PR PROJECT OJECT NE NEED EDS S www.tdot.tn.gov/ProjectNeeds JOHN SCHROER, TDOT COMMISSIONER
Fu Fund ndin ing g Ne Need eds
Wh What at Is Is Th The Ba e Back cklog log? • Projects approved by Legislature • At least 1 project phase funded • $6. 6.1 1 bi bill llion ion • 181 pr 1 projects jects • 62 62 co countie nties
Ne New Pr w Proj ojec ect t Ne Need eds • $5. 5.3 3 Bi Bill llion ion • 162 62 State Route Bridges in 59 59 Counties • 496 496 Local Bridges in 80 80 Counties • 105 05 New Projects in 58 58 Counties
Ti Time meli line ne Backlog Projects: At 2% inflation, all projects complete or under construction by 2033 Backlog Projects & New Project Needs: At 2% inflation, all projects complete or under construction by 2067
Ne New/ w/Ba Backlo cklog g Pr Proj oject ects Shelby y County ty • 27 27 projects • $969, 9,109,000 09,000
Ne New/ w/Ba Backlo cklog g Pr Proj oject ects New Projects ITS Expansion • SR 385/I-269 Backlog Projects • SR 4 (US78) Lamar Avenue • I-40 Widening • SR 14
La Lama mar r Av Aven enue ue (S (SR 4) R 4) / S / She helb lby y Co Coun unty ty Backlog klog Project ect Total Cost $229.1M From Raines Rd/Perkins Rd Interchange to Getwell Rd (SR 176) From South of Shelby Drive (SR 175) to Raines Rd/Perkins Rd From MS state line to South of Shelby Drive (SR 175)
In Inte ters rstate tate 40 40 Wi Wide deni ning ng / Sh / Shel elby by County County Backlog klog Project ect Project Cost $65.1M From East of Canada Road to Collierville/Arlington Road From Germantown Road to East of Canada Road
St Stat ate e Ro Rout ute e 14 14 / S / She helb lby y Co Coun unty ty Backlog klog Project ect Project Cost $75.4M From East of Kerrville-Rosemark Road to Tipton County Line From SR 385 to East of Kerrville- Rosemark Road From East of Old Covington Pike to SR 385
SR SR 38 385-I I 26 269 IT 9 ITS Ex S Expa pans nsion ion / S / She helb lby y County County NEW PROJECT JECT Project Cost $13.0M ITS Expansion on SR 385/I-269 from I-40 south to the Mississippi State Line
PR PROJECT OJECT NE NEED EDS S www.tdot.tn.gov/ProjectNeeds JOHN SCHROER, TDOT COMMISSIONER
1 FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2017 ‐ 20 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) DEVELOPMENT TPB Meeting – November 19, 2015
2 FY 2017 ‐ 20 TIP Timeline • November ‐ ETC/TPB Meetings – Approval of TIP Ranking Criteria • November/December – Project Status Meetings with Jurisdictions • First Week of December – Call for Projects/TIP Applications Sent Out • January 15 – TIP Application Deadline • Public Meeting Held Prior to Submittal (Local Jurisdictions) • March ‐ TN & MS ETC Workshops – Ranked TIP Project List • April ‐ ETC/TPB Meetings – Approval of TIP Project List • May – July – DOT/IAC/FHWA/FTA/Public Review Periods • August ‐ ETC/TPB Meetings – Adoption of FY 2017 ‐ 20 TIP • December 2016 – FHWA/FTA Final Approval
3 FY 2017 ‐ 20 TIP Ranking Criteria MAP ‐ 21 Goals & 2040 RTP Goals Criteria Categories Align with the Seven MAP ‐ 21 Nationals Goals • Infrastructure Condition • Safety • Environmental Sustainability • Economic Vitality/Freight Movement • Congestion Reduction Regional Transportation Plan Goals • System Reliability • Project Delivery
4 STP Road Project Criteria FY 2014-2017 TIP FY 2017-2020 TIP • Safety & Security • Safety • Multimodal • Congestion Reduction • Congestion • System Reliability • System Preservation • Infrastructure Condition • Land Use • Economic Vitality/ • Economic Opportunity Freight Movement • Environmental Preservation • Environmental Sustainability & Environmental Justice • Project Delivery • Network Continuity • Cost Effectiveness
5 TIP Ranking Criteria Comparison (Road) • While Criteria Category Names Have Changed – Measures are Consistent For Example: • FY 2017 ‐ 20: Safety FY 2014 ‐ 17: • Safety
6 TIP Ranking Criteria Comparison (Road) • While Criteria Category Names Have Changed – Measures are Consistent System Reliability 14 For Example: Existing Volume to Capacity Ratio (V/C) 4 More than 0.90 4 • FY 2017 ‐ 20: 0.80 to 0.89 3 0.60 to 0.79 2 System Reliability 0.59 or less 1 Travel Time Delay Reduction 10 Delay reduction more than 2.0 min 5 Delay reduction 1.60 to 2.0 min 4 Delay reduction 1.20 to 1.60 min 3 Delay reduction 0.80 to 1.20 min 2 Delay reduction 0.20 to 0.80 min 1 Delay reduction less than 0.20 min 0 Utilizes CMP Strategies X 2 Congestion 14 Existing Volume to Capacity Ratio (V/C) 4 • FY 2014 ‐ 17: More than 0.90 4 0.80 to 0.89 3 Congestion 0.60 to 0.79 2 0.59 or less 1 Travel Time Delays 10 Delay reduction more than 2.0 min 5 Delay reduction 1.60 to 2.0 min 4 Delay reduction 1.20 to 1.60 min 3 Delay reduction 0.80 to 1.20 min 2 Delay reduction 0.20 to 0.80 min 1 Delay reduction less than 0.20 min 0 Utilizes Congestion Management Process (CMP) Strategies X 2
7 TIP Groupings Criteria Grouping Criteria relatively identical to FY 2014-17 TIP Groupings: Resurfacing, Signalization, Bike/Ped, Bridge, Safety New Safety Grouping
8 Next Steps • Meet with the MPO to discuss Project Status (November/December) • FY 2017 ‐ 20 TIP Call for Projects (First Week of December) • January 15, 2016 – Application Deadline • Application Details • Eligibility (STP Funds) – • Livability 2040 RTP Fiscally Constrained Project List • Functional Classification System (Rural Collector or Higher – Existing Roads) • All Jurisdictions – Hold Public Meeting Prior to Application Deadline • MS – Signal Warrant Approval Letter (Traffic Study) & Cost Estimate
Page 1 of 9
Full report available online http://www.memphismpo.org/ about/2015-mpo-federal- certification Page 1 of 9
Page 2 of 9
Purpose & Background Page 2 of 9
Summary of Results Page 2 of 9
13 Review Areas Page 2 of 9
Conclusion Statement Page 2 of 9
Supporting Information & Public Comments Page 2 of 9
Page 3 of 9
Identification of Federal Law, Rules, & Regulations Page 3 of 9
MPOs with Populations Over 200,000 Joint FHWA & FTA Certification Review Every 4 Years Certification Includes • Desk Review • On-Site Visit • Public Involvement Final Report • Page 3 of 9
Page 4 of 9
Possible Outcomes 1. Certify 2. Certify with Corrective Action(s) 3. Certify Specific Projects & Programs with Corrective Action(s) 4. No Certification & Corrective Action(s) and/or Funding Restrictions Page 4 of 9
Memphis MPO First Certified in 1995 & Most Recently in 2011 Page 4 of 9
Report Includes • Observations • Corrective Actions • Recommendations Commendations • Page 4 of 9
Page 5 of 9
Continuous FHWA & FTA Involvement Since October 2011 Page 5 of 9
FHWA & FTA Visit Memphis in May 2015 May 19 Public Meeting • • May 21 Listening Session with TPB & ETC 97 Comments • MPO Structure & Bylaws Public Participation • • Long Range Planning • Project Development Page 5 of 9
Certification Conclusion • Memphis MPO Meets Federal Requirements • FHWA & FTA Certify the Memphis MPO’s Planning Process No Corrective Actions • Page 5 of 9
Page 6 of 9
FHWA & FTA Identified 18 Commendations Page 6 of 9
Embracing Livability Principles Page 6 of 9
Planning & Land Use Advisory Committee Page 6 of 9
Page 7 of 9
Using Tools & Technologies to Engage the Public & Other Interested Parties Page 7 of 9
Page 8 of 9
FHWA & FTA Identified 19 Recommendations Page 8 of 9
Explore Resources for Scenario Planning Page 8 of 9
Explore Ways to Streamline Environmental Review Process for NEPA Page 8 of 9
Page 9 of 9
Continue to Share Notices, Documents, & Other Technical Information in Accordance to Public Participation Plan Page 9 of 9
Continue Education on Policies, Procedures, Programs, & Opportunities for Public Involvement Page 9 of 9
Questions? Full report available online http://www.memphismpo.org/ about/2015-mpo-federal- certification
1 COORDINATED HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN Transportation Policy Board November 19, 2015
2 Project Background • At a minimum, the CHSTP must include the following items: Identify current transportation providers and services; 1. Assess the transportation needs of the elderly, persons with 2. disabilities, and individuals with low incomes; and Recommend strategies, activities, and/or projects to address the 3. identified needs and gaps. • Establishes project eligibilities for 5310 funds • The MPO develops the CHSTP in coordination with several organizations, including:
Recommend
More recommend
