A quorum was reached and the meeting was called to order at 11:47 a.m. by Chairman Jinright.

Transcription

1 Metropolitan Planning Organization Meeting Minutes May 24, 2012 Members Mayor Todd Strange, City of Montgomery Mayor William Gillespie, City of Prattville Mayor Jerry Willis, City of Wetumpka, (MPO Vice Chairman) Councilman Charles Jinright, (MPO Chairman) Mr. Robert Smith, (MPO Secretary) Mayor Al Kelley, City of Millbrook Councilman Cornelius (C.C.) Calhoun Commissioner Earl Reeves, Elmore County Non-Voting Members Mr. Kelvin Miller (MATS) Mayor Gordon Stone, Town of Pike Road Mr. Dave Harris, FHWA Guests Mr. Kleob Loflin, City of Wetumpka Mayor Margaret White, Town of Elmore Mayor Clayton Edgar, Town of Deatsville Mr. Jim Doolin, ALDOT Mr. Norman Holman, ALDOT MPO Staff Mr. James Askew Mr. Kindell Anderson Mrs. April Delchamps Mrs. Lisa Walters At the regularly scheduled meeting of the Montgomery Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) on May 24, 2012 at 11:30 a.m. at the City of Montgomery Intermodal Transfer Facility, Montgomery, Alabama, the aforementioned members were present. A quorum was reached and the meeting was called to order at 11:47 a.m. by Chairman Jinright. Mayor Clayton Edgar of Deatsville and Mayor Margaret White from the Town of Elmore, and Mr. Jim Doolin (ALDOT) were recognized. Agenda Item 4: Approval of Meeting Minutes. The first motion was made by Councilman Calhoun and the second motion was made by Mayor Gillespie to accept the Minutes from the previous meeting. It was pointed out that Mr. Kenneth White (Town of Pike Road) did attend the previous meeting but was not listed in the Minutes. The Minutes passed unanimously with the correction to be made. 1

2 Agenda Item 5: FY TIP Amendments. Mr. Smith informed the MPO members that the CAC and TCC advisory committees approved the following TIP amendments as they are written. There were also a couple of stipulations put in related to the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for consistency. Additionally, the ATRIP projects would only be added in or maintained if they are approved at the state level which they are not at this point. Mr. Smith continued with the project descriptions. Page 2 is a State project (ST-5-AM) to resurface SR-110 from 2 miles east of SR-293 to 0.3 miles west of Mitchell Road near Mitchell Station. Total funds are $4,093,010. This project did have an addition to make it consistent with the Bike/Ped Plan and will be added to that document. Page 3 is a City of Montgomery project (M-1-AM) to resurface and four-lane Ann St. from Highland Av. to Federal Dr. and realign with Federal Dr. This is for a cost increase of $60,000 which brings the Total funds to $449,107. Page 4 is a Montgomery Cancer Wellness Center project (TR-3-AM) for FTA Section 5310 funds for Capital Purchase Transit FY-12. Total funds are $43,750. Page 5 is a State project (IM-5-AM) for Sign Rehabilitation along I-65 from the Conecuh County line through Butler, Lowndes, Montgomery, Elmore, and Autauga Counties to the Chilton County line. The distance here is miles. Total funds are $2,200,000. Mayor Kelley asked how he could get a list of the signs to be rehabbed. Mr. Smith referred the Mayor to Mr. David Bollie or Mr. John Lorentson with ALDOT. Mayor Strange asked the staff to get the actual sign locations along I-65 and I-85 from ALDOT for MPO Member reference. Page 6 is a State project (NHS-2-AM). This is for additional lanes (southbound only) on SR-9 (US-231) from CR-74 (Anderson Rd.) near the Montgomery/Elmore County line to near Jasmine Hill Rd. This will also include the Tallapoosa River Bridge replacement BIN # Total funds are $13,019,200. Page 7 is an Elmore County Commission project (ATRIP-1-AM) to resurface/widen CR-103 (Jackson Rd./Old Ware Rd.) from Peace Church Rd. north to Redland Rd. Total costs are $1,016,640. The project will also include a bike facility. This project has been submitted for ATRIP funding. Although the selection process has not been completed, it is necessary for this project to be included in the TIP and STIP. Page 8 is a City of Montgomery project (ATRIP-2-AM) to resurface East Fairview Av. from South Court St. to Cloverdale Rd. in the City of Montgomery. Total funds are $1,981,148. This project will match up with the current project on the west end of Fairview Av. This project has been submitted for ATRIP funding. Although the selection process has not been completed, it is necessary for this project to be included in the TIP and STIP. Page 9 is a City of Montgomery project (ATRIP-3-AM) to resurface and convert South Court St. from One-Way to Two-Way from Arba St. to Fairview Av. This will also add Bike Signs and signalization. Total funds are $3,082,617. This project has been submitted for ATRIP funding. Although the selection process has not been completed, it is necessary for this project to be included in the TIP and STIP. Page 10 is a City of Montgomery project (ATRIP-4-AM) to resurface Carter Hill Rd. from South Decatur St. to Pineleaf St. Total funds are $2,366,576. This project has been submitted 2

3 for ATRIP funding. Although the selection process has not been completed, it is necessary for this project to be included in the TIP and STIP. Page 11 is a Montgomery County Commission project (ATRIP-5-AM) to resurface CR-85 (Pike Road/Old Carter Hill Road) from SR-6 (US-82) to CR-83 (Wallahatchie Rd). Total funds are $1,056,672. This project has been submitted for ATRIP funding. Although the selection process has not been completed, it is necessary for this project to be included in the TIP and STIP. Page 12 is a Montgomery County Commission project (ATRIP-6-AM) to resurface CR-17 (Mitchell Young Rd) from SR-8 (US-80) to CR-54 (Old Selma Rd). Total funds are $934,456. This project has been submitted for ATRIP funding. Although the selection process has not been completed, it is necessary for this project to be included in the TIP and STIP. Mayor Strange made the first motion and Councilman Calhoun made the second. The amendments passed unanimously. Agenda Item 6: Draft MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Ms. April Delchamps presented a PowerPoint presentation on the Montgomery Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Attachment A located on pages 5 to 11 is a copy of the PowerPoint presentation. After the presentation, Mayor Gordon Stone stated his concerns regarding the likelihood of Pike Road bicycle and pedestrian projects in the plan would score high enough on the prioritization scale to be implemented. Ms. Delchamps detailed that prioritization is only one approach. Opportunistic approaches will be pursed as well. In addition, Mayor Stone expressed concern that the planning Pike Road Trail System is not prioritized. Ms. Delchamps explained all planned projects are priority 1. Ms. Delchamps expressed that edits would be made to the document to clarify these points. Mayor Strange made the first motion and a second was added by Councilman Calhoun. The Plan passed unanimously. Agenda Item 7: 2010 U.S. Census Urbanized Areas (UZA s). Mr. Smith stated that on March 26, 2012 the census bureau announced who and where the new Urbanized Areas would be. The outcome is scenario number three based on that release date of March 26, 2012, an Urbanized Area in Autauga/Elmore/Montgomery Counties via a new connection along U.S. Highway 31 and one Urban Cluster in Wetumpka. The Urban Area population would be 263,907 and the Urban Cluster population would be 6,659. Mr. Kenneth White asked what makes up the definition of a UZA or how do you designate a UZA? Mr. Smith said it is based on population density of 500 to 1000 persons per square mile. Ms. April Delchamps presented a PowerPoint presentation on the 2010 U.S. Census Urbanized Area and Urban Clusters. Attachment B located on pages 12 to 16 is a copy of the PowerPoint presentation. Agenda Item 8: TCC and CAC Actions. Mr. Smith stated that the TCC and CAC committees heard all the TIP and Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan information and both committees approved all of it. Agenda Item 9: CAC Appointment. Mr. Smith stated that CAC member, Mr. Crews Reaves, had recommended that Ms. Greta Duckett be appointed to the CAC Committee for the Montgomery 3

4 portion of the area. The entire CAC committee approved and asked for the MPO committee to take action on the recommended appointment. A motion was made and seconded. The appointment of Ms. Duckett passed unanimously. Agenda Item 10: Transportation Projects Status (ALDOT). Mr. David Bollie (ALDOT) presented information about current projects. The Outer Loop Road is on schedule and has a scheduled completion date of December Highway 14 four-laning, from Callaway Creek to near Wetumpka has had utility and grade issues. Those problems should be worked out now but no completion date was given. I-65 from Crescent Lake, just south of Cobbs Ford Rd., northward has a November completion date. Right now it is on schedule. Maxwell Boulevard should be getting a final inspection this week or next. Highway 231 widening from the River Bridge north to Redland Road will add another northbound lane. This will have a June letting date. The relief bridge is also being worked on. Perry Hill Road and I-85 is scheduled for a November letting right now. It got moved out of this fiscal year due to funding. Highway 82 from 206 to Highway 14 is currently scheduled for an August letting. Inside turn lanes will be added and some property was needed on Gin Shop Hill Road. Old Farm Lane - last two phases scheduled for July letting for Grade, Drain, Base, and Pave. I-85 bridge joint repair from I-65 to Hall Street has a scheduled July letting date. SR-110 from Chantilly Parkway to the Outer Loop is now at the point where ROW can be purchased. Most of that ROW purchase will be on the south side of the road. That is supposed to be authorized in November. The tentative letting date is April of Agenda Item 11: Other Business/Issues/Concerns. Chairman Jinright commented on the membership of the MPO and the new urbanized area. He referred to and read a portion of the MPO bylaws concerning changing the Member structure. The bylaws require unanimous formal approval by all affected government bodies. This also requires approval of the Governor. The MPO may add or delete voting and non-voting members as it deems appropriate but it must have a unanimous vote. This has been a cordial group in the past and we ve gotten a lot of things done. And things have been pretty fairly done over the years. So, for us to make a change you ll know the rules are. Mayor Stone said he would like to pursue this later but not this day. He also asked that if anyone had a problem with Pike Road being involved to let him know. He wouldn t be offended personally but would just like to know what the problem is so that it may be discussed. Chairman Jinright commented that he brought it up because the group had talked about it off and on for years. Now the committee knows what the rules are and if there is an issue but right now everything is working pretty smoothly and he would like to see it stay the way it is. Unless we issues where we get in a bad situation then we ll know what we have to do to get it changed. There was no further discussion. Agenda Item 12: Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 12:46 p.m. 4

5 Attachment A 1 MONTGOMERY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN May 22, 2012 TIMELINE May 1 May 15: Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee Review of Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan May 24: Present Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Proposed Public Involvement Meetings: Monday, June 11 from 11:00 a.m. to 1 p.m. in Wetumpka Monday, June 11 from 4:30p.m. 6 p.m. in Prattville Tuesday, June 12 from 11:00 a.m. to 1 p.m. in Montgomery Tuesday, June 12 from 4:30p.m. 6 p.m. in Montgomery Thursday, June 14 from 4:30p.m. 6 p.m. in Pike Road Proposed Public Comment Period Friday, June 1 Monday, June 25 July 24 & 26, 2012: Present Final Bicycle and Pedestrian 2 Plan to TCC & CAC TYPES OF BIKEWAYS A shared roadways is a roadway which is open to both bicycle and motor vehicle travel. This may be an existing roadway, street with wide curb lanes, or a road with paved shoulders. A bicycle or bike lane is "a portion of a roadway which has been designated by striping, signing, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. Shared-use paths are a bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right of way or within an independent right of way. Shared use paths may also be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers, and other nonmotorized 3 users. EXISTING & PLANNED BIKEWAYS Shared Roadways Existing: Share the Road signs in Montgomery County & Shared Lane marking on Old Farm Lane Bicycle Lanes Existing: Ft. Toulouse Road, Hall Street & Park Crossing Shared-Use Paths Existing: Montgomery Riverwalk & Pike Road Trail on Meriwether Road Planned: Montgomery Riverwalk Extension, Wetumpka Riverwalk, Rails-Trails in Montgomery and Pike Road Trail System 4 5

6 Attachment A MONTGOMERY MPO BICYCLE ROTES & CONNECTORS 32 Routes 340 miles 6 in Autauga County 6 in Elmore County 16 in Montgomery County 4 in both Autauga & Elmore Counties 36 Connectors 82 miles 2 in Autauga County 12 in Elmore County 17 in Montgomery County 5 connecting two counties 5 BICYCLE PRIORITIZATION Proximity to Schools Points Possible = 8 Proximity to Points of Interest Points Possible = 12 Connectivity to Transit Points Possible = 3 Connectivity to Existing Bicycle Facilities Points Possible = 2 Interstate or Major roadway Crossing Points Possible = 2 Within 0.25 miles of a Major Employment Area Points Possible = 5 Accident History Points Possible = 2 Bicycle Suitability Rating Points Possible = 5 Within City Limits - Points Possible = 1 6 BICYCLE ROUTE PRIORITY SCORES # County Name Miles Route Priority Score PRIORITY #1 BICYCLE ROUTES & CONNECTORS 10Montgomery Midtown to Downtown Montgomery Rails-to-Trails Montgomery Historic Circulator Montgomery S. Court Street Montgomery Montgomery Midtown North Montgomery South Midtown Montgomery Selma to Montgomery Montgomery Gateway Prattville Upper Kingston Rd Montgomery South Montgomery Autauga Lower Kingston Rd Montgomery ASF Elmore Blue Ridge-Redland Autauga North Prattville Elmore Wetumpka-Holtville Montgomery West Montgomery Montgomery AUM/ Eastdale Mall Autauga Midtown North Prattville Elmore Millbrook Montgomery East Montgomery Autauga Midtown East Prattville Montgomery Brewbaker Elmore Elmore-Millbrook -Coosada Elmore Elmore-Holtville Elmore Deatsville Montgomery Wares Ferry Rd Autauga West Prattville Elmore Wetumpka Autauga Northeast Prattville Elmore Redland-Emerald Mountain Montgomery South Montgomery County Route 9 Historic Circulator Route 10 Midtown to Downtown Route 15 Selma to Montgomery Route 16 South Midtown Route 23 Rails-trails Route 32 S. Court Street Connector 15 - Maxwell Connector 18 Narrow Lane Road Connector 24 - Woodmere Connector 34 High Street Total Miles: Shared Roadways: miles Bicycle Lanes: miles Shared-Use Paths: 3.56 miles 8 20Elmore Weoka

7 Attachment A PRIORITY #1: ROUTES- HISTORIC CIRCULATOR (9), MIDTOWN TO DOWNTOWN (10), RAILS-TO-TRAILS (23), S. COURT ST (32); CONNECTORS- NARROW LANE RD (18), HIGH ST (34) PRIORITY #1: ROUTE 15 SELMA TO MONTGOMERY, CONNECTOR 15-MAXWELL 9 10 PRIORITY #1: ROUTE 16 SOUTH MIDTOWN, CONNECTOR 24-WOODMERE 11 PRIORITY #2 BICYCLE ROUTES & CONNECTORS Route 2 Alabama Shakespeare Festival Route 12 Montgomery Midtown North Route 17 South Montgomery Route 25 Upper Kingston Road Route 30 West Montgomery Route 31 Gateway Connector 6 Edgemont Connector 10 Catholic High School Connector 13 Hyundai Connector 16 Montgomery-Autauga Connector 20 Wares Ferry Road Connector 21 Montgomery Zoo Connector 22 East Wetumpka (not mapped) Connector 31 W. Main Street Connector 32 S. Court Street Connector 33 Highland Avenue Total Miles: Shared Roadways: miles Bicycle Lanes: 7.90 miles Shared-Use Paths: 0.63 miles Intersection Improvement: St. James High School at Vaughn Rd & Catholic High School at Vaughn Rd 12 7

8 Attachment A PRIORITY #2: ROUTE 2 ASF & CONNECTOR 10 CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL PRIORITY #2: ROUTE 12-MONTGOMERY MIDTOWN NORTH, CONNECTOR 20-WARES FERRY RD, CONNECTOR 21 MONTGOMERY ZOO, CONNECTOR 33-HIGHLAND AVE 13 PRIORITY #2: ROUTE 17 SOUTH MONTGOMERY, ROUTE 31 - GATEWAY, & CONNECTOR 6 - EDGEMONT 14 PRIORITY #2: ROUTE 30-SOUTH MONTGOMERY & CONNECTOR 13-HYUNDAI

9 Attachment A PRIORITY #2: ROUTE 25-UPPER KINGSTON RD, CONNECTOR 16-MONTGOMERY-AUTAUGA, CONNECTOR 31-W. MAIN ST, & CONNECTOR 32 S. COURT ST PRIORITY #3 BICYCLE ROUTES Route 1 AUM/Eastdale Mall Route 3 Blue Ridge-Redland Route 6 W. Prattville Route 13 N. Prattville Route 22 Wetumpka-Holtville Route 24 Lower Kingston Rd Route 26 Brewbaker Route 27 Midtown-North Prattville PRIORITY #3 BICYCLE CONNECTORS & INTERSECTIONS Connector 1 AUM Connector 2 Bell Rd Connector 3 Brighten Estates Connector 4 Blount Cultural Park Connector 7 Elmore- Wetumpka Total Miles: Shared Roadways: miles Bicycle Lanes: miles Shared-Use Paths: 6.64 miles Connector 11 Gunter Connector 12 Halcyon Connector 14 Lagoon Park Connector 19 S. Montgomery County Connector 26 Grandview Rd Connector 29 N. Prattville Intersection Improvement: Eastdale Circle at Atlanta Hwy 19 LONG TERM BICYCLE ROUTES Route 4 Deatsville Rote 5 East Montgomery Route 7 Elmore-Holtville Route 8 Elmore-Millbrook-Coosada Route 11 Millbrook Route 14 Redland-Emerald Mountain Route 18 South Montgomery county Route 19 Wares Ferry Road Route 20 Weoka Route 21 Wetumpka Route 28 Northeast Prattville Route 29 Midtown East Prattville 20 9

10 Attachment A LONG TERM BICYCLE CONNECTORS & INTERSECTIONS Connector 5 Coosada Elementary School Connector 8 Elmore County Connector 9 Emerald Mountain Connector 17 Ft. Toulouse Connector 23 West Wetumpka Connector 25 Central Plank Road Connector 27 AL 143 Connector 28 Deatsville Connector 30 Constitution Avenue Connector 35 AL 14 Connector 36 Old Ware Road Total Miles: Shared Roadways: miles Bicycle Lanes: 4.58 miles Shared-Use Paths: miles Intersection Improvement to Add a Pedestrian Phase: Seaton Boulevard/Halcyon Park Drive at Vaughn Road 21 Memorial Drive at Fairview Avenue (AL 14) Constitution Avenue at McQueen Smith Road TYPES OF PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES A sidewalk is that portion of a street between the curb line, or the lateral line of a roadway, and the adjacent property line or on easements of private property that is paved or improved and intended for use by pedestrians Off-road paths wind through open fields in rural or lowdensity suburban areas alongside roadways, deviating from them to approach major points of interest. Shared-use paths allow multiple modes of travel to interact at various speeds. Depending upon the surrounding environment, shared-use paths could be paved or unpaved. Shared streets are located in urban high density areas with a high level of pedestrians. In these areas the automobile and pedestrian traffic have merged. Vehicle speeds are very low due to the ever present pedestrian. The commercial and civic life created by the concentration of pedestrians justifies the displacement of automobiles. 22 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Sidewalk Inventory Completed in FY 2009 FY 2013 Sidewalk Inventory to begin in October 2012 Needs Inventory Completed in FY 2010 Gaps between Existing Sidewalk Sidewalks near Schools, Parks, YMCAs, and Major Trip Generators 23 PEDESTRIAN PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Proximity to Schools Points Possible = 8 Proximity to Points of Interest Points Possible = 12 Connectivity to Transit Points Possible = 5 Connectivity to Existing Pedestrian Facilities Points Possible = 5 Interstate or Major Roadway Crossing Total Points Possible = 2 Traffic Analysis Zone 2005 Employment Density Points Possible = 5 Accident History Points Possible = 2 Within City Limits - Points Possible =

11 Attachment A PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS Priority #1 Sidewalk Rehabilitation: miles (114,886 feet) Average Priority Score 32.2 New Sidewalks: 9.62 miles (50,769 feet) Average Priority Score 31.1 Priority #2 Sidewalk Rehabilitation: 28.7 miles (151,468 feet) Average Priority Score 26.9 New Sidewalks: 38.5 miles (203,035 feet) Average Priority Score 25.6 Priority #3 Sidewalk Rehabilitation: 5.5 miles (28,955 feet) Average Priority Score 20.8 New Sidewalks: miles (561,706 feet) Average Priority Score INTERSECTION PRIORITIES Priority 1: Street One # of Lanes Street Two # of Lanes Median Signal Median County Forest Hills 3Atlanta Hwy 7No Yes Yes Montgomery Dr Woodmere Blvd 6Eastern Blvd 9No Yes No Montgomery Vaughn Rd 6Eastern Blvd 10No Yes Yes Montgomery Ann St 5I-85 (South) 3Yes Yes No Montgomery Ann St 5I-85 (North) 3Yes Yes No Montgomery Fleming Rd 2Court St 5No Yes No Montgomery Mulberry St 3I-85 (North) 1No No No Montgomery Mulberry St 2I-85 (South) 2No No No Montgomery Forest Ave 3I-85 (North) 2No No No Montgomery Forest Ave 4I-85 (South) 2Yes No Yes Montgomery S. Decatur St 4South St 3No Yes No Montgomery S. Decatur St 4Arba St 3No Yes No Montgomery S. Hull St 3South St 3No Yes No Montgomery S. Hull St 3Arba St 3No Yes No Montgomery S. McDonough St 3South St 3No Yes No Montgomery S. McDonough St 3Arba St 3No Yes No Montgomery S. Lawrence St 3South St 3No Yes No Montgomery S. Lawrence St 3Arba St 3No Yes No Montgomery S. Perry St 4South St 3No Yes No Montgomery S. Perry St 4Arba St 3No Yes No Montgomery W. Fairview Ave 4I-65 (North) 3Yes Yes No Montgomery W. Fairview Ave 5I-65 (South) 3Yes Yes No Montgomery Rosa L. Parks Ave 4Fairview Ave 4No Yes No Montgomery S. Court St 3Fairview Ave 4No Yes No Montgomery Old Farm Ln 4Fairview Ave 6No No No Autauga Maple St 2Selma Hwy 3No No No Autauga Priority 3: Street One Street Two Median Signal Median County # of Lanes # of Lanes Rosa L Parks 3South Blvd 5Yes Yes Yes Montgomery Ave 26 OTHER BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ISSUES Safety & Education Security Concerns Development Policy Roadway Policy Funding ALDOT Federal & State Grants Local Funds 27 CONTACTS: Robert Smith Director of Planning/MPO Administrator Phone (334) April Delchamps Senior Planner Phone (334) Kindell Anderson Senior Planner Phone (334) Planning Department Transportation Planning Division City of Montgomery/MPO 495 Molton St. Montgomery, AL Phone (334) Fax (334) adelchamps@montgomeryal.gov MPO website: City of Montgomery website:

12 Attachment B 2010 Urbanized Areas (UZAs) for the 2010 U.S. Census May 22,2012 Scenarios Proposed One urbanized area (UZA) exclusively in Montgomery County & two urban clusters (UCs) in Elmore/Autauga Counties. 2. An urbanized area (UZA) exclusively in Montgomery County, one urbanized area (UZA) in Autauga/Elmore Counties, & one urban cluster (UC) in Wetumpka/Elmore County. 3. An urbanized area (UZA) in Autauga/Elmore/ Montgomery Counties via a new connection between Autauga and Montgomery County along Birmingham Highway/US-31 & one urban cluster (UC) in Wetumpka/Elmore County. Outcome... Qualifying Urban Areas for the 2010 Census detailed the population of urban areas and urban areas (March 27, 2012, Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 59) Scenario #3: An urbanized area (UZA) in Autauga/Elmore/ Montgomery Counties via a new connection between Autauga and Montgomery County along Birmingham Highway/US31 & one urban cluster (UC) in Wetumpka/Elmore County. Wetumpka, AL Urban Cluster (UC) Population = 6,659 Population Increase of 29.4% Montgomery, AL Urbanized Area (UZA) Population = 263, 907 Population Increase of 34.04% 12

13 Attachment B Montgomery Urbanized Area (UZA) Municipalities & Counties Central City: City of Montgomery Other Municipalities: Town of Coosada Town of Deatsville Town of Elmore City of Millbrook Town of Pike Road City of Prattville Portions of Autauga, Elmore, and Montgomery Counties Montgomery, AL Urbanized Area (UZA) Population in Each County County Population % of UZA Population Autauga 31, % Elmore 26, % Montgomery 205, % TOTAL 263, % 13

14 Attachment B Montgomery, AL UZA Population in Each Municipality & County POPULATION OF 2010 U.S. CENSUS URBANIZED AREA (UZA) BY MUNICIPALITY & COUNTY County Population % of UZA Population Autauga County 1, % Elmore County 8, % Montgomery County 2, % Town of Coosada % Town of Deatsville % Town of Elmore % City of Millbrook 13, % City of Montgomery 200, % City of Pike Road 2, % City of Prattville 32, % TOTAL 263, % Montgomery, AL Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) Population in Each County POPULATION OF 2010 U.S. CENSUS CURRENT MPA IN EACH COUNTY County Population % MPA Population Autauga 44, % Elmore 58, % Montgomery 224, % TOTAL 327, % Montgomery, AL Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) Population in Each Municipality & County POPULATION OF CURRENT MPA BY MUNICIPALITY & COUNTY County Population % of Population of the MPA Autauga County 11, % Elmore County 32, % Montgomery County 13, % City of Coosada 1, % Town of Deatsville 1, % Town of Elmore 1, % City of Millbrook 14, % City of Montgomery 205, % City of Pike Road 5, % City of Prattville 33, % City of Wetumpka 6, % TOTAL 327, % Adjusted UZA... The Census-designated UZA boundaries do not have to be adjusted. Adjustments to UZA boundaries must include the entire Censusdesignated UZA. Area adjusted into the UZA boundary are classified as urban. Federal programs impacted: Highway Functional Classification: Interstates, Arterials, Collectors and Local Roads Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS): Statistics on rural and urban roadways Distribution of Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funds: Small pot of funds can only be spent outside of UZ STP Apportionment Formula: Lane-miles & VMT on Federal-Aid highways within the state are part of the apportionment formula for STP funding Control of Outdoor Advertising: Boundary between locations where signage can be placed beyond 660 feet from a roadway. 14

15 Attachment B Guidelines to Adjust the UZA Boundary Smooth out irregularities. Maintain administrative continuity roadways. Encompass fringe areas having residential, commercial, industrial, and/or national defense significance. Consider the service areas of transit operations Select boundary locations which include logical control points for transportation linkages such as interchanges, major cross roads, etc., where the inclusion of such areas will not unduly distort the urban area as would otherwise be selected. Capture adjacent areas that are urbanized in nature but not initially included in the UZA. These areas should have urban characteristics such as sidewalks, street lighting, and urban transit service. Changes are usually minor in nature. Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA)... The MPA boundaries must include the entire UZA boundary identified in the 2010 decennial Census at a minimum, and can include contiguous geographic area likely to become urbanized within 20 years. The MPA boundaries of current MPOs should be updated no later than the next scheduled Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) update after October 1 st, 2012, or within four (4) years of the designation of the new UZA boundary, whichever occurs first. The MPO and the Governor must approve any proposed changes to the MPA. Updated boundaries and approval letters must be submitted to the FHWA Division Office and the FTA. Transportation Management Areas (TMAs)... The Secretary of Transportation will designate new TMAs through an announcement in the Federal Register. Benefits & Additional Requirement: Transportation plans and programs within a TMA must be based on a continuing, comprehensive and cooperative transportation planning process carried out by the MPO in cooperation with the State and transit operators. STP funds will be earmarked specifically for the Montgomery MPO because of TMA status designation. The transportation planning process must include a Congestion Management Process (CMP). The FHWA and the FTA must certify the transportation planning process no less often than once every four years. 27 New Transportation Management Areas (2010 U.S. Census) URBANIZED AREA NAME 2010 Population 2000 Population Population Change % Change in Population Kissimmee, FL 314, , , Fayetteville--Springdale--Rogers, AR--MO 295, , , Montgomery, AL 263, ,892 67, Lakeland, FL 262, ,487 63, Santa Clarita, CA 258, ,481 88, Lafayette, LA 252, ,079 74, Conroe--The Woodlands, TX 239,938 89, , Laredo, TX 235, ,586 60, York, PA 232, ,903 39, Nashua, NH--MA 226, ,155 29, Wilmington, NC 219, ,149 58, Visalia, CA 219, ,044 99, Killeen, TX 217, ,976 49, Brownsville, TX 217, ,776 51, Appleton, WI 216, ,683 28, Myrtle Beach--Socastee, SC--NC 215, ,984 92, Concord, NC 214, ,057 99, Aberdeen--Bel Air South--Bel Air North, MD 213, ,598 39, Hickory, NC 212, ,808 24, Kennewick--Pasco, WA 210, ,851 57, Roanoke, VA 210, ,442 12, Kalamazoo, MI 209, ,961 21, Norwich--New London, CT--RI 209, ,160 36, Green Bay, WI 206, ,316 19, Portland, ME 203, ,080 15, Huntington, WV--KY--OH 202, ,550 25, Winter Haven, FL 201, ,924 47,

16 Attachment B Transit Impacts... UZAs with a population over 200,000 can only use transit funding for capital purchases, no operating cost The 100 bus rule proposed in pending transportation legislation would provide an exception for UZAs over 200,000 with urban transit system with less than 100 busses. Impact to Autauga Rural Transit System are unknown. Funding... The apportionment of metropolitan planning (MP and PL) funds to the States based on new UZAs will begin with FY-2013 funds. Increased funding contingent on a new transportation bill being passed. STP funds will be earmarked specifically for the Montgomery urbanized area due to being 200,000+ (263,907 actual population, Census 2010) in population. The earmarked STP funds will begin in FY Increased funding contingent on a new transportation bill being passed. Timeline... May 2012: New list of Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) published in Federal Register. Before October 2012: States revise their intra-state formulas for PL funds allocations to MPOs. Mid-2013: New TMAs must have a Congestion Management Process (CMP). MPO currently has an existing CMS document. June 2014: Adjusted Urbanized Area (UZA) must be in place. MPO Staff has started taking cursory reviews of UZA smoothing and study area forecasting. 16