2011 rtp appendix j rev1bfcog.us/2011_rtp_appendix j_rev1.pdf · 2011-2032 regional transportation...

APPENDIX J

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

2011 Adoption and 2012 Revision

Benton-Franklin Council of Governments 2011-2032 Regional Transportation Plan

Appendix J-1

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT This chapter provides additional detail in the effort by the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments to provide opportunity for jurisdiction, agency and public involvement in the development of the 2011-2032 Regional Transportation Plan. JURISDICTIONAL AND AGENCY REVIEWS Every MPO/RTPO member jurisdiction and agency was afforded the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Regional Transportation Plan throughout the development of the update. They were specifically requested to review the defined level of service deficiencies and the project listings for consistency with their six-year Transportation Improvement Programs. Simultaneous reviews were made by WSDOT (South Central Region and Olympia). Upon completion of the Plan specific efforts were made to contact the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, and state and federal agencies responsible for environmental protection, wildlife management, land management, and historic preservation. BFCG notified jurisdictions and agencies of staff availability to do presentations to their councils, boards, and commissions.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT In April 2011, a general notice was mailed to about 250 recipients, including: local media, state and federal legislators, federal agencies, regional associations, schools, public and private transportation providers, chambers of commerce, minority group organizations, freight-reliant businesses, emergency service providers, bicycle groups and advocates, human service agencies, private industry, and unions. The written notification invited interested parties to sign up for public meeting notification or receive a copy of the draft RTP via email at [email protected]. The letter received six responses. A copy of that letter is below.

2011-2032 Regional Transportation Plan Benton-Franklin Council of Governments

Appendix J-2

Benton-Franklin Council of Governments 1622 TERMINAL DRIVE Phone: (509) 943-9185P.O. BOX 217 FAX: (509) 943-6756 RICHLAND, WA 99352 WEBSITE www.bfcog.us

April 21, 2011

To: Interested Transportation Parties From: Mark Kushner, Transportation Director Benton‐Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG) Re: Notification of the 2011‐2031 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Update Many of you may be familiar with the BFCG and the role we play in transportation planning for the Tri‐Cities Metropolitan Area and the Benton, Franklin and Walla Walla region. For those who are unfamiliar, the BFCG is the lead planning agency for the region and coordinates and develops long‐range transportation plans in accordance with state and federal transportation planning requirements. Regional transportation planning provides a unified blueprint to ensure that the efforts of all affected jurisdictions are coordinated and that the individual parts of the overall transportation system function properly as a whole. The RTP helps to guide multi‐modal transportation planning and programming decisions for the future of the region. The RTP is a combined urban and rural long‐range document that provides a 20‐year vision of the entire region. Federal requirements state the RTP must be updated on a five‐year cycle. Currently the BFCG transportation staff is working on the up‐date and anticipate the final draft of the 2011‐2031 plan will be ready for review in late summer and approval by the BFCG Board this fall. Our notification today provides an opportunity to you and your organization to participate/comment as the BFCG works through that process. If you are interested in receiving meeting notifications or a copy of the final draft for comment please email [email protected] or contact Tanna Dole at 509‐943‐9185. Please don’t hesitate to call me regarding any questions you may have about regional transportation planning. Also, visit our website for additional regional transportation information. www.bfcog.us Thank you. If you are not the correct contact person for this information please forward this notice to the person in your organization that is most likely to response to its content. Or notify the above email address with the appropriate contact.

Tri‐Cities Metropolitan Area Benton‐Franklin‐Walla Walla Region


Appendix J-3

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF DRAFT PLAN AVAILABILITY In late August 2011, following completion of the draft RTP, paid advertisements were published in the Tri-City Herald and the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin. The advertisements announced public open houses in the Tri-Cities and Walla Walla, and the availability of the Draft RTP for public review and comment at local libraries and city halls and also on the BFCG website (www.bfcog.us). Both newspapers also published general interest items on two separate occasions, addressing the same information. The public open houses included displays of maps and a 30-minute Power Point presentation with printed handouts to all who attended. Local elected officials were individually notified of the open houses by letter. Open House meetings were held for the Draft Regional Transportation Plan in the Tri-Cities on Tuesday, September 6th at the Ben Franklin Transit Administration Office in Richland and Thursday, September 8th at the Walla Walla Regional Airport, Blue Mountain Room in Walla Walla. Each RTP Open House was held in conjunction with a meeting for the 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program. A total of ten citizens and jurisdiction/agency staff members attended the meeting in the Tri-Cities, while eleven a total of citizens and jurisdiction/agency staff members attended the meeting in Walla Walla.


Appendix J-4

REGULAR TIP/RTP

ACTIVITIES SCHEDULE

August 25 Draft RTP to TAC & Regional Planners for Review

Draft RTP to WSDOT, FHWA, FTA, Others

August 25 Executive Summary to Mayors & Others

Offer for Oral Presentations in September and October August 25 BFCG Newsletter Article on TIP/RTP meetings August 25 Arrange advertisements for TIP/RTP Open House (Tri-Cities & Walla Walla) September Agenda Tri-MATS & Board Review Draft TIP/RTP September 1 Draft RTP to Libraries, City Halls, BFCG Website

September 1 Draft RTP to PAC for Review September 6 TIP/RTP Open House at Ben Franklin Transit Administration Bldg. September 8 TIP/RTP Open House at Walla Walla Regional Airport September 26 TIP Comments Due to BFCG October Agenda TIP Approval October 3 TAC/PAC, WSDOT, FHWA, FTA, Other Review Comments Due at BFCG Update Draft RTP per Review Comments October 3 Written Public Comments on RTP Due at BFCG.

October 21 RTP Presentation to BFCG Board

November Agenda RTP Approval

November Print/Mail RTP Final Copies


Appendix J-5

Ad Placed in Tri-City Herald


Appendix J-6

Ad placed in Walla Walla Union-Bulletin


Appendix J-7

Article from Tri-City Herald

tricityherald.com / News / Mid-Columbia News / Breaking News - Yahoo Published Tuesday, Sep. 06, 2011

Officials seek comments on draft 2011 transportation plan

By Kristi Pihl, Herald staff writer

Mid-Columbia officials have made their list of transportation project wants, and now they are asking the public to check it before the proposal becomes a plan.

The Benton-Franklin Council of Governments is holding a public meeting today in Richland and Thursday in Walla Walla to collect public comment on the 2011-2030 regional transportation plan for Benton, Franklin and Walla Walla counties.

The 20-year plan, which is revised every five years, acts as a guideline for cities and counties to build projects and allows the governments to compete for state and federal funding for the projects listed in the plan, said Mark Kushner, council of governments transportation director.

"Without the plan, they won't get the money," he said.

Officials anticipate Benton, Franklin and Walla Walla counties will see 90,000 to 100,000 more people added to the area population in the next 20 years. That would mean about 311,000 people in the three counties by 2030, according to the draft plan.

With that much traffic potentially added to the roads, Kushner said planners have estimated where the choke points for congestion could be. The plan includes a list of suggested locations for modifications to ease traffic, including on Pasco's Road 68, the Highway 240/Interstate 182 interchange and the blue bridge.

The plan identifies the need and possible funding ideas but not exactly how those potential problems should be fixed, Kushner said.

The plan also lays out other projects that cities, counties and the state would like to complete in the area, such as those that would have economic benefits, he said.

Some of those projects include the Lewis Street overpass in Pasco, which would replace the aging railroad underpass, the Duportail Street bridge to provide access between central Richland and the Queensgate shopping district, extending Steptoe Street in Kennewick to connect Gage Boulevard west of the Columbia Center district to West 10th Avenue, and the Red Mountain interchange project, which would add an interchange on Interstate 82 near milepost 100 and provide direct access to West Richland and the Red Mountain American Viticulture Area.

Both meetings start at 5:30 p.m., with a 30-minute presentation beginning at 6 p.m. Today's meeting will be at the Ben Franklin Transit Administration Building, at 1000 Columbia Park Trail in Richland, and the Thursday meeting will be held in the Blue Mountain Room at the Walla Walla Regional Airport Terminal Building, at 45 Terminal Loop Road, Walla Walla.

Public comments on the plan will be accepted until Oct. 3. Comments can be emailed to [email protected].

Then, Kushner said, those comments will be taken into consideration, as well as the response received from the state and federal transportation agencies after the agencies review the plan.

He said the Benton Franklin Council of Governments hopes to accept the plan Nov. 18.

For a copy of the plan, go to bfcog.us/RTP.html.


Appendix J-8

PUBLIC COMMENT As a result of outreach efforts, three comments were received, one from Benton County and two from private citizens. The comments and the associated reply are below. From: Walt Gray Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Duportail Street bridge I wonder whether the potential negative impact of a Duportail Street bridge on Highway 240 Bypass traffic has been adequately considered. Most of the evening southbound traffic on the Bypass exits only onto I-182 Eastbound. Only a small fraction exits onto I-182 Westbound. Therefore, a Duportail Street bridge would do very little to relieve traffic on the Bypass highway. But, the increased traffic on Duportail would greatly increase the traffic crossing the Bypass or turning onto it. Thus, the amount of time that Bypass traffic would be stopped for the signal at Duportail would be significantly increased. This seems to me like a step in the wrong direction, and I wonder whether it has been adequately considered. Walt Gray Richland

***** From: Tanna Dole [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 11:28 AM To: Walt Gray Cc: Stairs, Steve Subject: Duportail Bridge Mr. Gray, Thank you for responding with your concern regarding traffic circulation in Richland. We appreciate your willingness to participate in our process. I have forwarded your email to Steve Stairs, Transportation Engineer at the City of Richland who can speak directly to your question in regards to Highway 240 Bypass and a bridge at Duportail. Tanna Dole Transportation Planning Specialist III Benton Franklin Council of Governments 1644 Terminal Drive Richland, WA 99354 509.943.9185 www.bfcog.us

***** From: Stairs, Steve [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 3:27 PM To: Walt Gray Cc: 'Tanna Dole' Subject: RE: Duportail Bridge


Appendix J-9

Mr. Gray, I appreciate your review and feedback on our project. There are several reasons the city is proposing to construct the Duportail Bridge project that I will try to explain below. In 2006 we hired a consultant to do a corridor analysis of where to provide a connection across the Yakima River between southern Richland and core Richland. We looked at four alignments, Duportail Street, I-182, Swift Boulevard and Goethals Drive. Based on evaluation of impacts on economy, environment, ease of permitting, neighborhoods and cost, Council adopted the Duportail Bridge corridor as the best alternative. I agree that some decline in performance of the By-pass will take place at Duportail with construction of the bridge. We believe that will be offset by the preservation of the Interstate and a weave/merge problem on I-182 between the Queensgate and Wellsian/Aaron ramps that is predicted to worsen significantly in the next 20 years. Duportail will also reduce the operational deficiency at the eastbound ramps There are other reasons for Duportail Bridge as well. The city intends to locate a fire station behind the shops complex on Duportail. Locating there provides improved response times to the commercial and residential developments off of Keene Road and also to the southwestern areas of core Richland which do not have adequate fire service from the Swift Blvd station. In addition, the City has a 36” water main that crosses the Yakima River in Duportail corridor. The water main has been partially exposed as a result of scour from past flood events. We are proposing to install a new water main on the bridge as a more environmentally sensitive solution. Boring a replacement under the river would be very costly. The bridge will provide a more direct pedestrian and bike connection between core and southern Richland. We believe the benefits outweigh the impacts. Lastly, I would add that we are nearing the end of the environmental review process for the project. We hope to have an Environmental Assessment (EA) complete and circulated for public review by the end of the year. We will be having a public meeting to receive comments and answer questions about the project during the 30-day comment period for the EA. You should see EA availability and public meeting notices in December with the exact date, time and location. Thanks again for your interest in our project. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or would like additional information. Steve Stairs, P.E. Civil Engineer III City of Richland 840 Northgate Drive Richland, WA 99352 (509) 942-7504 From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 1:30 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Suggested Bridging Options Public Comment 9/7/2011 To whom it may concern, I'm submitting a suggested briddging option public comment. I hope that it is not too broad.


Appendix J-10

Michael Luzzo Kennewick Suggested Changes for Tri City Bridges

Those responsible for managing the Tri Cities are not fully utilizing transportation pathways around its vicinity. Past managers have helped tremendously by recently constructing several highways around the Kennewick/Findley area that serve as excellent bypass areas. What are needed are more bridging opportunities for further growth within the common metropolitan area. What can be considered are other options that what was suggested by recent public forums for this. The suggested changes for this are provided as follows. Provide an opportunity to allow one side of the Highway 182 Bridge over Columbia Point to be used as a motor scooter pathway. There are simply not enough pathways within the Tri Cities for motor scooters to cross over the river areas. The other side can be used it is now, a combined bike/walking pathway. It may be suggested that by shopping around for old bridging such as the old Green Pasco/Kennewick Bridge was, could be used for a Richland access for Doportail Street across the Yakima River. This could be used as a 20 mph bridge. This could be used as a common motor scooter/bicycle and walking pathway. There already is a good bridge that accesses the Queensgate entryway from the north. What is not used is a good motor scooter path. As for the bridge over the Columbia River either off of Edison in Kennewick or off of Road 68. This does not need to be built. Rather a bridge off of Snyder Street that connects North Richland and North Pasco should be considered. This alternative bridging would serve that Hanford area and opportunities for industrial growth in Richland and Pasco. Centrally located bridging and alternative construction would help create bypass highways around the Tri City area. This would serve as needed pathways that do not just serve Kennewick and Pasco; at Richland and even West Richland’s expense. It should also be noted that allowing this to happen could serve to facilitate opportunities to use motor scooters and bicycles all over this area. Even allowing motor scooters alternative routes along the Highway 182 corridor and along the Richland/Kennewick causeway would also be of tremendous help. This is not presently happening as much at it could. Michael Luzzo Kennewick Washington 509-420-0982 Mr. Luzzo – First, I want to thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns about transportation in the Tri-Cities. Your email actually brings up three separate issues which I will address individually.

1. Provide an opportunity to allow one side of the Highway 182 Bridge over Columbia Point to be used as a motor scooter pathway.

There is actually a state law (RCW 46.61.170) which states: (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a moped may not be operated on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail.


Appendix J-11

(3) Operation of a moped, electric personal assistive mobility device, motorized foot scooter, or an electric-assisted bicycle on a fully controlled limited access highway is unlawful. Operation of a moped, motorized foot scooter, or an electric-assisted bicycle on a sidewalk is unlawful. (6) Subsection (2) of this section applies to motorized foot scooters when the bicycle path, trail, bikeway, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail was built or is maintained with federal highway transportation funds.

So, there you have it. The Interstate 182 Bridge was constructed with federal funds. Operation of a scooter on the pathway associated with the Bridge is not legal. In your additional comments referenced below, the projects to extend Duportail Road over the Yakima River, as well as an additional Columbia River crossing, would each utilize federal funds, negating the possibility that pathway facilities associated with those structures would allow motorized access.

2. It may be suggested that by shopping around for old bridging such as the old Green

Pasco/Kennewick Bridge was, could be used for a Richland access for Doportail Street across the Yakima River. This could be used as a 20 mph bridge. This could be used as a common motor scooter/bicycle and walking pathway. There already is a good bridge that accesses the Queensgate entryway from the north.

The City of Richland has proposed construction of a four-lane bridge extending Duportail Road over the Yakima River. The project will improve connectivity for bikes, pedestrians and vehicular traffic between the central core of Richland and southern areas of Richland. The extension will function as a critical component in addressing mobility challenges for both Richland and the metropolitan area. The Richland City Council has designated the Duportail Bridge project as the highest priority transportation project. When completed, the bridge will have pedestrian and bicycle access, but that access will not be usable by scooters. Additional information is available on Richland’s website: http://www.ci.richland.wa.us/.

3. As for the bridge over the Columbia River either off of Edison in Kennewick or off of Road 68. This does not need to be built. Rather a bridge off of Snyder Street that connects North Richland and North Pasco should be considered.

The locations you refer to are two of the three final alternatives selected for further study as the final outcome of the 2010 Columbia River Crossing Study. The third alternative is a parallel structure to the existing US 395 bridge. Currently, agencies and jurisdictions who partnered in the Study are considering what the next steps should be to follow through on Study recommendations. When completed, the bridge may have pedestrian and bicycle access, but that access will not be usable by scooters. You may follow the progress of the Columbia River Crossing Study at the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments website: http://www.bfcog.us/transportation.html

If you have any additional questions I may be reached at [email protected] or 943-9185.


Appendix J-12

Len Pavelka From: Susan Walker [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 4:34 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Malcolm Bowie; Mike Shuttleworth Subject: 2011-2030 Draft Regional Transportation Plan Tanna, Just finished a cursory review of the 2011-2030 Draft Regional Transportation Plan dated November 2011. The information found within the document is comprehensive and well prepared. The document includes an accurate inventory of existing transportation infrastructure within the Tri-County area and provides policy and direction for meeting the needs for future population and economic growth. General comments: The Regional Transportation goals and policies as proposed are consistent with, and further promote those of the Benton County Comprehensive Plan and its directives. Executive Summary-Regional Deficiency Analysis (RTPO) pg. viii, Notes that congestion challenges are absent on county roads serving rural or agricultural areas of Benton County, and generally the principle road concern is "all weather" access for agricultural product transport, and more direct farm-to-market routes for agricultural products. Specific comments: Policy 6, provides action strategies that promote mitigation of impacts and the preservation of agricultural lands, open space, sensitive areas, and conservation of fish and wildlife areas. Policy 10, regarding future development of the Tri-County area: supports urban residential development within Urban Growth Areas, in-fill and redevelopment, mixed use developments, increased densities and efficient use of urban land. Action strategies promote the use of alternative transportation, provision of greenbelts, parks and paths and preservation of open space, amenities that enhance the quality of life for the Benton County residents. These policies help to protect the County's commercial agricultural land, its economy, and its continued sustainability. Policy 15 and 16 in regard to air, waterways, rail and freight movement. The economic importance of these transportation facilities to the areas agricultural community cannot be overstated. The preservation of existing transportation networks, including truck, rail, and the Columbia and Snake river navigation systems is essential in maintaining the regions economic competitiveness in the global market. Chapter 4, describes and maps the State Scenic Highways that are designated within the Tri-County area for preservation and protection from inappropriate development. Chapter 10, Plan Implementation, "Urban Development" strategies follow the state GMA statutes for meeting the areas population growth. The "Rural Development" language correctly notes that encroaching residential development could threaten the agriculture base that is vital to the regions current and future economy, and that deterring incompatible land uses on or near resource lands is critical to the continued economic well being of the region. Just a note regarding the mapping of the Northwest Pipeline (Williams) routes shown in map 4-43. The location shown is approximately seven miles east of the current pipeline location, which begins in the east at the Yakima County line and bisects southeasterly through the Horseheaven Hills to the


Appendix J-13

Plymouth area. The WUTC provides a good depiction of the location on it's website, and the general location is also shown in the Benton County Comprehensive Plan in Chapter 10, the Utility Element, page 10-19. My Regards, Susan M. Walker, Senior Planner Benton County Long Range Planning


Appendix J-14

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT – 2012, Revision 1 This section of Appendix J provides additional detail in the effort by the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments to provide opportunity for jurisdiction, agency and public involvement in the development of Revision 1 of the 2011-2032 Metropolitan/Regional Transportation Plan (M/RTP). JURISDICTIONAL AND AGENCY REVIEWS Every MPO/RTPO member jurisdiction and agency was given the opportunity to review and comment on the revisions to the M/RTP throughout the development of the revisions. Simultaneous reviews were made by WSDOT (South Central Region and Olympia). Upon completion of the revisions to the Plan specific efforts were made to contact the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, and state and federal agencies responsible for environmental protection, wildlife management, land management, and historic preservation. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF PLAN REVISIONS Early in April 2012, a general notice was mailed to approximately 250 recipients, including: local media, state and federal legislators, federal agencies, regional associations, schools, public and private transportation providers, chambers of commerce, minority group organizations, freight-reliant businesses, emergency service providers, bicycle groups and advocates, human service agencies, private industry, and unions. The written notification invited interested parties to sign up for public meeting notification or receive a copy of the draft revisions to the M/RTP via email at [email protected]. The letter received no responses. A copy of the notification letter is below.


Appendix J-15

Benton-Franklin Council of Governments 1622 TERMINAL DRIVE Phone: (509) 943-9185P.O. BOX 217 FAX: (509) 943-6756 RICHLAND, WA 99352 WEBSITE www.bfcog.us

April 2, 2012 To: Interested Transportation Parties From: Mark Kushner, Transportation Director Benton‐Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG) Re: Notification of a Revised Update of the 2011‐2030 Metropolitan/Regional Transportation Plan (M/RTP) Revision includes additional information for Chapters Six, Seven, Nine and Eleven BFCG was notified that the 2011‐2030 M/RTP fell short of the required 20‐year planning horizon and did not demonstrate fiscal constraint. The BFCG has revised/updated the Plan to include the horizon years of 2031 and 2032. The revised 2011‐2032 M/RTP includes new sections in Chapters 6 and 7 (modeling), Chapter 9 (finance) and Chapter 11 (public involvement). Revisions of the chapters mentioned above have prompted a public meeting and public comment period. Public comment will be taken beginning 4/2/2012 and ending 4/30/2012. A public meeting will be held at the BFCG office, 1622 Terminal Drive in Richland. The meeting will be on April 16th from 4:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. Revised/updated Chapters may be viewed at www.bfcog.us . Comments may be sent to [email protected] . Please contact the Transportation Office at BFCG (509) 943‐9185 if you have any questions. If you are not the correct contact person for this information please forward this notice to the person in your organization that is most likely to response to its content. Or notify the above email address with the appropriate contact.


Appendix J-16

NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC MEETING On Wednesday, April 4th and Sunday, April 9th, paid advertisements were published in the Tri-City Herald. The advertisements announced a public meeting to be held at the BFCG office from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. The advertisement also announced the availability of the draft revisions on the BFCG website (www.bfcog.us). The public meeting held included map displays and a Power Point presentation. One citizen attended the meeting.

Ads in the Tri-City Herald


Appendix J-17

Public and Agency Comments: FHWA Comments BFCG Response to Jack Lord’s comments of 4-17-12

1. All references on the BFCG Web site still refer to the 2011-2030 MTP. All public references to the MTP need to show the correct horizon date of 2032. This has been done.

2. All references in the entire MTP/RTP document need to be updated to reflect the correct horizon year of 2032. This has been done excluding the references that specifically apply to the rural RTPO.

3. Chapter 9:

a. Table 9-3 indicates that the MTP is not fiscally constrained for the period from 2011-2020. Capital improvements scheduled for this time period will likely need to be moved into the 2021-2032 time frame to demonstrate fiscal constraint.

Table 9-3 in Revised Chapter 9 now demonstrates financial constraint.

b. Table 9-5 shows WSDOT funding separately. Within the boundaries of your MPO, all facilities are part of the MPO area’s transportation system and are subject to MPO decision-making authority. It is understandable that you would separate transit funding from other modes, but it is not clear why the WSDOT financial analysis separated from the MPO analysis in table 9-3.

Table 9-3 shows combined results for the MPO street and road system and the WSDOT system in the metropolitan area.

c. It would provide final clarity to Chapter 9 to include a summary table showing overall funding for the MPO – all revenues, all expenditures, and any differences. Table 9-5 is a summary that shows all revenues, expenditures and any differences.

4. Appendix H – All references to 2030 will need to be changed to reflect the correct horizon year of 2032.

This has been done for projects in the Metropolitan Planning Organization area.


Appendix J-18

WSDOT Comments BFCG Response to Judy Lorenzo’s comments of 3-26-12 From: Lorenzo, Judy Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 5:24 PM To: Kushner, Mark; Luper, Gwen Mark, Here are the comments we discussed on the phone this afternoon. I was able to connect with Stephanie and this document clarifies the STIP page references. Benton Franklin Council of Governments - Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Regional Transportation Plan WSDOT Comments; BFCG comments in bold. Major Concerns:

Planning Horizon must be 20 years. We recommend that you double check the references to the 2020 and 2030 and change them to 2022 and 2032, in addition to the additional modeling.

The initial time period of the M/RTP remains 2011-2020; the second interval of the M/RTP is 2021-2032. Theses references have been updated in the plan.

The plan needs to be financially constrained; CPDM has provided a list of projects in Benton and Franklin counties with fund sources to SC Region for their review. They should be able to complete their review tomorrow morning.

The M/RTP is financially constrained in accord with direction from FHWA.

Federal revenue sources need to be updated (Refer to the current STIP p16, here is the link to the correct numbers: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/ProgramMgmt/STIP.htm )

This has been done. See appendix G.

State revenue sources need to be updated ( Ditto: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/ProgramMgmt/STIP.htm STIP p20)

This has been done. See appendix G. Minor Comments:

On page x, under WSDOT - RTPO Please clarify in the section what is meant by the first

sentence. Who performed the analysis and what type of analysis, if known? Including the explanation you shared on the phone today would strengthen the readers’ understanding of this section.


Appendix J-19

In 2006, WSDOT South Central Region Headquarters generated a spreadsheet that forecasts LOS for every segment of the state highway system in the RTPO. Forecast data in the table, which includes the years 2015 and 2025, shows all segments of the Non-HSS state system operating at LOS C or above.

On page xii, under Plan and Policy Implication, the third bullet references a “state

mandate to possibly have” CTR plans in place. Please “mandate to possibly have” comment. Please clarify.

Please refer to Revised Chapter 2, pages 2-7 to 2-9, in the M/RTP for discussion of the metropolitan area’s relationship with commute trip reduction.

At the very top of page 1-5 it says, “The TIP may be amended at any time appropriate to reflect needed modifications to the transportation program.” TIP amendments need to follow a schedule and cannot be amended “at any time.” Recommend deleting the words, “at any time appropriate.”

It has been deleted.

Page 11-4, please add the word “Routine” to the title of the: TIP/RTP Activities Schedule. We agreed on the phone to discuss future plan update cycles during the UPWP review meeting this year.

It has been deleted.

BFCG Responses to Bill Bennion comments of 4-13-12 From: Bennion, Bill [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 10:54 AM To: Len Pavelka Cc: Hall, Cliff Subject: DRAFT BFCG RTP WSDOT comments Benton Franklin Council of Governments Metropolitan Transportation Plan/ Regional Transportation Plan WSDOT DRAFT Comments Chapter Six

All the dates in chapter six still say 2030. There is no reference to 2032 so it doesn’t look like it has been updated to reflect the planning horizon year of 2032

See response under Chapter Seven comments (below).

Chapter Seven

Also references that the travel demand model focus on 2010, 2020, & 2030 data. Most of the references still say 2030, including the future scenarios such as “2030 Build” and “2030 No-Build.”


Appendix J-20

The modeling base year was 2010, with forecast for years 2020 & 2030 – corresponding with latest available land use and employment forecasts. This is explained within both chapters (and highlighted in draft documents for the reader). Extension of the plan period resulted in no changes to projects modeled under scenarios, though project listings have been revised to reflect entire plan period, as requested. The page headers reflect the planning period for the plan itself.

Chapter Nine

On page 9-1 under Historical Revenues and Expenditures, some of the figures/tables have incorrect page references.

Page references have been edited.

In chapter nine, there are numerous references to the 22-year planning horizon or 22-year financial analysis. The requirement is for a 20-year planning horizon from the date of adoption. It also appears that 2011 is included as part of the “22-year” planning horizon. Since the plan will be adopted in 2012, should 2011 not be considered a “planning year?”

The plan was adopted in November, 2011 and is being revised to extend the planning horizon a full 20 years+ beyond the date of revision. Federal requirement is for a minimum of a 20-year planning horizon from date of adoption. Plan, as originally adopted, included entire 2011 year - references to 2011 should remain within document to ensure consistency with modeling effort, financial forecasts, and associated project lists.

Appendix H

Appendix H goes back to correctly referencing the 20-year project listing, but appears to use 2011 - 2030 incorrectly as 20-years.

As noted in previous responses, the modeling horizon years now vary from plan period by two years (after two-year extension of plan period). The model period referenced as 2011-2030 is a twenty-year period and is correctly identified as such. The project listings have been revised to reflect the plan period, as requested.

General Comments

I don’t see any of the funding by source, so I’m not sure that the plan meets the expectation for “financial constraint.”

The plan meets FHWA direction for financial constraint. See response below.

I’m concerned that some of the financial analysis tables show a negative “remaining estimate.”

This has been addressed. See latest revision of Chapter 9.

2011 rtp appendix j rev1bfcog.us/2011_rtp_appendix j_rev1.pdf · 2011-2032 regional transportation...

Documents