GENESEE TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
Ontario County Municipal Building
20 Ontario Street, Canandaigua
April 11, 2013
PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
Angela Ellis, Livingston County (Vice Chairperson)
James Fletcher, Monroe County At Large
Erik Frisch, City of Rochester At Large
Todd Gadd, Wyoming County
Thomas Goodwin, Monroe County Planning Board
Andrea Guzzetta, Rochester City Council
Daniel Hallowell, New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)-Region 4
Timothy Hens, Genesee County
Scott Leathersich, Monroe County At Large (Chairperson)
Terrence J. Rice, Monroe County
Kevin Rooney, Wayne County
Mitchell Rowe, Seneca County
William Wright, Ontario County
David Zorn, Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council (G/FLRPC)
ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT
David Cook, Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (RGRTA), representing Bill Carpenter
Julie Gotham, Ontario County
David Hartman, Yates County
Douglas J. Tokarczyk, NYS Thruway Authority
PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED
Donald Allport, Orleans County
Marcia Barry, Rochester City Planning Commission
Carm Carmestro, Monroe County Supervisors Association
Robert Colby, Monroe County
Paul Holahan, City of Rochester
Edward Muszynski, Empire State Development Corporation
Steven Urlass, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
(Vacant), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
(Vacant), Federal Transportation Administration (FTA)
(Vacant), NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
Greg Albert, G/FLRPC
Jody Binnix, GTC staff
Joseph Bovenzi, GTC staff
Ron Brand, Town of Farmington
Peter Brown, Seneca County
Tony Favro, GTC staff
Roy Gates, Seneca County
Don Higgins, Livingston County
Dennis Judson, Fisher Associates
Thomas Lichtenthal, Town of Batavia
James McIntosh, City of Rochester
Richard Perrin, GTC staff
John Polimeni, NYSDOT-Region 4
Chris Reeve, NYSDOT-Region 4
Ed Welsh, Public
1. Call to Order & Introductions
Scott Leathersich, Planning Committee Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. Members, Alternates, and others present introduced themselves.
2. Public Forum
No one from the public spoke during the Public Forum.
3. Approval of Minutes
Jim Fletcher moved for approval of the minutes from the February 14, 2013 Planning Committee meeting; Terry Rice seconded the motion. The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Reports and Action on Old Business
a. Reports of UPWP Projects and Other Activities
Richard Perrin reported:
Strategic Planning: The statewide integrated planning initiative is continuing with GTC staff playing a key role for the New York State Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (NYSAMPO). The GTC Executive Director will be providing testimony to the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee on April 25 regarding the impacts of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) on local and regional stakeholders. GTC staff is continuing to participate in the development of the Finger Lakes Regional Sustainability Plan.
Regional Traffic Count Collection: The most recent component of the program was accepted by the GTC Board at its March 14 meeting.
LRTP Update/Implementation: The development of a transportation system status report that provides updated data for the Long Range Transportation Plan for the Genesee-Finger Lakes Region 2035 (LRTP 2035) performance measures and the activities accomplished since the adoption of the LRTP 2035 is continuing. Data on the regional performance measures contained in the LRTP 2035 and projections of future conditions are being collected and analyzed.
Air Quality Planning and Outreach: GTC staff participated in the evaluation of proposals received by the Genesee Region Clean Communities' for their Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program-funded project on April 5. GTS staff also participated on the April 10 NYSAMPO Climate Change Workgroup teleconference.
GTC Household Travel Survey: The project is complete.
Diversion Route Planning Initiative: Steering Committee comments on the final draft maps of diversion routes are due by April 15.
Priority Trails Advancement: The project is complete.
Congestion Management Process (CMP): The update of the CMP is included in the LRTP 2035 that was adopted by the Board on June 16, 2011. A CMP report that expands on the information included in the LRTP 2035 has been recommended by the Transportation Management Committee and is provided for your consideration as agenda item 5.d.
Greater Rochester Regional Commuter Choice Program: GTC staff is continuing to promote the program website.
Travel Time Data Collection Program: Access to the data has been provided by the vendor, INRIX, and training is being scheduled.
Coordinated Public Transit/Human Services Transportation Planning: The project is complete.
Regional Mobility Management Business Plan: GTC staff is continuing the development of a revised Request for Proposals (RFP) package to comply with requirements that FTA has provided to NYSDOT and are applicable to sub-recipients.
Regional Goods Movement Strategy: The project is complete.
Richard Perrin reported:
Genesee County Horizontal Curve Sign Study: The report is provided for your consideration as agenda item 5.c.1.
David Zorn reported:
Regional Land Use Monitoring Report: Data follow-up is continuing.
Genesee-Finger Lakes Region Population Projections: Data preparation is complete. Counties have received the revised population projections based on previous meetings. The report is now being developed.
Regional Atlas: Data is being collected, reviewed, and formatted. Counties have submitted additional data points for inclusion. The document outline is being developed.
Angela Ellis reported:
Livingston County Transportation Connectivity Plan: The existing conditions report has been revised and a draft needs assessment has been completed. A second public meeting will be scheduled in May.
Tom Goodwin reported:
Monroe County Land Use Monitoring Report: Data is being compiled. Six municipalities have yet to return surveys.
Terry Rice reported:
Monroe County Sign Inventory Location Upgrade: The project is expected to be presented at the May Planning Committee meeting.
Monroe County Horizontal Curve Study: The project is complete.
Monroe County High Accident Location Program: No new locations have been studied. Accident Location Information System (ALIS)-based list is being used to determine priorities and identify new locations for review.
Monroe County Accident Rate Database GIS Conversion: The project is complete.
Julie Gotham reported:
Routes 5 & 20 and State Route 364 Multi-Modal Study: The next Steering Committee meeting is scheduled for April 24 and the final draft is expected in mid-May.
City of Rochester
Erik Frisch reported:
Center City Tourist/Visitor Circulation and Pedestrian Wayfinding Study: The study is complete.
City of Rochester Urban Trail Linkages Feasibility Study: The project is expected to be presented at the May Planning Committee meeting.
Susan B. Anthony Neighborhood Parking and Circulation Study: The study is complete.
St. Paul and North Clinton Two-Way Conversion Study: The study is complete.
Rochester Bicycle Boulevard Plan: No progress to report. The RFP is under development.
Mt. Read Boulevard Corridor Study: The project kickoff meeting was held March 7. The existing conditions study is underway. A public meeting is being scheduled for May.
David Cook reported:
RGRTA Suburban Transit Station Study: The study is complete.
RTS Signal Prioritization Study: Changes to the Executive Summary have been completed and the study is expected to be presented to the GTC Board for consideration in June.
RGRTA Transit-Supportive Development Guidelines: No progress to report.
RGRTA Route Analysis: The project is ongoing.
Kevin Rooney reported:
Wayne County Horizontal Curve Sign Study: The study is complete and will be presented as agenda item 5.c.2.
Todd Gadd reported:
Wyoming County Horizontal Curve Sign Study: The study is complete and will be presented as agenda item 5.c.3.
David Hartman reported:
Yates County Safe Passing Zone Survey: The study is complete.
Richard Perrin reported:
Auburn Trail Connection to the Ontario Pathways Trail: The final report has been revised and will be presented for Planning Committee consideration as agenda item 5.c.4.
Irondequoit Seneca Multi-Use Trail Feasibility Study: The first Steering Committee meeting was held on March 6. The first public meeting was held on March 25. Potential alignments are being developed.
Black Creek Stream Corridor Trail Feasibility Study: The project is expected to be presented at the May Planning Committee meeting.
Village of Scottsville Traffic Circulation and Safety Study: The Steering Committee met on April 9 and a public meeting was held on the same day. Recommendations and an implementation strategy have been drafted.
Webster Village Core Circulation, Accessibility, and Parking Study: A Steering Committee meeting was held on April 10 to review the draft inventory report.
Victor Transportation Systems Plan: A Traffic Task Force has been formed to evaluate the transportation component of the comprehensive plan and the follow-on activities conducted with the remaining UPWP funds with a recommendation to the Town Board expected in May.
NYS Route 250 Transit Supportive Mixed Use Development District: The Steering Committee met on March 19 and the next meeting is scheduled for April 30 to review draft recommendations.
Brighton Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail Plan: The project is expected to be presented at the May Planning Committee meeting.
Town of Greece Active Transportation Plan: The kickoff meeting of the Project Advisory Committee was held March 5 and the second meeting is scheduled for April 29 to review the draft inventory of existing and planned conditions.
Village of Pittsford Active Transportation Safety Plan: No progress to report.
b. Any Other Old Business or Announcements
By his election as President of the Monroe County Supervisors Association, Mark Assini, Gates Town Supervisor, is a member of the GTC Board. Parma Town Supervisor Carm Carmestro was selected as the Associations Planning Committee member.
Maggie Brooks, Monroe County Executive, has reappointed Daniel M. DeLaus, Jr. and Daniel Hogan as the Monroe County At-large members of the GTC Board and Scott Leathersich and Chris Bollin as their respective alternatives.
Rochester Mayor Thomas Richards has reappointed Allen G. Casey as the City of Rochester At-large member and John Thomas as Mr. Caseys alternative.
H. Taylor Fitch, Yates County Legislature Chairman, has appointed David Hartmann as the Yates County Planning Committee Member.
The May 9 Planning Committee meeting will be replaced with one on May 23. The change in meeting dates is necessary to accommodate the public review period for the DRAFT 2014-2017 TIP Update Project List. GTC staff feels confident that only one meeting will be necessary. A location for the review meetings is being indentified and will likely be held in the City of Rochester (the originally-scheduled May 9 meeting was to be held in Rochester City Chambers).
5. Action Items
a. Action concerning classifying 2013-2014 Unified Planning Work Program Project List tasks in accordance with the GTC Public Participation Plan
Richard Perrin reported the GTC Public Participation Plan (Plan) requires the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)-funded projects to establish public input opportunities. In accordance with the Plan, GTC staff must recommend to the Planning Committee a classification for each UPWP-funded task.
The classification for each task must be one of three categories: Administrative, Technical/Data Collection, or Planning/Policy. The Planning Committee must concur on the classification of every task.
UPWP-funded tasks that are classified as Administrative or Technical/Data Collection do not require any additional public input. UPWP-funded tasks that are classified as Planning/Policy typically require a public input component that must be discussed in the Scope of Work submitted for Planning Committee Approval.
GTC staff has reviewed and is recommending classifications for tasks new to the FY 2013-2014 UPWP. Justifications for the GTC staff recommendations are provided in the meeting package.
Jim Fletcher asked if Task 8539, Bus Stop Optimization Study, would include a public input component. He noted that it is classified as a Planning/Policy project, but the justification notes that there is no need for direct input from the public.
Richard Perrin explained that Task 8539 is primarily technical in nature and that there are Planning/Policy projects where two public meetings may not yield as much benefit as using the funding for additional technical work. Richard cited as the Diversion Route Planning Initiative as an example.
Jim stated that Task 8539 should still include a public involvement component because it would directly impact Regional Transit Service customers.
Tony Favro explained that the recommended classification of Task 8539 was discussed with Crystal Benjamin, the project manager. The objective of the task is to increase the efficiency of transit operations and improve customer service. A small public involvement component will likely be undertaken as part of this project, such as a customer survey or focus groups so some public input will still be gathered.
Terry Rice added that if bus stops are going to be moved and/or taken away riders should be made aware of those changes.
David Cook expanded on the discussion by explaining that any changes to bus stop locations may warrant a Title VI review which would require a public involvement component.
Richard explained that the task may not necessitate the typical format of two public meetings given its technical nature. However, the task justification may be changed to note that public involvement will take place.
Jim concurred with Richard. He stated that Task 6780, Rochester Area Bike Sharing Program Study, does not have a public involvement component and that area bicycling groups should have an opportunity to comment.
Erik Frisch cited the same concern regarding Task 6780, noting that although the project is technical in nature the findings should be presented to the public.
Richard explained that the Rochester Area bicycling groups will be members of the project Steering Committee and that select project components (e.g., financing models, station citing requirements, unit costs, etc.) have the potential to be proprietary. The recommendations will be presented to the public prior to finalization.
Bill Wright moved to recommend 2013-2014 Unified Planning Work Program Project List tasks in accordance with the GTC Public Participation Plan; Jim Fletcher seconded the motion. The motion passed unopposed.
b. Action concerning consideration of UPWP Project Scopes of Work
Scott Leathersich suggested that the committee block action items concerning the Scopes of Work and take a single action after all have been discussed. No Member or Alternate objected.
1. Task 4230 Inventory and Mapping of Regional Land Use Regulations (G/FLRPC)
David Zorn presented the Scope of Work for Task 4230. The project updates and expands on existing work by updating the GIS coverage of the regions zoning districts.
2. Task 4501 Regional Rights of Way Study (G/FLRPC)
Greg Albert presented the Scope of Work for Task 4501. The main components of the study include inventorying and mapping railroad and utility corridors. Final recommendations will include preservation techniques and the identification of future uses for the corridors.
Terry Rice asked if the study would include abandon corridors that are currently owned by the railroad companies. For example, a CSX-owned line that goes through Spencerport currently has several bridges that are slated to be removed. The corridor is currently disjointed in nature.
Greg responded that the study plans to identify all existing corridors, including those that are abandoned and may not be complete.
3. Task 5292 Planning for Transportation and Climate Change: Model Ordinances, Incentives, and Other Resources (G/FLRPC)
David Zorn presented the Scope of Work for Task 5292. A compendium of resources for municipalities interested in developing ordinances or local laws, incentives, plans, or other resources to address climate change mitigation and adaptation measures will be developed. The guidebook will consist of new and revised transportation-related zoning ordinances or local laws with additional incentives, programs and technical assistance, and model plans that will help achieve community climate change goals. Additionally the compendium is an identified strategy of the Finger Lakes Regional Sustainability Plan.
4. Task 6229 Seneca County Safe Passing Zone Study (Seneca County)
Peter Brown presented the Scope of Work for Task 6229. The Safe Passing Zone Study is an opportunity for Seneca County to further address safety needs. Recent efforts have allowed the County to complete 10 miles of restriping per year. This study will review approximately 120 miles of roadway. The Safe Passing Zone Surveys will be completed by the end of summer.
Bill Wright moved to recommend the consideration of UPWP Project Scopes of Work; David Cook seconded the motion. The motion passed unopposed.
c. Recommendation to the GTC Board concerning accepting reports as evidence of completion of various UPWP Tasks / Proposed Council Resolutions 13-55 through 13-58
Scott Leathersich suggested that the committee move up Proposed Council Resolution 13-58 to accommodate a guest. No Member or Alternate objected.
4. Recommendation to the GTC Board concerning the acceptance of the Auburn Trail Connection to Ontario Pathways Feasibility Study as evidence of completion of the UPWP Task 6533 / Proposed Council Resolution 13-58 (Town of Farmington)
Ron Brand discussed the study. The proposed trail consists of a 7.6 mile stretch between the existing Auburn Trail and the Ontario Pathways Trail. The proposed trail spans three municipalities. A Project Advisory Group was formed to coordinate efforts throughout the duration of the project. A total of 17 alignments were reviewed, with 5 sub-alternatives, and three primary alignments were chosen. A final recommended alignment was selected. The total cost of the preferred alignment is $3.6 million. Moving forward, the Ontario County Planning Department will continue coordination efforts and pursue funding options.
Jim Fletcher asked if the study would be available on the GTC website.
Richard Perrin responded the study will be available on-line after it has been approved by the GTC Board.
Tom Goodwin moved to recommend that the GTC Board adopt Council Resolution 13-58; Dan Hallowell seconded the motion. The motion passed unopposed.
Scott Leathersich suggested that the committee block Proposed Council Resolutions 13-55 through 13-57 and take a single action after all have been discussed. No Member or Alternate objected.
1. Recommendation to the GTC Board concerning the acceptance of the Genesee County Horizontal Curve Sign Study as evidence of completion of UPWP Task 6226 / Proposed Council Resolution 13-55 (Genesee County)
Tim Hens presented the study. The study purpose was to assess the current traffic control devices associated with the horizontal curves on the 268 miles of Genesee County roadways. The County will utilize the findings of this study to confirm the proper traffic control devices are in place and implement additional traffic control devices if necessary.
Tim noted that the County would like to submit for TIP funding to replace and upgrade the traffic control devices. Richard Perrin responded that the Highway Safety Improvement Program funding that NYSDOT administers on a statewide basis may be one opportunity.
Dan Hallowell added that the NYSDOT funding would be an option if safety was a genuine concern in a particular location and if the County could demonstrate a reduction in accidents.
Terry Rice noted Monroe County is also seeking funding. He asked Tim if there are a large number of signs that need to be replaced and if the general outcome was that advisory speeds were increased on the majority of curves.
Tim responded in the affirmative, stating that a large number of signs would need to be replaced given the increased advisory speeds.
2. Recommendation to the GTC Board concerning the acceptance of the Wayne County Horizontal Curve Signage Study as evidence of completion of UPWP Task 6227 / Proposed Council Resolution 13-56 (Wayne County)
Kevin Rooney presented the study. Throughout the course of the study a total of 350 curves were reviewed. Additional surveys beyond those in the original scope were funded through the County. The consultant provided the County with a Google Earth account with satellite images of signs and other devices at each curve.
3. Recommendation to the GTC Board concerning the acceptance of the Wyoming County Horizontal Curve Sign Study as evidence of completion of UPWP Task 6228 / Proposed Council Resolution 13-57 (Wyoming County)
Todd Gadd presented the study. This study was the first comprehensive inventory of horizontal curves in the county. Wyoming County had 227 curves surveyed by the consultant with 185 requiring changes to the current signage. The outcome is similar to Genesee County as the majority of advisory speeds are slated to be raised.
Todd and Kevin both thanked GTC for the funding to complete their respective studies.
Terry Rice moved to recommend that the GTC Board adopt Council Resolutions 13-55 through 13-57; Jim Fletcher seconded the motion. The motion passed unopposed.
d. Recommendation to the GTC Board concerning the acceptance of the Congestion Management Process Technical Documentation as evidence of completion of a component of UPWP Task 7110 / Proposed Council Resolution 13-59 (GTC staff)
Joe Bovenzi discussed the Congestion Management Process (CMP) Technical Documentation. He reported that it was prepared to expand and enhance the congestion management-related materials included in the LRTP 2035 and explained that federal law requires all MPOs that serve a Transportation Management Area (TMA) to develop and implement a CMP. The federal requirements reflect the concept that congestion management is a continually ongoing process that must be integrated into broader regional transportation planning activities to achieve maximum effectiveness.
The CMP Technical Documentation includes information on Recurring Capacity-Related Delay, Planned Event-Related Delay, and Non-Recurring Incident-Related Delay, which are the three types of delay that occur in the region. A five-category Congestion Scale was developed to help visualize the severity of delay on congested roads. Four performance measures were selected to monitor congestion trends. Future enhancements to performance measures include the anticipated availability of more thorough and extensive data going forward.
Of the 53 recommendations in the LRTP 2035, 25 include a congestion management-related element and are expanded upon in the CMP Technical Documentation. Examples of the recommendations include interchange and intersection reconfiguration, the deployment and coordination of Intelligent Transportation Systems instrumentation, and the provision of real-time travel information to motorists. None of the recommendations discuss projects that are solely aimed at reducing congestion, but rather include congestion management as one aspect of broader project goals. In addition to the recommendations, a toolbox of general congestion management strategies that can be used by all member agencies both inside and outside the TMA is provided. The CMP Technical Documentation was reviewed and revised by the Transportation Management Committee prior to submission to the Planning Committee.
Doug Tokarczyk commended GTC for going above and beyond the federal regulations and guidelines in the CMP Technical Documentation. Richard Perrin thanked Doug and duly noted the participation of the New York State Thruway Authority in this activity.
Jim Fletcher asked how traffic congestion in the Rochester area compares to metropolitan areas in the rest of the country.
Richard replied that traffic congestion in the Rochester area consistently ranks at about the middle or below average when compared to peer cities. He noted that information on traffic congestion comes from Urban Mobility Reports published annually by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI). These reports rank metropolitan areas based on their levels of congestion.
Joe added that Rochester ranked 76 out of 101 metropolitan areas analyzed in the 2011 TTI Urban Mobility Report.
Kevin Rooney moved to recommend that the GTC Board adopt Council Resolution 13-59; Dan Hallowell seconded the motion. The motion passed unopposed.
e. Action concerning approving the DRAFT 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program Update Project List for Public Review (GTC staff)
Richard Perrin explained that the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Development Committee has produced the DRAFT 2014-2017 TIP Update Project List for Public Review (Draft Project List) for Planning Committee consideration. Projects recommended for funding via the Draft Project List are proposed to be advanced in Federal Fiscal Years (FFYs) 2015 through 2017. Projects programmed in FFY 2014 at the time of adoption of the TIP update will comprise the first of the four years of the new program.
This Draft Project List represents a significant achievement given the considerable funding constraints placed on the Genesee Transportation Council (GTC) resulting from limited federal revenues relative to needs and decisions made by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)-Main Office, which have introduced a great deal of uncertainty into the capital programming process.
Given this uncertainty, the TIP Development Committee has developed a draft project list that balances cost-effective preservation projects (primarily, preventive maintenance treatments and minor rehabilitations) with necessary reconstructions/ replacements and major rehabilitations that will improve the function of the transportation system as it relates to safety, efficiency, and reliability. To provide flexibility for when NYSDOT-Main Office announces projects to be funded with the majority of the 30 percent of FHWA revenues withheld from regional allocations, the draft project list presents:
Projects Recommended for Funding from the Regional Allocation (Green Component)
Projects included in this component of the list represent the set of projects to be advanced in FFYs 2015 through 2017 based on the reasonably expected FHWA revenues allocated to the GTC TIP area by NYSDOT-Main Office and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) revenues apportioned directly to the RGRTA. If no projects in the GTC TIP area are selected by NYSDOT-Main Office to receive FHWA revenues from the statewide allocation, these projects would represent the fiscally-constrained portion of the 2014-2017 TIP for FFYs 2015 through 2017.
These projects are those that ranked the highest based on evaluations by GTC and NYSDOT-Region 4 staffs using criteria directly linked to the performance measures of the LRTP 2035 and supplemented with the required professional judgment of the TIP Development Committee.
In terms of impact, this list of projects maintains the GTC commitment to employing a selection process based on objective, quantifiable criteria that emphasizes cost-effectiveness through the right solutions at the right times and the increased use of transportation system management and operations to maximize the performance of the existing system to the fullest extent possible.
Additional Projects Recommended for Funding from the Regional Allocation Based on Funding of I-390 Phases 3 & 4 from the Statewide Allocation (Yellow Component)
Projects included in this component of the list represent projects to be advanced in FFYs 2015 through 2017 beyond those included in the Green Component with the additional funds being available as a result of NYSDOT-Main Office selecting the I-390 Interchange Improvements @ Exit 16 (I-390 Phase 4) and I-390 Interchange Improvements @ NY 15A over the Erie Canal (I-390 Phase 3) project to receive FHWA revenues from the statewide allocation.
I-390 Phase 4 is currently recommended for funding thus its inclusion in the Green Component but there are insufficient reasonably expected FHWA revenues in the regional allocation to recommend I-390 Phase 3 at this time, leading to its inclusion in the Red Component (see below).
It is practical to assume that the I-390 Phases 3 and 4 projects will be selected to receive FHWA revenues from the statewide allocation in FFYs 2015 through 2017 given the commitment made to this project by Governor Cuomo in January 2012 in recognition of these projects as the TIP areas highest infrastructure priority (most recently by the Finger Lakes Regional Economic Development Council) due to the safety, congestion, and access issues that are detrimental to public health and economic development.
Beyond the selection of the I-390 Phases 3 and 4 projects to receive FHWA revenues from the statewide allocation being a reasonable assumption, it is also a conservative one. The statewide allocation represents approximately $1.2 billion for FFYs 2015 through 2017. The total FHWA revenues requested for both the I-390 Phases 3 and 4 projects is approximately $27.5 million or 2.3 percent of the statewide allocation. If these are the only two projects in the GTC TIP area selected by NYSDOT-Main Office, it would be far from proportionate to the needs of this region (the third largest in New York State) compared to others on a competitive basis.
Projects Not Able to be Funded in the 2014-2017 TIP (Red Component)
Projects included in this component of the list represent the set of projects that cannot be advanced in FFYs 2015 through 2017 based on the reasonably expected FHWA revenues allocated to the GTC TIP area by NYSDOT-Main Office and FTA revenues apportioned directly to RGRTA.
Projects included in this component should not be viewed as being projects that are unworthy of advancement. With very few exceptions, the only reason these projects are not being advanced is lack of revenues. All have merit in terms of their contribution to quality of life and economic development. In the rare cases where the projects would not be advanced in FFYs 2015 through 2017 even if additional funds were available, it is because the proposed treatment was determined to be premature but will still need to be advanced soon after FFY 2017. Simply put: the Red Component represents not what we wont do but rather what we cant do given fiscal constraints.
In addition, projects were submitted to NYSDOT-Main Office as part of two separate solicitations for projects to compete for the statewide allocation. Some of the projects submitted by sponsors in this region for the statewide solicitations were not submitted to GTC for consideration in the development of this TIP update. Accordingly, if any of the projects not submitted to GTC are selected by NYSDOT-Main Office to receive FHWA revenues from the statewide allocation, it would represent new funds to the region but would not replace a portion of our regional allocation, thereby not allowing us to add additional projects from the Red Component of the list.
Richard thanked the members of the TIP Development Committee for their work on putting together the project list.
Jim Fletcher asked Richard to discuss the reduction in funding for the 2014-2017 TIP as compared to previous TIPs. Richard responded that funding has been essentially flat for several years and MAP-21 limits flexibility in terms of which projects can be funded.
Terry Rice explained that MAP-21 aimed to increase flexibility in allocating funds for projects. However, by prioritizing the National Highway System (NHS) over other federal-aid eligible facilities, the result is a limit on the amount of funds for locally-owned roads because the percentage of money that could be spent on non-NHS federal-aid roads decreased.
Richard noted that the regions NHS roads and bridges are in good condition, especially when compared to the remainder of the system. If NYSDOT-Main Office provides funding for the I-390 Phase 4 project, that project will be removed from the green component, which will allow projects in the yellow component to be fully funded.
The committee agreed that the differences between the green, yellow, and red components of the draft TIP project list must be readily understandable when the list is released for public review. Richard explained that several editorial changes will be made to the list to highlight the above discussion and provide further clarification for the public.
Ed Welsh requested that the Yellow Component be reviewed to ensure that the funding made available through the selection of the I-390 Phase 4 project by NYSDOT-Main Office to receive funding from the statewide allocation is fully accounted for, noting some discrepancies. Richard responded that GTC staff will do a full review and make any adjustments.
Terry Rice moved to approve the DRAFT 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program Update Project List for Public Review; Bill Wright seconded the motion. The motion passed unopposed.
6. New Business
Richard Perrin reported that GTC staff is working on revisions to the Rochester Adjusted Urbanized Area for your review and consideration based on the Rochester 2010 Census Urbanized Area (UZA) that was released in late-March 2012. Census boundaries are irregular and FHWA and FTA allow MPOs and state departments of transportation to work cooperatively to smooth out these geographies into the adjusted urbanized area boundaries. The Rochester Adjusted Urbanized Area must incorporate all of the Census UZA and be approved by the MPO, Governor, and the U.S. Department of Transportation by June 2014. NYSDOT-Main Office is requesting action by the MPOs by September 30, 2013 as the adjusted urbanized areas will change its 2014 Highway Performance Monitoring System submission to FHWA.
The 2010 Census resulted in changes to the Rochester Census UZA that removes portions that were included based on the 2000 Census, primarily on the westernmost side of Monroe County (Towns of Clarkson and Sweden, including the Village of Brockport) and adds areas in the southern (Towns of Wheatland and Henrietta) and eastern (Towns of Webster, Penfield, Macedon, Ontario, and Victor) portions of the Rochester TMA as well as the entire City of Canandaigua and portions of the Towns of Canandaigua, Gorham, and Williamson. There are also Census Urban Clusters that could be incorporated into the adjusted urbanized area.
The delineation of the revised Rochester Adjusted Urbanized Area is related to but separate from the update of the Functional Classification of roadways in the Rochester TMA. Federal-aid eligible projects programmed within adjusted urbanized areas can access Surface Transportation Program-Large Urban funds. We are still awaiting guidance on the update of the Functional Class System from FHWA.
The additions of the portions of the Towns of Gorham and Williamson will require that the boundaries of the TMA be adjusted to, at a minimum, include these areas as well as any Census Urban Clusters that are incorporated into the adjusted urbanized area. It should be noted that the current FHWA/FTA-recognized Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) for the Rochester Adjusted Urbanized Area is the TMA not the nine-county region. The updates of the Rochester Adjusted Urbanized Area and Rochester TMA provide the opportunity for the update of the MPA.
The initial interpretation of the relevant portion of Titles 23 and 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is that the nine-county area can be designated as the MPA for GTC and it would not change the responsibilities of GTC and NYSDOT in the development of the TIP, which are based on the TMA. Making the officially-recognized boundaries of the MPA the entire nine-county region would be consistent with both the original designation of GTC and the boundaries of the current Governors regional economic development council.
Dan Hallowell noted this is the last year NYSDOT is soliciting projects for funding through the Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP). Erik Frisch asked about the status of the Transportation Alternative Funds and when GTC and NYSDOT expect to solicit projects. Richard Perrin replied the NYSDOT has yet to decide but the funding would likely be for two years covered by MAP-21, beginning with FFY 2013.
7. Public Forum
No one from the public spoke during the public forum.
8. Next Meeting
May 23, 2013 at Location: TBD
The meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m.