Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TC 09-28-09 Meeting Agenda
COUNTY 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: September 28, 2009 Transportation Committee Meeting DATE: September 21, 2009 The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, September 28, 2009 in the first floor meeting room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. AGENDA 1. Valley Connector Support Request 2. Double Church Road Truck Restriction 3. Enhancement Grant Application 4. Tevis Street Extension 5. VDOT Bridge Work Update 6. Article Review 7. Other Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Attachments JAB/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Item 1: Valley Connector Support Request Frederick County has been contacted by regional commission and operators of the Valley Connector commuter bus service for a letter of support. They are seeking County support in requesting additional ridesharing funds. This requires no County funds. Staff is seeking a recommendation to the Board on whether to support this request. ON Item 2: Double Church Road Truck Restriction Staff met with VDOT and Warren County officials to determine whether there would be support of the potential truck restriction on Double Church Road. Indications were that since the majority of the roadway was in Frederick County, that support may not even be needed. However, if support is needed they indicated a willingness to offer their support. Staff will be available to answer any additional questions there may be on coordination with Warren County. I C • Item 3: Enhancement Grant Application Staff is seeking a recommendation to the Board on the attached enhancement grant application for the Senseny Road corridor. As with the previous applications, staff is continuing to work to build up funds for bicycle and pedestrian accommodations along Senseny Road. This is a reimbursement grant that requires a 20% match. The match can be met in a number of ways including dedication of right of way and in kind services. 2 n•�`� Uft Eh�ncement COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA Use TAB KEY" to reach each field. FY 2010 - 2011 PROJECT APPLICATION FORM **APPLICATI►ON DEADLINE NOVEMBER 1, 2009** Date (mm/dd/yyyy): Instructions for completing each field appear on the status bar at the bottom of the active window Press F1 for additional hel u. i ransportatton Enhancement Categories (Check all that apply — See Enhancement brochure for details of catee.ories) __1 L Name: Frederick County, VA Department of Planning and Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Development A. Applicant (Group, Agency, etc.) Address: 107 N. Kent Street Suite 202 3. City, State Zip Winchester, VA 22601 Acquisition of Scenic or Historic Easements and Sites, including Historic Battlefields Telephone: 540-665-5651 ❑ Email Address: jbishop@co.frederick.va.us 5. Name: B. Project Sponsor (if different from A.) Name and Address Address:City, State Zip ❑ Telephone: 7. Email Address: Rehabilitation and Operation of Historic Transportation Building, Structures, or Facilities Name: John Bishop, Deputy Director - Transportation C. Responsible Person/Title — Sponsor. Telephone: 540-665-5651 Fax: 540-665-6395 ❑ Email: jbishop@co.frederick.va.us 10. Name: John Bishop, Deputy Director - Transportation D. Project Manager: Telephone: 540-665-5651 Fax: 540-665-6395 Environmental Mitigation of Runoff Pollution and Provision of Wildlife Connectivity Email: jbishop@co.frederick.va.us ❑ E. Project Title: Senseny Road Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements F. Project Description: Installation of asphalt multiuse paths along Senseny Road in the vicinity of Senseny Road Elementary u. i ransportatton Enhancement Categories (Check all that apply — See Enhancement brochure for details of catee.ories) __1 L ® Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 2. ❑ Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Education 3. ❑ Acquisition of Scenic or Historic Easements and Sites, including Historic Battlefields 4. ❑ Scenic or Historic Highway Programs, including Tourist and Welcome Centers 5. ❑ Landscaping and Scenic Beautification 6. ❑ Historic Preservation 7. ❑ Rehabilitation and Operation of Historic Transportation Building, Structures, or Facilities 8. ❑ Preservation of Abandoned Railway Corridors and Conversion to Trails 9. ❑ Inventory, Control, and Removal of Outdoor Advertising 10. ❑ Archaeological Planning and Research 11. ❑ Environmental Mitigation of Runoff Pollution and Provision of Wildlife Connectivity 12. ❑ Establishment of Transportation Museum �H. Relationship to a Previously I First critical step in developing key network connections to the city of Winchester which has Funded Enhancement Project had a number of enhancement grants for the Green Circle. I. Critical Milestone Dates and Endorsements (Attach copy of the public notice and all resolutions endorsing the project) a. Public Hearing 10/22/2008 b. Local Government Endorsement 10/22/2008 c. MPO Resolution Endorsement ❑ Check if not applicable 10/24/2008 J. Federal Enhancement Funds Requested in this Application I (Maximum 80%)---7 $1,345,600.00 K Match Required AUTO MATI f-' FI for de.aiis I (Minimum 20%) 1 $336,400.00 L. Match Breakdown by Source (include value of in-kind/donations) Status check appropriate status) Amount County Staff Support and Management of Project ® Confirmed ❑ Anticipated $130,000.00 Donated Right of Way along Corridor ❑ Confirmed ® Anticipated $5,000.00 County General Funds ❑ Confirmed ® Anticipated $201,400.00 ❑ Confirmed ❑ Anticipated THIS TOTAL MUST MATCH ENTRY IN ITEM K TOTAL $336,400.00 M. Other Funding Sources Available (beyond match requirement) Status (check appropriate status) Amount ❑ Confirmed ❑ Anticipated ❑ Confirmed ❑ Anticipated TOTAL $0.00 N. Project Budget. As Attachment A, enclose a complete project budget. If the project includes multiple phases, show each phase. Budget projections should reflect the total project cost, including that for federal and non-federal funds. O. Selection Criteria: Complete Attachment B — Include pictures, maps and support documents. Attach additional sheets as needed. By signing below, Project Sponsor indicates their understanding that these are federal funds, that project development must comply with all federal and state guidelines, and that they are responsible for future maintenance and operating costs of the completed project. P. Sponsor Signature (person responsible) Date MAILING ADDRESS AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Please mail FIVE copies of your completed application package to the following address: For Technical Assistance Contact: Mr. Michael A. Estes Wink Chlt Local Assistance Division y enau(804) 786-2264 Toll Free: (800) 444-7832 Pamela Liston (804) 786-2734 Fax: (804) 371-0847 Virginia Department of Transportation Erica Jeter (804) 786-9125 1401 East Broad Street Cynthia Clark Richmond, Virginia 23219 � (804) 371-6289 EnhancementPro ram@VDOT.Virginia.aov FY 2008 - 2009 ATTACHMENT A PROJECT BUDGET TEMPLATE �nhncenwenf 'A "' PROJECT BUDGET REQUIRED BY ALL APPLICANTS COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA This template is an example for creating a detailed project budget — not a form that must be completed online. The number of construction phases, number and types of tasks, and budget items will vary by project. However, every budget must include totals for all applicable phases -- Preliminary Engineering, Right of Way and/or Construction (highlighted in gray). Also, please note that all projects should have some money budgeted for Preliminary Engineering, including environmental and VDOT review charges. Task by Project Construction Construction Construction TOTAL Development Phase Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Project Costs PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PHASE Engineering/Desi n Fees Environmental Document Surveying Fees Estimated VDOT review charges (we recommend budgeting for 3-5% of total project cost) Grant Administrative Costs Add rows as needed PE Phase TOTAL COSTS RIGHT OF WA E Right of Way Purchase �� Utility Relocation Add rows as needed RW Phase TOTAL COSTS CONSTRUCTION PHASE *Include construction line items from engineer's estimate, add rows as needed Inspection Fees Construction Management Contingency Add rows as needed CN Phase TOTAL COSTS TOTAL COSTS (PE, RW&CN) FY 2008 - 2009 now d &Li -o -'"I ATTACHMENT R '- A h YV :..: f r i y r` SELECTION CRITERIA tt 1 11Cc ni ' R ' u s h " THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED BY ALL APPLICANTS COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA A. Applicant (Group, Agency, etc.) Name: Frederick County, VA Department of Planning and Development Address: 107 N. Kent Street, Suite 202 City, State Zip Winchester, VA 22601 B. Project Title: Senseny Road Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements — I C. Complete the following questions providing as much detail as possible while including examples when available. Responses will automatically expand to additional sheets as needed. 1. Relationship to Transportation — What service or function will this project, or has this project, provided for the traveling public? How will it impact transportation? This improvement provides the opportunity for a number of subdivisions to access amenities along Senseny Road including Senseny Road Elementary, Church Services, and Convenience shopping without being forced to use their vehicles. In addition improving this access would reduce automobile trips on a very heavily traveled facility. This project has been expanded since the last fiscal year application and now includes an extended length which attaches to a newly approved shopping center with anchor grocery store and their proffered trail system. This will give added convenience to the surrounding localities and give them access to a full service grocery store in addition to the convenience shopping opportunities along this planned path. --------------------- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- 2. Demonstrated Need — What need(s) will this project fulfill within the community? The Senseny Road corridor is a heavily traveled roadway at the heart of one of the most densely populated areas of Frederick County. Though it offers a number of amenities mentioned above, it does not have so much as a sidewalk to offer the residents opportunity to access those amenities. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- ----------- 3. Project Usefulness and/or Benefit — What purpose will this project serve and how will it benefit the community? Is there strong community support? In addition to giving the pedestrian a bicycle alternative to travelers to shopping, it will also offer families the opportunity to walk their children to and from school and church services. The improved access also grants greater community access to the elementary school which really serves as a park for these neighborhoods which lack park facilities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Amenities/Support Facilities — What facilities are available and/or included in this proposal? What means of access will be available? This proposal would bring better access to Senseny Road to a number of subdivisions as shown in the included map. These subdivisions, individually, do not have significant traffic on their local streets which makes those streets fairly safe for bicycle and pedestrian activity. However, this link would allow those residents to safely travel via foot or bicycle beyond the borders of their subdivision, thus improving their quality of life and reducing automobile trips on this corridor. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- ------------------------- 5. Educational/Historical — Explain the history and/or scenic significance of this project. What educational experience will be provided? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- ------------ 6. Project Resources — How has the community involved itself in this project? What support has been provided? Has funding and/or land been secured? Is this a continuation of an existing project, and if so, what is the status of that project? This corridor has long been planned for this type of improvements and the surrounding community has always been very supportive. This segment is seen as a critical first link of a bicycle pedestrian corridor that will run from the city of Winchester to Clark County. County staff has worked and will continue to work to further this project and the Board of Supervisors has given their support. D. If this project has received Enhancement funds in prior years, complete the following: Enhancement Award by Year (include Federal Enhancement funds only, do not include applicant match or other non-federal participation). Identify if the award was applied to a prior phase of a multi -phased project. Year Award Applied Toward/Phase 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 140,000.00 Not yet applied, agreement recently executed 2006 250,000.00 Not yet applied, agreement not yet completed. Total 390,000.00 Ell I aI {ra nseny Elementary School .'� t� � f•" .,� �. is T� r. • �]: s\ia t.i�r -� to 4 �.� ` 1 Parks ��FIreB Rescue Canpany ■boil Courses�� SensenyR081toGreenwd RrgiarW Pvk l ���"" II OSe...n,IS �CommunRy Park �Crt cal Pedestran Crossings �scnool Senseny Road Improvement Grant Potential Multi - use° Trail Location o Sao i,000 2,000 Feet �/ qV Attachment A Anticipated Project Budget Preliminary Engineering Phase Engineering\DesignlSurvey Fees...............$218,250.00 VDOT Review Fees..............................$101,850.00 Grant Administrative Costs ..................... $72,750.00 Total PE Costs...................................$392,850.00 Right of Way Phase Right of way costs/utility relocation/drainage modifications Where Right of way is constrained to make better use of existing right of way/ Modifications to existing signals if needed ....... $1,242,650.00 Total ROW Costs................................$1,242,650.00 Construction Phase Construction Costs...............................$436,500.00 Total CN Costs .................................... $436,500.00 Total Costs ................................................$2,072,000.00 Item 4: Tevis Street Extension As you are aware, the County has an approved 2007 Revenue Sharing application from the Virginia Department of Transportation to build the portion of the Tevis Street Extension not funded by the Russell 150 development. The attached graphic highlights in yellow this roadway segment which runs from the boundary of the Russell 150 development northeast to Route 522. The County has recently been approached by a local business owner that has indicated a willingness to provide $1,000,000.00 in matching funds for this project. Currently, this project has a working cost estimate of $2.5 million dollars. The County is working with VDOT to refine the cost estimate due to the fact that it includes right-of-way costs for property that is now expected to be dedicated. This process is expected to reduce the cost estimate to at least $2 million which would then be covered equally by state funds and the local funds noted in the previous paragraph. Staff is seeking a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on whether to accept the funds and move forward with the project. 5 Item 5: VDOT Bridge Work Update Attached please find graphics from VDOT detailing work on a number of bridges around the county. VDOT staff will also be present to discuss additional details and take any questions. Ce -sp a..Tur yMp"' i '"" * � r �. �• 1` � � w,rlw .F��IJI��I�..i� Irk Lake 44 ys arr�ddock Heighl�ts ' A f��rk ,• +'� . ' yy 4�Rfin-•-r,i e�6' �r :,�``�' r - l'4% R&Wnney T, I %_X ! �rtiil� s '�- � -' � .� %''.a �ri,�� •� �-,� �ti� k iddl r r �.• n`� f' + P ,� _ ' 4• Gaines�'�•I�rS des f7t �•1�"�, i"w na ; _ a a.��''d ji 5��•�'r.Ar .. yr .,A _ y..:M• .�{ ' .f r4 "'� -.1 '7 1171 es TV"A1I- . ,�r`,f ��� ., ''��..% ', ,La � r:�•r, +;. � �,'-� �. � y l Sl�ol�rl', 1 � � "'`t•N�■ A,uscarc`a 270 A r iJ;; J� ;Y * jy b+. , R �.aUet4"w n y ' 11� _i DICkPr5i77 r .� Cir i�•• "� � .S. s .�' l.R rl L>7 C (39(r°n Old Field y. T �. PurcelC�rllLa El a •• .d� 6Po6epyl 1p X fi°IIL1413e������'','''' ■ f*�� 1.94�I�Ir�i'I���i '.1L.':�! I , , 4 . , Petemburg. SgrasburQ . f "• � �. - �. ., � • -Y cre-k Reston Pont Iogal - I5 ,. LY365tock SC enandad.h Farms■ � dr Ci iy � 1° irk f'w�arsh.�fl ■' Oakton■ } jw ! !! • i $$ rr T VMnassa.9 Park - ���R� µf�, `°''p '' ry " fh��w`?T''3 r�ia...��i�!�1 F q� '� �'„ a - -. � - 1•('' � Manassas Washington L Li ray I q { ► Dale My .+ • mi ery j �y ��• �:.. .. r .t'. ate'- � J�r ��sJfi�r�,rry ,ryR t �~' •y� 'I I ICJtiI M IfG onton Y• �, ' WdlA�d" h _ e J .•�.,}y Or " ie•.4 _p�.r.;f,; r� .,� ' " �. ]"..i3i.L'w �' - - MR. 9 1 It Ivx MR, 7 ktl - - �e-- art 4f Itio Jowl 4e Y ea l r -NY; F '�L�aI. �YF FJJ —40 - +. Oil s ,• R Rt. 661 -Wright Road New Superstructure Replacement Rt. 604 -Gravel Springs Road Complete New Structure Rt. 657 — Senseny Road Deck Replacement (Stimulus Funding) Rt. 727 -Belle Grove Road Replace Wooden Deck • • �7 Item 6: Article Review See attached. Federal official stresses importance of rail funding 1 Richmond Times -Dispatch Page l of 3 •- A * AKIOOnO m es-Dispatcb OPINION: I Editorials I Letters � Commentary Monday, September 21, 20091 Chesterfield, VA 81 ° Feels Like: 81 ° Partly Cloudy Federal official stresses importance of rail funding Text size: small I medium I lar e By PETER BACOUE Published: September 19, 2009 How the U.S. uses $8 billion in federal stimulus funding for rail projects will set the course for the future of the nation's passenger train services, a top Federal Railroad Administration official said. "It's about the future of passenger rail in the country," Karen Rae, the agency's deputy administrator, said in Richmond yesterday. Though it won't happen overnight, creating a high-speed rail network will be the foundation for future passenger services, she said. Given the congestion dogging the nation's overburdened transportation systems, "we absolutely cannot [afford to] fail," she said. Rae spoke to about 60 people at a lunch meeting of the central Virginia chapter of Women's Transportation Seminar, a group of transportation professionals, at the Colony Club in Richmond. A former director of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Rae became the agency's deputy administrator in March. In her post, Rae is playing a leading role in the agency's efforts to develop better passenger rail service, now largely handled by Amtrak, in the United States. Federal stimulus funds provide $8 billion in competitively awarded grants for high -speed -rail corridors around the country. Virginia will seek more than $2 billion in stimulus funding to improve rail conditions between Washington, the Richmond and Tri -Cities area, and Hampton Roads, said Jennifer Pickett, spokeswoman for the state's Department of Rail and Public Transportation. The state says that high-speed -- at least 90 mph -- passenger rail service can ease highway congestion, reduce pollution and create traveling options for the Interstate 95 corridor. http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/business/transportation/articleIB-TRAN19 20090918-... 9/21/2009 Federal official stresses importance of rail funding I Richmond Times -Dispatch Page 2 of 3 Competing for shares of that $8 billion pot, states have proposed 278 projects with an estimated total cost of $102 billion, Rae said. She would not comment on Virginia's chances in that competition for federal money for rail infrastructure improvements. The federal government, however, does not have stimulus money to operate additional intercity passenger rail services. As a result, the U.S. government needs the states -- and their dollars -- to help put travelers on rails. Contact Peter Bacque at (804) 649-6813 or pbacquegtimesdisBatch. com . Reader Reactions Posted by ( Seaboard ) on September 19, 2009 at 12:21 pm Just across the Potomac River at D.C., Amtrak owns, maintains and operates a railway track structure all the way to New York that makes Norfolk Southern and CSX tracks in Virginia look shameful. Anyone who has ridden the dozens of 110 to 150 mph daily passenger trains that Amtrak operates on their track there already knows that Amtrak has nearly 40 years of experience not only running fast reliable passenger trains but also knows how to build and maintain high speed tracks and safety systems. So why not extend the current Amtrak - Virginia passenger rail contract to include oversight of all public spending on freight rail improvement projects since both gubernatorial candidates have made transportation improvements a top priority in their campaigns and have stated their desire to have a statewide passenger rail alternative for all Virginians. Putting Amtrak in the equation would ensure that our public funds would be used for only the necessary improvements that correspondingly truly benefit the public. Besides, they already have a nearly 40 year working and contractual and statutory relationship with the private freight railroads. Why expect stooges outside the rail industry to reinvent the wheel. The taxpayers own Amtrak, let Amtrak protect the public investment. Report Inappropriate Comment Posted by ( marston22 ) on September 19, 2009 at 11:45 am You can't just buy train sets and put people on them. You have to create infrastructure that allows trains to be on time and not delayed during peak economic times such as back in 2006 on the CSX line between Richmond & DC. Just having the current speed of trains, 79mph, not being impeded by congestion, slow orders, etc would make a big difference. Also, AMTRAK owns no rail in VA so they are at the mercy of CSX & NS. Additional train sets, such as the two starting up on 10/1/09 are going to be necessary but not before making the necessary infrastructure improvements to get the train service more reliable. Report Inappropriate Comment Posted by ( Seaboard) on September 19, 2009 at 11:03 am Now Karen Rae, "A former director of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Rae http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/business/transportation/article/B-TRAN19 20090918-... 9/21/2009 Federal official stresses importance of rail funding I Richmond Times -Dispatch Page 3 of 3 became the agency's deputy administrator in March," says "that high-speed—at least 90 mph— passenger rail service can ease highway congestion, reduce pollution and create traveling options for the Interstate 95 corridor," but then says "the federal government, however, does not have stimulus money to operate additional intercity passenger rail services." Sounds a lot like the same double talk she regularly made while taking a pay check from Virginia's taxpayers a few years ago. She gave away and continues to give away hundreds of millions of our tax - dollars to her private freight rail buddies and getting near zero public benefits for us who fund her pet freight rail projects. If she truly cared about people mobility via passenger trains she would give the stimulus money not to the States or the freight railroads to misuse, but directly to Amtrak, whose only business is passenger trains, and let them negotiate, contract and build all the track and signal improvements the freight rail companies claim they need to be able to run high speed trains but with the caveat of passenger trains first, not last or never, as the freight railroads have been continually enforcing. Perhaps then we would see true congestion relief, not more needless corporate welfare for the likes of CSX and Norfolk Southern. Report Inappropriate Comment Page 1 of 1 http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/business/transportation/articleB-TRAN19 20090918-... 9/21/2009 Centre View North - The Connection Newspapers Page 1 of 2 �NO Chantilly $ Fair Oaks 8 "r Lakes + Oak Hill VDOT Head Calls 1-66 No. Va.'s `Most Ema?Tint tlt this ArtisArti le cle Challenging' Corridor Better traffic may include rail to Centreville in the long-term, HOV changes in the short-term. By Julia O'Donoghue Friday, September 18, 2009 Virginia Transportation Secretary Pierce Homer referred to Interstate 66 as the most congested, most challenged and most rapidly changing corridor in Northern Virginia as he laid out a plan for improving the thoroughfare's traffic over the next several years. "The Beltway is under construction. There is a good plan in place for 95 but we have done nothing like either of those projects for 66," said Homer during a Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance seminar and fundraiser at the Capital One building in Tysons Corner Sept. 10. Expanding Metro rail service out Interstate 66 from Vienna to Centreville needs to be part of the corridor's long-range plan, he said. The "shoulder" lanes used during rush hour also need to be permanently converted into regular lanes, said Homer. Virginia code also requires that the Virginia Department of Transportation investigate the benefits of putting high occupancy toll [HOT] lanes on Interstate 66 as part of any transit and congestion relief study, he added. THE COMMONWEALTH also needs to look into changing the high occupancy vehicle [HOV] program that is currently in the corridor. During morning rush hour, about 55 percent of the interstate's traffic is going east toward Washington and 45 percent is going west toward Loudoun County. The situation reverses in the evening, according to Homer. The transportation secretary said the commonwealth should consider running the HOV program in both directions during peak hours. Officials should also study the impact of increasing the HOV lane threshold from two persons per car to three persons per car, he said. Homer said the community should expect the Virginia Department of Transportation to produce a Interstate 66 transit study by November 2010. The agency began an environmental impact study in 2003 — which helps sets the parameters of what is feasible for a project — but aborted the study when officials determined there would be no construction funding available to improve Interstate 66 for the foreseeable future. SPRINGFIELD SUPERVISOR Patrick Herrity (R) has been pushing for the Virginia transportation department to resume the environmental impact study, even if no public funding seems to be available. The study's findings would help private investors draw up proposals for the corridor and potentially bring private dollars to the overall project, he said. "You can't get a creative solution, on the table or anything before the [environmentai http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/articleprint.asp?article=332928&paper=82&cat=104 9/21/2009 Centre View North - The Connection Newspapers impact study] is done," said Herrity. He added that, without the completed environmental impact study of the Beltway expansion, Fluor Corp. and Transurban would not have been able to propose the HOT lanes project that is currently under construction on Interstate 495. VDOT completed the study before HOT lanes were proposed. According to Homer, Interstate 66 does have some significant limitations. A number of utilities and fiber optics that would be very expensive to move are located alongside the corridor. The public rights of way are also very restricted in some places along the highway, he said. As it is, the Virginia transportation department is going to have to figure out how to deal with "pavement failure" on Interstate 66 outside the Beltway. One approach to the problem would be to shut down the interstate for two months and repave as quickly as possible or to keep the highway open during the day and only work at night, which might disturb the neighbors, said Homer. kwZMEMON to your cornaraunit ©2009 Connection Newspapers. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy 1606 King Street ♦ Alexandria, VA 22314 ♦ 703-821-5050 Site Design, Development and Hosting by Timberlake Publishing Page 2 of 2 http://www.connectionnewspapers.comlarticleprint.asp?article=332928&paper=82&cat=104 9/21/2009 Senate Approves DOT Funding Package (http://www.jQc.com) Page 1 of 2 Senate Approves DOT Funding Package Debate over amendments will move to House -Senate conference as deadline nears The fiscal 2010 transportation and housing appropriations bill is headed to a House - Senate conference committee after being approved by the Senate in a 73-25 vote Sept. 17. The $123 billion Senate bill directs $77 billion to the Department of Transportation, including $43.4 billion slated for the Federal Highway Administration and $15.6 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration. The conference committee will have less than two weeks to debate several amendments to the House bill approved by the Senate, including provisions that will allow heavier trucks on Maine's highways and guns in checked baggage on Amtrak trains. Current funding runs out at the end of the federal government's fiscal year Sept. 30. Contact William B. Cassidy at wcassidya 'oc.com. http://www.joc.com/print/413477 9/21/2009 Senate Approves DOT Funding Package Page 2 of 2 Washington Government__+ Regulation United States Source URL: http://www.joc-com/node/413477 http://www.joc.com/print/413477 9/21/2009 Va. lawmakers question ignoring local road funding By DENA POTTER , S,').1 -. iC-3: I- ` . L1)_'. RICHMOND, Va. -- Some members of the Virginia Senate's money committee questioned Thursday whether it's wise - or legal - to sacrifice the state's local roads in order to secure federal dollars to maintain and build highways. Transportation Secretary Pierce Homer told members of the Senate Finance Committee that revenue reductions of $4.6 billion over the next six years have forced the state to choose to go after federal highway funding instead of repairing and improving other roads and bridges. Article Controls EMAIL REPRINT ✓ NEWSLETTER COMMENTS SHARE YAHOO! BUZZ To qualify for federal funds that contribute $4 for every $1 the state pitches in, Virginia must meet minimum construction requirements. In order to get those, Virginia has reduced funding to maintain state and local roads by 25 percent. Sen. R. Edward Houck, D-Spotsylvania, said he feared by doing so Virginia was violating a state law that says maintaining roads must be put before building them. "While none of these choices are easy, but that seems to be a major, major policy shift that I'm afraid it's the wrong decision," Houck said. The Legislature's inability to find new ways to fund transportation means the state has all but given up on projects to ease congestion and promote economic development. Since 2002, the amount of money transferred from construction to maintenance has grown from $3.6 million to $712 million. In addition, the transportation department has closed half of the interstate rest stops and laid off more than 1,000 employees to deal with the revenue decreases. Virginia gets two-thirds of its transportation funding from its 17.5 -cents -per -gallon gas tax and taxes on car sales, each of which have deteriorated with the sagging economy. Homer said officials had to make "painful" choices: either leave federal dollars on the table for projects like highway improvements or direct money to subdivision, city and rural roads. "If all of our funds were fungible and we could move them we might be able to make a different set of choices, but remember such a large portion of our funds come from the federal government and they put limitations and conditions on where and how we can spend those funds," he said. That has meant bridge closures and the further deterioration of existing roads. Local governments have been the hardest hit, Homer said. Localities that were accustomed to receiving millions from the state each year to maintain roads and bridges now get nothing. Senate Majority Leader Richard L. Saslaw, D -Fairfax County, said it was unfair that a road in his hometown that carries 83,000 cars each day - twice the traffic of Interstate 81 - would be ignored. Houck said he felt the state was abandoning its responsibility for the safe upkeep of existing roads. "I don't think the impact of this one has really hit people yet," he said. "We have a constitutional provision that maintenance come first and this is reneging on that proposition." Legislation for a 21 st Century Transportation System Doesn't Come Easy - NYTimes.com Page 1 of 4 Thr ew flork imc 3 :ix�F�ut I+;e•e� September 17, 2009 Legislation for a 21st Century Transportation System Doesn't Come Easy By JOSH VOORHEES of Greenwire The road to reforming the nation's transportation systems looks to be a long and winding one. Once lawmakers decide when to move forward with the sweeping overhauls they promise, they will need to find a way to pay for it. And once that difficult task is accomplished, the debate will only grow more complicated. Many in the transportation community agree the next multi-year surface transportation bill needs to significantly boost federal funding for the nation's roads, rails and bridges. But the consensus soon begins to crumble when the issue turns to how to pay for the overhaul -- with lawmakers loath to tell Americans they will need to foot the bill and the rest of the transportation community agreeing that is the only option to pay for it (E&E Daily, Sept. 15). But even off the Hill, where key players agree massive reform is needed to make the system more performance-based and effective, there is no consensus on exactly what that new system would look like and what those performance goals should be. "I think part of the reason we fall short is we take a leap from these areas of general consensus immediately to the micro level -- How do we design the programs? What are the specific source of revenue? What is the specific mechanisms," said Mort Downey, who served as deputy secretary of Transportation in the Clinton administration. "I think we need to recognize there are multiple goals." Downey, who also advised President Obama on transportation issues during his presidential campaign and transition into office, was one of roughly 8o transportation attorneys, engineers and other stakeholders who met last week at the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs for a summit to discuss the sweeping reforms many in the field want in the next highway and transit bill. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/09/17/17greenwire-legislation-for-a-21 st-century-tra... 9/21/2009 Legislation for a 21 st Century Transportation System Doesn't Come Easy - NYTimes.com Page 2 of 4 In a sign of how much work remains to be done on the bill's next incarnation, the Miller Center working group does not plan to release its recommendations to Congress until early next year, at least three months after the current law is set to expire. But looming deadlines that come and go are nothing new for highway and transit spending bills. The current authorization was signed into law in August 2005, two years and 12 extensions after its predecessor had been scheduled to expire. Senate leaders, backed by the White House, are pushing to pass an 18 -month temporary extension this month that would give lawmakers until March 2011 to work on the new bill. Old fights Many of the goals discussed at the invitation -only event are conflicting by nature. The usual suspects include the funding ratio for highways and transit systems, and the rate of return that individual states see from taxes they pay to finance the nation's road and rail work. Robert Atkinson, who chaired one of two congressionally created blue ribbon panels to examine transportation investment needs, said his panel, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, did not even broach the subject of where the increased investment should be spent in its report. "There was a consensus about how much we need to raise and how we go about raising it," Atkinson said. "There were vast and strong disagreements on how we would be spending it." Under the current system, revenues raised from federal taxes on gasoline and diesel are placed in the federal Highway Trust Fund, which in turn doles out the cash to states according to a federal formula. The formula leaves some states with less federal cash than they paid into the account and other states with more. The donor -donee fight has been a staple of federal transportation debates for more than two decades, according to the Congressional Research Service. During debate on the current highway reauthorization, which expires at the end of this September, lawmakers ultimately decided to incrementally increase the minimum percentage returned to each state from 90.5 percent to 92 percent, which is the current rate. But for some highly populated donor states, that 8 percent gap is still too wide, and a handful of lawmakers have promised to again push to retain more of their state's funding. But many reform advocates argue that states unwilling to part with their federal taxes serve as a roadblock for projects of national importance. With the Interstate Highway System "we http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/09/17/17greenwire-legislation-for-a-21 st-century-tra... 9/21/2009 Legislation for a 21 st Century Transportation System Doesn't Come Easy - NYTimes.com Page 3 of 4 had a consensus where people in New Jersey were alright with seeing their tax money used to build a highway in Montana," said Emil Frankel, who served as assistant secretary in President George W. Bush's DOT. "I'd like to think that some day people in Montana will see the benefit of having an intermodal system in Chicago." New fights Lawmakers must not only forge a compromise on existing goals but also must tackle new ones, notably an increased focus on reducing fuel consumption in the transportation sector and the greenhouse gas emissions that accompany it. According to government estimates, the transportation sector accounts for roughly a third of U.S. carbon emissions, and Democrats have vowed to recast the nation's roads and rails in a "greener" light. But many state highway departments that had previously voiced support for the new environmental focus are now worrying that the emissions goals may grow overly ambitious and threaten to deliver another blow to both the economy and their efforts to repair and replace crumbling roads and bridges (Greenwire, Aug. 27) Congress must also decide whether or not to welcome the private sector into the transportation field by giving firms long-term leases on public roads and bridges, effectively turning public infrastructure into a private product. And that's not all. Even after all of the technicalities are hashed out, transportation spending must then navigate the halls of Congress where many lawmakers are quick to insert their own pet projects in an effort to gain popularity at home. "In the House, we have a focus on earmarking because that is a very visible and tangible way to say what the bill is about for most members, and in the Senate, it's about 'how much money my state is getting," said Steve Heminger, the executive director of San Francisco's Bay Area Metro Transportation Commission. "That's the national interest as defined in operation of the surface transportation program." According to a Center for Public Integrity report released yesterday, there are nearly 1,800 special interest groups lobbying Congress on the transportation bill, ranging from local officials and planning agencies to real estate companies, construction firms and universities. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/09/17/17greenwire-legislation-for-a-21 st-century-tra... 9/21/2009 Legislation for a 21 st Century Transportation System Doesn't Come Easy - NYTimes.com Page 4 of 4 In the first half of this year, the groups employed more than 2,000 lobbyists and spent an estimated total of $45 million on their transportation lobbying. Single national goal Many in the transportation community fear the varying individual goals cloud the overall picture, making it difficult to craft a public pitch for what it is they are truly trying to accomplish. "This question of goals is critical, it's the key missing agreement," Heminger said. "When you look back at the Interstate program, it was just beautiful in terms of laying out a national vision, goal, objective, whatever term you want to call it. The vision was simple and coherent, it was something everyone could understand and rally around, from members of the public to members of Congress -- and we're never going to have that back, and that's the sad truth facing our profession." Still, other stakeholders are unwilling to give up hope of crafting a message that can rival that of the Interstate Highway System, in part because it was the product of long-term consensus building. The system was built in the 195os during the Eisenhower administration, but federal officials began studying its feasibility in the late 1930s. "There was a national consensus about it but it didn't just happen, it didn't leap out of the mind of Dwight Eisenhower and suddenly happen," said Frankel, who now serves as the director of transportation for the Bipartisan Policy Center. "There was a gestation period of 30 years, give or take." Copyright 2oo9 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved. For more news on energy and the environment, visit wwu,.areenwzre.com. Copvri4ht 2009 Privacy Policy I Terms of Service I Search I Corrections P.sL I First Look I Help I Contact Us I Work for Us I Site Map http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/09/17/17greenwire-legislation-for-a-21 st-century-tra... 9/21/2009 Highway bill draws $45 million in lobbying Page 1 of 2 Ss,pI(_rn.ber ,16, 2 0:03 Highway bill draws $45 million in lobbying Special interest groups have spent $45 million lobbying federal lawmakers so far in 2009 on issues relating to the next highway authorization bill, according to the Center for Public Integrity. The center published its latest report on Wednesday, Sept. 16, saying the cash spent lobbying for transportation has rivaled that of climate change. What it boils down to, according to OOIDA's government affairs staff in Washington, DC, is that without having a dog in the fight, the interests of professional truckers could get buried in all of the noise. "This shows what OOIDA is up against on a daily basis," said OOIDA Director of Government Affairs Rod Nofziger. "In DC, it is very easy to get lost in the crowd, because the crowd here is much larger than most people across the country realize." The message to truckers is to stay involved and show resolve, because there are hundreds of other groups pushing to move funding around or to change the regulations at every turn. "In my personal and professional opinion, the best way to make your voice heard over all the noise is to be engaged not only with our presence in Washington, DC, but to have truckers all over the country calling and contacting their lawmakers on a regular basis," Nofziger told Land Line Magazine. "That helps trucking stay in the forefront on some of these issues." This has been a big year for transportation, with House lawmakers rolling out a prototype in June of what the next five -or six-year highway authorization bill could look like. For starters, members of Congress believe the highway bill could cost $450 billion to $500 billion to fund. Compare that to the 2005 highway bill known as SAFETEA-LU that cost $286 billion to fund. Groups backed by construction, manufacturing, education, railroad, maritime, transit and aviation industries are among those competing to influence transportation, Nofziger said. "The highway bill is the mother of all transportation and trucking bills, because it covers not only highway funding matters for the next several years, but will also affect for good or bad highway safety and trucking regulations," he said. http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_news/Daily/2009/Sept09/091409/091609-02.htm 9/21/2009 Highway bill draws $45 million in lobbying Page 2 of 2 As simply as it can be put, OOIDA's role in this authorization year is to keep good things in the bill for truckers and to keep the bad things out. Nofziger says it's about choosing when to play offense and when to play defense, but both are equally important. "On a regular basis, outside of a highway bill, we're forced to spend more of our time playing defense rather than offense because there are organizations pushing to get something passed," he said. Many cities, counties and regions have lobbyists to try to obtain authority or funding for specific projects. The Center for Public Integrity reported that 475 U.S. cities and 160 counties in 44 states have sought funds for specific projects in the past nine months. The center's report is timely, the authors stated, because the existing SAFETEA-LU law is set to expire Sept. 30 as the House and Senate continue to debate both a short-term and long-term future for transportation programs. — By David Tanner, staff writer david tanner@landlinemag.com 49M FRANSiCOLD twin to the Expezai. moo A % sH ,qWA I ruCker elper, TRUCKING sO► 1 E T Co -,-r,-'.- © 009 OOIDA Privacy Policy Jar v21'3y, Missour 540n 579' 229,.579 http://www.landlinemag.comltodays_news/Daily/2009lSeptO9/091409/091609-02.htm 9/21/2009 Item 7: Other Update on status of Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road plans. Update on work with Shenandoah Area Agency on Aging. Update on MPO activities. 8