2040 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP)

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Meeting Summary

May 27, 2015

Agenda Items Summary and Follow-up

CALL TO ORDER

Tiffany Dubinsky called the meeting of the 2040 MTP Advisory Committee (AC) to

order at 1:08 p.m. and welcomed all in attendance (see attached sign-in sheet). She

explained the transition from the previous project manager to her promotion into the

Principal Planner position at the RRPDC.

ADMINISTRATION

A. Approval of Agenda

Tom Coleman, MTP AC Chair, asked for approval of the agenda and on the motion

of Barb Smith from Chesterfield County, the committee unanimously approved the

agenda as submitted.

B. Public Comment Period – There were no requests to address the MTP AC.

BUSINESS

A. 2040 MTP Goals and Objectives –

Chris Wichman, RRPDC Senior Planner, provided an overview of the

development of the MTP Goals including the purpose of the goals in meeting

MAP-21 performance-based planning requirements for the MTP, the RRTPO

Federal Certification Review Report and FHWA recommendation that the next

update to the MTP include goals and objectives, and a review of the draft goals

worksheet that was sent out to the MTP AC on April 28 via email.

Mr. Wichman facilitated discussion on each of the draft goals developed from

feedback received. Discussion points included:

o Further elaboration on the Access to Employment goal to include language

for underserved populations or areas of poverty, identification of key

activity centers such as those listed in the RRPDC Comprehensive

Economic Development Strategy (CEDS), and what would count as

connections relative to employment centers. An example was made by

Greta Ryan, RRPDC Senior Planner, for the Route 10 Project in

Chesterfield County near Meadowville as a project that would meet the

goal.

o Environmental and Air Quality edits were made from “prioritize” to

“provide for” and “least harm” to “protect and enhance” in order to change

the connotation of the goal to be more positive. Chris Lloyd, EDAC

Representative, mentioned that this goal only addresses natural resources

and the natural environment but may need to also consider the built

environment. Mr. Wichman responded that the built environment may be

MTP AC Meeting Summary and Follow-up Report

May 27, 2015

Page 2

addressed more directly in the Transportation and Land Use Integration

goal.

o The MTP AC had concerns about the Project Delivery goal and whether it

is a goal for policy or planning and if it needs to be included in the 2040

MTP. Dan Lysy, RRPDC Director of Transportation, noted that the goal is

one of the MAP-21 National Goals and will be a requirement for reporting

once the federal regulations have been issued around October 2015. Mr.

Wichman explained that the goal could be measured through a project’s

readiness or current NEPA status. Staff agreed to remove the goal for

further review and future discussion.

o For the “Safety and Security” goal, there was some discussion about

changing “for all system users” to “for system users” and the method for

measuring security. The committee discussed security as an important

consideration for transit projects. Staff noted that for roadway projects the

impacts on incident response plans, evacuation plans, and other homeland

security or emergency management items could be used to evaluate

impacts on security.

o Robert Morris, CTAC Vice-Chairman, brought up during the general

discussion of the goals on the absence of any cost-benefit analysis for the

projects. Considering the issue of limited funding for transportation, he

asked the MTP AC and staff if there were any plans to include such an

analysis to see what projects would provide the “most bang for our buck”

when prioritizing projects for the 2040 MTP. Rosemary Deemer, Henrico

County, commented that it may be difficult to apply a cost-benefit analysis

to transportation projects. Staff will be reviewing cost-benefit analysis as

part of the project ranking and selection process based on further review

and research.

o Travis Bridewell, City of Richmond suggested more discussion on the

measures that would be used to track progress in achieving these goals in

the MTP. Ms. Dubinsky explained that these measures would be addressed

as part of the project ranking and selection process and that staff wanted to

prioritize some consensus on the goals before moving to objectives and

measures.

Ms. Dubinsky thanked the MTP AC for their discussion and asked for approval to

use the draft goals for future public participation efforts. Garet Prior, Ashland,

moved to approve the draft goals as revised for use in public participation efforts

and was seconded by Walter Johnson, CTAC At-Large Representative. The MTP

AC approved the draft goals as revised.

B. 2040 MTP Process and Scope Update –

Ms. Dubinsky provided a brief presentation about next steps and changes in the

MTP process. She started by addressing the change in the update cycle for the

plan from four years to five years based on the recent change in the EPA

requirements resulting in the change for the Richmond/Petersburg area air quality

attainment status. Ms. Dubinsky mentioned the included email correspondence

MTP AC Meeting Summary and Follow-up Report

May 27, 2015

Page 3

from Jim Ponticello, VDOT Environmental, and Ivan Rucker, FHWA confirming

the Richmond Region TPO now falling under a five year update cycle. She noted

that staff recommends maintaining the current schedule to provide some time

buffer for any unforeseen issues or obstacles and to complete the plan while not

under requirement for an air quality conformity analysis. Staff will apply the five

year update cycle to future plan updates.

Ms. Dubinsky then provided background on the MTP project ranking and

selection process starting with the process used in the 2035 LRTP, describing the

level of detail in the project list and the issues with the results of the ranking

process. As an alternative, Ms. Dubinsky presented an alternative method that

would follow the trend of MAP-21 and performance-based planning, focusing on

needs and identifying the types of projects that could address these needs. The

criteria for ranking projects and types of projects to be submitted for the MTP will

be part of the discussion at the June 16 TAC meeting with follow up at the next

MTP AC meeting. With this alternative method, the revenue projections would be

divided based on the MTP AC into percentages as to how much would be

dedicated over the 20 year horizon within set timebands.

o Barb Smith, Chesterfield County, agreed that the committee had gotten too

far into the weeds in the last plan and that with no requirement for an air

quality conformity analysis, the project list does not need to be as detailed

as before (i.e. no need to include relatively minor porjects).

o Joe Vidunas, Hanover County, mentioned the inclusion of smaller projects

was a result of the RSTP/CMAQ application with a question asking if a

project is identified in the long range plan. Ms. Dubinsky responded that

staff have discussed revising the guidelines and application forms for the

RSTP/CMAQ process to change language stating whether the project is

identified in the LRTP/MTP to whether it is consistent with the MTP by

meeting one or more goals of the plan.

o Ms. Dubinsky presented a case study of the East-West Gateway MPO in

St. Louis, Missouri and their approach which included identifying major

projects, projects within five year timebands and how each project

addressed one or more of their guiding principles, and a list of prioritized

but unfunded projects that would be available if more money were to

come through in the future.

o Ms. Smith responded that looking at MPOs of similar size would be

helpful and that the Richmond Region TPO is unique in its geography and

composition, which would need to be kept in mind when looking at

models for alternative project ranking and selection processes.

o Ms. Dubinsky ended the topic discussion by asking if the committee

would like staff to pursue an alternative process and the committee agreed.

Ms. Dubinsky also mentioned that criteria and types of projects for the

MTP would be included as a topic in the June 16 TAC meeting.

The last major point was on the definition of ‘consistent with the MTP’, which

had been discussed as part of the project ranking and selection process. The

current interpretation requires a project to be specifically included in the MTP

MTP AC Meeting Summary and Follow-up Report

May 27, 2015

Page 4

document. Staff presented an alternative definition for consistency where the

project addresses one or more goals of the MTP. The MTP AC did not provide

comment on the alternative definition.

Ms. Dubinsky summarized upcoming staff activities including work on the

objectives for the 2040 MTP, research and development of a new project ranking

and selection process, and the criteria and types of projects to be included in the

plan. It is anticipated that discussion of some of these items would occur at the

June 16 TAC meeting.

C. Richmond Regional Travel Demand Model Status and VDOT Revenue

Projections Update –

Ron Svejkovsky, VDOT Richmond District, provided an update on the Regional

Travel Demand Model (RTDM) which is currently in the calibration and

validation stages. Mr. Svejkovsky anticipates the model will be ready to share

with the TPO within the next couple of months.

Mr. Svejkovsky then spoke about the revenue projections for the 2040 MTP,

which are currently under evaluation. He expressed some difficulty projecting

anticipated revenue to the Richmond Regional TPO due to ongoing work on

VTrans 2040, House Bill 2, and the influence of House Bill 1887. He will be

working to get answers from VDOT Central Office as more information is

available but recommends that staff research the previous revenue projections as a

backup if projections are not available in a timely manner. The projections will

likely be provided in large pots by type (i.e. State of Good Repair, Capacity

Improvements, etc.) versus specifically identified funding sources like those

provided for the 2031 and 2035 LRTPs. The 2031 LRTP had 10 funding sources

or programs and the 2035 LRTP had four pots of money or funding sources.

D. Other Business –

No other business was brought forward.

NEXT MEETING/ADJOURNMENT

A. Next/Upcoming Meetings –

The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 1:00 p.m.

at the RRPDC Board Room.

B. Adjournment – The meeting was adjourned at approximately 2:45 p.m.

TTD

Ric

hm

on

d R

egio

nal T

PO

pla

n20

40 G

oals

(D

raft

as

ap

pro

ved

by M

TP

Ad

vis

ory C

om

mit

tee o

n 5

/27/1

5)

Acc

ess

to E

mplo

yment

Pro

vide for

tran

sport

atio

n s

yste

m c

onnect

ions

to a

reas

of

em

plo

yment

densi

ty a

nd k

ey a

ctiv

ity

cente

rs, w

ith a

n

em

phas

is o

n c

onnect

ing

to a

reas

of hig

h p

ove

rty

rate

s.

Co

nge

stio

n M

itig

atio

nSu

pport

tra

nsp

ort

atio

n s

yste

m im

pro

vem

ents

that

addre

ss

exis

ting

and e

xpect

ed futu

re t

raffic

conge

stio

n.

Envi

ronm

enta

l an

dA

ir Q

ual

ity

Pro

vide

for

pro

ject

altern

ativ

es

that

pro

tect

and e

nhan

ce

the r

egi

on's

nat

ura

l re

sourc

es.

Fre

ight

Mobili

tyEnhan

cefr

eig

ht

corr

idors

and inte

rmodal

connect

ions

to

faci

litat

e g

oods

move

ment

into

, wit

hin

and o

ut

of th

e r

egi

on.

Multim

odal

Co

nnect

ivity

Impro

ve a

ccess

ibili

ty a

nd inte

rconnect

ivity

of va

rious

tran

sport

atio

n m

odes

for

all sy

stem

use

rs.

Pre

serv

atio

nan

d M

ainte

nan

ceEnsu

re t

hat

exis

ting

tran

sport

atio

n infr

astr

uct

ure

and

faci

litie

s ac

hie

ve a

consi

stent

stat

e o

f go

od r

epai

r.

Proj

ect Rea

din

ess*

*M

onitor

on-s

ched

ule

and o

n-b

udge

t del

iver

y of

tra

nsp

orta

tion

pro

ject

s.

Saf

ety

and S

ecu

rity

Pro

vide for

tran

sport

atio

n im

pro

vem

ents

that

incr

eas

e

safe

ty a

nd s

ecu

rity

for

syst

em

use

rs.

Sys

tem

Relia

bili

tyIm

ple

ment

tech

nolo

gies

and p

rogr

ams

to im

pro

ve t

rave

l

tim

es

and s

upport

the e

ase o

f tr

avel th

rough

out

the r

egi

on.

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n a

nd L

and U

seIn

tegr

atio

nSu

pport

tra

nsp

ort

atio

n inve

stm

ents

that

meet

the n

eeds

of

exis

ting

& futu

re lan

d u

se a

nd d

evelo

pm

ent

pat

tern

s.

** P

roje

ct

Rea

din

ess g

oal w

as n

ot appro

ved b

y M

TP

Advis

ory

Com

mitte

e;

it w

as r

ecom

mended t

his

goal be r

eevalu

ate

d b

y R

RT

PO

sta

ff a

nd b

rought

back t

o

Com

mitte

e f

or

futu

re c

onsid

era

tion.