campo.tjpdc.orgcampo.tjpdc.org/wp-content/uploads/entirepacket3_23_16.pdf ·...

Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization POB 1505, 401 E. Water St, Charlottesville, VA 22902 www.tjpdc.org (434) 979-7310 phone ● (434) 979-1597 fax ● [email protected] email

AGENDA

METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY BOARD

4:00 p.m., Wednesday, March 23, 2016 Water Street Center, 407 E. Water Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902

Item Time† Description

4:00 Call to Order

1 4:00 – 4:15

Matters from the Public: limit of 3 minutes per speaker Public are welcome to provide comment on any transportation-related topic, including the items listed on this agenda, and/or comment during items marked with an *.

2 Response to Matters from the Public 3 Review and Acceptance of the Agenda* 4 Approval of Meeting Minutes for January 27 and February 24, 2016

5 4:15 – 4:30 Election of Officers*

6 4:25-4:30

CTAC appointment* Nancey Carpenter has applied to join the CTAC Committee. Staff recommends the approval of her appointment by the Policy Board.

7 4:30 – 4:45

PUBLIC HEARING: TIP Annual Obligation Report* MPO Policy Board will hold a public hearing for the adoption of the TIP Annual Obligation Report

8 4:45-5:05

Staff Update & Committee Reports MPO staff will provide a brief update on projects and activities throughout the MPO. The CTAC and MPO Tech representatives will provide a brief report on their committees and agenda items for future meetings.

Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Update before May approval MPO Strategic Plan – SWOT Analysis Title VI – Environmental Justice – Public Participation Plan Update HB2 Update FY16 – Current Status

o HB2 FY17 – Priority Projects

9 Transit Updates: CAT, JAUNT, UTS, RideShare

10 5:45 – 6:00

Items Added to the Agenda *

11

5:45 – 6:00

Other Business

12

Additional Matters From the Public Members of the Public are welcome to provide comment on any public-interest, transportation-related topic, including the items listed on this agenda. (limit of 2 minutes per speaker).

† Times are approximate * Requires a vote of the Board

of 5

Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization POB 1505, 401 E. Water Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902 www.tjpdc.org

(434) 979-7310 phone ● (434) 979-1597 fax ● [email protected] email _________________________________________________________________

MPO Policy Board

Minutes: January 27, 2016 Committee – Voting Members Staff John Lynch, VDOT Culpeper District Kathy Galvin, City of Charlottesville Ann Mallek, Albemarle County (Chair) Kristin Szakos, City of Charlottesville (Vice-Chair) Diantha McKeel, Albemarle County Non-Voting & Alternates Karen Davis, JAUNT John Jones, CAT Julia Monteith, UVA Office of the Architect Cheng Yan, FHWA Call to Order: Chair Mallek called the meeting to order at 4:06pm. Matters from the Public: Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum, expressed his disappointment that Exit 118 was not higher up on the priority list. Dan Rosensweig thanked the committee for requesting funding for improvements at the Sunset Avenue & Fontaine intersection. He asked the committee to include those projects into a much larger network that is a multi-modal, regional plan. He also asked the board to consider a local match to increase funding and to increase the priority of the Sunset Avenue project and also to move the project into next year’s HB2 applications. He noted that Habitat for Humanity would cooperate fully. Response to Matters from the Public: Ms. Monteith asked Mr. Rosensweig about the map he distributed. She said she liked the concept but asked that he show what is proposed versus what he would like to see. Mr. Rosensweig said he would like to see upgrades to the bike/ped infrastructure. Intoduction of New Members: Kristin Szakos introduced Kathy Galvin as a new member of the Board from the City of Charlottesville.

Chip Boyles, TJPDC Will Cockrell, TJPDC Wood Hudson, TJPDC Nick Morrison, TJPDC Sara Pennington, Rideshare Chuck Proctor, VDOT-Culpeper District Angela Foroughi, VDOT Culpeper District Committees Luke Juday, Citizens Transp Advisory Committee Public Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum Dan Rosensweig, Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville

of 5

Ann Mallek introduced Diantha McKeel as a new member of the Board from the County of Albemarle. All members introduced themselves to the new members. Review and Acceptance of the Agenda: Ms. Szakos asked whether there would be elections in January as is normative. Mr. Boyles said it would be on the next agenda. The Policy Board approved the agenda. Approval of Minutes: Ms. Mallek asked if there were any comments on the December 16, 2015 meeting minutes. Ms. Szakos noted on page 2 that it states that “the 2016 meetings will meet every month,” but they meet every other month. That change will be made. Mr. Lynch made a motion to approve the minutes. Ms. Szakos provided a second to the motion, which passed unanimously. Staff Update & Committee Reports: Luke Juday, Chair of the MPO Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC), noted that the committee is focusing on strategic planning for the MPO. He said the committee has gotten “a bit adrift” on what they should be doing with some difference of opinion on direction from the Policy Board. Mr. Boyles noted that there will be a joint meeting of all MPO committees to talk about direction and to provide a general orientation. Mr. Boyles updated the committee on HB2 rankings and recommendations. He said the region was successful in getting projects submitted; however, Exit 118 did not get ranked high on the priority list. The Exit 118 ranked “0” for economic development and “0” for crash frequency and rate scores. He noted that even though there are numerous accidents at that location, there were no fatalities or serious injuries, which were important factors in the rate score. He also showed that the project scored “moderately” for accessibility. Mr. Boyles went on to say that rural areas were weighted differently because the amount of traffic is much lower, so they used a percentage. Ms. Mallek noted that Albemarle County has the highest fatality rate in the state, but those, for the most part, are single cars hitting trees. Ms. Galvin asked Mr. Boyles to expand on the “economic development” requirement. Mr. Boyles said that the project must lead to new and additional jobs, not just making access to existing jobs easier. He noted that statewide, there were five or six projects that ranked high and all of those projects were over $100 million. The top three requested percentages of the total project (25%, 22% and 11% respectively) funding required, and the MPO asked for 100% of the funding for the project. He noted that it came down to ROI (return on investment).

of 5

Ms. Monteith asked if the MPO could re-apply next year even though we did not qualify for funding this year. Mr. Boyles said it could and that was the MPO’s intent. Ms. Mallek asked the VDOT staff at the meeting how to solve the 29 North/64 West dilemma. Mr. Lynch said to look at a 20-year horizon and ask for the “as needed” funding for the immediate future (i.e., ask for funding for the phases of the project). The more that is done ahead of time (planning, zoning, site plan, utilities, etc.) before asking for funding, the more points will go toward funding that project. He suggested that VDOT work with the MPO on that. Mr. Boyles said he would keep the committee updated as he got more information. Regarding the Charlottesville/Albemarle/UVA Regional Transit Study, Mr. Boyles stated that the first meeting of the advisory/steering committee on January 27 (earlier in the day). The MPO Staff will work with the committee to develop a scope of work and will present to PACC and the Policy Board. The final product will be presented later in the year, 2016. Ms. McKeel noted that the next PACC meeting is in May. Ms. Mallek said that a citizen recommended having a “Transit 101” class to get on the same page on funding rules, etc. Ms. Galvin asked if that class would be the same as the “Transportation Academy.” Mr. Boyles said it might be able to be included in the MPO’s Transportation Planning Academy’s upcoming training session. Mr. Cockrell presented the MPO Strategic Planning process to the committee. He noted that the MPO is starting the process of developing a strategic plan. The MPO wants to create an overarching document to tell how the committee to proceed, especially in regards to funding. The plan will include a listing of what the MPO must do (TIP, LRTP, etc.), but will include the “how to” on those items. He noted that some MPO’s are technical, some are more policy-based, some are a little of both. The goal is to define the character of the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO and its direction. Mr. Boyles continued that with other organizations, the direction may change based on a change in the Executive Director. He stated that the MPO’s mission should not change with a change in leadership. Mr. Cockrell said the MPO Technical and CTAC committees would like to have a joint committee meeting in February. Ms. Szakos recommended a work plan be created for the next year or two. Mr. Cockrell said they would do that and also will include what each committee actually does. He noted that the plan would have a 3-year outlook with the final plan created sometime in the fall. Mr. Boyles said he will ask for dates and times that worked for everyone and will send out a notice with a confirmed meeting.

of 5

Mr. Morrison updated the committee on the Title IV policy. The MPO is required to update the policy and the last time it was done was 2012-13. Mr. Morrison said he would be cleaning the document up and updating it, but would not be re-creating it. This should be complete by the end of March. Regarding MPO appointments, Mr. Cockrell noted that Mr. Morrison will staff CTAC and he is asking for citizens to apply. Ms. Mallek asked if there was broad representation from all areas and Mr. Juday said that staffing is short. Ms. Mallek asked that staff circulate to the Policy Board where representative is lacking. Mr. Boyles also noted that diversity is lacking. Mr. Cockrell noted that the City was under-represented with three openings. Mr. Juday also noted that bike/ped and transit were well-represented and they were looking for “car folks” or maybe a taxi driver. Mr. Cockrell thanked Mr. Juday for his work as Chair of the CTAC committee. Regarding the FY17 Unified Planning Work Program for March consideration and May approval, Mr. Boyles said there was a FY16 example on the website which shows the previous year and the next year. Mr. Cockrell updated the committee on the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). He explained there have been numerous changes since its May 2014 adoption. The next LRPT is due in 2019 and it takes nearly two years to get the changes incorporated and adopted. Mr. Cockrell explained that the committees are getting ready to start and VDOT will be begin modeling for the project(s). the Policy Board will be updated early and often. 2016 Meeting Schedule: Mr. Boyles asked the committee to consider the schedule for this upcoming year. The committee currently meets every month and he suggested keeping that schedule. The committee concluded that the meetings should be in January, March, May, July, September, and November with a joint MPO committee meeting sometime in February. Transit Updates: CAT, JAUNT, UTS, RideShare Ms. Davis reported that JAUNT is working on the 29 Express. Ms. Monteith reported that McCormick road is still closed and should be open soon. The project took longer than expected. Mr. Jones reported that CAT’s ridership is up and that fairbox has gone through full acceptance. Ms. Szakos asked if there could be a change machine at the transit center and Mr. Jones noted that it was too costly to implement that feature. Mr. Boyles asked if there was an update from the Wegman’s project.

of 5

Mr. Jones said they have surveyed the residents in the Mill Creek area to see the demand. There is a grant request from DRPT and Wegman’s has committed $100,000. Sara Pennington presented the committee with a “Rideshare 101” powerpoint to orient them to the program and its benefits. Other Business: Ms. Szakos said that construction on Rio Road and Rt. 29 has started up again after the snowstorm. Additional Matters from the Public: No additional matter from the public. Ms. Mallek adjourned the meeting at 5:58.

Joint MPO Committee Meeting

MINUTES

February 24th, 2016 7:00-8:30 p.m.

Committee Members Present: TJPDC Staff Present:

Russell “Mac” Lafferty Chip Boyles Chuck Proctor Will Cockrell John D. Lynch Wood Hudson Ann Mallek Sara Pennington Kristin Szakos Nick Morrison Karen Davis Kathy Welch Luke Juday David Hurst Richard Wagaman Pam Riley Jeanette Janiczek John Santoski

MPO Policy Board Chair Ann Mallek called the meeting to order at 7:00pm Members from the public were invited to provide comments. There were no members from the public in

attendance. Mrs. Mallek then turned the meeting over to TJPDC staff for a presentation on the strategic planning

survey results. TJPDC staff then facilitated a discussion on the survey results as well as MPO priorities. A summary of

the key points of the discussion were incorporated into the SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, & threats) analysis.

There were no action items during the meeting. Mrs. Mallek adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m.

Final FFY15 Annual Listing Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

Annual Listing of Obligated Projects

Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization

FFY15 Annual Obligation Report

1

Table of Contents: Click on the links to jump to the listed section of the document

Preface

Glossary of Terms

Description

Definitions of Interest

Overview of FFY15

Guide Sheet MPO Obligation Report

FFY15 Annual Listing

Interstate

Primary

Urban

Secondary

Miscellaneous

Public Transportation

Rail

Enhancement

Groupings

Charlottesville Area Transit

JAUNT, Inc.

Appendix


2

Glossary of Acronyms

NHPP: National Highway Performance Program

Provides support for the condition and performance of the National Highway System (NHS), for the construction of new facilities on the NHS, and to ensure that investments of Federal-aid funds in highway construction are directed to support progress toward the achievement of performance targets established in a State's asset management plan for the NHS.

IM/NH: Interstate Maintenance/National Highway System

Provides funding for resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation and reconstruction (4R) work, including added lanes to increase capacity, on most existing Interstate System routes.

STP: Surface Transportation Program

Provides flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects, including intercity bus terminals.

EB/MG: Equity Bonus/Minimum Guarantee

Provides funding to States based on equity considerations. These include a minimum rate of return on contributions to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund, and a minimum increase relative to the average dollar amount of apportionments under TEA-21. Selected States are guaranteed a share of apportionments and High Priority Projects not less than the State's average annual share under TEA-21. This program replaces TEA-21's Minimum Guarantee program.

CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

Provides a flexible funding source to State and local governments for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Funding is available to reduce congestion and improve air quality for areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter (nonattainment areas) and for former nonattainment areas that are now in compliance (maintenance areas).

BROS: Bridge Off-System

Provides funding to enable States to improve the condition of their highway bridges through replacement, rehabilitation, and systematic preventive maintenance.

DEMO: Demonstration

Provides funding for the adoption of innovations and technologies, thereby improving highway safety and quality while reducing congestion caused by construction.

SAFE: Safety Funding or Highway Safety Improvement Program

Provides funding to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands.

ARRA: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

Provides funding to a wide variety of transportation programs, including roads, bridges, rail, buses and airport improvements.


3

Description

The Annual Listing of Obligated Projects (Annual Listing) includes all projects and strategies listed in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for which federal funds were obligated during the immediately preceding program year. The Annual Listing is intended to improve the transparency of transportation spending decisions by providing an accounting for federal funds that have been authorized and committed by the state or designated recipients (e.g. CAT Transit System) for expenditure on projects programmed in the TIP. The tables on the following pages describe the projects included in the TIP, identify the responsible agency, the amount of federal funds requested/obligated, and the amount of funds remaining to be obligated on the project. A “guide sheet” precedes the Annual Listing for all roadway projects in the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO that received federal obligations. At the end of this report there is a table that outlines all FFY15 federal obligations for transit systems within the MPO. Should there be any questions regarding the report, please contact the MPO staff at (434) 422-4823 or [email protected]. Definitions of Interest

Program Year: the year in which project obligations are reported; for purposes of this report, the program year is the federal fiscal year from October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014. Both the roadway obligations and the transit obligations are organized by the federal program year.

Obligation: An obligation is the federal government’s legal commitment to pay the federal share of a project’s cost. An obligated project is one that has been authorized by the federal agency and for which funds have been committed. Projects for which funds have been obligated are not necessarily initiated or completed during the program year, and the amount of the obligation will not necessarily equal the total cost of the project. For projects under the auspices of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), obligation occurs when the FTA grant is awarded. For projects under the auspices of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), obligation occurs when a project agreement is executed and the state/grantee requests that the funds be obligated.


4

mailto:[email protected]

Overview of FFY15

FHWA

Interstate Projects: There were no identified interstate projects in FFY15.

Primary Projects: The Rio Road Grade Separated Interchange was the only primary projects with obligations. Those funds involved Interstate Maintenance/National Highway System, which provides funding for resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation and reconstruction work.

Urban Projects: There were two projects with federal obligations in FFY15: Best Buy Ramp and Hillsdale Drive Extended. In both cases, there were over $2 million in Surface Transportation Program funds.

Secondary Projects: There were no federal obligations for secondary projects in FFY15.

Miscellaneous: There were no identified miscellaneous items in FFY15.

Public Transportation: There were no identified public transit projects from FHWA in FFY15.

Rail: There were no identified rail projects in FFY15.

Enhancement: There were no identified enhancement projects in FFY15.

Grouping: There were several federal obligations for these various projects, with total obligations of over $15 million. Project groupings include projects that are not considered to be of an appropriate scale to be called-out individually in the TIP. They are grouped by project function, work type, and/or geographic area.

FTA

Charlottesville Area Transit: Obligations for CAT projects are indicated at the back of this document. The biggest obligations were for the: o Governor’s Apportionment, o Purchase of the far collection equipment, and o JARC operating funds.

JAUNT: The biggest obligations related to JAUNT service were: o Rural operating funds, o Governor’s Apportionment, and o Bus rehabilitation and renovation of the maintenance facility.


5

Guide Sheet MPO Obligation Report

Charlottesville MPO Study Area: Federal Obligated Funds: 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015 Funding Source/Amount

Jurisdiction UPC Project Description NHPP IM/NH STP EB/MG CMAQ BROS DEMO SAFE ARRA TOTAL

Interstate

Albemarle County

78185 BRIDGE REHABILITATION AND LATEX OVERLAY - OVER RIVANNA RIVER AND CSX RR

0064 (1) TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 (1A) $0 PROJECT (2) Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 (2A) $0 OBLIGATION (R) Released: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($108,737) $0 $0 $0 (3) Remaining: *

INTERSTATE SUBTOTAL (4) TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,700,000 (4A) $2,700,000 SYSTEM (5) Obligated: $0 $1,104,792 $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $1,202,900 (5A) $2,347,692 SUBTOTAL (6) Remaining: $712,308 MPO SUBTOTAL

(7) TIP: $0 $2,276,728 $3,552 $0 $3,822,754 $0 $16,652,000 $2,700,000 (7A) $25,455,034 MPO

(8) Obligated: $0 $8,074,967 $0 $0 $4,678,291 $0 $2,181,558 $1,202,900 (8A) $16,137,716 TOTAL

(9) Remaining: $15,671,564

PROJECT OBLIGATIONS SYSTEM SUBTOTAL MPO TOTAL (1) Planned obligations by fund (4) Total planned obligations by Fund Source by System (7) Total planned obligations for MPO by Fund Source for all

Systems

(2) Actual obligations by fund (5) Total actual obligations by Fund Source by System (8) Total actual obligations for MPO by Fund Source for all Systems

(1A) Total planned obligations -- Total of (1) (4A) Total planned obligations for System -- Totals of (4) (7A) Grand Total of ALL FUND SOURCES planned obligations for MPO for all systems

(2A) Total actual obligations -- Total of (2) (5A) Total actual obligations for System -- Total of (5) (8A) Grand Total of ALL FUND SOURCES actual obligations for MPO for all systems

(3) Difference between FFY13 actual obligations vs. FFY13 planned obligations (Funds Remaining Available for Subsequent Years) * indicates no funds remain



(R) Obligations released from the project.

Notes: a. For projects where obligations identified with no TIP amount identified -- The transaction was a modification and based on the sliding scale, no TIP action was required;

and/or AC conversion b. For projects where the obligated amount exceeds the TIP amount identified -- Based on the total estimated cost of the project phase vs. the sliding scale, no TIP action was

required; and/or AC conversion c. By project: Funds indicated w/ () -- release of obligation d. Release obligations are not calculated in any totals


6

NHPP IM/NH STP EB/MG CMAQ RSTP BROS DEMO SAFE ARRA

0TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Released: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

Charlottesville MPO Study AreaFederal Obligated Funds: 10/01/2014 - 09/30/2015

Locality UPC / Description TOTALInterstate

No projects identified in the MPO Area$0

*

$0$0$0

*

Funding Source/Amount


7





117710029 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Released: $0 ($2,070,661) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

161600029 TIP: $0 $35,083,981 $0 $23,383,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

773830029 TIP: $4,655,537 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

1061360029 TIP: $11,929,120 $3,848,960 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $3,848,960 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

TIP: $16,584,657 $38,932,941 $0 $23,383,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Obligated: $0 $3,848,960 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Released: $0 ($2,070,661) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

PrimaryAlbemarle County

RTE 29 (CHARLOTTESVILLE BYPASS) - ALTERNATIVE 10 - RW ONLY ON THIS ID - FOR HARDSHIP ACQUISITIONS; (PE ON ID 3965) (0.0000 KM) $0

$0($2,070,661)

*Albemarle County

RTE 29 - BYPASS - 0.7 Miles NORTH ROUTE 250; 0.5 Miles NORTH RIVANNA RIVER (6.2000 MI)$58,467,181

$0$58,467,181

Albemarle CountyUS-29 RIO ROAD GRADE SEPARATED INTERSECTION - ROUTE 851 (DOMINION DRIVE); ROUTE 1417 (WOODBROOK DRIVE) (1.0000 MI)

RTE 29 - CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS - ASHWOOD BOULEVARD; TOWN CENTER DRIVE (1.8300 MI)$4,655,537

$0$4,655,537

Albemarle County

$15,778,080$3,848,960

$11,929,120

PRIMARY SUBTOTAL$78,900,798

$3,848,960($2,070,661)$75,051,838


8





857080029 TIP: $0 $0 $2,976,757 $2,216,338 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $2,976,758 $2,756,103 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

602330233 TIP: $0 $0 $2,331,385 $2,534,856 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $2,331,385 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

146454645 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $553,505 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Released: $0 $0 ($344,521) $0 $0 $0 ($156,155) $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

TIP: $0 $0 $5,308,142 $4,751,194 $0 $0 $553,505 $0 $0 $0Obligated: $0 $0 $5,308,143 $2,756,103 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Released: $0 $0 ($344,521) $0 $0 $0 ($156,155) $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

UrbanCharlottesville

RTE. 29 (EMMET STREET) / RTE. 250 BYPASS INTERCHANGE - 0.123 MI. SOUTH OF RTE 29 / RTE 250 BYPASS INTERCHANGE; 0.369 MI. NORTH OF RTE 29 / RTE 250 BYPASS INTERCHANGE (0.4920 MI) $5,193,095

$5,732,861*

CharlottesvilleHILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENDED (3 LANES) - GREENBRIER DRIVE; HYDRAULIC ROAD (0.8500 MI)

$4,866,241$2,331,385$2,534,856

CharlottesvilleJEFFERSON PARK AVENUE - BRIDGE REPLACEMENT - APPROACHES & BRIDGE OVER NORFOLK-SOUTHERN RAILROAD (0.1150 MI) $553,505

$0($500,676)

$553,505

URBAN SUBTOTAL$10,612,841

$8,064,246($500,676)$2,548,595


9





88110743 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Released: $0 $0 ($774,053) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Released: $0 $0 ($774,053) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

SecondaryAlbemarle County

RTE 743 - WIDEN TO 4 LANES WITH CURB & GUTTER - ROUTE 657 (LAMBS ROAD); ROUTE 631 (RIO ROAD) (0.6580 MI)$0$0

($774,053)*

SECONDARY SUBTOTAL$0$0

($774,053)*


10





0TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:


Remaining:

Miscellaneous


*

$0$0$0

*


11





0TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:


Remaining:

Public Transportation


*

$0$0$0

*


12





0TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:


Remaining:

Rail


*

$0$0$0

*


13





0TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:


Remaining:

Enhancement


*

$0$0$0

*


14





G5016501 TIP: $0 $0 ($487,430) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $151,183 $4,732 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Released: $0 $0 ($239,019) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

G5026502 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $287,315 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

G5036503 TIP: $0 $0 $7,236,246 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

G5046504 TIP: $0 $0 $6,203,601 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $156,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

G5066506 TIP: $0 $0 $1,146,483 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,382 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $777,895 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,383 $0

Released: $0 $0 ($203,287) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

Grouping

Construction : Transportation Enhancement/Byway/Non-Traditional - (T9936501)($487,430)

$155,915($239,019)

*

Construction : Rail - (T9936502)$0

$287,315*

Maintenance : Preventive Maintenance and System Preservation - (T9936503)

Construction : Safety/ITS/Operational Improvements - (T9936506)$1,186,865

$818,278($203,287)

$368,587

$7,236,246$1,000,000$6,236,246

Maintenance : Preventive Maintenance for Bridges - (T9936504)$6,203,601

$156,000$6,047,601


15





G5076507 TIP: $0 $0 $10,058 $0 $0 $0 $1,318,039 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $756,183 $0 $0 $0

Released: $0 $0 ($190,652) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

TIP: $0 $0 $14,108,958 $0 $0 $0 $1,318,039 $0 $40,382 $0Obligated: $0 $0 $2,372,393 $4,732 $0 $0 $756,183 $0 $40,383 $0Released: $0 $0 ($632,957) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

TIP: $16,584,657 $38,932,941 $19,417,100 $28,134,394 $0 $0 $1,871,544 $0 $40,382 $0Obligated: $0 $3,848,960 $7,680,536 $2,760,835 $0 $0 $756,183 $0 $40,383 $0Released: $0 ($2,070,661) ($1,751,531) $0 $0 $0 ($156,155) $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

$571,914

($3,978,347)$89,894,121

$12,293,688

MPO SUBTOTAL$104,981,018

$15,086,897

GROUPING SUBTOTAL$15,467,379

$3,173,691($632,957)

Construction : Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement/Reconstruction - (T9936507)$1,328,097

$756,183($190,652)


16

Governor's Apportionment FTA 5307 2014 -$ -$ -$ 1,653,010$ -$ 1,653,010$ JARC Operating Funds FTA 5316 Pre FY13 -$ -$ -$ 498,795$ -$ 498,795$ Purchase Shop Equipment - Lift for Maintenance Shop Flexible STP 2015 -$ -$ 35,200$ -$ -$ 35,200$ Purchase Passenger Shelter (Bus Shelter) Flexible STP 2015 -$ -$ 51,051$ -$ -$ 51,051$ Purchase Fare Collection Equipment (Fareboxes) Flexible STP 2015 -$ -$ 560,000$ -$ -$ 560,000$

Governor's Apportionment FTA 5307 2014 -$ -$ -$ 477,158$ -$ 477,158$ Rural Operating funds FTA 5311 2014 -$ -$ -$ 913,536$ -$ 913,536$ Purchase ADP Software - MS Office FTA 5311 2014 -$ -$ -$ 8,000$ -$ 8,000$ Purchase ADP Hardware - Computers, Network Components FTA 5311 2014 -$ -$ -$ 20,000$ -$ 20,000$ Bus Rehab/Renovation of Maint. Facility FTA 5311 2014 -$ -$ -$ 240,000$ -$ 240,000$

-$ -$ 646,251$ 3,810,499$ -$ 4,456,750$

FEDERAL FUNDS OBLIGATED - OCTOBER 1, 2014 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2015

JAUNT, Inc.

Charlottesville Transit Service

TOTAL

Other TOTALCHARLOTTESVILLE AREA MPO FEDERAL FUNDS OBLIGATED YEAR CMAQ RSTP Flexible STP FTA


17

Appendix Federal Obligated Funds


18


75271

5271 TIP: $0 $0 ($239,200) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Released: $0 $0 ($239,019) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

520192019 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $71,263 $4,732 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

812251225 TIP: $0 $0 ($183,237) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

87015

7015 TIP: $0 $0 ($521,497) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

942814281 TIP: $0 $0 $400,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

Charlottesville Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge - ( )$400,000

$0$400,000

Albemarle County

Albermarle County - Lewis & Clark Educational Center - Construction of educational center with parking,; trails, and ferry service connecting existing trails ( )

($521,497)$0

*Charlottesville

$75,995*

CharlottesvilleCHARLOTTESVILLE MULTI-USE TRAIL - TRANSIT CENTER; THE RIVANNA RIVER TRAIL (0.0000 MI)

($183,237)$0

*

($239,200)$0

($239,019)*

CharlottesvillePRESERVE THE SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC ELEMENTS OF COURT SQUARE - (0.0000 MI)

$0


Locality UPC / Description TOTALT9936501 - Construction : Transportation Enhancement/Byway/Non-Traditional

Albemarle County

ALBEMARLE COUNTY - HISTORIC CROZET STREETSCAPING - STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS, UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES,; PERIOD LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE (0.0000 MI)



19



Locality UPC / Description TOTAL


1059215921 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $45,120 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

978337833 TIP: $0 $0 $91,304 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

1035783578 TIP: $0 $0 ($34,800) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $34,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

TIP: $0 $0 ($487,430) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Obligated: $0 $0 $151,183 $4,732 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Released: $0 $0 ($239,019) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

T9936501 - CONSTRUCTION : TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT/BYWAY/NON-TRADITIONAL SUBTOTAL($487,430)

$155,915($239,019)

*

$91,304Charlottesville

Emmet Street / Jefferson Park Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian - Intersection with Emmet Street ( )($34,800)

$34,800*

$0$45,120

*Charlottesville

Development of "Ubikes" bicycle share program - Various locations on UVA grounds; Development of off road bikeshare program ( )$91,304

$0

CharlottesvilleJackson Via Elementary Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements - ( )


20





1055670000 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $287,315 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Obligated: $0 $0 $287,315 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Released: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

$287,315$0

*

7th St.-Upgrade Flashing Lights and Gates wCWT Predictors - 143 Fft S of Main Street; at BBRR Crossing #224672B ( )$0

$287,315*

T9936502 - CONSTRUCTION : RAIL SUBTOTAL$0

T9936502 - Construction : RailCharlottesville


21





1053289999 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

1047449999 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

891589999 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

G7100000 TIP: $0 $0 $7,236,246 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

TIP: $0 $0 $7,236,246 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Obligated: $0 $0 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Released: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

$1,000,000$0

$6,236,246

STIP-MN Culpeper: Preventive MN and System Preservation - (T14710)$7,236,246

$0$7,236,246

T9936503 - MAINTENANCE : PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION SUBTOTAL$7,236,246

*Culpeper District-wide

ST-7B-10; Charlottesville Residency Surface Treatment - VARIOUS; ROUTES ( )$0$0


$0$500,000


Culpeper Districtwide Primary LMET - Various; Various ( )$0

$500,000

T9936503 - Maintenance : Preventive Maintenance and System PreservationCulpeper District-wide

LM7B-967-F14,P401 - Various; Various ( )


22





891549154 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $73,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

G7090000 TIP: $0 $0 $6,203,601 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

891529152 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $83,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

TIP: $0 $0 $6,203,601 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Obligated: $0 $0 $156,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Released: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

T9936504 - MAINTENANCE : PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE FOR BRIDGES SUBTOTAL$6,203,601

$156,000$0

$6,047,601

$6,203,601Culpeper District-wide

General Bridge Repairs - Various Locations ( )$0

$83,000*

$0$73,000


STIP-MN Culpeper: Preventive MN for Bridges - (T14709)$6,203,601

$0

T9936504 - Maintenance : Preventive Maintenance for BridgesAlbemarle County

Route 250 Superstructure Repair - Bridge over Buckingham Branch ( )


23





1046850020 TIP: $0 $0 $145 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Released: $0 $0 ($12,089) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

1056420029 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

96935

0053 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $47,024 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

969360053 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Released: $0 $0 ($27,289) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

969370053 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Released: $0 $0 ($36,451) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

Albemarle CountyWIDEN SHOULDER TO IMP. FREE FLOW RIGHTS, UPGRADE GR & SIGN. - RTE. 53; 0.36 MI. N. OF INT. RTE. 53 (0.0360 MI)

$0$0

($36,451)*

*Albemarle County

Curve1-Shoulder Widening 0.06 Mi. E. of Monticello Loop - Int. Monticello Entrance; 0.090 Mi. E. of Int. Monticello Entrance (0.0900 MI)$0$0

($27,289)*

$0$10,000

*Albemarle County

Curve 2-Shoulder Widening 0.4 mi. E. of Monticello Loop - 0.025 MI. E. of Kenwood Farm Dr.; 0.123 MI. E. of Kenwood Farm Dr. (0.0980 MI)

$0$47,024

Advance Warning Flashers at Int Rte 20 & Rte 708 - 0.30 mi South of Rte 708; 0.30 mi North of Rte 708 (0.6000 MI)$145

$0($12,089)

$145Culpeper District-wide

RTE 29 RUMBLE STRIPS - CULPEPER DISTRICT - NELSON COUNTY LINE; PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY LINE (96.0400 MI)

T9936506 - Construction : Safety/ITS/Operational ImprovementsAlbemarle County


24





969390053 TIP: $0 $0 $495,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $455,174 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

2525

9999 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Released: $0 $0 ($11,523) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

102888

2888 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,382 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,383 $0

Remaining:

1005480250 TIP: $0 $0 $334,450 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

936693406 TIP: $0 $0 $298,881 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Released: $0 $0 ($115,935) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

CharlottesvilleHSIP Bike & Ped on Water St @Buckingham Branch Railroad Line - Rugby Road; Jefferson Park Avenue (0.4000 MI)

$298,881$0

($115,935)$298,881

$40,383*

CharlottesvilleConstruct Multi-Use Path along McIntire Rd - Route 250 Bypass; Harris Street ( )

$334,450$0

$334,450

$0$0

($11,523)*

Charlottesville

INSTALL TRANS. CRITICAL INCIDENT MOBILE DATA COLL. DEVICE - IN CHARLOTTESVILLE; FY07 SAFETEA-LU EARMARK PROJECT (0.0000 MI)

$40,382

Construct Right Turn Bay at Route 729 Milton Road - 0.007 Mi. E. of Route 729; 0.126 Mi. E. of Route 729 (0.0900 MI)$495,000$455,174

$39,826Charlottesville

9TH AND 10TH STREETS - REALIGNMENTS (UNDERPASS & 4 LANE) - 9TH STREET & CHERRY AVENUE; NORTH OF MAIN STREET (ON 10TH STREET) (0.3000 MI)

Albemarle County


25





971890810 TIP: $0 $0 $18,007 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $14,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

814280000 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $251,397 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

TIP: $0 $0 $1,146,483 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,382 $0Obligated: $0 $0 $777,895 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,383 $0Released: $0 $0 ($203,287) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining: $368,587

$0$251,397

*

T9936506 - CONSTRUCTION : SAFETY/ITS/OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS SUBTOTAL$1,186,865

$818,278($203,287)

Albemarle - SRTS - Crozet ES - sidewalk and crossing - Crozet ES - 1407 Crozet Ave; Intersection Ballard Drive and Crozet ES ( )$18,007$14,300

$3,707Culpeper District-wide

DISTRICTWIDE ROADWAY SAFETY ASSESSMENT - CULPEPER - FY07 HSIP PROJECT (0.0000 MI)

Albemarle County


26





15996

0020 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Released: $0 $0 ($190,652) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

821230606 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $289,270 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

951130616 TIP: $0 $0 $10,058 $0 $0 $0 $1,161,517 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

951590637 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $466,913 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

951140677 TIP: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $156,522 $0 $0 $0

Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

Bridge Replacement Rte 677 over Buckingham Branch RR - 0.07 MI. N. RTE. 250; 0.14 MI. N. RTE. 250 (0.0670 MI)$156,522

$0$156,522

Rte. 637 Over Ivy Creek, VA Str. 6039 - 0.29 MI. S. Ivy Depot Road; 0.20 MI. S. Ivy Road Depot (0.0220 MI)$0

$466,913*

Albemarle County

Albemarle CountyBridge Replacement, Rte 616 over Buckingham Branch RR - 0.39 MI. N. RTE. 842; 0.04 MI. S. RTE. 685 (0.1530 MI)

$1,171,575$0

$1,171,575Albemarle County

($190,652)*

Albemarle CountyBRIDGE REPLACE DICKERSON RD OVER NORTH FORK RIVANNA RIVER - BRIDGES AND APPROACHES (0.0000 MI)

$0$289,270

*

T9936507 - Construction : Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement/ReconstructionAlbemarle County

RTE 20-BRIDGE REPLACEMENT-HARDWARE RIVER (CARTER'S BRIDGE) - 0.147 KILOMETER SOUTH OF HARDWARE RIVER; 0.153 KILOMETER NORTH OF HARDWARE RIVER (0.3000 MI)

$0$0


27





TIP: $0 $0 $10,058 $0 $0 $0 $1,318,039 $0 $0 $0Obligated: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $756,183 $0 $0 $0Released: $0 $0 ($190,652) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

TIP: $0 $0 $14,108,958 $0 $0 $0 $1,318,039 $0 $40,382 $0Obligated: $0 $0 $2,372,393 $4,732 $0 $0 $756,183 $0 $40,383 $0Released: $0 $0 ($632,957) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Remaining:

($190,652)$571,914

$12,293,688

MPO SUBTOTAL$15,467,379

$3,173,691($632,957)

T9936507 - CONSTRUCTION : BRIDGE REHABILITATION/REPLACEMENT/RECONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL$1,328,097

$756,183


28

FY17 Unified Planning Work Program

1 Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO

Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning OrganizationPOB 1505, 401 E. Water St, Charlottesville, VA 22902 www.tjpdc.org

Phone: 434-979-7310 ● Fax: 434-979-1597● Email: [email protected]

Fiscal Year 2017 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017 Approved by the MPO Policy Board May 25, 2016



Preface

Prepared on behalf of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization by the staff of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission through a cooperative process involving the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle, Charlottesville Area Transit, JAUNT, University of Virginia, the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Department of Rail and Public Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration. The preparation of this program was financially aided through grants from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, the Department of Rail and Public Transportation, and the Virginia Department of Transportation.



Table of Contents

PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................................ 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................. 3

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

PURPOSE OF THE UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM ........................................................................................................ 4 PURPOSE OF THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION ................................................................................................. 4 RELATIONSHIP OF UPWP TO LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ................................................................................. 5

HIGHLIGHTS OF FY15 UPWP ................................................................................................................................... 9

FY16 UPWP ACTIVITIES BY TASK .......................................................................................................................... 10

TASK 1: ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................ 10 TASK 2: LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING .......................................................................................................... 14 TASK 3: SHORT RANGE PLANNING .................................................................................................................................. 17 TASK 4.0: CONSULTANT STUDIES ................................................................................................................................... 19

CA-MPO IN FY17 .................................................................................................................................................. 20

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS ......................................................................................................................... 21

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF TASKS................................................................................................................................... 21 ONLINE POSTING ......................................................................................................................................................... 21 STATE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................................................ 21 REVIEW OF FINAL FY16 UPWP ..................................................................................................................................... 21

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................... 22

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................ 23

ATTACHMENT A: TASKS PERFORMED BY VDOT ................................................................................................................. 23 ATTACHMENT B: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (JANUARY 28, 2009) ........................................................................ 23 ATTACHMENT C: FTA SECTION 5303 FUNDING BREAKDOWN .............................................................................................. 23



INTRODUCTION

Purpose of the Unified Planning Work Program The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) for transportation planning identifies all activities to be undertaken in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (CA-MPO) study area for fiscal year 2017. The UPWP provides a mechanism for coordination of transportation planning activities in the region, and is required as a basis and condition for all federal funding assistance for transportation planning by the joint metropolitan planning regulations of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Purpose of the Metropolitan Planning Organization The Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) provides a forum for conducting continuing, comprehensive, and coordinated (3-C) transportation decision-making among the City, County, UVA, JAUNT, CAT, DRPT and VDOT officials. The local governments of Charlottesville and Albemarle established the MPO in response to a federal mandate through a memorandum of understanding signed by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (PDC), JAUNT, VDOT and the two localities in 1982. The same parties adopted a new agreement on January 28, 2009 (Attachment B). The MPO conducts transportation studies and ongoing planning activities, including the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which lists road and transit improvements approved for federal funding, and the 20-year long range plan for the overall transportation network, which is updated every five years. Projects funded in the TIP are required to be in the long range plan. Transportation and land use issues in urban areas affect development and decision making in the suburban and rural areas and therefore, planning should consider the regional effects. The policy making body of the CA-MPO is its Board, which consists of five voting members. The voting membership of the Policy Board consists of two representatives from the City of Charlottesville and two representatives from the County of Albemarle. The fifth representative is from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Non-voting members include the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT), JAUNT, the University of Virginia (UVA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC). The MPO is staffed by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC). Working in conjunction with partner and professional agencies, the staff collects, analyzes, evaluates and prepares materials for use by the Board and Committee Members at their regularly scheduled meetings, as well as any sub-committee meetings deemed necessary. The MPO area includes the City of Charlottesville and the portion of Albemarle County that is either urban or anticipated to increase to urban density during the next 20-year period. In 2013, the MPO boundaries were updated and expanded to be more consistent with 2010 census data. These new boundaries were approved by the Commonwealth’s Secretary of Transportation in March 2013. A map of the MPO area appears on the next page:



Relationship of UPWP to Long Range Transportation Planning The MPO Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) is developed each spring. The UPWP outlines the transportation studies and planning efforts to be conducted during the fiscal year (July 1 – June 30). The transportation studies and planning efforts outlined in the UPWP are guided by the regional transportation vision, goals, issues, and priorities developed through the extensive long range planning process. Federal law requires the MPO to address eight basic planning factors in the metropolitan planning process. These eight planning factors are used in the development of any plan or other work of the MPO, including the Work Program, and are as follows:

Economic Vitality: Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;

Safety: Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;

Security: Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;



Accessibility/Mobility: Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and freight;

Environmental Quality: Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns;

Connectivity: Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight;

Efficiency: Promote efficient system management and operation; and

Maintenance: Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system

MPO Transportation Infrastructure Issues and Priorities In addition to the eight planning factors identified by FHWA and FTA, the issues listed below (in no particular order) have been identified by the MPO, its transportation planning partners, and the public throughout the metropolitan planning process. These issues are interconnected components of effective regional transportation planning, and collectively create the complex planning priorities facing the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO that will be addressed through the Work Program tasks and deliverables. The following issues call for a need to:

Expand and enhance transit, transportation demand management strategies including ridesharing services, and parking strategies to provide competitive choices for travel throughout the region;

Improve mobility and safety for the movement of people and goods in the area transportation system;

Improve strategies to make the community friendly to bicycles and pedestrians, particularly the mobility and safety of bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as access to transit, rail and transit/rail facilities;

Take more visible steps to better integrate transportation planning with local government land use plans, with a goal of creating patterns of interconnected transportation networks and long-term multimodal possibilities such as non-vehicular commuter trails, regional commuter rail service, plus right-of-way corridors for light-rail transit and/or bus ways;

Ensure that new transportation networks are designed to minimize negative impacts on the community and its natural environment, and to save money;

Encourage more public involvement and participation, particularly addressing environmental justice and title VI issues;1

Improve the understanding of environmental impacts of transportation projects and identify opportunities for environmental mitigation; and,

Seriously consider budget shortfalls and its impediments to transportation projects and work to tap alternative sources of funding.

1 The 1994 Presidential Executive Order directs Federal agencies to identify and address the needs of minority and low-income populations in all programs, policies, and activities.



Public Participation/Title VI and Environmental Justice The MPO makes every effort to include minority, low-income and limited-English speaking populations in transportation planning. Throughout this document there are several tasks that specifically discuss the MPO’s efforts to include these populations. In addition to the UPWP the MPO also maintains a Public Participation Plan and a Title VI/Environmental Justice Plan. The Public Participation Plan was updated in the spring of 2013. The Title VI/Environmental Justice Plan was created and approved in the fall of 2012. Both plans specify that the MPO must post public notices in key locations for low-income, minority and limited-English speaking populations. Both plans also state that the MPO must make all official documents accessible to all members of our community. The Title VI/Environmental Justice Plan also outlines a complaint process, should a member of these specialized populations feel as though they have been discriminated against. These documents work in tandem with the UPWP to outline the MPO’s annual goals and processes for regional transportation planning. Funding MPO planning activity is funded by two federal agencies: the FHWA Planning program, whose funds are labeled “PL,” and the FTA, whose funds are labeled “FTA.” The FHWA funds are administered through VDOT and FTA funds are administered through the DRPT. The funds are allocated to the TJPDC, which uses funds for MPO staffing to carry out the MPO process. The total budgets for these entities reflect 10% local funds, 10% state funds, and 80% federal funds. In addition, VDOT receives federal planning funds from FHWA for State Planning and Research. These are noted with the initials “SPR”. The total budget for SPR items reflects 80% federal funds and 20% state funds. Attachment A shows the tasks to be performed by VDOT’s District Staff, utilizing SPR funds. VDOT’s Transportation and Mobility Planning Division (TMPD), located in the VDOT Central Office, will provide statewide oversight, guidance and support for the federally-mandated Metropolitan Transportation Planning & Programming Process. TMPD will provide technical assistance to VDOT District Planning Managers, local jurisdictions, regional agencies and various divisions within VDOT in the development of transportation planning documents for the MPO areas. TMPD will participate in special studies as requested. DRPT staff also participates actively in MPO studies and committees, although funding for their staff time and resources is not allocated through the MPO process. The following tables provide information about the FY17 Work Program Budget. These tables outline the FY16 Program Funds by Source and by Agency. The second table summarizes the budget by the three Work Program tasks: Administration (Task 1), Long Range Planning (Task 2), and Short Range Planning (Task 3). More detailed budget information is included with the descriptions of the task activities.



FY17 Work Program: Funding By Source

Funding Source Federal State Local Total

80% 10% 10% 100%

FY-17 PL Funding

FY-17 FTA Funding

PL+FTA Total

VDOT SPR

Total FY17 Work Program

FY17 Work Program: Funding By Task

Funding Source Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Total

25% 40% 35% 100%

FY-17 PL Funding

FY-17 FTA Funding

PL+FTA Total

VDOT SPR

Total FY17 Work Program



Highlights of FY16 UPWP

The CA-MPO conducted several plans, projects and initiatives in FY15. Below are some of the highlights from the previous year, helping to give context for the FY16 activities. Coordination of Route 29 Solutions Projects In FY15, staff has been significantly involved in coordinating efforts for the Route 29 Solutions Projects. These efforts stemmed from the February 2014 letter from FHWA that deemed that the US 29 Bypass no longer met its assigned purpose and need. In response, the Commonwealth’s Secretary of Transportation developed the Route 29 Solutions Process. Staff served on the Route 29 Advisory Panel, intended to help mitigate the effects of construction on the corridor and the surrounding businesses. Staff also coordinates several sub-committees that bring together local representatives and VDOT, to coordinate on communication and business assistance. In February of 2015, the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the contracts for the Route 29 Projects. In FY16, staff will continue to work with the local representatives and VDOT, to help establish and maintain a smooth process.

House Bill 2 Prioritization In 2014, Governor McAuliffe signed House Bill 2 (HB2) into law, directing the CTB to develop and use a prioritization process for funding decisions. That process will score projects based on an objective and fair analysis that is applied statewide. The legislation will also improve the transparency and accountability of project selection, helping the CTB to select projects that provide the maximum benefits for tax dollars spent. Bike and Pedestrian Count In the fall of 2016, Charlottesville’s Bike and Pedestrian Planner approached TJPDC staff about conducting a comprehensive bike and pedestrian count, as done in 2011 and 2013. The series of counts took place in late April and early fall. After discussions with stakeholders, staff proposed regular counts throughout the year and an annual Bike and Pedestrian Report.



FY17 UPWP Activities by Task

Task 1: Administration Total Funding: $ PL Funding: $ FTA Funding: $ VDOT SPR: $ A) Reporting and Compliance with Regulations There are several reports and documents that the MPO is required to prepare, including: the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the FY18 Work Program, progress reports, funding agreements, invoices, and billing. TJPDC staff will also provide for use of legal counsel and audit services for administering federal and state contracts. End Products:

Maintain the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), as necessary; Complete annual Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP); Administer Grants and other funding; Execute project agreements, and related certifications and assurances; and, Complete invoicing, monthly billing, and progress reports.

B) Staffing Committees TJPDC staff is responsible for staffing the MPO Policy Board and Committees. These efforts include preparation of agendas, minutes, and other materials for the committees listed below. The MPO continues to urge localities to appoint committee representatives from minority and low-income communities, as well as increasing its own proactive approaches to involve these groups. In FY17, TJPDC staff will continue to be involved with committees related to the Route 29 Solutions Projects. The TJPDC staffs three committees in that process. Among the committees being staffed are:

MPO Policy Board MPO Technical Committee Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) Route 29 Solutions Additional committees as directed by the MPO Policy Board Combined meetings with the TJPDC Rural Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC),

as needed

End Products: Staff committees; Maintain memberships on committees; Issue public notices and mailings; and, Maintain the TJPDC/MPO Website.

C) Information Sharing The MPO functions as a conduit for sharing information between local governments,



transportation agencies, and the public. MPO staff will provide data and maps to: State and Federal agencies, localities and the public, as needed. Staff will also contribute articles to TJPDC’s News Brief, a bimonthly email newsletter to stakeholders. Staff will continually monitor and report on changes to Federal and State requirements related to transportation, transportation planning, and implementation policies. Staff will attend seminars, meetings, trainings, workshops, and conferences related to MPO activities as necessary. Similarly, staff will establish a Transportation Academy program, to provide seminars and trainings for officials and stakeholders. Staff will provide assistance for and participation in special studies, projects and programs in response to requests by local government, the TJPDC, MPO members and others as determined by the TJPDC Executive Director. End Products:

Continue to review and update facts and figures; Provide technical data, maps and reports to planning partners; Provide assistance with update of VTrans; Provide information for the HB 2 prioritization process; Organize information sharing sessions or roundtable discussions among partners; Develop an information center on a new MPO website; and, Maintain the MPO Website.

D) Cross-Jurisdictional Communication In FY17, the CA-MPO will take added steps to coordinate with the member governments, the Rural Transportation Program (RTP) and other MPOs from across the State. Staff will conduct ongoing intergovernmental discussions; coordinate transportation projects; and, attend/organize informational meetings and training sessions. MPO staff will attend additional meetings with local planning commissions and elected boards, to maintain a constant stream of information with local officials. In FY16, TJPDC’s RTP will update its Rural Long Range Plan. There will be heightened coordination with the MPO and efforts to align the Long Range Plan documents and processes for future updates. End Products:

Attend local planning commission meetings; Attend City Council and Board of Supervisors meetings; Establish greater communication between Planning District Commission and MPO

Policy Board; Continue coordination of Route 29 Solutions Process; Coordinate MPO’s LRTP with update of the RLRP; Participate and maintain membership with the Virginia Association of MPOs (VAMPO); Participate and maintain membership with the American Association of MPOs (AMPO);

and, Hold a joint-MPO Policy Board meeting with the Harrisonburg-Rockingham MPO.

E) Ladders of Opportunity The MPO currently has in place a Title VI and Environmental Justice Plan based on 2010 census data and to assist in meeting federal requirements for accessing minority, low-income, and



limited-English speaking populations. TJPDC and local staff will participate in and help develop community events and educational forums, such as workshops, neighborhood meetings, local media, and the MPO web page. Staff will also participate in and act upon training efforts to improve outreach to underserved communities, such as low-income households, people with disabilities, minority groups, and limited English-speaking populations. This will help the MPO better address federal regulations for Title VI Compliance and Environmental Justice. Additionally, staff intends to update the MPO’s current Title VI Plan, to account for the updated MPO boundaries, adopted since the 2012 plan. End Products:

Review and update the existing Title VI/Environmental Justice Plan; Maintain the Title VI/Environmental Justice Plan; Increase participation from underserved communities; Provide proper and adequate notice of public participation activities; Provide reasonable access to information about transportation issues and processes in

paper and electronic media; Demonstrate responsiveness to public input received during transportation planning

processes; and, Maintain the MPO website and update to meet ADA accessibility standards.

F) Public Participation The CA-MPO emphasizes public participation in its processes and plans, as is outlined in the Public Participation Plan, last updated in 2013. In FY17, there is a scheduled two-year review of the plan, where the MPO will consider any potential improvements. Staff intended to work with the Culpeper District Civil Rights Division to research innovative ways to enhance outreach efforts. With a redesign of the MPO website, there will be new online opportunities for the public to get involved. The MPO will also establish a Transportation Academy program in FY17, to help train the community in transportation processes and involve underserved communities in the process. End Products:

Review the existing Public Participation Plan; Update the Public Participation Plan, as needed; Implement the standards in the Public Participation Plan; Redesign the MPO website with improved public involvement features; and, Establish the Transportation Academy Program, to train officials and stakeholders.

H) Redesign of Online Resources In FY16, TJPDC staff will conduct a redesign of the MPO website. The new site will offer the public added opportunities to participate in the MPO process and will include information items that explain transportation issues in an easily understood format. The redesign will be associated with the CA-MPO’s Transportation Academy, which will be focused on training local officials and stakeholders on the MPO process and transportation concepts.



Additional web updates will be related to the extended Eco-Logical project. TJPDC will develop a user-friendly web page that will allow users to download a copy of CA-MPO’s Regional Ecological Framework (REF) tool and provides a step-by-step guide on how to use the tool to evaluate environmental impacts. The new site will include instructional guides on how to use the REF tool to analyze a variety of project types. The audience for this web page includes partner organizations and other small MPO’s who might be interested in implementing the REF or developing their own by following the CA-MPO’s approach. End Products:

Develop a new CA-MPO website; Establish and maintain a transportation training program; and, Design an Eco-Logical site for promoting the REF.



Task 2: Long Range Transportation Planning Total Funding: $ PL Funding: $ FTA Funding: $ VDOT SPR: $ A) 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) The CA-MPO approved the 2040 LRTP in May of 2014, with amendments approved in September. In FY17, the CA-MPO will continue to maintain the plan and will conduct an annual review. Additionally, staff will apply the HB 2 standards to the CLRP and Visioning List, to test the new prioritization process. At the end of the exercise, staff will provide feedback to the Secretary of Transportation with feedback on the draft process. Finally, staff will evaluate ways to better integrate transit into the long range plan, with results from rider surveys and feedback transit stakeholders. End Products:

Amend Long Range Transportation Plan, as needed; Maintain detailed standards for amending the LRTP; Conduct an exercise that will assess how the HB 2 prioritization process will affect the

LRTP; and, Prepare data for an update of the Travel Demand Model, to occur in FY17.

B) Hillsdale Area Plan In efforts to improve the Route 29 corridor, the CA-MPO is in discussions with the City of Charlottesville to conduct a Hillsdale Area Plan, as an update to the Route 29/H250 plan. With this project under discussion, there has yet to be a final determination on whether to proceed in FY16. End Products:

Continue discussion with the City of Charlottesville; Formalize a scope of work for the project; and, Determine additional funding sources for the work.

C) Travel Demand Management (TDM)/Rideshare Program The RideShare program, housed by the TJPDC, is an essential program of the MPO’s planning process. RideShare and TDM efforts have been, and will continue to be included in the long range transportation planning process. RideShare staff works with the MPO by providing data and advice with regard to how RideShare and TDM can affect the MPO. End Products:

Continue efforts to improve RideShare and TDM in MPO; Conduct inventories of Park-and-Ride lots; and, Identify new opportunities to implement RideShare and TDM practices in the MPO.

D) Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning The MPO will continue to assist the City and County with bicycle and pedestrian projects and



plans. End Products:

Identify opportunities for new bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as requested; Continue to build and maintain the Regional Cycling Program; Conduct year-long bike and pedestrian counts; Establish an annual bike and pedestrian report; Begin to implement recommendations from the Bike Route 76 Corridor Study; Pursue funding for an update of the 2004 Jefferson Area Bike & Pedestrian Plan; and, Pursue other funding opportunities to support bicycle and pedestrian facilities and

planning. E) Data Management In FY14, MPO staff completed the process of developing new traffic analysis zones (TAZs) for the updated travel demand model, but the modeler on staff left in FY15. Consequently, VDOT runs the model, with data updates and assistance from the MPO. With the shift away from modeling, TJPDC staff will focus efforts on collecting and processing data for various efforts, including VDOT’s maintenance of the model. Staff will prepare data for a major update of the Travel Demand Model, to occur in FY17. In FY16, staff will make several investments in data management. The website redesign will include a data center, where the public and officials can find and easily read data. The MPO will create new data, with the bike and pedestrian counts and other efforts. Staff will reformat data into interactive platforms, such as interactive maps on the redesigned website. Staff will also provide data and mapping, on request. End Products:

Provide VDOT with data to maintain and update the travel demand model; Develop an online data center, improving access to information; Collect and analyze transit data to assist DRPT in CAT’s future Transit Development

Plan; Collect and consolidate other data; and, Continue to share information to ensure a cooperative and collaborative process.

F) Performance Measurements In 2015, FHWA recognized the CA-MPO in a web-series for the innovative approach to applying performance measures and scenario based planning to the LRTP. Staff also dedicated significant time with assessing the House Bill 2 standards, providing subsequent feedback to State officials. Given this success and experience with performance measures, staff will continue to develop and evaluate performance measurement systems in FY16. Work in FY16 will include the Eco-Logical contract extension. The CA-MPO will evaluate how the Eco-Logical process and REF tool can be integrated into the House Bill 2 process. In-order to do this, CA-MPO staff will need to analyze existing and proposed transportation projects using the REF tool so that it can compare its existing approach to the new approach proposed by HB2. In addition to running the model on applicable local transportation projects, staff will also be communicating with VDOT Culpeper District staff to ensure that the CA-MPO Eco-Logical approach meets their requirements for an appropriate environmental performance measure.



Staff will begin to evaluate the LRTP projects and performance measures, compared with the new HB2 standards. These evaluations will also include considerations for transit, bike and pedestrian projects. End Products:

Maintain the LRTP Performance Measurement system for any plan amendments; Conduct an exercise that will assess how the HB 2 prioritization process could affect the

LRTP; Explore how best to prioritize transit, bike and pedestrian projects; and, Evaluate how the Eco-Logical process and REF tool can be integrated into the HB 2

process.



Task 3: Short Range Planning Total Funding: $ PL Funding: $ FTA Funding: $ VDOT SPR: $ A) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) The Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a document used to schedule the spending of federal transportation funds within the metropolitan region for the federal fiscal years from FY15 to FY18. The TIP is a product of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in compliance with federal requirements. There are a number of federal-aid highway programs (i.e. administered by FHWA) which, in order to be eligible for use by the implementing agency, must be programmed in the TIP. Similarly, there are funds available under federal-aid transit programs (i.e. administered by FTA) which, in order to be used, must also be programmed in the TIP. Any federally-funded transportation projects within the MPO must be included in the TIP, including transit agency projects. Project descriptions including implementing agency, location/service area, cost estimates, funding sources, funding amounts actual or scheduled for allocation, type of improvement, and other information, including a required overall financial plan. MPO, TJPDC, VDOT, DRPT, and local City and County staff will continue to collaborate and monitor the maintenance of the TIP. The final TIP document shall be posted on the TJPDC website. End Products:

Update the TIP document to improve accessibility and transparency; Monitor the TIP as necessary, ensuring compliance with federal planning regulations;

and, Maintain the TJPDC Website and update to meet ADA accessibility standards.

B) Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP) The CA-MPO will work with State and local agencies to prioritize and submit a list of recommended projects to the District Planner, for consideration in the SYIP. Staff will document how it developed and prioritized the list of projects. Staff will also test how the new HB 2 prioritization process will influence candidate projects for the SYIP. This exercise will prepare the CA-MPO and localities for the State’s forthcoming methodology, which will be fully implemented in FY17. End Products:

Attend VDOT’s Fall Transportation Meeting; Test the HB 2 standards with candidate projects for the SYIP; and Submit a list of prioritized projects for consideration in the SYIP.



C) Route 29 Solutions Outreach In FY15, staff was significantly involved in coordinating efforts for the Route 29 Solutions Projects. Staff served on the Route 29 Advisory Panel, intended to help mitigate the effects of construction on the corridor and the surrounding businesses. Staff also coordinates several sub-committees that bring together local representatives and VDOT, to coordinate on communication and business assistance. In FY16, staff will continue to work with the local representatives and VDOT, to help establish and maintain a smooth process. End Products:

Continue to participate with the Route 29 Advisory Panel; Staff and coordinate the Oversight Subcommittee; Staff and coordinate the Business Assistance Subcommittee; Staff and coordinate the Communications and Engagement Subcommittee; and, Supply additional insight with strategies to mitigate the effects of construction.

D) Regional Transit Study TJPDC, E) Grant Funding for Priority Projects The MPO staff will work with the City and County in seeking funding for high-priority transportation projects within the MPO. Specific efforts include seeking funding sources to implement project concepts from the 2040 LRTP, Bike and Pedestrian plans, the Pantops Master Plan, the Northtown Trail project and other previously adopted planning documents. End Products:

Facilitate outreach efforts in the pursuit of funding sources for high priority projects within the MPO.

F) Transportation Academy In End Products:

Hold at least two training events during FY17; and, Develop online resources that will inform and involve the public.

G) On-Call Services MPO, VDOT, and local staff will be available to conduct transportation studies and planning efforts as requested by our planning partners; projects focusing on transportation system improvements to improve mobility, safety, and security for area pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. All safety studies will ensure a working partnership with the surrounding area’s businesses and neighborhoods. End Products: Transportation study or planning effort, as requested, that can be used as a basis for implementing short-term and long-term transportation solutions.



Task 4.0: Consultant Studies These projects would be funded, or proposed to be funded, by sources other than MPO planning funds, and are included for information. As of the adoption of this document, there are no consultant studies in process, but TJPDC staff will amend this document to incorporate any future consultant studies.



CA-MPO in FY18

While there is less certainty in FY17, the CA-MPO anticipates work on the following efforts, some of which will carry-over from FY16. Update of the MPO Travel Demand Model In FY16, the CA-MPO will begin to collect and process data to create a new Travel Demand Model for the MPO. The development of this model would occur in FY17, in partnership with VDOT, which is anticipated to continue maintaining the model. Transportation Academy Staff initiated the Transportation Academy concept in FY15; will build the resources and services in FY16; and, will maintain and grow these services in FY17. The CA-MPO will likely partner with the University of Virginia, who will assist with providing layperson instruction and education to the community on MPO processes and transportation concepts. House Bill 2 Prioritization In FY17, the CTB will formally initiate the House Bill 2 prioritization process. In that year, the CA-MPO will help to select and nominate candidate projects for consideration. The MPO will also help its member localities evaluate projects for the State’s process. Route 29 Solutions The Route 29 Solutions projects will be under construction in FY17. Consequently, staff will continue to dedicate time and resources for mitigating the impacts of construction and enhancing communication between VDOT and the community. Annual Bike and Pedestrian Report In FY16, the CA-MPO will begin a process for collecting bike and pedestrian data on an annual basis. This comprehensive and continuing data collection will result in an annual report, which will highlight trends and provide a holistic view at cyclists and pedestrians in the community.



Public Participation Process

Review and Approval of Tasks MPO Technical Committee: January 20th MPO Policy Board: January 28th Online Posting Posted on TJPDC.org: April 3rd State Review Draft submittal for VDOT review/comment: April 7th Draft submittal for DRPT review/comment: April 7th Review of Final FY16 UPWP Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC): May 4th MPO Technical Committee: May 17th MPO Policy Board: May 25th **PUBLIC HEARING: May 25th, 2015** Note: Copy of public hearing in appendix D



Glossary of Acronyms

The following transportation-related acronyms are used in this document: 3-C Planning Process

Federal Planning Process which ensures that transportation planning is continuing, comprehensive, and coordinated in the way it is conducted

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic BRT Bus Rapid Transit CAT Charlottesville Area Transit CTAC Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee CTB Commonwealth Transportation Board DRPT Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration FY Fiscal Year (refers to the state fiscal year July 1 – June 30) GIS Geographic Information System JAUNT Regional transit service provider to Charlottesville City, and Albemarle,

Fluvanna, Louisa, Nelson, Buckingham, Greene and Orange Counties LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century

(legislation governing the metropolitan planning process) MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization NHS National Highway System PL FHWA Planning Funding (used by MPO) RideShare Travel Demand Management (TDM) services housed at TJPDC that promote

congestion relief and air quality improvement through carpool matching, vanpool formation, Guaranteed Ride Home, employer outreach, telework consulting and multimedia marketing programs for the City of Charlottesville, and Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa, Nelson, and Greene Counties.

RLRP Rural Long Range Transportation Plan RTA Regional Transit Authority RTP Rural Transportation Program SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy

for Users (legislation that formerly governed the metropolitan planning process)

SOV Single Occupant Vehicle SPR FHWA State Planning and Research Funding (used by VDOT to support

MPO) SYIP Six Year Improvement Plan TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone TDP Transit Development Plan (for CAT and JAUNT) TDM Travel Demand Management TIP Transportation Improvement Program TJPDC Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission TMPD VDOT Transportation and Mobility Planning Division UPWP Unified Planning Work Program (also referred to as Work Program)



UTS University Transit Service UVA University of Virginia VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled Work Program Unified Planning Work Program (also referred to as UPWP) Appendix

Attachment A: Tasks Performed by VDOT Attachment B: Memorandum of Understanding (January 28, 2009) Attachment C: FTA Section 5303/PL Funding Breakdown Attachment D: Public Notice and Resolution

Strategic Plan Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO [DRAFT March 2016]

Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Strategic Plan

Page 1 of 9

Introduction

MPO Documents Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP): Long Range Transportation Plan: Transportation Improvement Program:

Strategic Planning Process

SWOT Analysis and Objectives

Strengths

Well Established: The MPO is established through Federal mandate and receives a relatively stable funding source from FHWA, VDOT, FTA and DRPT. With these resources, the MPO is on strong financial ground.

Influential Board and Committees: The MPO’s Board and committees consist of influential individuals, including: elected officials, planning commissioners, planning directors, state officials, and community leaders. There are few other organizations that offer such a diverse and prominent collection of decision-makers and citizen advocates.

BUILD ON STRENGTH, BY:

Ensuring that the MPO Board and committees continue to communicate MPO efforts to local officials.

Active Board Involvement: The MPO Board is notably active, as seen by the strong attendance record of its members. The Board members are also active in their jurisdictions and help to communicate the MPO’s function to the community.


Page 2 of 9

Knowledgeable Staff: In the online survey, MPO officials indicated that staff provides quality and timely services. While relatively small, this office provides a diverse and skilled perspective to the MPO.


Continuing to attend statewide transportation events;

Continuing to foster training and professional certifications; and.

Beginning to engage with national transportation officials and training opportunities.

Regional Coordination: The MPO offers a unique opportunity for regional coordination and the exchange of information between localities.


Serving as the forum for any cross-jurisdiction committees; and,

Providing additional opportunities for officials to exchange information.

Strong Partnerships: The MPO has strong partnerships with State agencies (VDOT and DRPT) and local organizations (JAUNT, CAT, the University of Virginia, and others).


Continuing to strengthen communication with the state agencies;

Continuing to be involved with local organizations; and,

Building new relationships, such as with Piedmont Community College, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport and Rail Association.

History of Innovation: The TJPDC and CA-MPO have a long standing history of innovation. With multiple examples of innovation that are well-known statewide and nationally, the CA-MPO can compete for funds and programs that would normally be dedicated to larger regions.


Reinstituting the UnJAM approach of a unified document;

Encouraging CTAC to generate new ideas and approaches;

Actively pursuing grant programs that promote innovation;

Inviting outside experts to present new ideas to the MPO; and,

Working more closely with UVA and the Virginia Transportation Research Council.

Ties with the Planning District: Not all MPOs are staffed by a Regional Commission, as some are housed by a locality. The overlap with a regional agency is a strength, providing a third party forum for multi-jurisdictional deliberation. The overlap with the PDC also provides access to the RideShare program and the TJPDC corporation, which provides opportunities for additional funding opportunities.


Page 3 of 9


Renaming the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO, to be more consistent with the TJPDC brand and in preparation for the expansion of the MPO’s boundaries; and,

Exploring ways to better communicate the overlap and difference between the TJPDC and MPO.

A Nimble Organization: There are certain benefits to being a small to mid-sized MPO. With a smaller Board, committees and staff, it is easier to find consensus. With less overhead, the organization can also change direction with ease, as opposed to a larger office.


Maintaining a relatively small core staff; and,

Contracting with on-call consultants for times when greater staff capacity is needed.

Active with House Bill 2: The CA-MPO had active involvement with development of the House Bill 2 standards. It was one of the first MPOs to provide feedback and had some of the more detailed comments. With early and consistent involvement, staff has a high level of familiarity with the new process, which will help the localities secure funding for projects.


Continuing to monitor and participate with the House Bill 2 process;

Obtaining or recreating the House Bill 2 spreadsheet, to assess potential success of local and regional projects; and,

Integrating the State’s process and methodologies into regional and local prioritization efforts.

Weaknesses

Lack of Clarity for Citizens Committee: Especially between Long Range Transportation Plan updates, there is a sentiment in the MPO that the Citizen’s Committee (CTAC) does not have a clear function. This was apparent in the online survey, where respondents indicated that CTAC lacks a clear mission. With this uncertainty, CTAC Committee cannot be fully effective.

ADDRESS WEAKNESS, BY: • Holding additional discussions with MPO Policy and CTAC about the Committee’s role; • Restructuring the Policy Board and Committee bylaws, based on conclusions from the MPO

discussions; • Developing an orientation packet to clarify the Committee’s purpose and function; and, • Scheduling an annual joint meeting between the MPO Policy, MPO Tech and CTAC.

Lack of Interest in Committees: While the MPO Policy Board is active, there are attendance problems with the MPO Committees. The Citizens Committee continues to have unfilled vacancies, due to a lack of interest from the public and local officials. Additionally, the MPO Technical Committee occasionally has difficulties with reaching a quorum, though recent reassignments have improved attendance.


Page 4 of 9

ADDRESS WEAKNESS, BY:

Actively assisting localities with their MPO Committee appointments;

Marketing the importance and role of the committees; and,

Promoting the importance of MPO committees through the LRTP update.

Limited Communication between MPO Bodies: Overall, there is limited communication between the Policy Board and its committees, as well as between the committees. Consequently, this disconnect can contribute to a lack of purpose and direction with the committees.

ADDRESS WEAKNESS, BY: • Scheduling an annual joint meeting between the MPO Policy, MPO Tech and CTAC; • Establishing a MPO Tech liaison on the MPO Policy Board as a non-voting member; and, • Formalizing liaisons between the MPO Tech and CTAC.

Limited Awareness of Organization: Generally, there is little awareness of the MPO throughout the region, not only with citizens but among local officials. Even within the MPO, there can be confusion over the exact purpose and function of the organization. Among many local officials, there is not a clear understanding of how the MPO and PDC are related and how their functions differ. There may also be confusion over the roles of the MPO versus State agencies.


Initiating targeted branding efforts to critical decision-makers;

Presenting targeted messages at various community meetings;

Bringing greater structure to the Transportation Planning Academy; and,

Renaming the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO to be more consistent with the TJPDC brand.

Overloaded Work Programs: In previous years, the MPO’s work program (the Unified Planning Work Program) tended to be overloaded with tasks. While the ambitious work programs attempt to meet a large demand of needs, it spread resources across too many efforts. If the MPO took a more focused approach, then resources can be concentrated on higher priority tasks.


Prioritizing the MPO’s initiatives and efforts;

Adopting more streamlined work programs that are focused on the highest priority efforts;

Establishing and maintaining a multi-year calendar of critical deadlines, updates and initiatives; and,

Using the Strategic Plan as the foundation for the MPO’s UPWP.

Disconnected Planning Efforts: While the Livable Communities project attempted to create greater coordination between the MPO and local plans, there were no permanent agreements that established long-term procedures. Without


Page 5 of 9

coordinated efforts, local plans can be inconsistent with regional priorities. Localities may also have limited awareness of regional projects and vice versa.


Formalizing procedures for coordinating MPO and local planning efforts;

Establishing an enhanced project tracking matrix that includes all transportation projects in the MPO area;

Creating a public, online data center that provides an inventory of all available transportation information for the region; and,

Directing the MPO committees to focus on coordination between planning efforts.

Limited Coordination with Rural Communities: While the TJPDC manages the Rural Transportation Program and the MPO, there is limited coordination between these efforts. The region once had greater coordination, with the Unified Jefferson Area Mobility Plan (UnJAM). Greater coordination with the rural communities would also help transition the MPO into its future expansion, which may occur with the next decennial census.


Reinstituting the UnJAM approach of a unified document;

Enforcing the MPO bylaws, to have a PDC member serve as a nonvoting member of the Policy Board;

Establishing an MPO liaison on the Rural Transportation Council; and,

Including select rural members (such as Greene County) on MPO communications.

Limited Interaction with Commonwealth Transportation Board: Aside from brief conversations, there is little interaction between MPO officials and the Commonwealth Transportation Board. While a CTB member sits on many MPO Policy Boards, the CA-MPO has limited communication with its member. Given that the CTB makes final decisions on transportation funding decisions, this may be seen as a weakness.


Establishing a non-voting position on the Policy Board for the CTB representative;

Holding a regular meeting with the CTB representative, to communicate regional priorities; and,

Attending CTB meeting and preparing comments to forward to state officials.

Inconsistencies with Administrative Documents: There are several inconsistencies between the MPO’s administrative and guiding documents. Bylaws for the Board and committees are not fully aligned with the MPO’s Memorandum of Understanding. Also, Board and committee practices are not always consistent with the bylaws.


Amending administrative documents to ensure greater consistency;

Amending the Board’s and committees’ bylaws to be consistent with other administrative documents and the Strategic Plan; and,

Regularly review the bylaws to ensure consistency with Board and committee practices.


Page 6 of 9

Limited Diversity within MPO: In FY16, VDOT and DRPT conducted a Title VI review of the CA-MPO. Their conclusions identified a lack of diversity on the MPO Board, committees and staff. While the MPO Technical Committee now has greater diversity, due to recent assignment, the Citizens Committee still fails to represent a broad range of community groups.


Promoting CTAC to minority groups; and

Actively assisting localities with their MPO Committee appointments, to ensure diversity.

Awareness of Transportation Processes: Overall, local officials and the greater public have limited knowledge of the transportation planning process. Consequently, there can be frustration about specific projects. Without a strong understanding projects can stall, as there are no established priorities and clear steps.


Bringing greater structure to the Transportation Planning Academy;

Establishing online tools that help to explain the transportation planning process;

Establishing an enhanced project matrix, for tracking the progression of local transportation project; and,

Establishing improved orientation packets for the MPO Policy Board, committees and local officials.

Opportunities

Building New Relationships: While the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport is a major transportation node in the community, there is limited coordination between the airport and MPO officials. At the February Joint Meeting, attendees communicated a desire to start a closer relationship with the airport. MPO officials also communicated a need to continue building relationships with local planning commissions and community groups.

SUPPORT OPPORTUNITY, BY:

Holding an annual MPO meeting at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport;

Establishing a non-voting member of the MPO Policy Board that represents aviation;

Establishing a non-voting member of the MPO Policy Board that represents Piedmont Community College (PVCC);

Establishing non-voting positions for rural communities that are likely to be integrated into the MPO after the next decennial census;

Scheduling a regular MPO presentation to local planning commissions, at least once a year;

Engaging local planning commissions early and often in the LRTP updates; and,

Engaging rail organizations, especially regarding opportunities with the rail station.

Leader of Best Practices: In agreement with the online survey and joint meeting, there are opportunities for the MPO to be a leader in best practices. This leadership role can help influence non-MPO projects, as well.


Page 7 of 9


Encouraging CTAC to generate new ideas and approaches;

Actively pursuing grant programs that promote innovation; and,

Inviting outside experts to present new ideas to the MPO.

Alternative Funding Sources: With limited resources on the Federal and State levels, along with uncertainty with future funding legislation, there may be opportunities to secure alternative funding sources for projects and MPO programing.


Actively pursuing grant opportunities to supplement MPO services;

Establishing a well-defined project pipeline, with defined funding strategies;

Evaluating possibilities for public-private partnerships; and,

Identifying contract services needed by local governments and MPO (i.e. – modeling).

Annual Evaluation: With a strategic plan in place, MPO officials believed there were opportunities to have regular evaluation of the MPO’s progress.


Regularly referring to the MPO Strategic Plan; and,

Establishing an annual survey that tracks progress.

Partnerships with Adjoining MPOs: The Staunton-Augusta-Waynesboro MPO is less than a dozen miles away from the CA-MPO’s western boundary. These MPO’s share a Corridor of Statewide Significance, Interstate 64, and are tied by commuting patterns. There are opportunities to partner with SAW and other MPOs, to coordinate on projects and share information on best practices.


Continuing active involvement with VAMPO; and,

Coordinating procedures and efforts with neighboring MPOs, by establishing an MOU for joint review of LRTPs and models for regional projects.

Facilitation of Local Transportation Projects: As VDOT helped to facilitate the Route 29 Solutions projects, there may be opportunities for the MPO to facilitate other challenging transportation projects in the region. These may be controversial or stagnate projects that are delayed.


Continuing to participate with the Route 29 Solutions efforts;

Documenting the Route 29 Solutions process;

Marketing these services to local officials; and,

Encouraging MPO officials to actively endorse the MPO for these efforts.


Page 8 of 9

Expansion of MPO Boundaries: With the next decennial census, the MPO boundaries will likely expand to Greene County, due to development patterns along the Route 29 Corridor. The Governor may also identify potential expansion to the eastern counties, towards Zion Crossroads. There are opportunities to help transition to this expansion and to take advantage of a new MPO footprint.


Evaluating implications for an expanded MPO boundary;

Preparing for the funding and procedural implications of exceeding 200,000 people in the MPO area; and,

Establishing non-voting positions for rural communities that are likely to be integrated into the MPO after the next decennial census.

Threats

State Programs and Processes that Deemphasize MPOs: In Virginia, the CTB develops the Six-Year Improvement Program, largely independent of the MPO process. Only after the CTB adopts a SYIP are funds programmed into the TIPs. With development of the House Bill 2 process, there may be additional challenges to the MPO’s importance.

MEET THREAT, BY:

Working with VAMPO to promote State Code changes that provide greater weight to MPO processes; and,

Working with VAMPO to communicate a need to emphasize MPOs in the House Bill 2 process.

Potential Funding Biases: With the State funding several large capital projects along the Route 29 corridor, there could be a bias against other immediate investments in the region. While House Bill 2 should help to minimize political influences, a bias may still exist.

MEET THREAT, BY:

Integrating the State’s process into MPO and local projects, to strengthen funding applications; and,

Restructuring and redefining transportation projects to ensure higher scores in the State’s funding processes

History of Extended Project Timelines: In the CA-MPO region, there is a tendency for project timelines to take multiple decades, from concept to construction. These extended processes could also create biases in the State’s funding decisions, as they try to invest in more efficient projects.

MEET THREAT, BY:

Establishing an enhanced project matrix, for tracking the progression of local transportation project;

Establishing improved orientation packets for the MPO Policy Board, committees and local officials; and,


Page 9 of 9

Establishing a well-defined project pipeline, with defined funding strategies.

Relative Stature of Region: As a smaller MPO, this region will not have as much influence over state decisions as larger MPOs, such as Richmond, Hampton Roads, Roanoke or Northern Virginia.

MEET THREAT, BY:

Continuing an emphasis on innovation, to carve out a unique status as a leader in transportation.

Lack of Institutional Memory: While MPO staff is skilled and knowledgeable, there was a complete turnover since completion of the last LRTP. With staff’s lack of institutional memory, there may be a limited background on previous projects and efforts.

MEET THREAT, BY:

Formalizing checklists and procedures, to ensure that any new staff members can easily integrate into the MPO role; and,

Tying comments and notes to projects, documenting decisions and events.

Action Items and Schedule

Fiscal Year 2017

Fiscal Year 2018

Fiscal Year 2019

The Title VI Plan outlines how the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO meets Title VI and Environmental Justice compliance. This plan discusses the efforts the MPO makes to include specialized populations in the regional planning process. This plan also

discusses the demographic breakdown of the MPO region and outlines a procedure for filing complaints should any MPO stakeholders feel they were subject to discrimination under Title VI guidelines and accompanying policies.

Title VI Plan Approved: XXXXX


2

Table of Contents

Purpose………………………………………………………………………………………….3

Title VI……………………………………………………………………………………………3

Environmental Justice………………………………………………………………………..7

Limited English Proficiency…………………………………………………………………7

Title VI Coordinator…………………………………………………………………………..11

Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Community Characteristic………………………….12

Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Responsibilities & Strategies…………………..…..18

Discrimination Complaint Procedures…………………………………………………...24

Appendix A: Discrimination Complaint Form…………………………………………..28

Appendix B: Language Use………………………………………………………………...29

Primary Revision Author:

Nick Morrison- Planner I

Secondary Revision Authors:

Will Cockrell, AICP- Director of Planning Wood Hudson- Senior Environmental Planner


3

I. Purpose

This Title VI/Environmental Justice Plan will discuss how the Charlottesville-Albemarle

Metropolitan Planning Organization (CA-MPO) mitigates against and avoids

inadvertently excluding low-income, minority, limited-English-speaking, disabled, and

elderly populations in the planning process and in the development of numerous

planning documents. This plan will also include a procedure that allows members of

these populations to submit grievances regarding perceived discriminatory actions.

II. Title VI

In 1964, the United States Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, an Act that enforced

constitutional and civil rights for minority populations. This landmark piece of legislation

was made up of 11 titles, all of which are listed below. Title VI of this Act is the driving

force behind this document.

I. Voting Rights

II. Public Accommodation

III. Desegregation of Public Facilities

IV. Desegregation of Public Education

V. Commission of Civil Rights

VI. Nondiscrimination in Federally-Assisted Programs and Activities

VII. Equal Employment Opportunity

VIII. Registration and Voting Statistics

IX. Intervention and Procedure after Removal in Civil Rights Cases

X. Establishment of Community Relations Service

XI. Miscellaneous

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is made up of five sections. The first section states

the following…

SEC. 601: No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or


4

national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of,

or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving

federal financial assistance.

The remaining four sections discuss how Section 601 will affect federal agencies.

SEC. 602: No federal agencies can enact or fund projects that do not adhere to the

criteria outlined in Section 601.

SEC. 603: Any agency that does not adhere to the parameters outlined in SEC. 601

and 602 are subject to judicial review. Funding for any federal agency can

be withdrawn if SEC. 601 and 602 are not met.

SEC. 604: Title VI will not affect employment unless said employment is federally-

funded.

SEC. 605: Title VI will not affect any federal agencies’ authority regarding contract of

insurance guaranty.

Title VI applies to the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO in that the MPO is a federally-

mandated agency, funded primarily through federal tax dollars. Currently the MPO

handles Title VI through its public participation plan, last updated in 2012. Over the

years, Title VI has been expanded by numerous other Acts and Executive Orders.

Below is a list of nondiscrimination laws that have expanded upon the original scope of

Title VI.

Non Discrimination Acts:

The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies

Act of 1970 prohibits unfair and inequitable treatment of persons displaced or

whose property will be acquired as a result of federal and federal-aid programs

and projects.

The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973 states that no person shall, on the

grounds of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be


5

subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal

assistance under this title or carried on under this title.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 states that no qualified

handicapped person shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from

participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under

any program or activity that receives or benefits from federal financial assistance.

This Act protects qualified individuals from discrimination based on their

disability.

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 states that no person shall, on the basis of

age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected

to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial

assistance. This act prohibits age discrimination in federally-assisted programs.

The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, P.L.100-209 amends Title VI of the

1964 Civil Rights Act to make it clear that discrimination is prohibited throughout

an entire agency if any part of the agency receives federal assistance.

The American Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 prohibits discrimination against

people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation,

communications, and governmental activities.

23 CFR Part 200 – Federal Highway Administration regulations: Title VI Program

and Related Statutes – Implementation and Review Procedures.

49 CFR Part 21 – Nondiscrimination in Federally-Assisted Programs.

23 CFR Part 450 – Federal Highway Administration planning regulations.

23 CFR Part 771 – Federal Highway Administration regulations, Environmental

Impact Procedures.

Non Discrimination Executive Orders:

Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice (February 11, 1994), a

presidential mandate to address equity and fairness toward low‐income and

minority persons/population. Executive Order 12898 organized and explained the


6

federal government’s commitment to promote Environmental Justice. Each

federal agency was directed to review its procedures and make environmental

justice part of its mission. U.S. DOT Order 5610.2 (April 15, 1997) expanded

upon Executive Order 12898 requirements and describes process for

incorporating Environmental Justice principles into DOT programs, policies, and

activities. FHWA Order 6640.23 (December 2, 1998) – FHWA Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐Income Populations

DOT Order 5610.2 on Environmental Justice summarized and expanded upon

the requirements of Executive Order 12898 to include all policies, programs, and

other activities that are undertaken, funded, or approved by the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), or other U.S.

DOT components.

Executive Order 13166 – Limited English Proficiency (August 11, 2000), a

presidential directive to federal agencies to ensure people who have limited

English proficiency have meaningful access to services. Executive Order 13166

ensures federal agencies and their recipients to improve access for persons with

Limited English Proficiency to federally‐conducted and federally assisted

programs and activities.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 addresses both social

and economic impacts of environmental justice. NEPA stresses the importance

of providing for “all Americans, safe, healthful, productive and aesthetically

pleasing surroundings,” and provides a requirement for taking a “systematic

interdisciplinary approach” to aid in considering environmental and community

factors in decision‐making

HWA/FTA Memorandum Implementing Title VI Requirements in

Metropolitan and Statewide Planning ‐ This memorandum provides

clarification for field officers on how to ensure that environmental justice is

considered during current and future planning certification reviews. The intent of

this memorandum was for planning officials to understand that environmental


7

justice is equally as important during the planning stages as it is during the

project development stages.

III. Environmental Justice

In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12898 that directed federal

agencies to develop strategies to mitigate against adversely impacting the health or

environmental quality of minority and low-income populations. This order also pushed

forward efforts to keep these populations more informed about their communities and

their rights.

Adverse effects are defined as…

Bodily or physical harm

Pollution (noise, water, air, soil, or other)

Destruction of elements and features that can bind a community, such as

available resources, aesthetics, and economic sufficiency

Displacement of people, employment, or resources

Isolation from a broader community

Delay in receiving available resources

Environmental Justice is meant to address the undue burden of these adverse effects

on these specialized populations. This Executive Order was structured to not only

require federal agencies and those benefitting from federal funding to mitigate potential

adverse effects on these specialized populations, but also empower these populations

to know their rights and participate in the betterment of their community.

IV. Limited English Proficiency

Like the Environmental Justice Executive Order, the Limited English Proficiency

Executive Order is structured to avoid adversely affecting these populations and to


8

develop strategies to better engage these populations in their community. This order

was signed by President Clinton in 2000. Limited English-speaking populations are

often isolated from engaging in their larger communities. By making materials and

opportunities accessible to these populations it becomes easier to communicate and

perhaps determine methods of providing necessary resources.

In considering how to access these populations four factors need to be addressed.

These factors include…

Demographics: Knowing where the populations are located.

Frequency: Determining how often the populations are contacted or engaged by

the agency.

Importance: Determining if the issues under consideration are important to these

communities.

Resources: Keeping an inventory of the resources available to engage these

populations.

This analysis, known as the four-factor analysis, is used to determine which language

assistance services are appropriate to address the identified needs of the Limited

English Proficiency (LEP) population. Below is the four-step process for the

Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO.

Factor 1: Demographics: Assessment of the Number and Proportion of LEP

Persons Likely to be Served or Encountered in the Eligible Service

Population

The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO has reviewed census data on the number of

individuals in its service area that have LEP, as well as the languages that they speak.

This data comes from the American Community Survey (2010-2014). This data

indicates the extent to which translations into other language are needed to meet the

needs of LEP persons within the community. Because the MPO’s boundaries

encompass both the City of Charlottesville and portions of Albemarle County, it should


9

be noted that the figures below represent all the population of the City of Charlottesville

and all of the population of Albemarle County, thus these numbers are not specific to

the MPO. It should also be noted that these figures are estimates that consider the

major language spoken at home. These figures do not assess if these populations are

fluent in English.

Spanish 5,903 4.3%

Indo-European 4,864 3.5%

Asian and Pacific Island Languages 4,617 3.3%

Other Languages 1,569 1.1%

The most pervasive, non-English language in the region is Spanish, which makes up

slightly more than 4% of the total population. The Indo-European and the Asian and

Pacific Island groups represent 3.5% and 3.3% of total population respectively. It is

important to note that these broad census categories encompass numerous languages.

Please see Appendix B for the full list of languages.

Factor 2: Frequency: Determining how often the populations are contacted or

engaged by the agency.

The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO is rarely approached for information by any

populations who do not have a reasonable competent grasp of the English language.

This agency has made efforts for certain projects to create materials in both English and

Spanish should the project affect these populations, but this need is on a project-by-

project basis.

The goal of the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO is to make sure that for any potential

project that could affect this community the MPO staff makes every effort to include all

stakeholders that could be affected by the project, including limited-English-speaking


10

populations. The MPO performs outreach when needed and provides assistance when

requested.

Factor 3: Importance: Determining if the issues under consideration are important to

these communities.

As stated above, the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO provides materials for limited-

English-speaking populations if they are needed for a particular project. For example,

the MPO recently did a customer satisfaction survey to determine how riders felt about

Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT). The survey was both in English and in Spanish due

to the extreme importance of transit to the Hispanic population in our region. This

allowed Spanish-speaking citizens the opportunity to contribute input on a service that

was important to them. According to the survey responses, the Spanish-speaking

population generally had the same opinion about CAT service as the English-speaking

population.

Factor 4: Resources: Keeping an inventory of the resources available to engage

these populations.

The following language assistance measures are currently being provided by the

Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO. The MPO provides translators for MPO meetings for

Spanish-speaking citizens if given at least two days’ notice. The MPO will do its upmost

to provide translators for other languages if requested. The MPO will also make major

plans available in a variety of languages if requested to do so. This agency aims to

complete a document translation within a reasonable timeframe. Also, for various

projects the MPO makes every effort to include all stakeholders in the planning and

implementation process. When a project affects a limited-English-speaking population,

the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO takes action to make the information about the

project as accessible as possible. At this time this agency has not had to do any of the


11

actions mentioned above. Because of this, it is very difficult to assess the costs that

would be incurred. The MPO is prepared for these costs should the need arise.

LEP Implementation Plan Through the four-factor analysis, the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO has determined

that the following types of language assistance are most needed and feasible:

Limited-English-speaking populations make up approximately 11.5% of the total 96,217

residents age 5 years and older in Albemarle County and 14% of the total 42,055

residents 5 years and older in the City of Charlottesville. The largest group within this

cohort is Spanish-speaking individuals. The MPO will do outreach to the Spanish-

speaking population as a part of our general community outreach or our project-specific

efforts. Again the MPO will do its upmost to engage all stakeholder groups and meet all

limited-English-speaking requests. Further demographic information may be found in

Appendix B.

V. Title VI Coordinator

The Title VI coordinator is expected to maintain the Title VI plan, develop strategies to

maintain Title VI compliance, and oversee the Discrimination Complaint Process. Below

is a list of the Title VI Coordinator’s specific responsibilities.

Monitor and review agency programs, policies, and activities for Title VI

compliance in primary and special emphasis areas;

Collect and review statistical data (race, color, sex, age, disability or national

origin) of participants and beneficiaries of state highway programs, to prevent or

eliminate potential disparate impact or disparate treatment discrimination;

Work with staff involved in procurement or consulting contracts to insure that Title

VI compliance is met; and mitigate any issue if not met;

Train new staff members on Title VI compliance procedures;

Maintain a list of interpretation service providers;


12

Periodically review and update the agencies Title VI Plan;

Attend trainings to keep aware of nondiscrimination opportunities and

procedures; and,

Resolve Title VI complaints in a timely and thorough fashion

The Title VI coordinator will be responsible for incorporating Title VI efforts into various

plans produced by the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO. The Title VI coordinator will also

make every effort to insure that all information regarding the Charlottesville-Albemarle

MPO is reasonably accessible to all populations. Informational materials will be readily

available both on the MPO’s website and in the TJPDC offices.

Other MPO employees that could be a part of the Title VI process include the TJPDC’s

Executive Director, who will be kept informed of all Title VI complaints and has taken

numerous Title VI training courses over the course of his/her career. Also, the TJPDC’s

Administrative Assistant will likely be the first point of contact if a Title VI or

Environmental Justice complaint or request is made. The Administrative Assistant will

do the initial processing for these situations and will forward the request on to the Title

VI coordinator.

VI. Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Community Characteristics

Figure 1 on the following page is provided to help orient the reader with the

Charlottesville-Albemarle area. The large map displays the Charlottesville-Albemarle

MPO broken down by block group. Similarly, the informational maps in the following

sections (Figure 2 and Figure 3) use Charlottesville-Albemarle data sets on a block

group scale. The column of maps on the right of Figure 1, from top to bottom, show the

Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission’s jurisdiction, the middle map shows

the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO within the state of Virginia, and the bottom map

shows the distinction between the campus and the City of Charlottesville within the city

limits.


13

TJPDC

Figure 1: MPO & TJPDC

MPO Boundary TJPC Region

Virginia

UVA & City


14

Race

The percentage of the minority population for each census tract is shown in figure 2.

The data was extracted from the 2014 American Community Survey. The percentage

of the minority population was calculated by dividing the “White Alone” category by the

total population figures for each census tract. Shades of dark purple represent higher

concentrations of minority populations. Highly diverse census tracts can be found within

the boundaries of the City of Charlottesville, with less diverse census tracts to the west

of the City. Figure 2 also overlays LRTP projects, allowing for decision makers to see if

proposed projects may be adversely impacting high minority populations.

Figure 2: Percent Minority


15

Low-Income

The map in figure 3 displays the percentage of the population at the block group level

living below the poverty line based on 2014 American Community Survey data

estimates overlaid with the Long Range Transportation Plan projects. Overlaying this

layer helps to identify if proposed LRTP projects lie within block groups with a higher

percentage of low-income individuals. The darker shades of blue denote block groups

with higher percentages of individuals living below the poverty line. It is important to

note that the data can be misleading, as a large proportion of students occupy block

groups within close proximity to the University. Students typically report lower incomes,

thus placing them below the poverty threshold and causing the data to skew towards an

inflated population in that category.

Figure 3: Percent Below Poverty Line


16

Age

Figure 4 represents the percentage of individuals in the 65 and older age category by

the census tract level, using data extracted from the 2014 American Community Survey.

Darker shades of red denote higher percentages of individuals in the 65 and older age

bracket. As expected, census tracts within close proximity to the UVa grounds have low

concentrations of older individuals, while census tracts outside of the City of

Charlottesville boundaries have proportionately higher concentrations of older

individuals.

Figure 4: Percent 65 and Older


17

Disabled

The 2014 American Community Survey data on county/city level estimates regarding

disability characteristics. The Table below provides estimates of these characteristics

for Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville. This data was pulled from the

2014, 5-year ACS estimates. It is important to note that the ACS data is based on

sampling data. ACS requires a data confidence level of 90%, meaning that each figure

could be off by as much as 10% either high or lower. The figures below should be

treated as estimates. Margin of error information is available via American Factfinder.

This data shows that for both Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville

the population with a disability is about 10.5% of the total population. The

estimates increase with age, and estimates begin to skew toward the category

“With an ambulatory difficulty”.

Disability Status

Albemarle County City of Charlottesville

Total Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population 100,334 44,127

With a Disability 9,706 4,018 Population under 5 years 41 11

With a hearing difficulty 4 11 With a vision difficulty 37 -

Population 5 to 17 years 595 121 With a hearing difficulty 57 - With a vision difficulty 40 22

With a cognitive difficulty 444 103 With an ambulatory difficulty 36 42

With a self-care difficulty 129 34 Population 18 to 64 years 4,616 2,650

With a hearing difficulty 983 407 With a vision difficulty 705 457

With a cognitive difficulty 1,904 1,230 With an ambulatory difficulty 2,160 1,325

With a self-care difficulty 735 554 With an independent living difficulty 1,372 959 Population 65 years and over 4,454 1,236

With a hearing difficulty 2,040 497 With a vision difficulty 898 222

With a cognitive difficulty 1,284 339 With an ambulatory difficulty 2,670 879

With a self-care difficulty 1,095 289 With an independent living difficulty 2,262 539


18

VII. Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Responsibilities and Strategies

As a federally-mandated and funded agency the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO is

required to develop strategies to engage populations that are low-income, minority,

limited-English-speaking, disabled, and elderly. The MPO makes efforts to ensure that

its planning efforts are holistic and will include all populations that are part of the

regional community.

In the Unified Planning and Work Program (UPWP), the MPO is responsible for a

variety of tasks, including administration tasks, long-range planning, short-range

planning and special projects (as needed). All of these tasks fall under several general

responsibilities. With all of these tasks the MPO is responsible for communicating its

efforts with numerous stakeholders, including the public. Therefore, Communication and

Public Participation are a central part to the MPO’s activities. MPO staff is also

responsible for the development and maintenance of two transportation planning

documents, the Long Range Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement

Program. All transportation projects that are anticipated to receive federal funds must be

included in these documents. Therefore, the MPO and its stakeholders must work

together to ensure that the projects listed in these two documents, do not cause

adverse effects to these specific population groups.

Communication and Public Participation

To reach out to the community the MPO makes every effort to be as broad sweeping as

possible. As part of our existing Public Participation Plan the MPO has numerous on-

going activities to keep the public informed. These activities are listed below.

Enews, a quarterly publication of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District

Commission, informs the public about the PDC and MPO’s activities. The

mailing list for Enews includes a broad cross-section of civic organizations,

business leaders, press members, leaders in education, public transit and

members of the community who request to receive the newsletter.


19

The TJPDC and CA-MPO staff is available on a full-time basis to respond to

direct questions and inquiries from citizens concerning transportation plans,

programs and the transportation planning process for the region. Staff will make

presentations at the request of local civic organizations and routinely provide

information to the local print and electronic media.

TJPDC maintains an extensive library of transportation, environmental,

demographic, community planning and GIS materials that are available for use

by the public during the regular workday.

TJPDC and the MPO maintain relationships with local academic institutions,

making presentations to college- and graduate-level classes and often hosting an

undergraduate or graduate intern on staff.

The CA-MPO regularly utilizes the assistance of the CTAC Citizens Technical

Advisory Committee in its transportation planning activities. CTAC is composed

of city, county and MPO-appointed community members with an interest and

expertise in planning-related topics.

According to the provisions of SAFETEA-LU, TJPDC and the CA-MPO maintain

a list of “interested parties” and “stakeholder organizations.” TJPDC staff will

include to the extent practicable, but is not limited to: private citizens, public

agencies, providers of freight services, private providers of transportation,

representatives of public transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian

walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, and representatives of the

disabled. Any citizen or groups requesting inclusion on the MPO mailing and e-

mail list will be added.

MPO staff will be accessible to the public through a variety of means (e-mail,

phone, or in person).

Planning documents will be made readily available on the MPO website.


20

MPO Policy Board and Committee Meetings:

o All MPO Policy Board and Committee meeting agendas will include meeting guidelines establishing time limits and procedures for public interaction with the Policy Board and Committees.

o As far as technically possible, access to MPO Policy Board and Committee members via email will be facilitated.

o All meetings of the Policy Board, Technical Committee, Citizen’s Committee,

and any other MPO committees will be open to the public and will be held in

locations accessible to persons with handicaps and on public transit lines.

o Arrangements will be made for interpreters for hearing impaired individuals,

and every effort will be made to ensure provision of interpreters for non-

English-speaking persons, provided a request is submitted at least two days

before the meeting. The TJPDC’s revamped website will also include a link

for members of the public to request interpretation services.

o Public hearings, workshops, and forums will be scheduled at times that are

accessible and convenient.

Transportation Planning Documents

Regarding specific transportation plans, the MPO makes efforts to include stakeholders

in both the development and approval of these regionally-significant documents. For the

development process, the efforts can vary depending on the type of plan. In the

development of new plans MPO staff makes every effort to not only make sure that

these plans consider minority and low income populations, but also attempt to include

these populations in the development of these plans. How we work to include these

populations differs with each plan. For example, for the previous LRTP (UnJAM 2035)

MPO staff presented the draft plan at community meetings for the public housing

developments within the MPO; a method that allowed MPO staff to connect with both

minority and low-income populations. During FY12 MPO staff hosted an open house for


21

local citizens that focused on information for the 2040 LRTP. The workshop was

heavily advertised through various outlets, in order to capture participation from a

diverse cross-section of this community. MPO staff also reached out to agencies that

deal with low-income and minority populations in an effort to piggyback on their

outreach efforts. During FY16, staff held a transportation academy in an effort to further

engage with citizens of the community on a variety of transportation-related topics,

including future growth patterns of the community and transit. Each effort is unique and

tailored to the planning document that is being developed. Below is a list of methods

MPO staff can implement during plan development.

Encourage and accept public input in a variety of ways (i.e. by mail, in person,

website, phone and via e-mail)

Include a broad segment of the population in development of programs, plans,

and studies by conducting regional workshops to obtain public input on

transportation and land use issues.

Conduct focus group meetings in traditionally underserved communities to

ensure the interests of these groups are incorporated into long range planning

efforts.

Meet with and identify needs of other groups with special interests in the

community.

Continually experiment with a wide variety of marketing tools and visualization

techniques (within limited budgets) to describe transportation plans (including

LRTP and TIP) and to incorporate public participation into planning workshops.

In developing the LRTP and TIP, the MPO will consult with agencies and officials

responsible for other planning activities within the MPO that are affected by

transportation or coordinate its planning process with such planning activities.

The MPO will consider other related planning activities within the metropolitan

area when developing the LTRP, TIP, and other relevant plans or studies.

The MPO will provide an additional opportunity for public comment if the final

LRTP, TIP or other transportation plans differ significantly from the version that


22

were made available for comment by the MPO and raises new material issues

which interested parties could not reasonably have foreseen from the public

involvement efforts.

During the approval process the MPO follows strict guidelines that are meant to allow

members of the public and other stakeholders, ample opportunity to review plans and

provide feedback. Below is a list of the MPO’s plan approval process.

1. The Policy Board will advertise using the standard MPO public notice procedures for

input no fewer than two times prior to adoption for:

a. The Unified Planning and Work Program

b. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

c. The Long Range Plan (LRP)

2. The Policy Board will hold no fewer than two public hearings prior to adoption of the

aforementioned documents, and will provide for a 30-day public comment period

between the first advertisement of the public hearing and adoption of the document.

3. Legal notice of public hearings:

a. Will be published two weeks prior in The Daily Progress

b. Will be sent to those on the MPO contact list and the media two weeks

prior

c. Will be posted on the TJPDC website two weeks prior and in the TJPDC

offices

4. Draft copies of the aforementioned documents will be made available two weeks

prior for public review:

a. On the MPO website

b. Through MPO-area public libraries

c. Local planning offices

d. VDOT and MPO offices


23

5. Advertisements of MPO public hearings for the aforementioned documents, as well

as for critical or adjacent projects that will influence regional transportation; will be

posted in central places of low-income and minority neighborhoods.

6. At least one public hearing will be held by the Policy Board regarding amendments

to the UPWP, TIP, and LRP.

7. Public forums will be held during the update or amendment of the LRP and TIP.

8. Summaries of all comments received and responses to these comments will be

included in the TIP, LRP, and other relevant documents (e.g. meeting minutes).

9. Public information sessions and/or interactive workshops will be held regarding other

major studies affecting the region's transportation network as deemed necessary by

the Policy Board or by request of the public.

During FY16, MPO staff conducted a strategic planning survey in an effort to help guide

the future direction of the MPO. The survey was distributed to local elected officials,

MPO Committee members, and state and local planning staff. Respondents to the

survey were in agreement that current MPO Committees lack diversity and greater

efforts should be made to further engage these populations. Going forward, the MPO

and its staff will actively advocate for more diversity and foster a sense of inclusion.

One example of this commitment to diversity is a community planning demonstration,

Better Block, which will be held in the spring of 2016 on the edge of the Friendship

Court neighborhood in downtown Charlottesville, a public housing development. This

project aims to demonstrate potential street improvements and empower citizens to

actively participate in the planning process. By locating the Better Block project within

close proximity to a traditionally high minority and low-income population, the MPO

hopes to provide an accessible forum for these individuals to be involved in the planning

process.


24

VIII. Discrimination Complaint Procedures

Title VI, Environmental Justice, and other subsequent laws prohibit discrimination based

on race, color, national origin, handicap, sex, age, income-status and limited-English-

speaking proficiency. As a federally-funded agency, the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO

has developed a method for receiving and handling such complaints should they be

made. The complaint procedures are outlined as follows:

1. Any person who believes that he or she, or any specific class of persons, has

been subjected to discrimination or retaliation, programs or activities, as

prohibited by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and its related

statutes, may file a written complaint. This complaint must be submitted using the

appropriate Title VI form, which is included as an appendix to this document. All

written complaints received by the MPO shall be referred immediately by the

MPO’s Title VI Coordinator, to the VDOT’s Central Office: Civil Rights Division

and FHWA District Office.

2. In order to have the complaint considered under this procedure, the complainant

must file the complaint no later than 180 days after the date of the alleged act of

discrimination. In this case, the recipient or his/her designee may extend the time

for filing or waive the time limit in the interest of justice, specifying in writing the

reason for so doing.

3. Complaints shall be in writing and shall be signed by the complainant and/or the

complainant’s representative. Complaints should set forth as fully as possible the

facts and circumstances surrounding the claimed discrimination. In the event that

a person makes a verbal complaint of discrimination to an officer or employee of

the recipient, the person shall be interviewed by the Title VI Coordinator. If

necessary, the Title VI Coordinator will assist the person in putting the complaint

in writing and submit the written version of the complaint to the person for

signature. The complaint shall then be handled in the usual manner.


25

4. Within 10 days of the MPO receiving the allegation in writing, the Title VI

Coordinator will inform the complainant of action taken or proposed action to

process the allegation, advise the respondent of their rights under Title VI and

related statutes, and advise the complainant of other avenues of redress

available, such as the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

5. Within 10 days, a letter will be sent to the VDOT Central Office, Civil Rights

Division, and a copy to the FHWA Virginia Division Office. This letter will list the

names of the parties involved, the basis of the complaint, and the assigned

investigator.

6. In the case of a complaint against the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO, a VDOT

investigator will prepare a final investigative report and send it to the

complainant, respondent (MPO person listed), the MPO Title VI Coordinator, and

FHWA Virginia Division.

7. Generally, the following information will be included in every notification to the

VDOT Office of Civil Rights:

Name, address, and phone number of the complainant.

Name(s) and address (es) of alleged discriminating official(s).

Basis of complaint (i.e., race, color, national origin, sex, age,

handicap/disability, income status, limited English proficiency).

Date of alleged discriminatory act(s).

Date of complaint received by the recipient.

A statement of the complaint.

Other agencies (state, local or federal) where the complaint has been

filed.

An explanation of the actions the recipient has taken or proposed to

resolve the issue raised in the complaint.


26

8. Within 60 days, the MPO Title VI Administrator will conduct and complete an

investigation of the allegation and based on the information obtained, will render

a recommendation for action in a report of findings to the Executive Director of

the recipient of federal assistance. The complaint should be resolved by informal

means whenever possible. Such informal attempts and their results will be

summarized in the report of findings.

9. Within 90 days of receipt of the complaint, the MPO Title VI Administrator will

notify the complainant in writing of the final decision reached, including the

proposed disposition of the matter. The notification will advise the complainant of

his/her appeal rights with the Virginia Department of Transportation or the

Federal Highway Administration, if they are dissatisfied with the final decision

rendered by the MPO. The MPO will also provide the VDOT Civil Rights Central

Office with a copy of the determination and report findings.

10. In the case a nondiscrimination complaint that was originated at the MPO is

turned over to and investigated by VDOT, FHWA or another agency, the MPO

will monitor the investigation and notify the complainant of updates, in

accordance with applicable regulations and VDOT policies and procedures.

11. In accordance with federal law, the MPO will require that applicants of federal

assistance notify the MPO of any law suits filed against the applicant or sub‐

recipients of federal assistance or alleging discrimination; and a statement as to

whether the applicant has been found in noncompliance with any relevant civil

rights requirements.

12. The MPO will collect demographic data on staff, committees, and program areas

in accordance with 23 CFR, 49 CFR and VDOT’s established procedures and

guidelines.


27

13. Pursuant to the Virginia Public Records Act (VPRA) § 42.1‐76 et seq., the MPO

will retain Discrimination Complaint Forms and a log of all complaints filed with or

investigated by the MPO.

14. Records of complaints and related data will be made available by request in

accordance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act


28

Appendix A: Discrimination Complaint Form

Please provide the following information in order to process your complaint. Assistance is available upon request. Complete this form and mail or deliver:

Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, Title VI Coordinator, 401 E Water Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902

You can reach our office Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm at (434) 979-7310, by email at [email protected].

Complainant’sName:___________________________________________________________

Street Address:________________________________________________________________

City: _________________ State: ____________________ Zip Code:_____________________

Telephone No.(Home):__________________________(Business):_______________________

Email Address_________________________________________________________________

Person discriminated against (if other than complainant)

Name: _______________________________________________________________________

Street Address: ________________________________________________________________

City: _______________________ State: __________________ Zip Code: ________________

Telephone No. (Home): _________________________________________________________

The name and address of the agency, institution, or department you believe discriminated against you.

Name: _______________________________________________________________________

Street Address: ________________________________________________________________

City: __________________________State: ________________Zip Code: ________________ Date of incident resulting in discrimination: __________________________ Describe how you were discriminated against. What happened and who was responsible? If additional space is required, please either use back of form or attach extra sheets to form.

mailto:[email protected]


29

Appendix B: Language Use

Subject Albemarle County, Virginia Total Percent of specified language speakers Speak English "very

well" Speak English less than "very well"

Estimate Margin of Error



Population 5 years and over 96,217 +/-44 95.9% +/-0.5 4.1% +/-0.5 Speak only English 88.5% +/-0.8 (X) (X) (X) (X) Speak a language other than English 11.5% +/-0.8 63.9% +/-3.8 36.1% +/-3.8 Spanish or Spanish Creole 4.3% +/-0.3 56.1% +/-7.8 43.9% +/-7.8 Other Indo-European languages 3.7% +/-0.6 73.7% +/-6.0 26.3% +/-6.0 Asian and Pacific Island languages 2.7% +/-0.4 58.2% +/-6.7 41.8% +/-6.7 Other languages 0.8% +/-0.4 79.7% +/-14.2 20.3% +/-14.2 SPEAK A LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISH

Spanish or Spanish Creole 4,181 +/-329 56.1% +/-7.8 43.9% +/-7.8 5-17 years 900 +/-163 73.6% +/-11.9 26.4% +/-11.9 18-64 years 3,155 +/-281 51.0% +/-8.4 49.0% +/-8.4 65 years and over 126 +/-76 57.1% +/-36.0 42.9% +/-36.0 Other Indo-European languages 3,533 +/-561 73.7% +/-6.0 26.3% +/-6.0 5-17 years 406 +/-184 88.4% +/-11.6 11.6% +/-11.6 18-64 years 2,581 +/-428 75.6% +/-6.1 24.4% +/-6.1 65 years and over 546 +/-207 53.8% +/-22.9 46.2% +/-22.9 Asian and Pacific Island languages 2,553 +/-352 58.2% +/-6.7 41.8% +/-6.7 5-17 years 165 +/-79 85.5% +/-17.3 14.5% +/-17.3 18-64 years 2,146 +/-341 58.4% +/-7.9 41.6% +/-7.9 65 years and over 242 +/-86 38.4% +/-22.0 61.6% +/-22.0 Other languages 774 +/-410 79.7% +/-14.2 20.3% +/-14.2 5-17 years 173 +/-171 100.0% +/-17.0 0.0% +/-17.0 18-64 years 573 +/-290 73.6% +/-15.0 26.4% +/-15.0 65 years and over 28 +/-27 78.6% +/-38.7 21.4% +/-38.7 CITIZENS 18 YEARS AND OVER All citizens 18 years and over 74,944 +/-574 98.4% +/-0.4 1.6% +/-0.4 Speak only English 93.3% +/-0.8 (X) (X) (X) (X) Speak a language other than English

6.7% +/-0.8 76.3% +/-4.5 23.7% +/-4.5

Spanish or Spanish Creole 2.2% +/-0.4 82.8% +/-7.3 17.2% +/-7.3 Other languages 4.6% +/-0.6 73.2% +/-5.4 26.8% +/-5.4 PERCENT IMPUTED Language status 3.8% (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) Language status (speak a language other than English)

3.5% (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Ability to speak English 4.0% (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)


30

Subject Charlottesville city, Virginia Total Percent of specified language speakers Speak English "very

well" Speak English less than "very well"




Population 5 years and over 42,055 ***** 94.3% +/-1.2 5.7% +/-1.2 Speak only English 86.0% +/-1.4 (X) (X) (X) (X) Speak a language other than English 14.0% +/-1.4 59.1% +/-5.9 40.9% +/-5.9 Spanish or Spanish Creole 4.2% +/-0.7 58.1% +/-6.0 41.9% +/-6.0 Other Indo-European languages 3.1% +/-0.6 75.7% +/-8.8 24.3% +/-8.8 Asian and Pacific Island languages 4.8% +/-0.6 56.4% +/-8.4 43.6% +/-8.4 Other languages 1.9% +/-1.0 41.0% +/-21.6 59.0% +/-21.6 SPEAK A LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISH

Spanish or Spanish Creole 1,781 +/-285 58.1% +/-6.0 41.9% +/-6.0 5-17 years 259 +/-74 95.0% +/-8.9 5.0% +/-8.9 18-64 years 1,460 +/-231 50.4% +/-7.6 49.6% +/-7.6 65 years and over 62 +/-40 83.9% +/-24.6 16.1% +/-24.6 Other Indo-European languages 1,302 +/-250 75.7% +/-8.8 24.3% +/-8.8 5-17 years 67 +/-51 76.1% +/-23.0 23.9% +/-23.0 18-64 years 1,129 +/-226 77.8% +/-9.6 22.2% +/-9.6 65 years and over 106 +/-47 52.8% +/-24.2 47.2% +/-24.2 Asian and Pacific Island languages 2,018 +/-234 56.4% +/-8.4 43.6% +/-8.4 5-17 years 180 +/-63 72.8% +/-19.0 27.2% +/-19.0 18-64 years 1,808 +/-216 55.8% +/-9.0 44.2% +/-9.0 65 years and over 30 +/-30 0.0% +/-54.1 100.0% +/-54.1 Other languages 785 +/-432 41.0% +/-21.6 59.0% +/-21.6 5-17 years 133 +/-97 36.8% +/-33.2 63.2% +/-33.2 18-64 years 652 +/-356 41.9% +/-22.0 58.1% +/-22.0 65 years and over 0 +/-25 - ** - ** CITIZENS 18 YEARS AND OVER All citizens 18 years and over 34,234 +/-485 98.9% +/-0.4 1.1% +/-0.4 Speak only English 93.4% +/-1.0 (X) (X) (X) (X) Speak a language other than English

6.6% +/-1.0 83.3% +/-5.5 16.7% +/-5.5

Spanish or Spanish Creole 2.0% +/-0.6 79.4% +/-9.5 20.6% +/-9.5 Other languages 4.6% +/-0.8 85.0% +/-6.5 15.0% +/-6.5 PERCENT IMPUTED Language status 4.9% (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) Language status (speak a language other than English)

2.9% (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Ability to speak English 4.5% (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)