HRTPO Transportation Programming Subcommittee Meeting – November 22, 2013
AGENDA ITEM #7: OUT OF CYCLE CMAQ AND/OR RSTP REQUESTS SUBJECT:
The TPS must make a recommendation regarding each of the out of cycle requests outlined below. BACKGROUND:
The October 2013 TPS agenda included a number of out of cycle CMAQ and/or RSTP funding requests. The Subcommittee requested that HRTPO staff evaluate the requests and provide the results of the evaluation to the TPS to assist in the Subcommittee’s decision on whether or not to recommend approval of each of the requests. Subsequent to the October TPS meeting, two other out of cycle requests were received and evaluated. The individual requests are summarized below:
A. Gloucester County – Request to make one current CMAQ project eligible to receive
RSTP allocations • Project: Route 17 Pedestrian Improvements – North end of Coleman Bridge
to Farmwood Road (UPC 100626) • Length: 0.66 mile • Total Project Cost: $1,174,751 • RSTP Allocation Request: $307,518 (Transfer from another County project)
B. Hampton Roads Transportation Operations (HRTO) Subcommittee – Request for a
new RSTP project • Project: Hampton Toads Transportation Operations Strategic Plan. This Plan
would be used to help “guide the HRTPO in allocating RSTP and CMAQ funds to transportation operations projects for the Hampton Roads cities; in order to uniformly achieve the most efficient use of ‘limited’ funding.”
• Total Project Cost: $400,000 • RSTP Allocation Request: $400,000 in pre-FY2014 RSTP Reserve funds
C. James City County – Request to make one project eligible to receive RSTP allocations
• Project: Longhill Road – Widen to four lanes from Route 199 to Olde Towne Road (UPC 100921)
• Length: 0.66 mile • Total Project Cost: $11,800,000 • RSTP Allocation Request: None at this time
D. Virginia Beach – Request to make two projects eligible to receive RSTP allocations
1. Project: Elbow Road Extended – Phase II (UPC 15828) • The project entails improving Elbow Road from a two-lane roadway
to a four-lane divided highway from Indian River Road to Dam Neck Road.
• Length: Approximately 3 miles
HRTPO Transportation Programming Subcommittee Meeting – November 22, 2013
• Total Project Cost: $70,266,398 • RSTP Allocation Request: None at this time
2. Project: Indian River Road – Phase VII (UPC 15829).
• The project entails improving Indian River Road from a two-lane rural road to a four-lane divided highway from Lynnhaven Parkway to Elbow Road Extended.
• Length: Approximately 2.2 miles • Total Project Cost: $89,070,517 • RSTP Allocation Request: None at this time
E. VDOT – Request for a new CMAQ and/or RSTP project
• Project: Engine and Drive System Replacement on Pocahontas Ferry Boat • Total Project Cost: $6,700,000 • Total CMAQ and/or RSTP Request: $6,700,000 ($3.4M FY15; $3.3M FY16)
A one-page, Out of Cycle Funding Request Evaluation Form for each of the projects listed above is attached. The attachment also includes the detailed information submitted by the project sponsors for each project. Mr. Mike Kimbrel, Principal Transportation Engineer, will brief the TPS on this item. Attachment 7-A – Gloucester County Request Attachment 7-B – HRTO Request Attachment 7-C – James City County Request Attachment 7-D – Virginia Beach Request Attachment 7-E – VDOT Request RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Determine, for each of the projects listed above, whether to recommend to the TTAC that the project be made eligible to receive CMAQ and/or RSTP allocations.
HAMPTONROADSCMAQ/RSTPPROJECTSELECTIONPROCESS
OUTOFCYCLEFUNDINGREQUESTEVALUATIONFORM(AttachrequestletterandCMAQand/orRSTPCandidateProjectApplicationform)
DateofEvaluation:11/13/2013Locality/Agency: GloucesterCountyProjectName: Route17Bicycle/PedestrianAccommodationsUPCNumber: 100626FundingProgram: RSTP1. Istheprojecteligibleperfederalregulations?Yes
Notes:
2. IstheprojectconsistentwiththecurrentLong‐RangeTransportationPlan?YesNotes:
3. Aretherespecialcircumstancesassociatedwiththisproject?YesNotes: Current CMAQ project. UPC 56934, the RSTP project from which fundswouldbetransferred,originallyincludedthepedestrianimprovements,buttheywereremovedfromtheprojectscopeduetocostconcerns.ADArampswereinstalledatallcrossstreetsandintersectionsintheprojectarea.
4. Istheprojectofregionalsignificance?UnsureNotes: Questionablewhether bike/ped accommodations at this locationwould beconsideredregionallysignificant,but theywould improveactivetransportationsafetyandaccessibilityinthissectionofaNationalHighwaySystemroute.
5. Istherefundingavailableforthisrequest?YesNotes: TheCountyproposestransferringfundsfromotherCountyprojects.
6. IsthisrequestconsistentwiththeprioritiesoftheHRTPOandCTB?YesNotes:
HRTPOStaffNotes:
Project has been through the standard Project Selection Process as a CMAQ project.This requestwouldput back the bike/pedaccommodations thatwere removed fromtheRSTPproject(56934).CountywishestotransferfundsfromotherCountyprojects.
Attachment 7-A
Attachment 7-A
Attachment 7-A
VD
OT
- F
red
eri
cksb
urg
Dis
tric
tH
am
pto
n R
oa
ds
Tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
Pla
nn
ing
Org
an
iza
tio
n (
HR
TP
O)
Re
com
me
nd
ed
Tra
nsf
ers
- G
lou
cest
er
Co
un
ty
as
of
No
vem
be
r 2
01
3
Do
no
r
Pro
ject
UP
C
Do
no
r P
roje
ct
Juri
sdic
tio
nD
on
or
Pro
ject
De
scri
pti
on
Tra
nsf
er
Am
ou
nt
(fe
de
ral)
Tra
nsf
er
Am
ou
nt
(ma
tch
)
To
tal T
ran
sfe
r
Am
ou
nt
Fisc
al Y
ea
r (F
Y)
of
Re
com
me
nd
ed
Fun
ds
for
Tra
nsf
er
Re
cip
ien
t P
roje
ct
(UP
C #
)
Re
cip
ien
t P
roje
ct
Juri
sdic
tio
nR
eci
pie
nt
Pro
ject
De
scri
pti
on
VD
OT
- F
red
eri
cksb
urg
Dis
tric
t
Co
mm
en
tsH
RT
PO
Co
mm
en
ts
56
93
4G
lou
cest
er
Co
un
ty
Wid
en
ing
of
U.S
. R
te 1
7 A
t G
lou
cest
Po
int
$2
46
,01
4.0
0$
61
,50
4.0
0$
30
7,5
18
.00
Pre
vio
us
10
06
26
Glo
uce
ste
r C
ou
nty
Rte
17
Pe
de
stri
an
Im
pro
vem
en
ts
Re
com
me
nd
ap
pro
val o
f th
is t
ran
sfe
r a
s th
e
reci
pie
nt
pro
ject
wa
s o
rig
ina
lly in
ten
de
d t
o
be
incl
ud
ed
in t
he
Rte
17
Wid
en
ing
bu
t w
as
rem
ove
d d
ue
to
pu
blic
co
nce
rn r
eg
ard
ing
the
co
nst
ruct
ion
co
sts
10
06
25
Glo
uce
ste
r C
ou
nty
Bik
e/P
ed
Im
pro
vem
en
ts a
lon
g R
te 2
16
-
Gu
ine
a R
oa
d$
43
7,3
55
.00
$1
09
,33
9.0
0$
54
6,6
94
.00
Futu
re Y
ea
r(s)
10
06
26
Glo
uce
ste
r C
ou
nty
Rte
17
Pe
de
stri
an
Im
pro
vem
en
ts
Re
com
me
nd
ap
pro
val o
f th
is t
ran
sfe
r a
s w
e
are
re
qu
est
ing
to
sh
ift
fun
ds
wit
hin
th
e s
am
e
juri
sdic
tio
n f
rom
a lo
we
r p
rio
rity
to
a h
igh
er
pri
ori
ty -
do
es
no
t a
ffe
ct a
ny
oth
er
juri
sdic
tio
ns'
pro
ject
ba
lan
ces.
Fis
cal Y
ea
rs
are
sti
ll to
be
de
term
ine
d b
ase
d o
n o
utc
om
e
of
HR
TP
O p
rop
ose
d r
ed
istr
ibu
tio
ns
curr
en
tly
up
fo
r co
nsi
de
rati
on
To
tal
$8
54
,21
2.0
0
Cu
rre
nt
Est
ima
te o
n
UP
C 1
00
62
6$
1,1
74
,75
1
Cu
rre
nt
Allo
cati
on
s o
n
UP
C 1
00
62
6$
32
0,5
39
Pro
po
sed
Tra
nsf
er
$8
54
,21
2
Ne
w P
rop
ose
d T
ota
l
Allo
cati
on
s$
1,1
74
,75
1Fu
lly F
un
de
d
RS
TP
FU
ND
S
CM
AQ
FU
ND
S
*P
lan
ne
d A
dve
rtis
em
en
t D
ate
fo
r U
PC
10
06
26
is J
un
e 2
01
3
Attachment 7-A
RSTP | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Intermodal Transportation Projects | 1
REGIONALSURFACETRANSPORTATIONPROGRAM(RSTP)HRTPOPROJECTSELECTIONPROCESS
CANDIDATEPROJECTAPPLICATION:INTERMODALTRANSPORTATIONPROJECTS
Locality/Agency: Gloucester County
Project Name: Rte 17 Pedestrian Improvements
UPC #: 100626 (if available) Date: 11/6/2013
Primary Contact: Anne Ducey‐Ortiz Phone: 804‐693‐1224
E‐Mail: [email protected]
Secondary Contact: Jason Robinson Phone: 540‐372‐3597
E‐Mail: [email protected]
Project Location:
(Please provide a detailed description of the location of the project. If possible, please also attach a map to your
application.)
This project is located in the Gloucester Point area of Gloucester in close proximity of the Coleman
Bridge on U.S. Rte 17. The project will start close to the northern termini of the Coleman Bridge and
extend approximately 0.66 miles north to the intersection of Farmwood Route and Rte 17. See attached
map.
Description of Project:
(Please provide a brief description of the scope of the project.)
This project will retrofit pedestrian improvements into the completed Rte 17 Widening and Raised
Median project at Gloucester Point which was constructed/completed under VDOT UPC 56934. (also
see attached information pertaining to UPC 56934)
Project Need:
(Please provide the need for and benefit to be derived from the project, including the impact on air quality.)
The need from this project is to provide pedestrian accomodations for the citizens of Gloucester County,
especially those in the Gloucester Point designated village area to safely access businesses and County
resources without utilizing motorized transportation. Originally, pedestrian improvements were part of
the scope for the Rte 17 Widening project under UPC 56934 but were removed due to cost concerns.
Under UPC 56934, handicap accessible ramps were installed at all cross streets and intersections within
the project limits for that project. (also see attached information pertaining to UPC 56934).
Attachment 7-A
RSTP | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Intermodal Transportation Projects | 2
Locality/Agency: Gloucester County RSTP Project Name: Rte 17 Pedestrian Improvements
Is this a new project? Yes No
Is this project consistent with the Long‐Range Transportation Plan? Yes No
Has this project been considered for RSTP funding in the past? Yes No
Estimated Start Date: 3/29/2012 Estimated Completion Date: 6/10/2015
Overall Project Cost: $1174751.00
Total Funding Request: $307518.00
What year are you requesting initial funding: FY2014
Please specify the funding request by fiscal year:
Phase Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total
PE $ $ $ $ $ $ $
RW $13132 $ $ $ $ $ $
CN $294386 $ $ $ $ $ $
Total $307518 $ $ $ $ $ $
Attachment 7-A
RSTP | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Intermodal Transportation Projects | 3
Locality/Agency: Gloucester County RSTP Project Name: Rte 17 Pedestrian Improvements
Yes No Will this project establish opportunities for linkages or connections between
transportation modes, existing corridors, or centers?
If "yes", explain:
This project will provide for the installation of sidewalks on Rte 17 in the Gloucester
Point designated village area of Gloucester County allowing for both bike/ped access to several
businesses and county amenities in this area including the Gloucester Point Beach and boat
landing..
Yes No Will this project improve intermodal movements?
If "yes", explain:
This project will provide for the installation of sidewalks on Rte 17 in the Gloucester
Point village area of Gloucester County thereby creating opportunities for safe active
transportation as part of the existing tansportation network. Currently, the area does not have a
connected network of sidewalks and the only safe mode of transportation provided is for motor
vehicles.
Yes No Will this project improve rail access to freight distribution facilities, ports, or major
cities?
If "yes", explain:
Yes No Will this project improve vehicular access to freight distribution facilities, ports, or major
clients?
If "yes", explain:
Yes No Do you have detailed design and cost estimates?
If "yes", explain:
See attached email from VDOT ‐ Fredericksburg District staff.
Yes No Is there community support for the project? If "yes", explain:
Through a grant from VDOT as part of the Urban Development Area requirments in the
State Code, the County developed a sub‐area plan for Gloucester Point and Hayes. There was
substantial community input and support for the plan which indentifies the need for increased
connectivity and alternative transportation options in the Gloucester Point/Hayes area. A copy
of the plan which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 18, 2011 can be found
on the County's website:
(http://gloucesterva.info/Planning/CommunityPlanningInitiativesandProjects/tabid/578
/Default.aspx.
Attachment 7-A
RSTP | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Intermodal Transportation Projects | 4
Yes No Do you have all necessary local, state, and federal permits and approvals?
If "yes", explain:
This is an approved project in the VDOT Six Year Improvement Program and is currently
partially funded with CMAQ funds. This project is currently in the detailed design phase
and has received all appropriate permits and approvals to date. Copies of such are
available upon request. They are currently housed in the internal VDOT Intergrated
Project Manager database.
Attachment 7-A
Attachment 7-A
Attachment 7-A
HAMPTONROADSCMAQ/RSTPPROJECTSELECTIONPROCESS
OUTOFCYCLEFUNDINGREQUESTEVALUATIONFORM(AttachrequestletterandCMAQand/orRSTPCandidateProjectApplicationform)
DateofEvaluation:11/13/2013Locality/Agency: Regional(HRTOSubcommittee)ProjectName: HamptonRoadsTransportationOperationsStrategicPlanUPCNumber: NAFundingProgram: RSTP1. Istheprojecteligibleperfederalregulations?Yes
Notes:
2. IstheprojectconsistentwiththecurrentLong‐RangeTransportationPlan?YesNotes:
3. Aretherespecialcircumstancesassociatedwiththisproject?YesNotes: Current regional operations plan is nearly 10 years old; recent FHWAassessment, "Hampton Roads Regional Traffic Signal Review", suggests that regionalbenefitscanbegainedfromallocatingfunds,atleastinpart,usingaregionalplanthatconsidersinteractionbetweenindividualprojects.
4. Istheprojectofregionalsignificance?YesNotes:
5. Istherefundingavailableforthisrequest?YesNotes: The request is for $400,000 and there is currently $436,090 in pre‐2014RSTPreserveavailable.
6. IsthisrequestconsistentwiththeprioritiesoftheHRTPOandCTB?YesNotes:
HRTPOStaffNotes
Thisprojectappearstomeetthealloftheoutofcyclecriteria.
Attachment 7-B
DATE: 10‐11‐13TO: MikeKimbrelBY: DanielRydzewski–HRTOChair;andFrankHickman–HRTOViceChairRE: HamptonRoadsTransportationOperationsStrategicPlanWiththismemo—onbehalfoftheHamptonRoadsTransportationOperations(HRTO)subcommitteeofTTAC—Iamrequesting$400,000(ofthe$420,000inpre‐FY14RSTPreservefunds)foraHamptonRoadsTransportationOperationsStrategicPlan.In1995,VDOTandtheHRTPO,usingtheaidofaconsultant,developedanIntelligentTransportationSystems(ITS)strategicplanforHamptonRoadsentitledCOMPAREHamptonRoads,ITSStrategicDeploymentPlan.TheMPO’sITSCommitteeoversawthedevelopmentofanupdatetothestrategicplanin2000andthedevelopmentofanewstrategicplanin2004.(TheITScommitteewasrenamed“HRTO”in2009.)Thecurrentplanisalmost10yearsold.In2013,attherequestofHRTOandTTAC,FHWAconductedanassessmentofthetrafficsignaloperationsofVDOTandlocalcities.IntheSeptember2013draftreport,FHWAincludedthefollowingasoneofits13observationsandrecommendations:“CMAQprojectfundshavebeendistributed…withoutfollowingaregional[operations]plan….”
Inlightof:
1. therecentFHWArecommendationthatthedistributionoffundstosignalsystemswouldbeimprovedwithreferencetoaregionalplan
2. thefactthattheregion’soperationsplanisalmost10yearsold3. “studiesthatfalloutsidespecificprojectdevelopmentdonotqualifyforCMAQfunding”(re
CMAQ“ProjectEligibility:GeneralConditions”)4. thereis$420,000availableinpre‐FY14RSTPreservefunds
OnbehalfoftheHRTOsubcommittee,IamrequestingthattheTPSrecommendtoTTACandtheHRTPOBoardthat$400,000inpre‐FY14RSTPfundsbeallocatedtothedevelopmentofanewHamptonRoadsTransportationOperationsStrategicPlan.Ifsuccessful,itisexpectedthatHRTPOstaff—withtheaidofanadhoccommitteeofHRTOmemberscomprisedofonerepresentativefromVDOTandoneormorerepresentativesfromlocalgovernment—willprocuretheservicesofaconsultanttoperformthedetailedworkofpreparinganoperationsstrategicplanforHamptonRoads.
Attachment 7-B
RSTP | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Planning Studies | 1
REGIONALSURFACETRANSPORTATIONPROGRAM(RSTP)HRTPOPROJECTSELECTIONPROCESS
CANDIDATEPROJECTAPPLICATION:PLANNINGSTUDIES
Locality/Agency: HRTPO (on behalf of HRTO)
Project Name: Hampton Roads Transportation Operations Strategic Plan
UPC #: n.a. (if available) Date: 10/11/2013
Primary Contact: Rob Case Phone: 420‐8300
E‐Mail: [email protected]
Secondary Contact: Sam Belfield, Keith Nichols Phone: 420‐8300
E‐Mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Project Location:
(Please provide a detailed description of the location of the project. If possible, please also attach a map to your
application.)
Hampton Roads (MPO Study Area)
Description of Project:
(Please provide a brief description of the scope of the project.)
A Regional Transportation Operations Strategic Plan to guide the HRTPO in allocating RSTP and CMAQ
funds to transportation operations projects for the Hampton Roads cities; in order to uniformally
achieve the most efficient use of 'limited' funding.
Project Need:
(Please provide the need for and benefit to be derived from the project, including the impact on air quality.)
Although the HRTPO Board has funded cost‐effective operations projects in the past, the allocation has
been made based on the merits of the individual projects, and not necessarily based on the completion
of complementary projects from a regional plan. For example, 1) Newport News' Citywide Signal Timing
project ranked third in cost effectiveness in the 2011 allocation of CMAQ funds ("CMAQ/RSTP Projects
and Allocations‐ 2011, HRTPO, Jan. 2012, p. 24), and 2) Suffolk's Traffic Operations Center ranked first in
RSTP scores for ITS projects ("CMAQ/RSTP Projects and Allocations‐ 2011, HRTPO, Jan. 2012, p. 30). Yet
FHWA's recent "Hampton Roads Regional Traffic Signal Review (draft, Sept. 2013) found that "CMAQ
project funds have been distributed…without a regional plan…." (The region's current operations
strategic plan ("ITS Strategic Plan", April 2004) is almost 10 years old.) Regional benefits can be gained
from allocating funds, at least in part, using a regional plan that considers the interaction between
individual projects, e.g. a signal project in city A and a signal project in city B. Secondly, over the last 10
years technologies and their applications to provide transportation operations solutions have greatly
evolved and need to be incorporated into how we achieve our RSTP and CMAQ goals.
In addition, there is likely merit to create collective (Regional) projects that involve the city‐owned
infrastructure of several cities. For example, 1) local cities currently wish to implement a region‐wide
Attachment 7-B
RSTP | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Planning Studies | 2
Opticom coding system to eliminate abuse of signal pre‐emption, but they are having difficulty finding
an operations agency to oversee the project, and 2) local cities currently desire to provide their traffic
video feeds to the public directly or through VDOT's 511 Program, but they are having difficulty finding
an affordable means of doing so. The proposed regional planning process would include the search for
solutions to the inherent problems of implementing collective projects.
It should be noted that ‐ because VDOT is currently preparing its own operations strategic plan ‐ this
plan is intended to complement, not replace VDOT planning.
In summary, a Regional Transportation Operations Strategic Plan to address transportation operational
needs could guide the HRTPO Board in both: the effective funding of complementary projects in
individual cities; and the effective funding of collective projects that address the needs of multiple cities
and the Hampton Roads Region.
Attachment 7-B
RSTP | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Planning Studies | 3
Locality/Agency: HRTPO (on behalf of HRTO) RSTP Project Name: Hampton Roads Transportation Operations Strategic Plan
Is this a new project? Yes No
Is this project consistent with the Long‐Range Transportation Plan? Yes No
Has this project been considered for RSTP funding in the past? Yes No
Estimated Start Date: 4/1/2014 Estimated Completion Date: 3/30/2015
Overall Project Cost: $400000.00
Total Funding Request: $400000.00
What year are you requesting initial funding: pre fy14
Please specify the funding request by fiscal year:
Phase Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total
PE $200000 $200000 $ $ $ $ $
RW $ $ $ $ $ $ $
CN $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Total $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Attachment 7-B
RSTP | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Planning Studies | 4
Locality/Agency: HRTPO (on behalf of HRTO) RSTP Project Name: Hampton Roads Transportation Operations Strategic Plan
Yes No Is the study necessary to address a major issue or to revise the Regional Transportation
Plan?
Yes No Is the study necessary to address a safety issue?
Yes No Is the study concerned with encouraging multimodal transportation?
Yes No Will the study address the mobility or accessibility needs of the region?
Yes No Is the study well defined in terms of purpose, design concept, and scope?
Yes No Do the goals and objectives of the study show support for economic development?
Yes No Do the goals and objectives of the study demonstrate preservation or protection of the
environment?
Please describe the purpose, scope, and/or any detail related to the proposed study:
(see above)
Attachment 7-B
HAMPTONROADSCMAQ/RSTPPROJECTSELECTIONPROCESS
OUTOFCYCLEFUNDINGREQUESTEVALUATIONFORM(AttachrequestletterandCMAQand/orRSTPCandidateProjectApplicationform)
DateofEvaluation:11/13/2013Locality/Agency: JamesCityCountyProjectName: LonghillRoadWideningUPCNumber: 100921FundingProgram: RSTP1. Istheprojecteligibleperfederalregulations?Yes
Notes:
2. IstheprojectconsistentwiththecurrentLong‐RangeTransportationPlan?NoNotes: ALonghillRoadCorridorStudy(UPC98811)isincludedintheLRTP,butnota constructionproject. A request to add the constructionproject to the LRTPwouldneed to include a funding plan showing how the project would be funded throughconstruction.UPC100921isnotincludedinthecurrentSYIPorTIP.
3. Aretherespecialcircumstancesassociatedwiththisproject?UnsureNotes: NospecialcircumstancesmentionedintheCounty'srequest.
4. Istheprojectofregionalsignificance?NoNotes: ThissectionofroadisFunctionallyClassifiedasaMinorCollector.
5. Istherefundingavailableforthisrequest?UnsureNotes: The total project cost is $11.8M, but the County's submittal states "RSTPfundingisnotbeingrequestedatthistime;howevertheCountyintendstopursueRSTPfundinginthefuture."
6. IsthisrequestconsistentwiththeprioritiesoftheHRTPOandCTB?YesNotes:
HRTPOStaffNotes
ThereareissuesregardingconsistencywiththeLRTP.TheCountywouldneedtoshowhow the project could be fully funded, including any proposed RSTP transfers orallocations.SincetheCountyisnotmakingafundingrequestatthistimeandaregularProjectSelectionProcess(PSP)cycleisplannedtooccurduringcalendaryear2014,itmaybeprudenttotablethisrequestandhaveitsubmittedduringtheregularPSPcycle.IftheregularPSPcyclecannotbecarriedoutforsomereason,theTPScouldreconsiderthisoutofcyclerequest.
Attachment 7-C
James “ Development Management
ci101-A Mounts Ba} Road
P.O. Box 8784CountyWilt iamsbure. VA 23187-8784
P 757-253-6671Jamtown F. 757-253-6822
dcveIopment.mananagementjamescitycounty’.’a.gov
iamescitycountyva.gov
Building Safety and Permits Engineering and Resource Protection Planning Zoning Enforcement757-253-6626 757-253-6670 757-253-6685 757-253-6671
October 28, 2013
Dwight L. Farmer, P.E.Executive DirectorHampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization723 Woodlake DriveChesapeake, VA 23320
RE: RSTP “Out of Cycle” Request
Dear Mr. Farmer:
James City County requests that UPC 100921 Longhill Road Widening be considered as an RSTP project.Attached is an RSTP application for the project. RSTP funding is not being requested at this time; however, theCounty intends to pursue RSTP funding in the future.
Thank you in advance for your consideration. Should you have any questions or need additional information,please contact Paul Holt or Tammy Rosario at 757-253-6685.
Sincerely,
Allen . Murphy, Jr.Director of Development Management
A.JMIbk
cc: (Via Electronic Mail)Robert Middaugh, County Administrator, James City CountyCamelia Ravanhakht, Ph.D., Deputy Executive Director, HRTP()Michael Kimbrel, Principal Transportation Engineer, HRTPOAngela Rico, ETT, District Program Manager, VDOTPaul Holt, Planning Director, James City County
1P age
Attachment 7-C
HAMPTON ROADS CMAO/RSTP PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS
RSTP CANDIDATE PROJECT APPLICATION
To be considered for RSTP funding, a proposed project must be included in the current Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Data necessary for evaluating the project must besubmitted for each candidate project. Filling out the appropriate sections of this applicationwill insure that the necessary data are submitted. One application should be filled out foreach project being proposed for RSTP funding.
Form A must be filled out for each project. At the end of Form A, you will indicate the RSTPProject Type that best fits your proposed project. Depending upon the RSTP Project Typeselected, you will be directed to fill out one of the following forms: Form B, Form C, Form D,Form E, Form F, or Form G. If you select the “Other” category, please contact HRTPO stafffor input data requirements.
RSTP FORM-A
Locality/Agency: James City County Date: 10/28/2013
Prepared By: Allen MurDhv Phone: (757)253-6671
E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (757)253-6822
UPC#: 100921
Project Name: Longhill Road Widening
Project Location:Longhill Rd from Route 199 to Olde Towne Road (see attachment 1)
Project Description:
This project address an immediate need for capacity improvements an 0.66 mile segmentbetween Route 199 and Olde Towne Road (Rt. 658) by widening the road to four lanes withpedestrian accommodations as recommended by the Corridor Study. This section of thecorridor exceeds 16,000 trips per day and operates at a peak hour Level of Service F. Thisproject is the County’s first priority in its FY 2013-2018 SSYP
(Brief description of project. If applicable, include additional data or maps as attachments.)
Is this a new project? No
Is this project included in the Regional Transportation Plan? Yes - as a Corridor Study
under UPC 98811
Estimated Start Date: 7/1/2014
Estimated Completion Date: 10/15/2021
fiMProN RoAI
TPoPL6$,MNO O%O*MWA)7Otf
Revised July 2009 Page 1 of 10Attachment 7-C
RSTP FORM-A (Continued)
TPO.,tAtJMPOftr,,TfCW PLS,dN,NO O,’MN,ZøTfOfl
Revised July 2009
Need for and Benefit to be Derived from Project: (Probable impact on air quality)The project segment of this two lane facility exceeds 16,000 ADT. James City County proposesto widen the facility to four lanes with a center median with a multi-use trail on the east side.Added capacity would reduce the likelihood of grid lock conditions. Reduced stop-and-go trafficwould have a favorable impact on air quality. Widening this section of Longhill Road is the firstphase of increasing the capacity of the entire corridor. The Hampton Roads 2034 Long RangePlan rates current and future congestion on Longhill Road as ‘severe.’
Project Cost and Funding:
Total Project Cost: $ 11,800,000
Indicate Requested RSTP Funding Per Fiscal Year Below:
Fiscal Year 1: Year:________ Requested RSTP Amount: $
_____________
Fiscal Year 2: Year:________ Requested RSTP Amount: $
_____________
Fiscal Year 3: Year:________ Requested RSTP Amount: $
_____________
Fiscal Year 4: Year:________ Requested RSTP Amount: $
_____________
Fiscal Year 5: Year:________ Requested RSTP Amount: $
_____________
Fiscal Year 6: Year:________ Requested RSTP Amount: $
RSTP Project Type(Please check ONE below and then use the associated form to complete your application)
LILILILILILILILI
Highway Project
Intermodal Transportation Project
Transit Service (New, Expanded, Facilities)
Transit Vehicle ReplacementlPurchase
Transit ITS
Planning Study
Transportation Demand Management
Intelligent Transportation System
Other
USE FORM-B
USE FORM-C
USE FORM-D, Section 1
USE FORM-D, Section 2
USE FORM-D, Section 3
USE FORM-E
USE FORM-F
USE FORM-G
Contact HRTPO Staff for Input Data Requirements
Page 2 of 10Attachment 7-C
RSTP FORM-B
HIGHWAY PROJECTS
1. Traffic Count Data:
“Current” ADT (vpd): 20,000 “Current” Year: 2007
“Current Peak Hour Traffic (vph): 1,369 “Current” LOS: F
Forecasted ADT (vpd): 34,249 Forecast Year: 2035
Forecasted Peak Hour Traffic (vph): 2,397 Forecasted LOS: F
2. Length of Project Section (miles): 0.68
3. Functional Classification of Project Section: Minor Collector
4. Peak Hour Average Speed in Project Section:
AM Peak (mph): 25 PM Peak (mph): 25.
5. Total accidents in project section over the last three years: 61
6. Will this project improve safety? Yes
If “yes,” explain:As the first phase of increasing the capacity of Longhill Road, this project would decrease theinstances of grid-lock. Increasing capacity would reduce the frequency of grid-lock and anydelays for emergency vehicles traveling the corridor.
7. Will this project improve system continuity? Yes
If “yes,” explain:As this section of Longhill Road is a source of significant congestion, any reduction in delayfrom the proposed road widening would improve continuity.
8. Will this project help improve air quality? Yes
If “yes,” explain (quantify the impacts on VOC and NOx):Emission rates are higher during frequent stop-and-go traffic compared to free flow conditions.This proposal would help provide conditions closer to free flow and reduce pollution associatedwith grid-lock conditions.
9. Project Readiness:
Do you have a detailed design and cost estimates? No
Is there community support for the project? Yes
10. Sponsor Readiness:
Do you have all necessary local, state, and federal permits and approvals? No_________
11. Is this a Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement project? No
If “yes”, what is the Bridge Condition per the VDOT Sufficiency Index? N/A
•!ipr, RcDs
TPO‘nc,,poa rAnCH P..,1t4M4 AcMMz.anO.c
Revised July 2009 Page 3 of 10Attachment 7-C
r-j
Attachment 7-C
HAMPTONROADSCMAQ/RSTPPROJECTSELECTIONPROCESS
OUTOFCYCLEFUNDINGREQUESTEVALUATIONFORM(AttachrequestletterandCMAQand/orRSTPCandidateProjectApplicationform)
DateofEvaluation:11/13/2013Locality/Agency: VirginiaBeachProjectName: ElbowRoadExtended‐PhaseIIUPCNumber: 15828FundingProgram: RSTP1. Istheprojecteligibleperfederalregulations?Yes
Notes:
2. IstheprojectconsistentwiththecurrentLong‐RangeTransportationPlan?YesNotes:
3. Aretherespecialcircumstancesassociatedwiththisproject?UnsureNotes: NospecialcircumstancesmentionedintheCity'srequest.
4. Istheprojectofregionalsignificance?UnsureNotes: Functionally classified as a Collector, but improvements would potentiallyprovide relief to sections of Princess AnneRd, IndependenceBlvd, LynnhavenPkwy,andNorthLandingRd.
5. Istherefundingavailableforthisrequest?UnsureNotes: Thetotalprojectcostisapproximately$70.3M,buttheCity'ssubmittalstates"Wearenotrequesting funding for theseprojects,at this time,howeverwe intendtopursueRSTPfundinginthefuture."
6. IsthisrequestconsistentwiththeprioritiesoftheHRTPOandCTB?YesNotes:
HRTPOStaffNotes
Since the City is not making a funding request at this time and a regular ProjectSelectionProcess(PSP)cycleisplannedtooccurduringcalendaryear2014,itmaybeprudenttotablethisrequestandhaveitsubmittedduringtheregularPSPcycle.IftheregularPSPcyclecannotbecarriedoutforsomereason,theTPScouldreconsiderthisoutofcyclerequest.
Attachment 7-D
HAMPTONROADSCMAQ/RSTPPROJECTSELECTIONPROCESS
OUTOFCYCLEFUNDINGREQUESTEVALUATIONFORM(AttachrequestletterandCMAQand/orRSTPCandidateProjectApplicationform)
DateofEvaluation:11/13/2013Locality/Agency: VirginiaBeachProjectName: IndianRiverRoad‐PhaseVIIUPCNumber: 15829FundingProgram: RSTP1. Istheprojecteligibleperfederalregulations?Yes
Notes:
2. IstheprojectconsistentwiththecurrentLong‐RangeTransportationPlan?YesNotes:
3. Aretherespecialcircumstancesassociatedwiththisproject?UnsureNotes: NospecialcircumstancesmentionedintheCity'srequest.
4. Istheprojectofregionalsignificance?UnsureNotes: FunctionallyclassifiedasaMinorSuburban.ThesectioncurrentlyoperatesatLOSCandisexpectedtodiminishtoLOSDby2033.
5. Istherefundingavailableforthisrequest?UnsureNotes: Thetotalprojectcostisapproximately$89M,buttheCity'ssubmittalstates"Wearenotrequesting funding for theseprojects,at this time,howeverwe intendtopursueRSTPfundinginthefuture."
6. IsthisrequestconsistentwiththeprioritiesoftheHRTPOandCTB?YesNotes:
HRTPOStaffNotes
Since the City is not making a funding request at this time and a regular ProjectSelectionProcess(PSP)cycleisplannedtooccurduringcalendaryear2014,itmaybeprudenttotablethisrequestandhaveitsubmittedduringtheregularPSPcycle.IftheregularPSPcyclecannotbecarriedoutforsomereason,theTPScouldreconsiderthisoutofcyclerequest.
Attachment 7-D
Attachment 7-D
RSTP | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Highway Projects | 1
REGIONALSURFACETRANSPORTATIONPROGRAM(RSTP)HRTPOPROJECTSELECTIONPROCESS
CANDIDATEPROJECTAPPLICATION:HIGHWAYPROJECTS
Locality/Agency: City of Virginia Beach
Project Name: Elbow Road Extended ‐ Phase II
UPC #: 15828 (if available) Date: 10/8/2013
Primary Contact: Tonia Alger Phone: (757) 385‐4131
E‐Mail: [email protected]
Secondary Contact: Ryan Johnson Phone: (757) 385‐4131
E‐Mail: [email protected]
Project Location:
(Please provide a detailed description of the location of the project. If possible, please also attach a map to your
application.)
The project entails improving Elbow Road from Indian River Road to Dam Neck Road, a length of
approximately 3 miles. The project area is located in the western part of Virginia Beach within the
Centerville and Princess Anne Districts. A map is provided to show the location of the project.
Description of Project:
(Please provide a brief description of the scope of the project.)
The proposed project is for improving Elbow Road from a two‐lane roadway to a four‐lane divided
highway within a 125 foot right‐of‐way. The project will include a sidewalk, multi‐use path, landscaping,
and aesthetic features. The project will also include replacement of the existing sub‐standard Elbow
Road Bridge.
Project Need:
(Please provide the need for and benefit to be derived from the project, including the impact on air quality.)
This project will provide an alternative route for traffic in the area currently using Princess Anne Road,
Independence Boulevard, Lynnhaven Parkway, and North Landing Road. Traffic volumes are
approximately 11,500 vehicles per day and are anticipated to reach 20,000 vehicles per day by the year
2034. Without this project, traffic will overcrowd nearby roads such as Lynnhaven Parkway and Princess
Anne Road. This project will also help serve the Amphitheater and surrounding Princess Anne Commons
venues. The current level of service for this roadway is an F. This project will provide widening of the
roadway and increase capacity for this roadway segment. The increase in capacity will improve the level
of service and reduce congestion and emissions along this corridor.
Attachment 7-D
RSTP | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Highway Projects | 2
Locality/Agency: City of Virginia Beach RSTP Project Name: Elbow Road Extended ‐ Phase II
Is this a new project? Yes No
Is this project consistent with the Long‐Range Transportation Plan? Yes No
Has this project been considered for RSTP funding in the past? Yes No
Estimated Start Date: 7/1/2017 Estimated Completion Date: 7/1/2020
Overall Project Cost: $70266398.00
Total Funding Request: $N/A
What year are you requesting initial funding: N/A
Please specify the funding request by fiscal year:
Phase Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total
PE $ $ $ $ $ $ $
RW $ $ $ $ $ $ $
CN $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Total $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Attachment 7-D
RSTP | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Highway Projects | 3
Locality/Agency: City of Virginia Beach RSTP Project Name: Elbow Road Extended ‐ Phase II
11513 "Current" ADT (vpd)
2013 "Current" Year
684 "Current" Peak Hour Traffic (vph)
F "Current" LOS
18847 Forecasted ADT (vpd)
2033 Forecast Year
1200 Forecasted Peak Hour Traffic (vph)
F Forecasted LOS
3 Length of Project Section (miles)
Collector Functional Classification of Project Section
45 AM Peak Hour Average Speed in Project Section (mph)
44 PM Peak Hour Average Speed in Project Section (mph)
96 Total accidents in project section over the last three years
Yes No Will this project improve safety?
If "yes", explain:
Over the last three years there has been a total 96 accidents within the project section.
The existing roadway is a two‐lane undivided highway with no shoulders and ditches in close
proximity to the roadway. As a result, run‐off road crashes are common along the roadway. The
widening of the roadway will help to reduce the number of run‐off road crashes. The addition of
a median and geometric improvements to straighten the roadway alignment will reduce the risk
of sideswipe and head‐on crashes.
Yes No Will this project improve system continuity?
If "yes", explain:
The improvements made as a result of this project will provide a viable alternate route
to several nearby roads, thus improving system continuity, connectivity, and traffic flow. This
project will allow Elbow Road to take on traffic from surrounding roadways such as Princess
Anne Road, Independence Boulevard, Lynnhaven Parkway, and North Landing Road.
Yes No Will this project help improve air quality?
If "yes", explain:
Currently, the project roadway operates at a level of service F. This level of service
contributes to congestion along Elbow Road as well as the surrounding roadways. An increase in
Attachment 7-D
RSTP | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Highway Projects | 4
the capacity of Elbow Road will improve traffic flow along the corridor. This will help to
eliminate congestion along surrounding roadways, in addition to Elbow Road, resulting in a
reduction in emissions and improved air quality.
Yes No Do you have detailed design and cost estimates?
Yes No Is there community support for the project?
Yes No Do you have all necessary local, state, and federal permits and approvals?
Yes No Is this a Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement Project?
If "yes", what is the Bridge Condition per the VDOT Sufficiency Index?
64.1
Attachment 7-D
Elbo
w R
oad
Exte
nded
- Ph
ase
IIPr
ojec
t Loc
atio
n M
ap
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
Legend
North
Attachment 7-D
RSTP | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Highway Projects | 1
REGIONALSURFACETRANSPORTATIONPROGRAM(RSTP)HRTPOPROJECTSELECTIONPROCESS
CANDIDATEPROJECTAPPLICATION:HIGHWAYPROJECTS
Locality/Agency: City of Virginia Beach
Project Name: Indian River Road ‐ Phase VII
UPC #: 15829 (if available) Date: 10/7/2013
Primary Contact: Tonia Alger Phone: (757) 385‐4131
E‐Mail: [email protected]
Secondary Contact: Ryan Johnson Phone: (757) 385‐4131
E‐Mail: [email protected]
Project Location:
(Please provide a detailed description of the location of the project. If possible, please also attach a map to your
application.)
This project entails improving Indian River Road from Lynnhaven Parkway to Elbow Road Extended, a
distance of approximately 2.2 miles. The project area is located in the western part of Virginia Beach
within the Centerville District. A map is provided to show the location of the project.
Description of Project:
(Please provide a brief description of the scope of the project.)
This project will provide for the construction of a four‐lane divided arterial highway from Lynnhaven
Parkway to Elbow Road Extended. The project will also include a multi‐use path on both sides of the
road and variable width landscape buffers used to enhance aesthetics.
Project Need:
(Please provide the need for and benefit to be derived from the project, including the impact on air quality.)
The existing Indian River Road is a two‐lane rural road. It is currently experiencing traffic volumes of
12,477 vehicles per day and has a projected volume of 22,000 vehicles per day by the year 2034.
Without this project, an important corridor will remain saturated. The roadway has a current level of
serivce of C. However, this is expected to diminish and by the year 2033 the roadway will be at level of
service D. Improvements in capacity along Indian River Road will be needed in order to achieve an
acceptable level of service and minimize the potential burden a failing road may have on the
surrounding corridors. Improved level of service along the corridor will also result in a reduction of
emissions due to improved traffic flow.
Attachment 7-D
RSTP | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Highway Projects | 2
Locality/Agency: City of Virginia Beach RSTP Project Name: Indian River Road ‐ Phase VII
Is this a new project? Yes No
Is this project consistent with the Long‐Range Transportation Plan? Yes No
Has this project been considered for RSTP funding in the past? Yes No
Estimated Start Date: 1/1/2025 Estimated Completion Date: 1/1/2027
Overall Project Cost: $89070517.00
Total Funding Request: $N/A
What year are you requesting initial funding: N/A
Please specify the funding request by fiscal year:
Phase Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total
PE $ $ $ $ $ $ $
RW $ $ $ $ $ $ $
CN $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Total $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Attachment 7-D
RSTP | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Highway Projects | 3
Locality/Agency: City of Virginia Beach RSTP Project Name: Indian River Road ‐ Phase VII
12477 "Current" ADT (vpd)
2013 "Current" Year
876 "Current" Peak Hour Traffic (vph)
C "Current" LOS
20420 Forecasted ADT (vpd)
2033 Forecast Year
1300 Forecasted Peak Hour Traffic (vph)
D Forecasted LOS
2.2 Length of Project Section (miles)
Minor Suburban Functional Classification of Project Section
50 AM Peak Hour Average Speed in Project Section (mph)
51 PM Peak Hour Average Speed in Project Section (mph)
46 Total accidents in project section over the last three years
Yes No Will this project improve safety?
If "yes", explain:
Over the last three years there has been a total 46 accidents within the project section.
The existing roadway is a two‐lane undivided highway. The most common types of accidents
along the roadway are run off road and rear‐end collisions . The widening of the roadway will
help to reduce the number of run off road crashes and rear‐end collisions resulting from lack of
turn lanes. The addition of a median will reduce the risk of sideswipe and head‐on crashes.
Yes No Will this project improve system continuity?
If "yes", explain:
The propsed improvements will provide a viable alternate route to several nearby roads,
thus improving system continuity, connectivity, and traffic flow. This project will allow Indian
River Road to take on traffic from surrounding roadways and contribute to a better connected
transportation system in the area.
Yes No Will this project help improve air quality?
If "yes", explain:
An increase in the capacity of Indian River Road will improve traffic flow along the
corridor. This will help to eliminate congestion along surrounding roadways, in addition to
Indian River Road, resulting in a reduction in emissions and improved air quality.
Attachment 7-D
RSTP | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Highway Projects | 4
Yes No Do you have detailed design and cost estimates?
Yes No Is there community support for the project?
Yes No Do you have all necessary local, state, and federal permits and approvals?
Yes No Is this a Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement Project?
If "yes", what is the Bridge Condition per the VDOT Sufficiency Index?
Attachment 7-D
Indi
an R
iver
Roa
d - P
hase
VII
Proj
ect L
ocat
ion
Map
Legend
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
North
Attachment 7-D
Indian River Road - Phase VIIProject Location Map
Attachment 7-D
HAMPTONROADSCMAQ/RSTPPROJECTSELECTIONPROCESS
OUTOFCYCLEFUNDINGREQUESTEVALUATIONFORM(AttachrequestletterandCMAQand/orRSTPCandidateProjectApplicationform)
DateofEvaluation:11/13/2013Locality/Agency: VDOTProjectName: Engine&DriveSystemReplacementofFerryBoatPocahontasUPCNumber: NAFundingProgram: CMAQRSTP1. Istheprojecteligibleperfederalregulations?Yes
Notes:
2. IstheprojectconsistentwiththecurrentLong‐RangeTransportationPlan?YesNotes:
3. Aretherespecialcircumstancesassociatedwiththisproject?YesNotes: Existingenginesanddrivesystemsarenotsupportedbymanfactureranditis becoming increasingly difficult to find parts. They require more frequentmaintenanceandarebecomingmoreexpensivetomaintain.
4. Istheprojectofregionalsignificance?YesNotes: The Jamestown‐ScotlandFerry systemprovides an important linkbetweenSurryCountyand JamesCityCounty/Williamsburg. If the ferry system is completelydown,alternaterivercrossingsinvolvea65miledetour.
5. Istherefundingavailableforthisrequest?NoNotes: The totalproject cost is$6.7M,and theVDOTapplicationrequests that fullamount($3.4MinFY15and$3.3MinFY16).
6. IsthisrequestconsistentwiththeprioritiesoftheHRTPOandCTB?NoNotes: Maintenanceofstateferryboatsshouldbecoveredbythestate.
HRTPOStaffNotes
TheonlysignificantfundingpotentiallyavailablepriortoFY20isapproximately$2.5Minpre‐2014CMAQand$436K inpre‐2014RSTP. ThecurrentHRTPOstaffallocationstrategycallsforusingthe$2.5Minpre‐2014CMAQtohelpreplacefundingonprojectsthathadfundingremovedwhentheCMAQmarkswerereducedearlierthisyear.
Attachment 7-E
Attachment 7-E
Jamestown‐Scotland Ferry Background Information
This document is to provide background information for the Jamestown‐Scotland Ferry Boat operation located in the Hampton Roads District. This information is to be used for consideration of the District’s request to fund the expense of replacing 2 existing engines and 2 existing propulsion units with new ones.
The Jamestown‐Scotland Ferry provides vehicle and pedestrian ferry services across the James River connecting two portions of Virginia State Route 31. The ferry provides the only direct access across the river for rural Surry County residents seeking medical, shopping, employment and entertainment venues in James City County/Williamsburg. In addition it provides access for James City County/Williamsburg residents to historical sites and the Surry Nuclear Power plant. This ferry service provides an economical, efficient and critical link between southern Virginia/North Carolina and employment centers, the historical sites and theme parks on the Virginia Peninsula (Williamsburg, Yorktown, and Busch Gardens). Alternative river crossings (the James River Bridge and Benjamin Harrison Bridge) involve 65 mile detours on two lane primary roads. Williamsburg Area Transit buses use the ferry to link service between Surry County and James City County/Williamsburg. It has an ADT of 2,710 vehicles with peaks of up to 4560 vehicles per day on summer weekends.
Traffic demand grew annually from 1999 through 2007. It has neared and/or exceeded one million vehicles per year since 2004 with an annual count of 951, 212 for 2012
The Jamestown‐Scotland Ferry fleet presently consists of 4 Ferry boats. Name Year Built Capacity
The Virginia 1936 25 Vehicles
The Surry 1979 50 Vehicles
The Williamsburg 1983 50 Vehicles
The Pocahontas 1995 70 Vehicles
The Pocahontas was placed in service in 1995 and was outfitted with 2 EMD 645, Series 1 engines. These engines were rebuilt used engines and were originally manufactured in 1974 & 1976. Presently these motors are not supported by the manufacturer and are becoming increasingly difficult to find parts for when needed. On occasion a nationwide search for parts will prove to be unsuccessful and then the part will have to be manufactured. At times this can produce a lead time of 120 days. Some parts are no longer manufactured at all. These engines presently meet none of the EPA standards for emissions and are not as fuel efficient as modern engines are. The present EPA Tier 3 standard for emissions will apply to any new engines purchased for the Pocahontas and in January 2015 a new Tier 4 standard will be mandated and will increase the cost by approx. 25% per engine. This increase is reflected on the table below.
The existing Voith thrust propulsion drive systems in the Pocahontas are not compatible with these newly designed engines and will require an upgraded replacement as well. The new engines increase in horsepower is greater than can be used with the old original Voith systems. Our Voith model 24 is no longer being produced and parts can have lead times measured in months. This would shut our largest vessel in the fleet down until a part could be procured or manufactured.
‐
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Attachment 7-E
The new engines and drive systems have lead times of 8 & 10 months respectively. A commitment from VDOT would be required to place an order for the manufacturing of this equipment. In addition a visit to the shipyard would need to be scheduled for removal of the existing systems, necessary modifications to the ferry boat and the installation of the new drive systems.
In 2010 a report was issued by the Transportation Research Board and sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration. It was entitled Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. As stated in this report the NCDOT Ferry System is the second largest state owned and operated Ferry system in the country. It has seven routes and 21 ferry boats. The age of the entire fleet ranges from 5‐25 years. At the time of the report they had 2 boats in production. The implication of this report is that our neighboring DOT considers 25‐30 years as the life expectancy of a vehicle ferry boat. If accepted, this premise points out the both of the engines in the Pocahontas have exceeded the life expectancy and the Voith propulsion system is approaching the end of its life expectancy. They should be replaced. This would likely extend the life of the ferry Pocahontas for another 20 years.
In 2012 the UPC 100947 was funded and the PE for the design and then the construction of a new 70 vehicle ferry boat much like the Pocahontas was begun. This commitment from the upper management in VDOT signifies the long range needs that the Jamestown‐Scotland ferry system will be providing for. That same reasoning is present for the drive system upgrades for the Pocahontas.
Below is a table showing the breakdown of the proposed cost to include the shipyard expenses and a desired timeline.
Pocahontas Engine & Drive System Replacement FY 14 FY 15 FY 16
Project 07/1/13 01/01/14-05/15/14
06/01/14-11/15/14 12/1/14 3/1/15 6/1/15 1/1/16
Project Total
Voith Drive System
Feasibility review
Naval Architect Design
Coast Guard Review Period
$780,000 $1,040,000 $780,000 $2,600,000
Shipyard Install of Voith Drive
Feasibility review
Naval Architect Design
Coast Guard Review Period
$500,000 $500,000
EMD 710 Diesel Engine
Feasibility review
Naval Architect Design
Coast Guard Review Period
*$1,580,000 *$420,000 *$2,000,000
Shipyard Diesel Install
Feasibility review
Naval Architect Design
Coast Guard Review Period
$1,600,000 $1,600,000
Total $780,000 $1,580,000 $1,040,000 $3,300,000 $6,700,000 *This estimate reflects federal Tier IV emission standards to be implemented on 06/2014.
The FHWA MAP21 guidelines allow for CMAQ and STP to be used for these purposes as stated. The Eastern Region/Hampton Roads District is requesting that HR District PIM office forward the funding needs to the appropriate agency entities for consideration of this need and then placement into the STIP for immediate or future funding.
Attachment 7-E
1
Mike Kimbrel
From: Lewis, Vanna P., P.E. <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 9:11 AMTo: Graham, W D 'Danny' (VDOT)Cc: Ripley, G (VDOT)Subject: fed CMAQ funds eligibility on Ferry Boat Engines & Drive Systems
Danny: Yes, you are correct; the “MAP 21” legislation changed/ clarified this, and your case (as discussed on the telephone yesterday) is indeed eligible for CMAQ funds. Specifically: you have asked to use CMAQ funds to replace the diesel engines (which were actually rebuilt locomotive diesel engines when the Pocahontas was new in 1995±) with more efficient engines which meet current emissions standards. Also, due to the differences in range of horsepower used with the diesel engines vs. the new engines, it turns out that the new engines available cannot be geared down enough to work with the drive system that we have on the Pocahontas, so replacing the engine also necessitates replacing the drive system; basically, we can’t get a replacement engine which meets new emission standards and works with the existing drive system. (I’ve also noted that because the new drive system is a thrust system, it will actually provide benefits that the existing [propeller mechanism] drive system cannot offer ‐‐‐ specifically, the availability of “lateral thrust” at the docks.) Therefore, the replacement of the drive system is also eligible for CMAQ funds, since it is part of replacing the engine. Just to clarify, this would be a new project, in addition to three federally funded Ferry Boat improvement jobs at the Jamestown‐Scotland ferry which are already in the works, in various stages of design/ contract prep. Of course this job is also eligible for the routine “STP” type federal funds and Ferry Boat Program funds; I should note that stating that this work is eligible for these types of funds does not necessarily mean that there are funds available, only that if there are funds available, the work would be eligible. Any other questions, let me know. ………..vpl Wds 25th Sept.2013 Vanna Patterson Lewis, P.E. Area Engineer, Richmond & Fredericksburg Districts Virginia Division, FHWA 804-775-3337
From: Graham, W D 'Danny' (VDOT) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 2:54 PM To: Lewis, Vanna (FHWA) Cc: Ripley, G (VDOT) Subject: RE: Request for Funding of Ferry Boat Engines & Drive Systems Please review the criteria listed at the two sites at the links below. Diesel retrofits are listed as an eligible activity. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/cmaq.cfm http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/
Danny Graham Projects Administrator Eastern Region Operations (757) 925-1572 office (757) 619 4943 cell
Attachment 7-E
2
From: Graham, W D 'Danny' (VDOT) Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:57 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Ripley, G (VDOT) Subject: RE: Request for Funding of Ferry Boat Engines & Drive Systems I believe we found criteria that listed diesel engine replacement as an eligible expenditure for CMAQ funding. I will research again and contact you tomorrow. My PIM office suggested I contact Jose on this one and I always copy Iris. I almost copied you as well.
Danny Graham Projects Administrator Eastern Region Operations (757) 925-1572 office (757) 619 4943 cell
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:15 PM To: Rodriguez, Iris N.; Graham, W D 'Danny' (VDOT) Cc: Granado, Jose Subject: RE: Request for Funding of Ferry Boat Engines & Drive Systems Iris: I think Danny is asking you to make a call on whether this might also be eligible for CMAQ funds, & I believe he has you as a co‐lateral duty contact for that (even though this is a ferry boat). Let me know if you need assistance or want me to address. Danny: Is this a new project or linked with the generator one? I believe the work has to be specifically linked to efforts to lower emissions (eg, part of a program to get people to take mass transportation) to be eligible, not just new more efficient engines. …………..vpl Thursday 12th Sept.2013 Vanna Patterson Lewis, P.E. Area Engineer, Richmond & Fredericksburg Districts Virginia Division, FHWA 804-775-3337
From: Rodriguez, Iris (FHWA) Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:37 PM To: Lewis, Vanna (FHWA) Cc: Granado, Jose (FHWA) Subject: FW: Request for Funding of Ferry Boat Engines & Drive Systems Good afternoon Vanna, FYI. I understand that you handle Ferry projects. Is that correct? Thank you,
Iris Rodriguez Operations/LPA Engineer Federal Highway Administration 400 North 8th Street, Suite 750
Attachment 7-E
3
Richmond, VA 23219 Office: (804)775-3340 [email protected]
From: Graham, W D 'Danny' (VDOT) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 8:51 AM To: Granado, Jose (FHWA); Rodriguez, Iris (FHWA) Cc: Cordrey, Laura 'Laurie' S. (VDOT); Ripley, G (VDOT) Subject: FW: Request for Funding of Ferry Boat Engines & Drive Systems Please review the attachment which contains some background on the Jamestown‐Scotland Ferry operation in the Hampton Roads District. It also contains a narrative for the purchase of new engines and drive systems for the ferry boat Pocahontas. In reviewing the criteria for federal CMAQ funding it appears that this procurement and installation project qualifies. I am requesting that you render an opinion on whether this project effort is eligible for federal funding. If so, please also inform me as to what type of funding we could seek. Thank you for your assistance and please call me with any questions.
Danny Graham Projects Administrator Eastern Region Operations (757) 925-1572 office (757) 619 4943 cell
Attachment 7-E
REGIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (RSTP) HRTPO PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS
CANDIDATE PROJECT APPLICATION: INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
Locality/Agency: VDOT-Eastern Region
Project Name: Engine & Drive System Replacement of the Ferry Boat Pocahontas
UPC #: TBD (if available) Date: 10/17/2013
Primary Contact: Danny Graham Phone: 757-925-1572 E-Mail: w,[email protected]
Secondary Contact: Steve Rowan Phone: 757-925-2459 E-Mail: [email protected]
Project Location: (Please provide a detailed description of the location of the project. If possible, please also attach a map to your application.) Surry County is a rural county in southeast Virginia with a population of 7,100 as of the 2010 Census. Important industries are agriculture and lumber. Surry's attractions not only span three centuries of history but also include Surry Nuclear Power Station and Information Center.
James City County is a growing community on the Virginia Hampton Roads Peninsula with a population of 67,000 as of the 2010 Census. It is often associated with historic Jamestown and the City of Williamsburg, both of which are in the county. The county has a highly developed tourist industry and benefits from a highly educated workforce, being in close proximity to William and Mary College, NASA, and Jefferson Laboratory.
The Jamestown-Scotland Ferry carries passengers and vehicles and, as a station in the Williamsburg Area Transit system, it serves a key role in providing an economical and efficient commuter option to residents in the region. It provides the only direct access across the river for rural Surry County residents seeking medical, shopping, employment and entertainment venues in James City County/Williamsburg. In addition, it provides access for James City County/Williamsburg residents to historical sites and the Surry Nuclear Power plant. At any time when the Ferry boat system is not operational commuters have 2 river crossing options. Each of these are a 75 mile detour.
Description of Project: (Please provide a brief description of the scope of the project.) The Pocahontas was placed in service in 1995 and was outfitted with 2 EMD 645, Series 1 engines. These engines were rebuilt used engines and were originally manufactured in 1974 & 1976. Presently these motors are not supported by the manufacturer and are becoming increasingly difficult to find parts for when needed. The present EPA Tier 3 standard for emissions will apply to any new engines purchased for the Pocahontas and in January 2015 a new Tier 4 standard will be mandated and will increase the cost by approx. 25% per engine.
Attachment 7-E
The existing Voith thrust propulsion drive systems in the Pocahontas are not compatible with these newly designed engines and will require an upgraded replacement as well. The new engines increase in horsepower is greater than can be used with the old original Voith systems. Our Voith model 24 is no longer being produced and parts can have lead times measured in months. This would shut our largest vessel in the fleet down until a part could be procured or manufactured.
The new engines and drive systems have lead times of 8 & 10 months, respectively. A commitment from VDOT would be required to place an order for the manufacturing of this equipment. In addition a visit to the shipyard would need to be scheduled for removal of the existing systems, necessary modifications to the ferry boat and the installation of the new drive systems.
In 2010 a report was issued by the Transportation Research Board and sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration. It was entitled Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. As stated in this report the NCDOT Ferry System is the second largest state owned and operated Ferry system in the country. It has seven routes and 21 ferry boats. The age of the entire fleet ranges from 5-25 years. At the time of the report they had 2 boats in production. The implication of this report is that our neighboring DOT considers 25-30 years as the life expectancy of a vehicle ferry boat. If accepted, this premise points out that both of the engines in the Pocahontas have exceeded their life expectancy and the Voith propulsion system is approaching the end of its life expectancy. They should be replaced. This would likely extend the life of the ferry Pocahontas for another 20 years.
In 2012 the UPC 100947 was funded and the PE for the design and then the construction of a new 70 vehicle ferry boat much like the Pocahontas was begun. This commitment from the upper management in VDOT signifies the long range needs that the Jamestown-Scotland ferry system will be providing for. That same reasoning is present for the engines & drive system upgrades for the Pocahontas.
Project Need: (Please provide the need for and benefit to be derived from the project, including the impact on air quality.) The existing 2 engines are not supported by the manufacturer and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find parts. On occasion a nationwide search for parts will prove to be unsuccessful and a part will have to be manufactured. At times this can produce a lead time of 120 days. These engines presently meet none of the EPA standards for emissions and are not as fuel efficient as modern engines are. They also require more frequent preventative maintenanceand are becoming more expensive to maintain.
The existing Voith model 24 thrust propulsion drive systems in the Pocahontas are no longer manufactured and it has become very difficult to find parts for them as well. The existing drive units will not be compatible with the newly appropriately designed engines, and the new engines increase in horsepower is greater than can be used with the old original Voith systems. Therefore, the drive units require replacement as well.
Attachment 7-E
Locality/Agency: VDOT-Eastern Region RSTP Project Name: Engine & Drive System Replacement of the Ferry Boat Pocahontas
Is this a new project? Yes No
Is this project consistent with the Long-Range Transportation Plan? Yes No
Has this project been considered for RSTP funding in the past? Yes No
Estimated Start Date: 12/1/2014 Estimated Completion Date: 3/1/2016
Overall Project Cost: $6700000.00
Total Funding Request: $6700000.00
What year are you requesting initial funding: FFY 15
Please specify the funding request by fiscal year:
Phase Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total PE $ $ $ $ $ $ $
RW $ $ $ $ $ $ $ CN $3400000 $3300000 $ $ $ $ $
Total $3400000 $3300000 $ $ $ $ $
Attachment 7-E
Locality/Agency: VDOT-Eastern Region RSTP Project Name: Engine & Drive System Replacement of the Ferry Boat Pocahontas
Yes No Will this project establish opportunities for linkages or connections between
transportation modes, existing corridors, or centers? If "yes", explain: This is will enhance an Existing Linkage between transportation modes.
Yes No Will this project improve intermodal movements?
If "yes", explain: With replacement of engines/drive this ferry will be much more reliable in providing
service.
Yes No Will this project improve rail access to freight distribution facilities, ports, or major cities? If "yes", explain:
Yes No Will this project improve vehicular access to freight distribution facilities, ports, or major
clients? If "yes", explain:
Yes No Do you have detailed design and cost estimates?
If "yes", explain: Preliminary Estimates
Yes No Is there community support for the project?
If "yes", explain: Community needs reliable ferry service.
Yes No Do you have all necessary local, state, and federal permits and approvals?
If "yes", explain:
Attachment 7-E
CMAQ | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Other Projects | 1
CONGESTIONMITIGATIONANDAIRQUALITY(CMAQ)HRTPOPROJECTSELECTIONPROCESS
CANDIDATEPROJECTAPPLICATION:OTHERPROJECTS
Locality/Agency: VDOT‐Eastern Region
Project Name: Engine & Drive System Replacement of the Ferry Boat Pocahontas
UPC #: TBD (if available) Date: 10/16/2013
Primary Contact: Danny Graham Phone: 757‐925‐1572
E‐Mail: [email protected]
Secondary Contact: Steve Rowan Phone: 757‐925‐2459
E‐Mail: [email protected]
Project Location:
(Please provide a detailed description of the location of the project. If possible, please also attach a map to your
application.)
Surry County is a rural county in southeast Virginia with a population of 7,100 as of the 2010 Census.
Important industries are agriculture and lumber. Surry's attractions not only span three centuries of
history but also include Surry Nuclear Power Station and Information Center.
James City County is a growing community on the Virginia Hampton Roads Peninsula with a population
of 67,000 as of the 2010 Census. It is often associated with historic Jamestown and the City of
Williamsburg, both of which are in the county. The county has a highly developed tourist industry and
benefits from a highly educated workforce, being in close proximity to William and Mary College, NASA,
and Jefferson Laboratory.
The Jamestown‐Scotland Ferry carries passengers and vehicles and, as a station in the Williamsburg Area
Transit system, it serves a key role in providing an economical and efficient commuter option to
residents in the region. It provides the only direct access across the river for rural Surry County residents
seeking medical, shopping, employment and entertainment venues in James City County/Williamsburg.
In addition, it provides access for James City County/Williamsburg residents to historical sites and the
Surry Nuclear Power plant. At any time when the Ferry boat system is not operational commuters have
2 river crossing options. Each of these are a 75 mile detour.
Description of Project:
(Please provide a brief description of the scope of the project.)
The Pocahontas was placed in service in 1995 and was outfitted with 2 EMD 645, Series 1 engines. These
engines were rebuilt used engines and were originally manufactured in 1974 & 1976. Presently these
motors are not supported by the manufacturer and are becoming increasingly difficult to find parts for
when needed. The present EPA Tier 3 standard for emissions will apply to any new engines purchased
for the Pocahontas and in January 2015 a new Tier 4 standard will be mandated and will increase the
cost by approx. 25% per engine.
Attachment 7-E
CMAQ | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Other Projects | 2
The existing Voith thrust propulsion drive systems in the Pocahontas are not compatible with these
newly designed engines and will require an upgraded replacement as well. The new engines increase in
horsepower is greater than can be used with the old original Voith systems. Our Voith model 24 is no
longer being produced and parts can have lead times measured in months. This would shut our largest
vessel in the fleet down until a part could be procured or manufactured.
The new engines and drive systems have lead times of 8 & 10 months, respectively. A commitment
from VDOT would be required to place an order for the manufacturing of this equipment. In addition a
visit to the shipyard would need to be scheduled for removal of the existing systems, necessary
modifications to the ferry boat and the installation of the new drive systems.
In 2010 a report was issued by the Transportation Research Board and sponsored by the Federal Transit
Administration. It was entitled Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. As stated in this report the
NCDOT Ferry System is the second largest state owned and operated Ferry system in the country. It has
seven routes and 21 ferry boats. The age of the entire fleet ranges from 5‐25 years. At the time of the
report they had 2 boats in production. The implication of this report is that our neighboring DOT
considers 25‐30 years as the life expectancy of a vehicle ferry boat. If accepted, this premise points out
that both of the engines in the Pocahontas have exceeded their life expectancy and the Voith propulsion
system is approaching the end of its life expectancy. They should be replaced. This would likely extend
the life of the ferry Pocahontas for another 20 years.
In 2012 the UPC 100947 was funded and the PE for the design and then the construction of a new 70
vehicle ferry boat much like the Pocahontas was begun. This commitment from the upper management
in VDOT signifies the long range needs that the Jamestown‐Scotland ferry system will be providing for.
That same reasoning is present for the engines & drive system upgrades for the Pocahontas.
Project Need:
(Please provide the need for and benefit to be derived from the project, including the impact on air quality.)
The existing 2 engines are not supported by the manufacturer and it is becoming increasingly difficult to
find parts. On occasion a nationwide search for parts will prove to be unsuccessful and a part will have
to be manufactured. At times this can produce a lead time of 120 days. These engines presently meet
none of the EPA standards for emissions and are not as fuel efficient as modern engines are. They also
require more frequent preventative maintenanceand are becoming more expensive to maintain.
The existing Voith model 24 thrust propulsion drive systems in the Pocahontas are no longer
manufactured and it has become very difficult to find parts for them as well. The existing drive units will
not be compatible with the newly appropriately designed engines, and the new engines increase in
horsepower is greater than can be used with the old original Voith systems. Therefore, the drive units
require replacement as well.
Attachment 7-E
CMAQ | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Other Projects | 3
Locality/Agency: VDOT‐Eastern Region CMAQ Project Name: Engine & Drive System Replacement of the Ferry Boat Pocahontas
Is this a new project? Yes No
Is this project consistent with the Long‐Range Transportation Plan? Yes No
Has this project been considered for CMAQ funding in the past? Yes No
Estimated Start Date: 12/1/2014 Estimated Completion Date: 3/1/2016
Overall Project Cost: $6,700,000
Total Funding Request: $6700000.00
What year are you requesting initial funding: FFY 15
Please specify the funding request by fiscal year:
Phase Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total
PE $ $ $ $ $ $ $
RW $ $ $ $ $ $ $
CN $3400000 $3700000 $ $ $ $ $
Total $3400000 $3700000 $ $ $ $ $
Please contact the HRTPO to determine the additional information necessary to analyze this project.
Thank you.
Attachment 7-E
Attachment 7-E