June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation

Transportation Advisory Group
Scenarios Development Workshop
June 28, 2012

Introductions

Steve Thieken, B&N
Project Manger
Jamie Snow, B&N
Senior Transportation Planner & Modeler
Joel Mann, Kittelson & Associates
Senior Planner

Meeting Purpose

Brainstorm and discuss concepts to include in
the long range transportation plan
The concepts presented and scenarios
developed will form the basis/first step for the
project team’s analysis of alternatives and
ultimately the recommended plan

Agenda

Part 1 - Set the Stage
Review and discuss Draft Transportation Goals, Objectives, Measures
Review Conceptual Development Map (from regional visioning process)
Overview of current transportation
Discuss funding
Review the “toolbox” of concepts
Part 2 - Build the Scenarios
Develop three Scenarios (small group work)
Report-out from each group (larger group)
Compare/contrast scenarios and discussion (larger group)
Work to merge into three consensus “hybrid” Scenarios (larger group)

Overall Planning Process

Regional Visioning Process (basically complete)
Meeting 1 – Kickoff/Existing Conditions/Goals (May 17th)
Meeting 2 – Alternatives Workshop (today)
Meeting 3 – Alternatives Analysis Review (September)
Meeting 4 – Draft Recommended Plan Review (late October)
Public Engagement
Open House (late October)
Stakeholder Discussions (ongoing)
Website

Transportation Planning Process

LRTP Process

Source: Transportation Planning Process Key
Issues, 2007, A Publication of the
Transportation Planning Capacity Building
Program

Improvement Ideas and Strategies

Concepts should be rooted in:
Community’s
Regional Vision
Vision, Goals and
for Growth
Objectives

Improvement Ideas
and Strategies

Deficiencies and
Needs in System

Goals, Objectives, Measures
It’s Time to Chart Our Future


Community’s
Regional Vision
Vision, Goals and
for Growth
Objectives

Improvement Ideas
and Strategies

Deficiencies and
Needs in System

Draft LRTP Goals

Regional Visioning Process
•Stakeholder Meetings (January)
•Idea Gathering Meetings (January)

Draft LRTP Goals,
TAG Meeting #1 (May 17th)
•Goals Exercise Objectives, and
Measures
Eight Metropolitan Planning Factors
•FHWA
•SAFETEA-LU

Regional Visioning Process (quick review)

Regional Visioning Group
Kickoff Meeting (November 8th)
General Workshop (December 7th)
Goal Writing Workshop (February 29th)
Stakeholder Interviews (January 24th – 26th)
Public Meetings
Idea Gathering (January 25th and 26th)
Understanding Future Growth (March 28th)
Community Choices Workshop (June 6th)


Step 1 - Developing Goals and Vision Statements
&
Idea Gathering Stakeholder
Meetings Interviews

Goals & Vision
Statements


Step 2 - Developing Principles and Regional Vision
&
Goals & Vision Understanding
Statements Future Growth

Principles &
Regional Vision


Principles and Vision Plan feed the LRTP

Principles & Technical
Regional Vision Findings

Transportation and
Comprehensive
Plans

Transportation Vision Statement

Vision Statement from Crossroads effort:
Moving… A balanced, safe, attractive, and accessible
transportation system will reduce congestion, improve
connectivity and support and direct future growth
integrating private vehicles and expanding public
transportation, biking, and walking networks.
One of the five broad vision statements for the region
Crossroads also produced goals and objective that
were at the last TAG meeting

TAG #1 Feedback
GROUP 1 GROUP 2
Goal: Preserve, Improve and Enhance LOS on Arteries and Goal: Improve Ingress/Egress to the Core (density) of the
Connector roads. community.
Objective 1.1- Improve travel times. Objective 1- Reduce time for people to core.
Objective 1.2- More people per vehicle. -Travel time for people (all modes).
Goal: An Operational system that all modes can use efficiently. Objective 2- Increase ability to get more people to/from core.
Objective 2.1- By [DATE] we will have a set of operational and - Number of people (all modes) trips.
enforcement guidelines. - Commuting (Population, Jobs, Students).
Objective 2.2- Add the human touch back into operations. Objective 3- Increase route options (all modes).
Goal: Promote pedestrian traffic outside municipal boundaries. Goal: Increase Alternatives to traveling (using traditional
Goal: New freight infrastructure that is not based on roads/trucks. transportation systems)
Goal: Expand airport for Multi functional air travel. Objective 1- Increase telecommuting /Electronic technology
capacity, students to classes.
GROUP 3 -Number of people telecommuting and
Goal: Integrated Transportation system that includes where all number of students taking classes remotely
modes are viable to the public. -Efficiency of broadband system (or other).
Objective 1- 5% bicycle trips 2030. Objective 2- Support Development/Land Use patterns that
Objective 2- 20% of all trips on foot. decrease need to travel.
Objective 3- Public transit system 15min headways in urban areas. -Increase in mixed use neighborhoods.
Goal: Transportation system that provides an acceptable traffic flow -Trips.
during peak commuting periods. Goal: Reduce personal auto use.
Objective 1 - Improving Key congestion areas. Objective 1- Reduce number of people reliant on personal
Objective 2- Increase vehicle occupancy by 30%. autos.
Goal: Reduce injury & death -Personal Auto Ownership
Objective 1 - Design of future transportation project reduce -Auto Volumes
accidents. Objective 2- Reduce land area needed for personal travel
-Land Area used for parking

Federally Required Planning Factors

1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by
enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;
2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and
non-motorized users;
3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and
non-motorized users;
4. Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight;
5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation,
improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between
transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and
economic development patterns;
6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system,
across and between modes, for people and freight;
7. Promote efficient system management and operation; and
8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

Resource: SAFETEA-LU

Goals Feedback
Rating by Person Average
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Rating

How well do these eight transportation goals and respective
3 4 2 3 3 3 3 3
objectives capture the community's needs and desires?

Goal #1 8 10 9 10 10 3 8.3
Goal #2 10 9 2 8 8 7 7.3
Goal #3 7 9 2 9 4 10 6.8
Goal #4 7 8 7 9 6 5 7
How important do you believe this goal is?
Goal #5 10 10 10 10 5 7 8.7
Goal #6 10 8 5 9 7 8 7.8
Goal #7 10 10 10 10 2 6 8
Goal #8 5 5 5 6 1 2 4

LRTP Goal #1
Goal #1: A multimodal transportation system that efficiently moves people and goods
OBJECTIVES MEASUREMENTS
Objective 1A: To eliminate/reduce current congestion Change in delay Change in delay Change in Change in
and multimodal traffic flow restrictions on arterial and and travel time and travel time delay and delay and
collector roadways for pedestrians for bicyclists travel time travel time
for for bus and
automobiles PRT

Objective 1B: To ensure that future development and Change in number of transportation improvements built
related transportation improvements address capacity prior to and concurrently with growth and development
and connectivity needs proactively rather than (rather than reactive to)
reactively
Objective 1C: Improve ingress/egress to the most Change in time to Change in number Change in number of routes and
densely developed / highest activity areas of region travel to and from of people connection options to and from
(the core) core traveling to and the core (all modes)
from core
Objective 1D: Provide adequate transportation Change in access Change in travel
capacity and access to support current businesses to current time to current
clusters of clusters of
businesses businesses
Objective 1E: Focus capacity improvements for all Change in number of improvements Change in amount of growth
modes in areas of desired future growth and planned, designed, and/or constructed in and development in areas
development that support the public’s vision for the areas of desired growth identified as priority areas in
region regional vision

LRTP Goal #2
Goal #2: A transportation system in which all modes are highly integrated and connected
Objective 2A: To allow for convenient transfer Change in number of Change in travel time / Change in cost of travel
from one mode to another in the region (i.e. multimodal trips travel delay for trips
biking to bus, vanpooling to bus, etc) to
maximize travel efficiency

Objective 2B: To encourage the use of the most Change in number of Change in number of Change in number of
efficient mode based on the characteristics of a people walking people bicycling people riding the bus
particular trip and PRT

Objective 2C: Increase the geographic area in Change in number of Change in amount of county served by non-auto
which people have convenient access to non- travel options to transportation modes
automobile modes individuals in all
populated areas

Objective 2D: Reduce reliance on automobile Change in number of Change in auto ownership
for travel person trips by non-
automobile modes

Objective 2E: Better serve those who do Change in number of Change in travel times for those who do not drive
not/cannot own and drive a personal opportunities to travel
automobile. for those who do not
drive

LRTP Goal #3
Goal #3: A multimodal transportation system that safely moves people and goods
Objective 3A: To minimize crashes, especially injury/fatality Change in frequency and Change in frequency of injury/fatality
crashes by 50% through improvement of high crash locations rate of crashes (all crashes (all modes)
(all modes) modes)

Objective 3B: To ensure that future growth and related Change in crash Transportation improvements built prior
transportation improvements address transportation safety frequency and rates in to and concurrently with growth and
needs in planning and design areas affected by development (rather than in reaction to
development and growth)
growth

LRTP Goal #4
Goal #4: A transportation system that maximizes the efficiency of freight movement through and within the region
with minimal impacts on neighborhood and campus areas, especially areas of higher bicycle and pedestrian demand
Objective 4A: Reduce truck traffic in residential Change in number of Change in number of trucks in other pedestrian/bicycle activity
neighborhoods and on other streets where trucks in areas
significant numbers of bicycles and pedestrians neighborhoods
are present

Objective 4B: Improve truck access to key Change in time to Change in amount of Change in amount of freight
industrial areas deliver freight freight moved dependent industries
Objective 4C: Increase options for freight Change in amount of freight moved by non-truck mode
movement that minimizes truck traffic on non-
interstate roadways

LRTP Goal #5
Goal #5: Greater collaboration between local agencies, state officials, and private interests in the pursuit and funding
of transportation improvements
Objective 5A: More effective and less costly Change in number of Change in number of Change in number of projects
transportation improvements by capitalizing on policies and projects co- projects funded by multiple that physically cross
common goals and needs between communities sponsored by multiple jurisdictions jurisdictional lines
and agencies in the region jurisdictions

Objective 5B: Higher quality transportation system Change in the ratio of Change in public opinion related to quality of transportation
improvements due to cost sharing and funding by state sources improvements
collaboration. versus local sources for
projects

Objective 5C: Transportation improvements that Change in number of Change in public satisfaction related to transportation
support the public’s long-term vision for the regional goals supported projects
region by projects

LRTP Goal #6
Goals #6: A Transportation system that is attractive, sustainable, and livable.
Objective 6A: Integrate the local context of the Change in the quality and Change in public satisfaction Change in property values.
area into the planning, design, and livability of the built related to transportation
construction of transportation improvements environment projects

Objective 6B: Include sustainability features in Change in storm water Change in vehicle emissions Change in negative impacts to
design of transportation improvements that run-off due to impact on air-quality environment due to
minimize environmental impacts transportation transportation
infrastructure and runoff
related to vehicular
byproducts.
Objective 6C: Address multimodal system Change in number of non- Change in comfort, safety and convenience for travel (all
needs in all planning, design, and construction automobile focused modes)
of transportation improvements transportation projects
planned, designed, and
constructed

LRTP Goal #7
Goals #7: Reduce automobile trip demand, especially during peak travel hours
Objective 7A: Reduce the need to construct costly Change in project funding required to meet the region’s transportation and parking
transportation and parking infrastructure needs
improvements
Objective 7B: Invest in transportation improvements Change in number of projects that support mixed-use, transit oriented, and non-auto
that encourage and support development/land use centric land development
patterns that decrease need to travel
Objective 7C: Reduce automobile emissions and Change in air-quality measures
improve air quality
Objective 7D: 20% of all trips made by walking Change in walking trips

Objective 7E: 5% of all trips made by bicycle Change in bicycle trips
Objective 7F: Increase number of trips made by Change in bus trips Change in PRT trips Change in other public transit
public transit by 200% trips
Objective 7F: Increase work telecommuting and Change in number of Change in number of Change in person trips to/from
virtual lectures (WVU) employees working from students taking classes work and classes
home or other remote remotely
locations
Objective 7E: Increase average vehicle occupancy by Change in average occupants per vehicle
100%

2006 – 2008 Mode Split (commuting)
6.71%
0.22% Monongalia County
0.10% 4.09% 0.66%
1.91% Drive Alone

3.25% 0.08% WV State Drive Alone 10.97%
Shared Ride
Transit
0.18% 0.10% Shared Ride
0.93% Bicycle
3.09%
0.90%
Transit 75.35% Walking

10.85% Motorcycle
Bicycle
Telecommute
Walking
Other
Taxi
80.63%
Motorcycle
City of Morgantown
1.05%
Telecommute
6.78% Drive Alone
Other
20.14% Shared Ride
Transit
59.72%
Bicycle
Source: Census Transportation Planning Products (CTPP) 0.14% 10.21%
1.96% Walking
Telecommute
Other

LRTP Goal #8
Goals #8: A multimodal transportation system that enhances the homeland security of the region
Objective 8A: Heighten awareness of homeland security Change in occurrences of security issues being considered
needs related to transportation

Objective 8B: Improve understanding of critical Change in knowledge of critical homeland security issues
transportation system related homeland security issues in the
region

Objective 8C: Incorporate homeland security needs in Change in number of projects and policies that include homeland security
transportation project planning, design, and construction considerations

Addressing the Eight Planning Factors
SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors Draft LRTP Goal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by
X X X X X X
enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency.
2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and
X X X X X X
non-motorized users.
3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and
X X X
non-motorized users.
4. Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight. X X X X X X
5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation,
improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between
X X X X X X X
transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and
economic development patterns.
6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation
X X X X X
system, across and between modes, for people and freight.
7. Promote efficient system management and operation. X X X X X X

8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. X X X X X X

Regional Vision – Growth
Framework

Conceptual Framework Map

Michael Insert final version

Concepts

Preserve Open – Areas that are permanently protected from development (parkland)
Reserve Open – Areas of steep slopes that are subject to development but should be protected.
Restricted (floodplain) – Areas that are subject to development, but where development is
restricted due to a high risk of flooding.
Priority Growth – Areas where development should be encouraged. Includes growth in new
areas and redevelopment within existing areas. Development should be consistent with the
Principles (enhance the community’s vitality, provide for a greater mix of uses, improve mobility,
expand housing choices, and attractive)
Infill and Redevelopment – Existing developed areas where additional growth, consistent with
the Principles is generally appropriate, but not a strategic priority.
Controlled Growth – Developing areas, or currently undeveloped land where more growth is
likely due to proximity to existing thoroughfares, infrastructure and adjacency to recent
development. Growth in these areas generally expands the footprint of the urban area and
should be controlled to minimize negative impacts.
Limited Growth – All other areas of that are subject to development, but where increased
intensity is generally not desired. These areas include both existing open space and existing
development.

Conceptual Framework Map

A visual representation of the Vision for growth
Preliminarily based on:
1. Results of Understanding Future Growth workshop
2. Work with Comprehensive Plan Committees

Patterns we found in the Understanding Future Growth Workshop:
Redevelopment at higher intensities

Examples:
Group Group

5 2

• All of the groups placed at least half of their chips on areas with existing
development
• Many chips were stacked on specific sites that participants felt had
redevelopment potential, indicating that development should occur at
higher intensities.

Infill Development

Examples:
Group Group

4 2

• Most of the groups placed development in undeveloped areas near existing
development.
• This infill pattern of development would plug holes in the urban fabric, placing
development in areas already served by existing infrastructure, and allowing the
urban area to expand in a contiguous pattern.

Greenfield development is limited and clustered

Examples:
Group Group

3 2

• Groups understood the difficulty in limiting all “greenfield” development.
• Development happening in currently undeveloped areas should be both near
existing development and/or clustered to “minimize sprawl” and “preserve
open space” rather than occur in a haphazard “leap-frog” pattern.

Very limited development in outlying areas

Examples:

Group Group Group

4 3 2

• Groups allocated very limited growth for the surrounding region.
• Some identified areas south, along I-79 as suitable for some development, while fewer
placed development in the western part of the county.

Conceptual Framework Map Summary

A visual representation of the Vision
Represents the intended approach to growth in the
region
Policy recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plans and Long Range Transportation Plan should
aim to make this reality
Will be refined based on:
Market analysis and forecasts

Countywide Land Use Projections
Housing
•Demand for almost 17,200 more housing units by 2037
•Increase of 42.9% in 25 years (1.6% per year)

•There are 11,700 more housing units in 2012 than in 1990

Retail
•Demand for 2.8 million square feet of retail space by 2037
•Translates into 4,115 more retail & restaurant jobs

•There are about 3,200 more retail & restaurant jobs in 2012 than in 1998

Incorporating Future Growth

Model Inputs Travel Demand Forecasted
• Roadway Network Model Process Results
• Regional Vision • Trip Generation • 2040 Base Year
• Economic • Trip Distribution • Transportation
Development • Mode Split Scenarios
Analysis • Highway Assignment

Current System


Community’s
Regional Vision
Vision, Goals and
for Growth
Objectives

Improvement Ideas
and Strategies

Opportunities and
Constraints in
System

Roadways Characteristics

• Nearly 17% of roadway “arterials” are at, or over
capacity with numerous “bottlenecks” in the
system
• Many “substandard” roadways
Steep grades
Sharp turns/curves
Narrow lane widths
Narrow shoulder widths

Roadway Challenges

• Very difficult (costly) to widen existing or construct
new roads due to limited right-of-way availability
and the area’s topography
• Uncontrolled development patterns and lack of
improvements to transportation infrastructure or
access control over the years have lead to many
capacity/safety problems
• Lack of local consensus has stymied past attempts
to construct roadway/highway improvements

Automobile Traffic Characteristics

• Peak travel times and traffic operations are
highly influenced by WVU schedule
• Travel patterns influenced by parking availability
and locations

Primary Public Transit Service Providers

• Mountain Line Transit Authority
Focus on the urban core with reach into the County
Major service expansions are planned but not funded
• WVU
Focus on shuttle service connecting campuses
Operates PRT
Excellent reliability record
Undergoing maintenance and technology upgrades
No plans/funding for expansion of system

Transit Characteristics

• Good transit service coverage in key populated
areas
• Frequency of service is deficient in most areas
• Hours of day of service also deficient in most
areas
• Lacks consistent stop locations with quality
amenities and good pedestrian environments

Pedestrian System Characteristics

Primarily sidewalks and multi-use trails
Grade/topography a major concern
Sidewalk coverage/connectivity deficient in most
areas
Narrow sidewalks adjacent to high speed traffic
Lack of “safe” crosswalks
Many existing sidewalks are substandard with
utility poles and other impediments blocking the
pathway

Pedestrian Safety

1998 through 2008
226 reported pedestrian injuries
Consistently 20 to 25 pedestrian injuries per year
Leading pedestrian accident locations
Spruce & Walnut (9) University/Beechurst/Fayette (5)

High & Willey (8) Beechurst & Campus (5)

S. University & Pleasant (8) Chestnut Ridge/Van Voorhis (5)

University & College (8) High & Walnut (4)
N. Willey & Prospect (7) High & Fayette (4)
Spruce & Pleasant (5) University & Prospect (4)
West Virginia University Injury Control Research Center
January 1998 – June 2008

Pedestrian Demand

Local demographics lead to:
Walking more prevalent in Morgantown than
anywhere else in WV
Significant demand for walking/running for exercise
University connections to off-campus residential
areas especially important

Bicycling Characteristics

On-street travel:
Narrow lanes and steep grades can make bicycling
difficult on many roadways
Few streets with paved shoulders
No on-street bike lanes exist
Steep side slopes and narrow rights-of-way make
bike lane improvements difficult
“Bikeable” routes exist (see Morgantown Bicycle
Board’s “Commuter Map”)


Trails
Excellent opportunities for cycling (recreational and
commuting) on trails
Nearly 10-miles of paved trails
Caperton Trail
Decker’s Creek Trail
Many more miles of nature surface trails at City and
County parks


Parking
Numerous racks in City and WVU Campus
Parking rings already added to several downtown
parking meters with possibly more in the future

Freight

Trucking
Designated truck routes: I-68, I-79, US 119, US 19,
WV 7, and CR 857
Two Active Rail Lines
Monongahela River

Air Travel

Morgantown Municipal Airport (Hart Field)
Commercial passenger travel available 7 days
Private hangers

Funding Trends

Gas consumption is down
Price, fuel economy, unemployment
Flat tax per gallon
Revenue down
Limited/no earmarks
Local tax revenues down
No federal transportation bill

State Forecast

Transportation revenue expected to stay flat
STATE ROAD FUND REVENUE ESTIMATES*
FY STATE FEDERAL** TOTAL
2013 $715,800 $494,000 $1,209,800
2014 $750,800 $416,000 $1,166,800
2015 $747,000 $411,000 $1,158,000
2016 $747,000 $411,000 $1,158,000
2017 $751,600 $411,000 $1,162,600
TOTAL = $5,855,200
5-YR AVG = $1,171,040
* PRESENTED IN NOMINAL DOLLARS (000'S)
** FEDERAL REVENUE ESTIMATES LESS ARRA

Purchasing Power Decreasing

“Due to declining revenue and inflation, the Agency’s purchasing power will
effectively be cut by 19% from FY 2013 to FY 2017. “

STATE ROAD FUND REVENUE ESTIMATES*
OFFICIAL EST STATE FEDERAL** TOTAL
2013 $657,876 $454,024 $1,111,900
2014 $661,534 $366,540 $1,028,074
2015 $630,993 $347,173 $978,166
2016 $604,924 $332,830 $937,754
2017 $583,503 $319,079 $902,582
TOTAL = $4,958,476
5-YR AVG = $991,695
* PRESENTED IN CONSTANT 2011 DOLLARS (000'S)
** FEDERAL REVENUE ESTIMATES LESS ARRA

TABLE # 12
25-YEAR STATEWIDE REVENUE PROJECTIONS
Statewide FY 2013 - FY 2037
ESTIMATED ESTIMATED TOTAL

Projections FISCAL
YEAR
STATE REVENUE
2011 DOLLARS
($000's)
FED REVENUE
2011 DOLLARS
($000's)
REVENUE
2011 DOLLARS
($000's)
2013 $657,876 * $454,024 * $1,111,900 *
2014 $661,534 * $366,540 * $1,028,074 *
2015 $630,993 * $347,173 * $978,166 *
2016 $604,924 * $332,830 * $937,754 *
2017 $583,503 * $319,079 * $902,582 *
2018 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2019 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2020 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2021 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2022 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2023 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2024 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2025 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2026 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2027 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2028 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2029 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2030 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2031 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2032 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2033 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2034 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2035 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2036 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
2037 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695
25-YEAR TOTAL REVENUE = $24,792,382
NOTE: *VALUES TAKEN FROM WVDOT FY 2013 BUDGET
PRESENTATION LESS ARRA FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT

Funding Forecast for
WV MPO LRTPs IMPROVEMENT 2011 DOLLARS (000's) (FY 2013-2037)
FORECAST SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION VALUE
TOTAL PROJECTED REVENUE $24,792,382
LESS NON-IMPROVEMENT FUNDS -$12,496,138
LESS EXCLUDED IMPROVEMENTS FUNDS -$9,468,108
LESS EARMARKS (ASSUMED $0 MILL/YR) $0
STATEWIDE IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
AVAILABLE FOR MPO PLANNING PURPOSES $2,828,136
IMPROVEMENT FUNDS DISTRIBUTED BY
AVERAGE OF VMT, POPULATION, HIGHWAY
MILEAGE AND HISTORICAL IMPROVEMENT
***
FUNDING
NON-MPO AREAS (58.83% ) $1,663,800
MPO AREAS (41.17% ) $1,164,336
RIC (13.63% ) $385,345
KYOVA (5.41% ) $153,039
WWW (3.44% ) $97,160
GMA (4.14% ) $117,179
BELOMAR (2.93% ) $82,757
BHJ (2.44% ) $68,954
HEP (8.48% ) $239,764
NOTE: *** INDICATES APPROVED METHODOLOGY FROM 10/07 AND RESULTS
USING DATA REVISED 1/12/12

GMA LRTP 25-YR IMPROVEMENT FUNDING FORECAST (IN 2011 DOLLARS)
VALUES AS OF 1/15/11 AND PRESENTED IN THOUSANDS
MM MPO 25-yr Improvement Funding Forecast STATEWIDE GMA LRTP
TOTAL NON STATEWIDE ELIMINATED ELIMINATED IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT
STATE IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT EARMARKED FUNDS FOR FUNDING
FY REVENUE EXPENDITURES FUNDS FUNDS FUNDS MPO LRTP'S @ (4.30%)
2013 $1,111,900 $499,846 $612,054 $471,282 $0 $140,773 $6,054
2014 $1,028,074 $499,846 $528,229 $406,736 $0 $121,493 $5,225
2015 $978,166 $499,846 $478,321 $368,307 $0 $110,014 $4,731
2016 $937,754 $499,846 $437,908 $337,189 $0 $100,719 $4,331
2017 $902,582 $499,846 $402,736 $310,107 $0 $92,629 $3,984
2018 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,865
2019 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,865
2020
2021
2022
- $136M over 28 year span of LRTP
$991,695
$991,695
$991,695
$499,846
$499,846
$499,846
$491,850
$491,850
$491,850
$378,724
$378,724
$378,724
$0
$0
$0
$113,125
$113,125
$113,125
$4,865
$4,865
$4,865
2023 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,865
2024 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,865
2025
2026
- 2006 LRTP constraint was $233M
$991,695
$991,695
$499,846
$499,846
$491,850
$491,850
$378,724
$378,724
$0
$0
$113,125
$113,125
$4,865
$4,865
2027 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,865
2028
2029
(42% reduction)
$991,695
$991,695
$499,846
$499,846
$491,850
$491,850
$378,724
$378,724
$0
$0
$113,125
$113,125
$4,865
$4,865
2030 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,865
2031 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,865
2032 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,865
2033 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,865
2034 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,865
2035 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,865
2036 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,865
2037 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,865
25-YR
$24,792,382 $12,496,138 $12,296,244 $9,468,108 $0 $2,828,136 $121,626
TOTALS

Alternative Funding Thoughts

Local taxes
Impact fees
Developer contributions
Tolling
User fees
Contracts
Private-public partnerships
Tax Increment Financing
Other grants?
Other?

Scenario Planning Targets

Green Wave!
$300M – Optimistic (lay it all out there)

Status Quo (State Projection)
$150M – Realistic (cut the fat)

Tighten the Belt
$75M – Pessimistic (now what do you really want?)

Past/Current/Future Projects

Most of 2004 MPO priority projects list is complete
Turn lanes, lane additions, signals, safety
Mileground – widening project scheduled
Osage Road/Chaplin Hill – signal work
Grumbeins Island – preferred concept to lower
University Ave and create plaza over
Van Voorhis TSM – signal work and drainage/sidewalk
WV 705 TSM – Beechurst to Mileground

Mileground Estimates

Estimated Cost - $40M +
Preliminary estimates
Approx.
Phase Length Approx. Cost
Phase I
R/W $6.1 M 0.9 $ 11,300,000 per mile
Construction $4.1 M $ 4,600,000 per mile
Phase II
Construction $7.6 M 0.6 $ 12,700,000 per mile
Phase III
R/W $10 M 0.7 $ 14,000,000 per mile
Construction $14 M $ 20,000,000 per mile

Scenarios
Development Exercise

Next Steps

Refine goals, objectives, and measures
Technical Analysis of Scenarios
Further detailing
Field reviews as needed
Travel Demand Model analysis
Modification of and development of additional
concepts by consultant team
Cost estimates
Next TAG Meeting – Alternatives Review Workshop
(September)

June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation

Semelhante a June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation (20)

Último

Último (20)

June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation