C. LEGISLATIVE AD-HOC COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES The Summary minutes of the September 23, 2010 Legislative Ad hoc Committee meeting are attached.

Transcription

1 AGENDA ITEM #16: FOR YOUR INFORMATION A. FREIGHT TRANSPORATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES The Summary minutes of the July 14, 2010 Freight Transportation Advisory Committee meeting are attached. Attachment 16 A B. CITIZEN TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES The Summary minutes of the September 9, 2010 Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee meeting are attached. Attachment 16 B C. LEGISLATIVE AD-HOC COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES The Summary minutes of the September 23, 2010 Legislative Ad hoc Committee meeting are attached. Attachment 16 C D. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES The summary minutes of the October 6, 2010 Transportation Advisory Committee meeting are attached. Attachment 16 D E. TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES The summary minutes of the October 6, 2010 Transportation Technical Advisory Committee meeting are attached. Attachment 16 E F. HRTPO TREASURER S REPORT Attachment 16 F G. MEETING NOTICE: CITIZEN TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE The next meeting of the HRTPO Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee will be November 10, 2010, 5:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. in the Regional Building Boardroom, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, VA. H. REVIEW OF UNOBLIGATED CMAQ/RSTP FUNDS: STATUS REPORT During the September 2010 Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) meeting, the HRTPO staff reported that 69 of the 162 projects included in the VDOT review of unobligated Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program and Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds showed allocations Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Meeting October 20, 2010

2 that did not match the allocations shown in the HRTPO CMAQ and RSTP Tracking Tables and that VDOT and HRTPO staffs must reconcile the differences in allocation information prior to holding coordination meetings with each locality and transit agency. VDOT Programming Division staff stated that it would most likely be October before VDOT is ready to begin holding the coordination meetings. During the October 2010 TTAC meeting, VDOT and HRTPO staff provided a brief update on this item and noted that scheduling of the coordination meetings is underway, with the first meetings with localities planned for late October. VDOT staff assured the TTAC that this is a very high priority item for VDOT. I. VPA RECEIVES $1.1 MILLION GRANT FROM U.S. MARITIME ADMINISTRATION Attached is a news release by the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) announcing $7 million in grants to jumpstart the America s Marine Highway program. Among the projects that received grant funding is the James River Container Expansion Project, sponsored by the Virginia Port Authority (VPA). The project was awarded $1.1 million for the purchase of two barges on Marine Highway Corridor 64 (James River parallel to I 64) to expand the existing container on barge service between Hampton Roads and Richmond, as well as to start a new inter terminal barge shuttle between terminals in Hampton Roads. Attachment 16 I J. CTB ACTION ON EXPEDITING DEVELOPMENT OF THE RICHMOND TO HAMPTON ROADS PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR During its September 15, 2010 meeting, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved a resolution to reallocate $ million to expedite the development of the Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Corridor. The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation identified additional previous Rail Enhancement Fund allocations awarded to Norfolk Southern in the amount of just over $47.4 million that have been stalled due to legal or administrative issues. With this reallocation of funds, the completion date of the Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project will advance from mid FY 2014 to at least early FY Attachment 16 J K. AMTRAK NEXT-GENERATION HIGH-SPEED RAIL SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT On September 28, 2010, Amtrak announced its plan to invest $4.7 billion annually over the next 25 years on a brand new, 426 mile, two track corridor running from Boston to Washington, bringing true high speed rail to the Northeast Corridor for the first time. This Next Generation High Speed Rail would produce overall average speeds of about 140 mph by 2040 (top speeds of 220 mph), compared to 75 mph today. Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Meeting October 20, 2010

3 Upon its full build out in 2040, high speed train ridership would approach 18 million passengers. Once in operation, the service would generate an annual operating surplus of approximately $900 million and its construction would create more than 40,000 full time jobs annually over a 25 year construction period to build the new track, tunnels, bridges, stations, and other infrastructure. It is predicted that more than 120,000 permanent jobs in improved economic productivity along the corridor and in rail operations will be created by Attachment 16 K L. U.S. DOT PROGRESS REPORT ON NATIONAL RAIL PLAN The U.S. DOT released an update of the National Rail Plan in a report, entitled Moving Forward: A Progress Report. The progress report builds on the Preliminary National Rail Plan that was mandated by the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 and submitted to the U.S. Congress in October It outlines the numerous factors that make the case for improving rail infrastructure. The report outlines a vision for highspeed intercity passenger rail; discusses the importance of a high performance freight rail network; and outlines how rail can help the U.S. DOT reach strategic goals for safety, state of good repair, economic competitiveness, livable communities and environmental sustainability. To view the full report, please visit: Attachment 16L M. ARRA TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE REPORTING Congressman James L. Oberstar, Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee Chairman, pledged that the Committee will closely oversee the implementation of transportation and infrastructure provisions of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) to ensure the funds provided are invested quickly, efficiently, and in harmony with the job creating purposes of this Act. The Commonwealth of Virginia has submitted its August 2010 update to the T&I Committee. The attachment includes information from Virginia s August report, summarized by metropolitan planning organization. Attachment 16 M N. PROPOSED PPTA IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL AND GUIDELINES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT The draft Public Private Transportation Act (PPTA) Implementation Manual and Guidelines document has been released for public review and comment (Attachment 15 N). The document will be available for review and comment for a 30 day period, starting from September 28, 2010 to October 28, The public can provide comments and suggestions on the document via e mail to PPTAcomments@virginia.gov. For more information, visit default.asp. Attachment 16 N Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Meeting October 20, 2010

4 FREIGHT TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION JULY 14, 2010 MEETING MINUTES Co-Chair Stan Clark called the HRTPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee to order at 10:00 am in the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) Board Room with the following in attendance: MEMBERS PRESENT: Stan Clark, Co-Chair (IOW Board of Supervisors) Homer Crane (K Line America, Inc.) Jeff Frye (Target Import Warehouse) Keith Helton (Givens Logistics) Chris Luebbers (Norfolk Southern Corporation) Art Moye (Virginia Maritime Association) MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Bell, Co-Chair (Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding) Ron Drogan (The CrossGlobe Group) STAFF: Jeff Florin (Virginia Port Authority) Camelia Ravanbakht (HRTPO) Rob Case (HRTPO) Andy Hecker (Moffatt & Nichol) Allison Mall (Moffatt & Nichol) OTHERS PRESENT: Wendy Vachet (U.S. Navy) HRTPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC) July 14, 2010 DRAFT Meeting Minutes Page 1 Attachment 16-A

5 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS Everyone in attendance introduced themselves and Co-Chair Stan Clark opened the public comment period. Ms. Wendy Vachet from the Navy introduced herself, with no further comments. Hearing no requests for public comments, Co-Chair Clark declared the public comment period closed. 2. OLD BUSINESS A. Appointment of Co-Chair Mr. Stan Clark, Chairman of the Isle of Wight Board of Supervisors, introduced himself as the new co-chair of FTAC, replacing Mr. Doug Smith. Mr. Clark then called the meeting to order. B. Adoption of last meeting s minutes The Co-Chair noted the minutes of May 20, 2010 and asked for any revisions. There being none, Mr. Clark moved the minutes be approved as submitted. Mr. Crane seconded the motion and the minutes were approved. C. Opportunity for HRTPO updates from TPO and TTAC meetings Mr. Rob Case from the HRTPO gave an overview of the HRTPO subcommittee s latest meetings: The CTAC will make funding recommendations at September 9, 2010 meeting. The TTAC met at the beginning of July and recommended setting aside Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) money for contingency (use ARRA shortfalls first, then RSTP projects). The Transportation Technical Subcommittee (TTS) recommended approving the prioritization tool. The August HRTPO and TTAC meetings have been cancelled for summer holidays. The HRTPO Board met in June and approved the economic vitality component of the prioritization tool. The HRTPO staff released the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) for public comment and recommended making changes to VDOT s hurricane evacuation plan. This included reversing 460/58 starting at Bowers Hill, which would require funds to build crossovers. The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) has only allocated a fraction of the cost to construct the crossovers. In addition, VDOT has released $2M in CMAQ funds. It is anticipated that TTS will recommend that this funding be applied to projects which were candidates during allocation six months ago. The HRTPO staff is in the process of plugging numbers for approximately 200 projects into the prioritization tool in order to develop the 2034 LRTP. FTAC will review the tool in November or December. In January, the HRTPO Board will make HRTPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC) July 14, 2010 DRAFT Meeting Minutes Page 2 Attachment 16-A

6 a decision about what to put in the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), and then there will be a public comment period in the spring. Before sending it to the federal government for approval in January 2012, an air quality conformity analysis must be performed. a. Co-Chair comments on FTAC prioritization tool comments submitted at HRTPO Board At the last HRTPO Board meeting, the FTAC submitted a letter with a signed endorsement of the economic vitality tool, asking for continued involvement in the process. The Committee all agreed this was the best action to take. 3. NEW BUSINESS a. Survey and Freight Community Activity The FTAC staff reported that the FTAC position paper and freight community survey was distributed to members of the freight community and policy makers via . The FTAC received its first survey response. Feedback from this survey is important because although the FTAC is aware of needed larger projects, a lot of times businesses benefit from things that are under the radar. This survey gives businesses the opportunity to voice their needs if they don t know where else to do so. b. Discussion of Process for Reviewing Candidate 2034 LRTP Projects At the last FTAC meeting, the HRTPO staff explained and demonstrated the LRTP project prioritization tool and provided a list of potential projects. The initial chart had projects organized by jurisdiction, so the FTAC staff prepared a second version that has organized the projects by freight corridors systems and categories so providing a second perspective for the committee to review and comment. They have also created and provided the committee with a map showing the major freight corridors in Hampton Roads. The HRTPO staff needs to work with Committee members, offline, to gather preliminary analysis and an initial prioritized list of projects. Projects need to be identified that are most important to freight or that help to improve parts of freight systems. The project list is complicated, there are stand-alone projects and also projects which are part of a larger system but could be broken up into fundable, smaller projects. At the next FTAC meeting, the HRTPO staff will have developed and the Committee will have reviewed and commented on the segmented list of projects. The HRTPO staff will pull out projects that do not apply to freight and group the remaining projects so that they can be compared in terms of capacity, freight movement, truck HRTPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC) July 14, 2010 DRAFT Meeting Minutes Page 3 Attachment 16-A

7 counts, and cost/benefits. The FTAC staff will do research and analysis of potential freight projects, but Committee members will need to make decisions as to which projects are recommended to benefit the movement of freight. Mr. Butch Crane brought up that the FTAC needs to work with the CTAC as much as possible, so that these projects can be prioritized along with the CTAC s opinion. Doing so will give the FTAC the opportunity to ensure projects benefit freight as well as the movement of people by reducing congestion, emissions and idle time. Projects that benefit freight and citizens should have high priority it will give both committees more weight when recommending projects to the board. The FTAC may need to break projects down into separate projects in order to obtain funding. For instance, break up the I-64 project into specific sections that will benefit freight and congestion, and also create economic vitality. Mr. Michael Vanderhoof asked if the CTAC has begun to prioritize projects. Mr. Rob Case responded that no, they are a younger committee than we are, and are concentrating on tackling the funding side. Mr. Jeff Florin reiterated that the two committee s efforts are going to converge the FTAC will have professional freight opinions that will overlap with the HRTPO s prioritization tool results and the CTAC s opinions. Mr. Rob Case asked how the FTAC plans to quantify project benefits. Mr. Andy Hecker answered that Committee will determine a project s capacity by lane miles, etc. but will then need help with other details. Once it gets to the point where particular projects or systems are broken down, the Committee will need to work on details to get exact benefits so that the Committee can take a position. c. Discussion of Handouts Mr. Andy Hecker explained the purpose of the AASHTO Unlocking Freight handout in the Committee member s packets. It provides baseline information for consideration of projects, best practices and failings, and the Panama Canal shift for east coast locations for moving freight and congestion. He pointed out that although there is not a lot of information on Virginia in the report, it is a good overview of freight in the U.S. and is worth reviewing. Mr. Hecker also explained the other handout, a memo from the Virginia Maritime Association (VMA), which references Governor McDonnell s commitment to reform government and transportation funding systems. The FTAC is not taking an official position, but should provide feedback. HRTPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC) July 14, 2010 DRAFT Meeting Minutes Page 4 Attachment 16-A

8 d. Discussion of Next Meeting Action Items Mr. Rob Case recommended that the Committee should meet between September 29 th (when the prioritization info will be released) and October 20 th (the next HRTPO Board meeting). That way, the FTAC would have comments to the HRTPO Board soon after the prioritization info has been released. The FTAC needs to have its list of recommended projects to the HRTPO before October 8 th so that it can be included in the Board meeting s agenda, which will be released on October 14 th. Therefore, between now and September, the Committee needs to whittle down the list of 200 projects to those important to freight. Then the FTAC will send its recommended projects to the HRTPO by October 8 th, and officially bless the list by October 13 th so that it can be included on the HRTPO agenda by October 14 th. The FTAC will send the HRTPO Board brief comments on how to sort projects by how they do and do not benefit freight. Then further research will be done. In addition, staff will reach out to CTAC for their processes and thoughts. 4. ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEXT MEETING DATE, PLACE, TIME The next meeting will take place on Tuesday, October 12th, from 10:00 11:30 a.m., in the VPA Board Room. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m. HRTPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC) July 14, 2010 DRAFT Meeting Minutes Page 5 Attachment 16-A

9 Summary Minutes of the Hampton Roads Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) Meeting September 9, 2010 The Hampton Roads Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) Meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. in the HRT Boardroom, Hampton Roads Transit Headquarters, 3400 Victoria Boulevard, Hampton, Virginia, with the following in attendance: Hampton Roads CTAC Members: William Harrison, Chairman (VB) Shepelle Watkins-White, Vice-Chair (CH) Philip Olekszyk (GL) Michael Jones (IW) Sharyn Fox (NN) Yukari Hughes ( NN) Howard Manly (NN) Randy Lougee (NO) Kirsten Tynch (PO) Hampton Roads CTAC Members Absent: Kathy Corley (CH) Roberta Edwards (CH) Ricky Clifton (NN) Randy Lassiter (NO) HRTPO Staff: Dwight Farmer Kathlene Grauberger Michael Kimbrel Kristen Wells (PO) Richard Green (SU) Tuck Bowie (VB) John Malbon (VB) Delceno Miles (VB) Prescott Sherrod (VB) Ray Taylor (VB) Dewey Hurley (WM) James Openshaw (NO) Archie Whitehill (NO) Henry Lewis (YK) Camelia Ravanbakht Joe Turner Other Participants: Wendy Vachet (NAVY) Others Recorded Attending: Amanda Christon (NO); Bob Matthias (VB); Judy Swystun (Black & White Cabs) Public Comment Period There was no public comment. Approval of Agenda Chair Harrison asked the Committee if there were any agenda items to add to the Old/New Business agenda section. Hearing none, Chair Harrison asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Ms. Fox Moved to approve the agenda as written; seconded by Mr. Sherrod. The Motion Carried. CTAC Summary Minutes September 9, Page 1 Attachment 16-B

10 Summary Minutes of June 24, 2010 CTAC Meeting Ms. Miles Moved to approve the minutes as written; seconded by Ms. Hughes. The Motion Carried. Military Perspective on Regional Transportation Issues Mr. Farmer stated the HRTPO Board had discussed the need to fully engage and consult with the military due to operational impacts caused by transportation issues. He noted all branches of the military were asked to participate on the HRTPO Board. Rear Admiral Mark Boensel, Commander, Navy Regional Mid-Atlantic, was invited to speak before the HRTPO Board at its December 9, 2009 meeting and a video of that presentation was reviewed by CTAC members. In the video, Rear Admiral Boensel stated that in order to accomplish the Navy s mission, assistance is needed by active-duty personnel, reservists, civilians, and contractors. There are approximately 330,000 active-duty individuals, 108,000 reservists who are mobilized serving around the world, and roughly 195,000 civilian employees. He indicated there are 285 commissioned ships with 134 of those, almost 50 percent, currently deployed. There are approximately 25,000 people deployed in the two areas of war with 15,000 on the ground. Rear Admiral Boensel explained each military base has its own Mayor, and HRTPO Nonvoting Member, Captain Kelly Johnson, is the Mayor of Naval Station Norfolk. Captain Johnson is responsible for all support aspects of those on base, including public works, fire departments, police, hotels, stores, restaurants, airports, and port facilities. Rear Admiral Boensel noted his responsibilities include overseeing 17 major installations and 33 Navy operational support centers that are located within 119 congressional districts in 14 states from Virginia to the Canadian border. In most cases, the Navy is the largest employer in each of these areas which affects regional economy. There are 285 ships in the U.S. fleet and 120 of those are in areas under Rear Admiral Boensel s command, along with an inventory of approximately 400 airplanes. He indicated that an estimated 20% of the Hampton Roads population is comprised of Navy personnel. He expressed his concern regarding the transportation situation in Hampton Roads and stated that with more than 66,000 vehicles passing through the gates of Naval Station Norfolk, transportation is a readiness and operational issue for the Navy. During a typical weekday, there are approximately 125,000 Navy personnel traveling to the bases. He stressed the Navy would like to make a consolidated and unified effort to improve transportation in Hampton Roads; however, it is not his responsibility to place the interest of one jurisdiction over another. In order to meet the Navy s needs, there has to be compatibility with its operations and the issues of safety and quality of life are of the utmost importance. Accidents and other transportation incidents that occur outside base parameters are briefed to the Fleet Commander every week. Rear Admiral Boensel noted that when military personnel choose CTAC Summary Minutes September 9, Page 2 Attachment 16-B

11 to extend their career in the Navy, much goes into that decision, including the need to travel to and from the base in a reasonable time. There are many servicemen and servicewoman that move to Hampton Roads and eventually settle in the area which is a huge benefit to the local economy. Rear Admiral Boensel concluded, commenting that one of the transportation projects that would be beneficial to both the Navy and the area as a whole is the new I-564 Intermodal Connector. He noted another project of importance is the light rail expansion, specifically with the interest to have the Naval Station as one of its route designations. He stated Navy personnel are proud to be citizens of Hampton Roads and are willing to assist the HRTPO in solving the area s transportation concerns. After the video presentation, Chair Harrison introduced Ms. Wendy Vachet, Community Plans and Liaison Officer, Mid-Atlantic, of the U.S. Navy. Ms. Vachet stated she was appointed by Rear Admiral Boensel to represent the U.S. Navy on the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) and the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Subcommittee. She noted it was important to assist Navy personnel in understanding transportation issues in the area since the Navy is represented through various locations, including the Yorktown Cheatham Annex, Naval Station Norfolk, Naval Station Annex, Little Creek/Fort Story, Oceana, Dam Neck, and the Portsmouth Shipyard. Ms. Vachet indicated quality of life and military readiness are of the upmost importance to the Navy. Ms. Fox asked if the Navy was concerned regarding the slow pace of solving the area s transportation issues and asked whether that may have a bearing on reducing the number of ships in the area. Ms. Vachet replied there was no official word; however, she noted that personnel numbers have actually increased. Mr. Manley asked if the Navy had studied staggering work hours in order to aid the transportation problems. Ms. Vachet indicated it had been reviewed; however, hours are currently somewhat staggered due to mission and gate activity changes. Mr. Taylor Moved that CTAC recommend to the HRTPO Board to engage an annual briefing from the military and also to have a military representative speak to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) in order to bolster the region s position in terms of solving transportation issues; seconded by Mr. Manley. Mr. Farmer stated he had asked Secretary Connaughton to schedule a workshop between the CTB and the Hampton Roads delegation to discuss such issues. He noted the workshop would hopefully be in October. Ms. Fox expressed her concern that the HRTPO had not reached out previously to the CTB to brief it on the military s readiness and transportation. Mr. Farmer replied the HRTPO Board and CTB members Dana Dickens and Aubrey Lane have had many conversations regarding the matter. Chair Harrison suggested HRTPO staff draft Mr. Taylor s motion into a formal resolution to be presented to the HRTPO Board. Regarding the motion on the floor, the Motion Carried. CTAC Summary Minutes September 9, Page 3 Attachment 16-B

12 High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Mr. Farmer reported that during the HRTPO Board meeting on July 21, 2010, the rail consultant, Dr. Alex Metcalf of Transportation Economic & Management Systems (TEMS), Inc. presented the Hampton Roads High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Preliminary Vision Plan. TEMS s preliminary assessment indicated that both the CSX/I-64 and Norfolk Southern/Route 460 rail corridors were economically and financially feasible as they meet the thresholds established by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a public/private partnership to build and operate passenger rail in Hampton Roads. Mr. Farmer informed CTAC that Dr. Metcalf s credentials in the rail consultant industry were impeccable. CTAC members, having expressed an interest in expanding the discussion regarding high-speed and intercity passenger rail, reviewed Dr. Metcalf s presentation from the July 21, 2020 HRTPO Board Meeting. In the video presentation, Dr. Metcalf explained that the study objectives of the Phase 1 Vision Plan for Hampton Roads were to determine the feasibility of high-speed rail in coordination with Norfolk Southern on the Route 460 corridor and enhanced intercity passenger rail with CSX on the Interstate I-64 corridor and its relationship to the Richmond/Washington corridor. Dr. Metcalf stated three factors were learned in studying the Washington-Richmond- Hampton Roads corridor: It is one of the top 200-mile high-speed rail corridors in the country. It has independent utility, defined as able to stand on its own merit. It provides connectivity with the Southeast and Northeast corridors. He outlined DRPT s initial development of the corridor utilizing conventional technology which included steps 1 and 2 of the Phase 1 Vision Plan and noted work completed by DRPT will lay the foundation for achieving an effective high-speed rail program. With regards to steps 3 and 4 of the Phase 1 Vision Plan, Dr. Metcalf explained that by achieving the 110 mph speed, it would essentially eliminate operating losses and would allow for franchising of the service to a private operator. From TEMS s research, the Washington- Richmond-Hampton Roads corridor will have a positive operating ratio, a positive cost benefit ratio, and will meet the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) criteria in terms of implementing the system. Dr. Metcalf noted TEMS had not completed its financial research; however, it estimates the capital costs in steps 3 and 4 to be $3 and $6 billion respectively. He stated the two funding options indicated below are available to the HRTPO with the second approach seen as more competitive and attractive to the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Traditional USDOT funding utilizing the Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act with 80% Federal and 20% State local monies. A public-private partnership and a 30-50% federal grant. CTAC Summary Minutes September 9, Page 4 Attachment 16-B

13 In terms of benefits, Dr. Metcalf stated both the NS/Route 460 and the CSX/I-64 corridors have high-speed rail potential with travel times and train frequency dramatically improved and will divert large amounts of auto traffic. Dr. Metcalf recognized there will be challenges in developing the high-speed rail corridor, including long term funding, the FRA/Environmental processes, and in designating it as a Virginia High-Speed Rail corridor. In conclusion, Dr. Metcalf recommended: DRPT should continue its implementation plans of the intercity rail. Pursue USDOT designation of the Washington-Richmond-Hampton Roads HSR corridor as a Virginia corridor. Complete the high-speed rail vision by developing the Vision Plan/Service Plan for FRA funding. Consider implementing high-speed rail with a public-private partnership process. At the conclusion of the video presentation, Mr. Farmer noted the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) discussed Phase 2 of the high-speed rail study and agreed to move forward, but at a slower pace Long-Range Transportation Plan: Project Prioritization Ms. Ravanbakht stated that in the summer of 2009, the HRTPO Board requested staff evaluate the outcome of amending the 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). During these discussions, the need to establish a methodology for project prioritization and selection was identified. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) provided assistance with this effort via its on-call consultant, Kimley-Horn and Associates. The goal of the project was to develop a methodology to assist the HRTPO Board with prioritizing transportation projects according to their technical merits and regional benefits, in light of scarce financial resources. In December 2009, the HRTPO Board requested the project prioritization tool be revised to take into account the economic benefits of projects to the region. The methodology for the economic vitality component was approved by the HRTPO Board at its June 16, 2010 meeting. The initial report has been edited to reflect the three components project utility, project viability, and economic vitality. HRTPO staff has worked with locality and VDOT staffs to collect data needed to apply the prioritization tool in an efficient manner under this accelerated schedule. The prioritization tool provides a way to glean the effectiveness of proposed transportation projects at a high level. Creating the final priorities will be the prerogative of the HRTPO Board, with the output from the tool being a resource to assist in making these decisions. CTAC Summary Minutes September 9, Page 5 Attachment 16-B

14 Ms. Ravanbakht noted that staff has received over 200 potential projects to be included in the 2034 LRTP. TTAC reviewed the initial results and recommended the need to revisit the project viability component and that modest changes were necessary to have a credible tool. Ms. Ravanbakht indicated HRTPO staff will review technical comments and refine the prioritization tool from August to November In November, preliminary results will be presented to the TTAC, CTAC, and the Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC) for evaluation with the results presented to the HRTPO Board in December Ms. Miles asked if the HRTPO Board expected CTAC to reply with a formal statement regarding the results of the prioritization tool. Chair Harrison replied CTAC was under no obligations to prepare a statement; however, CTAC is an advisory committee to the HRTPO Board and a statement can be drafted if CTAC deems it necessary. Transportation Funding and Mobility Issues: CTAC Recommendation Chair Harrison stated a panel discussion regarding transportation funding was provided to CTAC on May 13, 2010 and within the dialogue, economic conditions were described that were adversely affecting transportation revenue sources. During the June 24, 2010 CTAC meeting, the Committee received a presentation pertaining to results of Citizen Focus Groups that were conducted by Christopher Newport University as part of the HRTPO s community outreach strategies. In addition, CTAC was given a congestion briefing from HRTPO staff in the form of an overview of the HRTPO Congestion Management Process. Because CTAC had expressed an interest in developing recommendations pertaining to transportation funding and mobility issues to the HRTPO Board, Chair Harrison suggested drafting a resolution to be presented to the Board at its October 20, 2010 meeting. He explained HRTPO staff had prepared a preliminary resolution to be reviewed by CTAC. After viewing the preliminary resolution, Ms. Lougee suggested adding a clause that outlined the military impacts concerning transportation limitations. Mr. Taylor recommended adding language to convey that the resolution be transmitted to all Hampton Roads City Council members and to General Assembly members of the Hampton Roads Caucus. After more discussion and fine tuning of the resolution, Ms. Lougee Moved to approve the resolution and forward to the HRTPO Board for approval at its October 20, 2010 meeting; seconded by Mr. Malbon. The Motion Carried with Mr. Jones voting in opposition of the motion. CTAC Summary Minutes September 9, Page 6 Attachment 16-B

15 Next Meeting Chair Harrison stated the next CTAC meeting will be on Wednesday, November 10, 2010, rather than Veteran s Day, November 11, 2010, from 5:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. in the Regional Building Boardroom, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, VA. Adjournment With no further business to come before the Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. CTAC Summary Minutes September 9, Page 7 Attachment 16-B

16 Summary Minutes HRTPO Legislative Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting of September 23, 2010 Chairman Bruce C. Goodson called the HRTPO Legislative Ad-Hoc Committee to order at 11:40 a.m. in the Regional Boardroom with the following in attendance: HRTPO Legislative Ad-hoc Committee Members: Bruce C. Goodson (JC), Chairman Senator Yvonne B. Miller (GA) Robert R. Matthias (VB Legislative Liaison) Jerri Wilson (NN Legislative Liaison) HRTPO Legislative Ad-hoc Committee Members Absent: Linda T. Johnson (SU) Delegate John A. Cosgrove (GA) HRTPO Staff: Dwight L. Farmer Jessica Banks Kathlene Grauberger Camelia Ravanbakht Other Participants: Stan D. Clark (IW) Bryan Pennington (NO Legislative Liaison) Sherri Neil (PO Legislative Liaison) Others Recorded Attending: Terri Boothe (VB Citizen) Mark Geduldig-Yatrofsky (PO Citizen) Ray Taylor (FHR) Public Comment Period Chairman Goodson asked if there were any comments from the public. One person asked to speak before the Committee. Chairman Goodson asked him to keep his remarks to three minutes. Mr. Mark Geduldig-Yatrofsky My name is Mark Geduldig-Yatrofsky from Portsmouth. What I have brought with me is a proposal; it is designed as a conversation starter. It is not necessarily the ultimate solution, but I think we need to have this dialogue within the region. The stimulus for it is the cost overruns on the Norfolk Light Rail Project. From press reports, I understand that Norfolk is trying to find $28 million to close the gap. Additionally they need money for the feeder lines and other start-up costs; HRTPO Legislative Ad-hoc Committee Meeting Minutes September 23, 2010 Page 1 Attachment 16-C

17 from $6-$9 million was the figure given in the press. So my proposal would be that we, as a region, aks the General Assembly to give us temporary authority to institute a 2-3 cents surtax on gasoline per gallon as a way of funding this. It would allow the HRTPO to issue revenue anticipation notes based on revenues derived from this tax. The tax would have a sunset date once the bonds were repaid, once the notes were repaid, the tax would go away. I don t believe that this is something that Norfolk should shoulder alone. Light rail in Norfolk has regional implications and other cities, my own Portsmouth, and Virginia Beach have been talking about how to connect to this. So that is the essence of it. Thank you very much. Chairman Goodson stated the Virginia Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional for a metropolitan planning organization to be given that authority; however, the Court could institute the tax and allow the region to utilize the revenue. Mr. Farmer confirmed Chairman Goodson s statement. Approval of Agenda Senator Yvonne Miller recommended another employee assist Mr. Farmer with his responsibilities so that his duties do not become too cumbersome. Mr. Farmer expressed his appreciation to Senator Miller; however, he noted that when the HRPDC and HRTPO reorganized, he appointed two separate Deputy Directors to oversee the HRPDC and HRTPO individually. He indicated Mr. John Carlock is the Deputy Director of the HRPDC and Ms. Camelia Ravanbakht is the Deputy Director of the HRTPO. Both are capable of stepping in for Mr. Farmer. Senator Miller reiterated she would like her suggestion taken under advisement. Chairman Goodson indicated this discussion would be best undertaken by the TPO Committee. Mr. Farmer stated he would discuss the issue with Senator Yvonne Miller, Chairman Goodson, and Mr. Clark. The Committee approved the agenda as written. Minutes of the July 15, 2010 Meeting Mr. Matthias Moved to approve the minutes as written; seconded by Mr. Clark. The Motion Carried. Draft HRTPO 2011 Legislative Agenda: Summary of Previously Approved Recommendations Ms. Ravanbakht explained that during its July 15th meeting, the Legislative Ad-hoc Committee approved five recommendations of legislative priorities to aid in the preparation of the HRTPO Legislative Agenda for the 2011 General Assembly. She indicated the Committee needed to review these priorities and make any necessary changes. A. Highway Maintenance and Operating Fund The Legislative Ad-hoc Committee approved this sub-item as is. HRTPO Legislative Ad-hoc Committee Meeting Minutes September 23, 2010 Page 2 Attachment 16-C

18 B. Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) Number of Members Assessment Mr. Matthias stated Hampton Roads now has three representatives on the CTB; however, that could change at any time and it makes sense to have the members appointed by congressional districts. The Legislative Ad-hoc Committee approved this sub-item as is. C. Rail Enhancement Funds (REF) Chairman Goodson stated there had been discussion in the Committee of adding to the matching sources of funding. Mr. Farmer explained the current program set forth by DRPT is to utilize the rail enhancement funds without the third party matching funds. From his understanding as a member of the Rail Advisory Board, there was a major policy discussion whether to have any third party match requirements. There was agreement that there should be matching funds for freight, yet much debate occurred pertaining to public passenger rail projects. Mr. Farmer noted that it was decided to include a match for passenger rail projects. Senator Yvonne Miller stated there definitely needs to be a dedicated source of funding. After more discussion, the Committee changed and approved this sub-item to the following: Addition of federal funds to the list of matching sources for passenger rail projects seeking funding from the Rail Enhancement Fund. Removal of the matching requirement for passenger rail projects as prescribed in the Rail Enhancement Fund. D. High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail The Legislative Ad-hoc Committee approved this sub-item as is. E. Regional Transportation Authority The Legislative Ad-hoc Committee approved this sub-item as is. Draft HRTPO 2011 Legislative Agenda: Additional Item to be Considered Ms. Ravanbakht explained recent changes to the Virginia Budget regarding the standard Federal-aid project administration agreement to account for obligation and expenditure time limit provisions affect projects that receive funding through the Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP). At its July 7, 2010 meeting, the TTAC expressed strong concerns with the ability to carry out RSTP-funded projects within the timeframes prescribed in Item 436, and recommended the HRTPO Board request those paragraphs be rescinded from the Virginia Budget. The Board, at its July 21, 2010 meeting, approved the referral of the issue to the Virginia Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (VAMPO). However, HRTPO Legislative Ad-hoc Committee Meeting Minutes September 23, 2010 Page 3 Attachment 16-C

19 because VAMPO is still in its formation stages, HRTPO staff has brought the issue to the Legislative Ad-hoc Committee. Mr. Matthias Moved to rescind paragraphs 5a and 5b from Item 436 in the Virginia Biennial Budget regarding the obligation and expenditure time limit provision for RSTP projects. However, in lieu of rescission, the HRTPO supports the removal of the 12-month time limit on the federal obligation of the project s allocation and supports the extension of expenditure of RSTP funds to 60-months; seconded by Mr. Clark. The Motion Carried. Additional Items for Recommendations Chairman Goodson suggested combining the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP), the programming documents of the Commonwealth of Virginia, into one document and Moved for the placement of this item in the draft HRTPO 2011 Legislative Agenda; seconded by Mr. Clark. The Motion Carried. Mr. Farmer stated HRTPO staff recommends adding a piece to the draft HRTPO Legislative Agenda pertaining to the codification of MPOs in the Code of Virginia. The section in the Code of Virginia that refers to MPOs should align to what is written in the Federal Code. This issue was originally referred to VAMPO; however, because it has not fully formed yet, the issue is being brought back to the Legislative Ad-hoc Committee. Mr. Clark Moved that the codification of MPOs in the Code of Virginia align with the federal regulations on transportation as they pertain to the role, responsibilities, and products of MPOs in the transportation planning and programming processes; seconded by Mr. Matthias. The Motion Carried. Discussion turned to the establishment of VAMPO and how it should stand itself and be recognized, rather than be mandated by law. Mr. Pennington Moved that the recognition of VAMPO, by the Commonwealth of Virginia, as the official entity to represent MPOs located in Virginia be added to the draft HRTPO Legislative Agenda; seconded by Mr. Clark. The Motion Carried. Next Steps The Committee agreed that Chairman Goodson would bring forth these legislative priorities in the form of a resolution to the HRTPO Board for approval at its October 20, 2010 meeting. Upon approval, this resolution will be transmitted to local governments and the Hampton Roads Delegation of the General Assembly, as well as to the CTAC, FTAC, and TTAC, the HRTPO Board advisory committees Adjournment There being no more business before the HRTPO Legislative Ad-Hoc Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 12:48 p.m. HRTPO Legislative Ad-hoc Committee Meeting Minutes September 23, 2010 Page 4 Attachment 16-C

20 Summary Minutes HRTPO Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting of October 6, 2010 The Hampton Roads Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting was called to order at 12:18 p.m. in the Regional Boardroom, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia, with the following in attendance: TAC Members: Selena Cuffee-Glenn, Chair (SU) William E. Harrell (CH) Pete Peterson (Alternate, HA) Robert Middaugh (JC) Neil A. Morgan (NN) Regina V.K. Williams (NO) Rod Woolard (Alternate, NO) TAC Members Absent: Brenda G. Garton (GL) Mary Bunting (HA) W. Douglas Caskey (IW) Kenneth L. Chandler (PO) J. Randall Wheeler (PQ) James O. McReynolds (YK) HRTPO Staff: Jessica Banks Rick Case Dwight Farmer Kathlene Grauberger Other Participants: Eric Neilsen (SU) Quintin Kendall (CSX) James K. Spore (VB) Jackson C. Tuttle (WM) Amy Inman (Alternate, DRPT) Philip Shucet (HRT) Eric Stringfield (Alternate, VDOT) Jeff Florin (Alternate, VPA) Richard Drumwright (Alternate, WATA) Corey Hill (DRPT) Ivan Rucker (FHWA) Letitia Thompson (FTA) Dennis Heuer (VDOT) Jerry Bridges (VPA) Mark D. Rickards (WATA) Rob Jacobs Benito Pérez Camelia Ravanbakht Chris Vaigneur Alex Metcalf (TEMS Others Recorded Attending: Keith Cannady (HA); Jane Hill (IW); Richard Hartman (PO); G. Allan Mushett, Robert Lewis (SU); Jayne Whitney (HRT); Barry Bishop, Brad Face (Greater Norfolk Corp); Betty Jo Gwaltney (Portsmouth Partnership); Don Goldberg, Tim Kerr (Chesapeake Alliance); Martha McClees (VB Vision); Jim Babcock, Ray Taylor (FHR) TAC Meeting Minutes October 6, 2010 Page 1 Attachment 16-D

21 Public Comment Period Ms. Cuffee-Glenn asked if there were any public comments. Three people requested to speak before the Transportation Advisory Committee. Mr. Don Goldberg I m Don Goldberg. Thank you all very much, Ms. Chairman, for allowing me to speak today. I m wearing three hats today. One from my company, D.D. Jones Transportation, it s kind of funny that transportation companies are speaking on rail, but it is very important to us. The second hat is the Chesapeake Alliance which is a businessman s organization here in Chesapeake. The third is Suffolk Tomorrow, which I am a member of and they have asked me to speak on their behalf too in favor of this topic. I will be brief. Dr. Metcalf has worked on the phase of this project. It is outstanding work. We would hope that you would continue through the next phase on this and move forward with it. We think it is very, very important for our transportation needs here in Hampton Roads. So I thank you very much. Mr. James Babcock My name is Jim Babcock. I am the current President of Future of Hampton Roads, Chairman, I should say. I would like to add to the remarks I made at the last TPO Board meeting on the subject of high-speed rail and your consultant. At that meeting, I quoted strongly positive comments that were made to me in telephone interviews with six of Dr. Metcalf s previous clients and the notes from those calls, I believe are available to you as a handout, so I won t repeat them. Instead what I would like to do is suggest several ideas we should keep in mind as our region goes forward with seeking the kind of future passenger rail system to which we are entitled as Virginia s port, the nation s largest military establishment, and the most populous MSA on the coast between New York and Miami. We are a big deal. First of all, regardless of the methods used to estimate demand, common sense tells us that Hampton Roads is likely to provide at least as many riders on the Southeast High-speed rail corridor as any other metro area between Washington and Charlotte and Atlanta. Our ridership substantially improves the cost benefit ratio of the entire corridor plan, and thus it enhances its priority in the competitive nationwide scramble for federal funding. Second, our ridership and national importance relevant to other metro areas in the corridor suggest that the Petersburg to Norfolk line should be built to the same level of engineering quality as of the other segments for the corridor. It should be built concurrently with the segments of the corridor, not as some secondary afterthought. Third, the region s short term plans must be guided by a long term vision. The vision, even if it is end pointed many years away, ensures that investments in intermediate stages of construction lead in the desired direction without wasting money or locking us into an inferior system. Fourth, the short term plan that DRPT is pursuing and which already has been heartily endorsed by the TPO and the local business community is not in conflict with the long term vision. Indeed it is recognized in your consultant s interim report, the DRPT plan is step 1 in the long term plan. Fifth because our region was dropped from the early plans for the corridor, the preparation of the environmental impact statements that support federal records of decision and applications for federal matching funds to support the development of our rail line lags behind the documentation for the rest of the corridor. Even tiny Winston-Salem already has a federal record of decision for its high-speed loop. The data for our Petersburg to Norfolk line must be developed at the earliest opportunity. Sixth, and finally, given the history, the need to play catch up means that our TPO is entirely justified in asserting itself as a vigorous and proactive partner with DRPT. We therefore support the proposal that Mr. Farmer will present for your consideration today, plus any increase in scope of work that your discussion today may produce. This planning effort certainly justifies employing a seasoned consultant. Dr. Metcalf should re-engage promptly, not only to complete the supporting data for the vision plan, but also to help TPO staff prepare the implementation plan and logical steps including the tier two EIS and funding application by next year. Thank you. TAC Meeting Minutes October 6, 2010 Page 2 Attachment 16-D

22 Mr. Brad Face My name is Brad Face. I am Co-chair of the Virginians for High-Speed Rail, but I am here today representing the Greater Norfolk Corporation and several other Southside groups of that kind. I am encouraged by the progress this group is making towards a pursuit of true high-speed and the TEMS study. I am very encouraged that we re coming to the forehear at a very good time I believe in the high-speed rail discussion nationally. I don t know if you are familiar with it, but Amtrak came out with a plan in the last few days which supports fully the basis of the TEMS concept of why we are so competitive and why we might produce actually black ink with the Hampton Roads high-speed rail program. I think it is evident that the sands are changing; the winds are changing, politically; Washington, and coming in the next few years I think it is reasonable to assume that there is going to be less enthusiasm and perhaps less money for high-speed rail nationally and I think that is one reason we need to push forward our story because Hampton Roads has one of the few stories which I think we ll be able to prove where we can produce positive revenue from our development. Again, Amtrak makes that same case for the Northeast Corridor, and just about where we are. We are the only major market that can be adjoined to the Northeast Corridor which is the market that Amtrak wants to invest in. We have the great population. It is focused, uniquely on Washington, more than any other market in the country, so we are in the right place, at the right time, the right distance from Washington to be effective as a train market, so we need to look at this opportunity as a remarkable opportunity; something to be pursued vigorously. Obviously we want to make sure the data is correct. We don t want to move along foolishly, but at the same time we have to recognize the global opportunity we have. There aren t very many markets, in fact, I would argue there is only one market in the United States that has this opportunity and that is our market. Having worked on transportation issues for longer than I want to admit, and with not much success on many of them, this is the opportunity of our generation and no one is going to have a better story than we and so I submit that this is the time to move aggressively to claim this. I don t see any other transportation opportunity coming for the next few decades that can match the opportunity of this one. Thank you very much. Approval of the Agenda Ms. Cuffee Glenn thanked the public for their comments and proceeded with the approval of the agenda. She asked if there were any additions to the agenda. Hearing none, Mr. Florin Moved to approve the agenda; seconded by Mr. Spore. The Motion Carried. Minutes of September 1, 2010 Ms. Cuffee-Glenn indicated the TAC Summary minutes of September 1, 2010 were included in the current agenda packet. She asked for any corrections or amendments to the minutes. Hearing none, Mr. Shucet Moved to approve the minutes as written; seconded by Mr. Florin. The Motion Carried. High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail: Phase 1B Scope of Work Mr. Farmer explained that on September 1, 2010, the TAC met to review the next steps of the consultant s study. The TAC was supportive of the next phase of the study; however, there were concerns that the process was moving too rapidly and it was necessary to take a step back and slow down. The TAC agreed to expand the scope of Phase 1 to: Address issues relating to coordination with localities, state, and federal agencies; Address issues on property acquisitions; Remove Steps 1 and 2 from the scope of work so that DRPT's efforts are not duplicated; TAC Meeting Minutes October 6, 2010 Page 3 Attachment 16-D

23 Clarify the long term vision of the HRTPO Board for high-speed and intercity passenger rail in Hampton Roads; Identify the steps necessary to advance high-speed rail in Hampton Roads over the long term; and Identify all the steps necessary to obtain federal grants. Mr. Farmer explained the purpose of Phase 1B is to develop a program to show the timing, institutional structures and funding requirements for a High-Speed and Intercity Rail Plan with speeds ranging between 110-mph and 150-mph. The first task in the process is to set out the key steps associated with implementing the program in terms of planning and implementation activities needed to bring the program to an operational state. The second step is to define the levels and types of funding that will be used to bring the project into operation, while the third step will define the various institutional structures that will need to be set up to implement the program. The analysis must consider a range of outcomes with different time and resource requirements; therefore, TEMS s approach will be to set up a range of scenarios that consider both high-speed and intercity passenger rail options. The scenarios will provide a guide for the HRTPO Board to aid in clarifying its vision. Mr. Farmer outlined the project program of Phase 1B and noted the end product will be a project program for the overall implementation process for each development scenario. This will include a program timeline, milestones, critical actions, and the required interactions by stakeholders. The Phase 1B study will assess the timing of funding requirements and level, character, and source of funds for implementing the project. The Federal Government has provided funding guidelines when applying, and the study will identify appropriate funding tracks, the likelihood of a federal grant, and required documentation. The role of stakeholders and potential funding requirements will be considered within the context of the range of relationships used in projects around the country. The analysis will consider the role of railroads, both with respect to the potential use of their right-of-way, their role as an operator, and a potential partner in a public-private partnership. The analysis will also take into account the role of government at the Federal, State, and Local level. Finally, it will consider the role of local investors and developers who may make a significant financial contribution to a public-private partnership. For each scenario, the most effective options will be defined. TEMS will prepare a comprehensive report describing all options open to the region and will provide a blueprint for how Hampton Roads should proceed with the project. Finally, Mr. Farmer summarized TEMS s timeline for the Phase 1B study, with a budget cost of $83,460. Ms. Inman asked for the HRTPO s definition of passenger rail versus high-speed rail and which TEMS will research. Mr. Farmer replied the HRTPO will be removing steps 1 and 2 of the original high-speed rail study. It was his understanding that the Peninsula HRTPO Board members may want the study of enhanced passenger rail to be included as part of Phase 1B. TAC Meeting Minutes October 6, 2010 Page 4 Attachment 16-D

24 Mr. Tuttle asked how Phase 1B will assist the Peninsula in its next step of achieving passenger rail service of 90 mph with dependability and reliability of 80-90%, and hopefully additional frequency. Dr. Metcalf replied that as the study is currently outlined, there will be no additional research regarding the 90 mph service; however; if the HRTPO Board would like that service in the study, TEMS can accommodate it. He stated the Phase 1B study is the next building block in high-speed rail. Mr. Tuttle commented that a complete vision should be brought forth from the study. Ms. Inman stated DRPT has indicated how the higher speeds will be achieved on the Peninsula in the Statewide Rail Plan. It is her understanding that the 90 mph service on the Peninsula will not be studied by TEMS. She suggested the two studies link to each other in order to reference both rail services. Mr. Middaugh echoed Mr. Tuttle s concerns regarding the 90 mph passenger rail service on the Peninsula. He noted there should be a complete study of all rail speeds. Mr. Farmer asked Ms. Inman if it would be acceptable to DRPT to capture excerpts from the Statewide Rail Plan as an addendum to the Phase 1B study and if she would be willing to give a presentation to the HRTPO Board explaining the 90 mph service on the Peninsula. Ms. Inman replied affirmatively to both questions. Mr. Tuttle expressed his support of the two presentations. Mr. Farmer stated HRTPO staff will meet with Ms. Inman to include DRPT s research in the HRTPO package and as a result, there will be no confusion on the part of the HRTPO Board or the public. Ms. Inman asked for clarification that DRPT s work would not be altered in any way. Mr. Farmer replied it would not; it would only be added as an addendum to the Phase 1B study. Mr. Shucet expressed his appreciation regarding the scope of work for Phase 1B. Mr. Drumwright noted that parallel to the Phase 1B study, there is also a public transit vision plan which is being developed and it would be beneficial to cross reference the two documents. Dr. Metcalf agreed, and stated TEMS will be conducting workshops within each community to better understand the connection between transit and rail. Ms. Inman stated it might be advantageous to not only have the 2010 dollars shown in the Phase 1B study, but to also illustrate the expenditure dollars. Mr. Farmer agreed with Ms. Inman s suggestion. Mr. Harrell Moved for recommendation of approval for the Phase 1B Scope of Work to the HRTPO Board at a cost of $83,460; seconded by Mr. Florin. The Motion Carried. For Your Information Mr. Farmer stated Amtrak announced its plan to invest $4.7 billion annually over the next 25 years for a new 426-mile, two track corridor running from Boston to Washington, bringing true high-speed rail to the Northeast Corridor. He asked TAC members for their comments on whether the HRTPO should initiate a dialogue with Amtrak. Ms. Inman replied DRPT could try to communicate with Amtrak as a starting point. Chair Cuffee-Glenn stated the Amtrak news was released at an advantageous time and it is a good opportunity for the HRTPO. Mr. TAC Meeting Minutes October 6, 2010 Page 5 Attachment 16-D

25 Middaugh agreed with Chair Cuffee-Glenn s suggestion and the Committee decided to move forward with a dialogue with Amtrak. Mr. Farmer informed the Committee the National Rail Plan was released in September and is available for viewing. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:01 p.m. TAC Meeting Minutes October 6, 2010 Page 6 Attachment 16-D

26 Summary Minutes of the Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) Meeting October 6, 2010 The Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) Meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Regional Boardroom, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia, with the following in attendance: TTAC Voting Members: Mark Shea (CH) Earl Sorey (CH) Gary Walton (CH) Anne Ducey-Ortiz (GL) Keith Cannady (HA) John Yorks (Alternate, HA) Lynn Allsbrook (HA) Jane Hill (IW) Steven Hicks (JC) Jackie Kassel (NN) Michael King (NN) Tom Slaughter (NN) Jeffrey Raliski (NO) Robert Brown (NO) John Keifer (Alternate NO) Susan Wilson (PO) TTAC Voting Members Absent: Emily Gibson (GL) Christopher Perez (GL) Michael Stallings (IW) Peter Stephenson (IW) Ellen Cook (JC) Luke Vinciguerra (JC) Joseph Carter (PQ) TTAC Nonvoting Members: Wendy Vachet (Navy) TTAC Nonvoting Members Absent: Randy Brown (Army) Tony Cho (FTA) Mark Yehlen (PO) Richard Hartman (PO) Sherry Earley (SU) Robert Lewis (SU) Scott Mills (SU) Robert Gey (VB) Phil Pullen (VB) Mark Schnaufer (VB) Reed Nester (WM) Tim Cross (YK) Jayne Whitney (HRT) Kim Farrar (VDOT) Eric Stringfield (VDOT) Kevin Abt (VPA) Richard Drumwright (WATA) Debbie Vest (PQ) Daniel Clayton (WM) Steve Martin (WM) J. Mark Carter (YK) Al Maddalena (YK) Joe Swartz (DRPT) Kim Pryor-Spence (VDOT) Ivan Rucker (FHWA) Lt. Mike DiPace (USCG) Clifford Burnette (VDOA) Summary TTAC Minutes October 6, Page 1 Attachment 16-E

27 HRTPO Staff Jessica Banks Sam Belfield Rob Case Mike Kimbrel Kendall Miller Keith Nichols Benito Pérez Andy Pickard Camelia Ravanbakht Stephanie Shealey Dale Stith Others Recorded Attending: Carl Jackson (NN); Heather Ham, Ric Lowman, Bob Matthias (VB); Ron Hodges (HRT); Adam Campbell, Bruce Duvall, Tony Gibson, Sonya Hallums-Ponton, Ray Hunt, Adam Jack, John McCambridge, Mike Miller, Robert Scott, Jr. (VDOT); John Herzke (Clark Nexsen); Jay Ofenshaw (E.V. Williams); Ray Taylor (FHR); Karen McPherson (Kimley-Horn); John Hendrickson (PB); Alex Metcalf (TEMS); Debbie Messina (Virginian Pilot). Public Comment Period There were no speakers. Approval of Agenda Ms. Ravanbakht introduced Ms. Kendall Miller, the new HRTPO Public Involvement and Community Outreach Administrator. Mr. Jack introduced Ms. Kim Farrar, the new VDOT Director of Programming and Investment Management for the Hampton Roads District. Chairman Drumwright suggested that Item 11, Indian River Road/Kempsville Road Non- Traditional Intersection Improvements, be moved up to just after Item 7, in appreciation for Virginia Beach staff agreeing last month to defer this item to this month. Mr. Gey Moved to approve the Chair s suggestion; seconded by Mr. Sorey. The Motion Carried. Summary Minutes Chairman Drumwright indicated the TTAC Summary Minutes of September 1, 2010 were included in the October TTAC Agenda. He asked for any corrections or amendments to the minutes. Ms. Whitney Moved to approve the minutes as written; seconded by Mr. King. The Motion Carried. FY Transportation Improvement Program Revision: Request to Reallocate CMAQ Funds - Norfolk Mr. Brown explained the request to transfer Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program funds from the Norfolk Automated Traffic Management System (ATMS) Phase III project (UPC# 79114) to the Norfolk Light Rail Transit (LRT) project (UPC# T1822). Mr. Brown noted that in order to obligate the funds, the City would need to conduct a competitive procurement process to select a contractor for the work or establish an agreement with a VDOT approved Indefinite Quantity (IDQ) contractor. However, HRT Summary TTAC Minutes October 6, Page 2 Attachment 16-E

28 has a contracting mechanism in place that would allow the funds to be obligated and put to work more quickly. For that reason, the City has requested the following fund transfers from the Norfolk ATMS Phase III project (UPC# 79114) to the Norfolk LRT project (UPC# T1822): $2,425,000 in FY 2010 CMAQ funds $300,000 in FY 2009 CMAQ funds Mr. Brown Moved to approve of the CMAQ fund transfer and the associated TIP Amendment; seconded by Mr. Pullen. The Motion Carried. FY Transportation Improvement Program Revision: Request to Reallocate RSTP Funds - Chesapeake Mr. Sorey explained the request to transfer Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds from two current RSTP projects Mount Pleasant Road Widening (UPC# 84359) and Southeastern Parkway Corridor Preservation (UPC# 64058) to the U.S. Route 17/Dominion Boulevard project (UPC# 56187), noting that the Mount Pleasant Road project currently has a $10 million fund deficit and that the Southeastern Parkway project has had RSTP funds tied up for some time, but has no record of decision and so cannot proceed. Referring to updated figures from VDOT, Mr. Sorey stated that the amount of funds to be transferred will be less than what was identified in the letter attached to the agenda. The revised amounts to be transferred are as follows: UPC# Transfer $14,085,255 RSTP, including match, to UPC # UPC# Transfer $998,734 RSTP, including match, to UPC# Mr. Sorey Moved to approve the RSTP fun transfer and the associated TIP Amendment; seconded by Mr. Slaughter. The Motion Carried. FY Transportation Improvement Program Amendment: Virginia Beach Mr. Pullen explained the request to revise the cost estimate for the Princess Anne Road/Kempsville Road Intersection Improvement project (UPC# 51866), noting that the total project cost has increased from $75,524,000 to $89,640,000 due to unforeseen acquisition costs. Mr. Pullen further noted that the City has appropriated the increase of approximately $14 million in local funds and that advertisement of the project is anticipated in late October Mr. Schnaufer Moved to approve the TIP Amendment; seconded by Mr. Hartman. The Motion Carried. Summary TTAC Minutes October 6, Page 3 Attachment 16-E

29 Indian River Road/Kempsville Road Non-Traditional Intersection Improvements Mr. Gey began his presentation by noting that the Indian River Road/Kempsville Road intersection is the most congested intersection in the City of Virginia Beach, having a higher daily traffic volume than the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel. He continued by noting that the high traffic volumes and land use in the area presents significant challenges with regard to improving traffic conditions at the intersection. Mr. Gey stated that the City had considered a wide range of options for improving traffic conditions at the intersection. Of the traditional approaches considered, adding a through lane in each direction would cost $37 million and not provide significant improvement in congestion. Constructing an urban interchange at the site would cost $60 million and, while it would provide significant improvement to congestion, in addition to the prohibitive cost, such a facility would have a high negative impact on surrounding business. Mr. Gey then turned the presentation over to Mr. Lowman, who briefed the TTAC on the non-traditional options considered for improving the intersection. Mr. Lowman stated that the City, along with its consultant, considered more than twelve non-traditional options. Following an initial review, the list of options was reduced to seven. Following an in-depth evaluation of the seven options, the City has focused on a concept that includes Median U-Turns (MU) on Indian River Road and Displaced Left-Turns (DL) on Kempsville Road at an approximate cost of $10 million. Mr. Lowman then showed a computer simulation of the MU/DL concept in operation. The TTAC took no action on this item. VDOT 2010 Performance and Financial Audit Mr. Jack stated that the full audit document is accessible online and recommended that TTAC members review the document. He noted that the Governor gave the Secretary of Transportation and the VDOT Commissioner 45 days (from September 23, 2010) to develop a full action plan to address the audit findings. Mr. Jack suggested that comments from the TTAC be sent through HRTPO staff or to the Commissioner directly. Ms. Ravanbakht stated that the HRTPO staff has already begun discussions with VDOT staff on the audit and noted the recommended action for this agenda item, which called for the TTAC to recommend that the HRTPO offer its assistance to the State in its efforts to develop a spending plan. Ms. Ravanbakht noted that the recommendation from the TTAC would be formalized in a HRTPO Board resolution, a draft of which will be included in the October Board agenda packet. Mr. Keifer suggested that the recommendation from the TTAC be amended to state that it is recommended that the HRTPO offer its assistance to the State in its efforts to develop a spending plan and streamline project review procedures. Mr. Keifer Moved to approve the recommended action, with the suggested amendment; seconded by Mr. Brown. Summary TTAC Minutes October 6, Page 4 Attachment 16-E

30 During discussion following the motion, Mr. Raliski asked whether the TTAC would have an opportunity to comment on the Commissioner s plan and Mr. King asked whether VDOT would provide the TTAC with updates during the 45-day period. Ms. Ravanbakht stated that HRTPO staff has requested an update from VDOT at the November TTAC meeting, but has not, as of yet, received a response from VDOT on that request. Following the discussion, the vote was taken and The Motion Carried, with VDOT representatives abstaining from the vote LRTP Project Prioritization: Schedule Ms. Ravanbakht noted that this item was primarily a status report to advise the TTAC of the Board s action at their September 15, 2010 meeting. Ms. Ravanbakht stated that the Board approved the TTAC recommendation to take a couple of months to make needed adjustments to the prioritization tool and to provide the advisory committees with an opportunity to comment on the changes. She noted that the Board also requested that a single, final score be provided for each project at the end of the prioritization process. Mr. Schnaufer noted the importance of TTAC members advising their Board members on this issue so they will have a thorough understanding of the process when they attend the Board meeting. Mr. Schnaufer made particular note of fact that the prioritization tool is just one aspect of the final prioritization of projects. The TTAC took no action on this item LRTP Project Prioritization Outreach Strategy Ms. Miller briefed the TTAC on public outreach strategies that will be implemented over the course of the next two months in coordination with the 2034 LRTP Project Prioritization Process. Ms. Miller highlighted the following strategies: School Outreach Program Building on the school outreach pilot project conducted by the HRTPO staff in cooperation with a Virginia Beach elementary school last year, the HRTPO staff will expand the program to include 2 schools one in Virginia Beach and one in Hampton. HRTPO staff will spend two full days at each school facilitating this education campaign to engage students and their parents in the planning process. This strategy will entail engaging 5 th grade classes at each school to construct Box Cities. Parents and faculty will be invited to an evening meeting to see the results of their students work on the Box Cities, as well as to be engaged by HRTPO staff on Prioritization and the LRTP. College Outreach Program HRTPO staff will work with students from Old Dominion University and Hampton University that are working on transportationrelated class projects. The class projects will be presented to a group at HRTPO, which will provide feedback to the students. Summary TTAC Minutes October 6, Page 5 Attachment 16-E

31 Community Conversations HRTPO staff will hold special informational meetings with five groups: Military Wives on the Peninsula, the Chesapeake Task Force on Aging, Mount Pleasant Baptist Church in Norfolk, Historic Triangle Senior Center in Williamsburg, and the Mexican-American Club of Hampton Roads. Media Outreach Press releases will be prepared and disseminated throughout the public involvement phase of the LRTP and Prioritization. In addition to mainstream media, special efforts will be made to engage news outlets geared toward minority communities. and Mail Campaign The HRTPO s contact lists, which include more than 6,000 addressees, will be enhanced and utilized to disseminate information and gain feedback on the LRTP and Prioritization. Surveys and informational mailings will be used. Ms. Miller continued by summarizing other means of outreach to be used, including the HRTPO website and blogs, HRTPO advisory committees and associated subcommittees, and posting of materials at public libraries. She emphasized that additional outreach measures will be implemented to engage traditionally underserved communities, noting that Visiting Nurses, Meals on Wheels, para transit agencies, and other like agencies will be asked to disseminate information about Prioritization and the LRTP to their clients. Ms. Ravanbakht stated that the next portion of the presentation would be on the visualization aspect of the outreach plan and turned the presentation over to Mr. Pérez. Mr. Pérez demonstrated a web application built on the Google Earth platform that allowed users to obtain information on LRTP projects by clicking on project identifiers overlaid on a map of the Hampton Roads region. Following the presentation, the TTAC was asked to review the outreach strategies and the visualization application and provide comments to HRTPO staff by October 20, The TTAC took no action on this item. Regional Performance Measures Mr. Case noted the Virginia legislation that refers to regional performance measures and includes a deadline of July 1, 2011 to have the measures in place. He pointed out that the legislation does not provide specific measures, but provides categories for which measures are desired. He also noted that the State has engaged a consultant to assist MPOs in developing a report template that can be used for reporting consistency. Directing the committee s attention to an attachment that included draft performance measures, Mr. Case stated that TTAC assistance will be needed for setting targets for each of the performance measures. Mr. Case stated that the current schedule calls for final approval of the performance measures and targets by the TTAC and HRTPO Board in January Summary TTAC Minutes October 6, Page 6 Attachment 16-E

32 Following some discussion, Mr. Rucker suggested that some type of performance measures related to financial aspects of a project be included. Ms. Ravanbakht recommended that the subcommittee to be formed for this task review public comments received on this topic and that financial measures be included in the performance measures. Ms. Whitney Moved to approve the draft performance measures, to include some financialrelated measure; seconded by Mr. Cannady. The Motion Carried, with Mr. Slaughter voting no. Correspondence of Interest Ms. Ravanbakht noted a handout that contained a letter from VDOT Commissioner Whirley to General Assembly Delegate Oder in response to the delegate s letter. Public Comments Chairman Drumwright noted the public comments included in the agenda packet, as well as a handout that included one additional public comment for the TTAC. For Your Information Mr. Raliski expressed particular interest in Item 15C, Review of Unobligated CMAQ/RSTP Funds: Status Report. Ms. Farrar assured the TTAC that this is a very high priority item for VDOT and that the current plan calls for coordination meetings with the localities to begin near the end of October. Mr. Keifer asked when this process will be completed. Ms. Ravanbakht asked the VDOT representatives whether the process would be completed by December 2010, to which VDOT staff replied in the affirmative. Ms. Ravanbakht noted Item 15E, Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee: Status Report, stating that the CTAC had formalized its recommendations on two issues in the form of resolutions that will be presented to the Board at its October meeting. Ms. Ravanbakht noted Item 15F, Draft HRTPO 2011 Legislative Agenda, stating that a list of legislative priorities assembled by the Legislative Ad-Hoc Committee will be considered by the Board at its October meeting. Old/New Business Mr. Pullen expressed a concern regarding CMAQ and RSTP projects, stating that the process in place is pushing the limits. He noted that up to now the TTAC has generally agreed to move money within localities from one CMAQ or RSTP project to another, but some of the transfer requests have been extreme in terms of the amount of money requested to be transferred. Mr. Pullen also stated that the TTAC will have to determine what will be done with any funds found to be available following the completion of work on the review of unobligated CMAQ/RSTP funds. He suggested that the TTS will probably need to convene to discuss these issues. Summary TTAC Minutes October 6, Page 7 Attachment 16-E

33 Mr. Stringfield stated that, given the new State time limits on the obligation and expenditure of RSTP funds, it may be a good idea to start allocating funds to project phases instead of entire projects. Adjournment With no further business to come before the Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:34 a.m. Summary TTAC Minutes October 6, Page 8 Attachment 16-E

34 HRTPO Fiscal Year 2011 JULY 30, 2010 STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Annual Current REVENUES Budget Month YTD VDOT- PL Sec 112 Federal 2,187, VDOT- PL Sec 112 State 273, VDOT- PL Sec 112 Local 273, HRT Match 43, WAT Match 10, State Pass-Through 53, Federal Pass-Through 427, VDRPT 5303 Federal 132, VDRPT 5303 State 16, VDRPT 5303 Local 16, Total Revenue 3,434, EXPENDITURES Personnel 2,056, , ,949 Special Contracts 701, Office Services 226,278 15,442 15,442 Pass Through Expenditures 450, Indirect Costs 31,251 31,251 Total Expenses 3,434, , ,642 Agency Balance 0 (160,641) (160,642) Attachment 16-F

35 HRTPO Fiscal Year 2011 AUGUST 30, 2010 STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Annual Current REVENUES Budget Month YTD VDOT- PL Sec 112 Federal 2,187, VDOT- PL Sec 112 State 273, VDOT- PL Sec 112 Local 273, HRT Match 43, WAT Match 10, State Pass-Through 53, Federal Pass-Through 427, VDRPT 5303 Federal 132, VDRPT 5303 State 16, VDRPT 5303 Local 16, Total Revenue 3,434, EXPENDITURES Personnel 2,056, , ,355 Special Contracts 701, Office Services 226,278 10,943 26,385 Pass Through Expenditures 450, Indirect Costs 40,927 72,178 Total Expenses 3,434, , ,918 Agency Balance 0 (160,277) (320,918) Attachment 16-F

36 HRTPO Fiscal Year 2011 SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Annual Current REVENUES Budget Month YTD VDOT- PL Sec 112 Federal 2,187, VDOT- PL Sec 112 State 273, VDOT- PL Sec 112 Local 273, HRT Match 43, WAT Match 10, State Pass-Through 53, Federal Pass-Through 427, VDRPT 5303 Federal 132, VDRPT 5303 State 16, VDRPT 5303 Local 16, Total Revenue 3,434, EXPENDITURES Personnel 2,056, , ,308 Special Contracts 701,597 3,856 3,856 Office Services 226,278 10,260 36,645 Pass Through Expenditures 450, Indirect Costs 49, ,762 Total Expenses 3,434, , ,571 Agency Balance 0 (211,652) (532,571) Attachment 16-F

37 Printed on Tue Sep 21 14:28:32 CDT Maritime Administration News Release News Release #: DOT Date: Sep Contact: Cheron Victoria Wicker Contact Phone: U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood Announces $7 Million in Grants to Jumpstart America s Marine Highway Initiative WASHINGTON U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced $7 million is being awarded to the Mississippi Department of Transportation, the Virginia Port Authority and the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development Authority to support the transportation of marine cargo between U.S. ports. The announcement comes just five weeks after unveiling the America s Marine Highway program, a new initiative to move more cargo on U.S. waterways. The money will help expand an existing marine highway operation in the Gulf of Mexico between Texas and Florida and one on the East Coast between Richmond and Hampton Roads in Virginia. The money will also help start an entirely new all-water service on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway between Itawamba, Mississippi and the Port of Mobile, Alabama. These projects demonstrate how water transportation can help solve some of our toughest transportation challenges, said Secretary LaHood. Transporting goods by water will let us reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. This is a key opportunity to demonstrate the benefits and viability of moving freight on the water, said David T. Matsuda, Maritime Administrator. These grants will help a long overlooked means of transporting goods finally grow. Projects receiving grant funding are: The Cross Gulf Container Expansion Project (Sponsored by: The Ports of Brownsville, Texas and Manatee, Florida). The Cross Gulf Container Expansion Project between Brownsville, Texas and Manatee, Florida along Marine Highway Corridor 10 is awarded $3.34 million to help modify two barges and purchase equipment that will result in diesel fuel savings of nearly 70,000 gallons per one-way trip, 2.7 million gallons each year and save 18 million miles annually. The James River Container Expansion Project (Sponsored by: The Virginia Port Authority). The James River Container Expansion Project is awarded $1.1 million for the purchase of two barges on Marine Highway Attachment 16-I

38 Corridor 64 that is already eliminating 6,000 trucks from local highways will remove gridlock from some of the 130,000 trucks traveling between the Hampton Roads container terminals and rail terminals. The existing container-on-barge service between Hampton Roads and Richmond, Virginia will grow to three sailings each week by increasing the frequency of service and starting a new inter-terminal barge shuttle between terminals in Hampton Roads. The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Pilot Project (Sponsored by: The Port of Itawamba, Mississippi). The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Pilot Project on Marine Highway Corridor 65 is awarded $1.76 million to help purchase and modify nine barges for a new container transportation service on an all-water route between the Port of Itawamba, Mississippi on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway and the Port of Mobile, Alabama eliminating more than 4,400 truck trips each year. An additional $800,000 will be used to help further study potential marine highway concepts around the country. West Coast Hub-Feeder and Golden State Marine Highway ($275,000): The West Coast Hub-Feeder concept proposes services along the U.S. West Coast between Southern California and the Pacific Northwest, including ports along the route. The Golden State Marine Highway Initiative proposes services along the California Coast and calling on thirteen ports between Crescent City and San Diego, California. Illinois-Gulf Marine Highway Initiative ($275,000): This initiative proposes container-on-barge services between Peoria, Illinois and Gulf Coast seaports, creating a new container shipping option between these regions. East Coast Marine Highway Initiative and New Jersey Marine Highway Platform ($250,000): The East Coast Marine Highway Initiative proposes to begin a coastal marine service paralleling Interstate 95 and serving areas including Port Canaveral, Florida; Baltimore, Maryland; and New Bedford, Massachusetts, and potentially other East Coast ports as the effort evolves. The New Jersey Marine Highway Platform proposes expansion of water transportation to help move the significant volumes of freight within New Jersey and along interstate routes between ports along the Eastern Seaboard as well. ### Maritime Administration. All rights reserved. Attachment 16-I

39 Sean T. Connaughton Chairman Commonwealth Transportation Board 1401 East Broad Street - Policy Division - CTB Section - #1106 Richmond, Virginia (804) Fax: (804) Agenda Item 12 RESOLUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD September 15, 2010 MOTION Made By: Mr. Layne, Seconded By: Mr. Ellis, Action: Motion Carried, Unanimously Title: Reallocation of Rail Enhancement Fund to Aid the Development of Richmond-Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Corridor WHEREAS, on February 17, 2010, the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the preferred alternative for the Richmond-Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Corridor to run alongside Route 460; and, WHEREAS, the FY2011 Six-Year Improvement Program includes Rail Enhancement Fund allocations to the Richmond-Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Corridor in the amount of $93.04M in fiscal years , of which $39M was allocated for FY2011; and, WHEREAS, DRPT identified additional previous SYIP allocations awarded to Norfolk Southern in the amount of $47.418M that are available for reallocation to aid the development of the Richmond-Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Corridor, as detailed in the attachment to this resolution; and, WHEREAS, using funds reallocated from projects awarded to Norfolk Southern will expedite the development of the Richmond-Hampton Roads Corridor and move the completion date from mid-fy2014 to at least early FY2013; and, WHEREAS, the said Norfolk Southern projects will be completed in FY2012, FY2013, and FY2014, pending availability of funds and CTB approval of the Rail Enhancement Fund allocations in the Six-Year Improvement Programs, as shown in the attachment to this resolution; and, WHEREAS, the Norfolk Southern projects identified for reallocation have been stalled due to legal or administrative issues, and reallocating funds will not cause detrimental delay to work being done; and, Attachment 16-J

40 Resolution of the Board Reallocation of REF to Aid the Development of Richmond-Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Corridor September 15, 2010 Page 2 WHEREAS, Norfolk Southern Railway has agreed to the proposed changes and the Department of Rail and Public Transportation will enter into agreement with Norfolk Southern for the reallocated projects. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commonwealth Transportation Board approves the reallocation of Rail Enhancement Fund projects to expedite the development of Richmond-Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Corridor, as shown in the attachment to this resolution. # # # Attachment 16-J

41 DEPARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Reallocation of Rail Enhancement Fund to Expedite Development of Richmond-Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Corridor Existing Programs and Projects to be Deallocated: Funding FY Original Allocation To be reallocated Total Reallocated Heartland Corridor Roanoke Intermodal Facility 2007 $ 7,500,000 $ 5,250, $ 7,350,000 $ 7,350,000 $ 12,600,000 Roanoke Intermodal Facility Supplemental 2009 $ 4,410,000 $ 4,410, add'l $ 4,760,000 $ 4,760,000 $ 9,170,000 Roanoke Intermodal Facility Cove Hollow Road Relocation Contingency 2009 $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 Nokesville to Calverton Double Tracks 2010 $ 11,074,000 $ 11,074, $ 11,074,000 $ 11,074,000 $ 22,148,000 Total deallocation $ 47,418,000 $ 47,418,000 Reprogramming Schedule (pending CTB approval): FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Total Heartland Corridor Roanoke Intermodal Facility $ 12,600,000 $ 12,600,000 Roanoke Intermodal Facility Supplemental $ 7,752,000 $ 1,418,000 $ 9,170,000 Roanoke Intermodal Facility Cove Hollow Road Relocation Contingency $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 Nokesville to Calverton Double Tracks $ 10,200,000 $ 11,948,000 $ 22,148,000 Total reprogramming $ 10,200,000 $ 23,200,000 $ 14,018,000 $ 47,418,000 Attachment 16-J

42 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 28, 2010 ATK Contact: Media Relations AMTRAK ENVISIONS WORLD CLASS HIGH-SPEED RAIL Washington to Boston in about three hours at up to 220 mph (354 kph) PHILADELPHIA A Next-Generation High-Speed Rail service could be successfully developed in the Northeast with trains operating up to 220 mph (354 kph) on a new two-track corridor resulting in a trip time of about three hours between Washington and Boston cutting in half or better the current schedules, according to a concept plan released today by Amtrak. At an average speed of 137 mph (220 kph), a trip between Washington and New York would take just 96 minutes, about one hour faster than today. For the trip between New York and Boston, the average speed would be 148 mph (238 kph) and take just 84 minutes, or a time savings of more than two hours. Amtrak is putting forward a bold vision of a realistic and attainable future that can revolutionize transportation, travel patterns and economic development in the Northeast for generations, said President and CEO Joseph Boardman. The Amtrak concept plan, A Vision for High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor (NEC), shows a financially viable route could be developed. Upon its full build-out in 2040, high-speed train ridership would approach 18 million passengers with room to accommodate up to 80 million annually as demand increases in the years and decades that follow. Departures of high-speed trains would expand from an average of one to four per hour in each direction, with additional service in the peak periods, and total daily high-speed rail departures would increase from 42 today to as many as 148 in The service would generate an annual operating surplus of approximately $900 million and its construction would create more than 40,000 full-time jobs annually over a 25-year construction period to build the new track, tunnels, bridges, stations, and other infrastructure. - more - Attachment 16-K

43 - 2 - ATK More than 120,000 permanent jobs in improved economic productivity along the corridor and in rail operations are predicted by In addition to significant travel time savings between major cities, tremendous mobility improvements would come with environmental, energy and congestion mitigation benefits. The new transportation capacity obtained with this investment will allow a larger share of the intercity travel market to be via high-speed rail, strengthening sustainable, energy-efficient development in the corridor s metropolitan areas. Amtrak s plan to modernize the Northeast Corridor and make it a truly high speed rail line is the type of innovative thinking we need to get cars off the road, decrease pollution and put people to work improving America s infrastructure, stated Senator Frank Lautenberg (D- N.J.). I applaud the plan and pledge to work with Amtrak to improve the Northeast Corridor and make a America a leader in high speed rail. Amtrak s High Speed Rail plan will create jobs, cut pollution and help us move towards a modern and reliable transportation system network in the Northeast, said Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.). As countries around the world continue to build out their transportation systems, we cannot afford to fall further behind. This is an important down payment on the massive commitment necessary to bridge our infrastructure gap. With an investment of $4.7 billion annually over 25 years, a major national transportation asset would be built to support the growth and competitive position of the Northeast region. Its population, economic densities and growing intercity travel demand make it one of the premier mega-regions of the world, and an ideal market for world-class high-speed passenger rail service. The results show the concept of a world-class high-speed rail service would help relieve congestion across all modes of transportation, spur jobs creation and economic productivity, reduce carbon emissions and improve the quality of the environment, said Al Engel, incoming Amtrak Vice President for High-Speed Rail. The specific high-speed alignment, stations, maintenance yards and other facilities that were analyzed in the report represent only one of a wide range of possible network and service configurations that could be developed. The analyzed concepts reflect the study s underlying - more - Attachment 16-K

44 - 3 - ATK underlying goals (i.e., aggressive travel time savings, station locations in downtown areas) and detailed preliminary planning and engineering assessments. These concepts would undergo numerous revisions, refinements and changes under more detailed study, and other concepts with different alignments would likely be further reviewed at that time. As America s intercity passenger rail service provider and its only high-speed rail operator, Amtrak has a vital, leading and necessary role to play in expanding and operating highspeed rail service. Just as leading countries throughout Europe and Asia are expanding existing high-speed rail networks and developing new systems, Next-Generation High-Speed Rail must be part of a balanced transportation future in major travel corridors across the U.S. An NEC Infrastructure Master Plan issued earlier this year predicted that the capacity gains achieved within the current NEC footprint would be maxed out by The Next- Generation High-Speed Rail system will provide the necessary new capacity to meet growing demand well beyond By operating the highest-speed trains on the new infrastructure, capacity on the existing NEC would become available for additional commuter and conventional intercity passenger trains as well as for freight operations. A copy of the report is available on Amtrak.com. About Amtrak As the nation s intercity passenger rail operator, Amtrak connects America in safer, greener healthier ways. Last fiscal year (FY 2009), the railroad carried 27.2 million passengers, making it the second-best year in the company s history. With 21,000 route miles in 46 states, the District of Columbia and three Canadian provinces, Amtrak operates more than 300 trains each day at speeds up to 150 mph (241 kph) to more than 500 destinations. Amtrak also is the partner of choice for state-supported corridor services in 15 states and for several commuter rail agencies. Visit Amtrak.com or call 800-USA-RAIL for schedules, fares and more information. # (presentation materials attached) # Attachment 16-K

45 Attachment 16-K

46 Attachment 16-K

47 Attachment 16-K

48 Attachment 16-K

49 Attachment 16-K