MINUTES. TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE Of the. Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. March 3, 2010

Transcription

1 MINUTES TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE Of the Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization March 3, 2010 Attendees: Ms. Lora Baulsir, Mr. Kirk Bednar, Mr. Rick Bernhardt, Mr. Tom Brashear, Mr. Michael Briggs, Mr. Marc Corrigan, Mr. Billy Davis, Mr. Doug Demosi, Mr. Steve Foote, Mr. Butch Gelband, Mr. Grant Green, Mr. Rick Gregory, Ms. Tanisha Hall,, Mr. Joe Horne, Mr. Jim McAteer, Mr. Addam McCormick, Ms. Angie Midgett, Mr. Rob Raney, Mr. Dana Richardson, Mr. Kevin Rigsby, Mr. Fred Rogers, Mr. Jim Svoboda, Ms. Diane Thorne, Ms. Magi Tilton, Mr. Bob Weithofer Approve February 3, 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes Mr. Fred Rogers opened the meeting at 10:31 a.m. Mr. Rick Gregory moved to approve the February 3, 2010 meeting minutes with Mr. Bob Weithofer seconding. The motion passed unanimously. Public Comment There was no public comment. TCC Chair s Report Updates on Mayors Caucus & Transit Alliance Mr. Michael Skipper, MPO director, said that the Mayors Caucus met on February 4 th. The Mayors passed a resolution opposing any legislation that seeks to regulate use of traffic cameras. Mayor Graves has sent a letter to Representative Bill Harmon and Senator Jim Tracy re: traffic cameras. After the meeting, the MPO had a press conference to call for projects for the new Regional Transportation Plan. The room was packed and it was good for spreading the word about regionalism. He thanked Ms. Mary Beth Ikard, MPO staff, for her for that day. The Transit Alliance also met that day to appoint a Board. Mr. Charles Bone was elected as Chair. Mr. Ed Cole is the new Director for the Alliance.

2 Update on ARRA funded Projects Mr. Skipper said that 100% of the ARRA funds have been obligated and the deadlines met. The TCC members were provided with the TDOT final report. aspx Endorse Draft Amendments to the FY TIP Mr. Félix Castrodad, MPO staff, said that this is the last chance to amend this TIP. Amendments to the TIP require a 21 day public review and comment period prior to adoption. Mr. Skipper stated that the set of draft amendments being recommended by staff are consistent with the agreement by MPO members to balance the regional TIP following the loss of federal funds at the end of FY 2009 due to a rescission authorized by SAFETEA LU with three exceptions which he indicated were requests to add additional revenue to projects that needed to move forward in FY In short, that agreement included a provision to retain any remaining unprogrammed U STP funds following the January amendments until the new, FYs is developed later this year. The agreement was reached to protect those projects that were deferred to later years in order to free enough revenue to balance the TIP after the loss of $20 million + U STP as a result of the end of FY 2009 federal rescission. At the time the TIP was balanced, the MPO requested that local members indicate which projects needed funding in FY 2010 and which projects could be deferred to a later year. The proposed set of March/ April amendments includes three projects where additional funding is being programmed in FY 2010 so that they may stay on schedule. Those projects are: Various Intersection Improvements Gallatin E+C 79 Franklin Traffic Operations Center Franklin Consistent Passenger Stop Facility Improvements MTA The City of Franklin is requesting additional U STP to advance a project that was funded, in part, by ARRA funding. The City of Gallatin is requesting additional U STP to replace rescinded L STP, and Metro Nashville is requesting additional U STP to cover the increased cost of ROW for Gateway Blvd.

3 Mr. Billy Davis, requested that the MPO membership also endorse amendments to an additional set of projects to free up enough revenue to cover the increased cost for Gateway Andrew Jackson Parkway Metro Nashville Arterial corridors compliant with ITS Plans Metro Nashville SR-255 Harding Place Extension (Phase 1) Metro Nashville 99-New Hobson Pike (SR-171) Metro Nashville Traffic Management Center Metro Nashville Various Intersection Improvements Metro Nashville Mr. Skipper stated that as requested, there appears to be enough unprogrammed revenue to cover the additional Gateway costs without the need to remove funding from those projects. He indicated that the MPO does not allow local members to transfer funding between projects. He stated that the proper approach would be to release uneeded funding back to the regional pot then request membership to consider reprogramming those additional funds as desired. He stated that this approach ensured that the full membership was aware of how regional funding was being programmed on region priorities. Various members of the TCC expressed concerned that Gateway Blvd was using an extraordinary amount of U STP funds at a time when many projects have been shifted out of the TIP for fiscal constraint. A decision was made to defer the discussion of Gateway until the end of the agenda item. Mr. Castrodad continued to explain the draft amendments. Mr. Skipper said that the new stimulus bill Stimulus II or the Jobs Main Street Act (JMSA) will probably add funds to various buckets. He said that this bill could have a shorter time line 3 months vs. 1 year. Ms. Angie Midgett said that TDOT is putting these projects out for public comment now but won t ask for Board approval until the bill is actually passed in Congress. She said that the buckets can be set up now just to get them established in the TIP. If the amount of money goes over the bucket amounts, then the buckets will have to go though the amendment process as usually. Mr. Castrodad said that project 503 is replacing USTP funds with HSIP funding. On project , Lebanon wants to move local STP funds into the 3R Improvement Bucket. Franklin wants additional U STP funds to be added to the project for additional hardware. Mr. Rogers asked where the new U STP funds were coming from. Mr. Skipper said that new U STP money is coming from the reserve funds after the changes that were made due to the rescission. Mr. Skipper said that the Franklin ITS project and the Gateway project in Metro are the ones that staff wants to use some of these reserve funds. After the rescission, money was shifted in the TIP by shifting projects to later years and ended up with a $4.3 M surplus in 2011 and a $19 M surplus in the Nashville U STP in He said that the $19 M surplus is where the funds will be gotten.

4 Mr. Castrodad said that Murfreesboro has requested adding Murfreesboro STP funds for Thompson Lane resurfacing. He said that the MPO is requesting the bucket. Mr. Dana Richardson asked what the breakout for ARRA on U&Ms. Mr. Castrodad said that it is whatever was allocated to the projects. Murfreesboro is also asking for extra money for the CCTV due to cost overruns. The Middle Tennessee Blvd. project has secured CMAQ funds from the State for They are also shifting money and adding some Murfreesboro STP money. Mr. Billy Davis said that the right of way and construction for the Gateway project has been moved up due to the opening of the new convention center. Mr. Skipper said that they want to reprogram funds from existing Davidson County projects. Mr. Davis said that construction will begin around December Mr. Davis said that the Gateway project has been going on since 1992 and this is the 3 rd phase of the project. He said that the environmental re evaluation was done and the record of decision was received on February 4, 2010 and now the project is ready to move forward with ROW, design and construction. He said that it very important to have the construction funds in place. Mr. Rogers asked which projects the funds were coming from. Mr. Davis said that addition construction funds are coming off the Harding Place extension. Mr. Skipper said that when a project is no longer important to the local jurisdiction funds are not allowed to be shifted to other projects. The money must go back into the pot and reprogrammed to the next highest priority project. Instead of taking the money from other projects, the MPO staff is proposing to use part of the surplus funds. The TCC decides which project receives this money. Mr. Davis that the funds will be taken from projects that are not ready to go at this time. However, these projects will come back later. He said that FHWA encourages the programming of dollars for each phase of a project and this is what Metro is trying to do. He recognizes that these projects are regionally significant and that the TCC not just Davidson County endorse these projects, but that the Gateway project is on a tight schedule which has been finalized with TDOT. The project will have a large impact on downtown Nashville and is important to the region. He said $12.3 M is needed. Ms. Midgett stated that the funds are not Metro Nashville funds even if there are projects programmed in the future. They need to be put back into the pot and then let the Board decide whether or not to use the funds on a particular project. She said that the funds can not be sub allocated. The funds need to go through the process. Mr. Skipper said that the TCC has just gone through the process of deferring projects and the MPO must clearly decided to add project funds to Gateway if that is their wish. This is why the staff prefers to take the money from the surplus funds. He said that he is not discouraging putting money on these projects. Ms. Midgett added that the process must be followed.

5 Mr. Brashear said for confirmation that on exactly how much money is needed since what the staff has presented and what Metro has presented is different. He also said that the dates are different. He said that what staff has presented in the TIP amendment should be approved. He needs more explanation on the construction phase. Mr. Bob Weithofer said that the fiscal year is the same. Mr. Rick Bernhardt asked exactly how much money is needed for construction $2.7 M or $12.4 M right now. Mr. Weithofer said that $2.7 is needed in FY2010 for CEI and some utility work and $12.4 M will be needed in FY Mr. Bernhardt asked why the $12.4 M can t be programmed in the new TIP. Mr. Davis said that even if it is in the new TIP the money is not guaranteed to be ready for use in December Mr. Weithofer said that once the TIP is adopted, there are a number of processes that have to be gone through before the money if available to the jurisdiction. Mr. Skipper said that the staff does not oppose funding for Gateway. He said that the staff is protecting the decisions made by the entire MPO regarding the rescission process not to add new money to any years beyond That decision was based on the recommendation to fully fund the ROW but not construction based on Metro s schedule. Mr. Brashear asked if fully funding Gateway is $12 M or $18 M. Mr. Skipper said it was $18 M more. He said that the money will come out of the pool of funds in order to protect the funds and comply with Federal planning requirements. Mr. Bernhardt asked how much will be left in the surplus if everything recommended is used. Mr. Skipper said there would about $12 M and that this is the surplus after He said that at the end of 2011 there will be $4.3 M. If we depleted these other projects, we could free up some surplus, but theses projects will be competing for funds again. Mr. Bernhardt said that there is not enough money guaranteed to complete the project but something has to be done so that construction won t be held up. Mr. Steve Foote said it sounds like that instead of everyone competing for the surplus money that it is going to this one project while everyone else is giving up projects. Where is the equity? Are they giving ups something later on? Mr. Bednar asked if Metro can guarantee that these projects won t show up in the next TIP. Mr. Skipper said that the projects are scored regionally and that the rules for funding must be followed. This project is a high priority project and will be funded. Mr. Weithofer said that Metro wants to take the money off of the projects and that these projects will be resubmitted for evaluation for the new TIP. Mr. Skipper said that if there is enough money in the surplus, there is no need to take the money off the projects. Mr. Bernhardt said that the money should be taken out of the surplus.

6 Mr. Rogers asked if there needs to be a recommendation made at this time. Mr. Skipper said that the staff is asking for endorsement of the TIP amendments for public review and comment. The second time it is on the agenda is when a recommendation must be made. He said that it can also be deferred to the Board. Mr. Bernhardt said that it is important for the project to go out for public comment and that will give the TCC members time to decide how they want to fund this project. Any further discussion was deferred until the end of the TIP amendment presentation. Mr. Castrodad said that the MTA projects were adding 5307 funds for equipment, preventive maintenance, project administration, security and service & support. The and b projects are using ARRA funds from project (which has been deleted) for the MTA Administration Building. They are also adding 5309 funds from The is to add funds for the Martha Station construction. The , Regional Vanpool Expansion, project is having ARRA funds shifted from TIP # for the purchase of vanpool vehicles, promotion and management of the regional vanpool system. Money is also being shifted back from TIP # to project for preventative maintenance, capital improvements for the Music City Star Commuter Rail. The project for various intersection improvements in Gallatin is to replace the L STP money which was rescinded and an increase in PE and add ROW. Mr. Jim Svoboda said that said that the $50 K in U STP is split into PE and ROW. Ms. Diane Thorne said that it would be helpful when presenting the amendments if the totals of the from to were shown. Mr. Brashear asked if anyone had a problem with approving the amendment packet as presented by staff with the Gateway project included and then discussing the construction aspect of the project. Mr. Bernhardt moved to approve the amendments as recommended by staff with one addition which is to add $5 M from the 2010 surplus to the Gateway project for construction so the total is $11.2 M instead of $6.2 M. Mr. Butch Gelband seconded. Mr. Davis said that was OK with Metro and that Metro appreciates the support for this project. He said that the timing of the TIP amendment cycle forced them into this situation. Mr. Bednar asked if Metro anticipates requesting more money for construction. Mr. Davis said yes since the total cost will probably be $19 M. Mr. Bednar asked if those jurisdictions that deferred projects to create the surplus were at any risk. Mr. Skipper said yes that the actions taken today will decide how the rest of the money is spent. He also said that Gateway will rank high in any prioritization. Mr. Bednar said that one

7 project is taking up all of the STP money and those projects that were deferred and expected were to be in the new TIP are now at risk of not being funded. Mr. Brashear wondered if the deferred projects for Gateway get a special pass in the next TIP in lieu of any other regionally significant projects. Mr. Skipper said that staff would not penalize projects of one jurisdiction just because they had received more funding than others. Programming decisions are based on regional priorities, but that a local may choose on their own to withhold a request for funding in a spirit of fairness. Mr. Davis said that the projects that Metro wants to take the money from are not ready to begin and that Metro also deferred projects to create surplus. Mr. Bednar agreed but said that everyone needs to be aware of the ripple effect of this. Mr. Svoboda asked if the $4 M surplus in 2011 take into account the deferred projects. Mr. Skipper said yes, that the surplus is only there because projects were deferred to future years. Mr. Skipper said that this is about going through the process, not to support or oppose the project. Mr. Bednar asked if the staff could give the members a better picture of the funding going into the next TIP. Mr. Skipper said yes and that the funding tables are available on the website The amendments endorsed by the TCC include: TIP # LRTP # Project Name Sponsor SR-65/US-431 TDOT Consistent Bridge Replacement Bucket (State) TDOT Consistent Interstate 3R Improvements Bucket TDOT Consistent State Route 3R Improvements Bucket TDOT Consistent Bridge Replacement Bucket (Local) TDOT 503 E+C 75 Maddox-Simpson Parkway (SR-26) TDOT/Lebanon Consistent City of Lebanon 3R Improvements Bucket Lebanon Consistent 3R Improvements Bucket for 2009 ARRA Projects MPO CCTV and Traffic Signal Interconnect Murfreesboro 203, 203a E+C 76 Middle Tennessee Boulevard Murfreesboro Gateway Boulevard Metro b Consistent Passenger Stop Facility Improvements MTA MTA Equipment MTA Consistent Preventative Maintenance MTA Consistent Project Administration MTA Consistent Security & Surveillance MTA Consistent Service & Support Vehicles MTA Consistent ARRA Operating MTA MTA Administration Building MTA b 8026 MTA Administration Building MTA Martha Station Construction RTA Regional Vanpool Expansion RTA Consistent Music City Star Commuter Rail Line RTA b Consistent Music City Star Commuter Rail Line RTA Various Intersection Improvements Gallatin

8 TIP # LRTP # Project Name Sponsor E+C 79 Franklin Traffic Operations Center Franklin Consistent Passenger Stop Facility Improvements MTA With no more discussion, the motion was unanimously approved. The schedule for adoption is: 3/3 TCC endorsement 3/17 XB endorsement 3/19 to 4/9 Public review and comment period 4/7 First public hearing (TCC) 4/21 Second public hearing / adoption (XB) Update on the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan Mr. Matt Meservy, MPO staff, said that the staff will be contacting each jurisdiction to make sure that all of the information put on the Candidate Project Application forms is correct and to fill any blanks. Mr. Skipper said that so far $3.2 B in roadways, $197 M in interchanges and intersections, $16.3 M in bike/ped, and $3.4 B in transit has been requested. He reminded the members that the Plan must fiscally constrained and that a similar process will be used to select projects for the Plan that is used for the TIP. The staff presented a draft process to evaluate, prioritize, and select projects which is the result of the special workshop. The 2035 principles, goals, objectives, & project evaluation factors was presented for discussion. He said that today the staff is asking for endorsement or the criteria for the projects. Mr. Foote asked there should be a line item under the Project History category that acknowledges deferred projects. Mr. Skipper said no, but that projects are scrutinized for progress. The projects that are not making progress will be penalized. Mr. Weithofer asked if input was still being accepted on the criteria. Mr. Skipper said yes, but endorsement is needed today. Mr. Weithofer asked if there is a separate ranking system for the TIP. Mr. Skipper recommends that the criteria is the same but more detailed for the TIP. Mr. Brashear said he would like to see more points on Safety & Security. Mr. Skipper said that the staff will look at that but all elements incorporate safety and security. Mr. Brashear said that county projects, because there is little congestion, often don t rank high in this category. Mr. Rogers said that he thought that Congestion Management should have a high priority.

9 Mr. Richardson asked how the staff will evaluate high crash locations. Mr. Skipper said that we use DOS and/ or DOT crash data. Mr. Michael Briggs said that it is it might be better to use fatal crash data than crash data since it has to do with safety. Mr. Brashear moved to endorse the draft Principles, Goals, Major Objectives, and Evaluation Factors for consideration by the Board. Mr. Svoboda seconded. The motion passed unanimously. FY 2011 Unified Planning Work Program Call for Studies Mr. Skipper asked if anyone has a suggestion for studies for the next UPWP to let him know. Mr. Gregory suggested wayfinding. Mr. Skipper said that this was a top priority for next year. Mr. Brashear asked if there can be discussions with FHWA and TDOT to allow funding for major thoroughfare plans. Mr. Skipper said yes. MPO Director s Report Update on Regional Studies Mr. Skipper deferred the updates on the studies. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m. Date: Fred Rogers, Chair Technical Coordinating Committee Michael Skipper, MPO Director Secretary, Technical Coordinating Committee