june 28, 2012 transportation advisory group presentation
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Transportation Advisory Group
Scenarios Development Workshop
June 28, 2012
![Page 2: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Introductions
� Steve Thieken, B&N� Project Manger
� Jamie Snow, B&N� Senior Transportation Planner & Modeler
� Joel Mann, Kittelson & Associates� Senior Planner
![Page 3: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Meeting Purpose
� Brainstorm and discuss concepts to include in
the long range transportation plan
� The concepts presented and scenarios
developed will form the basis/first step for the
project team’s analysis of alternatives and
ultimately the recommended plan
![Page 4: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Agenda
� Part 1 - Set the Stage
� Review and discuss Draft Transportation Goals, Objectives, Measures
� Review Conceptual Development Map (from regional visioning process)
� Overview of current transportation
� Discuss funding
� Review the “toolbox” of concepts
� Part 2 - Build the Scenarios
� Develop three Scenarios (small group work)
� Report-out from each group (larger group)
� Compare/contrast scenarios and discussion (larger group)
� Work to merge into three consensus “hybrid” Scenarios (larger group)
![Page 5: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Process
![Page 6: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Overall Planning Process
� Regional Visioning Process (basically complete)
� Transportation Advisory Group
� Meeting 1 – Kickoff/Existing Conditions/Goals (May 17th)
� Meeting 2 – Alternatives Workshop (today)
� Meeting 3 – Alternatives Analysis Review (September)
� Meeting 4 – Draft Recommended Plan Review (late October)
� Public Engagement
� Open House (late October)
� Stakeholder Discussions (ongoing)
� Website
![Page 7: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Transportation Planning Process
Source: Transportation Planning Process Key
Issues, 2007, A Publication of the
Transportation Planning Capacity Building
Program
LRTP Process
![Page 8: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Improvement Ideas and Strategies
� Concepts should be rooted in:
Community’s
Vision, Goals and
Objectives
Deficiencies and
Needs in System
Regional Vision
for Growth
Improvement Ideas
and Strategies
![Page 9: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Goals, Objectives, Measures
Transportation Advisory GroupIt’s Time to Chart Our Future
![Page 10: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Improvement Ideas and Strategies
Community’s
Vision, Goals and
Objectives
Deficiencies and
Needs in System
Regional Vision
for Growth
Improvement Ideas
and Strategies
![Page 11: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Draft LRTP Goals
Regional Visioning Process•Stakeholder Meetings (January)
•Idea Gathering Meetings (January)
TAG Meeting #1 (May 17th)•Goals Exercise
Eight Metropolitan Planning Factors•FHWA
•SAFETEA-LU
Draft LRTP Goals,
Objectives, and
Measures
![Page 12: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Draft LRTP Goals
Regional Visioning Process•Stakeholder Meetings (January)
•Idea Gathering Meetings (January)
TAG Meeting #1 (May 17th)•Goals Exercise
Eight Metropolitan Planning Factors•FHWA
•SAFETEA-LU
Draft LRTP Goals,
Objectives, and
Measures
![Page 13: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Regional Visioning Process (quick review)
� Regional Visioning Group
� Kickoff Meeting (November 8th)
� General Workshop (December 7th)
� Goal Writing Workshop (February 29th)
� Stakeholder Interviews (January 24th – 26th)
� Public Meetings
� Idea Gathering (January 25th and 26th)
� Understanding Future Growth (March 28th)
� Community Choices Workshop (June 6th)
![Page 14: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Goals & Vision
Statements
Idea Gathering
Meetings
Stakeholder
Interviews
&
Regional Visioning Process
� Step 1 - Developing Goals and Vision Statements
![Page 15: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Understanding
Future Growth
&Goals & Vision
Statements
Principles &
Regional Vision
Regional Visioning Process
� Step 2 - Developing Principles and Regional Vision
![Page 16: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Technical
Findings
Principles &
Regional Vision
Transportation and
Comprehensive
Plans
Regional Visioning Process
� Principles and Vision Plan feed the LRTP
![Page 17: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Transportation Vision Statement
� Vision Statement from Crossroads effort:
Moving… A balanced, safe, attractive, and accessible
transportation system will reduce congestion, improve
connectivity and support and direct future growth
integrating private vehicles and expanding public
transportation, biking, and walking networks.
� One of the five broad vision statements for the region
� Crossroads also produced goals and objective that
were at the last TAG meeting
![Page 18: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Draft LRTP Goals
Regional Visioning Process•Stakeholder Meetings (January)
•Idea Gathering Meetings (January)
TAG Meeting #1 (May 17th)•Goals Exercise
Eight Metropolitan Planning Factors•FHWA
•SAFETEA-LU
Draft LRTP Goals,
Objectives, and
Measures
![Page 19: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
TAG #1 Feedback
GROUP 1
Goal: Preserve, Improve and Enhance LOS on Arteries and
Connector roads.
Objective 1.1- Improve travel times.
Objective 1.2- More people per vehicle.
Goal: An Operational system that all modes can use efficiently.
Objective 2.1- By [DATE] we will have a set of operational and
enforcement guidelines.
Objective 2.2- Add the human touch back into operations.
Goal: Promote pedestrian traffic outside municipal boundaries.
Goal: New freight infrastructure that is not based on roads/trucks.
Goal: Expand airport for Multi functional air travel.
GROUP 3
Goal: Integrated Transportation system that includes where all
modes are viable to the public.
Objective 1- 5% bicycle trips 2030.
Objective 2- 20% of all trips on foot.
Objective 3- Public transit system 15min headways in urban areas.
Goal: Transportation system that provides an acceptable traffic flow
during peak commuting periods.
Objective 1 - Improving Key congestion areas.
Objective 2- Increase vehicle occupancy by 30%.
Goal: Reduce injury & death
Objective 1 - Design of future transportation project reduce
accidents.
GROUP 2
Goal: Improve Ingress/Egress to the Core (density) of the
community.
Objective 1- Reduce time for people to core.
-Travel time for people (all modes).
Objective 2- Increase ability to get more people to/from core.
- Number of people (all modes) trips.
- Commuting (Population, Jobs, Students).
Objective 3- Increase route options (all modes).
Goal: Increase Alternatives to traveling (using traditional
transportation systems)
Objective 1- Increase telecommuting /Electronic technology
capacity, students to classes.
-Number of people telecommuting and
number of students taking classes remotely
-Efficiency of broadband system (or other).
Objective 2- Support Development/Land Use patterns that
decrease need to travel.
-Increase in mixed use neighborhoods.
-Trips.
Goal: Reduce personal auto use.
Objective 1- Reduce number of people reliant on personal
autos.
-Personal Auto Ownership
-Auto Volumes
Objective 2- Reduce land area needed for personal travel
-Land Area used for parking
![Page 20: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Draft LRTP Goals
Regional Visioning Process•Stakeholder Meetings (January)
•Idea Gathering Meetings (January)
TAG Meeting #1 (May 17th)•Goals Exercise
Eight Metropolitan Planning Factors•FHWA
•SAFETEA-LU
Draft LRTP Goals,
Objectives, and
Measures
![Page 21: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Federally Required Planning Factors
1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;
2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;
3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;
4. Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight;
5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns;
6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight;
7. Promote efficient system management and operation; and
8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.
Resource: SAFETEA-LU
![Page 22: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Draft LRTP Goals
Regional Visioning Process•Stakeholder Meetings (January)
•Idea Gathering Meetings (January)
TAG Meeting #1 (May 17th)•Goals Exercise
Eight Metropolitan Planning Factors•FHWA
•SAFETEA-LU
Draft LRTP Goals,
Objectives, and
Measures
![Page 23: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Goals Feedback
Rating by Person Average
Rating1 2 3 4 5 6 7
How well do these eight transportation goals and respective
objectives capture the community's needs and desires?3 4 2 3 3 3 3 3
How important do you believe this goal is?
Goal #1 8 10 9 10 10 3 8.3
Goal #2 10 9 2 8 8 7 7.3
Goal #3 7 9 2 9 4 10 6.8
Goal #4 7 8 7 9 6 5 7
Goal #5 10 10 10 10 5 7 8.7
Goal #6 10 8 5 9 7 8 7.8
Goal #7 10 10 10 10 2 6 8
Goal #8 5 5 5 6 1 2 4
![Page 24: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
LRTP Goal #1
Goal #1: A multimodal transportation system that efficiently moves people and goods
OBJECTIVES MEASUREMENTS
Objective 1A: To eliminate/reduce current congestion
and multimodal traffic flow restrictions on arterial and
collector roadways
Change in delay
and travel time
for pedestrians
Change in delay
and travel time
for bicyclists
Change in
delay and
travel time
for
automobiles
Change in
delay and
travel time
for bus and
PRT
Objective 1B: To ensure that future development and
related transportation improvements address capacity
and connectivity needs proactively rather than
reactively
Change in number of transportation improvements built
prior to and concurrently with growth and development
(rather than reactive to)
Objective 1C: Improve ingress/egress to the most
densely developed / highest activity areas of region
(the core)
Change in time to
travel to and from
core
Change in number
of people
traveling to and
from core
Change in number of routes and
connection options to and from
the core (all modes)
Objective 1D: Provide adequate transportation
capacity and access to support current businesses
Change in access
to current
clusters of
businesses
Change in travel
time to current
clusters of
businesses
Objective 1E: Focus capacity improvements for all
modes in areas of desired future growth and
development that support the public’s vision for the
region
Change in number of improvements
planned, designed, and/or constructed in
areas of desired growth
Change in amount of growth
and development in areas
identified as priority areas in
regional vision
![Page 25: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
LRTP Goal #2
Goal #2: A transportation system in which all modes are highly integrated and connected
OBJECTIVES MEASUREMENTS
Objective 2A: To allow for convenient transfer
from one mode to another in the region (i.e.
biking to bus, vanpooling to bus, etc) to
maximize travel efficiency
Change in number of
multimodal trips
Change in travel time /
travel delay for trips
Change in cost of travel
Objective 2B: To encourage the use of the most
efficient mode based on the characteristics of a
particular trip
Change in number of
people walking
Change in number of
people bicycling
Change in number of
people riding the bus
and PRT
Objective 2C: Increase the geographic area in
which people have convenient access to non-
automobile modes
Change in number of
travel options to
individuals in all
populated areas
Change in amount of county served by non-auto
transportation modes
Objective 2D: Reduce reliance on automobile
for travel
Change in number of
person trips by non-
automobile modes
Change in auto ownership
Objective 2E: Better serve those who do
not/cannot own and drive a personal
automobile.
Change in number of
opportunities to travel
for those who do not
drive
Change in travel times for those who do not drive
![Page 26: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
LRTP Goal #3
Goal #3: A multimodal transportation system that safely moves people and goods
OBJECTIVES MEASUREMENTS
Objective 3A: To minimize crashes, especially injury/fatality
crashes by 50% through improvement of high crash locations
(all modes)
Change in frequency and
rate of crashes (all
modes)
Change in frequency of injury/fatality
crashes (all modes)
Objective 3B: To ensure that future growth and related
transportation improvements address transportation safety
needs in planning and design
Change in crash
frequency and rates in
areas affected by
development and
growth
Transportation improvements built prior
to and concurrently with growth and
development (rather than in reaction to
growth)
![Page 27: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
LRTP Goal #4
Goal #4: A transportation system that maximizes the efficiency of freight movement through and within the region
with minimal impacts on neighborhood and campus areas, especially areas of higher bicycle and pedestrian demand
OBJECTIVES MEASUREMENTS
Objective 4A: Reduce truck traffic in residential
neighborhoods and on other streets where
significant numbers of bicycles and pedestrians
are present
Change in number of
trucks in
neighborhoods
Change in number of trucks in other pedestrian/bicycle activity
areas
Objective 4B: Improve truck access to key
industrial areas
Change in time to
deliver freight
Change in amount of
freight moved
Change in amount of freight
dependent industries
Objective 4C: Increase options for freight
movement that minimizes truck traffic on non-
interstate roadways
Change in amount of freight moved by non-truck mode
![Page 28: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
LRTP Goal #5
Goal #5: Greater collaboration between local agencies, state officials, and private interests in the pursuit and funding
of transportation improvements
OBJECTIVES MEASUREMENTS
Objective 5A: More effective and less costly
transportation improvements by capitalizing on
common goals and needs between communities
and agencies in the region
Change in number of
policies and projects co-
sponsored by multiple
jurisdictions
Change in number of
projects funded by multiple
jurisdictions
Change in number of projects
that physically cross
jurisdictional lines
Objective 5B: Higher quality transportation system
improvements due to cost sharing and
collaboration.
Change in the ratio of
funding by state sources
versus local sources for
projects
Change in public opinion related to quality of transportation
improvements
Objective 5C: Transportation improvements that
support the public’s long-term vision for the
region
Change in number of
regional goals supported
by projects
Change in public satisfaction related to transportation
projects
![Page 29: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
LRTP Goal #6
Goals #6: A Transportation system that is attractive, sustainable, and livable.
OBJECTIVES MEASUREMENTS
Objective 6A: Integrate the local context of the
area into the planning, design, and
construction of transportation improvements
Change in the quality and
livability of the built
environment
Change in public satisfaction
related to transportation
projects
Change in property values.
Objective 6B: Include sustainability features in
design of transportation improvements that
minimize environmental impacts
Change in storm water
run-off due to
transportation
infrastructure and runoff
related to vehicular
byproducts.
Change in vehicle emissions
impact on air-quality
Change in negative impacts to
environment due to
transportation
Objective 6C: Address multimodal system
needs in all planning, design, and construction
of transportation improvements
Change in number of non-
automobile focused
transportation projects
planned, designed, and
constructed
Change in comfort, safety and convenience for travel (all
modes)
![Page 30: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
LRTP Goal #7
Goals #7: Reduce automobile trip demand, especially during peak travel hours
OBJECTIVES MEASUREMENTS
Objective 7A: Reduce the need to construct costly
transportation and parking infrastructure
improvements
Change in project funding required to meet the region’s transportation and parking
needs
Objective 7B: Invest in transportation improvements
that encourage and support development/land use
patterns that decrease need to travel
Change in number of projects that support mixed-use, transit oriented, and non-auto
centric land development
Objective 7C: Reduce automobile emissions and
improve air quality
Change in air-quality measures
Objective 7D: 20% of all trips made by walking Change in walking trips
Objective 7E: 5% of all trips made by bicycle Change in bicycle trips
Objective 7F: Increase number of trips made by
public transit by 200%
Change in bus trips Change in PRT trips Change in other public transit
trips
Objective 7F: Increase work telecommuting and
virtual lectures (WVU)
Change in number of
employees working from
home or other remote
locations
Change in number of
students taking classes
remotely
Change in person trips to/from
work and classes
Objective 7E: Increase average vehicle occupancy by
100%
Change in average occupants per vehicle
![Page 31: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
2006 – 2008 Mode Split (commuting)
80.63%
10.85%
0.90%
0.18%
3.25% 0.08%
0.10%
3.09%0.93%
WV State Drive Alone
Shared Ride
Transit
Bicycle
Walking
Taxi
Motorcycle
Telecommute
Other
75.35%
10.97%
1.91%
0.10%
6.71%0.22%
4.09% 0.66%
Monongalia County
Drive Alone
Shared Ride
Transit
Bicycle
Walking
Motorcycle
Telecommute
Other
59.72%10.21%
1.96%
0.14%
20.14%
6.78%
1.05%
City of Morgantown
Drive Alone
Shared Ride
Transit
Bicycle
Walking
Telecommute
Other
Source: Census Transportation Planning Products (CTPP)
![Page 32: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
LRTP Goal #8
Goals #8: A multimodal transportation system that enhances the homeland security of the region
OBJECTIVES MEASUREMENTS
Objective 8A: Heighten awareness of homeland security
needs related to transportation
Change in occurrences of security issues being considered
Objective 8B: Improve understanding of critical
transportation system related homeland security issues in the
region
Change in knowledge of critical homeland security issues
Objective 8C: Incorporate homeland security needs in
transportation project planning, design, and construction
Change in number of projects and policies that include homeland security
considerations
![Page 33: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Addressing the Eight Planning Factors
SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors Draft LRTP Goal1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by
enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency.X X X X X X
2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and
non-motorized users.X X X X X X
3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and
non-motorized users.X X X
4. Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight. X X X X X X
5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation,
improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between
transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and
economic development patterns.
X X X X X X X
6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation
system, across and between modes, for people and freight.X X X X X
7. Promote efficient system management and operation. X X X X X X
8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. X X X X X X
![Page 34: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Regional Vision – Growth
Framework
Transportation Advisory GroupIt’s Time to Chart Our Future
![Page 35: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Improvement Ideas and Strategies
Community’s
Vision, Goals and
Objectives
Deficiencies and
Needs in System
Regional Vision
for Growth
Improvement Ideas
and Strategies
![Page 36: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Conceptual Framework Map
� Michael Insert final version
![Page 37: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Concepts
� Preserve Open – Areas that are permanently protected from development (parkland)
� Reserve Open – Areas of steep slopes that are subject to development but should be protected.
� Restricted (floodplain) – Areas that are subject to development, but where development is restricted due to a high risk of flooding.
� Priority Growth – Areas where development should be encouraged. Includes growth in new areas and redevelopment within existing areas. Development should be consistent with the Principles (enhance the community’s vitality, provide for a greater mix of uses, improve mobility, expand housing choices, and attractive)
� Infill and Redevelopment – Existing developed areas where additional growth, consistent with the Principles is generally appropriate, but not a strategic priority.
� Controlled Growth – Developing areas, or currently undeveloped land where more growth is likely due to proximity to existing thoroughfares, infrastructure and adjacency to recent development. Growth in these areas generally expands the footprint of the urban area and should be controlled to minimize negative impacts.
� Limited Growth – All other areas of that are subject to development, but where increased intensity is generally not desired. These areas include both existing open space and existing development.
![Page 38: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Conceptual Framework Map
� A visual representation of the Vision for growth
� Preliminarily based on:
1. Results of Understanding Future Growth workshop
2. Work with Comprehensive Plan Committees
![Page 39: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Patterns we found in the Understanding Future Growth Workshop:
Redevelopment at higher intensities
• All of the groups placed at least half of their chips on areas with existing
development
• Many chips were stacked on specific sites that participants felt had
redevelopment potential, indicating that development should occur at
higher intensities.
Group
5Group
2
Examples:
![Page 40: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Patterns we found in the Understanding Future Growth Workshop:
Infill Development
• Most of the groups placed development in undeveloped areas near existing
development.
• This infill pattern of development would plug holes in the urban fabric, placing
development in areas already served by existing infrastructure, and allowing the
urban area to expand in a contiguous pattern.
Group
4Group
2
Examples:
![Page 41: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Patterns we found in the Understanding Future Growth Workshop:
Greenfield development is limited and clustered
• Groups understood the difficulty in limiting all “greenfield” development.
• Development happening in currently undeveloped areas should be both near
existing development and/or clustered to “minimize sprawl” and “preserve
open space” rather than occur in a haphazard “leap-frog” pattern.
Group
2Group
3
Examples:
![Page 42: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Patterns we found in the Understanding Future Growth Workshop:
Very limited development in outlying areas
• Groups allocated very limited growth for the surrounding region.
• Some identified areas south, along I-79 as suitable for some development, while fewer
placed development in the western part of the county.
Group
4Group
3Group
2
Examples:
![Page 43: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Conceptual Framework Map
� Michael Insert final version
![Page 44: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Conceptual Framework Map Summary
� A visual representation of the Vision
� Represents the intended approach to growth in the
region
� Policy recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plans and Long Range Transportation Plan should
aim to make this reality
� Will be refined based on:
� Market analysis and forecasts
![Page 45: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
![Page 46: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Countywide Land Use Projections
Housing
•Demand for almost 17,200 more housing units by 2037
•Increase of 42.9% in 25 years (1.6% per year)
•There are 11,700 more housing units in 2012 than in 1990
•Increase of 37.0% in 22 years (1.7% per year)
Retail
•Demand for 2.8 million square feet of retail space by 2037
•Increase of 47.1% in 25 years (1.9% per year)
•Translates into 4,115 more retail & restaurant jobs
•There are about 3,200 more retail & restaurant jobs in 2012 than in 1998
•Increase of 37.7% in 14 years (2.7% per year)
![Page 47: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Sub-Area Projections
![Page 48: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
![Page 49: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Incorporating Future Growth
Model Inputs
•Roadway Network
•Regional Vision
•Economic Development Analysis
Travel Demand Model Process
•Trip Generation
•Trip Distribution
•Mode Split
•Highway Assignment
Forecasted Results
•2040 Base Year
•Transportation Scenarios
![Page 50: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Current System
Transportation Advisory GroupIt’s Time to Chart Our Future
![Page 51: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Improvement Ideas and Strategies
Community’s
Vision, Goals and
Objectives
Opportunities and
Constraints in
System
Regional Vision
for Growth
Improvement Ideas
and Strategies
![Page 52: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Roadways Characteristics
• Nearly 17% of roadway “arterials” are at, or over
capacity with numerous “bottlenecks” in the
system
• Many “substandard” roadways
� Steep grades
� Sharp turns/curves
� Narrow lane widths
� Narrow shoulder widths
![Page 53: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Roadway Challenges
• Very difficult (costly) to widen existing or construct
new roads due to limited right-of-way availability
and the area’s topography
• Uncontrolled development patterns and lack of
improvements to transportation infrastructure or
access control over the years have lead to many
capacity/safety problems
• Lack of local consensus has stymied past attempts
to construct roadway/highway improvements
![Page 54: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Automobile Traffic Characteristics
• Peak travel times and traffic operations are
highly influenced by WVU schedule
• Travel patterns influenced by parking availability
and locations
![Page 55: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Primary Public Transit Service Providers
• Mountain Line Transit Authority
� Focus on the urban core with reach into the County
� Major service expansions are planned but not funded
• WVU
� Focus on shuttle service connecting campuses
� Operates PRT
� Excellent reliability record
� Undergoing maintenance and technology upgrades
� No plans/funding for expansion of system
![Page 56: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Transit Characteristics
• Good transit service coverage in key populated
areas
• Frequency of service is deficient in most areas
• Hours of day of service also deficient in most
areas
• Lacks consistent stop locations with quality
amenities and good pedestrian environments
![Page 57: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Pedestrian System Characteristics
� Primarily sidewalks and multi-use trails
� Grade/topography a major concern
� Sidewalk coverage/connectivity deficient in most areas
� Narrow sidewalks adjacent to high speed traffic
� Lack of “safe” crosswalks
� Many existing sidewalks are substandard with utility poles and other impediments blocking the pathway
![Page 58: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Pedestrian Safety
� 1998 through 2008
� 226 reported pedestrian injuries
� Consistently 20 to 25 pedestrian injuries per year
Spruce & Walnut (9) University/Beechurst/Fayette (5)
High & Willey (8) Beechurst & Campus (5)
S. University & Pleasant (8) Chestnut Ridge/Van Voorhis (5)
University & College (8) High & Walnut (4)
N. Willey & Prospect (7) High & Fayette (4)
Spruce & Pleasant (5) University & Prospect (4)
Leading pedestrian accident locations
West Virginia University Injury Control Research Center
January 1998 – June 2008
![Page 59: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Pedestrian Demand
� Local demographics lead to:
� Walking more prevalent in Morgantown than
anywhere else in WV
� Significant demand for walking/running for exercise
� University connections to off-campus residential
areas especially important
![Page 60: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Bicycling Characteristics
� On-street travel:
� Narrow lanes and steep grades can make bicycling
difficult on many roadways
� Few streets with paved shoulders
� No on-street bike lanes exist
� Steep side slopes and narrow rights-of-way make
bike lane improvements difficult
� “Bikeable” routes exist (see Morgantown Bicycle
Board’s “Commuter Map”)
![Page 61: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Bicycling Characteristics
� Trails
� Excellent opportunities for cycling (recreational and
commuting) on trails
� Nearly 10-miles of paved trails
� Caperton Trail
� Decker’s Creek Trail
� Many more miles of nature surface trails at City and
County parks
![Page 62: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Bicycling Characteristics
� Parking
� Numerous racks in City and WVU Campus
� Parking rings already added to several downtown
parking meters with possibly more in the future
![Page 63: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Freight
� Trucking
� Designated truck routes: I-68, I-79, US 119, US 19,
WV 7, and CR 857
� Two Active Rail Lines
� Monongahela River
![Page 64: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Air Travel
� Morgantown Municipal Airport (Hart Field)
� Commercial passenger travel available 7 days
� Private hangers
![Page 65: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Funding the Plan
![Page 66: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Funding Trends
� Gas consumption is down
� Price, fuel economy, unemployment
� Flat tax per gallon
� Revenue down
� Limited/no earmarks
� Local tax revenues down
� No federal transportation bill
![Page 67: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
State Forecast
� Transportation revenue expected to stay flat
STATE ROAD FUND REVENUE ESTIMATES*FY STATE FEDERAL** TOTAL
2013 $715,800 $494,000 $1,209,8002014 $750,800 $416,000 $1,166,8002015 $747,000 $411,000 $1,158,0002016 $747,000 $411,000 $1,158,0002017 $751,600 $411,000 $1,162,600
TOTAL = $5,855,2005-YR AVG = $1,171,040
* PRESENTED IN NOMINAL DOLLARS (000'S)** FEDERAL REVENUE ESTIMATES LESS ARRA
![Page 68: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
Purchasing Power Decreasing
� “Due to declining revenue and inflation, the Agency’s purchasing power will
effectively be cut by 19% from FY 2013 to FY 2017. “
STATE ROAD FUND REVENUE ESTIMATES*OFFICIAL EST STATE FEDERAL** TOTAL
2013 $657,876 $454,024 $1,111,9002014 $661,534 $366,540 $1,028,0742015 $630,993 $347,173 $978,1662016 $604,924 $332,830 $937,7542017 $583,503 $319,079 $902,582
TOTAL = $4,958,4765-YR AVG = $991,695
* PRESENTED IN CONSTANT 2011 DOLLARS (000'S)** FEDERAL REVENUE ESTIMATES LESS ARRA
![Page 69: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
Statewide
Projections
TABLE # 1225-YEAR STATEWIDE REVENUE PROJECTIONS
FY 2013 - FY 2037ESTIMATED ESTIMATED TOTAL
STATE REVENUE FED REVENUE REVENUE2011 DOLLARS 2011 DOLLARS 2011 DOLLARS
($000's) ($000's) ($000's)2013 $657,876 * $454,024 * $1,111,900 *
2014 $661,534 * $366,540 * $1,028,074 *
2015 $630,993 * $347,173 * $978,166 *
2016 $604,924 * $332,830 * $937,754 *
2017 $583,503 * $319,079 * $902,582 *
2018 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2019 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2020 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2021 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2022 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2023 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2024 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2025 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2026 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2027 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2028 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2029 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2030 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2031 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2032 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2033 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2034 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2035 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2036 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2037 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
$24,792,382
FISCALYEAR
NOTE: *VALUES TAKEN FROM WVDOT FY 2013 BUDGET PRESENTATION LESS ARRA FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT
25-YEAR TOTAL REVENUE =
![Page 70: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
Funding Forecast for
WV MPO LRTPs
TOTAL PROJECTED REVENUE $24,792,382
LESS NON-IMPROVEMENT FUNDS -$12,496,138
LESS EXCLUDED IMPROVEMENTS FUNDS -$9,468,108
LESS EARMARKS (ASSUMED $0 MILL/YR) $0
STATEWIDE IMPROVEMENT FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR MPO PLANNING PURPOSES $2,828,136
IMPROVEMENT FUNDS DISTRIBUTED BY AVERAGE OF VMT, POPULATION, HIGHWAY MILEAGE AND HISTORICAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDING
***
NON-MPO AREAS (58.83%) $1,663,800MPO AREAS (41.17%) $1,164,336
RIC (13.63%) $385,345KYOVA (5.41%) $153,039WWW (3.44%) $97,160GMA (4.14%) $117,179
BELOMAR (2.93%) $82,757BHJ (2.44%) $68,954HEP (8.48%) $239,764
NOTE: *** INDICATES APPROVED METHODOLOGY FROM 10/07 AND RESULTS USING DATA REVISED 1/12/12
IMPROVEMENT FORECAST SUMMARY (FY 2013-2037)2011 DOLLARS (000's)
DESCRIPTION VALUE
![Page 71: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
MM MPO 25-yr Improvement Funding Forecast
GMA LRTP 25-YR IMPROVEMENT FUNDING FORECAST (IN 201 1 DOLLARS)VALUES AS OF 1/15/11 AND PRESENTED IN THOUSANDS
FY
TOTALSTATE
REVENUE
NONIMPROVEMENTEXPENDITURES
STATEWIDEIMPROVEMENT
FUNDS
ELIMINATEDIMPROVEMENT
FUNDS
ELIMINATEDEARMARKED
FUNDS
STATEWIDEIMPROVEMENT
FUNDS FORMPO LRTP'S
GMA LRTPIMPROVEMENT
FUNDING@ (4.30%)
2013 $1,111,900 $499,846 $612,054 $471,282 $0 $140,773 $6,0542014 $1,028,074 $499,846 $528,229 $406,736 $0 $121,493 $5,2252015 $978,166 $499,846 $478,321 $368,307 $0 $110,014 $4,7312016 $937,754 $499,846 $437,908 $337,189 $0 $100,719 $4,3312017 $902,582 $499,846 $402,736 $310,107 $0 $92,629 $3,9842018 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652019 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652020 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652021 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652022 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652023 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652024 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652025 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652026 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652027 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652028 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652029 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652030 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652031 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652032 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652033 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652034 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652035 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652036 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652037 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,865
25-YRTOTALS
$24,792,382 $12,496,138 $12,296,244 $9,468,108 $0 $2,828,136 $121,626
- $136M over 28 year span of LRTP
- 2006 LRTP constraint was $233M
(42% reduction)
![Page 72: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
Alternative Funding Thoughts
� Local taxes
� Impact fees
� Developer contributions
� Tolling
� User fees
� Contracts
� Private-public partnerships
� Tax Increment Financing
� Other grants?
� Other?
![Page 73: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
Scenario Planning Targets
� Green Wave!
� $300M – Optimistic (lay it all out there)
� Status Quo (State Projection)
� $150M – Realistic (cut the fat)
� Tighten the Belt
� $75M – Pessimistic (now what do you really want?)
![Page 74: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
Scenario Toolbox
![Page 75: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
Past/Current/Future Projects
� Most of 2004 MPO priority projects list is complete
� Turn lanes, lane additions, signals, safety
� Mileground – widening project scheduled
� Osage Road/Chaplin Hill – signal work
� Grumbeins Island – preferred concept to lower
University Ave and create plaza over
� Van Voorhis TSM – signal work and drainage/sidewalk
� WV 705 TSM – Beechurst to Mileground
![Page 76: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
Mileground Estimates
Phase
Approx.
Length Approx. Cost
Phase I
R/W $6.1 M 0.9 $ 11,300,000 per mile
Construction $4.1 M $ 4,600,000 per mile
Phase II
Construction $7.6 M 0.6 $ 12,700,000 per mile
Phase III
R/W $10 M 0.7 $ 14,000,000 per mile
Construction $14 M $ 20,000,000 per mile
� Estimated Cost - $40M +
� Preliminary estimates
![Page 77: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
![Page 78: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
![Page 79: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
Break
![Page 80: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
Scenarios
Development Exercise
![Page 81: June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042607/5598567d1a28aba11d8b469a/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
Next Steps
� Refine goals, objectives, and measures
� Technical Analysis of Scenarios
� Further detailing
� Field reviews as needed
� Travel Demand Model analysis
� Modification of and development of additional concepts by consultant team
� Cost estimates
� Next TAG Meeting – Alternatives Review Workshop (September)