Memorandum #2016-120 BY: Camelia Ravanbakht, Deputy … Agenda.pdf · Robert Brown, Donna Sayegh...

Linda T. Johnson, Chair, Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr., Vice-Chair

The Regional Building 723 Woodlake Drive Chesapeake, Virginia 23320 757-420-8300

Robert A. Crum, Jr., Executive Director

September 28, 2016 Memorandum #2016-120 TO: HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee BY: Camelia Ravanbakht, Deputy Executive Director RE: Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – October 5, 2016 The next HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee meeting will be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, October 5, 2016, in the Regional Building Board Room, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake. MK/kg Voting Members: Steve Froncillo, CH Steve Lambert, CH C. Earl Sorey, Jr., CH Garrey W. Curry, Jr., GL Anne Ducey-Ortiz, GL Brian Lewis, GL Lynn Allsbrook, HA W. Keith Cannady, HA John Yorks, HA Dennis Carney, IW Jamie Oliver, IW Richard Rudnicki, IW Paul Holt, III, JC Tamara Rosario, JC Britta Ayers, NN Jacqueline Kassel, NN Bryan Stilley, NN Robert R. Brown, NO Thelma Drake, NO Jeffrey K. Raliski, NO Anne Payne, PQ

Ellen Roberts, PQ Debbie Vest, PQ James Wright, PO Sherry Earley, SU LJ Hansen, SU Robert E. Lewis, SU Robert K. Gey, VB Phil Pullen, VB Brian Solis, VB Dan G. Clayton III, WM Carolyn Murphy, WM Aaron Small, WM J. Mark Carter, YK Timothy C. Cross, YK Jitender Ramchandani, DRPT Ray Amoruso, HRT Dawn Odom, VDOT Steve Rowan, VDOT Eric Stringfield, VDOT Jeffrey A. Florin, VPA Jamie Jackson, WATA

September 28, 2016


Voting Alternates: Eric J. Martin, CH Emily Gibson, GL Tripp Little, GL Terry P. O'Neill, HA Angela Rico, HA Claudia Cotton, NN David Wilkinson, NN Brian Fowler, NO Youssef Khalil, PO Robert P. Goumas, SU Jason Souders, SU

Katie Shannon, VB Mark Shea, VB Rodney S. Rhodes, WM Earl Anderson, YK Amy Parker, YK Nick Britton, DRPT Keisha Branch, HRT Tony Gibson, VDOT Bryant Porter, VDOT Barbara Creel, WATA

Nonvoting Members: Ivan P. Rucker, FHWA Ryan Long, FTA Rhonda Murray, NAVY

Nonvoting Alternates: Michael King, NAVY

Agenda HRTPO

Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting October 5, 2016

The Regional Board Room, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia

9:30 am 1. Call to Order

2. Introductions

3. Public Comment Period (Limit 3 minutes per individual)

4. Submitted Public Comments

5. Comments and Updates from State and Federal Agencies and Military Liaisons

6. Approval of Agenda

AGENDA:

9:40 am 7. Minutes

9:45 am 8. Hampton Roads Crossing Study Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: HRTAC Funding Plan – Kevin Page, HRTAC

9:55 am 9. Hampton Roads Crossing Study Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: HRTPO Staff Technical Analysis – Camelia Ravanbakht, HRTPO

10:05 am 10. Election of Officers – Lynn Allsbrook, Nominating Subcommittee Chair

10:10 am 11. FY 2015-2018 TIP Amendment (UPC #T15554): Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District

10:15 am 12. Transportation Alternatives Program Project Proposals – John Mihaly, HRTPO

10:25 am 13. SMART SCALE: Requests for HRTPO Resolutions of Support – Mike Kimbrel, HRTPO

10:35 am 14. Three-Month Tentative Schedule

15. For Your Information

16. Announcements

10:45 am 17. Old/New Business

ADJOURNMENT

HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – October 5, 2016

AGENDA ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER The meeting will be called to order by the Chair at approximately 9:30 a.m. AGENDA ITEM #2: INTRODUCTIONS The Chair will provide an opportunity for introductions of new members or guests.

AGENDA ITEM #3: PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Members of the public are invited to address the TTAC. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. AGENDA ITEM #4: SUBMITTED PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no submitted public comments. AGENDA ITEM #5: COMMENTS AND UPDATES FROM STATE AND FEDERAL

AGENCIES AND MILITARY LIAISONS

Representatives from the Virginia Department of Transportation, Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Virginia Port Authority, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Military are invited to provide comments and updates to the TTAC. AGENDA ITEM #6: APPROVAL OF AGENDA Members are provided an opportunity to add or delete items from the agenda. Any item for which a member desires an action from the TTAC should be submitted at this time, as opposed to under “Old/New Business”.


AGENDA ITEM #7: MINUTES

Summary minutes of the TTAC meeting held on September 7, 2016 are attached. Attachment 7

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve the minutes.

Summary TTAC Minutes – September 7, 2016 – Page 1 Prepared by K. Grauberger

Summary Minutes of the HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) Meeting

September 7, 2016

The HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) Meeting was called to order at 9:32 a.m. in the Regional Building Boardroom, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia, with the following in attendance:

TTAC Voting Members in Attendance: Robert Gey (Chair, VB) Steve Froncillo (CH) Steve Lambert (CH) Earl Sorey (CH) Brian Lewis (GL) Lynn Allsbrook (HA) Keith Cannady (HA) John Yorks (HA) Jamie Oliver (IW) Richard Rudnicki (IW)

Paul Holt (JC) Tammy Rosario (JC) Jackie Kassel (NN) Bryan Stilley (NN) Robert Brown (NO) Kevin Wyne (PQ) Sherry Earley (SU) LJ Hansen (SU) Robert Lewis (SU) Phil Pullen (VB)

Brian Solis (VB) Carolyn Murphy (WM) Tim Cross (YK) Chris Arabia (DRPT) Ray Amoruso (HRT) Dawn Odom (VDOT) Stephen Rowan (VDOT) Eric Stringfield (VDOT) Jeff Florin (VPA) Barbara Creel (Alternate, WATA)

TTAC Voting Members Absent: Garrey Curry (GL) Anne Ducey-Ortiz (GL) Dennis Carney (IW) Britta Ayers (NN) Thelma Drake (NO)

Jeff Raliski (NO) James Wright (PO) Ellen Roberts (PQ) Debbie Vest (PQ)

Daniel Clayton (WM) Steve Martin (WM) J. Mark Carter (YK) Jamie Jackson (WATA)

TTAC Nonvoting Members in Attendance: Ivan Rucker (FHWA) Rhonda Murray (NAVY) TTAC Nonvoting Members Absent: Ryan Long (FTA) HRTPO Staff: Sam Belfield Rob Case Kathlene Grauberger Mike Kimbrel

John Mihaly Keith Nichols Joe Paulus

Leonardo Pineda, II Camelia Ravanbakht Dale Stith

Others Recorded Attending: Robert Brown, Donna Sayegh (Citizen); Garrett Morgan (NN); Bob Matthias (VB); Karen McPherson (McPherson Consulting); Michael King (US Navy); Jordan Pascale (Virginian-Pilot); Phil Lohr (WSP/Parsons Brinckerhoff); Jim Long (RK&K); Chris Lawrence (AECOM); Frank Papcin (CTAC); David Arthur, Raulings Miller, Alan Strasser (US DOT); Jitender Ramchandani (DRPT); Keisha Branch (HRT); Ray Hunt, Carl Jackson, Darryll Lewis, Nathan Miloszewski (VDOT); Chris Vaigneur (HRPDC Staff)

Attachment 7


Introductions Mr. Bryan Stilley introduced Mr. Garret Morgan, Senior Planner for the City of Newport News. Dr. Camelia Ravanbakht introduced Mr. Alan Strasser of the US Department of Transportation. Mr. Kevin Wyne noted this was his last meeting representing Poquoson as he has accepted a job with the City of Suffolk. Public Comment Period Mr. Frank Papcin, Virginia Beach Citizen, addressed TTAC regarding SMART SCALE projects, tolls, and HOT lanes. Ms. Donna Sayegh, Portsmouth Citizen, addressed TTAC regarding Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) projects. Mr. Rob Brown, Chesapeake Citizen, addressed TTAC regarding the Hampton Roads Flood Barrier. Submitted Public Comments There were no submitted public comments in the agenda packet. Comments and Updates from State and Federal Agencies and the Military There were no comments from VDOT. Mr. Chris Arabia reported that Mr. Jitender Ramchandani will be DRPT’s voting representative to the TTAC starting next month. There were no comments from FHWA. There were no comments from VPA. There were no comments from the Navy. Approval of Agenda Chair Robert Gey asked for additions or deletions to the TTAC Agenda. Mr. Tim Cross Moved to approve the Agenda as written; seconded by Mr. Eric Stringfield. The Motion Carried. Summary Minutes Chair Gey reported that the TTAC summary minutes from the July 6, 2016 meeting were included in the September 7, 2016 TTAC Agenda Packet. Chair Gey asked for any additions or corrections to the minutes. Hearing none, Mr. Rob Lewis Moved to approve the minutes as written; seconded by Ms. Jackie Kassel. The Motion Carried.

Attachment 7


FY 2015-2018 TIP Amendment (UPC 4483): VDOT Mr. Eric Stringfield reported that VDOT is requesting to amend the FY 2015-2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to reflect an updated cost estimate and actual and planned obligations on one project as follows:

• Atkinson Boulevard Construction in Newport News (UPC 4483)

o Increase total cost estimate from $52,753,548 to $68,382,794 Updated Right of Way (RW) cost estimate: $3,142,767 Updated Construction (CN) cost estimate: $61,014,841

o Remove FY 2015 Preliminary Engineering (PE) phase obligation of $147,774 Advance Construction (AC) funds

o Remove FY 2015 PE phase obligation of $80,903 Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds and $20,226 state match

o Add FY 2015 PE phase obligation of $118,219 RSTP and $29,555 state match o Remove FY 2015 RW phase obligation of $1,257,233 AC and $314,308 state match o Remove FY 2016 RW phase obligation of $1,257,233 AC Conversion and $314,308

state match o Add FY 2016 RW phase obligation of $2,514,213 RSTP and $628,533 state match o Move FY 2015 CN phase obligation of $6,742,767 RSTP and $1,685,692 state match to

FY 2016 o Add FY 2016 CN phase obligation of $15,236,137 RSTP and $3,809,034 state match o Remove FY 2015 CN phase obligation of $31,087,217 AC and $7,441,144 state match o Add FY 2016 CN phase obligation of $20,777,208 AC and $3,264,003 state match o Add FY 2016 CN phase obligation of $4,750,000 Revenue Sharing and $4,750,000

local match o Remove FY 2016 CN phase obligation of $16,708,564 AC Conversion and $4,177,141

state match o Remove FY 2018 CN phase obligation of $5,481,255 AC Conversion and $1,370,314

state match o Move FY 2017 CN phase obligation of $7,574,758 AC Conversion and $1,893,689 state

match to FY 2018 o Revise Previous PE phase obligations as follows:

$2,364,701 RSTP and $591,176 state match $800,000 STP and $225,731 state match $95,800 State Other funds

This request has been made available for public review and comment. The public review period began on August 31, 2016 and runs through September 14, 2016. Ms. Kassel Moved to recommend HRTPO Board approval of the TIP amendment; seconded by Mr. John Yorks. The Motion Carried.

Attachment 7


FY 2015-2018 TIP Amendment (UPC 59175): VDOT Mr. Eric Stringfield reported that VDOT is requesting to amend the FY 2015-2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to reflect an updated cost estimate and actual and planned obligations on one project as follows:

• I-564 Air Terminal Interchange (UPC 59175)

o Increase total cost estimate from $60,916,147 to $125,500,000 Updated Preliminary Engineering (PE) cost estimate: $10,000,000 Updated Right of Way (RW) cost estimate: $3,000,000 Updated Construction (CN) cost estimate: $112,500,000

o Add Previous PE phase obligation of $3,067,008 National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) funds

o Remove FY 2015 PE phase obligation of $2,453,606 SAFETEA-LU funds and $613,402 state match

o Remove FY 2015 RW phase obligation of $473,840 SAFETEA-LU and $118,460 state match

o Add FY 2016 PE phase obligation of $1,194,886 NHPP o Add FY 2016 PE phase obligation of $2,565,168 Advance Construction (AC) -Other o Add FY 2016 PE phase obligation of $3,172,938 AC-NHPP o Add FY 2018 PE phase obligation of $3,172,938 AC Conversion

This request has been made available for public review and comment. The public review period began on August 31, 2016 and runs through September 14, 2016. Mr. Jeff Florin Moved to recommend HRTPO Board approval of the TIP amendment; seconded by Mr. Rob Brown. The Motion Carried. FY 2015-2018 TIP Amendment (UPC 109481): VDOT Mr. Eric Stringfield reported that VDOT is requesting to amend the FY 2015-2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to add a new project as follows:

• Route 17/Route 258 Intersection Improvements in Isle of Wight County (UPC 109481) o Add new project to TIP o This locally administered project will reconstruct the intersection with added

capacity, including the addition of a westbound leg to the intersection that will serve as access to a large, mixed-use center development.

o Total cost estimate: $6,770,000 Preliminary Engineering (PE) cost estimate: $755,000 Right of Way (RW) cost estimate: $190,000 Construction (CN) cost estimate: $5,825,000

o Project Schedule: PE Start: 09/29/16; End: 11/05/18 RW Start: 11/05/18; End: 10/03/19 CN Start: 10/03/19; End: 11/26/21

o Add District Grant Program (DGP) Federal Allocation of $300,000 in FY 2017

Attachment 7


o Add District Grant Program (DGP) State Allocation of $445,000 in FY 2018 o Add FY 2016 PE phase obligation of $755,000 Federal Advance Construction (AC)

funds o Add FY 2017 CN phase obligation of $300,000 Federal AC Conversion

This request has been made available for public review and comment. The public review period began on August 31, 2016 and runs through September 14, 2016. Ms. Jamie Oliver Moved to recommend HRTPO Board approval of the TIP amendment; seconded by Mr. Rob Lewis. The Motion Carried. The State of Transportation In Hampton Roads 2016: Final Dr. Camelia Ravanbakht, HRTPO Deputy Executive Director, reported that the draft report of the State of Transportation in Hampton Roads 2016 was presented to TTAC at its July 6, 2016 meeting and underwent public review from July 6, 2016 through August 3, 2016. She noted that all comments received were addressed in the final report. Mr. Lynn Allsbrook Moved to recommend HRTPO Board approval of the final report; seconded by Mr. Bryan Stilley. The Motion Carried. Regional Performance Measures – FY 2016 Update: Final Dr. Camelia Ravanbakht, HRTPO Deputy Executive Director, reported that the draft report of the Regional Performance Measures – FY 2016 Update was presented to TTAC at its July 6, 2016 meeting and underwent public review from July 6, 2016 through July 20, 2016. She noted that one comment was received and addressed in the final report. Dr. Rob Case stated HRTPO staff also received a comment from VDOT which was addressed in the final report. Mr. Allsbrook Moved to recommend HRTPO Board approval of the final report; seconded by Mr. Florin. The Motion Carried. Hampton Roads 2040 Long-Range Transportation Plan: SMART SCALE Amendments and Amendment Process Amend the 2040 LRTP to Include Regionally-Significant SMART SCALE Projects Ms. Dale Stith, HRTPO Principal Transportation Planner, reported that at its July 21, 2016 Meeting, the HRTPO Board adopted the 2040 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). She stated the 2040 LRTP will be the regional transportation plan for the next five years and is designed to be a ‘living’ document through the amendment process.

Attachment 7


Ms. Stith indicated that with the recent identification of projects to receive funding through the SMART SCALE prioritization process, regionally-significant projects not already included in the 2040 LRTP must be amended to the Plan while preserving the fiscal-constraint of the LRTP. She stated that administrative and funding modifications to other projects already included in the 2040 LRTP will be necessary in order to amend the 2040 LRTP while preserving fiscal-constraint. These administrative/funding modifications include transferring local planning funds, utilizing LRTP “reserve” planning funds, modification of project status, and transferring funds from one project to another. She noted that after discussing all modifications with the LRTP Subcommittee, the Subcommittee, along with HRTPO Staff, recommended the following modifications to these regionally-significant projects:

Locality: Project: SMART SCALE Funding:

Current 2040 LRTP Status:

HRTPO Staff and LRTP Subcommittee Recommendation:

Hampton Coliseum Drive Extension $2.8 M Not Included • Reserve*

Isle of Wight Nike Park Road Ext $11.7 M Not Included

• Transfer planning funds from Project 2040-57 (Humelsine Pkwy at Colonial Pkwy)

• Project 2040-57 (Humelsine Pkwy at Colonial Pkwy) can be categorized under “Grouped Projects” (and therefore remain consistent with the LRTP)

Norfolk I-64/Northampton Blvd $9.3 M Study

Modify: • 2040-115 (I-264/

Ballentine Blvd) from Construction to Study ($7M)

• 2040-116 (I-64/ Northampton Blvd) from Study to Construction

• Reserve* $2M

Virginia Beach Centerville Turnpike Phase III $6 M Locally-Funded Modify: • 2040-165 General Booth

Blvd to partially Locally-Funded ($38M Federal/State replaced by $36M Local Funds)

Virginia Beach Laskin Road Bridge Replacement $10 M Locally-Funded

Virginia Beach Indian River Road Phase VIII-A $20 M Locally-Funded

TOTAL $59.8

* LRTP Planning Reserve: Approximately $5M

Attachment 7


Update the LRTP Amendment Process to Address SMART SCALE Effort Ms. Stith explained that for future rounds of SMART SCALE, the LRTP Subcommittee has recommended the following be added to the LRTP Amendment Policies:

• If a locality receives SMART SCALE funding for a regionally-significant project not included in the LRTP:

o The locality must identify a current LRTP project within its jurisdiction from which to transfer LRTP planning funds.

o If there are insufficient LRTP planning funds on projects within the jurisdiction of the locality receiving SMART SCALE funds, consensus from the LRTP Subcommittee with a recommendation to the TTAC will be needed before an amendment can be considered by the HRTPO Board.

Dr. Camelia Ravanbakht, HRTPO Deputy Executive Director, expressed her gratitude to the LRTP Subcommittee for assisting HRTPO Staff with these modifications. Mr. Stringfield Moved to recommend HRTPO Board approval to amend the 2040 LRTP to include identified regionally-significant SMART SCALE projects, and HRTPO Board approval of an updated LRTP amendment process; seconded by Mr. Florin. The Motion Carried. HRTPO CMAQ/RSTP Project Selection Process Allocation of CMAQ and RSTP Reserves for FY 2016 – FY 2022 Mr. Mike Kimbrel, HRTPO Principal Transportation Engineer, reported that during the June 2016 TTAC meeting, a presentation by HRTPO staff stated that, as a result of updated marks (received on April 18, 2016) for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) and the Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP), there were some CMAQ funds available in FY 2017 through FY 2022 and some RSTP funds available in FY 2016 through FY 2022 to help cover cost overruns on previously-approved CMAQ and RSTP projects. He noted that TTAC members were encouraged to review their CMAQ and RSTP projects and submit requests for funds to cover cost overruns to HRTPO staff. Mr. Kimbrel stated the Transportation Programming Subcommittee (TPS) met on July 15, 2016 to consider the requests received and recommend a set of projects and allocations for consideration by the TTAC. From this meeting, he presented slides with recommendations for FY 2016-2022 Allocations from both CMAQ and RSTP Reserves. 2016 CMAQ/RSTP Project Selection Process Mr. John Mihaly, HRTPO Transportation Analyst II, reported that the HRTPO selection process for projects proposed to be funded under CMAQ and RSTP is conducted annually. He indicated that the 2016 CMAQ/RSTP Project Selection Process, which will focus on allocation of FY 2023 funds, opened on July 1, 2016, with a project application deadline of August 15, 2016.

Attachment 7


Mr. Mihaly outlined the schedule and noted the following:

• October 21, 2016 – TPS meeting to review proposed projects and recommend funding allocations

• November 2, 2016 – TTAC meeting to consider recommendations of the TPS with a recommendation for consideration by the HRTPO Board

• November 17, 2016 – HRTPO Board to consider TTAC recommendations regarding CMAQ/RSTP projects and funding allocations for final approval

Mr. Paul Holt Moved to recommend HRTPO Board approval of the CMAQ and RSTP allocations shown in the September 7, 2016 TTAC Agenda; seconded by Mr. Phil Pullen. The Motion Carried.

SMART SCALE: HRTPO Project Proposals & Requests for HRTPO Resolutions of Support Mr. Mike Kimbrel, HRTPO Principal Transportation Engineer, reported that SMART SCALE, originally signed into law in 2014 as House Bill 2 (HB2), directed the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) to develop and use a prioritization process to select transportation projects. Projects are scored based on an objective analysis and the process provides guidance to the CTB for project selection and funding. He stated the HRTPO is an eligible applicant under SMART SCALE and HRTPO staff will recommend to the HRTPO Board that the following regional priority projects be submitted for SMART SCALE evaluation this year:

• I-64 Southside Widening and High Rise Bridge – Phase 1 • I-64/I-264 Interchange – Phases 1 and 2

Mr. Kimbrel commented that several localities and transit agencies have requested HRTPO Resolutions of Support for their SMART SCALE applications. He indicated that these proposed projects must be consistent with:

• the current, fiscally-constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) • the current, fiscally-constrained Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), if applicable

He reminded TTAC members to submit their projects via the SMART SCALE online application by the September 30, 2016 deadline. Development of the FY 2018-2021 Transportation Improvement Program Mr. Mike Kimbrel, HRTPO Principal Transportation Engineer, reported that the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is:

• a multi-year program for the implementation of surface transportation projects within the Hampton Roads metropolitan planning area (MPA)

Attachment 7


• developed by the HRTPO in cooperation with state transportation agencies and local public transit agencies

• contains all federally-funded and/or regionally-significant projects that require an action by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

Mr. Kimbrel noted that before any federally-funded or regionally-significant surface transportation project can be built in the Hampton Roads MPA, it must be included in a current TIP that has been approved by the HRTPO Board. He outlined the basic steps for developing the new TIP and summarized its schedule, including the new TIP’s effective date of October 1, 2018. He requested TTAC members download the draft TIP project list, available on the HRTPO website after the meeting, and submit comments to HRTPO staff by COB September 21, 2016. Collaborating with the U.S. Department of Transportation on Climate Impact Mr. Alan Strasser, FHWA Project Coordinator and Stakeholder Liaison with the USDOT Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting, reported that Volpe, the National Transportation Systems Center, a research agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), has recently completed a draft report, Hampton Roads Climate Impact Quantification Initiative: Scoping Paper and Preliminary Baseline Assessment of the Transportation Assets in Hampton Roads. He stated this report was written in support of the ODU-led Intergovernmental Pilot Project, with the intention of completing additional products in the future for the Hampton Roads region. Mr. Strasser indicated that United States Code established the Department of Office and Climate Change and Environment to plan, coordinate, and implement department-wide research, strategies, and actions under the Department’s statutory authority to reduce transportation-related energy use and mitigate the effects of climate change; and department-wide research strategies and actions to address the impacts of climate change on transportation systems and infrastructure. Dr. Camelia Ravanbakht, HRTPO Deputy Executive Director, stated the HRTPO planned to revisit the Board-approved Prioritization Tool and possibly incorporate climate change and sea level rise in order to strengthen the Economic Vitality component of the tool. I-264 Corridor Evaluation Study Update Mr. Eric Stringfield, VDOT Planning Director, reported that the Virginia Department of Transportation contracted the services of AECOM to conduct a corridor evaluation study for the I-264 corridor. Mr. Chris Lawrence, AECOM Senior Transportation Engineer, outlined the study’s interchange locations and stated the purpose of the effort was to identify appropriate improvements to the facility to adequately accommodate forecasted mainline freeway traffic volumes. Once adopted, the plan for improvements to the I-264 freeway lanes will serve as a guide in the design of improvements to the interstate.

Attachment 7


Mr. Lawrence provided an overview of each interchange in the I-264 study corridor which includes:

• Military Highway • I-64 at I-264 • Newtown Road • Witchduck Road • Independence Boulevard • Rosemont Road • First Colonial Road • Parks Avenue and Birdneck Road

He noted that interstate widening between Independence Boulevard and Rosemont Road was also included in the study. Mr. Stringfield explained possible Next Steps as follows:

• Individual improvement projects would need to be in Fiscally-Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), with identified funding sources and approval from FHWA.

• Required Tasks: o Interchange Modification Report (Required by FHWA & VDOT) Analysis of alternatives Impact assessment Cost Estimates

o Environmental Document Public involvement opportunity Preliminary Engineering Public Hearing

• HRTAC funds scheduled for Agenda discussion in September 2016 o PE I-64 / I-264 Interchange ($10 Million)

Three-Month Tentative Schedule Chair Gey outlined the Three-Month Tentative Schedule in the Agenda Packet. Dr. Ravanbakht noted that the Hampton Roads Crossing Study (HRCS) draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) Preferred Alternative (PA) will be on the TTAC Agenda in October for TTAC to recommend a PA for HRTPO Board approval at its October meeting. For Your Information Chair Gey reviewed the items in the For Your Information section of the Agenda Packet. Announcements Chair Gey highlighted the announcements in the Agenda Packet. It was noted that the October 21, 2016 Transportation Programming Subcommittee (TPS) meeting conflicts with the Governor’s Conference in Northern Virginia and it was suggested to move the TPS meeting to another date.

Attachment 7


Old/New Business There was no old/new business. Adjournment

With no further business to come before the Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at 11:28 a.m.

Attachment 7


AGENDA ITEM #8: HAMPTON ROADS CROSSING STUDY SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: HRTAC FUNDING PLAN Kevin Page, HRTAC

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has prepared the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Hampton Roads Crossing Study (HRCS). The draft SEIS re-evaluated the findings of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the Record of Decision (ROD) that were approved by the FHWA in 2001. The draft SEIS has been completed, but no preferred alternative or construction sequencing of projects has been set yet. The draft HRCS SEIS has been published by VDOT and the four project alternatives (A-D) were proposed for evaluation and public comment August 5, 2016 through September 19, 2016. To advise the HRTPO and the public in the potential financing and delivery of the projects within each of the four alternatives, the HRTAC Funding Strategies Advisory Committee (FSAC) has developed a Potential Plan of Finance Scenario for each of the Draft HRCS SEIS Alternatives that incorporate HRTAC projects underway or committed. Mr. Kevin Page, Executive Director, HRTAC, will brief the TTAC on this item. RECOMMENDED ACTION:

For discussion and informational purposes.


AGENDA ITEM #9: HAMPTON ROADS CROSSING STUDY SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: HRTPO STAFF TECHNICAL ANALYSIS Camelia Ravanbakht, HRTPO

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has prepared the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Hampton Roads Crossing Study (HRCS). The draft SEIS re-evaluated the findings of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the Record of Decision (ROD) that were approved by the FHWA in 2001. Staff will provide a technical review and analysis of the four alternatives (A-D). The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was completed in early August. The public comment period began on August 5, 2016 and ran through September 19, 2016. Public hearings on the draft SEIS were held on September 7, 2016 at the Hampton Roads Convention Center in Hampton and September 8, 2016 at the Lake Wright Quality Suites in Norfolk. There are currently four alternatives under review by VDOT (A-D) that will address travel demand, improved transit access, increased regional accessibility, geometric deficiencies, emergency evacuation, improved strategic military connectivity, and increased access to port facilities. The discussion will focus on the alternatives as they relate to anticipated future growth patterns, existing traffic patterns, and expected traffic flow directions by the 2040 horizon year. HRTPO staff presented a technical analysis of alternatives (A-D) to the Board at the September 15, 2016 meeting. The presentation can be found at the following link: http://www.hrtpo.org/events/index/view/id/387 The HRTPO Board is tentatively scheduled to recommend a preferred alternative to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) at its November 2016 meeting and the CTB is tentatively scheduled to take official action on a preferred alternative at its December 2016 meeting. The Department of the Army and the Department of the Navy have provided comments from the public comment period of the draft HRCS SEIS (attached). Maps of the four alternatives are also attached. Dr. Camelia Ravanbakht, HRTPO Deputy Executive Director, will brief the TTAC on this item. Attachment 9-A Attachment 9-B Attachment 9-C

RECOMMENDED ACTION:


http://www.hrtpo.org/events/index/view/id/387

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYUS ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NORFOLK DISTRICTFORT NORFOLK

803 FRONT STREETNORFOLK VA 23510-1011

SEPTEMBER 19, 2016

Eastern Virginia Regulatory SectionHampton Roads Crossing StudyVDOT Project: 0064-965-081, P101; UPC 106724Corps of Engineers Project NAO-1994-1166

Mr. Ed SundraDirector of Program DevelopmentFederal Highway Administration400 North 8th Street, Room 750Richmond, Virginia 23219

Mr. Scott SmizikVDOT Environmental Division1401 East Broad StreetRichmond, Virginia 23219

Dear Messrs. Sundra and Smizik:

This letter provides the comments of the Norfolk District Corps of Engineers(USAGE) in response to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement(DSEIS) which was prepared for the Hampton Roads Crossing Study (HRCS), for whichUSAGE is a cooperating agency. In October 2016, USAGE concurred with the FederalHighway Administration (FHWA) on the purpose and need for this project, whichconsisted of a statement and seven need elements. Our comments and

recommendations should be fully addressed in the final SEIS and as you develop yourpreferred alternative.

The project will impact waters and/or wetlands regulated by USAGE under Section404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and Section 10 of the Rivers and HarborsAct (33 U.S.C. 403), and a permit or permits will likely be required for the improvements.Our regulations require that we consider a full range of public interest factors andconduct an alternatives analysis in order to identify the least environmentally damagingpracticable alternative (LEDPA), which is the only alternative we can authorize. Inaddition to wetland and waters impacts, we must consider factors such as land use(including displacements of homes and businesses), floodplain hazards and values,water supply and conservation, water quality, safety, cost, economics, threatened and

endangered species, historic and cultural resources, and environmental justice. Inaddition, navigation and potential effects to USAGE Civil Works projects will be aprimary consideration for this project.

Our comments on the DSEIS are given in relation to specific topics as follows:

Attachment 9-A

408 Coordination: The USAGE Commander's letter dated June 29, 2016 providedcomments on how USAGE may evaluate, pursuant to 33 U.S.C 408 (Section 408),impacts of the proposed project alternatives on USAGE federally authorized civil worksprojects; it is included in the DSEIS Appendix D. However, the DSEIS does not assesseach of the Corps identified impacts to federally authorized civil works projects and howeach impact may be mitigated to minimize alteration or impairment of the usefulness ofthese civil works projects. Alternatives B,C, and D could each result in 408 issues thatwill have to be resolved before the USAGE may be able to concur that the VDOTpreferred alternative is also the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative(LEDPA). We would expect that when VDOT presents its preferred alternative you willinclude analysis of avoidance and minimization of impacts to civil works projectsincluding navigation channels, anchorages, and the Craney Island Dredged MaterialManagement Area (CIDMMA). Because of the importance of these civil works projectsto navigation and the Port of Virginia, the 408 decision will likely be made at the Corpsof Engineers Headquarters level.

Waterbird NestinQ: CIDMMA supports nesting avian species protected under theMigratory Bird Treaty Act. Approximately 227 avian species have been documented atthe CIDMMA. Least terns, black-necked stilts, common nighthawks, and horned larksare several species that have historically nested in close proximity to and within theproposed project footprint that crosses the CIDMMA. Appropriate accommodations maybe necessary for this resource during any construction phases of the project that mayoccur on or near the CIDMMA.

Alternatives: Alternatives C and D clearly have the greatest amount ofenvironmental impacts. These impacts include potential dredging impacts (both withinthe dredge footprints and at the potential disposal sites), induced growth especiallywithin the undeveloped areas along Route 1-664 in Chesapeake and Suffolk, andimpacts to essential fish habitat and potential stream and wetland impacts. As detailedin table 3-36, the potential wetland impacts (which includes tidal, nontidal, and nontidalopen water) are 8 acres for alternative A, 73 acres for alternative B, 110 acres foralternative C and 121 acres for alternative D.

All four of the build alternatives discussed in the DSEIS satisfy the project purposeand need, albeit to differing degrees. Alternatives C and D both result in more extensiveimprovements to the existing transportation network and also impact more aquaticresources through dredging and the filling of wetlands. If Alternatives A and B also meetthe project purpose and need, have less adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem,and do not significantly impact other natural ecosystems, then USAGE may determinethat it can only permit one of these less damaging options as the LEDPA.

In previous meetings and letters we have requested additional information onAlternative A, especially regarding the right-of-way impacts of 7- and 9-lane HRBT

Attachment 9-A

configurations (with one dedicated transit lane). We understand that you havedetermined that these right-of-way impacts are unacceptable, especially in residentialareas of Norfolk, near Hampton University, and in the vicinity of the veterans' cemetery;however, in the absence of documentation we cannot concur. Not including thisinformation in the DSEIS leaves open questions about the viability of those options, andit should be documented in the Final SEIS (FSEIS) or an appropriate appendix.

According to Appendix A of the document, it is expected that VDOT's preferredalternative will be constructed in stages or operationally independent sections (OIS).You have indicated that as funds become available, the OIS that comprise a particularalternative may be approved and then constructed in phases. Through the public reviewand comment period of the SEIS, a "hybrid" alternative may also be developed whichcould result in lower costs and impacts. Any hybrid alternative must also sufficientlyaddress the project purpose and need, must have logical termini, and should reduceimpacts to aquatic resources. Wetland impacts for segment 1 (23.6 acres) and segment13 (61.6 acres) are especially large and should be avoided in the identification of yourpreferred alternative. If either of these segments are included in your preferredalternative, and you can sufficiently document that these impacts cannot be avoided,then you should incorporate measures to minimize impacts (such as bridging,elimination of the median, reduced fill slopes/retaining walls, etc.).

Tolls: It is our understanding that managed lanes may be an option on the MonitorMerrimac Bridge Tunnel (MMBT) and the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel (HRBT). Wealso understand that any additional crossings of the Elizabeth River will require tolls,and the Traffic and Transportation Technical Report assumes that the 1564 and the 1664connectors will each have a $1 toll. If the preferred alternative includes a toll, high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane, or other managed lane, we would expect that toll scenario tobe analyzed and documented in the FSEIS.

We have concerns about potential Environmental Justice issues related toimplementation of tolls. Since the inception of the tolls on the Elizabeth River crossings(i.e. the Midtown Tunnel and the Downtown Tunnel), drivers without credit cards havebeen paying consistently higher toll rates using the pay-by-plate method. In addition, thecurrent tolls may have formed a barrier to some drivers, minimizing trips betweenPortsmouth and Norfolk. Local businesses, especially in Portsmouth, have reported thatthey have experienced a drop in revenues since the tolls went into effect. If the VDOTpreferred alternative includes any tolls, the analysis should consider and assess thesetypes of effects, and document whether there will be any disproportionate effect onminority or low-income communities.

Transit: Alternative C is the only alternative that includes dedicated transit lanes on1564, the 1564 and 1664 connectors, and then on Route 1664 beginning at theinterchange with the MMBT. Bus rapid transit (BRT) will be the transit mode. Based on

Attachment 9-A

meetings leading up to the signing of the DSEIS, it was our understanding that transitmay be included in the VDOT preferred alternative, even if alternative C is not VDOT'spreferred alternative. When you propose your preferred alternative, you should includea discussion of transit options, including HOT, HOV, or dedicated transit lanes. If thereis no transit component included in the preferred alternative, you should documentreasons for that. The dedicated transit lanes shown on Alternative C would provide bustravel from Norfolk across the Elizabeth River to Newport News and Hampton butappear to bypass Portsmouth and Suffolk. We understand that the City of Suffolk has itsown transit system but please provide justification why the BRT lanes would not servethese two cities.

Wetlands and other aquatic resources: You have presented wetland impactsbased on GIS analysis with limited ground-truthing. There seem to be discrepanciesbetween the wetland impacts as depicted on tables 3-35, 3-36, and 3-37. Please clarifywhich of the tables accurately estimates the different alternatives' wetland impacts. Weunderstand that the NEPA-level analysis only allows for a certain level of wetlandimpact analysis and functional assessment, but it is important to note that when youselect your preferred alternative you will need to delineate the wetlands and streamsand obtain ajurisdictional determination from USAGE.

Several of the figures in the DSEIS refer to altered or fragmented wetlands. Weunderstand that in the urban/suburban setting of this project many of the wetlands havebeen altered, but they still perform valuable functions in these landscapes. More site-specific functional analysis of impacted wetlands may be required after the VDOTpreferred alternative is selected and as design advances. You should also provideinformation on what type of alterations and additional fragmentation may be expectedfrom the different alternatives. Stormwater management facilities should not be locatedin wetlands or streams.

Most of the predicted impacts for the VDOT preferred alignment will probably occurwithin the Hampton Roads Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC 02080208, which includes theLower James River basin. You should evaluate mitigation options for all unavoidableimpacts to wetlands and streams associated with your preferred alternative, and youshould provide at least a conceptual mitigation plan in the FSEIS. You may be expectedto compensate for impacts to mudflats, shallow water habitats, subaqueous bottom andsubmerged aquatic vegetation (SAVs). Please be aware that there is no existingcommercial tidal mitigation bank with available credits in this drainage basin, nor areany anticipated to come on line in the near future.

Sediment Transportation, Bank Erosion, ShoalinQ and Hydrodynamic ModelingReport: The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) is in the process of finalizing areport regarding these processes for the HRCS, and you state that a completeassessment of these factors will be included once the VDOT preferred alternative has

Attachment 9-A

been identified. In the interim findings on page 3-102, the DSEIS discusses an increasein surface and bottom salinities on the order of 0.3 practical salinity units (PSU) forAlternative A and for another alternative,.an increase in turbulence mixing and retentiontime that would lead to a larger increase in surface salinity. Once you have identified theVDOT preferred alternative, an explanation is needed of exactly what these numbersmean and the nature and extent of impacts that can be expected to aquatic organisms,including fish and benthic species. This explanation should account for otherconstruction within the project area, including the recently completed parallel MidtownTunnel which spans the Elizabeth River.

VDOT has indicated that its next step will be to select their preferred alternativeand request USAGE concurrence that the VDOT preferred alternative appears to be thepreliminary LEDPA. USAGE will review the public input received during the commentperiod on the DSEIS and the justification for the selection of your preferred alternative.VDOT should provide documentation and information explaining why the VDOTpreferred alternative was selected, and why the other alternatives were not selected. Ifyou identify a hybrid alternative as the VDOT preferred alternative, you should clearlyand thoroughly document the steps you followed to arrive at that conclusion. Avoidanceand minimization measures that have been evaluated and incorporated to reducewetland and waters impacts should be detailed, including bridging wetlands andstreams, alignment shifts, and minimizing fill footprints.

As part of the alternatives analysis, you must continue to coordinate roadalignments, design, and ultimately construction with the USAGE Operations Branch toensure that there will be no adverse effects to operations at the existing CIDMMA or tothe ongoing expansion of the facility, or to other Civil Works projects. If potential impactsto Civil Works projects are not sufficiently identified and addressed during thealternatives analysis, we will not be able to make a preliminary LEDPA determination.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations on theHRCS DSEIS. You may contact the USAGE Regulatory project manager George JanekatgeorQe.a.ianek(a)usace.army.mil or 757-201-7135 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Gregoty C. Steele, P.E.

Chief, Water Resources Division

Attachment 9-A

Copies Furnished:

Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, ATTN: Ms. Barbara OkornU. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, GloucesterNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Gloucester Point, ATTN: Mr. DavidO'Brien

NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic Region, Norfolk, ATTN: Ms. Rhonda P. Murray

6

Attachment 9-A

Attachment 9-B

Alternatives Retained for Analysis

Attachment 9-C

Alternative A

Attachment 9-C

Alternative B

Attachment 9-C

Alternative C

Attachment 9-C

Alternative D

Attachment 9-C


AGENDA ITEM #10: ELECTION OF OFFICERS Lynn Allsbrook, Nominating Subcommittee Chair

In accordance with the TTAC Bylaws, the election of officers is to take place during the first meeting after October 1 each year. During the July 2016 TTAC meeting, the Chair directed the Nominating Subcommittee to identify one or more persons willing to serve each office to be filled. The current members of the TTAC Nominating Subcommittee are: Lynn Allsbrook (Chair) Hampton Jamie Oliver Isle of Wight Jackie Kassel Newport News Robert Lewis Suffolk Phil Pullen Virginia Beach Tim Cross York County Ray Amoruso HRT The Nominating Subcommittee has recommended that, in accordance with the TTAC Bylaws, Mr. Paul Holt and Ms. Sherry Earley be elected to serve in the Chair and Vice-Chair positions, respectively. Mr. Lynn Allsbrook, Nominating Subcommittee Chair, will brief the TTAC on this item. RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Elect the TTAC Chair and Vice-Chair.


AGENDA ITEM #11: FY 2015-2018 TIP AMENDMENT (UPC T15554): CBBT Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District

Attached is a request from the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District to amend the FY 2015-2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to reflect an updated cost estimate, project description, and planned obligations/allocations on one project as follows:

• Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel (UPC T15554)

o Increase total cost estimate from $819,767,442 to $924,790,000 Updated Construction (CN) cost estimate: $924,790,000

o Modify project description to delete the word “box” from the description of

the two-lane concrete tunnel.

o Add the following obligations/allocations (Total $789,321,926) FY Previous: $295,043 CBBT General FY 2015: $2,186,997 CBBT General FY 2016: $3,933,583 CBBT General FY 2017: $39,382,653 CBBT General FY 2017: $73,555,221 TREV FY 2017: $352,426,677 TIFIA FY 2018: $262,240,187 CBBT TREV FY 2018: $9,430,890 VTIB FY 2018: $45,870,675 CBBT General

This request has been made available for public review and comment. The public review period began on September 28, 2016 and runs through October 12, 2016. A representative from the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District will brief the TTAC on this item. Attachment 11

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Recommend HRTPO Board approval of the TIP amendment.

Attachment 11


AGENDA ITEM #12: TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM PROJECT PROPOSALS John Mihaly, HRTPO

The Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), established under MAP-21, provides funding for a variety of transportation activities that were previously eligible for funding under separate programs under SAFETEA-LU, including Transportation Enhancements (TE), Recreational Trails, and Safe Routes to School. The VDOT Local Assistance Division (LAD) coordinates the TAP in Virginia. The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act folds the TAP program into the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP) as a “Set-aside” capped at $850 million after FY 2017. Each year VDOT requests applications for candidate projects for TAP funding. The deadline for applications is November 1, 2016, and each proposed project must receive endorsement by the appropriate metropolitan planning organization. The TAP project proposals received to date are attached and described below:

• Chesapeake – Multi-City Trail

This project is for the design and construction of a 3-mile off-road trail system (Phase 1) along the abandoned Commonwealth Railroad right-of-way from Gum Court to the Portsmouth City line. The scope was recently updated to include installation of a pedestrian signal to assist bicyclists and pedestrians in crossing Taylor Road. Project cost: $850,000 TAP Funding Request: $380,000

• Gloucester – Gloucester Historic Courthouse Circle Pedestrian and ADA

Improvements

This project is for the rehabilitation of existing sidewalks to comply with ADA standards and improve pedestrian access to the historic buildings within the Courthouse Circle. In addition, the project will enhance pedestrian access to the County’s Main Street which was previously reconstructed to comply with ADA standards. Project cost: $220,000 TAP Funding Request: $176,000

• Virginia Beach – Salem Road Sidewalk

This project will provide a 5-ft wide concrete sidewalk along the east side of Salem Road from Salem Lakes Boulevard to Rock Lake Loop, a total distance of approximately 0.30 miles. The concrete sidewalk will tie in to existing sidewalks at Salem Lakes Boulevard and Rock Lake Loop. The concrete sidewalk will be located


within the existing right-of-way behind the existing swale. This project also includes new accessible curb ramps at the intersection of Salem Road and Salem Lakes Boulevard, piping the existing ditch, new curb and gutter and utility relocations. Right of Way will be required from one property. This project qualifies as a Safe Routes To School project. It will greatly improve safety for pedestrians and school children walking to Salem Elementary School, and provide connectivity in an area that is heavily traveled by pedestrians as evidenced by the worn path. Project cost: $500,000 TAP Funding Request: $400,000

• Virginia Beach – Euclid Road Sidewalk – Phase 1

This project will provide a 5-ft wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of Euclid Road from the vicinity of where it intersects with Kellam Road to where it intersects with South Independence Boulevard, connecting existing sidewalks for a total distance of approximately 0.2 miles. This project will provide 840 LF of sidewalk from the intersection of Euclid Road and South Independence Boulevard to an existing sidewalk just past Kellam Road. This phase will also include placement of 120 LF of sidewalk on the east side of Kellam Road, beginning at the intersection with Euclid Road until it ties into existing sidewalk. This project will also include tree removal, new accessible curb ramps at the intersection of Kellam Road and Euclid Road on both the east and west sides, and utility relocation. Right of way will be required from one property. Project cost: $325,000 TAP Funding Request: $260,000


This project will provide a 5-ft wide concrete sidewalk at two locations along the north side of Euclid Road to provide a continuous sidewalk between where Euclid Road intersects with Onondaga Road and Kellam Road. One location of sidewalk to be provided is from the west end of the Seventh Point Advertising, Marketing, and Public Relation property to the east end of the Motel 6 property for an approximate length of 130 LF. The second location of sidewalk to be provided is from Onondaga Road to the west end of the Motel 6 property for an approximate length of 630 LF. This project will also include tree removal, new accessible curb ramps at the intersection of Kellam Road and Euclid Road on both the east and west sides, and utility relocation. This phase of the project requires a new accessible curb ramp at the intersection of Euclid Road and Onondaga Road on the east side, new curb and gutter, and utility relocation. Project cost: $260,000 TAP Funding Request: $208,000



This project will provide a 5-ft wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of Euclid Road and the west side of Opal Avenue, and a 12-ft wide concrete shared use path between the proposed light rail stations at Witchduck Road and Kellam Road. Approximately 570 LF of sidewalk will be installed along Euclid Road to provide a continuous sidewalk between Cleveland Street and Narragansett Drive. Approximately 330 LF of sidewalk will be installed along Opal Avenue to provide a continuous sidewalk between Cleveland Street and Euclid Road where it intersects with Euclid Road to the south side of the Write Impressions property. Crosswalk striping will be needed where Euclid Road intersects with Southern Boulevard, the shared use path, and the existing rail line that may potentially support light rail transit. The concrete sidewalk and shared use path will be located within the existing right-of-way. This project will greatly improve the safety of pedestrians walking and biking alongside a heavily trafficked road, as well as provide a safe connection between two proposed light rail transit stations and encourage growth and development of transportation systems between the City’s eight Strategic Growth Areas. Project cost: $700,000 TAP Funding Request: $560,000

• Virginia Beach – Kellam Road Sidewalk

This project will provide a 5-ft wide concrete sidewalk along the west side of Kellam Road, connecting Euclid Road to an existing sidewalk at the intersection of Kellam Road and Mandan Road, a distance of approximately 0.25 miles. This project includes utility relocation, new curb and gutter, and new accessible ramps at the north and south side of the intersection between Kellam Road and Kiowa Lane, Kellam Road and Onondaga Road, and Kellam Road and Conestoga Road. The concrete sidewalk will be located within the existing right-of-way. This project will provide safe mobility for pedestrians travelling in both directions of Kellam Road, as well as provide easy access to the planned shared-use path alongside the future light rail tracks. Project cost: $450,000 TAP Funding Request: $360,000

• Virginia Beach – Sandbridge Road Sidewalk

This project will provide a 10-ft wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of Sandbridge Road from St. John the Apostle Catholic School to Red Mill Elementary School, a total distance of approximately 0.40 miles. The concrete sidewalk will tie in to existing sidewalks at Red Mill Elementary School and to the parking lot of St. John the Apostle Catholic School. This project also includes retrofitting the north side of the existing four-span concrete culvert to accommodate an 8-ft wide sidewalk with a 42-in high parapet separating the sidewalk from the road and a


railing along the drainage ditch. This project will provide connectivity from each of the schools to Red Mill Farms Park. Project cost: $700,000 TAP Funding Request: $560,000

• Virginia Beach – Violet Bank Trail Sidewalk

This project will provide a 10-ft wide asphalt path connecting the eastern end of Violet Bank Drive to Selwood Drive, a distance of approximately 0.6 miles. The shared use path will be located along the “paper street” portion of Violet Bank Drive that does not have a roadway. As evident through the beaten down pathway at the project site, this route is highly used by pedestrians. This project also includes vegetation removal and accessible curb ramps at the east end of Violet Bank Drive and at all intersections that the trail will cross (16 curb ramps total). This project will provide safe mobility to members of the community as an alternative to walking/biking alongside Providence Road, which does not have a sidewalk and is heavily trafficked. Project cost: $475,000 TAP Funding Request: $380,000

• Virginia Beach – Foxfire Trail Phase 1

This project will provide a 12-ft wide pedestrian trail along the existing trail oriented northwest-southeast between North Landing Road and Foxfire Park on Esplanade Drive, new ADA accessible ramps, install approximately 200 linear feet of ADA compliant elevated pedestrian trail, 4,000 linear feet of temporary approach trail, and minor grading. The pedestrian bridge will span over West Neck Creek and the adjacent floodway and will be of timber construction with composite decking. The temporary approach trail will consist of stone placed by the contractor to provide access to the creek and floodway. This project will provide connectivity for pedestrians traveling from neighborhoods in the Pungo area of Virginia Beach to the City’s Municipal Center and to Princess Anne Road. In addition, it enhances an existing trail that currently dead ends at the West Neck Creek. Project cost: $978,000 TAP Funding Request: $782,400

• Virginia Beach – Cape Henry Lighthouse Restoration – Phase 2

This project will provide stabilization to the base of the 1792 Cape Henry Lighthouse, a National Historic Landmark. Wind and water erosion has diminished the man-made dune and exposed and damaged the soft Aquia sandstone base. To prevent further damage, the dune will be rebuilt to an appropriate height, contained within concrete retaining walls and capped with a slab to prevent erosion. The steps leading from the dune into the lighthouse will be replaced and the visitor


experience will be enhanced through safety and aesthetic improvements to the plaza surrounding the lighthouse and incorporation of interpretive panels. Project cost: $1,094,090 TAP Funding Request: $360,000

• York County – Bypass Road Sidewalk Project

This project will provide for the construction of a 5-foot wide sidewalk along the side of Bypass Road (Route 60) between the Williamsburg city boundary to the east. The project will involve the rehabilitation of an existing asphalt walking path to comply with ADA standards and improve pedestrian access. It will include the installation of a pedestrian signal and crosswalk at the intersection of Bypass Road and Waller Mill Road. Project cost: $700,000 TAP Funding Request: $560,000

Mr. John V. Mihaly, HRTPO Transportation Analyst II, will brief the TTAC on this item. Attachment 12 RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Recommend HRTPO Board endorsement of the proposed projects.

Attachment 12

Salem Road SidewalkThis project will provide a 5‐ft wide concrete sidewalk along the east side of Salem Road from Salem Lakes Boulevard to Rock Lake Loop, a total distance of approximately 0.30 miles. The concrete sidewalk will tie in to existing sidewalks at Salem Lakes Boulevard and Rock Lake Loop. The concrete sidewalk will be located within the existing right‐of‐way behind the existing swale. This project also includes new accessible curb ramps at the intersection of Salem Road and Salem Lakes Boulevard, piping the existing ditch, new curb and gutter and utility relocations. Right of Way will be required from one property. This project qualifies as a Safe Routes To School project. It will greatly improve safety for pedestrians and school children walking to Salem Elementary School, and provide connectivity in an area that is heavily traveled by pedestrians as evidenced by the worn path.

The Total Project Cost is approximately $500,000. The City will provide the 20% match ($100,000) and request the remaining 80% ($400,000) in TAP funds.

1

Attachment 12

2

Euclid Road Sidewalk—Phase IThis project will provide a 5‐ft wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of Euclid Road from the vicinity of where it intersects with Kellam Road to where it intersects with South Independence Boulevard, connecting existing sidewalks for, a total distance of approximately 0.2 miles. This project will provide 840 LF of sidewalk from the intersection of Euclid Road and South Independence Boulevard to an existing sidewalk just past Kellam Road. This phase will also include placement of 120 LF of sidewalk on the east side of Kellam Road, beginning at the intersection with Euclid Road until it ties into existing sidewalk. This project will also include tree removal, new accessible curb ramps at the intersection of Kellam Road and Euclid Road, on both the east and west sides, and utility relocation. Right of way will be required from one property.

The Project Cost for this phase is approximately $325,000. The City will provide the 20% match ($65,000) and request the remaining 80% ($260,000) in TAP funds.

Attachment 12

3

Euclid Road Sidewalk—Phase IIThis project will provide a 5‐ft wide concrete sidewalk at two locations along the north side of Euclid Road to provide a continuous sidewalk between where Euclid Road intersects with Onondaga Road and Kellam Road. One location of sidewalk to be provided isfrom the west end of the Seventh Point Advertising, Marketing, and Public Relation property to the east end of the Motel 6 property for an approximate length of 130 LF. The second location of sidewalk to be provided is from Onondaga Road to the west send of the Motel 6 property for an approximate length of 630 LF. This project will also include tree removal, new accessible curb ramps at the intersection of Kellam Road and Euclid Road, on both the east and west sides, and utility relocation. This phase of the project requires a new accessible curb ramp at the intersection of Euclid Road and Onondaga Road on the east side, new curb and gutter, and utility relocation.


Attachment 12

4

Euclid Road Sidewalk—Phase IIIThis project will provide a 5‐ft wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of Euclid Road and the west side of Opal Avenue, and a 12‐ft wide concrete shared use path between the proposed light rail stations at Witchduck Road and Kellam Road. Approximately 570 LF of sidewalk will be installed along Euclid Road to provide a continuous sidewalk between Cleveland Street and Narragansett Drive. Approximately 330 LF of sidewalk will be installed along Opal Avenue to provide a continuous sidewalk between Cleveland Street and Euclid Road where it intersects with Euclid Road to the south side of the Write Impressions property. Crosswalk striping will be needed where Euclid Road intersects with Southern Boulevard, the shared use path, and the existing rail line that maypotentially support light rail transit.

The concrete sidewalk and shared use path will be located within the existing right‐of‐way. This project will greatly improve the safety of pedestrians walking and biking alongside a heavily trafficked road, as well as provide a safe connection between two proposed light rail transit stations and encourage growth and development of transportation systems between the City’s eight Strategic Growth Areas.


Attachment 12

Kellam Road SidewalkThis project will provide a 5‐ft wide concrete sidewalk along the west side of Kellam Road, connecting Euclid Road to an existing sidewalk at the intersection of Kellam Road and Mandan Road, a distance of approximately 0.25 miles. This project includes utility relocation, new curb and gutter, and new accessible ramps at the north and south side of the intersection between Kellam Road and Kiowa Lane, Kellam Road and Onondaga Road, and Kellam Road and Conestoga Road. The concrete sidewalk will be located within the existing right‐of‐way. This project will provide safe mobility for pedestrians travelling in both directions of Kellam Road, as well as provide easy access to the planned shared‐use path alongside the future light rail tracks.


5

Attachment 12

Sandbridge Road Sidewalk – St. John the Apostle

Catholic School to Red Mill Elementary SchoolThis project will provide a 10‐ft wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of Sandbridge Road from St. John the Apostle Catholic School to Red Mill Elementary School, a total distance of approximately 0.40 miles. The concrete sidewalk will tie in to existing sidewalks at Red Mill Elementary School and to the parking lot of St. John the Apostle Catholic School. This project also includes retrofitting the north side of the existing four‐span concrete culvert to accommodate an 8‐ft wide sidewalk with a 42‐in high parapet separating the sidewalk from the road and a railing along the drainage ditch. This project will provide connectivity from each of the schools to Red Mill Farms Park.


6

Attachment 12

Violet Bank Trail SidewalkThis project will provide a 10‐ft wide asphalt path connecting the eastern end of Violet Bank Drive to Selwood Drive, a distance of approximately 0.6 miles. The shared use path will be located along the “paper street” portion of Violet Bank Drive that does not have a roadway. As evident through the beaten down pathway at the project site, this route is highly used by pedestrians. This project also includes vegetation removal and accessible curb ramps at the east end of Violet Bank Drive and at all intersections that the trail will cross (16 curb ramps total). This project will provide safe mobility to members of the community as an alternative to walking/biking alongside Providence Road, which does not have a sidewalk and is heavily trafficked.


7

Attachment 12

Foxfire Trail Phase I – Pedestrian Bridge over

West Neck Creek and Temporary Approach TrailThis project will provide a 12‐ft wide pedestrian trail along the existing trail oriented northwest‐southeast between North Landing Road and Foxfire Park on Esplanade Drive, new ADA accessible ramps, install approximately 200 linear feet of ADA compliant elevated pedestrian trail, 4,000 linear feet of temporary approach trail, and minor grading. The pedestrian bridge will span over West Neck Creek and the adjacent floodway and will be of timber construction with composite decking. The temporary approach trail willconsist of stone placed by the contractor to provide access to the creek and floodway. This project will provide connectivity for pedestrians traveling from neighborhoods in the Pungo area of Virginia Beach to the City’s Municipal Center and to Princess Anne Road. In addition, it enhances an existing trail that currently dead ends at the West Neck Creek.


8

Attachment 12

9

Cape Henry Lighthouse Restoration—Phase IIThis project will provide stabilization to the base of the 1792 Cape Henry Lighthouse, a National Historic Landmark. Wind and water erosion has diminished the man‐made dune and exposed and damaged the soft Aquia sandstone base. To prevent further damage the dune will be rebuilt to an appropriate height, contained within concrete retaining walls and capped with a slab to prevent erosion. The steps leading from the dune into the lighthouse will be replaced and the visitor experience will be enhanced through safety and aesthetic improvements to the plaza surrounding the lighthouse and incorporation of interpretive panels.

Total Project Cost is $1,094,090 of which $644,090 was provided in previous enhancement program awards. Preservation Virginia provided the previous 20% match amount ($128,750). This project was previously advertised for construction and additional funding needed for this phase is approximately $450,000. The City will provide the 20% match ($90,000) and request the remaining 80% ($360,000) in TAP funds.

Attachment 12

Attachment 12


AGENDA ITEM #13: SMART SCALE: REQUESTS FOR HRTPO RESOLUTIONS OF SUPPORT Mike Kimbrel, HRTPO

House Bill 2 (HB2), signed into law in 2014, directed the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) to develop and use a prioritization process to select transportation projects. The legislation was intended to improve the transparency and accountability of project selection, as well as improve stability in the Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP). The process, now named SMART SCALE, scores projects based on an objective analysis and provides guidance to the CTB for project selection and funding. In accordance with SMART SCALE guidance documents, under certain circumstances Hampton Roads localities and transit agencies must obtain resolutions of support from the HRTPO for projects they wish to submit for SMART SCALE evaluation. HRTPO resolutions of support will be provided in accordance with the HRTPO Guidance on SMART SCALE, which may be accessed on the HRTPO website at: www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/HRTPO Guidance on SMART SCALE.pdf To date, the HRTPO Board has approved the following requests:

• Gloucester County o Pedestrian Improvements on Route 1208 (Greate Road) o George Washington Memorial Highway Widening: Farmwood Road to

Guinea Road o Route 614 (Hickory Fork Road) Reconstruction: Route 616 to Route 631 o Pedestrian/Streetscape Improvements on Route 17B

• Hampton Roads Transit o Virginia Beach Light Rail Extension Feeder Buses (26 buses to connect to

the new light rail stations in Virginia Beach)

• James City County o Skiffes Creek Connector

• Newport News o I-64 Exit 255 Ramp C: I-64 West CD Road direct connection to Chatham

Drive o Jefferson Avenue/Yorktown Road Intersection Improvements

• Norfolk o I-264 Off-Ramp at Ballentine Boulevard o Brambleton Avenue/Tidewater Drive Intersection Improvements o Brambleton Avenue/Park Avenue Intersection Improvements o I-264/Military Highway Ramp and Park-n-Ride Access o Granby Street Bike Lanes o Hampton Boulevard/Terminal Boulevard Grade Separation

• Poquoson o Victory Boulevard Widening: Poquoson Phase – York County line to

Wythe Creek Road (Included in 2040 LRTP as a Study)

http://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/HRTPO%20Guidance%20on%20SMART%20SCALE.pdf


• Virginia Beach o Laskin Road Phase I-A: Includes Laskin from Republic Road to Oriole

Road, First Colonial from Laurel Lane to I-264, and full improvements to the Laskin Road/First Colonial Road intersection

• Williamsburg Area Transit Authority o Expanding Bus Shelters (Adding 12 bus shelters) o Transfer Station in northwestern section of James City County o Purchase one expansion bus for adding service between Yorktown and

Lee Hall connecting to the Gray Line

• Williamsburg o Ironbound Road Widening, Phase 2 o Ironbound Road Widening, Phase 3 o Traffic Signal Upgrades o Bypass Road/Capitol Landing Road Intersection Improvements

• York County o Route 17 Widening – Wolf Trap Road to Denbigh Boulevard o Victory Boulevard Widening – Route 17 to Route 134

• York County – Poquoson Joint Request o Victory Boulevard Widening – Route 17 to Wythe Creek Road (Section

from Route 134 to Wythe Creek Road included in 2040 LRTP as a Study) Mr. Mike Kimbrel, HRTPO Principal Transportation Engineer, will brief the TTAC on this item. RECOMMENDED ACTION:



AGENDA ITEM #14: THREE-MONTH TENTATIVE SCHEDULE November 2016 Wednesday, November 2, 2016

• Volumes, Speeds, and Congestion on Major Roadways in Hampton Roads: Draft • Moving the Economy – Improving Hampton Roads Transportation to Serve Three

Key Sectors: Military, Ports, and Hospitality: Draft • Active Transportation Safety Study: Draft • Regional Transit Benchmarking Study: Draft • Connected/Automated Vehicles Study

December 2016 Wednesday, December 7, 2016

• Meeting to be canceled January 2017 Wednesday, January 4, 2017

• 2016 CMAQ/RSTP Project Selection Process: Recommended Projects & Allocations • Volumes, Speeds, and Congestion on Major Roadways in Hampton Roads: Final • Active Transportation Safety Study: Final • Regional Transit Benchmarking Study: Final • Hampton Roads Regional Freight Study: Draft • FY 2015-2018 TIP: Quarterly Snapshot


AGENDA ITEM #15: FOR YOUR INFORMATION A. STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN ROAD SHOW

The Virginia Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) is a statewide, comprehensive safety plan that provides a blueprint for reducing fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The current SHSP, which was completed in 2012, can be viewed on the web at: http://www.virginiadot.org/info/hwysafetyplan.asp. VDOT and other key agencies (including the HRTPO) have initiated the process of updating the Virginia Strategic Highway Safety Plan. As part of this effort, representatives will be traveling throughout the state for a series of road shows where safety stakeholders can provide ideas and suggestions for what should be included in the updated plan. The Hampton Roads event will be held on Tuesday, November 1st, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. at The Regional Building, 723 Woodlake Drive in Chesapeake, Virginia.

B. MINUTES OF THE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMMING SUBCOMMITTEE

The minutes of the Transportation Programming Subcommittee (TPS) meeting of July 15, 2016 are attached. Attachment 15-B

C. HRCS SEIS COMMENTS (HRTPO STAFF) The HRTPO staff comments on the Hampton Roads Crossing Study (HRCS) Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) are attached. Attachment 15-C

http://www.virginiadot.org/info/hwysafetyplan.asp

HRTPO Transportation Programming Subcommittee Meeting Summary Minutes | July 15, 2016 | 1

Summary Minutes of the Hampton Roads Transportation Programming Subcommittee (TPS) Meeting

July 15, 2016 The Hampton Roads Transportation Programming Subcommittee (TPS) Meeting was called to order at 9:39 a.m. in the Regional Boardroom, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia, with the following in attendance:

TPS Members Present: Ray Amoruso, HRT Keisha Branch, HRT Barbara Creel, WATA Steve Froncillo, CH Robert Gey, VB Paul Holt, JCC Jackie Kassel, NN Brian Lewis, GC

Robert E. Lewis, P.E., SU Jamie Oliver, IW Phil Pullen, VB Dawn Odom, VDOT Angela Rico, HA Brian Stilley, NN Eric Stringfield, VDOT James Wright, PO

TPS Members Absent: Chris Arabia, DRPT Robert Brown, NO Timothy C. Cross, YK Sherry Earley, SU Jeffrey A. Florin P.E., VPA

Ivan P. Rucker, FHWA Kevin Wyne, PQ Steve Rowan, VDOT John Yorks, HA

HRTPO Staff: Mike Kimbrel Camelia Ravanbakht

John Mihaly

Other Participants: Jonathon Ammons, HRT Karen McPherson, McPH

Donna Sayegh Katie Shannon, VB

1. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Gey chaired the TPS meeting and called the meeting to order at 9:34 a.m.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD There were no public comments.

3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Gey asked for additions or deletions to the agenda. Mr. Pullen moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Ms. Kassel. The Motion Carried.

4. MINUTES

Chair Gey indicated the TPS Summary Minutes of February 19, 2016 were included in the July TPS Agenda. He asked for corrections or amendments to the minutes. Mr. Stringfield moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Amoruso. The Motion Carried.

Attachment 15-B


5. UPC AND COST ESTIMATE UPDATE FOR ROARING SPRINGS ROAD BIKE PATH AND

SIDEWALK PROJECT IN GLOUCESTER COUNTY

Mr. Kimbrel briefed the TPS on the VDOT request to change the UPC number for the Roaring Springs Road Bike Path and Sidewalk project in Gloucester County from 102919 to 107414. He noted that the project was not in the FY 15-18 TIP since the funding allocations were outside of those years. Mr. Kimbrel explained that due to technical reasons, the project UPC number was deactivated and that the cost estimate had increased. He stated that Gloucester County intends to request additional funding to alleviate the cost overruns. Mr. Brian Lewis briefed the TPS with additional details on the project. He mentioned that the cost estimate increase was due to a refined scope of the project with the Fredericksburg District. Mr. Lewis stated that the feasibility study for the project was conducted in the early 2000s and due to inflation, the cost estimate for completing the project has increased. The updated project was listed for consideration under item #6 below.

6. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FROM FY 2016-2022 CMAQ AND RSTP RESERVE ACCOUNTS

Mr. Kimbrel briefed the TPS on the requests received from localities/agencies for CMAQ and RSTP reserves for FY 2016 through FY 2022. He explained that there were corrections to the agenda that included:

• CMAQ reserves listed under agenda item #6 for FY 2017 should be decreased by $35,000 to $12,540 and the CMAQ reserve for FY 2021 is increased by $35,000 to $82,540.

• WATA project UPC T11932 – Administration and Operations Facility: Phase 1 funding request amount of $1,331,107 RSTP should be for FY 2017 and FY 2016.

• The UPC T11932 cost increase amount of $9,086,693 should be $9,086,893.

Mr. Kimbrel asked that every locality and agency provide a brief review of the rationale for each project funding request that they submitted.

The amount of CMAQ and RSTP Reserves for FY 2016 through FY 2022 is shown in the following table:

CMAQ FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Available Funding $0 $12,540 $47,540 $47,540 $47,540 $82,540 $3,064,989

RSTP FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 * FY 2019 * FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Available Funding $378,810 $1,145,627 $2,675,185 $4,151,816 $6,857,429 $7,525,487 $8,433,447

* Available funding does not include $1,014,433 Set-Aside in FY 18 and FY 19.

Prepared by HRTPO staff July 13, 2016

Table 1: FY 2016 - FY 2022 CMAQ and RSTP Reserves

Attachment 15-B


CMAQ Reserve Account Funding Allocation Process Mr. Kimbrel noted that the working tables for the CMAQ and RSTP projects are not in priority order and that there were only three requests for CMAQ reserves funding. He highlighted that the previous scores for the projects do not apply since they were evaluated in different years and reminded the TPS that the approved policy regarding cost overruns of more than 10% includes a number of items that should be considered. The TPS members discussed the merits of the CMAQ projects and Mr. Pullen requested that the Virginia Beach CMAQ request be deleted because of the time sensitive nature of the project. It was agreed that the FY 2019 funding for the WATA project be allocated and that WATA check with FTA to determine if the 5-year funding limit for demonstration projects has been met or exceeded. The following table lists the recommended allocations of CMAQ reserve funding:

RSTP Reserve Account Funding Allocation Process Mr. Kimbrel briefed the TPS on the RSTP working table noting that there were ten projects with requests for additional funding. The localities and agencies provided the TPS with additional details on their project funding requests. Mr. Pullen suggested that fully funded projects be considered last. Mr. Wright requested that Portsmouth project #4(UPC #107035–George Washington Highway Corridor Improvements) be removed from consideration for the RSTP reserves account funding allocation process stating that project #7 (UPC 65655 – Turnpike Road Reconstruction) was a higher priority for the city. The following table lists the recommended allocations of RSTP reserve funding:

Jurisdiction UPC Project Description RequestFY - 16

Allocation FY - 17

Allocation FY - 18

Allocation FY - 19

AllocationFY-20

AllocationFY-21

AllocationFY-22

Allocation

1 Gloucester Co.

107414 Roaring Springs Road Bike Path & Sidewalk $2,538,000 in FY 22Cost Overrun

$2,538,000

2 Virginia Beach

84366 Indian River Road/Kempsville Road Intersection Improvements

All CMAQ reserves for FY 17-19Fund Incentives

3 WATA T10862 Mounts Bay Route All CMAQ reserves for FY 17-19Extend Service / Cost Overrun

$12,540 $47,540 $47,540

Totals $0 $12,540 $47,540 $47,540 $0 $0 $2,538,000

Mark $0 $12,540 $47,540 $47,540 $47,540 $82,540 $3,064,989

Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $47,540 $82,540 $526,989

Prepared by HRTPO staff July 14, 2016

CMAQ

Table 2: FY 2016-2022 Allocations from CMAQ ReservesTPS Meeting - 7/15/16

Attachment 15-B


Mr. Robert Lewis moved to forward the TPS funding recommendations, as shown in Tables 2 & 3, to the TTAC for consideration during its September 7, 2016 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wright. The Motion Carried. In response to a request by the TPS, HRTPO staff agreed to send information showing a comparison of the estimated FY 2023 marks for CMAQ and RSTP to the “penciled in” requests for previously approved projects to TPS members.

7. OLD/NEW BUSINESS There was no Old/New business.

ADJOURNMENT There being no more business before the Hampton Roads Transportation Programming Subcommittee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:12 a.m.

Jurisdiction UPC Project Description RequestFY - 16

Allocation FY - 17

Allocation FY - 18

Allocation FY - 19

AllocationFY-20

AllocationFY-21

AllocationFY-22

Allocation

1 Chesapeake 18591 Portsmouth Boulevard Widening All RSTP reserves for FY 17-18Supplant Revenue Sharing Funds

2 HRT T9092 Hampton Facility Upgrade $2,000,000 in FY 18Cost Overrun

$109,531 $2,000,000

3 Newport News

4483 Atkinson Boulevard Construction

$1,100,000 in FY 17$3,600,000 in FY 18$4,300,000 in FY 19Supplant Revenue Sharing Funds

4 Portsmouth 107035 George Washington Hwy Corridor Improvements

$550,000 in FY 17Return $550,000 in FY 21$1,500,000 in FY 22Advance PE Phase

5 Virginia Beach 15828 Elbow Road Extended - Phase 2

$378,810 in FY 16$1,145,627 in FY 17$2,675,185 in FY 18$4,151,816 in FY 19$4,648,562 in FY 20Advance Phase IIB of Project

$3,791,558 $6,857,429

6 WATA T11932 Administration and Operations Facility: Phase 1$1,331,107 in FY 16 and 17$709,000 in FY18Cost Overrun

$151,524 $458,251 $1,070,074 $360,258

7 VDOT/ Portsmouth

65655 Turnpike Road Reconstruction $4,500,000 in FY 17 or 18Cost Overrun

$1,605,111

8 VDOT/ Isle of Wight Co

58297 Courthouse Highway/Foursquare Road Intersection Improvements

$805,131 as early as FY 17Advance CN Phase

$227,286 $577,845

9 VDOT/ James City Co

100200 Skiffes Creek Connector $15,503,000 between FY 21 and 23Cost overrun

$7,525,487 $6,433,447

10 VDOT/ James City Co

100920 Croaker Road Widening$2,052,000 in FY 18$6,548,000 in FY 20Cost overrun & Advance project

Totals $378,810 $1,145,627 $2,675,185 $4,151,816 $6,857,429 $7,525,487 $8,433,447

Mark $378,810 $1,145,627 $2,675,185 $4,151,816 $6,857,429 $7,525,487 $8,433,447

Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Prepared by HRTPO staff July 15, 2016 7 year total$31,167,801

Table 3: FY 2016-2022 Allocations from RSTP ReservesTPS Meeting - 7/15/16

RSTP

Attachment 15-B

Linda T. Johnson, Chair, Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr, Vice-Chair


Robert A. Crum, Jr., Executive Director

September 19, 2016 Mr. Scott Smizik VDOT Project Manager 1401 E. Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 [email protected] Re: HRTPO Staff Comments Regarding the HRCS Draft SEIS Dear Mr. Smizik: On behalf of the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Hampton Roads metropolitan planning area in southeastern Virginia, please find attached HRTPO staff comments on the Hampton Roads Crossing Study (HRCS) Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me or Dr. Camelia Ravanbakht at 757-420-8300. Sincerely, Robert A. Crum, Jr. Executive Director /kg Attachment

Attachment 15-C

mailto:[email protected]

1

Hampton Roads Crossing Study SEIS– Draft (August 2016)

HRTPO Staff Comments General Comments • The current SEIS adds no capacity to the Bowers Hill interchange (see Appx. B, Figure

22): according to the drawing, after construction of C or D, there will still only be 4 WB lanes where I-64 joins I-264, and there will still only be four EB lanes where I-664 ends and I-64 & I-264 begin. Given a) that these eight lanes are congested today, and b) that the HRTPO’s “Regional Priority Projects Funding Plan (2016-2040)” shows that I-64 Southside and High-Rise Bridge (Phase 1) will be widened before HRCS Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative construction, please modify the SEIS drawing, cost, and traffic analysis to add additional lanes on I-664 between I-64/I-264 and US 13/58/460.

• Table A-1 of Appendix A describes Alt B with segments 8,9,10,12,13,14 and 3. However,

all the Maps throughout the documents showing Alt B do not show Segment 3. In addition, the cost for Alt B as shown in the SEIS is $6.6B. This cost does not include the cost of Segment 3. Should Segment 3 cost be included in the total cost of Alt B? Please clarify and revise the cost or the maps accordingly.

• The current HRTPO CLRP is the 2040 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) adopted

by the HRTPO Board on July 21, 2016. Therefore, references to the 2034 LRTP as being the currently approved plan should be modified accordingly.

• HRTPO Staff performed an Environmental Justice (EJ) and Public Involvement review of

the Hampton Roads Crossing Study SEIS in order to determine and identify any disproportionately low benefits and disproportionately high and adverse impacts. A specific effort was made in order to determine if any benefits would arise from improved safety, mobility, accessibility, environmental quality, business and job opportunities, and to determine if adverse impacts would arise from decreased safety, mobility, accessibility, environmental quality, business and job opportunities, and lack of access. HRTPO Staff has looked to find documentation that the EJ Groups within this project study area were actively engaged and involved in all phases of this project to date, that their transportation needs were considered, that alternative solutions to meeting their needs were discussed, and that all alternatives currently under consideration are sensitive to these communities. Additionally, a review was performed to determine if public involvement activities to date and proposed mitigative measures were sensitive to the community’s heritage and supportive of local economic institutions critical to these communities’ livelihood and well-being. Special effort was made to determine if each project alternative’s impacts would exceed or be liked to appreciably exceed those on the general population.

Attachment 15-C

2

It is determined, that: o Public Involvement efforts have not adequately centered on EJ Communities within

the project study area. Public meetings should have occurred more frequently than the 2 set on September 7th and 8th at the Hampton Convention Center and Lake Wright Quality Suites in Norfolk

o While the mitigative measures outlined in the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Technical Report may meet the standard as set forth by the USDOT, it is recommended that the communities, who will be impacted by the projects outlined in this study, be included in the process used to form a set of measures. These measures, should stem from a collaboration between the VDOT and the EJ Community itself and it is hoped that that collaboration would result in a set of mitigative measures, that exceeded those traditionally implemented.

Once an alternative is selected, the HRTPO staff would like to conduct an independent study of the project area, to include a community impact assessment. This will ensure that the community which lies within the selected alternative project study area will be fully evaluated and considered. Additionally, once the community impact assessment

Technical Comments • Page 1-4 and other Study Area Corridor Maps

o Hampton Boulevard is not referred to as a major road. Hampton Boulevard should definitely be considered a major road in this study.

o Portsmouth Boulevard is not referred to as a major road. Portsmouth Boulevard should be considered a major road in this study.

• Page 1-19, Table 1.1

o The average annual daily traffic and average weekday daily traffic volumes listed for the HRBT and MMMBT for 2015 do not match the volumes released by the tunnels in the Hampton Roads District Tunnel Traffic Volume and Stoppage Reports.

o 2015 AADT and AAWDT data is currently available for I-564 and VA 164.

• Page 1-19, Section 1.4.3 Improve Transit Access o The Amtrak station in Williamsburg needs to be added to the list of regional

stations. In the second paragraph, the second sentence should be reworded: “Transit rail in the Hampton Roads region is provided via Amtrak, which has stations in the cities of Newport News, Williamsburg, and Norfolk,…”. The Williamsburg station also needs to be added to the third sentence.

• Page 1-20, Figure 1.7 o Many overlapping transit routes are hidden in the map.

• Page 1-21, Table 1.2

o The “Study Area Corridors Overlap” column is incorrect for many of the transit routes. Route 918 should say “Uses I-64 and I-564”. Route 919 should say “Uses I-64 and I-564”, but it does not use the HRBT. Route 965 should say “Uses I-64 and

Attachment 15-C

3

HRBT”, but it does not use I-564. Route 967 should say “Uses I-64, I-664, and MMMBT”.

• Page 1-21, Section 1.4.4 Increase Regional Accessibility

o In the second paragraph, the statement “Admiral Taussig Boulevard also has inadequate capacity at peak morning travel hours….” is not true. The backups are due to gate constrictions as was stated previously, not the capacity of Taussig Boulevard.


o In the second paragraph, it says that “In some cases, during maintenance or construction at the HRBT or MMMBT, travel lanes may close altogether, requiring two-way traffic in a single tunnel tube and reducing capacity to one lane in each direction for an extended period of time without a viable detour.” However, VDOT does not generally do this but instead maintains one-way traffic in one tunnel while the parallel facility is closed.


o In the fourth paragraph where travel time reliability is discussed, it would be helpful to have some Planning Time Index information included to describe reliability issues.

• Page 1-25, Section 1.4.5 Address Geometric Deficiencies

o It should be noted that “An average of 135 westbound over-height trucks per month must be stopped and inspected on the HRBT” only includes those trucks that are turned around on the South Island of the HRBT. The number is much higher if you include those trucks that get stopped at the inspection booth.

• Page 1-26, Section 1.4.5 Address Geometric Deficiencies

o “Improve safety” should be included in its own section, rather than included under geometric deficiencies. This also should include incident data for incidents responded to by the Safety Service Patrol.

• Page 1-26, Table 1.3 o The statewide and district total crashes and average crash rates also should be done

for the 2012-2014 period, since this data is available and allows for an apples-to-apples comparison.

• Page 1-27, Section 1.4.6 Evacuation o It would be valuable to mention that according to the Virginia Hurricane Evacuation

Study (USACE, May 2008, pg. 3-15), HRBT is the “most critical” highway segment for the evacuation of Virginia Beach, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake.

• Page 1-30, Section 1.5.2 Accommodate Travel Demand

o It is unclear if the AM and PM volumes in Table 1.4 are peak period or peak hour (information is necessary to determine reasonableness).

Attachment 15-C

4

• Page 2-16, Alternative A o The text indicates that the “existing eastbound HRBT tunnel would be restriped to

carry two westbound lanes, for a total of four westbound tunnel lanes”. This conflicts with Figure 2-5 (pg. 2-18) which shows three westbound lanes and three eastbound lanes.

• Pages 2-17 (Alt A), 2-23 (Alt B), 2-38 (Alt D), I-64 in Hampton

o Of all the highway segments of all the alternatives (A, B, C, D), the only highway segment that the document shows as being proposed for work (e.g. drawn in heavy black) is I-64 from Settlers Landing Road to I-664, yet—as shown on Figure 2-5— no work is proposed for this segment in the SEIS. Correcting this apparent error would improve reader understanding.

• Page 2-19 (Alt A), Elevation of New Bridge

o The text indicates that a “new bridge would be constructed…at the same elevation of the existing bridges”, but given that “the HRBT bridges have substandard vertical clearance above the water and may be overtopped in heavy storms” (pg. 1-27), it seems appropriate to build the new bridge somewhat higher.

• Page 2-21, JRB Volume

o The text indicates that “the HRBT carries the greatest amount of traffic of the three (HRBT, MMMBT, James River Bridge)”, but apparently no future-year JRB volumes are published in the document. Please publish JRB volumes under each scenario.

• Page 2-22 (Alt A), Military Connectivity o The text: “While Alternative A would enhance capacity along the I-64 Study Area

Corridor,…the other [non-HRBT] STRAHNET facilities in the Study Area would continue to see a decline in military mobility and connectivity. The US Navy has stated that improvements to the I-64 Study Area Corridor only does not improve direct military connectivity to the Norfolk Naval Base, the largest military facility in the Study Area.” The congestion at HRBT reduces the throughput and reliability—i.e. the

“connectivity”—that it could provide. Therefore, increasing its capacity increases its connectivity. Given that this bullet on page 2-22 deals solely with “connectivity”, stating that “Alternative A enhances connectivity along the I-64 Study Area Corridor” would address this more accurately.

Given that the model shows widening the HRBT would result in more people from the Peninsula traveling to (i.e. “connecting to”) the Naval Base, it seems inappropriate to include without comment the incorrect statement that widening the HRBT “does not improve direct military connectivity to the Norfolk Naval Base”.

• Pages 2-22 (Alt A) and 2-29 (Alt B), Evacuation via HRBT & MMMBT

o The text indicating that “it [HRBT widening] would not improve capacity for those regions directed to follow other evacuation routes including the MMMBT” is true but beside the point: the data shows that widening HRBT would reduce (regular)

Attachment 15-C

5

trips on MMMBT, thereby providing less-congested evacuation for those using MMMBT.

• Page 2-22 (Alt A), Access to Port

o The text indicates that widening the HRBT “would not increase capacity to and from any port facilities”, but—given that I-64 is the primary truck gateway for Hampton Roads (Hampton Roads Regional Freight Study, HRTPO, Sept. 2012, pg. 89)—it would be more appropriate to write that widening the HRBT “would increase capacity thereby increasing access to all port facilities”.

• Pages 2-24 (Alt B), 2-32 (Alt C), 2-39 (Alt D); Intermodal Connector (IC)

o The text indicates that “It [the IC] is under construction”, but it is not; recently the IC only had 60% plans.

o The text indicates that the “I-564 Intermodal Connector (IC) is a separate project from HRCS”, but: the IC is shown as part of Alts B, C, and D of the HRCS (e.g. on Alt B map on page

2-23) do the cost estimates of Alts B, C, and D include the cost of IC? Since the IC is

under design, therefore, the cost estimates should not include the cost of the IC. page 2-37 reads “Alternative C would expand interstate capacity…with the

proposed construction of the I-564 IC”, implying that the IC is part of Alt C.

• Pages 2-37 (Alt C) and 2-43 (Alt D), Military Connectivity o The text indicates that “Alternative [C, D] would enhance capacity along [two, three]

STRAHNET corridors.” Please provide the name of those corridors.

• Page 2-37 (Alt C), Evacuation via HRBT & MMMBT o The text indicating that “it [Alt C] would not improve capacity for those regions

directed to follow other evacuation routes including the HRBT” is true but beside the point: the data shows that widening MMMBT would reduce (regular) trips on HRBT, thereby providing less-congested evacuation for those using HRBT.

• Page 2-43, Section 2.7 Operational Analysis of Alternatives

o The first sentence states that the “agencies to identify four ‘hot spots’.” Since these four locations are really corridors, some of which are over 10 miles in length, there is probably a better term to use, such as “hot spot corridors.”

• Page 2-44, Section 2.7.1 HRBT o In Table 2.7, it would be helpful to include in the title the definition of the corridor.

For example, the title could be “I-64 PM Peak Travel Time Comparison – Between I-664 and I-564”.

o In Table 2.7, the terms “speed” and “delay” should be expanded to say “PM Peak Speed” and “PM Peak Delay”.

o In Table 2.7, measures are included for travel time, speed, average delay, VHT, and VMT. However, a measure that would better reflect corridor and system impacts is total delay.

Attachment 15-C

6

• Page 2-45, Section 2.7.2 I-564 o Since this analysis reflects not only I-564 but also the Intermodal Connector, a

better name of the hotspot would be “I-564/Intermodal Connector”. o In Table 2-8, it needs to be clear what the data in the “Existing (2015)” column

represents, since a large section of this corridor – The Intermodal Connector – does not exist yet.

o Similar comments as those listed above for Section 2.7.1 also apply to this section. • Page 2-47, Section 2.7.3 MMMBT

o In the first sentence, it would be helpful to state that the endpoint of the corridor is I-64 at the Hampton Coliseum, rather than only listing I-64.

o Throughout this section, the corridor is referred to as eastbound and westbound. It would be clearer if the northbound and southbound directions were used instead. (See comment for page 2-48 below.)

o Similar comments as those listed above for Section 2.7.1 also apply to this section.

• Page 2-48, Table 2-9 “I-664 MMMBT” o Based on the reported 7 minute (“WB”) and 0 minute (“EB”) existing delays—and

the fact that PM delays at the MMBT are mostly in the southbound direction—indicates that your “EB” should be labeled “NB” and your “WB” should be labeled “SB”. (But, because of being parallel to HRBT, one would think that your “EB” label would refer to the SB direction, please verify which direction (SB or NB) your “EB” and “WB” data cover before changing them to “SB” or “NB”.)

• Page 2-49, Section 2.7.4 I-664 Bowers Hill

o Similar to Section 2.7.3, the corridor is referred to as eastbound and westbound. It would be clearer if the northbound and southbound directions were used instead.

o Similar comments as those listed above for Section 2.7.1 also apply to this section.

• Page 2-54, OIS o Unlike the example shown in section 2.11.1, it is suggested not to widen I-64 from I-

564 to Mallory Street (OIS VI), stop, and then later widen I-64 from Mallory Street to Settlers Landing Road (OIS V) because doing so would create a bottleneck between Mallory and Settlers. Therefore, I-64 from Mallory to Settlers is not an “independent section”, and should therefore be combined with I-564 to Mallory to create a truly independent section, I-564 to Settlers Landing Road.

• Page 3-40, Section 3.3 Energy, Environmental Consequences, No-Build Alternative o The first sentence of this part states that the “No-Build Alternative would not result

in any project-related construction and would therefore not directly impact energy consumption.”

o There are two issues with this statement: Previous to this part, energy consumed during construction is defined as indirect

energy use. Following the sentence referred to in the bullet above, the part on the No-Build

Alternative goes on to suggest that congestion and delay associated with the do-nothing approach will result in increased fuel consumption (direct energy use).

Attachment 15-C

7

o Given the above, recommend modifying the sentence referred to in the bullet above to read as follows: “The No-Build Alternative involves no project-related construction and would therefore have no indirect energy consumption impact.”

• Page 3-41, Section 3.3 Energy, Environmental Consequences, Alternative A o 1st paragraph, 4th line – For clarity, recommend modifying the sentence to read,

“However, this would be offset by easing congestion – improving traffic speed and reducing vehicle idling – thereby reducing energy consumption.”

o 2nd paragraph, Last sentence – Taking into account the definition previously provided for indirect energy use, recommend modifying sentence to read, “Because construction is a one-time, temporary occurrence, no long-term indirect energy consumption would be associated with this alternative.”

• Page 3-41, Section 3.3 Energy, Environmental Consequences, Alternative B

o 1st paragraph, third sentence – For clarity, recommend modifying the sentence to read, “Therefore, it would provide greater benefits relative to Alternative A in terms of capacity – resulting in the somewhat offsetting effects of increased direct energy consumption due to carrying more traffic, and decreased energy consumption due to reduced congestion.”

• Page 3-47, Section 3.6 Air Quality, Methodology, Interchanges

o 2nd bullet – For clarity, recommend using “Route 460/Granby St” in the place of “Route 460”.

o For all bullets – For clarity, recommend adding Exit Numbers for each of the interchanges.

• Page 3-48, Section 3.6 Air Quality, Methodology, Tunnel Assessment

o 3rd sentence – For clarity, recommend spelling out ASHRAE since it does not appear to be defined previously in the document.

• Page 3-48, Section 3.6 Air Quality, Methodology, Mobile Source Air Toxics

o 1st paragraph, 4th sentence – The sentence appears to be incomplete. Perhaps it should read “. . . the daily volume change and travel time change for congested and uncongested links were used to develop each network.”


o 1st paragraph, Second to last sentence – The sentence lists a number of air toxics, but it is unclear to what the “1” after “benzene” is related. If it is supposed to be “1, 3-butadiene”, then using semicolons to separate the various toxics is recommended for clarity.


o 2nd paragraph under Tunnel Carbon Monoxide, last sentence – The sentence is unclear, particularly the sections that states “. . . ensuring the air quality within the tunnel will be met and consistent with normal ventilation air qualities as described.”

Attachment 15-C

8

• Page 3-92, Section 3.8.1.4 Water Quality o The map provided does not differentiate between types of impairments (nutrient,

bacteria, etc.). If each type of impairment cannot be shown on the same map, separate maps should be provided for each type of impairment.

• Pages 3-92, Section 3.8.1.4 Water Quality o The chapter should include an analysis or assessment of how the proposed project

would cumulatively impact wetlands. o The chapter should assess potential impacts on wetland migration as a result of sea

level rise.

• Pages 3-92, Section 3.8.1.5 Floodplains o The draft SEIS uses the present standard definition of floodplains as the 100-year or

1% annual chance flood, but this standard will soon be updated to address the requirements of Executive Order 13690 – Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard. Although FHWA has not finalized its rule on the incorporation of EO 13690 in federally-funded projects, the SEIS should incorporate at least one of the required options for designating the floodplain under EO 13609. These options include: The elevation and flood hazard area that result from using a climate-informed

science approach that uses the best-available, actionable hydrologic and hydraulic data and methods that integrate current and future changes in flooding based on climate science. This approach will also include an emphasis on whether the action is a critical action as one of the factors to be considered when conducting the analysis.

The elevation and flood hazard area that result from using the freeboard value, reached by adding an additional 2 feet to the base flood elevation for non-critical actions and by adding an additional 3 feet to the base flood elevation for critical actions.

The area subject to flooding by the 0.2 percent annual chance flood.

• Pages 3-92, Chapter 3 Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences o In addition to impacts to the floodplain and other natural resources, the SEIS should

consider using the Coastal Virginia Ecological Value Assessment to determine impacts to important natural resources. The Coastal Virginia Ecological Value Assessment is a comprehensive assessment of the ecological value of green and blue natural resources in Virginia.

• Page 3-151, Section 3.9 Historic Resources o Page 3-151/ paragraph 3/line 8/last sentence – States that an Arborist in 2012

recommended that any construction within the existing interstate right of way in this area, the Tree LOD and the Emancipation Oak itself should be monitored. However, it does not state how it would be monitored to reduce potential effect or if it, in fact, would be monitored. Although the Emancipation Oak which is a National Historic Landmark is outside the HRCS LOD it is within the direct effects APEs of the alternatives, therefore, it is recommended to strengthen this language by being

Attachment 15-C

9

more descriptive of how it would be monitored or protected from potential adverse effects.

• Page 3-164, Section 3.9.2 & Section 3.9.3

o VDOT has chosen to defer completion of this section until after the selection of a Preferred Alternative. However, before the release of the final SEIS it is recommended that this section be updated to include the effects the project has on archaeological sites and architectural historic properties. Once completed it also is recommended that this section be vetted for public comment.

• Page 3-181, Section 3.15 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts, Regulatory Context

and Methodology o 1st sentence after Figure 3-20 – For clarity, recommend spelling out “ICE” since it

does not appear to be defined previously in the document.

• Page 3-199, Section 3.15 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts, Alternative B o 1st paragraph under Socioeconomic Resources, 3rd sentence – For clarity,

recommend spelling out “POV” since it does not appear to be defined in the document.

• Page 3-223, Section 3.15 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts, Cumulative Effects

o 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence – For clarity, recommend spelling out “IC” since it does not appear to be clearly defined previously in the document.


o 1st paragraph under Table 3-63, 2nd sentence – For clarity, recommend spelling out “EA” since it does not appear to be clearly defined previously in the document.

• Appendix A, Table A-1

o Table A-1 of Appendix A describes Alt B with segments 8,9,10,12,13,14 and 3. However, all the maps throughout the documents showing Alt B do not show segment 3. In addition, the cost for Alt B as shown in the SEIS is $6.6B. This cost does not include the cost of Segment 3. Should segment 3 cost be included in the total cost of Alt B? Please clarify and revise the cost or the maps accordingly.

Other Comments (on main SEIS Document) • Page 1-5, Figure 1-2A

o In the map, “VA 258” should be referred to as “US 258”. • Page 1-7, Figure 1-2C

o Exit 274 incorrectly refers to “Ocean View Avenue”. The exit should say “I-64 to WB Bay Avenue”.

o In the map, “VA 460” should be referred to as “US 460”.

Attachment 15-C

10

• Page 1-9, Figure 1-3B o In the map, the label “Norfolk International Terminals” is not in the correct location.

• Page 1-11, Figure 1-4

o Virginia International Gateway should be labeled on this map, since the other marine terminals are identified on the other Study Area Corridor maps.

o High Street is shown as Business US 17 on the map. It should be labeled as US 17, not Business US 17.

• Page 1-12, Figure 1-5A

o In the map, the label “Newport News Marine Terminal” is not in the correct location.

• Page 1-16, Section 1.4.1 Overview o The second sentence of the second paragraph should be reworded to say “However,

capacity is inadequate at peak travel times on all of these corridors, leading...”.

• Page 1-16, Section 1.4.2 Accommodate Travel Demand o The second bullet should refer to 19.7 million tons of containerized cargo. o In the second bullet, NIT should be spelled out, similar to the other marine terminals

that are listed. o In the second bullet, the third sentence should refer to “the Virginia International

Gateway Terminal”. o In the second bullet, the term “to points further west” should be removed from the

third sentence since it’s repetitive with the “heading west” that is included in the sentence.

o In the third bullet, it should say “This shipyard, which is accessed indirectly by I-664,…”.

• Page 1-17, Figure 1.6

o The title of the figure should reflect that these are the state-run port facilities, or VPA marine terminals.

• Page 1-18, Section 1.4.2 Accommodate Travel Demand o The Bank of America bullet should probably not be listed here. There are larger

employers in the region. o In the first paragraph after the bullets, the phrase “and related to the beaches”

should not be used. Although much of the tourist-related traffic in the region is beach related, much of it is not.

o In the second paragraph, it should start “I-64, I-564, and I-664, and VA 164 provide…”

o In the second paragraph, Town Center in Virginia Beach is not a mall. Also, the mall referred to as the “Chesapeake mall” in the text is actually called Chesapeake Square Mall.

o In the second paragraph, it would be helpful to also reference the upcoming Norfolk Premium Outlets and Ikea developments in Norfolk.

Attachment 15-C

11

o In the second paragraph, additional entertainment venues that should be added are the Ted Constant Convocation Center in Norfolk and the Amphitheater in Virginia Beach.

o In the third paragraph, it would be helpful to mention that bicycle and pedestrian travel is also prohibited at the James River Bridge.

o In the fourth paragraph, the Port of Virginia statistics should be updated to account for all of Calendar Year 2015.

• Page 1-19, Section 1.4.3 Improve Transit Access

o In the second paragraph, the portion of the second sentence that refers to the Tide light rail line needs to be reworded.

o In the second paragraph, fifth sentence, the term “the confines of” should be removed.

o In the third paragraph, the title of DRPT’s “Hampton Roads Regional Transit Vision Plan” should be included in the text.


o In the first paragraph, why does the second sentence reference Table 1-1? o In the first paragraph, the third sentence should be reworded to say “…, tunnels

provide less capacity than typical freeway segments.” o In the first paragraph, the fourth sentence can be updated to say that HRBT,

MMMBT, and James River Bridge increased 73 percent from 1990 to 2015. o In the second paragraph, the statement “Admiral Taussig Boulevard also has

inadequate capacity at peak morning travel hours….” is inaccurate. The backups are due to gate constrictions as was stated previously, not the capacity of Taussig Boulevard.

• Page 1-23, Section 1.4.4 Increase Regional Accessibility o In the first paragraph, it should be noted that the backups on the Western Freeway

are due to the Midtown Tunnel, and that these backups should be alleviated by the widened tunnel.

o In the third paragraph, fifth sentence, the term “accidents” should be replaced with “crashes.”

o In the fourth paragraph, the first sentence should say “….allow westbound over-height trucks to turn around on the South Island.”

o In the last paragraph, is the third location at the West Ocean View interchange ramp? Or at the Fourth View interchange?

• Page 1-24, Section 1.4.4 Increase Regional Accessibility o In the second to last sentence, it should be updated to say “2 to 3 miles southbound

at peak afternoon travel times.” o In the last sentence, it should be reworded to say “On I-564, traffic queued to enter

Gate 3A….”

• Page 1-25, Section 1.4.4 Increase Regional Accessibility o In the second paragraph, second sentence, the word “irregular” should be removed.

Attachment 15-C

12

• Page 1-26, Section 1.4.5 Address Geometric Deficiencies o In the second paragraph, the sentence should be updated “On I-64, the eastbound

crashes were concentrated where the number of lanes reduce from three to two at Settlers Landing Road”.

• Page 1-27, Section 1.4.7 Improve Strategic Military Connectivity

o Recommend revising the second sentence to say “These roadways are part of the Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET), which is designated by the US Department of Defense (DoD) in coordination with FHWA (US Army, 2012).”

• Page 1-28, Section 1.4.7 Improve Strategic Military Connectivity o In the first paragraph, second sentence, it should say “…Taussig Boulevard that

continues west toward…”

• Page 1-29, Section 1.4.7 Improve Strategic Military Connectivity o In the first paragraph, 2nd sentence, NIT should be referred to as Norfolk

International Terminals (NIT). Newport News should be referred to as Newport News Marine Terminal (NNMT), and Portsmouth should be referred to as Portsmouth Marine Terminal (PMT).

• Page 1-29, Section 1.4.8 Increase Access to Port Facilities

o The second paragraph needs to be reworded. NNMT is mentioned twice in the paragraph. It would be better to mention all of the Port of Virginia’s Hampton Roads marine terminals in one sentence.

o The first sentence needs to be rewritten since Figure 1.6 only shows the Port of Virginia marine terminals, but doesn’t include major privately held ports.

o In the second paragraph, last sentence, Kinder-Morgan should also be added as a major privately-held terminal.

o In the third paragraph, it should be reworded to say “Admiral Taussig Boulevard which continues west toward NAVSTA Norfolk…”

o Regarding the third paragraph, truck traffic to northern NIT generally uses International Terminal Boulevard, not I-564 to Taussig Blvd to Hampton Blvd.

o In the third paragraph, the last sentence should be reworded to say “Another recent improvement is the Hampton Boulevard Grade Separation project that eliminates conflicts between trains and vehicles on Hampton Boulevard at the northern entrance to NIT.”

o In the fourth paragraph, the truck/rail/barge container percentages can be updated for FY 2016.

o In the fourth paragraph, second sentence, the data should be updated to say “Nearly 18,000 freight trucks enter and exit Hampton Roads…”

• Page 1-30, Section 1.4.8 Increase Access to Port Facilities

o In the third paragraph, the growth in freight volumes should be given over a longer period of time than 2013-2014, such as since the lows of the economic downturn in 2009.

o The last paragraph in Section 1.4.8 should be broken into two paragraphs, starting at “The percentage of freight in the port moved by rail is growing…”

Attachment 15-C

13

• Page 3-43, Section 3.5 Right-of-Way and Relocations, Affected Environment o 2nd sentence – Suggest deleting the word “do” as it is not necessary and does not

add clarity to the sentence.

• Page 3-47, Section 3.6 Air Quality, Methodology, Interchanges o 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence – “is” should be replaced with “are”.

• Page 3-150, Section 3.9.1 Architectural Resource---Fort Monroe

o 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence – “The facility guarded the navigational channel between Hampton Roads and the Chesapeake Bay.” (Add the word “the” in front of Chesapeake Bay)

• Page 3-159, Section 3.91 Architectural Resources, Norfolk Base Golf Club

o 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence – “The golf course and associated club house was… (change was to were – plural compound subject)

• Page 3-188, Section 3.15 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts, Indirect Effects

o 2nd paragraph under Natural Resources, 1st sentence – There appears to be a slight wording issue with this sentence. Recommend rewording as follows, “Terrestrial wildlife habitat adjacent to the Study Area Corridors is highly fragmented in most areas and would continue to be so under the No-Build Alternative.”

• Page 3-216, Section 3.15 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts, Alternative D

o Paragraph below Table 3-61, 3rd sentence – It appears a word is missing – perhaps it should read, “. . . implementation of BMPs such as limiting increases of impermeable surfaces. . . “


o 1st paragraph under Table 3-63, 1st sentence – It appears a word is missing – perhaps it should read, “…being conducted in the Hampton Roads region…”

Traffic and Transportation Technical Report • Entire Document

o On most of the 633 pages the forecast year is shown as “2040”, but on pages 100-103 it is shown as “2034”. Please explain or correct to 2040.

• , Figure 5-3 o These travel time numbers do not agree with those of the table in Appendix K or

tables on pages 100+. For example—for the HRBT corridor, travel time, PM Peak, WB, No Build—Figure 5-3 shows “19.0” minutes, whereas Appendix K shows “45.0” minutes (4.9+29.8+10.3=45.0) and Table 5-5 on page 100 shows “45” minutes.

Attachment 15-C

14

• Page 133-135, Implications of Implementing Tolls and/or HOT Lanes o On page 133, because Scenario 1 is the all-lane tolling of all three Connectors,

consider expressively naming it something like “All-lane Tolls on Connectors” instead of “Elizabeth River tolls” (and two of the three connectors do not cross the Elizabeth).

o Likewise, on page 133, the phrase “tolls would apply to all traffic traveling on the new crossing of the Elizabeth River” is incomplete because the 3-Connector “T” is not a “crossing”; it’s a compilation of 1) the 564 Connector which crosses the Elizabeth River, 2) the 664 Connector which travels over part of Hampton Roads but does not cross Hampton Roads, and 3) the 164 Connector which is almost entirely over land.

o On page 133, because Scenario 2 is the all-lane tolling of all three Connectors plus the HOT tolling of 64, 664, and 164, consider expressively naming it something like “All-lane Tolls on Connectors plus HOT Tolls on 64, 664, and 164”.

o How a toll is calculated—either per mile [called “mileage-based” in SEIS] or per usage [called “fixed” in SEIS]—is one issue; and where/who a toll pertains to—either to some vehicles in one lane [called “HOT” tolls] or to all vehicles in all lanes [called “all-lane” tolls]—is a different issue. Therefore, in this section please do not use “fixed” as a surrogate for “all-lane”.

o In Tables 7-3 7-4, instead of “4, fixed $1 toll”, it would read something like “4, all lanes $1”. Section 7.2, instead of being named “Fixed Tolls”, would be called something like

“All-lane Fixed Tolls on Connectors”. Section 7.3, instead of being named “HOT Lane”, would be called something like

“All-lane Fixed Tolls on Connectors plus HOT Tolls on 64, 664, and 164”. o On page 133, please explain what Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are, i.e. before the

following pages which give results for these unspecified scenarios. o On page 133, instead of “where additional lanes would constitute HOT lanes”, which

ignores that the additional lanes on the Connectors are not HOT but are all-lane tolled, please write something like “where lanes added to existing highways are HOT lanes, and all lanes built on new highways are tolled lanes”.

o Page 133 reads “Under the HOT lane scenarios [should read “scenario”]…the lane configurations shown in Table 7-1 through Table 7- were coded…”, If Tables 7-1 thru 7-4 pertain only to Scenario 2, please add “Scenario 2” to their

titles. o On page 134, it reads “under Alternative C…the toll scenario assumed that four

General Purpose Lanes would remain, and the fifth lane would be converted from a transit-only lane to a HOT lane.” This conflicts with Table 7-3 which shows the fourth lane as HOT, i.e. with no

impact to the transit-only lane. Given that the transit-only lanes cost $3B and that fourth general purpose lane

could perhaps be converted to HOT without creating large congestion on the other three GP lanes, converting the fourth lane to HOT seems more appropriate than converting the fifth lane.

o When comparing Table 7-6 (Scenario 1, All-lane Tolls on Connectors) and Table 7-7 (Scenario 2, All-lane Tolls on Connectors plus HOT Tolls on 64, 664, and 164), the addition of HOT tolls on 64, 664, and 164 (i.e. going from Scenario 1 to Scenario 2)

Attachment 15-C

15

makes the volumes for the I-664 Connector and the I-564 Connector much lower (30%-43% lower), but there is no reason for HOT Tolls mostly on the perimeter beltway to lower these Connector volumes at all. In fact, one would expect tolls added on the perimeter to move traffic to these internal Connectors.

• Appendix A, Figure A.2-15 o The low 2040 peak hour volumes for the Midtown Tunnel shown on Figure A.2-15

(1,330-2,010vph) likely indicate that your model either a) only has 2 lanes (one in each direction) for the MT, or b) it has a per-lane capacity for the MT that is approx. half of its actual capacity. (Note that the 2-lane TT exceeded 1,500vph half of the days in 2012.)

3-4-3 Analysis (Alternatives Technical Report, Appendix D) Thank you for responding to our 3-4-3 presentation made in November 2015. Primary Comments • By repurposing the four (4) existing lanes in the EB and WB tubes as three (3) WB

lanes, the 3-3-3 does not use one of the existing lanes. The truck in the image below (Alternatives Technical Report, Figure 10-2) is riding in one (1) 24’ foot lane of pavement that today carries two (2) lanes of traffic:

o Part of Fig. 10-2 gray shows existing structures; orange shows proposed structure o The 3-4-3 would take advantage of all four existing tunnel/trestle lanes1. o As a result of not using one of the lanes and thus having only three (lower capacity).

tunnel lanes, the 3-3-3 would operate at LOS F (Fig. 5-3.1) with approximate tunnel speed of 35mph (Fig. 5-4.1), giving the 3-3-3 significant limitations.

• Given that the 3-4-3 concept (applicable to Alts A, B, and D) would potentially be

relatively uncongested2, and would thereby move 30% more vehicles and move them at higher speeds as compared to the 3-3-33, the 3-4-3 has great potential.

1 The existing 4 tunnel lanes would become 4 WB lanes, and the proposed new tunnel would serve 4 EB lanes. 2 The DSEIS (Traffic and Trans Tech Report, Figure 5-2.1) shows 4,975 vph (i.e. approx. 5,000 vph) volume for the 3-3-3 configuration (2040, Alt A). The LOS D on the approaches and LOS F at the tunnel (Figure 5-3.1) indicates a) that the tunnel capacity per lane is lower than approach capacity per lane, b) that the tunnel is the chokepoint, and c) that the tunnel capacity is approx. 1,600vphpl (5,000vph/3ln = 1,667vphpl). Implementing a 3-4-3 configuration, therefore, would raise the capacity of the tunnels (4lns x 1,600vphpl = 6,400 vph) to that of the approaches (3lns x 2,100vphpl = 6,300vph), providing a tunnel-approach system capacity of 6,300vph. Assuming that the 3-3-3 creates

Attachment 15-C

16

• The purpose of the HRCS is to…relieve congestion at the I-64 HRBT….”4 o The HRTAC, which will finance the HRCS Preferred Alternative, “shall give priority

to those projects that are expected to provide the greatest impact on reducing congestion”5

o The purpose of the 3-4-3 proposed by the HRTPO staff is to reduce the congestion expected with the 3-3-3.

• VDOT has not incorporated the concept 3-4-3 in the Draft SEIS.

o The purpose of the 3-4-3 proposed by the HRTPO staff is to address the need for increased capacity of the HRBT above that of the 3-3-3

• It appears that the only way to determine the effectiveness of the 3-4-3 concept versus

the 3-3-3 is to compare the two alternatives, calculating several MOEs (crashes, throughput, delay, etc.) for each of the two alternatives.

• According to the SEIS, “if the 3-4-3 concept is identified as part of the Preferred

Alternative, it would be analyzed in great detail in the Final SEIS….”6 It might be useful if VDOT could incorporate the 3-4-3 concept in the Final SEIS.

In Summary: • the 3-3-3 results in LOS F • the 3-4-3 has great potential (moves 30% more vehicles at higher speed) Secondary Comments • To assist the public and decision-makers, it is recommended to:

o Compare the number of rear-end and lane-change crashes expected from a 3-3-3 configuration to those expected from a 3-4-3.7

o Compare the speed, level of service, and delay of the two alternatives. o Compare the throughput of the 3-3-3 to that of the 3-4-3 concept.

no more than 20% latent demand, the maximum 3-4-3 system demand would be 6,000 vph (5,000vph x 120% = 6,000vph), resulting in more capacity (6,300 vph) than volume (6,000 vph). 3 Not only is the 3-4-3’s system capacity (6,300 vph) 30% higher than that of the 3-3-3 (3 tunnel lanes x 1,600vphpl = 4,800 vph), its capacity (6,300 vph) being higher than its expected maximum volume (6,000 vph), it would likely operate at LOS E during the peak hour (with, based on other SEIS results, resulting tunnel speed of approx. 40mph), whereas the 3-3-3 operates at LOS F (Fig. 5-3.1) and approx. tunnel speed 35mph (Fig. 5-4.1). 4 HRCS DSEIS, July 2016, p. S-2. 5 HB 1253, 6 Apr 2014. 6 ATR p. 462 of 495. 7 At a tunnel where demand exceeds capacity, vehicles form queues. For example, for the 3-3-3, if 5,000 vph travel on the approaches toward the tunnels, queues will grow at the tunnels (capacity 3lns x 1,600 vphpl = 4,800vph) at the rate of 200 vph (5000-4800=200). And wherever queues form, a) some vehicles will crash into the back of the queue, and b) some slow moving vehicles at the back end of a lane’s queue will change lanes to a faster moving lane, and the difference in speeds will cause a crash.

Attachment 15-C

17

• It is recommended to use, among other MOEs, the number of crashes of each of the two concepts.

• In contrast to the consultant’s statement (ATR p. 465 of 495), “based on the conceptual

nature of the 3-4-3 Concept, information is not available to perform a detailed…analysis or microsimulation” both modeling and empirical information is available, as follows. o Concerning microsimulation/modeling, the very purpose of computer modeling is to

analyze conceptual things that do not exist. o Concerning empirical information, systems approximating the 3-4-3 wherein a

certain number of vehicles diverge and then that same number merge (i.e. no additional vehicles are added to the system) exist and can provide empirical information, as follows: The Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (CBBT)

Since 1999, each of the 50 million drivers using the CBBT has experienced the 1-2-1 effect when they exit the first tunnel (1 lane), travel the trestle (2 lanes), and then enter the second tunnel (1 lane). It appears that using real-world crash data from this CBBT system—particularly during congestion summer weekends—to estimate crashes for the 3-4-3 would provide more reliable analysis than using “anecdotally”8 “presumed”9 safety effects of the “assumed”10 operations effect of the lane-changing aspect of the 3-4-3.

Sets of toll booths Fixed-volume diverge-and-merge happens daily across the U.S. at toll booths. Although vehicles leaving a set of toll booths may be traveling at less than free-flow speed when they merge back together, it appears that using real-world crash data from toll booth systems to estimate crashes for the 3-4-3 would provide more reliable analysis than using “anecdotally” “presumed” safety effects of only the lane-changing aspect of the 3-4-3.

• Given that analysis by both the HRTPO Staff 11 and VDOT12 indicates that the capacity of

a tunnel with X lanes is less than the capacity of an approach with X lanes—and thus that the number of drivers willing to travel on a tunnel’s approach is limited/choked by the capacity of the tunnel (as opposed to the capacity of the approach)—the analysis’s usage of the volume of a choked approach (1,900 vphpl, ATR p. 474 of 495) as an indication of the capacity of that approach renders an unrealistically low number for the capacity of that approach.

8 ATR p. 480 of 495. Please add page numbers to Appendix D. 9 ATR p. 483 of 495. 10 ATR p. 463 of 495. 11 HRTPO’s analysis of VDOT counts, rendering 1,600 vphpl tunnel capacity http://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/impact%20estimation%20method%20document.pdf, and HRTPO’s theoretical analysis: tunnels allow no passing and have no shoulders, both of which increase distance between vehicles for a given speed, thereby lowering capacity. 12 The LOS D on the approaches and LOS F at the tunnel (Traffic and Trans Tech Report, Figure 5-3.1)—for the same volume on the approaches and the tunnel—indicates that the tunnel capacity per lane is lower than the approach capacity per lane.

Attachment 15-C

http://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/impact%20estimation%20method%20document.pdf

18

• One way to accurately calculate the capacity of the HRBT approach is to examine hourly volumes at interstates in Hampton Roads downstream of where demand exceeds capacity, i.e. downstream of queues. Queues form daily at certain locations where multiple lanes feed into a fewer number of lanes, e.g. where the acceleration lanes from GW Hwy carry vehicles onto I-64 toward the High Rise Bridge, and where I-64 WB narrows from 4 lanes to 2 near Bland Blvd.

• Basing capacity on “99th percentile 15-minute volumes” (ATR p. 466 of 495), the Draft

SEIS uses a capacity of 1,875 vphpl (p. 12) for a tunnel lane. Using 15-minute VDOT count data, the HRTPO staff calculated that—out of 8,784 hours in 2012 (366 days x 24 hours)—for only 14 hours in that year (or 0.16% of all that year’s hours [14/(8,784)=0.0016]—did HRBT EB volumes reach 1,875 vphpl. Although this 0.16% is a rare occurrence (and therefore renders a higher capacity [1,875] than we used [1,600]), it would be an appropriate capacity to use for a tunnel lane if it is compared to a similarly-calculated capacity of an approach lane.13

• Given that the document states the “3-4-3 Concept would result in a 15 to 20 [sic14]

increase to the tunnel cost” (ATR p. 462 of 495), please state the additional cost or at least help us calculate the additional cost by indicating the base tunnel cost.

13 i.e. the top 14 hours occurring on an interstate in Hampton Roads where demand exceeds capacity (i.e. where queues form) AND where volume is not choked either upstream or downstream. 14 If these numbers represent %, please write so.

Attachment 15-C


AGENDA ITEM #16: ANNOUNCEMENTS Announcements of interest to the TTAC may be made at this time. A. HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING

The Hampton Roads Transportation Operations (HRTO) Subcommittee will meet on Tuesday, October 11, 2016, at Sandy Bottom Nature Park, 1255 Big Bethel Road, Hampton, VA 23666. The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m.

B. CITIZEN TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

The Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) will meet on Thursday, October 13, 2016, in the Regional Building Board Room. The meeting will begin at 12:00 p.m.

C. HRTPO BOARD MEETING

The HRTPO Board will meet on Thursday, October 20, 2016, in the Regional Building Board Room. The meeting will begin at 10:30 a.m.

D. TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMMING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING

The Transportation Programming Subcommittee (TPS) will meet on Friday, October 28, 2016, in the Regional Building, Conference Room D. The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m.

E. STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN ROAD SHOW

A “road show” on the Virginia Strategic Highway Safety Plan will be held on Tuesday, November 1, 2016, in the Regional Building Board Room. The event will begin at 9:00 a.m.

F. TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

The next meeting of the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) will be on Wednesday, November 2, 2016, in the Regional Building Board Room. The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m.

G. TRAFFIX OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING

The TRAFFIX Oversight Subcommittee (TOS) will be on Wednesday, November 2, 2016, in the Regional Building, Conference Room D. The meeting will begin at 11:30 a.m.


AGENDA ITEM #17: OLD/NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT

Memorandum #2016-120 BY: Camelia Ravanbakht, Deputy … Agenda.pdf · Robert Brown, Donna Sayegh...

Documents

Transcript of Memorandum #2016-120 BY: Camelia Ravanbakht, Deputy … Agenda.pdf · Robert Brown, Donna Sayegh...