PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN PPP... · WHEREAS, the HRTPO Public Participation Plan ensures that the public involvement activities of HRTPO transportation planning and programming process

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization

Public Participation Plan

T09-04

TPOTPOTRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATIONTRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION

December 2009

Intentionally Left Blank

HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION

RESOLUTION 2009‐07 A RESOLUTION OF THE HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION AND ITS MEMBER LOCALITIES TO APPROVE AND ADOPT THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN. WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 450, Title 23, United States Code and applicable federal and state regulations, the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), designated by the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia as the metropolitan planning organization, is responsible for the urban transportation planning and programming process of the Hampton Roads metropolitan planning area, which includes the cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, and Williamsburg; the counties of Isle of Wight, James City, and York; and a portion of Gloucester County; WHEREAS, Section 450, Title 23, United States Code requires that the metropolitan planning organization in an urbanized area, as a condition of the receipt of federal capital or operating assistance, have a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process that results in plans and programs consistent with the comprehensively planned development of the urbanized area; WHEREAS, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA‐LU), enacted on August 10, 2005, requires that metropolitan planning organizations develop and use a participation plan that defines a process for providing citizens, affected public agencies, and other interested parties with reasonable opportunities to be involved in the metropolitan transportation planning and programming process; WHEREAS, Section 450, Title 23, United States Code requires that the public involvement process be periodically reviewed by the metropolitan planning organization in terms of effectiveness of the procedures and strategies contained in the public participation plan to ensure a full and open participation process; WHEREAS, the HRTPO developed HRTPO Public Participation Plan cooperatively, with assistance from the Virginia Department of Transportation, Hampton Roads Transit, and the Williamsburg Area Transit Authority; WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 450, Title 23, United States Code, the HRTPO Public Participation Plan was placed under a 45‐day public review and comment period, from September 24, 2009 to November 9, 2009; WHEREAS, the HRTPO Public Participation Plan incorporates input from local and regional stakeholders and interested persons; WHEREAS, the HRTPO Public Participation Plan is part of a comprehensive effort to inform, increase awareness, and engage interested parties in the transportation planning and programming process; and

WHEREAS, the HRTPO Public Participation Plan ensures that the public involvement activities of HRTPO transportation planning and programming process comply with the requirements of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 450.316, also known as the Participation Plan requirements of the federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA‐LU)[Title 23 United States Code, Section 134(i)(5)], and other applicable federal regulations and guidelines on metropolitan transportation planning and programming.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization adopts and approves the Public Participation Plan for the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization. APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board at its meeting on the 16th day of December, 2009.

William D. Sessoms Dwight L. Farmer Chairman

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization

Executive Director/Secretary Hampton Roads Transportation

Planning Organization

HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION

Voting Members CHESAPEAKE POQUOSON Alan P. Krasnoff Gordon C. Helsel, Jr. GLOUCESTER COUNTY PORTSMOUTH Christian D. Rilee Douglas L. Smith HAMPTON SUFFOLK Molly J. Ward Linda T. Johnson ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY VIRGINIA BEACH Stan D. Clark William D. Sessoms, Jr. JAMES CITY COUNTY WILLIAMSBURG Bruce C. Goodson Jeanne Zeidler NEWPORT NEWS YORK COUNTY Joe S. Frank Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr. NORFOLK Paul D. Fraim MEMBERS OF THE VIRGINIA SENATE The Honorable John C. Miller The Honorable Yvonne B. Miller MEMBERS OF THE VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES The Honorable G. Glenn Oder The Honorable John A. Cosgrove TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT COMMISSION OF HAMPTON ROADS Michael S. Townes, President/Chief Executive Officer WILLIAMSBURG AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Mark D. Rickards, Executive Director VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Dennis W. Heuer, District Administrator – Hampton Roads District VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Corey W. Hill, Chief of Public Transportation VIRGINIA PORT AUTHORITY Jerry A. Bridges, Executive Director

HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION NonVoting Members CHESAPEAKE POQUOSON William E. Harrell J. Randall Wheeler GLOUCESTER COUNTY PORTSMOUTH Brenda G. Garton Kenneth L. Chandler HAMPTON SUFFOLK James B. Oliver Selena Cuffee‐Glenn ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY VIRGINIA BEACH W. Douglas Caskey James K. Spore JAMES CITY COUNTY WILLIAMSBURG Sanford B. Wanner Jackson C. Tuttle NEWPORT NEWS YORK COUNTY Neil Morgan James O. McReynolds NORFOLK Regina V.K. Williams FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Roberto Fonseca‐Martinez, Division Administrator – Virginia Division FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION Letitia A. Thompson, Regional Administrator, Region 3 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Jeffrey W. Breeden, Airport Planner, Washington Airports District Office VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION Randall P. Burdette, Director NORFOLK AIRPORT AUTHORITY Wayne E. Shank, Executive Director PENINSULA AIRPORT COMMISSION Ken Spirito, Executive Director CHAIR – CITIZEN TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE To Be Determined CHAIR – FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE To Be Determined

REPORT DOCUMENTATION

Title: Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Public Participation Plan Authors: Carlos A. Gonzalez Laura L. Surface Michael S. Kimbrel Andrew Pickard Dale M. Stith Benito O. Pérez Jessica M. Banks Project Manager: Carlos A. Gonzalez

Report Date: December 2009 Grant/Sponsoring Agency: FHWA/FTA/VDOT/DRPT/Local Funds Organization Name, Address, Telephone and Website: Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization 723 Woodlake Drive Chesapeake, Virginia 23320 (757) 420‐8300 http://www.hrtpo.org

Abstract: The Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) Public Participation Plan 2009 is part of a comprehensive effort to inform, increase awareness, and engage interested parties in our transportation planning and programming processes. The HRTPO staff developed this document cooperatively, with assistance from the Virginia Department of Transportation, Hampton Roads Transit, and the Williamsburg Area Transit Authority. Furthermore, the HRTPO Public Participation Plan incorporates input from local and regional stakeholders and interested persons. Appendix A has a summary of the plan development and implementation schedule. Appendix B includes public comments received during forums to gather input for the draft document and during the 45‐day comment period of the draft Public Participation Plan. The first three chapters of this HRTPO Public Participation Plan include HRTPO’s public involvement and outreach goals and objectives and provide information about the plans, programs, and public participation guidelines. Chapter Four contains the public involvement “Toolbox” with general strategies the HRTPO uses to communicate with interested parties. The “Toolbox” section has a focused approach component that incorporates media outreach, training for new HRTPO Board and its advisory committee, outreach within schools and communities, and a focus on partnerships for the purpose of increased two‐way communications. Chapters Five, Six and Seven are new components of the public involvement and community outreach program and include Environmental Justice Guidelines, with increased efforts to reach out to minority populations, low‐income populations and elderly and persons with disabilities, and an overview of the HRTPO Limited English Proficient Program. Finally, the HRTPO Public Participation Plan incorporates a performance‐based evaluation linked to the public participation and outreach goals and objectives. The HRTPO Public Participation Plan will serve as the blueprint for HRTPO public involvement and outreach activities and will be reviewed periodically. Whenever this plan is materially revised, it will undergo public review and HRTPO Board approval. For any questions, please contact the HRTPO Public Involvement and Community Outreach Administrator at (757) 420‐8300 or at [email protected].

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared by the HRTPO in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads (TDCHR) also known as the Hampton Roads Transit (HRT), and the Williamsburg Area Transit Authority (WATA). The contents of this report reflect the views of the HRTPO. The HRTPO staff is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the FHWA, FTA, VDOT, or the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT). This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. FHWA, FTA or VDOT acceptance of this report as evidence of fulfillment of the objectives of this planning study does not constitute endorsement/approval of the need for any recommended improvements nor does it constitute approval of their location and design or a commitment to fund any such improvements. Additional project level environmental impact assessments and/or studies of alternatives may be necessary. This report was included as a work element in the FY 2010 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), which was approved by the HRTPO on June 17, 2009. PROJECT STAFF Dwight L. Farmer Camelia Ravanbakht Carlos A. Gonzalez Michael S. Kimbrel Jessica M. Banks Laura L. Surface Dale M. Stith Benito O. Pérez Stephanie Shealy Michael R. Long Christopher W. Vaigneur

Executive Director/SecretaryHRTPO Deputy Executive Director Public Involvement and Community Outreach Administrator Principal Transportation Engineer Transportation Analyst Transportation GIS Planner Transportation Planner Transportation Engineer Transportation Engineer Assistant General Services Manager Reprographic Coordinator

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT & PARTICIPATION ...................................................... 1 1.2 INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS .......................................................................................................... 2

2. PLANS, PROGRAMS AND TECHNICAL REPORTS ................................................................ 7 2.1 LONG‐RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (LRTP) ................................................................................... 7 2.2 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) ........................................................................ 8 2.3 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM (UPWP) .................................................................................... 9 2.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN (PPP) ......................................................................................................... 9 2.5 TECHNICAL REPORTS ........................................................................................................................................ 9

3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GUIDELINES .............................................................................. 10 3.1 PROCEDURES ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 POLICY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT HRTPO MEETINGS ................................................................... 12

4. TOOLBOX........................................................................................................................................ 13 4.1 HRTPO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT TOOLS .................................................................................................... 13 4.2 FOCUSED APPROACH ....................................................................................................................................... 14

5. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE GUIDELINES ............................................................................. 16 5.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 16 5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES .............................................................. 17 5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND OUTREACH STRATEGIES ............................................................ 17 5.4 DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 17 5.5 FOUR‐STEP EJ EVALUATION AND OUTREACH STRATEGIES: ANALYSIS .................................. 19

6. ELDERLY AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ................................................................... 36 7. LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY (LEP) PROGRAM ......................................................... 39 7.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 39 7.2 LEP PROGRAM SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................. 39 7.3 FOUR FACTOR ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................... 39 7.4 COMPONENTS OF THE HRTPO LEP PROGRAM .................................................................................... 43

8. EVALUATION ................................................................................................................................. 44 8.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 44 8.1.1 QUALITATIVE MEASURES .............................................................................................................................. 44 8.1.2 QUANTITATIVE MEASURES .......................................................................................................................... 45 8.2 INFORMATION TRACKING MECHANISMS .............................................................................................. 46

APPENDIX A: PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................... 47 APPENDIX B: PUBLIC COMMENTS ............................................................................................................... 48 APPENDIX C: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................. 69 APPENDIX D: GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................... 70 APPENDIX E: FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................. 76

LIST OF MAPS

Map 1 Hampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Area ......................................................................................... 3

Map 2 Distribution of Households with Minorities .......................................................................................... 20

Map 3 Distribution of Household Income Below Poverty ............................................................................. 21

Map 4 Zero‐Car Households ....................................................................................................................................... 22

Map 5 Households that Received Public Assistance ........................................................................................ 23

Map 6 Number of Target Groups that are above ther Regional Average ............................................... 25

Map 7 Distribution of Environmental Justice Population Above their Regional Average .............. 27

Map 8 Target Areas in Hampton Roads ................................................................................................................. 29

Map 9 Critical Areas in Hampton Roads ................................................................................................................ 31

Map 10 Distribution of Population over 65 ......................................................................................................... 37

Map 11 Distribution of Persons with Disabilities ............................................................................................. 38

Map 12 Distribution of Spanish Speaking and Prominent LE P Population Concentrations ......... 41

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Regional Average for Target Groups ...................................................................................................... 18

Table 2 Strategies for Reaching Traditionally Underrepresented Populations .................................. 33

Table 3 Performance Measures for Benefits and Burdens Analyses ........................................................ 34

Table 4 Primary versus Secondary Languages in Hampton Roads ........................................................... 40

Table 5 Evaluation Process: Qualitative Measures of Effectiveness and Methods ............................. 44

Table 6 Evaluation Process: Quantitative Objectives, Measures and Methods ................................... 45

Table 7 Information Tracking Mechanisms Activities and Techniques .................................................. 46

Table 8 2009 Poverty Guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia ...... 73

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Public Participation Plan| Section 1 1

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT & PARTICIPATION The Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) is committed to involving interested parties of all walks of life and considering their ideas through professional initiatives and a transparent, accountable, and accessible regional transportation planning and programming process. HRTPO public involvement and community outreach goals: • Inform Hampton Roads residents and other interested parties about the regional

transportation planning and programming process and issues related to transportation. • Increase awareness of the agency’s purpose and function. • Engage Hampton Roads residents and interested parties in an open dialogue about their

transportation priorities and regional planning and programming issues through meaningful public involvement opportunities.

HRTPO public involvement and community outreach objectives: • Provide broad‐based access to HRTPO activities, plans, and programs. • Develop and disseminate information about the transportation planning and

programming process through multiple media, with clear, non‐technical language. • Seek to engage all interested parties, including minority, low‐income, disabled, and

elderly persons in meaningful exchange of ideas related to the transportation planning and programming process.

• Establish working relationships with partner and peer organizations in the region for the purpose of information exchange and regional dialogue.

1.2 INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE The HRTPO believes that the regional transportation planning and programming process benefits from the input of all interested parties who have valuable knowledge and insight about the problems and needs of our communities. As such, we invite all interested persons to participate.

Here are examples of how you can participate: • Attend a meeting, advertized on the HRTPO website: www.hrtpo.org. • Provide public comments or ask a question through the homepage: www.hrtpo.org. • Stay informed: Go to the website listed above, or www.keephamptonroadsmoving.com

for latest updates for the 2034 Long Range Transportation Plan. • Invite an HRTPO staff person to speak at your meeting or event. • For more information about the HRTPO, you may review the following chapters:

o Plans, Programs, and Technical Reports (Chapter 2); o Public Participation Guidelines (Chapter 3); o Public Involvement Toolbox (Chapter 4); o Environmental Justice Guidelines and Maps (Chapter 5);

• Contact us at (757) 420‐8300 or [email protected] for questions, comments, or information about upcoming activities.


Anyone interested in transportation issues is encouraged to participate: Citizens, local government and city officials, civic organizations, affected public agencies, transportation service representatives (freight/taxi/shuttle), the private sector, transit users, emergency management representatives, military representatives, community and advocacy groups (including faith‐based organizations and educational organizations), land use management and planned growth representatives, environmental, natural resources, conservation representatives, historical preservation organization representatives, representatives for elderly, disabled, low income or minority persons, homeowners associations, and any other interested parties. 1.3 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS What is the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization? The Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Hampton Roads area. In an effort to make it clearer to the public that the metropolitan planning organization for Hampton Roads is responsible for regional transportation planning and programming, the policy board changed the name of the organization to the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) beginning in June 2009. As the designated MPO for this region, the HRTPO is a federally mandated transportation policy board comprised of representatives from local, state, and federal governments, transit agencies, and other stakeholders and is responsible for transportation planning and programming for the Hampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA). What is the current planning area boundary of the HRTPO? At a minimum, an MPA must cover the urbanized area and contiguous geographic areas likely to become urbanized within the next 20 years. Currently, the cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, and Williamsburg; the counties of Isle of Wight, James City, and York; and a portion of Gloucester County are included in the MPA (map on page 2). What is a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)? A Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is a transportation policy‐making organization comprised of representatives from local, state, and federal governments; transit agencies; and other stakeholders. In 1962, the United States Congress passed legislation that mandated urban transportation planning as a condition for receiving federal transportation funding in any Urbanized Area with a population greater than 50,000. The Federal‐Aid Highway Act of 1962 required the establishment of a continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative (3‐C) transportation planning process to be carried out by states and local communities. The 1962 Act, along with federal initiatives to come in the 1970s that established MPOs, formed the basis for metropolitan transportation planning used in the present day. Any highway or transit project or program to be constructed or conducted within the MPA and to be paid for with federal funds, must receive approval by the MPO as being a product of the 3‐C process before any federal funds can be expended. In addition, any highway or transit project deemed to be regionallysignificant, regardless of the source(s) of funding, must receive MPO approval to proceed.


Map 1 Hampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Area

What does an MPO do? MPOs have five core functions: 1. Establish and manage a fair and impartial setting for effective regional decision‐making

with regard to metropolitan transportation planning; 2. Evaluate transportation alternatives appropriate to the region in terms of its unique

needs, issues, and realistically available options; 3. Develop and maintain a fiscally‐constrained, Long‐Range (at least 20 years)

Transportation Plan for the metropolitan planning area; 4. Develop and maintain a fiscally‐constrained Transportation Improvement Program; and 5. Involve the public in the four functions listed above.

The HRTPO annually establishes a Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), which describes transportation planning work to be performed for the Hampton Roads MPA by the HRTPO, transit agencies, and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Each task in the UPWP includes information on who will perform the work, the schedule for completing the work, resulting end products, and proposed funding and source of funds.


How is an MPO funded? MPOs are primarily funded with Metropolitan Planning funds from the Federal Highway Administration (PL funds) and the Federal Transit Administration (Section 5303 funds). These funds are matched at a ratio of 80% federal to 20% state/local. In Hampton Roads, the 20% match is divided evenly between state and local funds. What is the scope of the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process? The metropolitan transportation planning process must be continuous, cooperative, and comprehensive, and provide for consideration and implementation of projects, strategies, and services that will address the following factors:

1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency.

2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non‐motorized users. 3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non‐motorized

users. 4. Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight. 5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality

of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and state and local planned growth and economic development patterns.

6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight.

7. Promote efficient system management and operation. 8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

Who makes up the HRTPO Board? Voting representation on the HRTPO Board includes elected officials from the Cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, and Williamsburg, and the Counties of Gloucester, Isle of Wight, James City, and York; two members of the Virginia Senate and two members of the Virginia House of Delegates; plus representatives from the Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads, known as Hampton Roads Transit (HRT), Williamsburg Area Transit Authority, the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, and the Virginia Port Authority. The HRTPO Board continually assesses its membership to account for emerging trends or shifts in the area of regional transportation and may add other stakeholders as deemed appropriate. Non‐voting representation on the HRTPO includes Chief Administrative Officers from all of the HRTPO member localities as well as representatives from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Virginia Department of Aviation (DOAV), Peninsula Airport Commission, Norfolk Airport Authority, the HRTPO Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) Chair, and the HRTPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC) Chair. In addition to those non‐voting members, the HRTPO Board may extend an invitation to any additional parties deemed necessary and appropriate to become a non‐voting member of the HRTPO Board. The Director of an agency invited as a non‐voting member will appoint the


agency’s representative to the HRTPO Board and notify the Chair and Executive Director/Secretary of the appointment. What are the advisory committees of the HRTPO Board? The Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) acts as an advisory body to the HRTPO Board and provides technical advice and support to the HRTPO staff for transportation issues that are primarily technical in nature. The TTAC interacts with the HRTPO’s professional staff on technical matters related to planning, programming, and transportation‐related air quality planning. Through this work, the TTAC develops recommendations on projects and programs for HRTPO Board consideration. Its voting membership is comprised of three members of each locality in the MPA, three members from the Virginia Department of Transportation (one of whom shall be a representative from the central office), one member from the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, one member from the Virginia Port Authority, and one member from each public transit agency. Representatives from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and liaisons of the branches of the military serve as non‐voting members. The Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) is a standing advisory committee of the HRTPO Board and meets from time to time as circumstances require to act upon matters referred to it by the HRTPO Board. The TAC is comprised of the Chief Administrative Officer of each HRTPO member locality, the Williamsburg Area Transit Authority, the Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads, and the Virginia Port Authority. The committee also includes the VDOT Hampton Roads District Administrator, and an Executive Staff Representative from the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation. A representative of the Federal Highway Administration and of the Federal Transit Administration shall be non‐voting members. HRTPO Board voting members shall inform the Chair and Executive Director of the names of the designated members. The Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) will serve as an advisory committee to the HRTPO Board and will provide public input to the HRTPO Board on transportation issues. The CTAC will consist of up to thirty members, each of whom shall be a resident of a HRTPO‐member locality, and shall fairly reflect the geographic diversity of the HRTPO membership. Members will be appointed by the HRTPO Board based on recommendations from the Nominating Committee. Initial terms shall be staggered: into three equal groups for one‐year, two‐year, and three‐year terms. Thereafter, all members shall be appointed to three‐year terms. The Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC) will advise the HRTPO Board on regional freight transportation requirements. The FTAC will conduct public outreach activities that help HRTPO efforts to explain and help raise awareness of the importance of freight transportation to the region and to collect region‐wide public input on these matters. The FTAC will consist of nine members appointed to five‐year terms by the HRTPO Board based on recommendations from the Nominating Committee. What is the role of the citizen? Citizens have a role to play in transportation decisions. Without YOUR ideas, State and local governments will not always get a true understanding of community needs. Citizens may have


information that is more current or detailed about their neighborhood than is available to transportation professionals. Citizens may view transportation challenges and opportunities differently than transporation officials. YOUR ideas, provide the community perspective necessary to enhance the transportation network. YOUR ideas, make transportation planners and engineers aware of local transportation needs. YOUR ideas, can influence transportation decision‐making outcomes. This is why it is important for YOU to be involved! Examples of ways you can get involved:

• Provide suggestions on transportation‐related issues

• Provide comments on current transportation plans, programs, and technical reports

• Provide ideas on regional prioritization projects

• Engage your elected officials who serve on the HRTPO Board

• Visit www.hrtpo.org for more information

1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLANS The Hampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Organization (now the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization) published a Public Involvement Procedure (PIP) document on September 14, 1994 in response to a requirement of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. A major revision of the PIP was released on September 17, 2003. A report documenting an evaluation of the activities included in the PIP was published on June 16, 2004. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA‐LU), enacted on August 10, 2005, required that metropolitan planning organizations develop and use a participation plan that defines a process for providing citizens, affected public agencies, and other interested parties with reasonable opportunities to be involved in the metropolitan transportation planning process. The revision to the PIP, referred to as the Transportation Participation Plan (TPP) was finalized in July of 2007. This plan contained major revisions to the PIP and ensured compliance with the requirements of SAFETEA‐LU. The HRTPO Public Participation Plan (PPP) is part of a comprehensive effort to inform and engage all interested parties in the transportation planning and program processes and was developed by the HRTPO staff in consultation with interested parties. The process included three regional forums ‐ one each in Williamsburg, Norfolk and Hampton ‐ to help gather public input for the initial draft and review and comment period of the draft PPP. Appendix A includes details about outreach activities and public input for this update.


2. PLANS, PROGRAMS AND TECHNICAL REPORTS 2.1 LONGRANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (LRTP) The Long‐Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) serves as the blue print for the region’s transportation development and identifies all regionally significant transportation projects and programs for the Hampton Roads metropolitan planning area. The LRTP has a planning horizon of at least 20 years, includes a financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted transportation plan can be implemented, and is updated every four years to reflect changing conditions such as new planning priorities, population projections, and economic changes, as well as anticipated travel demand. Regionally significant transportation projects must be included in the LRTP to receive state and federal funding. 2034 LRTP Participation Efforts The LRTP is a multi‐year effort and development of the LRTP will occur in phases. Therefore, the HRTPO staff will conduct public outreach in accordance with each phase: • Phase I will focus on development of the framework of the LRTP (vision/goals) • Phase II will focus on candidate project alternatives for the LRTP • Phase III will focus on alternative analysis • Phase IV will focus on LRTP adoption

In an effort to elicit widespread and meaningful input for the development of the LRTP, the HRTPO staff will incorporate various methods to target the wide and diverse communities of Hampton Roads. A concerted effort will be made to reach out to Environmental Justice (EJ) populations, which include low‐income populations and minority populations, as well as other traditionally underrepresented populations. Refer to Section 5.4 for regional distribution of underrepresented groups and identified target areas and EJ outreach strategies. The data from these maps will also be used as contributing factor in evaluating candidate projects for the LRTP. Public participation strategies will vary with each LRTP. General strategies available for engaging the public in the development of the LRTP include: • Branding of the LRTP so that it will be more recognizable to the general public, including

naming the LRTP, creating a logo, and marketing through online and local events. • Identifying current Environmental Justice and other traditionally underrepresented

populations within Hampton Roads to ensure these communities are involved. • Maintaining a website dedicated to the development of the LRTP

(www.keephamptonroadsmoving.com). Users will be able to access LRTP information, progress, and opportunities to get involved. HRTPO staff will use this website, as well as the main HRTPO website, to advertise upcoming meetings and public participation activities.

• Holding public meetings related to the LRTP. • Conducting surveys and polls to solicit public input. This can be done via the internet,

telephone surveys, or portable, recently improved, computer kiosks to facilitate participation by all interested groups.


• Establishing partnerships with regional organizations and agencies to both disseminate information and encourage input from their members.

• Engaging community groups via “Community Conversations” by providing the opportunity for an HRTPO staff to appear before local community groups.

• Communicating LRTP updates and information via the HRTPO Board and TTAC meetings. These meetings also provide public participation opportunities, as members of the public are allotted time at the start of each of these meetings to speak.

• Including articles relating to the development of the LRTP in the HRTPO quarterly newsletter, the CROSSINGS, which is distributed both electronically and through traditional mail.

• Exploring of the use of new media and social networking options, such as Facebook and Twitter, to disseminate information about upcoming public participation opportunities and development of the LRTP.

• Distributing notices pertaining to LRTP public involvement activities via electronic correspondence (email) and/or direct mail, including any public meeting and/or surveys.

• Incorporating visualization techniques to help the public better understand transportation options as well as facilitate more meaningful input.

Refer to the current LRTP Public Participation Plan to learn more detail about these strategies and their application to the different phases of the development of the LRTP. 2.2 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a program of transportation projects to be constructed or conducted within the Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA). The Hampton Roads TIP is developed by the HRTPO, in cooperation with the State and the local public transportation operators. The TIP must be consistent with the current LRTP, must cover a period of no less than four years, and must be updated at least every four years. The TIP must include all federally‐funded and/or regionally significant projects that require an action by the FHWA or the FTA. Before any federally funded and/or regionally significant surface transportation project can be built in the MPA, it must be included in a current TIP that has been approved by the HRTPO. TIP Participation Efforts • Develop and disseminate information that provides an understanding of how projects are

selected and prioritized and how funding decisions are made. • When the draft TIP is ready, a notice is sent to local and regional news agencies and

posted on the HRTPO website to solicit comments from all interested parties. This public comment period will be in accordance with HRTPO guidelines.

• A public notice is circulated through the HRTPO e‐mail contact list and to partner agencies who help distribute to persons and/or groups that may not have electronic access.

• HRTPO staff reviews and responds to all comments received. Comments are also forwarded to state agencies, local jurisdictions, and transit operators, as applicable.

• Comments received from the public regarding the proposed TIP, are summarized, analyzed, and considered. The final TIP is adopted by the HRTPO Board.


• Once the TIP is finalized, modifications and amendments are made in accordance with procedures set forth in the next section (Public Participation Guidelines – LRTP & TIP Revisions).

• The annual listing of federal obligations on projects from the previous federal fiscal year is posted continuously on the HRTPO website for public review and will be mailed upon request.

2.3 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM (UPWP) The HRTPO Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) describes transportation planning work to be performed for the Hampton Roads MPA by the HRTPO, the local transit operators, and the Virginia Department of Transportation. The document contains detailed information about who will perform the work, the schedule for completing the work, resulting products, proposed funding amount, and source of funds. The UPWP is developed annually and is made available for public review on the HRTPO website and through our e‐mail distribution system, prior to adoption by the HRTPO Board. 2.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN (PPP) The PPP provides HRTPO’s mission, specific objectives, and procedures for public involvement and community outreach activities. It also provides all interested parties with an understanding of what to expect in the transportation planning process and how to get involved. The PPP is updated regularly. Participation activities for this updated plan included three regional public forums and a 45‐day comment period for the draft document. A narrative of the process used to develop the PPP, comments received during public forums and during the 45‐day comment period ‐ September 24 to November 9, 2009 ‐ are available in Appendix A of this document. 2.5 TECHNICAL REPORTS The HRTPO staff conducts technical reports on a variety of transportation topics including Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) and operations planning, Congestion Management Process (CMP), safety planning, freight planning, transportation planning and engineering studies, HOV and Congestion Pricing, non‐driver mobility, corridor and intersection studies, as well as various areas of transportation research and analysis. These technical reports are made available for public review on the HRTPO website and through the e‐mail distribution system, prior to approval by the HRTPO Board.


3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GUIDELINES

3.1 PROCEDURES The HRTPO public involvement and community outreach process provides the review of transportation plans and programs as they are being developed and as they go into HRTPO’s approval process. Information below provides HRTPO’s procedures for informing and engaging the public and interested parties. Reasonable Opportunity for Review and Comment • The opportunity to review and comment on the documents, plans and programs is

advertized through the HRTPO website, media advisories to regional news providers, messages to HRTPO’s list of interested parties, distribution to the member jurisdictions, advertisements at the office location, and via e‐mail to partner organizations for posting at their locations. (See Toolbox within Section 4 for a complete listing of our outreach strategies).

• The HRTPO provides a public review and comment period of no less than 14 days for LRTP and TIP updates, the associated regional Conformity Analyses (RCA) for Air Quality, and special studies and reports developed by the HRTPO staff. This is in addition to the participation outlined in the LRTP and TIP sections of this document.

• The HRTPO provides no less than 14 days for LRTP and TIP amendments (See LRTP/TIP Revisions below for details).

• For the Air Quality RCA, the HRTPO provides public access to technical and policy information associated with the conformity determination at the beginning of the process and during key analysis points (See Air Quality Conformity Analysis below for details).

Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)/Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Revisions SAFETEA‐LU defines two types of revisions with regard to the LRTP and TIP: • Administrative Modification means a minor revision to the LRTP or TIP. This includes

minor changes to project or phase costs, minor changes to funding sources of previously included projects, and minor changes to project or phase initiation dates. An administrative modification does not require public review and comment, re‐demonstration of fiscal constraint, or a conformity determination.

• Amendment means a major revision to the LRTP or TIP. This includes the addition or deletion of a project, major changes to project or phase costs, major changes in design concept or scope (e.g. changing project termini or the number of through traffic lanes), and major changes in project or phase initiation dates. An amendment requires public review and comment, and may require re‐demonstration of fiscal constraint and a conformity determination.

For proposed amendments to the adopted LRTP or TIP, the HRTPO will provide the public a period of no less than 14 days to review and comment on the proposed change(s) prior to the action. During the comment period, the proposed amendment will be circulated through the e‐mail contact list and to partner agencies who will assist distribution to persons and/or groups that may not have electronic access. A public notice regarding the proposed amendment will also be posted on the HRTPO website. All comments will be considered.


Air Quality Conformity Analysis (Conformity) • Conformity means a Clean Air Act (CAA) requirement that ensures that federal funding

and approval are given to transportation plans, programs and projects that are consistent with the air quality goals established by a State Implementation Plan (SIP). Air Quality Conformity, to the purpose of the SIP, means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the air quality standards.

• Details on the conformity analysis procedures, including the required interagency consultation, are detailed in a separate document developed and updated periodically by the Interagency Consultation Group (ICG), made up of representatives from VDOT, DRPT, HRTPO, FHWA, FTA, EPA and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. The current version is entitled “Consultation Procedures for the Hampton Roads Ozone Nonattainment Area In Support of the Transportation Conformity Regulations, Revised July 18, 2005.” This document is made available on the HRTPO website. Generally, before the regional conformity analysis process as defined in the ICG Consultation Procedures document begins, the list of applicable projects from the LRTP and TIP are posted on the website to allow for public access and review. A public notice is published on the HRTPO website and distributed to HRTPO committees and interested parties through electronic mailing list to solicit comments from all interested parties on the project lists to be used in the conformity analysis. The project list comment period is typically 14 days and may overlap with the initiation of the conformity analysis process.

Once the draft regional conformity analysis has been completed, then following the process defined in the ICG Consultation Procedures, the draft report is posted on the HRTPO website to facilitate public access and review. A press release is sent to regional news providers and distributed to HRTPO committees and interested parties to solicit comments. The public review and comment period is typically not less than 14 days or as otherwise defined in the ICG Consultation Procedures document. Comments received are summarized and considered as the final RCA is developed, with responses as appropriate included with the LRTP, TIP, and/or RCA.

Public Notice for Meetings Meetings of the HRTPO Board, as well as those of its advisory committees and associated subcommittees are advertized in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. Such notices provide the date, time, and location of the meeting and are posted in the reception area of the regional building office in Chesapeake. A notice is also posted on the HRTPO website and, if feasible, in the quarterly newsletters. The Public Participation Plan (PPP) The PPP is developed in consultation with all interested parties listed on page 1 of this document. In accordance with federal regulations, a 45‐day public review and comment period of the draft PPP is provided and comments are taken into consideration as the document is finalized.


American with Disabilities Statement In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the HRTPO will strive to provide reasonable accommodations and services for persons who require special assistance to participate in this public involvement opportunity. Services for persons with hearing or speech loss are available through the Virginia Relay System at 7‐1‐1, 1‐866‐894‐4116 (voice) or 1‐866‐246‐9300 (TTY). For assistance with the Virginia Relay System or assistance with services for persons with a physical disability, who are visually disabled or reading disabled, please contact the HRTPO Public Involvement and Community Outreach Administrator at (757) 420‐8300. We request you provide reasonable notice for requests. The HRTPO will coordinate with the Virginia Disabilities Services Council to provide assistance. Additional Review and Comment Periods If any final draft plan or program changes significantly during a public review and comment period, an additional review and comment period will be provided, as outlined in this PPP. Comment Documentation and Distribution Comments for LRTP, TIP, and PPP updates are consolidated in summary format and included in the monthly HRTPO Board and its advisory committee agenda packets and in each of the listed documents. The summary of the comments is made available to the public at large through the HRTPO website or e‐mail/mail upon request.

3.2 POLICY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT HRTPO MEETINGS In accordance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, all meetings of the HRTPO Board and its advisory committees and subcommittees shall be open to the public unless lawfully convened into a closed session in accordance with the Act. A member of the public may submit written comments or other materials to the Executive Director for distribution to the HRTPO Board. Public comments are recorded in the minutes and conveyed as needed to other planning partners.


4. TOOLBOX 4.1 HRTPO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT TOOLS The HRTPO uses a variety of methods to inform, increase awareness, and engage the public during the development of plans and programs. The medium used and the degree to which the public is encouraged to be involved varies depending on the planning activity. The HRTPO commonly uses the following methods and techniques. • News Media: HRTPO staff distributes meeting agendas, public notices associated with the

LRTP, TIP, PPP and UPWP, and public announcements for special studies using press releases to our media contact list maintained by the HRTPO Communication Manager.

• Contact Lists: HRTPO staff maintains an extensive list of public participation contacts (e‐mail and mail) that includes representatives of:

o HRTPO Board o HRTPO TTAC o Hampton Roads General Assembly o HRTPO Advisory Committees o News Media o Public Information Officers o Area Libraries

o General List for the LRTP o Civic Leagues o Non‐Profit Organizations o Bicycle and Pedestrian Advocates o Other Interested Parties (Others will be

added with advice from the CTAC)

• Website: HRTPO staff updates the site at www.hrtpo.org as needed with agendas and

minutes from meetings, as well as draft and final plans and programs. Our plans and programs are available for quick viewing and download. The website also serves as a medium by which the public can submit comments and requests.

• Public Information Meetings (PIMs), Workshops, & Open Houses: These activities provide opportunities for public input throughout the planning process. The results and comments obtained at these meetings are incorporated the appropriate planning documents. The HRTPO strives to provide widespread access to these forums by conducting them at accessible times and locations. In addition, presentations at partner‐agency meetings are scheduled to inform and engage. Supplemental materials such as questionnaires, surveys, and handouts of presentation materials may be distributed to the planning partners, interested parties, and posted on the website to accommodate those unable to participate in person. “Accessible” locations are those that fall within the service areas of Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) and Williamsburg Area Transportation Authority (WATA) and have accommodations for persons with disabilities.

• Public Information Presentations: HRTPO staff will, upon request, present before any civic organization, school, special interest group, neighborhood, or other group to inform, increase awareness about HRTPO’s planning functions, plans, programs, or special studies.

• Surveys: Surveys, which may be project‐specific, are used during the updates of plans for data gathering. The survey process and the survey results are incorporated into their respective planning documents.


• Video Tapes of monthly and special Board meeting are available on the HRTPO website and YouTube. The HRTPO will also use videos for distribution of transportation‐related topics and issues.

• Information Booths/Kiosks: The HRTPO periodically sets up and maintains information booths or kiosks at locations and special events.

• Visualization Techniques: HRTPO staff relies on maps, graphics, and PowerPoint presentations to describe and discuss the LRTP, TIP, and special studies. Products include maps, charts, graphs, and pictures, which are used extensively within the documents and supplement materials to existing and future conditions of transportation systems and to illustrate recommendations.

• Newsletter: The HRTPO distributes a quarterly newsletter to 4,200 businesses, civic organizations, associations, agencies, and individuals.

• Radio/TV: This media will be periodically used to provide increased focus for broad reach to the general public for special projects.

4.2 FOCUSED APPROACH Based on input from the general public, consultation with HRTPO partner organizations, and staff input, the HRTPO staff developed this focused approach, which will be implemented in FY 2010 and FY 2011. Progress will be evaluated during FY 2012. The focus will be on providing information about transportation planning and programming processes of the HRTPO; increasing awareness about how to get involved and how participation will be considered; and engaging citizens in dialogue about regional transportation matters and issues important to Hampton Roads residents. As an initial step, the HRTPO staff plans to develop informational materials, which will help increase awareness and serve as educational resources. The first will be a Citizen’s Guide, which will provide basic information about regional transportation planning processes. In the Media The Citizen’s Guide, explaining the basics of transportation planning, will be disseminated through local newspapers, social media, and the HRTPO and partner‐agency websites. In Schools To increase awareness and focus community efforts on traditionally underrepresented areas, the HRTPO staff will use the Citizen’s Guide and other educational tools to conduct outreach within schools in minority and/or low‐income communities. The approach will be two‐pronged:

1. Engage elementary school students, teachers and parents by presenting materials related to transportation that also meet Virginia Standards of Learning; and

2. Develop materials about how transportation systems are planned and constructed for high school students with the goal of increasing awareness about general transportation activities and careers in this field. With both approaches, the HRTPO will seek to provide a setting for reciprocal learning and to promote partnerships with schools and communities.


Within the HRTPO To inform HRTPO Board and TTAC Members, the HRTPO along with the Virginia Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Division, will provide (as needed) an executive briefing detailing the activities, roles, and responsibilities of MPO policy and technical committee members. The session will build on FHWA and VDOT materials and be beneficial for new members or serve as a refresher for seasoned officials. In the Community In partnership with Hampton Roads public and private sector partners, the HRTPO will implement “Community Conversations” to inform, increase awareness, and engage interested parties from all walks of life. The “Community Conversations” will afford the public a full spectrum of ideas in the following formats:

1. Biennial Regional Forums to bring together professional planning and engineering practitioners, academics, and the general public to discuss salient transportation issues; and

2. Local, community dialogues to engage citizens in conversations about these same topics, and/or about specific programs and projects such as the LRTP update and corridor studies.

Partnerships The HRTPO will actively seek to establish formal and informal working relationships to promote plans, programs and activities with local, regional and community organizations for the purpose of creating synergy and regular channels of information exchange. Focus will be on partnerships with non‐profit organizations, civic leagues, schools, libraries, service providers and advocates of person with disabilities, bicycle and pedestrian advocates, private sector transportation service providers, and service organizations. Social Media/Web 2.0 To complement efforts listed above, the HRTPO will explore the use of Web 2.0 tools, specifically Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. The use of social media can be a step toward a new level of performance with the goal of improving service delivery and communication for Hampton Road residents, the media, and interested parties.


5. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE GUIDELINES 5.1 INTRODUCTION The Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) is committed to the principles of Environmental Justice (EJ) and is taking steps to include traditionally underrepresented persons in development of plans, programs, and processes. These guidelines provide background information about EJ concepts and a Four‐Step Environmental Justice Evaluation for HRTPO transportation planning and programming processes.

What is Environmental Justice? Environmental Justice entails the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.

U.S. EPA, Office of Inspector General, Evaluation Report; March 2004. Background Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 set a standard that authoritatively outlawed discrimination under any program or activity utilizing federal funds. Executive Order 12898 issued on February 11, 1994, reinforced the importance of fundamental rights and legal requirements contained in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and directed that "each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission.” Environmental Justice helps to ensure that programs, policies, and activities that have adverse effects on communities do not have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority populations and low‐income populations. To prevent discrimination as described in Executive Order 12898, the Federal Highway Administration Order 6640.23 Order to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations dated December 2, 1998 defines minority populations and low‐income individuals and populations as follows: • Minority – a person who is Black, Hispanic, American Indian and Alaskan Native or Asian

American: o Black – a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. o Hispanic – a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or

other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. o American Indian and Alaskan Native – a person having origins in any of the original

people of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.

o Asian American – a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific islands.

• Minority Population – any readily identifiable groups of minority persons who live in

geographic proximity, and if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who will be similarly affected by a proposed program, policy or activity.

• LowIncome – a person or household whose median income is at or below the United States Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines.


• LowIncome Population – any group of low‐income persons who live in geographic

proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who would be similarly affected by a proposed program, policy or activity.

5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES The USDOT has adopted three fundamental environmental justice principles to guide transportation justice efforts:

• To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low‐income populations.

• To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision‐making process.

• To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low‐income populations.

5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND OUTREACH STRATEGIES Environmental Justice unites social and environmental movements by addressing environmental degradation and the unequal burden often borne by minority and low‐income populations. At the heart of EJ is the right to a safe, healthy, productive, and sustainable environment for all, where “environment” is considered in its totality to include the ecological, physical, social, political, aesthetic, and economic ecosystem. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related authorities are intended to ensure that procedures are in place to protect groups that have been traditionally underrepresented. Given the regulatory framework and USDOT’s commitment to a comprehensive, inclusive approach in transportation planning and programming processes, the HRTPO has developed an analysis of the Four‐Step Environmental Justice Evaluation and Outreach Strategies. An evaluation of Environmental Justice and outreach strategies begins by examining where traditionally underrepresented communities reside and seeks to ensure their involvement. The following Four‐Step Environmental Justice Evaluation and Outreach Strategies provides a structured approach for preparing an EJ analysis and developing an effective public involvement strategy. The identification of minority populations and low‐income populations during the transportation planning and programming process by MPOs can subsequently provide valuable information during the environmental inventory and alternatives development phases of the project development process as additional data, analysis, and public input are refined. 5.4 DEFINITIONS For the analysis of the Four‐Step Environmental Justice Evaluation and Outreach Strategies, the HRTPO provides the following definitions:

• Study Area – The Study Area includes all of the Hampton Roads metropolitan planning area localities as well as all of Gloucester County.


• Target Group – In addition to identifying minority populations and low‐income populations as required by Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, other census characteristics commonly used to describe traditionally underrepresented communities were also identified, including: households with no vehicles, households that received Federal assistance, elderly, persons with disabilities, and linguistically isolated households. These seven characteristics will be used for EJ analysis and be referred to as Target Groups. Elderly and persons with disabilities are discussed further in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 has a program overview of Limited English Proficiency.

• Regional Average – The regional average is computed first by calculating the percent population of each Target Group within each US Census Block Group within the Hampton Roads Study Area. The total of each Target Group population percentage is then averaged to establish the Regional Average for each Target Group.

Target Group Regional Average Minority Groups 35.3%Persons in Poverty 11.5%Elderly 11.4%Linguistically Isolated Households 1.0%Persons with Disabilities 31.7%Federal Assistance Recipients 3.1%Zero Vehicle Households 9.8%

Table 1 Regional Average for Target Groups Source: US Census Bureau, 2000

• Target Area – Those US Census Block Groups with a minimum population of 100 persons within the Hampton Roads Study Area that meet a threshold defined as having a percent population above the Regional Average for the required EJ groups (minority populations and low‐income populations) and any three of the remaining five additional Target Groups.

• Critical Area – Those US Census Block Groups with a minimum population of 100 persons within the Hampton Roads Study Area that meet a threshold defined as having a percent population above the Regional Average for the required EJ groups (minority populations and low‐income populations) and the remaining five additional Target Groups.

• US Census Block Group – A geographical unit used by the United States Census Bureau which is between the Census Tract and the Census Block. It is the smallest geographical unit for which the US Census Bureau publishes sample data.


5.5 FOURSTEP EJ EVALUATION AND OUTREACH STRATEGIES: ANALYSIS The analysis of the HRTPO Four‐Step Evaluation and Outreach Strategies includes:

1. Identify and map the distribution and concentrations of Environmental Justice Target Groups.

2. Identify and apply public participation and outreach strategies. 3. Identify potential benefits and burdens of plans and program for each target population. 4. Document EJ consideration in transportation planning process.

Step One: Identify Target Groups and Target Areas The objective of this step is to identify and map US Census Block Groups in the Hampton Roads Study Area where concentrations of minority, low‐income, and other traditionally underrepresented persons exist. These maps can give transportation planners a general indication of whether a transportation project location may be in or near a minority and/or low‐income community and whether it would have a disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effect. Additionally, mapping of the minority, low‐income and other traditionally underrepresented populations will be a useful tool in enhancing the HRTPO’s public participation and community outreach process by identifying and serving as a first step to engage these communities early in the process. Maps 2, 3, 4, and 5 illustrate the distribution of minority, low‐income, zero‐car households, and households that received public assistance by US Census Block Group in the Hampton Roads Study Area.


Map 2 Distribution of Households with Minorities

§̈¦64

§̈¦564

§̈¦264

§̈¦464

§̈¦64

§̈¦264

§̈¦664

E

0 6 123Miles

Households with Minorities(Census Block Group)

Regional Average 35.3%

Study Area

Above Regional Average


Map 3 Distribution of Households with Income Below Poverty

§̈¦64

§̈¦564

§̈¦264

§̈¦464

§̈¦64

§̈¦264

§̈¦664

E

0 6 123Miles

Households with Income Below Poverty(Census Block Group)



Study Area


Map 4 Zero‐Car Households

§̈¦64

§̈¦564

§̈¦264

§̈¦464

§̈¦64

§̈¦264

§̈¦664

E

0 6 123Miles

Below Regional Average


Households with Zero Vehicles(Census Block Group)



Map 5 Households that Received Public Assistance

§̈¦64

§̈¦564

§̈¦264

§̈¦464

§̈¦64

§̈¦264

§̈¦664

E

0 6 123Miles

Below Regional Average


Households that Received Public Assistance(Census Block Group)



As part of the HRTPO’s strategy to implement a focused approach in public participation and community outreach with limited resources, the HRTPO staff identified other underrepresented groups beyond the Environmental Justice requirements of minority populations and low‐income populations to reach out to as many diverse underrepresented groups as possible. These underrepresented groups, including the two EJ required groups, constitute the Target Groups used in this analysis. In order to define geographic areas for public outreach efforts, the HRTPO first established the distribution of all Target Groups in the Hampton Roads Study Area, specifically highlighting those US Census Block Groups that contain multiple Target Groups above their Regional Average, as shown on Map 6 on the following page.


Map 6 Number of Target Groups within US Census Block Groups that are above their Regional Average

§̈¦64

§̈¦564

§̈¦264

§̈¦464

§̈¦64

§̈¦264

§̈¦664

E

0 5 102.5Miles

Target Groups: Minority, Below Poverty, Elderly,Disabled, LEP, Zero-Vehicle Households, andHouseholds that Received Public Assistance

Number of Target Groups within US CensusBlocks that are above Regional Average

0 to 1 Target Groups





Though Map 6 effectively illustrates the distribution of all Target Groups within the Hampton Roads Study Area, it does not, however, isolate: minority populations and low‐income populations. Therefore, in order to establish Target Areas that include these two groups, HRTPO staff identified those US Census Block Groups that contained both minority and low‐income populations above their Regional Average, as shown in Map 7 on the following page.


Map 7 Distribution of Environmental Justice Populations Above their Regional Average

§̈¦64

§̈¦564

§̈¦264

§̈¦464

§̈¦64

§̈¦264

§̈¦664

E

0 5 102.5Miles

Minority Regional Average - 35.3%Below Poverty Regional Average - 11.5%

Minority & Low Income GroupsAbove the Regional Average


Study Area


As stated earlier, in order to address the needs of other traditionally underrepresented communities, the HRTPO staff examined the spatial distribution of the other Target Groups (i.e. Elderly, People with Disabilities, Linguistically Isolated Households, Federal Assistance Recipients, and Zero Vehicle Households) in relation to the distribution of the Environmental Justice required groups on Map 7. In an effort to reach out to as many underrepresented populations within the Hampton Roads Study Area with limited resources, HRTPO staff established Target Areas that capture not only minority and low‐income populations, but also other populations who may experience barriers to mobility. As shown on Map 8 on the following page, Target Areas were identified as those areas that exceeded the Regional Average in both EJ groups (Minority and Below Poverty) plus having at least three (3) other Target Groups above their Regional Average. HRTPO staff intentionally does not specify which three of the remaining five Target Groups constitute a Target Area as it is assumed that the five Target Groups (Elderly, Population with Disabilities, Households with Zero Vehicles, Households that Received Federal Assistance, and Linguistically Isolated Households) are all equal in terms of being traditionally underrepresented and/or experiencing barriers to mobility.


Map 8 Initial Target Areas in Hampton Road

§̈¦64

§̈¦564

§̈¦264

§̈¦464

§̈¦64

§̈¦264

§̈¦664

E

0 5 102.5Miles

Target Areas in Hampton Roads

Target Areas

Study Area


Upon establishing the Target Areas as shown in Map 8, the HRTPO staff recognized several US Census Block Groups containing all seven Target Groups above their Regional Average. As shown in Map 9 on the following page, these areas are identified as Critical Areas where initial public outreach efforts will occur, with subsequent efforts dispersing out to the identified Target Areas.

The Target and Critical Area Maps will serve as baseline information – a starting point in addressing outreach strategies to underrepresented communities. These maps are notable indicators of where HRTPO staff should further investigate the demographic composition of an identified Target/Critical Area so that public outreach strategies can be tailored to the specific needs of that particular community. This effort will be achieved through the coordination of the HRTPO Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee and partner organizations.


Map 9 Critical Areas in Hampton Roads

§̈¦64

§̈¦564

§̈¦264

§̈¦464

§̈¦64

§̈¦664

E

0 3 61.5Miles

Areas Identified for Focused Outreach and Analysis

Critical Areas

Study Area


Step Two: Identify and Implement Public Participation and Outreach Strategies Based on analysis of the geographic distribution and citizen input, the HRTPO has narrowed down specific outreach activities to be conducted in FY 2010 and FY 2011 that include efforts to seek out, consider, and involve persons who have been traditionally underrepresented by existing transportation systems. Specific efforts will also be tailored within communities where traditionally underrepresented populations, specifically minority and/or low‐income persons, live, work, and play. These will be put in place, some as “Pilot Programs” and evaluated with input from the HRTPO Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC). It is important to note, specific outreach approaches should be considered for each community. Listed below are outreach strategies the HRTPO will implement:

1. Publish ads and notices in newspapers, radio and other media, particularly media targeted to minority populations and low‐income populations.

2. Develop language‐outreach strategies, as determined by the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan.

3. Hold public meetings in locations that are accessible to transit. 4. Hold meetings outside core business hours and transit‐accessible locations throughout

the Hampton Roads region. 5. Partnerships

The HRTPO will seek partnerships with the following organization for the purpose of facilitating the exchange of information, such as:

o Housing Consortiums o Faith‐Based Organizations o Universities and Technical Training Centers o Senior Citizen Advisory Committees (HRTPO Jurisdictions) o Committee for People with Disabilities (HRTPO Jurisdictions) o Civic Leagues (HRTPO Jurisdictions) o Transit Riders Citizen Committees o Other agencies that offer services, advocate for, or coordinate activities with

minority/low‐income persons 6. Community Conversations

In coordination with public‐ and private‐sector partners, the HRTPO will implement “Community Conversations” to inform, increase awareness, and engage interested parties from all walks of life. Community Conversations within minority and/or low‐income communities will have an increased focus on work with partner organizations to identify issues of concern and conduct meetings with heightened awareness of traditional customs. “Conversation” will include:

o Information sessions to bring together professional planning and engineering practitioners, academics, and the general public to discuss salient transportation issues; and

o Local, community dialogues to engage citizens in conversations about the same topics, and/or about specific transportation programs or projects of interest.


7. Coordination with schools To increase awareness and focus community efforts on traditionally underrepresented areas, the HRTPO will seek to conduct outreach within schools in minority and/or low‐income communities. The approach will be two‐pronged:

o Engage elementary school students, teachers and parents by presenting materials related to transportation that also meet Virginia’s Standards of Learning; and

o Develop materials about how transportation systems are planned and constructed for high school students with the goal of increasing awareness about general transportation activities and careers in this field.

With both approaches, the HRTPO will seek to provide a setting for reciprocal learning and promote partnerships with schools and communities.

These strategies can be combined to create a comprehensive approach that provides opportunities for involvement of all traditionally underrepresented populations as illustrated in Table 2 below.

POTENTIAL STRATEGIES FOR REACHING TRADITIONALLY UNDERREPRESENTED POPULATIONS

MINORITY LOWINCOME

LEP DISABLED ELDERLY ZEROCAR

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

Targeted Ads & Notices

X X

LanguageOutreach Strategies

X X

TransitAccessible Meetings

X X X X

Convenient Meeting Times

& Locals X X X X

Partnerships with Other

Organizations X X X X X X X

Community Conversations X X X

Coordination with Schools

X X

Table 2 Potential Strategies for Reaching Traditionally Underrepresented Populations


Step Three: Identify Potential Benefits and Burdens This is an identification of “potential” benefits and burdens of transportation plans and programs. Table 2 below, will serve as a reference for HRTPO staff to discuss and evaluate potential benefits and burdens of transportation plans and programs in the Hampton Roads region. Clearly, not all measures will be applied, rather, these will be further analyzed through technical evaluation and public involvement processes based on input as to the relevance, timeliness, and applicability of measures. This should include an analysis of the cost effectiveness of measures and geographic comparisons to examine economic benefits and burdens geospatially. POTENTIAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR BENEFITS AND BURDENS ANALYSES

ACCESSIBILITY SAFETY Access to Jobs or Opportunities High Crash Locations • % of population within accessible distance to

needed service (i.e. hospital, school) • Average # of jobs within X minutes by mode • Average travel time to work by mode • Frequency of transit service • % of population within X miles of fixed‐route

transit service • % of workforce reaching workplace by transit

within X time with no more than two transfers

• Pedestrian, bicycle, automobile crashes, fatalities or injuries per year

Crime Incidents at Facilities • Quality‐of‐Life Crime Incidents • Property Crime Incidents (fare evasion,

theft) • Violent Crime Incidents (murder, robbery)

QUALITY OF LIFE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT Customer Perceptions Job Access // Construction Environmental Impacts • Commute Times • Livability of

Environment • Access to Opportunities • Air Quality • Crime & Safety

• % of region that cite transport. as barrier to employment

• % of employers that report difficulty in accessing desired labor due to transportation

• # of projects by geography • Highway $$ spent by geography

• Carbon monoxide, Ozone, small particulate air toxic exposure (by race/ income)

• Exposure to noise levels exceeding thresholds (by race/income)

Table 3 Performance Measures for Benefits and Burdens Analyses Source: Transportation & Environmental Justice: Effective Practices, January 2002, FHWA and FTA. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environmental/ej2.htm

The goals and objectives defined by transportation plans and programs will guide which measures will be used to asses EJ benefits and burdens. Since highly detailed information about projects and programs is not available at the planning stage, EJ analyses of benefits and burdens is more generalized than later stages of project development. Information gathered by the HRTPO at the planning stage can inform later analysis to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts or transportation plans, programs, and projects in subsequent transportation decision‐making phases. Step Four: Document Environmental Justice Processes The results of Steps 1 through 3 will be documented in narrative format and in line with HRTPO PPP procedures. This information can be carried over into the “Affected Environment” section of an environmental document during project development.


The HRTPO will keep a log of maps developed, outreach activities, and benefits/burdens analysis conducted. Key documentation will include:

1. An explanation of how the HRTPO identified minority and low‐income populations. 2. A summary of outreach efforts within minority communities and low‐income

communities. 3. A list all of the agencies, organizations and/or other groups contacted and a description of

partnership activities. 4. A summary of responses received and/or issues identified.


6. ELDERLY AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES HRTPO staff has incorporated demographic maps of elderly (persons age 65 and over) and persons with disabilities (a person 16 and over with any disability) within the region, given that transportation systems can often be a barrier to opportunities. The HRTPO staff will make concerted efforts to inform and engage these sectors within the planning and programming processes, to include conferring with the CTAC members to examine maps, transportation options and mobility needs of these groups. HRTPO staff will seek to coordinate with committees for persons with disabilities and elderly within HRTPO jurisdictions to identify and address key transportation needs. Maps 10 and 11, shown in the subsequent pages, are preliminary visualization techniques for this effort.


Map 10 Distribution of Population over 65

§̈¦64

§̈¦564

§̈¦264

§̈¦464

§̈¦64

§̈¦264

§̈¦664

E

0 6 123Miles

Population Age 65 or Older(Census Block Group)



Study Area


Map 11 Distribution of Persons with Disabilities

§̈¦64

§̈¦564

§̈¦264

§̈¦464

§̈¦64

§̈¦264

§̈¦664

E

0 6 123Miles

Population with Disability

(Census Block Group)



Study Area


7. LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PROGRAM

Policy Statement The Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) is committed to serving persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) as directed by Executive Order 13166 and as outlined within the U.S. Department of Transportation policy guidance for LEP persons. 7.1 INTRODUCTION A Limited English Proficient person is one who does not speak English as their primary language and who has a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English. The objective of the HRTPO LEP Program is to meet the responsibilities of the HRTPO in regards to Limited English Proficient persons, pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and implementing regulations. This section provides an overview of the HRTPO LEP Program, developed in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, et seq. and its implementing regulations, which provide that no person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity that receives federal financial assistance.

7.2 LEP PROGRAM SUMMARY The HRTPO, through its LEP Program, is taking reasonable steps to seek out and provide language assistance for Limited English Proficient persons seeking access to HRTPO plans, programs, and activities. As part of the LEP Program, the HRTPO staff has developed a LEP Plan, which details procedures on how to identify persons who may need language assistance, outlines the ways in which assistance will be provided, and provides an overview of staff training and actions for future plan updates. The HRTPO LEP Plan is a stand‐alone document, kept and updated as part of our Title VI Program. Information in this chapter provides a summary of the HRTPO LEP Program and key elements of the LEP Plan. In developing the HRTPO LEP Plan, the HRTPO staff undertook a USDOT Four‐Factor LEP analysis, which considers the following:

1. The number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by a program, activity, or service of the recipient or grantee.

2. The frequency with which LEP individuals come in contact with HRTPO’s plans, programs and activities;

3. The nature and importance of the program, activity or service provided by the HRTPO to the LEP population; and

4. The resources available to the HRTPO and overall costs to provide LEP assistance.

7.3 FOUR FACTOR ANALYSIS Factor 1. The number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to encounter a HRTPO program, activity, or service: In order to determine the number of LEP persons, the HRTPO staff collected various data from the 2000 US Census Bureau Summary File Data. Based on the population 5 years and older,


12,529 or 0.85% of the Hampton Roads regional population is deemed an LEP person. This value is 0.86% or 9,972 LEP persons for populations 18 years and older. The largest language subpopulation within the LEP population was Spanish, which has 5,682 LEP persons 5 years and older (4,094 persons 18 years and older). Those LEP populations that did not speak English well or Spanish, were within general language categories such as Indo‐European and Asian & Pacific Islander languages. To help identify potential languages within these general LEP language categorizations, the HRTPO staff consulted Census 2000 Special Tabulation 224 (STP 224): Language Spoken at Home for the Population 5 Years and Over (2004). This special tabulation provides a detailed language population count for unique languages spoken in counties across the United States. Through a statistical analysis of the specialized language data tabulation, a few languages emerged as primary and secondary LEP target languages in the Hampton Roads region. Those languages include:

Primary LEP Languages Secondary LEP Languages*

Spanish German Korean Vietnamese Russian

Table 4 Primary versus Secondary Languages in Hampton Roads Source: US Census Bureau 2000 * Languages ordered in hierarchy of largest language population concentration to smallest.

The languages that emerged from the mapping and statistical analysis are broken down into primary versus secondary language grouping for LEP service determination. Languages falling into the primary LEP language group are languages that have LEP populations exceeding 5% of the regional or jurisdictional population total, or have a minimum of 1,000 LEP persons in that language. Though the Spanish speaking populations does not have 5% of the regional or jurisdictional population total, it has the minimum of 1,000 LEP persons regionally and by jurisdiction. Meeting such threshold, LEP services will be developed for this language group, as described in Section 7.4. In Map 12 on the following page, target LEP areas are evaluated alongside the concentration of Spanish‐speaking persons in the Hampton Roads study area. The LEP areas, demarcated in U.S. Census Block Groups, are coded whether the Spanish‐speaking population is below the average, above the average, or above double the average regional Spanish‐speaking population (121 Spanish‐speaking persons). Critical LEP target areas for the Spanish‐speaking populations, defined as those areas with double the average number of regional Spanish‐speakers per Census Block Group, are highlighted in red. As to the secondary LEP language groups, these languages do not have LEP populations exceeding 5% of the regional or jurisdictional population total, nor have a minimum of 1,000 LEP persons in that language. It is interpolated by the review of the STP 224 data and mapping that these languages could comprise the LEP populations within the general LEP language categorization and could be close to the 1,000 person threshold on a regional level. No official


action has to be taken to have services ready for these language groups. These have been highlighted as languages in which resources will be identified should the need arise.

Map 12 Distribution of Spanish Speaking and Prominent Limited English Proficiency Population Concentrations

§̈¦64

§̈¦564

§̈¦264

§̈¦464

§̈¦64

§̈¦264

§̈¦664

E

0 6 123Miles

Average: 121 Spanish Speaking Persons

Hampton Roads Study Area

LEP Target AreasBelow Average Spanish Speaking Population

Above Average Spanish Speaking Population

Critical Spanish Speaking LEP Target Areas

Target LEP Areas with Spanish Speaking Population Concentrations

by US Census Block Group


Factor 2. The frequency with which LEP individuals come in contact with a HRTPO programs, activity, or service: The HRTPO assess the frequency at which staff has or could possibly have contact with LEP persons. This includes documenting phone inquiries and surveying public meeting attendees. No previous LEP requests have been received (as of November 2009). Documentation of LEP requests will be conducted annually upon implementation of the LEP Plan. Factor 3. The nature and importance of the program, activity, or service provided by the HRTPO to LEP community: To assess the nature and importance of the programs, activities, and services provided by HRTPO to LEP and general community, there will be an internal and external assessment of these programs and services. Internally, HRTPO management staff will evaluate programs and services based on:

• The functions of the HRTPO; • The delivery of HRTPO functions as plans, programs, and activities; • The potential public interest or contact with plans, programs, and activities; and • The impact upon the public of our plans, programs, and activities.

Externally, the HRTPO will engage in a public outreach effort with the identified language communities, to increase awareness about HRTPO plans, programs, and activities and identify key issues and services that they see as crucial. A set list of criteria will be developed to provide future guidance in determining whether a future HRTPO program, activity, or service will be considered when providing LEP services. Factor 4. The resources available to the HRTPO and overall costs: The HRTPO’s assessments of available resources is ongoing. Among the resources identified, staff was queried and identified as internal volunteer interpreters (list below). Staff Translation and Interpretation Languages Farsi French German Portuguese Spanish Tagalog Additionally, HRTPO is seeking to finalize an agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for interpreter and translation services and will seek volunteer interpreters from Hampton Roads civic groups and community‐based organizations.


7.4 COMPONENTS OF THE HRTPO LEP PROGRAM Interpreter Services When an interpreter or translator is needed, in person or on the telephone, HRTPO staff will first determine what language is required. HRTPO staff will provide the service if available through the use of staff interpreters/translators. If not available, the request will be directed to our LEP Coordinator, who will check the Community Interpreter Directory to see what languages are offered. If the required language is not available, the LEP coordinator will seek to address the request in coordination with VDOT, based on established protocols. HRTPO Staff Training All HRTPO staff will be provided access to the LEP Plan and will be offered training on procedures and services available. Training topics will include:

• Understanding Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and LEP responsibilities • Language assistance services the HRTPO offers • Use of LEP Language Assistance Cards (“I Speak Cards”) • Documentation of language assistance requests • HRTPO sub‐recipient LEP program responsibilities and obligations

Dissemination of the HRTPO Limited English Proficiency Plan The HRTPO staff will post the LEP Plan on its website at www.hrtpo.org. Any person with Internet access will be able to view the plan. For those without personal Internet service, all Hampton Roads regional libraries offer free Internet access. Copies of the LEP Plan will also be provided to the member jurisdictions of the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization. For complete information about the HRTPO LEP Program or related program activities, contact HRTPO’s Public Involvement and Community Outreach Administrator at (757) 420‐8300 or at [email protected].


8. EVALUATION

8.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY To monitor and measure the effectiveness of the various aspects of the Public Participation Plan (PPP) and determine whether the activities are in line with stated goals and objectives, the HRTPO staff will use a qualitative and quantitative approach. The first step is a qualitative analysis accomplished by referencing the goals for this plan. 8.1.1 QUALITATIVE MEASURES This component helps determine how HRTPO public involvement and community outreach activities are helping move toward the stated goals. A key question to address: Is the public at large and interested parties better equipped to understand and participate in HRTPO activities? and What is the strength of public engagement processes? HRTPO public involvement and community outreach goals: • Inform elected official, interested parties, and Hampton Roads residents about the

transportation planning process and issues related to transportation. • Increase awareness of the agency’s purpose and function. • Engage Hampton Roads residents and interested parties in an open dialogue about

transportation matters and regional planning issues through meaningful public involvement opportunities.

The following qualitative measures will be used to stay on course with established goals: MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS METHOD

• Accessibility and Convenience of Process (Accessible and convenient meeting locations? Times convenient? ADA compliant locations?)

Assessment of location and times of meetings held. Open‐ended surveys, staff research, interviews, focus groups,

• Diversity of Participants (How many people attended? Diversity of disciplines, race, color, ethnicity, represented?)

Determine ranges of participant by age, race/ethnicity, economic situation and home location; Surveys and visual accounting.

• Availability and Timeliness of Information. Did the public have adequate availability of information before agency action was taken?

• Public Meetings or Forums Sponsored or Co‐Sponsored by the HRTPO

Content analysis of meeting/forum and public comments.

• LRTP and TIP Changes based on Public Comment.

Listing of plan changes.

• Addressing Public Concerns (Public officials in attendance to respond to citizen concerns? Documents and visual aids available for public review?)

Open‐ended participant survey, one‐on‐one interviews or focus groups.

• Availability of Education Opportunities. Listing of information/awareness building opportunities and open‐ended survey.

Table 5 Evaluation Process: Qualitative Measures of Effectiveness and Methods


8.1.2 QUANTITATIVE MEASURES The quantitative component of the HRTPO public involvement and community outreach will be conducted by referencing the PPP objectives. Public involvement and community outreach objectives: • Provide broad‐based access to HRTPO activities, plans, and programs. • Develop and disseminate information about the transportation planning process through

multiple media, with clear, non‐technical language. • Seek to engage interested parties, including minority, low‐income, disabled, and elderly

persons in meaningful exchange of ideas related to the transportation planning process. • Establish working relationships with partner and peer organizations in the region with

the purpose of information exchange and regional dialogue. The following quantitative evaluation process shows how the HRTPO will measure achievement.

Table 6 Evaluation Process: Quantitative Objectives, Measures and Methods

Reporting of results will occur yearly, no later than 60 days after the end of June 30, the State Fiscal Year. The reports will provide information about techniques used, how effective they were and what measures will be used in the future to learn as we progress and improve upon successes.

OBJECTIVE MEASURE METHOD

• Provide broad‐based access to HRTPO activities, plans, and programs.

Number of activities and geographic distribution to inform and engage.

Log of activities and mapping of events.

• Develop and disseminate information about the transportation planning process, with clear, non‐technical language using multiple media.

Total number of documents developed. Opinion poll or focus group to evaluate understandability/ comprehension.

Tracking of the development and dissemination of information documents. Poll results.

• Seek to engage interested parties, including minority, low‐income, disabled, and elderly persons in meaningful exchange of ideas.

Number of people participating. Number of partner groups to provide outreach for regional issues.

Log of activities, mapping of events, partnerships developed.

• Establish working relationships with partner and peer organizations in the region with the purpose of developing synergy and maximizing mutual benefits from cooperation.

Number of formal and informal partnerships toward the purpose of addressing regional issues.

Log of activities, mapping of events, partnerships developed.


8.2 INFORMATION TRACKING MECHANISMS

The following is a list of activities and techniques the HRTPO will examine during annual evaluations. ACTIVITY/TECHNIQUE EVALUATION

• News Media Number of Publications; Publication Audience. “Reach” and “Frequency” for radio and television by examining “Exposure” ‐ breakdown of target audiences, “exposed” to media

• Contact Lists (Constant Contact); E‐mail Public Notice List

Number of Contacts; Type of Contacts

• Website Number of site hits/month; Number of downloads/month; website statistics

• Public Information Meetings Number of attendees; Number of organizations represented; Comments from attendees

• Public Information Presentations

Number of attendees; Number of requests to present; Number of presentations given; Diversity of requests

• Community Conversations Number of regional forums; Number of micro‐scale conversations

• Partnerships Number of formal/informal working relations developed; Diversity of partnerships

• Information Materials Number of materials developed; General feedback from public

• Quarterly Newsletter Number of newsletters distributed (mail/electronic); Audience diversity

• Social Networking Number of “fans”; Number of responses/comments; web statistics

Table 7 Information Tracking Mechanisms Activities and Techniques

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Public Participation Plan| Appendix A 47

APPENDIX A: PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION This section describes the steps taken to develop, approve, and implement the HRTPO Public Participation Plan.

• HRTPO staff developed the Public Participation Plan (PPP) in consultation with regional interested parties. The process included three regional forums, one each in Williamsburg, Norfolk and Hampton. These forums helped gather information for the development of the initial draft PPP.

• Using staff and stakeholder feedback, HRTPO staff developed a draft PPP, which was distributed for a 45‐day public review and comment period, September 24 to November 9, 2009.

• The draft PPP was posted on the HRTPO website, a news release was sent to all regional newspapers, to the HRTPO list of interested parties that include more than 4,000 contacts and a notice was sent to area organization for review, comment, and input. As well, a copy of the document was posted in public libraries throughout the region (South Side and Peninsula).

• Following the 45‐day public comment period, comments were reviewed and considered, the final PPP was developed and sent to the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee for approval. Subsequently, the final Public Participation Plan was sent to the HRTPO Policy Board for review and adoption.

• Appendix B – Pages 48‐56 provide a summary and list of comments received during the three forums or via e‐mail during the month of August 2009.

• Appendix B – Pages 57‐68 include comments and questions received during the 45‐day public comment period.

• Whenever the PPP is materially revised it will undergo public review in accordance with 23 CFR 450.316 and HRTPO Board adoption.

SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES (SEPTEMBER 24 – NOVEMBER 9, 2009)

• Public Notice – 9/24/2009 distributed to 4,000+ electronically, including HRTPO Board, TTAC, news sources, and Public Information Officers.

• Draft PPP available at 723 Woodlake Drive in Chesapeake and upon request. • Draft PPP available at www.hrtpo.org. • Draft PPP on CD available upon request. • Weekly update of “Public Notice” items sent electronically to mailing list. • Draft PPP sent to the main library of every HRTPO jurisdiction for public viewing. • TTAC Meeting (Presentation): 10/7/2009. • Hampton Roads Public Information Officer Meeting (Presentation): 10/8/2009. • Empower Hampton Roads Annual Meeting (Presentation): 10/17/2009. • “Aging in Place” Conference (Presentation): 10/21/2009. • Regional Issues Committee in Williamsburg (Presentation): 10/27/2009 • Numerous phone calls and e‐mail messages to encourage comments and provide

general information.


APPENDIX B: PUBLIC COMMENTS HRTPO Public Forums & E‐Mail Comments (August 2009) During three public forums in August 2009 and via e‐mail during this time, Hampton Roads residents, including several elected officials and leaders of various regional organizations, provided instrumental input for the development of the draft 2009 Public Participation Plan. The following is a list of questions the HRTPO used to gather input, followed by the comments, suggestions, and ideas received during the public forums on August 17th, 18th, or 20th, 2009 or via e‐mail.

PUBLIC FORUM QUESTIONS 1. What information about how transportation systems are planned and programmed would

you like to know? _____ General information about the process (i.e. Federal, state, regional roles) _____ More information about the agency’s policies and programs. _____ Information about how public involvement is incorporated into plans/programs. Other___________________________________________________________

2. How do you generally prefer to receive information?

______ Newspaper _____ Radio _____ Magazines _____ TV _____ E‐mail _____ Web Other___________________________________________________________

3. What would inspire/encourage you to get involved in the planning of new roads, bridges,

bikeways, and bus routes? Specifically, what methods, techniques, events, activities, or strategies would you recommend?

4. Thinking of others (family members, friends, neighbors) who might be interested in HRTPO

activities/events, how could we best communicate with them? 5. The HRTPO is seeking to increase partnerships with local civic groups and non‐profit

organizations. What local agencies do you recommend we approach for collaboration in the future?

6. Additional Input, Questions, Comments.


PUBLIC FORUMS The following pages list all comments received during three public forums or via e‐mail in August 2009. HRTPO staff reviewed and considered all comments and incorporated many of the ideas and suggestions into the draft 2009 PPP. 1. What information about how transportation systems are planned and programmed

would you like to know? _____ General information about the process (i.e. Federal, state, regional roles) _____ More information about the agency’s policies and programs. _____ Information about how public involvement is incorporated into plans/programs. Other___________________________________________________________

• Public is not aware of federal mandates and funding links within planning process. • Public not aware of funding flow for projects and requirements for fiscal constraint. • MPO/TPO History //Division of responsibilities regarding TPO/PDC? • Present HRTPO & citizen’s point of view • How will Citizen’s Group or PPP change the process? Will you integrate input from

citizens? Have specific answers for this question and provide to CTAC? • Helpful if more of a prioritization from HRTPO of projects (not much info on prioritization) • So much has happens, but seems to dissipate. Once there is public involvement, (ex:

VTRANS 2035, independent review board for HRBT)‐ info only goes so far…get crowd…then things disappear.

• All these plans, and then forgotten. What happens? What is the outcome? What is the impact? Public doesn’t make connections that we have plans, but we don’t necessarily have the funding.

• How do you pick the communities you are going to work in first? Articulate why the HRTPO does what it does.

• How do you reach out to private sector? Need to include private sector in planning process. (Note: Dial‐a ride, paratransit FTAC /TRAFFIX)

• HRTPO should be cognizant of people/groups in the region with good ideas. • Do you have a PPP in place now? Are you updating plan? State this up front, on first slide. • Need to do Community Visioning. Need to do it Region wide. With even those who cannot

get out of the house. • Do we have anyone representing those with Disabilities on the CAC? A MUST! • Whatever info provided out…has to be assimilated by both members of public in this

business and those with no exposure. • Provide advanced info, but simple enough for everyone.


2. How do you generally prefer to receive information? ______ Newspaper _____ Radio _____ Magazines _____ TV _____ E‐mail _____ Web Other___________________________________________________________

• Announcements should be in alternative formats (for those who cannot see, hear). • Cannot assume people have access to computers. • Paratransit agencies – did we work with them? • Create websites that can incorporate technology for sight and hearing impaired.

o Update demographics as info comes in from Census. o Go to community organizations to discuss and have these dialogues. Partnerships with

regional libraries. • Question should also be WHERE? do we like to receive information? Like libraries. • HRP started to use Facebook and Twitter. People in their 20s & 30s use this media. Lots of

feedback coming back from public. Some response going back to public. Twitter posts are rebroadcast.

• Email (Several Comments) – Younger population , Email is preferred. HRTPO and local planning departments can maintain a listserv of stakeholders and interested individuals who want to be apprised of upcoming forums and public meetings, revisions/updates to local plans, etc.

• Phone and written communication for elderly population. • All out approach (several comments– tackle all mediums (include newsletters, Web 2.0, and

Phone and Mail). Phone tree? • In writing – for vision impaired – have alternative information distribution format and way

to request information. • Depending on segment of population – have information on buses (Interior cards, some

audible messages‐public forums announced). • For cyclists – contact local cycling clubs. • Examine a variety of sectors and how best to send info? • Traditional meetings (Attend other agency meetings). 3. What would inspire/encourage you to get involved in the planning of new roads,

bridges, bikeways, and bus routes? Specifically, what methods, techniques, events, activities, or strategies would you recommend?

• Education of past accomplishments (several) to gauge future activities and approaches PR effort – show us results. Give positive feedback to public so public can get invested to support transportation efforts.

• Need to Celebrate successes • Info of High‐Speed Rail discussion in region Limited infrastructure – how best utilize it. • Glimmers of hope need to be highlighted. • Develop feedback system for dealing with frustrations of transportation. • Taxes are not burden – rather an investment – we all get something out of it. • Eisenhower era invested in our current system, yet system goes down tube since we don’t

want to invest in system – Message: Protect our investment.


• Tom Norman Bill Barlow ‐ www.9292ov.nl –gives route, time, and cost of trip. Integrated. Advertize: HRT Google Maps trip planner

• Better communication necessary of ideas and efforts. • Planning process needs to be more exciting (relate to people’s priorities), and early on. • VDOT planning/transportation game w/ high school students. School outreach/planning

exercise ‐ led to successes in past. Hampton University – high school program • Simplifying planning process for public. // Clearer notices. • Advice public of status of 2034 LRTP so public can know when to get involved. • How to get long range perspective into current plans/programs? Link past successes to

current practice, into future perspective? Elliot Jaques’ book. • Most public doesn’t come out unless something upsets or impacts them. • Paint a picture, sell a vision, walk through the picture. • Concern of not finding clear answers in public meetings to specific transportation concerns

(i.e. – Getting airport access without use of car). • Go around country and look for ideas ‐ look for examples that work. • Use information Network – Distribute through group with members. • Partner organizations can get people out but need to be careful about what we push

(critical issues, will have a big drive to get people to attend). • What would be helpful is some sort of prioritization. • Given “Information Overload”, clearly define what meeting is about, how important it is to

the process, background info, etc. • Provide education information about the LRTP (project mix – tunnel, bridges, Interstates,

local roads, funding sources, eligibility, process, etc) . Make connection with TIP, VDOT projects, and local projects.

• Advisory Committees. Increasing the use of what is in place already (save money). Incentives ‐ Maybe we could have a Free Ride Day. Strategy to promote transit.

• Taxis (Private Sector) could help with new roads. • Have seen many surveys of consumer base (disabilities) ‐ Transportation is largest issue.

What would inspire them is that input is HEARD and action taken. • Need to get involvement early • Everyone likes online surveys, they’re cheap and convenient. (i.e. Survey Monkey) • If circulating a survey to partner agencies, give us about 5‐6 weeks of notice. Two weeks is

not enough time • Develop with localities to address local traffic concerns. Comments about particular signals

and calls were made to locality and problem resolved. • Can state highway be turned over to cities for cities to maintain? • VDOT maintains 264 and 64. Most of local network maintained by localities. Department

responsible of Interstate facilities. • Federal requirement for DOT to maintain Interstate. • Cities can request to take over project mgmt. of roadways. • Social networking…HRTPO should get involved with this. • Celebrate successes. Make a video of an interview, for example, of a pleased citizen. Post

video on YouTube and make it viral. Think outside of the box • Not everyone reads newspaper…need to reach out to public in a variety of ways. • Must be entertaining, as well as informative, to get the public interested. Arrange with

FestEvents. Entertain. Then get them involved. Grab your public.


o CG, would that diminish importance? o No, it would get their attention o Depends on seriousness of topic (wouldn’t do for accidents)

• Partner up with MODSIM, kids Tech Camp, youth oriented contests. Use regional assets that we have that other regions do not.

• Have community forums. • People want to talk about how transportation affects them (roads impact to them). • Deeper questions for specific projects. – Engage the public further with the questions. • Public must be able to identify and understand project. • Have action & outcome from public meeting – something tangible come out of meeting that

the public can understand. • Need to talk about cost, time, direct impact within transportation, not just project. • TANGIBLES. Concern for cost, time, energy (affects air/water quality), access to

employment. o Currently, assumption of knowing the benefits/costs of transportation by public. o If you talk to public about road projects, public will be turned off. If you ask about

options of mobility, public willing to be engaged. o Craft message away from roads to mobility. o PR campaign about successes. Gives public the notion they made an impact. Public

wants results. • Partnerships help spread awareness, educate about options of mobility. • Target groups – have to strategize how to reach out to community gatherings – have to be

intentional ‐ Reach groups with large base. • Public doesn’t want to go to general planning meetings. GIVE THEM SUBSTANCE. • I think it would be beneficial to routinely perform public opinion surveys by direct mail

and/or e‐mail to offer citizens the opportunity to voice what changes/ improvements they would like to see to the public transportation system, as well as to the transportation infrastructure, in general.

• I believe it would also be helpful to schedule public hearings on the weekends and during daytime hours rather than later in the p.m.

• As a disability advocacy organization serving Southampton Roads, we are interested in transportation planning. We would like to ensure that accessible public transportation is available to connect all residential areas to shopping areas, medical offices, employment centers, and recreational and religious facilities.

4. Thinking of others (family members, friends, neighbors) who might be interested in

HRTPO activities/events, how could we best communicate with them?

• Should consider ‘what’ you say. Widespread knowledge that there isn’t transportation money. Tell public that there are still things that can be done. Process not so nebulous. Zero in on something that can happen and will get done – Engage Resident in the process.

• Satisfied with HRT bus system. • “If we leave things the way they are, it won't be a good future.” Chicago Tribune – 8/21/09 • Work with mechanism thru the cities that goes to civic leagues.


• City of Norfolk, have updated list of all civic leagues in city. Send information out on an as needed basis (Norfolk, Office of Communications). Items to civic leagues, goes thru Planning Dept. ‐ Send them info on LRTP.

• Get people on hook. Teaser ‐ lead them to website (or to make a call) • Put it on Billboard. Or in Mall. Do you know what HRTPO is?…if not, go to website. • Advertise on buses. • Examine/evaluate effectiveness of current advertisement methods. • Work with/thru Public Information Officers • Are cities linking info on their websites? • PIO roundtable. WIKI. Also working on Military Public Affair Officers. • Working with military and bicycle communities has improved routes on military bases. o Coordinate with organizations, how is that organized? o Formalize yourself Speakers’ Bureaus. • Town hall conference call by home phone. Software out there to let public listen from home.

Can target specific groups by phone. • Use webinars • Record Board meetings and post these meetings on your website. • Cities would be happy to provide link to TPO videos. • Provide feedback to area residents with video (You Tube – Updates & Newsletter). • Given that everyone does not have access to a computer, continue to use direct mail to

communicate with the public. Telephone surveys could also be helpful. “I think it’s safe to say that a significant portion of the people who use public transportation do not have access to e‐mail, the Internet, etc.”

5. The HRTPO is seeking to increase partnerships with local civic groups and nonprofit

organizations. What local agencies do you recommend we approach for collaboration in the future?

• Rotary Club • Lions Club • Service organizations accept public agency presentations (Williamsburg Kiwanis) • Need to reach out to those in other mediums • Kiwanis (meet monthly) • Elks Club • Community Service organization • Outreach to schools • HRTPO should go to civic league meetings. • Each city has a federation where civic groups come together to distribute info. • Private Sector (Taxis) • Localities in process of updating comprehensive plans, bookmark, partner with localities

and their public meetings. Have info there (reports, bookmarks, flyers, etc.) • Biking community, lots of regional trails and connections. A lot of interest. Take an active

role in projects. Trail Organizations. Better regional hiking trails. Group that may be supportive.

• League of Women Voters newsletter. Suggest send to committees. • Coordinate with WHRO • Chamber of Commerce (Note: FTAC being formed in HR)


• Town Hall meeting by city council members (Tag along?) • Grocery stores – some help with advertising (grocery bag printing) • Libraries • EDUCATION

o Schools – linking education to standards of learning ‐ Reluctance of schools to partner with other agencies unless fulfill an SoL ‐ Teachers need to “sell” trips to principals by SoLs

o Developed curriculum by Children’s Museum o Identify lead area teachers (science, math, etc) – (Tarci Crawford) o Reach agency head at Administration, Top Down approach. o Weakness in education is civics – MPO outreach would fill void. o Colleges & Universities – May get college students involved (Ex. Miami – agreement

with colleges to partner) o Try Thomas Nelson Community College for outreach or TCC, CNU, ODU, Hampton U.

W&M o Reach out to teachers. Get teachers to complete surveys.

• Social Services – some people go to them – way to outreach ‐ Members of public who want information.

• MedTran – transit for aging ‐ Each county/city has its own service. • The local Community Services Boards, the Dept. of Social Services, the Peninsula Agency on

Aging, the Office of Human Affairs 6. Additional Input, Questions, Comments.

• List and promote HRTPOs top five accomplishments. • Reduce the cost and time to get around: HOV lanes, Express buses; Speedy Ferry. • Where surface transport cannot go there is a lapse in system. • Feedback loop into planning process – frustration with it. • Fix PR problem as to public perception of transportation investments with tax dollars. • Database of transit users – NHTS, currently used for travel demand, may be used for other

applications. Census 2010 may have application. • Isolate clients on certain services/facilities to solicit comments. Focus on user groups. • Speak with trucking companies. Tie this in with economic development. • Coordinate with key communicators in communities. Delegate accurate info to them and

they funnel questions to HRTPO (Williamsburg) • Cross‐Harbor Ferry System – Could have a greater tourist component. • Hampton Roads is uniquely positioned – At present, land and sea are not complimentary.

Email Comments (August 2009)

Date: August 12, 2009

Subject: Public Participation Plan

Submitted by: John Moss, VBTA Chairman

I am responding to your solicitation for on‐line input in lieu of direct participation in the public forums announced in HRT's public notice excerpts below.


As Chairman for the Virginia Beach Taxpayer Alliance, I offer the following suggestions on how to encourage citizens to participate in a robust public policy discussion of transportation.

• Hold meetings at a time and place that actually encourage participation. • Holding a meeting at 6:30 p.m. in downtown Norfolk on a work night is a disincentive to

public participation. • Holding a series of meeting at neighborhood library meeting rooms over time and at

neighborhood churches that are dialogues of diverse views versus a monologue of marketing makes more sense.

• Holding a live chat session on‐line is another venue to leverage technology to engage the public where they are and at a time of their choice.

• Not having to travel to participate would encourage citizens to participate. • Not having to travel more than five miles from their home would encourage citizens to

participate. • Behavior by HRT that demonstrates that citizens participation is driving the process and

not being channeled to a predisposed solution would encourage citizens participation. • Provide a balanced forum like Public Television where in all your communication mediums

the full spectrum of diverse opinions on transit are shared. • Rather than being an advocate for mass transit, HRTPO should transform itself into a

provider of the forum where transportation advocates from all sources exchange ideas to generate genuine bottom‐up citizen driven versus top‐down manipulated solutions.

What would I like to know? • I like to know why HRTPO does not allow the public to speak at its meeting. I like to know

why the HRTDC does not allow citizens to speak on agenda items at their open meetings. • I like to know why Citizen Advisory Committee selection process for the light rail AoA and

DEIS is a closed process that precludes direct citizens participation in and comment on the selection process.

• I like to know why HRTPO does not sponsor robust forums where the advocates of mass public transit debate the Ron Utt and Wendell Cox on the facts to create a truly educated public so they can draw their own conclusions.

• I like to know the thought process that brought the staff to conclude that holding a meeting on Monday evening from 6 pm to 8 pm in downtown Norfolk would motivate a diverse and large crowd.

• I like to know why a meeting place was not scheduled in Virginia Beach that has the largest population.

• I like to know if VBTA and other citizens group will be part of the team actually crafting the Public Participation Plan.

• I like to know the master schedule for development of the Public Participation Plan. • I like to know how many days the draft Public Participation Plan will be available for public

comment prior to its adoption. VBTA request that the public comment period be a minimum of sixty(60) days.

• I like to know what are the metrics that HRTPO will judge the success of its public participation plan.

• I like to know what the federal agency and contact person (name, title, address, email, and phone number) that is responsible for auditing HRTPO PPP compliance with federal regulations.


• I like to know how much money is being expended to develop the HRTPO. • I like to know if contractors are being used to assist in the development of the HRTPO the

name, the statement of work, and dollar amount of each contract awarded. o What VBTA knows is that transportation planning to date in Hampton Roads does not

reflect the priorities of the larger public. o What VBTA knows is that transportation planning to date in Hampton Roads is focused on

giving the appearance of public participation to mitigate a very critical report by the federal government without giving citizens a real voice.

o VBTA has developed a wealth of expertise on transportation planning, and will continue to participate in what limited forums and avenues that are provided.

o I do request a favor of a reply to acknowledge that this input will be incorporated into the public record as stated in the public notice. I also request that you identify where all the inputs received may be viewed at the conclusion of your three announced public meetings. Hopefully they will be posted for on‐line viewing via the web.


PUBLIC COMMENTS 45‐Day Public Comment Period (September 24 – November 9, 2009) In addition to public forums and a comment period to gather input for the development of a draft Public Participation Plan (PPP), the HRTPO provided a 45‐day public comment period of the draft document. During this time, the HRTPO sent a public notice to our public list of 4,200 interested citizens and civic organizations, made the document available at www.hrtpo.org, and distributed the draft PPP through various local and regional web sources. Additionally, the HRTPO sent the plan to public libraries throughout the region for public posting and encouraged partner agencies to post the document at their place of business in a public area. HRTPO contact information and “45day comment timeframe” were prominently placed on the draft PPPs. WRITTEN COMMENTS/QUESTIONS (SEPTEMBER 24 – NOVEMBER 9, 2009) HRTPO received the following written comments and questions during the 45‐day comment period. All comments were given due consideration as the final Public Participation Plan was developed. Date: September 26, 2009


Submitted by: Larry Chenkin, P.E.

Question 1. 1.4. The HR Metropolitan Planning Organization has been renamed the HR Transportation Planning Organization? No explanation as to why and what is the purpose. Also who does non‐transportation regional planning ‐ which would seem to precede and help define transportation requirements?

In an effort to make it clearer to the public that the metropolitan planning organization for Hampton Roads is responsible for regional transportation planning and programming, the policy board decided to change the name of the organization to the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) beginning in June 2009. The Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC) is responsible for nontransportation regional planning. Coordination between transportation and nontransportation regional planning in Hampton Roads benefits from the fact that HRTPO staff is provided by the HRPDC and the two functions are overseen by the same Executive Director. Question 2. Will the existence and prominence of a Freight Transportation Advisory Committee tend to unduly influence planning toward solutions to Port issues ‐ ‐ as previous planning in HR has done? The HRTPO Board requested the formation of the FTAC. This advisory committee will help raise awareness of the importance of freight transportation in the region.


Question 3. How does this organization plan for funding without representation from the Legislature and/or Governor? The HRTPO Board includes two state senators and two state delegates. The HRTPO is one of only two MPOs in Virginia (and one of very few MPOs across the country) that currently includes representation from the state legislature on its policy board. Question 4. The Core Functions listed on Page 3 are not consistent with four phases listed on page 7. Planning is first about identifying requirements. The "good news" in our current unfunded reality is that "fiscally‐constrained" and "realistic available options" emphasized in the core functions should come after requirements. However since the members are all politicians not City Engineers, should we reasonably expect only a political plan? The HRTPO Transportation Planning process seeks to achieve the five core functions listed on page 3 of the Public Participation Plan. Toward this end, we have a Transportation Technical Advisory Committee, which provides planning and engineering recommendations to the HRTPO Board. The four phases listed on page 7 are currently under way for the 2034 Long Range Transportation Plan. To learn more about this effort, please go to www.keephamptonroadsmoving.com or contact Ms. Dale Stith at [email protected] or (757) 4139301. Question 5. What are the determining factors in "people with disabilities" listed on Page 18? It would seem 31.7% is surprisingly high. The way 'Disability' was defined for this effort was Total Disabilities for the Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population 5 Years and Over with Disabilities. Because this category is so broad, our GIS/Mapping Specialist is going to look into refining this (focusing on specific disabilities). Question 6. I'd like to be part of the process. I'm a retired Civil Engineer with transportation planning experience. We are currently taking applications for our Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC). Please go to www.hrtpo.org (click on "CTAC Application" on the front page) to apply. I'm the person receiving the applications, which will be reviewed by the Nominating Committee in November. Please call me for any questions.


Date: October 6, 2009


Submitted by: Robert Dean, VBTA Communications Director VBTA encourages the Transportation Planning Organization to: 1. Change the time of the meetings to evenings so that working taxpayers can attend. 2. Allow citizens the right to sign up to speak on any agenda item and not just for 3 minutes at

the beginning of a meeting.

3. Require that all TPO meetings are recorded and made available online with streaming video and on the local government cable channels, like City Council meetings.

4. Request that the TPO conduct 2 regular monthly “Town Hall” meetings (one the peninsula and one the Southside) whereby the citizens can come and address the entire TPO and speak to everyone present, like addressing city council. The two monthly meetings should be on different days so that citizens from either side of the region can have the opportunity to attend both meetings. These TPO “Town Hall” meetings to be recorded and broadcast via streaming video and cable TV.

VBTA Board requests a meeting with the HRTPO to discuss in detail, our suggestions, concerns, and recommendations for the public participation plan. NOTE: VBTA's board is discussing the possibility of hosting a “Town Hall” meeting to discuss this matter and help educate the public regarding the history of the MPO and its abysmal failure to welcome citizens into the public participation process.

Date: October 10, 2009


Submitted by: Ray Taylor

Overall, this is a giant step forward. In response to the most recent TPO Federal Certification Review recommendations and required corrective actions, this new PPP document adopts many new best practices very well. Detailed comments follow: 1. The Introductory Page (page 1) is excellent.

2. Recommend including a commitment to establish a program that video records and then later replays a streaming video of the TPO Board meetings for public awareness benefits.

3. The HRTPO’s website has become superb especially in the ways that it announces all upcoming Board and Committee meetings and provides agendas as well as agenda materials for these meetings. Other MPOs have commented favorably on this region’s work in this area and hope to follow suit.

4. In general, the PPP provides for a 14 day public comment period for most of the referenced TPO Board actions. This is a short period of time for such activity, or something needs to be done to address this. For example, it is not uncommon for MPO staffs to present a first draft of a document at a Board meeting to collect comments from the Board and the public and


then to repeat this for one, two, three or four months depending on the document (TIP, UPWP, CMAQ Plan, etc.). This very process actually provides more than 14 days, and you should acknowledge and take credit for that.

5. The TPO (MPO) is still very much a completely unknown entity here in Hampton Roads. The public does not understand what it is or what it does, and the memberships of some of our superb and key organizations in Hampton Roads (Greater Norfolk Corporation and others) still think that the PDC does transportation planning, that the cities fund the TPO, etc. The PPP needs to address this issue more explicitly and more strenuously.

6. The PPP needs to better address its own public involvement measures of effectiveness. We need to go beyond the normal number of community meetings, number of attendees and number of mailings measures. We need to develop public involvement measures that assess outcomes, such as “what level of influence did public input produce”, “how many and what exactly are the inputs from the public that were adopted” and “what is the strength of public engagement—was it a necessity or not for this or that decision”.

7. The Public Involvement Administrator should provide the TPO Board with an Annual report of Public Involvement and Public Awareness effectiveness.

8. The Public Participation process will probably be the HRTPO’s best means for determining the easily lost transportation needs of the low income neighborhoods, the underrepresented citizens and the daily blue collar communing working class citizens. Having moved in this direction, per the draft PPP document, the PPP needs to further describe explicitly how this information gets into the TPO’s Project Prioritization Methodology now being developed. These two things “must” be effectively linked. The PPP process cannot be an antiseptic separate part of the TPO’s Planning and Programming process. Recommend addressing this essential linkage in the PPP.

9. In general, the 60 page document is excellent. At the same time, there is a great deal of data and numerous definitions which tend to dwarf the public comment, public involvement and public awareness “action items”. I cannot put my fingers on where I have seen previous examples, but is it possible to somehow give better focus to the exact PPP “action items”.

10. Page 8, TIP: The first paragraph indicates that the TIP is updated each four years. I have heard and believe that the TIP is updated annually.

11. Page 8, TIP Participation: This indicates that a note is sent out asking for public input once the TIP is ready (completed). The TIP needs to have major amounts of exposure and opportunity for public (and Board) comment “before” it has been completed. Recommend reviewing procedures used in this regard by the MPO that serves Northern Virginia.

12. Page 7, LRTP: The opening paragraph should state that the TPO Board and FHWA must approve the LRTP and state that it is a fiscally constrained plan. This paragraph should also proudly state that a new objective‐based project selection criteria Methodology process is used to develop and to prioritize regional projects in the Plan.

13. Page 15, In the Community: I am surprised at what is listed here. The idea of an Annual Regional Transportation Summit or Conference, a conference that focuses on multi‐modal transportation matters, should be considered. This, by the way, is something done by many MPOs (Jacksonville and Richmond in concert with their Chamber, for example). The draft text, however, talks about regional health, visioning and other subjects. The TPO is funded primarily by federal dollars to focus on regional transportation matters, what are the


region’s plans and programs and why, and how to advance our plans in the competitive world of transportation funding. Recommend re‐evaluating the current text.

Administrative comments: 1. In general, it is excellent that the document cites forthcoming new best practices such as

the plan to write a Citizen’s Guide, and the coming establishment of the CTAC and the FTAC.

2. The TPO newsletter probably needs some new or fresh attention. The importance of the TPO organization cannot be over‐stated, because of its immense long term impact on this region’s future wealth and well being. The newsletter needs to be more informative and more business like than it is. It should not be crafted as or be seen as a feel good or institutional self praise publication. The public needs to read about the cold truth about the rules that govern TPO requirements and actions. The MPO that serves Northern Virginia (the TPB) produces a major and excellent monthly newsletter. We need to move in this direction.

3. Report Documentation page, first line: Says that this is an “update” document. I believe it is more accurate to say this is a “revision” document, and should state that the revision is a substantial revision in response to the federal audit, because that is the case.

4. Acknowledgements page, seventh line: Recommend changing text to read: “The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the FHWA, FTA, VDOT, DRPT, or the participating jurisdictions”. This deletes the PDC which is not involved in this PPP effort or related matters.

5. Page 4, What makes up: This section does not include the “military liaisons” participation in HRTPO proceedings

6. Page 7: This set of LRTP paragraphs does not mention the important Team 2034 Committee and its associated public involvement procedures.

7. Page 5, TAC: Recommend including military representation on the TAC. For all practical purposes, the military, especially the extended military including defense contractors and shipyards, constitutes the largest commuting work force in the region.

8. Page 3, What does an MPO do? Bullets 3 and 4 should state “Develop, Approve and Maintain …. “ It is very important to state that the HRTPO is the decision‐making body and that it “approves” regional plans and programs. Elsewhere in the document, by the way, the phrase that says the HRTPO “adopts” is used which means little, and those words should be changed to read the “HRTPO approves” this or that.

9. Page 3, What is the scope: The first bullet should be edited to change the words “…. the following factors …” to read “…. that will explicitly address the eight required federal transportation planning factors listed below:”

10. Page 9, UPWP. The text should state that the TPO Board and the state and FHWA must “approve” the UPWP document with its associated new policies and goals.

11. Page 11, Air Quality: Who is on the Interagency Consultation Group, who chairs their meetings, and when do they meet?

12. Page 7, bottom of page: I thought it had been reported that the kiosks were way out of date and no longer useful?


Date: November 5, 2009


Submitted by: Missy Schmidt, Hampton Roads Partnership My biggest issue was with the Public Involvement Tools, and I would like to provide my observations/recommendations: The listed methods are predominantly tools for pushing information out. Additional means for pulling citizens into good process need to be added. And, Public Information Meetings should be structured to become Public Input Meetings designed for more give and take. Thanks, Good work! Date: October 6, 2009


Submitted by: John D. Moss, VBTA Chairman Dear HRPTO Representative: The Virginia Beach Taxpayer Alliance (VBTA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the referenced draft document. Specific comments are captured in track changes in the word document itself below. The following additional general comments are made:

1. The summary findings of federal government’s assessment of the MPO’s prior public participation plan and performance of under that plan should be included in the HRPTO’s new public participation plan.

2. A summary of the lessons learned from the successes and failures under the prior public participation plan should be included in the HRPTO’s new public participation plan.

3. The specific deficiency identified by the federal government’s audit that the new plan had to address need to itemized in the new public participation plan in table form that captures with an abstract followed by the page numbers where the details can found that address the deficiencies identified.

4. All meetings of the HRPTO Board of Directors should be published live over streaming video on the WEB, archived for any user of the net to retrieve on demand, and copies provided to local governments for rebroadcast on their government access channels.

5. Citizens should be enabled to speak on any agenda item that is on the agenda or brought to a vote at a meeting, though not previously publicize.

6. VBTA should be considered per the process we have recommended to be a non‐voting member of the HRPTO.


7. The number of non‐voting HRPTO members be significantly increased consistent with the process VBTA has recommended within the document.

8. The minimum comment period on any HRPTO document, policy, etc. subject to citizen review and feedback be set at 30 days and major changes be subject to a public comment period of 45 days. Sincerely,

John D. Moss VBTA Chairman

Date: November 8, 2009


Submitted by: Judith Brown

I have reviewed the draft document and have several suggestions for getting much more public input and opinions into the HRTPO processes. 1. Plan to go where people are, and go when they are there. HRTPO needs to MAKE IT MUCH EASIER for people (as individuals and also in their normal, existing groups) to get involved in transportation planning. ‐ Do not expect us to find your office or meeting room. ‐ Do not expect us to come to you during working hours. ‐ Do not rely on occasional hearings and public meetings which few people can and do attend. ‐ Don't expect very many of us to find, read, and answer your online surveys and long documents (such as the one I am commenting on). Think more creatively! EXAMPLES: ‐‐ Go to lots of Civic League meetings. Every month they assemble in local groups hundreds (maybe thousands) of people who already care about their communities. Put notices in the civic league newsletters. Ask if you may set up a table before and after their meetings. Ask for 10‐15 minutes during the meeting to present a plan and record comments. Hand out short on‐the‐spot questionnaires (and also encourage people to follow up online). ‐‐ Go to sporting events, church suppers, high schools, bus transfer points, university cafeterias, shopping centers, community fairs, even tunnel traffic jams, etc. Hand out short surveys or question sheets along with addressed, stamped envelopes. Get more and more people thinking about the realities and possibilities for transportation in our area. ‐‐ Concentrate activities on weekends and public holidays when people are a bit more flexible.


2. Involve existing transportation groups in the process of gathering public input. The kind of outreach mentioned above does not have to be done by paid staff. Instead, you can train members of these existing groups, and then send them out to meet and listen to people in the communities. Here are three groups that may be willing to help: ‐‐ HRTPO Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee ‐‐ Hampton Roads Public Transportation Alliance (currently being re‐vitalized) ‐‐ Hampton Roads Transit Riders Advisory Committee (TRAC) Good luck! Date: November 9, 2009


Submitted by: Betsy McBride & Todd Solomon, Hampton Roads Center for Civic Engagement Additional detailed input: Tressell Carter, James City County Neighborhood Connections

Jonathan E. McBride, Hampton Neighborhood Office Missy Schmidt, Hampton Roads Partnership

Galina Burley, City of Norfolk. Endorsed by: Lisa Howard, Smart Beginnings South Hampton Roads Dawn E. Newsome, Portsmouth VA Martha M. Raiss, City of Norfolk Patrice Stein, Newport News, VA The new Public Participation Plan (PPP) is a positive move in the right direction and a vast improvement on the existing Plan – thank you. The public briefings preceding the release of the new Plan were valuable expressions of good faith. Again, thank you. Components of Public Participation At the Hampton Roads Center for Civic Engagement, we describe public participation has having three broad and essential components; timely and accessible information, willing and informed participants, and open and clear processes for decision making. While this PPP has improvements for information and public outreach, the other components are significantly under‐developed. The terms participation and engage are frequently referenced but not demonstrated. Full and well‐designed participation starts with widely‐shared information but then moves to make opportunities for citizens to learn and brainstorm together. Engagement has give and take. It can be an invitation to citizens for their responsible consideration of hard public choices. Is that the intention when these terms are used?


Yes, the intent is to engage citizens and all interested parties in responsible consideration of difficult public choices. The PPP says there will be dialogue but it doesn’t say how dialogue will be integrated into public decision making. Dialogue has a particular meaning in the public participation field; it is a particular form of gathering with exchange of views and a search for consensus. It falls on the engagement continuum between conversation and deliberation. Does the PPP use the term dialogue intentionally? The HRTPO goals for public involvement and community outreach originally stated: to inform, increase awareness, and engage all interested parties. Based on input, the HRTPO staff has added the goal of ensuring public sentiment is incorporated into transportation decisionmaking process. Decisions are ultimately up to the HRTPO Board as specified in 23 CFR 450. There is a good description of how the various under‐represented populations will be located but less clarity about how these various communities will be engaged during transportation planning. What the Plan says and what it means could be more aligned by the Plan being explicit about the meaning of public involvement for the HRTPO. A market analysis would be useful in terms of learning what their public regards as meaningful public involvement. Information and Good Communication One public participation principle related to information and communication is that citizens have an opportunity to help define their information needs. In the case of special populations, for example, there may be language needs or trusted source concerns or central information gaps related to specific issues. Any large group or sub‐group may have unique information and communication needs. Some of these needs, if identified, could suggest small but smart adjustments or additions, others may be unrealistic or too costly and some may be strategically central to forward progress. But in all cases, there must be a process step where citizens can participate in defining their information and communication needs.

Imagine learning that had some essential piece or pieces of information been gathered or shared, a road referendum might have passed. Good process includes significant planning to identify potential barriers to understanding and how they might be reduced or even eliminated. The Integration of Public Participation Some planning efforts are small and some are large and centrally important. There is room for assessment of the appropriate scope of public participation activities related to specific program components. However, that assessment needs to be automatically included in any work plan consideration.

Section 2.2 of the PPP describing “Participation Efforts” in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) lists press releases and email solicitations for public comment. These outreach tools alone do not approach “best practices.”


For the sake of transparency and public participation planning, key decision points must be identified. Information and public involvement can then be scheduled to anticipate decisions. And, the range of decisions is wider than just the final adoption of any plan. There are always choices along the way for which citizens may have useful input. Public participation is not a parallel activity, it is an integral activity. The traditional public hearing cannot be the only means of input and engagement. Comment Periods In general, the PPP offers comment periods that are too short. However, more robust public participation can offset this somewhat by pulling in comments throughout the process and building continuous feedback loops including publicly available responsiveness summaries. At the end of the process, citizens should be able to spot their “fingerprints” or the agency should broadly share how the engagement of citizens – however many – has impacted results. Other Questions How will the Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) function? Will it have a connection back to the larger community? What is the role of the Committee relative to the LRTP or the TIP? The CTAC will be an advisory committee to the HRTPO Board. Specific CTAC Bylaws will be established once the group is up and running. Given CTAC members have knowledge of their neighborhoods, their participation will help improve the lines of communication between the HRTPO Board and the community at large, including during the development of the LRTP and TIP. What is the resource (time and funds) commitment for better public participation processes? How will the large scale biennial forums be funded? The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) describes HRTPO transportation planning work to be performed. The UPWP has a list of tasks that includes information on who will perform the work, the schedule for completing the work, resulting end products, and proposed funding and source of funds. This document is reviewed and updated annually. A copy is available on the HRTPO website: www.hrtpo.org (Programs Tab). Will the community help to set goals for process enhancements? Will the community have an opportunity to evaluate the new approaches for public participation? The PPP will be evaluated periodically. HRTPO staff will confer with CTAC members, initially to implement strategies outlined in the PPP, and subsequently to thoroughly review and update the document. Additional comments 1. One demographic group not mentioned in the Plan but critical to our common future, is

youth. It benefits the region to bring them into the processes. They are some of transportations most valuable consumers. Youth advisory groups associated with localities are possible avenues for beginning this work.


2. Missing comments related to Appendix A make it impossible to assess connection between public’s input and the Plan as presently offered.

3. Uncivil behavior is damaging to public meetings and by extension, community

understanding. James City County has developed a “ground rules” card that is handed out at meetings and has been a very useful tool for setting the tone of any public gathering. The HRTPO could similarly establish a process covenant with the public that is shared on the Web site and handed out at each meeting.

4. The Tools section needs more methods of participation designed to involve more citizens of

the region.

5. Public Information meetings should be structured to become Public Input Meetings designed for more give and take.

6. Dialogue spelled two different ways in document.

7. Fourth paragraph of the Abstract states the CTAC will consult in the periodic updating of the PPP. Will the general public be part of this review and process and if so, how? Last bullet of Appendix A section says the public will be involved when the PPP is materially revised, so there needs to be clarification between the two sections.

8. Section 1.1 – It would be helpful to include a definition for public involvement prior to the goals and objectives. Is there a SAFETEA‐LU definition? Some of the history is included in section 1.4, but no HRTPO definition.

9. Section 3.1 LRTP/TIP – Comment periods need to be longer for revisions. As written, updates and revisions only require 14 days.

10. Section 3.1 Public Notice for Meetings – Meeting notices should also be sent out using the HRTPO email list.

11. Section 3.1 American with Disabilities Statement – There appears to be a conundrum with two‐weeks‐in‐advance requests for assistance and 14‐day comment periods.

12. Section 3.2 Policy for Public Comments at HRTPO Meetings – A follow‐up process for responding to or addressing comments needs to be decided upon.

13. Section 4.1 Public Involvement Tools – The listed methods are predominantly tools for pushing information out. Additional means for pulling citizens into good process need to be added.

14. Section 4.1 Public Involvement Tools – Public Information Meetings should be structured to become Public Input Meetings designed for more give and take.

15. Section 5 Environmental Justice (EJ) – Step Two, approach #6 topics should be more specific to EJ communities. How will community dialogues be different from community conversations?


16. Section 6 Elderly and Persons with Disabilities – Should these persons also merit some

version of a four‐step process?

17. Section 7 Limited English Proficiency (LEP) – Section 7.3, the public outreach effort needs to be more detailed and specific to LEP citizens similar to Section 5 Step Two.

18. Section 8.1 – Include market analysis for reasonable public involvement

19. A demographically representative “visioning” process could ensure that all aspects of involvement are addressed.

Finally Ultimately, decisions are made by elected representatives on behalf of their communities. However, some kind of process precedes decisions. Good, smart, effective public participation processes can generate wider options, broader understanding, potentially better decisions and certainly, more politically sustainable decisions.

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Public Participation Plan| Appendix B 69

APPENDIX C: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 CAA Clean Air Act CDR Air Quality Conformity Determination Report CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CTAC Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee EJ Environmental Justice EPA Environmental Protection Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration FTAC Freight Transportation Advisory Committee GIS Geographic Information Systems HRPDC Hampton Roads Planning District Commission HRT Hampton Roads Transit HRTPO Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization LEP Limited English Proficiency LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan MPA Metropolitan Planning Area MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization PPP Public Participation Plan SAFETEA‐LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SIP State Implementation Plan STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program TAC Transportation Advisory Committee TDCHR Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads TIP Transportation Improvement Program TMA Transportation Management Area TTAC Transportation Technical Advisory Committee UPWP Unified Planning Work Program USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation WATA Williamsburg Area Transit Authority

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Public Participation Plan| Appendix C 70

APPENDIX D: GLOSSARY Administrative modification means a minor revision to a long‐range statewide or metropolitan transportation plan, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), or Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that includes minor changes to project/project phase costs, minor changes to funding sources of previously‐included projects, and minor changes to project/project phase initiation dates. An administrative modification is a revision that does not require public review and comment, re‐demonstration of fiscal constraint, or a conformity determination (in nonattainment and maintenance areas).

Amendment means a revision to a long‐range statewide or metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP that involves a major change to a project included in a metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP, including the addition or deletion of a project or a major change in project cost, project/project phase initiation dates, or a major change in design concept or design scope (e.g., changing project termini or the number of through traffic lanes). Changes to projects that are included only for illustrative purposes do not require an amendment. An amendment is a revision that requires public review and comment, re‐demonstration of fiscal constraint, or a conformity determination (for metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs involving “non‐exempt” projects in nonattainment and maintenance areas). In the context of a long‐range statewide transportation plan, an amendment is a revision approved by the State in accordance with its public involvement process.

Attainment area means any geographic area in which levels of a given criteria air pollutant (e.g., ozone, carbon monoxide, PM10, PM2.5, and nitrogen dioxide) meet the health‐based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for that pollutant. An area may be an attainment area for one pollutant and a nonattainment area for others. A “maintenance area” (see definition below) is not considered an attainment area for transportation planning purposes.

Citizen Participation – An open process in which the rights of the community to be informed, to provide comments to the Government and to receive a response from the Government are met through a full opportunity to be involved and to express needs and goals.

Conformity means a Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) requirement that ensures that Federal funding and approval are given to transportation plans, programs and projects that are consistent with the air quality goals established by a State Implementation Plan (SIP). Conformity, to the purpose of the SIP, means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. The transportation conformity rule (40 CFR part 93) sets forth policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of transportation activities.

Congestion management process means a systematic approach required in transportation management areas (TMAs) that provides for effective management and operation, based on a cooperatively developed and implemented metropolitan‐wide strategy, of new and existing transportation facilities eligible for funding under title 23 U.S.C., and title 49 U.S.C., through the use of operational management strategies.


Consultation means that one or more parties confer with other identified parties in accordance with an established process and, prior to taking action(s), considers the views of the other parties and periodically informs them about action(s) taken. This definition does not apply to the “consultation” performed by the States and the MPOs in comparing the long‐range statewide transportation plan and the metropolitan transportation plan, respectively, to State and Tribal conservation plans or maps or inventories of natural or historic resources (see §450.214(i) and §450.322(g)(1) and (g)(2)).

Cooperation means that the parties involved in carrying out the transportation planning and programming processes work together to achieve a common goal or objective.

Coordinated public transithuman services transportation plan means a locally developed, coordinated transportation plan that identifies the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older adults, and people with low incomes, provides strategies for meeting those local needs, and prioritizes transportation services for funding and implementation.

Coordination means the cooperative development of plans, programs, and schedules among agencies and entities with legal standing and adjustment of such plans, programs, and schedules to achieve general consistency, as appropriate.

Disabled Population means for transportation planning purposes, the “disabled” population includes persons defined by the U.S. Census as having sensory, physical, mental, self‐care, and employment disabilities.

Elderly Population means for planning purposes, the HRTPO defines “elderly” as: Persons 65 and older (persons eligible for Medicare).

Environmental mitigation activities means strategies, policies, programs, actions, and activities that, over time, will serve to avoid, minimize, or compensate for (by replacing or providing substitute resources) the impacts to or disruption of elements of the human and natural environment associated with the implementation of a long‐range statewide transportation plan or metropolitan transportation plan. The human and natural environment includes, for example, neighborhoods and communities, homes and businesses, cultural resources, parks and recreation areas, wetlands and water sources, forested and other natural areas, agricultural areas, endangered and threatened species, and the ambient air. The environmental mitigation strategies and activities are intended to be regional in scope, and may not necessarily address potential project‐level impacts.

Financial plan means documentation required to be included with a metropolitan transportation plan and TIP (and optional for the long‐range statewide transportation plan and STIP) that demonstrates the consistency between reasonably available and projected sources of Federal, State, local, and private revenues and the costs of implementing proposed transportation system improvements.

Financially constrained or Fiscal constraint means that the metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, and STIP includes sufficient financial information for demonstrating that projects in the metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, and STIP can be implemented using committed, available, or reasonably available revenue sources, with reasonable assurance that the


federally supported transportation system is being adequately operated and maintained. For the TIP and the STIP, financial constraint/fiscal constraint applies to each program year. Additionally, projects in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas can be included in the first two years of the TIP and STIP only if funds are “available” or “committed.”

Freight shippers means any business that routinely transports its products from one location to another by providers of freight transportation services or by its own vehicle fleet.

Illustrative project means an additional transportation project that may (but is not required to) be included in a financial plan for a metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP if reasonable additional resources were to become available.

Indian Tribal government means a duly formed governing body for an Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian Tribe pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, Public Law 103–454.

Intelligent transportation system (ITS) means electronics, photonics, communications, or information processing used singly or in combination to improve the efficiency or safety of a surface transportation system.

Limited English Proficient (LEP) person is a person who does not speak English as their primary language and who has a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English.

Longrange statewide transportation plan means the official, statewide, multimodal, transportation plan covering a period of no less than 20 years developed through the statewide transportation planning process.

LongRange Transportation Plan (LRTP) is the blue print for the region’s transportation development and identifies all regionally significant transportation projects and programs for the Hampton Roads metropolitan planning area. The LRTP has a planning horizon of at least 20 years and is updated every four years to reflect changing conditions such as new planning priorities, population projections, and economic change, as well as anticipated travel demand. Regionally significant transportation projects must be included in the LRTP to receive state and federal funding.

LowIncome is a person or household whose median income is at or below the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines. For persons in family over eight, an additional $3,740 is added per person. PERSONS IN FAMILY POVERTY GUIDELINE

1 $10,830 2 $14,570 3 $18,310 4 $22,050 5 $25,790 6 $29,530


7 $33,270 8 $37,010

Table 8 2009 Poverty Guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia Source: US Department of Health and Human Services

LowIncome Population is any readily identifiable group of low‐income persons who live in geographic proximity and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who will be similarly affected by a proposed DOT program, policy or activity.

Maintenance area means any geographic region of the United States that the EPA previously designated as a nonattainment area for one or more pollutants pursuant to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and subsequently re‐designated as an attainment area subject to the requirement to develop a maintenance plan under section 175A of the Clean Air Act, as amended.

Metropolitan planning area (MPA) means the geographic area determined by agreement between the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the area and the Governor, in which the metropolitan transportation planning process is carried out.

Metropolitan planning organization (MPO) means the policy board of an organization created and designated to carry out the metropolitan transportation planning process.

Minority is a person, as defined by the US Census Bureau, who is:

• Black (a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa); • Hispanic (a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other

Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race); • Asian American (a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East,

Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands); or • American Indian and Alaskan Native (a person having origins in any of the original people

of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition)

Minority Population is any readily identifiable groups of minority persons who live in geographic proximity and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who will be similarly affected by a proposed USDOT program, policy or activity.

National ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) means those standards established pursuant to section 109 of the Clean Air Act.

Nonattainment area means any geographic region of the United States that has been designated by the EPA as a nonattainment area under section 107 of the Clean Air Act for any

Operational and management strategies means actions and strategies aimed at improving the performance of existing and planned transportation facilities to relieve congestion and maximizing the safety and mobility of people and goods.


Project selection means the procedures followed by MPOs, States, and public transportation operators to advance projects from the first four years of an approved TIP and/or STIP to implementation, in accordance with agreed upon procedures.

Provider of freight transportation services means any entity that transports or otherwise facilitates the movement of goods from one location to another for others or for itself.

Public Participation – The active and meaningful involvement of the public in the development of transportation plans and programs.

Public transportation operator means the public entity which participates in the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304, and is the designated recipient of Federal funds under title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 for transportation by a conveyance that provides regular and continuing general or special transportation to the public, but does not include school bus, charter, or intercity bus transportation or intercity passenger rail transportation provided by Amtrak.

Regionally significant project means a transportation project (other than projects that may be grouped in the TIP and/or STIP or exempt projects as defined in EPA's transportation conformity regulation (40 CFR part 93)) that is on a facility which serves regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the area outside the region; major activity centers in the region; major planned developments such as new retail malls, sports complexes, or employment centers; or transportation terminals) and would normally be included in the modeling of the metropolitan area's transportation network. At a minimum, this includes all principal arterial highways and all fixed guideway transit facilities that offer a significant

State implementation plan (SIP) means, as defined in section 302(q) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the portion (or portions) of the implementation plan, or most recent revision thereof, which has been approved under section 110 of the CAA, or promulgated under section 110(c) of the CAA, or promulgated or approved pursuant to regulations promulgated under section 301(d) of the CAA and which implements the relevant requirements of the CAA.

Statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) means a statewide prioritized listing/program of transportation projects covering a period of four years that is consistent with the long‐range statewide transportation plan, metropolitan transportation plans, and TIPs, and required for projects to be eligible for funding under title 23 U.S.C. and title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.

Strategic highway safety plan means a plan developed by the State DOT in accordance with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(6).

Transportation control measure (TCM) means any measure that is specifically identified and committed to in the applicable SIP that is either one of the types listed in section 108 of the Clean Air Act or any other measure for the purpose of reducing emissions or concentrations of air pollutants from transportation sources by reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow or congestion conditions. Notwithstanding the above, vehicle technology‐based, fuel‐based, and


maintenance‐based measures that control the emissions from vehicles under fixed traffic conditions are not TCMs.

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) means a prioritized listing/program of transportation projects covering a period of four years that is developed and formally adopted by an MPO as part of the metropolitan transportation planning process, consistent with the metropolitan transportation plan, and required for projects to be eligible for funding under title 23 U.S.C. and title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.

Transportation management area (TMA) means an urbanized area with a population over 200,000, as defined by the Bureau of the Census and designated by the Secretary of Transportation, or any additional area where TMA designation is requested by the Governor and the MPO and designated by the Secretary of Transportation.

Unified planning work program (UPWP) means a statement of work identifying the planning priorities and activities to be carried out within a metropolitan planning area. At a minimum, a UPWP includes a description of the planning work and resulting products, who will perform the work, time frames for completing the work, the cost of the work, and the source(s) of funds.

Update means making current a long‐range statewide transportation plan, metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP through a comprehensive review. Updates require public review and comment, a 20‐year horizon year for metropolitan transportation plans and long‐range statewide transportation plans, a four‐year program period for TIPs and STIPs, demonstration of fiscal constraint (except for long‐range statewide transportation plans), and a conformity determination (for metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs in nonattainment and maintenance areas).

Urbanized area means a geographic area with a population of 50,000 or more, as designated by the Bureau of the Census.

Users of public transportation means any person, or groups representing such persons, who use transportation open to the general public, other than taxis and other privately funded and operated vehicles.

Visualization techniques means methods used by States and MPOs in the development of transportation plans and programs with the public, elected and appointed officials, and other stakeholders in a clear and easily accessible format such as maps, pictures, and/or displays, to promote improved understanding of existing or proposed transportation plans and programs.

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Public Participation Plan| Appendix F 76

APPENDIX E: FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS

23 CFR 450.316 Interested parties, participation, and consultation. (a) The MPO shall develop and use a documented participation plan that defines a process for providing citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services, private providers of transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, and other interested parties with reasonable opportunities to be involved in the metropolitan transportation planning process.

(1) The participation plan shall be developed by the MPO in consultation with all interested parties and shall, at a minimum, describe explicit procedures, strategies, and desired outcomes for:

(i) Providing adequate public notice of public participation activities and time for public review and comment at key decision points, including but not limited to a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP;

(ii) Providing timely notice and reasonable access to information about transportation issues and processes;

(iii) Employing visualization techniques to describe metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs;

(iv) Making public information (technical information and meeting notices) available in electronically accessible formats and means, such as the World Wide Web;

(v) Holding any public meetings at convenient and accessible locations and times;

(vi) Demonstrating explicit consideration and response to public input received during the development of the metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP;

(vii) Seeking out and considering the needs of those traditionally underrepresented by existing transportation systems, such as low‐income and minority households, who may face challenges accessing employment and other services;

(viii) Providing an additional opportunity for public comment, if the final metropolitan transportation plan or TIP differs significantly from the version that was made available for public comment by the MPO and raises new material issues which interested parties could not reasonably have foreseen from the public involvement efforts;

(ix) Coordinating with the statewide transportation planning public involvement and consultation processes under subpart B of this part; and

(x) Periodically reviewing the effectiveness of the procedures and strategies contained in the participation plan to ensure a full and open participation process.


(2) When significant written and oral comments are received on the draft metropolitan transportation plan and TIP (including the financial plans) as a result of the participation process in this section or the interagency consultation process required under the EPA transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93), a summary, analysis, and report on the disposition of comments shall be made as part of the final metropolitan transportation plan and TIP.

(3) A minimum public comment period of 45 calendar days shall be provided before the initial or revised participation plan is adopted by the MPO. Copies of the approved participation plan shall be provided to the FHWA and the FTA for informational purposes and shall be posted on the World Wide Web, to the maximum extent practicable.

23 CFR 450.322 (f) (7) The metropolitan transportation plan shall, at a minimum, include: (7) A discussion of types of potential environmental mitigation activities and potential areas to carry out these activities, including activities that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the environmental functions affected by the metropolitan transportation plan. The discussion may focus on policies, programs, or strategies, rather than at the project level. The discussion shall be developed in consultation with Federal, State, and Tribal land management, wildlife, and regulatory agencies. The MPO may establish reasonable timeframes for performing this consultation. 23 CFR 450.322 (g) (g) The MPO shall consult, as appropriate, with State and local agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation concerning the development of the transportation plan. The consultation shall involve, as appropriate:

(1) Comparison of transportation plans with State conservation plans or maps, if available; or

(2) Comparison of transportation plans to inventories of natural or historic resources, if available.