Attachment A Additional Documentation

Similar documents
City of Wayzata Comprehensive Plan 2030 Transportation Chapter: Appendix A

Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan

Gordon Proctor Director Policy on Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel on ODOT Owned or Maintained Facilities

Basalt Creek Transportation Refinement Plan Recommendations

Regional Transportation Needs Within Southeastern Wisconsin

Recommended Roadway Plan Section 2 - Land Development and Roadway Access

West Dimond Blvd Upgrade Jodhpur Street to Sand Lake Road

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

APPENDIX G: INTERSECTION NEEDS AT OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD

Route 7 Corridor Study

ROADSOADS CONGESTION HAMPTON SYSTEMYSTEM MANAGEMENT. Part II Roadway Congestion Analysis Mitigation Strategies and Evaluation

STATION #3 INITIAL ALTERNATIVES

5. RUNNINGWAY GUIDELINES

Classification Criteria

Appendix 3 Roadway and Bike/Ped Design Standards

City of Gainesville Transportation/Roadway Needs PROJECT SUMMARY

AMATS Complete Streets Policy

Phone: Fax: Project Reference No. (to be filled out by MassHighway):

INDEX. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads INDEX

City of Homewood Transportation Plan

Who is Toole Design Group?

STREET AND HIGHWAY PLAN

National Network Safety Analysis (6/4/2015 Revision) FRA and FRA PID 86661

MCTC 2018 RTP SCS and Madera County RIFP Multi-Modal Project Eval Criteria GV13.xlsx

2014 Wisconsin Tribal Transportation Conference. Matt Halada Transportation Planner NE Region

Attachment A: Columbus Area Metropolitan Transportation Plan Objectives, Performance Measures, and Targets

Freeway System Considerations

and Rural Multimodal Networks 2017 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN

Policy Number: Effective: 07/11/14 Responsible Division: Planning Date: 07/11/2014 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION AMENDMENT POLICY

JONESBORO HIGHWAY 63 HIGHWAY 18 CONNECTOR STUDY

Shenango Valley MPO. State Transportation Commission 2015 Twelve Year Program Development

ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SR-741 & MIAMISBURG-SPRINGBORO/ AUSTIN PIKE MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO

Multimodal Through Corridors and Placemaking Corridors

RESOLUTION NO ?? A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF NEPTUNE BEACH ADOPTING A COMPLETE STREETS POLICY

INDOT Complete Streets Guideline & Policy

WYDOT DESIGN GUIDES. Guide for. Non-NHS State Highways

We believe the following comments and suggestions can help the department meet those goals.

CITY OF COCOA BEACH 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Section VIII Mobility Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies

Corpus Christi Metropolitan Transportation Plan Fiscal Year Introduction:

SECTION 1 - TRAFFIC PLANNING

CY2017 Summary of STP applications

Access Management in the Vicinity of Intersections

Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study (KATS) Complete Streets Policy Approved: Effective: FY 2018 Projects

Chapter 5 Future Transportation

Appendix T-2: Transportation Facilities Inventory

Overview. Illinois Bike Summit IDOT Complete Streets Policy Presentation. What is a Complete Street? And why build them? And why build them?

TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS REPORT US Route 6 Huron, Erie County, Ohio

Santa Clara I-280 CORRIDOR STUDY

WYDOT DESIGN GUIDES. Guide for. NHS Arterial (Non-Interstate)

Houma-Thibodaux Metropolitan Planning Organization STP<200K Funding Application APPLICATION

Chapter 7. Transportation. Transportation Road Network Plan Transit Cyclists Pedestrians Multi-Use and Equestrian Trails

Chapter 6: Transportation

Highway 217 Corridor Study. Phase I Overview Report

Chapter 2. Bellingham Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 2: Policies and Actions

5.0 Roadway System Plan

BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... vii 1 STUDY OVERVIEW Study Scope Study Area Study Objectives

Route 29 Solutions Projects

Mobility and Congestion

Chapter 6 Transportation Plan

Main-McVay Transit Study: Phase 2 Options Definition and High Level Constraints Evaluation

Planning Guidance in the 2012 AASHTO Bike Guide

Evolving Roadway Design Policies for Walking and Bicycling

Chapter 9: Pedestrians and Bicyclists

Performance Criteria for 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan

Goodlettsville Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Executive Summary

This page intentionally left blank.

STANLEY STREET December 19, 2017

Active Transportation Facility Glossary

2.0 LANE WIDTHS GUIDELINE

Complete Streets Policy DAVID CRONIN, P.E., CITY ENGINEER

2. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT.

Tulsa Metropolitan Area LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Managed Lanes. Steve Schilke, P.E. Major Projects Unit Head District 1. Illinois Traffic Engineering and Safety Conference October 2016

Defining Purpose and Need

SNCC Demographic Trends

INTRODUCTION. The focus of this study is to reduce congestion and improve mobility for all modes of transportation. Figure ES-1 Study Corridor Map

South Carolina Department of Transportation. Engineering Directive

FM #: ETDM #: 11241

Complete Streets Policy

I-105 Corridor Sustainability Study (CSS)

Washington DC Section of ITE Project Briefing

Street Paving and Sidewalk Policy

Pedestrian Safety at Interchanges

Memorandum. Purpose: To update the MPO CTAC on the status of the LRTP scenario evaluation process.

Houma-Thibodaux Metropolitan Planning Organization STP<200K Funding Application APPLICATION

WELCOME TO OPEN HOUSE # 1 June 14, 2017

Most Important Part of any Plan

GOAL 2A: ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SAFE, CONVENIENT, AND EFFICIENT MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TO MOVE PEOPLE AND GOODS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

ADA Transition Plan. City of Gainesville FY19-FY28. Date: November 5, Prepared by: City Of Gainesville Department of Mobility

Non-Motorized Transportation 7-1

INTRODUCTION THOROUGHFARE SYSTEM CLASSIFICATIONS

SANTA CLARA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE PLAN August 2008

US Route 24 Eastbound (Quincy Memorial Bridge) Over the Mississippi River

5 CIRCULATION AND STREET DESIGN

This page intentionally left blank.

Bay to Bay Boulevard Complete Streets Project

Central Arkansas Regional Transportation Study Area ROADWAY DESIGN STANDARDS And Implementation Procedures

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Vision

TRANSPORTATION TRAINING TOPICS. April 6, 2010

Transcription:

Attachment A Additional Documentation General When a project falls between 2 scoring categories, projects scores are awarded based on the maximum possible points. For example if a project is widening a segment of road that is classified as both a minor arterial and a collector, points are awarded based on the arterial designation only. Question 1 - Regionally Significant Project A regionally significant project means a transportation project, other than an exempt project, that is on a facility which serves regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the area outside the region, major activity centers in the region, major planned developments such as new retail malls, sports complexes, etc., or transportation terminals as well as most terminals themselves and would normally be included in the modeling of a metropolitan area s transportation network. A regionally significant project serves regional transportation needs that include access to and from the area outside the region, major planned developments such as new retail malls, sports complexes, etc, or transportation terminals, as well as most terminals themselves, but which shall include, at a minimum: (a all principal arterial highways, (b all fixed guideway transit facilities that offer an alternative to regional highway travel, and (c any project that Ohio EPA identifies as having the potential to affect air quality on a regional basis. Note: Roadway projects are presumed to affect air quality on a regional basis if they significantly increase the capacity of the transportation system including through lane additions, new roadways, new interchanges, or new movements being added to an existing interchange. Question 5 Complete Streets All MVRPC-funded STP/CMAQ projects will consider complete streets principles and possible treatments at the time of the initial application for funding. If the project sponsor determines that additional complete streets treatments are not warranted, they may request an exception for one or more of the following reasons: 1. Where bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibited by law from using the roadway. Bicycles and pedestrians are legally permitted to travel on or along all streets and roads in Ohio with the exception of limited access highways. 2. Where the street or road is already adequately designed to accommodate all users, and thus is complete without further enhancements. To qualify for this exception, the project sponsor must document how this street or road currently addresses the needs of all users. August 2015

3. Where the cost of establishing bikeways or walkways would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use. In accordance with federal guidelines, excessively disproportionate is defined as exceeding twenty percent of the cost of the total transportation project (including right of way acquisition costs. This exception must consider probable use through the life of the project, a minimum of 20 years. 4. Where the project consists of maintenance, repair or resurfacing of an existing cross-section only. However, resurfacing projects often offer a lowcost opportunity to adjust lane width or add a bike lane simply by changing the pavement markings on a road, and therefore resurfacing projects should, at the discretion of the project sponsor, be considered an opportunity to make a street or road more complete. Projects that include adding lanes, shoulders or involve replacement of the full pavement structure are not considered maintenance or repair and do not qualify for this exception. 5. Where the project consists primarily of the installation of traffic control or safety devices and little or no additional right-of-way is to be acquired. However whenever new traffic control detection devices are installed they must be capable of detecting bicycles. All new pedestrian crossing devices must also meet the most current accessibility standards for controls, signals and placement. 6. Where the Average Daily Traffic count (ADT is projected to be less than 1,000 vehicles per day over the life of the project and there is sufficient opportunity for a vehicle to change lanes to pass a cyclist or pedestrian. 7. Where scarcity of population or other factors indicate an absence of need for current and future conditions. This exception must take the long view and consider probable use through the life of the project, a minimum of 20 years. 8. Where roadway standards or bicycle and pedestrian standards cannot be met. There are times bicycle and pedestrian facility standards cannot be met due to roadway topographic constraints or if a project sponsor believes it is impractical to make the street safe for shared use. For example, roads with a combination of extremely high traffic volume (18,000+ cars a day, constrained and fixed right-ofway, and posted speeds of 45 mph or more may need special consideration. August 2015

Question 6 Inter-modal Connectivity Examples of projects that enhance inter-modal connectivity include but are not limited to: Linking existing sidewalks or bikeways Adding sidewalks that connect to transit routes Park and ride lots Enhanced bus stops Projects that improve corridors with higher than average truck volumes (See Map in Attachment B Projects that support multi-modal passenger (e.g. airport or freight facilities (e.g. pipe terminal Other relevant attributes identified by the project sponsor Question 7 Safety/Security Examples of projects that address a design deficiency include but are not limited to: New traffic signal Grade separation Signal coordination to improve traffic flow Geometric improvements to correct design deficiencies (weaving, merging, sight distances, skewed intersections Widen lanes or shoulders Replacement of structurally deficient bridges Improvements that support Safe Routes to Schools Other relevant attributes identified by the project sponsor Examples of projects that address a security deficiency include but are not limited to: Projects that improve primary or secondary evacuation routes (See Map in Attachment B Surveillance and monitoring systems Emergency Vehicle Preemption Improved access to emergency management operation centers (police/fire/emergency rooms August 2015

Question 9 - Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS ITS focus on making the transportation system more efficient and responsive to drivers by using technological improvements instead of adding roadway capacity. Examples of ITS improvements/strategies include but are not limited to: Closed Circuit TV (CCTV cameras Dynamic Message Signs (DMS Highway Advisory Radio (HAR Incident management and detection systems Incident Response Vehicles Ramp metering Traffic signal systems Fiber optic interconnect Other relevant attributes identified by the project sponsor Question 10 Preserve/Upgrade Existing Transportation System Examples of projects that preserve/upgrade the existing transportation system are listed below. Please note that new roads, road extension, and new interchanges will not receive points under this category Adding through lanes to existing roads Upgrading traffic signals Resurfacing Adding turn lanes Safety improvements Other relevant projects identified by the project sponsor Question 11 Access Management Examples of access management techniques include but are not limited to: Controlling the location, spacing, design, and operation of driveways, medians, interchanges, and roads. Median treatments Auxiliary lanes Spacing of traffic signals Restricting access near intersections Reducing turning movement conflicts Other relevant projects identified by the project sponsor August 2015

Question 12 Minimize Sprawl Projects are awarded points based on the 2000 Urbanized Area Map in Attachment B with the exception of projects in the Piqua Urban Area which are also awarded 5 points. All other scores are awarded based on the maximum possible points. For example if a project is widening a segment of road that spans from the transportation urban area to a rural area, points are awarded based on the transportation urban area designation only. Question 15 Land Use/Project/Study Coordination Examples of the plan/studies include but are not limited to: Major Investment Studies Traffic Impact Study Economic Development Plan Other relevant efforts identified by the project sponsor August 2015

Question 18 - Eligible CMAQ activities The purpose of the CMAQ program is to fund transportation projects or programs that will contribute to attainment or maintenance of clean air standards. The primary eligibility requirement is that they will demonstrably contribute to attainment or maintenance of clean air standards. transportation activities in an approved State Implementation Plan, transportation control measures to assist areas designated as nonattainment under the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA of 1990, pedestrian/bicycle facilities traffic management/monitoring/congestion relief strategies, transit (new system/service expansion or operations, alternative fuel projects (including vehicle refueling infrastructure, clean fuel fleet programs and conversions, vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M programs, intermodal freight, telework/telecommuting programs travel demand management, development activities in support of eligible projects (e.g. NEPA studies, public education and outreach activities, rideshare programs, establishing/contracting with transportation management associations (TMAs, fare/fee subsidy programs (operating subsidies have a 3-year limit, HOV programs, including HOT lanes diesel retrofits, truck-stop electrification experimental pilot projects, and other transportation projects with air quality benefits. NOTE: Ineligible CMAQ projects include construction of projects which add new capacity for single-occupancy vehicles. Question 19 Environmental Enhancement Examples of environmentally sensitive areas include but are not limited to: fields Superfund sites Clean Ohio Fund sites Other relevant sites identified by the project sponsor August 2015

August 2015 Attachment B Maps

BRADFORD Newberry creek Question 3 Highway Functional Classification Downtown Dayton Principal Arterial - Interstate Principal Arterial - Freeway and Expressway Principal Arterial - Other Minor Arterial Collector - Major Collector - Minor PIPSBURG Local Roads Transportation Urbanized Area VANDALIA BROOKVILLE Perry TROTWOOD DAYTON German Source: FHWA, ODOT & MVRPC June 2015 Regional Planning Commission

Question 4 Regional Transportation Network - 2010 BRADFORD Newberry creek Downtown Dayton Regional Transportation Network PIPSBURG Perry BROOKVILLE TROTWOOD DAYTON VANDALIA The Regional Transportation Network is comprised of major roadways such as Interstate Highways, US Routes, State Routes, and other principal artirials in the region. The network is a basis for the transportation planning activities and therefore, MVRPC maintains and updates it on a yearly basis to accomodate changes in the system. Further, the network is an input to MVRPC's Travel Demand Forecasting Model to evaluate the imapcts of roadway projects that are planned in the future. Source: MVRPC June 2015 German Regional Planning Commission

Newberry BRADFORD creek Question 6 Multimodal Passenger Facilities BROOKVILLE $.! Park-N-Ride Facility GDRTA Transit Hub GDRTA Transit Express Route Greene CATS Flex Route Greene CATS No Stops Along Flex Route!. Sources: GDRTA, Greene CATS and MVRPC!. German Regional Bikeway Hub Park-N-Bike Facility!. Greyhound Bus Terminal Regional Bikeway Sidewalk DAYTON Dayton International Airport GDRTA Transit Route TROTWOOD Perry _ ^ VANDALIA PIPSBURG!. $ _ ^ May 2015 0 Regional Planning Commission 2 4 6 8

PIPSBURG German Perry BRADFORD BROOKVILLE Newberry r q VANDALIA TROTWOOD DAYTON r r creek r Downtown Dayton Question 6 Multimodal Freight Facilities q r r r r! Pipeline Truck Route Railroad Dayton International Airport Dayton Wright Brothers Airport Lewis A Regional Airport Moraine Air Park Piqua Airport - Hartzell Field Truck Terminal Source: MVRPC May 2015 Regional Planning Commission

BRADFORD Newberry creek Question 6 Percentage of Truck Traffic on Roadway Segments 75 Downtown Dayton Roadway segments with above average state truck volume percentage, by road type Roadway segments with below average state truck volume percentage, by road type Truck Volume on Road Segments PIPSBURG Perry TROTWOOD 70 70 BROOKVILLE 49 DAYTON VANDALIA 75 4 0-500 500-1,000 1,000-2,500 2,500-7,500 7,500-21,000 State Averages - Percent Truck Volume Interstates: 14.00% US Routes: 9.17% State Routes: 6.10% German 35 4 675 35 Source: ODOT and MVRPC June 2015 75 71 Regional Planning Commission

AVE SPRINGFIELD ST TANLEY AVE DE DR IR 75 SALEM AVE AIRWAY RD MONUMENT AVE FOREST AVE THIRD ST MAIN ST FIRST ST BROADWAY ST RIVERVIEW AVE BURKHARDT RD FIFTH ST SMITHVILLE RD LINDEN AVE US 35 US 35 WYOMING ST CALL AVE TOWN ST STEWART ST WAYNE AVE WOODBINE AV BROWN ST IRVING AVE PATTERSON BLVD EDWIN C MOSES BLVD AVE S RD SCHANTZ AVE PATTERSON RD DRYDEN RD DANNER AVE WATERVLIET AVE WILMINGTON PK Downtown Dayton Question 7 2011-2013 High Crash Locations by Network Intersection/Segment Y R 75 Priority Rank Intersections High Medium Low Segments High Medium Low Roads Urbanized Areas Locations on the Regional Roadway Network were analyzed and ranked based on the severity, Sources: ODOT, ODPS, MVRPC June 2015 frequency, and rate of crashes from 2011 to 2013. Regional Planning Commission

SR-72 US-40 US-35 PIPSBURG Perry SR-185 US-36 SR-721 SR-571 SR-721 SR-721 BRADFORD SR-49 BROOKVILLE Newberry SR-718 SR-49 EATON SR-48 SR-55 SR-48 SR-48 TROTWOOD SR-35 SR-41 MIAMI US-36 SR-55 DAYTON-GREENVILLE SR-49 US-40 SR-4 SR-66 PARK SR-718 SR-571 MAIN SALEM ASH NATIONAL MAIN DAYTON VANDALIA creek STAUNTON I-75 1ST MAIN BRANDT SR-55 SR-571 SR-202 OLD US-36 SR-4 SR-589 US-40 I-70 SR-201 SR-55 SR-41 US-36 SR-444 RAMP B SR-235 BROAD I-675 SR-235 DETROIT US-68 SR-343 US-42 MAIN US-42 SR-72 Question 7 Regional Evacuation Routes Evacuation Routes LEVEL PRIMARY SECONDARY TERTIARY ROAD Source: Montgomery County Office of Emergency Management County Office of Emergency Management German SR-725 SR-4 SR-123 SR-4 SYCAMORE I-75 SR-741 CENTRAL MAIN SR-725 MAIN SR-725 US-42 SR-380 US-68 US-35 SR-72 US-35 I-71 June 2015 Regional Planning Commission

BRADFORD Newberry creek Questions 8 & 18 Level of Service 2040 Existing + Committed Based on 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Level of Service D E PIPSBURG F Road VANDALIA BROOKVILLE Perry TROTWOOD DAYTON German Source: MVRPC June 2015 Regional Planning Commission

PIPSBURG BRADFORD Newberry BROOKVILLE VANDALIA creek Census Defined Urbanized Area Consists of a densely settled core of census block groups and census blocks that meet minimum population density requirements. These densely settled, adjacent census blocks must encompass a population of at least 50,000 people. Census Defined Urban Clusters Consist of contiguous, densely settled core of census block groups and census blocks, along with adjacent densely settled census blocks that together encompass a population of at least 2,500 people, but fewer than 50,000 people. Question 12 2010 Urbanized Areas Federal-Aid Urbanized Area A boundary which encompasses the entire census urbanized area as well as surrounding geographic area as agreed upon by ODOT, FHWA and the MPO. This boundary is used by ODOT and FHWA to delimit an area in which highways are designated by federal functional classification. It is also used by ODOT in determining highway levels of service, and numerous highway design standards. Perry TROTWOOD DAYTON German Sources: U.S. Census 2010, ODOT, and MVRPC June 2015 Regional Planning Commission

Newberry creek Question 14 Distribution of Minority Population BRADFORD PIPSBURG Minority Population by TAZ Below County % Above or Equal to County % No Population Boundaries City County TAZ Perry BROOKVILLE TROTWOOD DAYTON VANDALIA County 2010 County Average Greene 13.56% 5.64% Montgomery 26.14% Warren 9.53% German Source: Census 2010 Regional Planning Commission

Newberry creek Question 14 Distribution of People in Poverty BRADFORD PIPSBURG VANDALIA Population in Poverty by TAZ Below County % Above or Equal to County % No Population/No CTPP Data Boundaries City County TAZ Perry BROOKVILLE TROTWOOD DAYTON County 2010 County Average Greene 13.53% 12.16% Montgomery 16.73% Warren 6.33% German Source: Census 2010 Regional Planning Commission