meeting of the mpo board - plan hillsborough state of good repair – fixed guidewaycommissioner ken...

Meeting of the MPO Board Tuesday, February 2, 2016, 9:00 AM – 2nd Floor Watch the HTV live-stream. Submit comments in advance on Facebook.*

I. Call to Order

II. Public Comment (3 minutes per speaker, please)

III. Committee Reports, Online Comments (Gena Torres, MPO staff)

IV. Consent Agenda

A. Approval of Minutes: January 5, 2016

B. Transportation Improvement Program /STIP Amendment for

HART State of Good Repair – Fixed Guideway

C. Bylaws Amendment

D. Committee Appointments

V. Action Items

A. Letter of Support for Smart City Challenge Grant Application

(Beth Alden)

VI. Status Reports

A. Automated Vehicles in Transit (Dr. Steven Polzin, CUTR)

B. Coast Bike Share Year One Lessons (Eric Trull, Coast Bike

Share)

C. Using Water Transit to Connect to the Region (Ed Turanchik,

representing HMS Ferries)

VII. Executive Director’s Report

A. Vision Zero Next Steps

B. School Transportation Committee

C. Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group Operating Procedures

D. Announcements

VIII. Old Business & New Business

IX. Adjournment

Commissioner Lesley “Les” Miller, Jr. Hillsborough County

MPO Chairman

Councilman Harry Cohen City of Tampa

MPO Vice Chairman

Paul Anderson Tampa Port Authority

Commissioner Kevin Beckner

Hillsborough County

Wallace Bowers HART

Mayor Frank Chillura Temple Terrace

Trent Green The Planning Commission

Commissioner Ken Hagan Hillsborough County

Joe Lopano Hillsborough Co. Aviation Authority

Mayor Rick A. Lott City of Plant City

Councilman Guido Maniscalco City of Tampa

Councilwoman Lisa Montelione City of Tampa

Commissioner Sandra Murman Hillsborough County

Cindy Stuart Hillsborough County School Board

Joseph Waggoner Expressway Authority

Commissioner Stacy R. White Hillsborough County

Beth Alden, AICP Executive Director

Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org

[email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940

601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor

Tampa, FL, 33602

http://www.planhillsborough.org/

mailto:[email protected]

X. Addendum

A. School Transportation Committee Proposal

B. TMA Leadership Group Purpose & Organization

C. SR 60, from US 301 to Falkenburg Rd, project fact sheet

D. US 41, from Kracker Ave to Causeway Blvd, project fact sheet

E. FAST Act Summary by AMPO for MPOs

The full agenda packet is available on the MPO’s website, www.planhillsborough.org, or by calling (813) 272-5940. * Public comments are welcome, and may be given in person at this meeting; via e-mail to [email protected] up to 3:00pm the day before, or by visiting the event posted on the Hillsborough MPO’s Facebook page. The MPO does not discriminate in any of its programs or services. Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability or family status. Learn more about our commitment to non discrimination

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the materials attached are provided here for research and educational purposes, and are distributed without profit to MPO Board members, MPO staff, or related committees or subcommittees the MPO supports. The MPO has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of attached articles nor is the MPO endorsed or sponsored by the originator. Persons wishing to use copyrighted material for purposes of their own that go beyond ‘fair use’ must first obtain permission from the copyright owner.



https://www.facebook.com/HillsboroughMPO

http://www.planhillsborough.org/non-discrimination-commitment




Tampa, FL, 33602

Committee Reports

Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting of January 20, 2016 The committee elected its officers for 2016: Laura Lawson, Chair; David Wilson, Vice Chair; Ed Austin, Officer At-large. They approved the TIP amendment for HART’s streetcar capital maintenance project after discussing the system’s purpose and effectiveness, now and in the future. A follow-up presentation was requested. The CAC reviewed attendance over the past year and voted to declare the seat for Port Tampa Bay’s appointee vacant, so that it won’t affect their quorum. They also discussed their relationship to TBARTA’s CAC, and deferred appointing one of their members until meeting conflicts are worked out. The CAC heard reports on recent population growth trends from the Planning Commission, previous studies of the CSX corridors, results of the walkability audit conducted by the Health Department, and a video on the economic impact of the redesign of Gaines Street in Tallahassee. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting of January 11, 2016 The TAC voted to vacate the position on the TAC for a Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council representative, easing the number of members needed to attain a quorum. The TAC welcomes a staff member from TBRPC when time allows for their participation. The current officers were re-elected for 2016: Charles White, Chair; Mike Williams, Vice Chair; and Jeanie Satchel, Officer at Large. The TAC members approved the TIP amendment for the streetcar maintenance. Staff from the Environmental Protection Commission provided an update on the new ozone standard. Although the new standards strengthen the acceptable level of ozone from 75 ppb to 70 ppb the Tampa Bay area will likely remain in compliance. TAC members were interested in whether there are proactive measures that could be taken to ensure the standard is met and even reduce our local levels. Along with tighter industry standards – motor vehicle and energy production industries – the MPO initiatives that promote transit ridership, walking, cycling, and the use of intelligent transportation applications all contribute positively.



A presentation from the Florida Department of Health was made on health statistics - 37.7% of adults and 17.2% of children considered obese. Inactivity is the major contributor to these rates. The Health Department supports the MPO’s resolution promoting complete streets because walkable streets lead to healthier living. Mr. Layne Cady introduced himself as the new Director of Public Works for the City of Temple Terrace replacing Mr. Bob Gordon. The members welcomed him to the TAC. Policy Committee Meeting of January 26, 2016 The committee elected its officers for 2016: Councilwoman Montelione, Chair; Councilman Cohen, Vice Chair; Commissioner Murman, Officer At-large. The committee approved the TIP amendment for HART’s streetcar capital maintenance project, and also approved a proposed MPO Mission Statement and MPO Vision Statement for the MPO’s other committees to review and discuss. In response to the board’s request for further action on Vision Zero, the Policy Committee will host four multi-agency collaborative workshops over the course of the coming year, in place of four of its regular meetings. These workshops will engage public-sector and private-sector partners in strategies for bringing down our community’s traffic fatality rate through engineering, education, and enforcement. The committee also discussed the proposal for the MPO to convene a School Transportation Committee. Though no vote was taken, members were generally supportive, and their suggestions have been incorporated into the fact sheet that is in your agenda packet today. Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Meeting of January 13, 2016 The BPAC met with the Pinellas and Pasco County BPACs for a regional meeting. The three BPACs support a Vison Zero policy and have committed to work separately and jointly to encourage their individual MPO’s and jurisdictions to adopt and implement this policy. The next meeting of the Tri County BPACs will be on May 18, 2016. On Saturday, January 23rd, the BPAC hosted the Children’s Gasparilla Bike Safety Rodeo where approximately 100 children were fitted with bicycle helmets and practiced the safety rules of the road. The BPAC thanks the Tampa Police Department, Hillsborough Sherriff Office and St. Joseph’s Children’s Hospital for their support for their roles in making this event successful. Livable Roadways Committee (LRC) Meeting of January 20, 2016 The LRC committee reviewed attendance over the past year with only one member, needing attention, who was also present so it was addressed immediately. The committee held its election of officers for 2016: David Hey, Vice Chair and Nina Mabilleau, Officer-at-large. The Committee approved the TIP

amendment for the streetcar maintenance. Members received a status report presentation of Previous Studies of Passenger Rail in CSX Corridors which showed existing freight lines that could be used for passenger rail service and those that cannot. The two potential lines are the Brooksville Subdivision and the Clearwater Subdivision. Another status report on Walkability Audit Results was presented by the Health Department. During new business, Chair Montelione inquired about looking into safety at school crossings and a Vision Zero Committee.

TBARTA MPO Staff Directors Meeting of January 8, 2016 The MPO staff directors discussed TBARTA’s 2016 Regional Priority Projects. Edits focused on reflecting current information about projects’ status and funding. The Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group priority of investigating joint (passenger and freight) use of two CSX-owned rail corridors is not proposed to be added to the regional priority list at this time. Hillsborough MPO presented a draft update of the regional planning tasks to be included in each MPO’s Unified Planning Work Program. The UPWPs are due to be updated by May. It was discussed that a measures-of-effectiveness report should be prepared for the joint regional public participation program for transportation planning. As the largest MPO in the region, Hillsborough MPO staff offered to sponsor this task. The regional planning tasks are slated to be reviewed by this board, along with the other planning tasks in the UPWP update, in April and May. Intelligent Transportation Committee (ITS) Meeting of January 14, 2016 The ITS Committee reaffirmed the slate of officers, with Vik Bhide continuing as Chair; Mike Flick as Vice Chair; and Pierre Valles as Member At Large. There were two presentations related to the collection of data used to compute vehicle travel time. Having accurate travel times helps evaluate how well our roadways are functioning and how successful congestion management applications and projects may be. Emerging technologies using motorist’s electronic devices are providing real-time traffic information with a range of applications. And with all of the data being used by various agencies and for various purposes, the Committee was introduced to a pilot project that the Hillsborough MPO was chosen by FHWA to develop a Data Business Plan. The idea is to give local stakeholders guidance for better access to available data, governance, and data management. The ITS Committee will be used as a sounding board for developing and implementing the Data Business Plan.

1

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

MEETING OF JANUARY 5, 2016 MINUTES

The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Hillsborough County, Florida, met in Regular Meeting, scheduled for Tuesday, January 5, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., in the Boardroom, Frederick B. Karl County Center, Tampa, Florida. The following members were present: Lesley Miller Jr., Chairman Commissioner, Hillsborough County Paul Anderson Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Tampa Port

Authority Kevin Beckner Commissioner, Hillsborough County Wallace Bowers (arrived at 9:03 a.m.) HART Frank Chillura Mayor, City of Temple Terrace Harry Cohen Councilman, City of Tampa (Tampa) City

Council Theodore Trent Green Planning Commission Joe Lopano CEO, Hillsborough County Aviation Authority Rick Lott Mayor, City of Plant City Lisa Montelione Councilwoman, Tampa City Council Sandra Murman Commissioner, Hillsborough County Cindy Stuart (arrived at 9:02 a.m.) Hillsborough County School Board Joseph Waggoner Tampa-Hillsborough Expressway Authority Stacy White Commissioner, Hillsborough County The following members were absent: Ken Hagan Commissioner, Hillsborough County

Guido Maniscalco Councilman, Tampa City Council

I. CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Miller called the meeting to order at 9:01 a.m. Commissioner White led in the pledge of

allegiance to the flag and gave the invocation.

II. PUBLIC COMMENT

The following people spoke in opposition to the Tampa Bay Express (TBX) project: Mr. James Shirk, 8705 Cove Court, Unit 3; Mses. Margaret Shepherd, 6503 North 12th Street, and Susan Long, Seminole Heights Foundation Incorporated; and Dr. Douglas Jesseph, 6007 North Suwanee Avenue, who submitted information. The following people supported the Vision Zero Initiative (VZI): Mses. Elizabeth Corwin, 2521 West Maryland Avenue, Unit C, and Christine Acosta, 3301 Bayshore Boulevard, Unit 1210A, who supplied

TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 2016

2

information, and Mr. Jeffrey Zampitella, 777 North Ashley Drive, Unit 2801, who distributed information. Ms. Linda Saul-Sena, 157 Biscayne Avenue, spoke against the TBX project. Ms. Jackeline Toledo, 4303 West Roland Street, favored the VZI. Mr. Luis Lopez, 3112 West Arch Street, and Ms. Elizabeth Johnson, 5708 River Terrace, opposed the TBX project. III. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ONLINE COMMENTS Ms. Gena Torres, MPO, summarized both items. IV. CONSENT AGENDA

A. Approval of Minutes: November 10, 2015 B. Committee Reports C. Letter Requested by the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board

(TDCB) Chairman Miller requested a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Murman so moved, seconded by Councilwoman Montelione, and carried fourteen to zero. (Members Hagan and Maniscalco were absent.) V. BOARD OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Assistant County Attorney Cameron Clark opened nominations for chairman. Councilman Cohen nominated Chairman Miller, seconded by Councilwoman Montelione. Hearing no other nominations, Chairman Miller was elected as chairman fourteen to zero. (Members Hagan and Maniscalco were absent.) Attorney Clark solicited nominations for vice chairman. Chairman Miller nominated Councilman Cohen, seconded by Councilwoman Montelione. Seeing no further nominations, Councilman Cohen was elected as vice chairman fourteen to zero. (Members Hagan and Maniscalco were absent.)

Chairman Miller sought volunteers for the Policy Committee. Members Bowers, Cohen, Green, Montelione, and Murman would serve on the Policy Committee; Members Waggoner and Maniscalco were alternates. Members Cohen, Montelione, and Murman would serve on the Tampa Bay Transportation Management Area (TMA) Leadership Group; Members Anderson and Beckner were alternates. Councilman Cohen continued as chairman of the TDCB. Councilwoman Montelione remained as the Livable Roadways Committee chairman.


3

VI. GUEST SPEAKER ON VISION ZERO Ms. Beth Alden, MPO Executive Director, introduced Dr. Heather Rothenberg, Sam Schwartz

Engineering, who expounded on a presentation and responded to Commissioner Beckner on

the project model development/basis, program/community commitments, facilitation

responsibilities, multijurisdictional work, and Vison Zero involvement. Commissioner Beckner

offered the County violence prevention collaborative organizational model for reference. Noting

the existence of current traffic safety committees and voicing road infrastructure concerns,

Councilwoman Montelione inquired about using extant/new committees for the VZI. Dialogue

occurred on driver behavior, organizational cohesiveness, autonomous vehicles, and project

interface with other safety initiatives. Citing project requirements, Mr. Waggoner suggested

tasking the MPO Executive Director to look at the existing plans and resources and report

back to the MPO Board and talk with other transportation agencies about options and

opportunities to implement the components or concepts of the Vision Zero that had been

presented to the MPO today, and get the information and consider the next steps from

there, seconded by Councilwoman Montelione, and carried fourteen to zero. (Members

Hagan and Maniscalco were absent.)

VII. STATUS REPORTS A. Tampa International Airport Master Plan

Mr. Lopano elaborated on the presentation.

B. Regional Premium Transit Study Process

Mr. Ming Gao, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), distributed information and gave a presentation. Upon verifying the HART traffic study timeline, Chairman Miller did not agree with the TMA’s request for State funds without the completed study. Dialogue ensued on legislative discussions/concerns and future TMA considerations.

C. Bylaws Amendment

Attorney Clark reviewed the item.

VIII. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT A. East Hillsborough Avenue Pedestrian Safety Improvements

B. Legislative Update C. Announcements Ms. Alden touched on the reports, as provided in background material. IX. OLD BUSINESS AND NEW BUSINESS - None. X. ADDENDUM A. Coast to Coast Connector Meeting Notice


4

B. Correspondence on FDOT Fiscal Year (FY) 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 Draft Tentative Work Program

C. Correspondence on Data Business Plan Pilot Project

D. Safe Routes to School – Call for Applications

XI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

READ AND APPROVED: ______________________________

CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

PAT FRANK, CLERK

By: _______________________

Deputy Clerk

jh

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item: TIP/STIP Amendment – HART State of Good Repair - Fixed Guideway

Presenter: Sarah McKinley (MPO Staff)

Summary: All HART grants must be included in the current year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) so that the grants can be executed prior to September 30, 2016. The proposed amendment is described below.

State of Good Repair Program (Section 5337) Funds - $1,533,525

The State of Good Repair Program (Section 5337) provides capital assistance for maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement of existing fixed guideway systems and high intensity motorbus systems to maintain a state of good repair. Section 5337 funds can also be used to assist with the development of the required Transit Asset Management (TAM) plan.

HART will submit a grant application (FL-54-0009) to the Federal Transit Administration for $515,490. Funds in this grant will be used for streetcar maintenance projects that include replacement of axles and wheels, repair of traction motors, controllers, inverters and other streetcar components. A portion of the funds will be used to procure consultant services to assist with the development of the TAM. The budget lines for this grant application are described below.

Streetcar Maintenance Projects $444,888

Consultant Services $70,602

Total $515,490

HART will develop and submit a grant application for the remaining funds ($1,018,035) later this fiscal year.

TIP/STIP Amendment Summary Table

This table describes the grant and the action required by the MPO so that the grant will be included in the FY 2016 TIP and STIP.

Description FTA Grant Number

FPN Required Action

Amount

State of Good Repair (Section 5337) Funds

FL-54-0009 415172 Add to TIP/STIP

1,533,525




Tampa, FL, 33602



Recommended Action: Recommend approval to the MPO Board

Prepared By: Sarah McKinley (MPO Staff), Jeanie Satchel (HART Staff)

Attachments: Current Adopted TIP Page Proposed Amended TIP Page STIP Page

HART FY2015/16 - 2019/20 TIP

5 Year TIPHillsborough County, District 7

HART

TRANSIT

Item Number: 4343661

LRTP:

Description: Vehicle Acquisition *NON-SIS*

Type of Work: PURCHASE VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT

Lanes Existing /Improved/Added: / /

Fund <2016 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 >2020 All Years

Extra Description:Related Project:

Grants and Miscellaneous - Managed by HART

Sect 5339 $0 $1,331,106 $1,331,106 $1,331,106 $1,331,106 $1,331,106 $0 $6,655,530

Totals: $0 $1,331,106 $1,331,106 $1,331,106 $1,331,106 $1,331,106 $0 $6,655,530

Item 4343661 Totals: $0 $1,331,106 $1,331,106 $1,331,106 $1,331,106 $1,331,106 $0 $6,655,530


LRTP:

Description: Streetcar Maintenance Projects *NON-SIS*

Type of Work: FIXED GUIDEWAY IMPROVEMENTS


Fund <2016 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 >2020 All Years



Sect 5337 $0 $440,377 $440,377 $440,377 $440,377 $440,377 $0 $2,201,885

Totals: $0 $440,377 $440,377 $440,377 $440,377 $440,377 $0 $2,201,885

Item 4151721 Totals: $0 $440,377 $440,377 $440,377 $440,377 $440,377 $0 $2,201,885


LRTP:

Description: ADA Paratransit, Preventive Maintenance, Capital Leases, Associated Transit Improvements, and Security Projects *NON-SIS*

Type of Work: TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT


Fund <2016 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 >2020 All Years



Sect 5307 $0 $12,335,444 $12,335,444 $12,335,444 $12,335,444 $12,335,444 $0 $61,677,220

Totals: $0 $12,335,444 $12,335,444 $12,335,444 $12,335,444 $12,335,444 $0 $61,677,220

Item 4081091 Totals: $0 $12,335,444 $12,335,444 $12,335,444 $12,335,444 $12,335,444 $0 $61,677,220

8 - 1

mckinleys

Highlight

Adopted FY 2015/16 - 2019/20 TIPFDOT

5 Year TIPHillsborough County, District 7

FDOT

TRANSIT

Item Number: 415172 1

Roadway ID:

LRTP Page 161

Description: HART FIXED GUIDEWAY

Beginning Point:

Ending Point:

*NON-SIS*

Type of Work: TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT

Project Length: 0


Fund <2016 20172016 2018 2019 2020 >2020 All Years

Extra Description: SECTION 5309/5337Related Project:

Status: Amended Amendment Number: 6 Adopted Date: 11/10/2015

CAPITAL - Managed by HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

FTA $1,100,035 $1,533,525 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,633,560Added

Totals: $1,100,035 $1,533,525 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,633,560

Item 415172 1 Totals: $1,100,035 $1,533,525 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,633,560

D - 10

The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, under the State

Planning and Research Program, Section 505 [or Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f)] of Title 23, U.S. Code.

The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Transportation Improvement Program AmendmentFY2015/16 - 2019 /20 STIP Amendment Number:** This STIP is in an MPO Area ** TIP Page Number: AttachedOn Tuesday, February 02, 2016, the Hillsborough MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization amended the Transportation Improvement Program that was developed and adopted in compliance with Title 23 and Title 49 in a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning process as a condition to the receipt of federal assistance. By signature below, the MPO representative certifies that the TIP amendment was adopted by the MPO Board as documented in the supporting attachments. This amendment will be subsequently incorporated into the MPOs TIP for public disclosure.

The amendment does not adversely impact the air quality conformity or financial constraints of the STIP.

The STIP Amendment is consistent with the Adopted Long Range Transportation Plan. (Page Number:TBD)This document has not been approved

Metropolitan Planning Organization Chairman or DesigneeHillsborough MPO

This document has not been approved

FDOT District Representative or Designee District 07This document has not been approved

Federal Aid Management Manager or DesigneeThis document has not been approved

Federal AuthorizationSTIP amendment criteria:

A - The change adds new individual projects to the current STIP

An air conformity determination must be made by the MPO on amended projects within the non-attainment or maintenance areasE - The MPO is not in an air quality non-attainment or maintenance area.

Project Name#415172-1 Hart Fixed Guideway Section 5309/5337Status ITEM Ver Description

Fund Phase < FY 2016 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 > FY 2020 All YearsOriginal STIP 415172 1 AD HART FIXED GUIDEWAY SECTION 5309/5337

SECTION 5309/5337 MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

FTA CAP 1,985,300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,985,300.00 Proposed Project 415172 1 AM HART FIXED GUIDEWAY SECTION 5309/5337

SECTION 5309/5337 MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

FTA CAP 1,100,035.00 1,533,525.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,633,560.00 Funding Source After Change

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Funding Source Balance Before Change -885,265.00 1,533,525.00 648,260.00

Funding Source Balance After Change Net Change to Funding Source 885,265.00 -1,533,525.00 -648,260.00

Proposed Project Before Change 1,985,300.00 1,985,300.00

Proposed Project After Change 1,100,035.00 1,533,525.00 2,633,560.00

Net Change to Project -885,265.00 1,533,525.00 648,260.00

Net Change to Funding Source 885,265.00 -1,533,525.00 -648,260.00

Net Change to Proposed Project -885,265.00 1,533,525.00 648,260.00

Net Change to STIP

Page 1 of 2FlDOT OWPB - STIP Amendments; Update Amendments

The development of this application has been financed in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, under the State Planning and Research Program, Section 505 [or Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f)] of Title 23, U.S. Code. The reports generated from this application do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Page 2 of 2FlDOT OWPB - STIP Amendments; Update Amendments


Agenda Item: Bylaws Amendment

Presenter: None; Consent Agenda Item

Summary: Two changes are proposed to the MPO’s bylaws. First, it is recommended that the bylaws specify that MPO advisory committee membership not be extended to persons affiliated with the MPO’s contracted General Planning Consultants (GPCs), either as employees or as sub-consultants.

Second, the Livable Roadways Committee (LRC) has requested changes in its membership structure. Currently the LRC comprises representatives of local governments, transportation agencies, and engineering/ planning/ design professional organizations such as APA, ASLA, ITE, and ULI. The LRC would like to include additional professional organizations: the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the Congress for New Urbanism (CNU). To keep the committee from growing overlarge, it is recommended that the roster call for five professional organization representatives, who may be members of any of the listed organizations. The committee also proposes to remove a seat it offered to the BPAC and which has stood vacant for several years; the BPAC and LRC have other channels for coordination. As background, the LRC is responsible for integrating Livable Roadways principles into the design and use of public rights-of-way and the major road network throughout Hillsborough County.

Recommended Action:

Approve the proposed amendment to the bylaws as presented last month

Prepared By: Lisa K. Silva, AICP, RLA, MPO Staff

Attachments: Proposed Bylaws Amendment




Tampa, FL, 33602



HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

VOTING MEMBERSHIP

Commissioner Les Miller (Chair)

Hillsborough County

Paul Anderson, CEO

Port Authority

Commissioner Kevin Beckner

Hillsborough County

Wallace Bowers

HART

Mayor Frank Chillura

City of Temple Terrace

Commissioner Victor Crist (Alternate)

Hillsborough County

Trent Green

Planning Commission

Commissioner Ken Hagan

Hillsborough County

Joe Lopano, CEO

Aviation Authority

Councilman Harry Cohen (Vice-Chair)

City of Tampa

Mayor Rick A. Lott

City of Plant City

Councilman Guido Maniscalco

City of Tampa

Councilwoman Lisa Montelione

City of Tampa

Commissioner Sandra Murman

Hillsborough County

Cindy Stuart

Hillsborough County School Board

Commissioner Stacy White

Hillsborough County

Joseph Waggoner, Executive Director

Expressway Authority

Beth Alden, AICP

Executive Director

1

BY-LAWS OF

THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

AND ITS COMMITTEES

(Updated: February 20165)

1.0 PURPOSE: These By-laws are adopted by the Hillsborough County

Metropolitan Planning Organization hereinafter called the “MPO” to govern

the performance of the MPO’s duties as well as those of MPO committees and

to inform the public of the nature of the MPO’s internal organization,

operations and other related matters.

2.0 DEFINITIONS:

2.1 EMERGENCY: Any occurrence or threat thereof, whether accidental

or natural, caused by man, in war or in peace, which necessitates

immediate action because it results or may result in substantial injury

or harm to the population or the MPO or substantial damage to or loss

of property or public funds.

2.2 GOOD CAUSE: A substantial reason which is put forward in good

faith.

2.3 INTERESTED PERSON: Any person who has or may have or who

represents any group or entity which has or may have some concern,

participation or relation to any matter which will or may be considered

by the MPO.

2.4 MEMBER(S): The MPO consists of sixteen (16) official members, with

FDOT designated as a non-voting advisor. Each member government

or authority may also appoint an alternate member, who may vote at

any MPO meeting in place of a regular member. MPO committee

membership is as provided in these By-laws.

2.5 PUBLIC HEARING: A meeting of the MPO convened for the purpose

of receiving public testimony regarding a specific subject and for the

purpose of taking action on amendment to or adoption of a plan or

program. A public hearing may be convened with less than a quorum

2

present; however, no official action other than adjournment or

continuation of the public hearing to another time may be taken unless

a quorum is present.

2.6 REGULAR MEETING: The regular scheduled meeting of the MPO

at which all official business may be transacted.

2.7 SPECIAL MEETING: A meeting of the MPO held at a time other than

the regularly scheduled meeting time. All official business may be

transacted at a special meeting.

2.8 WORKSHOP: A conference where members are present and are

meeting to discuss a specific subject. A workshop may be convened

with less than a quorum present; however, no official action other than

adjournment or continuation of the workshop to another time may be

taken.

3.0 MPO OFFICERS: There shall be a Chair and a Vice-Chair. All officers shall

be voting members of the MPO.

3.1 TENURE: All officers shall hold office for one (1) year or until a

successor is elected. However, any officer may be removed by a

majority of the total members.

3.2 SELECTION: At the regular meeting in December, the members shall

nominate one or more candidates to fill each office. Immediately

following the close of nominations, the MPO shall vote to fill each

office, with the vote for each office being taken in the order in which

candidates for that office were nominated, until one is elected. New

officers shall take office immediately upon the conclusion of the

election of officers.

3.3 VACANCY IN OFFICE: A vacant office shall be filled by the MPO at

its first regular meeting following the vacancy. The officer so elected

shall serve the remainder of their predecessor’s term in office.

3

3.4 DUTIES: The officers shall have the following duties:

3.4.1 CHAIR: The Chair shall:

(a) Preside at all regular and special meetings, workshops and

public hearings.

(b) Represent the MPO on the West Central Florida MPO Chairs

Coordinating Committee (CCC) and the Florida MPO Advisory

Council (MPOAC).

(c) Establish such ad hoc committees as the Chair may deem

necessary and appoint their members and chairs.

(d) Call special meetings and workshops and public hearings.

(e) Sign all contracts, resolutions, and other official documents of

the MPO, unless otherwise specified by the By-laws or Policies.

(f) Express the position of the MPO as determined by vote or

consensus of the MPO.

(g) See that all actions of the MPO are taken in accordance with the

By-laws, Policies and applicable laws.

(h) Perform such duties as are usually exercised by the Chair of a

commission or board, and perform such other duties as may

from time to time be assigned by the MPO.

3.4.2 Vice-Chair: the Vice-Chair shall, during the absence of the

Chair or the Chair’s inability to act, have and exercise all of the

duties and powers of the Chair, and shall perform such other

duties as may from time to time be assigned to the Chair by the

MPO.

4.0 COMMITTEES:

4.1 AD HOC COMMITTEES:

4.1.1 Chair and Expiration: An ad hoc committee shall consist of a

committee chair, who shall be a member of the MPO. All ad

hoc committees shall have an expiration time identified by the

Chair at the time of creation or shall dissolve at the expiration

of the Chair’s term.

4

4.1.2 Purpose: The purpose of establishing ad hoc committees is to

facilitate the accomplishment of a specific task identified by

the Chair.

4.2 STANDING COMMITTEES:

4.2.1 Appointment of Committee Members: Members and

alternate members of all committees shall be appointed by

action of the MPO. Members representing an organization

on a committee, as specified in the committee membership

list, shall be nominated in writing by their organization.

Members representing the citizens of Hillsborough County,

and not representing any particular entity as specified in the

committee membership list, shall be recommended for

membership by action of the committee on which they

would like to serve. Using the same procedure, alternate

members may be designated to act on behalf of regular

members with all the privileges accorded thereto. The MPO

shall not appoint committee applicants who are affiliated

with private MPO consultants or contractors. If such an

affiliation occurs, an existing committee member shall be

deemed to have resigned.

4.2.2 Termination of Committee Membership: Any member of

any committee may resign at any time by notice in writing to

the Chair. Unless otherwise specified in such notice, such

resignation shall take effect upon receipt thereof by the

Chair. Each member of each committee is expected to

demonstrate his/her interest in the committee’s activities

through attendance of the scheduled meetings, except for

reasons of an unavoidable nature. In each instance of an

unavoidable absence, the absent member should ensure that

his/her alternate will attend. The MPO may review, and

consider rescinding, the appointment of any member of any

committee who fails to attend three (3) consecutive meetings.

In each case, the MPO will warn the member in writing, and

if applicable the member’s nominating organization, thirty

days in advance of an action to rescind membership. At a

minimum, committee member attendance will be reviewed

annually. In the case of members representing an

organization on a committee as specified in the committee

5

membership list, the individual’s membership may also be

rescinded by the nominating organization, by letter to the

Chair.

4.2.3 Officers of Standing Committees: The committee shall hold

an organizational meeting each year for the purpose of electing

a committee chair (unless designated by the MPO), a committee

vice-chair, and, at the discretion of the committee chair, an

officer-at-large. Officers shall be elected by a majority vote of a

quorum of the members. Except as otherwise provided in these

By-laws, officers shall serve a term of one year starting with the

next meeting. The powers and duties of the committee chair

shall be to preside at all meetings; to express the position of the

committee as determined by vote or consensus of the

committee; and to ensure that all actions of the committee are

taken in accordance with the bylaws and applicable law. The

committee vice chair shall have these same powers and

responsibilities in the absence of the committee chair. The

officer-at-large shall, during the absence of both the committee

chair and the committee vice-chair or their inability to act, have

these same duties and responsibilities, and in addition shall

perform other duties as may from time to time be assigned by

the committee chair.

4.2.4 Conduct of Committee Meetings: Sections 5 through 9,

excluding Section 8.1, of these MPO By-laws shall be used for

the conduct of all MPO committee meetings.

4.2.5 Standing Committee Sub-Committees: An MPO standing

committee or the MPO may establish such sub-committees to

a standing committee as deemed necessary to investigate and

report on specific subject areas within the scope of the

standing committee. Such sub-committees shall be of limited

duration and shall dissolve at such time as designated at the

time of establishment or upon completion of the task(s)

specified at the time of establishment. These MPO By-laws

shall be used for the conduct of such sub-committees meetings

in the same manner as the MPO committees.

6

4.2.6 MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): Established

pursuant to Section 339.175, Florida Statutes, the TAC shall be

responsible for considering safe access to schools in the review

of transportation project priorities, long-range transportation

plans and transportation improvement programs and shall

advise the MPO on such matters. In addition, the TAC shall be

responsible for assisting in the development of transportation

planning work programs; coordinating transportation

planning and programming; review of all transportation

studies, reports, plans and/or programs, and making

recommendations to the MPO that are pertinent to the subject

documents based upon the technical sufficiency, accuracy, and

completeness of and the needs as determined by the studies,

plans and/or programs. The TAC shall coordinate its actions

with the School Board of Hillsborough County and other local

programs and organizations within Hillsborough County that

participate in school safety activities and shall also coordinate

its actions with the appropriate representatives of the Florida

Department of Transportation.

TAC Membership: The TAC shall be composed of technically

qualified representatives for the purpose of planning,

programming and engineering of the transportation system

within the Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning

Organization area boundary.

The membership shall be composed of: two (2) members from

Hillsborough County, two (2) members from City of Tampa,

two (2) members from the Hillsborough County City-County

Planning Commission, one (1) member from the Tampa

Hillsborough Expressway Authority, one (1) member from the

Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority, one (1) member

from Environmental Protection Commission, one (1) member

from the Tampa Port Authority, one (1) member from City of

Temple Terrace, one (1) member from the Tampa Bay Regional

Planning Council, one (1) member from the Florida Department

of Environmental Protection, one (1) member from City of Plant

City, one (1) member from the Hillsborough County Aviation

Authority, one (1) member from the Hillsborough County

School Board, one (1) member from the Tampa Bay Area

7

Regional Transportation Authority, one (1) member from the

Tampa Historic Streetcar, Inc., and one (1) member from the

Florida Trucking Association.

Terms of Membership: Members shall serve terms of indefinite

length at the pleasure of their respective nominating

organizations and the MPO.

4.2.7 MPO Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC): The CAC shall be

responsible for providing information and overall community

values and needs into the transportation planning program of

the MPO; evaluating and proposing solutions from a citizens

perspective concerning alternative transportation proposals

and critical issues; providing knowledge gained through the

CAC into local citizen group discussions and meetings; and

establishing comprehension and promoting credibility for the

MPO Program.

CAC Membership: The CAC shall be composed of appointed

citizens (transportation agency staff are not eligible) who

together shall represent a broad spectrum of social and

economic backgrounds and who have an interest in the

development of an efficient, safe and cost-effective

transportation system. Minorities, the elderly and persons with

disabilities must be adequately represented on the CAC.

All members must be residents of Hillsborough County.

Membership will be as follows: one (1) member nominated by

each member of the Board of County Commissioners serving

on the MPO, one (1) member nominated by each member from

the City of Tampa serving on the MPO, one (1) member from

the City of Temple Terrace nominated by the Mayor of the City

of Temple Terrace, one (1) member from the City of Plant City

nominated by the Mayor of the City of Plant City, one (1)

member nominated by each respective Chairperson of the

Hillsborough County Aviation, Tampa-Hillsborough

Expressway, Tampa Port and Hillsborough Area Regional

Transit Authorities, one (1) member representing the

transportation disadvantaged nominated by the Chairman of

the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board, one (1)

8

member nominated by the Chairperson of the Hillsborough

County City-County Planning Commission and one (1)

member nominated by the School Board member serving on the

MPO. In addition, there shall be six (6) at-large members

nominated by local organizations representing the following

constituencies or through application directly to the CAC as

provided in Section 4.2.1. These shall comprise one (1) person

of Hispanic ethnicity, one (1) person of African-American

descent, one (1) person under the age of 30, one (1) woman, one

(1) person to represent neighborhoods, and one (1) person to

represent the business community.

Terms of appointment shall be for a two-year period with an

opportunity for reappointment thereafter, unless the official

who appointed the member leaves office or the MPO board

during the term of the member’s appointment. In that case, the

member shall be deemed to have resigned from the CAC and

the new official shall have the right to appoint a new member

or reappoint the same member. A member of the committee

whose term has expired shall continue to serve until they are

reappointed or replaced. The terms of appointment

notwithstanding, CAC members shall serve at the pleasure of

the MPO.

4.2.8 MPO Policy Committee: The MPO Policy Committee shall be

responsible for the review and in-depth discussion of items and

issues proposed to come before the MPO and for development

of recommendations to the MPO, as appropriate, regarding

such items and issues in order to facilitate the accomplishment

of the MPO’s responsibilities to manage a continuing,

cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning

process and the development of transportation plans and

programs.

Membership: The Policy Committee shall be composed of at

least five (5) members of the MPO who shall serve on a

voluntary basis. Volunteers for membership will be solicited at

the MPO meeting at which the Chair is elected and at any MPO

meeting thereafter if the total membership of the Policy

Committee falls below five (5). Those MPO members

9

requesting to be made Policy Committee members in response

to such solicitation or upon the initiative of an individual MPO

member shall be so appointed by action of the MPO and shall

serve terms that last until the next MPO meeting at which the

Chair is elected.

4.2.9 Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board (TDCB):

The primary purpose of the TDCB is to assist the MPO in

identifying local service needs and providing information,

advice, and direction to the Community Transportation

Coordinator (CTC) on the coordination of services to be

provided to the transportation disadvantaged pursuant to

Section 427.0157, Florida Statutes.

The following agencies or groups shall be represented on the

TDCB as voting members:

an elected official serving on the Hillsborough County

MPO who has been appointed by the MPO to serve as

TDCB Chairperson;

a local representative of the Florida Department of

Transportation;

a local representative of the Florida Department of

Children & Families;

a local representative of the Public Education Community,

which could include, but is not limited to, a representative

of Hillsborough County Public Schools, School Board

Transportation Office or Headstart Program;

a local representative of the Florida Division of Vocational

Rehabilitation or the Division of Blind Services,

representing the Department of Education;

a person recommended by the local Veterans Service

Office representing the veterans in the county;

a person who is recognized by the Florida Association for

Community Action (President) as representing the

economically disadvantaged in the county;

a person over sixty years of age representing the elderly

citizens in the county;

a person with a disability representing the disabled

citizens in the county;

10

two citizen advocates in the county, one of whom must be

a user of the transportation services of the coordinated

transportation disadvantaged system as their primary

means of transportation;

a local representative for children at risk;

the chairperson or designee of the local mass transit

system's board except when they are also the CTC;

a local representative of the Florida Department of Elder

Affairs;

a local representative of the local for-profit transportation

industry;

a local representative of the Florida Agency for Health

Care Administration;

a local representative of the Regional Workforce

Development Board, and;

a representative of the local medical community, which

may include, but is not limited to, kidney dialysis centers,

long term care facilities, assisted living facilities, hospitals,

local health department or other home and community

based services.

TDCB Terms of Appointment. Except for the TDCB

Chairperson, the members of the TDCB shall be appointed for

three (3) year terms which shall be staggered equally among

the membership. The TDCB Chairperson shall serve until

elected term of office has expired or is otherwise replaced by

the MPO.

TDCB Duties. The TDCB shall perform the following duties

which include those specified in Chapter 41-2, Florida

Administrative Code and Section 427.0157, Florida Statutes.

a. Maintain official meeting minutes, including an

attendance roster, reflecting official actions and

provide a copy of same to the Commission for the

Transportation Disadvantaged and the MPO

Chairperson;

b. Review and approve the CTC’s memorandum of

agreement and the transportation disadvantaged

service plan;

11

c. On a continuing basis, evaluate services provided

under the transportation disadvantaged service plan.

Not less than annually provide the MPO with an

evaluation of the CTC’s performance relative to the

standards adopted by the Commission for the

Transportation Disadvantaged and the MPO.

Recommendations relative to performance and the

renewal of the CTC's memorandum of agreement with

the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged

shall be included in the report;

d. In cooperation with the CTC, review and provide

recommendations to the Commission for the

Transportation Disadvantaged and the MPO on all

applications for local, state, or federal funds relating to

transportation of the transportation disadvantaged in

the county to ensure that any expenditures within the

county are provided in the most cost effective and

efficient manner;

e. Review coordination strategies for service provision to

the transportation disadvantaged in the county to seek

innovative ways to improve cost effectiveness,

efficiency, safety, working hours, and types of service

in an effort to increase ridership to a broader

population. Such strategies should also encourage

multi-county and regional transportation service

agreements between area CTCs and consolidation of

adjacent counties when it is appropriate and cost

effective to do so;

f. Appoint a Grievance Subcommittee to process,

investigate, resolve complaints, and make

recommendations to the TDCB for improvement of

service from agencies, users, or potential users, of the

systems in the county. This Subcommittee shall meet

as often as necessary to resolve complaints in a timely

manner;

g. In coordination with the CTC, jointly develop

applications for funds that may become available;

h. Prepare quarterly reports outlining the

accomplishments and activities or other areas of

12

interest to the Commission for the Transportation

Disadvantaged and the MPO;

i. Consolidate the annual budget of local and federal

government transportation disadvantaged funds

estimates and forward them to the Commission for the

Transportation Disadvantaged. A copy of the

consolidated report shall also be used by the TDCB for

planning purposes;

j. Develop and maintain a vehicle inventory and

utilization plan of those vehicles purchased with

transportation disadvantaged funds for inclusion in

the transportation disadvantaged service plan for the

Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged;

k. Assist the MPO in preparing a Transportation

Disadvantaged Element in their Transportation

Improvement Program (TIP);

l. Assist the CTC in establishing eligibility guidelines

and priorities with regard to the recipients of

nonsponsored transportation disadvantaged services

that are purchased with Transportation

Disadvantaged Trust Fund moneys;

m. Work cooperatively with regional workforce boards

established in Chapter 445, Florida Statutes, to provide

assistance in the development of innovative

transportation services for participants in the welfare

transition program.

4.2.10 MPO Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Committee:

The ITS Committee is responsible for assisting in the

development of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)

planning work programs, as well as reviewing ITS related

studies, reports, plans, projects (including consistency with

regional architecture and other standards and/or programs)

and making recommendations to the MPO and/or other

agencies. ITS Committee recommendations to the MPO shall

be based upon the technical sufficiency, accuracy, and

completeness of studies, plans and/or programs. The ITS

Committee shall coordinate its actions with the appropriate

representatives of the Florida Department of Transportation.

13

ITS Committee Membership: The ITS Committee shall be

composed of members technically qualified in the planning,

programming, engineering and/or implementation of

intelligent transportation systems or projects within the

Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization

area boundary or in the case of the member nominated by the

Environmental Protection Committee, technically qualified in

the area of air quality impacts of transportation. The

membership shall be composed of: one (1) member each from

Hillsborough County, the City of Tampa, the Environmental

Protection Commission, Tampa-Hillsborough Expressway

Authority, Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority, the

City of Plant City and the City of Temple Terrace. Members

and Alternate Members shall serve terms of indefinite length

at the pleasure of their respective governmental bodies or

agencies and the MPO.

4.2.11 MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC): The

BPAC shall be responsible for making recommendations to

the MPO, Hillsborough County, City of Tampa, City of Plant

City, City of Temple Terrace, the Hillsborough County

Environmental Protection Commission, the Florida

Department of Transportation, the Southwest Florida Water

Management District, and others, on matters concerning the

planning, implementation and maintenance of a

comprehensive bikeway and pedestrian system. In addition,

the BPAC shall be responsible for studying and making

recommendations concerning the safety, security, and

regulations pertaining to bicyclists and pedestrians. The

BPAC shall coordinate its actions with the appropriate

representatives of the Florida Department of Transportation.

BPAC Membership: The BPAC shall be composed of up to

twenty-two members. One member shall represent each of

the following entities, except as noted: City of Tampa (three

seats), City of Temple Terrace, City of Plant City,

Hillsborough County (three seats), University of South

Florida USF, the Environmental Protection Commission of

Hillsborough County, the Hillsborough County City-County

14

Planning Commission and HART. The remaining members

shall be citizen representatives.

All members of this Committee shall serve for a two-year

term, ending on June 30th of its respective year. Without

restriction, each member can be appointed to serve an

unlimited number of two-year terms.

4.2.12 MPO Livable Roadways Committee (LRC): The LRC shall

be responsible for integrating Livable Roadways principles

into the design and use of public rights-of-way and the major

road network throughout Hillsborough County. The LRC

seeks to accomplish this responsibility by: making

recommendations to create a transportation system that

balances design and aesthetics with issues of roadway safety

and function; ensuring that public policy and decisions result

in a transportation system that supports all modes of

transportation, with a special emphasis on pedestrian and

bicycle infrastructure and transit infrastructure and service;

providing information and assistance to the MPO, local

governments and transportation agencies relating to the

mission of the Committee; and enhancing coordination

among MPO member agencies and public participation in the

transportation planning process. The LRC shall coordinate its

actions with the appropriate representatives of the Florida

Department of Transportation.

LRC Membership: The LRC shall be composed of

representatives of local government departments,

transportation agencies and other organizations. They may

be elected officials, appointed officials, organization

members, designated representatives or staff, but may not be

staff to the MPO. Members will represent the following: City

of Plant City; City of Tampa Parks and Recreation

Department, City of Tampa Public Works, Transportation

Division, or City of Tampa Urban Development Department

(up to two members); City of Temple Terrace; Hillsborough

County Planning and Infrastructure (up to two members);

Hillsborough Area Regional Transit; Hillsborough County

MPO Board Member (appointed by the MPO to serve as chair

15

of the committee); MPO Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory

Committee; Hillsborough County City-County Planning

Commission; and five members from professional

organizations whose mission is consistent with the principles

of Livable Roadways (such as American Planning

Association; American Society of Landscape Architects;

Urban Land Institute; Institute of Transportation Engineers;

Congress for New Urbanism and American Institute of

Architects); University of South Florida; New North

Transportation Alliance; Tampa Downtown Partnership;

Westshore Alliance; Person with disabilities; Neighborhood

representative; Transit user representative; Citizen advocate

for livable communities and/or multimodal transportation.

5 MEETINGS:

5.1 SCHEDULE OF MPO MEETINGS:

5.1.1 Regular Meetings: Regular meetings shall take place on the

first Tuesday of each month, unless otherwise decided by the

MPO and shall be held in the Chamber of the Hillsborough

County Board of County Commissioners or at another

suitable location designated by the Chair.

5.1.2 Special Meetings and Workshops: Special meetings and

workshops shall be held at the call of the Chair or majority of

officers. Special meetings and workshops shall convene at a

time designated by the Chair and shall be held in the

Chambers of the Hillsborough County Board of County

Commissioners or at another suitable location designated by

the Chair.

5.1.3 Public Hearings: Public hearings of the MPO shall be held at

a time designated by the Chair. A public hearing can be

continued until a date and time certain, with due allowance

of time for public notice of the continuation of the public

hearing. Public hearings shall be held in the Chambers of the

Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners or at

another suitable location designated by the Chair.

5.2 SCHEDULE OF STANDING COMMITTEE MEETINGS: Each

standing committee shall meet monthly, with the exception of the

Intelligent Transportation Systems Committee and the Transportation

16

Disadvantaged Coordinating Board which shall meet every two

months, at a regular date and time designated by the Chair.

5.3 SCHEDULE OF AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETINGS: Each ad hoc

committee shall meet at the call of the committee chair. Ad hoc

committee meetings shall not be scheduled during the times reserved

for MPO meetings. Ad hoc committee meetings shall be held at a

suitable location designated by the committee chair.

5.4 NOTICE OF MPO AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS: The Executive

Director of the MPO shall be responsible for providing written public

notice of all MPO meetings, public hearings and committee meetings.

Except in case of emergencies, written notice of any meeting shall be

given at least five (5) days prior to the meeting. In case of emergency,

notice of such meeting shall be given to each member as far in advance

of the meeting as possible and by the most direct means of

communications. In addition, notice of such emergency meeting shall

be given to the media, utilizing the most practicable method. Written

notice of any meeting shall state the date, time and place of the

meeting, a brief description of the agenda for the meeting, and shall be

provided in accordance with the requirements of Florida law and the

MPO’s Public Participation Plan.

5.5 AGENDA OF MPO AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS: The agenda

for all MPO regular and special meetings, workshops and public

hearings shall be established by the Chair with the assistance of the

Executive Director. Members or the Executive Director may request

that an item be placed on the agenda by communicating such request

to the Executive Director at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting date.

The Chair shall consider with the Executive Director on a month to

month basis whether there shall be a consent agenda.

The agenda for each committee meeting shall be established by the

committee chair and shall be prepared by the Executive Director or

designated MPO support staff. Members of a committee or the

Executive Director may request that an item be placed on a committee

agenda by communicating such request to the MPO support staff

assigned to the committee, or the Executive Director at least ten (10)

days prior to the committee meeting date.

17

The agenda shall list the items in the order they are to be considered.

For good cause stated in the record, items on the agenda may be

considered out of order with the approval of the MPO Chair or the

committee chair.

The agenda for any MPO or committee meeting shall be delivered to

each member at least five (5) days prior to the meeting date and shall

be mailed or delivered to interested persons at that time, except in case

of an emergency meeting, where the agenda will be provided to

members, and interested parties as far in advance of such meetings as

practicable.

5.6 RULES OF ORDER: Except where they are inconsistent with the By-

laws, Roberts Rule of Order shall be used for the conduct of all MPO and

committee meetings.

5.7 QUORUM: A simple majority of the total non-vacant membership of

the MPO or MPO committee shall constitute a quorum for the

transaction of business at all regular and special meetings and public

hearings, except seven (7) members shall constitute a quorum for the

CAC. Public hearings may be conducted with less than a quorum, but

no action, other than as noted at the end of this section, shall be taken

unless a quorum is present. When a quorum is present, a majority of

those present may take action on matters properly presented at the

meeting. Workshops may be conducted with less than a quorum, but

no official action may be taken. A majority of the members present,

whether or not a quorum exists, may adjourn any meeting or continue

any public hearing to another time.

5.8 CONDUCT OF MEETINGS:

5.8.1 Chair Participation: The presiding MPO Chair, or committee

chair, shall not be deprived of any rights and privileges by

reason of being presiding Chair, but may move or second a

motion only after the gavel has been passed to the Vice-Chair

or another member.

5.8.2 Form of Address: Each member shall address only the

presiding Chair for recognition; shall confine his/her remarks

18

to the question under debate; and shall avoid personalities or

indecorous language or behavior.

5.8.3 Public Participation: Any member of the public may address

the MPO or MPO committee at a regular or special meeting,

public hearing, or public participation type workshop, after

signing in with the MPO Staff for a specific item. When

recognized by the Chair, a member of the public shall state

their name, address, the person on whose behalf they are

appearing and the subject of their testimony. Each member

of the public shall limit his or her presentation to three (3)

minutes unless otherwise authorized by the Chair.

5.8.4 Limitation of Testimony: The Chair may rule testimony out

of order if it is redundant, irrelevant, indecorous or untimely.

5.8.5 Motions: The Chair shall restate motions before a vote is

taken and shall state the maker of the motion and the name of

the supporter.

5.8.6 Voting: Voting shall be done by voice, as a group, but a

member shall have his/her vote recorded in the minutes of the

meeting if so desired. A roll call vote shall be taken if any

member so requests. Any member may give a brief

explanation of his/her vote. A tie vote shall result in failure of

a motion.

5.8.7 Reconsideration: A motion to reconsider an item on which

vote has been taken may be made only by a member who

voted with the prevailing side. The motion to reconsider

must be made on the day the vote to be reconsidered was

taken, or at the next succeeding meeting of the same type of

meeting at which the vote to be reconsidered was taken (i.e.,

at the next succeeding regular meeting if the vote to be

reconsidered was taken at a regular meeting). To be in order,

the motion to reconsider must be made under the

consideration of old business. Adoption of a motion to

reconsider requires the approval of at least a simple majority

of the votes cast. If a motion to reconsider is adopted, the

members shall consider the need for additional notice to

19

interested persons before a vote subject to the motion for

reconsideration was taken at a special meeting or a public

hearing for which no subsequently scheduled meeting will

provide an opportunity for reconsideration of the item, then

the motion to reconsider may be made at the next regular

meeting in the manner provided.

5.9 ORDER OF BUSINESS AT MEETINGS: The order of business shall

be determined by the Chair; however, the following is provided as a

guide:

5.9.1 Regular MPO Meetings:

(a) Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance

(b) Approval of minutes of prior meetings, workshops and

public hearings.

(c) Public input on Agenda Items, MPO Committee Reports

(d) Presentation of the Chair’s Report

(e) Presentation of the Executive Director’s Report

(f) Consideration of Action Items

(g) Consideration of Status Reports

(h) Public input regarding general concerns

(i) Consideration of items under old business

(j) Consideration of items under new business

(k) Adjournment

5.9.2 Special Meetings or Workshops

(a) Call to Order

(b) Consideration of individual agenda items

(c) Adjournment

5.9.3 Public Hearings

(a) Call to Order

(b) Consideration of individual agenda items

1. Presentation by staff

2. Public comment

3. Board deliberation

(c) Adjournment

20

5.9.4 Order of Consideration of Action Items: The order of

consideration of any individual agenda item shall be as

follows unless otherwise authorized by the Chair:

(a) Chair introduces the agenda item.

(b) Staff presents the agenda item.

(c) Other invited speaker(s) make presentations.

(d) MPO or committee members ask questions.

(e) Motion is made, seconded and debated.

(f) Vote is taken.

The Chair may expand all time limitations established by this section.

5.9 OPEN MEETINGS: All MPO regular and special meetings,

workshops and public hearings, MPO committee meetings, and all

meetings of the committees are open to the public as provided by

Florida’s Government-in-the-Sunshine Law, Section 286.011, Florida

Statutes.

6.0 ATTENDANCE: Members are expected to attend all regular and special

meetings, public hearings and workshops of the MPO and its committees.

6.1 EXCUSAL FROM MEETINGS: Each member who knows that

his/her attendance at a regular or special meeting, public hearing or

workshop will not be possible, shall notify the Executive Director, or

committee support staff, of the anticipated absence and the reason

thereof. The Executive Director, or committee support staff, shall

communicate this information to the Chair who may excuse the absent

member for good cause.

7.0 CODE OF ETHICS:

7.1 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS: Members shall comply with the

applicable provisions of the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and

Employees, Part III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes.

7.2 REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION: Members may request

information readily available to the general public directly from the

appropriate staff person. Requests for information not readily

21

available to the general public, or information which would involve

the expenditure of staff time in preparation or compilation, shall be

made to the Executive Director, who may consult with the Chair for

guidance.

7.3 LOBBYING ACTIVITIES: Members shall use their discretion in

conducting private discussions with interested persons regarding

MPO business, as long as all interested persons are treated equally.

Any written material received by a member in connection with a

private discussion with an interested person shall be given to the

Executive Director for distribution to other members and as

appropriate, to staff.

7.4 GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE: Members shall refrain from

participating in any private communications regarding MPO business

involving two or more members. For purposes of this section, a

private discussion is one that is not conducted in accordance with the

requirements of Florida’s Government-in-the-Sunshine Law, Section

286.011, Florida Statutes.

Any written material received by a member in connection with MPO

Business shall be given to the Executive Director or the member’s

committee support staff for distribution to other members and as

appropriate, to staff.

7.5 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS: Members will from time to time be

asked to give their opinions regarding matters which have been or will

be considered by the MPO or one of its committees. No member shall

be prohibited from stating his/her individual opinion on any matter;

however, in doing so, each member shall take care to make clear that

the opinion expressed is his/her own, and does not constitute the

official position of the MPO or one of its committees.

8.0 ADMINISTRATION: The administration of MPO activities shall be

accomplished through official actions of the MPO in accordance with the

following guidelines:

8.1 POLICIES: The MPO shall adopt, by a vote of a majority of the total

membership, Policies to guide the administration of the MPO. The

Policies shall be published in conjunction with the By-laws. The Policies

22

may be amended from time to time by a vote of a majority of the total

voting membership of the MPO.

8.2 STATUTES: The MPO shall abide by legislation authorizing and

specifying its duties and functions and all other requirements of

Florida law.

8.3 STAFF: The staff of the MPO shall consist of the Executive Director

and such additional employees as provided by the Hillsborough

County City-County Planning Commission. The staff shall be directed

by the Executive Director of the MPO.

9.0 RULES OF CONSTRUCTION: The following rules apply to the text of this

document.

9.1 The particular controls the general.

9.2 The word “shall” is mandatory and not discretionary. The word

“may” is permissive.

9.3 Words used in the present tense include the future; words used in the

singular number shall include the plural and the plural the singular

unless the context indicates the contrary.

9.4 Words not defined shall have the meaning commonly ascribed to

them.

10.0 AMENDMENT: The By-laws may be amended by two-thirds majority vote

of the total voting membership of the MPO. Any amendment shall be

proposed at a regular meeting and voted upon the next regular meeting.


Agenda Item: Committee Appointments

Presenter: None; Consent Agenda Item

Summary: The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) shall be responsible for providing information and overall community values and needs into the transportation planning program of the MPO; evaluating and proposing solutions from a citizen’s perspective concerning alternative transportation proposals and critical issues; providing knowledge gained through the CAC into local citizen group discussions and meetings; and establishing comprehension and promoting credibility for the MPO Program. The following individual has been nominated by the Planning Commission for membership:

Rick Richmond The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) shall be composed of technically qualified representatives employed by a public agency for the purpose of planning, programming and engineering of the transportation system within the Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization area boundary.

Layne Cady has been designated as Temple Terrace’s representative

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council’s seat has been vacated The Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) is responsible for assisting in the development of Intelligent Transportation System planning work programs, as well as reviewing ITS related studies, reports, plans, projects.

Shannon Haney has been nominated as HART’s representative Recommended Action: That the MPO confirm the above for committee membership. Prepared By: Linda Ferraro Attachments: None.




Tampa, FL, 33602




Agenda Item: Letter of Support for Smart City Challenge Grant Application

Presenter: Beth Alden, MPO Director

Summary: The City of Tampa is putting together a proposal, due February 3, in response to the US DOT Smart City Challenge, and seeks support from the MPO.

As background, the US DOT has issued a notice of funding availability for up to $40 million for a mid-sized city to conduct a “smart city demonstration.” US DOT’s vision for the Smart City Challenge is to demonstrate and evaluate a holistic, integrated approach to improving surface transportation performance within a city, integrating this approach with other smart city domains such as public safety, public services, and energy. The USDOT intends for this challenge to address how emerging transportation data, technologies, and applications can be integrated with existing systems in a city to address transportation challenges. The City of Tampa’s response is being prepared in collaboration with other local agencies and private partners.

Such a demonstration project would be consistent with and supportive of several of the goals and objectives in the MPO’s adopted 2040 Plan, including:

Objective 1.2 - Increase the security and resiliency of the multi-modal transportation system.

Objective 2.3 - Relieve congestion and improve traffic flow.

Objective 2.5 - Incentivize private-sector and community transportation investments.

Recommended Action: Direct staff to transmit a letter of support on behalf of the MPO Board, and to

assist Tampa with preparation of the grant application as resources are available this fiscal year.

Prepared By: Beth Alden

Attachments: None; draft letter to be distributed at meeting




Tampa, FL, 33602




Agenda Item: Automated Vehicles in Transit

Presenter: Dr. Steve Polzin, Center for Urban Transportation Research

Summary: Automated and connected vehicles, and the myriad technology features that enable these systems, are likely to influence public transportation in various ways, both complementary and potentially competitively. Speculation on automated or connected vehicles has ranged from highly optimistic and positive perceptions to skepticism regarding the maturation of the technology and the consequences. Some feel that these technologies will both enable mobility for those currently unable to operate personal vehicles and increase the capacity of transportation travel ways sufficiently to help reduce, or even eliminate congestion. Others expect that liability considerations, technology reliability, or personal privacy considerations will collectively result in automated or connected vehicles being more akin to the decades of unattained expectations that flying cars would replace roadways by the turn of the 21st century. There is growing evidence that the technologies will be maturing sufficiently to technically enable these mobility systems within the next few decades, but uncertainty remains regarding the economics of mass deployment, the policy framework for resolving liability and other issues, and public attitudes that might influence the pace and extent of their deployment.

Recommended Action: None; for information only

Prepared By: Beth Alden

Attachments: None




Tampa, FL, 33602




Agenda Item: Coast Bike Share Year One Lessons

Presenter: Eric Trull, Coast Bike Share

Summary: Coast Bike Share is Tampa's official Bike Share program. The program features 300 bikes across hubs located in Downtown, Hyde Park, Ybor City, Channelside, Davis Island, and Harbour Island. The program recently passed the one year milestone and is currently planning a regional expansion into Pinellas County.

This presentation will review the lessons learned over the past year, focusing on infrastructure choices of novice bicycle riders, routes through our community, and opportunities for growth utilizing the data assembled in the nation’s first large scale smart bike share system.

Recommended Action: None. For information only.

Prepared By: Gena Torres

Attachments: None.




Tampa, FL, 33602




Agenda Item: Using Water Transit to Connect the Region

Presenter: Ed Turanchik, Legal Counsel to HMS Ferries

Summary: Water transportation is a potential low-cost transit option that is not affected by congestion. Mr. Turanchik will provide an overview and update on the MacDill AFB-to-South-County commuter ferry project previously studied by the MPO; the proposed St. Petersburg-Tampa pilot project; and the prospect of water transportation on a regional basis.

Recommended Action:

None

Prepared By:

Attachments:

Lisa K. Silva, AICP, PLA, MPO Staff

1. Using Tampa Bay to Connect the Region through Fast Passenger Ferry Service, a white paper provided by HMS Ferries

2. Ferry Capital Costs Are Very Low, a summary provided by HMS Ferries




Tampa, FL, 33602



{37234892;1}

Using Tampa Bay to Connect the Region through Fast Passenger Ferry Service

Background and History

Major regions around bays and rivers frequently make use of water transportation as a reliable,

low cost, congestion proof and elegant option for connecting residents and tourists to major

destinations. Passenger ferries are a hallmark of major regions throughout the world including:

New York and New Jersey.

San Francisco

Seattle

Hong Kong

Sydney

Singapore

Though use of ferries has been considered over the past two decades by the former Tampa Bay

Commuter Rail Authority and the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority, the current

interest and progress was stimulated by a $475,000 Congressional earmark, requested by

Hillsborough County in 2008, for a Hillsborough water-borne transportation initiative. Thereafter

Hillsborough MPO funded and was the lead agency in two successive evaluations of the potential

of water transportation, the final report on which in 2012 concluded that the MacDill-South County

route had the greatest potential for commuter ferry service. These studies did not use these

earmarked funds, which are controlled by the Federal Highway Administration. The MPO

MacDill study found the following:

Approximately 8,000 MAFB employees live in the South County area.

Use of ferry service would cut both costs and times for these commuters.

Over 90% of MAFB personnel supported development of ferries.

A MAFB-South County commuter ferry could cut traffic congestion on major state and

local roadways.

Hillsborough County-HMS Ferries Interim Partnership Agreement

In 2013, HMS Ferries proposed a public private partnership with Hillsborough County to establish

a MAFB commuter service. This national water transit operator believes that it can operate a

MacDill-South County commuter ferry service at a profit, with net profits to be shared with the

County, and has contractually committed to taking the operational risk of doing so, subject to

specified contingencies. The County issued an RFQ under state law for this service. HMS was

the only respondent. Based upon this proposal, the County applied for a $9.8 million federal ferry

grant in October 2013.

{37234892;1}

The County and HMS Ferries negotiated and entered into an Interim Public Private Partnership

Agreement in February 2014 under Florida's new public private partnership law. The Agreement

required a due diligence period, but also contained the general terms of the partnership agreement

that would govern the relationship between HMS Ferries and Hillsborough County.

The parties specified that the Schultz Preserve would be used as a combination ferry

terminal an/d recreational waterfront park. Schultz Preserve is owned by the Southwest

Florida Water Management District but it is leased and operated by Hillsborough County.

HMS would take the operational risk of the ferry service for the term of the operating

agreement subject to certain limitations, and share any operating profits with Hillsborough

County. Operating hours and fares would be negotiated as part of the operating agreement.

HMS and its development partner, South Swell Development, would provide a turn-key

project to the County, once specific conditions precedent were met.

All physical assets would remain under public ownership or the public would have

equitable rights in them.

South Swell would convey 46 acres of ELAPP nominated uplands and wetlands to be

added to the Schultz Preserve, providing a wildlife and environmental corridor between it

and the Golden Astor Scrub to the east.

The County would provide concession payments for a period of fifteen years to cover the

capital costs of the project.

MAFB-South County Commuter Project Details

During the course of initial project development, the County and HMS developed the

project scope. These included:

HMS would operate three Tampa Bay specific designed fast passenger ferries capable of

carrying between 149 and 200 passengers. The vessels would be designed to meet with

unique conditions of Tampa Bay and Florida. Vessels would operate every 15 minutes

between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. on workdays. Vessels would also operate

on evenings and weekends connecting St. Petersburg, Tampa and South County, subject to

market demand. Capital cost of the vessels is estimated to be about $13 million. HMS

would be responsible for the operating costs of about $4 million annually.

HMS would also operate high capacity trams on MAFB that would shuttle employees from

a terminal near the Davis Conference Center around to major destinations on the base. The

capital cost of the trams is estimated to be about $750,000.

{37234892;1}

The development of both the MAFB and combination Schultz ferry terminal and

recreational park (with access roadway), was estimated to be approximately $10 million.

There was no finalization of access options to the internal Schultz roadway, so this cost

was contingent upon this final aspect.

A second, more detailed ridership survey done at MAFB to gauge market demand. The

survey included various price points and measured ridership by zip code. Surveys

indicated very strong interest that also had some level of price elasticity. This was also

reflected in employee surveys, which indicated time and money savings were the primary

reasons employees would opt for the service.

Zip Code Area EE Base Definite

@2.50

Probably

@ 2.50

Definite @

$0.00

Probably

@ $0.00

33511 W/S

Bloomingdale

1327 29% 35% 66% 19%

33534 Gibsonton 265 56% 32% 92% 8%

33547 Fish Hawk 1142 30% 41% 83% 13%

33569 Boyette 963 40% 47% 84% 13%

33570 Ruskin 214 59% 31% 100% 0%

33572 Apollo Beach 272 60% 33% 92% 3%

33573 Sun City 144 62% 8% 92% 8%

33578 Riverview 1089 38% 39% 84% 15%

33579 Balm 1206 29% 35% 95% 15%

33596 E/S

Bloomingdale

1168 30% 41% 71% 23%

33598 Wimauma 41 80% 10% 100% 0%

Ridership 7831 2786 2967 6409 1058

The economic and environmental benefits were also assessed for the commuter service.

Based upon 2,300 daily riders (at the $5.00 per day employee cost level) average employee

savings would be over $8.5 million annually, over 8,700 tons of CO2 would be cut, and

over 22 tons of NOx. The latter is a critical water quality benefit for Tampa Bay, as

reduction of atmospheric NOx emissions from the transportation sector is a key water

quality management priority for the Tampa Bay Estuary Program.

The diversion of peak hour commuters would reduce trips on key state and local roadways,

including US 41, I-75, Bayshore Blvd., Dale Mabry, cutting net vehicle miles travelled by

over 90,000 miles each day.

The project would be eligible for a 50% capital match from FDOT as per state policy for

the non-federal share.

In June, 2014, the Federal Transit Administration ("FTA") announced that HART had been

awarded $4.87 million for the construction of facilities for the project.

{37234892;1}

In August, 2014, MAFB adopted the MAFB-South County commuter line as one of its five

community partnership projects.

MAFB-South County Project Status

In September, 2014, based upon concerns expressed by certain stakeholders, the County

Commission requested an environmental assessment of alternative locations to Schulz. Three

alternative sites were identified. These are owned by Port Tampa Bay, Mosaic, and Tampa

Electric Company. All are industrial.

In early 2015, the FTA advised HART and Hillsborough County that there could be no

preference or pre-determination for any terminal site prior to the completion of the appropriate

environmental assessment pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA). Hence, there currently is no site preference for the project, though the siting area

most likely will be restricted to the area between the Alafia River and Apollo Beach.

The County and HMS subsequently extended the Interim Partnership Agreement through

February 2016 in order to proceed with the NEPA process. The County selected HNTB to

develop the scope of the NEPA. However, in September, 2015, the FTA indicated that the

consultants would have to be re-procured. Further, complexities emerged about which

procurement rules and agency standards had to be applied given that two separate sources of

federal funds were involved. This has now been apparently resolved. The County is now

proceeding to procure consultants for this work and will need to extend the current partnership

agreement.

It is projected that the NEPA process will require two years to complete, and that this process

will not commence until this summer. Thereafter, preliminary engineering and environmental

permits will need to be secured, including Army Corps of Engineer permits. This next phase

will likely require two additional years. Facilities development and vessel construction are

expected to take another two years thereafter. The consequence of the receipt of federal funds

has been a one year delay in project development and a likely additional delay of two or more

years in order to comply with federal procurement policies and NEPA requirements. Further, it

is expected that the FTA will require a commitment by HART and the County for the long term

operation of the MAFB commuter ferry.

MAFB Commuter Cost Effective and Transformational

The MPO has long supported alternative premium transit options that create new capacity and

provide alternatives to congestion. The proposed MAFB commuter ferry using just three

vessels can carry over 2500 passengers per peak period, diverting potentially thousands of

commuters off congested roadways that would otherwise travel an average travel distance of 32

miles. Amortizing the project's capital cost over the average length of avoided trip translates

into a very low cost of approximately $750,000 per mile. The incremental cost of expanding this

service would also be very low.

{37234892;1}

This capital cost is very low compared to other capacity and major maintenance expenses for

state of Florida roadways. The attached chart shows the mileage cost of representative projects

included in the FDOT District 7 Five Year work plan. It is also more than 20 times lower than

the average cost of widening existing or constructing new roadways as estimated by

Hillsborough County in the Go Hillsborough planning process - estimated to be over $14

million/mile.

The proposed MAFB also has the potential to transform the transportation/growth paradigm in

the fastest growing area of Hillsborough County due to its premium nature. With travel times of

13 minutes to MAFB and 25 minutes to downtown Tampa, passenger ferry service can provide

congestion proof, reliable travel options to these two major employment destinations now and in

the future. In this sense, the proposed ferry service operates much like a premium light rail or

commuter rail investment, but without the right of way or heavy infrastructure costs, and has the

potential to induce shifts both in development patterns and considerations of connectivity.

Properly framed, this mode option can lead to greater market place interest in transit shuttles and

circulators as both developers and officials promote connections to the ferry terminal as a

preferred mobility option instead of long distance commutes. The consequence is that new

growth might not have as much impact on either the local or regional transportation networks.

St. Petersburg-Tampa Ferry Pilot Project

St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Kriseman has taken the lead on implementing a pilot ferry project

between downtown St. Petersburg and downtown Tampa commencing in October, 2016 and

operating for six months. The pilot project would charter one or more 149 passenger vessels

based in the northeast that are out of service for the winter months. The City of St. Petersburg

issued an RFQ that included a request for a project plan and budget. HMS Ferries responded

with a proposal based upon the following plan:

Six month charter of one or two vessels currently in seasonal service in New England.

{37234892;1}

Friday-Sunday intercity service between St. Petersburg and Tampa with preferred

temporary terminals located on the south side of the Vinoy Yacht basin and Tampa

Convention Center between October 2016 and April 2017.

Temporary docks/barges in each location.

Coordination of ticketing and marketing with CVB's, attractions, retailers, restaurateurs

and Chambers.

Excursion and charter trips Tuesday-Thursday.

Six month capital and operating budget of $1.3 million for first year, $1.1 million for

subsequent years. The turnkey costs based upon proposed schedule, but excluding

marketing and any land side facilities development. Second vessel has turnkey cost of

$900,000.

Mayor Kriseman has proposed Hillsborough, Pinellas, St. Petersburg and Tampa each

contribute up to $350,000 for the project for one vessel, with proportional revenue

sharing between contributing governments. Is also seeking matching funds from State of

Florida.

The terms and conditions of any agreement between St. Petersburg and HMS Ferries remain to

be worked out, as does the business and operating plan.

Finally, though positioned as a one-time seasonal pilot project, if this project was deemed to be

successful, this service could be operated on a recurring seasonal basis until the MAFB project

was implemented.

Prospects for Regional Ferry Service

During the past year, presentations have been made to the Florida Transportation Commission,

Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority, Pinellas MPO and PSTA Boards about the

MAFB Commuter ferry project as well as the prospect of additional ferry operations. All these

governing bodies have expressed support for further exploration of ferry transportation to service

various communities in the Tampa Bay region.

Several potential commuter and tourist route options appear to hold promise. These include:

South County to downtown Tampa appears to be a viable option that may improve as

Strategic Property Partner's Channelside project moves forward. US Census On the Map

data analysis indicates that over 4,000 South County residents work in the downtown

CBD area.

St. Petersburg to Westshore/TIA as an option for maintenance of traffic during the

reconstruction of the Veterans/I-275 intersection as well as a permanent solution for

mobility between these destinations.

{37234892;1}

South County – downtown St. Petersburg may emerge as a stronger option as both the

population of South County grows and as St. Petersburg develops stronger employment

and tourist bases.

Pinellas County Intracoastal Route may present some unique and congestion proof

options for traversing the barrier islands from north to south, connecting both residents

and tourists to a range of destinations.

Project Description Distance (miles) Cost (millions $) Cost/Mile (Million $)

2 to 4 lanes on MLK between Kingway and McIntosh 2 39.9 $ 19.95

Resurfacing SR 60 between Faulkenberg and Lake Cathy (7 lanes) 1 3.8 $ 3.80

Resurfacing SR 674 from E Commercail Ctr to E. of US 301 (4 lanes) 2.65 4.5 $ 1.70

Add lanes and Reconstruct US 301 (2-6) SR 674-CR 672 3.98 $43.70 $ 10.98

PDE US 41 from 674-Mantee County Line 7.3 4 $ 0.55

US 41 Resurfacing from E 15th through Conover St (6 lanes) 1.8 5.5 $ 3.06

US 41 Resurfacing from Bullfrong Creek to Denver St. (4 lanes) 5.2 8.1 $ 1.56

Automated People Mover (all elements not specified, see MPO for additional information) 1.3 350 $ 269.23

Tampa Bay Ferry Project 33 25 $ 0.76

Ferry Capital Costs Are Very Low

School Transportation Committee Proposal

DRAFT 1-26-16

Hillsborough County is the 8th largest school district in the nation, the county's largest employer with more than 26,000 employees, and each day transports almost 90,000 students to and from school. Close collaboration between schools and transportation is important in Hillsborough County. In 2015, the Hillsborough MPO added a Hillsborough County School Board member as a voting member of the MPO, to enhance the lines of communication. Coordination is needed on many levels in addition to the boards. Interagency partnerships are vital for problem-solving on a host of topics, from traffic circulation to walk/bike safety to school-pools and transit. A regular, periodic meeting of transportation-focused professionals representing local governments, transit agencies, public safety organizations, and several functional groups within the School District would be beneficial, and does not currently exist. The Hillsborough MPO, which provides transportation coordination and long-range planning for many of these organizations already, is a logical host for such a group. The MPO By-Laws allow the Chair to “Establish such ad hoc committees as the Chair may deem necessary and appoint their members and chairs.” Such committees are to have a specific task identified by the MPO Chair; a committee chair who is a MPO Board member; and an expiration date. The following proposal is a draft created for the Chair’s consideration.

1) Who should be on a School Transportation Committee? School District staff representing the superintendent and representing functional

groups responsible for transportation, security, safety, curriculum, planning, charter schools, and administration

Transportation and Traffic Operations directors (or designees) of Hillsborough County, Plant City, Tampa and Temple Terrace

FDOT District 7 Safety Engineer and Safe Routes to Schools program manager Local government development services staff Planning Commission staff HART Planning and Travel Training staff TBARTA School-Pool program manager CUTR WalkWise and Walking Schoolbus/ Biketrain program managers

Law enforcement departments, including managers of programs for crossing guards and school resource officers

St. Joseph and All Children’s Hospital walk/bike safety education trainers Children’s Board Health Department Hillsborough County Council of PTA/PTSA

Representatives from the School District’s Citizen Advisory Committee and Principals’ Council

2) Who should Chair? - The logical choice is the School Board representative on the MPO Board.

3) Where should committee meet? - The MPO office is available, or the School District office could host.

4) When should this committee meet? – With the great number of topics and geographic locations needing attention, monthly meetings for the first year are recommended. After a year, the schedule could be reevaluated and/or the topics referred to another group or groups, such as the MPO’s Livable Roadways Committee or Technical Advisory Committee, FDOT’s Community Traffic Safety Team, and/or the School District’s Development Review Committee.

5) What issues should this committee discuss?

Traffic circulation Enforcement of traffic laws Traffic safety audits at schools Possible need for legislation to allow speed zones at high schools Safe Routes to Schools program candidate projects School crossing guards, needs and opportunities Charter & Magnet Schools’ transportation needs and siting issues High cost of school busing, and potential alternatives HART bus routes and times in comparison to student needs Walking School Bus or Bicycle Train expansion opportunities Ride Share and School-Pool expansion opportunities Joint use of shared facilities relating to transportation Site planning process for new schools and development review checklist(s) Other needs identified through the School Principals Council, School District Citizen Advisory Committee, or the Student Alliance

6) Who would be responsible for minutes, and agenda? - MPO staff

7) Who would provide funding support for committee-identified needs (supplies, technical analyses, etc.)? - MPO, as part of its adopted Unified Planning Work Program

Tampa Bay Transportation Management Area (TMA)

Leadership Group

Purpose

There is a role for a TMA‐focused discussion forum, not currently performed by any existing transportation organization. That role includes developing regional consensus priorities for the TMA, especially in the allocation of federal & state funds. The group will focus on major cross‐county transportation markets and traffic movements, and on helping the Tampa Bay metropolitan area speak with one voice in discussions of regional transportation prioritization issues and financial resources.

First‐year tasks will include developing TMA priorities and at least one project that demonstrates that the Leadership Group can effect change. Potential candidates for an initial project include managed lanes with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along a major tri‐county spine.

Members

The Leadership will comprise three members of each MPO board as voting members, and non‐voting advisors from FDOT and TBARTA. Decision‐making will be by consensus. The staff support group will comprise staff of these agencies, transit agencies and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, the latter as needed.

Organization

Meetings of the Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group will be held approximately every other month, on the first Friday of the month, at 9:00 am, at a central meeting location. Meetings of the TMA staff support group will be held by conference call at 3:30 pm on the second Friday of the month. Each group will have a notification list by mail or e‐mail, and interested parties may request to their MPO to be notified of meetings.

The TMA Leadership Group acts in an advisory role to each of the three MPOs, which will have final approval of TMA work products. Leadership members will be responsible for conveying concerns of their respective MPOs to the TMA group, and for conveying TMA group discussion and recommendations back to the MPOs.

This group’s work will be staffed jointly by the staff of the three MPOs. Public notice for meetings will be provided by all three MPOs according to their typical procedures.

Deleted:

Deleted: group

Deleted: 3

Deleted: 1

Deleted: first and third

Deleted: s

Deleted: prior to each Leadership meeting

Deleted: Meeting locations and conference calls will be arranged by the Hillsborough MPO, and agenda packets will be distributed by the Pinellas MPO.

Revised: January 5, 2016

STATE ROAD NUMBER 60

From East of US 301 to West of Falkenburg Road Financial Project ID 405525-2-52-01

Project Description:

This project will provide for the reconstruction of the existing four (4) lane divided rural roadway to a six (6) lane divided suburban roadway. Bicycle lanes and sidewalks will be included on both sides of the widened roadway. The existing roadside ditches will be filled to accommodate the widened roadway and replaced with curb and gutter and a piped storm drain conveyance system. A stormwater treatment pond and new outfall will be established for the project adjacent to the Palm River. Project Location:

This project will be constructed along SR 60 locally named Adamo Drive from east of US 301 to west of Falkenburg Road in Hillsborough County. The project length is approximately 1 mile.

Project Schedule:

Item Status

Design Phase IV (approx. 100%)

Right-of-Way Complete

Begin Construction Fall of 2016

Project Costs:

Phase Cost Estimate*

Design $2.0M

Right-of-Way $0.9M

Construction** $20.5M

*Please note that cost estimates may change as the project progresses. **Cost estimate includes funding for Construction Engineering and Inspection.

FDOT Project Manager Public Information Officer Mary Lou Godfrey, P.E. Kris Carson 11201 N. McKinley Drive, MS 7-600 11201 N. McKinley Drive, MS 7-110 Tampa, FL 33612 Tampa, FL 33612 Office Phone: (813) 975-6621 Office Phone: (813) 975-6060 [email protected] [email protected]



Dear Property Owner or Interested Citizen:

You are invited to attend and participate in the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), District Seven public hearing for a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) study for proposed improvements to US 41 in Hillsborough County, Florida. This public hearing is being held to allow interested persons an opportunity to provide comments concerning the location, conceptual design, and social, economic, and environmental effects of widening US 41 from Kracker Avenue to south of SR 676 (Causeway Boulevard), a distance of approximately 7 miles. The widening of US 41 is proposed as a six lane divided roadway with pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

This letter serves as notice to property owners (pursuant to F.S.339.155) that all or a portion of their property is within 300 feet of the edge of right of way of the proposed project. However, this does not mean that all properties will be directly affected.

Department representatives will be available at the public hearing beginning at 5:30 pm to answer questions and discuss the project informally. Draft project documents and other project related materials will be displayed, and a PowerPoint presentation will run continuously during the open house. At 6:30 pm, FDOT representatives will begin the formal portion of the hearing, which will provide an opportunity for attendees to make formal oral public comments. Following the formal portion of the hearing, the informal open house will resume and continue until 7:30 pm. A court reporter will be available to receive comments in a one-on-one setting. Persons wishing to submit written statements or other exhibits, in place of or in addition to oral statements, may do so at the hearing or by mailing them to Kirk Bogen, Environmental Management Engineer, FDOT, District Seven, 11201 N. McKinley Drive MS 7-500, Tampa, FL 33612-6456, or electronically to the project website at http://active.fdotd7studies.com/us41/kracker-to-sr676/. All exhibits or statements must be postmarked or emailed no later than Friday, February 5, 2016 to become part of the official public hearing record.

If you have questions about the project or the scheduled hearing, please contact:

Kirk Bogen, P.E., Environmental Management Engineer (813) 975-6448 [email protected]

Sincerely, Kirk Bogen, P.E. Environmental Management Engineer

From Kracker Avenue to South of SR 676 (Causeway Boulevard) Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study

WPI Segment No: 430056-1 | Hillsborough County, Florida | December 2015

WE WANT YOUR INPUT!

A successful project depends on the public’s participation in the

project’s development.

To provide comments, ask questions, and make suggestions about the

project contact:

Kirk Bogen, P.E. Environmental Management

Engineer 813-975-6448 800-226-7220

— Or —

Kris Carson Public Information

813-975-6202 800-226-7220

Send written comments to: Kirk Bogen, P.E.

Environmental Management Engineer

Florida Department of Transportation District Seven

11201 N. McKinley Drive MS 7-500

Tampa, FL 33612-6456

Email comments to: [email protected]

You may submit written comments or other exhibits, in place of or in addition to oral comments, at the hearing or by mailing your comments to the address preprinted on the back of the attached comment form or enter them on the project website at http://active.fdotd7studies.com/us41/kracker-to-sr676/. All comments or other exhibits must be postmarked no later than Friday, February 5, 2016 to become part of the official public hearing record.

The Public Hearing is being held in the following location:

Date: January 26, 2016

Place: Gardenville Recreation Center 6219 Symmes Road Gibsonton, FL 33534

Time: 5:30 pm-7:30 pm | Open House 6:30 pm | Formal Presentation

Draft project documents will be available for public review at the following locations from

January 5, 2016 to February 5, 2016.

Riverview Branch Library 10509 Riverview Drive Riverview, FL 33578-4367 Mon–Tue 10 a.m.–8 p.m. Wed–Sat 10 a.m.–6 p.m

FDOT District Seven 11201 N. McKinley Drive Tampa, FL 33612 Mon-Fri 8 a.m.–5 p.m.

PROJECT LOCATION MAP

U S 41 ( S R 45 ) F R O M K R AC K E R AV E N U E TO S O U T H O F S R 676 ( C AU S E WAY B O U L E VA R D ) P D & E S T U DY U S 41 ( S R 45 ) F R O M K R AC K E R AV E N U E TO S O U T H O F S R 676 ( C AU S E WAY B O U L E VA R D ) P D & E S T U DY Page 3

What is a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study?

A PD&E study is a comprehensive evaluation of social, cultural, economic and environmental effects associated with a proposed transportation improvement. This analysis enables the FDOT to reach a decision on the type, location and conceptual design of proposed improvements for US 41 to accommodate future traffic demand in a safe and efficient manner. It represents a combined effort by transportation and environmental professionals who analyze information and document the best alternative for a community’s transportation needs.

The PD&E study efforts are accomplished by working in cooperation with other state/federal agencies and local governments. This coordination allows the FDOT to better determine the effects a transportation project will have on the natural and human environment. A State Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) is being prepared, which summarizes the analyses of potential effects to the social, cultural, natural and physical environment.

Project Description

The FDOT is conducting a PD&E study to evaluate alternative capacity and operational improvements to US 41 from Kracker Avenue to south of Causeway Boulevard in Hillsborough County, a distance of approximately 7 miles. The highway is to be improved from an existing, four-lane divided rural and urban facility to a six-lane divided facility. Bridges over Bullfrog Creek and the Alafia River are recommended to be replaced. The proposed improvements will include construction of stormwater management and floodplain compensation ponds and intersection improvements, in addition to multimodal facilities (trail, pedestrian, bicycle and transit accommodations).

Project Purpose and Need

US 41 is a major north-south arterial of regional significance that parallels Interstate 75 (I-75) and US 301 in Hillsborough County. Within the study area, US 41 plays a significant role in connecting southern Hillsborough County to the Tampa Bay region. The purpose of the proposed project is to accommodate future traffic demands on US 41 due to growth within the project limits and surrounding areas. This corridor is projected to operate at level of service (LOS) F in the design year (2040) if no increase in capacity is provided. Other factors which support the need for the project include: regional connectivity, safety, consistency with transportation plans, emergency evacuation, and modal interrelationships.

Recommended Build Alternative

Recommended improvements include widening the existing highway to six lanes as well as intersection improvements, construction of stormwater management and floodplain compensation ponds and multimodal facilities. Proposed roadway typical sections include both suburban and urban typical sections. Additional right of way will be required in the north Gibsonton area for the Recommended Build Alternative. Alternatives to replace the bridges at Bullfrog Creek and the Alafia River have also been evaluated. Recommended typical sections are shown here. No future phases for this proposed project are included in FDOT’s current adopted 5-year work program.

No-Build Alternative

In addition to the Recommended Build Alternative, the no-build, or do-nothing, alternative is considered a viable alternative and will remain so for the duration of this study. Under the no-build alternative, no improvements would be made to US 41 and only routine maintenance and preservation efforts would be made. Even though there are no design, right of way or construction costs associated with the no-build alternative, operating conditions are expected to worsen over time, while further increasing travel

delays and traffic congestion. This will create an unacceptable level of service and a delay in safety related improvements. Therefore, the no-build alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the proposed project. Although, the no-build alternative is not consistent with local transportation plans, this alternative forms the basis for comparison to the Recommended Build Alternative analyzed for this study. An Alternatives Comparison Matrix is included below.

US 41 PD&E Study Alternatives Comparison Matrix No-Build Alternative Build Alternative

Potential Number of Relocations

Business Relocations 0 5

Residential Relocations 0 2

Potential Environmental Effects

Right of Way Required for Roadway Improvements (Acres) 0 4.28

Stormwater/Floodplain Compensation Ponds (Acres) 0 40.5

Archaeological/Historic Sites (Potential)1 None Low

Noise Impacts (Number of Sites)2 45 57

Wetlands and Surface Waters Affected (Acres) 0 3.41

Essential Fish Habitat (Acres) 0 2.39

Floodplain Encroachment (Acres) 0 12.72

Threatened and Endangered Species (Involvement) None Low

Contamination Sites (Involvement) None Moderate

Estimated Costs ($millions)

Construction of Roadway, Bridges and Ponds 0 $109.86

Right of Way Acquisition for Roadway 0 $14.00

Right of Way Acquisition for Stormwater Ponds & Floodplain Comp. 0 $16.96

Wetlands Mitigation3 0 $0.87

Engineering Design & Construction Inspection (20%) 0 $21.97

Preliminary Estimate of Total Costs ($millions) 0 $163.66

Notes 1 Sites on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places2 Sites with noise levels equal to or higher than the Federal Highway Administration’s Noise Abatement Criteria 3 Based on an average mitigation cost of $150,000/acre

Proposed Typical Section Between Kracker Ave. and Palm Ave. (Proposed typical section between Alafia River Bridge

and Denver Street is very similar to this one)

Proposed Typical Section from Palm Avenue to Gibsonton Drive (Proposed typical section from Gibsonton Drive

to Lula Street is very similar to this one)

Proposed Bridge Typical Section at Alafia River

Para Preguntas En EspañolSi usted tiene preguntas o comentarios o si simplemente desea más información sobre este proyecto en Espãnol, favor de ponerse en contacto con la señora Elba Lopez, al teléfono: (813) 975-6403, o correo electrónico: [email protected].

Right of Way Acquisition (ROW) ProcedureWe understand that when a transportation project proposes the acquisition of private property, you may have questions and concerns. To better educate and inform you about the right of way acquisition process and your rights, the department has created real estate acquisition and relocation brochures. These brochures and other education materials will be available at the public hearing.

Copies of the brochures may also be found on our website: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rightofway/Documents.shtm

We are interested in hearing your concerns and answering your questions. We also encourage you to speak with the departments’ Project Manager or a Right of Way Representative at your convenience.

Non-Discrimination LawsPublic participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability or family status. Persons who require special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation services (free of charge) should contact Christopher Speese, Public Involvement Coordinator, at (813) 975-6405, or by email to: [email protected] at least seven (7) days before the public hearing.

Florida Department of Transportation District Seven 11201 N. McKinley Drive MS 7-500 Tampa, FL 33612-6456

REMAINING PD&E STUDY SCHEDULE

Public Hearing January 2016

Complete PD&E Study Summer 2016

FUNDING SCHEDULE

PHASE FUNDING YEAR

Design Not Currently Funded

Right of Way Acquisition Not Currently Funded

Construction Not Currently Funded

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGDate:

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Place: Gardenville Recreation Center

6219 Symmes Road Gibsonton, FL 33534

Time: 5:30 pm - 7:30 pm Open House

6:30 pm Formal Presentation

1/26/2016

1

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation

(FAST Act)

Association of MPOs444 N Capitol St., NW

Suite345Washington, DC 20001

FAST Act

$53 $58 $59.80 $61 $62.50 $64

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Total Funding Authorizations Under The FAST Act(HTF & Gen Fund in billions)

Association of MPOs

1/26/2016

2

Modal Funding Authorizations

Highways (HTF)

Transit (HTF)

Transit (General Fund - subject to annual appropriations)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

$40.995B $43.1B $44B $45B $46B $47.1B

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

$8.595B $9.347B $9.733B $9.733B $9.940B $10.150B

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

$2.094B $2.442B $2.442B $2.442B $2.442B $2.442B

Association of MPOs

MPO Planning Funds

PL Funds (highway)

PL Funds (transit)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

$313M $329M $337M $343M $350M $359M

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

$128M $131M $133M $136M $139M $142M

Association of MPOs

1/26/2016

3

Metropolitan Transportation Planning Policy

When developing Plans and TIPs “intermodal facilities that support intercity transportation, including intercity buses and intercity bus facilities, and commuter vanpool providers” are facilities that should be included as part of the transportation system

MPOs boards shall be determined by the MPO bylaws or enabling statutes

• Representative of transit may also serve as a representative of a local municipality

Association of MPOs


MPOs are encouraged to consult with State agencies that plan tourism and, natural disaster risk reduction

New Planning Factors to consider – projects and strategies that - improve resiliency & reliability of the system; reduce or mitigate storm-water impacts on surface transportation; enhance travel and tourism

The transportation plan shall also identify public transportation facilities and intercity bus facilities

Association of MPOs

1/26/2016

4


Capital investments under the plan should include strategies to reduce vulnerability due to natural disasters

Transportation and Transit enhancements include –consideration of the role that intercity buses may play in reducing congestion, pollution, and energy consumption in a cost-effective manner and strategies and investments that preserve and enhance intercity bus systems, including systems that are privately owned and operated

Association of MPOs


Public ports are added to the list of interested parties who are to be given reasonable opportunity to comment on the transportation plan

Interested parties who are private providers of transportation include intercity bus operators, employer-based commuting programs, such as a carpool program, vanpool program, transit benefit program, parking cash-out program, shuttle program, or telework program

Association of MPOs

1/26/2016

5


Defines travel demand reduction as also - including intercity bus operators, employer-based commuting programs such as a carpool program, vanpool program, transit benefit program, parking cash-out program, shuttle program, or telework program for TMAs that carry out a congestion management process

Adds job access projects to the Congestion Management Process

Adds an optional Congestion Management Plan for TMAs

Association of MPOs

Other Transportation Policy

Renames STP as Surface Transportation Block Grant Program

Increase STBGP sub-allocation amounts 1% each year up to 55%

Repeals the Transportation Alternatives Programs BUT recreates TAP in STBGP and reserves $835M in 2016, 2017 and $850M in 2018, 2019, and 2020 to carry out TAP; remains a 50%/50% split with State; retains the competitive process for applicants

50% of the reserves TAP funds may be used for any STBGP eligible project

Association of MPOs

1/26/2016

6


CMAQ may be used to fund diesel retrofits for port related freight operations

CMAQ may be used to fund the installation of vehicle-to-infrastructure communication equipment

Provides an exception to the requirement to prioritize funds to project for PM 2.5 in States will low population

Specifies that the CMAQ performance plans for MPOs over 1 million in population must include a description of progress made in achieving the “air quality and traffic congestion” performance targets described in law

Association of MPOs


Establishes a new Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects competitive grant program – MPOs are eligible applicants and grants must be at least $25M

Establishes a new 5-year, $6.3B National Highway Freight Program – funds are apportioned to States; MPOs in areas over 500,000 in population may designate urban corridors in consultation with the state; States designate urban corridors in areas under 500,000 in consultation with MPOs

Association of MPOs

1/26/2016

7


Builds upon the MAP-21 provisions to accelerate project delivery through the Federal environmental review process

MPOs must be consulted if tolls are placed on HOV lanes on an Interstate in its planning area

Provides an exception to the special rule permitting transit operating assistance in areas over 200,000 in population to allow two or more systems to allocate funds for operations, under a written agreement

Association of MPOs


Reinstates the competitive bus and bus facilities grant program at USDOT - $268M in 2016 growing to $344M in 2020

Creates a pilot program for cost-effective capital investment to allows recipients in a specific state to pool their formula funds to allow for the accommodation of larger scale procurements

Association of MPOs