STP-MM Workshop Wednesday, July 26, 2017 9:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
STP-MM Workshop Wednesday, July 26, 2017 9:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. 1:30 p.m. 3:30 p.m. What is an MPO? A regional, multi modal transportation planning agency created by federal law to: provide a forum for project selection by local
2
Alamo Area MPO Region
4 Transportation Policy Board Member Representing Commissioner Kevin Wolff, MPO Chair Bexar County Councilman Rey Saldaña, MPO Vice‐Chair City of San Antonio Rebecca Cedillo, Board Member Advanced Transportation District Vacant Alamo Regional Mobility Authority Commissioner Tommy Calvert, Jr. Bexar County Commissioner Sergio Rodriguez Bexar County Renee Green, P.E., County Engineer Bexar County Commissioner Kevin Webb Comal County Councilman Ron Cisneros Kendall County Geographic Area Councilman Ron Reaves City of New Braunfels Councilwoman Shirley Gonzales City of San Antonio Councilman Ron Nirenberg City of San Antonio Councilman Roberto Treviño City of San Antonio Bridgett White, Planning Director City of San Antonio Mike Frisbie, P.E. TCI Director City of San Antonio Mayor Don Keil City of Seguin Mayor Chris Riley, Leon Valley Greater Bexar County Council of Cities Judge Kyle Kutscher Guadalupe County Mayor Pro Tem Kevin Hadas, Selma Northeast Partnership Mario Jorge, P.E., District Engineer TxDOT San Antonio
VIA Metropolitan Transit
Transportation Policy Board
21 voting members Meet on the 4th Monday
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
19 members Meet on the 1st Friday
Bicycle Mobility Advisory Committee (BMAC)
22 members Meet on the 2nd Wednesday
Pedestrian Mobility Advisory Committee (PMAC)
17 members Meet on the 3rd Wednesday
Executive Committee
9 members Meet as Needed
Land Use & Regional Thoroughfare Subcommittee Traffic Incident Management Subcommittee Freight, Rail & Transit Subcommittee
5
Public Information Officers
Meet on the 1st Wednesday
Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP): Budget and Planning Studies over a two year timeframe (adopted June 2017) Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP): Future goals, strategies and transportation projects for 25 years (adopted December 2014) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): Funded transportation projects within 4 years (adopted in April 2016, new TIP will be adopted in April 2018)
6
7
8
9
– 73 projects totaling nearly $1B were submitted – 19 projects were selected for funding at an amount of nearly $92M
– 56 projects totaling nearly $435M were submitted – 19 projects were selected for funding at an amount of nearly $110M
– 40 projects totaling nearly $400M were submitted – 23 projects were selected for funding at an amount of nearly $166M (programmed funding out two years past the TIP)
10
11
12
13
14
– Improving intersections, including adding right or left turn lanes – Adding a center turn lane – Adding acceleration or deceleration lanes – Constructing a roundabout – Adding or improving intersection signalization – Constructing new or reversing ramps – Converting frontage roads from two way to one way – Reconfiguring travel lanes for a multimodal shift – Implementing ITS projects – Constructing an interchange
15
– Public Transit Projects – Major Planning Studies
16
Projects that are solely Maintennce or Rehabilitation projects are not eligible
17
– 40% Congestion (using existing or base year volume/capacity ratio, projected 2040 volume/capacity ratio and if the project is on the region’s Congestion Management System) – 20% Cost of the project per 2040 vehicle miles of travel – 10% Considers safety – 10% Supports the MPO’s adopted long range plan growth scenario – 10% Project includes safe pedestrian facilities – 10% Project includes safe bicycle facilities
+ 50 points for providing additional local contribution of 5% to 10% beyond the required 20% local match towards the construction cost of a project + 100 points for providing additional local contribution of more than 10% beyond the required 20% local match towards the construction cost of a project
18
– 45% Operational/Multimodal improvement – 15% Cost of the project per 2040 vehicle miles of travel – 25% Considers safety – 10% Supports the adopted long range plan growth scenario – 5% Supports safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities
+ 50 points for providing additional local contribution of 5% to 10% beyond the required 20% local match towards the construction cost of a project + 100 points for providing additional local contribution of more than 10% beyond the required 20% local match towards the construction cost of a project
19
– 40% Considers safety – 60% Improves accessibility and mobility
+ 50 points for providing additional local contribution of 5% to 10% beyond the required 20% local match towards the construction cost of a project + 100 points for providing additional local contribution of more than 10% beyond the required 20% local match towards the construction cost of a project
20
– 30% Considers safety – 30% Serves high demand pedestrian generators – 20% Completes a sidewalk gap – 10% Project is supported by a Walkable Community Workshop, existing adopted plan, or uses strategies outlined in the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan – 10% Incorporates pedestrian design enhancements
+ 50 points for providing additional local contribution of 1% to 10% beyond the required 20% local match towards the construction cost of a project + 100 points for providing additional local contribution of more than 10% beyond the required 20% local match towards the construction cost of a project
21
22
24
25
26
27
Submitting agency: must be an agency that TxDOT is able to enter into an agreement with (City, County, VIA) Contact person name, e-mail and phone number: provide contact information for person that can answer questions about the project Project/Roadway name: usually a roadway name: “Blanco Road”, “Commerce Street” Limits from/Limits to: also usually roadway names Description of work: “Expand from 2 to 4 lane roadway with center turn lane”; “Construct sidewalks on both sides of roadway”; “Construct multi use path”; there is a 120 character limit
28
Project length: enter the mileage into the yellow shaded portion Federal functional classification: roadway projects must be on functionally classified roadways; a map is available on the AAMPO website through the iMap application Eligible project category: project must either be an “Added Capacity”, “Operational”, “Bicycle”, “Pedestrian”, “Rideshare”, “Transit”, or “Other” project type as defined earlier Project justification: why is this project important: respond only in the space provided; as examples cite multimodalism, system connectivity, improves accessibility, has high crash rates, high growth area, or high density area
29
30
Functionally Classified Roadways in the Alamo Area MPO Region
Agency overall priority: if an agency is submitting more than one project identify which project is #1 priority, #2 priority and so forth. If an agency is submitting only one project that is its #1 priority. Agency category priority: if an agency is submitting more than one added capacity project, as an example, then in addition to identifying the overall priority, the projects must be prioritized within that category. Project construction/activity cost minus additional contribution: enter the total construction cost only. This cost does not include preliminary engineering, right‐of‐way, or other project development costs. Additional local contribution: enter the additional local contribution amount. This amount is
do not overmatch projects. These are calculated fields; do not enter numbers here
31
Local match source: identify the source of the local match funding for the project: bond program or sales tax revenue, as examples. Other Federal funds cannot be used as match for this program. Add’l local contribution source: identify the source of the additional local contribution for the project. Bicycle component costs: for construction projects, estimate the portion of the construction cost that is for the bicycle portion of the project. Pedestrian component costs: for construction projects, estimate the portion of the construction cost that is for the pedestrian portion of the project. What adopted plans and/or policies does this project help to implement? Identify the adopted plans, policies and programs that this project supports.
32
1 2
Does the implementing agency have an adopted ADA Transition Plan? (for information purposes only): respond ‘Yes’ (and provide the date of adoption) or ‘No’. Neither response will help nor hinder a project from being funded. Has the implementing agency previously successfully completed an MPO project: respond ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. Known environmental issues: in the project in an environmentally sensitive area? Is the project over the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone? What is the status of the environmental document preparation? Known drainage and utility issues and requirements: is the project in a flood plain? Are drainage structures included in the project?
34
35
Detailed cost estimates need to be made for each project to minimize cost overruns down the road. If the construction cost estimate increases as a selected project is developed, and exceeds the amount programmed in the TIP, the submitting agency must cover the cost increase or rescope the project to reduce the cost with MPO Transportation Policy Board approval.
36
38
39
40
www.alamoareampo.org www.sagisday.com
41
Jeanne Geiger Deputy Director geiger@alamoareampo.org 210‐227‐8651