AREA TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP

Transcription

1 AREA TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP Mn/DOT DISTRICT 6 I. Information Table of Contents A. Maps add NHS System to maps B. Membership C. Operating Procedures D. Policies E. Communication Plan F. Mailing Lists II. Process A. Development Schedule B. STIP Guidance C. Subcommittee Ranking Criteria D. Regional Significance 20 Year Plan Inputs E. State Road Construction Targets, Program & Expenditure F. D-6 ATP Commitments & Guidances G. District 6 ATIP III. Resources A. Acronyms/Glossary B. ATP One-Pager IV. Minutes IV. Notes

2 I. Information A. Maps B. Membership C. Operating Procedures D. Policies E. Communication Plan F. Mailing Lists

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 DISTRICT 6 ATP MEMBERSHIP LIST NAME TITLE REPRESENTING ADDRESS ADDRESS PHONE # FAX #Cell # Fausto Cabral Assistant District Engineer State Aid Mn/DOT th St NW Rochester, MN Mark Schoenfelder Planning Director Mn/DOT th St NW Rochester, MN Greg Paulson Assistant District Engineer Mn/DOT th St NW Program Delivery Rochester, MN Tom Faella Director MPO 400 4th St N, Rm LaCrosse, WI Phil Wheeler ROCOG MPO 2122 Campus Dr SE Executive Director Rochester, MN Tony Knauer Rochester Transit Director Modal 4300 East River Road NE Rochester, MN Tom Dankert Director of Administrative Modal th Avenue NE Services Austin, MN Marc Mogan Tribal Engineer Prairie Island Indian 5636 Sturgeon Lake Road Community Welch, MN Sue Miller Freeborn County Engineer County 3300 Bridge Avenue Term Expires 2015 Albert Lea, MN Tim Murray Faribault City Engineer City st Avenue NW Term Expires 2015 Faribault, MN Brian Pogodzinski Houston County Engineer County 1124 W. Washington St. Term Expires 2014 Caledonia, MN Neil Britton Kasson City Engineer City % Widseth Smith Nolting Term Expires Bandel Rd. NW, Ste 301 Rochester, MN fausto.cabral@state.mn.us 507/ / mark.schoenfelder@state.mn.us 507/ / greg.paulson@state.mn.us 507/ / Faella.tom@co.la-crosse.wi.us 608/ / wheeler.phil@co.olmsted.mn.us 507/ / tknauer@rochestermn.gov 507/ / tdankert@ci.austin.mn.us 507/ / mmogan@piic.org 651/ / sue.miller@co.freeborn.mn.us 507/ / tmurray@ci.faribault.mn.us 507/ / brian.pogodzinski@co.houston.mn.us 507/ / neil.britton@wsn.us.com 507/ See next page for alternates

15 Send Notices to Alternates: Send Notices to Alternates: City Alternates Richard Freese, Rochester City Engineer, Phone: 507/ Fax: 507/ Term Expires 2016 Needs city alternate term expires 2017 County Alternates Mike Sheehan, Olmsted County Engineer, Phone: 507/ Fax: 507/ Term Expires 2016 Guy Kohlnhofer, Dodge County Engineer, Phone: 507/ Fax: 507/ Term Expires 2017 MPO Alternates Jackie Eastwood, LAPC Transportation Planner, Phone: 608/ Fax: 608/ Dave Pesch, ROCOG Principal Transportation Planner, Phone: 507/ Fax: 507/

16 ATP-6 Operating Procedures I. Name: The name of the ATP to be used for all official activities and communications is: Southeastern Minnesota Area Transportation Partnership (ATP-6) II. Purpose: Update The ATP-6 was established to bring together the transportation improvement recommendations of the MPO s, Transit Operators, Mn/DOT, Cities and Counties into an integrated list of transportation investments in the form of the District Transportation Improvement Program (DTIP). The ATP-6 will also review and comment on the draft STIP, establish criteria for project selection, participate with the District in the development of policies and procedures for managing the program, and developing/reviewing priority lists for programs that are not included in the target. The ATP provides technical advice to the District Engineer who represents the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation. III. Area Served: The ATP-6 serves an area made up of the 11 counties that comprise the District 6 State Aid area: Dodge, Fillmore, Freeborn, Goodhue, Houston, Mower, Olmsted, Rice, Steele, Wabasha and Winona. IV. Membership: A. The membership of the ATP-6 currently consists of 112 members: 3 Mn/DOT Representatives: the Transportation District Engineer (TDE) selects the representatives. 2 Metropolitan Planning Organization Representatives (MPO): Each MPO, La Crosse/ La Crescent (LAPC) and the Rochester Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG) shall appoint a representative to the ATP-6. 2 County Engineers: The District County Engineers Association appoints two county engineers to the ATP-6. 2 City Engineers: The City Engineers for cities of over 5,000 in population in District 6 appoint two city engineers to the ATP-6. 2 Transit Representatives: Public transit providers in District 6 shall select two representatives to the ATP-6 (one each from large urban and small cities/rural systems). Need more discussion on whether we should have 2 Transit Representatives on ATP because of small proportion of funds given to Transit. Should La Crescent be considered for the urban representative? Will changes need to be made due to rural systems combining? 1 Prairie Island Indian Community Representative I.C.1

17 B. Membership is reviewed by the ATP-6 on a periodic basis. The size and composition of the membership may change as agreed to by the members of the ATP-6 with concurrence from the District Engineer. C. Each appointing body shall be asked annually to select or re-affirm their representative to the ATP-6. New terms will begin on July 1 of each year. D. The ATP-6 chair shall be appointed by the Mn/DOT District Engineer. A Mn/DOT representative will serve as the Secretary and Recorder. The Mn/DOT State-Aid Engineer is a permanent member. E. Each member has the following responsibilities: Shall provide an inclusive, impartial, system-wide perspective on the candidate projects. Shall pass information about ATP-6 activities on to their constituent group. May serve on sub-committees or task forces as appointed by the chair or as defined in the ATP-6 operating procedures. An alternate from their constituent group to represent/vote for the member as necessary. The regular member shall keep the alternate informed of ATP-6 activities. F. The Transportation District Engineer shall be ultimately accountable to see that the intent of TEAMAP-21 is implemented, including: Assuring a fair, equitable and open process for project solicitation, evaluation and ranking. Assuring that the ATP-6 membership reflects the interests of the transportation partners. Assuring that the ATIP is completed in a timely manner. Assuring that adequate resources are available to staff and manage the activities of ATP-6. Guaranteeing opportunities for ATP-6 member counties and communities participation in the ATP process and ensuring that minutes and meeting notifications are sent to interested parties and that ATP-6 ATIP is made available to the media, area legislators and the congressional delegation. I.C.2

18 V. Meetings: A. The chair shall be responsible to: Set agenda, date, and time of the meetings. Conduct the meetings in an open, fair manner respecting the rights of all ATP-6 members to be fairly heard. Allow visitors/guests to participate in discussions within the confines of the agenda topics and time limits. Serve as official signature for all ATP-6 documents. Approve required amendments to ATIP projects up to $100,000 or 10%, whichever is less, without vote of the ATP-6 B. The ATP-6 will periodically review the operating procedures. C. All meetings of the ATP-6 are open to the public. Visitors may be allowed to participate in discussions within the confines of the agenda topics and time limits. VI. ATIP Development: A. The ATP-6 shall annually solicit /review candidate projects in the following categories: Should we leave all categories in and use review or just categories we actually solicit? State Road and Bridge County STP Local Rural Road and Bridge City (over 5,000 pop.) STP Local Small Urban Road and Bridge Off System Bridges Transit Capital Safety Railroads Enhancements Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) (Once every two years)???? B. Committees ATP or sub-committees will rank projects and make recommendations to the ATP-6. STP State trunk highway projects will be ranked by the District. State projects will be proposed as state funded or federal funded. STP Local Rural County projects will be ranked by a committee of County Engineers and chaired by the District State-Aid Engineer. Should City Engineers be included due to joint projects? STP Local Small UrbanCity projects will be ranked by a committee of City Engineers, and chaired by the District State-Aid Engineer. Should County Engineers be included due to joint projects? Off-System Bridges will be ranked by a sub-committee of County and City Engineers and chaired by the District State-Aid Engineer. I.C.3

19 Transit projects will be ranked by a committee of Transit Representatives, which will be chaired by the District 6 Mn/DOT Transit Program Manager. Railroad Projects will be ranked by the Mn/DOT Office of Freight, Railroads and Waterways (OFRW). Enhancement TAP projects will be ranked by the full ATP 6???? Each committee will establish selection criteria and a ranking process, with concurrence by the ATP-6. Each sub-committee may add members as they deem necessary, with concurrence by the ATP-6. C. Funding targets: The ATP as a whole shall decide on funding targets for each category of projects and shall integrate the priority lists into the three four year DATIP with projects in priority order. Will be changing due to MAP-21 mandates D. The ATP shall also participate in the review and programming of projects as provided for in other applicable State or Federal laws and regulations. I.C.4

20 ATP-6 Adopted Policies Insert Federal Target Table F.Y Federal Target - $21,200,000/Year Sub-Targets: Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) $1,300,000 HSIP Mn/DOT $1,400,000 HSIP Local $2,200,000 Local STP Small Urban (25%) includes $4,100,000 $500,000 of Transit Capital Local STP Rural (18%) $2,900,000 State STP (57%) $9,300,000 TAP and HSIP are subtracted from the Target, and then the remaining amount is sub-targeted by percentages as shown. Project Deferrals and Cost Changes: This will need to be updated based on statewide guidance If a project gets cut from one year, it will/may be moved to the next year and reevaluated. Such projects will not automatically be given the top priority nor automatically cut from the program. Project cost changes may be submitted up until the time of award. Project cost changes will continue at the original agreed upon split, usually 80/20 (consider reducing to 70/30) unless: A maximum dollar amount for federal funds has been agreed upon, or The project scope changes, as determined by the ATP-6; in which case the federal share shall be limited to the lesser of the original federal dollar amount or an 80/20 federal share. However, the federal share shall not drop below 50% of the project cost. Right of Way Acquisition: ATP-6 will fund right-of-way acquisition for certain enhancement projects: to preserve historic sites/facilities and rail corridors. No other right-of-way acquisition will be funded. As authorized by the ATP, the 10% Discretionary Set-Aside may be used for R/W. Engineering Cost: Project engineering and administrative costs will be the responsibility of the proposing or sponsoring agency and will not be funded by ATP-6. Funding Protection: Once a project has been selected for funding in the threefour-year DATIP, that project will continue to retain funding unless the ATP has determined that the scope of the project has changed substantially from the original submittal; unless the sponsoring agency requests that the project be withdrawn; or unless the ATP experiences a significant decrease in the funding target resulting in a re-prioritization of all projects in that year of the DATIP. I.D.1

21 ATP-6 Communications/Public Involvement The ATP 6 communications plan is set up to carry out the information requirements for preparing the annual ATP 6rea Transportation Improvement Program (ATIP). Communications requirements fall into two general responsibilities: 1. Internal communications for the ATP 6 members 2. External communications for project sponsors and interested parties The ATP6 District 6 support staff maintains website, mailing lists and schedules distribution of information according to the needs of these two communications audiences. All communications are the responsibility jointly of the ATP 6 Chair and Recorder. Website address Mailing Lists ATP 6 Members and MN/DOT Staff - Internal Highway and Bridge sponsors - External Enhancement TAP Sponsors - External Direct Mailings Agendas - Internal Minutes -Internal Solicitation Letters - External (Enhancements every two years) News Releases Solicitation for TAP Draft STIP Final STIP Presentations (Upon Request) City Councils County Boards Chambers of Commerce Potential Project Submitter Associations Workshops Transit Enhancements TAP I.E.1

22 ATP-6 Members and Mn/DOT Staff Internal Mailing List Jeff Vlaminck Transportation District Engineer Mn/DOT District 6 P.O Rochester, MN Greg Paulson A.D.E. Program Delivery Mn/DOT District 6 P.O. Box 6177 Rochester, MN Fausto Cabral A.D.E. State-Aid Mn/DOT District 6 P.O. Box 6177 Rochester, MN Mark Schoenfelder District Planning Director Mn/DOT District 6 P.O. Box 6177 Rochester, MN Tom Dankert Dir. of Administrative Services th Ave. NE Austin, MN Tony Knauer Rochester Transit Director th St. S.E. Rochester, MN Marc Mogan PIIC Tribal Engineer 5636 Sturgeon Lake Road Welch, MN Tom Faella LAPC Director 400 4th St. N., Rm LaCrosse, WI Phil Wheeler ROCOG Executive Director 2122 Campus Dr. S.E. Rochester, MN Brian Pogodzinski Houston County Engineer 1124 W. Washington St. Caledonia, MN Sue Miller Freeborn County Engineer 3300 Bridge Avenue Albert Lea, MN Tim Murray Faribault City Engineer st Avenue NW Faribault, MN Neil Britton Kasson City Engineer % WSN 6301 Bandel Rd. NW, Ste. 301 Rochester, MN I.F.1

23 Highway and Bridge Sponsors External Mailing List District 6 County Engineers Guy W. Kohlnhofer Dodge County Engineer P.O. Box 370 Dodge Center, MN Mike Sheehan Olmsted County Engineer 2122 Campus Drive S.E. Rochester, MN Ron Gregg Fillmore County Engineer 909 Houston Street Preston, MN Dennis Luebbe Rice County Engineer P.O. Box 40 Faribault, MN Susan Miller Freeborn County Engineer P.O. Box 1147 Albert Lea, MN Anita Benson Steele County Engineer 635 Florence Ave. Owatonna, MN Gregory Isakson Goodhue County Engineer P.O. Box 404 Red Wing, MN Dietrich Flesch Wabasha County Engineer 821 Hiawatha Drive West Wabasha, MN Brian Pogodzinski Houston County Engineer 1124 East Washington Caledonia, MN David Kramer Winona County Engineer 5300 Highway 61 West Winona, MN Michal J. Hanson Mower County Engineer th Ave. N.E. Austin, MN I.F.2

24 Highway and Bridge Sponsors External Mailing List (cont.) District 6 City Engineers Steven Jahnke Albert Lea City Engineer 221 East Clark Street Albert Lea, MN Jon ErichsonSteven Lang Austin City Engineer th Ave. N.E. Austin, MN Tim Murray Faribault City Engineer st Ave. N.W. Faribault, MN Neil Britton Kasson City Engineer c/o WSN Bandel Road NW, Suite 301 Rochester, MN Bill Anderson Lake City Engineer c/o Yaggy Colby & Associates rd Avenue S.E. Rochester, MN Joseph Stapf Northfield City Engineer 801 Washington Street Northfield, MN Kyle Skov Owatonna City Engineer 540 W. Hills Circle Owatonna, MN Jay Owens Red Wing City Engineer City Hall, P.O. Box 34 Red Wing, MN Richard Freese Public Works Director th St. S.E. Rochester, MN David Strauss Stewartville City Engineer c/o Yaggy Colby & Associates rd Avenue S.E. Rochester, MN Brian DeFrang Winona City Engineer 207 Lafayette Street Winona, MN I.F.3

25 ATP-6 Enhancement TAP Sponsors External Mailing List This letter sent to: District 6 City Engineers District 6 Mayors District 6 County Engineers District 6 County Commissioner Chairs District 6 Legislators District 6 Area Transportation Partnership Members District 6 Chambers of Commerce District 6 Township Board Chairs District 6 City Clerks District 6 City Administrators Association of Minnesota Counties League of Minnesota Cities Minnesota Association of Townships Department of Natural Resources Department of Trade and Economic Development Department of Transportation - Office of Environmental Services State Historical Society State Bicycle Advisory Board Minnesota Office of Tourism Prairie Island Indian Community Southeastern Minnesota Association of Regional Trails Southeast Minnesota Trail Groups MPOs Other Interested Parties (A detailed list of the above entities is located in the District 6 Planning Office) I.F.4

26 II. Process A. Development Schedule needs to be updated B. STIP Guidance needs to be updated C. Subcommittee Ranking Criteria needs to be updated TAP ranking criteria may need to be added D. Regional Significance 20 Year Plan Inputs needs to be updated E. State Road Construction Targets, Program & Expenditure needs to be updated F. D-6 ATP Commitments & Guidances needs to be updated G. District 6 ATIP

27

28

29 District 6 BROS Rating System I Sufficiency Rating II Road Type CR/City St. Township Rd (1 & 2) CSAH/MSAS III Present ADT > <100 IV Other Factors (3) V Dollars Previously Received (BROS only) 0 10 Notes (1) Estimated Cost of Replacement Structure must exceed 3 years allotment of town bridge funds. (2) Estimated Cost of Replacement must exceed unprogrammed current fund balance in town bridge account plus three year allotment (3) Includes Essential Use, Safety, Detour Length, etc. II.B.1

30 District 6 City and County Project Selection Criteria County Engineer Sub-committee is working on this 1. Discuss the project s merits/benefits and intended affect upon the regional transportation network. (25 points) Fund projects that demonstrate the most need and provide the greatest benefit for the cost of the project. This goal considers the current and future transportation network and how it is enhanced and maintained. It insures that key elements of the existing transportation system are maintained and new elements strengthen the network. Key elements of the transportation system are those that are necessary from a regional perspective to insure safety and security to the user/customer of the transportation network. Examples of beneficial improvements would be an anticipated reduction in accidents or a project that impacts high volume of traffic thereby benefiting a large amount of the general public. 2. Describe how the project will improve the mobility of people and goods. (25 points) To provide a greater level of mobility for all people and goods between points within the region and to major centers beyond the region. Examples that accomplish this goal include projects that: Improve flow and reduce travel time. Increase service capacity and reliability. Reduce single occupant vehicles. Promote transit operations. Relieve or prevent a worsening of congestion. Enhance the movement of industrial/agricultural sector freight, tourism and recreational travel. Improve access to the existing and developing major activity centers of the region. 3. Describe how the project eliminates structural, geometric and functional deficiencies. (25 points) Discuss the existing roadway including pavement condition, geometric deficiencies, drainage problems and safety hazards. II.B.2

31 4. Explain how the project contributes to the areas long-range transportation plan. (10 points) To insure that projects being proposed are providing solutions to problems identified in the long-range plan or other area plans. TEA 21 legislation requires that federally funded transportation projects originate from planning efforts. The goal is to get away from wish list project planning and move toward addressing the needs of communities through comprehensive planning efforts. 5. Given TEA 21 s intent on promotion of multimodal/intermodal projects, how does your project promote more than one mode of travel? Explain. Create a seamless intermodal transportation system for the movement of people and goods that provides a connection between different elements of the transportation network. ISTEA created a focus for transportation that emphasizes intermodal projects. TEA 21 continues to provide local governments with the flexibility to provide more multimodal solutions to their transportation problems. The concept is to promote the most efficient mode in which to move people and goods. Intermodal access, new system linkages which reduce vehicle miles of travel, and which provide improved service, are considered under this goal. 6. Describe what public participation has taken place with this project. (5 points) Provide for more creative and effective transportation decisions through public input. Projects that have been through a public review and participation process or have identified steps to be undertaken to get the public and/or interested parties involved will receive consideration under this item. II.B.3

32 REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF STATE HIGHWAYS ATP-6 has as its principle mission to select projects from candidate proposals. Selected projects are then included in the annual TIP. The ATP annually reviews and updates criteria (see section II-D) to aid in the project selection process. Mn/DOT District and State plans encourage selection to consider a project s regional significance. This requires consideration of a districtwide perspective. Mn/DOT statewide investment guidance recommends that investments be directed first to preservation of significant highway corridors. Following preservation, investments for replacement or expansion of highways should occur only when significant capacity, safety or deterioration need can be demonstrated. Such need should also recognize regional significance. Mn/DOT District 6 has prepared a twenty-year program of proposed improvements as a guide to identifying the significant preservation, replacement or expansion needs. These are included as part of the district plan, Investing in Transportation in Southeast Minnesota. The plan includes guidelines for identifying regional significance. It is the purpose of this section of the ATP Guidebook to incorporate portions of the district plan documentation as an input to considering regional significance in the annual ATP project selection process. All District 6 State and National Highways are important parts of the Southeast Minnesota infrastructure. They are needed to participate in the 21 st Century regional, state and national economies. The 1,417 miles of Mn/DOT administered highways form a network of service corridors for commuting, freight movement, business, recreational and other travel needs. From one corridor to the next there are observable differences. Different corridors can be considered important in different ways. The district plan uses three ways to define corridor significance. Corridor Service Role. The district plan recognizes three service roles played by trunk highways within Southeast Minnesota. Highways are classified into one of three types. A Support Highway Corridor consists of any highway of one or more segments where the highway covers a distance entirely within the District and one or both termini lies only in the district. These corridors are either minor arterial or major collector highways. Support corridors are significant to the residents and businesses of a local or subregional area. These corridors provide land access within their service territory and connect to the District or NHS corridors for longer distance movements. II.C.1

33 A District Highway Corridor consists of any highway of one or more segments where the highway covers a distance that is essentially across the district and makes a connection to two other districts or states. These are mainly minor arterial highways with a few segments of urban principle arterial highways. District corridors are significant to the residents and businesses adjacent to the corridor across the entire district and into another district or state. These corridors also provide land access within their service territory and connect to NHS corridors for longer distance movements. In some cases District corridors also provide reliever support to NHS highways serving as a regional alternate for NHS movements. A National Highway System Corridor consists of any highway of one or more segments, which is on the national highway system. These are Interstate or Principle Arterial highways. A NHS corridor has been defined in the statewide highway planning process and is approved by the USDOT. NHS corridors are significant to the residents and businesses of the entire district. A NHS corridor is intended to connect Southeast Minnesota to other districts, states and the nation. These corridors include all of the fully access controlled highways in the district. They are not intended in the district plan to provide land access. As a result, Mn/DOT District 6 will utilize access management tools where land development access needs adjacent to these highways conflict with the mobility of the NHS highway. Figure 4.1 from the district plan shows this system of service corridors. Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT). A second means by which highway corridors differ is in the number or type of customers each highway serves. This too can be used as guide to defining regional significance. There could be many ways of expressing customer service levels. For instance, in District 6 agriculturally important highways carry more grain trucks in season. Commuting routes to employment centers have greater weekday peak hour volumes of cars and pickups. Highways providing statewide or national connections that also serve larger cities within Southeast Minnesota are just busier and reaching a larger customer base. District-wide data on such specialized service characteristics is not available for all highways. In general, however, the size of the customer base as measured by total average annual daily traffic provides a measure that is uniform and accepted by most as a key method to define a corridor s significance. Traffic counts (AADT) are provided every two years by Mn/DOT for all trunk highways. Municipal and County road counts are provided on somewhat longer cycles. The counting techniques are coordinated by Mn/DOT and the data is comparable from state to county to local roads. II.C.2

34 The trunk highway average annual daily traffic volumes are shown in figure 4.2. For AADT of non trunk highways contact the District 6 Planning Office of Mn/DOT Functional Classification. A third means of describing the differences between service corridors is the functional classification that has been assigned to the highway. Although functional classification is similar to the regional service roles described above it differs in two important ways that make it a tool for defining regional significance. First, there is a greater level of detail to distinguish between highways. This detail includes county and municipal streets as well as trunk highways. Second, the functional class assigned to a street or highway has been negotiated with and approved by all units of government effected and officially recorded with the FHWA. As a result it can be accepted as a longer range coordinated planning decision process. The functional class system recognizes urban and rural sections of highways as different classes but retains the same hierarchy of routes. The following functional classes are used in the federally approved system. Interstate Highways Other Principal Arterial and Expressway Highways Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Local Roads and Streets The functional classification of trunk highways is shown in figure 4.3. For classification of non trunk highways contact the District 6 Planning Office of Mn/DOT Twenty Year Program Proposals. It is also of significance to use the longer term highway improvement proposals of the Mn/DOT District 6 plan Investing in Transportation in Southeast Minnesota. As a guide to identifying the significant preservation, replacement or expansion needs, the plan includes a twenty-year program of proposed improvements. These proposals, which are quite extensive, cover all of the 1,417 miles of trunk highways, and are appended to the plan both as individual corridor vision statements and as proposed improvements and estimated costs. This volume of data is too extensive to include in this guidebook. As a summary we have included figure 5.2. which indicates the proposed corridor investment actions for the constrained funding scenario. II.C.3

35 Defining Regional Significance. Mn/DOT supports the concept that ATP project selections consider both statewide and regional significance. The Minnesota Statewide Transportation Plan sets out five transportation investment policies to be applied for guiding investments for all transportation modes. ATP-6 does make investment decisions for five modes: highways, transit, rail (rail safety), bike and pedestrian. Not included are air or waterways. The transportation investment policies are: 1. Preserve essential elements of the transportation system. 2. Enhance access for economic development. 3. Enhance safety and access in important interregional travel corridors. 4. Connect Minnesota to the nation and the world. 5. Promote research and new technologies to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of existing transportation systems. The first four of these priorities directly reflect the regional significance of a project. Regionally significant highways are generally defacto essential and interregional corridors (to be defined in 1999). Safety, access and mobility will be influenced by AADT. Highways that connect to the nation and enhance economic development are also defacto regionally significant. As of August 1999, with the first addition of this ATP Guidelines Document, there is not a quantitative method for reducing the above four factors into a number that defines regional significance. The materials in this section of the ATP Guidelines form the basis for use in the year 2000 to select the 2003 project list and incorporate the idea of regional significance. Following that experience the ATP will review and determine revisions to the guidelines including this section.. Generally it can be assumed that classification as an interstate, other principal arterial or minor arterial constitutes a regionally significant highway. Classification as one of the collectors or as a local road constitutes a sub-regional significance. There are certainly no hard and fast rules. An urban interstate can be dominated by locally generated travel. A remote rural minor arterial can be the only available route for a trip covering half the district. Functional class, amount of traffic and the service role should all be reviewed when determining the relative regional significance of a project II.C.4

36 III. Resources A. Acronyms/Glossary B. ATP One-Pager

37 Acronyms ATIP Area Transportation Improvement Program ATP-6 Area Transportation Partnership 6 (Mn/DOT District 6) FHWA FTA Mn/DOT MPO OFRW Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Planning Organization Office of Freight, Railroads and Waterways OIMOCPPM Office of Capital Programs and Investment Performance Management OTA RDC STIP TDE USDOT Office of Transit Administration Regional Development Commission State Transportation Improvement Plan Transportation District Engineer United States Department of Transportation

38 Area Transportation Partnership (ATP6) District 6 Minnesota Department of Transportation Background: The Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA 21)MAP-21 gives the states flexibility in determining transportation solutions and requires the development of Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Mn/DOT has responded by decentralizing the program decision-making process to a more regional level (i.e., the districts). The Area Transportation Partnerships were established by each district to facilitate broader input to the project selection process. ATP-6 includes the 11 counties of Dodge, Fillmore, Freeborn, Goodhue, Houston, Mower, Olmsted, Rice, Steele, Wabasha, and Winona. Membership: Members of ATP-6 include (see back of this sheet): 3 Mn/DOT representatives 2 MPO representatives 2 County representatives 2 City (over 5,000 population) representatives 2 Transit representatives 1 Prairie Island Indian Community representative Mn/DOT is responsible for staff support of the ATP-6. Activities: Each year an Area Transportation Improvement Program (ATIP) is developed and incorporated into the STIP. The ATP-6: Solicits candidate projects for STP federal funding. Ranks projects by category. Sets investment targets for each category. Integrates the lists of projects into the four-year ATIP. Categories of projects are: STP State Road and Bridge County STP Rural Road and Bridge STP Small UrbanCity (over 5,000 population) Road and Bridge Off System Bridges Safety EnhancementsTAP Transit Capital Schedule of Activities: November December Solicit Projects January February Evaluate and prioritize March Develop ATIP April ATP review and comment Submit ATIP to Central Office May/June Draft STIP review and comment July STIP approval by Commissioner

39 Area Transportation Partnership Representatives Transit: Tom Dankert, Director of Administrative Services, City of Austin (507) Tony Knauer, Rochester Transit Director, City of Rochester (507) Cities: Neil Britton, Kasson City Engineer Term Expires 2014 (507) Tim Murray, Faribault City Engineer Term Expires 2015 (507) Counties: Brian Pogodzinski, Houston County Engineer Term Expires 2014 (507) Sue Miller, Freeborn County Engineer Term Expires 2015 (507) MPO: Tom Faella, La Crosse Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (608) Phil Wheeler, Rochester Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG) (507) Prairie Island Indian Community: Marc Mogan, Tribal Engineer (651) Mn/DOT: Greg Paulson, Assistant District Engineer Program Delivery (507) Mark Schoenfelder, District 6 Planning Director (507) Fausto Cabral, Assistant District Engineer State Aid (507)