R E G I O N A L P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N P O L I C I E S A N D P R O C E D U R E S M A N U A L Regional Planning Commission Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany, and Tangipahoa Parishes 10 Veterans Memorial Boulevard New Orleans, Louisiana 70124 P: 504-483-8500 F: 504-483-8526 rpc@norpc.org www.norpc.org JULY 2018
CONTENTS I. Overview of the New Orleans MPO... 1 II. Unified Planning Work Program... 3 Elements of the UPWP... 3 UPWP Approval Procedures... 5 Monitoring of UPWP Activities... 6 III. Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)... 7 MTP Planning Process... 7 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures in the MTP... 9 MTP Planning Horizon, Updates, and Revisions... 10 MTP Fiscal Constraint and Financial Plan... 10 Public Participation and Input into the MTP... 11 Air Quality Planning and Determination... 11 Congestion Management Process... 12 IV. Transportation Improvement Program... 14 Relationship to the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the Unified Planning Work Program, and the Statewide TIP... 14 Screening of Projects for TIP Inclusion... 15 Transportation Improvement Program Project Prioritization... 15 Public Involvement for TIP... 16 TIP Approval/Adoption... 16 TIP Amendment Procedures... 16 Formal Amendment Process... 16 Administrative Modification Process... 17 V. Funding Programs... 19 FHWA Funding... 21 Surface Transportation Program (STP)... 21 Transportation Enhancement (TE) Grant Program... 21 Safe Routes to School... 22 FTA Funding... 23 Section 5307 (Urbanized Area Formula Grants)... 23 Section 5309 Capital Investment Program... 24
Section 5310 Program (Focused on transportation for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities)... 24 Section 5337 Program (Focused on the state of good repair of Transit Assets.....25 Section 5339 Program (Focused on bus and bus facilities).....26 State Funding... 25 Interstate and State Highway... 25 Rural Surface Transportation (Rural STP)... 25 VI. Public Involvement Program... 26 Goal, Objectives, and Strategies... 27 Outreach Techniques... 28 Citizens Guide to Transportation Planning... 28 Newsletters... 28 News Media... 29 Website... 29 Public Meetings... 29 Surveys... 29 Public Outreach Liaisons... 30 Advisory Councils... 30 Performance Methods & Measures for Evaluation... 30 VII. Title VI/Environmental Justice... 31 Title VI Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs... 31 Environmental Justice... 32 VIII. Project Management... 33 Standard Contracting Form... 33 Fee type... 33 Billings... 33 Request for Qualifications (RFQ)/Request for Proposals (RFP)... 34 Progress Reporting/Tracking... 34 Deliverables... 35 Contract timing and scope... 35 Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality Control (QC)... 35 Document Standards... 35 Map Standards... 36 IX. Administration... 37
Organizational Structure... 37 Agreements... 37 Budgetary Process... 37 Local Match Contributions... 37 X. Information Management... 37 Computer Equipment... 37 GIS Environment... 38 Data Sources... 38 Travel Model Requests and Procedures... 39 External Use of the Travel Model... 39 Data Requests... 40 Protocol... 40 Appropriateness... 40 Privacy... 40 Security... 41 Appendix A: UZA/MPA Maps Appendix B: Enabling Legislation Appendix C: By-Laws Appendix D: RPC and TPC Membership Appendix E: Technical Advisory Committee Appendix F: Project Screening Scorecard Appendix G: Title VI Plan Appendix H: Staff Organization Chart Appendix I: Decision Making Flowchart Appendix J: Map Disclaimer Appendix K: List of Acronyms Appendix L: Self Certification
I. OVERVIEW OF THE NEW ORLEANS MPO Metropolitan Transportation Planning began in the early 1960's with the enactment of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1962. Under federal requirements, a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) must be designated for each Urbanized Area (UZAs) with a population of 50,000 persons or more. These MPOs play an integral role in regionally implementing the strategies contained in the nation s transportation bill Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST Act). MPOs provide the vehicle to identify and evaluate regional problems, analyze alternatives, and facilitate community involvement when resolving difficulties. MPOs contribute information to state and federal transportation agencies, furnishing critical feedback in an iterative communication loop so further enhancements can be made. The RPC was created in 1962 by the Louisiana state legislature (LA R.S. 33:135) and local governing body authorization to fulfill federal and state requirements for regional comprehensive and economic development planning. As mandated by its enabling legislation, the RPC is the legal entity whose mission is to: Promote the general welfare and prosperity of the entire region by harmonizing the activities of federal, state, parish, municipal and other governmental agencies in the region. The Regional Planning Commission (RPC) serves as the MPO for Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. John, St. Tammany, and Tangipahoa Parishes. The RPC and its Transportation Policy Committee provides a forum in which the chief elected officials, community leaders, and modal agencies come together in partnership on the second Tuesday of each month to discuss the Big Picture. Since its inception, the RPC has served as a forum for discussion of regional planning issues, and over the years has often been the lone voice in support of a regional approach to problem-solving. The RPC is the MPO for the New Orleans, Slidell, Mandeville-Covington, and Hammond-Ponchatoula urbanized areas. There are ten urbanized areas in the state of Louisiana and eight MPOs designated by the governor. The RPC is the only MPO in the state representing four urban areas. The Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) consists of the four urbanized areas (UZAs) as defined by the 2010 Decennial Census plus the area expected to become fully urbanized within the next twenty years, including sub area designated as urban clusters by the Census Bureau. A map showing the MPA and the New Orleans UZA is shown in Appendix A. The New Orleans MPO s planning work program is supported by the activities of five working Committees including: the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the Transportation Policy Committee (TPC), and three citizens-based Advisory Councils, e.g., Complete Streets, Transit & Human Services, and Freight Planning. The TAC consists of individuals whose skills, training and professional status qualify them to take an active role in helping shape and oversee the transportation planning program for the region through review of documents and recommendations to the TPC. The Commission established the Transportation Policy Committee in 1992. The TPC wields final decision-making authority concerning federal transportation policy and programs within the MPA. The Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) includes representation of local elected officials, officials of agencies that administer or operate major modes or systems of transportation, and REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 1 P a g e
appropriate State officials. The 52-member TPC consists of the full Commission plus the Governor of the State of Louisiana or a designated representative, the Chairperson of the Regional Transit Authority or a designate, the Director of the Department of Transit Administration for Jefferson Parish or a designee, a representative of the Port of New Orleans, the Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission, two citizen members per parish, New Orleans Public Belt Railroad and Louisiana Motor Transport Association. The TPC takes review of documents and recommendations to the Commission (e.g. the Planning Commission adopts regional policy after it is recommended by the TPC). The committees operate under a one person, one vote policy. The RPC retains a professional staff with expertise in transportation planning, program management, air quality conformity analysis, environmental planning, economic development, transportation modeling, and geographic information systems. The staff works closely with the TAC and the Advisory Councils to formally evaluate the transportation, environmental, and community sustainability needs of the urban area and make recommendations to the TPC. RPC staff also facilitates community input, assists in project management, and adheres to and guides the metropolitan planning process outlined in the FAST Act. The main agencies that provide guidance and oversight of the RPC s transportation planning process include: the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Louisiana Department of Transportation and development (DOTD), the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). RPC planning staff regularly completes a self-certification process that the planning process is carried out in a way that meets federal regulations. A copy of RPC s Enabling Legislation is contained in Appendix B. Appendix C provides information on RPC by-laws as they pertain to commission membership, tenure, TPC membership, RPC officers and executive director positions, meeting quorum and voting requirements. The Transportation Policy Committee membership for fiscal year 2017-2018 can be found in Appendix D. 2 P a g e REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
II. UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM The Regional Planning Commission undertakes its role in the planning process through a contractual relationship with the LADOTD and several funding administrations within the U.S. Department of Transportation. The tasks to be undertaken in this relationship are defined in a Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) prepared each year by the RPC staff. The UPWP provides a summary of identified planning priorities and of all federally funded transportation planning activities within the metropolitan area for the fiscal year. The UPWP also includes a summary of products, program timelines, associated costs, and sources of funding. Tasks listed within any study design are carried out by participating agencies and/or their consultants identified in the UPWP, and may respond to specific needs or to broad policy issues. The UPWP considers a range of possible responses to transportation deficiencies with an emphasis on balanced, financially feasible solutions. The RPC prepares the UPWP annually, and bases the budget on funds provided under Title 23 U.S.C. and Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. In addition, RPC s member parishes typically contribute the region s 20% local share match. In 2009, the U.S. Department of Transportation initiated a series of national outreach tours to solicit public input into the development and reauthorization of the nation s transportation bill. In addition to Safety, Economic Competitiveness, and State of Good Repair, the transportation bill directed resources to fostering Livable Communities and Environmental Sustainability. The New Orleans MPO s UPWP builds on these concepts by coordinating transportation, housing and commercial development investments with, place based, and environmentally sustainable strategies. ELEMENTS OF THE UPWP The UPWP reflects RPC s transportation planning program, acting as a vehicle to address the transportation needs, deficiencies, or opportunities identified by the RPC s planning process and through extensive coordination with members of the commission, RPC s Federal, State, and local planning partners and transportation stakeholders, local governments, and a proactive public participation process. Current RPC planning emphasis areas, as derived from this process, include the following: Safety Environmental Sustainability Livable Communities Preservation of the Existing System Economic Competiveness Congestion Management Air Quality Transit and Human Services Transportation Coordination Bicycle and Pedestrian REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 3 P a g e
Public Education and Involvement The planning activities undertaken annually by the RPC, and described in the UPWP are also a direct reflection of the ten planning elements described in the earlier mentioned FAST Act transportation funding and authorization bill of 2015: 1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity and efficiency. 2. Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users. 3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non motorized users. 4. Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and to freight. 5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of life. 6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between all modes; for people and for freight. 7. Promote efficient system management and operation through the development of a congestion management plan. 8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. 9. Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation, and 10. Enhance Travel and Tourism Specific required elements for a work program can be found in Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The following are the ways in which these, as well as other FHWA and State recommended elements are addressed in the Regional Planning Commission s UPWP: A discussion of planning issues and priorities facing the metropolitan area. A description and map of the planning area. A description of coordination efforts between the RPC and other regional and state agencies, including, though not limited to, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, local governments, and transit providers. Identification of anticipated work tasks, with defined goals and objectives for the fiscal year. A description of the relationship of each task to the eight planning elements of MAP-21 and to RPC s planning emphasis areas. A budget for each task, detailing sources and amounts of federal share and of local match. 4 P a g e REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
Identification of which agency will perform the work, or whether work will conducted by a consultant. Summaries and, when possible, funding sources cost estimates for planning, economic development, and environmental planning activities conducted by the RPC with other Federal, State, and/or local funds, based on sound fiscal analysis. When/if localities are designated as non attainment areas, a description of all anticipated metropolitan transportation or otherwise related air quality planning activities regardless of funding source. The schedule for estimated completion of the described work. A review of anticipated work products. A description of performance measures intended to track progress toward objectives and work products.a description of how UPWP Tasks inform development and setting of performance standards in the metropolitan planning process, consistent with the provisions of the FAST Act. UPWP APPROVAL PROCEDURES RPC begins preparation of a draft UPWP for the subsequent fiscal year in January. In March, the draft program is submitted to the Commission, FHWA, FTA, and to the public for review and comment. LADOTD serves as a facilitator in the UPWP approval process. LADOTD, the Louisiana Division of FHWA, FTA Region VI, the RPC Technical Advisory Committee, and other agencies, as appropriate, review the draft UPWP and provide comments to the LADOTD coordinator and MPO. Following any necessary review meetings scheduled by LADOTD, the MPO revises the UPWP to address any comments and submits a final UPWP for adoption to the Commission in April. LADOTD then prepares and enters into an annual funding agreement with the MPO for transportation planning services for the fiscal year beginning July 1. All of these task are completed in a timely manner each spring to ensure a seamless and uninterrupted continuation of the RPC s planning activities into the subsequent fiscal year. The LADOTD also participates in most of the MPO planning activities as a member of the region s Technical Advisory Committee or task specific Project Management Committee(s). Technical studies produced through the UPWP planning process are submitted to LADOTD in draft form for review prior to finalization. Following completion of the Stage 0 Feasibility Study, the LADOTD issues an approval letter allowing the project to be advanced to the next level which is normally the environmental determination process. Both FHWA Planning (PL) funds and FTA Section 5303 funds require a 20% local share match. The MPO s matching funds are derived from the annual funding contributions made by the eight member parishes in the MPO planning area. The MPO reviews and approves the UPWP and, following review by RPC s legal consul, the RPC authorizes the local matching funds and empowers the Chairman and/or Executive Director to execute the necessary funding agreements with LADOTD. Local parish funding is based on the percent of parish population as reported and updated following the decennial census. These funding arrangements are described in the UPWP. REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 5 P a g e
MONITORING OF UPWP ACTIVITIES A full time member of the RPC professional staff serves as the Responsible Charge or Project Manager for tasks contained in the UPWP. Additionally, the RPC Technical Advisory Committee is briefed regularly on the status of the major UPWP planning activities. The Technical Advisory Committee consists of representatives from LADOTD, local planning and public works professionals, modal agencies, including the port, airport, public transit and rail interests in the region. A copy of RPC s Technical Advisory Committee membership is found in Appendix E. In addition, LADOTD is a regular participant on the Project Management Committee which oversees RPC technical studies, particularly in such instances where state routes are involved. In terms of financial monitoring, monthly progress reports are submitted by the RPC to LADOTD and FTA and quarterly to FHWA describing work activities completed during the reporting period. RPC s financial management division and senior planning staff prepare the reimbursement requests and supporting documentation. Requests for reimbursement of federal transit funds are submitted on a monthly basis to LADOTD for review and transmittal to FTA. 6 P a g e REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
III. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) The Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) is the chief legal document reflecting the resources, the fundamental planning process, and the selection of projects for the region. The MTP describes the transportation needs and goals of the region over the next 30 years. It includes both long range and short range multi modal strategies focusing at the systems level, including roadways, transit, nonmotorized transportation, and intermodal connections. The MTP documents the planning process employed by the RPC and is intended to provide an improved mechanism for public understanding and therefore enhance the public s ability to participate in the planning process. Under the provisions of the Fixing America s Surface Transportation Act (FAST), signed by President Obama in December of 2015, planning emphasis is placed on promoting cooperation across MPO boundaries, accelerating project delivery, increasing safety, and creating ladders of opportunity for connecting workers with job opportunities. The FAST Act also emphasizes accountability in transportation investments in the form of performance measurement and target setting at the state and regional level. The performance metrics focus on quantifying improvements in safety, infrastructure condition, congestion reduction, system reliability, freight movement/economic vitality, environmental sustainability, and reduced project delivery delays The RPC will incorporate these values into the Metropolitan Transportation Plan update, the Transportation Improvement Program and other initiatives. These RPC initiatives are intended to influence the development of the future transportation system in a manner that most effectively meets the wide variety of the region s current and future needs, while complying with mandates and performance standards promulgated in the FAST Act. The MTP reflects the greater emphasis being placed on integrating transportation planning with other important policy areas, namely economic development, community livability, and environmental sustainability. The transportation system has a substantial impact on each of these, and vice versa, but until recently integrated policies have been limited and difficult to administer. In the near future transportation agencies will be expected to increase their cooperation and coordination with non traditional yet critical partners, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Energy, and Economic Development Administration. The RPC is taking a leadership role in this area of policy development and inter agency coordination. MTP PLANNING PROCESS The RPC is pro actively involved in carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning process which consists of the following steps or activities: Monitoring existing transportation system conditions; Development of performance measures and performance targets; Forecasting future population and employment growth; Assessing projected land uses in the region and identifying major growth corridors; REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 7 P a g e
Identifying transportation needs and deficiencies and analyzing, through detailed technical studies, various transportation alternatives and investment strategies to address those needs; Developing long range plans and short range capital improvements and operational strategies to improve safety, reduce congestion, and facilitate the movement of people and goods; Estimating the impact of the transportation system on the environment, including air quality within the region (see further description of air quality measures below); Developing a financial plan for securing sufficient revenues to cover the costs of implementation strategies, including operating costs, system maintenance, system preservation, and new capital investments (see further description of the MTP s financial plan and fiscal constraints below); Pro actively engaging the public and other interested stakeholders in the planning and decision making process, including, as appropriate, local, state, and/or federal agencies responsible for land management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation; Identifying and evaluating potential projects for social and environmental justice concerns and mitigation needs; Working with non profits and other federal agencies i.e., HUD, EDA, EPA and DOE on methods to better integrate transportation with land use, affordable housing, job access and locations, and livable community concepts; Developing plans and programs to encourage transit usage and a seamless transit network within the region and establish transit linkages between affordable housing locations and major regional employment centers; Working with the mobility impaired community to address their transportation needs and accessibility concerns; Developing and support measures and facilities that enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety and walkability; Pro actively developing with the state, local governments, and community organizations transit and other community enhancements (transit shelters, sidewalks, lighting, landscaping, etc.) to enhance modal connectivity, livability, and improve the visual environment; Supporting a regional visioning process to educate elected officials and the public about the principles of Smart Growth, including the benefits of Transit Oriented Development, alternative fuels and energy reduction strategies, and other measures to foster livable communities and environmental sustainability; 8 P a g e REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
FIGURE 1: METROPOLITAN PLANNING PROCESS FLOWCHART Figure 1 demonstrates how the planning process relates to the MTP, as well as the TIP, and illustrates how various agencies and public participation contribute to this process. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES IN THE MTP Beginning in 2010, the RPC further clarified the goals and objectives of the MTP, and introduced clearly defined performance measures. The goals set forth in the MTP serve as guides for program and strategy selection. By orienting projects toward these goals, the RPC can ensure its efforts will achieve desired transportation outcomes. REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 9 P a g e
Satisfying specific objectives will mark progress toward goal achievement, and pre determined performance measures will serve as evaluation tools to measure the degree to which such objectives are being met through project initiatives. These clearly defined goals and objectives and measures will help the RPC better monitor the outcomes of regional work, as well as provide a greater measure of accountability to the public and to elected officials. The goals, objectives, and performance measures in the MTP are developed through consultation with federal, regional, state and local agencies, the general public, and RPC staff. They are considered specific enough to state a clearly defined result, they can be quantitatively or objectively measured, they are realistic given the reasonable and practical constraints of the plan, and they bound by a specific time of measurement and achievement. In 2018 RPC began incorporating FHWA and FTA performance measures into the MTP, including Safety, Pavement and Bridge Conditions, System Performance and Freight, and Transit Asset Management. RPC coordinates with the state and with local transit providers to develop targets for these measures for each of the region s metropolitan planning areas. The MTP demonstrates how the projects therein contribute toward achieving these targets. MTP PLANNING HORIZON, UPDATES, AND REVISIONS The planning horizon of the New Orleans MTP is 30 years from its effective date. The effective date of the MTP is the date of its adoption by the Regional Planning Commission. The RPC reviews and updates the plan every four years. The RPC completes the update in order to ensure that the updated plan is in line with current and forecasted transportation and land use trends and is firmly based on the latest assumptions for population, land use, travel, employment, congestion, and economic activity. The update further advances the effective date, and subsequently the horizon year, by 25 30 years. On occasion, unexpected factors, such as the necessary inclusion of a new project, the identification of a regionally significant project, or the advancement in scheduling of an identified project, may require the revision of the MTP during interim years without fundamentally altering the general policy direction of the MTP. For such revision to take place, the project must meet federal funding eligibility requirements, fall within the projected, constrained budget for future years, adhere to the eight planning factors of MAP-21 and the planning emphasis areas of the RPC, be consistent the stated goals, objectives, and assumptions of the MTP, and meet local guidelines. Having met these criteria, the Transportation Policy Committee will vote as to whether or not to include the project in the MTP. Should the revision fall within the first four years of the MTP, the Transportation Improvement Program will also be amended and submitted to the state for inclusion in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. The RPC submits all updates and revisions to the MTP to the state to ensure consistency with the statewide transportation plan. The RPC also submits copies of the updated plan to FHWA and FTA for review. MTP FISCAL CONSTRAINT AND FINANCIAL PLAN The MTP is fiscally constrained, i.e., activities are prioritized relative to realistic projections of available financial resources (federal, state, local, and in some cases, private) out to the MTP horizon 10 P a g e REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
year. In other words, the MTP cannot designate a spending program larger than the funds reasonably expected to accrue over the life of the plan. To meet this requirement, the scope of projects included in the New Orleans MTP is based on a projection derived from historic revenue levels and inflationary adjustments. Revenue projections are further refined through coordination with LADOTD and with public transit agencies. Long range projects, such as those scheduled beyond a fifteen year horizon, may reflect aggregate cost ranges, as long as revenue projections indicate the reasonable likelihood that such funds will be available. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND INPUT INTO THE MTP While a more detailed description of the RPC s Public Participation plan is provided in Chapter 6, it is worth noting the role that public input plays in the development and refinement of the MTP. Transportation systems that effectively serve the public cannot be developed without significant input and guidance from the affected stakeholders. For this reason, more sophisticated and robust public outreach methods are continually being developed and refined, and the importance of stakeholder input on program development and project selection continues to grow. The RPC pursues multiple means of soliciting public input into the MTP s goals, objectives, and project inclusion, including a survey distributed via the RPC website and paper. The RPC also conducted a region wide meeting and a series of neighborhood specific meetings that served both to inform the public as to the purpose and elements of the plan, as well as solicit opinions, advice, and concerns about the contents of the draft plan. Additionally, during an update of the MTP, the RPC will publish the draft MTP on the RPC website for a minimum of 30 days for citizen review and comment. Following adoption, the Final MTP will be published and made available for public viewing on the RPC website on a continual basis. AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND DETERMINATION In 2005, the New Orleans region came into compliance with all conformity requirements under the Clean Air Act and was reclassified as an attainment area. However, in the event the New Orleans area is reclassified as nonattainment, it would take EPA about a year to complete Quality Assurance of the data and publish a Federal Register notice of nonattainment designation for selected parishes within the New Orleans MSA. Under this scenario, the RPC would have one additional year to produce a detailed conformity analysis of the MTP and TIP, as well as some additional changes to the MTP policies as described in this document. Projects listed in the MTP will need to be evaluated prior to being adopted, approved and accepted in any airquality nonattainment or maintenance areas. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), continuously monitors local air quality at regional stations. The DEQ submits a State Implementation Plan (SIP) every three years to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) describing the intended air quality goals or air quality budget for each urbanized area of the state. The conformity analysis requires the estimation of total mobile source emissions. Of particular interest to New Orleans are smog precursors of hydrocarbon (a proxy for VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 11 P a g e
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1990 identifies actions to be taken by States and MPOs to reduce transportation related emissions. The MPO s role in air quality planning is to assess the impact of planned transportation projects on regional air quality and to identify programs and action measures that will help reduce emissions. The general process for determining air quality conformity is initiated with the generation of travel forecasts (in particular, vehicle miles of travel) for the nonattainment area(s), and the subsequent application of per vehicle emissions rates (as estimated by the latest generation air quality model promulgated by the U.S. EPA) to derive regional emissions forecasts. In a non attainment scenario, the development of the MTP must be done in coordination with the process of developing transportation control measures in the SIP. The SIP mobile source budget comes from LADEQ and LADOTD with U.S. EPA approval. One role of computer modeling in the formation of the MTP (and, by extension, the TIP) is the development of the Air Quality Conformity Analysis. In the Conformity Analysis, cumulative mobile source emissions impacts of all projects proposed for inclusion in the MTP are analyzed based on their expected opening date and regardless of funding source. The CAAA mandates that each urbanized area demonstrate a reduction in mobile source emissions, however small, in order to be in compliance. Ultimately, non compliance may affect the amount of federal transportation funding received. Once the Air Quality Analysis is accepted and approved by the RPC Policy Board, it is reviewed by the FHWA, FTA, and EPA who have 30 days to make a determination on whether the conformity requirements have been met. A critical point regarding air quality conformity is that any proposed amendment to the MTP involving regionally significant or capacity projects will trigger a new conformity analysis and finding. Additionally, the effective date of the MTP will be the date of conformity determination issued by FHWA and FTA, as opposed to the date of RPC adoption. In the event that parishes in the RPC planning area are found to be in nonattainment, the appropriate measures to MTP and TIP development and refinement will be adjusted according to the regulations and procedures described above. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS One way in which the MTP project selection process takes place is through the Congestion Management System. MPOs that serve areas with populations exceeding 200,000, including the RPC, are called transportation management areas (TMAs). TMAs must have a congestion management process (CMP) that identifies actions and strategies to reduce congestion and increase mobility. In air quality nonattainment areas, projects that increase capacity for single occupancy vehicles (by adding new roads or widening existing ones) must conform to the area s CMP. Federal legislation requires the RPC to maintain a Congestion Management Process (CMP) to identify and address traffic bottlenecks and to mitigate regional traffic congestion. The CMP was updated in 2010 and focuses on 4 main tasks: (1) Defining and Identifying Congestion, (2) Selecting Congestion Reduction Strategies, 12 P a g e REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
(3) Implementing Strategies, and (4) Monitoring and Evaluating Performance. The CMP is an ongoing effort to establish policies and projects to reduce traffic congestion regionwide, focusing on regionally significant routes, i.e., state highways and major arterials essential to metropolitan mobility and regional economic competitiveness. Relying heavily on stakeholder input and an ever expanding data collection program, the process is an on going effort by the RPC to formally document its efforts to maintain and improve the efficiency with which people and goods move throughout the region. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is charged with developing specific project and policy recommendations for consideration by the RPC for inclusion in the MTP and TIP. Representatives from the state, parishes, and transit operators are invited to participate in the TAC, which is also responsible for identifying the locations of severe congestion and evaluating the success of implemented congestion mitigation strategies. Since the passage of the FAST Act, performance standards, related to system reliability has to some degree superseded CMP, particularly for the National Highway System network. Nonetheless, RPC has found the CMP a useful endeavor and will continue to use it as a venue for prioritizing improvements to non-nhs routes. REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 13 P a g e
IV. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The highway and transit projects in the Transportation Improvement Program derive directly from the first four years of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. These projects are described best as those next in the pipeline for investment and implementation, and the TIP is thus utilized as a management tool and an aid for financial planning and implementation of the MTP, as well as a schedule by which to coordinate project implementation among federal, state, and local jurisdictions and agencies. The TIP also provides a public document for review The TIP is adopted every four years by the Regional Planning Commission (RPC). This document is prepared cooperatively by the RPC, acting in its legal capacity as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the New Orleans urbanized area, and the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development and affected transit operators. The TIP is reviewed annually by the RPC and selected revisions are permitted, following formal amendment procedures. Projects are first screened by RPC for technical merit and consistency with the region s adopted transportation goals and the ten planning factors which guide the development and implementation of the nation s transportation bill (FAST Act). Following this initial screening process, potential projects are accepted into the Plan for further evaluation and refinement. During the planning phase, projects undergo a series of rigorous technical analyses to determine overall feasibility, environmental consequences, project costs, and potential funding sources before being advanced into the TIP for final design, project letting, and construction implementation. The Transportation Improvement Program identifies transportation improvements being advanced towards implementation by state and local governments within the Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) over a four year period. The primary purpose of the TIP is to facilitate the coordinated development of the region s transportation system based on the prioritized allocation of federal, state and local financial resources. A second objective of the TIP is to help educate and inform the general public and other interested stakeholders about proposed transportation investments. RELATIONSHIP TO THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND THE UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM, AND THE STATEWIDE TIP Projects contained in the TIP make up the first four years, or Phase I, of the 25 to 30 year planning horizon outlined in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), as described in the previous chapter. As such, the projects in the TIP must meet the MTP standards of fiscal constraint, with funding identified as reasonably expected to accrue over the identified time frame. Projects contained in the TIP have evolved through the transportation planning process and are incorporated into the state transportation improvement program (STIP) administered by LADOTD. Amendments to the TIP are also submitted to the LADOTD for inclusion in the TIP. The TIP must conform to the STIP for air quality standards. The planning efforts undertaken through the UPWP often lead to conclusions that recommend projects for implementation in the region s highway or transit system. Depending on the relative 14 P a g e REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
prioritization of these projects and the availability of funding, such recommendations can be forwarded for RPC Board and TAC approval for inclusion into the MTP and TIP. SCREENING OF PROJECTS FOR TIP INCLUSION Candidate projects for Plan and TIP consideration come from various sources, including RPC s public outreach initiatives, input from business, civic, and community organizations, state and local governmental entities, and other transportation stakeholders. In order to bring a greater level of objectivity to its project selection process, the RPC has developed a formal Project Ranking Scorecard for use in screening projects prior to inclusion in the Plan/TIP. The scorecard describes a project by quantitatively rating its potential impacts on a variety of criteria, such as safety or congestion. The actual factors considered by the Scorecard are derived from the variety of federal, state, and regional policies that help define the RPC s overarching planning priorities. It is intended to help simplify decision making by providing a single, standardized tool for comparing projects. An example of the scorecard used in this process is provided in Appendix I. Moreover, through use of the scorecard, planners can be assured that they have considered a comprehensive set of criteria in the project selection process. Following this initial screening, candidate projects formally enter the planning process and are analyzed as to their basic feasibility, benefits to costs, and potential community and environmental impacts. The Transportation Plan for Year 2044 contains comprehensive discussions as to how planning and other factors are being specifically applied in the New Orleans region to develop a transportation system that provides for transportation safety, system preservation, livable communities, environmental sustainability, and the efficient, economic movement of people and goods. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT PRIORITIZATION A draft of the TIP document is prepared every four years by RPC in close consultation and cooperation with LADOTD. This document is widely distributed for public review and comment (See Public Involvement section) and is presented to the region s multi parish Technical Advisory Committee for review, comment, and concurrence. Projects contained in the TIP are organized in accordance with the federal fiscal year, beginning October 1. The RPC works very closely with LADOTD staff and local parish Departments of Public Works (DPW s) to establish realistic project priorities, based on where the project actually rests in the implementation pipeline. Meetings are held at least quarterly with LADOTD to monitor the actual status of TIP projects and scheduled letting dates. This periodic review has helped this region to establish firm project priorities rather than paper priorities. This review takes into account important factors such as the status of environmental clearances, survey work, preliminary plans, right of way, utilities, advance check prints and final plan preparation. When taken together, these criteria establish the relevant let date and, therefore, the priority order for implementation of TIP projects. The cost of the project, type of funding, and the availability of proposed funding are also taken into account in priority setting. The above project level information is made available to the Technical Advisory Committee, Transportation Policy Committee, and the general public upon request, and project work status is utilized extensively in establishing the priority program. The draft TIP, along with any public comments, is presented to the Transportation REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 15 P a g e
Policy Committee for review and consideration prior to finalization of project priorities and formal adoption of the TIP document. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FOR TIP Copies of the draft TIP are made available on the RPC website, and at regional libraries throughout the MPA for citizen review, input, and comment. The public is also afforded the opportunity to express their comments directly to the Transportation Policy Committee (MPO) prior to adoption of the TIP document. The public is provided with the opportunity to review the draft TIP during a 30 day comment period. The comment period is announced in the public notice section of the RPC s website. The MPO staff accepts public comments in writing, via e mail, in person or by phone. If comments necessitate a significant modification in the TIP, the matter is brought before the Technical Advisory Committee and Transportation Policy Committee for discussion prior to TIP approval. Public comment periods of seven days are also provided in the TIP amendment process, as described below, wherein significant comments may necessitate a delay in amendment approval pending technical advisory committee review. TIP APPROVAL/ADOPTION The draft TIP is provided to both the Technical Advisory Committee and Transportation Policy Committee in advance of the scheduled meeting at which the TIP is to be voted upon. The TIP is first presented to the Technical Advisory Committee for discussion and approval. Following TAC approval, and after the close of the public comment period, the TIP is then presented to the Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) for approval. The TIP is provided to LADOTD for inclusion into the STIP. TIP AMENDMENT PROCEDURES The RPC amends the TIP as needed, in conjunction with the regularly scheduled Transportation Policy Committee meetings, which take place on the second Tuesday of each month and are open to the public. RPC s goal is to follow the formal process outlined below in making amendments to the TIP. However, on rare occasions an administrative modification process is also used and, in extreme cases, an emergency amendment process is permitted. Administrative modifications and emergency amendment criteria and procedures are also described below. FORMAL AMENDMENT PROCESS A formal amendment is required to the MTP, TIP, or STIP for a major change involving the addition or deletion of a project or a major change in project cost, project/phase initiation dates, or a major change in design concept or scope (e.g., changing project termini or the number of through traffic lanes). Minor changes to existing projects that are already included in the TIP may not require a formal amendment. The following TIP amendment procedures are followed in processing an Amendment or significant change to the TIP. In accordance with the provisions of 23 CFR 450.216(b), the TIP shall be included 16 P a g e REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
without change in the STIP following approval of the TIP by the MPO and the LADOTD, acting on behalf of the Governor. RPC will follow the same screening and approval procedures for a formal amendment as they do for standard project inclusion in the TIP, as described above. Following these procedures, RPC staff will review all amendment requests to determine their funding impact, their alignment with the fiscal constraint of the TIP and their consistency with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, and other factors as appropriate. RPC will delay submitting the amendment for public review and/or TAC and policy committee approval if there is inadequate time for a thorough review of a proposed amendment. A public comment period of at least seven days will be provided, wherein the proposed amendment will be posted on the RPC website. This comment period will end prior to the next regularly scheduled Transportation Policy Committee meeting to allow the RPC staff to report any significant comments, to delay submittal if necessary pending comments, and otherwise to forward their resolution to the Transportation Policy Committee prior to their vote. The public comment period will begin with the posting of the draft TIP amendment(s) on the RPC website. RPC will provide the Technical Advisory Committee and Transportation Policy Committee a list of proposed amendment(s) at least seven days prior to the Transportation Policy Committee meeting. Pending comments from the Technical Advisory Committee, The TIP amendment(s) will be voted on for approval by the Transportation Policy Committee at its regularly scheduled meeting. These meetings are open to the public, who will provide with an opportunity for comment at that time prior to voting. A copy of the TIP amendment(s) will be forwarded to LADOTD by mail and by email with the approving Transportation Policy Committee resolution within one week of the formal approval. The approved amendment will be posted on the MPO s website within one week after approval by the Transportation Policy Committee. An Amendment to the TIP must first be approved by the MPO before it can be added into the STIP by LADOTD. Once approved by LADOTD, on behalf of the Governor, the amendment will be incorporated into Louisiana s STIP. ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION PROCESS Because there are situations that necessitate a minor modification to a project or corrections to the TIP that do not require the formal amendment process and Technical Advisory Committee review, there will be an opportunity to administratively modify the TIP under certain circumstances. Once the MPO approves the Administration Modification, it will be documented via e mail to the reviewing agencies (LADOTD, FHWA, FTA, etc.) as well as the requesting agency. Though no public comment period is required for administrative modifications, the RPC will post approved Administrative Modifications on its website within seven days of approval by the Transportation Policy Committee. All administrative modifications must still conform to the current Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Any modification that may cause conflict with the established planning process will be considered only under formal amendment procedures. In short, occasions for RPC staff to consider administrative modifications occur on very specific occasions, summarized by this list below. REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 17 P a g e
Reasons outside of this list for such a modification must be justified and approved by the Transportation Policy Committee. Correction of obvious minor data entry/typographical errors; Splitting or combining projects without affecting the original project intent; Moving a project from one federal funding category to another ; Currently programmed projects or project phases requesting a change in fiscal year only; Proposed amendment does not involve a significant change in the use of competitive funds; Scope modification that does not change overall impact of project on capacity or overall intent of project; The project is considered minor in nature (bridge painting, signage, lighting, etc ) or safety related (guardrails, railroad crossing upgrade, etc.); For projects costing less than $3,000,000, the funding adjustments is < to $600,000 or 20% of total project cost; Moving any project phase programmed in a previous TIP into a new TIP. Adjustments in DOTD Line Item Funding Categories 18 P a g e REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
V. FUNDING PROGRAMS The funding for projects shown in the TIP and the MTP reflects a variety of sources. Many of the projects are defined and selected through separate processes. For example, Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS), Highway Safety, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds are programmed through competitive application to LADOTD. LADOTD is also the lead agency on the use and programming of federal aid funds for interstate and state highway projects. All federally funded transportation projects, including those funded with congressional earmarks or demonstration funds must be included in the TIP, and or subject to Air Quality Conformity Analysis, if the region is re designated as nonattainment.. The projects contained in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are derived from the region s overall 30 year Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). Both the TIP and MTP have been financially constrained (based on past funding history) to reflect realistic and available levels of project funding. Under MAP-21 and now FAST Act, the nation s current transportation bill, the New Orleans region has experienced an overall increase in construction spending due to improved coordination of the planning and programming efforts of RPC and LADOTD. Financial constraint has resulted in a goalsoriented approach emphasizing traffic safety, state of good repair, and transit system recovery. Projects identified for National Highway System (NHS) funding are part of DOTD s Priority Program and have been approved by the RPC, acting in its capacity as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), for the New Orleans region. The NHS funds shown in the TIP are primarily directed toward the elimination of traffic congestion at interchanges within the I 10 corridor. Projects shown for Surface Transportation Program funding (STP>200k) for urbanized areas greater than 200,000 in population are also financially constrained, reflecting the annual attributable amount (approximately $20 million in FY17) plus 20% local (non federal) match. The region has a positive balance of attributable funds that may be utilized on occasion to cover an increase in project costs due to environmental, construction or right of way needs. On the transit side, the majority of project funding is based on Section 5307 formula funds which are announced annually in the Federal Register. Under FAST Act, Section 5307 funding has averaged about $14 million annually for the New Orleans urbanized area. Additional FTA support comes from Section 5309 discretionary funds for high priority projects such as bus replacement or procurement. These funds are programmed based on current or pending Congressional authorizations. Matching funds for transit projects come from dedicated revenue sources, namely a 1% sales tax and a percentage of the Hotel/Motel Tax in Orleans Parish, and a property tax millage in Jefferson Parish. In accordance with federal regulations, all transportation improvements located in the New Orleans MPA that use federal funds must appear in the TIP. Additionally, it is a prerequisite that all roadway projects that add capacity to the system (added travel lanes or new roadways) must be in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan before they may be programmed in the TIP. Note that most transportation improvements use an 80% federal and 20% local funding formula. REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 19 P a g e
Local matching funds are provided by the implementing agency that has jurisdiction over the geographic area in which the specific improvement resides. For example, LADOTD implements projects on Interstates, U. S. Highways and State Roads, and thus provides State funds as the 20% local match. Each parish or municipality provides their own local share match for transportation improvements that they implement. The TIP also includes projects from other public entities such as New Orleans Louis Armstrong International Airport, the Port of New Orleans, the Regional Transit Authority as well as quasi public organizations such as the New Orleans Downtown Development District. There may also be private sector funding that supplements State and locally implemented projects. The primary funding source for plans and transportation improvements is the Federal Highway Trust Fund. The local match for improvements on the state system is provided through the Louisiana Highway Trust Fund which is a motor fuels tax of 20 cents/gallon of gasoline. In recent years, the Louisiana Legislature has also authorized the use of State General Funds to finance an expanded program of highway repairs, maintenance and drainage types of improvements. Federal financing is procured by congressional enactment of the nation s transportation bills. Current enactments include the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA LU), Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), and the most recent transportation bill reauthorization in 2015, the Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. Federal transportation funds are normally sent directly to and administered by LADOTD which then allocates the money to urban and rural areas. Most transit funds for urban areas are sent directly from the FTA to the transit entity. Federal funds are made available to the New Orleans MPO and its planning partners through a specific process: AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION: Congress enacts legislation that establishes or continues the existing operation of a federal program or agency, including the amount of money it will have to spend. Congress re authorizes federal transportation programs (known as the Federal aid Highway Program) over a multi year period. APPROPRIATIONS: Each year, Congress decides on the federal budget for the next fiscal year. This process is known as the appropriation process. The amount appropriated to a federal program is often less than the amount authorized for a given year and is the actual amount available to federal agencies to spend. APPORTIONMENT: The distribution of funds among states using a formula provided in law is called an apportionment. An apportionment is usually made on the first day of the federal fiscal year (October 1) for which the funds are authorized. At that time, the funds are available for obligation (able to be spent) by the State, in accordance with the approved Louisiana Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). SPENDING AUTHORITY: Only a portion of a fund's apportionment is eligible to be programmed for transportation projects and programs in the TIP. This limitation is the spending authority. During the years of TEA 21 and SAFETEA LU transportation bills, the spending authority has been approximately 90% and, hence, for an apportionment of $10 million in a given funding category only $9 million may be programmed in the TIP. 20 P a g e REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY: Federal transportation funding is eligible to be spent only on certain specific projects and activities, these determinations are made by Federal guidelines. MATCH: Most federal transportation programs require a non federal match. State or local governments must contribute some portion of the project cost. Legislation establishes the required percentage for local match, as well as appropriate sources for that match. For almost every federal funding category, the amount that the state or a specific local government has to contribute is 20 percent of the project cost for most transportation improvements, with higher non federal match required for major transit capital investments. The remainder of this section lists the specific federal funding categories considered by the MPO. It should be noted that some funding sources are directly programmed by the MPO, while others are programmed or allocated by the State. All federally funded transportation projects must be listed in the MPO s TIP (and potentially the UPWP) before funds can be utilized. Projects which are considered to be regionally significant (generally those that add capacity to the transportation system) must also be included in the TIP, regardless of funding source. In non attainment areas, these projects must be modeled for air quality conformity and included in the MPO s Metropolitan Transportation Plan. FHWA FUNDING Regardless of programming responsibilities, FHWA funding is administered by the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD). Any approved project will therefore involve a grant agreement between the local agency and LADOTD. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) This funding category is shared with the State, as well as the other urban and rural jurisdictions throughout Louisiana. It can be used for a variety of transportation projects, including roadway maintenance, new construction, or expansion; alternative transportation (bicycle pedestrian projects); intelligent transportation systems; and it can even be flexed for transit capital acquisition. This is the funding source that is directly programmed by the MPO. TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM (TAP) PROGRAM TAP funds give local government agencies and neighborhood organizations opportunities to enhance local transportation and also provide amenities to the community such as safe bicycle and pedestrian trails/facilities, transit shelters, landscaping and lighting enhancements, historic building restoration, and even transportation museums. Twelve categories exist within this statewide competitive funding process. Louisiana has used a biennial TAP application process. Application forms are made available beginning May 1 st. (in odd number years) and may be found on the LADOTD and MPO web sites. Applications must be submitted to the LADOTD Enhancement Office by July 31 st. The local sponsor is required to coordinate project feasibility with the MPO prior to submitting a request for TE funding. Many but not all applications are written with the support of MPO staff at the request of the jurisdiction. REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 21 P a g e
For projects within the Urbanized Area, review copies are distributed by the Enhancement Office to both the MPO and LADOTD District 02 Office. A TAP Review Committee comprised of MPO and District 02 staff review the submissions and recommend a short list of applications. Recommended applications (in priority order and suggested funding levels) will be submitted by the MPO/District 02 Office to the LADOTD Enhancement Office in mid September. Once the projects are found eligible by LADOTD/FHWA, the LADOTD Enhancement Office notifies the applicant Local Public Agencies and the MPO of the TE awards by letter and places the approved list of projects on the DOTD website. Generally selections are completed by the end of October or early November. The MPO will amend the approved TAP projects into the Transportation Improvement Program at the next appropriate opportunity. Projects lying outside the Urbanized Area but within the Metropolitan Planning Area are submitted directly to the LADOTD TAP coordinator. More specific information concerning the TAP application process can be found in the LADOTD Transportation Enhancement Guide, a document that is prepared and updated biennially by LA DOTD and found at www.dotd.la.gov/planning/tep. TAP funding distribution across Louisiana is predicated on the eligibility of applications, the amount of funds available and the size of the projects submitted. DOTD strives to equally allocate funding across the eight DOTD Planning Districts. Should a jurisdiction have a worthy large scale project in mind they are encouraged to discuss the project with the LA DOTD early in the feasibility analysis to determine if the project should be phased in logical segments over multiple years. Federal legislation and the State of Louisiana encourages the participation of citizen groups and notfor profit corporations interested in enhancement projects; however, please note that only a city, parish or town may apply for the TAP funds. Neighborhood groups, trail groups or other nongovernmental organizations may not apply directly for TAP funds. However, a Local Public Agency could apply on behalf of these organizations and would be the local sponsor with all applicable responsibilities. The highest local elected official or Public Works Department Director having jurisdiction and responsibility for project implementation must approve projects and sign the application prior to submittal to LADOTD Enhancement Office. In addition, and when submitting more than one application an applicant must include a prioritization of the applications. A minimum 20% local match is required for each TE project recommended to LADOTD by the MPO. Evidence of an existing local match will be considered in the review of applications by the TAP Review Committee. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL The Louisiana Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program is a dedicated federally funded program to enable and encourage children to walk and bicycle to school. Walking and bicycling are viable transportation alternatives for travel to and from school with significant potential health and environmental benefits including healthy and active lifestyles, improved safety, reductions in motor vehicle traffic, associated fuel consumption, and improved air quality. Following is a list of program highlights: 70 90 percent of funds will be available for eligible infrastructure projects; 22 P a g e REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
10 30 percent of funds will be available for education, enforcement, and other noninfrastructure activities to increase safe biking and walking to school; Children in kindergarten through 8th grade are the primary targets for this program; Projects should help improve access for children with physical disabilities; Older children, adults, residents, children traveling to school by bus, and motorists may be considered secondary beneficiaries; Trips for non school purposes are only secondary considerations; Construction improvements must be located within a two mile radius of the intended school or schools; Funding is available for private and public schools; Eligible applicants include individual schools, school districts, local government agencies, and state agencies; Non profit organizations can partner with eligible applicants (MPOs), but cannot directly receive SRTS project funding; and Project sponsorship by traditional transportation partners is strongly encouraged. LADOTD administers this program. Funds are only available on a reimbursement basis for approved projects or activities. All applications received by LADOTD are reviewed and evaluated by a selection committee consisting of representatives from LADOTD, the FHWA, the Louisiana Department of Education (LADOE), the Louisiana State Department of Health (LASDH), and a representative from one of Louisiana s MPOs. Recommendations from the selection committee will go to the LADOTD Secretary. Applicants will be informed of which projects are selected and the list of approved projects is posted on LADOTD s website. The MPO will accept applications, and after reviewing them to assure they are complete and consistent with existing plans, will sign them and forward the applications to LADOTD. All applications for projects located in the New Orleans MPA must be signed by the MPO. FTA FUNDING FTA funds are distributed to eligible grantees (denoted as designated recipients ). Within the New Orleans Metropolitan Planning Area, there are currently two designated recipients RTA and the MPO. SECTION 5307 (URBANIZED AREA FORMULA GRANTS) Nationwide, Section 5307 funds are available for transit improvements for 34 urbanized areas with populations greater than one million, 91 urbanized areas with populations between 200,000 and one million, and 280 urbanized areas with populations between 50,000 and 200,000. For urbanized areas with populations greater than 200,000, the funds are distributed directly to the designated recipients. For areas with populations less than 200,000, the funds are apportioned to the recipient state's governor for distribution. REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 23 P a g e
Section 5307 funds must be matched by state and local funds. Local matching funds can be cash or cash equivalent, depending upon the expenditure. Non cash shares, such as donations, volunteered services or in kind contributions are eligible to be counted toward the local match only if the value of each share is documented formally. Refer to 49 CFR, part 18 for more information. The Section 5307 program provides funding for capital and planning at 80 percent of costs and for operating up to 50 percent of costs. Funds are apportioned to urbanized areas utilizing a formula based on population, population density, and other factors associated with transit service and ridership. Section 5307 program grants are governed by CFR 20.505, Title 49, United States Code 5303. The program is funded from general federal revenues and federal trust funds. SECTION 5309 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM The Transit Capital Investment Program (49 U.S.C. 5309) is an FTA discretionary program that provides capital funds for three primary categories: Bus and Bus Related Equipment and Facilities (for new and replacement buses and facilities), Fixed Guideway Modernization Program (for modernization of an existing rail system), and New Starts (for new fixed guideway systems). The application process is formally structured and, in many cases, with multiple steps requiring FTA clearance before each subsequent phase can begin. SECTION 5310 PROGRAM (FOCUSED ON TRANSPORTATION FOR THE ELDERLY AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES) Section 5310, as authorized by the Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, provides capital assistance for projects that serve the transportation needs of the elderly and disabled. The FTA distributes Section 5310 funding based on each State s share of the number of elderly persons and persons with disabilities within the United States, based on the latest Census data. These funds are available for distribution on an 80% federal basis and 20% local (applicant) matching basis. 5310 projects are awarded annually by the LADOTD on a competitive basis. LADOTD may use up to 10% of the state s annual Section 5310 allocation for state administration and technical assistance. FAST Act requires 5310 projects to derive from the locally developed Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan, which has been developed and is regularly updated by the Regional Planning Commission. SECTION 5337 PROGRAM (FOCUSED ON THE STATE OF GOOD REPAIR OF TRANSIT ASSETS) The Section 5337 grants program provides financial assistance to public transit agencies that operate rail fixed-guideway and high-intensity motorbus systems for the maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation of capital assets along with the development and implementation of transit asset management plans. These funds reflect a commitment to ensuring that public transit operates safely, efficiently, reliably, and sustainably so that communities can offer balanced transportation choices that help to improve mobility, reduce congestion, and encourage economic development. These funds are distributed by formula primarily to urbanized areas with fixed guideway and high intensity motorbus systems SECTION 5339 PROGRAM (FOCUSED ON BUS AND BUS FACILITIES) The grants for Buses and Bus Facilities program (49 U.S.C. 5339) makes Federal resources available to States and designated recipients to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses and related 24 P a g e REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
equipment and to construct bus-related facilities including technological changes or innovations to modify low or no emission vehicles or facilities. Funding is provided through formula allocations and competitive grants. STATE FUNDING INTERSTATE AND STATE HIGHWAY LADOTD maintains jurisdiction over all interstates and state and U.S. highways. Projects are planned, designed, programmed, and implemented by LADOTD in cooperation with the MPO and local officials, using a combination of federal and state funds. Projects within the MPO planning area must be reflected in the TIP and, if deemed regionally significant, in the Regional Plan regardless of funding source. RURAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION (RURAL STP) The Rural STP Program is the rural counterpart to the STP funds programmed by the MPO for urban areas. Projects are funded using 80% federal funds with applicants providing the remainder. More information and application forms are available on LADOTD s website. Because of the use of federal funding, if a Rural STP project is located in the New Orleans MPA (which is possible because the planning area extends beyond the urbanized area), these projects must be reflected in the TIP and, if deemed regionally significant, in the Regional Plan. REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 25 P a g e
VI. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM A participation process for transportation planning must be explicitly set forth and adopted by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), which receives transportation funds from the Federal Highway Administration and from the Federal Transit Administration. The actions and processes described in this section apply to transportation planning done by the New Orleans Regional Planning Commission. The standards for this process are to be found in Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 450, Subpart C, especially Section 316(b)(1) and in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 613, Subpart A, Section 100. In general, the federal regulation cited above had required a proactive public involvement process that provides complete information, timely public notice, full public access to key decisions, and supports early and continuing involvement of the public in developing plans and TIPs (Transportation Improvement Programs). With the passage of the Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, enacted on December 15, 2015, additional emphasis has been placed on extensive stakeholder participation. FAST Act expands the public involvement provisions by requiring MPOs to develop and utilize participation plans that are developed in consultation with an expanded list of interested parties, which the New Orleans Regional Planning Commission refers to as the Interested Citizens/Agencies list. Specific FAST Act requirements include: Providing timely information about transportation issues and processes to citizen, affected public agencies, representatives of transportation agency employees, private providers of transportation, other interested parties and segments of the community affected by transportation plans, programs, and projects; Holding public meetings at convenient and accessible locations and times; Providing a minimum public comment period of 45 days before the public involvement process is initially adopted or revised; Employing visualization techniques to describe metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs, and providing reasonable public access to technical and policy information used in the development of plans; Making public information available in electronically accessible format and means (such as the World Wide Web); Demonstrating explicit consideration and response to public input received during the planning and program development processes by including written and oral comments received on the draft transportation plan or TIP as a result of the public involvement process, as an appendix of the plan or TIP; Consistency with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which ensures that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, or physical handicap, by excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program receiving Federal assistance from the United States; In accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation requirements, inform, seek out and consider the needs of those traditionally underserved by existing transportation systems, including, but not limited to, low income and minority households; and 26 P a g e REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
Identify actions necessary to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Presidential Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice. GOAL, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES RPC s public involvement plan has a single comprehensive goal: to allow the public opportunities throughout the planning process to influence decisions. In order to meet this goal the RPC has established the following objectives and strategies: OBJECTIVE 1: IDENTIFY THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHODS FOR REACHING THE PUBLIC Strategies: A. RPC will keep a database of neighborhood organizations, homeowner associations, environmental organizations, school organizations, faith based organizations as well as other non profit and for profit entities B. In addition to the databases of formally organized associations RPC allows the public the opportunity to self identify through its website, and request for information form in the rear of the RPC Citizen Involvement Guide C. RPC will work directly with leaders in traditionally underserved populations to determine the most appropriate channels of communication to reach individuals OBJECTIVE 2: KEEP THE PUBLIC INFORMED THROUGH EFFECTIVE CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION Strategies: A. RPC will distribute quarterly newsletters that are available in both hard copy and electronic formats B. The agency will utilize its website as an interactive means of communication and offer multi-media capabilities C. RPC will publicize information about projects and programs of significant interest through the use of media (radio, TV, and print) D. Copies of the MTP, TIP, and other significant plans are made available in public libraries E. RPC will work with leaders of minority and underserved populations to determine that the most effective mediums of communication are employed OBJECTIVE 3: WORK TO ACTIVELY INVOLVE THE PUBLIC IN PROGRAMS, POLICY MAKING AND PROJECTS Strategies: A. Educate the public as to the general purpose and function of the RPC in its role as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and how the transportation planning process works REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 27 P a g e
B. Be sensitive to locations of meetings and times of meetings based upon the culture and needs of populations C. Provide opportunities for citizen membership on advisory councils, the policy commission, and project level TACs OBJECTIVE 4: ENSURE THAT THE RPC S PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM IS DYNAMIC AND RESPONSIVE Strategies: A. RPC will work with the community to tailor outreach techniques based upon the diverse and unique needs of the public B. RPC provides for two way communication, and is responsive to all comments and inquiries C. RPC s public involvement plan is a living document that evolves based upon changes in communication technology and needs of the public OUTREACH TECHNIQUES Strategies and techniques for public involvement are tailored based upon whether RPC is working on a conceptual plan, policy development, or buildable project. However, in order to actively involve the public in transportation planning, it is important to first identify the most appropriate stakeholders based upon the task at hand. Once the audience has been identified, then the most effective means to inform the public can be determined. Below is a list of outreach techniques that the RPC employs to actively solicit public input in the transportation planning process. CITIZENS GUIDE TO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Educating citizens about transportation planning and the role of the MPO in transportation planning is essential to have meaningful discussions and truly engage the public in the planning process. The Citizens Guide to Transportation Planning provides citizens with a description of how the planning process works in layman terms, so that non planning professionals can easily understand how projects enter the planning process and move from an idea to construction. The citizens guide also provides the public with an understanding of the purpose and function of the MTP, the TIP, and the UPWP. Finally, the document provides a synopsis of how citizens can become more actively engaged in the transportation planning process. The citizens guides are distributed at public meetings, available at public facilities, such as libraries, community centers, and the Regional Transportation Management Center, as well as available on the RPC website. NEWSLETTERS Quarterly newsletters are available in both print and e formats. The public is invited to register for RPC newsletters both online at the RPC website as well as by detaching and mailing in the form on the rear cover of the Citizens Guide to Transportation Planning. Newsletters provide the public and local government partners with progress updates on RPC studies, projects, programs, and initiatives. 28 P a g e REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
These newsletters provide a more frequent channel of information with the public and allow the public to stay informed. NEWS MEDIA RPC will utilize the news media for projects and issues of special interest to the public. RPC maintains a database of contacts at local newspaper, radio, and television stations. Maintaining an active list of contacts, allows RPC to easily deploy press releases and public service announcements on an as needed basis. WEBSITE A well organized and engaging website is a cornerstone of RPC s communication strategy. RPC s website accommodates a variety of users. RPC s redeveloped website offers a user friendly structure and linguistic style understandable to lay people interested in the transportation planning process and projects. The website offers multi media format with PowerPoint presentations accompanied by audio for special presentations made to the commission. In addition, the web site was developed following the guidelines of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, so that it able to accommodate disabled users. The website offers the public the ability to communicate with RPC by offering interactive capabilities, with features such as an online comment form that allows the public to submit feedback and/or ideas for both the Long Range Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program. In addition, the website offers the ability to survey the public for specific purposes, as well as the ability to register for regular communication from the RPC, such as newsletters, public meeting notices, etc. The website also offers a calendar, where the general public can view all public meetings, events, and other important dates. Finally, the website features a library, which provides public access to all technical studies, policies and transportation plans, such as the MTP (RPC s long range transportation plan), the Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPs), Unified Work Program (UPWP), as well as other feasibility and technical studies. PUBLIC MEETINGS RPC both hosts its own public meetings to discuss topics/projects of interest with the public and makes presentations as requested at civic meetings and to other public agencies. When hosting public meetings RPC provides adequate notice to the public when hosting public meetings, and follows all federally prescribed guidelines regarding public comment periods for documents such as the MTP and TIP. SURVEYS Depending upon the scope of a project, RPC utilizes surveys for public input to projects. When surveys are developed, formats and distribution strategies are created based upon the unique needs of the community from which input is being sought. REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 29 P a g e
PUBLIC OUTREACH LIAISONS Trust is a critical component to gaining input, particularly from minority and traditionally underserved communities. In order to help build relationships with these communities and attract input, RPC works with trusted leaders in traditionally underserved communities to learn of needs, concerns and solicit input to the planning process. In addition, Public Outreach Liaisons assist RPC by alerting the public about public meetings and providing advice as to the most appropriate times to schedule meetings and events. In addition, public outreach liaisons assist RPC in identifying the most appropriate places to hold meetings, and place materials. ADVISORY COUNCILS RPC provides opportunities for citizen involvement through standing advisory councils, such as the Freight Advisory Council and Clean Air as well as seats on project level TACs. Advisory Councils work closely with members of RPC s TAC to ensure a collaborative and informed process. In addition to membership on advisory councils and project level TACs, citizens are included on the RPC transportation policy committee, which has ten seats reserved for citizen members. Citizen members on the RPC policy committee have full voting power. PERFORMANCE METHODS & MEASURES FOR EVALUATION On an annual basis, the RPC undertakes an internal review of its public involvement plan s effectiveness of engaging the public, by examining criteria, such as: Records of invitations to speak at civic engagements, such as event programs, email correspondence, etc., Records of responses to citizen emails, Sign in sheets of event participants, Records of press releases, and new stories. Annually, staff is asked to provide comments as to how the public involvement may be improved to increase public participation in the planning process. In addition, RPC solicits input from the general public on an on going basis to further refine and bolster its public outreach and engagement in the transportation planning process. In addition, RPC actively solicits input to the public involvement plan and the most effective means of communication by working directly with communities to discuss the most appropriate means of disseminating information and garnering input to the process. RPC also provides the general public a comment period of 45 days prior to adoption of its revised public involvement plan. All comments received taken into consideration and implemented when plausible. All comments will receive direct responses. 30 P a g e REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
VII. TITLE VI/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE TITLE VI NONDISCRIMINATION IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED PROGRAMS Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act provides that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance (23 CFR 200.9 and 49 CFR 21). The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 broadened the scope of Title VI coverage by expanding the definition of terms programs or activities to include all programs or activities of Federal Aid recipients, sub recipients, and contractors, whether such programs and activities are federally assisted or not (Public Law 100259 (2.557) March 22, 1988). The purpose of the law is to insure that all persons, regardless of their race, color, national origin, gender, age or handicap/disability, are allowed to participate without discrimination in any federally funded program. To insure the MPO and its sub recipients meet their compliance responsibility, a Title VI Plan and Complaint Procedures has been adopted by the MPO. The day to day administration of the Plan lies with the Title VI Coordinator under the direct supervision of the Executive Director of the Regional Planning Commission. The Title VI Coordinator is charged with the responsibility for implementing, monitoring, and ensuring the MPO s compliance with Title VI Regulations. Title VI responsibilities are as follows: Process the disposition of Title VI complaints received by the MPO. Conduct annual Title VI reviews to determine the effectiveness of program activities at all levels. Conduct Title VI reviews of consultant contractors, suppliers, and other recipients of federal aid highway and transit fund contracts administered through the MPO. Prepare a yearly report of Title VI accomplishments and goals, as required. Develop Title VI information for dissemination to the general public and, where appropriate, in languages other than English. Identify and eliminate discrimination. Establish procedures for promptly resolving deficiency status and reducing to writing the remedial action agreed to be necessary, all within a period not to exceed 90 days. The MPO also includes non discriminatory assurances in all of its consultant contracts that are binding on them, any sub contractors that may become involved, to assure that all planning activities are carried out in accordance with Title VI. Also, in keeping with Title VI and the Brooks Act, the consultant selection process is competitive and qualification based. REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 31 P a g e
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE In 1994 President Clinton passed Environmental Justice Orders that serve to further define and amplify Title VI by providing that each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health of environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low income populations. The concept of environmental justice includes the identification and assessment of disproportionately high and adverse effects of programs, policies, or activities on the minority and low income population groups. Within the context of regional transportation planning, environmental justice considers the relative distribution of cost and benefits from transportation investment strategies and policies among different segments of society. When RPC adopts new planning documents, or substantively amends existing documents, the agency is required to comply with federal environmental justice requirements. When this occurs, a systematic process is used to study and evaluate all necessary environmental aspects of the proposed action(s). Depending on the scope, complexity, and impacts of the project, the agency s Title VI Coordinator oversees the process, and ensures all federal and state requirements are met, and that the public has been involved to participate. In order to help implement the 1994 Environmental Justice Orders, the RPC follows the process summarized below: 1. Identify low income and minority populations. 2. Define and map the target population in the New Orleans urbanized area. 3. Define stakeholders that represent the targeted populations. 4. Use this data to determine where these populations are with respect to planned projects. 5. Determine goals, policies and approaches that further Title VI/Environmental Justice compliance. 6. Coordinate RPC s activities with other agencies to ensure compliance with Title VI, including community and neighborhood groups; health, welfare and other community service organizations; government agencies (federal, state, and local); and faith based organizations. 7. Develop a Public Involvement Plan with strategies for engaging low income and minority populations in the planning process. 8. Communicate data and information about the distribution of benefits and burdens as well as suggested changes to more equitably address Title VI/Environmental Justice concerns. See Appendix J for more details on RPC s Title VI/Environmental Justice Plan, policies and procedures. 32 P a g e REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
VIII. PROJECT MANAGEMENT The RPC adheres to a state and federally approved contracting process. Since RPC contracts are funded through LADOTD, federal and state contracting requirements apply, and deviations from established policies, procedures, and contracting language are normally not allowed. Federal and state requirements are passed on by RPC to contractors and local planning agencies under contract to RPC. All third party contracts are assigned an RPC Project Coordinator who oversees and manages the work effort and reports to RPC s Deputy Director. STANDARD CONTRACTING FORM The RPC uses a standard contract document that incorporates all necessary federal and state policies. In general, RPC s standard contract provisions are non negotiable, owing to the multiple requirements that the form must satisfy. All contracts are reviewed by RPC s legal counsel and are approved by the MPO/RPC board. Contracts are then submitted to LADOTD for review and concurrence. Pending favorable review and board approval, the RPC Chairman or Executive Director is authorized to execute the agreement. Three original contracts are executed, one of which goes to the consultant, the second going to the RPC files, and the third to the LA DOTD. FEE TYPE The RPC generally utilizes a lump sum contract based on an in house estimation of project manhours and costs which is submitted to LADOTD for review and approval. Other types of fee structures such as negotiated lump sum and cost plus fixed fee are utilized on larger or more complex service contracts such as environmental impact studies. RPC recognizes that unanticipated changes to project scope and schedule may occur, however, any request for a change in fee must be strongly justified and requires review and approval of LADOTD. BILLINGS Contractor billings are generally submitted on a monthly basis for RPC review and approval. All contractor invoices must be reviewed and approved in writing by RPC s Responsible Charge, Finance Director, and RPC s Executive Director prior to being submitted to the RPC board for review and approval. The contractor is required to submit a written narrative detailing work efforts during the invoice period and a completed RPC Progress Report Evaluation Form which includes the following: 1. Contract number 2. Project Budget 3. Cumulative Invoiced Amount 4. Amount Previously Invoiced 5. Amount Invoiced this Period REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 33 P a g e
6. Task Allocation Balance 7. Percentage of Task Completed this Period 8. Cumulative Percentage of Task Completion RPC requires its contractors, sub contractors, and sub recipients to ensure that MBE/WBE/DBE businesses as defined in Title 49 CFR, Part 26 will have the maximum opportunity to compete for procurement of materials and services in connection with the awarded contract; and that contractors, sub contractors, and sub recipients shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, age, sex, or national origin in its own employment policies and procurement of materials and services. Separate MBE/WBE/DBE registration requirements exist with the State of Louisiana which must be met for qualifying with the RPC as a MBE/WBE/DBE firm. REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ)/REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) RPC uses Request for Qualifications (RFQs) as its basic method for securing technical services. Request for Proposals (RFPs) will be used in cases where a more complicated work scope is involved and a detailed project approach is required, or the subject matter is unfamiliar to RPC project staff, or where otherwise required (such as for FTA funded professional services contracts). RPC s Consultant Evaluation Team includes the Directors of Planning and Finance as well as the RPC Executive Director. In certain instances where additional expertise may be needed, representatives from LADOTD, the local governmental entity or other senior RPC staff members may be invited to participate in the review process. The following criteria are used in evaluating submittals: Firm s Overall Experience in Performing Comparable Work Demonstrated Experience of Key Staff Prior RPC Work Performance Current Work Load Firm Size Relative to Work Requested Location and Familiarity with Project Area Criteria Special to Work Advertised RPC utilizes DOTD Standard Form 24 102 (available thru RPC s website) for statement of qualifications. The MPO s Consultant Selection Procedures have been reviewed and approved by both LADOTD and FHWA. A copy of these procedures is available on RPC s website. PROGRESS REPORTING/TRACKING Contractors will be provided with an electronic copy (Microsoft Word file format) of a progress report form. This form will be filled out and submitted with each invoice. The form asks for status, percent completion, dates of invoice period, amount of previous invoice, amount of current invoice and report narrative for the work task or activity. 34 P a g e REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
Prior to submission to the RPC Board for approval, all invoice undergo a detailed review for financial accuracy and consistency determination between the amount of the invoice and the percentage of work completed during the invoice period. If there are any questions or further documentation is required, the RPC Project Coordinator will arrange a meeting with the consultant to review the invoice, work status, and other project support information as part of RPC s in house review. All invoices are reviewed and signed off on in writing by the Project Coordinator, Finance Director, and RPC Executive Director before being submitted to the RPC board for approval. DELIVERABLES Upon completion, unless otherwise specified in the scope of work, the contractor will provide RPC with a minimum of ten full copies of the final report, a camera ready original with maps, and one electronic copy of the final report in PDF format. PowerPoint presentations, display boards, handouts and other requested support materials, including CADD or geospatial files if developed will also be turned over to the RPC in hardcopy and electronic format. All reports and graphics should be written and prepared in a manner that is clear and facilitates understanding of the project and related issues by the public. The RPC retains the right to make corrections for both content and grammar, and to make the document available to other public entities upon request. CONTRACT TIMING AND SCOPE Contracts are scoped by senior RPC staff members in May of June, just prior to the start of the fiscal year. The majority of PL contracts are executed early on with the goal of completing all work within the fiscal year. Studies that are expected to take more than one fiscal year to complete should be phased. Contract balances at the end of a particular grant cycle are obligated to the following year s PL grant and shown in the UPWP as continuing contractual. QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA)/QUALITY CONTROL (QC) An RPC Project Coordinator is assigned to oversee the day to day work activities of each consultant contract. Project Management Committees are formed to guide technical work efforts and to work through project related issues. In addition, the RPC Planning Director or a Principal Planner (not associated with the project) conducts a Quality Assurance (QA) check at approximately the 50% level and at the submission of the draft deliverables (about 85% level). The QA check will review the status of all work activities including adherence to work scope, schedule, and project budget, and review of interim work products and draft final deliverables for project completeness as well as report content, grammar, and ease of understanding by the public. DOCUMENT STANDARDS RPC has established standards for report reproduction consisting of the following items: Cover sheet with title of project, date of final submittal, and RPC logo State and Federal Project Number and (UPWP Task No.) Table of Contents with Page Numbers REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 35 P a g e
An Executive Summary A Purpose and Need Statement, explaining the study and its relationship to Metropolitan Transportation Plan goals and UPWP objectives. Note that the size of the contractor logos are generally not allowed to exceed that of the MPO on any interim or final documents, including PowerPoint presentations, display boards, or handouts. All final deliverables should be developed with the viewing public in mind. While not required for all documents, projects of significant scope that have a large potential for public review should be developed using desktop publishing software. Final reports are normally posted on RPC s website. Hence, consultants need to consult early on with RPC staff to establish proper file size for downloading of text and images. Images intended for direct display on RPC s website should be no larger than 50k and 90 dpi. Images which are embedded in PDF documents may have higher resolution, but they may need to be compressed. If there are any questions, please contact the RPC Project Coordinator or GIS Manager for further guidance. All documents including handouts, display graphics, PowerPoint presentations need to be developed in a clear and easy to understand format for public review, input, and comment. Also, contractor logos are generally not permitted to exceed that of the MPO on interim or final reports and PowerPoint presentations. MAP STANDARDS Project maps should be clearly legible and understandable by the public. All hardcopy and electronic map versions, regardless of interim or final status, should have the following elements: a. Title b. A listed scale, either by use of a scale bar or a text scale c. North arrow d. Data source credits e. Legend (for thematic maps) f. Disclaimer (Appendix J) 36 P a g e REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
IX. ADMINISTRATION ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE The MPO staff typically utilizes a team approach to organization, rather than relying on a rigid hierarchical structure, but formal relationships do exist. Reporting lines of the MPO staff are shown in the RPC Organizational Chart found in Appendix H. A separate RPC office policy manual describes all staff policy and procedure. AGREEMENTS RPC maintains Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the region s transit operators (or parishes, if transit is operated by the parish government) as well as with the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD). The MOUs define individual and mutual responsibilities of the agency or government and RPC, including how entities will contribute to the development of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). Applicable planning responsibilities, data coordination and data sharing agreements, funding reimbursement, and fiscal contribution amounts are also defined in the MOUs. BUDGETARY PROCESS The RPC fiscal year begins July 1st and ends June 30th. The UPWP uses line items to budget funding to specific transportation planning tasks or work activities. LADOTD does permit the MPO to transfer funds between line items as long as the overall adjustment is not more than 25% of the task budget. In cases where the request exceeds 25% of the task amount, a formal request to amend the UPWP is made to LADOTD for their review and concurrence. The general policy of the RPC is to minimize the number of fiscal amendments to the UPWP in a fiscal year. However, substantial changes such as the receipt of a new grant agreement will require a formal amendment to the UPWP and MPO Board approval. LOCAL MATCH CONTRIBUTIONS Typically the MPO work program consists of 80% federal funds and 20% non federal local share match. While local match for planning activities can be obligated across fiscal years, federal planning (PL) monies cannot. PL funded work activities or contracts that carry across from one year to the next must therefore be obligated out of the grant from the second year. These surplus or rollover PL funds are available in subsequent program years. X. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT COMPUTER EQUIPMENT REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 37 P a g e
As of the time of this document s preparation, Microsoft Exchange Server with an Outlook 2013 PC client is used for email, Internet Explorer for internet use, and the 2013 Microsoft Office Suite (i.e., Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.) is used for the vast majority of clerical work. Computers in the RPC office run on a Windows operating system and in house staff performs day to day maintenance and upkeep. Microsoft Server 2003 is used to provide network communications and storage. Due to the computational intensity and storage needs of MPO software applications, individual user data is backed up daily to the back up storage array locally, and then replicated to the Baton Rouge Disaster Recovery Site in real time. Dreamweaver software is used to manage the MPO s web environment. GIS ENVIRONMENT MPO staff utilizes GIS software from an Enterprise license to the ESRI Corporation s ArcGIS software suite. The MPO also uses GIS software from the Caliper Corporation. Caliper s products, including TransCAD provide specific transportation modeling software routines the MPO uses in its transportation modeling work. The following list describes what is currently in use and is subject to change as technology and MPO needs and responsibilities change. ArcGIS is used for general mapping, Traffic Impact Studies, the Long Range Transportation Plan and the TIP, as well as custom applications as needed. TransCAD is used for Travel Demand Modeling. Further discussion of RPC s transportation modeling can found below. DATA SOURCES One of RPC s most important roles is as a repository of data to support both MPO level planning, as well as the planning efforts of agencies throughout the region. Through the cultivation of relationships with these agencies, a forum for the reciprocal exchange of data between the RPC and our local, state, and federal planning partners exists, and is the source of much of the RPC data. The RPC also purchases economic, demographic, and travel data required for planning. Such data is critical for supporting the planning efforts of the RPC and of our planning partners. It is of particular importance when conducting forecasts for use in land use mapping and travel demand forecasting. The primary data source for demographic data is the U.S. Decennial Census of the Population and the short form American Community Survey (ACS). The MPO uses a special aggregation of Census data called the Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP), purchased on behalf of the transportation community by AASHTO (the American Association of State of Highway Transportation Officials). The CTPP has beenmodified to accommodate the changes in content of the ACS. Economic and employment data are gathered from a number of entities: these include the Louisiana Workforce Commission, the U.S. Census Department s Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics program, the InfoUSA employment database, and other sources. 38 P a g e REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
The MPO also uses forecasts of population produced for the State of Louisiana by the Louisiana Office of Planning, projections of economic variables from Woods & Poole Economics, and a number of other data sets. These data sets are largely used as parish level control totals, which are then allocated to smaller geographic areas such as Traffic Analysis Zones. The MPO in 2010 completed the consolidation of two existing travel models into a single regional comprehensive modeling system. The MPO has also begun work on two significant travel data studies that will be used extensively in updating the model s required input data. The first is a partnership project between the MPO and the region s transit properties to conduct a Comprehensive Operational Analysis of the transit system. The second project is a Household Travel Survey to collect detailed data on trip making characteristics for up to 3,000 households in the MPA. Data from these two surveys will be used extensively in updating the MPO s travel demand model in 2010 2011. Transportation network data are collected from a variety of sources, including the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD), parish and municipal engineering departments, and original data collection (both field and from aerial photography). Types of network data currently collected include traffic counts, travel speeds, centerline locations, lane widths, facility types, and posted speeds. During 2008, the MPO began full time collection of traffic counts, finishing the third year of a three year system traffic count cycle. TRAVEL MODEL REQUESTS AND PROCEDURES Community stakeholders may ask that MPO staff run the model to test various scenarios. Generally, the MPO will try to accommodate these requests, but significant staff and computer time is utilized in running the model and, therefore, the MPO reserves the right to re scope, or even reject requests based upon resource availability. This is staff time intensive and stakeholders should expect a turnaround time of no less than ten weeks. EXTERNAL USE OF THE TRAVEL MODEL Consultants and other external parties are generally permitted to directly run the travel model, with the following caveats, which constitute requirements for use of the model. Any violation of these caveats may result in the suspension of the stakeholder s permission to use the model: The travel model is the property of the MPO. The MPO needs to be properly credited in any report; Final model results for major investment studies, feasibility studies, environmental impact statements; et cetera must be verified by the MPO. This verification requires the submittal of the networks and, if applicable, zones to the MPO for an independent run of the model. In its review and verification, the MPO reserves the right to alter any network or zonal coding that it feels is unsupportable or misleading. The MPO will provide written electronic notice of the verification or rejection of the stated model results after sufficient time for review. Verification of the results will require the final document to include the following sentence: Model results have been verified by the staff of the MPO ; No alterations to model parameters may be implemented without the express consent of the MPO. Generally, unless the contract is for general travel model update work that is
not specific to a particular network project proposal(s), customization of model parameters and output will not be allowed; All presentation of model results must be comprehensive, and relative to a base scenario. This base scenario must use the MPO s latest planning assumptions, including the latest population and employment estimates. Deviations from planning assumptions in the alternate scenarios must be properly documented and with written concurrence of the MPO; and The MPO reserves the right to review and re test any third party s use of the regional travel model, using the latest network and socio economic input data available for trip modeling purposes. DATA REQUESTS PROTOCOL Requests for data that is not already available for download on the website will be handled by RPC s Principal Planner/GIS Coordinator. If data are available in the format needed, then the requester may expect a seven day turnaround time. Alternately, if customization or analysis of data is required, a 30 day response time is the target. The RPC retains the right to turn down customization or analysis requests based upon resource availability. Any document or report developed by a third party using MPO data must properly credit the RPC as the data source. APPROPRIATENESS Data that are purchased and/or developed by the MPO will be freely available, provided that their release does not raise privacy or security issues. The RPC maintains its ownership over the data, however, and datasets may not be altered without RPC permission, nor may a third party sell them. Distribution of licensed data is subject to the terms of the license agreement with the vendor. In most cases, this license agreement prohibits the free distribution of data. Datasets that are developed using licensed data, however, are considered MPO developed data, and will be made freely available but on a limited request basis. PRIVACY As part of the information development process, the MPO sometimes handles data that either by location, name, or some other marker, identifies individual persons or businesses. Such data will not be made available to the public. For example, travel survey data is sometimes collected that identifies individual trip origins and destinations. The origin and destination data will not be included in the public distribution of such a dataset, although any calculated trip length data may still be included. Another example is point level employment data; in addition to being licensed and therefore prohibited from secondary release, the distribution of these data violates business privacy. These data may be compiled into zonal summaries, which may then be released; however, any summation by employment code (e.g., by North American Industrial Classification System, or NAICS) may have too few firms in any 40 P a g e REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
employment category to secure the privacy of any individual firm; therefore, NAICS codes will not be publicly released. SECURITY Only MPO staff and other authorized individuals, such as technical support personnel will be allowed direct access to MPO computing resources such as hard drives, network storage, and raw data. All data released as a result of public data and information requests will be made available via website downloads, burned to CDs or DVDs, or other appropriate storage device that will not allow access to data not directly included in the request.
List of Appendices All documents are current as of July 30, 2018 Appendix A: UZA/MPA Maps Appendix B: Enabling Legislation Appendix C: By-Laws Appendix D: RPC and TPC Membership Appendix E: Technical Advisory Committee Appendix F: Project Screening Scorecard Appendix G: Title VI Plan Appendix H: Staff Organization Chart Appendix I: Decision Making Flowchart Appendix J: Map Disclaimer Appendix K: List of Acronyms Appendix L: Self Certification
Appendix A UZA/MPA Maps
M 10 Lutcher S T. J O H N T H E B A P T I S T QR3127 Laplace 61 Lake Pontchartrain 90 10 610 310 Harahan Boutee Kenner New Orleans Urbanized Area O R L E A N S New Orleans Westwego 90 Gretna 10 QR 39 Chalmette Violet QR 46 90 Lake Borgne Lake Eugenie QR 1 90 S T. C H A R L E S Larose L a f o u r c h e Lake Salvador QR 45 Lafitte Belle Chasse Bertrandville J E F F E R S O N Pointe a la Hache Mississippi River Yscloskey P L A Q U E M I N E S S T. B E R N A R D QR 23 Breton Sound QR 1 Empire Legend MPO - Urbanized Areas Census 2010 T e r r e b o n n e MPO - Urbanized Areas Adjusted (Smoothed) RPC/LADOTD 2013 MPA - Metropolitan Planning Study Areas Regional Planning Commission Member Parishes New Orleans South Shore Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Urbanzied Area and Parishes Venice RPC Task: UPWP: B3.18 Leeville
a W a s h i n g t o n P a r i s h L O U I S I A N A MISSISSIPPI S T. T A M M A N Y P A R I S H Pearl River P 59 Mandeville/Covington Urbanized Area Covington 12 Madisonville Slidell Urbanized Area Mandeville Lake Pontchartrain 190 Slidell 190 10 St. Tammany Parish Urbanized Area, Adjusted Urbanized Area and Metropolitan Planning Area 2018 New Orleans 90 RPC Task: UPWP: MC5 SL5 2018 Legend 610 MPO - Urbanized Area Census 2010 MPO - Urbanized Area Adjusted (Smoothed) RPC/LADOTD 2013 Regional Planning Commission Member Parishes QR 39 Chalmette Lake Borgne
Kentwood 55 Tangipahoa L O U I S I A N A Franklinton S t. H e l e n a P a r i s h T A N G I P A H O A P A R I S H W a s h i n g t o n P a r i s h L i v i n g s t o n P a r i s h 51 Hammond 190 190 Covington Ponchatoula QR 22 55 12 Madisonville Lake Pontchartrain Tangipahoa Parish Urbanized Area, Adjusted Urbanized Area and Metropolitan Planning Area 2018 Lake Maurepas S t. J o h n t h e B a p t i s t P a r i s h Legend MPO - Urbanized Area Census 2010 MPO - Urbanized Area Adjusted (Smoothed) RPC/LADOTD 2013 MPA - Metropolitan Planning Study Area (2016 update) Regional Planning Commission Member Parishes RPC Task: UPWP: ST5.18
Appendix B Enabling Legislation
Appendix C By-Laws
Enabling Legislation The Regional Planning Commission for Jefferson, Orleans, St. Bernard and St. Tammany Parishes was established in accordance with Louisiana Revised Statutes 33:131 et seq., as amended, and created by identical ordinances of the four parishes, to wit: Ordinance No. 10203 of Jefferson Parish adopted June 17, 1971; Ordinance No. 4562, Mayor Council Series of Orleans Parish, adopted May 20, 1971; Ordinance No. 18-71, of St. Bernard Parish, adopted May 4, 1971; and, Ordinance No. 519 of St. Tammany Parish, adopted on June 17, 1971. Plaquemines Parish, by Ordinance No. 96-115 adopted July 11, 1996 by its Parish Government, became a member of the Regional Planning Commission. Concurring ordinances of the other four parishes were adopted, to wit: Ordinance No. 19790 of Jefferson Parish, adopted August 14, 1996; Ordinance No. 17710 of Orleans Parish, adopted August 15, 1996; Ordinance No. 282-07-96 of St. Bernard Parish, adopted July 16, 1996; and Ordinance No. 96-2491 of St. Tammany Parish adopted September 11, 1996. The Commission is empowered to perform comprehensive planning for the four-parish region of Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard and St. Tammany Parishes as provided in Section 1 of Louisiana Revised Statutes 33:131 et seq. Membership The Regional Planning Commission is comprised of twenty-six (26) members. Each of the five member parishes has five representatives who are selected in accordance with parish ordinances. The Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development is the twenty-sixth member. Jefferson Parish Membership 1. Parish President 2. Council Chairman 3. One (1) member selected by the Parish Council and approved by the Parish President from among the mayors of the municipalities located within the Parish of Jefferson. 4. Two (2) members who must not otherwise hold elected or appointive office in Jefferson Parish; to be appointed by the Parish Council and approved by the Parish President. Orleans Parish Membership 1. Mayor of the City of New Orleans 2. The two (2) members of the Council elected from the City at-large 3. Two (2) members appointed by the Mayor who must not hold public or appointive office and who have the approval of the Council.
Plaquemines Parish Membership 1. The Parish President of the Parish Government. 2. The Chairman of the Plaquemines Parish Council 3. One (1) member who otherwise holds elected or appointed office in the Parish of Plaquemines, provided same is not otherwise prohibited by law, to be appointed by the Parish Council. 4. Two (2) members who must not otherwise hold elected or appointive office in Plaquemines Parish; to be appointed by the Parish Government and approved by the Parish President St. Bernard Parish Membership 1. Parish President 2. Two (2) members who must otherwise hold elected or appointive office in the Parish of St. Bernard, provided same is not otherwise prohibited by law, to be appointed by the Parish Council. 3. Two (2) members who must not otherwise hold elected or appointive office in St. Bernard Parish; to be appointed by the Parish Council and approved by the Parish President. St. Tammany Parish 1 1. Parish President 2. Two (2) members who must otherwise hold elected or appointive office in the Parish of St. Tammany, provided same is not otherwise prohibited by law, to be appointed by the Parish Council. 3. Two (2) members who must not otherwise hold elected or appointive office in St. Tammany Parish; to be appointed by the Parish Council and approved by the Parish President. State of Louisiana Membership The Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Development Any parish, other than the member parishes of Jefferson, Orleans, St. Bernard and St. Tammany which may wish to participate in the RPC structure, shall be on a contractual basis rather than on full membership. 2 Annual assessment in such cases, however, shall not be less than the assessment levied on that existing member parish having the lowest population. 3 1 As amended, February 21, 1984; Resolution No. 84-1003. 2 As amended, January 21, 1992. 3 As amended, January 21, 1992.
Committees 4 Transportation Policy Committee The Transportation Policy Committee shall adopt regional transportation policy; the Regional Planning Commission shall take official action on recommendations made by the Transportation Policy Committee. The Transportation Policy Committee consists of the full Commission plus the Governor of the State of Louisiana or a designated representative, the Chairperson of the Regional Transit Authority or a designee and the Director of the Department of Transit Administration for Jefferson Parish or a designee. 5 To insure that all major transportation modes are represented and have an active role in the setting and selection of transportation priorities for the region, the committee s membership shall be amended to include representatives of the Port of New Orleans, the New Orleans International Airport and the Union Passenger Terminal. 6 In addition, a member of the trucking industry shall be added to the committee s membership. 7 Budget and Personnel Committee The Budget and Personnel Committee shall meet immediately prior to the monthly meeting of the Transportation Policy Committee. Membership shall consist of the Officers of the Commission plus, the Chairman shall appoint one (1) additional member from each member parish to serve on this Committee. Additionally, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Development, or his/her designee shall be a member of this Committee. The Budget and Personnel Committee has overall fiduciary responsibility for the Commission. As such, the Budget and Personnel Committee shall be kept fully informed regarding all financial matters pertaining to the work of this Commission by the RPC Executive Director and the Director of Management and Finance. The Budget and Personnel Committee shall exercise review of the RPC operating budget and make recommendations to the full Commission concerning the operating costs and expenses of this Agency prior to adoption of the annual budget by the Commission. In matters pertaining to the hiring or dismissal of RPC staff, the RPC Executive Director shall notify and submit his recommendations to the Budget and Personnel Committee for concurrence and discussion prior to execution. The Budget and Personnel Committee shall review staff salaries at least annually for cost of living and/or merit pay adjustments. Special requests may be submitted by the RPC Executive Director to the Budget and Personnel Committee for review at his/her discretion. Officers and Executive Director 1. Officers The officers of the Commission shall consist of a Chairman, 1 st Chairman, 2 nd Vice-Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer. Vice- (a) Chairman. The Chairman shall preside at all meetings of the Commission and shall be the chief officer of the Commission. The Chairman may join in the signing of all official instruments or contracts of the Commission. 4 As amended, January 21, 1992. 5 As amended, January 19, 1993. 6 As amended, June 21, 1994, Resolution No. 94-1009. 7 As amended, November 15, 1994.
(b) 1 st Vice-Chairman. The 1 st Vice-Chairman shall exercise the functions of the Chairman in the absence, incapacity or unavailability of the Chairman. The 1 st Vice-Chairman may join in the signing of all official instruments or contracts of the Commission. (c) 2 nd Vice-Chairman. The 2 nd Vice-Chairman shall exercise the functions of the Chairman in the absence, incapacity or unavailability of the 1 st Vice Chairman. The 2 nd Vice Chairman may join in the signing of all official instruments or contracts of the Commission. (d) Secretary. The Secretary shall exercise the functions of the 1 st Vice-Chairman in the absence, incapacity or unavailability of the 2 nd Vice-Chairman. The regular duties of the Secretary shall include the making of such reports and other duties as may be consistent with his office or as may be required from time to time by the Chairman. The Secretary may join in the signing of all official instruments or contracts of the Commission. (e) Treasurer. The Treasurer shall exercise the functions of the Secretary in the absence, incapacity, or unavailability of the Secretary. The regular duties of the Treasurer shall include the making of such reports and other duties as may be required from time to time by the Chairman. The Treasurer may join in the signing of all official instruments or contracts of the Commission. 2. Executive Director The administrative operations of the Commission shall be managed by an Executive Director appointed by the Commission, or in his absence, by the Director of Management and Finance. The Executive Director may be authorized, empowered and directed to expend funds, to enter into contracts and to execute official instruments in accordance with the policies and limitations of authority prescribed by the Commission in the approved policy manual or through official resolutions. The Executive Director shall be present at every meeting unless excused by the Chairman. The Executive Director will also be the planner in charge, with compensation to be fixed by the Commission. Qualifications and Terms of Office - Elections The officers shall be qualified members of the Commission. The Executive Director shall be a paid employee of the Commission and shall hold no membership thereon, except that his attendance at Commission meetings and the tenure of his appointment shall be at the pleasure of the Commission. The term of each officer, other than the Executive Director, shall be one calendar year, from January 1 through December 31, or until a successor is elected and installed. Officers shall be elected by a majority vote of the Commission present and voting at the first regular meeting in December of every calendar year, except as is hereinabove excepted. Vacancies occurring in any office, if for any reason, shall be filled by a majority vote of the Commission. Such appointments shall be for the remaining portion of the unexpired term for which they are elected to serve.
Regular Meetings 8 Regular meetings of the Commission shall be held monthly at the Commission office at a time and date to be designated by the Commission giving written public notice of the regular meetings at the beginning of each calendar year, unless five (5) days prior written notice designating another time or location is given each member by the Secretary, who shall advise as to the place and time such meeting is to be held. In the event the time or location of the regular meeting is changed, then the Secretary shall inform the public by posting a copy of the notice at the principal office of the public body; and by publication of the notice in an official journal of the RPC no less than twentyfour hours before the meeting and mailing a copy of the notice to any member of the news media who requests notice of such meetings. The Secretary shall transmit to each member of the Commission a notice of each meeting together with the proposed agenda and a copy of summary minutes of the preceding meeting, within a reasonable time before the proposed meeting. The agenda for regular meetings of the Commission shall be prepared by the Secretary and shall include such matters as the Chairman and the Secretary think proper for consideration by the Commission. Any member of the Commission may, by written request, direct the Secretary to include an item on the agenda for any particular meeting. Miscellaneous Powers and Duties of the Commission The Commission shall have such powers as may be necessary to enable it to fulfill its functions, promote planning, and in all respects carry out the purpose of the enabling authority. Members of the Commission, when duly authorized by the Commission, may attend planning conferences or meetings relevant to Commission operations, and the Commission may by resolution, pay the reasonable travel expenses incident to such attendance. Special Meetings The Commission may call special meetings at the direction of the Chairman upon notice of the Secretary. Notice shall be in writing, at least forty-eight (48) hours before the meeting. A notice for a special meeting shall state the purpose for which the meeting is called, and business at such special meeting shall be confined to the purpose or purposes expressed in the call for the meeting. Any two members of the Commission may call for a special meeting by giving written notice to the Secretary, who in turn must give immediate notice to the members of the Commission. The Executive Director shall attend special meetings unless otherwise directed by the Chairman. Members of the Commission who hold no other elected or Payment of Per Diem appointive office may be paid a per diem of fifty dollars each for attendance at regular or specially called meetings of the full Commission or at scheduled committee meetings. The total per diem per member shall not exceed one hundred dollars per month as provided under Title 33, Section 140 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes. The order of business at regular meetings and at special meetings, unless otherwise required by the notice of call for any special meetings, shall be as follows: 8 As amended, December 19, 1989, Resolution No. 89-1026.
Order of Business at Commission Meetings (a) Call of Budget and Personnel Committee meeting to order. (b) Statement of the Chairman as to existence or lack of quorum for transaction of business before the Budget and Personnel Committee. (c) Action on agenda items by the Budget and Personnel Committee. (d) Adjournment of Budget and Personnel Committee. (e) Call of Transportation Policy Committee meeting to order. (f) Statement of the Chairman as to existence or lack of quorum for transaction of business before the Policy Committee. (g) Approval of Minutes of previous meeting (not required at special meeting). (h) Action on matters approved by the Commission. (i) Adjournment of Policy Committee. (j) Call of full Commission meeting to order. (k) Roll call, statement of the Chairman as to the existence or lack of quorum for transaction of business. (l) Proof of notice of meeting. (m) Approval of Minutes of previous meeting (not required at special meeting). (n) Report of Committees. (o) Unfinished business (not required at special meetings). (p) Action on matters specified in agenda for the particular meeting or in the notice of call for a special meeting. (q) Other business (not required at special meetings). (r) Discussion relative to future business to be included in future agenda (not required at special meetings). (s) Adjournment. Seven (7) members shall constitute a quorum, provided that each participating parish is represented by at least one member who is an Quorum elected official or the qualified designee of said elected official. Pursuant to Subsection B of Section 132, each elected official member and the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development shall have the right to designate a representative to attend, participate and vote in his place and stead at meetings of the Commission and Transportation Policy Committee. Such designation shall be in writing, nontransferable and shall remain in full force and effect until revoked in writing by the elected official who made the designation. No person so appointed shall serve as a designated representative of any other member of the Commission, nor shall such person be allowed to vote except as the designated representative of the elected official. Voting Each member shall have one vote. A majority of the vote cast, ignoring abstentions, is required for the adoption of any motion or resolution. The Chairman shall vote as a member. A resolution or motion shall fail in the event of a tie vote. Rules of Order Except as otherwise required by these rules of procedure, the rules of order of the Commission shall be in accordance with the latest revised edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Revised.
Audit The Commission shall arrange for a systematic and continuous recordation of its financial affairs and transactions. The Commission shall also obtain an audit adhering to federal guidelines. Registered Office Registered Agents 1. Registered Office. The registered office of the Commission shall be the Regional Transportation Management Center, 10 Veterans Memorial Boulevard New Orleans, Louisiana 70124. 2. Registered Agents. The registered agents of the Commission shall be the Chairman and the Secretary of the Commission. Public Liability Insurance Each member parish shall provide for its five (5) members, public liability insurance to indemnify its membership from personal liability resulting from any Commission action or activity. The State of Louisiana and the Regional Transit Authority shall also provide such coverage for their representatives on the Regional Planning Commission and Transportation Policy Committee. Public Hearing Rules The following rules are hereby established by the Commission governing the procedure to be followed at a public hearing of the Commission. 1. Each speaker, before speaking on a proposal, shall give their name and address, and identify whom they are representing. 2. The proponents will present their case, and they will be allowed thirty (30) minutes for all speakers. Each speaker shall be allowed three (3) minutes. 3. The opponents will present their views after the proponents, and they will be allowed thirty (30) minutes for all speakers. 4. The arguments on both sides must be confined to essential points in support or opposition to the proposal. 5. No personalities shall be indulged in by either side and such procedure shall be sufficient cause for stopping the speaker from further argument. 6. No questions shall be directed to the speaker without consent of the Chairman. Additional documents or maps or other data relating to the proposal will be received and considered when filed within three working days exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, following the date of the public hearing. Five (5) copies of such documents or maps must be filed. Public hearings shall be recorded and a verbatim transcript shall be available in multiple copies and all members of the Commission will be provided a record of the hearing before voting on the proposal. The hearing records will be kept in the Commission office. Such records will be made available for public examination upon receipt of a written request. Closed Meetings The Commission has the right to enter into a closed meeting in accordance with the applicable laws of the State of Louisiana. Such meetings will be closed to the public.
The law requires that a two-thirds majority vote of the Commission be recorded prior to such action. Furthermore, such closed meeting purpose shall be stated publicly in advance and shall be limited to matters set forth in applicable Louisiana State Laws. No vote shall be taken in any closed session of the Commission.
Appendix D Transportation Policy Committee Membership
RPC Board of Directors - July 2018 The RPC's officers rotate on an annual basis. Current membership of the Board includes: Robby Miller, Chairman Tangipahoa Parish, President LaToya Cantrell, 2 nd Vice Chairwoman City of New Orleans, Mayor Patricia Brister, 4 th Vice Chairwoman St. Tammany Parish, President Natalie Robottom, Secretary St. John the Baptist Parish, President Officers Members Guy McInnis, 1 st Vice Chairman St. Bernard Parish, President Amos Cormier III, 3 rd Vice Chairman Plaquemines Parish, President Larry Cochran, 5 th Vice Chairman St. Charles Parish, President Michael Yenni, Treasurer Jefferson Parish, President Jefferson Parish Cynthia Lee-Sheng, Councilmember-At-Large Belinda Constant, City of Gretna, Mayor Lee Giorgio Jack Stumpf Orleans Parish Jason Williams, Councilmember-At-Large Helena Moreno, Councilmember-At-Large Ronald Carrere, Jr. Jeffrey Schwartz Plaquemines Parish Benny Rousselle, Councilmember Nicole Smith Williams, Councilmember Rob Hopkins Mandrel Pansy St. Bernard Parish Wanda Alcon, Councilmember Howard Luna, Councilmember Susan Klees Robert Showalter St. Charles Parish Julia Fisher-Perrier, Councilmember Wendy Benedetto, Councilmember-At-Large Otis Kenner Debbie Dufresne Vial St. John the Baptist Parish Julia Remondet, Councilmember Michael Wright, Councilmember Charles Kennedy Jonathan Perret St. Tammany Parish Steve Stefancik, Councilmember Mike Lorino, Councilmember Richard P. Kelley Bill Newton Tangipahoa Parish Pete Panepinto, City of Hammond, Mayor Lionnel Wells, Council Chairman Dr. Bonnie Lewis LA Dept. of Transportation & Development Shawn Wilson, Secretary Transportation Policy Committee Greg Cromer, City of Slidell, Mayor Mike Cooper, City of Covington, Mayor Shelby Lasalle, GNOEC Chance McNeely, LMTA Kevin Dolliole, Aviation Brandy Christian, Port of NO Donald Villere, City of Mandeville, Mayor Bob Zabbia, City of Ponchatoula, Mayor Jared Munster, RTA Sharon Leader, Jefferson Transit Doug Campbell, NOPB
Appendix E Technical Advisory Committee Membership
JEFFERSON PARISH Director, Public Works Jefferson Parish Director, Engineering Division Jefferson Parish Director, Planning Jefferson Parish Planner Jefferson Parish Director, Transit Administration Jefferson Parish GCR & Associates Jefferson Transit Director, Planning City of Kenner Director, Public Works City of Kenner Mayor City of Gretna PLAQUEMINES PARISH Director, Public Services Plaquemines Parish Parish Engineer Plaquemines Parish GIS Manager Plaquemines Parish ORLEANS PARISH Director, Public Works City of New Orleans Traffic Division, Public Works City of New Orleans Public Works City of New Orleans Director, City Planning Commission City of New Orleans Deputy Director, City Planning Commission City of New Orleans Vice President Veolia Transportation Services, Inc. Director of Planning Regional Transit Authority ST. BERNARD PARISH Director, Public Works St. Bernard Parish Director, Community Development St. Bernard Parish Planner III, Community Development St. Bernard Parish Planner, Community Development St. Bernard Parish Transit Manager - SBURT St. Bernard Parish Permits, Planning, and Zoning Plaquemines Parish
ST. CHARLES PARISH Director, Public Works St. Charles Parish Director, Planning and Zoning St. Charles Parish Planning and Zoning St. Charles Parish Chief Administrative Officer St. Charles Parish ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH Director, Public Works St. John the Baptist Parish Assistant Director, Public Works St. John the Baptist Parish Special Assistant to the Parish President St. John the Baptist Parish ST. TAMMANY PARISH Director, Public Works St. Tammany Parish Director, Engineering Division St. Tammany Parish Director, Planning St. Tammany Parish Chief Administrative Officer St. Tammany Parish Director, Public Works City of Covington Director, Planning City of Covington Director, Public Works City of Mandeville Director, Planning and Development City of Mandeville Director, Planning City of Slidell Main Streets Manager City of Slidell
LA DOTD Director, Planning LA DOTD Public Transportation Administrator LA DOTD Traffic Safety Engineer LA DOTD Access Management Engineer LA DOTD District Administrator - District 02 LA DOTD Traffic Engineer - District 02 LA DOTD Crescent City Connection Division LA DOTD NON-PROFIT MEMBERS Associate State Director AARP Executive Director Bike Easy Executive Vice President Center for Planning Excellence Program Officer for Metro Opportunities Greater New Orleans Foundation FEDERAL MEMBERS Planning and Environmental Program Manager Federal Highway Administration Federal Highway Administration 5304 Flanders Dr., Suite A Community Planner Federal Transit Administration Field Office Director, New Orleans Office U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development OTHER MEMBERS General Manager Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission Executive Director Louisiana Motor Transportation Association President and CEO - South Louisiana Chapter National Safety Council Director of Aviation New Orleans Aviation Board Deputy Director and Chief Engineer New Orleans Aviation Board Chief Operating Officer New Orleans Port Authority General Manager New Orleans Public Belt Railroad Executive Director Ride New Orleans
Appendix F Project Screening Scorecard
RPC Project Ranking Scorecard The RPC s metropolitan planning process is firmly based in nationally recognized planning best practices, and consistently complies with both the letter and the spirit of federal transportation planning legislation. Projects are selected for inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or the Metropolitan Transportation Plan following an extensive vetting period that involves consultation with the public, elected officials, community leaders, relevant agencies, and RPC s own planning staff. The RPC Project Ranking Scorecard attempts to add another level of sophistication to that selection process by providing a systematic and quantitative process for selecting, ranking, and prioritizing projects. The Scorecard describes a project by quantitatively rating its potential impacts on a variety of factors, such as safety or congestion. The actual factors considered by the Scorecard are derived from the variety of federal, state, and regional policies that help define the RPC s overarching planning priorities. It is intended to help simplify decision making by providing a single, standardized tool for comparing projects. Moreover, through using it planners can be assured that they have considered a comprehensive set of criteria in the project selection process. Projects will be rated based on their conformity with the following criteria: The eight planning factors as defined by 23 CMP 450.306 The RPC s Congestion Management Process (CMP) The State of Louisiana s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) RPC s Smart Growth Policy The region s Bike and Pedestrian plans Potential environmental impacts, positive or negative Potential economic development impacts Perceived acceptability among the public and elected officials The mean of the individual project rankings will be used as a general priority ranking for each project. The score will indicate its compatibility with RPC s overarching planning goals, as well as its potential for successful implementation. Projects with a rating of 3.5 or higher should be recommended for inclusion in the TIP.
Regional Planning Commission Project Ranking Scorecard The project will be ranked based on its conformity to each of the topics below. For each section, assign a score of 1 5 based on its conformity. A score of 1 indicates a very negative potential impact, and a score of 5 indicates a very positive potential impact. Project Title: Score Summary: Criteria Planning Factors Congestion Management SHSP Smart Growth Bike and Pedestrian Social & Environmental Economic Development Public Support Total Average Score Recommended for Advancement (Y/N)? Project Ranking Committee The Ranking Committee will consist of the RPC Director of Planning and two RPC Transportation Planners RPC Director of Planning Transportation Planner Transportation Planner Ranking Date
Ranking Criteria: 1. The Eight Planning Factors 23 CMP 45.306 outlines eight planning factors that an MPO should consider in its transportation planning process. In the table below, indicate the planning factors to which this project is related. Preservation of System Management & Operations Intermodal/Multimodal Environment/Energy/Quality of Life/Planned Growth/Economic Development Patterns Accessibility & Mobility Security Safety Economic Vitality Notes: Planning Factors Rank (1 5): 2. The Congestion Management Process Rank the project according to its conformity with the priorities and strategies set forth in the RPC s Congestion Management Process Plan (CMP). Questions to Consider: Does the project affect a Congestion Management route?
Does the project include any corridors that have been identified as high priority corridor by the CMP? Does the project include any strategies that have been identified as preferred strategies by the CMP? Can the project be expected to help reduce congestion on the applicable corridors? Can the project be expected to help reduce congestion region wide? Notes: Congestion Management Rank (1 5): 3. The Louisiana Strategic Highway Safety Plan Rank the project according to its conformity with the policies set forth in the State of Louisiana s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Questions to Consider: Will the project help to achieve any of the objectives outlined in the SHSP? Does the project address any of the SHSP s Emphasis Areas? Does the project include any of the strategies recommended by the SHSP? Notes:
SHSP Rank (1 5): 4. Regional Smart Growth Policy Rank the project according to its conformity with the RPC s established Smart Growth Policies. Questions to consider: Does the project contribute to or detract from regional or local sustainability? How does the project link transportation and land use? Will the project maintain or reduce the region s carbon footprint? Will the project enhance community livability? Notes: Smart Growth Rank (1 5): 5. Bike and Pedestrian Rank the project based on its contributions to Bike and Pedestrian friendliness. Questions to consider: Is the project consistent with local, regional, and state bicycle Master Plans?
Does the project add or upgrade bike or pedestrian facilities? Does the project take adequate precautions to protect the safety of cyclists and pedestrians? Notes: Bike and Pedestrian Rank (1 5): 6. Social & Environmental Impact Rank the project on its potential environmental impact, positive or negative. Questions to consider: Does the project affect disadvantaged populations (i.e., minorities, the elderly, and/or the poor)? Are any culturally or historically significant sites impacted by the project? Will the project have an impact on air quality via an influence on VMT, congestion, or ADT? Will the project impact waterways or wetlands? Notes:
Environmental Rank (1 5): 7. Economic Development Impact Rank the project on its potential impact, positive or negative, on local economic development. Does the project help advance the economic development goals of the project area, region, state, or nation? Will the project aid in business retention or job creation? Can the project be expected to encourage investment in the project area or region? Notes: Economic Development Rank (1 5): 8. Public Support Rank the project according to its perceived support/popularity among the public and elected officials. Question for consideration: Has the project been identified or supported by the RPC s Public Participation process? Notes: Public Support Rank (1 5):
Final Recommendation Based on the project s score on this Scorecard the following recommendation is made regarding its inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): Present project to Transportation Policy Committee for consideration Do not advance project Statement of Certification: As the Regional Planning Commission s Director of Planning, I certify that the above recommendation indicates whether the project described on this Scorecard meets the quantitative criteria for inclusion in the regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). I also certify that efforts were made in good faith to objectively score the project, and acknowledge that considerations beyond the scope of this Scorecard may affect the project s eligibility for inclusion in the TIP. Jeffrey Roesel, Director of Planning Date
Appendix G Title VI Plan
TITLE VI PROGRAM Regional Planning Commission for Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa Parishes 2013
TITLE VI PROGRAM Updated May 31, 2013 Prepared by the Regional Planning Commission Staff Nikolaus Richard, Title VI Coordinator Walter Brooks, Executive Director Jeffrey W. Roesel, Director of Planning Lynn Dupont, Principal Planner/GIS Coordinator Karen Parsons, Principal Planner Kara Mattini Renne, Economic Development/Community Planning Regional Planning Commission Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. John, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa Parishes 10 Veterans Memorial Blvd. New Orleans, Louisiana 70124 504-483-8500 504-483-8526 (fax) rpc@norpc.org www.norpc.org
Table of Contents Page General... 1 Introduction... 2 Figure 1... 3 Title VI Plan Policy Statement... 4 Authorities... 5 Title VI Delegation Chart... 6 Organization and Staffing General... 7 Staffing Chart... 8 Program Administration General... 9 Complaint Procedures... 9 Data Collection... 10 Title VI Program Reviews... 10 Operational Guidelines/Program Directives... 10 Training Program... 11 Annual Reports... 11 Title VI Program Update... 11 Public Dissemination... 11 Post-grant Reviews... 11 Elimination of Discrimination... 12 Remedial Action... 12 Procedures Manual... 12 JARC and New Freedom Program Management Plan... 12 Advisory Councils and Committees... 13 Technical Advisory Committee... 13 Coordinated Human Services Council... 13 Complete Streets Advisory Committee... 13 Title VI Coordinator Responsibilities... 14 Title VI Responsibilities for the Agency s Program Areas... 15 Planning... 15 Education and Training... 15 Consultant Services... 16 Public Participation... 16 Environmental Justice... 17 Consultant Contracts... 17 Contract Procedures... 17 Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE) Program... 18 Consultant Reviews... 18 Requirement to Conduct Equity Analysis to Determine Site or Location of Facilities... 18 Title VI Investigations, Complaints and Lawsuits... 18 Title VI Public Notice... 19 Questions... 19 Addendum Title VI Assurances... 20 Title VI Methodology... 22 Figure 2... 24 Analysis of RPC Project Impacts... 24 Limited English Proficiency... 26 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Notices... 35 Environmental Justice... 36 Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE) Policy Statement... 38 RPC Complaint Form... 39 Annual Title VI Review for Subrecipients and Consultants... 40 Resolution... 42
Title VI Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 USC 2000(d)-2000(d)(l) General This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy. This title is not intended to apply to foreign assistance programs. Section 601 states the general principle that no person in the United States shall be excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Section 602 directs each federal agency administering a program of federal financial assistance by way of grant, contract, or loan to take action pursuant to rule, regulation, or order of general applicability to effectuate the principle of section 601 in a manner consistent with the achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the assistance. In seeking the effect compliance with its requirements imposed under this section, an agency is authorized to terminate or to refuse to grant or to continue assistance under a program to any recipient as to whom there has been an express finding pursuant to hearing of a failure to comply with the requirements under that program, and it may also employ any other means authorized by law. However, each agency is directed first to seek compliance with its requirements by voluntary means. Section 603 -- provides that any agency action taken pursuant to section 602 shall be subject to such judicial review as would be available for similar actions by that agency on other grounds. Where the agency action consists of terminating or refusing to grant or to continue financial assistance because of a finding of a failure of the recipient to comply with the agency s judicial review under existing law, judicial review shall nevertheless be available to any person aggrieved as provided in section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5USC 1009). The section also states explicitly that in the latter situation such agency action shall not be deemed committed to unreviewable agency discretion within the meaning of section 10. The purpose of this provision is to obviate the possible argument that although section 603 provides for review in accordance with section 10, section 10 itself has an exception for action committed to agency discretion, which might otherwise be carried over into section 603. It is not the purpose of this provision of section 603, however, otherwise to alter the scope of judicial review as presently provided in section 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act. 1 P age
Introduction Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Specifically, Title VI provides that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under and program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The Regional Planning Commission for Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. John, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa Parishes (referred to throughout as RPC and Commission ) is the recipient of federal-aid highway funds authorized under MAP-21, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141). As such, The Regional Planning Commission is subject to the requirements of Title VI and the information reporting requirements established by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to evaluate the level of compliance concerning the provision of transit services and related benefits. The Regional Planning Commission as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is not a public transit provider and owns no public transit facilities. Figure 1 shows an overview of the RPC jurisdictional area. 2 P age
Figure 1 3 P age
Title VI Plan Policy Statement The New Orleans Regional Planning Commission (RPC) assures that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex, age, disability, or national origin, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (P.L. 100.259), be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity. RPC further assures that every effort will be made to ensure nondiscrimination in all of its programs or activities, whether these programs and activities are federally funded or not. In the event that RPC contracts to distribute federal aid funds to another entity, Title VI language will be included in all written agreements and the recipient will be monitored for compliance. The Title VI Coordinator designated in the Plan is responsible for initiating and monitoring Title VI activities, preparing required reports and other responsibilities as required by 23 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 200 and 49 Code of Federal Regulation 21. Walter R. Brooks, Executive Director Date 4 P age
Authorities Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act provides that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, income, gender, age, or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance (please refer to 23 CFR 200.0 and 49 CFR 21). The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 broadened the scope of Title VI coverage by expanding the recipients, subrecipients, and contractors, whether such programs and activities are federally assisted or not (Public Law 100259 [2.557] March 22, 1988). Environmental Justice (EJ) (Executive Order 12898) addresses disproportionate adverse environmental, social and economic impacts that may exist in communities, specifically minority and low-income populations. Limited English Proficiency (LEP) (Executive Order 13166) addresses access to services for persons whose primary language is not English and who have a limited ability to read, write, speak or understand English. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity for persons with disabilities in employment, State and local government services, public accommodations, commercial facilities and transportation. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 324) prohibits discrimination based on handicap/disability. Additional Authorities and Citations may be found under Table of Authorities, Title VI Legal Manual, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division at http://www.usdoi.gov/crtlcorlcoord/vimanual.htm. 5 P age
Title VI Delegation Chart State of Louisiana Bobby Jindal, Governor 866-366-1121 (toll free) Regional Planning Commission David E. Peralta, Chairman Walter R. Brooks, Executive Director 504-483-8512 Title VI Coordinator for Regional Planning Commission Nikolaus Richard 504-483-8535 6 P age
Organization and Staffing General The Executive Director of the Regional Planning Commission is responsible for ensuring the implementation of the Commission s Title VI Plan. The Title VI Coordinator, on behalf of the Executive Director, is responsible for the overall management of the Title VI programs, and serves as the Title VI Liaison Officer, DBE Liaison Officer, and LEP Coordinator. The Deputy Director is currently responsible for all ADA programs and serves as the ADA Coordinator. The day-to-day administration of the plan lies with the Title VI Coordinator (hereafter referred to as Coordinator ) under the direct supervision of the Executive Director of the Regional Planning Commission. The staffing chart is listed on the following page. 7 P age
8 P age
Program Administration General As Title VI Coordinator, the Coordinator shall be responsible for coordinating the overall administration of the Title VI program, plan, and assurances. The Coordinator serves under direct supervision of the Executive Director, and is responsible for the program s day-today administration. Complaint Procedures Any individual, group of individuals or entity that believes they have been subjected to discrimination prohibited by Title VI nondiscrimination provisions may file a written complaint with the Louisiana Department of Transportation s (LADOTD) Compliance Programs Office (CPO). A formal complaint must be filed within 180 calendar days of the alleged occurrence. Upon receipt of the complaint, the CPO will determine its jurisdiction, acceptability, need for additional information, and investigative merit of the complaint. In cases where the complaint is against one of LADOTD s subrecipients of federal highway funds, the Department will assume the jurisdiction and will investigate and adjudicate the case. Once the CPO decides to accept the complaint for investigation, the complainant and the respondent will be notified in writing of such determination within five calendar days. The complaint will then be logged in the CPO s records identifying the basis of the complaint; race, color, national origin, gender, age, LEP, or disability/handicap. In cases where LADOTD assumes the investigation of the complaint, the CPO will provide the respondent with the opportunity to respond to the allegations in writing. The respondent will have 10 calendar days to furnish the CPO his/her response to the allegations. Within 50 calendar days of receipt of the complaint, the LADOTD s investigator* will prepare an investigative report for the Compliance Programs Director. The report shall include a narrative description of the incident, identification of persons interviewed, findings and recommendations for disposition. *This can be the Program Area Title VI Liaison or LADOTD s Title VI Program Unit. Once LADOTD s investigative report becomes final, the parties will be properly notified of the outcome and appeal rights. LADOTD s investigative report and a copy of the complaint will be forwarded to FHWA, within 60 calendar days of the receipt of the complaint. If the complainant is not satisfied with the results of the investigation, s/he shall be advised of their rights to appeal LADOTD s determination to the FHWA Louisiana 9 P age
Regional Office, USDOT or USDOJ. Appeals must be filed within 180 days after LADOTD s final resolution. Unless new facts not previously considered come to light, reconsideration of LADOTD s determination will not be available. LADOTD will serve as appealing forum to a complainant that is not satisfied with the outcome of an investigation conducted by a LADOTD subrecipient. LADOTD will analyze the facts of the case and will issue its conclusion to the appellant within 60 days of the receipt of the appeal. Title VI complaint forms are made available at the Regional Transportation Management Center and on the www.norpc.org website. A copy of the complaint form can be found at the end of this document. Data Collection Statistical data on race, color, national origin and sex of participants in, and beneficiaries of federally funded programs, (e.g., impacted citizens and affected communities), will be gathered and maintained by the Coordinator. The data gathering process will be reviewed regularly to ensure sufficiency of the data in meeting the requirements of the Title VI program administration. Title VI Program Reviews The Commission s Title VI Program reviews will be performed by the Title VI Coordinator to assess the office s administrative procedures, staffing, and resources available for Title VI compliance. This is in addition to the day to day monitoring. The Title VI Coordinator will coordinate efforts to ensure equal participation in all programs and activities at all levels. The Title VI Coordinator will conduct reviews of contractors, subcontractors, consultants, suppliers and all other subrecipients of RPC s federal funds to ensure compliance with Title VI provisions. All subrecipients will be required to submit a Title VI Program for approval to the RPC on award of funds, and will be required to resubmit their Title VI Program every three years, or in the event of any changes to their Title VI Program. Operational Guidelines/Program Directives All operational guidelines to contractors, subrecipients, and program planning areas will be reviewed annually to include Title VI language and provisions and related requirements, where applicable. 10 P age
Training Program Title VI training will be made available at least annually to employees, contractors, subrecipients, and program planning area liaisons. The training will provide comprehensive information on Title VI provisions, application to program operations, and identification of Title VI issues and resolution of complaints. A summary of the training conducted will be reported in the annual update. Annual Reports An annual executive summary will be submitted to the Executive Director by the Coordinator. The summary will review Title VI accomplishments achieved during the year. The Title VI Coordinator will be responsible for coordination and preparation of the report. Title VI Program Update The Title VI Program will be reviewed and updated on a 3 year cycle. An updated version of the Title VI Program will be submitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) via TEAM every 3 years for approval, or when there are any significant changes made to the program. A copy of the program will also be sent to the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD) for their review and approval on the same 3 year cycle. The last Title VI Program submission was made on May 31 st, 2013. Public Dissemination The Title VI Coordinator will disseminate Title VI Program information to Commission employees, subrecipients, contractors, and beneficiaries as well as the general public. Public dissemination will include the posting of public statements, inclusion of Title VI language in contracts, and publishing annually the Title VI Policy Statement in newspapers having a general circulation in the vicinity of proposed projects and announcements of hearings and meetings in minority publications. The Title VI Plan is easily available on the RPC website, in person at the RPC office, and can be mailed out upon request. Post-grant Reviews Post-grant approval procedures (e.g. highway location design, relocation and individuals seeking contracts, etc.) will be reviewed to ensure compliance with Title VI requirements. 11 P age
Elimination of Discrimination Implement procedures to identify and eliminate discrimination when found to exist, related to Minority/Women Disadvantage Business Enterprises (DBE) contractors, and public involvement. Remedial Action The Commission will actively pursue the prevention of Title VI deficiencies and violations and will take the necessary steps to ensure compliance with all program administrative requirements. Should irregularities occur in the administration of the program s operation, corrective action will be taken to resolve Title VI issues, and such actions will be reduced to writing in the form of a remedial action agreed upon to be necessary, all within a period not to exceed 90 days. 1) Subrecipients placed in a deficiency status will be given a reasonable time, (not to exceed 90 days after receipt of the deficiency letter), to voluntarily correct deficiencies. 2) The Commission will seek the cooperation of the subrecipient in correcting deficiencies found during the review. The Commission will also provide the technical assistance and guidance needed to aid the subrecipient to comply voluntarily. 3) When a subrecipient fails or refuses to voluntarily comply with requirements within the time frame allotted, the Commission will submit to LDOTD s External Civil Rights Office or the FHWA two copies of the case file and a recommendation that the subrecipient be found in noncompliance. 4) A follow-up review will be conducted within 180 days of the initial review to ensure that the subrecipient has complied with the Title VI Program requirements in correcting deficiencies previously identified. Procedures Manual Administration of the Title VI Program will be incorporated in a Procedures Manual that will be updated regularly to incorporate changes and additional responsibilities. JARC and New Freedom Program Management Plan The JARC and New Freedom Program Management Plan (PMP) describes how FTA funds are passed through to sub-recipients, as well as how potential applicants can request information and assistance in application preparation. The PMP is provided via the RPC website during the solicitation period and by request to any potential JARC and New Freedom applicants. As the PMP describes: the RPC will give equal consideration to JARC and New Freedom applications from any Private Non-Profit organizations, state or local governmental 12 P age
authorities, and private or public operators of Public Transportation provided that they meet FTA eligibility requirements. Grant application solicitations are advertised both in the local newspaper and on the RPC website. This solicitation period lasts no less than 30 days. RPC will provide all grant applications forms for these programs via the RPC website or by hard-copy if requested. If requested, RPC will also offer assistance to project sponsors in preparing grant applications. RPC scores and selects projects based on criteria described in the PMP. Advisory Councils and Committees RPC has three non-elected transportation advisory councils and committees. These councils and committees, and a description of their duties are as follows: Technical Advisory Committee Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is a regional group of stakeholders, comprised of public works directors, planning directors, transit operators, as well as representatives from the port, bridges, airport, and railroads in the Greater New Orleans area. Other participating agencies include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Highway Administration, National Safety Council, and Federal Transit Administration. The RPC has also chosen to incorporate representatives of five select nonprofit organizations with a transportation interest into the TAC to provide input into the decision-making process. The TAC meets on a quarterly basis to review proposed amendments to the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and/or Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), to discuss projects of regional significance, and to share best-practices with area parishes. Coordinated Human Services Council The primary roles and responsibilities of the Coordinated Council are to update, maintain, and determine how to best implement the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan by providing a venue for stakeholder interaction, sharing of human services transportation issues, problems, and developing solutions for further action. The Council meets quarterly and serves as a subcommittee to the RPC Technical Advisory Committee. Complete Streets Advisory Committee The mission of the Complete Streets Advisory Committee is to address projects and policies that impact bicycle, pedestrian and transit users though input from citizen representatives of the RPC s seven parish metropolitan region. The Complete Streets Advisory Committee meets quarterly and serves as a subcommittee to the RPC Technical Advisory Committee and makes recommendations to RPC staff and the Technical Advisory Committee about planning project priorities, potential concerns and desired 13 P age
accommodations for roadways under RPC purview; those of regional significance on the Federal-Aid or State network. Complete Streets Advisory Committee African American Members 2 Hispanic Members 1 White Members 13 Total Members 16 RPC makes every effort to encourage the participation of minorities on all nonelected advisory committees and councils. The Complete Streets Advisory Committee is the only committee that appoints citizen members. Diversity on this committee is accomplished by making request for minority names from elected officials, staff contacts and request for names of minority persons from current committee members. The Technical Advisory Committee and Coordinated Human Services Council do not have appointed citizen members, but consist of a wide range of transportation officials, planning professionals and transportation advocacy organizations. Title VI Coordinator Responsibilities The Title VI Coordinator is charged with the responsibility for implementing, monitoring and ensuring the Commission s compliance with Title VI Regulations. Title VI responsibilities are as follows: 1. Process the disposition of Title VI complaints received by the Commission. 2. Conduct annual Title VI reviews to determine the effectiveness of program activities at all levels. 3. Conduct Title VI reviews of consultant contractors, suppliers, and other recipients of federal-aid contracts administered through the Commission. 4. Prepare a yearly report of Title VI accomplishments and goals, as required. 5. Develop Title VI information for dissemination to the general public and, where appropriate, in languages other than English. 6. Identify and eliminate discrimination. 7. Establish procedures for promptly resolving deficiency status and reducing to writing the remedial action agreed to be necessary, all within a period not to exceed 90 days. 8. Conduct annual reviews of all subrecipients and consultants to make sure they maintain compliance with Title VI. 14 P age
9. Meet with other RPC staff, as needed, to train, monitor and discuss progress, implementation, and compliance issues. 10. Process all Title VI complaints made in person at the RPC office or online on the RPC website. 11. Review important Title VI-related issues with the Executive Director of RPC, as needed. Title VI Responsibilities for the Agency s Program Areas Planning Ensure that all aspects of the planning process operation comply with Title VI. Ensure that various social, economic, and ethnic interest groups are represented in the planning process by disseminating program information to minority media and ethnic gender related organizations and participating in roundtable meetings in predominantly minority communities. Assist the Title VI Coordinator in gathering and organizing the Annual Title VI Update Report. Review the department work program and other directives to ensure compliance with Title VI program requirements. Visit public meetings to verify the level of participation of Title VI protected group members when offered in predominantly ethnic minority communities. Education and Training The Title VI Coordinator will seek all opportunities to participate in education and training outside of the RPC office. All Title VI conferences, seminars, trainings and classes presented by FHWA, FTA, and LADOTD will be considered for staff attendance. The Title VI Coordinator will be responsible to inform all staff members and consultants of all federal Title VI policies including any changes and updates. The Coordinator will also be responsible to inform all staff members and consultants of the RPC Title VI Program, including our DBE Policy and Program, LEP Plan, Public Involvement Plan, Environmental Justice Policy, and ADA Policy, as well as any updates and changes. Education and Training may also consist of the Regional Traffic Management Center (RPC office) hosting training seminars related to all Title VI issues and inviting all interested and pertaining parties to attend. 15 P age
The Title VI Coordinator will monitor the selection of participants interested in taking part in the National Highway Institute Training workshops. The monitoring will consist of making sure ethnicity is used in the selection process. The Title VI Coordinator will be briefed when training for the National Highway Institute courses or workshops becomes available for Commission employees. For the purpose of fairness in the selection process, the Title VI Coordinator will review on a case by case basis, if equal opportunity was used in the selection of individuals referred for training. In conjunction with managers and executives, ensures that all employees have equal access to training. Ensures accessibility to Minority/Women Disadvantage Business Enterprise consulting/training firms to compete for training contracts. Maintain program administration documentation and data necessary for preparation of Annual Title VI Update. Reviews directives and manuals to ensure adherence with Title VI requirements. Consultant Services The Policy and Personnel Committee of the Regional Planning Commission, in consultation with the Executive Director, is responsible for setting policy and establishing procedures for consultant selection, negotiation, and administration of consultant contracts for the Commission. The Title VI Coordinator shall monitor DBE program requirements. The Title VI Coordinator shall ensure that all federally funded consultant contracts administered by the Commission have the appropriate Title VI provisions included. The Title VI Coordinator shall review directives and procedures to ensure Title VI compliance. The Title VI Coordinator shall maintain necessary data and documentation required for completion of the department s Title VI Update Annual Report. Public Participation The goal of RPC s communications and public participation program is to ensure early and continuous public notification about, and participation in, major actions and decisions by RPC. In seeking public comment and review, RPC makes a concerted effort to reach all segments of the population, including people from minority and low income communities, and organizations representing these and other protected classes. The RPC has an official Public Involvement Plan which is easily available on RPC s website or in person at the RPC office. 16 P age
The plan includes: Public Involvement Policy Public Involvement Planning Goals Public Outreach Activities Public Meetings Procedures Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Guidelines Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Procedures Environmental Justice Policy RPC has also developed a user friendly Citizen s Guide To Transportation Planning which is passed out at all public meetings and made available on RPC s website and in person at the RPC office. The guide provides a brief explanation of transportation planning and what role RPC plays in that process. Environmental Justice The concept of environmental justice includes the identification and assessment of disproportionately high and adverse effects of programs, policies, or activities on the minority and low-income population groups. Within the context of regional transportation planning, environmental justice considers the relative distribution of cost and benefits from transportation investment strategies and policies among different segments of society. When RPC adopts new planning documents, or substantively amends existing documents, the agency is required to comply with federal environmental justice requirements. When this occurs, a systematic process is used to study and evaluate all necessary environmental aspects of the proposed action(s). Depending on the scope, complexity, and impacts of the project, the agency s Title VI Coordinator oversees the process, and ensures all federal and state requirements are met, and that the public has been invited to participate. Consultant Contracts The Regional Planning Commission is responsible for selection, negation, and administration of its consultant contracts. RPC operates under its internal contract procedures and all relevant federal and state laws. Contract Procedures Title VI text is included in all RPC Request for Proposals (RFP) and contracts. 17 P age
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program RPC includes DBE text in all RFPs and contracts with consultants and notes its DBE policy on the RPC website. RPC provides a list of all LADOTD s certified DBEs in its DBE Policy and Procedures which can be accessed on RPC s website. Consultant Reviews The RPC is responsible for evaluating and monitoring compliance with Title VI requirements in all aspects of the agency s consultant contracts process. All consultants will be made aware that as subrecipients of federal funds they are required to adhere to our agency s Title VI Plan, DBE Policy and Procedures, and LEP Plan. To ensure their compliance, the RPC will issue an Annual Title VI Review for Subrecipients and Consultants once a year to all subrecpients who have been awarded RPC contracts within that year. In conducting reviews of subrecipients, if a subrecipient is found to not be in compliance with our Title VI policies, the Title VI coordinator will work with the subrecipient to resolve the identified issues. RPC will seek the cooperation of the subrecipient in correcting deficiencies, and will provide the technical assistance and guidance needed for the subrecipient to comply voluntarily. If a consultant is found to not be in compliance, a follow-up review will be conducted within 180 days of the initial review to ensure the subrecipient has complied with the Title VI Program requirements in correcting deficiencies previously identified. If subrecpients refuse to comply then RPC will determine further action to be taken. A copy of the Annual Title VI Review for Subrecipients and Consultants can be found at the end of this document. Requirement to Conduct Equity Analysis to Determine Site Location of Facilities No such projects were conducted during this reporting period. Title VI Investigations, Complaints and Lawsuits At the present time the RPC is not involved in any Title VI investigations, lawsuits or complaints that pertain to allegations of discrimination on the basis of race, color, and/or national origin in transit-related activities, and has not received any complaints since the last Title VI submission in June, 2010. 18 P age
Title VI Public Notice The paragraph below is to be inserted in all significant publications that are distributed to the public, such as future versions and updates of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan; and Transportation Improvement Program for the RPC region. The text will remain permanently on the agency s website, www.norpc.org, and available to all employees. The version below is the preferred text, but where space is limited or in publications where cost is an issue, the abbreviated version can be used in its place. Title VI Notice: The Regional Planning Commission (RPC) fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes, executive orders, and regulations in all programs and activities. RPC operates without regard to race, color, national origin, income, gender, age, and disability. Any person who believes him/herself or any specific class of persons, to be subjected to discrimination prohibited by Title VI may by him/herself or by representative file a written complaint with the Louisiana Department of Transportation (LaDOTD). LaDOTD Title VI Program Manager may be reached via phone at 225-379-1361. A complaint must be filed no later than 180 days after the date of the alleged discrimination. RPC meetings are conducted in accessible locations and materials can be provided in accessible formats and in languages other than English. If you would like accessibility or language accommodation, please contact the Title VI Coordinator at RPC at 504-483-8535 or nrichard@norpc.org. If you wish to attend a RPC function and require special accommodations, please give RPC one week s notice in advance. The following shortened version of the above paragraph can be used in publications where space or cost is an issue as in classified newspaper announcements. RPC fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. For more information, or to obtain a Title VI Complaint Form, see www.norpc.org or call our Title VI Coordinator at 504-483-8535. Questions For any questions regarding the RPC s Title VI Plan or any related policies and procedures please contact RPC s Title VI Coordinator at 504-483-8535 or visit our website at www.norpc.org. 19 P age
Addendum REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION JEFFERSON, ORLEANS, PLAQUEMINES, ST. BERNARD AND ST. TAMMANY PARISHES Title VI Assurances The Regional Planning Commission for Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St Bernard and St. Tammany Parishes (hereinafter referred to as the "Recipient"), HEREBY AGREES THAT as a condition to receiving any federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Transportation it will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 USC 2000d-42 USC 2000d-4 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, part 21, Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs of the Department of Transportation Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations),, and other pertinent directives, to the end that in accordance with the Act, Regulations, and other pertinent directives, no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex, or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the Recipient receives federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation, including the Federal Highway Administration, and HEREBY GIVES ASSURANCE THAT it will promptly take any measures necessary to effectuate this agreement. This Assurance is required by, Subsection 21. 7 (a) (I) of the Regulations. More specifically and without limiting the above general assurance, the Recipient hereby gives the following specific assurances to its Federal Aid Highway Program. 1. That the Recipient agrees that each "program" and each "facility" as defined in Subsections 21.23(e) and 21.23fb) of the Regulations, will be (with regard to a "program") conducted, or will be (with regard to a "facility") operated in compliance with all requirements imposed by, or pursuant to, the Regulations. 2. That the Recipient shall insert the following notification in all solicitations for bids, proposals or statements of qualification for work or material subject to the Regulations made in connection with the Federal Aid Highway Program and in adapted form in all proposals for negotiated agreements: The Regional Planning Commission in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 78 Stat. 252,42 USC 2000d-d4 and Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, part 21, Nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs of the Department of Transportation issued pursuant to such Act, hereby notifies all bidders and proposers that it will affirmatively ensure that any contract entered into pursuant to this advertisement, minority business enterprises will be afforded full opportunity 20 P age
to submit bids, proposals or statements of qualification in response to this invitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, sex, or national origin in consideration for an award. 3. That the Recipient shall insert the necessary clauses of this Assurance in every contract subject to the Act and the Regulations. 4. That where the Recipient receives federal financial assistance to construct a facility, or part of a facility, the Assurance shall extend to the entire facility and facilities operated in connection therewith. 5. The Recipient shall provide for such methods of administration for the program as are found by the Secretary of Transportation, or the official to whom s/he delegates specific authority to give reasonable guarantee that it, other recipients, subgrantees, contractors, subcontractors, transferees, successors in interest, and other participants of federal financial assistance under such program will comply with all requirements imposed or pursuant to the Act, the Regulations, and this Assurance. 6. The Recipient agrees that the United States has a right to seek judicial endorsement with regard to any matter arising under the Act, the Regulations, and this Assurance. THIS ASSURANCE is given in consideration of and for the purpose of obtaining any and all federal grants, loans, contracts, property, discounts or other federal financial assistance extended after the date hereof to the Recipient by the Department of Transportation under the Federal Aid Highway Program and is binding on it, other recipients, subgrantees, contractors, subcontractors, transferees, successors in interest and other participants in the Federal Aid Highway Program. The person or persons whose signatures appear below are authorized to sign the Assurance on behalf of the Recipient. Walter R. Brooks Executive Director Regional Planning Commission Date 21 P age
Title VI Methodology for Identification of Target Populations (Demographics) & Spatial Concentrations of Targeted Populations RPC utilizes the latest U.S. Census data, American Community Survey data, and Louisiana Department of Social Services data to identify target populations. To form the most accurate profile of these populations it is in RPC s best interest to use the smallest geographic unit available for which information is obtainable for all relevant groups. The smallest geographic area that the Census Bureau calculates the appropriate information on each relevant group is block group level, which the RPC utilizes in all map products and planning efforts. The Louisiana Department of Social Services Data is available by point data and then is agglomerated into block level data for privacy issues. American Community Survey data is available for the New Orleans Metropolitan Region. RPC has identified seven relevant groups for Title VI analysis as described below: Low Income Federal Assistance Recipients Minority Elderly Limited English Proficiency (LEP) or English spoken as a second language Disabled Populations Zero Car Households Once the RPC has identified target populations for Title VI consideration, the next step is to produce maps that show their distribution throughout the area and how they relate to RPC studies, TIP projects, and projects let to construction. These maps are for RPC internal use and are not made available for public use. How Mobility Needs of Minority Populations are Identified and Considered Within the Planning Process RPC makes every effort to ensure that the mobility needs of minority populations are identified and considered within the transportation planning process. The methods RPC utilizes to ensure this are listed below: RPC analyzes and maps demographic Census data to ensure that all populations are receiving equal benefits of RPC projects. RPC routinely solicits transportation surveys to members of the community in order to get feedback on their transportation needs. Those survey results are incorporated into our Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). 22 P age
RPC staff members attend and participate in monthly community meetings that focus on convening residents to discuss issues facing minority communities. RPC complies fully with Executive Order (EO) 12898 and makes sure that all citizens are given the opportunity to participate in the planning process through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). RPC ensures that all public meetings are held in areas that are frequented by all members of the community, at times that are most suitable to working citizens. Effort is made to advertize public meetings in minority publications where available and meeting notices are posted in multiple languages when project area affects an LEP community. RPC is always open to comments or suggestions via the Get Involved section on our website www.norpc.org, or comment sheets available at the front desk of our office at 10 Veterans Memorial Boulevard, New Orleans, LA 70124. All comments are forwarded to appropriate staff and are followed with a response in a timely manner. 23 P age
24 P age
Analysis of RPC Project Impacts The previous map (figure 2) shows all 2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) projects and 2013 Long Range Plan projects, each with a ½ mile buffer, overlaying a demographic profile of the New Orleans urbanized area based on Census 2010 population numbers. The New Orleans urbanized area has a high concentration of minorities with minorities making up over half of the population in Orleans Parish (67%), St. John Parish (58%), and St. James Parish (52%). The other parishes; Jefferson, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, and St. Tammany also have high minority concentrations with no parish having less than 16% total minority population. The nature of RPC projects outlined in the South Shore TIP and Long Range Plan are primarily transportation improvements and enhancements. These projects include drainage and safety improvements, road overlay and reconstruction, traffic demand modeling, bike path and pedestrian enhancements, bridge replacement, and intersection improvements. Due to the nature of RPC projects and the high concentration and distribution of minority populations throughout the RPC jurisdictional area it is determined that there are no disparate impacts on the basis of race, color or national origin in relation to the RPC distribution of State and Federal funds for the purpose of transportation planning. 25 P age
Limited English Proficiency Limited English Proficiency Policy The Regional Planning Commission (RPC) follows Executive Order 13166 in identifying and engaging Limited English Proficiency (LEP) populations to ensure their involvement and knowledge of transportation planning and projects in and around their communities. A LEP person is defined as one who does not speak English as his or her primary language and has a limited ability to read, write, or understand English. RPC s policy for engaging individuals with Limited English Proficiency is to provide translation services to individuals who request them, if reasonable accommodations can be made. In addition, the RPC proactively identifies communities with high concentrations of LEP persons and employs tactics and strategies to effectively engage them in the planning process. The RPC trains staff to recognize individuals in community meetings and forums who may show difficulty or inability to read or write English, and to assist them accordingly. Executive Order 13166 Executive Order 13166 Improving Access to Services for Persons With Limited English Proficiency,'' reprinted at 65 FR 50121 (August 16, 2000), directs each Federal agency that is subject to the requirements of Title VI to publish guidance for its respective recipients clarifying that obligation. Executive Order 13166 further directs that all such guidance documents be consistent with the compliance standards and framework detailed in the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Policy Guidance entitled Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964--National Origin Discrimination Against Persons With Limited English Proficiency.'' (See 65 FR 50123, August 16, 2000 DOJ's General LEP Guidance). Different treatment based upon a person s inability to speak, read, write, or understand English may be a type of national origin discrimination. Executive Order 13166 applies to all federal agencies and all programs and operations of entities that receive funding from the federal government, including state agencies, local agencies and governments such as the MPO, private and non-profit entities, and subrecipients. Four Factor Analysis The RPC follows the U.S. Department of Justice s guidelines using the four-factor analysis process to determine the number and proportion of LEP individuals in the region. This information aids the RPC in planning how to cost effectively provide information services 26 P age
to LEP individuals. FHWA guidelines offer a safe harbor of 5% of the effected population or 1,000 people in the effected neighborhood. A "safe harbor," in the context of this guidance, means that the recipient has undertaken efforts to comply with the needed translation of vital written materials. If a recipient conducts the four-factor analysis, determines that translated documents are needed by LEP applicants or beneficiaries, adopts an LEP Plan that specifies the translation of vital materials, and makes the necessary translations, then the recipient provides strong evidence, in its records or in reports to the agency providing federal financial assistance, that it has made reasonable efforts to provide written language assistance. The four-factor analysis process includes determining the number and proportion of LEP individuals within the population, the frequency with which LEP individuals will come in contact with the program, the importance of the program to people s lives, and the resources available to provide translation services. The four factor analysis is as follows: 1. The number or proportion of LEP persons in the service area who may be served or are likely to encounter a RPC program, activity or service. The RPC reviewed 2006-2011, 5-year estimates, American Community Survey data for the 6 south shore MPO parishes and the 2 north shore MPO parishes that make up the New Orleans and Mandeville-Slidell-Covington urbanized areas, and found that 89% of the population reported English as their only language. Of the remaining 11% of the population that reported speaking a language other than English, 6% reported Spanish as language spoken, with 45% of those individuals indicating that they speak English less than very well. Also, 2% reported Asian and Pacific Island languages as language spoken, which include Vietnamese, with 53% of those individuals indicating that they speak English less than very well. The remaining 3% who speak a language other than English reported Indo-European and other languages as their language spoken. American Community Survey data was determined to be the most accurate data available for determining LEP individuals. (see table in appendix) RPC has determined that Spanish and Vietnamese speaking individuals make up the majority of the region s LEP population. Although Vietnamese is spoken by less than 5% of the population, their density exceeds 1,000 people per effected neighborhood. This information is determined by the GIS mapping of demographic data. Consequently, RPC is cognizant of the need to translate documents or work with interpreters as necessary when interacting with members of these communities. 27 P age
2. The frequency with which LEP persons come into contact with RPC programs, activities or services. To date, the RPC has had no formal request for interpreters and no requests for translated RPC documents. Staff has had limited contact with LEP persons; however the RPC has been proactive in identifying LEP communities and translating important documents. Based on the percentage and number of LEP individuals who reported Spanish or Vietnamese as a primary language, the RPC has made both its Title VI plan and Transportation Improvement Program available in Spanish and Vietnamese and posted these documents on our website, and has also translated its Enforcement for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety into Spanish and distributed it at community meetings and to local law enforcement. 3. The nature and importance of programs, activities or services provided by RPC to the LEP population. The RPC has identified a significant population of Vietnamese residents in New Orleans East. The RPC maintains communication with leaders of the Vietnamese community, particularly Mary Queen of Vietnam Community Development Center, to gain the input of LEP individuals. The Hispanic community is larger, therefore less concentrated than the Vietnamese community, but RPC has established a relationship with LatiNOLA, a Hispanic civic group, to help identify the community s LEP needs. The Title VI Coordinator also makes every attempt to attend monthly meetings of the Latino Forum, a metro-wide group of community leaders who meet to discuss the needs of the Latino community, and has attended Language Access Coalition meetings in an effort to reach out to non-english speaking and non-literate members of the community. Through these channels of communication the RPC is able to stay informed about these community s needs and has a means of informing them of upcoming RPC projects. The RPC has also taken initiative and mapped general locations of these individuals based on Census 2010 demographic data. The RPC will take appropriate action such as hiring an oral translator and translating all necessary documents whenever significant populations of LEP persons are impacted. In addition, the RPC is working with Public Outreach Liaisons to garner input from this target population in the transportation planning process. 4. The resources available to RPC and overall cost to provide LEP assistance. The RPC has limited resources to pursue written and oral translation services, but makes every effort to translate vital documents and accommodate translation and interpreter requests. The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), complaint form, and other 28 P age
important Title VI documents have been translated and will be updated as necessary. The RPC is continually identifying new documents to translate, and estimates to spend about $3,000 bi-annually on translation services. All oral and written translation service needs will be addressed on a case by case basis and services will be provided wherever deemed necessary. The RPC is open to all translation suggestions and is committed to providing translation needs wherever feasible when requested. RPC maintains an active list of interpreters should the need arise. Limited English Proficiency Plan How The RPC Identifies LEP Persons Who May Need Assistance Examine requests for language assistance from past meetings and events to anticipate the potential need for assistance at upcoming meetings. A staff member is placed at the entrance to public meetings to greet and briefly engage with attendees during sign-in to informally gauge each attendee s ability to write, speak and understand English. Staff is trained to identify non-verbal clues that a person may have Limited English Deficiency, such as reluctance to fill out surveys or sign-in at public meetings. Staff examines Census Bureau demographic numbers by races of those who report a primary language other than English and compare that to Census block data and map communities accordingly to determine high concentrations of LEP populations. Staff maintains a stream of communication with LEP community leaders such as Mary Queen of Vietnam Community Development Center and LatiNOLA, as well as seek to establish new relationships. Staff attends monthly Latino Forum and Language Access Coalition meetings as ways to remain engaged with LEP community leaders and disseminate important project information to LEP communities. Implementing Language Assistance Measures 29 P age
Based on Census Bureau data, RPC will evaluate all documents, and translate those documents deemed most widely accessed, into any language other than English that is spoken by more than 5% of the population or by more than 1,000 people per concentrated area. The RPC has already translated its Transportation Improvement Program and Title VI Plan into Vietnamese and Spanish, as well as translated its Enforcement for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety into Spanish. The translated TIP and Title VI Plan have been made available on RPC s website and the Enforcement for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety has been distributed at community meetings and to local police departments. The RPC will continue to search out venues that have been found to be frequented by LEP individuals and make information available at these locations in the most appropriate format and language. Utilizing trusted leaders and community organizations in the Hispanic and Vietnamese communities to continually identify the needs of LEP individuals and provide necessary oral and written translations. The RPC takes a proactive approach in identifying LEP communities and will continue to host meetings in close proximity to these communities to distribute all necessary translated materials and documents. The RPC remains committed to providing oral and written translation services upon request. RPC maintains an active list of interpreters and translators to accommodate LEP individuals. All projects falling within a RPC LEP area are reviewed on a case by case basis. If the nature and importance of the program, activity, and service is deemed significant then the RPC and all entities conducting business on our behalf will follow these same LEP guidelines. Staff Training All RPC staff will be provided with the LEP Plan and will be educated on procedures and services available. All training topics are listed below: Understanding the Title VI LEP responsibilities 30 P age
What language assistance services RPC offers How to identify LEP individuals in public meetings How to access an interpreter Documentation of language assistance requests How to handle a complaint Monitoring and Updating the LEP Plan This plan is dynamic and may be updated as more effective means of communication are developed. At a minimum, RPC follows the Title VI Program update schedule for the LEP Plan. The RPC will update its LEP Plan as new ACS information becomes available. Dissemination of the RPC Limited English Proficiency Plan The RPC will post the LEP Plan on its website at www.norpc.org. The LEP Plan can also be found in RPC s Public Involvement Plan. Any person, including social service, non-profit, law enforcement agencies and other community members with internet access will be able to access the plan. For those without personal internet service, all parish libraries offer free internet access. A hard copy of the LEP plan will be provided to any person or agency upon request. Persons with Limited English Proficiency may also obtain translations of this plan upon request. Any questions or comments regarding this plan should be directed to the RPC Title VI Coordinator. Requesting Translation Services Any individuals who wish to request oral or written translation services can do so through RPC s website at www.norpc.org or by contacting RPC s Title VI Coordinator: Nik Richard Title VI Coordinator 504-483-8535 nrichard@norpc.org 31 P age
Language Spoken At Home For The Population 5 Years Of Age And Over For South Shore MPO Area Parishes 2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Jefferson Parish, Louisiana Total Percent of specified language speakers Speak English "very well" Speak English less than "very well" Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Population 5 years and over 404,172 +/-68 92.6% +/-0.4 7.4% +/-0.4 Speak only English 84.1% +/-0.4 (X) (X) (X) (X) Speak a language other than English 15.9% +/-0.4 53.4% +/-1.8 46.6% +/-1.8 Spanish or Spanish Creole 9.9% +/-0.3 51.5% +/-2.3 48.5% +/-2.3 Other Indo-European languages 2.2% +/-0.2 72.4% +/-3.7 27.6% +/-3.7 Asian and Pacific Island languages 3.0% +/-0.2 41.7% +/-3.8 58.3% +/-3.8 Other languages 0.7% +/-0.2 68.8% +/-7.1 31.2% +/-7.1 Orleans Parish, Louisiana Total Percent of specified language speakers Speak English Speak English less than "very well" Estimate "very well" Estimate Estimate Margin of Error Margin of Error Margin of Error Population 5 years and over 300,892 +/-54 96.0% +/-0.3 4.0% +/-0.3 Speak only English 90.3% +/-0.4 (X) (X) (X) (X) Speak a language other than English 9.7% +/-0.4 58.9% +/-2.5 41.1% +/-2.5 Spanish or Spanish Creole 4.8% +/-0.2 54.1% +/-3.9 45.9% +/-3.9 Other Indo-European languages 2.1% +/-0.2 77.6% +/-5.7 22.4% +/-5.7 Asian and Pacific Island languages 2.5% +/-0.2 49.4% +/-4.8 50.6% +/-4.8 Other languages 0.3% +/-0.1 83.8% +/-13.2 16.3% +/-13.2 Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana Total Percent of specified language speakers Speak English Speak English less than "very well" "very well" Estimate Margin of Estimate Margin of Estimate Margin of Error Error Error Population 5 years and over 21,266 +/-110 97.8% +/-0.9 2.2% +/-0.9 Speak only English 92.5% +/-1.6 (X) (X) (X) (X) Speak a language other than English 7.5% +/-1.6 70.4% +/-8.8 29.6% +/-8.8 Spanish or Spanish Creole 2.7% +/-0.8 80.9% +/-12.5 19.1% +/-12.5 Other Indo-European languages 2.1% +/-0.8 73.9% +/-14.0 26.1% +/-14.0 Asian and Pacific Island languages 2.7% +/-0.8 57.2% +/-12.4 42.8% +/-12.4 Other languages 0.0% +/-0.2 - ** - ** Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates 32 P age
St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana Total Percent of specified language speakers Speak English "very well" Speak English less than "very well" Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Population 5 years and over 29,902 +/-37 95.4% +/-0.8 4.6% +/-0.8 Speak only English 91.9% +/-1.0 (X) (X) (X) (X) Speak a language other than 8.1% +/-1.0 43.4% +/-6.0 56.6% +/-6.0 English Spanish or Spanish Creole 4.4% +/-0.9 33.6% +/-10.2 66.4% +/-10.2 Other Indo-European languages 1.2% +/-0.5 71.7% +/-24.4 28.3% +/-24.4 Asian and Pacific Island languages 2.1% +/-0.4 42.8% +/-14.9 57.2% +/-14.9 Other languages 0.3% +/-0.3 71.6% +/-23.7 28.4% +/-23.7 St. Charles Parish, Louisiana Total Percent of specified language speakers Speak English "very well" Speak English less than "very well" Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Population 5 years and over 49,011 +/-27 98.4% +/-0.5 1.6% +/-0.5 Speak only English 93.9% +/-1.0 (X) (X) (X) (X) Speak a language other than 6.1% +/-1.0 73.6% +/-5.6 26.4% +/-5.6 English Spanish or Spanish Creole 3.4% +/-0.7 74.6% +/-8.5 25.4% +/-8.5 Other Indo-European languages 2.1% +/-0.7 72.7% +/-8.4 27.3% +/-8.4 Asian and Pacific Island languages 0.6% +/-0.2 70.7% +/-24.8 29.3% +/-24.8 Other languages 0.0% +/-0.1 100.0% +/-100.0 0.0% +/-100.0 St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana Total Percent of specified language speakers Speak English "very well" Speak English less than "very well" Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Population 5 years and over 42,927 +/-76 97.8% +/-0.8 2.2% +/-0.8 Speak only English 93.7% +/-1.1 (X) (X) (X) (X) Speak a language other than 6.3% +/-1.1 64.6% +/-9.2 35.4% +/-9.2 English Spanish or Spanish Creole 4.8% +/-0.9 58.2% +/-11.0 41.8% +/-11.0 Other Indo-European languages 1.1% +/-0.3 86.9% +/-8.9 13.1% +/-8.9 Asian and Pacific Island languages 0.5% +/-0.4 79.1% +/-45.3 20.9% +/-45.3 Other languages 0.0% +/-0.1 0.0% +/-100.0 100.0% +/-100.0 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates 33 P age
Language Spoken At Home For The Population 5 Years Of Age And Over For North Shore MPO Area Parishes 2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana Total Percent of specified language speakers Speak English "very well" Speak English less than "very well" Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Population 5 years and over 216,661 +/-33 98.1% +/-0.3 1.9% +/-0.3 Speak only English 93.8% +/-0.4 (X) (X) (X) (X) Speak a language other than English 6.2% +/-0.4 69.8% +/-3.7 30.2% +/-3.7 Spanish or Spanish Creole 3.5% +/-0.3 68.6% +/-5.4 31.4% +/-5.4 Other Indo-European languages 1.8% +/-0.3 78.0% +/-5.0 22.0% +/-5.0 Asian and Pacific Island languages 0.8% +/-0.2 55.0% +/-10.5 45.0% +/-10.5 Other languages 0.1% +/-0.1 78.5% +/-18.3 21.5% +/-18.3 Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana Total Percent of specified language speakers Speak English "very well" Speak English less than "very well" Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Population 5 years and over 111,344 +/-33 97.7% +/-0.5 2.3% +/-0.5 Speak only English 94.7% +/-0.6 (X) (X) (X) (X) Speak a language other than English 5.3% +/-0.6 57.7% +/-6.0 42.3% +/-6.0 Spanish or Spanish Creole 3.2% +/-0.5 57.0% +/-8.3 43.0% +/-8.3 Other Indo-European languages 1.3% +/-0.3 72.0% +/-8.8 28.0% +/-8.8 Asian and Pacific Island languages 0.6% +/-0.2 30.5% +/-17.6 69.5% +/-17.6 Other languages 0.2% +/-0.2 57.0% +/-28.9 43.0% +/-28.9 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables. 34 P age
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Notices ADA Policy Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity for persons with disabilities in employment, State and local government services, public accommodations, commercial facilities, and transportation. In accordance with these requirements the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) will not discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability in RPC s services, programs or activities. RPC s Commitment RPC will make all reasonable modifications to policies and procedures to ensure that people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to attend all RPC public meetings. RPC will generally, upon request, provide appropriate aids and services leading to effective communication for qualified persons with disabilities so they can participate equally in RPC s public meetings. RPC will post the following ADA notice at the bottom of all RPC meeting notices: ADA NOTICE: For special accommodations for this meeting, please contact our ADA Coordinator by telephone (504-483-8528), at least one week in advance. RPC will include language in all of our contracts to ensure nondiscrimination of all persons with disability. The ADA does not require the RPC to take any action that would fundamentally alter the nature of its programs or services, or impose an undue financial or administrative burden. RPC will strive to provide its services, programs and activities in the most accessible manner feasible. Notification that a RPC meeting is not accessible to persons with disabilities should be directed to: Jeffrey W. Roesel, AICP Deputy Director /ADA Coordinator 504-483-8528 jroesel@norpc.org 35 P age
Environmental Justice Environmental Justice Policy It is the policy of the Regional Planning Commission to ensure that all of its programs, policies, and other activities do not have disproportionate adverse effects on minority and low income populations. The RPC identifies minority communities through the use of Census data. Low income communities are identified with Louisiana State Department of Social Services data. RPC maps Census and Social Services data to more accurately locate concentrations of target populations. The RPC takes a proactive approach to engage these communities and ensures their full and fair participation in the transportation decisionmaking process. Executive Order 12898 The Regional Planning Commission follows Executive Order (EO) 12898 which outlines; Each Federal agency must make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health, environmental, economic and social effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations, particularly when such analysis is required by NEPA. The EO emphasizes the importance of NEPA's public participation process, directing that each Federal agency shall provide opportunities for community input in the NEPA process. Agencies are further directed to identify potential effects and mitigation measures in consultation with affected communities. The EO requires agencies to work to ensure effective public participation and access to information. Thus within its NEPA process and through other appropriate mechanisms, each federal agency should translate crucial public documents, notices and hearings, relating to human health or the environment for limited English speaking populations when it is practical and appropriate. 1 1 Taken directly from http://www.fema.gov/plan/ehp/ehplaws/ejeo.shtm 36 P age
Goals and Objectives The RPC is committed to the following goals and objectives for achieving environmental justice: Protect environmental quality and human health in all conditions Avoid disproportionate adverse impacts on minority and low income populations Enhance the public involvement process and strengthen relationships with community organizations Provide minority and low income populations with the opportunity to learn more about the transportation planning process Improve the quality of transportation in their lives Make sure all projects go through an Environmental and Title VI checklist to insure environmental issues are considered and appropriate actions are followed Promote and protect community members rights to participate meaningfully in decisions that may affect them Make the process of filing environmental justice complaints easy through readily available forms on the Regional Planning Commission website and in the RPC office, and by designating an identified RPC staff member as the Title VI Coordinator that citizens can easily speak with. Filing an Environmental Justice Complaint Any individual or community that wishes to file an environmental justice complaint or discuss concerns about the RPC s transportation planning process may contact: Louisiana Department of Transportation Title VI Programs Manager 225-379-1361 37 P age
Regional Planning Commission for Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, and St. Tammany Parishes Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program In Compliance with 49 CFR PART 26 DBE POLICY STATEMENT Section 26.1, 26.23 Objectives/Policy Statement The Regional Planning Commission for Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, and St. Tammany Parishes (RPC) has established a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program in accordance with regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 49 CFR Part 26. RPC has received Federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation, and as a condition of receiving this assistance, has signed assurances that it will comply with 49 CFR Part 26. It is the policy of the Regional Planning Commission to ensure that DBEs as defined in Part 26, have an equal opportunity to receive and participate in DOT assisted contracts. It is also the policy of RPC: 1. To ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts; 2. To create a level playing field on which DBEs can compete fairly for DOT-assisted contracts; 3. To ensure that the DBE Program is narrowly tailored in accordance with applicable law; 4. To ensure that only firms that fully meet 49 CFR Part 26 eligibility standards are permitted to participate as DBEs; 5. To help remove barriers to the participation of DBEs in DOT assisted contracts; 6. To assist the development of firms that can compete successfully in the market place outside the DBE Program. Nikolaus Richard has been delegated as the DBE Liaison Officer. In that capacity, he is responsible for implementing all aspects of the DBE program. Implementation of the DBE program is accorded the same priority as compliance with all other legal obligations incurred by the Regional Planning Commission in its financial assistance agreements with the Department of Transportation. The Regional Planning Commission has disseminated this policy statement to the members of the Commission and all the components of the organization. RPC has distributed this statement to DBE and non-dbe business communities that perform work for RPC on DOT-assisted contracts. All consultants who have performed work for RPC in the past five years were mailed a copy of the Policy Statement. In addition, all qualified DBE firms on a list maintained by the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LaDOTD) under its Unified Certification Program that perform Architectural Engineering (C04), Management (C10), Planning (C11), Transportation Planning (C14), Research Surveys (C15), Supportive Services (C17), Marketing (C36), and Public Relations (C47)were mailed a copy of the Policy Statement. Walter R. Brooks, Executive Director Date 38 P age
Louisiana Department of Transportation Title VI Discrimination Complaint Form Name Phone Name of Person(s) Who Discriminated Against you. Address (Street No., P.O. Box, Etc.) Location and Position of Person (If known) City, State, Zip City, State, Zip Discrimination Because Of: Date of Alleged Incident Race Color Sex Disability Age National Origin Income Status or Retaliation Explain as briefly and clearly as possible what happened and how you were discriminated against. Indicate who was involved and witnessed the discrimination. Be sure to include how other persons were treated differently than you. Attach any written material pertaining to your case. Signature Date Please return this form to: Compliance Programs Officer P.O. Box 94245 Baton Rouge, LA 70804 Telephone Number : (225) 379-1361 Fax Number : (225) 379-1865 39 P age
New Orleans Regional Planning Commission For Jefferson, Orleans, St. Bernard, St. Tammany and Plaquemines Parishes As a subrecipient of federal funds you are aware that your agency is required to comply with all federal regulations regarding Title VI laws. In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1967 and 49 CFR 21, this is the Annual Title VI Review for Subrecipients and Consultants to be issued once a year to all agencies awarded contracts by the Regional Planning Commission within the past year. Please provide yes/no answers with a brief explanation. Name of Subrecipient/Consultant: Date of Contract Awarded: Contract Number: Questionnaire I. Complaint Process 1. Has your firm made itself aware of all federal Title VI rules and regulations as it applies to all subrecipients of federal funds? This information is easily accessible to all consultants via the RPC offices and/or website. 2. Does your firm have a formal Title VI policy? 3. Does your firm have a formal Title VI complaint process? If so provide a brief explanation of that process. 4. Has your firm received any Title VI or Environmental Justice complaints within the last year? If so what were the issues involved and what where the outcomes? 5. Has your firm processed any Title VI lawsuits within the past year? If so what were the issues involved and what were the outcomes? 6. Has any member of your firm had any formal Title VI training sponsored by LaDOTD, FHWA, or any other agency in the past year? If so please explain. 40 P age
II. Public Involvement Meetings and Hearings 7. Does your firm hold public meetings in areas that are easily accessible to all members of the community and comply with the Regional Planning Commission s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Plan? If not, are there plans to do so in the future? 8. Has your firm made itself aware of Regional Planning Commission s Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan? This information is easily accessible to all consultants via the RPC offices and/or website. 9. Has your firm had any public request for translations services written or oral? If so what were the outcomes of these request? III. Advertisements and Procurements of Contracts 10. Have any subcontracts been awarded within the past year that utilizes federal funds? 11. If subcontracts are awarded are all Title VI assurances and provisions included in advertisements and contracts? 12. Has your firm made itself aware of Regional Planning Commission s DBE Policy and Program? This information is easily accessible to all staff members via the RPC office and/or website. 13. Is the awarding of any subcontracts non-discriminatory and does it comply with RPC s DBE Policy? Certifying Officer Date Upon receiving this questionnaire you have 30 days to provide all necessary information and mail to: Regional Planning Commission, 10 Veterans Memorial Blvd. New Orleans, LA 70124 Or electronically to nrichard@norpc.org 41 P age
NUMBER 13-1015 RESOLUTION REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION FOR JEFFERSON, ORLEANS, PLAQUEMINES, ST. BERNARD AND ST. TAMMANY PARISHES RPC Title VI Program Introduced by Richard Kelley, seconded by Steve Stefancik, On the 14 th day of May, 2013. WHEREAS, the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) Title VI Program will update the policy of non discrimination as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (P.L. 100.259), for the New Orleans and St. Tammany urbanized areas; and WHEREAS, the Program will insure that no person within the jurisdiction of the Regional Planning Commission shall be excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance; and WHEREAS, the Title VI Coordinator shall be responsible for coordinating the overall administration of the Title VI program, plan, and assurances; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Regional Planning Commission hereby adopts the updated RPC Title VI Program, and will furnish copies to member parishes for their use and further consideration. Whereupon, after discussion, the question was called and resulted in the following: AYES: _22 NAYS: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 0 And the Chairman declared the Resolution duly carried. DAVID E. PERALTA CHAIRMAN PATRICIA BRISTER SECRETARY 42 P age
Appendix H - Organizational Chart
Appendix A RPC Staff Organization Chart: Effective 7/1/2018 Regional Planning Commission Budget & Personnel Committee Legal Jeffery W. Roesel Executive Director Nik Richard Compliance Officer Senior Transportation Planner Megan Leonard Director of Finance Financial Management/ Controls UPWP / Agency Budget Development Operating Budget Payroll Records and Accounts RPC/TPC Meetings Financial Mgt. UPWP Support Payroll Public Information HR Support Exec. Assistant Susan Simon Certified Public Accountant Financial Controls &Compliance Records & Accounts Grant Requisitioning Patrick Shore Accounting Support Accounts Payable Financial Records Technical Support Title VI Coordinator DBE Liaison Officer Environmental Justice Public Involvement Community Planning Transit/ CHSTP Planning UPWP Proj. Mgr. Karen Parsons Principal Planner Intermodal Transportation (highway, port, rail) Transportation Enhancement Program (pedestrian & bicycle CHSTP/ Transit Planning UPWP Project Manager Dan Jatres Transportation Safety Coordinator Pedestrian & Bicycle Enhancement Projects SHSP Coordination & Support Nelson Hollings Transportation Safety Coordinator Highway Safety Plan SHSP Coordination & Support Tom Haysley Senior Transportation Planner Project Manager Tech. Advisory Comm. Coordinator Air Quality Coalition Coordinator Performance Measures Compliance Congestion Management Transportation Surveillance MTP/TIP Development UPWP Support UPWP Project Manager Planner Transportation Jason Sappington RPC Management (Programs & Personnel) Inter-Agency Coordination Project Implementation (TIP) Staff Review & Evaluation Contracts Development & Compliance Financial Capacity UPWP Budget Development Rebecca Otte Director of Brownfields Redevelopment Program & Clean Fuel partnership Regional Brownfields Clean Cities / Alt. Fuels Lake Pontchartrain Restoration Outreach Environmental Organizations / UPWP LEED Courtney Young Transportation Planner Environmental Planning Clean Air / Brownfields Support Freight Planning Deputy Director Technical Programs & Federal Compliance (Development & Supervision) Transportation & AQ Modeling MTP/ TIP Development and Implementation Consultant Oversight Staff Coordination/Human Resources EEO/ADA Compliance Margaret Woodruff Director of Economic Development & Contract Administrator Economic Development CEDS Community Planning Delta Regional Authority Contract Preparation UPWP Support Contract Preparation Business Community Liaison Lynn Dupont GIS Manager/ Principal Planner Land Use and Remote Sensing Environmental Planning Landscape Design Enhancement Coordination Census/ Interagency Data Coordination Xu Li GIS Analyst GIS Development & Maintenance Christian Laborde Transportation Planner Emergency Preparedness Partnership Homeland Security UPWP Project Mgr. IM Planning 1. Clare Brown Data/ IT Manager Data Program Development Data Archivist GIS Analyst IT Manager RPC Website Development & Maintenance Traffic Safety Data Analyst ITS Planner
Appendix I - Decision Making Process
Appendix J MAP Disclaimer
Disclaimer: The data herein, including but not limited to geographic data, tabular data, analytical data, electronic data structures or files, are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, or statutory, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties or merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the data is assumed by the user. No guarantee of accuracy is granted, nor is any responsibility for reliance thereon assumed. In no event shall the Regional Planning Commission for Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa Parishes (RPC) be liable for direct, indirect, incidental, consequential or special damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits or benefits arising out of use of or reliance on the data. The RPC does not accept liability for any damages or misrepresentation caused by inaccuracies in the data or as a result of changes to the data caused by system transfers or other transformations or conversions, nor is there responsibility assumed to maintain the data in any manner or form. These data have been developed from the best available sources. Although efforts have been made to ensure that the data are accurate and reliable, errors and variable conditions originating from physical sources used to develop the data may be reflected in the data supplied. Users must be aware of these conditions and bear responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect to possible errors, scale, resolution, rectification, positional accuracy, development methodology, time period, environmental and climatic conditions and other circumstances specific to these data. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of the data provided herein. The burden for determining fitness for use lies entirely with the user. The user should refer to the accompanying metadata notes for a description of the data and data development procedures if they exist. Although these data have been processed successfully on computers at the RPC, no guarantee, expressed or implied, is made by RPC regarding the use of these data on any other system, nor does the act of distribution constitute or imply any such warranty. Distribution of these data is intended for information purposes and should not be considered authoritative for navigational, engineering, legal and other site-specific uses.
Appendix K - Glossary
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACS American Community Survey BRT Bus Rapid Transit CAAA Clean Air Act Amendment CTPP Census Transportation Planning Products CMP Congestion Management Plan CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program DPW Department of Public Works EPA Environmental Protection Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GIS Geographic Information System ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 JARC Job Access and Reverse Commute Program LaDOTD Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development MAP 21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area MTP Metropolitan Transportation Plan NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NHS National Highway System PMC Project Management Committee RTMC Regional Transportation Management Center SAFETEA LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SRTC Safe Routes To Schools STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
TE Transportation Enhancements TEA 21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (related to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) TIP Transportation Improvement Program TMA Transportation Management Area TPC Transportation Policy Committee UPWP Unified Planning Work Program UZA Urbanized Area defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census VA Veterans Affairs VMT Vehicle Miles Travelled
Appendix L Self Certification
Regional Planning Commission Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa Parishes Self-Certification Process Introduction MPOs must self-certify that the planning process is carried out in a way that meets federal regulations. MPOs must also maintain supporting documentation illustrating how their planning process meets these requirements. MPOs must self-certify to FHWA and FTA at least every four years as part of their TIP submittal that the planning process is being conducted in accordance with federal regulations, which include: 23 U.S.C. 134, 49 U.S.C. 5303 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000D-1) AND 49 CFR Part 21 49 U.S.C. 5332, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, or age in employment or business opportunity Section 1101(b) of the MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141) and 49 CFR part 26 regarding the involvement of disadvantaged business enterprises in USDOT funded projects 23 CFR part 230, regarding the implementation of an equal employment opportunity program on Federal and Federal-aid highway construction contracts The provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) and 49 CFR parts 27, 37, and 38 The Older Americans Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101), prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance Section 324 of title 23 U.S.C. regarding the prohibition of discrimination based on gender Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and 49 CFR part 27 regarding discrimination against individuals with disabilities In nonattainment and maintenance areas, sections 174 and 176 (c) and (d) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7504, 7506 (c) and (d)) and 40 CFR part 93 Self-Certification Schedule RPC s self-certification process is undertaken during Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) updates, which typically occur biennially. RPC staff complete the self-certification checklist and request Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD) concurrence in the form of a signed self-certification form. A copy of this signed self-certification form is included in the TIP. Regional Planning Commission Self-Certification Process Page 1