
benefits; fostering energy independence;
or improving educational quality; and
(iv) satisfy the Recovery Act's
transparency and accountability
objectives."
In accordance with the memorandum,
the Department will not award TIGER
Discretionary Grants to any project that
is imprudent or does not further the job
creation, economic recovery and other
purposes of the Recovery Act.
B. Evaluation Process
The Department will establish an
evaluation team to review each
application that is received by the
Department prior to the Application
Deadline. The evaluation team will be
organized and led by the Office of the
Secretary and will include members
from each of the Cognizant Modal
Administrations (as defined below).
These representatives will include
technical and professional staff with
relevant experience and/or expertise.
The evaluation team will be responsible
for evaluating and rating all of the
projects and making funding
recommendations to the Secretary. The
evaluation process will require team
members to evaluate and rate
applications individually before
convening with other members to
discuss ratings. The composition of the
evaluation team will be finalized after
the Application Deadline, based on the
number and nature of applications
received.
The Department will not assign
specific numerical scores to projects
based on the selection criteria outlined
above in Section II(A) (Selection
Criteria). Rather, ratings of "highly
recommended," "recommended," or
"not recommended" will be assigned to
projects for each of the selection criteria.
The Department will award TIGER
Discretionary Grants to projects that are
"highly recommended" in one or more
of the selection criteria, with projects
that are "highly recommended" in
multiple selection criteria being more
likely to receive TIGER Discretionary
Grants. To the extent the initial
evaluation process does not sufficiently
differentiate among highly rated
projects, the Department will use a
similar three -tiered rating process to re-
assess the projects that were highly
rated and identify those that should be
most highly rated.
The Department will give more
weight to the two Primary Selection
Criteria (Long -Term Outcomes and jobs
Creation &Economic Stimulus) than to
the two Secondary Selection Criteria
(Innovation and Partnership). Projects
that are unable to demonstrate a
likelihood of significant long-term
benefits in any of the five long-term
outcomes identified in Section
II(A)(1)(a) (Long -Term Outcomes) will
not proceed in the evaluation process. A
project need not be well aligned with
each of the long-term outcomes in order
to be successful in the long-term
outcomes criterion overall. However, to
be successful in the long-term outcomes
criterion a project must be "highly
recommended" for at least one of the
long-term outcomes or "recommended"
for multiple long-term outcomes.
Projects that are strongly aligned with
multiple long-term outcomes will be the
most successful in this criterion.
For the Jobs Creation & Economic
Stimulus criterion, projects need not
receive a rating of "highly
recommended" in order to be
recommended for funding, although a
project that is not ready to proceed
quickly, as evidenced by the items
requested in Section II(13)(1)(b)(i)—(vi)
(Project Schedule, Environmental
Approvals, Legislative Approvals, State
and Local Planning, Technical
Feasibility, and Financial Feasibility), is
less likely to be successful in this
criterion.
The Department will give less weight
to the two Secondary Selection Criteria
(Innovation and Partnership) than to the
two Primary Selection Criteria (Long -
Term Outcomes and jobs Creation &
Economic Stimulus). The two
Secondary Selection Criteria will be
rated equally.
As noted above in Section II(C)
(Program -Specific Criteria), the
Program -Specific Criteria will not be
given ratings and will only be used to
the extent the Department needs to
differentiate and assign priority among
similar projects that have similar ratings
based on the selection criteria outlined
above in Section II(A) (Selection
Criteria).
The following table summarizes the
weighting of the selection criteria, as
described in the preceding paragraphs:
23234 Federal Register / Val. 74, No. 94/Monday, May 18, 2009 /Notices
Long Term Outcomes ......................................... I The Department will give more weight to this criterion than to either of the Secondary Selec-
tion Criteria. In addition, this criterion has a minimum threshold requirement. Projects that
are unable to demonstrate a likelihood of significant long-term benefits in any of the five
long-term outcomes identified in this criterion will not proceed in the evaluation process.
Jobs Creation & Economic Stimulus .................. The Department will give more weight to this criterion than to either of the Secondary Selec-
tion Criteria. This criterion will be considered after it is determined that a project dem-
onstrates a likelihood of significant long-term benefits in at least one of the five long-term
outcomes identified in the long-term outcomes criterion.
Innovation & Partnership ................................... The Department will give less weight to these criteria than to the Primary Selection Criteria.
Project -Specific Criteria ...................................... The Department will only give weight to these criteria to the extent the Department needs to
differentiate multiple similar projects that are rated similarly based on the Primary and Sec-
ondary Selection Criteria.
To be selected for a TIGER
Discretionary Grant, a project must be
an Eligible Project and the applicant
must be an Eligible Applicant. The
Department may consider one or more
components of a large project to be an
Eligible Project, but only to the extent
that the components themselves, not the
project of which they are a part, are
Eligible Projects and satisfy the
selection criteria specified in this
notice. For these projects, the benefits
described in an application must be
related to the components of the project
for which funding is requested, not the
full project of which they are a part.
C. Distribution of Funds
As noted above in Section I
(Background), the Recovery Act
prohibits the award of more than 20
percent of the funds made available
under this program to projects in any
one State. The Recovery Act also
requires that the Department take
measures to ensure an equitable
geographic distribution of funds and an
appropriate balance in addressing the
needs of urban and rural communities.
The Department will apply an initial
unconstrained competitive rating
process based on the selection criteria
and program -specific criteria identified
above in Section II(A) (Selection
Criteria) and Section II(C) (Program -
Specific Criteria) to determine a
preliminary list of projects
recommended for TIGER Discretionary
Grants. The Department will then
analyze the preliminary list and
determine whether the purely
competitive ratings are consistent with
distributional requirements of the
Recovery Act. If necessary, the
Department will adjust the list of
recommended projects to satisfy the
statutory distributional requirements
while remaining as consistent as
possible with the competitive ratings.
As noted above in Section
II(B)(2)(b)(i) (Jurisdictional €r
Stakeholder Collaboration), applications
submitted jointly by multiple States
should include an allocation of project
costs to assist the Department in making
these determinations. In addition, the
Department will use the subsidy and
administrative cost estimate, not the
principal amount of credit assistance, to
determine any TIGER TIFIA Payment's
effect on these distributional
requirements.
D. Transparency of Process
In the interest of transparency, the
Department will disclose as much of the
information related to its evaluation
process as is practical. The Department
expects that the TIGER Discretionary
Grants program may be reviewed and/or
audited by Congress, the U.S.
Government Accountability Office, the
Department's Inspector General, or
others, and has and will continue to
take steps to document its decision
making process.
IV. Grant Administration
The Department expects that each
TIGER Discretionary Grant will be
administered by the modal
administration in the Department with
the most experience and/or expertise in
the relevant project area (the "Cognizant
Modal Administration"), pursuant to a
grant agreement between the TIGER
Discretionary Grant recipient and the
Cognizant Modal Administration. In
accordance with the Recovery Act, the
Secretary has the discretion to delegate
such responsibilities.
Applicable Federal laws, rules and
regulations will apply to projects that
receive TIGER Discretionary Grants,
including all of the requirements
included in the Recovery Act.
As noted above in Section II(B)(1)(b)
(Jobs Creation & Economic Stimulus),
how soon after award a project is
expected to expend Grant Funds and
start construction will be considered on
a case-by-case basis and will be
specified in the project -specific grant
agreements. The Department reserves
the right to revoke any award of TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds and to award
such funds to another project to the
extent that such funds are not timely
expended and/or construction does not
begin in accordance with the project
schedule. The Department's ability to
obligate funds for TIGER Discretionary
Grants expires on September 30, 2011.
V. Waiver of Minimum Grant Size
Requirement
The Department has discretion under
the Recovery Act to waive the $20
million minimum grant size
requirement for Smaller Projects.
Applicants for TIGER Discretionary
Grants of less than $20 million for
Smaller Projects are encouraged to
apply and should address the same
criteria as applicants for TIGER
Discretionary Grants in excess of $20
million. The term "grant" in this
provision of the Recovery Act does not
include TIGER TIFIA Payments.
VI. TIGER TIFIA Payments
Up to $200 million of the $1.5 billion
available for TIGER Discretionary Grants
may be used for TIGER TIFIA Payments.
Given the average subsidy cost of the
existing TIFIA portfolio, $200 million in
TIGER TIFIA Payments could support
approximately $2 billion in Federal
credit assistance. Applicants seeking
TIGER TIFIA Payments should apply in
accordance with all of the criteria and
guidance specified in this notice for
TIGER Discretionary Grant applicants
and will be evaluated concurrently with
all other applications. Any applicant
seeking a TIGER TIFIA Payment is
required to comply with all of the TIFIA
program's standard application and
approval requirements, including
submission of a Letter of Interest prior
to submission of a TIFIA application
(the TIFIA program guide can be
downloaded from http://
tifia.fhwa.dot.gov/). The Letter of
Interest must be submitted at least six
weeks prior to the Application
Deadline.
The Department does not expect
applicants for TIGER TIFIA Payments to
have received an instrument from TIFIA
obligating Federal credit assistance for
the project before the application is
submitted; however, applicants should
demonstrate that they are ready to
proceed rapidly upon receipt of a TIGER
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 94/Monday, May 18, 2009/Notices 23235
TIFIA Payment in accordance with the
guidance specified above in Section
II(13)(1)(b) (Job Creation &Economic
Stimulus). The Department's TIFIA Joint
Program Office will assist the
Department in determining a project's
readiness to proceed rapidly upon
receipt of a TIGER TIFIA Payment.
Applicants seeking TIGER TIFIA
Payments may also apply for a TIGER
Discretionary Grant for the same project
and must indicate the type(s) of funding
for which they are applying clearly on
the face of their applications. An
applicant for a TIGER TIFIA Payment
must submit an application pursuant to
this notice for a TIGER TIFIA Payment
even if it does not wish to apply for a
TIGER Discretionary Grant.
Unless otherwise expressly noted
herein, any and all requirements that
apply to TIGER Discretionary Grants
pursuant to the Recovery Act, this
notice, or otherwise, including all
reporting and Recovery Act related
requirements, apply to TIGER TIFIA
Payments. TIFIA applicants that do not
receive TIGER TIFIA Payments will not
be required to comply with any of these
requirements.
VII. Contents of Application
An applicant for a TIGER
Discretionary Grant should include all
of the information requested below in
its application. The Department reserves
the right to ask any applicant to
supplement the data in its application,
but expects applications to be complete
upon submission. To the extent
practical, the Department encourages
applicants to provide data and evidence
of project merits in a form that is
publicly available or verifiable. For
TIGER TIFIA Payments, these
requirements apply only to the
applications required under this notice;
the standard TIFIA loan application
requirements, including the standard
$30,000.00 application fee, are
separately described in the Program
Guide and Application Form found at
h ttp: //ti fia. fh wa. d o t.govl.
A. Length of Applications
The narrative portion of an
application should not exceed 25 pages
in length. Documentation supporting
the assertions made in the narrative
portion may also be provided, but
should be limited to relevant
information. If possible, Web site links
to supporting documentation should be
provided rather than copies of these
materials. At the applicant's discretion,
relevant materials provided previously
to a Cognizant Modal Administration (as
defined below) in support of a different
DOT discretionary program (for
example, New Starts or TIFIA) may be
referenced and described as unchanged.
To the extent referenced, this
information need not be resubmitted for
the TIGER Discretionary Grant
application.
B. Contact Information
An application should include the
name, phone number, e-mail address
and organization address of the primary
point of contact for the applicant. The
Department will use this information to
inform parties of the Department's
decision regarding selection of projects,
as well as to contact parties in the event
that the Department needs additional
information about an application.
C. Project Description
An application should include a
detailed description of the proposed
project and geospatial data for the
project, including a map of the project's
location and its connections to existing
transportation infrastructure. An
application should also include a
description of how the project addresses
the needs of an urban and/or rural area.
An application should clearly describe
the transportation challenges that the
project aims to address, and how the
project will address these challenges.
This description should include
relevant data such as, for example,
passenger or freight volumes, congestion
levels, infrastructure condition, or safety
experience.
D. Project Parties
An application should include
information about the grant recipient
and other project parties.
E. Grant Funds and Sources and Uses of
Project Funds
An application should include
information about the amount of grant
funding requested, sources and uses of
all project funds, total project costs,
percentage of project costs that would
be paid for with TIGER Discretionary
Grant funds, and the identity and
percentage shares of all parties
providing funds for the project
(including Federal funds provided
under other programs).
F. Selection Criteria
An application must include
information required for the Department
to assess each of the criteria specified in
Section II(A) (Selection Criteria), as
such criteria are explained in Section
II(B) (Additional Guidance on Selection
Criteria), and each of the relevant
criteria specified in Section II(C)
(Program -Specific Criteria). Applicants
are encouraged to demonstrate the
responsiveness of a project to any and
all of the selection criteria with the most
relevant information that applicants can
provide, regardless of whether such
information has been specifically
requested, or identified, in this notice.
Any such information shall be
considered part of the application, not
supplemental, for purposes of the
application size limits identified above
in item A (Length of Applications). If an
applicant is unsure whether any of the
program -specific criteria apply to its
project and should be addressed in its
application the applicant should contact
the Department pursuant to the
procedures specified below in Section X
(Questions and Clarifications).
Information provided pursuant to this
paragraph must be quantified, to the
extent possible, to describe the project's
impacts on the Nation, a metropolitan
area, or a region. Information provided
pursuant to this paragraph should
include projections for both the build
and no -build scenarios for the project
for a point in time at least 20 years
beyond the project's completion date or
the lifespan of the project, whichever is
closest to the present.
G. Federal Wage Rate Requirement
An application must include a
certification, signed by the applicant,
stating that it will comply with the
requirements of subchapter IV of
chapter 31 of title 40, United States
Code (Federal wage rate requirements),
as required by the Recovery Act.
H. National Environmental Policy Act
Requirement
An application must detail whether
the project will significantly impact the
natural, social and/or economic
environment. If the NEPA process is
completed, an applicant must indicate
the date of, and provide a Web site link
or other reference to, the final
Categorical Exclusion, Finding of No
Significant Impact or Record of
Decision. If the NEPA process is
underway but not complete, the
application must detail where the
project is in the process, indicate the
anticipated date of completion and
provide a Web site link or other
reference to copies of any NEPA
documents prepared.
L Environmentally Related Federal,
State and Local Actions
An application must indicate whether
the proposed project is likely to require
actions by other agencies (e.g., permits),
indicate the status of such actions and
provide a Web site link or other
reference to materials submitted to the
other agencies, and/or demonstrate
23236 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 94/Monday, May 18, 2009/Notices
compliance with other Federal, State
and local regulations as applicable,
including, but not limited to, Section
4(f) Parklands, Recreation Areas,
Refuges, & Historic Properties; Section
106 Historic and Culturally Significant
Properties; Clean Water Act Wetlands
and Water; Executive Orders Wetlands,
Floodplains, Environmental Justice;
Clean Air Act Air Quality (specifically
note if the project is located in a
nonattainment area); Endangered
Species Act Threatened and
Endangered Biological Resources;
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
Essential Fish Habitat; The Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act; and/or any
State and local requirements.
J. Protection of Confidential Business
Information
All information submitted as part of
or in support of an application shall use
publicly available data or data that can
be made public and methodologies that
are accepted by industry practice and
standards, to the extent possible. If the
application includes information that
the applicant considers to be a trade
secret or confidential commercial or
financial information, the applicant
should do the following: (1) Note on the
front cover that the submission
"Contains Confidential Business
Information (CBI);" (2) mark each
affected page "CBI;" and (3) highlight or
otherwise denote the CBI portions. The
Department protects such information
from disclosure to the extent allowed
under applicable law. In the event the
Department receives a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request for the
information, the Department will follow
the procedures described in its FOIA
regulations at 49 CFR § 7.17. Only
information that is ultimately
determined to be confidential under that
procedure will be exempt from
disclosure under FOIA.
VIII. Project Benefits
The Department expects to identify
and report on the benefits of the projects
that it funds with TIGER Discretionary
Grants. To this end, the Department may
request that recipients of TIGER
Discretionary Grants cooperate in
Departmental efforts to collect and
report on information related to the
benefits produced by the projects that
receive TIGER Discretionary Grants.
In addition to the creation and
preservation of jobs and other benefits
that the Department is required to track
and report pursuant to the Recovery
Act, the benefits that the Department
reports on may include the following:
(1) Improved condition of existing
transportation facilities and systems; (2)
long-term growth in employment,
production or other high-value
economic activity; (3) improved
livability of communities across the
United States; (4) improved energy
efficiency, reduced dependence on oil
and reduced greenhouse gas emissions;
(5) reduced adverse impacts of
transportation on the natural
environment; (6) reduced number, rate
and consequences of surface
transportation -related crashes, injuries
and fatalities; (7) greater use of
innovative technology and innovative
approaches to transportation funding
and project delivery; (8) greater
collaboration with state and local
governments, other public entities,
private entities, nonprofit entities, or
other non-traditional partners; or (9)
greater integration of transportation
decisionmaking with decisionmaking by
other public agencies with similar
public service objectives.
Because of the limited nature of this
program, these benefits are likely to be
reported on a project -by -project basis
and trends across projects that were
selected for TIGER Discretionary Grants
may not be readily available. In
addition, because many of these benefits
are long-term outcomes, it may be years
before the value of the investments can
be quantified and fully reported. The
Department is considering the most
appropriate way to collect and report
information about these potential
project benefits.
IX. Reporting Requirements
A. Section 1201(c): Maintenance of
Effort: Reporting Requirements
Pursuant to the Recovery Act, entities
receiving TIGER Discretionary Grants
will be required to report on grant
activities on a routine basis. Section
1201(c) of the Recovery Act
(Maintenance of Effort: Reporting
Requirements), under General
Provision—Department of
Transportation—imposes an obligation
on entities receiving TIGER
Discretionary Grants, along with other
Department grantees receiving funds
from the Department's Covered
Programs, to submit periodic reports to
the agency from which funds were
received. Section 1201(c)(2) requires
that such reports include, for each
Covered Program (which includes the
TIGER Discretionary Grant program) the
following information: the amount of
Grant Funds appropriated, allocated,
obligated, and outlayed under the
appropriation; the number of projects
put out to bid under the appropriation
and the amount of Grant Funds
associated with these contracts; the
number of projects for which contracts
have been awarded under the
appropriation and the amount of Grant
Funds associated with these contracts;
the number of projects for which work
has begun under these contracts and the
associated amount of Grant Funds; the
number of projects for which work has
been completed and the associated
amount of Grant Funds; the number of
direct, on -project jobs created or
sustained by the Grant Funds for
projects under the appropriation and, to
the extent possible, the estimated
indirect jobs created or sustained in
associated supplying industries,
including the number of job -years
created and total increase in
employment since February 17, 2009;
and the actual aggregate expenditures by
each recipient from State sources for
projects eligible for funding under the
program between February 17, 2009,
and September 30, 2010, compared to
the level of such expenditures planned
to occur during this period as of
February 17, 2009.
According to the statute, grant
recipients must submit the first of these
reports not later than 90 days from
February 17, 2009, and must submit
updated reports not later than 180 days,
1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after that
date. Due to the unique timeframe for
TIGER Discretionary Grant awards,
TIGER Discretionary Grant recipients
should submit the first of such reports
on the first due date following the
award of Grant Funds and on each
subsequent due date thereafter.
B. Section 1512: Reports on Use of
Funds
Section 1512 of the Recovery Act
(Reports on Use of Funds) requires any
entity that received TIGER Discretionary
Grants to submit a report not later than
10 days after the end of each calendar
quarter as a condition of receiving
funding under the Recovery Act.
Pursuant to the OMB Guidance (which
is available at http://
www. whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/
m em oran d a_fy2009/m 09 -15. p d f) ,
recipients must report to OMB
beginning 10 days after the end of the
first calendar quarter after funds are
awarded. Recipients should refer to the
OMB Guidance for more detailed
instructions on such reports. OMB is
currently developing a government -
wide central reporting system. Detailed
instructions for centrally reporting the
required information will be made
available at www.Federa]Beporting.gov.
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 94/Monday, May 18, 2009/Notices 23237
C. Section 1609: Environmental
Reporting
Section 1609(c) of the Recovery Act
requires that Federal agencies report via
the President (specifically, to the White
House Council on Environmental
Quality) every 90 days following
enactment of the Recovery Act on the
status of projects funded under the
Recovery Act with respect to
compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act.
To satisfy the purposes of the
Recovery Act, grant recipients may be
required to provide additional
information in response to requests from
OMB, the Congressional Budget Office,
the Government Accountability Office,
or the Department's Inspector General.
The Department will inform grant
recipients if and when such additional
reports are required.
Further information about how grant
recipients will be expected to comply
with the reporting requirements of the
Recovery Act will be provided in the
individual grant agreements signed by
recipients of TIGER Discretionary
Grants.
X. Certification Requirements
As a condition of award, to the extent
applicable, grantees must comply with
the Certification requirements of the
Recovery Act. These include Section
1201 (Maintenance of Effort); Section
1511 (Transparency and Oversight); and
Section 1607 (Additional Funding
Distribution and Assurance of
Appropriate Use of Funds). On February
27, 2009, Secretary of Transportation
Ray LaHood sent a letter to the
Governors of each State providing
guidance and a template for the
Certifications required by the Recovery
Act, a copy of which is available on the
Department's Recovery Act Web site, at
http://www.dot.govlrecovery/. All
applicable Certifications must be
submitted to the Department at
TigerTeam.Leads@dot.gov.
Certifications may be submitted via e-
mail as electronic, scanned copies, with
original signed versions to follow via
U.S. mail.
A. Section 1201(a): Maintenance of
Effort
By March 19, 2009, State Governors
were required to certify to the Secretary
of Transportation that the State would
maintain its effort with regard to State
funding for the types of projects funded
by the appropriation, for each amount
distributed to a State or a State agency
under this program. As part of this
Certification, the Governor was required
to submit to the Secretary a statement
identifying the amount of funds the
State planned to expend from State
sources as of February 17, 2009, during
the period between February 17, 2009
and September 30, 2010, for the types of
projects funded by the appropriation.
The maintenance of effort requirement
in section 1201(a) applies to any TIGER
Discretionary Grant recipient that is a
State government (or agency thereof)
that planned, as of February 17, 2009, to
expend State funds on the project
receiving a TIGER Discretionary Grant
during the period between February 17,
2009, and September 30, 2010.
B. Section 1511: Transparency and
Oversigh t
For Grant Funds made available to
State or local governments for
infrastructure investments, the
Governor, mayor, or other chief
executive, as appropriate, must certify
that the infrastructure investment (1)
received the full review and vetting
required by law; and (2) that the chief
executive accepts responsibility that it
is an appropriate use of taxpayer
dollars. This Certification must be
executed and posted on a Web site and
linked to Recovery.gov prior to the
recipient of a TIGER Discretionary Grant
receiving Grant Funds. If the potential
project is a highway or transit project
and it is included in the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) with the specific information
required by Section 1511 (a description
of the investment, the estimated total
cost, and the amount of ARRA funds to
be used), it may be included in the
Governor's Section 1511 Certification
covering highway and transit projects in
a State. One way for the Governor's
Certification to satisfy the Section 1511
requirement is for the Certification to
state that the project is included in the
STIP and therefore has completed the
TIP/STIP planning process. In this case,
the Governor's Certification must also
provide a link to the public web posting
of the STIP that includes (or will
include) any highway and transit project
designated to receive Recovery Act
funding. If the project is not included in
the STIP, a separate Certification for the
potential TIGER Discretionary Grant
project must be executed, attaching the
relevant information or linking to a
public Web site where the information
may be obtained. This Certification
must include a description of the
investment, the estimated total cost, and
the amount of covered funds to be used,
and must be posted online and linked
to the Web site Recovery.gov. The
Certification must also state that the
projects have been properly reviewed
and vetted and are an appropriate use of
taxpayer dollars.
C. Section 1607: Additional Funding
Distribution and Assurance of
Appropriate Use of Funds
Section 1607 required that Governors
of States receiving funding under the
Recovery Act certify by April 3, 2009,
that, for Grant Funds provided to any
State or State agency, the State would
request and use the funds provided in
the Recovery Act and that such funds
would be used to create jobs and
promote economic growth.
Alternatively, the State legislature could
have acted to accept such funds by the
adoption of a concurrent resolution.
States or State agencies ultimately
receiving TIGER Discretionary Grant
funds must ensure that this Certification
has been completed.
D. Submission of Certifications Under
Sections 1201, 1511, and 1607
All Certifications, once executed,
shall be submitted to the Secretary of
Transportation, c/o Joel Szabat, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Transportation
Policy, at TigerTeam.Leads@dot.gov.
Certifications may be submitted via e-
mail as electronic, scanned copies, with
original signed versions to follow via
U.S. mail. As required by the Recovery
Act, Certifications under Section 1511
shall be immediately posted on a Web
site and linked to the Web site
Recovery.gov.
XI. Questions and Clarifications
Questions about this notice should be
submitted to the TIGER Discretionary
Grants program manager via e-mail at
TIGERGrants@dot.gov. The Department
will regularly post answers to these
questions and other important
clarifications on the Department's Web
site at http://www.dot.gov/recoverylost/.
Issued on: May 12, 2009.
Ray LaHood,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11542 Filed 5-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4970 -9X -P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Docket No. MC -F-179501
Mayflower Transit, LCC—Pooling
Agreement
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
ACTION: Request for comments.
SUMMARY: Mayflower Transit, LLC
(Mayflower), on behalf of itself and
certain affiliated companies, filed an
0
•
•
Item 3: Update on Inland Port Traffic
Staff is in the process of working with VDOT gathering information to formulate a
recommendation to the Committee on this issue. A site visit is scheduled between the date of
this mailing and the Committee meeting, which you will be updated on at the meeting.
Attached please find the requirements for a truck restriction to be put in place.
7
Virginia Department of Transportation July 15, 2004
PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERING REQUESTS FOR
RESTRICTING THROUGH TRUCKS ON PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY HIGHWAYS
The following actions constitute a complete and thorough procedure for considering requests to
restrict through traffic on primary or secondary roads in accordance with Section 46.2-809 of the
Code of Virginia:
Before submitting a through truck restriction to VDOT, the local governing body
must hold a legally advertised public hearing with adherence to the following:
A. Public notices for the hearing must contain a description of the route(s) of
the proposed through truck restriction and the alternate route(s) with the
same termini. A copy of all Public Notices must be provided with the
request.
B. The governing body must hold a public hearing and a transcript of that
hearing must be provided with the request.
C. A copy of the adopted resolution describing the proposed through truck
restriction and the alternate including termini must be provided with the
request.
D. The local governing body must include in the resolution that it will use its
good offices for enforcement of the proposed restriction by the appropriate
local law enforcement agency.
A failure on the part of the local governing body to comply with A, B, C and D
will result in the return of the request to the locality for compliance.
2. The local governing body must make its formal request through the Resident
Engineer, certifying that it has met all the requirements noted in item #1. The
Resident Engineer, upon acceptance of the truck restriction request, will forward
it to the District Administrator. The District Administrator will forward the
request to the State Traffic Engineer.
3. The State Traffic Engineer will secure and evaluate the following data:
A. The functional classification for the route(s) proposed for restriction
and the route(s) proposed as alternate.
B. Review of the Six -Year Improvement Program to determine any
improvements scheduled for the proposed restricted route(s) and the
proposed alternate route(s).
C. A traffic engineering study to include:
(1) Traffic volumes by vehicle type including the number and
percentage of trucks on the route(s) proposed for restriction, and
the date(s) the data is collected.
(2) Comparison of driving runs on the route(s) proposed for restriction
and the alternate route(s), to indicate travel time/distance penalties
or savings.
Virginia Department of Transportation July 15, 2004
D. An inventory of roadway characteristics and geometrics for the route(s)
proposed for restriction and the alternate route(s). This inventory should
include:
(1) Roadway length in miles
(2) Pavement width
(3) Number of travel lanes
(4) Shoulder width
(5) Pavement type and condition
(6) Speed limit
(7) Number and Type of adjacent land uses (i.e., residential and/or
commercial)
(8) Vertical and horizontal alignment
(9) Parking restrictions and/or parking observed
4. The State Traffic Engineer will secure and evaluate all available accident data or
the data for the previous three (3) years for the route(s) proposed for restriction
and the alternate route(s).
Following receipt of all requested data and information, the State Traffic Engineer
will conduct a traffic engineering study of the restriction request and a report will
be prepared. This report will be sent to the District Administrator for one or more
of the following actions:
A. Publish a public notice of the proposed restriction, requesting written
comment only
B. Publish a public notice of the proposed restriction and advise of the
Department's willingness to hold a public hearing if requested
C. Publish a public notice of the time and place of a public hearing on the
proposed restriction
If a public hearing is required, the District Administrator or his representative will
hold the hearing in accordance with established procedures.
In conjunction with the publishing of the public notice, signs will be erected at the
terminus of the proposed restricted route(s) advising of the proposed restriction
and listing contact information for receiving public comments. This signing shall
be erected for a period of at least thirty (30) days. A copy of the public notice will
be sent to the Virginia Trucking Association for distribution to the trucking
industry and other interested parties. If a proposed alternate route(s) includes
route(s) in another locality, the locality should be notified of this proposal for
their comments.
6. The District Administrator will prepare a report that will include his
recommendation and all pertinent materials (i.e., transcript of public hearing if
held, copy of published public notice and any written or oral comments received).
This report will be sent to the State Traffic Engineer.
2
Virginia Department of Transportation
July 15, 2004
7. The District Administrator will inform the Commonwealth Transportation Board
(CTB) member representing the area containing the proposed restricted route(s) of
the restriction request and obtain the CTB member's opinion. The District
Administrator will provide the State Traffic Engineer with the board member's
concurrence or disagreement with the recommendation.
8. The State Traffic Engineer will review all data and material including the District
Administrator's recommendation. A report will be prepared which will consider
the criteria outlined in the CTB approved "Guidelines for Considering Requests to
Restrict Through Trucks on Primary and Secondary Highways". This report and a
recommendation to approve or deny the proposed restriction will be submitted to
the Chief of System Operations.
9. For restrictions on secondary routes, the recommendation of the State Traffic
Engineer, if approved by the Chief of System Operations will be presented to the
Commissioner for approval or denial of the proposed restriction.
10. For restrictions on prima routes, the recommendation of the State Traffic
Engineer, if approved by the Chief of System Operations will be presented to the
Commissioner for consideration by the Commonwealth Transportation Board for
their approval or denial of the proposed restriction.
11. Following Commissioner or Board action the State Traffic Engineer will make all
appropriate notifications. The residency will be requested to post appropriate
signs if the restriction is approved
12. If a request is received to rescind or modify an existing "through truck" restriction
these same procedures must be followed.
Process to Restrict Through Truck
Local Governing Body (LGB) holds
legally advertised public hearing.
Public notices of hearing must
describe route and alternate.
Copy of adopted resolution with description
of proposed TTR & suitable alternate must
accompany request.
Adopted resolution must state that LGB will
use its good offices for enforcement of TTR
by appropriate local law enforcement
Incomplete
documentation -request
rejected
Time from request to DA to action by
Commissioner cannot exceed 9 months.
s
on Primary and Secondary Highways
Local Hearing
Copies of public notices
Hearing transcript
Copy of adopted resolution
Statement of local enforcement
Documentation
Documentation & request sent to VDOT
Resident Engineer.
Forwarded to VDOT District
Administrator (DA) for review.
Sent to State Traffic Engineer (STE) office for study &
evaluation.
DA requests public comments, advises CTB
representative and returns with recommendation to STE.
STE reviews all materials & prepares report. Submits to Chief of System Operations (CSO)
with recommendation.
For primary routes, CSO sends
recommendation to CTB.
For secondary routes, CSO recommends
action to Commissioner.
CTB approves or denies restriction. Commissioner approves or denies
restriction.
State Traffic Engineer notifies District.
District notifies LGB & posts signs if appropriate.
11
0
•
•
Item 4: Article Review
Secretary paints dire transportation picture :: Printer Friendly Page 1 of 2
Secretary paints dire transportation picture
By Kali Schumitz
Knee-high grass and shuttered rest stops may be the most visible signs that the
Virginia Department of Transportation is having problems, but these are the least
of Pierce Homer's concerns.
The decades -old partnership to build and maintain the state's road network is
collapsing, and without federal and state legislative action, VDOT may soon be
unable to even maintain the existing infrastructure, the state's secretary of
transportation said at a June 3 event.
"We are approaching a cliff," Homer said, suggesting the state's transportation
woes will drive away businesses if state leaders do not address the problem.
The federal highway trust fund, which supports construction projects around the
country, could run dry as soon as August, according to federal officials. This would
severely hamper VDOT's cash flow, Homer said, delaying projects or even
potentially hurting the state's credit rating.
At the same time, all of the major state funding sources for transportation have
sharply declined in the past year. Diesel taxes are down 14 percent, fees at the
port are down 22 percent, home sales taxes are down 47 percent and vehicle
registrations are down 11 percent.
"Our underlying bread-and-butter program ... is seriously compromised," Homer
said.
VDOT has laid off about 450 part-time employees and is in the process of laying
off 1,000 full-time employees. By 2011, there will be no state money to support
small local projects, such as intersection improvements.
And, 'within a finite horizon, we will be unable to fully match all available federal
dollars," Homer said, unless state funding increases.
State rules require that maintenance of existing roads is funded before any new
construction, but the backlog of major maintenance, such as repairing deficient
bridges and resurfacing highways, is growing, Homer said.
Bob Chase, president of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, said fixing
the state's transportation network needs to be a priority for this year's House of
Delegates and gubernatorial elections.
"Every candidate needs to be asked, 'How are you going to fund transportation?"'
Chase said. "We are in a dire situation and it's up to all of us to be a part of the
http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/news/2009/J*un/I 0/secretary-paints-dire-transportation-picture... 6/15/2009
Secretary paints dire transportation picture :: Printer Friendly
solution — starting this fall with the elections."
Times Community (D 20071 Fairfax Times
Page 2 of 2
http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/news/2009/jun/I 0/secretary-paints-dire-transportation-picture... 6/15/2009
This budget cuthelps out VDOT
fredericksbAEcom
9
Print this Page I
Return to story
This budget cuthelps out VDOT
June 9, 2009 12:35 am
By KELLY HANNON
Idling at the stoplight at Chatham Heights Road and State Route 3 in
his Kia Rio, Mike Clowes reached a breaking point.
Day after day, he had watched the grass grow higher and higher from
the driver's seat. Clowes estimated the thicket of grass was approaching
3 feet.
"It was just getting out of hand," Clowes said. "It was just way too
tall."
Faced with this sight, most drivers would call VDOT or a county
supervisor. Others would rage silently, fiddle with their car radio, and
forget about it until the next time they stopped at the intersection.
Not Clowes. He set his alarm for 5:30 a.m. on the Saturday morning of
Memorial Day weekend.
Not telling his wife, Dawn, where he was going, Clowes crept from
bed, loaded his push lawnmower in the car and drove to the median.
Page I of 3
VDOT hasn't been mowing as
often because of budget cuts,
so Mike Clowes decided to cut
part of the median on State
Route 3 in Stafford himself.
He then proceeded to spend the next 6 hours mowing a publicly owned
strip of land. For free. "I thought I could knock it out before my three-day weekend was ruined," Clowes
said.
Clowes, 55, is not a landscaper. He works a 70 -hour week as a wine wholesaler. He drives his Kia
hatchback from his Ferry Farm home in Stafford County to the Springfield area every day, where he
stops in restaurants and retail stores to talk about their wine needs. He leaves home at 4:30 a.m. and
returns around 6:30 p.m.
But Clowes enjoys mowing his lawn. "It's the feeling of how nice it looks after it's done, like painting a
room," Clowes said.
Mowing the Route 3 median was not as easy as Clowes assumed it would be.
http://fredericksburg.comINewsIFLS/2009/062009/06092009/4694691printer_friendly 6/15/2009
This budget cuthelps out VDOT
Page 2 of 3
He estimated the median was about 15 feet wide, "and it felt like 400 feet long." The high grass clogged
his 3.5 -horsepower lawnmower. Every few yards, he had to stop, bend over and yank out a clump of
weeds. Also, the grass was wet at that hour, making it slippery.
"It was a whole lot harder than I thought," he said.
No one stopped to question what he was doing. One "kind lady" gave him a bottle of Gatorade, a hot
dog and an apple, Clowes said. A man thanked him.
Clowes was inspired to cut the grass after hearing about state budget cuts that will scale back mowing
on state roads. "I knew that it wasn't going to get done by anybody else, so I had a few hours to knock it
out," he said.
Virginia Department of Transportation officials say the agency will still be mowing- just less often.
Last year, the median Clowes mowed was trimmed three times: In early spring, early summer and the
fall. Now it will be mowed only twice --in June and in the fall, said VDOT spokeswoman Tina Bundy.
To save money, VDOT Commissioner David Ekern has proposed mowing interstate right -of -ways --the
grass from the edge of the highway shoulder to the ditch line --only once a year. Interstate medians
would be completely mowed only once every four years.
Ekern has made the recommendations to the Commonwealth Transportation Board, which has to vote on
the proposal.
Medians on other primary roads in the Fredericksburg area will be mowed twice a year, Bundy said, and
VDOT will mow whenever and wherever there is a safety hazard or blocked sight line.
As for the median Clowes cut, it was scheduled to be mowed sometime this month, Bundy said.
"He's a little bit ahead of us," Bundy said, "and then we'll cut it again sometime this fall."
VDOT discourages people from mowing medians. Bundy worries a civilian mower could be hit by
passing traffic. "Anything could happen, even with our own mowers out there when they're in the
middle of a roadway," Bundy said.
But Clowes thinks a volunteer band of mowers could be trained by VDOT, or don safety vests, and be
sent out to hack away at the grass.
When contacted by The Free Lance -Star, Clowes was surprised at the interest. He thinks his deed is
unremarkable, just a man who saw a project and took it on.
"Remember the movie 'Pay It Forward'? Just help out someone somewhere;" Clowes said.
Kelly Hannon: 540/374-5436
Email: khannongfreelancestar.com
http://fredericksburg.comINewsIFLS120091062009/06092009/4694691printer_friendly 6/15/2009
This budget cuthelps out VDOT Page 3 of 3
If residents want to know when a median will be mowed, they should call the VDOT Fredericksburg
Residency at 540/899-4300 to learn the schedule, spokeswoman Tina Bundy said.
Also, anyone can call the same number to suggest an area to be mowed if there is a safety hazard, she
said. Medians will look less manicured than they have in the past, but VDOT won't let anything grow
to the point it creates a risk, Bundy said.
"Absolutely give us a call, because safety is still going to be our primary focus," Bundy said.
Copyright 2009 The Free Lance -Star Publishing Company.
http://fredericksburg.comINewsIFLS/20091062009/06092009/4694691printer_friendly 6/15/2009
Companies push to allow heavier trucks on roads
Page 1 of 2
Find Your' 1 graduated in:
Graduating
Class C classrrat a.-
post -gazette NOW NEW / US & WORLD / NATION
Companies push to allow heavier trucks on roads
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
By Jon Schmitz, Pittsburgh Post -Gazette
Several companies that ship their products by truck, including giants like Kraft
Foods, Coca-Cola, MillerCoors and Campbell's Soups, have stepped up their efforts
to get Congress to allow heavier rigs on the nation's interstate highways.
More than 100 companies and trade associations yesterday launched the Coalition
for Transportation Productivity to support legislation raising the federal weight
limit from the current 80,000 pounds to 97,000 pounds.
Proponents claim that allowing heavier trucks would mean fewer of them on the
highways, thus reducing costs, congestion and pollution. They also say safety
wouldn't be compromised because heavier trucks would be required to have a sixth
axle, giving them more braking power.
"America's freight transportation infrastructure is on the verge of becoming
overwhelmed over the next decade," said John Runyan, a senior manager of
International Paper and co-chairman of the coalition.
"Freight hauled by trucks in the U.S. is expected to double by 2025, and truck
traffic is growing 11 times faster than road capacity," he said. The coalition "is
asking Congress to responsibly reform truck weight limits with proper safeguards
to allow the same amount of freight to be carried on fewer trucks, which will
improve the efficiency of our interstates, reduce fuel use and curb emissions."
The coalition said International Paper sent 600 trucks per week from an Alabama
mill to Southeast markets last summer. With the higher limit, it would have used
450 trucks, cutting miles driven by 31 percent and fuel use and emissions by 18
percent.
The legislation has drawn criticism from highway safety groups and some in the
trucking industry, including the Teamsters union and the Owner -Operator
Independent Drivers Association.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09160/976038-84.stm 6/15/2009
Companies push to allow heavier trucks on roads
Page 2 of 2
"Throughout the past 50 years, trucking and shipping interests have relentlessly
sought increases in truck sizes and weights," said a statement by the group
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.
"These increases have been granted despite the clear threat to public safety and at
the risk of increased bridge and pavement damage while imposing unfair,
staggering costs on U.S. taxpayers for severe truck crashes and roadway damage.
"This time around, the trucking industry has taken a new 'green' approach that tries
to make the U.S. public believe that big trucks can be safer, harm the environment
less and use less fuel, if only Congress will enact legislation to make trucks even
bigger and heavier than they already are. Nothing could be further from the truth."
A bill sponsored by Rep. Michael Michaud, D -Maine, would allow states to
increase the weight limit to 97,000 pounds and impose higher fees to compensate
for bridge damage from the heavier trucks.
Separate legislation co-sponsored by Pennsylvania's Reps. Mike Doyle, D -Forest
Hills, and John Murtha, D -Johnstown, would freeze weight and size limits and
extend them beyond the 40,000 -mile interstate highway system to 161,000 miles of
U.S. highways.
The issue may be resolved as part of Congress' consideration of a new highway
funding authorization bill to replace the one that expires Sept. 30.
Jon Schmitz can be reached at iS. Z. ;_err. or 412-263-1868.
First published on , une 9, 2009 at 1 Z:00 am
Shipping Rates
LTL, Truckload, Air, Shipping Logistics,
Compare Today
VV
TruckingPreiltabiiity
Strategic Decision Support Tools Better
Trucking Business Management
Ads by Google
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09160/976038-84.stm 6/15/2009
Lack of respect? Connolly perturbed with D.C. - wtop.com
wtup
Tam
Home_ Page > News > Local > Local Stories
Lack of respect? Connolly perturbed
with D.C.
June 5, 2009 - 3:27pm
Adam_Tuss, wtop.com
Page 1 of 2
WASHINGTON -- When it comes to some major transportation projects across the Potomac River, is
D.C. showing a lack of respect toward Virginia drivers?
Rep. Gerry Connolly, (D-Va.), tells V\/TOP the answer is yes.
"I think there is an issue here of respect for Northern Virginia commuters that is lacking. I think there is
an issue here of communication, which was not even apparently an afterthought," says Connolly.
Connolly is particularly perturbed about the way roadwork on the Chain Bridge unfolded this week.
Construction for the 14th Street Bridge Project also recently began.
On Friday, Connolly and Reps. Jim Moran (D-Va.) and Frank Wolf (R-Va.) wrote a letter addressing their
concerns to D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty.
In the letter, the Virginia congressmen applaud the District for addressing the road improvements, but
say "communication between the D.C. Department of Transportation, Northern Virginia commuters, and
the Virginia Department of Transportation has left a lot to be desired."
"It is clear that adequate advance notice was not given to the residents,
workers and tourists whose commutes are being adversely affected by this
work. Initiating construction on two of the five bridge connections between
Northern Virginia and the District without such communication is unaccentahle
and unfair...."
The letter urges DDOT to "explore with its regional counterparts a better mechanism for coordinating
communication and mitigation strategies about construction projects with regional significance."
DDOT had said major work on the Chain Bridge, which would shut down one lane of traffic on the bridge
for eight months, would not begin until Wednesday. That work actually started on Monday, leaving
hundreds of drivers to battle a severe rush hour Monday night and a rough ride Tuesday morning.
In addition to the Chain Bridge, DDOT has been criticized publicly by the Virginia Department of
Transportation for the way it has handled planning for the 14th Street Bridge Project.
"I'm really getting rather disappointed with the fact that we are having projects brought to us without any
explanation ahead of time," said Jo Anne Sorenson, VDOT representative with the National Capital
Region Transportation Planning Board, recently.
"The failure to communicate with a quarter -of -million people, who use these two bridges -- and with your
counterpart in Virginia, is almost criminal," says Connolly.
DDOT maintains that there has been plenty of advance about both the 14th Street Bridge and Chain
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1689975 6/15/2009
Lack of respect? Connolly perturbed with D.C. - wtop.com
Bridge projects.
"We shared the plans for the 14th Street Bridge rehabilitation with VDOT, Arlington and Fairfax County
as far back as three years ago, and staff from Fairfax and Arlington attended the pre -construction
meeting at DDOT," says DDOT spokesperson John Lisle.
He also says both DDOT and VDOT are communicating with one another.
When it comes to the Chain Bridge, Lisle does acknowledge there was a miscommunication between
engineers and the contractor.
Page 2 of 2
"We didn't mean to mislead anybody, the project moved faster than expected. But this is a fluid situation,
and if there are significant delays we are going to address them."
In fact, DDOT says it has already taken steps to improve traffic flow around the Chain Bridge.
"The signal timing at Glebe Road was adjusted and has helped alleviate the morning traffic from Virginia.
In addition, we are deploying an addition six variable message signs: four on the District side, one more
in Virginia and one in Maryland near the Beltway to allow people to have a choice to go (over the bridge)
or find an alternate route," says Lisle.
With 200,000 vehicles a day crossing the 14th Street Bridge, it is the busiest commuter route into and
out of D.C. Another 22,000 vehicles a day use the Chain Bridge.
(Copyright 2009 by WTOP. All Rights Reserved.)
< Back
http://www.wtop.com/?nid25&sid=1689975 6/15/2009
Seeking greater role, transit group shifts gears Pagel of 3
Xj
Published on HamptonRoads.com I PilotOnline.com (http://hamptonroads.com)
Seeking greater role, transit group shifts gears
The public body that plans regional transportation projects is undergoing sweeping reform in hopes
of making it more effective in getting road and transit improvements funded and built.
The Hampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Organization has long been an obscure board
consisting of local elected officials from 13 cities and counties that studies and plans local
transportation.
The changes will make its work more transparent and will more closely align it with state officials
who hold the purse strings.
Because of its low profile, few in the community have ever heard of it, know its role or know how
to access it. Because of its static structure, some say it's ineffectual, especially when compared to
powerhouses like Northern Virginia's MPO.
A hallmark of the group's work is a list of projects that totaled nearly $8 billion in 2002 that
included another water crossing between South Hampton Roads and the Peninsula, a new Midtown
Tunnel and the Southeastern Parkway.
None has been funded or built.
"The organization has had a long history of planning transportation projects, but very little success
in implementing them," said Newport News Mayor Joe Frank, reform committee chairman.
Changes approved in May could raise its profile in the community and its stature in the
transportation industry.
The changes include adding General Assembly members and other new faces to the panel, creating
a new voting structure that prevents one locality or area from dominating decisions, and engaging
citizens in decision-making.
It dropped its vague name and is now called the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning
Organization.
"They've changed their attitude, opened themselves up to a lot of criticism and opened themselves
up to change their behavior," said Philip Shucet, a transportation consultant and former Virginia
Department of Transportation commissioner.
"Hopefully a few years from now they'll have evolved some more."
He said the changes will take time to root and produce results. "We're not going to wake up the
morning after the vote and see cranes and hard hats all over the place building something."
http://hamptonroads.com/print/511301 6/1/2009
Seeking greater role, transit group shifts gears Page 2 of 3
Jim Oliver, former city manager of Norfolk and Portsmouth, is among those pushing for reform.
"I think they're making a huge amount of progress but I think changing a culture is a big deal," said
Oliver, who just signed on as interim Hampton city manager.
"Heck, I was a member of the MPO and I obviously didn't get it when I was there. "
Reform started after the agency was criticized on two fronts - by the Federal Highway
Administration mainly for lacking transparency; and by the regional think tank Future of Hampton
Roads for lacking rigor and adopting a parochial instead of a regional approach.
MPOs are mandated across the country to set their regions' transportation priorities; projects using
federal or state money cannot proceed without their approval.
A federal review of the planning group ordered 1 I corrective actions. Many had to do with
openness and public involvement.
As a result, the board, which meets monthly, has added a public comment period to its agendas, is
creating citizens and freight haulers advisory committees, and is hiring a community outreach
specialist to engage residents.
Many believe the lack of public involvement was to blame for the defeat of the 2002 transportation
referendum developed by the planning organization that would have raised the sales tax for road
and transit projects.
"A more engaging dialogue and a diversity of opinions will help build consensus," said Dennis
Heuer, Virginia Department of Transportation district administrator. "When your boss makes a
decision for you, you don't like it as much as if you were engaged in the final outcome."
The group added new voting members to the board, including four General Assembly members and
the Virginia Port Authority - plus nonvoting members representing citizens, freight transportation
and the airports.
Both state and locally elected leaders agree there's a disconnect between the group that
recommends projects and the group that funds them.
Adding legislators to the board "brings a level of reality to what's achievable," Heuer said.
"There needs to be some real-time involvement instead of them coming to us and saying - fork over
the cash," said Del. John Cosgrove of Chesapeake, who leads the Hampton Roads delegation. "That
just never worked."
Legislators already serve on the MPO in Northern Virginia. "They have a plan, they work their
plan," Heuer said, "and I don't see that kind of thing coalescing here."
Budget numbers developed by retired Rear Admiral Ray Taylor of Future of Hampton Roads
indicate that the region is not faring as well as Northern Virginia when it comes to transportation
funding.
http://hamptonroads.com/print/511301 6/1/2009
Seeking greater role, transit group shifts gears
Page 3 of 3
When the current six-year building plan had to be cut, Hampton Roads funding shrank 31 percent
while Northern Virginia's fell 19 percent, according to Taylor's analysis.
In addition, funding for interstate projects in Hampton Roads decreased 72 percent while funding
for Northern Virginia increased 1 percent.
Taylor, who has done an exhaustive study of MPOs, said the local organization's inability to set
priorities for projects has hampered progress.
"They haven't prioritized because the ethic is, 'Something for everyone,' " Taylor said. "It's an
arrogant perspective - all or nothing. We always get nothing."
Dwight Farmer was promoted to executive director of the MPO last year, after longtime leader Art
Collins retired.
"I personally want to bring better and more information to the table than what we've had," Farmer
said. "I think we really can broaden the discussion. And we'll have some of the state money people
working hand-in-hand with us... which should allow us to implement things we're planning."
Debbie Messina, (75 7) 446-2588, debbie.messina@pilotonline.com
Source URL (retrieved on 06/01/2009 -10:01): http://hamptonroads.com/2009/05/seeking-
greater -role -transit -group -shifts -gears
http://hamptonroads.com/print/511301 6/1/2009
0
•
•
Item 5: Other
1. Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Plan updates
2. Upcoming Enhancement and Revenue Sharing Grant Applications