1 CIRTPA Small Community Fund Application November 2017
2 2 P a g e Schedule and Decision Making Process November 16, 2017 January 18, 2018 Application process approved by CIRTPA Policy Committee and posted to the CIRTPA website. CIRTPA Small Community Fund Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program Workshop held to provide a brief overview of the funding programs, discuss scoring, applications, and to answer any questions. February 2, 2018 Small Community Fund applications due by 4:30. February 2018 Late February 2018 March 2018 May 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 July 2018 Small Community Fund project evaluation and scoring by CIRTPA staff. Staff will present projects and their respective scores at the February TTC meeting. CIRTPA will also conduct public outreach including a public meeting and on-line feedback mechanisms to gather input on the project applications. CIRTPA Funding Subcommittee hears short project presentations given by sponsor communities. STBG Recommendations to CIRTPA TTC and Policy for discussion. STBG Recommendations to CIRTPA TTC and Policy for action. Draft Federal Fiscal Years Transportation Improvement Program (FFY TIP) to CIRTPA TTC and Policy for review, comment, and action. Public comment period and public meeting held. Draft FFY TIP transmitted to Iowa DOT and Federal Highway Administration. Draft FFY TIP to CIRTPA TTC and Policy for action. Final FFY TIP transmitted to Iowa DOT. * All dates are tentative and subject to change.
3 3 P a g e Grant Information and Guidelines Eligibility Projects applying for Small Community funding are not required to be sponsored by one or more of the nineteen CIRTPA member governments or the Heart of Iowa Regional Transit Authority. Projects must be consistent with the goals of the CIRTPA s Long Range Transportation plan. The project does not need to be listed in the plan. Road projects must be on the federal-aid system. Bridges must be on Structurally Deficient/Functionally Obsolete (SD/FO) list. Eligible Projects n-bicycle and pedestrian roadway projects Bridge projects Long Range Plan: Preparing the Grant Application Applicants are expected to refer to the approved long range transportation plan while preparing the grant application as well as the grant review criteria found in Appendix A. Grant Application The application may be submitted on-line or in paper format. The link to Small Community Fund grant applications and copies of the application questions can found on the CIRTPA website. Each grant application must answer all of the questions including providing a detailed summary of expenditures. a scanned copy of the resolution from that sponsor s council, board of supervisors, or similar governing body, guaranteeing the local funds for the STBG match and authorizing the project. An example resolution can be found in Appendix C. If you have ESRI ArcGIS software, please click here and follow the instructions to draw your projects in GIS. Otherwise, a map showing the project area and project termini locations. Applications are due on or before 4:30 p.m., February 2, For general STBG applications: Questions, scanned letters and GIS shapefiles should be sent to: Andrew Collings, Grant Review Criteria The CIRTPA, when considering project requests for Small Community funds, shall place primary emphasis upon maintenance of region-wide transportation systems as identified in the Long Range Transportation plan. Criteria used for evaluating the project s ability to meet targeted performance measures can be found in Appendix A-B for general STBG applications. Project Status Updates If awarded the funds, the community is required to update the CIRTPA on the status of the project. The status updates should follow the Iowa DOT s development progress in TPMS which includes the following steps: 1. Concept Statement 2. Preliminary Plans
4 4 P a g e 3. Check Plans 4. Final Plans 5. Clearances 6. Development Certification 7. Plan Turn In Project sponsors will include the CIRTPA staff in their correspondence with the Iowa DOT at each stage in the development process. This will increase coordination and allow the staff to better serve its member governments. Funding Considerations Jurisdictions must bear the initial expenditures of the project, and receive reimbursement for eligible expenditures, as defined by the Iowa DOT. The agreement with the Iowa DOT provides for reimbursement of up to 80 percent of the project cost, or a set amount, whichever is less. Design and engineering costs are generally incurred in the early stages of a project. The CIRTPA will strive to fund projects at appropriate levels, however the CIRTPA reserves the right to fund projects as needed and will award at CIRTPA s discretion as much or as little funding as deemed worthy. STBG funds shall be allocated to an individual project for a specific fiscal year in the TIP. For projects extending over multiple years for implementation, funds may be allocated to each of the necessary fiscal years within the TIP to complete the requested project. Prior to review of new projects to be considered for STBG funding, the CIRTPA shall determine the status of all prior commitments. All projects previously approved and for which some part of STBG funds have been obligated shall receive priority consideration for future or additional funding, except if reasonable progress to completion is not maintained as determined by the CIRTPA. However, the CIRTPA may reduce or eliminate multi-year funding commitments in response to revenue shortfalls, reductions in its STBG allocation, or new priorities. CIRTPA staff shall submit to the Funding Subcommittee a ranking of individual project based on the project s ability to meet targeted performance measures. Staff recommendations for individual projects shall be used by the CIRTPA in the CIRTPA s decision-making process for assigning STBG funds to requesting transportation improvement projects. Staff s recommendations shall be based on the project s ability to support achievement of the CIRTPA s performance measure targets. Once the CIRTPA has selected projects for funding, the CIRTPA shall forward a letter to recipient outlining the stipulations associated with acceptance of the CIRTPA s funds, including the need for the recipient to provide periodic updates on the project to the CIRTPA. Funding can support multi-year projects. The CIRTPA receives federal funding and may not discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, color, or national origin, according to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of By applying to receive these funds the applicant is acknowledging that they understand and adhere to the principles of Title VI when performing activities related to the funding they receive from the Central Iowa Regional Transportation Planning Alliance.
5 5 P a g e Bridge Program The CIRTPA staff will provide a technical ranking of submitted bridge projects to the Funding Subcommittee. The Funding Subcommittee with use the bridge rating and their discretion to recommend a funding award for the bridge projects. Project Amendment Process When a jurisdiction changes the scope of a project, after funds are awarded by the CIRTPA, the project must be reviewed again by the TTC and the Funding Subcommittee to determine whether the change in project scope would have materially changed the project s original performance to meet set performance measures and targets. Based on that determination, the Subcommittee will make a recommendation to the Policy Committee, up to and including the withdrawal of CIRTPA approval for STBG funding for the project. This is the same process that may occur when a project does not make appropriate, scheduled progress leading to recapture and reallocation of future funds previously designated for the project. The CIRTPA Policy Committee will, after due consideration, make a final decision. Immaterial changes that would not affect the original performance of a project previously ranked and approved for CIRTPA funding may be permitted in the sound discretion of the CIRTPA Executive Director. TIP Amendment Process Amendments An amendment is a revision to the TIP. An amendment can include an addition or deletion of a project or a major change in design concept or scope. Any proposed changes that meet any of the following criteria are considered amendments. Project cost: Projects in which the recalculated project costs increase federal aid by more than 30 percent or increase total federal aid by more than $2 million from the original amount. Schedule changes: Projects added or deleted from the TIP. Funding sources: Adding an additional federal funding source. Scope changes: Changing the project termini, project alignment, the amount of through traffic lanes, type of work from an overlay to reconstruction, or a change to include widening of the roadway. If the change to the TIP is an amendment, two primary procedural requirements exist: approval by the CIRTPA s technical and policy boards and that the project follow the CIRTPA s public participation process. When the TIP is amended, the CRTPA is required to re-demonstrate fiscal constraint of the TIP/STIP. An amendment is limited by the CIRTPA s fiscal constraint determined by the projects programmed at the TIP s approval. Administrative Modifications An administrative modification is a revision making a minor change to a project in the TIP. An administrative modification does not require public review and comment or board approval. In most instances, administrative modifications are also subject to re-demonstration of fiscal constraint of the TIP/STIP. An administrative modification can include minor changes to project costs and project or project phase initiation dates. Any proposed changes that meet any of the following criteria are considered administrative modifications. Project cost: Projects in which the recalculated projects costs do not increase federal aid by more than 30 percent or do not increase total federal aid by more than $2 million from the original
6 6 P a g e amount. Schedule changes: Changes in schedules to projects included in the first four years of the TIP. Funding sources: Changing funding from one source to another. Scope changes: All changes to a project s scope require an amendment. Fiscal Constraint Any change to the TIP, whether it is an administrative modification or an amendment, is subject to the fiscal constraints of the CIRTPA. For example, if a community has a programmed project in the current construction year of the TIP has $1 million in federal aid (FFY 2017 in the FFY TIP) and another project in FFY 2019 has $1.5 million in federal aid and they requested to move the FFY 2019 project up to FFY 2017, then the requesting jurisdiction would either have to move their currently programed project backwards and another project with at least $500,000 in federal aid move backwards to FFY 2018 or later or find a project with at least $1.5 million in federal aid and have that project move backwards. Note that the CIRTPA s fiscal constraint is by funding type. For example, if the CIRTPA has $5 million in STBG funding programmed in the construction year of the TIP, that is the total amount of STBG funding that is available to be spent in that year. In the example in the previous paragraph, funding has to be the same type (e.g. STBG, CMAQ, TAP, etc.). The requirement to ensure fiscal constraint does not apply to construction year projects that have already been programmed at their full federal aid participation rate and whose programming entry is being adjusted based on an updated cost estimate. That would include all projects that have been programmed with an 80/20 or 90/10 split. Fiscal constraint also does not apply to non-formula funds such as TIGER funding and reapportioned earmark funds. Termination of Funding: Considerations If a jurisdiction/agency s STBG funded project does not make satisfactory progress, does not follow the original scope of the project, or does not obligate the STBG funds provided within the year those funds were authorized by the CIRTPA and noted for that project as previously documented, then the CIRTPA may cancel the remaining STBG funding for that project and return those STBG funds. Such action to cancel project funding shall be based on the following criteria: 1) The CIRTPA strongly believes it necessary to maintain rapid turnover of funds and implementation of specific projects so as not to jeopardize the loss of any funding. 2) The CIRTPA strongly encourages jurisdictions/agencies to have at least preliminary project plans completed prior to submitting a project for the CIRTPA s consideration for funding. 3) The CIRTPA strongly believes that such a stipulation shall cause jurisdictions/agencies to provide better and more accurate project cost estimates and detailed traffic and engineering data, enabling the CIRTPA to evaluate a project s feasibility in a more detailed manner. Interpretation When and as necessary, the Funding Subcommittee will exercise responsibility for interpreting the applicable Guidelines, subject to review and approval, disapproval, or modification by the CIRTPA Technical Committee, subject to review and approval, disapproval, or modification by the full CIRTPA Policy Committee.
7 7 P a g e 2019 Surface Transportation Block Grant Program Application The following is the application for STBG funding made available by the Central Iowa Transportation Planning Alliance (CIRTPA). Contact Information 1. CIRTPA Membership Support Please mark each CIRTPA member that supports your project. Boone County o City of Boone Dallas County o City of Adel o City of Perry Jasper County o City of Newton Madison County o City of Winterset Marion County o City of Knoxville o City of Pella Polk County Story County o City of Huxley o City of Nevada o City of Story City Warren County o City of Indianola HIRTA 2. Contact Person 3. Phone Number 4. Address Project Description 5. Project Title
8 8 P a g e 6. Termini Description (i.e. Park Avenue to 19t street) 7. Total Estimated Project Cost 8. Federal Fiscal Year 2019 STBG Request 9. Total Funding Secured 10. Source of additional funds and local match? If the proposed improvement has secured funding, please list the sources and FFY of secured funding. 11. Is this project seeking funding over multiple years? (Circle One) 12. How many consecutive years will funding be requested? (I.e. 2, 3, or 4+ years) 13. What is the total anticipated STBG funding request over the multiple years? 14. What is the projects LRTP number (if available)?
9 9 P a g e 15. Has any part of this project been started or completed? 16. Has your agency previously applied for STBG funds for this project? 17. Has this project previously been awarded STBG funds? (Skip to question 19) 18. What is the project s TPMS number? TPMS# is located in the CIRTPA s FFY TIP or the online TPMS system Project Need 19. The Federal Highway Administration requires STBG funds to be used towards regionally significant projects. Please describe how this project fulfills this requirement. 20 Describe how this project impacts other city/county goals, plans, and projects.
10 10 P a g e 21 Describe any work previously completed (or underway) that this project complements or is recommended in other planning studies/construction projects. 22. Expansion is considered an expensive and last resort to address congestion issues. If this is an expansion project, please explain what other methods have been used to address congestion. 23. Project Type Circle all that apply New road Paving gravel road Road Extension Road widening Improved alignment Conversion (4 to 3 lane, 1-way to 2-way) Reconstruction Overlay/mill-and-overlay/diamond grind Bridge Interchange Intersection Freight ITS improvements Transit Bicycle Facility Streetscape 24. If other, please describe
11 11 P a g e Design Elements 25. Surface Type Mark only one box per row. Existing Proposed Gravel Asphalt Portland Cement N/A 26. Number of Travel Lanes Mark only one box per row. Existing Proposed N/A 27. Existing Travel Lane Width (ft) 28. Proposed Travel Lane Width (ft) 29. Existing Total Facility Width (ft) 30. Proposed Total Facility Width (ft) 31. Existing Posted Speed (mph) 32. Proposed Posted Speed (mph) 33. Existing Median
12 12 P a g e 34. Describe Existing Median (width, plantings, etc.) 35. Proposed Median 36. Describe Proposed Median (width, plantings, etc.) 37. Does the Project Include Any of the Following Improvement to Turning Movement? Mark only one box per row Left turn lanes Right turn lanes Center turn lanes Turning signals Extending turn lanes Roundabouts 38. Existing Paved Shoulders? 39. Proposed Paved Shoulders? Yes No
13 13 P a g e 40. Existing Curb Radius at Intersections? 41. Proposed Curb Radius at Intersections? 42. Existing Signal Interconnection? 43. Does the Project Include Improvements to Signal Interconnection? (I.e. Interconnection, adaptive control, cameras, or wiring upgrade) 44. Existing Number of Access Points Along Project Length? 45. Proposed Number of Access Points Along Project Length? 46. Existing Sidewalk Width? 47. Proposed Sidewalk Width? 48. Number of Existing Pedestrian Benches? 49. Number of Proposed Pedestrian Benches?
14 14 P a g e 50. Existing Curb Extensions? 51. Proposed Curb Extensions? 52. Existing Crosswalks? Skip to question Do current crosswalks have a raised pedestrian refuge? 54. Proposed Crosswalks? Skip to question Do Proposed Crosswalks Have a Raised Pedestrian Refuge? 56. Number of Existing Bus Shelters? 57. Is There an Existing Paved Connection Between Sidewalk and Bus Shelter?
15 15 P a g e 58. Number of Proposed Bus Shelters? 59. Is There a Proposed Paved Connection Between Sidewalk and Bus Shelters? 60. Number of Existing On-Street Parking Spots? 61. Number of Proposed On-Street Parking Spots? 62. How Many Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Does This Project Include? 63. Existing Bicycle Facility? 64. Existing Bicycle Facility Type? Traditional Bicycle Lane Buffered/Protected Bicycle Lane Shared-Use path 65. Existing Bicycle Facility Width? 66. Proposed Bicycle Facility? Skip to Question 69
16 16 P a g e 67. What Type of Bicycle Facility? Traditional Bicycle Lane Buffered/Protected Bicycle Lane Shared-Use path 68. What is the Width of the Bicycle Facility? 69. Existing Bicycle Signals? 70. Proposed Bicycle Signals? 71. Existing Pedestrian Signals? 72. Proposed Pedestrian Signals? 73. Existing Street Trees? Street trees are trees that are located between the curb and no more than five feet back of sidewalk or located within the center median. Must be a species of tree that grows tall enough to create an overstory.
17 17 P a g e 74. Proposed Street Trees? Street trees are trees that are located between the curb and no more than five feet back of sidewalk or located within the center median. Must be a species of tree that grows tall enough to create an overstory. Skip to Question What Variety of Tree(s) Will be Planted? 76. What is the Spacing of Street Trees Along the Corridor (ft)? 77. If the Project Has Additional Landscaping, Please Desribe. 78. Does the Project Improve a Parallel Facility or Contribute to Alternative Routing? Skip to Question Describe How the Project Improves a Parallel Facility or Contribute to Alternative Routing?
18 18 P a g e 80. Does the Project Use Green Infrastructure to Manage 1 ¼ Inches of Rainfall? Skip to Question Describe How the Project Uses Green Infrastructure to Manage 1 ¼ Inches of Rainfall? 82. Does the Project use Traffic Calming Measures? (i.e. on-street parking, converting one-way street to two-way, narrowing street/travel lanes, bulbs, chokers, neckdowns, chicanes, roundabouts, traffic circles, raised medians, tight corner curbs, diverters, road humps, speed tables, cushions, and alternative surface treatments.) Skip to Question Describe How the Project Uses Traffic Calming Measures. 84. Does the Project Incorporate Solution to Reduce Idling? Skip to Question 86
19 19 P a g e 85. Describe How the Project Incorporates Solutions to Reduce Idling? 86. Does the Project Address a Freight Impediment? Skip to Question Describe How the Project Addresses a Freight Impediment? 88. Does the Project Cross a Bridge? Skip to Question Is the Bridge Structurally Deficient/Functionally Obsolete? Skip to Question What is the Structural Rating of the Bridge? 91. Will the Project Include the Replacement or Reconstruction of the Bridge?
20 20 P a g e 92. The CIRTPA receives federal funding and may not discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, color, or national origin, according to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of By applying to receive these funds the applicant is acknowledging that they understand and adhere to the principles of Title VI when performing activities related to the funding they receive from the Central Iowa Regional Transportation Planning Alliance. 93. To the best of my knowledge all information included in this application is true and accurate, including the commitment of all design features, physical and financial resources. This application has been duly authorized by participating local authority(s). I understand the FORMAL RESOLUTION binds the participating local governments to provide the required matching funds, design features according to those listed in the application and to assume responsibility for adequate maintenance of any new or improved facilities. I understand that, although this information is sufficient to secure a commitment of funds, an executed contract between the applicant and the Iowa Department of Transportation is required prior to the authorization of funds. 94. A GIS shapefile or map has been sent to the CIRTPA. 95. An executed City/County/Organizational Resolutions has been sent to the CIRTPA. 96. Additional Information You Would Like to Share:
21 21 P a g e EVALUATION CRITERIA Appendix A: Performance Measure Evaluation Criteria TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS 100 Maintain our existing transportation system 40 1 Project addresses major maintenance including deficient or obsolete bridge, pavement in poor or very poor condition 2 Project is on a road with existing congestion (LOS E or F in peak hours) + 3 Project design includes one or more of the following congestion management strategies: a. Improvements to access management + b. ITS/Signalization improvements + c. Improvements to turning movements + d. Improves parallel facility/contributes to alternative routing + 4 Route addresses freight impediment + Promote livability 10 5 The project includes design elements such as bus shelters, benches, pullouts, pedestrian connection from transit stop to sidewalk + 6 Project includes an addition to or improvement of the bicycle network + 7 Project enhances multi-modal opportunities + 8 Project improves pedestrian access and facilities + Protect the environment and conserve resources 25 9 Project increases the number of street tree plantings or other landscaping Project avoids natural areas such as: floodplains, wetlands, and threatened or endangered federal and state wildlife habitats. 11 Project is using permeable paving, vegetation or other green streets techniques to manage 1 ¼ inches of the average rainfall. 12 Project decreases energy consumption (idle reduction, electric vehicle infrastructure, etc.) + Provide a safe transportation system Project is located in a high-crash area as defined by CMAT and the project incorporates traffic calming solutions 14 Project has traffic calming solutions to reduce modal conflict + 15 Project is entirely or partially located within a social justice area + 16 Project enhances multimodal transportation to/from a social justice area + 17 Project promotes safe routes to schools (within 1/2 mile radius of a school with multi-modal elements SCORE
22 22 P a g e Appendix B: Small Community Fund Scoring Matrix Criteria No. Evaluation Points 1 If project is located on an existing route or intersection, project receives points 5 2 Project satisfies at least one of the following questions: Project is located on roadway segment with pavement in poor or very poor condition Project meets map criteria for SD/FO bridges and answers YES to question s 88, 89, & 91 3 If project is located on corridor with existing congestion (peak hours) at LOS of E or F, project receives points. 4a If project satisfies any of the following: If answer to question 45 is less than the answer to question 44, project receives points If answer to question 35 is YES, project receives points 4b If answer to question 43 is YES, project receives points 5 4c If answer to question 37 is YES to any of the options, project receives points 5 4d If answer to question 78 is YES, project receives points 5 5 If answer to question 86 is YES, project receives points 5 6 Project satisfies at least 2 out of 3 of the following questions: If the sum of the answers to question 48 and 49 is greater than answer to question 48, project receives points If the sum of the answers to question 56 and 58 is greater than answer to question 56, project receives points If answer to question 59 is YES, project receives points 7 If answer to question 66 is YES, project receives points 5 Project satisfies following questions (up to four, one point each): If answer to question 28 is less than or equal to 10 feet, project receives point If answer to question 32 is less than or equal to 35 mph, project receives point If answer to question 41 is less than or equal to 10 feet, project receives point If answer to question 47 is equal to or greater than 6 feet, project receives point If the sum of the answers to question 48 and 49 is greater than answer to question 48, project receives point If answer to question 54 is YES, project receives point If answer to question 55 is YES, project receives point 5 If the sum of the answers to question 60 and 61 is greater than the answer to question 60, project receives point (if >0) If answer to question 72 is YES, project receives point If answer to question 82 is YES, project receives point 9 If answer to question 74 is YES, project receives points 5 10 If project avoids natural areas, project receives points 5 11 If answer to question 80 is YES, project receives points 5
23 23 P a g e Criteria No. Evaluation Points Project satisfies at least one of the following questions: If answer to question 62 is greater than 0, project receives points If answer to question 84 is YES, project receives points If project is located in a high crash area and satisfies at least one the following: If answer to question 32 is less than or equal to 35 mph, project receives points If answer to question 82 is YES, project receives points 14 If answer to question 82 is YES, project receives points 5 15 If project is located in an environmental justice area, project receives points 5 16 If project is located in an environmental justice area and satisfies criteria 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12, project receives points If project is located within ½ mile radius of school and satisfies criteria 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12, project receives points 5 Total Points 100
24 24 P a g e Appendix C: Example Formal Resolution A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE [GOVERNMENT] TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR FUNDING FROM THE FEDERAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (STBG) TO THE CENTRAL IOWA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ALLIANCE (CIRTPA) FOR THE PARTIAL FUNDING OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF [PROJECT NAME] AND FURTHER APPROVING THE APPLICATION WHICH OBLIGATES THE [CITY] TO MATCHING FUNDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PROJECT Whereas, the [Government] is located in the Central Iowa Regional Transportation Planning Alliance Planning Area; and Whereas, the Federal Surface Transportation Block Grant Program provides funding to local jurisdictions for the construction of eligible projects; and Whereas, the program is administered by the Central Iowa Regional Transportation Planning Alliance which prioritizes and ranks all project applications; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE [GOVERNING BODY] OF THE [GOVERNMENT] that: The [Governing Body] supports and approves the attached application for Federal Surface Transportation Program funding. The [Governing Body] hereby commits to the [Government] matching monies as required by the Federal Surface Transportation Program funding. The [Government] hereby commits to accepting and maintaining these improvements for a minimum of twenty (20) years following the completion. The [Designated Official] is hereby authorized to approve and execute the application on behalf of the [Governing Body]. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS Date
25 25 P a g e Appendix D: Map of Eligible Jurisdictions
SMALL CITY PROGRAM The Small City Program provides Federal funds to small cities with populations from 5,000 to 24,999 that are NOT located within Metropolitan Planning Organizations' boundaries. Currently
FUNDING POLICY GUIDELINES Revised and Approved May 25, 2017 Akron Metropolitan Area Transportation Study 806 CitiCenter 146 South High Street Akron, Ohio 44308 This document was prepared by the Akron Metropolitan
2016 PRIORITY PROJECTS REPORT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION This document was produced in cooperation with the Florida Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration
CALVERT - ST. MARY S METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2015-2018 Calvert County Planning Commission St. Mary s County Department of County Services Plaza
Florida Department of Transportation, District Seven Project Newsletter Number 1 October 2012 The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is conducting a Project Development & Environment (PD&E) study
SFY 2022-2023 Illustrative Projects 2018-2021 INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (IRTIP) MiTIP APPLICATION PACKET Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization October 2017 This
The purpose of the s (TPA) Transportation Alternatives (TA) program is to help fund connected infrastructure for non-motorized users. Construction funding is typically provided three years out. Funding
FFY 2015-2016 Transportation Alternatives Program Application For projects in the Tulsa Urbanized Area A Grant Program of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) U.S. Department of Transportation
TPC Agenda Item 6A Mailout 10/20/16 RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE 2017-2020 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) AND 2040 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP) Amendment Summary Amendment
October 23rd, 2015 Attention: Qualified and Interested Consultants REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) Posey County Long Range Transportation Plan The Posey County Economic Development Partnership, cooperatively
APPENDIX A PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT FOR MINOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT AMONG THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE
Surface Transportation Program (STP) Project Prioritization & Selection Process For the Tulsa Urbanized Area Revised December 22, 2017 Surface Transportation Program (STP) Project Prioritization and Selection
Upper Darby Township 100 Garrett Rd. Upper Darby, PA 19082 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL BACKGROUND The Aronimink Station area is a mixed use neighborhood commercial area located at the intersection of Ferne Blvd.
Summary of Policy Governor in 2000. The baseline can The purpose of the Long Range also be considered as the scenario in Transportation Plan (LRTP) is to which no new transportation projects provide decision
Megan P. Hall, P.E. Local Programs Engineer Federal Highway Administration Washington Division March 14, 2017 1 Transportation Alternatives (TA) Recreational Trails Program (RTP) www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/transportation_alternatives/overview/presentation/
DOT-168 Revised 12/22/06 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION POLICY FOR INDUSTRIAL PARK, AGRI-BUSINESS ACCESS, AND COMMUNITY ACCESS GRANT PROGRAMS SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 700 EAST BROADWAY PIERRE,
Surface Transportation Program (STP) Project Prioritization & Selection Process For the Tulsa Urbanized Area Revised July 31, 2013 Surface Transportation Program(STP) Project Prioritization and Selection
Guidance Historical Studies Review Procedures This guidance document provides instructional material regarding how to review and process project activities in accordance with TxDOT s Section 106 of the
APPENDIX 1 BROWARD COUNTY PLANNING COUNCIL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES Broward County Land Use Plan Amendment Requirements Amendments which are not within the rules of flexibility or more
THE 411 ON FEDERAL & STATE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING - FHWA Catherine McCreight, MBA Senior Transportation Planner Texas Department of Transportation - Houston District Houston-Galveston Area Council Bringing
Georgia s Operational Improvement Program Paul DeNard, P.E., PTOE State Traffic Operations Manager How do you address Capacity? We can t build our way out of the congestion problem Widening projects cost
9. REVENUE SOURCES This Chapter summarizes multimodal revenue sources and estimates that are applicable to the City of Coolidge and the Town of Florence, together with financial constraints and opportunities
FLORENCE AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM Federal ID #57 6000351 Fiscal Year 2014 Funding provided by: FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION and FLORENCE COUNTY www.florenceco.org/offices/planning/flats/
MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF CHAMBLEE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS RFP-18-02 RFP 18-02 Page 2 of 18 MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN GENERAL CONDITIONS Sealed Proposals for Purchasing RFP 18-02 Multi-Modal
Information Item To: Mayor and City Council Date: November 13, 2013 From: Subject: Martin Pastucha, Director of Public Works David Martin, Director of Planning and Community Development 2013 Call For Projects
UNFUNDED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS OVERVIEW THE LIST 40 unique unfunded projects are on the list All projects are important to the future of Arvada s transportation needs. The list has developed over many
FAMPO RSTP AND CMAQ FUNDING PROJECT SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION This document describes the process the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO)
Capital District September 26, 2017 Transportation Committee The Community and Transportation Linkage Planning Program for 2018-19 Introduction The Community and Transportation Linkage Planning Program
Agenda Item #3.H.11 02/13/12 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPOSED AMENDMENT REPORT PINELLAS COUNTY DEO#12-1ESR 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 PINELLAS COUNTY LPA 22-10-11 Expedited State
Florida s Safe Routes to School Infrastructure Application Call for Applications Note: fields will expand as needed FDOT FORM # 500-000-30 Section 1 School, Applicant & Maintaining Agency Information Notes:
HIGH COUNTRY RURAL PLANNING ORGANIZATION (RPO) 2015 STIP PROJECT SOLICITATION AND RANKING PROCESS Introduction The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and North Carolina General Assembly
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Shaping Investments for San Francisco s Transportation Future The 2017 San Francisco Transportation Plan (SFTP) Update Provide world-class infrastructure and
Capital Improvement Program 2012 2016 2012 2016 Capital Improvement Program Dakota County, Minnesota Dakota County Board of Commissioners Joseph A. Harris, First District Kathleen A. Gaylord, Second District
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Transportation Alternatives Program Guide August 2016 Trail to Monticello Charlottesville, VA Contents Program Background.. 1 Program Structure Funding... 2 Eligible
Oregon Statewide Transportation Improvement Program STIP Users Guide Table of Contents 1.0 How to Use This Guide -------------------------------------------------------------------------1-1 1.1 Document
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Transportation Alternatives Program Guide August 2017 Interim Update Bicycle Parking Arlington, VA Contents Program Background.. 1 Program Structure Funding... 3 Eligible
TPBnews A Publication of the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board Volume XXI, Issue 11 June 2014 Board Approves Transportation Alternatives Projects for Northern Virginia On May 21, the
Fixing America s Surface Transportation Act: FAST Act Implications for the Region Connie Kozlak Metropolitan Transportation Services Mark Fuhrmann Metro Transit Ed Petrie Metro Transit Metropolitan Council
Safety Projects and the Local Agency Program (LAP) Wednesday, January 8, 2014 Lawrence Taylor Consultant D7 Safety/LAP Project Manager Workshop Series Wed. Oct. 30 Wed. Nov. 6 Wed. Nov. 13 Wed. Nov. 20
RICK SCOTT GOVERNOR Florida Department of Transportation 3400 West Commercial Blvd. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 JIM BOXOLD SECRETARY 2015 Transportation Alternatives Application Cycle FY 2018/2019 Tentative
City of Mount Rainier Department of Public Works 3715 Wells Avenue, Mount Rainier, MD 20712 Telephone: (301) 985-6583: Fax (301) 779-4485 Comprehensive Street and Sidewalk Inventory, Assessment, and Action
BOWLING GREEN - WARREN COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Fiscal Year 2016 Unified Planning Work Program Approved by Policy Committee - April 13, 2015 Prepared by Bowling Green-Warren County Metropolitan
Bureau of Waterways Engineering and Wetlands SOP_WET_WOE_04 Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Chapter 105 Water Obstruction and Encroachment Program Review of General Permits not covered by Permit
ITEM 11 Action April 19, 2017 Approval to Amend the FY 2017-2022 (TIP) to add nine New Projects to the FY 2017-2022 TIP, As Requested By the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Staff Recommendation:
HIGH COUNTRY RURAL PLANNING ORGANIZATION (RPO) 2014 STIP PROJECT SOLICITATION AND RANKING PROCESS Introduction The rth Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and rth Carolina General Assembly have
PROJECT SELECTION 2017 Educational Series PROJECT SELECTION THE PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS Understanding how the state s roads, bridges and other transportation infrastructure are selected for funding helps
ITEM 14 Action March 29, 2017 Approval to Amend the FY 2017-2022 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Staff Recommendation: Issues: Background:
(PSF) Goal Work closely with the School District of Nassau County to ensure a high quality, fiscally sound public school system which meet the needs of Nassau County s population by providing and maintaining
Southeast Area Transportation Alliance (SEATA) Sustainable Development Program and 2009 Call for Projects Karla Weaver, AICP May 28, 2009 North Central Texas Council of Governments Transportation Department
Module 3 Advance Funding Agreements between the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and a Local Government (LG) for Contents: Section 1 Overview... 3-2 Section 2 Categories of Advance Funding Agreements...
Nevada Smart Transportation: Save Money and Grow the Economy Keep Nevada Moving in the Right Direction Save Money by Taking Better Care of What You Have 1. Dedicate more to maintain and repair existing
NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS CITY OF CEDAR HILL CITY CENTER TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PLAN August 19, 2011 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
CHAPTER 2009-89 House Bill No. 5013 An act relating to transportation; amending s. 334.044, F.S.; revising the powers and duties of the Department of Transportation to provide for certain environmental
Exhibit E15-12-02 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACTS FOR TEMPORARY STAFFING SERVICES AS PART OF NCTCOG'S COOPERATIVE PURCHASING PROGRAM WHEREAS, the (NCTCOG) is a voluntary association of, by and for local
Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Planning Prospectus Effective October 1, 2017 Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 138 Second Avenue North Nashville, Tennessee
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 22 E. Weber Avenue, Room 301 Stockton, CA 95202-3717 (209) 937-8411 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING MODIFICATIONS AT
2.1 General Review Standards Right-of-Way Unit March 2015 Rev. June 2015 The Streets Department review standards were implemented both to enforce the Complete Streets standards (Section 11-900 of the Philadelphia
Exhibit A FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICTS FOUR AND SIX COMMUTER SERVICES SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.0 Purpose The South Florida Commuter services vendor (hereinafter referred to as Vendor ) for
SAFETEA-LU This document provides information related to the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) that was previously posted on the Center for
An Invitation: Establishing a community forest with the U.S. Forest Service The 2008 Farm Bill (Public Law 110-234) established the Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program to provide financial
APPENDIX H: PROGRAMMING POLICY STATEMENT Background As the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for Greater Kansas City, MARC is responsible for facilitating the development of long-range transportation
Department of Public Works 3715 Wells Avenue, Mount Rainier, MD 20712 Telephone: (301) 985-6583: Fax (301) 779-4485 Street Improvement and Neighborhood Revitalization Project CDBG PY42 Invitation to Bid
Updated August 2016 Metro State Aid Payment Guide Table of Contents First Partial State Aid Payment Request........ 2 Subsequent Partial State Aid Payment Requests....2 Final State Aid Payment Request.....2
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development s Submerged Roads and Paths to Progress Programs: A Model for Future Disaster Recovery Efforts 2015 American Public Works Association (APWA) International
Approved: Policy No.: 18-003(P) Effective: April 19, 2002 Responsible Division: Finance and Forecasting Gordon Proctor Director POLICIES RELATING TO FEDERAL HIGHWAY FUNDING I. POLICY STATEMENT: Accrued
Defense Access Road (DAR) Program Eligibility Guidance Guidance for Urban/Metropolitan Area Installation/Bases November 2013 Purpose for Additional DAR Program Guidance Department of Defense (DOD) military
DRAF DRA Memandum June 1, 2017 To: From: Subject: Our Partners in Transptation Planning Isidro (Sid) Martinez, Direct Notification of the FY 2019-2022 Transptation Improvement Program Surface Transptation
HOW DOES A PROJECT GET INTO THE STIP? The Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, known as the STIP, is a list that shows prioritization, funding, and scheduling of transportation projects and programs
SCOTT A. SMITH Finance Director email@example.com One Government Way Somersworth, New Hampshire 03878 Phone: (603) 692-9504 Fax: (603) 692-9570 www.somersworth.com City of Somersworth, New Hampshire
J o i n t T e c h n i c a l C o o r d i n a t i n g C o m m i t t e e a n d G o v e r n i n g B o a r d November 17, 2016 12: Noon (*MPO Board Members to Join at 12:30), Asheville Area Chamber of Commerce
LRIP homepage is located at: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/localgov/highways/lrip.htm Launch the LRIP Web Site: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/localgov/highways/lrip-system.htm TABLE OF CONTENTS Local Roads
POLY HIGH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA FIVE-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Fiscal Year 2010 Fiscal Year 2014 (October 1, 2009 - September 30, 2014) CITY OF LONG BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 333 West Ocean Boulevard,
ITEM NO. 6.C.3 Mission Statement We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: November