November 1, 2019 Tri-Cities MPO TAC Meeting Agenda Page 1

TRI-CITIES AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Meeting Agenda Colonial Heights Public Library (1000 Yacht Basin Drive Colonial Heights, VA)

November 1, 2019 10:00 AM

Meeting Type: Annual RegularSpecial (Called)

Invitees:

Agency Name Chesterfield County Ms. Barb Smith City of Colonial Heights Mr. Chuck Henley, P.E. Dinwiddie County Mr. Mark Bassett City of Hopewell Mr. Johnnie Butler City of Petersburg Mr. Lionel Lyons Prince George County Mr. Horace Wade (Chair) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Mr. Mark Riblett Petersburg Area Transit Mr. Charles Koonce Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDR&PT)

Ms. Tiffany Dubinsky

Crater Planning District Commission Mr. Ron Svejkovsky (Secretary) Fort Lee Mr. Fritz Brandt Petersburg National Battlefield Park Ms. Alexis Morris RideFinders (A Division of GRTC) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Federal Transit Commission (FTA)

Ms. Brigitte Tanner Carter Mr. Richard Duran Mr. Ryan Long

1. Call to order

2. Public Comment Period

ACTION ITEMS:

3. Approval of Agenda Approval

4. Approval of minutes from October 4 meeting – Attachment 1 Approval

November 1, 2019 Tri-Cities MPO TAC Meeting Agenda Page 2

5. CY 2020 Safety Target - Attachment 2 Action

At the September 23, 2019 Quarterly Meeting at VSU, VDOT released VDOT’sCY 2020 Statewide Safety Targets. Under federal regulations, MPOs can eitheradopt the State’s goal percentage reduction targets or establish their own.These Safety Targets are approved each year and we would review themagain next year.

VDOT provided a Worksheet Tool to Tri-Cities for reviewing and calculating thetargets for MPO adoption. MPO staff also reviewed the Tri-Cities portion of theTableau Crashtools 8.2 Tables provided to the MPOs. Based on MPO staffreview, using the State’s targets appear to be appropriate.

Attachment 2 includes the draft letter, and the email of the agenda packageincludes the Worksheet Tool provided by VDOT (in Excel format).

6. FFY 2021-2024 MTIP Update – Revised Schedule - Attachment 3 Action

With VDOT updating its schedule for the Update to the FFY 2021-24 MTIP/STIP,the above desire to include the MPO’s CY 2020 Safety Targets before releasingthe Draft FFY 2021-24 MTIP for public review, and the February PolicyCommittee meeting being held February 27 (to avoid the VML/VACo/VAPDCLocal Government Day on Feb. 6 and the VAPDC Winter Meeting Feb. 7), it isnecessary to change the schedule slightly. Attachment 3 is theComprehensive Tri-Cities Area MPO Schedule with the revised MTIP schedule.

INFORMATION ITEMS:

7. I-95 Corridor Improvement Plan – Attachment 4 Information

At the Fall Transportation Meeting on October 15, VDOT released the Draft Recommendations (Attachment 4). While the formal public comment period expired on October 31, MPO staff comments were submitted, and the MPO should discuss the Draft Recommendations and be ready for the Final Public Meeting in November, with CTB approval of the Final Plan at the December 11 CTB Action Meeting.

November 1, 2019 Tri-Cities MPO TAC Meeting Agenda Page 3

8. VTrans Draft Mid-Term Needs – Attachment 5 Information

The Draft Needs Assessment was presented at the October 15 FallTransportation Meeting. A webmeeting will be held on October 29 with theupdated invitation in Attachment 5. Hopefully a more complete showing ofthe Needs will be available before the October 29 web meeting.

The Draft Executive Summary and Draft Mid-Term Transportation Needs Report is coming online at http://vtrans.org/mid-term-planning/mid-term-needs. An interactive map of Draft Mid-Term Needs is online at http://vtransp.cdmsmithgis.com/mid-term-planning/InteractVTrans. OIPI is asking for comments by the public and local and regional agencies. The CTB will make its final decision at the December 11 CTB Action meeting.

9. RSTP/CMAQ – Draft Updated review process (Status) Information

As requested by the TAC at the September 6, 2019 TAC meeting, an MPO TACRSTP/CMAQ Workshop is scheduled for November 22, 2019, at the RichmondDistrict Auditorium, from 10 a.m. to Noon, with RRTPO, VDOT Lynchburg District,and VDOT CO Environmental staff invited to present their processes and/ormethods, data needs, etc.

10. RSTP/CMAQ Process for FY21-26 SYIP Information

In March 2020, the Draft RSTP/CMAQ allocations tables need to berecommended by the TAC for including in the Draft 2021-25 SYIP, withadoption by the Policy Committee afterward. In order to accomplish this, weneed to go over the schedule to get us there in a smooth process. Attachment3 also includes the proposed RSTP/CMAQ schedule.

11. Adoption of Updated TAC Bylaws – Attachment 6 Information

This is a Federal Certification corrective action. Attachment 6 is the comparison between the existing By-Laws and the latest draft that David Hyder gave the TAC in 2017. We need to go over and approve a final revision so the PDC can seek one legal review. Please review and provide comments so we can discuss any final revisions at the January 3, 2020 TAC meeting. Attachment 3 also includes a proposed schedule.

November 1, 2019 Tri-Cities MPO TAC Meeting Agenda Page 4

12. MPO SMART SCALE applications – Attachment 7 Information

We will continue discussion regarding the three items related to SMART SCALE.TAC is being asked to discuss this overall topic, then at a later meetingrecommend to the Policy Committee how to move forward with these threeitems.

The three discussion items are:

a. What projects the MPO may apply for in Round 4 - we will also discussthe SMART SCALE eligibility of these needs and project ideas (SMARTSCALE project type, VTrans Needs, Readiness). Attachment 7 includes arough draft matrix of factors for consideration of the 5 candidatesbrought up so far (and to use for any additional candidates brought upthis month).

b. Leveraging out-year RSTP/CMAQ for a SMART SCALE application inapplication years.

c. Studies/Analyses needed to help us with this effort

Attachment 7 also includes the presentation give to the CTB on October 16 titled Proposed Enhancements to SMART SCALE, Preparing for Round 4, and a spreadsheet of the Round 3 results for applicants in Tri-Cities with some MPO staff speculation about its upcoming VTrans Need. Attachment 3 also includes the proposed schedule of the MPO selection of applications and MPO resolutions of support.

13. Dashboard 4.0 Demonstration Information

Mark Riblett, PE, Richmond District ADA-Project Delivery will give a demonstration of Dashboard 4.0. This is a feature-rich tool that officials and the public can use to track projects.

14. Public Meetings Announced Information

• I-95 Corridor Improvement Plan Public Information Meeting, Final RoundMid-November?

15. DRPT Report Information

November 1, 2019 Tri-Cities MPO TAC Meeting Agenda Page 5

16. VDOT Report Information

17. Other Upcoming Items (beyond the Comprehensive Tri-Cities Area MPOSchedule (rest of FY20):

• MTP Schedule – in progress, plan to begin early 2020 with publicoutreach regarding vision, policies, existing conditions, and trends

• FFY 2018-21 TIP – updating document for your information later thismonth

18. Other Business

19. Adjournment

The December 6, 2019 TAC meeting will be canceled, along with the December 12 Policy Committee meeting.

Next meeting: Friday, January 3, 2020 at the Colonial Heights Public Library. This will be an important meeting based on the discussion we will have today.

DRAFT Minutes of October 4, 2019 TAC Meeting

DRAFT October 4, 2019 Tri-Cities MPO TAC Meeting Minutes Page 1

TRI-CITIES AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

REVISED Meeting Agenda Colonial Heights Public Library (1000 Yacht Basin Drive Colonial Heights, VA)

October 4, 2019 10:00 AM

Meeting Type: Annual RegularSpecial (Called)

Members Present:

Agency Name Chesterfield County Ms. Barb Smith City of Colonial Heights Mr. Chuck Henley, P.E. Prince George County Mr. Horace Wade (Chair) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Ms. Liz McAdory (alternate) Petersburg Area Transit Mr. Charles Koonce Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT)

Ms. Tiffany Dubinsky

Crater Planning District Commission Mr. Ron Svejkovsky (Secretary) Fort Lee Mr. Fritz Brandt RideFinders (A Division of GRTC) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Members Absent: Dinwiddie County Federal Transit Agency (FTA) City of Petersburg City of Hopewell Petersburg National Battlefield Park

Others Present: VDOT Crater PDC

Ms. Brigitte Tanner Carter Mr. Richard Duran

Mr. Mark Bassett Ms. Melissa P. McGill-Long Mr. Lionel Lyons Mr. Johnnie Butler Ms. Alexis Morris

Desmond Smallwood Jay Ruffa

1. Call to order

The meeting was called to order at 10:15 p.m. by Chair Wade. A quorum was present.

2. Public Comment Period

No members of the public spoke, the comment period was then closed.

Attachment 1

DRAFT Minutes of October 4, 2019 TAC Meeting

DRAFT October 4, 2019 Tri-Cities MPO TAC Meeting Minutes Page 2

ACTION ITEMS:

3. Approval of Agenda Approval

Mr. Henley moved, and Ms. McAdory seconded the motion for approval of the agenda. The motion was approved unanimously.

4. Approval of minutes from September 6 meeting – Attachment 1 Approval

Mr. Henley moved, and Ms. Smith seconded the motion for approval of the September 6 TACmeeting. The motion was approved unanimously.

5. Resolution of Support for TAP Applications – Attachment 2 Recommendation

Mr. Svejkovsky noted that it is required that TAP applications in an MPO area include an MPOresolution of support. He added that Attachment 2 is the list of applications with projectsketches. He also noted that MPO staff recommended approval of the resolution of support.

Mr. Henley moved, and Ms. Smith seconded the motion that TAC recommend MPO approvalof the MPO resolution of support for these TAP applications. The motion was approvedunanimously.

6. Transit TIP Amendments for Transit projects – Attachment 3 Recommendation

Mr. Svejkovsky noted that this action was upcoming, and PAT and DRPT have been workingon updating the project list and creating the associated TIP Amendments (Attachment 3).

Mr. Koonce noted the primary changes are less projects are being funded than expected andthese projects need to be removed from the TIP and STIP. He also there are also some revisionsto existing projects to fully fund a bus purchase.

Mr. Svejkovsky noted that DRPT and MPO staff recommend approval of the TIP amendments.

Mr. Henley moved, and Ms. McAdory seconded the motion that TAC recommend MPOapproval of the Transit TIP resolution. The motion was approved unanimously.

7. RSTP Funds transfer for UPC 109229 - Attachment 4 Recommendation

Mr. Svejkovsky noted that during the last round of RSTP/CMAQ allocations, the estimate usedfor UPC 109229 (Lakeview/Branders Bridge Roundabout) was incorrect. Therefore, he addedthat the MPO needs to adjust the RSTP allocations to make this right and allow PE for theproject to begin soon and be fully funded.

DRAFT Minutes of October 4, 2019 TAC Meeting

DRAFT October 4, 2019 Tri-Cities MPO TAC Meeting Minutes Page 3

Mr. Svejkovsky noted that the MPO and VDOT staff have reviewed the RSTP allocations table and a transfer plan was developed hat the County supported. Attachment 4 is the Draft revised RSTP allocations table showing the proposed transfers.

Mr. Svejkovsky noted that this plan shifts some funding within a couple of projects and reduces the Balance Entry account, and only affects the delivery of UPC 115783 (Rivermont Sidewalk), which would be delayed by 2 years (but this can be reviewed in the next round of RSTP/CMAQ allocations this Winter/Spring).

Mr. Svejkovsky also noted that Chesterfield County and MPO staff support this transfers plan.

Ms. Smith moved, and Mr. Henley seconded the motion that TAC recommend MPO approval of the funds transfers as presented. The motion was approved unanimously.

INFORMATION ITEMS:

8. RSTP/CMAQ – Draft Updated process/schedule Information

Mr. Svejkovsky noted that as requested by the TAC at the September 6, 2019 TAC meeting,an MPO TAC RSTP/CMAQ Workshop is being scheduled for October/November, withRRTPO, VDOT Lynchburg District, and VDOT CO Environmental staff invited to presenttheir processes and/or methods, data needs, etc.

9. MPO SMART SCALE applications – Attachment 5 Information

Mr. Svejkovsky noted that the TAC and Policy Committee both expressed the desire to discussas early as possible three items related to SMART SCALE. TAC is being asked to discuss thisoverall topic, then at a later meeting recommend to the Policy Committee how to move forwardwith these three items.

Mr. Svejkovsky noted that the three discussion items are:

a. What projects the MPO may apply for in Round 4 - we will also discuss the SMARTSCALE eligibility of these needs and project ideas (SMART SCALE project type,VTrans Needs, Readiness).

b. Leveraging out-year RSTP/CMAQ for a SMART SCALE application in applicationyears.

c. Studies/Analyses needed to help us with this effort

Mr. Svejkovsky added that Attachment 5 is a staff report which includes MPO staff and Policy Committee ideas plus a set of lists of needs as identified in various data/study sources (SPS V/C, PSIs, Congestion Management Process, I-95 Corridor Improvement Plan, I-85/95 Interchange RSA and Implementation Study, Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, etc.).

DRAFT Minutes of October 4, 2019 TAC Meeting

DRAFT October 4, 2019 Tri-Cities MPO TAC Meeting Minutes Page 4

Mr. Svejkovsky also noted that it appears the gathering of this information is also a good first start in the development of the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan and could spur some locality SMART SCALE Round 4 application ideas.

After some discussion, ……

10. Public Meetings (all tentative?)

• Ashland to Petersburg Trail Study Public MeetingSeptember 30, 2019 Hilton Garden Inn Richmond South/Southpark, 800 Southpark Blvd., Colonial Heights, Virginia 23834 5-7 p.m.

October 1, 2019 Kelly Education Center, Massey Conference Center Auditorium Lewis Ginter Botanical Garden 1800 Lakeside Avenue, Richmond, Virginia, 23228 5-7 p.m. http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/ashland-to-petersburg-trail-study.asp

• I-95 Corridor Study October Public Information MeetingOctober 15, 2019 Richmond Marriott Short Pump (joint with the Fall Transportation Meeting below) Richmond/Hampton Roads Districts http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/projects/major_projects/i-95_study.asp

• Richmond District Fall Transportation MeetingOctober 15, 2019 Richmond Marriott Short Pump, 4240 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA 23060 4-6 p.m. http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/default.asp

11. DRPT Report

Ms. Dubinsky informed the TAC members about the upcoming Grantees workshops on Wednesday November 13 at 10:30 a.m. and the 5303 workshop on November 14 from 10-1 at DRPT.

DRAFT Minutes of October 4, 2019 TAC Meeting

DRAFT October 4, 2019 Tri-Cities MPO TAC Meeting Minutes Page 5

Ms. Dubinsky also informed the TAC about Passenger Rail Month, which includes $10 tickets (using a code when purchasing online) to the Northeast Corridor

11. VDOT Report

Ms. McAdory informed the TAC members about the presentation given to the CTB last month (at 1:23-1:33) The actual rescission will be based on the obligations as of October 1, 2019, and will take aeffect in July 2020. She added it should have no effect upon projects currently moving also.

Ms. McAdory also stated the CTB’s next round of meetings will be October 16 (workshop) and October 17 (action).

Ms. McAdory also noted there are changes to the SMART SCALE process this Round. There is a pre-application requirement. She also added that the proposed schedule will be presented at the October 16 CTB Workshop.

Ms. McAdory noted that the VTrans Mid-Term Needs Update is underway and the Draft will be presented at the Fall Transportation Meetings (the Richmond District session will be October 15).

Ms. McAdory also noted that the public comment period for the Ashland to Petersburg Trail Study ends October 11.

Lastly, she noted that the Governors Transportation Conference will be November 20-22 at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City.

12. Other Upcoming Items:• Adoption of Updated TAC and Policy Committee Bylaws – this is a Federal

Certification corrective action• MTP Schedule – in progress• RSTP/CMAQ process – continued discussion, workshop being set up• SMART SCALE Round 4 – continued discussion regarding how the MPO and its

members may choose to apply for projects this Round• CY 2020 Safety Target – this will be a November agenda item, so it can be included in

the FFY2021-24 TIP• FFY 2018-21 TIP – updated document for your information• The final I-95 Public Meeting will be in November• We have finished updating the server and are updating the webpage. Tri-Cities Area

MPO is on the online calendar and on Facebook.

DRAFT Minutes of October 4, 2019 TAC Meeting

DRAFT October 4, 2019 Tri-Cities MPO TAC Meeting Minutes Page 6

13. Other Business

There was no other business.

14. Adjournment

Mr. Henley moved, and Ms. Smith seconded the motion to adjourn. The meeting wasadjourned at 11:23 a.m.

Mr. Wade stated the next meeting will be held Friday, November 1, 2019 at the ColonialHeights Public Library.

Submittal of MPO 2020 Safety Performance Targets 1

November 15, 2019

Mr. Raymond Khoury, P.E. State Traffic Engineer Traffic Engineering Division Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219

Dear Mr. Khoury:

The Tri-Cities Area MPO submits this letter to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to fulfill the March 2016 FHWA final rulemaking (23 CFR 490) for National Performance Measures for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) target setting requirements. The Safety Performance rulemaking requires MPOs to agree to contribute to meeting the State DOT safety targets or to establish safety targets for each of the five safety measures including number of fatalities, rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT), number of serious injuries, rate of serious injuries per 100 million VMT, and number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries.

The selected methodology and selected targets are outlined below acknowledging acceptance to support the VDOT target, to set a numerical target for each performance measure specific to the MPO planning area, or any combination of these two methods for all five safety performance targets.

By supporting any of the VDOT targets we agree to plan and program projects to contribute toward achieving the State target, and must not only consider safety, but increase the safety of the transportation system. Details of the methodology used to estimate VMT for our MPO area within Virginia for establishing our rate targets is provided in the additional information section below.

Methodology Summary VDOT MPO If MPO, applicable data analysis method

Number of fatalities ☒ ☐ Choose an item.

Rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) ☒ ☐ Choose an item.

Number of serious injuries ☒ ☐ Choose an item.

Rate of serious injuries per 100 million VMT ☒ ☐ Choose an item.

Number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries ☒ ☐ Choose an item.

Attachment 2

Submittal of 2020 Safety Performance Targets 2

2020 Safety Performance Targets The following target values were calculated using the target annual percent reductions:

Target Description Target Value

Fatalities 19 Fatality Rate 0.90 Serious Injuries 153 Serious Injury Rate 7.37 Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries 13

We acknowledge MPO targets are reported to VDOT and will be made available to FHWA upon request. Our 2020 safety targets are submitted for each performance measure on all public roads within 180 days after the VDOT reported its statewide targets, which falls on January 27, 2020.

For questions or comments, please contact me at rsvejkovsky@craterpdc.org and 804-861-1666 .

Respectfully,

Mr. T. J. Webb Chairman, Tri-Cities Metropolitan Planning Organization

Mr. Ronald Svejkovsky Secretary, Tri-Cities Metropolitan Planning Organization

CC: Mr. Shane Mann, Richmond District Engineer Liz McAdory, Richmond District Planning Manager

Comprehensive Tri-Cities Area MPO Schedule (rest of FY20)

FFY 2021-24 MTIP Process November TAC (11/1) and Policy Committee (11/14) approve the revised schedule for this round

(Note: FY20 MPO Safety Target approved to include in the Draft MTIP) January Draft MTIP reviewed by TAC (1/3) and approved by Policy Committee (1/9) for 30-day

Public Review (public review 1/15 – 2/14) March TAC (3/6) and Policy Committee (3/12) approve Final MTIP subject to conformity (if no

comments, could be Feb. 27?) Note: VDOT needs the MTIPs by the end of April

FY21-26 RSTP/CMAQ Update Process November FY21-26 Schedule announced at TAC, set up individual meetings with localities December VDOT Richmond District and MPO individual meetings with localities, receive updates on

VDOT administered and Locally Administered Projects (due December 31) February VDOT updates tables, meets with MPO staff March TAC (3/6) and Policy Committee (3/12) approve Draft RSTP/CMAQ Allocations for 15-day

Public Review; Draft put into GENMOD. Note: usually are due to VDOT in mid-March April TAC (4/3) and Policy Committee (4/9) approve Final RSTP/CMAQ allocations

By-Laws Update November Side-by-Side Comparisons given to TAC (11/1) and Policy Committee (11/14) January TAC (1/3) and Policy Committee (1/9) discuss and make revisions, send to PDC attorney April TAC and Policy Committee make final approvals (if ready)

SMART SCALE Round 4 December CTB approved VTrans Mid-Term Needs January MPO selects projects for application (Note: could be Feb. but the absolute latest is March

12; pre-app period is from March 5 - April 2) March Portal opens 3/5; MPO submits pre-applications. Note: deadline is April 2 5:00 p.m. June MPO adopts resolutions of support for locality applications and MPO applications July MPO finishes applications

FY21 UPWP Process April TAC (4/3) and Policy Committee (4/9) Review Draft for 30-day public review including

FHWA and FTA review (public review April 13-May 13) May TAC (5/1) and Policy Committee (5/14) approve Final FY21 UPWP. Note: if substantial

comments, finish in June (TAC 6/5, Policy Committee 6/25)

2045 MTP Process February Public Outreach begins? June TAC and Policy review public outreach results, start Draft MTP process

Attachment 3

10/22/2019 Craterpdc.org Mail - I-95 Corridor Improvement Plan 2nd Series Public Meeting Held Tuesday Night for Richmond and Hampton Roads …

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=40f3132aca&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar4325861138594302931%7Cmsg-a%3Ar432090368464… 1/2

Ron Svejkovsky <rsvejkovsky@craterpdc.org>

I-95 Corridor Improvement Plan 2nd Series Public Meeting Held Tuesday Night forRichmond and Hampton Roads Districts1 message

Ron Svejkovsky <rsvejkovsky@craterpdc.org> Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 9:19 AMTo: Alexis Morris <amorris@nps.gov>, Brian McPeters <brian.mcpeters@kimley-horn.com>, Brigitte Tanner Carter<bcarter@ridefinders.com>, "Charles Koonce Jr." <ckoonce@petersburg-va.org>, "Chessa D. Faulkner"<FaulknerC@chesterfield.gov>, Chet Parsons <cparsons@planrva.org>, Chuck Henley <henleyc@colonialheightsva.gov>,Dama Rice <dama.rice@att.net>, Dan Koenig <daniel.koenig@dot.gov>, "Daphne H. Campbell"<Daphne.Campbell@vdot.virginia.gov>, Darius Mason <dmason@petersburg-va.org>, Deborah Acoy <dacoy@cdaaa.org>,Dennis Morris <dmorris@craterpdc.org>, Desmond Smallwood <desmond.smallwood@vdot.virginia.gov>, "Douglas E. Smith"<smithd@colonialheightsva.gov>, Ed Watson <ewatson@hopewellva.gov>, Fritz Brandt <Frederick.r.brandt.civ@mail.mil>,"Grinnell, Daniel T. (VDOT)" <Daniel.Grinnell@vdot.virginia.gov>, Heather Barrar <hbarrar@folar-va.org>, Horace Wade<HWade@princegeorgecountyva.gov>, Jay Ruffa <jruffa@craterpdc.org>, Jillian Dunnam <jillian.a.dunnam.ctr@mail.mil>,John Riley <jriley@jmt.com>, Johnnie Butler <jbutler@hopewellva.gov>, Julia Steele <julia_steele@nps.gov>, Kelly Hall<hallk@colonialheightsva.gov>, Lionel Lyons <llyons@petersburg-va.org>, Liz McAdory <liz.mcadory@vdot.virginia.gov>,Mark Bassett <mbassett@dinwiddieva.us>, "Mark E. Riblett" <Mark.Riblett@vdot.virginia.gov>, Melinda Baicy<Melinda.Baicy@vdot.virginia.gov>, Michelle Peters <MPeters@petersburg-va.org>, "Ponticello, James (VDOT)"<jim.ponticello@vdot.virginia.gov>, Progress Index <newsroom@progress-index.com>, Richard Duran<richard.duran@dot.gov>, Ronald Svejkovsky <rsvejkovsky@craterpdc.org>, Ryan Long <ryan.long@dot.gov>, SamuelHayes <shayes@moffattnichol.com>, Sean Gorman <sgorman@timesdispatch.com>, "Smith, Barbara K."<SmithBK@chesterfield.gov>, "Smith, Crystal (VDOT)" <CRYSTAL.SMITH@vdot.virginia.gov>, Stephanie Harris<SHarris@petersburg-va.org>, Tangela Innis <tinnis@petersburg-va.org>, "Tiffany Dubinsky (DRPT)"<Tiffany.Dubinsky@drpt.virginia.gov>, Timothy Blumenschine <tim.blumenschine@nps.gov>, Todd Flippen<flippent@colonialheightsva.gov>, Tom Redfern <redferniii9@aol.com>

TAC Members:

Tuesday night, I attended (on behalf of Crater PDC and the Tri-Cities Area MPO) the joint Fall Transportation Meeting/I-95Corridor Improvement Plan Public Meeting (2nd Series), which was held from 4-7 p.m. at the Richmond Marriott - ShortPump. TAC Chair Horace Wade also attended.

At the joint Meeting, the sets of I-95 Corridor maps of Potential Improvements (not prioritized) and of PotentialImprovements That Require Further Study were displayed. These were noted by Deputy Secretary Donohue as ideas forfurther discussion by the public, VDOT and DRPT staff; and ultimately the approval by the Commonwealth TransportationBoard (CTB). The 3rd series of public meetings (to discuss prioritizing the Potential Improvements, PotentialImprovements That Require Further Study, and the Plan report) will be held in mid-November and the CTB will approvethe final Plan report in their December meetings for forwarding to the General Assembly for their next session.

Attached are the pertinent maps for the Tri-Cities MPO area.

The Potential Improvements in the Tri-Cities MPO area (not prioritized) are:

Extend SB acceleration lane (Exit 41)Improve NB curve (MM 42-43)Extend NB deceleration lane (Exit 45)Extend NB acceleration lane (Exit 45)Construct flyover ramp from NB I-95 to SB I-85 (Study Completed)Extend NB deceleration lane (Exit 52)Extend SB acceleration lane (Exit 53)Improve interchange configuration I-95 at Route 10 interchange improvements and Park & Ride lot - Phase 2(Study Completed; Exit 61) Note: this is just outside our MPO area but affects us.

The Potential Improvements That Require Further Study include:

Improve interchange configuration at U.S. 460 (Wagner Road) to remove weaving movements. (FurtherStudy Required; Exit 48)Improve interchange configuration at Roslyn Road to address safety issues. (Further Study Required; Exit 53)New Park & Ride lot near Route 620 (Woods Edge Road; Exit 58)

Attachment 4

10/22/2019 Craterpdc.org Mail - I-95 Corridor Improvement Plan 2nd Series Public Meeting Held Tuesday Night for Richmond and Hampton Roads …

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=40f3132aca&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar4325861138594302931%7Cmsg-a%3Ar432090368464… 2/2

At the Meeting, I spoke with Ben Mannell (the VDOT Project Manager) about the Flyover Ramp improvement included inthe Potential Improvements list. It appeared early in our conversation that they want to improve the I-95/I-85 Interchange(it is one of the highest crash issue locations along I-95) but they mistakenly believed the I-95 NB to I-85 SB FlyoverRamps project (a portion of the study's overall recommended interchange improvements) was our top priority of the threeI-95/I-85 Interchange projects (it is actually our Priority #3) and they are willing to look at one of the other I-95/I-85Interchange Priority projects if that is our preference. I briefly explained the background of the RSA and InterchangeFeasibility Study and the three I-95/I-85 SMART SCALE projects that came from these studies, and informed him theMPO Policy Committee and the Crater PDC both reminded me at their October 10 meetings that our Priority #1 fromthese studies is the I-85 NB to I-95 SB (with the Business 460 and Crater Road off ramps) project, and the I-95 NB to I-85SB Flyover Ramps project is our Priority #3.

I added to Ben that the I-85 NB to I-95 SB Priority #1 project just missed SMART SCALE funding in Rounds 1 and 2, andthat in Round 3 it scored much better/provided much more safety, etc. benefits at 1/4 the cost of the Flyover Rampproject. He indicated they would take a look at the I-85 NB to I-95 SB Priority #1 project and its SMART SCALEapplication (#4403) and see if it would be better to replace the NB I-95 to SB I-85 Flyover Ramp project (our Priority #3)on their Potential Improvements list with the I-85 NB to I-95 SB project (our Priority #1). I followed up with an email to BenMannell with additional information yesterday. Hopefully, this review will result in a favorable change that will bereflected at the 3rd (and Final) series of public meetings in Mid-November.

The other recommendations above are good news, too!

The public comment period for these recommendations (not prioritized) ends October 31. Comments can besubmitted on the online Metroquest Survey on the Plan's website. More information can also be found on the Projectwebsite. Please pass this information and links to your administrations, elected officials, citizens groups, etc. This is avery short comment period, with only 2 weeks left. http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/projects/major_projects/i-95_study.asp

Comments can also be emailed to: Va95corridorplan@vdot.virginia.gov

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks!

Ron SvejkovskyDirector, Tri-Cities Area MPOphone: 804-861-1666email: rsvejkovsky@craterpdc.org

2 attachments

Tri-Cities pages from i-95_richmond_district_proposed_improvements.pdf2985K

i-95_richmond_district_projects_for_further_study.pdf921K

EXIT 453

BOARD 4

EXIT 411

EXIT 454

POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS

# Location Direction Potential Improvements

1 EXIT 41 SB Extend acceleration lane

2 MM 42 to MM 43 NB Improve curve

3 EXIT 45 NB Extend deceleration lane

4 EXIT 45 NB Extend acceleration lane

Crash

Freq

uency

and Se

verit

y

Crash

Seve

rity R

ate

Tota

l Dela

y

Incid

ent D

elay

Move

More

People

Impro

ve Sa

fety

Reduce

Rec

urring C

ongestio

n

Reduce

Non-R

ecurri

ng Conges

tion

Targeted Issues Goals

MM 42 TO MM 432

Richmond District: MM 37 to MM 50

Number of Public Comments Per Board

CONGESTION SAFETY MULTIMODALALTERNATE ROUTING

TECHNOLOGY OTHER

8 3 0 0 1 1

I-95 Mainline

I-95 Corridor Improvement PlanPotential Improvements

Board 4 of 15

POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Wegmeyer Farms

+1

DRAFT

Total delay

Incident delay (lane closure > 1 hr)

Crash frequency and severity

Crash severity rate

PERFORMANCE MEASURES BY DIRECTION

Changeable Message Signs (CMS)

Cameras

EXISTING OPERATIONS/MULTIMODAL

P&R Lot*

(as presented at the July Public Meetings)

Mile Marker (MM)

Reference

LEGEND: Potential Improvements

MULTIMODAL

INFRASTRUCTUREAcceleration/ Deceleration Lane Extension

Curve Improvement

Auxiliary Lane

Widening by One Lane+1 Potential Solution

Recently Constructed, Under Construction, or Funded Project

Interchange Improvement

P&R Lot Improvement

New P&R Lot

OPERATIONS

Ramp Metering

Hard Shoulder Running

Shoulder Widening

Mile Marker (MM)

Reference

LEGEND: Existing Conditions

For each measure, the top 25% of all mile-long segments in the I-95 corridor across Virginia are shown. Dashed lines (-----) indicate segments that are no longer projected to be in the top 25% by 2025 due to improvements.

*Existing or to be constructed by 2025

FUNDED PROJECTS

ID # UPC # Description

1 113386 Bridge deck replacements for southbound I-95 over Route 301/460

2 109308 New Petersburg Station Park & Ride parking deck

3 102952 Route 10 widening from 4 to 6 lanes

4 109322 Exit 61 - I-95 at Route 10 interchange improvements

5 111466 Northbound and southbound I-95 auxiliary lanes between Exit 61 and Exit 62

BOARD 5

EXIT 538

EXIT 527

3

5

5

4

1

EXISTING CONDITIONS

POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS

POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS

# Location Direction Potential Improvements

6 EXIT 51 NBConstruct flyover ramp from northbound I-95 to southbound I-85. (Study Completed)

7 EXIT 52 NB Extend deceleration lane

8 EXIT 53 SB Extend acceleration lane

9 EXIT 61 NB/SB

Improve interchange configuration. I-95 at Route 10 interchange improvements and Park & Ride lot - Phase 2 (Study Completed)

Crash

Freq

uency

and Se

verit

y

Crash

Seve

rity R

ate

Tota

l Dela

y

Incid

ent D

elay

Ramp Sp

acin

g

Mer

ge/Dive

rge a

rea

Move

More

People

Impro

ve Sa

fety

Reduce

Rec

urring C

ongestio

n

Reduce

Non-R

ecurri

ng Conges

tion

Targeted Issues Contributing Factors Goals

EXIT 516

EXIT 619

Board 5 of 15

2

LEGEND: Existing Conditions

Total delay

Incident delay (lane closure > 1 hr)

Crash frequency and severity

Crash severity rate

PERFORMANCE MEASURES BY DIRECTION

Changeable Message Signs (CMS)

Cameras

EXISTING OPERATIONS/MULTIMODAL

P&R Lot*

(as presented at the July Public Meetings)

Mile Marker (MM)

Reference

LEGEND: Potential Improvements

MULTIMODAL

INFRASTRUCTUREAcceleration/ Deceleration Lane Extension

Curve Improvement

Auxiliary Lane

Widening by One Lane+1 Potential Solution

Recently Constructed, Under Construction, or Funded Project

Interchange Improvement

P&R Lot Improvement

New P&R Lot

OPERATIONS

Ramp Metering

Hard Shoulder Running

Shoulder Widening

Mile Marker (MM)

Reference

For each measure, the top 25% of all mile-long segments in the I-95 corridor across Virginia are shown. Dashed lines (-----) indicate segments that are no longer projected to be in the top 25% by 2025 due to improvements.

*Existing or to be constructed by 2025

I-95 Mainline

I-95 Corridor Improvement PlanPotential Improvements

Richmond District: MM 50 to MM 62

Number of Public Comments Per Board

CONGESTION SAFETY MULTIMODALALTERNATE ROUTING

TECHNOLOGY OTHER

67 50 1 5 4 6

I-95 Corridor Improvement PlanPotential Improvements that Require Further Study

Richmond District

N

POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT REQUIRE FURTHER STUDY

ID # Description Location

1Improve interchange configuration at U.S. 460 (Wagner Road) to remove weaving movements. (Further Study Required)

Exit 48

2 Improve interchange configuration at Roslyn Road to address safety issues. (Further Study Required) Exit 53

3 New Park & Ride lot near Route 620 (Woods Edge Road) Exit 58

4 Improve interchange configuration at Commerce Road to address safety issues. (Further Study Underway) Exit 69

5Improve interchange configuration with I-64 to improve the southbound I-95 to westbound I-64 ramp. (Further Study Required)

Exit 79

6Remove Hermitage Road/Brook Road interchange and construct new interchange at Dumbarton Road. Widen northbound I-95 on-ramp from eastbound I-64 to two lanes. (Further Study Required)

Exit 80

7 Improve interchange configuration at Parham Road to remove weaving movements. (Further Study Required) Exit 83

8 Improve interchange configuration with I-295 by adding a northbound C-D road (Further Study Required) Exit 84

9 New Park & Ride lot near I-295 and Virginia Center Commons Exit 84

10 New Park & Ride lot near Lewistown Road and Lakeridge Parkway Exit 89

Interchange Improvement Express Lanes Improvement Park & Ride Improvement

1

2

3

4

5

67

89

10

10/22/2019 Craterpdc.org Mail - I-95 Corridor Improvement Plan - follow-up on comments

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=40f3132aca&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-9013050605775275096%7Cmsg-a%3Ar-90113981225… 1/1

Ron Svejkovsky <rsvejkovsky@craterpdc.org>

I-95 Corridor Improvement Plan - follow-up on comments1 message

Ron Svejkovsky <rsvejkovsky@craterpdc.org> Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:42 AMTo: "Robert B. Mannell" <ben.mannell@vdot.virginia.gov>Cc: Dennis Morris <dmorris@craterpdc.org>

Ben,

It was good talking with you yesterday at the Fall Transportation Meeting.

We are pleased with the I-95 Corridor Improvement Plan's desire to make improvements to address the VDOT-documented and studied needs in Tri-Cities, particularlyat the I-95/85 Interchange.

On Thursday, October 10, at their regular meetings, our Tri-Cities Area MPO Policy Committee and our Crater PDC Board reminded me with these two thoughts aboutthe I-95/I-85 Interchange:

The I-95/I-85 RSA (by Kimley-Horn) and the I-95 & I-85 Interchange Feasibility Study (by Kittleson) recommended overall interchange improvements that weresplit into three smaller projects to make them competitive in SMART SCALEThe highest need of these three is the I-85 NB to I-95 SB with the Business 460 and Crater Road exit ramps (this was identified as "I-85 NB to I-95 SB - Tri-Cities MPO HB2 Priority 1" (i.e., Priority #1) in the SMART SCALE applications; PE for Priority #1 SB was included in the 2040 and overall improvements inearlier LRTPs).

As we discussed yesterday, this application (for Priority #1) scored well but just missed funding in Rounds 1 and 2 of SMART SCALE. For Round 3, VDOT broughtKittleson back to update/clarify the concepts and project sketch (copy attached) and to assist in the estimate update (the estimate was doubled). This became theRound 3 project application - App. #4403 (Tri-Cities Area MPO) and App. #5035 (City of Petersburg). More details are in SMART SCALE application #4403.

This project application for Priority #1 did not score high enough for funding in Round 3, but in Round 3 benefits-wise this project scored statewide in the top 50 forsafety, top 25 for disadvantaged access to jobs, top 30 for access to jobs, top 35 for delay, and top 45 in environment score. Had the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnelnot been applied for and funded in Round 3, this project's benefit score was high enough to possibly be funded in Step 3.

Note: Priority #1 has much higher benefits with a cost estimate of less than 1/4 of the cost estimate for Priority #3.

If you need anything more to help in your review, please let me know. Thank you for your help!

Ron SvejkovskyDirector, Tri-Cities Area MPOphone: 804-861-1666email: rsvejkovsky@craterpdc.org

Concept for Apps 4403 and 5035 - Priority 1.pdf641K

10/22/2019 Craterpdc.org Mail - POSTPONEMENT NOTICE: Oct 22 VTrans Mid Term Needs Assessment Webinar

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=40f3132aca&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1648033811842919394%7Cmsg-f%3A16480338118429… 1/1

Ron Svejkovsky <rsvejkovsky@craterpdc.org>

POSTPONEMENT NOTICE: Oct 22 VTrans Mid Term Needs Assessment Webinar1 message

Wichman, Christopher <chris.wichman@oipi.virginia.gov> Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 3:51 PMTo: comment@vtrans.orgCc: "Ramchandani, Jitender" <jitender.ramchandani@oipi.virginia.gov>, "Schwing, Katie" <kathryn.schwing@oipi.virginia.gov>Bcc: rsvejkovsky@craterpdc.org

Good Afternoon,

Due to technical difficulties that arose over the weekend, we must postpone the VTrans Mid Term Needs Assessment Overview webinar originally scheduled forTuesday, October 22 at 10 a.m. See notice below with updated information:

VTrans Mid Term Needs Assessment Overview Webinar - Tuesday, October 29, 2019, from 10 am - 11:00 am: In the webinar, OIPI staff will describe the methodology and measures for identifying VTrans Needs (updated as a result of many regional workshops around the state in July and August). To help anticipate participants’ interests and questions, please take a minute to register for the webinar here: https://bowen-icfi.adobeconnect.com/vtran-mid-term/event/event_info.html. This presentation will be recorded and a copy of the materials will be made available within a few days of the webinar on VTrans.org

If you had already registered for the 10/22 event, your registration is still valid and will be rolled over to the 10/29 event. We apologize for any inconvenience this maycause. Please feel free to contact the VTrans team at any time if you have questions about the webinar or about any aspects of the VTrans process.

Thank you,

Chris WichmanIntermodal Planning and Investment Office of the Secretary of TransportationPhone 804.786.2366 | Chris.Wichman@oipi.virginia.gov

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 3:54 PM Schwing, Katie <kathryn.schwing@oipi.virginia.gov> wrote:Good A�ernoon,

The Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment (OIPI) would like to make you aware of opportuni�es to par�cipate in upcoming mee�ngs and comment on Dra� VTrans Mid-term Transporta�on Needs.

The Dra� Needs will start becoming available next week via InteractVTrans, the online webmap.

The Dra� Mid-term Needs, once adopted by the Commonwealth Transporta�on Board (CTB), are intended to be u�lized for the next round (Round 4) of SMART SCALE, for which the applica�on intake will occur in Spring of 2020.

Please u�lize one or more of the following opportuni�es to provide comments on the dra� VTrans Mid-term Needs:

A�end a Commonwealth Transporta�on Board’s Fall Transporta�on Mee�ng in your area where the VTrans Team will be present;Par�cipate in an upcoming webinar:

Webinar Presenta�on, Ques�on and Answer Session - Tuesday, October 22, 2019, from 10 am - 11:00 am: In the webinar, OIPI staff will describe the methodology and measures for iden�fying VTrans Needs (updated as a result of many regional workshops around the state in July and August). To help an�cipate par�cipants’ interests and ques�ons, please take a minute to register for the webinar here: h�ps://bowen-icfi.adobeconnect.com/vtran-mid-term/event/event_info.html. This presenta�on will be recorded and a copy of the materials will be made available within a few days of the webinar on VTrans.org

Please feel free to forward this invita�on to colleagues who may be interested. They will be able to register separately for the webinar. Advance registra�on is not required.

Thanks and please let me know if you have any ques�ons,

-- Katie Schwing, AICP

Program AnalystIntermodal Planning & InvestmentSecretary of Transportation's Office1221 E. Broad St, Richmond, VA 23219kathryn.schwing@oipi.virginia.gov804-786-2362

Attachment 5

1 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

Proposed Technical Advisory Committee Bylaws Revision

Side by Side Comparison

Rationale In preparing for our certification review the MPO staff has been looking at our guiding documents. These include the Memorandum for Transportation Planning (MOU), the Bylaws of the Policy Committee and the Technical Committee, the Prospectus for Transportation Planning.

The Memorandum for Transportation Planning is may be negotiated between The Crater PDC, PAT, and VDOT after each Census or when the MPO boundary changes or when a new jurisdiction becomes a member. The most recent MOU seems to have been signed in 2009. It looks to still apply so there is no reason to review it at the moment.

The most recent bylaws I have found for the Technical Committee are dated 2003. They are missing some provisions that may be important even though they have never occurred. They also do not match the way the Technical Committee is doing business and could be used to suggest that the MPO is not living by its own rules and with federal regulations.

It appears as though the Policy Committee Bylaws are older and also need to be revised too. We will begin working on that after we finish revising the TAC bylaws.

Our Prospectus for Transportation Planning (1979) is also outdated. The Prospectus is a combination of procedure manual and MPO Handbook. It should include discussion of the MPO’s boundaries, history and divide responsibilities among the members. Each member of the Technical Committee and of the Policy Committee should have a copy of the Prospectus as a guide for working with the MPO. The Prospectus also needs to be accessible from the Internet so the public is informed of how we operate.

Issues to Address Our bylaws are an agreement that puts in writing how the TAC is run. The Bylaws need to reflect our common work and meeting practices. They also need to address things that commonly occur, or that may occur and cause problems. Most of the issues we have discovered are because we need more specifics in how we operate. We are suggesting others to better organize the Bylaws. There are some places where the

Attachment 6

2 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

Bylaws need to better match the MOU. Finally, we are trying to brand the MPO using a consistent font and color palette. The issues are:

• The TAC has an even number of voting members;• The TAC must (shall vs. may) add non-voting members however, the process for

adding, or removing, non-voting members is not discussed in the bylaws;• Member eligibility is discussed in terms of technical ability, but not in terms of

employment relationship;• The issues of who appoints members to the committee is not addressed;• The difference between voting and non-voting members is not specified;• Duties are specific only for the Secretary (they are also distributed across the

bylaws) ;• No term of office is specified;• The process for nominating officers is not specified;• It is not clear when in the calendar officers will be elected; and• The current bylaws do not allow for called meetings.

The table below shows the current bylaws side by side with the proposed language. It also includes a discussion of the reason for individual changes to help think through the proposal.

3 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

Notes and Comments

2003 Text Proposed Changes Decision

TRI-CITIES AREA TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE BY-LAWS

BY-LAWS OF THE TRI-CITIES AREA TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

ARTICLE I- NAME AND AUTHORITY ARTICLE I – NAME AND AUTHORITY

Section 1 The name of this committee shal l be known as the Tri -Cities Area Transportation Advisory Committee of the Tri -Cities Area Metropol i tan Planning Organization hereinafter cal led the Technical Advisory Committee.

Section 1: Name The name of this organization shal l be the Tri -Cities Area Transportation Technical Advisory Committee, hereinafter cal led the Technical Committee.

This section of the 2003 bylaws seems to belong in Article II of the Bylaws. It is a short statement of the purpose of the TAC and seems to fit better there.

Section 2 The Technical Advisory Committee shal l serve in an advisory capacity to the Pol icy Committee of the Tri -Cities Area Metropol i tan Planning Organization.

Section 3 The Tri -Cities Area Metropol i tan Policy Committee (MPO) has been formed in accordance with "An Agreement for Cooperatively Conducting the Metropol i tan

Section 2: Authority The Technical Committee shal l have the authori ty prescribed in the most recent “An Agreement for Cooperatively Conducting the Metropol i tan

4 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

Transportation Planning and Programming Process in the Tri -Cities Area" dated August 30, 1995 and executed by parties representing the Vi rginia Department of Transportation, the City of Petersburg, the Crater Planning District Commission and the Tri -Cities Area Metropol i tan Planning Organization.

Transportation Planning and Programming Process in the Tri -Cities Metropol i tan Area between the Vi rginia Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the VDOT, The Transportation Planning Committee of the Crater Planning District Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Metropol i tan Planning Organization (MPO), Petersburg Area Transi t, hereinafter referred to as PAT, and the Richmond Metropol i tan Ai r Qual i ty Committee.

ARTICLE II-PURPOSE ARTICLE II – PURPOSE

The proposal reorganizes Article II to emphasize our advisory duty to the Policy Committee and the role of the TAC in reviewing our work products. The section heading is deleted because there is only one section in the article.

Section 1 The Technical Advisory Committee wi l l perform the fol lowing:

1) determine the inf luence ofcurrent socio-economic andtravel data upon regionaltransportation plans andprograms in relation toprevious data and projectedtrends;

2) cooperate in the developmentof procedures for thecol lection of traff ic data andreassignment of traff ic;

3) work with the staffs of the

The purpose of the Technical Committee shal l be to: 1. Advise the MPO on the

technical meri t of transportation plans, programs or projects;

2. review, and comment uponthe products of themetropol i tan transportationplanning process; assistVDOT, PAT and memberjuri sdictions or agencies onany proposal , alternate l ines,and work performed on thelocation and design oftransportation faci l i t ies

5 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

Crater Planning District Commission, the Petersburg Area Transi t, the Vi rginia Department of Transportation and the Vi rginia Department of Rai l And Publ ic Transportation on any proposal , alternates l ines, or alternate faci l i ty designs; and,

4) Serve in an advisory capacityto the Pol icy Committee.

contained in adopted metropol i tan transportation plans and programs;

3. determine the inf luence ofcurrent socio-economic,travel , and ai r quali ty dataupon the transportationplans, programs andprojects in the metropol i tanarea in relation to previousdata and projected trends;and

4. Cooperate in developingprocedures for col lectingtransportation data,developing travel demandmodels, developingtransportation projects andselecting transportationprojects for funding.

ARTICLE III- MEMBERSHIP ARTICLE III – MEMBERSHIP

The proposal reorganizes the membership list so that it is more understandable. When this is done, the committee has ten voting members. On controversial issues this could lead to a deadlock. There are two ways of

Section 1 The Technical Advisory Committee shal l be composed of one (1) voting member representing each local government within the Tri -Cities Transportation Study Area. The Technical Advisory Committee shal l also include one (1) voting member each representing the Crater Planning District Commission, Petersburg

Section 1: Classes of Members There shal l be voting members and non-voting, or advisory, members.

Voting members may serve as off icers, participate in discussion and debate, and make motions, second motions and vote on motions. Non-voting members may make motions, second motions and participate in debate. The

6 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

resolving this issue: 1. Change one

voting member (e.g., the PDC) from voting to non-voting or

2. Prohibit the presiding officer (i.e., the chair or vice chair) or secretary from voting except to break a tie. Section 1 conflicts with Section 2. Section 1 seems to limit the non-voting members to FHWA and FTA while Section 2 requires the TAC to add additional non-voting members.

Area Transi t, the Vi rginia Department of Transportation, the Vi rginia Department of Rai l and Publ ic Transportation.

The Technical Advisory Committee shal l also be composed of one (1) nonvoting member each representing the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transi t Administration.

voting members shal l include: • One (1) member f rom

Chesterf ield County, • One (1) member f rom the

City of Colonial Heights, • One (1)member from the

Crater Planning District Commission,

• One (1)member f rom Dinwiddie County,

• One (1)member from the City of Hopewell ,

• One (1)member from the City of Petersburg,

• One (1)member from the Petersburg Area Transi t (PAT)

• One (1)member f rom Prince George County,

• One (1)member from the Vi rginia Department of Transportation, and

• One (1) member f rom the Vi rginia Department of Rai l and Publ ic Transportation.

The non-voting members shal l include at least:

• A representative of the Federal Highway Administration,

• A representative of the Federal Transi t

7 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

Administration, • A representative of the

Department of Defense (Fort Lee)

• A representative the National Park Service (Petersburg National Battlefield,

• A representative of the Vi rginia Department of Envi ronmental Qual i ty, and

• A representative of Ridefinders.

The Technical Committee may change the non-voting membership l i st, as needed, to carry out i ts duties, by revis ing this section of the Bylaws as described in Article VI I I Section 1 of these bylaws.

Section 2 requires the TAC to add non-voting members. However, as noted above this conflicts with Section 1. Also there is no provision for removing nonvoting representation.

Section 2 The Technical Advisory Committee shal l establ i sh additional membership that i t deems necessary to carry out i ts duties

As the bylaws are written anyone

Section 3 Appointments to the Technical Advisory Committee shal l be

Section 2: Eligibility Only current employees of member jurisdictions are

8 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

from a member jurisdiction could assume the role of a TAC staff member. This section should require that members should be employees of the agency they represent.

f i l led by persons trained and knowledgeable in transportation planning or who, by thei r posi tion, have an interest and responsibi l i ty in transportation planning.

el igible for appointment as members of the TAC. Members of the Technical Committee shal l be knowledgeable intransportation engineering, transportation planning, urban planning, transit administration, public administration, economic development, or other related discipl ine and, who by their posit ion have an interest in or responsibi l i ty for transportation planning or operations . Section 3: Appointments The Crater Planning District Commission, VDOT and VDRPT shal l always have the right to appoint members to the Technical Committee subject to the requirements Article I I I Section 2 of these bylaws. For the purposes of this section Petersburg Area Transi t shal l be considered part of the City of Petersburg. Organizations appointing non-voting members always have the right appoint a member. For member units of general

9 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

purpose government (ci t ies and counties) the appointments shal l be made by the City Manager or County Administrator, as appropriate. For agency members the appointments shal l be made by the local executive for that agency: • For Crater Planning District

Commission the appointment shal l be made by the Executive Di rector of the Crater Planning District Commission;

• For DOD (Fort Lee) the appointment shal l be made by the di rector of publ ic works for Fort Lee;

• For FHWA the appointment shal l be made by the FHWA Division Administrator for Vi rginia;

• For the National Park Service (Petersburg National Battlefield) the appointment shal l be made by the Administrator of the Petersburg National Battlefield;

10 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

• The General Manager of Petersburg Area Transi t (or his designee) shal l be a member of the Technical Committee;

• For VDRPT the appointment shal l be made by the Di rector of Rai l and Publ ic Transportation;

• For VDEQ the appointment shal l be made by the Di rector of the Vi rginia Department of Envi ronmental Qual i ty;

• For VDOT the appointment shal l be made by the Richmond District Construction Engineer.

We suggest that this section be deleted. Commonly, TAC representation only changes when a member changes jobs or leaves the agency.

Section 4 In order to provide continuity in the Technical Advisory Committee's actions, i t i s recommended that each member serve for a two-year term and may be reappointed for successive terms.

11 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

FROM HERE TO THE END OF ARTICLE III THE PROPOSED TEXT IS RENUMBERED TO REFLECT DELETING SECTION 4

Section 5 Any member of the Technical Advisory Committee who wishes to designate an alternate to serve in his or her absence may do so by submitting the name of that person to the Chair of the Policy Committee. An alternate may vote only in the absence of the regular member he or she represents.

Section 4: Alternate Members A member of the Technical Committee may designate an alternate to serve in his or her absence by submitting the name of the individual to the Secretary of the Technical Committee. The alternate has al l of the rights and responsibi l i ties of the member so long as the member is absent.

The ‘good reason’ language is open to interpretation. This section works better without those two words.

Section 6 Whenever any voting member fai ls to attend or send an alternate to three (3) consecutive meetings without good reason; the Chair of the Technical Committee shal l seek to determine the cause of the absence and whether the appointing authority wishes the delinquent member to be the representative on the Technical Advisory Committee.

Section5: Attendance Whenever any voting member fai ls to attend or send and alternate to three (3) consecutive meetings the Chairman of the Technical Committee shal l seek to determine the cause of the absence and whether the appointing authori ty wishes the delinquent member to be the representative.

Section 7 belongs under officers. Historically, this has been a duty of the

Section 7 The Chair or Vice-Chair of the Technical Advisory Committee may serve as a non-voting member of the Pol icy Committee

Formatted: Font color: Red, Strikethrough

Formatted: Strikethrough

12 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

Secretary. and advise the Pol icy Committee on the recommendations of the Technical Advisory Committee.

This new section defines the differences between voting and non-voting members.

Section 7: Rights of Members Voting members may make motions, second motions, and vote on any issues before the committee. Non-voting members may make motions and second motions. They may also vote on changes to the bylaws and in off icer elections.

ARTICLE IV – OFFICERS ARTICLE IV – OFFICERS Section 1

The off icers of the Technical Advisory Committee shal l be the Chair and Vice-Chair who shal l be representatives of local governments in the transportation study area.

Section 1: Officers The off icers of the Technical Committee shal l be the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and the Secretary. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman who shal l be representatives of member governments. The posi t ion of Secretary shal l be f i l led (ex off icio) by the Di rector of Transportation of the Crater Planning District Commission, or by another staff member of the CPDC as assigned by the Executive Di rector of the CPDC.

In most bylaws all the officers are listed in Article IV

Section 2 A staff member of the Crater Planning District Commission shal l assume the function of Secretary,

Commented [DH1]: This implies that agency (e.g., VDOT, DRPT, or PAT) representatives cannot serve as officers of the committee. Is this what the group wants?

13 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

Section 4. as designated by the Executive Di rector.

FROM HERE TO THE END OF ARTICLE III THE PROPOSED TEXT IS RENUMBERED TO REFLECT DELETING SECTION 2 ABOVE

Section 3 only specifies duties of the Secretary. Duties should be specified for each officer of the committee. The proposed language discusses the duties of each officer.

To ensure limit the opportunity for deadlock either the presiding officer or the Secretary should only vote to break ties.

Section 3 The Secretary shal l prepare and maintain a permanent wri tten record of al l Technical Advisory Committee proceedings. The Secretary shal l t ransmit a copy of the minutes of each Technical and Pol icy Committee meeting prior to the next regular meeting.

Section 2: Duties of Officers Duties of the Chairman The Chairman shal l : • Preside at meetings,• Ensure and impartial

environment for discussionand debate,

• Maintain order at meetings,

• Consult with the Secretaryregarding meetingagendas, and

• Appoint sub-committeemembers as directed bythe Technical Committee

The Chairman is ex off icio a member of al l committees, but shal l not serve on the nominating committee, i f one is appointed. Duties of the Vice-Chairman In the absence of the Chairman the Vice-Chairman shal l : • Preside at meetings,• Ensure and impartial

environment for discussion

14 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

The proposed duties are also modified to give the TAC Secretary the duty of reporting to the Policy Committee, as is our current practice.

and debate, and • Appoint sub-committee

members as directed by the Technical Committee

The Vice-Chairman shal l be the chairman of the nominating committee if one is appointed.

Duties of the Secretary The Secretary shal l : • Keep the records of the

TAC (including committee reports) on fi le, and keep an up-to-date l ist of the members.

• Report the recommendations of the Technical Committee to the MPO (Pol icy Committee)

• Notify members of their election to office or appointment to committees, and furnish them with the proper documents.

• Sign the minutes and other certif ied acts of the TAC.

• Maintain the official documents TAC including

15 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

the bylaws, rules of order, standing rules, correspondence, and minutes. Update the bylaws and other governing documents up-to-date with any changes made through the amendment process.

• Notifying members of upcoming meetings.

• Taking minutes at al lcommittee meetings, handling the correspondence, and (inconsultation with thechairman) preparing theagenda for the meetings.

• Bring to each meeting theminutes book, bylaws,rules, membership l ist , a l istof committees and theirmembership, the agenda,records, bal lots, and othernecessary supplies.

• The Secretary may presideat a meeting i f thechairman and vice-chairman are absent.

Section 3: Nomination and Election of Officers

16 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

At the annual meeting the Chairman shal l accept nominations for chair and vice-chair from the floor at the annual meeting. The committee may choose to form a nominating committee at the last meeting of the Virginia fiscal year. Voting shal l be by voice vote, or by unanimous consent, as described in the parl iamentary authority. A voting member may ask that the committee be polled, or that paper ballots be used.

Section 4: Qualifications of Officers The Chairman and vice-Chairman shal l be voting members of the Technical Committee in good standing as described in these bylaws. The Secretary shal l be the Crater Planning District Commission’s Transportation Director, or other Crater Planning District Commission

17 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

employee designated by the Executive Director of the Crater Planning District Commission as specified in Section 1 of this Article. Section 5: Term of Office The term of office for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman shal l be one year. The term of office begins immediately fol lowing the election. Section 6: Vacancies and Removal from Office I f an elected office becomes vacant because the officer is no longer a member in good standing the Technical Committee shal l hold an election to fi l l the vacancy at its next regular meeting. The replacement officer shal l hold office for the remainder of the natural term of the office.

ARTICLE V - MEETING ARTICLE V – MEETINGS Section 1

Article V only specifies regular meetings. There is no provision for an

Section 1 Regular meetings of the Technical Advisory Committee meeting shal l be held in the conference room of the Crater

Section 1: Meeting Day, Time and Location The Technical Committee shal l hold regular meetings on the fi rst Friday of each

Commented [DH2]: This seems a long time. Usually, a term is one year.

Commented [DH3]: Is it possible to allow electronic meetings? Is so do we wish to allow electronic meetings and are electronic meetings consistent with the stakeholder involvement process?

Commented [DH4]: We have received some comments from the public asking that the meeting time be moved to the afternoon.

18 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

annual meeting or for special (called meetings) nor is there any way to legitimately call a meeting. Also the bylaws say our meetings should be on the 1st Monday of the month but our practice is to meet on the 1st Friday of the month. I would like to explore another day of the week.

Planning District Commission or other suitable meeting place at 10:00 a.m. on the fi rst Monday of each month. I f the fi rst Monday fal ls on a State hol iday or a workday cancelled by the Crater Planning District Commission, the meeting wil l be held on the next workday. The Chair may call special meetings or cancel regular meetings.

month at 10:00 a.m., unless otherwise determined by the officers.

Technical Committee meetings may be held in the Conference Room of the CPDC or any other suitable meeting place, consistent with the requirements of the MPO’s Public Involvement/Participation/Stakeholder Involvement Process, and as determined by the officers.

Section 2 A quorum shall consist of one-half of the voting representatives of the Technical Advisory Committee. Vacancies shal l not be considered in the establishment of a quorum.

Section 2: Quorum A quorum shall consist of five (5) voting members of the Technical Committee. Vacancies shal l not be considered in the establishment of a quorum.

Existing Section 3 gets moved to the duties of the Secretary in Article IV Section 3. We have replaced that section with an annual meeting that will be used to

Section 3 The agenda for each Technical Committee meeting shal l be prepared jointly between Chair and Secretary. The agenda shall be mailed one week prior to the next meeting.

Section 3: Annual Meeting The fi rst meeting in the Virginia fiscal year shal l be the annual meeting. In addition to regular business the Technical Committee shal l elect a chairman and vice-chairman if the terms of

19 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

elect officers. If we change the term of office to 1 year then the last phrase of the section can be deleted.

the existing off icers have expired.

Section 4: Monthly (Regular) Meetings The purpose of regular meetings is to conduct the normal business of the Technical Committee. These meetings may include approving the minutes of previous meetings, receiving agency and project reports, reviewing transportation planning products, developing project selection criteria, selecting projects and agreeing upon recommendations to the Pol icy Committee. The Committee may cancel the next scheduled meeting if i t does not appear that there wil l be business to transact. In addition the Secretary may cancel an upcoming meeting after consulting with the Chairman

20 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

i f there are no action items for the agenda. The Secretary and Chair may also change the date, time and location of a regular meeting to better match the scheduled of the Pol icy Committee so long as there is at least one week’s notice of the revised date, time and location.

This section gives the TAC the ability to legitimately call a special meeting if it is needed.

Section 5: Special (Called Meetings) Any member may request that the Technical Committee call a special meeting to address an issue or issues that must be resolved quickly. To request a called meeting the member shal l discuss the need with the Secretary who shal l consult with the Chairman to determine if the issue(s) must be resolved before the next scheduled meeting. I f a special meeting is needed the Chair and Secretary shal l determine a date, time, place for the called meeting and the Secretary shal l noti fy

21 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

the Technical Committee as described in Section 7of this Article.

Section 6: Electronic Meetings and Absentee or Proxy Voting The Technical Committee is a public body and shal l not engage in electronic meetings at which decisions are made. Nor are Absentee voting and proxy voting al lowed.

Section 7: Meeting Notification The Secretary shal l notify the committee members at least one week in advance of any meeting. The meeting notice may be electronic (email or electronic meeting notification). The meeting notice shal l include location or time information and may include a draft agenda and draft minutes of the previous meeting. In the event of a called meeting the draft minutes of the previous meeting need not be distributed before the meeting and may not be part of the meeting agenda.

Commented [DH5]: See also comment 7. I think this is something the committee may need to consider. I assume we fall under the VA open meeting and public records law but I’m not familiar with it.

22 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

The Secretary shal l noti fy other interested parties of cal led meetings in accordance with the MPO’s stakeholder involvement process.

The existing bylaws do not allow us to form subcommittees if they are needed.

ARTICLE VI –SUB-COMMITTEES At the direction of the Technical Committee, the Chairman may appoint sub-committees to more effectively complete the work of the committee. The sub-committees may include, but are not l imited to: nominating, bylaws, project selection.

Section 4 Parl iamentary authority for Technical Advisory Committee proceedings, not otherwise specified by these by-laws, shal l be Robert's Rules of Order, Revised

ARTICLE VII– PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shal l govern the Technical Committee in al l cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Committee may adopt.

ARTICLE VI- AMENDMENT Article VIII–AMENDMENT OF

23 Side by Side Comparison of 2003 TAC Bylaws with proposed bylaws.

THE BYLAWS

These by-laws may be amended by a two-thirds vote of those members present provided a quorum is present. Proposed changes in the by-laws shal l be transmitted to each voting member at least 10 days prior to the meeting when the voting wil l be conducted.

Section 1: Amending the Bylaws These by-laws may be amended by a two-thirds vote of those members present provided that a quorum is present. Proposed changes in the by-laws shal l be transmitted to each voting member at least 10 days prior to the meeting when the voting wil l be conducted.

ARTICLE VII- EFFECTIVE DATE

Section 1 Section 1 These by-laws shal l become effective immediately upon ratification by a majority vote of the Technical Advisory Committee.

Section 2: Effective Date of Amendments Amendments to the by-laws shal l become effective immediately upon ratification as described in Section 1 of this Article.

Preparing for SMART SCALE Round 4: Schedule PROPOSED SCHEDULE:

Although not finalized by the CTB (vote scheduled in December after Fall Transportation Meetings), SMART SCALE Round 4 is anticipated to follow the schedule and key dates shown below:

KEY DATES MARCH 5, 2020 Mandatory pre-application intake period opens (more details below).

APRIL 2, 2020 Submission deadline for pre-applications. Pre-applications must be submitted by 5PM.

APRIL 2 – JUNE 1, 2020

Pre-application screening review, conducted by VDOT/DRPT staff. At close of pre-applications screening, applicants will know which pre-applications can advance. During

this time applicants could not access the pre-application OR the full application.

JUNE 1, 2020 Full application development period opens.

AUGUST 3, 2020 Submission deadline for full applications. Full applications must be submitted by 5pm.

JANUARY 2021 Release of project prioritization and base allocation scenario. Presentation to the CTB.

JANUARY 2021 – JUNE 2021

CTB member meetings, public meetings, funding scenario review. CTB approves SYIP inJune 2021.

Attachment 7

Preparing for SMART SCALE Round 4: Application Development PROPOSED APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT AND SUBMITTAL PROCESS:

The SMART SCALE Round 3 process introduced the mandatory pre-application, a tool that allowed the state to assess the proposed project while the application is still under development to determine screen out risk and scope readiness. In Round 3 applicants could create and submit an unlimited number of pre-applications and were only limited by the number of pre-applications that could be presented for pre-screening. The SMART SCALE Round 4 application development and submittal process is anticipated to follow the process shown below:

Under the proposed policy changes for Round 4, applicants would still be able to create an unlimited number of pre-applications, but applicants could only submit a maximum number of pre-applications equal to the application limits established in Round 3, plus 1 backup pre-application for tier 1 applicants or plus 2 backup pre-applications for tier 2 applicants. See table below:

Population Thresholds

Tier Localities MPO’s/PDCs/Transit Agencies

Maximum Number of Full Applications

Maximum Number of Pre-Applications

1 Less than 200,000 Less than 500,000 4 4+1 2 Greater than 200,000 Greater than 500,000 10 10+2

The plus 1 or plus 2 backups will be available to applicants, if any of the core group pre-applications are screened out. Backup pre-applications would only be useable in the event of a pre-application screen out. Also it is still possible that a backup application could be screened out as well.

Under the proposed changes, all pre-applications would be pre-screened by the state.

If/When the pre-application clears the screening process, the draft full application will be created and the applicant can begin development of the full application. As with Round 3, applicants will be limited to their application cap when submitting final applications.

Another proposed change for Round 4, would be the requirement to include initial cost estimates in the pre-

application. In developing Round 4 applications, Applicants need to assume that SS funds will not be available until FY 2026 (or FY 2027).

Preparing for SMART SCALE Round 4: Project Screening PROPOSED PROJECT SCREENING:

The SMART SCALE Round 3 process employed three CTB-approved screening decisions:

Does the project meet a VTrans need?

Is the project eligible for SMART SCALE?o Studies, state of good repair, projects that are majority maintenance or asset replacement.

Is the project ready?o If the project is a proposed new grade separated interchange on existing limited access facility, does it

have a completed IJR with a preferred alternative?o If the project is a proposed modification to an existing access on a limited access facility, does it have a

completed IMR or planning study with a preferred alternative?o If the project is a proposed grade separated intersection at an existing at-grade intersection, does it have a

completed planning level study that includes the evaluation of at-grade alternatives and identifies apreferred alternative?

o If the project is a proposed new traffic signal, does it meet VDOT spacing standards and have anapproved SJR? Can the applicant show that innovative intersection improvements were considered?

o If the project is a proposed new facility, does it have a completed alternatives analysis with a preferredalternative indicating the new facility is the most appropriate option?

o If the project is a major widening (the addition of two or more general purpose lanes), does it havecompleted alternatives analysis with a preferred alternative indicating that the widening is the mostappropriate option?

o Does the project include a resolution of support from the Governing Body, approved in a public forumwith adequate public notice, is required at the time of application?

o Does the project have any NEPA documentation that can be provided in the application?

Proposed SMART SCALE Round 4 screening revisions are proposed for only the VTrans Needs and the Project Readiness Criteria.

VTrans needs are in the process of being updated and should be finalized by December 2019.

Additional project readiness criteria is proposed for Major Transit Capital Investment Projects (BRT/Light Rail)including:

o For investments greater than $2M then applicant must provide a copy of a completed corridor plan, siteplan, Transit Development Plan (TDP), comprehensive plan, long-range transportation plan, detailed costestimate, or federally required planning documents such as NEPA and Section 106.

o A locally preferred alternative (LPA) must be identified for all fixed guideway service projects prior toapplication submission.

o A feasibility or site selection study must be provided for any passenger facility projects that seek fundingfor land purchases.

o A feasibility study must be provided for any proposed new transit service.o For transit projects less than $2M the project must be referenced in the Transit Development Plan (TDP).

Proposed Enhancements to SMART SCALE Policies and Methods - Round 4

October 16 , 2019

2

3

Summary

● Timeline and schedule

● Project eligibility

● Project Readiness

● Analytical methods and weights

SMART SCALE is coming...

Round 4 Submission Deadline

5

1 week before deadline

Round 4 Submission Deadline

6

1 hour before deadline

Round 4 Timeline

Differences in timeline from Round 3

Changes to Timeline

● Pre-App○ Intake window reduced from 3 months to 1 month○ NEW - Pre-apps that can be submitted will be based on cap limits

■ Cap limit of 10: will be allowed to submit 12 pre-apps (10+2)■ Cap limit of 4: will be allowed to submit 5 pre-apps (4+1)

○ Pre-application cap limits prevent VDOT/DRPT staff from reviewing applications that will not be submitted while providing cushion in case a project screens out

Localities MPOs/PDCs/Transit Agencies

Pre-ApplicationCap

Final ApplicationCap

Less than 200K Less than 500K 5 4

Greater than 200K Greater than 500K 12 10

Changes to Timeline

● Screening Applications○ 2-month window - VTrans need, eligibility and project readiness○ Address challenge in Round 3 of major project changes occuring

during pre-screening● Final Full Application

○ 2-month window○ Applicant provides economic development sites and refines final cost

estimate and supporting documents○ Applicant must receive approval from Commonwealth to change

scope of work - this is to ensure project still meets VTrans need, readiness and eligibility

○ Can only submit up to their cap limit: 10 or 4 depending on population

Project Eligibility

● Two areas to clarify/limit eligibility:● Transit Maintenance Facilities - propose that stand-alone maintenance

facilities not be eligible - must include capacity expansion of transit system

● Systemwide Investments - improvements that do not have a typical from/to and often cover a larger geographic area○ Examples

■ Jurisdiction-wide implementation of adaptive signal controllers

■ Countywide bus stop upgrades

○ Prohibit project applications that include improvements that are jurisdiction-wide

○ Expansive scope and multi-faceted nature of improvements present considerable challenges for scoring and validation

Project Readiness

● Board has strengthened project readiness requirements each round

● Strengthened policies to-date have focused on highway expansion investments - requiring alternative analysis and planning studies

● Recommend similar policy provisions for corridor level adaptive signal controller upgrades and major transit capital investments such as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and light rail

○ Corridor level adaptive signal controllers - require detailed corridor study/plan

○ BRT/Light Rail■ Planning study that shows alternatives considered■ Inclusion in agency’s Transit Strategic/Development Plan

Project Evaluation and Scoring

Congestion

● Feedback - concern that current methods do not account for congestion on both weekdays and weekends

● Implement method to better account for peak period congestion throughout entire week (weekdays and weekends)

● Datasource: INRIX dataset

● Approach: For most recent calendar year - calculate the average daily hours the Travel Time Index (TTI) is greater than or equal to 1.5. Use this average daily value to convert the peak hour analysis for delay and throughput to peak period

Congestion- Recommendation for Round 41) Implement method to better account for peak period congestion

throughout entire week (weekdays and weekends)

Congestion

Approach: For most recent calendar year - calculate the average daily hours the Travel Time Index (TTI) is greater than or equal to 1.5. Use this average daily value to convert the peak hour analysis for delay and throughput to peak period

Example calculations

Project MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN AVGPeak Hour Delay

AVG Peak

Period Delay

A 2.5 3 3 3 3.5 3 4 3.14 300 942

B 1.5 2 2 1.5 2 1 1 1.57 500 785

C 4 4.5 4.5 4 4.5 2 3 3.79 500 1895

Safety

● SMART SCALE team has been working on the following areas related to safety

○ Targeted Crash Modification Factors (CMFs)○ Weighting of S1 (crash frequency) versus S2 (crash rate) -

currently 50/50■ Recommend changing weight to 70/30■ Supports Board targets to reduce fatal and injury crashes and

pending policy changes related to HSIP program○ Increase weight for Safety factor in Area Type A from 5% to 10%

Safety - Recommendations for Round 41) For certain project types a targeted CMF will be used2) 70/30 split in weighting - more weight to reduction in crash frequency3) Area Type A - Increase safety weight from 5% to 10%

Economic Development Sites

● Policies adopted by the Board for Round 3 improved the reasonableness of economic development results

● Zoned only properties has to be adjacent to the proposed transportation improvement

● In validating zoned properties and conceptual site plans we noticed several examples of high floor area ratios (FAR) - values in range of 5 were not uncommon

● Applicants uploaded zoning ordinances showing that larger FAR are allowed, but that does not mean they are likely

17

Approved Detailed Site Plan

Submitted Detailed Site Plan

Approved Conceptual Site Plan

Submitted Conceptual Site Plan

Zoned Only

Weighting Sites based on Readiness

Highest

Lowest

Floor Area Ratio Explained

Floor area ratio is the ratio of a building's total floor area to the size of the piece of land upon which it is built

18

Economic Development Sites

● Floor Area Ratio (FAR) assumptions for zoned-only properties can be problematic

● Large industrial tracks (250+ acres) with assumed FARs of 1 250 acre would equate to 10,890,000 sq ft building○ Boeing Everett Factory - 4.28M sqft

● Several tracts with assumed FARs of 5.0 or higher● Applicants provided documentation of local ordinances allowing

FAR value used - just because it is allowed does not mean it is likely

19

Economic Development - Recommendation for Round 41) FAR for zoned only properties capped at 0.3 unless applicant

can prove average FAR around project is higher or minimum FAR in local zoning ordinance is higher than 0.3

EnvironmentResource Impact Measure

● Problem: treating measure as a benefit

● Significant potential impact = 0 and No impact = 100● After lessons of Round 1 - potential impact was then scaled by

points in all other measures

● Results can be counter intuitive - if you do not consider $

● Example - HRBT, which had the second-highest total impact to sensitive resources received the greatest number of points for this measure due to high benefit score

20

Environment - Recommendation for Round 41) Convert E1 to subtractive measure (subtracting up to 5 points

at end of scoring)2) E2 (Air Quality Energy) measure weight changed to 100%

EnvironmentResource Impact Measure

Proposed method would be subtractive, taking away up to five benefit points based on potential sensitive acres impacted

21

Project Description Impacted Acres

E1 Weighted

Score

Benefit Score

Before E1

Benefit Score After

E1

Requested Amount

SS Score

W High score, high cost, large footprint 900 -5.00 59.00 54.00 $ 80,000,000.00 6.75

X High score, moderate cost, moderate footprint 300 -1.67 26.00 24.33 $ 15,000,000.00 16.22

Y Moderate score, moderate cost, large footprint 450 -2.5 6.00 3.5 $ 40,000,000.00 0.85

Land Use

● For Round 3, the Board adopted a new method objective metric to replace subjective metric to measure a project’s support for transportation efficiency of development

● L1 multiplies non-work accessibility by future density; this favors projects in areas that are already very dense over projects in areas that, though growth may be expected, existing density is low

● L2 multiplies non-work accessibility by the change in population and employment; this measure favors projects in areas where growth is expected regardless of initial density

Land Use - Recommendations for Round 41) Drop L1 measure and give 100% of weight to L22) Area Type A - Land Use weight changed from 20% to 15%3) Area Type A = Safety weight changed from 5% to 10%

Treatment of Interstate Projects

• Interstate projects have been outlier projects that havesuppressed benefits scores for other investments

• Dedicated funding sources for operational and capacityimprovements for Interstates exists now from the 81 legislation

• Should Interstate projects still be eligible for SMART SCALE orshould they be handled through the new dedicated Interstatefunding?

• Intent is to develop Interstate Corridor Plans for each Interstate– I-81 Complete

– I-95 Underway

– I-64 to start in January

Thank you.

Original* New Change

Total Available: 779,842,906$    779,842,906$    ‐$Total Projects: 98 99 1Total Spent: 741,756,395$    741,795,731$    39,336$            

Original* New DGP Remaining**Bristol 3 3 0 Bristol 20,061,316.00$       20,061,316.00$       2,072,013$             Culpeper 4 4 0 Culpeper 20,809,265.00$       18,289,265.00$       3,401,022$             Fredericksburg 10 10 0 Fredericksburg 39,826,465.00$       39,826,465.00$       702,268$                 Hampton Roads 26 26 0 Hampton Roads 285,098,978.00$     285,098,978.00$     1,047,923$             Lynchburg 8 8 0 Lynchburg 52,136,609.00$       52,136,609.00$       2,637,350$             Northern Virginia 11 11 0 Northern Virginia 199,826,065.00$     199,826,065.00$     268,319$                 Richmond 14 14 0 Richmond 64,076,418.00$       62,848,288.00$       1,426,453$             Salem 6 6 0 Salem 31,376,924.00$       31,376,924.00$       2,126,672$             Staunton 16 17 1 Staunton 28,544,355.00$       32,331,821.00$       765,260$                 

Original* New ChangeHighway 57 58 1 Highway 467,780,263.00$     467,819,599.00$     39,336$  Bike/Pedestrian 29 29 0 Bike/Pedestrian 88,677,112.00$       88,677,112.00$       ‐$TDM 4 4 0 TDM 14,803,826.00$       14,803,826.00$       ‐$Bus Transit 7 7 0 Bus Transit 117,595,194.00$     117,595,194.00$     ‐$Rail Transit 1 1 0 Rail Transit 52,900,000.00$       52,900,000.00$       ‐$

Average Project Cost: 7,568,943$        7,492,886$        (76,057)$           

10,000,000.00$             88 89 1 Total New In: 340,000,000.00$             6 6 0 Total New Out: 280,000,000.00$             3 3 080,000,000.00>$           1 1 0

**Based on available District Grant Program funds available as of January 15, 2019

Scenario ‐ Safety: S1 = 70%, S2 = 30%

*"Original" denotes the Staff Recommended Funding Scenario originally introduced to the Commonwealth Transportation Board on January 15, 2019

10/16/2019 SMART SCALE Scenarios Tested Page 1 of 14

In DistrictOriginal Benefit

New Benefit

Original SS Score

New SS Score

Out DistrictOriginal Benefit

New Benefit

Original SS Score

New SS Score

Route 29 & Route 662 (Shelby Rd.) Intersection Improvements Culpeper 2.01 2.15 6.76 7.20 US 33 / Route 20 east roundabout Culpeper 3.760098 3.54 6.84 6.44

Jude's Ferry Road & Route 60 Richmond 1.75 1.95 7.07 7.87 Route 600/Route 601 Roundabout Richmond 2.704801 2.56 7.31 6.92

I‐81 Mt. Sidney Rest Area NB Acceleration Lane Extension Staunton 2.39 2.67 6.30 7.06

Scenario ‐ Safety: S1 = 70%, S2 = 30%

10/16/2019 SMART SCALE Scenarios Tested Page 2 of 14

Original* New Change

Total Available: 779,842,906$    779,842,906$    ‐$Total Projects: 98 99 1Total Spent: 741,756,395$    741,539,820$    (216,575)$        

Original* New DGP Remaining**Bristol 3 3 0 Bristol 20,061,316.00$       20,061,316.00$       2,072,013$             Culpeper 4 4 0 Culpeper 20,809,265.00$       18,289,265.00$       3,401,022$             Fredericksburg 10 10 0 Fredericksburg 39,826,465.00$       39,826,465.00$       702,268$                 Hampton Roads 26 26 0 Hampton Roads 285,098,978.00$     284,843,067.00$     1,303,834$             Lynchburg 8 8 0 Lynchburg 52,136,609.00$       52,136,609.00$       2,637,350$             Northern Virginia 11 11 0 Northern Virginia 199,826,065.00$     199,826,065.00$     268,319$                 Richmond 14 14 0 Richmond 64,076,418.00$       62,848,288.00$       1,426,453$             Salem 6 6 0 Salem 31,376,924.00$       31,376,924.00$       2,126,672$             Staunton 16 17 1 Staunton 28,544,355.00$       32,331,821.00$       765,260$                 

Original* New ChangeHighway 57 57 0 Highway 467,780,263.00$     463,490,599.00$     (4,289,664)$            Bike/Pedestrian 29 30 1 Bike/Pedestrian 88,677,112.00$       92,750,201.00$       4,073,089$             TDM 4 4 0 TDM 14,803,826.00$       14,803,826.00$       ‐$Bus Transit 7 7 0 Bus Transit 117,595,194.00$     117,595,194.00$     ‐$Rail Transit 1 1 0 Rail Transit 52,900,000.00$       52,900,000.00$       ‐$

Average Project Cost: 7,568,943$        7,490,301$        (78,642)$           

10,000,000.00$             88 89 1 Total New In: 440,000,000.00$             6 6 0 Total New Out: 380,000,000.00$             3 3 080,000,000.00>$           1 1 0

**Based on available District Grant Program funds available as of January 15, 2019

Scenario ‐ Safety: S1 = 70%, S2 = 30%; Area A Weighting: Safety = 10%, Land Use = 15%

*"Original" denotes the Staff Recommended Funding Scenario originally introduced to the Commonwealth Transportation Board on January 15, 2019

10/16/2019 SMART SCALE Scenarios Tested Page 3 of 14

In DistrictOriginal Benefit

New Benefit

Original SS Score

New SS Score

Out DistrictOriginal Benefit

New Benefit

Original SS Score

New SS Score

Route 29 & Route 662 (Shelby Rd.) Intersection Improvements Culpeper 2.01 2.15 6.76 7.20 US 33 / Route 20 east roundabout Culpeper 3.760098 3.54 6.84 6.44

Jude's Ferry Road & Route 60 Richmond 1.75 1.95 7.07 7.87 Route 600/Route 601 Roundabout Richmond 2.704801 2.56 7.31 6.92

I‐81 Mt. Sidney Rest Area NB Acceleration Lane Extension Staunton 2.39 2.67 6.30 7.06 Lafayette Street Widening Hampton Roads 0.837907 0.74 1.94 1.72

Seaboard Coastline Trail Segment 1 Hampton Roads 0.69 1.01 1.68 2.49

Scenario ‐ Safety: S1 = 70%, S2 = 30%; Area A Weighting: Safety = 10%, Land Use = 15%

10/16/2019 SMART SCALE Scenarios Tested Page 4 of 14

Original* New Change

Total Available: 779,842,906$    779,842,906$    ‐$Total Projects: 98 101 3Total Spent: 741,756,395$    681,124,588$    (60,631,807)$   

Original* New DGP Remaining**Bristol 3 4 1 Bristol 20,061,316.00$       10,697,316.00$       11,436,013$           Culpeper 4 3 ‐1 Culpeper 20,809,265.00$       18,800,000.00$       2,890,287$             Fredericksburg 10 10 0 Fredericksburg 39,826,465.00$       39,826,465.00$       702,268$                 Hampton Roads 26 26 0 Hampton Roads 285,098,978.00$     282,790,977.00$     3,355,924$             Lynchburg 8 8 0 Lynchburg 52,136,609.00$       52,136,609.00$       2,637,350$             Northern Virginia 11 10 ‐1 Northern Virginia 199,826,065.00$     149,826,065.00$     268,319$                 Richmond 14 14 0 Richmond 64,076,418.00$       63,988,523.00$       286,218$                 Salem 6 9 3 Salem 31,376,924.00$       32,490,783.00$       1,012,813$             Staunton 16 17 1 Staunton 28,544,355.00$       30,567,850.00$       1,726,808$             

Original* New ChangeHighway 57 59 2 Highway 467,780,263.00$     453,221,688.00$     (14,558,575)$          Bike/Pedestrian 29 29 0 Bike/Pedestrian 88,677,112.00$       87,643,517.00$       (1,033,595)$            TDM 4 6 2 TDM 14,803,826.00$       19,764,189.00$       4,960,363$             Bus Transit 7 6 ‐1 Bus Transit 117,595,194.00$     67,595,194.00$       (50,000,000)$          Rail Transit 1 1 0 Rail Transit 52,900,000.00$       52,900,000.00$       ‐$

Average Project Cost: 7,568,943$        6,743,808$        (825,135)$        

10,000,000.00$             88 93 5 Total New In: 1140,000,000.00$             6 5 ‐1 Total New Out: 880,000,000.00$             3 2 ‐180,000,000.00>$           1 1 0

**Based on available District Grant Program funds available as of January 15, 2019

Scenario ‐ ED1: Floor Area Ratio Cap

*"Original" denotes the Staff Recommended Funding Scenario originally introduced to the Commonwealth Transportation Board on January 15, 2019

10/16/2019 SMART SCALE Scenarios Tested Page 5 of 14

In DistrictOriginal Benefit

New Benefit

Original SS Score

New SS Score

Out DistrictOriginal Benefit

New Benefit

Original SS Score

New SS Score

Hillman Highway & Old Eleven Drive Intersection Improvements Bristol 0.36 0.34 5.36 5.14 I‐81 Exit 317 Accel/Decel Lane Extensions Staunton 2.262117 1.74 7.05 5.41

Roundabout at Middle Road and Prince George Drive Richmond 3.11 3.11 6.87 6.87 Richmond Highway‐Bus Rapid Transit* Northern Virginia 14.95678 14.87 2.99 2.97

I‐81 Mt. Sidney Rest Area NB Acceleration Lane Extension Staunton 2.39 2.24 6.30 5.92 Progress Park Connector** Bristol 11.64795 6.55 9.06 5.10

Claudville Hwy Intersection Improvement Salem 0.76 0.76 3.60 3.60 University Blvd/Evelyn Byrd Ave Road Diet & Sidewalk Staunton 2.29726 1.65 6.54 4.71

Lee Highway and Euclid Avenue Roundabout Bristol 2.10 2.10 7.43 7.43 West Main Streetscape Culpeper 3.102845 1.15 15.44 5.74

Valley View Blvd / Aviation Drive Pedestrian Improvements Salem 1.12 0.84 3.72 2.78 Roadway improvements on Routes 122 & 636 (Lost Mountain Rd) Salem 4.775265 1.91 4.89 1.96

Seaboard Coastline Trail Segment 1 Hampton Roads 0.69 0.69 1.68 1.68 Monticello Ave‐Richmond Rd‐Lafayette St Roundabout Hampton Roads 1.198837 0.96 1.88 1.50

Shenandoah Co. / Oranda Road Park and Ride Expansion Staunton 1.50 1.50 5.89 5.89 E Maury Street Streetscape Phase II Richmond 4.24358 2.86 9.19 6.20

Camp Jaycee Road (Route 697) Intersection at US460 Salem 1.21 1.21 3.23 3.24

Linden Park and Ride Lot Extension Staunton 1.39 1.41 5.78 5.86

E. Stuart Drive Sidewalk Project ‐ Phase II Salem 0.56 0.58 2.77 2.87

Scenario ‐ ED1: Floor Area Ratio Cap

10/16/2019 SMART SCALE Scenarios Tested Page 6 of 14

*The proposed 0.3 cap in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for zoned only properties includes provision that allows applicants to justify a higher cap by either 1)showing that the average FAR for properties around the site is higher than 0.3, or 2)providing documentation that local ordinances specify a minimum FAR greater that 0.3 for the site in question. For the Richmond Highway BRT project, it is likely that the county could justify a higher FAR based the higher density of development along the BRT corridor.

**Bristol picks up two new projects in this scenario, and the next project that would have been funded would have been the Progress Park Connector. This scenario results in $10.8M remaining in Bristol's District Grant pot - approximately $2M short of amount needed to fund the Progress Park Connector. With the additional funding made available to Bristol after the initial staff recommended funding scenario there would have been adequate revenue to fund Progress Park in addition to other projects in the District.

Original* New Change

Total Available: 779,842,906$    779,842,906$    ‐$Total Projects: 98 98 0Total Spent: 741,756,395$    745,119,518$    3,363,123$      

Original* New DGP Remaining**Bristol 3 3 0 Bristol 20,061,316.00$       20,061,316.00$       2,072,013$             Culpeper 4 4 0 Culpeper 20,809,265.00$       20,809,265.00$       881,022$                 Fredericksburg 10 9 ‐1 Fredericksburg 39,826,465.00$       33,452,326.00$       702,268$                 Hampton Roads 26 26 0 Hampton Roads 285,098,978.00$     285,973,853.00$     173,048$                 Lynchburg 8 8 0 Lynchburg 52,136,609.00$       52,503,695.00$       2,270,264$             Northern Virginia 11 11 0 Northern Virginia 199,826,065.00$     199,826,065.00$     268,319$                 Richmond 14 13 ‐1 Richmond 64,076,418.00$       64,032,418.00$       242,323$                 Salem 6 6 0 Salem 31,376,924.00$       31,376,924.00$       2,126,672$             Staunton 16 18 2 Staunton 28,544,355.00$       37,083,656.00$       4,012,019$             

Original* New ChangeHighway 57 57 0 Highway 467,780,263.00$     467,568,612.00$     (211,651)$               Bike/Pedestrian 29 25 ‐4 Bike/Pedestrian 88,677,112.00$       81,699,562.00$       (6,977,550)$            TDM 4 7 3 TDM 14,803,826.00$       22,834,151.00$       8,030,325$             Bus Transit 7 8 1 Bus Transit 117,595,194.00$     120,117,193.00$     2,521,999$             Rail Transit 1 1 0 Rail Transit 52,900,000.00$       52,900,000.00$       ‐$

Average Project Cost: 7,568,943$        7,603,260$        34,318$            

10,000,000.00$             88 88 0 Total New In: 740,000,000.00$             6 6 0 Total New Out: 780,000,000.00$             3 3 080,000,000.00>$           1 1 0

**Based on available District Grant Program funds available as of January 15, 2019

Scenario ‐ E2: Subtractive; E1 weight = 10%

*"Original" denotes the Staff Recommended Funding Scenario originally introduced to the Commonwealth Transportation Board on January 15, 2019

10/16/2019 SMART SCALE Scenarios Tested Page 7 of 14

In DistrictOriginal Benefit

New Benefit

Original SS Score

New SS Score

Out DistrictOriginal Benefit

New Benefit

Original SS Score

New SS Score

U.S. Route 460 at U.S. Route 258 Turn Lane Improvements Hampton Roads 0.39 0.53 1.20 1.65 Traffic Signal Improvements on Valley and Gerrard Corridors Staunton 0.967882 0.59 7.89 4.84

Bus Stop Improvements on US 250 at Sangers Lane/Brand Road Staunton 1.48 2.08 5.85 8.24 Bicycle Lane on US Business 13 Hampton Roads 0.55866 0.25 2.37 1.05

Mount Crawford Park and Ride Lot Improvements Staunton 1.36 1.95 4.43 6.36 Lower Appomattox River Trail Richmond 0.139216 ‐1.14 31.64 ‐258.72

I‐81 Mt. Sidney Rest Area NB Acceleration Lane Extension Staunton 2.39 2.77 6.30 7.32 Route 3 STARS Study Improvements Fredericksburg 1.723688 1.08 2.70 1.70

Route 58 WBL from Airport Dr to Kentuck Rd Lynchburg 0.84 1.14 2.44 3.31 North Augusta Sidewalk‐‐Terry Court to Meadowbrook Rd Staunton 0.672883 0.57 6.36 5.36

Shenandoah Co. / Oranda Road Park and Ride Expansion Staunton 1.50 2.08 5.89 8.14 University Blvd/Evelyn Byrd Ave Road Diet & Sidewalk Staunton 2.29726 2.01 6.54 5.71

Linden Park and Ride Lot Extension Staunton 1.39 2.01 5.78 8.34 Route 29 / 699 Intersection Improvements Lynchburg 1.150486 1.01 3.73 3.26

Scenario ‐ E2: Subtractive; E1 weight = 10%

10/16/2019 SMART SCALE Scenarios Tested Page 8 of 14

Original* New Change

Total Available: 779,842,906$    779,842,906$    ‐$Total Projects: 98 98 0Total Spent: 741,756,395$    741,282,784$    (473,611)$        

Original* New DGP Remaining**Bristol 3 3 0 Bristol 20,061,316.00$       20,061,316.00$       2,072,013$             Culpeper 4 4 0 Culpeper 20,809,265.00$       20,809,265.00$       881,022$                 Fredericksburg 10 10 0 Fredericksburg 39,826,465.00$       39,826,465.00$       702,268$                 Hampton Roads 26 26 0 Hampton Roads 285,098,978.00$     285,098,978.00$     1,047,923$             Lynchburg 8 8 0 Lynchburg 52,136,609.00$       52,136,609.00$       2,637,350$             Northern Virginia 11 11 0 Northern Virginia 199,826,065.00$     199,826,065.00$     268,319$                 Richmond 14 13 ‐1 Richmond 64,076,418.00$       61,498,807.00$       718,934$                 Salem 6 7 1 Salem 31,376,924.00$       33,480,924.00$       22,672$  Staunton 16 16 0 Staunton 28,544,355.00$       28,544,355.00$       765,260$                 

Original* New ChangeHighway 57 59 2 Highway 467,780,263.00$     472,356,133.00$     4,575,870$             Bike/Pedestrian 29 27 ‐2 Bike/Pedestrian 88,677,112.00$       83,627,631.00$       (5,049,481)$            TDM 4 4 0 TDM 14,803,826.00$       14,803,826.00$       ‐$Bus Transit 7 7 0 Bus Transit 117,595,194.00$     117,595,194.00$     ‐$Rail Transit 1 1 0 Rail Transit 52,900,000.00$       52,900,000.00$       ‐$

Average Project Cost: 7,568,943$        7,564,110$        (4,833)$             

10,000,000.00$             88 88 0 Total New In: 240,000,000.00$             6 6 0 Total New Out: 280,000,000.00$             3 3 080,000,000.00>$           1 1 0

**Based on available District Grant Program funds available as of January 15, 2019

Scenario ‐ Land Use: L1 = 0%, L2 = 100%

*"Original" denotes the Staff Recommended Funding Scenario originally introduced to the Commonwealth Transportation Board on January 15, 2019

10/16/2019 SMART SCALE Scenarios Tested Page 9 of 14

In DistrictOriginal Benefit

New Benefit

Original SS Score

New SS Score

Out DistrictOriginal Benefit

New Benefit

Original SS Score

New SS Score

Jude's Ferry Road & Route 60 Richmond 1.75 1.75 7.07 7.07 C Rvrfront/Orleans BRT Station Pedestrian Safety/Streetscape Richmond 1.62743 1.21 7.91 5.90

Claudville Hwy Intersection Improvement Salem 0.76 0.76 3.60 3.60 I Boulevard Shared Use Path to Science Museum BRT Station Richmond 3.113468 1.85 10.40 6.19

Scenario ‐ Land Use: L1 = 0%, L2 = 100%

10/16/2019 SMART SCALE Scenarios Tested Page 10 of 14

Original* New Change

Total Available: 779,842,906$    779,842,906$    ‐$Total Projects: 98 97 ‐1Total Spent: 741,756,395$    729,790,429$    (11,965,966)$   

Original* New DGP Remaining**Bristol 3 3 0 Bristol 20,061,316.00$       20,061,316.00$       2,072,013$             Culpeper 4 4 0 Culpeper 20,809,265.00$       20,809,265.00$       881,022$                 Fredericksburg 10 10 0 Fredericksburg 39,826,465.00$       39,826,465.00$       702,268$                 Hampton Roads 26 26 0 Hampton Roads 285,098,978.00$     279,572,067.00$     6,574,834$             Lynchburg 8 8 0 Lynchburg 52,136,609.00$       52,136,609.00$       2,637,350$             Northern Virginia 11 10 ‐1 Northern Virginia 199,826,065.00$     193,860,621.00$     6,233,763$             Richmond 14 13 ‐1 Richmond 64,076,418.00$       61,498,807.00$       718,934$                 Salem 6 7 1 Salem 31,376,924.00$       33,480,924.00$       22,672$  Staunton 16 16 0 Staunton 28,544,355.00$       28,544,355.00$       765,260$                 

Original* New ChangeHighway 57 59 2 Highway 467,780,263.00$     472,356,133.00$     4,575,870$             Bike/Pedestrian 29 26 ‐3 Bike/Pedestrian 88,677,112.00$       72,135,276.00$       (16,541,836)$          TDM 4 4 0 TDM 14,803,826.00$       14,803,826.00$       ‐$Bus Transit 7 7 0 Bus Transit 117,595,194.00$     117,595,194.00$     ‐$Rail Transit 1 1 0 Rail Transit 52,900,000.00$       52,900,000.00$       ‐$

Average Project Cost: 7,568,943$        7,523,613$        (45,330)$           

10,000,000.00$             88 87 ‐1 Total New In: 340,000,000.00$             6 6 0 Total New Out: 480,000,000.00$             3 3 080,000,000.00>$           1 1 0

**Based on available District Grant Program funds available as of January 15, 2019

Scenario ‐ Land Use: L1 = 0%, L2 = 100%; Area A Weighting: Safety = 10%, Land Use = 15%

*"Original" denotes the Staff Recommended Funding Scenario originally introduced to the Commonwealth Transportation Board on January 15, 2019

10/16/2019 SMART SCALE Scenarios Tested Page 11 of 14

In DistrictOriginal Benefit

New Benefit

Original SS Score

New SS Score

Out DistrictOriginal Benefit

New Benefit

Original SS Score

New SS Score

Jude's Ferry Road & Route 60 Richmond 1.75 1.75 7.07 7.07 Route 31 Bicycle Accomodations Hampton Roads 1.717697 1.72 1.79 1.79

Claudville Hwy Intersection Improvement Salem 0.76 0.76 3.60 3.60 Pickett Trail Connector Northern Virginia 4.016023 2.17 6.73 3.64

Seaboard Coastline Trail Segment 1 Hampton Roads 0.69 0.87 1.68 2.15 C Rvrfront/Orleans BRT Station Pedestrian Safety/Streetscape Richmond 1.62743 1.21 7.91 5.90

I Boulevard Shared Use Path to Science Museum BRT Station Richmond 3.113468 1.85 10.40 6.19

Scenario ‐ Land Use: L1 = 0%, L2 = 100%; Area A Weighting: Safety = 10%, Land Use = 15%

10/16/2019 SMART SCALE Scenarios Tested Page 12 of 14

Original* New Change

Total Available: 779,842,906$    779,842,906$    ‐$Total Projects: 98 99 1Total Spent: 741,756,395$    677,132,513$    (64,623,882)$   

Original* New DGP Remaining**Bristol 3 4 1 Bristol 20,061,316.00$       10,888,316.00$       11,245,013$           Culpeper 4 5 1 Culpeper 20,809,265.00$       23,280,000.00$       5,410,287$             Fredericksburg 10 9 ‐1 Fredericksburg 39,826,465.00$       33,452,326.00$       702,268$                 Hampton Roads 26 25 ‐1 Hampton Roads 285,098,978.00$     282,336,852.00$     3,810,049$             Lynchburg 8 7 ‐1 Lynchburg 52,136,609.00$       48,751,580.00$       6,022,379$             Northern Virginia 11 8 ‐3 Northern Virginia 199,826,065.00$     135,021,294.00$     15,073,090$           Richmond 14 13 ‐1 Richmond 64,076,418.00$       63,735,912.00$       7,458,829$             Salem 6 9 3 Salem 31,376,924.00$       43,334,924.00$       6,139,672$             Staunton 16 19 3 Staunton 28,544,355.00$       36,331,309.00$       4,764,366$             

Original* New ChangeHighway 57 61 4 Highway 467,780,263.00$     465,268,055.00$     (2,512,208)$            Bike/Pedestrian 29 22 ‐7 Bike/Pedestrian 88,677,112.00$       63,613,114.00$       (25,063,998)$          TDM 4 8 4 TDM 14,803,826.00$       25,234,151.00$       10,430,325$           Bus Transit 7 7 0 Bus Transit 117,595,194.00$     70,117,193.00$       (47,478,001)$          Rail Transit 1 1 0 Rail Transit 52,900,000.00$       52,900,000.00$       ‐$

Average Project Cost: 7,568,943$        6,839,722$        (729,220)$        

10,000,000.00$             88 90 2 Total New In: 2140,000,000.00$             6 6 0 Total New Out: 2080,000,000.00$             3 2 ‐180,000,000.00>$           1 1 0

**Based on available District Grant Program funds available as of January 15, 2019

Staff Recommended Combined Scenario ‐ Safety: S1 = 70%, S2 = 30%; ED1: Floor Area Ratio Cap; E2: Subtractive;E1 weight = 10%; Land Use: L1 = 0%, L2 = 100%; Area A Weighting: Safety = 10%, Land Use = 15%

*"Original" denotes the Staff Recommended Funding Scenario originally introduced to the Commonwealth Transportation Board on January 15, 2019

10/16/2019 SMART SCALE Scenarios Tested Page 13 of 14

In DistrictOriginal Benefit

New Benefit

Original SS Score

New SS Score

Out DistrictOriginal Benefit

New Benefit

Original SS Score

New SS Score

U.S. 220 and Route 697/Wirtz Rd. Intersection Improvements Salem 4.96 3.70 4.42 3.29 Bicycle Lane on US Business 13 Hampton Roads 0.55866 0.31 2.37 1.31

U.S. Route 460 at U.S. Route 258 Turn Lane Improvements Hampton Roads 0.39 0.64 1.20 1.99 US 33 / Route 20 east roundabout Culpeper 3.760098 3.08 6.84 5.60

College Avenue Traffic Sginal Syncronization Bristol 0.35 0.42 4.09 4.88 US 11 N (North Valley Pike) Sidewalk Staunton 3.645044 1.31 12.00 4.33

Bus Stop Improvements on US 250 at Sangers Lane/Brand Road Staunton 1.48 1.94 5.85 7.67 Lower Appomattox River Trail Richmond 0.139216 ‐1.14 31.64 ‐260.16

Barracks Road Turn Lane and Sidewalk Culpeper 1.42 1.23 3.09 2.67 Route 3 STARS Study Improvements Fredericksburg 1.723688 2.32 2.70 3.65

Route 29 & Route 662 (Shelby Rd.) Intersection Improvements Culpeper 2.01 1.89 6.76 6.35 Main St. (US501)‐Mountain Rd. (VA360) Turning Radius Lynchburg 0.563711 0.10 7.63 1.30

Exit 107 Park and Ride Lot Culpeper 0.53 0.81 2.19 3.36 Richmond Highway‐Bus Rapid Transit* Northern Virginia 14.95678 19.43 2.99 3.89

Mount Crawford Park and Ride Lot Improvements Staunton 1.36 1.79 4.43 5.84 Pickett Trail Connector Northern Virginia 4.016023 1.56 6.73 2.61

Jude's Ferry Road & Route 60 Richmond 1.75 1.21 7.07 4.88 Fairfax Blvd/Warwick Ave Intersection Improvements Northern Virginia 4.931086 3.21 5.58 3.63

Roundabout at Middle Road and Prince George Drive Richmond 3.11 2.30 6.87 5.07 Progress Park Connector** Bristol 11.64795 5.14 9.06 3.99

I‐81 Mt. Sidney Rest Area NB Acceleration Lane Extension Staunton 2.39 2.91 6.30 7.69 University Blvd/Evelyn Byrd Ave Road Diet & Sidewalk Staunton 2.29726 1.39 6.54 3.95

I‐81/Route 8 (Exit 114) Park & Ride Lot Salem 1.12 1.87 2.37 3.96 West Main Streetscape Culpeper 3.102845 0.73 15.44 3.64

Lee Highway and Euclid Avenue Roundabout Bristol 2.10 1.69 7.43 5.99 General Booth Blvd/Oceana Blvd Intersection Improvements Hampton Roads 0.796215 0.49 2.21 1.36

Route 60 Corridor Solution Set and Pedestrian Facilities Richmond 4.44 4.37 6.42 6.32 US 501 Bus ‐ Langhorne and Vassar Roundabout Lynchburg 2.314473 1.67 3.79 2.73

Route 58 WBL from Airport Dr to Kentuck Rd Lynchburg 0.84 1.25 2.44 3.62 Roadway improvements on Routes 122 & 636 (Lost Mountain Rd) Salem 4.775265 1.37 4.89 1.41

Route 58 Arterial Preservation Plan Study Recommendations Hampton Roads 0.61 0.97 0.93 1.48 Monticello Ave‐Richmond Rd‐Lafayette St Roundabout Hampton Roads 1.198837 0.94 1.88 1.47

Seaboard Coastline Trail Segment 1 Hampton Roads 0.69 0.71 1.68 1.75 Lafayette Street Widening Hampton Roads 0.837907 0.49 1.94 1.12

Shenandoah Co. / Oranda Road Park and Ride Expansion Staunton 1.50 2.08 5.89 8.14 I Boulevard Shared Use Path to Science Museum BRT Station Richmond 3.113468 1.22 10.40 4.07

Camp Jaycee Road (Route 697) Intersection at US460 Salem 1.21 1.45 3.23 3.88 G US33 Leigh Street Streetscape Improvements Richmond 7.872229 2.85 11.91 4.31

Linden Park and Ride Lot Extension Staunton 1.39 2.03 5.78 8.42 E Maury Street Streetscape Phase II Richmond 4.24358 1.67 9.19 3.61

E. Stuart Drive Sidewalk Project ‐ Phase II Salem 0.56 0.64 2.77 3.18

Staff Recommended Combined Scenario ‐ Safety: S1 = 70%, S2 = 30%; ED1: Floor Area Ratio Cap; E2: Subtractive;E1 weight = 10%; Land Use: L1 = 0%, L2 = 100%; Area A Weighting: Safety = 10%, Land Use = 15%

10/16/2019 SMART SCALE Scenarios Tested Page 14 of 14

*The proposed 0.3 cap in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for zoned only properties includes provision that allows applicants to justify ahigher cap by either 1)showing that the average FAR for properties around the site is higher than 0.3, or 2)providing documentation that local ordinances specify a minimum FAR greater that 0.3 for the site in question. For the Richmond Highway BRT project, it is likely that the county could justify a higher FAR based the higher density of development along the BRT corridor.

**Bristol picks up two new projects in this scenario, and the next project that would have been funded would have been the Progress Park Connector. This scenario results in $10.8M remaining in Bristol's District Grant pot - approximately $2M short of amount needed to fund the Progress Park Connector. With the additional funding made available to Bristol after the initial staff recommended funding scenario there would have been adequate revenue to fund Progress Park in addition to other projects in the District.

Possible Tri-Cities Area MPO Round 4 SMART SCALE Applications

Project Locality(ies)Regional/ Multi- Jurisdictional?

In 2040 LRTP?

Eligible Project Type?

Vtrans Mid-Term Need Readiness Note/Comments Priority

Route 36 STARS Hopewell, Prince George

Yes, multi- jurisdictional and NHS No Yes Yes, Safety

Yes, STARS will provide

estimate STARS Study underway

Enon Church Road Widening Chesterfield

Yes, Freight Activity Center and access to

NHS Yes Yes

Only if sidewalk or bike lanes

included? UDA?

Yes, needs updated estimate

UPC 112660, leverage with RSTP. Intersection was Safety Need in Round 3. CMP shows some need

I-85 off ramp and Rt 1 to Central State 3-lane Dinwiddie

Yes, Activity Center Access to Interstate via

NHS Yes, Vision Yes

Only if sidewalk or bike lanes

included?

Yes, needs updated estimate

Segment was Safety Need in Round 3

Rives Road with I-95 Interchange

Petersburg. Prince George

Yes, Industrial Development Access to

Interstate No Yes

Only if sidewalk or bike lanes

included? Not readyUPC 15382 (PE only?); Needs feasibility study, VDOT on-call?

I-85 NB to I-95 SB - Priority #1 Petersburg Yes, Interstates Yes, Vision Yes

Yes, Specific Mid-Term Need

Yes, needs updated estimate

SS App in all 3 Rounds; Is under consideration for I-95 Corridor Improvement Plan

Ashland To Petersburg Trail

Chesterfield, Col. Hts. Petersburg

Yes, multijurisdictional paved trail No Yes

Yes, bike/ped to activity center Yes

Portion from Branders Bridge to Petersburg is in Tri-Cities. Do smaller phases?

App IDArea Type

District Submitted ByImprovement

TypeTitle

Statewide High

Priority

District Grant

Vtrans Need Round 3

Vtrans Need Round 4?

Project Benefit Score

Benefit Score Rank

Project Total Cost

Score Divided by Total Cost

Score Divided by Total Cost

Rank

SMART SCALE $ Request

SMART SCALE Score

SMART SCALE Rank -

Statewide

SMART SCALE Rank -

District

3925 B Richmond Prince George County Bike/Pedestrian Lower Appomattox River Trail X XRegional Network

Regional Network

0.14 406 44,000$ 31.64 9 44,000$ 31.64 9 1

3710 C Richmond Dinwiddie County Highway Route 600/Route 601 Roundabout X Safety 2.70 121 3,700,000$ 7.31 54 3,700,000$ 7.31 59 14 3923 C Richmond Prince George County Highway Roundabout at Middle Road and Prince George Drive X Safety 3.11 101 4,530,105$ 6.87 60 4,530,105$ 6.87 63 16 3707 C Richmond Dinwiddie County Highway Route 1 Widening from I-85 Exit 63B to Route 1302 X Safety 0.79 287 4,098,689$ 1.94 203 4,098,689$ 1.94 211 42

4258 C Richmond Hopewell City Bike/Pedestrian W Randolph Rd & N 6th Ave Intersection Improvements X SafetyRegional Network

0.37 358 1,973,000$ 1.88 210 1,973,000$ 1.88 219 44

3922 C Richmond Prince George County Highway Roundabout at Middle Road(Rt 646) & Jefferson Park Rd (630) X Safety 0.42 347 4,058,312$ 1.02 281 3,123,344$ 1.33 257 48

3924 C Richmond Prince George County Highway Intersection Improvements at Route 460 & Queen Street X XRegional

Network - Safety

0.36 362 3,469,550$ 1.03 280 3,469,550$ 1.03 291 55

3472 C Richmond Colonial Heights City Highway Boulevard Modernization, Phase II X X COSS 1.51 204 17,738,770$ 0.85 296 14,705,213$ 1.03 292 56

3727 C Richmond Hopewell City Bike/Pedestrian Courthouse Road Pedestrian Improvements X SafetyRegional Network

0.90 273 8,860,000$ 1.02 283 8,860,000$ 1.02 294 57

4403 C RichmondTri-Cities Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Highway I-85 NB to I-95 SB - Tri-Cities MPO HB2 Priority 1 X COSS COSS 3.56 88 40,026,162$ 0.89 294 40,026,162$ 0.89 302 59

5035 C Richmond Petersburg City Highway I-85 NB to I-95 SB-Tri-Cities MPO HB2 Priority #1 X X COSS COSS 3.10 104 40,026,162$ 0.78 304 40,026,162$ 0.78 315 61 5065 C Richmond Petersburg City Highway I-95 and South Crater Road-MPO HB2 Priority #2 X X COSS COSS 0.67 306 23,381,673$ 0.28 379 23,381,673$ 0.28 385 73

3767 C Richmond Colonial Heights City Highway Lakeview Avenue Modernization, Phase II X XRegional Network

0.33 370 14,544,264$ 0.22 386 14,044,264$ 0.23 391 75

4405 C RichmondTri-Cities Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Highway I-95 and South Crater Road - MPO HB2 Priority 2 X COSS COSS 0.28 375 23,381,673$ 0.12 412 23,381,673$ 0.12 414 76

3724 C Richmond Hopewell City Bike/Pedestrian Cedar Level Road Southern Segment X Safety 0.12 407 11,235,912$ 0.11 415 11,235,912$ 0.11 416 77

4400 C RichmondTri-Cities Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Highway I-95 NB to I-85 SB Flyover Ramp - Tri-Cities MPO Priority 3 X COSS COSS 1.40 219 166,369,000$ 0.08 419 166,369,000$ 0.08 419 78

= Funded in Round 3

Round 3 SMART SCALE Applications by Tri-Cities and its Members