planning process certification revie · the financial plan for the fy 2013 -2018 tip was expanded...

Federal Certification Review of the Metropolitan Planning Process National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB)

October 9, 28-29, 2014 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, D.C

Location: Ronald F. Kirby Training Center 777 North Capital Street, NE Washington, DC 20002

(202) 962-3200 October 9---Public Involvement Meeting The Federal team has been added to the agenda of the regularly scheduled monthly meeting of the MPO’s Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) for an open dialogue on public involvement in the MPO’s transportation planning process. Members of the MPO’s Access for All Advisory (AFA) Committee will be specially invited to participate in this discussion. The proposed time of the discussion is from 6:00 PM till 7:00 PM. Members of both Committees, as well as the public, will be invited to ask questions and/or speak to the Federal Team regarding the Transportation Planning Process in the National Capital Region. The CAC will continue with its regular meeting agenda items between 7:00 PM and 8:00 PM. October 28-29, Certification Review Format for all sessions: Each topic will be introduced by the Federal team, followed by a five minute overview and update by TPB staff (and other local agencies identified by the Federal team). The Federal team will then lead the discussion involving all participating agencies: Participants:

• Members of the TPB’s Technical Committee (representatives of all 22 member jurisdictions, State DOTs, Transit Agencies, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, National Park Service)

• Members of the TPB’s Citizens Advisory Committee • Staff / Members of the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Federal Review Team Members: FHWA/FTA Division and Regional staff Melissa Barlow – FTA DC Metro Office Sandra Jackson – FHWA DC Division Ivan Rucker – FHWA Virginia Division Kwame Arhin – FHWA Maryland Division Lindsay Donnellon – FHWA Maryland Division

1

DAY 1 – Tuesday, October 28 8:30 AM Federal Review Team Only Meeting

10:00 AM Introductions and Welcoming Remarks Federal team will provide overview of the Certification Process of the Transportation

Planning Process. TPB staff will then provide an update and summary of major regional issues and priority planning activities, with discussion among all participating agencies.

Federal Discussion Leader: Melissa Barlow, FTA DC Metro Office Ivan Rucker, FHWA Virginia Division

• Brief discussion of the Certification Process • Summary of the Responses to 2010 Federal Certification and Findings • Overview of recent/current major regional planning activities

11:30 AM Lunch 12:15 PM Review of the Transportation Planning Process Federal team leader will initiate a briefing by the TPB staff on topics encompassing

the over-all planning process and the required elements of the Transportation Planning Process through these documents and activities, followed by discussion by all participating agencies.

Federal Discussion Leader: Sandra Jackson, FHWA, D.C. Division Kwame Arhin, FHWA Maryland Division

• Unified Planning Work Program, Self-Certification, Planning Agreements

• Long-Range Transportation Plan (CLRP) • Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and STIPs • Fiscal Constraint / Financial Planning

2:45 PM Break 3:00 PM Review of the Transportation Planning Process (Continued) Federal Discussion Leader: Ivan Rucker, FHWA, Virginia Division Sandra Jackson, FHWA DC Division

• Regional Air Quality Conformity Analysis • Travel Demand Forecasting • Congestion Management System

4:00 PM Adjourn

2

DAY 2, Wednesday, October 29 8:30 AM Additional Transportation Plan And Program Elements Federal Discussion Leader: Melissa Barlow FTA DC Metro Office Sandra Jackson FHWA, DC Division

• Land Use and Transit - Coordination and Planning • Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning, Complete Streets and Green Streets

Policies • Freight Planning and Safety Activities

10:15 AM Break 10: 30 AM Public Involvement Process Federal Discussion Leader: Lindsay Donnellon FHWA Maryland Division Melissa Barlow FTA DC Metro Office

• Participation Plan and Public Involvement • Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan • Title VI, Environmental Justice, Americans with Disabilities Act

11:30 AM Lunch 12:30 PM Metropolitan Transportation Systems Studies/Surveys for Plan Development Federal Discussion Leader: Sandra Jackson FHWA, DC Division Melissa Barlow FTA DC Metro Office

• Major New Planning Activities • Performance Planning under MAP-21 • Performance Analysis and Assessment of the Plan • Target Setting and Performance Measures

2:00 PM General Discussion, Comments and Remarks All participates 3:30 PM Adjourn Meeting of Federal Review Team to prepare preliminary observations and close-out issues

3

Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO)

Responses to

2010 Certification Review Questions from

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

October 2014

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 3

A. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PREVIOUS REVIEW AND METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) RESPONSES ..................................................................................... 4

B. DESCRIPTION OF PLANNING AREA .................................................................................... 14

C. MPO BOUNDARIES............................................................................................................. 14

D. ORGANIZATION/STRUCTURE ............................................................................................. 16

E. AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACTS ........................................................................................ 18

F. MPO ANNUAL SELF CERTIFICATIONS ................................................................................. 18

G. LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (LRTP) .................................................................. 19

H. PLANNING FACTORS .......................................................................................................... 23

I. TIP ...................................................................................................................................... 24

J. FINANCIAL PLANNING AND FISCAL CONSTRAINT ............................................................. 27

K. UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM (UPWP) ................................................................ 31

L. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS (CMP) ................................................................. 33

M. AIR QUALITY ....................................................................................................................... 34

N. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (ITS) .................................................................. 37

O. TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING AND MODELS DEVELOPMENT ...................................... 37

P. FREIGHT PLANNING ........................................................................................................... 42

Q. LAND USE/MULTIMODAL/TRANSIT PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY .............................. 43

R. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ....................................................................................................... 45

S. TITLE VI AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 49

T. CLIMATE CHANGE .............................................................................................................. 52

U. LINKING NEPA AND TRANSPORTATION/ENVIRONMENT ................................................... 52

W. LIVABILITY ............................................................................................................................ 53

APPENDIX 1: GLOSSARY OF FAMPO TERMS ............................................................................... 57

APPENDIX 2: LINKS TO KEY FAMPO DOCUMENTS ON THE WEB ................................................ 59

2 FAMPO Responses to the 2010 Planning Certification Review Questions - October 2014

I. INTRODUCTION

This document provides FAMPO responses to the 2010 planning certification review questions submitted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to the TPB on March 3, 2010. Following the 2000 Census, a portion of North Stafford County was declared an urbanized area and attached to the TBP urbanized area. Subsequently FAMPO and TBP signed a Memorandum of Understanding by which FAMPO would serve as the MPO for North Stafford County and would adhere to all of the TMA requirements therein. To this end FHWA and FTA considered FAMPO to be part of the TPB urbanized area for the purpose of Certification Review. Consequently FAMPO was included in the TPB Certification Review of 2010 and is also included this year. Since no new questionnaire has been issued for the 2014 Certification Review, FAMPO submits this document, giving responses to the 2010 Review TPB Certification for the 2014 Certification Review. The Relationship between FAMPO and GWRC The George Washington Regional Commission is a regional organization comprised of five local governments, abutting the TPB Area to the north. GWRC provides a focus for action and develops regional responses to such issues as the environment, affordable housing, economic development, health and family concerns, human services, population growth, public safety and transportation. GWRC is the administrative home for the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO), which is the federally-designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the region, which is comprised of The City of Fredericksburg and the Counties of Spotsylvania and Stafford. FAMPO became associated with GWRC in 1992. Although FAMPO is an independent body, its staff is provided by GWRC.


A. Recommendations from Previous Review and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Responses

Implementation of the Recommendations In the Transportation Planning Certification Review of

the Washington DC-VA-MD Transportation Management Area

Table 1: TPB Recommendations

Recommendation Status Action Agreement

1 TPB should coordinate the planning process and products for the metropolitan area in accordance with the terms of the 2004 agreement with FAMPO and update the agreement if necessary to clearly define the agencies’ respective planning process roles and responsibilities, as described in the Agreements/ Certification discussion in the FAMPO section of this report. (See #12 recommendation for FAMPO.)

Implemented In early FY 2012, the TPB and FAMPO processes and products were reviewed for coordination as specified in the 2004 agreement. TPB staff with FAMPO staff reviewed the CMP, UPWP, TIP and CLRP planning cycles and products and identified some coordination clarifications and updates. The following text was added to the UPWP to clarify the planning roles:

Each year, the TPB Call for Projects document is transmitted to FAMPO requesting new and updated information on the projects located in the portion of Stafford County in the Washington DC TMA to be included in the update of the CLRP. FAMPO is also requested updated information on the Congestion Management System (CMS) for this portion of Stafford County. FAMPO transmits this information to TPB on the schedule included in the TPB Call for Projects document.

On December 16, 2011, FAMPO transmitted the requested planning products for the portion of Stafford County for the 2012 CLRP amendment.

Self-Certification 2.

The State DOTs should revisit their procedures for certifying the Federal metropolitan planning process to ensure their review and approval of the certifications are clearly defined and the DOT's basis for the certification is documented: for example, that Title VI and ADA requirements are being executed.

Implemented DDOT, MDOT and VDOT reviewed their procedures for certifying the Federal metropolitan planning process to ensure their review and approval of the certifications are clearly defined and the DOT's basis for the certification is documented. They produced a metropolitan planning process review check list of the National Capital Region which documents their procedures for certifying TPB planning self- certification.


Recommendation Status Action Transportation Improvement Program 3.

The TPB TIP should further clarify project selection and prioritization – citing instances for which the TPB actually does prioritization and selection. In addition, a narrative should be included to explain how TPB’s role in the CLRP and TIP selected projects improves the transportation system’s performance and meets regional air quality goals and needs. The states should work with TPB to create high standards of transparency and accountability for State project selection and prioritization processes conducted as part of the metropolitan planning process, including DOT decisions that are incorporated in the TIP.

Implemented TPB staff met with the DOT’s staff to review documentation of states’ project selection processes. The TIP web site was updated to provide linkages to the project selection and prioritization processes at the DOTs and transit agencies. The Program Development Process and Project Development Process sections of the TIP describe the processes at the DOTs and WMATA and then move on to discussing “Addressing Federal Requirements”. This portion for the FY 2012-2018 TIP was restructured to explicitly discuss TPB actions in the project selection process: • Reviewing project inputs for consistency with

the Air Quality Conformity Analysis • Producing a financial summary of all funding

sources proposed by an agency • Bicycle and Pedestrian, Freight, and Regional

Bus Subcommittees development of priority project lists for inclusion on the TIP

• TIGER, JARC and New Freedom project development

4.

The states should work with TPB to enhance verification of the reasonableness of funding sources for TIP amendments, including a process to define “reasonableness” for different types of project amendments. TPB also should ensure that each jurisdiction provides adequate documentation to justify funding availability when requesting amendments. The TIP should demonstrate that estimates of system level revenues and costs are adequate for the DOTs to operate and maintain Federal-aid routes and public transportation systems. This documentation of available funding resources and O&M estimates can be amended into the TIP as soon as this information is available.

Implemented All letters from DOTs or WMATA requesting an amendment now include language stating that the proposed funding is available and committed. This language will clarify if the funds are from additional, “new” monies, or if the funds are being diverted from another project. The Financial Plan for the FY 2013 -2018 TIP was expanded to include a table for each DOT and WMATA, showing estimated revenues from federal, state, and local sources, and proposed commitments. The DOTs have documented their commitment of funding expected to be available to adequately operate and maintain the federal-aid routes in the region and WMATA during the TIP six-year period.


Recommendation Status Action Financial Planning/Fiscal Constraint 5.

TPB should increase the transparency of financial planning and fiscal constraint through improved documentation to make analysis and results more comprehensible to the public. Areas to address include: • Organization of financial data and estimates to facilitate direct comparison of costs and revenues for projects and continuing and recurrent expenditures on operations, maintenance, and asset rehabilitation; • Key assumptions (e.g., inflation, increases or shifts in allocations, fare increases, and population growth) affecting all projects, cost categories, and revenue sources; and • Estimation methods and strategies for addressing projected financial shortfalls and policy trade-offs.

Implemented The web page on the Financial Plan and fiscal constraint for the CLRP was revised to provide clearer and more concise descriptions of the financial analysis for the 2010 CLRP which was completed in October 2010. The financial information presents capital costs and revenues for major projects and on-going expenditures for operations, maintenance and system preservation. The key analysis parameters and estimating assumptions, including inflation rates and population growth are documented. The strategies and estimation methods for addressing projected financial shortfalls are presented.

Outreach/Public Participation 6. The Federal team recommends several actions

that could enhance the TPB Public Participation Plan and practices:

Implemented

• Convene the CAC, AFA, and the WMATA Riders Advisory Council together at reasonable intervals to share ideas, concerns, and ask questions of one another. Continue to convene all TPB and Committee members, similar to the May 26th, 2010 Conversation on Regional Transportation Priorities.

The TPB regularly seeks out both formal and informal opportunities for coordination among its advisory committees. Historically, there has been extensive informal coordination among the CAC, AFA, and WMATA Riders Advisory Council (RAC). The leaders of these committees have indicated that formal collaboration is most effective when it includes a specific purpose, and the current CAC chair is evaluating the most effective purpose for formal collaboration among these groups. A joint meeting was held in March 2012 between the AFA and the WMATA RAC. The AAC membership includes 2 AFA members. TPB staff and committee leadership will continue to seek out additional coordination opportunities in the fall and spring during the development of the Regional Transportation Priorities Plan (RTPP).

• Limit the time that each AFA meeting spends discussing quality of service, to allow for time to provide productive feedback regarding transportation planning.

AFA meeting agendas in 2011 and 2012 included a wide-variety of topics on transportation planning, such as the RTPP and the draft 2012 CLRP projects. The chair of the AFA, who is a TPB member, and AFA members requested agenda items on specific transit and paratransit services. AFA members have stated in surveys conducted in February 2009 and February 2011 that paratransit (MetroAccess) and transit for people with disabilities are the most important topics to include in future agendas.


Recommendation Status Action Outreach/Public Participation (continued) 6… • Consider conducting meetings at locations and

times that may be more convenient to the general public. Seek opportunities to participate in community events, such as local fairs or open houses, to educate and inform the public of TPB activities as well as look for opportunities to link transportation issues to other prevalent issues (education, housing, employment, etc.).

The TPB routinely engages with the public outside of traditional business hours, and in a variety of locations. For instance, staff regularly receive and accept invitations to speak at citizen meetings that occur throughout the region. Examples include the Action Committee for Transit, Suburban Maryland Transportation Alliance, Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, and the Washington chapter of the Urban Land Institute. These ad hoc requests complement the TPB’s institutionalized public engagement activities. For instance, in a key step in the development of the RTPP, the TPB recently held a citizen forum on a Saturday to assess how best to communicate proposed regional challenges and strategies to the general public. As the RTPP is developed in FY2013, the TPB expects to conduct outreach sessions with community groups throughout the region.

• Explore other methods and media to provide information to the public other than email.

The TPB uses a variety of media to inform citizens about key milestones and activities. TPB staff is regularly featured on local radio, television, and in printed and online news and podcasts to discuss specific programs or ongoing policy issues that affect the region. In addition, the TPB generates its own print and online media. The TPB News, a monthly newsletter that is circulated to over a thousand subscribers via postal mail, as well as others through online channels including the TPB website and social media outlets, provides an overview of TPB activities each month. The TPB Weekly Report, an online publication, provides brief, timely summaries of recent TPB research, analysis, outreach, and planning in the region to over 700 subscribers. News items in these TPB-generated media reach a direct readership as well as an indirect audience, as items are often picked up by other media, including local newspapers, blogs, and radio talk shows. Thus, the TPB’s multi-media approach can generate ripple effects throughout the region.


Recommendation Status Action Outreach/Public Participation (continued) 6… • Consider recording meetings and making them

available over a public cable channel, and on websites, or hold online (Web 2.0) public meetings to allow folks to ‘attend’ the meeting within a specified period of time of the actual meeting. TPB could also increase its use of newspaper columns, such as “Doctor Gridlock.”

The TPB uses a multi-strategy approach to making its information and meetings accessible in a variety of ways. Part of this approach has been explained in the previous response. Other strategies include the following: • The TPB will begin webcasting its meetings in

FY2013, once COG has obtained and tested the requisite technology. This technology will also afford TPB committees with the opportunity to make their meetings accessible through the Internet by enabling members of the public to listen or watch the proceedings from remote locations.

• The TPB has begun to more extensively use webinars to share information among its stakeholders and the public. In September 2011, the TPB introduced the Regional Peer Exchange Network as part of its Transportation/Land-Use Connections (TLC) Program, and through webinar technology hosted a successful event in February 2012 that allowed many people to participate from different locations.

• The COG Office of Public Affairs regularly circulates press releases that are picked up by the Washington Post and other news outlets.

• Establish a Public-Involvement Management

Team with Public Information Officers from each jurisdiction that coordinates among their agencies for transportation planning, programming, and operations activities. This would help to harmonize the individual public outreach efforts and increase media coverage of TPB’s work.

The Public Information Officers from the jurisdictions and agencies in the region address a host of topics in addition to transportation. It is judged that convening meetings of these busy officers to focus on transportation would not be very effective. As a way to provide centralized information on the public involvement opportunities throughout the region, the TPB is developing an online clearinghouse that will serve as a “one stop shop” for obtaining information about transportation planning activities and decision-making processes. TPB staff is working with a consultant to establish the clearinghouse in the Fall, and has convened a stakeholder working group to provide feedback on the interim and final version.


Recommendation Status Action Outreach/Public Participation (continued) 6… • Gather information to evaluate the

effectiveness of public outreach strategies. This could include: adding a column to public-speaking sign-in sheets that asks each commenter how they learned about the meeting, posting a small survey on the website each month, or sending a postcard survey asking about the process.

TPB staff use a variety of means to evaluate the effectiveness of on-going public outreach strategies. For instance, TPB staff regularly holds After Action Reviews of major activities as a way to evaluate their effectiveness and determine ways to improve similar future endeavors. Such reviews have been conducted at the close of the CAC’s annual term, at the end of each Community Leadership Institute, and after other major events. Staff also gathers evaluative information through focus group activities. Twice in the past year, the CAC has served as a focus group to provide feedback to TPB staff on efforts such as the TPB Weekly Report, and on methods to gain citizen feedback on the public acceptability of Value Pricing. The AFA has surveyed its members to ascertain the most efficient and effective ways support the committee needs. TPB staff is gathering information and evaluating the effectiveness of these and other public outreach methods. As more experience is gained on these techniques throughout FY2013, consideration will be given to the amending them into the TPB Participation Plan.


Recommendation Status Action Outreach/Public Participation (continued) • Consider opportunities to involve college or

high school students in the planning process: • Develop a CLI for students that could be

held during the summer months, and perhaps be eligible for academic credit or recognition.

• Consider expanding the CAC and AFA membership to include a student interested in transportation or urban planning.

• Create an outreach program to young students using surveys, games, puzzles, and safety tips, or hold an annual poster contest for the cover page of a particular document, or as the screensaver of the TPB transportation webpage.

• Engage high-school and/or college students interested in a career in communications by coordinating a Public Service Announcement Contest. The purpose would be to educate students about the role of the TPB and have them utilize their creativity to promote a specific transportation project or topic in 30-second TV spots.

• Develop a blog to inform the public of current issues, discussions, and decisions.

The tasks for meeting this recommendation should be included for review and approval in the next UPWP.

A number of strategies are used to involve students in the regional planning process: • Staff have established relationships with the

planning departments of the University of Maryland, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and George Mason University. Staff members regularly serve as guest lecturers on regional planning.

• Through these relationships, planning students have been able to learn about and directly participate in TPB activities. In the Fall of 2011 and Winter of 2012, planning students served as scribes in five large-scale deliberative forums that were held by the TPB to ascertain public opinions about value pricing.

• Twice in the past two years, TPB staff has worked to partner with organizations that host educational and planning-related programs with high school students. This approach was a part of a strategy to create and conduct a Community Leadership Institute for high school students. Each attempt was met with limited success and a fair amount of challenges, including competing priorities for students, scheduling constraints with the academic calendar, and general lack of interest.

• For the second year, the TPB Citizens Advisory Committee has had an alternate member who is a student.

• An online clearinghouse is being developed to serve as a “one stop shop” web site for obtaining information about transportation planning activities and decision-making processes throughout the region.

In the FY 2012 UPWP, $100,000 was transferred from the Regional Transportation Priorities Plan in activity in 3.C Regional Studies to activity 1.E to support implementation of enhanced outreach activities pursuant to the recommendations. The FY 2013 UPWP will support these activities.


Recommendation Status Action Outreach/Public Participation (continued) 7. TPB should develop and amend the Plan to

include procedures, strategies and desired outcomes for the use of visualization techniques.

Being Implemented

TPB staff has and will continue to use visualization techniques in its public engagement. Publications employ a variety of symbols and pictures to enhance its messages to the public. The TPB is further increasing its efforts at using online visualization techniques through its public engagement strategy for the development of the Regional Transportation Priorities Plan. At the end of FY2013, the approach and policies regarding visualization will be formalized in amendments to the TPB’s Participation Plan.

8. TPB should develop a formal process for selecting an information delivery method that is appropriate to the needs of a project, activity, or audience, and the desired type of public engagement.

Being Implemented

The TPB Participation Plan will be amended to indicate that staff will establish a system to explicitly and deliberately determine what types of information sharing should be used for different types of public involvement and outreach requirements. For example, this system will specify the desired targets and potential methods that might be used to announce public comment periods. A different approach would be used to seek input for the new Regional Transportation Priorities Plan.

9. TPB should develop a formal process to review, evaluate, and improve current public engagement techniques and activities regularly or at certain intervals of time.

Being Implemented

Throughout FY2013, the TPB will test its already-established evaluation strategies to improve public engagement. The TPB Participation Plan will be amended at the end of the year to formalize these evaluation techniques so that they may be regularly incorporated into TPB’s public involvement activities.

Title VI and Environmental Justice 10. TPB should provide a signed Standard Title VI

Assurance, Title VI Plan/program/ method of administration with implementation, compliance, monitoring, enforcement and review procedures. Provide documented procedures regarding how Title VI training will be provided to or obtained by employees, recipients, sub recipients and other stakeholders.

Implemented The signed assurance and plan have been provided. The procedures for training will be documented.

11. TPB should seek and receive, and its affiliated Federal aid recipients must endeavor to provide, Title VI training and appropriate technical assistance pursuant to 23 CFR 200.9(b)(9). It is further recommended that VDOT especially, checks its Title VI questionnaire to TPB to make sure that the date they are sent out and the due date are sequential.

Implemented TPB and VDOT staff received this training in July 2011.


Implementation of the Recommendations In the Transportation Planning Certification Review

Table 2: FAMPO Recommendations & Corrective Actions

Recommendation Status Action Agreement (FAMPO)

1. TPB and FAMPO should coordinate their planning processes and planning products to align with the current agreement, or revise the agreement to clearly define and reaffirm their respective planning process roles and responsibilities. In addition, TPB and FAMPO should consider an addendum to the existing agreement that would provide clarification (where needed) of the roles and responsibilities of each MPO per CFR 450.314(f). (See #1 recommendation.)

Implemented In early FY 2012, the TPB and FAMPO processes and products were reviewed for coordination as specified in the 2004 agreement. TPB staff with FAMPO staff reviewed the CMP, UPWP, TIP and CLRP planning cycles and products and identified some coordination clarifications and updates. The following text was added to the UPWP to clarify the planning roles:

Each year, the TPB Call for Projects document is transmitted to FAMPO requesting new and updated information on the projects located in the portion of Stafford County in the Washington DC TMA to be included in the update of the CLRP. FAMPO is also requested updated information on the Congestion Management System (CMS) for this portion of Stafford County. FAMPO transmits this information to TPB on the schedule included in the TPB Call for Projects document.

On December 16, 2011, FAMPO transmitted the requested planning products for the portion of Stafford County for the 2012 CLRP amendment.

Outreach/Public Participation (FAMPO) 2. The Federal Team strongly recommends that

FAMPO conduct a thorough review and update of the PPP, including all advisory committee structures and responsibilities. The update should include an evaluation of the PPP and TAG to determine their effectiveness in meeting the needs of the intended audiences (including low-income and minority populations). The tasks for meeting this recommendation should be included for review and approval in the next UPWP.

Implemented FAMPO completed and adopted the updated to the Public Participation Plan in November 2012.

Certification (FAMPO) 3. As part of the MPO Self-Certification process, the

Federal Team recommends that FAMPO establish procedural guidance for verifying the process and implementation of self-certification.

Implemented Documentation received on FAMPO’s Self-Certification process adopted in July 2011.


Recommendation Status Action Agreements (FAMPO) 4. FHWA and FTA request that the FAMPO’s RSTP

and CMAQ project selection process be consistent with 23 U.S.C. section 134(j)(3)(5)(a) and 23 CFR 450.330(b). Please submit a joint letter signed by the FAMPO (MPO Chairperson/ representative) and State (CTB Chairperson/representative) confirming that the FAMPO project selection process for RSTP and CMAQ projects to be implemented utilizing 23 U.S.C. funds and/or funds under 49 U.S.C Chapter 53 is consistent with federal regulation for the non-TMA MPO. If the State delegated RSTP and/or CMAQ project selection responsibilities to the FAMPO, please provide clarification in the letter. The compliance deadline for this request is within 3 months following the release of the certification report.

Implemented CTB and FAMPO letter provided by August 5, 2011

Title VI and Environmental Justice (FAMPO) 5. The MPO Title VI coordinator must acquire

needed Title VI training and knowledge in implementing Title VI obligations.

Implemented FAMPO, TPB and VDOT staff received training in July 2011.

6. The MPO must establish a Tile VI/Nondiscrimination Plan. The Plan must include a public outreach and education plan; staff training plan; procedures for processing complaints; procedures for identifying and addressing Title VI/ Nondiscrimination issues; process for identifying and eliminating discrimination; process for review of programs and grant applications; and a process for collecting and analyzing statistical data (including LEP and EJ populations). The compliance deadline for this request is one year following the release of the certification report.

Implemented Title VI plan adopted by FAMPO on May 22, 2012.

7. Within the Title VI/Nondiscrimination Plan, the Federal Team requests that the MPO have a documented process for assessing the distribution of impacts on different socioeconomic groups for the investments identified in the transportation plan and TIP. The compliance deadline is six months following the establishment and adoption of the MPO Title VI Plan.

Implemented TPB received documentation on FAMPO methodology and analysis in the report “Long-Range Transportation Plan Equity Analysis” dated May 2012.


B. Description of Planning Area

B.1. Please provide a general briefing of the metropolitan area, i.e. demographics, development trends, etc., and discuss any major transportation issues in the area, highlighting any changes since the previous Planning Review.

Information on how the region is expected to develop is essential to forecast transportation conditions and the system’s performance—and the FAMPO region’s population and employment are expected to continue growing significantly over the coming decades. The region is defined for these figures as the GWRC Planning District Commission area. Forecasts included in FAMPO’s 2040 LRTP indicate that by 2040, the region will include over 600,000 people, nearly double the numbers of 2010. The vast majority of this growth will occur in the FAMPO area of the region. What will these trends mean for the future? While our region grows to accommodate more jobs and more people and as jobs and households become increasingly further apart, greater demands will be placed on the transportation system. However, funding—even for rehabilitation and maintenance—will continue to remain in short supply. The result will be more cars squeezed onto our roads and more people squeezed into our buses and trains. For more information, including charts detailing growth and development trends, see FAMPO’s 2040 Long-Range Transportation Plan.

C. MPO Boundaries

C.1. Please provide a map(s) showing the following boundaries: Census-Urbanized Area (UZA), FHWA Urban Area Boundary (UAB), Metropolitan Planning Area Boundary (MPA), and air quality Nonattainment/Maintenance Area boundaries. Have there been any changes to the metropolitan planning area boundary since the previous planning review? Which, if any, areas are under consideration for inclusion in an expanded MPA in the next 20 years? What factors will determine the decision on expanded boundaries?

See the map on the following page for a description of the above requested boundaries. There have not been any changes in the metropolitan planning area boundary since the previous planning review in 2010. After each Census, FAMPO will review its planning area boundary in cooperation with the VDOT and Public Transit Operators to determine if it meets the statutory requirements for new and updated urbanized areas, and will adjust the boundary as necessary.


http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/long-range-transportation-planning/http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/long-range-transportation-planning/

D. Organization/Structure

D.1. How are the members chosen for the MPO’s executive and technical functions and what jurisdictions do they represent? What are the committee’s structures and the responsibilities of each? Are all jurisdictions represented? Are all modes represented?

Members of FAMPO and its executive and technical committees are appointed by their respective jurisdiction or agency. Please refer to the links below for each FAMPO Committee and its respective membership.

• Policy Committee • Technical Committee • Transportation Advisory Group • Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee

Figure 1 (below) shows the FAMPO committee structure.


http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/policy-committee/http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/fampo-technical-committee/http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/transportation-advisory-group/http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/bicycle-and-pedestrian-committee/

D.2. Are any implementing agencies not members of the MPO or policy board? Any operators of major modes of transportation not members?

There are no implementing agencies that are not members of FAMPO, and there are no operators of major modes of transportation that are not members of FAMPO.

D.3. How is the MPO staff organized and what are their responsibilities?

The FAMPO Administrator is hired by and is responsible to the FAMPO Policy Committee for FAMPO policy coordination, overall management and the integration of UPWP activities. Three other individuals report to the FAMPO Administrator and are assigned specific work activities in the UPWP. The FAMPO team is responsible for delivering the work products within budget and on schedule. The organization chart below illustrates how FAMPO is organized and how FAMPO fits within the GWRC umbrella.

Figure 2 (below) shows the GWRC Organizational structure.


E. Agreements and Contracts

E.1. List current agreements or memorandums of understanding (MOU) identifying planning responsibilities established among the MPO, state DOTs, transit operators, air quality agencies and any other agencies involved in the planning process. Are agreements final, signed, and in effect? Explain any updates being developed or contemplated and any changes that are planned.

The following agreements and MOUs are final, signed and in effect (a link to each of these documents is included in Appendix B of this document):

1. MOU on Metropolitan Transportation Planning responsibilities for the FAMPO Region; April 14, 1993. 2. MOU with GWRC for FAMPO staffing; September 30, 2010. 3. MOU with TPB for FAMPO responsibilities in the North Stafford County; November 19, 2004. 4. MOU on Metropolitan Transportation Planning Responsibilities for the Fredericksburg Area”; June 29.

2009 5. Agreement between FAMPO and VDOT/CTB for programming of RSTP and CMAQ funds; July 18, 2011. 6. Bylaws for the FAMPO Policy, Technical and Advisory Group Committees, as last updated.

E.2. Please discuss how you coordinate with other local governments or agencies that impact transportation planning, and whose role may include transit, safety, security, bicycle/pedestrian land use, zoning and other transportation related roles.

The FAMPO transportation planning process encompasses multi-modal planning that is occurring at the local level. Local governments that impact transportation planning are part of the FAMPO process, and these agencies belong to the FAMPO committees, which engage in a number of activities that contribute to the regional planning process. The FAMPO committees are shown in Figure 1 under Question D.1.

E.3. Are there any specific agreements that have been completed or amended since the last review in 2010?

The agreement with GWRC for staffing, the agreement with VDOT/CTB for programming RSTP and CMAQ funds and the various FAMPO Committee Bylaws listed above have all been completed or amended since 2010.

F. MPO Annual Self Certifications

F.1. What process/procedures are used to self-certify the planning process?

Every four years, in conjunction with the adoption of a new TIP, FAMPO certifies the transportation planning process via a comprehensive checklist and statement. This self-certification document is prepared by FAMPO staff and VDOT staff and addresses all MPO Federal planning regulations. The self-certification is provided to the VDOT for their review and signature. The documentation is presented to the FAMPO Policy Committee, reviewed by Committee members, adopted by resolution and signed by the FAMPO chair. The self-


http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/041493_MOU_MPO.pdfhttp://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/093010_MOU-Between-GWRC-and-FAMPO.pdfhttp://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/111904_FAMPO-TPB-Agreement.pdfhttp://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/6-29-09-MOU-on-MTP-Responsibilities-for-the-Fredericksburg-Area.pdfhttp://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/6-29-09-MOU-on-MTP-Responsibilities-for-the-Fredericksburg-Area.pdfhttp://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/071811_Ltr-to-Rucker_FHWA_re-Project-Selection-Process.pdfhttp://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/012411-Signed-Amended-FAMPO-Bylaws.pdfhttp://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/FAMPO-Technical-Committee-Bylaws_-Adopted-092109.pdfhttp://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Bylaws-of-the-Transportation-Advisory-Group-Adopted-October-2012.pdf

certifications adopted since 2010 can be found here as well as in a link provided in Appendix B of this document need URLs.

• Certification of the Urban Transportation Planning Process for the Fredericksburg MPO Area – June 16, 2014

• Certification of the Urban Transportation Planning Process for the Fredericksburg MPO Area – June 20, 2011

F.2. How are the transit operator, VDOT, and other transportation partners involved in the certification process? Is there an opportunity for public comment? If so, how are comments addressed? How is the process documented?

VDOT, FRED, VRE and other transportation partners that are members of FAMPO vote to approve the self-certification statement. VDOT and the FAMPO Chairperson sign the self-certification statement. Members of the public may comment on the draft self-certification during the public comment period at the FAMPO meeting. Significant comments are responded to at the meeting and are documented in an addendum to the self-certification, as required.

F.3. What educational efforts, background documentation, guidance or supporting documentation is provided to the MPO policy board when the Self-Certification is approved? Is the policy board provided with background information and documentation on what is required in the planning process by various laws? When and how?

At the FAMPO Policy Committee’s regularly scheduled meeting, a month prior to when the FAMPO Policy Committee is asked to approve the self-certification, the Committee is briefed on the self-certification document by the FAMPO Administrator. The Policy Committee is then briefed again, when it is asked to approve the Self Certification. In each case the draft and final comprehensive self-certification document is provided one week prior to the FAMPO meeting. The Self-Certification checklist contains information and links to FAMPO documents in each functional area of the certification. The FAMPO Policy Committee is regularly briefed at its monthly meetings by the Administrator on Federal planning laws and regulations and changes to the regulations.

F.4. Is there continuity and consistency between the (annual) self-certification and the periodic Federal Certification?

Yes. The (annual) self-certification document incorporates information on how FAMPO addressed recommendations from the most recent Federal certification.

G. Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)

G.1. How are State programs, policies, and processes (such as the State LRTP, other modal/master plans) integrated into the LRTP development process?

FAMPO works hand-in-glove with VDOT, DRPT and the CTB in developing each iteration of both Scenario Planning and the CLRP, which together comprise the FAMPO long range planning process. VTRANS 2035 and


http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/FAMPO-Resolution-14-16_3-C-Certification.pdfhttp://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/FAMPO-Resolution-14-16_3-C-Certification.pdfhttp://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/FAMPO-Resolution-11-24-Certifying-FAMPO-3-C-Process.pdfhttp://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/FAMPO-Resolution-11-24-Certifying-FAMPO-3-C-Process.pdf

2040 contain important State policies pertaining to modes, land use, projects and critical corridors, and FAMPO stays actively involved in the development of these plans, both at the Statewide and District levels. FAMPO has a long-range planning process which brings together project recommendations from local governments, VDOT, DRPT, FRED, VRE, the TDM and Human Services communities and other sources. The priorities established in state plans are a primary source of projects submitted for the CLRP. VDOT/DRPT have methods for identifying projects needed to maintain the integrity of the transportation system, enhance safety or improve mobility or accessibility. At the regional level, FAMPO helps identify problems and needs by monitoring current travel conditions and forecasting future travel demand. FAMPO also engages in cyclical land use scenario planning to better tie land use to transportation policy, as well as an objective method for ranking projects for inclusion in the CLRP. Finally FAMPO engages in extensive public involvement and research to measure public perceptions of issues, policies and potential transportation investments.

G.2. What is the MPO’s process to measure the effectiveness of the Transportation Plan?

The CLRP is updated every four years. With each update, an analysis of the plan’s performance is conducted through the use of FAMPO’s Project Prioritization Methodology. Data from the regional travel demand model is analyzed in the base, interim and horizon years to assess impacts and increases/decreases in system performance. This analysis is considered as a part of the project prioritization scoring system; ultimately, helping to guide which combination of projects get selected for inclusion in the fiscally constrained highway plan. The prioritization methodology also takes into account, among other things, crash data, impacts to the freight network, environmental impacts, land use, public support and multimodal accommodations. The Air Quality Conformity report also contains additional performance measures. This analysis is performed following adoption of the CLRP and TIP, and documented online and in a report.

More Information

• FAMPO Project Prioritization Methodology • FAMPO 2040 CLRP and FY12-15 TIP Air Quality Conformity Report

G.3. During the last update of the Transportation Plan, how were the planning assumptions validated?

Validation of planning assumptions occur by close collaboration with FAMPO member local governments, transit operators, the TPB, VDOT, DRPT, as well as the business community (Fredericksburg Regional Chamber of Commerce) other interest and community groups throughout the Region. All of FAMPO’s travel demand and land use modeling assumptions are vetted through the FAMPO Technical Committee, The FAMPO Transportation Advisory Group and public meetings on the CLRP.

During FAMPO’s continuous process of system performance monitoring, travel demand and land use modeling; planning assumptions are reviewed and models or model components are revised, where needed. The travel demand model and the land use model are each on a four year update cycle. Statistically valid public surveys are conducted in preparation for the update to the CLRP and used as input to the goals and objectives of the CLRP as well as to gather input into the project selection process.


http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Prioritization-Methodology_final_updated-Dec-2013.pdfhttp://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Fredericksburg-2040LRTP-and-FY12-15-TIP-conformity-report-Final.pdf

G.4. How is the disposition of comments and changes in the final Transportation Plan documented, analyzed, and reported when significant oral and written comments are submitted? How much additional time is provided for public review if the "final" document is significantly different from the draft originally made available for public review?

All comments submitted are reviewed and written responses are prepared by FAMPO staff. If numerous comments are received in support and/or opposition to a proposed project or projects for the plan, they are reviewed by FAMPO staff and determined if the changes to the transportation plan or program are significant and warrant. Any substantive arguments or questions are summarized and compiled on a list and responded to by FAMPO staff. A comprehensive summary of the comments and recommended responses are preened to the FAMPO Board for its approval and incorporation into the final document. If the “final” document is significantly different from the original draft, then a minimum of another 30-day public comment period will be held.

G.5. What is the role of the transit operator and how is it involved in the MPO’s overall planning and project development process?

Both VRE and FRED are represented on both the FAMPO Policy and Technical Committees. GWRideConnect, the Regional TDM agency, is also represented on the FAMPO Technical Committee. Here are afforded meaningful opportunities for the region’s transit agencies to provide input and feedback on the transit assumptions and other factors included in various FAMPO studies and analyses. Input is also obtained from human services transit providers and private commuter bus operators directly at the Technical Committee or through liaison efforts by GWRideConnect, or more general public involvement.

G.6. How is the distribution of impacts to different socioeconomic and ethnic minorities identified and measured? How are benefits and burdens across all socioeconomic groups examined in the modeling and planning performed in support of Transportation Plan development?

FAMPO performs an Equity Analysis for both the TIP and the CLRP each time they are updated (every four years).

Tabular and spatial data from the American Community Survey is used to define the aggregated populations for seven characteristics identified as Title VI or Environmental Justice populations. Data analyzed includes county and regional averages for each population as well as the percentage of each population at the Census Tract level. These populations include:

Environmental Justice - Low Income and Minority

• African American Populations • Asian Populations • Hispanic Populations • Low Income Populations


Title VI Populations

• Disabled Populations • Older Adult Populations • Limited English Proficiency Populations

Site specific transportation improvement data, developed by FAMPO, are then analyzed against the Census mapping. Current transit routes, stations and proposed transit projects are also evaluated.

For more information see:

• FY2012-2015 TIP Equity Analysis • 2040 CLRP Equity Analysis • FAMPO Equity Analysis Interactive Online Mapping

G.7. Are there any comparisons of Transportation Plans with State conservation plans or maps available? Are there any comparisons of Transportation Plans to inventories of natural or historic resources, available?

As part of the FAMPO’s environmental consultation process, described in more detail under Appendix H of FAMPO’s 2040 Long-Range Transportation Plan, FAMPO utilizes geographic information System (GIS) collected from federal, state and local resource agencies. This data includes the locations of conservation easements, historic and cultural resources, floodplains, wetlands, green infrastructure, sensitive species, state and national parks, etc. The Long-Range Plan’s recommended improvements are then overlaid onto this data to determine where there are conflict points. Conflicting areas are noted in project identification sheets that are completed for each project found in the Needs Plan (Unconstrained Project List) for each locality – see Appendix D on the FAMPO Long-Range Plan webpage. Also as a part of the environmental consultation process FAMPO sends copies of its Draft Long-Range Plan, during the public comment period, to a list of federal, state and local agencies for review and comment. This list can be found in Appendix I: Public Involvement Inventory. If/when comments are received logged and addressed accordingly.

G.8. Does the plan have a regional coordination element? If so, does the plan take into account regional/state priorities?

All FAMPO activities, plans and programs include on-going regional coordination. The CLRP, the TIP, the CMP and the UPWP are all outcomes of a coordinated regional planning process. The CLRP does reflect and take into account regional and state priorities. In addition the Land Use Scenario Planning portion of the long range planning process takes into literal account local land use policies, while affording local governments an objective, analytical view of the future development, transportation and cost implications of various land use policy alternatives.

G.9 How does the plan give emphasis to facilities serving important national and regional transportation functions?

The CLRP includes numerous projects and programs that serve regional and national transportation functions. Many projects have been included to adapt to changes in land-use and job locations brought on by the U.S. military’s Base Realignment and Closures (BRAC) Act.


http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/2012-2015_FAMPO_TIP_EJ_AnalysisNOV_26_2013weboptimized.pdfhttp://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/2040_CLRP_EJ_doc.pdfhttp://gwrc-fampo.maps.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=49489e1c922947eab45d851890e36d8ahttp://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Appendix-H-Consultation-and-Mitigation-Discussion.pdfhttp://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Appendix-H-Consultation-and-Mitigation-Discussion.pdfhttp://www.fampo.gwregion.org/long-range-transportation-planning/http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Appendix-J-2040-LRTP-Public-Involvement2.pdfhttp://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Appendix-J-2040-LRTP-Public-Involvement2.pdf

Furthermore, the FAMPO Technical and Policy Committees include representatives from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. Other agencies, such as the National Park Service and Regional military bases are all asked to review and comment on the CLRP and provide their perspective on the national and regional transportation functions.

G.10. Are all plans and programs developed by a single MPO consistent with plans of other MPOs in the area?

FAMPO coordinates closely with the Transportation Planning Board (TPB) to share data and ensure that transportation projects and land activity forecasts in adjacent counties are consistent with the FAMPO’s assumptions. FAMPO shares its latest adopted planning information with the TPB, as well as VDOT and other agencies.

H. Planning Factors

H.1. Please explain how the agency carries out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process, and addresses each of the eight planning factors listed in 23 CFR 450.306.

The FAMPO long range planning process, culminating in a periodic update to the CLRP, is a continuing plan, or “living document.” The FAMPO long range planning process consists of two distinct and recurring phases. First a two year period of land use scenario planning is undertaken in partnership with local governments, the State, transit operators, other interests and the general public. The result of this process is that all of the partners have access to objective analysis of the implications of land use policy, transportation investment policy and potential technological changes on future land use, transportation system performance and costs. Progress and results of this phase are reviewed with the FAMPO Committees, and the acceptance of findings and recommendations are voted on by the FAMPO Policy Committee. Second a two year period of updating the CLRP is undertaken with the same partners. FAMPO updates the region’s CLRP and TIP on the required basis, along with the air quality conformity analysis and analyses on metropolitan growth, travel demand, congestion, accessibility and other factors. In partnership with VDOT, FAMPO makes improvements to the models used for these analyses as well. Throughout each cycle, FAMPO involves each member jurisdiction and agency in a cooperative planning process. Candidate CLRP projects are subjected to an objective ranking of like projects, based on criteria which include congestion, safety, environmental impacts, community acceptance, cost, land use and intermodal connections. All projects submitted for inclusion in the CLRP are reviewed and approved by the full FAMPO Policy Committee. T

• FAMPO Highway Project Prioritization Methodology FAMPO coordinates technical assistance to its member jurisdictions with planning studies as outlined in the Unified Planning Work Program. FAMPO’s planning process is comprehensive. FAMPO has developed CLRP elements which address every mode of travel, as well as land use, freight, intelligent transportation systems,


http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Prioritization-Methodology_final_updated-Dec-2013.pdf

environmental justice, safety and security, congestion management and human service transportation coordination. The eight planning factors are addressed in these CLRP elements.

H.2. How is each of the SAFETEA-LU eight planning factors considered in the planning process?

The Eight Federal Planning Factors are considered in the development of the Goals and Objectives of the CLRP, as well as in our CLRP Project Prioritization Methodology and our CMAQ and RSTP Project Prioritization Methodology, specifically in the project pre-screening process, which examines consistency with FAMPO’s CLRP, TIP and CMP.

I. TIP

The Federal Team is interested in better understanding the process by which FAMPO TIP projects are selected and prioritized.

I.1. Describe the TIP project prioritization and selection process.

FAMPO essentially has two project prioritization systems, one for large projects in the CLRP and one for smaller projects subject to funding with annual CMAQ and RSTP allocations to the FAMPO Region. The CLRP prioritization process has been discussed above. Working with local governments, transit/TDM operators, VDOT, DRPT and others, FAMPO annually examines CLRP priorities in advance of the draft Six Year Improvement Program (SYIP) and the funding potential the SYIP holds for those projects. At this time a consensus is obtained on which phases of which projects in the prioritized list should be recommended for funding. Action is taken by the FAMPO Policy Committee, as appropriate, to make SYIP recommendations to the CTB. With regard to RSTP and CMAQ projects, another prioritization method is employed. This method is similar to the CLRP method, in that it includes measures such as congestion, safety, impacts, community support, etc. Each fall FAMPO issues a call for RSTP and CMAQ projects to all its partners. Candidate projects are then submitted, screened by staff and prioritized according to the adopted methodology. Results of the screening and prioritization are then shared with and discussed among the partners until a consensus is obtained. The draft list of candidate projects is then re-vetted by the Technical Committee, and the CTB is consulted. Finally, in the spring the recommended listing of RSTP and CMAQ project allocations is acted on by the FAMPO Policy Committee and provided to VDOT, DRPT and the CTB. Please see the link to the CMAQ and RSTP Project Prioritization Methodology found in the response to H.2

1a. How are bicycle, pedestrian, and transit needs addressed in the prioritization process?

Bicycle, pedestrian, transit and TDM projects are included in both the CLRP and RSTP/CMAQ prioritization processes. In the past FAMPO has allocated RSTP and CMAQ funds directly to Regional transit planning, FRED equipment and rolling stock purchases, new fixed-route service demonstrations, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, VRE and VDOT park and ride lots, TDM marketing and related items. Each time the CLRP is updated, a standing Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee is activated to oversee recommendations in the CLRP. The CLRP contains discrete elements for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and for transit/TDM.


http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Chapter-2.pdfhttp://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Prioritization-Methodology_final_updated-Dec-2013.pdfhttp://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FAMPO-CMAQ-and-RSTP-Prioritization-Criteria-FINAL-FY15-with-cover.pdfhttp://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FAMPO-CMAQ-and-RSTP-Prioritization-Criteria-FINAL-FY15-with-cover.pdf

1b. Are there criteria for balancing the number of projects or funds geographically? (e.g. based on state, or county, etc.)

FAMPO has no formal policies for geographic distribution of projects and funds. Staff relies on the adopted prioritization methodologies to make recommendations to its partners and policy makers.

1c. How do the MPO, the State, and the transit operator collaborate on the development of the TIP?

As stated above all of the partners are included in each step of the development of the CLRP and TIP, including the State and transit/TDM operators.

I.2. Are specific criteria used to determine which projects will be included in the TIP?

Please see above, FAMPO has formal, adopted prioritization methodologies for candidate projects.

2a. If so, what process was used in developing and weighing these criteria?

The FAMPO prioritization methodologies were developed using a survey of other methodologies in use around the country and with a view to adhering closely to State and Federal goals and planning factors.

2b. How are these criteria communicated to stakeholders, including the agencies submitting projects?

The methodologies are provided to each of the stakeholders during development of the CLRP, TIP amendments and allocation of RSTP and CMAQ.

I.3. How is public involvement incorporated in the TIP development process?

Throughout the TIP development process, needs and proposed solutions are discussed and examined during FAMPO meetings, at the FAMPO Technical Committee and the Transportation Advisory Group. Public comment sessions are held at the beginning of every FAMPO committee meeting. Per FAMPO policy, the draft TIP is released for public comment lasting at least 30 days. During these periods, FAMPO receives and reviews written public comments submitted through electronic mail, fax, online comment forms, social media, by mail and oral comments during the Public Hearing.

3a. How does this involvement affect the content of the TIP?

FAMPO staff shall determine when changes to the transportation plan are significant and warrant. If significant changes are introduced to the plan after the public comment period, an additional 30-day comment period would be provided. A report on the disposition of comments shall be included in the final transportation planning document.


3b. When does the public have an opportunity to comment on the TIP and TIP amendments?

There is a 30-day public comment period, prior to the approval of the TIP, during which citizens are invited to provide comments either in person, in writing or online. At the beginning of every FAMPO meeting there is a public comment period, during which citizens are invited to provide comments in person and/or in writing regarding any proposed TIP amendments. Additionally, a 30-day public comment period is held for those TIP amendments that are regionally significant and require additional conformity analysis.

3c. How are significant oral and written comments documented, analyzed, and addressed?

FAMPO staff shall determine when changes to the transportation plan are significant and warrant. If significant changes are introduced to the plan after the public comment period, an additional 30-day comment period would be provided. A report on the disposition of comments shall be included in the final planning document.

3d. How much additional time is provided for public review if the "final" document is significantly different from the draft originally made available for public review?

If significant changes are made to the CLRP or TIP following the public comment period, an additional 30-day comment period will be instituted.

I.4. How does FAMPO demonstrate consistency between the prioritization process and the goals and priorities of communities within the metropolitan planning area?

All communities within the FAMPO Region are represented on both the Technical and Policy Committees. Issues such as consistency, if they arise, are addressed in these committees. Where differences may arise, a majority vote prevails.

I.5. How does FAMPO ensure that the TIP includes all proposed federally and non-Federally funded regionally significant transportation projects?

FAMPO works with each implementing agency to ensure that all regionally significant projects included in the air quality conformity analysis are included in the TIP where necessary. Each agency is responsible for ensuring that all federally-funded projects are included in the TIP. Agencies are presented with multiple drafts of the TIP for review during the course of development.

I.6. How does the TIP serve as a management tool for implementing the CLRP? Does it reflect policies, investment choices, and priorities identified in the Plan? Does it tie specifically back to the eight TPB Vision Goals? How is its success or lack of success determined?

The TIP shows the capital funding for the first six years of the projects planned in the CLRP. The projects in the CLRP and TIP are listed in a database. Each project in the TIP is associated with a “parent” CLRP project in the database. Using this relationship, FAMPO is able to track the implementation of CLRP projects through the progress of projects in the TIP. This association also helps to ensure that projects in the TIP reflect the CLRP’s policies and priorities.


The TIP itself is successful if it is incorporated into the Virginia STIP and this receives federal approval, enabling funds to flow to the projects. How successful the implementation of the region’s CLRP will be continues to depend upon identifying the necessary local, state and federal transportation funding.

I.7. How do the States, MPO, and transit operators collaborate on the development of the TIP?

This question has been answered in detail above.

I.8. Briefly describe how often TIP modifications occur and what they consist of (type).

Administrative modifications typically occur at a rate of once or twice per month. Amendments are made at the monthly FAMPO Policy Committee meetings. These amendments may be for projects being added to the TIP or for significant changes to funding amounts or sources. FAMPO typically processes one or fewer amendments per month.

8a. Is there a deadline for modifications? After a certain point are they just incorporated into the TIP for the following year?

There are no deadlines for modifications or amendments to the TIP.

8b. Is a new conformity determination prepared if projects affecting emissions are added or deleted?

Yes

8c. Is there a limit to the number of modifications that the MPO will make? – related to timing, administrative work, emissions modeling if necessary, etc.?

No

J. Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint

J.1. How are the plans of individual agencies coordinated? What role does the MPO and the metropolitan planning process play in ensuring the accuracy, reliability, and consistency of analysis and forecasts of both revenues and expenses for the FAMPO Region?

The financial plans of individual agencies are coordinated through the process to develop a financial plan for each major CLRP update. VDOT, DRPT, local governments and transit providers are major players in this process. VDOT and DRPT provide revenue estimates of State and Federal funds, and these are supplemented with local government projections of bonds, taxes and proffers, transit providers’ forecasted farebox and other revenues. The combined revenue forecast is vetted through each of the partners. On the cost side project capital costs are included with each project, using the VDOT cost-estimating methodology. Transit capital and operating costs are provided by the transit agencies. Costs are taken as base year and then inflated at 3% annually through the year of implementation.


J.2. What criteria are applied to ensure that forecasts of both revenues and costs are technically sound?

The key step is to fully document the methodologies and assumptions (such as rates of inflation) utilized, and to review them for reasonableness based upon past trends and analyses. This is done through the working group described above.

J.3. When amending the TIP, how is fiscal constraint ensured?

When an implementing agency submits an amendment to the TIP to include a new project, it must include a demonstration of where the revenues to construct or implement the project will come from.

J.4. How is the financial component of the TIP coordinated with the State STIP?

VDOT assures the consistency between the TIP and the STIP.

J.5. What procedures are followed to ensure the TIP financial plans within the State are consistent with the STIP?

VDOT is responsible for this coordination.

J.6. How are cost differences between the long-range planning (CLRP) conceptual cost estimates and the programming (TIP) conceptual cost estimates reconciled? How and where is this process documented?

If project cost estimates change over time, then these changes are reflected when the CRP is updated.

J.7. What triggers an update of an estimate during the long-range planning and programming process?

7a. Are estimates updated on a continuing basis as project development progresses?

Yes, on an as-needed basis.

7b. Are estimates updated when major design changes occur or through some other triggering mechanism?

Yes. As pointed out previously, if major changes occur in a project, then these are adopted into the TIP and CLRP, after supporting documentation of funding sources is provided. The CLRP is updated as required.

J.8. What process(es) is(are) used to estimate operations and maintenance costs for all modes and in all jurisdictions in the metropolitan area? Is the participation by different agencies documented in a formal agreement?

Operations and maintenance costs for all transit agencies are estimated by the agencies, based on their historical experience and their expectations about services in the future. Roadway and bicycle and pedestrian operations and maintenance costs are provided by VDOT. This is standard practice and does not include any specific side-agreements.


J.9. How is an “adequate” level of O&M determined?

9a. Are needs derived from a desired level of service or rating of asset condition and how will these be met with expected funding level?

Adequate levels of O&M expenditures are determined by each implementing agency and then the remaining funds, if any, are identified as available for projects in the CLRP. Desired levels of service for the transit agencies are determined by those agencies based on expectations of demands for services and financial capacity to provide those services. In most instances, desired levels of service for transit agencies are constrained by funding availability. For highway agencies, desired levels of service are also highly constrained by the available funding. Desired ratings of asset conditions are addressed through each agency’s maintenance, rehabilitation, and equipment replacement programs. The agencies have been able to maintain satisfactory asset conditions, although the future is not certain. All of the agencies have some type of asset management systems. They do not provide regular condition reports to the region.

9b. How many of the agencies involved have an asset management system?

VDOT and DRPT have asset management systems, as do FRED and VRE. The VDOT reports annually to FHWA on pavement and bridge conditions through HPMS and NBI, as FHWA is aware. The HPMS is a sample of highway segments for which pavement condition data is reported. The NBI includes all bridges on all highway systems. As FTA is aware, conditions of transit assets are not now reported to FTA. DRPT in Virginia has developed an asset management system, PROGGRES, which will be capable of accumulating data on asset conditions for Virginia’s transit operators.

J.10. Are levels of service or ratings of facility condition expected for a given funding level communicated to the public? How?

Levels of service or ratings of facility condition expected for a given funding level have not been determined for communication to the public.

J.11. What triggers an update of an O&M estimate during the long-range planning and programming process? Are estimates updated on a periodic basis, when system condition and performance changes occur or through some other triggering mechanism?

As described under question 13, long-range O&M estimates are made by the implementing agencies during each major plan update. Every year, each agency prepares its annual O&M budget reflecting its current system conditions and performance and changes from the previous years.


Impacts of Financial Constraint

J.12. Have projected impacts of financial constraint affected the performance of the transportation system, e.g. traffic congestion? Are the public transit “ridership constraints” resulting from revenue shortfalls analyzed through the Congestion Management Process?

Since 2009 FAMPO has been projecting the stark financial reality that transportation revenues are not keeping up with region’s system needs. The highway and transit systems are aging, and management and operations expenses are forecast to continue to grow and require more and more of the projected federal, state and local revenues. While 2013 actions by the State and bonding by local governments have added somewhat more revenues to the predicted stream, a large gap still exists between needs and available resources. In the 2040 LRTP the gap between system needs and available resources was about $10 billion for the small FAMPO Region. The impacts of financial constraint on the future performance of the transportation system, including the public transit ridership constraints currently projected to come into effect by 2040, are reflected in the FAMPO travel demand forecasts, the results of which are considered in the CMP. The CMP emphasizes demand and operational management strategies that address congestion at a lower cost than most capital projects. The CMP is currently being updated.

J.13. Are alternative strategies considered for addressing financial shortfalls through the planning process?

FAMPO has considered a number of alternative funding strategies, including Regional taxes and tolls. These are documented in the 2035 CLRP, as well as the creation by the General Assembly of the George Washington Toll Road Authority in 2010. In public opinion surveys in 2009 and 2010, residents were asked directly where transportation issues placed in their Regional priorities and whether they would be willing to pay more to fix transportation problems. Residents rated transportation and in particular roadway congestion as their number one Regional issue by a wide margin. Residents also expressed a willingness to pay more taxes and tolls to solve transportation issues. The results of these surveys can be found at the following URP address:

• Long Range Transportation Plan Marketing Research Study – August 27, 2009 • Long Range Transportation Plan Marketing Research Study, Phase 2, Additional Analysis of Data Set

– October 15, 2009 • Regional Scenario Planning “Your Vision, Our Future” Resident Survey 1, Key Findings – November

2010

13a. Are alternatives documented?

The two planning studies described in the previous question are documented, and the links are provided above. The 2035 CLRP and the George Washington Toll Road Authority are a matter of public record. Current divided State and local government views towards taxation and Regionalism currently tend to retard any progress.


http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/082709_FAMPO-LRTP-Survey-Presentation.pdfhttp://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/101609_FAMPO-LRTP-Data-Mining.pdfhttp://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Nov-2010_Scenario-Planning_Regional-Citizen-Survey-Summary-Round-One-Final-Document.pdf

13b. Are the impacts of different levels of funding identified and documented, in terms of investments in physical transportation system improvements and resulting performance?

FAMPO has not attempted to do this specifically, although Scenario Planning has aided in further analysis. In addition the 2035 and 2040 CLRP’s show the difference in level of service when funding the needs plan versus the constrained plan.

J.14. Have financial planning and the impacts of fiscal constraint been addressed through the public participation process?

Yes. Since 2007 FAMPO has been making public through meetings, press interviews, publications, interest group meetings and other means the bleak financial picture facing the Region’s overtaxed transportation system. This campaign is current FAMPO policy and continues.

K. Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)

K.1. How does the UPWP address “Recommendations” and/or “Corrective Actions” from past FHWA/FTA Certification Reviews and recent state certifications?

The Corrective Actions from 2010 have all been addressed in previous UPWPs. The Recommendations have also been addressed in previous UPWPs. Please refer to section 1.A for a list of all Recommendations and Corrective Actions and steps taken to ensure full compliance.

K.2. How do the activities in the UPWP relate to the goals and priorities identified in the State Transportation Plan?

VDOT and DRPT are members of FAMPO and critical partners in the Regional planning process. As a matter of process, members are involved and provide input in all phases of regional planning, including drafting, review and final approval of the UPWP. As such, the activities in the UPWP directly relate to the goals and priorities set forth by the individual State Transportation Plan in the FAMPO Region.

K.3. Discuss with examples how the activities in the UPWP relate to the goals and priorities identified in the CLRP.

The UPWP describes all transportation planning activities utilizing federal funding, including Title I Section 112 metropolitan planning funds and Title III Section 5303 metropolitan planning funds. Furthermore, the UPWP identifies state and local matching dollars for these federal planning programs, as well as other closely related planning projects utilizing state and local funds. The CLRP identifies all regionally significant transportation projects and programs that are planned in the FAMPO Region through 2040. The interrelated technical assistance products, methods, and data activities that are outlined in the UPWP directly contribute to the transportation projects outlined in the CLRP. As priorities are identified in the CLRP process, the UPWP work tasks are modified to provide necessary technical analysis and data. For example, the inclusion of I-95 HOT lanes required changes in the FAMPO travel demand model.


K.4. In the current UPWP, are all Federal fiscal resources budgeted that are available for planning? Are there ongoing issues concerning over- or under-budgeting Federal-planning funds? How are these issues being addressed?

All federal resources that are available for planning are budgeted in the current FY 2015 UPWP. The ongoing issue concerning federal planning funds is due to the perennial Congressional problem of not approving USDOT annual budgets by October 1. For the past few years, when the TPB approves the next fiscal year’s UPWP in March, there has been uncertainty regarding state and federal funding totals for the MPO-related planning funds from FTA and FHWA. FAMPO addresses this issue by amending the UPWP after July 1 when the funding totals are finalized. To date the differences have been insubstantial.

K.5. How are Federal Funds and expenditures monitored in your organization?

The GWRC accounting system monitors expenditures on a daily basis, by funding source, by person, by UPWP project. FAMPO staff takes this information and assures that expenditures do not exceed resources. Staff also assures that expenditures are verified eligibl

planning process certification revie · the financial plan for the fy 2013 -2018 tip was expanded...

Documents