AGENDA ITEM #15: FOR YOUR INFORMATION A. … · Attachment 15-C D. HRTPO TREASURER’S REPORT Attachment 15-D E. JLARC REVIEW OF VIRGINIA’S TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Meeting – January 20, 2011

AGENDA ITEM #15: FOR YOUR INFORMATION A. TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES The summary minutes of the December 1, 2010 Transportation Technical Advisory Committee meeting are attached. Attachment 15-A B. FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES The summary minutes of the December 8, 2010 Freight Transportation Advisory Committee meeting are attached. Attachment 15-B C. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND HIGH-SPEED AND INTERCITY

PASSENGER RAIL TASK FORCE SUMMARY MINUTES The summary minutes of the January 5, 2011 Transportation Advisory Committee and High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Task Force meeting are attached. Attachment 15-C

D. HRTPO TREASURER’S REPORT Attachment 15-D E. JLARC REVIEW OF VIRGINIA’S TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING The 2010 General Assembly passed House Bill 42 and Senate Bill 201, both of which directed staff of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) to assess Virginia’s approach to transportation planning and programming. Among the findings included in the draft report, JLARC staff found the minimal role of the State’s 14 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in allocation decisions a missed opportunity for more informed decision-making. The Draft Report, as well as responses to the report by state agencies, can be downloaded under the JLARC December 13, 2010 meeting: http://jlarc.virginia.gov/meetings.htm. F. FY 2009 NAVY ECONOMIC IMPACT UPDATE On January 5th, the Navy Region Mid-Atlantic Public Affairs Office released its annual report on the Navy’s economic impact to the Hampton Roads region. The report covers fiscal year 2009 (Oct. 1, 2008 through Sep. 30, 2009). According to the report, the Navy brought the region $8.2 billion in payroll expenditures and $6.7 billion in procurement for a total direct economic impact of $14.9 billion. Attachment 15-F


G. VIRGINIA RAIL POLICY INSTITUTE COMMENTARY In response to the Governor’s Commission on Government Reform proposal to eliminate the Rail Advisory Board, the Virginia Rail Policy Institute distributed an informational commentary on December 14, 2010. This document was prepared by Wiley F. Mitchell, Jr., Esq., former member of the Virginia Senate and current Fellow of the Rail Policy Institute. Attachment 15-G H. ARRA TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE REPORTING The U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee pledged the Committee would closely oversee the implementation of transportation and infrastructure provisions of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) to ensure the funds provided are invested quickly, efficiently, and in harmony with the job-creating purposes of this Act. The Commonwealth of Virginia has submitted its December 2010 update to the T&I Committee. The attachment includes information from Virginia’s December report, summarized by MPO. Attachment 15-H I. HRTPO LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN PUBLIC OUTREACH NEWS ARTICLE An article was published on December 12, 2010 in the Virginia Beach Beacon documenting the latest HRTPO School Outreach Program efforts to present the 2034 Long-Range Transportation Plan to a Virginia Beach elementary school. As part of the “Ask Me About Transportation” School Outreach Program, the HRTPO conducted a two-month educational program detailing teaching students about transportation planning and the considerations the HRTPO staff must take while developing a long-range transportation plan. Attachment 15-I J. VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS: STATUS

UPDATE Since the formation of the Virginia Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (VAMPO) in October 2010, eleven Virginia MPOs have officially joined VAMPO and appointed members to the VAMPO Board of Directors as of January 1, 2011: Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Montgomery Area MPO Harrisonburg-Rockingham MPO Central Virginia MPO Richmond MPO Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Roanoke Valley Area MPO Danville MPO Tri-Cities MPO Fredericksburg Area MPO Winchester-Frederick MPO Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization A nominating committee has been formed to prepare for the elections of the officers of the VAMPO Board of Directors. It is anticipated that the first meeting of the VAMPO Board of Directors will be held on February 4, 2011 in Richmond. At this meeting, the VAMPO Board of Directors will elect officers and develop its 2011 agenda.


K. U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE: TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

REPORT On January 15, 2010, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report based on its examination of state planning activities in advance of the next national surface transportation authorization bill. The report, Statewide Transportation Planning: Opportunities Exist to Transition to Performance-Based Planning and Federal Oversight, stems from two key considerations in the proposed draft legislation — meeting rural planning needs and incorporating performance measurements into state plans. In preparation for the report, the GAO conducted surveys of all 50 states. From state-level surveys, the GAO found that unreliable and insufficient funding are the most common challenges when putting together long- and short-range statewide plans. Long-range plans from all 50 states were examined and found to generally include performance measure goals, but rarely specific targets or outcomes. When selecting projects for Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs), states placed more emphasis on political and public opinion factors than cost-benefit analysis. As a result of the findings, the report makes three recommendations for Congress to enable a transition to performance-based statewide transportation planning in the next transportation reauthorization. The GAO recommendations include:

• Require states to identify specific outcomes in their plans that U.S. DOT could assess during the STIP review and approval process. • Establish a “prescribed schedule” for states to update long-range transportation plans. • Require collaboration between U.S. DOT and states to develop performance measures that can be used to gauge progress towards the targeted outcomes listed in statewide plans. The Full Report can be downloaded at: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-77.

Summary TTAC Minutes – January 5, 2011 - Page 1

Summary Minutes of the Hampton Roads Transportation Technical

Advisory Committee (TTAC) Meeting January 5, 2011 The Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) Meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Regional Boardroom, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia, with the following in attendance:

TTAC Voting Members: Mark Shea (CH) Earl Sorey (CH) Gary Walton (CH) Anne Ducey-Ortiz (GL) Lynn Allsbrook (HA) Keith Cannady (HA) John Yorks (Alternate, HA) Jane Hill (IW) Peter Stephenson (IW) Steven Hicks (JC) Jackie Kassel (NN) Michael King (NN) Tom Slaughter (NN) Robert Brown (NO) Jeff Raliski (NO) Richard Hartman (PO)

Susan Wilson (PO) Mark Yehlen (PO) Ellen Roberts (PQ) Sherry Earley (SU) Robert Lewis (SU) Scott Mills (SU) Phil Pullen (VB) Mark Schnaufer (VB) Tim Cross (YK) Reed Nester (WM) Karen Waterman (HRT) Kim Farrar (VDOT) Eric Stringfield (VDOT) Kevin Abt (VPA) Richard Drumwright (WATA) TTAC Voting Members Absent: Emily Gibson (GL) Christopher Perez (GL) Michael Stallings (IW) Ellen Cook (JC) Luke Vinciguerra (JC) Debbie Vest (PQ)

Scott Mills (SU) Robert Gey (VB) Daniel Clayton (WM) Steve Martin (WM) J. Mark Carter (YK) Al Maddalena (YK) TTAC Nonvoting Members: Wendy Vachet (Navy) TTAC Nonvoting Members Absent: Randy Brown (Army) Ivan Rucker (FHWA) Tony Cho (FTA)

Lt. Mike DiPace (USCG) Clifford Burnette (VDOA)

Attachment 15-A


HRTPO Staff: Jessica Banks Sam Belfield Rob Case Dwight Farmer Kathlene Grauberger Mike Kimbrel Kendall Miller

Keith Nichols Benito Pérez Andy Pickard Camelia Ravanbakht Stephanie Shealey Dale Stith Others Recorded Attending: Richard Redneck, Beverly Walkup (IW); Carl Jackson (NN); Bryan Pennington (NO); Bob Matthias (VB); Ray Taylor (FHR); Rick Case, Rob Jacobs, Chris Vaigneur (HRPDC Staff); Frank Azzalina (HRT, Inc.); Karen McPherson (Kimley-Horn); Rich Clifton (RK&K); Chris Collins, Tony Gibson, Ray Hunt, Adam Jack, Jack McCambridge Robert Scott Jr., Christopher Voigt (VDOT); Debbie Messina (Virginian Pilot); Henry Ryto (Resident, VB) Public Comment Period Two people requested to speak before the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee.

Frank Azzalina Testing, everyone hear me? No? Is this on? Testing? Hello? Hello? Hello, my name is Frank Azzalina. I’m the Director of Business Development for Hampton Roads Transportation, Inc. Hampton Roads Transportation has provided state-of-the-art dispatch service and administration for taxicab companies operating throughout Hampton Roads for over 25 years. We operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Our computerized, state-of-the-art GPS equipped call center handles up to 200,000 calls a month. Hampton Roads Transportation provides all the accounting, administration, maintenance, and dispatch services for Black and White Cabs of Norfolk, Black and White Cabs of Virginia Beach, Norfolk Checkered Taxi, Yellow Cab of Norfolk, Yellow Cab of Hampton, and Yellow Cab of Newport News. Collectively, these companies own close to 300 taxi cabs operated by approximately 500 licensed, city licensed independent lessee drivers. The taxis, sedans, and mini-vans are all 2005 and newer Chevrolet products equipped with digital cameras and panic buttons for safety and most accept credit cards. The brands we dispatch have close to 200 accounts. For example, the brands service HRT guaranteed ride traffix program. The brands have accounts with Sentara Hospitals, Riverside Hospitals, the Veterans Hospital in Hampton and all the local community service boards. The taxi companies service military bases and the local ports, NIT, VIT, as well as Norfolk Southern and CSX, and Northrop Grumman just to name a few. Black and White Cabs of Virginia Beach, for example, are contracted with Virginia Beach Public Schools to provide transportation for its homeless students funded through the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. The taxi companies have operated the Safe Ride Home Program with the U.S. Navy and Langley for several years now. The taxi companies have operated, and were also working right now with ODU, on a similar safe ride program. Currently, we are working with HRT on a proposed Para transit mixed-use strategy, which should prove to save HRT significant money. At this time Hampton Roads Transportation would like to announce, through the recent New Freedom Act, Black and White Cabs of Virginia Beach will be adding six wheelchair accessible vans to its fleet by next month and Black and White Cabs of Norfolk will be adding five wheelchair accessible vehicles to its fleet by April. These eleven wheelchair

Attachment 15-A


accessible vans will provide a tremendous service to Hampton Roads. In closing, I am happy to report that the taxi industry is and should be considered for a wide variety of services including non-emergency, ambulatory and non-ambulatory transportation, student transport, pharmacy, moves, evacuation planning, as well as courier service and many others. Thank you for your time. Ray Taylor Well I will add Happy 2011 to everyone. It’s hard to believe it’s 2011 especially when you’re my age, my goodness 2011. I sent an email out this morning, which is why I am standing here. I want to apologize for a late input. I had grandchildren and all sorts of things taking place and didn’t spot this until late, but I want to add to what I think is an wonderful agenda item that you have in front of you today. It’s not the most important one, it’s item 15, but it is important. It is the subject of performance measures. I also want to thank the staff who somehow since six o’clock this morning reproduced this thing and passed it out, my little input for what its worth. To add to the importance of this topic, I’ll mention that a year ago now a congressional research service report on the forthcoming draft federal transportation reauthorization act. Among its assessment comments was the statement and paragraph that made note that the existing federal legislation mentions performance factors; I’m talking about SAFETEA-LU, twice. The draft new one, which of course is going to be changed, but at least the draft that was standing then had addressed performance measures 76 times. This paints a very clear picture we are going to, from an era of very low level of performance measures to an era of huge and numerous performance measures. I didn't include that antidote in my little paper, I did nonetheless include more recent activity here which was the state, Governor McDonnell’s financial audit which argues for more attention on this, and the just released JLARC report on planning and programming, programming is where financial measures need to be addressed. So it’s very, very timely. I hope that my input is useful to you. I apologize for it’s late. I work with Dwight a lot and he and I, we conversed and we don’t expect things to happen right away. We just assimilated, but I hope you will digest and think through this thing over the next many months. Performance factors, I would say, in conclusion, Rob Case needs all the support and innovation you can give him as our MPO, which is maturing rapidly, enters the era of performance measures. Thank you.

Submitted Public Comments Chairman Drumwright noted the written public comments received and included in the agenda packet. Approval of Agenda Chairman Drumwright asked for additions or deletions to the TTAC Agenda. Hearing none, Mr. Allsbrook Moved to approve the agenda as written; seconded by Mr. Lewis. The Motion Carried. Summary Minutes Chairman Drumwright indicated the TTAC Summary Minutes of December 1, 2010 were included in the January TTAC Agenda. He asked for any corrections or amendments to the

Attachment 15-A


minutes. Hearing none, Mr. Cross Moved to approve the minutes as written; seconded by Mr. Sorey. The Motion Carried. Congestion Management Process – The State of Transportation in Hampton Roads: Final Report Chairman Drumwright stated that as part of the Congestion Management Process (CMP), HRTPO staff produces the State of Transportation in Hampton Roads report every two years. This report details the current status of all facets of the transportation system in Hampton Roads, including air, rail, water, and highways. The draft report was presented to TTAC at its December 2010 meeting and was made available for public review and comment. No comments were received. Mr. Slaughter Moved to approve The State of Transportation in Hampton Roads – Final Report; seconded by Mr. Allsbrook. The Motion Carried. FY 2011 Unified Planning Work Program Amendment: HRT Ms. Waterman stated Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) is seeking to amend the UPWP to reallocate $50,000 in FY 2011 Section 5303 funding from Task 8.5 – Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Planning to Task 8.10 – Transit Development Plan (TDP). Ms. Waterman Moved to amend the FY 2011 UPWP to modify the funding allocations for the above two projects, seconded by Mr. Shea. The Motion Carried. 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan Amendment: Patriot’s Crossing Study and Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Study Mr. Chris Collins of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) explained that VDOT is seeking to amend the 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) to include the Patriot’s Crossing and the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Studies. VDOT is seeking to reevaluate the Hampton Roads Crossing Study (HRCS) in order to secure approval to advance portions of the HRCS described now as the Patriot’s Crossing. The project will consist of a new four-lane tunnel and bridge system between I-564 Inter-modal Connector in Norfolk, the Monitor Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel, and State Route 164 via Craney Island Road and Rail Connector. These are components of the approved Hampton Roads Crossing Study/Third Crossing that is currently in the LRTP for PE Only. VDOT is also seeking to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel Study covering an area from I-664 to I-564. The EIS will focus on problems and solution at the existing facility. Mr. Stringfield Moved to amend the 2030 LRTP to include the Patriot’s Crossing Study and the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Study; seconded by Mr. Allsbrook. The Motion Carried.

Attachment 15-A


FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Amendments: Patriot’s Crossing Study and Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Study Mr. Chris Collins of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) stated VDOT is seeking to amend the FY 2009-2012 TIP to include the Patriot’s Crossing and the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Studies as explained in Agenda Item 8. Mr. Schnaufer Moved to add the Patriot’s Crossing and the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Studies to the FY 2009-2012 TIP; seconded by Mr. Sorey. The Motion Carried. Review of Unobligated CMAQ/RSTP Funds: Status Report Mr. Kimbrel provided background information regarding the review of the unobligated CMAQ/RSTP funds dating back to April 7, 2010 when TTAC requested VDOT to conduct the review. He stated that VDOT and HRTPO staff continue to coordinate with locality staffs regarding the reconciliation of allocations and expenditures associated with projects included in Categories A and C of the VDOT review of unobligated CMAQ/RSTP funds. TTAC’s subcommittee, the Transportation Technical Subcommittee (TTS), will meet on January 12, 2011 to discuss strategies for the reallocation of CMAQ and RSTP funds found to be available for transfer as a result of the reconciliation process. VDOT and HRTPO staff will hold initial reconciliation meetings with the remaining localities on January 26th and 27th if needed, at the VDOT Hampton Roads District Office. Ms. Farrar of VDOT expressed her appreciation to HRTPO staff for their assistance in the reconciliation process. She noted that by the end of January, VDOT would have completed its special sessions with all localities. She indicated VDOT will address its findings at the March TTAC meeting. Chairman Drumwright stated the transit agencies need to set up a session date with VDOT. Ms. Ravanbakht asked all TTAC members to update their HRTPO Board members as Mr. Farmer has been fielding requests from them regarding the status of the reconciliation process. Virginia Port Authority Briefing Mr. Kevin Abt, Chief Engineer for the Virginia Port Authority (VPA), explained that VPA is tasked with the development of commerce in Hampton Roads. The VPA works with both VDOT and the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) to improve the network of roads and railroads that service not only Port facilities, but also those that service manufacturing facilities and distribution centers as well. Mr. Abt stated the Port contributes 343,000 jobs to the Commonwealth of Virginia and is a growing industry. Approximately $1 billion has been spent in the last ten years to enhance port infrastructure. Transportation infrastructure is needed to accommodate the growth or businesses/cargo will relocate.

Attachment 15-A


Mr. Abt presented slides and outlined the region’s current port facilities. He noted that by the year 2025, the VPA has forecasted that container demand will double or triple. He indicated that in order to accommodate the continuing growth of the port, it is necessary to widen I-64 between Newport News and Richmond to efficiently move commerce to and from the region. He also noted improvements to I-564 and Routes 460 and 58 are needed to assist the port industry. Transportation Project Prioritization: Next Steps Mr. Pickard explained his presentation would review the following core information needed to assist with prioritization:

• Vision and Goals • Prioritization Scores • Revenue forecast • Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects • Preliminary Engineering (PE) Projects • Schedule Mr. Pickard presented a slide outlining the 2034 Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Goals, which were approved by the HRTPO Board on January 20, 2010. He summarized the Prioritization scores from the Bridge and Tunnel Projects, Highway Projects, Highway Interchange Projects, Intermodal, and Transit projects. The scores were published in the Prioritization of Transportation Projects: Project Evaluation and Scoring Report and was approved by the HRTPO Board on December 15, 2010. Mr. Pickard noted that revenue estimates will be analyzed beginning with FY 2012 and the 2034 LRTP will have an influence on what projects will utilize the estimated funds. Future funding forecasts will include working with HRT, the Williamsburg Transit Authority (WATA) and the localities to include transit and local revenues, respectively. He stated VDOT estimates there will be a total of $1.4 billion for major regional projects and $12.2 billion for maintenance and smaller-scale projects for FY 2012 to FY2034. He noted there are indicators that PPPs will be reasonably expected to be available due to clear expressions of support by the Governor and other appropriate local and regional decision makers. Mr. Pickard explained Preliminary Engineering (PE) Only projects apply to a variety of work other than right-of-way and construction. There are currently seven projects in the amended 2030 LRTP for PE at a cost of $600 million. The FHWA has expressed concern over the number of PE projects in the current 2030 LRTP; however, a scan of MPOs in Virginia and other national MPOs indicates usage of PE Only projects in LRTPs are not uncommon. Currently it is TTAC’s policy to review PE projects on a case-by-case basis. For

Attachment 15-A


the 2034 LRTP, the LRTP Subcommittee has suggested that guidance of up to five percent of revenues be used for PE projects. At its December 15, 2010 meeting, the HRTPO Board expressed its desire to have priorities determined by March 2011. Mr. Pickard stated the Board would conduct its annual retreat with prioritization as its topic. June 2011 is the deadline for the completion and approval of the fiscally constrained list of projects by the Board. Mr. Pickard concluded by asking TTAC members to provide comments regarding the regional transportation priorities to him by January 13, 2011. Comments will be shared with TTAC at its February meeting. Mr. Cannady asked how HRTPO would staff address the fiscal constraint issue regarding the projects. Mr. Pickard replied it would be discussed at the upcoming LRTP Subcommittee meeting. Ms. Ravanbakht stated the projects will be included in a spreadsheet and the LRTP Subcommittee will utilize the amount of available funding per category. Mr. Cannady inquired how tolls and other revenues would play a part in the prioritization process. Ms. Ravanbakht replied HRTPO staff is working with VDOT to have some figures available. She noted that innovative funding mechanisms, such as PPTA tolls, could play a major part in the process. Ms. Waterman asked if high-speed rail projects should be prioritized in the region’s needs. Mr. Pickard replied affirmatively. Long-Range Transportation Plan: LRTP Amendment Procedures Mr. Pickard explained that LRTP requests for amendments are often in the form of emails or letters from the given project sponsor. In order to manage and clarify the process, HRTPO staff has developed a draft form for LRTP amendments. The form would be completed by the project sponsor and submitted to HRTPO staff who would then share the form with the TTAC and HRTPO Board as part of the amendment process. This would provide for consistency of information for amendments and help to reduce the time required by all parties involved in researching any missing information. An LRTP Amendment Schedule would enable HRTPO staff to review more proposed amendments at the same time and help plan resources needed for processing. It is proposed to have an expected schedule for LRTP amendments of either twice each fiscal year (July and January) or once per fiscal year (July). Mr. Pickard asked TTAC members to review the two components of the proposed LRTP Amendment Procedure and provide comments to HRTPO staff by January 13, 2011 to Dale Stith.

Attachment 15-A


Mr. Stringfield indicated there may be the need to include the scope of work and termini of each project on the Amendment Project Submittal Form. Mr. Pullen suggested submitting LRTP amendments quarterly rather than once or twice a year. 2034 Long-Range Transportation Plan: Public Outreach Strategies Ms. Miller stated public outreach for the 2034 LRTP is in full swing and on December 2, 2010, the “Ask Me About Transportation” School Outreach Program culminated in a Town Hall meeting in Virginia Beach attended by over 250 people. Two public meetings, February 2, 2011 at the Regional Building in Chesapeake and February 23, 2011 at a location to be determined in Newport News, will be conducted. Both meetings will be from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 pm. An outreach program will be conducted this month at Hampton University. Regional Performance Measures Mr. Case explained HRTPO staff has prepared regional performance measures to be submitted to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) in accordance with legislation passed by the General Assembly in 2009 and 2010. Mr. Case presented a slide that summarized HRTPO staff goals for selection and then outlined the specific performance measures. He noted that financial performance measures were added as suggested by the FHWA and VDOT at the October 2010 TTAC meeting. He stated the recommended action is for TTAC to approve the draft list of performance measures. It would then be submitted for HRTPO Board approval at the January 20, 2011 meeting, and if approved, would then be transmitted to the CTB. Mr. Cannady asked if the financial performance measures could be separated from the other measures. Mr. Case replied affirmatively. Mr. Cannady Moved to approve the Regional Performance Measures listing the financial performance measures separately; seconded by Mr. Abt. The Motion Carried. Correspondence of Interest Chairman Drumwright indicated there were two thank-you letters regarding HRTPO staff to view in the Correspondence of Interest section of the agenda packet.

Attachment 15-A


For Your Information Chair Drumwright noted the various items in the For Your Information section of the agenda packet. Ms. Ravanbakht stated beginning January 20, 2011, the HRTPO Board Monthly Meeting will convene on the third Thursday of each month at 10:30 a.m. Old/New Business Ms. Vachet commented the Navy had just released the 2009 Economic Report for the Mid-Atlantic Region in Hampton Roads. Ms. Ravanbakht stated HRTPO staff would include this report on its website. Adjournment With no further business to come before the Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.

Attachment 15-A

HRTPO Freight Technical Advisory Committee (FTAC) December 8, 2010 DRAFT Meeting Minutes Page 1

FREIGHT TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION

DECEMBER 8, 2010 MEETING

DRAFT MINUTES

Co-Chair Bill Bell called the HRTPO Freight Technical Advisory Committee to order at 10:00 a.m. in the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) Board Room with the following in attendance:

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Bill Bell, Co-Chair (Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding) Chris Luebbers (Norfolk Southern Corp.) Homer Crane (K Line America, Inc.) Keith Helton (Givens Logistics) MEMBERS ABSENT:

Art Moye (Virginia Maritime Association) Curtis Hall (Target Import Warehouse) Ron Drogan (The CrossGlobe Group) Stan Clark, Co-Chair (Isle of Wight Board of Supervisors) STAFF:

Jeff Florin (Virginia Port Authority) Andy Pickard (HRTPO staff) Greg Grootendorst (HRTPO staff) Keith Nichols (HRTPO staff) Rob Case (HRTPO staff) Sam Belfield (HRTPO staff) Stephanie Shealey (HRTPO staff) Andy Hecker (Moffatt & Nichol) Allison Mall (Moffatt & Nichol) OTHERS PRESENT: LCDR Wade Russell (U.S. Coast Guard) L. Frank Mach (Director, Maritime Administration Mid-Atlantic Gateway Office)

Attachment 15-B


1. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

All the meeting attendees introduced themselves and Co-Chair Bill Bell opened the public comment period. Hearing no requests for public comment, Mr. Bell declared the public comment period closed.

2. OLD BUSINESS

a. Committee Membership Review

Committee members were reminded that election to FTAC was for a five year term. As FTAC completes its first year, staff will be confirming continued participation of the members for the next year.

3. NEW BUSINESS

a. HRTPO Presentation: Latest Project Prioritization Results

Mr. Andy Pickard, Principal Transportation Engineer at the HRTPO, presented the latest draft scoring results from the Project Prioritization Tool. The final report, Prioritization of Transportation Projects: Project Evaluation and Scoring, contains the scores for all 150 projects. It includes one page snapshots with greater detail for high profile projects and top regional priorities, with bridge and tunnel projects scoring the highest, with 19 projects. The report also includes “dot maps” showing forecasted trip counts for each project, and a glossary of criteria. Mr. Pickard highlighted some of the important items from the report:

• The Midtown Tunnel and Martin L. King Freeway Extension project scored the highest, with 242 points (out of 300).

• Based on feedback from the technical committee, components of the 3rd Crossing were broken down into separate projects and the different combinations scored accordingly.

• Projects in each category (bridge/tunnel, highway, intermodal, and transit) were further categorized by interstate or primary roads.

• In previous iterations of the scoring report, the intermodal connector and the air terminal interchange were combined.

• The HRTPO Board supports high speed rail but it wasn't scored because there are not competing proposals on the table.

Attachment 15-B


The schedule is as follows for approval of the final scores:

December 2010: TTAC and HRTPO Board approval of the Hampton Roads Regional Transportation Prioritization Report: Project Evaluation and Scoring

• December 2010 / January 2011: Present results to the HRTPO Board advisory committees (TTAC, FTAC and CTAC).C February 2011 (special HRTPO Board meeting): HRTPO Board Discussion of Project Prioritization June 2011: Completion and approval of fiscally-constrained list of projects by HRTPO Board.

i. Q&A and Discussion of Prioritization Results

Mr. Bell thanked Mr. Pickard for his presentation and asked what the plan is for whittling down the 150 projects, which total approximately $25 billion, to $2.4 billion by June. Mr. Pickard said that the HRTPO Board will hold a special meeting in February and will be concentrating fully on this task until June. He also explained that the amount of funding available does not include PPTA money, and that the actual price tag will likely go above $2 billion in some manner. Mr. Jeff Florin asked Mr. Pickard to briefly discuss the sensitivity analysis, if any, that was part of the scoring process. For instance, the HRBT and the 3rd Crossing projects are extremely close in score, and Mr. Florin asked if one reason the HRBT got a higher score is because it has a PPTA proposal submitted. Mr. Pickard answered that this is true, because the HRBT scored higher on viability (funding and procedural permits, etc.) than the 3rd Crossing project. Mr. Florin asked, if a PPTA was submitted for the 3rd Crossing, if its score would go up. Mr. Pickard answered in the affirmative. The Committee agreed that the recent pro-3rd Crossing VMASC study makes this a timely issue. Mr. Florin said that it is “a really a great tool for everyone to understand what the project is and the scores are a good data to go on,” but that the ones that have such close scores have to be given a sensitivity analysis – do the scores make sense? Mr. Pickard said that the HRTPO staff tried to make scoring as objective as possible with the data available.

Mr. Andy Hecker asked if the project ranking and prioritization will continue until June or if the scoring is complete and the focus will now be on fiscally constraining the plan. Mr. Pickard said that they absolutely need to move forward with the fiscal planning, which include public meetings.

Attachment 15-B


He said that “what isn’t in the plan will be as much of a story as what is,” and that the LRTP is a document that the HRTPO staff has to produce in order for projects to be in the state Six Year Plan, but that long range planning is an ongoing process. Mr. Hecker asked what the status of the Southeastern Parkway project was following FHWA discontinuing review of the project, and Mr. Pickard answered that he was not sure how Virginia Beach leadership will proceed.

Mr. Butch Crane asked if there is any intention to take the top projects and recompress them using the same criteria for slightly different guidelines, by changing the parameters slightly. He asked, “will there be a different result now that there is no weighing for all the other projects?” Mr. Pickard said no, because the scores are stand-alone scores, and they do not affect each other. He said that about 30 questions are asked of each project and no more criteria will be considered. Mr. Rob Case pointed out that the HRTPO staff does not anticipate that the Board will try to “tweak the numbers,” but that they will take them and make a decision. He said that “there is no indication that they will be a slave to these numbers. They can throw it in the trashcan if they want. We hope that they will not battle over specific scores.” He said that Mr. Dwight Farmer has repeatedly stated that the Board has the prerogative to do what they see fit, and the tool scores are information only. For this reason, the tool does not provide rankings, only scores. Mr. Sam Belfield commented that the “beauty of having three different components each broken down is that you can see how each one is weighted.” He said that the Board will hopefully make a decision not by total score, but by each component. Mr. Bell said that he didn’t think the Committee should make any decisions today, but rather that they should “absorb the information and then give feedback to HRTPO after the January FTAC meeting.” Mr. Andy Hecker stated FTAC staff’s thoughts on the final prioritization scores. He said that the information is becoming more transparent and easy to understand. However, it is apparent that there are 10 or 12 top projects and that they cost 15 times the amount of available funding (without PPTA money). He reiterated that the viability component is extremely sensitive, and that the focus should continue to be on systems that move freight in and out of the region. He agreed that now is the time to focus on fiscal constraints and where to get funding.

Attachment 15-B


ii. Review/Revise FTAC Resolution on Prioritization Results

FTAC has developed a resolution on the prioritization results to present to the Board. FTAC staff asked the Committee for comments on it before the next meeting, so that it can be included in the February HRTPO meeting packet. Mr. Case asked if FTAC planned on bringing anything to the Board for the December meeting, when Camelia would be giving an update. Mr. Bell said that nothing formal will be submitted until February. He said that FTAC’s position is the same as in the statement that was submitted for the November meeting, that the Committee generally supports the tool but is still cautious about some of the inputs. The Committee strongly supports a systematic approach to the entire transportation system, which VDOT supported at the last Board meeting. The Committee asked FTAC staff to send out the resolution for review and comment.

b. Review Draft Presentation for FTAC Business Outreach

Mr. Andy Hecker presented an outline and storyboard of a proposed voiceover movie that FTAC would like to develop in order to conduct outreach about the importance of freight to the region’s business community. Mr. Hecker requested that the committee provide comments on the presentation over the next month. Mr. Bell said that the presentation is “well on the way towards what the committee is envisioning.” Mr. Pickard then told the committee about an outreach event that the HRTPO did at Thoroughgood Elementary School to approximately 250 attendees, including parents and fifth graders. They gave a “how did your cookies get here” presentation with Google Earth to teach the group about how important transportation is to providing things they use in their daily life. The committee thought that this was a great idea and thought it would be a good tool for FTAC to also utilize in their business outreach.

c. Hypothetical Inland Intermodal Transfer Facility Discussion

Mr. Keith Nichols, Senior Transportation Engineer at the HRTPO, led a discussion about a hypothetical inland intermodal transfer facility, located beyond the most congested areas in the region, that the HRTPO staff was tasked to study by the Unified Planning Work Program. Mr. Nichols thanked the Committee for their input as freight experts and asked them to consider what effects such a facility would have on Hampton Roads.

Attachment 15-B


Mr. Nichols presented the idea: currently freight is brought in by ship, transferred to trains, trucks and barges, and then delivered inland. What if freight that is bound for outside markets is brought to an inland facility in Suffolk or Isle of Wight? Mr. Nichols’ presentation was an outline of the planned report, which is due in June 2011. The HRTPO staff would like to be able to continually get FTAC’s advice and opinions on this study as it progresses. He said that HRTPO’s staff constantly analyzes data so they have lots of information, and will research other intermodal facilities as well. His first round of questions for the Committee was:

• Should the proposed Inland Intermodal Transfer Facility be one location or two?

• Where outside of the congested areas should it be located? • What rail line should it be located on? • Which port facilities would be able to use intermodal facility? Should we

just look at NIT and AMPT? • What percentage of freight would be able to utilize such a study? • What about freight that goes port to port? • What percent of trucks leave the region or stay in the region? • What is reasonable and feasible? • What data sources are available? • What would the freight community see as the biggest benefits or

drawbacks of this hypothetical facility? • What other freight concepts or issues should be considered?

Mr. Chris Luebbers started the discussion by saying that the facility is a great idea for lots of reasons. For a port to be successful you have to have both local traffic and intermodal connections. New York has a huge local population that consumes lots of goods; Savannah did not have a local population but created one with an “empire of distribution centers and warehouses before they are further distributed inland.” Hampton Roads does not have a huge local market, or a large population of consumers. He asked if there is an opportunity to develop a facility that can be a local industrial warehouse distribution center complex similar to what the port has done in Front Royal, except closer inland? He pointed out that the study must include analysis of local dray savings vs. rail costs. He also mentioned that short haul container moves are not the railroad’s our most economically efficient way to go, so the railroads will have issues. Mr. Keith Helton commented that commodity freight will likely use this facility more, because retailers are now focusing on every day inventory turns and commodity-type goods can’t stand an increase in costs. Auto parts and electronics may be able to withstand an increase in transit cost.

Attachment 15-B


Mr. Butch Crane said that the most important issue to consider is whether putting goods on trains will mean increases in time and cost, and thus loss of business, for importers and exporters. If short-haul trucking provides regular twice-a-day service, then exporters would benefit because they wait until the last minute. The facility would be an opportunity for empties for exporters to be in one location, instead of having to travel to the Port. Mr. Luebbers seconded this comment by saying that the Port would benefit if their amount of empties is reduced. He also pointed out that more train service per day would be needed to run freight to the proposed inland facility. LCDR Wade Russell from the U.S. Coast Guard said that it is important to maintain security and customs laws in the development of this facility. Mr. Jeff Florin said that it is relatively easy for the Port to set up free trade zones that will allow materials to come in untaxed from other countries, which has a lot of benefits to security and to the shipper. He also said that there are already a number of studies on this topic “on the shelf” that may not speak to directly what the HRTPO is looking for but do focus on land to the west that is available for distribution centers. He said that the Port has lots of information on land costs and freight flows from the Port. He pointed out that June is a “very aggressive time frame” to complete this report.

4. ADOPTION OF LAST MEETING’S MINUTES Mr. Bell noted the minutes of the October 12, 2010 FTAC meeting and asked for any revisions. There being none, Mr. Bell moved the minutes be approved as submitted. Mr. Crane seconded the motion and the minutes were approved unanimously. Mr. Case reminded FTAC staff to put approving the minutes on the agenda in the future.

5. ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEXT MEETING DATE, PLACE, TIME

The next meeting will take place on Wednesday, January 12th, from 10:00 – 11:30 a.m., in the VPA Board Room. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

Attachment 15-B

TAC and HSIPR Task Force Meeting Minutes – January 5, 2011 – Page 1

Summary Minutes HRTPO Transportation Advisory Committee

and High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Task Force Meeting of January 5, 2011 The Hampton Roads Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) and the High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Task Force Meeting was called to order at 12:10 p.m. in the Regional Boardroom, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia, with the following in attendance: TAC Members: Pete Peterson (Alternate, HA) Rod Woolard (Alternate, NO) J. Randall Wheeler (PQ) TAC Members Absent: Selena Cuffee-Glenn, Chair (SU) William E. Harrell (CH) Brenda G. Garton (GL) Mary Bunting (HA) W. Douglas Caskey (IW) Robert Middaugh (JC) Neil A. Morgan (NN) Stanley Stein (NO) Kenneth L. Chandler (PO)

James K. Spore (VB) Jeff Florin (Alternate, VPA) Richard Drumwright (Alternate, WATA) Jackson C. Tuttle (WM) James O. McReynolds (YK) Amy Inman (DRPT) Ivan Rucker (FHWA) Letitia Thompson (FTA) Philip Shucet (HRT) Dennis Heuer (VDOT) Jerry Bridges (VPA) Mark D. Rickards (WATA) HSIPR Task Force Members Present: Earl Sorey (CH) Anne Ducey-Ortiz (GL) Keith Cannady (HA) Steven Hicks (JC) Michael King (NN) Bryan Pennington (NO) Rod Woolard (NO) Richard Hartman (PO) Kenneth I. Wright (PO)

Sherry Earley (SU) G. Allen Mushett (SU) Mark Schnaufer (VB) Reed Nester (WM) Timothy Cross (YK) Chris Lowie (FWS) Bill Schafer (Norfolk Southern) Dr. Alexander Metcalf (TEMS) Richard Drumwright (WATA) HRTPO Staff: Jessica Banks Dwight Farmer Kathlene Grauberger Benito Pérez Camelia Ravanbakht

Attachment 15-C


Other Participants: Wendy Vachet (Navy) John Edwards (Norfolk Southern Marc Hoecker (Norfolk Southern) Bill Schafer (Norfolk Southern) Chip Kraft (TEMS)

Others Recorded Attending: Michael Stallings (IW); Will Christopher, Ray Taylor, Bobby Wright (FHR); Jack Hornbeck (HRCC); HRPDC Staff: Rick Case, Rob Jacobs, and Chris Vaigneur. Public Comment Period There was no public comment. Approval of the Agenda Mr. Farmer asked if there were any additions to the agenda. Hearing none, Mr. Florin Moved to approve the agenda as written; seconded by Mr. Schafer. The Motion Carried. Minutes of the October 6, 2010 TAC Meeting and the June 16, 2010 HSIPR Task Force Meeting Mr. Farmer indicated the TAC Summary minutes of October 6, 2010 and the HSIPR Task Force Summary minutes of June 16, 2010 were included in the current agenda packet. He asked for any corrections or amendments to the minutes. Mr. Schafer stated he had a clarification regarding the HSIPR minutes in that high-speed rail service on the Norfolk Southern track would travel up to 79 mph. If speeds greater than 79 mph were required, a separate track would have to be built. Mr. Spore Moved to approve the TAC minutes as written and HSIPR minutes with the clarification; seconded by Mr. Florin. The Motion Carried. Hampton Roads Strategic Long-Term High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Plan: Phase 1(B) Mr. Farmer explained that TEMS had completed Phase 1 of the high-speed rail study and the HRTPO Board had given the authorization to re-engage the consultant to develop Phase 1(B), a blueprint for the implementation of the project and its funding. Dr. Metcalf stated the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) chose the Washington-Richmond Corridor and the Richmond-Hampton Roads Corridor as two of its high-speed rail designated corridors in 1992 and 1995 respectively. He noted the Southeast High-Speed Rail Compact is the responsible body for high-speed rail planning, funding, development, and operations in Virginia.

Attachment 15-C


Dr. Metcalf explained the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement ACT (PRIIA) of 2008 provided grants of up to 80% federal funding for high-speed rail development and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, with its $8 billion in funding, jump-started the intercity high-speed rail systems in the United States. The FRA has comprised four funding tracks to assist with corridor development: • Track 1: Construction Grants: 80% Federal • Track 2: EIS/Preliminary Engineer: 80% Federal • Track 3: Service Planning Grants: 50% Federal • Track 4: Alternative Capital Grant: 50% Federal Dr. Metcalf indicated Hampton Roads could utilize Track 3 for Service Planning ($300,000 to $500,000 needed funding) and Track 2 for EIS/Preliminary Engineering funding of which $10 million is needed. He noted that if the corridor is able to employ a Private-Public Partnership (PPP), Hampton Roads might be able to seek federal funding of less than 80% and would place itself in better position to receive funds. An institutional arrangement will be needed to support the environmental, engineering, implementation, and overall management of the Hampton Roads-Richmond-Washington high-speed rail corridor. Institutional arrangements relate to the organizational structure and agreements between participating entities, such as MPOs, states, and communities responsible for undertaking or overseeing project-related activities. Dr. Metcalf stated the Southeast High-Speed Rail Compact would most likely be the best authority for a Virginia led high-speed rail corridor. Dr. Metcalf presented a slide summarizing one possible organizational arrangement of the institutional framework. Dr. Metcalf stated the analysis of the potential needs of the Hampton Roads-Richmond-Washington DC High-Speed Rail Corridor suggests • The Corridor is FRA designated and is a candidate for immediate funding. • While the HRTPO has the ability to fund ongoing studies, a specific institutional structure must be set forth to obtain FRA funding. • The Southeast High-Speed Rail Compact is the authority to apply, receive, and spend Federal, state, and local grants and contributions. • The Corridor project will need to be managed by a technical staff led by an Executive Director and staff. In conclusion, Dr. Metcalf presented a slide summarizing the time table emphasizing the need to complete the base study, implement community outreach, and discuss the SDP application with the FRA before May 2012 when the SDP application must be submitted. Mr. Hicks asked when the funding detail would be available for service planning due to the large increment between the needed $300,000 and $500,000. Dr. Metcalf replied it is the key deliverable from Phase 2 of the Hampton Roads Strategic Long-Term High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Plan.

Attachment 15-C


Mr. Hicks inquired how the localities could assist with funding the high-speed rail system when budgets were already stressed. Dr. Metcalf stated the local match could be covered if a PPP is utilized. Mr. King asked if traditional funding, such as CMAQ and RSTP monies, could be used towards high-speed rail. Dr. Metcalf replied affirmatively and indicated that CMAQ funding in particular could be used because it would be utilized to relieve congestion. He noted the key is to register all the needs of the project early in the process. Mr. Schnaufer indicated he understood how a PPP would benefit the project during its operations; however, he asked what the incentive would be to encourage the private sector to become involved. Dr. Metcalf stated there is joint development potential at station points that could include hotels, office buildings, and restaurants. Mr. Wheeler expressed his appreciation for Dr. Metcalf’s efforts and noted that it has been time well spent in conducting Phase 1(B). Mr. Farmer stated that by performing Phase 1(B), new information has been brought forth including the need to establish an institutional framework, hopefully with the Southeast High-speed Rail Compact. He noted that Dr. Metcalf has clearly laid out the steps the HRTPO needs to set in motion to obtain high-speed rail. Mr. Farmer stated that although the present TAC members did not constitute a quorum, the HSPIR Task Force had the ability to make recommendations to the HRTPO Board. Mr. Schnaufer Moved to recommend approval of the Phase 1(B) blueprint plan and for the HRTPO Executive Director coordinate with the consultant the development of the Phase 2 scope of work, including the immediate research on the institutional framework; seconded by Mr. King. The Motion Carried. Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Spore, the TAC members present at the meeting, agreed with the motion. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m.

Attachment 15-C

Annual CurrentREVENUES Budget Month YTDVDOT- PL Sec 112 Federal 2,187,830 - 393,929 VDOT- PL Sec 112 State 273,479 - 49,241 VDOT- PL Sec 112 Local 273,479 - 49,241 HRT Match 43,420 - 4,946 WAT Match 10,000 - - State Pass-Through 53,420 - 4,947 Federal Pass-Through 427,363 - 39,574 VDRPT 5303 Federal 131,223 - 32,127 VDRPT 5303 State 16,403 - 4,016 VDRPT 5303 Local 16,403 - 4,017

Total Revenue 3,433,021 - 582,038

EXPENDITURES Personnel - 127,489 766,400 Contractual 30,000 - 2,697 Special Contracts 2,661,214 64,872 68,728 Office Services 207,603 8,008 62,022 Pass Through Expenditures 534,204 - 49,467 Indirect Costs - 53,590 269,901 Total Expenses 3,433,021 253,960 1,219,215

Agency Balance 0 (253,960) (637,177)

HRTPOFiscal Year 2011December 31, 2010STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES

Attachment 15-D

Attachment 15-F

Attachment 15-F

Attachment 15-F

Virginia Rail Policy Institute5101 Monument Avenue Richmond, Virginia 23230 (804) 864-5193

This commentary, which is provided for your information by the Virginia Rail Policy Institute addresses the recommendation of the Governor's Commission on Government Reform that the Rail Advisory Board be abolished. It was prepared by Wiley F. Mitchell, Jr., Esq., a Fellow of the Rail Policy Institute who was chair of the Rail Advisory Board from 2007 to 2009. Mr. Mitchell is a former member of the Virginia Senate who until his retirement was Senior General Counsel of the Norfolk Southern Corporation.

December 14, 2010

Governor McDonnell’s Commission on Government Reform has recommended that the Rail Advisory Board be abolished because its work is “duplicative” of the work of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. The Commission’s recommendation reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the important role the Rail Advisory Board plays in the formulation and implementation of Virginia’s rail programs. Abolition of the Board by the General Assembly would be a tragic mistake that would save little or no money but would seriously impair the success of Virginia’s ongoing rail programs.

Although the Rail Advisory Board is not as effective as it could be should the General Assembly decide to broaden its responsibilities as suggested later in this paper, the Board plays a unique and indispensable role in the identification, formulation, and funding of rail projects in Virginia, and in the public dissemination of information related to such projects. The Board’s nine members are selected because of their experience with railroads, their knowledge of railroad operations, and their expertise in dealing with rail issues. All of the members of the Board serve without compensation, so that the only money the Commonwealth would save by abolishing the Board is about $2500 annually in travel expenses. What the Commonwealth would lose, however, is the invaluable contribution currently being made by nine citizen members who share a common knowledge of and a particular interest in the rail industry, its problems and its potential. Moreover, the obligation to provide detailed information to the Board requires the Department of Rail & Public Transportation (“DRPT”) to document and explain both the nature and the cost of each of the projects DRPT is recommending and to justify its decision to approve certain projects and to reject others. This dissemination of information is essential to a full understanding by the public, as well as the Board, of exactly what is being recommended, and why. Should the Board be abolished, it is unlikely that such detailed information would be collected, compiled, and made available to the public. * The Commission estimates that the Department of Rail and Public Transportation would save something less than $10,000 in “staff time” currently being devoted to the preparation of the materials DRPT provides the Rail Advisory Board in preparation for its quarterly meetings. The Commission does not contend, however, that elimination of this responsibility would permit DRPT to reduce the size of its staff. The projected savings thus appears illusory.

Attachment 15-G

The Commonwealth Transportation Board, whose work is said to duplicate that of the Rail Advisory Board, has broad responsibility for transportation projects across Virginia. Most of the members of the CTB have limited familiarity with rail, and with the problems that are singular to rail operations. As a result, in making funding decisions with respect to rail projects, the CTB has come to rely on the expertise of the members of the Rail Advisory Board, and on their ability to ask relevant questions and to insist on complete and accurate answers. Far from duplicating the work of the CTB, the analysis and recommendations of the Rail Advisory Board are a distinctive and essential component of the process by which the CTB makes decisions concerning rail projects. It would be almost unthinkable for the CTB to approve funding for a rail project that the RAB had rejected. That simple fact, without more, demonstrates the importance of retaining the Rail Advisory Board.

The meetings of the Rail Advisory Board also provide an important forum for DRPT to bring both the Board and the public up to date on significant developments concerning rail operations in Virginia, including the status of the rail projects receiving public funding,. Board meetings give DRPT a periodic opportunity to explain its ongoing activities to the Board and to the public, to answer questions by the Board and the public, and to receive their collective comments and recommendations. The importance of these sharply focused, informal, essentially unstructured exchanges of information and ideas cannot be overestimated and would be difficult – and very expensive – to duplicate.

In short, the Rail Advisory Board is an important part of Virginia’s ongoing program of expanding the role of rail as a cost effective and environmentally friendly solution to many of the Commonwealth’s transportation problems. In lieu of abolishing the Board, which would likely add to the overall cost of rail projects in Virginia, the General Assembly should broaden its responsibilities and strengthen the Board’s authority.

The Rail Advisory Board and the Rail Enhancement Fund were created simultaneously in 2005, in response to the recommendations of Governor Warner’s Commission on Rail Enhancement for the 21st Century. However, as the legislation worked its way through the General Assembly, the role the Commission had envisioned for the Board was substantially diluted, with the result that the Board’s authority was seriously impaired.

During the past year, a committee of the Rail Policy Institute, chaired by Charlie Walker of Richmond, studied the Rail Advisory Board in the context of its performance since its creation. The Committee’s Report was approved by the Board of the Rail Policy Institute and then delivered to both the Secretary of Transportation and the Director of the Department of Rail & Public Transportation. In deference to the amount of time it would take to review the entire Report, I am including below the essence of RPI’s recommendations: ∗ The complete Walker Committee Report, entitled “Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Rail Advisory Board” as well as additional information about the Rail Policy Institute and its work, is available on the VRPI website www.varpi.org.

2

Attachment 15-G

Some of the weaknesses inherent in the legislation establishing the Rail Enhancement Fund and the Rail Advisory Board were obvious during the 2010 session of the General Assembly, when it became necessary to waive several statutory constrictions in order to secure funding for a rail project which enjoyed near unanimous support from those who will be affected by its completion. Rectification of those weaknesses is one of the reasons for these recommendations, but it is not the only reason. We have had nearly five years of experience with the Rail Enhancement Fund and the Rail Advisory Board and have had the opportunity to learn from that experience. Virginia’s foresight in setting aside a designated source of revenue in support of rail projects determined to be in the public interest is both unique and commendable, but if the underlying objective of elevating the status of rail transportation, and of taking full advantage of its potential in the movement of freight and passengers is to be achieved, changes in the current program are clearly needed. The Rail Policy Institute’s study suggests that the following changes would significantly improve the overall effectiveness of both the process and the program, and would enhance in a major way the potential contribution of rail transportation to the resolution of the Commonwealth’s transportation problems.”

In summarizing the Rail Policy Institute’s specific recommendations, references to the

idea of renaming the Rail Advisory Board have been eliminated. VRPI’s remaining recommendations, summarized below, appear worthy of General Assembly consideration and, if adopted, would clearly strengthen the Board.

1. The Rail Advisory Board should be given the statutory responsibility to identify, develop, prioritize, solicit, and approve rail projects jointly with DRPT. 2. The Rail Advisory Board should be authorized to propose rail projects it determines to be in the public interest, without regard to whether such projects have been proposed by a railroad, and to use funds from the Rail Enhancement Fund to encourage the approval of such projects by the affected railroad or railroads. 3. With the approval of the Director of DRPT, the Rail Advisory Board should be authorized to prioritize proposed rail projects and to use differential levels of funding to encourage the approval and construction of such projects by the affected railroads. 4. The Director of DRPT, with the approval of the Rail Advisory Board and the Commonwealth Transportation Board, should be authorized to waive or reduce the 30% match requirement with respect to projects proposed for funding from the Rail Enhancement Fund, when it is determined to be in the public interest to do so. 5. The Code should be amended so as to permit the Rail Enhancement Fund, with the approval of the Rail Advisory Board and the Director of DRPT, to be used to provide the local match necessary to obtain federal funding for rail projects.

3

Attachment 15-G

6. The Code should be amended so as to permit the CTB, on recommendation of the Rail Advisory Board and the Director of DRPT, to use funds from the Rail Enhancement Fund to support bonds issued by the CTB for the construction of rail projects. 7. The Rail Advisory Board should consider and make recommendations to the CTB with respect to requests for funding of all proposed rail projects, whether such projects are funded from the Rail Enhancement Fund or from some other source. 8. In all instances in which the CTB is required to approve funding for rail projects, the recommendations of the Rail Advisory Board should be made directly to the CTB by or through the Chair of the Rail Advisory Board. 9. At least once each calendar year, the members of the Rail Advisory Board and the Members of the Commonwealth Transportation Board should be required to meet jointly to consider transportation issues in which the two Boards have a common interest. 10. The terms of the members of the Rail Advisory Board should coincide with the terms of the Governor by whom they were appointed, subject to a provision permitting each member to serve until his or her successor is appointed.

In summary, the Rail Policy Institute concluded that although there are clearly

deficiencies in the structure of the Rail Advisory Board that have handicapped its effectiveness, the deficiencies can and should be corrected. Abolishing the Board would save little if any money, but in the process would deprive the Commonwealth of the unique expertise of a very dedicated and talented group of individuals, all of whom have significant railroad experience, and all of whom serve without compensation. It would also deprive the citizens of the Commonwealth of the only meaningful forum currently available to them to express their views on rail issues, both general and specific.

4

Attachment 15-G

Metropolitan Planning Organization Federal Formula Program ARRA Funds Allocated ARRA Funds Obligated ARRA Funds Outlayed Number of Projects Put Out to BidARRA Funds Associated w/ Projects Put Out to Bid

Projects Under ContractARRA Funds Associated w/ Projects Under Contract

Projects in Which Work Has BegunARRA Funds Associated w/ Projects in Which Work Has Begun

Projects in Which Work has Been CompletedARRA Funds Associated w/ Completed Projects

Number of Direct, On-Project Jobs Created or Sustained by ARRA FundsTotal Job Hours Created or Sustained by ARRA Funds

Total Payroll of Job Hours Created or Sustained by ARRA FundsNorthern Virginia Transportation Authority (Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments) Highway Infrastructure Investment $51,262,196 $49,537,196 $2,890,774 18 $50,937,196 12 $57,284,239 9 $55,295,246 1 $357,646 1274 46717 $1,075,070Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Highway Infrastructure Investment $1,399,191 $1,399,191 $1,475,128 1 $1,399,191 1 $11,534,887 1 $11,534,887 0 $0 445 37205 $629,744Richmond Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Highway Infrastructure Investment $20,848,262 $21,135,707 $365,638 4 $23,968,262 3 $18,015,707 3 $18,015,707 0 $0 319 15470 $299,681Tri-Cities Metropolitan Planning Organization Highway Infrastructure Investment $3,252,112 $2,964,667 $389,408 2 $3,252,112 2 $2,964,667 2 $2,964,667 1 $621,032 156 6658 $109,614Hampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Organization Highway Infrastructure Investment $41,041,797 $40,756,996 $2,437,100 30 $41,041,797 46 $66,801,717 42 $64,261,435 20 $1,362,060 2419 107413 $1,658,915

American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009Commonwealth of Virginia Report to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives

December 2010

Data Summarized by MPO

Attachment 15-H

Attachment 15-I

Documents

AGENDA ITEM #15: FOR YOUR INFORMATION A. … · Attachment 15-C D. HRTPO TREASURER’S REPORT Attachment 15-D E. JLARC REVIEW OF VIRGINIA’S TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING