STATE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION HEARING

Similar documents
Goal 3: Foster an environment of partnerships and collaboration to connect our communities and regions to one another.

Transportation Master Plan Advisory Task Force

City of Waterloo Complete Streets Policy

Tulsa Metropolitan Area LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Bicycle Lanes Planning, Design, Funding South Mountain Partnership Trails Workshop Roy Gothie PennDOT Statewide Bicycle Pedestrian Coordinator

Kentucky s Surface Transportation System

BIKE PLAN CONTENTS GATEWAY

Secondary Road Program

Providing an Efficient and Multi-modal Transportation System

Transportation Day at the Capitol. Charlie Zelle Commissioner, MnDOT Feb. 16, 2017

Transportation in Washoe County. Lee Gibson, Executive Director February 15, 2011

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

TRANSPORTATION TRAINING TOPICS. April 6, 2010

The Florida Bicycle and Pedestrian Partnership Council

PennDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Initiatives. Jonathan Heilman Roy Gothie Angela Watson

Corpus Christi Metropolitan Transportation Plan Fiscal Year Introduction:

Otter Tail County 2040 Transportation Plan. Asset Management Peer Exchange

Performance Criteria for 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan

Linking Transportation and Health in Nashville & Middle Tennessee

THE I-79 CORRIDOR. I-79 provides motorists with connections to the following major highways: I-80, PA 358, PA 965 and PA 208.

Exhibit 1 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM

I-90 Corridor Performance Corridor Result

5. Pedestrian System. Accomplishments Over the Past Five Years

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss with you how we can work together to make our streets more complete.

Outreach Sessions for the Transportation Plan Update. April 29, May 13, and May 20

MnPASS System Today and the Future

Eastern PA Trail Summit October 1, 2018

Smart Growth Transportation Funding Forum April 9, 2015

Key Findings & Corridor Highlights

Broward Boulevard Gateway Implementation Project, Downtown Walkability Analysis, & Joint Development Initiative (JDI)

Beyond First First Last Last Mile Strategies. APA National Conference April 3, 2016 Chelsea Richer, AICP Fehr & Peers

Florida Department of Transportation District Four. I-95 at 6 th Avenue Interchange Improvements FDOT PM - Fernando Morales, PE

AMATS Complete Streets Policy

Basalt Creek Transportation Refinement Plan Recommendations

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

CITY OF BLOOMINGTON COMPLETE STREETS POLICY

Perryville TOD and Greenway Plan

DES MOINES AREA MPO. Presentation to Iowa Commercial Real Estate Association. April 6, 2017

TOWN OF PORTLAND, CONNECTICUT COMPLETE STREETS POLICY


ADOT Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Summary of Phase IV Activities APPENDIX B PEDESTRIAN DEMAND INDEX

Hennepin County Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning

Table of Contents Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

County of Fairfax, Virginia. Department of Transportation

Engineering - Bicycle and Pedestrian

TOWARDS A BIKE-FRIENDLY CANADA A National Cycling Strategy Overview

PRELIMINARY DRAFT FIRST AMENDMENT TO VISION 2050: A REGIONAL LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN

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

Request for Authorization to Open Public Comment Period

Multi Modal Transit Access Plan KIPDA ID # 239. Project Type: STUDY

Complete Streets Workshop Follow-up. April 27, 2011 Rockledge City Hall

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

MOBILITY RESULTS AREA. Budgeting For Outcomes Council Presentation January 12, 2007

York Region Population and Employment Growth

Welcome. Background. Goals. Vision

Healthy, safe & prosperous by design: Building complete streets

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Vision

Non-Motorized Transportation 7-1

TRANSPORTATION & MOBILITY

University of Victoria Campus Cycling Plan Terms of Reference. 1.0 Project Description

City of Hamilton s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Consultation 3 December 2015

Appendix T 1: Additional Supporting Data

Bicycling & Walking in the Twin Cities TPP Bike/Ped Chapter Overview. Land Use Advisory Committee September 21, 2017

Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Program. June 28, 2017

HIGHWAY 11 CORRIDOR STUDY

Long Range Transportation Plan and Bicycle Mobility Plan

Fairfax County Transportation Funding and Roadway Service Delivery Study. Study Update Transportation Advisory Commission

Governor s Transportation Vision Panel

Appendix C 3. Bicycle / Pedestrian Planning

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

Planning and Programming Committee Meeting April 14,

Welcome. Thank you for your interest in the Lewis & Clark Viaduct Concept Study

Rhode Island Moving Forward Long-Range Transportation Plan 2040 Municipal Roundtable Newport County

CHAPTER 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION

Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Study Phase 2

Chapter 5 Future Transportation

City of Madison: 2017 Capital Budget Capital Improvement Plan

Typical Rush Hour Commute. PennyforTransportation.com

Bus Rapid Transit ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS. Open House

I-25 PEL: CO Springs Denver South Connection. Presentation to Castle Rock Town Council

Route 7 Corridor Study

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

Pavement Management Report. City Council Meeting of May 21, 2013

Route 29 Solutions Projects

City of West Des Moines PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

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

Proposed. City of Grand Junction Complete Streets Policy. Exhibit 10

Section 9. Implementation

New Measure A Expenditure Categories DEFINITIONS OF ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES Adopted March 8, 2007

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

Wellington Public Transport Spine Study

2040 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Philip Schaffner Minnesota Department of Transportation October 22, 2013

Section 8. Partnerships and Funding

Speed Management Action Plan

Welcome. Public Meeting. Heading 1. Heading 2. DeMers Ave. Columbia Rd. Washington St. 42nd St. 32nd Ave. Heading 3 HEADING

Climate Change Action Plan: Transportation Sector Discussion Paper: Cycling

Bicycle and Pedestrian Chapter TPP Update Overview. TAB September 20, 2017

Living Streets Policy

Moving Cambridge. City of Cambridge Transportation Master Plan Public Consultation Centre. March 7, :00 8:00 PM.

Transcription:

STATE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION HEARING Twelve Year Program Update Tom Zilla: Centre County MPO Jim Saylor: SEDA-COG RPO Amy Kessler: North Central RPO PennDOT District 2-0 State College, PA October 8, 2009

Regional Map Sq. Mi 9,617 (21.4% of state) Pop -732,000 (6% of state) 76.1 people per sq mi.

Regional Information State of the Region (15 counties) 3,743 state bridges (>20 feet) 1,003 local bridges (>20 feet) 3 major interstates 427 Miles 653 miles of NHS highways 315 traffic signals 4 fixed route transit operators (ATA, CATA,DUFAST and LATS) 22 airports (General aviation and commercial) 913 miles of rail 569 grade crossings

Progress from 2007 to 2009 196 bridge improvements bid since 7/1/07 658 miles of existing pavement were resurfaced Major projects I-99 Mainline 219 Johnsonburg Bypass 219 Bradford Bypass 322 Lewistown Narrows 220 Lock Haven Bypass I-80 Reconstruction 61 Cameron Bridge - Shamokin Lewistown Narrows Interstate 99 Johnsonburg Bypass

Our Focus Maintaining system especially core highways Bridges IRI and pavement cycles Safety Multi-Modal Investments Fully utilizing our resources Bridge preservation Act 44 Bond financing ARRA

Age of State Bridges Number of Bridges 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 277 167 90 379 241 217 266 594 SEDA-COG North Central Centre 0 22.2% SD Deck Area 31.4 % of Bridges are SD Number of Years 701 of 2231

Bridge SD Deck Percentages State Bridges 40 35 36.6 35 Percentage 30 25 20 15 10 23.2 20 13.9 6.7 % SD 2007 % SD 2009 5 0

SD Bridges by System

Bridge Condition Weight Restricted or Closed Bridges 9 120 State Weight Restricted or Closed Bridges 120 Local Weight Restricted or Closed Bridges 114 100 100 80 80 60 40 20 15 4 27 60 40 20 30 18 0 SEDA Cog Centre North Central 0 SEDA Cog Centre North Central

Unprogrammed Bridge Needs Beyond 2010 Millions of Dollars 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1072.5 758.8 309.5 58.1 25.1 101.7 SEDA COG Centre North Central Total Needs Program Balance * * Amount needed to complete project phases already started on 09 TIP

Pavement Networks (Non-Interstate)

Pavement Smoothness Percent of Poor IRI miles

IRI by Functional Class (Core Network Improving) IRI on the secondary network is lagging behind

Roadway Resurfacing Needs (Non-Interstate) Annual Miles Required to Meet Cycle 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 36 138 30 10 30 31 SEDA COG Centre NorthCentral 2009 Roadway Gap

Pavement Networks out of Cycle As of 2010 2500 Non Interstate Roadways 605 Miles 2000 1500 1000 500 0 150 207 1768 84 101 618 43 424 SEDA COG Centre North Central Out of cycle not programmed Programmed In cycle

Pavement Networks out of Cycle As of 2010 Miles Interstate Roadways 140 0 6 120 33 100 0 80 60 126 92 40 28 20 0 20 0 SEDA COG Centre North Central Out of cycle not programmed Programmed In cycle

What are we doing about Safety Our Process: Crash cluster list reviewed and discussed with Planning Partners Conduct field views Identify projects Prepare cost estimates Prioritize project list Secure funding Use measures to analyze effectiveness of project

Transit Fixed Route Operators Fixed Route Operator Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA) Lower Anthracite Transportation System (LATS) [Mt. Carmel] Area Transportation Authority (ATA) [North Central] DuBois, Falls Creek, Sandy Township Joint Transportation Authority (DuFAST) Service Area (Sq. Mi.) Population of Area 133 83,444 56 33,000 5,083 234,416 57 18,378

Transit Fleet Statistics SEDA-COG Fixed Route Avg. Fleet Age (years) Paratransit Avg. Fleet Age (years) LATS (Mt. Carmel) 3 2.5 0 - Mifflin/Juniata Co. 0-29 6.83 Montour Co. 0-10 4.55 MTR/Columbia Co. 0-20 4.12 Northumberland Co. 0-19 4.89 STEP (Lycoming/Clinton) 0-26 3.92 Union-Snyder Co. 0-31 4.93 TOTAL 3-135 4.87

Transit Fleet Statistics Centre County Fixed Route Avg. Fleet Age (years) Paratransit Avg. Fleet Age (years) CATA 52 10.77 8 3.00 CCOT 0-34 4.00 TOTAL 52-42 3.50

Transit Fleet Statistics North Central Fixed Route Avg. Fleet Age (years) Paratransit Avg. Fleet Age (years) ATA 87 10.00 (in fixed route total) - DuFAST 5 2.80 0 - TOTAL 92 - - -

Transit Ridership Trends SEDA-COG Ridership Trends LATS (Mt. Carmel) 51,000 Mifflin & Juniata Co. 58,000 Montour Co. 23,000 MTR/Columbia Co. 37,000 Northumberland Co. 140,000 STEP (Lycoming/Clinton) 145,000 Union-Snyder 78,000 TOTAL 532,000

Transit Ridership Trends Centre County Ridership Trends CATA 6,557,000 Centre Co. 80,000 TOTAL 6,637,000

Transit Ridership Trends North Central Ridership Trends ATA 647,000 DuFAST 62,000 TOTAL 709,000

Transit Productivity Fixed Route Operator Ridership per Revenue Hour CATA 60.7 LATS (Mt. Carmel) 11.1 ATA (North Central) 3.4 (Includes paratransit) DuFAST 6.6

Transit Productivity Paratransit Operators Paratransit Ridership per Paid Driver Hour Mifflin/Juniata Co. 2.9 Montour Co. 3.1 MTR/Columbia Co. 1.9 Northumberland Co. 1.6 STEP (Lycoming/Clinton) 2.4 Union-Snyder Co. 1.6 CATA 2.9 CCOT 2.5

Funding Allocations ($ M) FFY 2009 Planning Region North Central Bridge Roadway Safety Act 44 Bond ARRA Maint $ 30.7 $ 17.6 $ 2.7 $ 11.9 $ 7.7 $ 26.7 $ 10.1 Centre $ 3.4 $ 6.7 $ 2.0 $ 3.9 $ 0.9 $ 7.9 $ 1.5 SEDA-COG $ 24.6 $ 22.4 $2.5 $ 12.9 $ 4.1 $ 13.7 $ 3.9 FFY 2010 Planning Region North Central Bridge Roadway Safety Act 44 Bond Maint $ 31.6 $ 18.1 $ 2.8 $ 11.9 $ 8.1 $ 6.5 Centre $ 3.5 $ 6.8 $ 2.1 $ 3.9 $ 0.1 $ 2.7 SEDA-COG $ 25.2 $ 23.0 $ 2.6 $ 12.9 $ 3.7 $ 1.5

Funding Gaps More bridge needs than available funding Each planning partner has over a 25 year backlog of needs versus available funding A decrease in Act 44 funding and a reduced maintenance allocation will reduce our ability to maintain excellent IRI on our core system Local Bridge Needs far outpace available funding Local bridges < 20 feet in length funding need unknown currently no statewide inventory

Comparing the Known Gaps Known SD Bridges Highways $ Millions 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Required Funding Level $ 91 M ARRA TIP Act 44 Bond $ Millions 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Required Funding Level $ 81.2 M ARRA TIP Act 44 Maint. Year Year

Act 44 Funding 12 10 10.1 Millions of Dollars 8 6 4 2 5.1 1.9 3.8 1.4 4.3 Present Level After 7/1/10 60% reduction 0 SEDA COG Centre North Central

Efforts to Close the Gaps Bridges Set aside TIP Line Item for bridge preservation Use of Bridge Risk Assessment Tool proper treatment at proper time i.e. bridge painting Bridge Priority 1 s contract to take care of the immediate needs Participating in Local Bridge Task Force Bond funding ARRA funding

Efforts to Close the Gaps Highways Balancing Act 44 funding between highway and bridge ARRA funding Pavement Treatment Task Force More seal coat treatments Pavement recycling Warm mix asphalt

North Central RPO Development of a Project Prioritization Process Linking Land Use, Transportation & Economic Development Identifies Projects of Regional Significance Optimizes allocation of finite resources Improves front end ROI justification for investments Incorporates all project types: transportation, economic development, recreation and others Strengthens accountability to Board, Stakeholders, Public

North Central RPO First of its Kind Synthesis of: North Central Strategic Plan Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) County Comprehensive Plans Tourism/Marketing Plans Keystone Principles Other Planning documents Public County & Local Gov t North Central State Gov t Employers Federal Gov t

North Central RPO Overall Project Prioritization Process Defined criteria Highway Restoration Highway/New Capacity State & Local Bridges Safety Operations Transportation Enhancements Performance Measures Integrated Decision-making

North Central RPO What is the Regional Core System? It considers the Big Picture of the region. It is a tool to help improve the flow of people and goods among our counties and even beyond our region s borders It considers vital links at a regional level It considers all modes and the connections between those modes It follows guidance from the PA Mobility Plan It will be used as a criterion in evaluating competing priorities It indicates where as a region we wish to target integrated investments (e.g., road, water, sewer, etc.) as well as areas we want to preserve

North Central RPO Web-Based Project Submission Site is currently under construction Will be used to capture project requests for later evaluation/scoring

SEDA-COG RPO Project Selection Process Project prioritization process developed in 2005 Successfully adapted the process to apply it to new programs Revising the process as part of our ongoing LRTP update

SEDA-COG RPO Land Use, Transportation and Economic Development Funding projects by SEDA-COG JRA to make alternative modes a reality Newberry Rail Yard in Williamsport White Rock Quarry Rail Spur, Yard & Bulk Transfer First Quality Baby Products, Lewistown

SEDA-COG RPO Educating Land Use Decision Makers Sponsoring local training through LTAP and other programs Traffic Calming Stormwater Management Transportation Impact Fees Posting and Bonding Access Management Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning and Design

SEDA-COG RPO Planning for Better Connections CSVT Interchange Study Susquehanna Greenway Strategic Action Plan NCPPTT Needs Assessment Valley Vision 2020

Centre County MPO LRTP Project Evaluation Process Used for current LRTP Revised for new LRTP Multiple Steps Project solicitation Project ranking criteria Policy review and adjustments

Centre County MPO LRTP Project Evaluation Process Ranking criteria based on CCMPO s goals for LRTP Federal planning factors PA Mobility Plan goals New scoring system Likert system Weighted scores Projects must have municipal support

Centre County MPO Project Ranking Criteria Top three of nine 1. Safety and Security 2. Preservation of the Existing Transportation System 3. Efficient System Management and Operation

Centre County MPO Project Ranking Criteria 6. Consistency with Planned Growth and Development Areas Comprehensive Plans

Centre County MPO Project Ranking Criteria 6. Consistency with Planned Growth and Development Areas Zoning Ordinances

Centre County MPO Land Use/Transportation Elements Regional Growth Boundary Sewer/Water Service Boundary

Centre County MPO Land Use/Transportation Elements Corridor Overlay Zones I-99 Interchange Overlay Zones

Centre County MPO Land Use/Transportation Elements Complete Streets approach

Centre County MPO Land Use/Transportation Elements Site plan reviews specific to public transportation

Questions & Answers