Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Roanoke Valley Area
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
Staffed by the
REGIONAL commission
MPO POLICY BOARD: Counties of Bedford, Botetourt, Montgomery and Roanoke; Cities of Roanoke and Salem; Town of Vinton; Federal Highway Administration; Federal Transit Administration; Greater Roanoke Transit Company (Valley Metro);
Roanoke Regional Airport Commission; Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission; Virginia Department of Rail & Public Transportation; Virginia Department of Transportation
roanokempo.org 313 Luck Avenue, SW | Roanoke, Virginia 24016 | P: 540.343.4417 | F: 540.343.4416
January 2, 2014
MEMORANDUM TO: Members, Transportation Technical Committee FROM: Mark McCaskill, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJ: January 9, 2014 TTC Meeting/Agenda The next scheduled meeting of the Transportation Technical Committee (TTC) will be held on Thursday, January 9, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. at the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission office (Upstairs Conference Room), 313 Luck Avenue, SW in Roanoke, VA.
AGENDA
1. Welcome, Call to Order and Introductions .................................................................. Chairman Gray
2. Approval of December 12, 2013 TTC Minutes, pp. 2-5 ............................................ Chairman Gray 3. Quarterly Reports from Project Leaders on Regional .................... Chairman Gray & Recipients
Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Funded Projects
4. Referral of the Final Congestion Management Process Plan to ............................... Mark McCaskill
the Roanoke Valley Area MPO Policy Board, p. 6 and Attachment #1 CMP Plan* *CMP Plan available at http://rvarc.org/downloads/ (See Staff Report for more detail, p. 6) **Final formatting updates for plan will be available on 1/8/14 (See Staff Report for more detail, p. 6)
5. Development of Regional Pedestrian & Transit Vision Plans ...................................... Cristina Finch
Overview Summary of Completed Online Public Survey Detailed Review of Draft Multimodal Districts & Centers, pp. 7-8 and See Shapefiles Available at http://rvarc.org/downloads/
6. Other Business/Updates Discussion of Amtrak “Roll On-Roll Off Bicycle Service” ............................................. Shane Sawyer
FY 2015 Unified Planning Work Program Discussion, p. 9 ......................................... Mark McCaskill
7. Comments by Members and/or Citizens 8. Adjournment
1
Roanoke Valley Area
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
Staffed by the
REGIONAL commission
MPO POLICY BOARD: Counties of Bedford, Botetourt, Montgomery and Roanoke; Cities of Roanoke and Salem; Town of Vinton; Federal Highway Administration; Federal Transit Administration; Greater Roanoke Transit Company (Valley Metro);
Roanoke Regional Airport Commission; Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission; Virginia Department of Rail & Public Transportation; Virginia Department of Transportation
roanokempo.org 313 Luck Avenue, SW | Roanoke, Virginia 24016 | P: 540.343.4417 | F: 540.343.4416
MINUTES
Transportation Technical Committee Meeting December 12, 2013
The December meeting of the Transportation Technical Committee was held on Thursday, December 12, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. at the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission office, 313 Luck Avenue, SW, Roanoke, VA. Attendance was as follows: Member Representing Liz Belcher Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission Dan Brugh Montgomery County Jeff Busby Botetourt County Chris Chittum City of Roanoke Michael Gray Virginia Department of Transportation – Salem District David Holladay Roanoke County Mark Jamison City of Roanoke
Kevin Price Valley Metro Michael Todd Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation
Ben Tripp City of Salem Staff Present: Cristina Finch, Bryan Hill, Mark McCaskill, Jackie Pace
1. WELCOME, CALL TO ORDER, INTRODUCTIONS
Chairman Gray called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. A quorum was present.
2. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 14, 2013 MINUTES The Minutes of the November 14, 2013 TTC meeting were distributed earlier. Mark Jamison (City of Roanoke) noted that his name was omitted from the attendance list.
Transportation Technical Committee Action: Upon motion by Mr. Jamison, seconded by Mr. Todd and carried, the November 14, 2013 Minutes were approved, as amended.
2
2 | P a g e
3. REVIEW OF THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS (CMP) PLAN
Mark McCaskill asked if there were any further comments on the latest draft of the Congestion Management Process Plan. Mark noted that the TTC will review the CMP at their January 9, 24014 meeting and the MPO Policy Board will take final action at their January 23, 2014 meeting. David Holladay noted that he had met earlier in the week with Mark to go over
narrative changes from the County on the plan.
Belcher -- Asked that a Table of Contents and a numbering system be prepared for the Plan.
Belcher -- Maps inserted into the document appear to be blurry and unreadable and suggested that the staff not use screen shots. If possible, acquire the originals and/or break the maps into separate files.
Belcher -- Ensure that all instances of the word “Wilber” be changed to “Wilbur”, as in Wilbur Smith and Associates.
Belcher -- Add items from Greenway Plan to non-motorized strategies sections of the areas of emphasis.
Jamison -- Page 3, make the distinct areas that MPOs/states should consider for CMP planning (1st paragraph) consistent with the planning factors (A, B, E, F, in paragraph 2).
Jamison -- Page 12, in the 1st paragraph where it discusses the 10 areas of emphasis, a discussion should be added explaining the methodology of how the 10 areas were whittled down (essentially showing how some of the public input areas didn’t make it into the list).
Jamison -- Page 34, RSTP and TA projects need to be referenced for Hollins and Plantation area. Also, TTC suggested renaming the Hollins/Plantation area, as not to focus on the actual intersection of Hollins and Plantation Roads, but to focus on Peters Creek and Williamson Road.
Jamison -- Page 60, remove the graphic referring to Project #10, US 460 and Challenger Avenue.
Jamison -- Page 61, remove bullet “U.S. 460/Orange Avenue is to be widened…”. 4. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PEDESTRIAN AND TRANSIT VISION PLANS
Cristina Finch updated members on the public input aspect of the pedestrian and transit vision plans, noting that 450 online surveys have been received. Surveys were distributed to area libraries and senior living centers, and the online survey will close at the end of the year. A
3
3 | P a g e
walking/transit survey specific to the Blue Hills Drive businesses will close next week. The Blue Hills case study provides an example of how the region can go about considering expansion of transit services.
At the November meeting, multi-modal centers vs. districts were discussed and multimodal locations (marked with sticky dots on a map) were identified by the TTC. At the December meeting, multimodal district boundaries were reviewed in consideration of the initial mapping exercise, as well as additional input obtained from the sample statewide potential multimodal centers identified in the DRPT Multimodal System Design Guidelines. TTC members reviewed the maps and using markers, outlined suggestions for modifying the draft multimodal districts. Ms. Finch explained that the exercise of defining multimodal districts and centers is a long-range planning activity that will provide a basis for discussion when focusing on the specific pedestrian or transit aspects of the respective vision plans. Liz Belcher commented that it would be helpful to have more information on how the multimodal areas were determined. Chris Chittum stated that it would be helpful when determining the multimodal districts to have the transit routes on the map. Ms. Finch replied that at this stage it was not desirable to have any modes represented on the map. Cristina Finch also reported that she and Eddie Wells had met with members of Renaissance Planning, consultants who have developed the DRPT Multimodal System Design Guidelines, and explained what we are doing (our process) and they felt we are on the right track. The TTC will look at updated maps of the multimodal districts and centers at the January 2014 meeting.
5. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Update on Citizen Information Meeting for I-581 Valley View Interchange Project
Chairman Gray noted that a Citizen information Meeting on the I-581 Valley View Interchange Project was held on Tuesday, December 10, 2013 from 5:00-7:00 pm at William Fleming High School. Chairman Gray presented to the TTC the computerized traffic simulation of the proposed I-581 Valley View Interchange that was shown at the citizen meeting. He also noted that in order to help with the traffic noise that will be generated, sound walls will be erected on both sides from Valley View to Liberty Road.
B. Update on the Transportation Alternatives (TA) Process
Mark McCaskill reported that according to the timeline provided by VDOT, the MPO Policy Board should be able to know the tentative selections from the Commonwealth Transportation Board before it makes a decision on its pot of TA funds. Liz Belcher asked if the TTC would get to see the CTB’s tentative selections before the MPO Policy Boards makes their decision on the funding. Chairman Gray stated that he would get the information out when he receives it, so that the TTC can review before the MPO Policy Board’s decision on funding is made.
4
4 | P a g e
C. Discussion of Amtrak “Roll On-Roll Off Bicycle Service”
Chairman Gray noted that because of the lateness of time and another meeting scheduled to take place at 3:00 pm in the conference room, this item would be brought back and discussed at the January 9, 2014 meeting.
D. TAZ Spreadsheets
Mark McCaskill noted that Matt Miller has received completed 2040 TAZ projections from Bedford County and the City of Salem. The remaining localities were asked to forward their information to Mr. Miller by the end of December 2013. David Holladay noted that several of the Roanoke County TAZs are reporting 0 employment, most notably the TAZ around Tanglewood Mall. Mark McCaskill said that staff would look into the situation, and that it could result from a GIS error.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
5
STAFF REPORT
SUBJ: Congestion Management Process (CMP) Plan
Thank you for your feedback and patience through this several months long revision process; and Happy New Year!
The goal for the January 2014 TTC meeting is to discuss any additional feedback on the CMP draft; and to forward the draft, including additional feedback, to the Roanoke Valley Area MPO Policy Board for action. This will have the benefit of freeing up staff time for other work program items important to our local government stakeholders; and will provide the FHWA and FTA our first CMP Plan with only a minor delay.
Due to the timeliness of completing the CMP, if possible, please provide any additional feedback prior to the January 9 TTC meeting. Please send comments to [email protected]. This final draft will be available in two stages:
Today, an updated draft (.pdf) that was produced in Word and incorporates feedback received before 1/2/14.
On 1/8/14, an updated draft (.pdf) that will incorporate feedback received between 1/2/14 and 1/7/14; and an upgrade of the design and visual appearance of the document in InDesign.
We hope you understand that due to the volume of feedback received and internal desires for a more polished looking document, we need to do everything possible to move this plan forward.
6
STAFF REPORT
SUBJ: Multimodal Districts and Centers In preparation for the January TTC Meeting, please review the shapefiles containing the draft regional multimodal districts and centers. The shapefiles can be found/accessed at
http://rvarc.org/downloads/
Reviewing these files on your computer will allow you to look in more detail at the boundaries and toggle on different backgrounds, such as the recently identified transect zones (which represent total activity density in terms of population plus employment divided by the census block area), current land use, aerial photography, future land use, urban development areas, character districts, etc. In addition to the information you have provided during the last couple of meetings, the following criteria have been used in defining the draft multimodal districts and centers. Criteria for Determining Multimodal Districts: 1. Proximity of mixed uses in which a desire to walk from one area to another is likely (e.g., residential to commercial; jobs to commercial; residential to jobs). 2. Density of activities in which a lot of people live, work, go to school, and/or shop, and
they are likely to walk between these activities. 3. Transect zones, future land use plans, character districts, and urban development areas. 4. Local knowledge. Criteria for Determining Multimodal Centers: 1. Buildings are within close proximity in which walking between them is desirable and
encouraged. 2. Multimodal Centers are generally located within a broader Multimodal District, in which
the Center has more dense land development and walking is a natural and common occurrence.
3. Roughly no larger than a mile from one end to another.
7
8
STAFF REPORT
SUBJ: Proposed FY 2015 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Development Cycle
It’s time to start developing the next (FY 2015) UPWP, i.e. the “Work Program.” In general,
around 60% to 75% of the UPWP involves “have to” items such as the Long-Range Transportation Plan, CMP Review, RSTP scoring and allocation, TIP, Public Transportation Planning Assistance, etc. However, that still leaves room for studies and plans that are of interest to our local government partners. The following is a proposed timeline starting with the January 2014 meeting. Please inquire with your local government administration if they have any initial project concepts that should be worked into the next UPWP. All that is needed in January is the project concept. We can work through the process to develop the necessary detail later.
TTC Meeting
(2014)
UPWP
Development Stage
Main Question(s)
January Brainstorming candidate projects
“What is important to local governments or other stakeholders?” - Think of potential candidate projects that RVAMPO staff may not have considered.
February Basic Summary/Draft UPWP candidate projects
“Is anything missing?” “Are there other new candidate projects?”
March Draft FY 2015 UPWP for review and feedback
“Does the draft capture the spirit of what was addressed earlier in the process?”
April Final FY 2015 UPWP to forward to RVAMPO Policy Board for action
“Is the UPWP ready for action?”
9
