Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2017-06-21 packet Individuals should contact the ADA Coordinator at (573) 634-6570 to request accommodations or alternative formats as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please allow three business days to process the request. Please call (573) 634-6410 with questions regarding agenda items. Board of Directors Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 12:15 p.m. Meeting Location: Boone/Bancroft Room # 200, John G. Christy Municipal Building 320 E. McCarty, Jefferson City, MO 65101 - Enter through Main Lobby Tentative Agenda 1. Call to order, roll call, and determination of a quorum 2. Public comment 3. Adoption of the agenda as printed or amended 4. Approval of the minutes from the meeting of May 17, 2017 5. Communications received 6. New Business A. Critical Urban Freight Corridors Action Requested: Discussion and approval. Staff Report: The FAST Act establishes a National Highway Freight Network to strategically direct federal resources and policies towards improved performance. The National Highway Freight Network consists of four subsystems including Critical Urban Freight Corridors. MoDOT is asking for suggestions from smaller MPOs on roads to include into their list of Critical Urban Freight Corridors. The CAMPO Technical committee is recommending a 1.7 mile corridor along US 54/63 that includes the two Missouri River bridges, US 54/50/63 tri-level, and the US 54/63 interchange. B. Public Participation Plan Review Action Requested: Discussion. Staff Report: According to federal statute (23 CFR 450.316), CAMPO staff is to periodically review the effectiveness of the procedures and strategies contained in the public participation plan to ensure a full and open process. C. JEFFTRAN Transit Asset Management (TAM) Plan and Targets Action Requested: Discussion and approval. Staff Report: JEFFTRAN was federally required to develop an asset management plan for their public transportation assets, including vehicles, facilities, equipment, and other infrastructure by January 1, 2017. CAMPO is now required to accept targets adopted by JEFFTRAN no later than June 30, 2017. 7. Other Business A. Status of current work tasks 8. Next Meeting Date – Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 12:15 p.m. in the Boone/Bancroft Room #200 9. Adjournment NOTES Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Room 120 320 E. McCarty, Jefferson City, MO 65101 Phone 573.634.6410 Fax 573.634.6457 Box lunches will be ordered from the Old Brick House Deli at a cost of $6.25 per person. If you wish to order a box lunch, please contact Anne Stratman by 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 20, 2017. Box lunches include a sandwich and chips. Mayonnaise and mustard packets are included. Sandwich options: ham on French baguette; Italian hero on French baguette; smoked turkey & bacon on whole grain wheat. Deluxe house salad: $6.25; Cobb Salad: $6.25 MINUTES Board of Directors CAPITAL AREA M ETROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION May 17, 2017 12:15 p.m. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Roger Fischer, Callaway County Larry Benz, P.E., Cole County Jeff Hoelscher, Chairman, Cole County Rick Hess, Holts Summit David Bange, Designee for Ken Hussey Ron Fitzwater, Jefferson City Matt Morasch, Jefferson City Sonny Sanders, Jefferson City Erin Wiseman, Jefferson City Doug Reece, St. Martins, Small Cities Representative David Silvester, MoDOT BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Larry Henry, Jefferson City Mark Mehmert, Jefferson City EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT (Non-Voting) Michael Henderson, MoDOT Enos Han, FHWA CAMPO STAFF PRESENT (Non-Voting) Alex Rotenberry, Transportation Planner Anne Stratman, Administrative Assistant 1. Call to order, roll call, and determination of a quorum. Chairman Hoelscher called the meeting to order at 12:16 p.m. and asked Ms. Stratman to call roll. A quorum was present with 11 of 13 members or their designee present. 2. Public Comment No comments were received. 3. Adoption of the agenda as printed or amended Mr. Benz moved and Ms. Wiseman seconded to adopt the agenda as printed. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Approval of the minutes from the meeting of April 19, 2017 Mr. Benz moved and Ms. Wiseman seconded to approve the minutes from the Regular Meeting of April 19, 2017 as printed. The motion passed unanimously. 5. Communications received. No correspondence was received. 6. Old Business A. FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program Mr. Rotenberry explained that changes include priorities for 2018, major tasks completed in 2017, updates of tasks to be completed for each of the five work tasks, and financial data. Mr. Benz moved and Mr. Morasch seconded to open the public hearing at 12:18 p.m. With no comments received, Mr. Benz moved and Mr. Reece seconded to close the public hearing at 12:20 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Minutes/Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Board of Directors May 17, 2017 Page 2 Mr. Benz moved and Mr. Reece seconded to adopt the FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program by Resolution RS2017-04. The motion passed unanimously. B. 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program Mr. Rotenberry explained that changes include the introduction of performance measures, a section on environmental justice, and clarification of the responsibilities of the Technical Committee and the Board of Directors. Mr. Benz moved and Ms. Wiseman seconded to open the public hearing at 12:26 p.m. With no comments received, Mr. Benz moved and Ms. Wiseman seconded to close the public hearing at 12:28 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Benz moved and Ms. Wiseman seconded to adopt the 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program by Resolution RS2017-05. The motion passed unanimously. C. Metropolitan Transportation Plan Amendment – TIP Incorporation Mr. Rotenberry explained that staff would like to incorporate the 2018–2022 Transportation Improvement Program into the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) as the first 5 years of the regional financial plan. He stated that the first 10 years of the MTP’s regional financial plan is required to be fiscally constrained. Mr. Rotenberry explained that projects programmed in the TIP are to be derived from the MTP. Mr. Benz moved and Ms. Wiseman seconded to open the public hearing at 12:31 p.m. With no comments received, Mr. Benz moved and Ms. Wiseman seconded to close the public hearing at 12:32 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Benz moved and Ms. Wiseman seconded to adopt the amendment to incorporate the 2018- 2022 Transportation Improvement Program into the 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan by Resolution RS2017-06. The motion passed unanimously. D. Other Business A. Status of current work tasks • Visioning and Travel Demand Model update. • JEFFTRAN System-Wide Assessment online survey. • Continuation of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan update. • Capital Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan was endorsed by the City Council at their meeting of May 15, 2017. • Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan. Staff has started the process to update the plan. Staff will be coordinating with Mid-MO RPC, due to both agencies undergoing a similar update. • Capital Eclipse. Staff has been asked to assist with planning for the upcoming solar eclipse celebration. Alex Rotenberry is participating in bicycle planning and Katrina Williams is participating in parking and transportation planning. The Capital Eclipse Event will occur August 19-21, 2017. E. Next Meeting Date – Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 12:15 p.m. in the Boone/Bancroft Room #200 F. Adjournment Ms. Wiseman moved and Mr. Reece seconded to adjourn the meeting at 12:47 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Anne Stratman, Administrative Assistant Individuals should contact the ADA Coordinator at (573) 634-6570 to request accommodations or alternative formats as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please allow three business days to process the request. Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Room 120, 320 E. McCarty St., Jefferson City, MO 65101 Phone: 573.634.6410 Fax: 573.634.6457 Memorandum TO: CAMPO Board of Directors FROM: Alex Rotenberry, Transportation Planner DATE: June 14, 2017 SUBJECT: Critical Urban Freight Corridors The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act establishes a National Highway Freight Network to strategically direct federal resources and policies towards improved performance. The National Highway Freight Network consists of four subsystems including Critical Urban Freight Corridors. MoDOT is looking for suggestions from smaller MPOs on roads to include into their list of Critical Urban Freight Corridors. A public road designated as a Critical Urban Freight Corridor must be in an urbanized area and meet one of the following four elements: 1. Connects an intermodal facility to: a. The Primary Highway Freight System; b. The interstate system; or c. An intermodal freight facility; 2. Is located within a corridor of a route on the Primary Highway Freight System and provides an alternative highway option important to goods movement; 3. Serves a major freight generator, logistic center, or manufacturing and warehouse industrial land; or 4. Is important to the movement of freight within the region, as determined by the MPO or the state. In an urbanized area with a population of less than 500,000, the state, in consultation with MPOs, is responsible for designating the Critical Urban Freight Corridors. A state may designate only a certain number of miles of Critical Urban Freight Corridors, based on Primary Highway Freight System. Missouri’s maximum mileage limit is 102.33 miles of allowable Critical Urban Freight Corridors. MoDOT has asked for input from smaller MPOs in the selection of the 102 miles of Critical Urban Freight Corridors. While there is not a direct funding benefit from designating these routes, there could be a benefit for potential FASTLANE discretionary funding, grant applications, etc. The attached map provides the Technical Committee’s recommendation for a priority freight corridor within the CAMPO region. If you have questions or require additional information, I can be reached at 573-634-6525 or by email at arotenberry@jeffcitymo.org. Agenda Item 6A 0 1 20.5 Miles ¹ Jefferson City £¤63 £¤63£¤50 £¤54 ")W £¤50 £¤54 C a l l a w a y C o . C a l l a w a y C o . !(94 CAMPO Freight Priority Municipal Boundary MPO Boundary C o l e C o . C o l e C o . Priority Corridor Mis s o u r i R i v e r Includes the Missouri River Bridge, US 50/54/63 Tri-Level, andUS 54/63 interchange (approximately 1.7 miles) Source: CAMPO, City of Jefferson, MoDOTKW06/13/2017 1 FAST Act Section 1116 National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) Guidance Designating and Certifying Critical Rural Freight Corridors and Critical Urban Freight Corridors Questions & Answers Posted: April 26, 2016, Updated: May 23, 2106 The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. No. 114-94) requires the FHWA Administrator to establish a National Highway Freight Network (NHFN) to strategically direct Federal resources and policies toward improved performance of the NHFN. This network is the focus of funding under the National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) and a significant funding target under the Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long- term Achievement of National Efficiencies (FASTLANE) Grants Program (Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program) (23 U.S.C. 117). The NHFN consists of the following four subsystems: (1) the Primary Highway Freight System (PHFS); (2) those portions of the Interstate System not part of the PHFS; (3) Critical Rural Freight Corridors (CRFCs); and (4) Critical Urban Freight Corridors (CUFCs). (23 U.S.C. 167(c)). These Questions and Answers provide guidance for States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) that designate and submit CRFCs and CUFCs to the FHWA Administrator and certify to the FHWA Administrator that their designated CRFCs and CUFCs meet the requirements under 23 U.S.C. 167(e) and (f). (FAST Act 1116; 23 U.S.C. 167(g)). CRFCs and CUFCs are important freight corridors that provide critical connectivity to the NHFN. By designating these important corridors, States can strategically direct resources toward improved system performance and efficient movement of freight on the NHFN. The designation of CRFCs and CUFCs will increase the State’s NHFN, allowing expanded use of NHFP formula funds and FASTLANE Grant Program funds for eligible projects that support national goals identified in 23 U.S.C. 167(b) and 23 U.S.C. 117(a)(2). The following series of questions of answers provides guidance for complying with the CRFC and CUFC designation and certification requirements under 23 U.S.C. 167(g). Questions and Answers Question 1: What are the requirements for designating a CRFC? Answer 1: 23 U.S.C. 167(e) identifies the requirements for designating CRFCs. A State may designate a public road within the borders of the State as a CRFC if the public road is not in an 2 urbanized area (see Question 3 for more details), and meets one or more of the following seven elements: (A) is a rural principal arterial roadway and has a minimum of 25 percent of the annual average daily traffic of the road measured in passenger vehicle equivalent units from trucks (Federal Highway Administration vehicle class 8 to 13); (B) provides access to energy exploration, development, installation, or production areas; (C) connects the PHFS or the Interstate System to facilities that handle more than: 1. 50,000 20-foot equivalent units per year; or 2. 500,000 tons per year of bulk commodities; (D) provides access to: 1. a grain elevator; 2. an agricultural facility; 3. a mining facility; 4. a forestry facility; or 5. an intermodal facility; (E) connects to an international port of entry; (F) provides access to significant air, rail, water, or other freight facilities in the State; or (G) is determined by the State to be vital to improving the efficient movement of freight of importance to the economy of the State. First and last mile connectivity is essential to an efficiently functioning freight system. These public roads provide immediate links between such freight generators as manufacturers, distribution points, rail intermodal and port facilities and a distribution pathway. FHWA encourages States, when making CRFC designations, to consider first or last mile connector routes from high-volume freight corridors to key rural freight facilities, including manufacturing centers, agricultural processing centers, farms, intermodal, and military facilities. Question 2: What are the requirements for designating a CUFC? Answer 2: 23 U.S.C. 167(f) identifies the requirements for designating CUFCs. In an urbanized area with a population of 500,000 or more individuals, the MPO, in consultation with the State, may designate a CUFC. In an urbanized area with a population of less than 500,000 individuals, the State, in consultation with the MPO, may designate a CUFC. A public road designated as a CUFC must be in an urbanized area, regardless of whether the population is above or below 500,000 individuals (see Question 3 for more details), and meet one or more of the following four elements: (A) connects an intermodal facility to: 1. the PHFS; 2. the Interstate System; or 3 3. an intermodal freight facility; (B) is located within a corridor of a route on the PHFS and provides an alternative highway option important to goods movement; (C) serves a major freight generator, logistic center, or manufacturing and warehouse industrial land; or (D) is important to the movement of freight within the region, as determined by the MPO or the State. FHWA encourages States, when making CUFC designations, to consider first or last mile connector routes from high-volume freight corridors to freight-intensive land and key urban freight facilities, including ports, rail terminals, and other industrial-zoned land. Question 3: How do the rural and urban designations influence how CRFC and CUFC routes are designated? Answer 3: Urbanized areas with a population of 500,000 or more (For the list of 2010 urban areas visit the 2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteria webpage) define which partner will take the lead in designating the CUFC routes. In an urbanized area with a population of more than 500,000, the MPO, in consultation with the State, is responsible for designating the CUFC. In an urbanized area with a population of less than 500,000, the State, in consultation with the MPO, is responsible for designating the CUFC. The minimum population for an urbanized area is 50,000, as defined by the Census Bureau. Being located inside or outside an adjusted urbanized boundary determines whether the public road can be designated as a CRFC or a CUFC. CUFC routes must be within the adjusted boundaries of an urbanized area. CRFC routes must be outside the adjusted boundaries of any urbanized area. Question 4: Are there mileage limitations on the extent of CRFCs and CUFCs? Answer 4: Yes. A State may designate as CRFCs a maximum of 150 miles of highway or 20 percent of the PHFS mileage in the State, whichever is greater. For each State, a maximum of 75 miles of highway or 10 percent of the PHFS mileage in the State, whichever is greater, may be designated as CUFCs. The mileage is based on centerline roadway mileage. The table below provides the estimated maximum limit of CRFC and CUFC mileage for each State. This information can also be found here. States and MPOs (for urbanized areas over 500,000) are responsible for jointly determining how to distribute the CUFC mileage among the urbanized areas. 4 State CRFC Maximum Mileage Limit CUFC Maximum Mileage Limit State CRFC Maximum Mileage Limit CUFC Maximum Mileage Limit Alabama 162.61 81.30 Montana 188.47 94.23 Alaska 244.45 122.22 Nebraska 150.00 75.00 Arizona 205.12 102.56 Nevada 150.00 75.00 Arkansas 150.00 75.00 New Hampshire 150.00 75.00 California 623.54 311.77 New Jersey 150.00 75.00 Colorado 160.69 80.35 New Mexico 202.31 101.16 Connecticut 150.00 75.00 New York 230.42 115.21 Delaware 150.00 75.00 North Carolina 206.86 103.43 Dist. of Columbia 0.00 75.00 North Dakota 150.00 75.00 Florida 320.14 160.07 Ohio 284.91 142.46 Georgia 233.84 116.92 Oklahoma 160.32 80.16 Hawaii 150.00 75.00 Oregon 155.06 77.53 Idaho 150.00 75.00 Pennsylvania 282.53 141.26 Illinois 337.08 168.54 Puerto Rico 150.00 75.00 Indiana 194.25 97.13 Rhode Island 150.00 75.00 Iowa 150.00 75.00 South Carolina 150.00 75.00 Kansas 150.00 75.00 South Dakota 150.00 75.00 Kentucky 150.00 75.00 Tennessee 211.20 105.60 Louisiana 150.00 75.00 Texas 745.55 372.78 Maine 150.00 75.00 Utah 182.40 91.20 Maryland 150.00 75.00 Vermont 150.00 75.00 Massachusetts 150.00 75.00 Virginia 166.69 83.35 Michigan 150.00 75.00 Washington 163.31 81.66 Minnesota 150.00 75.00 West Virginia 150.00 75.00 Mississippi 150.00 75.00 Wisconsin 150.00 75.00 Missouri 204.65 102.33 Wyoming 150.00 75.00 5 Question 5: Who certifies the CRFC and CUFC designations? Answer 5: 23 U.S.C 167(g) provides that each State or MPO that designates a corridor as either a CRFC or CUFC must certify to the FHWA Administrator that the designated corridor meets the applicable CRFC or CUFC requirements. The FHWA Division Office, acting on behalf of the FHWA Administrator, is responsible for reviewing the certification and forwarding it to FHWA Headquarters (HOFM-1) within 10 business days of receiving certification documentation. HOFM uses the information to periodically update the NHFN maps and tables to reflect CRFC and CUFC additions and changes on the FHWA freight Web site found here. Although there may be other participants in the collection and reporting process, the ultimate responsibility for the accuracy and timely reporting of CRFC and CUFC designations lies with the State and/or MPO. Question 6: What must CRFC and CUFC certifications include? Answer 6: In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 167(g)(2), each State or MPO that designates a corridor as a CRFC or CUFC must certify to the FHWA Administrator that the corridor meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 167(e) or 167(f), respectively. Note that when a State or MPO designates a public road as a CUFC, it must document in its certification that it has consulted with the other, as required by 23 U.S.C. 167(f)(1) and (2). The cap on the CUFC mileage designation is established on a Statewide basis (23 U.S.C. 167(f)(4)), and therefore, the State DOT and MPOs in the State should work together to certify appropriate routes while staying within the Statewide cap. Appendix A provides examples for use in developing letters and documents to comply with the above requirements. Additionally, when applicable, a State providing a certification under 23 U.S.C. 167(g)(2) should indicate that the designated freight corridors have been or (as of December 4, 2017) how it will be incorporated into the State Freight Plan under 49 U.S.C. 70202(b). See Question 7 for the documentation that should be submitted for the identification of CRFCs or CUFCs. 6 Question 7: What information should a State or MPO submit to the FHWA Administrator identifying CRFC and CUFC routes and facilities? Answer 7: The table in Appendix A identifies the documentation that should be submitted with the certification of the CRFC and CUFC routes and facilities. The following codification should be used when identifying routes and freight facilities. Include all associated CRFC_ID or CUFC_ID codification for each CRFC and CUFC routes and facilities (e.g., A, C, and E). CRFC_ID Route/facility descriptor: A Rural principal arterial roadway with a minimum of 25 percent of the annual average daily traffic of the road measured in passenger vehicle equivalent units from trucks B Provides access to energy exploration, development, installation, or production areas C Connects the PHFS or the Interstate System to facilities that handle more than: - 50,000 20-foot equivalent units per year; or - 500,000 tons per year of bulk commodities; D Provides access to a grain elevator, an agricultural facility, a mining facility, a forestry facility, or an intermodal facility E Connect to an international port of entry F Provides access to significant air, rail, water, or other freight facilities G Corridor that is vital to improving the efficient movement of freight of importance to the economy of the State. CUFC_ID Route/facility descriptor: H Connects an intermodal facility to the PHFS, the Interstate System, or an intermodal freight facility. I Located within a corridor of a route on the PHFS and provides an alternative highway option important to goods movement J Serves a major freight generator, logistic center, or manufacturing and warehouse industrial land K Corridor that is important to the movement of freight within the region, as determined by the MPO or the State 7 Question 8: Are States or MPOs required to submit identified CRFC and CUFC routes and facilities as a geospatial network database? Answer 8: No. However, while submitting this data is optional, States and MPOs with a geospatially enabled public roadway network or base map are encouraged to submit designated CRFC and CUFC routes in a Linear Referencing Systems (LRS) dataset. The datasets that are to be assembled by the States can either be submitted to FHWA as character separated value (CSV) files or entered manually on-screen via the HPMS software web application provided by FHWA. This will facilitate FHWA's review of the roadway mileage documentation in a timelier manner and with greater accuracy, efficiency and precision. Additionally, this will allow better coordination and integration with other LRS networks (e.g., Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), National Highway Planning Network (NHPN), etc.) and enable State and MPO use of All Roads Network Of Linear referenced Data (ARNOLD). Question 9: Do all CRFCs and CUFCs need to be designated and certified at one time? Answer 9: No. There is no deadline for designating and certifying CRFCs and CUFCs. These designations may occur at any time, may be full or partial designations of the CUFCs or CRFCs mileage, and the two types do not need to be designated at the same time. Designations and certification may be provided to FHWA on a rolling basis. (23 U.S.C. 167(g)(1)). Whether the routes are part of an initial designation or subsequent removal or change, routes may be designated as long as the CRFC or CUFC requirements are met and the total CRFC or CUFC designation does not exceed the maximum mileage limit (23 U.S.C. 167(e) and (f)). Of particular note, there are project funding and other timeline implications that should be considered for designating and certifying CRFC and CUFC routes. See Questions 10 and 11 for more details. Because of this, FHWA recommends that States and MPOs work with the FHWA Divisions to develop an approach and timeline for identifying, tracking changes to, updating information on, and verifying the status of CRFC and CUFC roadways as part of the certification process. Question 10: Can a State spend NHFP funding on CRFCs and CUFCs before designation and certification? Answer 10: No. A CRFC or CUFC must be designated and certified before authorizing the use of NHFP funds on the route. (23 U.S.C 167(i)(3)(A) and (B)). NHFP funds can be authorized once the FHWA Division Office verifies that the certification is accurate. Additionally, the FASTLANE Grants Program includes eligibility for highway freight projects carried out on the NHFN. If a project is not on the PHFS and not on the Interstate system, then a CRFC or CUFC must be designated and certified for highway freight projects to qualify under that FASTLANE eligibility. (23 U.S.C 117(d)(1)(A)(i)). 8 Question 11: Do the CRFC and CUFC routes need to be included in the State Freight Plan? Answer 11: No. CUFCs and CRFCs may be submitted for review separately from a State Freight Plan. FHWA recommends that the State Freight Plans are updated to include these routes once designated and certified, but a State does not need to wait to submit an initial State Freight Plan for compliance under 23 U.S.C. 167 (49 U.S.C. 70202(b)(3)) if no CUFC or CRFC routes have been designated. Question 12: What are the goals of the NHFP? Answer 12: 23 U.S.C. 167(b) establishes the goals of the NHFP. These goals are: (1) to invest in infrastructure improvements and to implement operational improvements on the highways of the U.S. that— (A) strengthen the contribution of the NHFN to the economic competitiveness of the U.S.; (B) reduce congestion and bottlenecks on the NHFN; (C) reduce the cost of freight transportation; (D) improve the year-round reliability of freight transportation; and (E) increase productivity, particularly for domestic industries and businesses that create high-value jobs; (2) to improve the safety, security, efficiency, and resiliency of freight transportation in rural and urban areas; (3) to improve the state of good repair of the NHFN; (4) to use innovation and advanced technology to improve the safety, efficiency, and reliability of the NHFN; (5) to improve the efficiency and productivity of the NHFN; (6) to improve the flexibility of States to support multi-State corridor planning and the creation of multi-State organizations to increase the ability of States to address highway freight connectivity; and (7) to reduce the environmental impacts of freight movement on the NHFN. Question 13: What is the National Multimodal Freight Network (NMFN)? Answer 13: The FAST Act directs the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy to establish an interim National Multimodal Freight Network (NMFN) by June 4, 2016, and—after a public comment period— designate a final NMFN by December 4, 2016. (49 U.S.C. 70103). The interim NMFN must include: the NHFN (including designated CRFCs and CUFCs), freight rail systems of Class I railroads, public ports of the U.S. that have total annual foreign and domestic trade of at least 2,000,000 short tons; inland and intra-coastal waterways of the U.S.; the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence Seaway, and coastal and ocean routes along which domestic freight is 9 transported; the 50 airports located in the U.S. with the highest annual landed weight; and other strategic freight assets. (49 U.S.C. 70103(b)(2)). The FAST Act requires the Under Secretary to re-designate the NMFN every 5 years. (49 U.S.C. 70103(d)). Question 14: Can planned roadways and freight facilities be designated as part of a CRFC or a CUFC? Answer 14: Yes. A State or MPO may designate a planned public road or facility critical to the future efficient movement of goods as long as it meets the certification requirements. This may be based on projected forecasts of freight movements, scheduled construction of new intermodal facilities, etc. Adequate information should be gathered and documented to sufficiently verify the extent of a State or local jurisdiction’s or Federal agency’s ownership of a future facility. A CRFC or CUFC must be designated and certified before authorizing the use of NHFP funds on the route. See Question 10 for more details. For FASTLANE grants, if an applicant’s request for funding is contingent on a new highway being designated as a CRFC or CUFC, the application should include information sufficient to demonstrate that the State and/or Metropolitan Planning Organization will make such designation before obligation of a FASTLANE grant, that the planned public road or facility is critical to the future efficient movement of goods, and that the CRFC or CUFC meets the criteria described in 23 U.S.C. 167(e) (for CRFCs) or 23 U.S.C. 167(f) (for CUFCs). Question 15: How does a State calculate percent of the annual average daily traffic of the road measured in passenger vehicle equivalent units from trucks? Answer 15: Passenger Vehicle Equivalent (or passenger car equivalent (PCE)) is a Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) term used to convert trucks to the equivalent number of passenger vehicles in areas of operational analysis such as Level of Services and other congestion analysis for extended length of highways. HCM 2010 Volume 2 Chapter 11 (or HCM 2000 Chapter 21) provides the generic PCEs for trucks and buses as follows: Level Terrain - 1.5; Rolling Terrain - 2.5; and Mountainous Terrain - 4.5. Terrain type definitions are found in the same HCM chapters and correspond with AASHTO’s Green Book definitions. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic (AADTT) data sources are found here. To calculate percent of the AADT of the road measured in passenger vehicle equivalent units from trucks: [(AADTT x PCE]/AADT 10 Question 16: Can a non-PHFS Interstate System route be designated as a CRFC or CUFC? (Added May 23, 2016) Answer 16: Yes, the law does not prohibit the designation of a non-PHFS Interstate System route as a CRFC or CUFC. For a CRFC, the designated public road cannot be in an urbanized area and must meet one or more of the elements listed in 23 U.S.C. 167(e)(1). For a CUFC, the designated public road must be in an urbanized area and meet one or more of the elements listed in 23 U.S.C. 167(f)(3). Note that the designation of a non-PHFS Interstate System route as a CRFC or CUFC will count against the cap on mileage designation, which is established on a Statewide basis (23 U.S.C. 167(e)(2) and (f)(4)). 11 Appendix A: The following examples are contained in the guidance for your use in the development of letters and documents to comply with the above requirements. Figure 1 is a certification letter that can be modified, and Figure 2 is a sample table that can be modified to document the list of CRFC and CUFC routes and connectors in the State. Figure 1 (AGENCY LETTERHEAD) (Date) (Name) Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration (Address) Dear ___________________: STATEMENT: As required by 23 U.S.C 167(g), and other pertinent Federal regulations, the following table identifies critical freight corridors in accordance with the current FHWA guidance covering the designation and certification requirements. CRITICAL RURAL FREIGHT CORRIDOR CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the public roads listed in the table below meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 167(e) as designated CRFC routes and connectors. I further certify that the length in centerline mileage is accurate and does not exceed the maximum mileage limit, that the designated freight corridor have been coordinated with the appropriate stakeholder groups, and (as of December 4, 2017) that the freight corridors have been, or will be incorporated into the State Freight Plan prior to FHWA authorizing the use of Federal funds. CRITICAL URBAN FREIGHT CORRIDOR CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the public roads listed in the table below meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 167(f) as designated CUFC routes and connectors. I further certify that the applicable consultation requirements under 23 U.S.C. 167(f)(1) or (2) have been satisfied, I further certify that the length in centerline mileage is accurate and does not exceed the maximum mileage limit, that the designated freight corridor have been coordinated with the appropriate stakeholder groups, and (as of December 4, 2017) that the freight corridors have been, or will be incorporated into the State Freight Plan prior to FHWA authorizing the use of Federal funds. 12 Dated at _________, this _________ day of ___________, 2___ Sincerely, ___________________________________________ 13 Figure 2 Designated CRFC and CUFC Routes and Connectors CRFC ROUTES and CONNECTORS State Route No Start Point End Point Length CRFC_ID Total = CUFC ROUTES and CONNECTORS State Route No Start Point End Point Length CUFC_ID Total = Individuals should contact the ADA Coordinator at (573) 634-6570 to request accommodations or alternative formats as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please allow three business days to process the request. Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Room 120, 320 E. McCarty St., Jefferson City, MO 65101 Phone: 573.634.6410 Fax: 573.634.6457 Memorandum TO: CAMPO Board of Directors FROM: Alex Rotenberry, Transportation Planner DATE: June 14, 2017 SUBJECT: Public Participation Plan Review According to federal statute (23 CFR 450.316), metropolitan planning organizations are required to “develop and use a documented participation plan that defines a process for providing [various organizations and the public] reasonable opportunities to be involved with the metropolitan transportation planning process.” This same statute also calls for “periodically reviewing the effectiveness of the procedures and strategies contained in the participation plan to ensure a full and open participation process.” Beginning in late 2016 and continuing into 2017, CAMPO Staff recently performed a self-evaluation of the Public Participation Plan (PPP). This evaluation is split into three sections: • List of actions found throughout the PPP that list specific actions that the MPO will do followed by discussion in bolded italics on actual actions by CAMPO, • Possible changes, ranging from major to minor, to address with the Technical Committee and Board of Directors, and; • List of performance measurements to discuss the public participation activities done since the 2014 update of the PPP. In 2014, the CAMPO Board of Directors officially adopted an updated Public Participation Plan. This update expanded on ways the MPO could increase public outreach and provide access to the Jefferson City urbanized area. During the 2015 Planning Process Review, conducted with the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and the Missouri Department of Transportation, the MPO received a commendation on innovative outreach methods. They also recommended that staff “develop a method to periodically evaluate, measure, and track the effectiveness of [the CAMPO] public involvement methods; and a system to periodically introduce new public involvement tools.” This report serves to address the recommendation to review the PPP by systematically reviewing and evaluating each action. The City of Jefferson requires that each department conduct internal performance evaluations. CAMPO measures the number of public outreach activities that staff hosts or participates in, as well as, counting the number of participants. The third section of this report reflects the numbers collected that demonstrate increases in participation since the update of the PPP. Agenda Item 6B Based on this evaluation, there are a small number of recommended changes proposed for this report: • The most discussed portion is the conditional approval found in Policy 3, Desired Outcomes. The first and only time that this clause was attempted was met with opposition by members of the Board of Directors contending the wording was vague and undermined public comment periods. Staff recommends removing this section. • Another policy that has not fully been implemented is to include language offering interpreters or sign language professionals on all statements and/or notices. This reflects what is written in the Limited English Proficiency Plan, itself making up a part of the CAMPO Title VI Plan. • All other changes are minor in nature, either updating a website address, or removing obsolete goals, that have been addressed. If you have questions or require additional information, please contact Alex Rotenberry at 573-634-6525 or by email at arotenberry@jeffcitymo.org. Section 1 - Policies found within the PPP 1. Engagement a. Timely information, public notification of activities and documents, accessible public meetings, and availability for questions and queries i. This is ongoing. So far, staff has tried to disseminate information in a timely manner. Public meetings always consider ADA and transit availability. b. State and local agencies, and officials responsible for planning activities within the Metropolitan Planning Area that are affected by transportation, will be consulted in the development of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) planning activities to the maximum extent practicable. i. The MPO is in the initial processes of beginning the next major update to the MTP. Staff will make every effort to include as many regional public and private partners as possible to reflect the diverse needs of the region. During the TIP process, staff is in contact with the various jurisdictions, mostly to gather projects and demonstrate fiscal constraint. c. Maintain interested parties database for notifications on plans, studies and/or other activities are planned, leave those the ability to comment, and participate in activities and meetings. i. Staff maintains a database of contacts via Constant Contact. This is used to contact interested parties as well. The CAMPO/City of Jefferson website has the ability for people to sign up for notifications when changes are made. At public meetings, when the MPO is looking for feedback, staff provides physical copies of comments or surveys, as well as creating online versions of those using Survey Monkey. Doing both of these allows for those unable to attend the same opportunity to comment as those that did. 2. Meetings a. Meetings held at locations/times convenient and accessible to citizens. Every effort is made to locate meetings at locations where and when public transportation is available. i. CAMPO makes sure that meeting agendas and packets are found on the website in multiple locations, both on the city’s Document Center and through the city’s online calendar, both of which are available on the city’s front page. Notices are sent out to the below locations, as listed in the PPP. Public Notices sent: Posted notices may be found: • City Clerk, City of Jefferson • County Clerk, Cole County Courthouse • City Clerk, Holts Summit City Hall • City Clerk, St. Martins City Hall Notified agencies include: • County Clerk, Callaway County Courthouse • City Clerk, Taos City Hall • City Clerk, Wardsville City Hall • Lake Mykee Board of Trustees • Missouri River Regional Library. b. Public notices are also emailed to CAMPO Board of Directors, Technical Committee, parties having requested notice, and members of the media. Public notices are also posted on the CAMPO website and promoted via social media. i. Public notices are currently NOT being emailed to any groups or entities. Public notices are posted on the CAMPO website and sporadically on the website. c. Notices regarding updates to the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Public Participation Plan are also published in the local newspapers. All MTP and PPP updates or amendments have been published in the News Tribune, the local paper. They are not printed in the Fulton Sun, as was done previously. They use the below four parts. i. Notice that documents are being developed or amended, and how they may be accessed ii. the duration of the public comment period iii. instructions for submitting comments iv. the date, time, and location of public meetings 3. Outreach Activities a. CAMPO will collect information on the public participation process used by the project sponsors as part of the project application review process. CAMPO does not directly ask project sponsors for proof of public participation in either the TIP application process or the TIP amendment process. b. Upon request, staff will be available to meet with local officials, interested groups, or the public to discuss or present the MTP, TIP, Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) or other plans, programs, and activities. No agency, organization, or member of the public has taken advantage of this, but staff is willing to perform this. c. The website will be maintained and updated with planning documents produced by CAMPO, and to provide the most current and accurate transportation planning information available. The website will also contain public notices, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, Board of Director members, Technical Committee members, plans, studies and other information for the public’s benefit. Staff updates the website continually and when an error is found, either in a document or the wording used on the website directly, staff is prompt to correct it. Board and Technical Committee membership is listed on the website. d. Social Media i. CAMPO is and will continue to actively participate in social media activities to supplement traditional public outreach activities. This is done consistently. ii. CAMPO also endeavors to promote events of planning partners, when appropriate. Done occasionally when staff is aware of events, it has never been requested. iii. In addition to the Facebook page, CAMPO, when appropriate, will send out an email blast, targeted to those that have expressed interest in projects as well as to persons the MPO thinks would find the subject matter of interest. This was done during the creation of the Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan to invite individuals to various committee meetings and open houses. e. CAMPO staff will actively make the effort to go out into the public, whether by invitation to go to meetings make presentations, or to attend meetings with relevance to transportation, transit, pedestrian or bicycle themes, rail, or other possible topics. i. Staff has gone to nontraditional events (e.g. – outside of open houses or events hosted by CAMPO). Staff will continue to look for opportunities to speak or present information to the public. f. When sending out communiqués, CAMPO makes every effort to reach out to community organizations, advocacy groups, and other underserved communities. The database that the MPO maintains is updated as new organizations are identified, either by recommendation or by research. This is based on the contacts that CAMPO has. When staff is contacted, either by a group or individual, that contact is then added to the database/Constant Contact. The flexibility of Constant Contact allows tailoring email blasts to specific groups or using a generic email template. g. Visualization techniques will be used in describing the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program, including charts, graphs, photographs, maps, and the use of GIS systems or power point presentations. This is done, when applicable. The best example is the interactive TIP map, which shows locations of projects that, when clicked, provides more information that can be found in the TIP. h. Brochures have been produced, and will continue to updated, to provide information on the metropolitan transportation planning process, the responsibilities of CAMPO, and the public participation process. The brochure will be available at all public meetings and events, as well as available for view on the website. The CAMPO brochure, which briefly accomplishes those goals, has recently been updated. It is available at the City of Jefferson City Hall and is now available on the website (http://www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/CAMPO/2016%20campo%20brochure.pdf) for the public to view. 4. Language Accommodations As prescribed by the Limited English Proficiency Plan, CAMPO will, when issuing statements or notices, note that interpreters or sign language professionals will be available upon advance notice of seven calendar days. CAMPO will also maintain a contact database of interpreters in anticipation of this need. CAMPO staff needs to revisit statements and notices to verify this, but this is likely not done. Staff needs to revisit the vague wording to specify, perhaps, what instances warrant the inclusion of this language (press releases, Board and TC packets, and public notices/comment periods?). The contact database exists but has not been updated since its creation during the PPP update process in 2014. Section 2 - Below are some changes worth considering to the PPP. • Update reference to new website: “The CAMPO website will be upgraded when the City of Jefferson website is upgraded in 2014-2015. This update will be compatible with smart phone users and generally more modern, which will expand accessibility further than the current website.” (Page 4) • Consider Revisiting conditional approval by the BD (Page 6) • Update to include new url: www.jeffcitymo.org/campo (Page 8-9) • Edit the TIP Project form to include a section asking for evidence of public participation. • Include language offering interpreters or sign language professionals blurb on all statements and/or notices. Section 3 - Activities by CAMPO since the 2014 PPP update. • Social Media: CAMPO staff began a Facebook account in 2014. To date, there are 92 followers. Staff has utilized meeting events using Facebook as well to increase the potential audience beyond the ‘usual channels.’ • Since 2015, CAMPO, working jointly with the City of Jefferson Redevelopment & Grants department, has a combined Constant Contact database with contacts 577 contacts. This list allowed staff to contact interested parties and was used heavily during the development of the Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan. • CAMPO staff utilized alternative outreach methods including attending a farmers market, placing flyers strategically, attending local groups meetings, creating pamphlets and posters for City Halls in the region. • Between November 1, 2014 and October 31, 2015, there were forty public outreach activities with 492 participants. • Between November 1, 2015 and October 31, 2016, there were thirty seven public outreach activities with 523 participants. Individuals should contact the ADA Coordinator at (573) 634-6570 to request accommodations or alternative formats as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please allow three business days to process the request. Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Room 120, 320 E. McCarty St., Jefferson City, MO 65101 Phone: 573.634.6410 Fax: 573.634.6457 Memorandum TO: CAMPO Board of Directors FROM: Alex Rotenberry, Transportation Planner DATE: June 14, 2017 SUBJECT: JEFFTRAN Transit Asset Management (TAM) Plan and Targets MAP-21 established, and the FAST Act continues, a performance-based approach to transportation projects. Seven national performance goals were established for the Federal-Aid Highway Program. From these seven goals, fifteen performance measures were developed for states, MPOs, and transit agencies which are required to set targets and monitor progress. Transit Asset Management is the first performance measure for which targets must be set. Additional targets will be developed by CAMPO as required. Targets must be established within 180 days of the date targets are set by the State. The CAMPO Board must affirm JEFFTRAN targets by June 30. MoDOT collected and evaluated existing buses and facilities to be included in the Plan and used this information to set targets, which will be evaluated on an annual basis as inventory changes. These targets have been set by the State. JEFFTRAN opted to mirror the state targets, though they did not join the state, and set their own, as listed below. Assets Performance Measure State Targets JEFFTRAN Targets Equipment Non-revenue support-service and maintenance vehicles Percentage of vehicles met or exceeded Useful Life Benchmark 50 percent 50 percent Rolling Stock Revenue vehicles by mode Percentage of vehicles met or exceeded Useful Life Benchmark 50 percent 50 percent Infrastructure (not applicable in state plan) Only rail fixed-guideway, track, signals and systems Percentage of track segments with performance restrictions by class Not Applicable Not Applicable Facilities Percentage of assets with condition rating below 3.0 on FTA TERM* Scale 25 percent with condition rating below 3.0 on FTA TERM Scale 25 percent with condition rating below 3.0 on FTA TERM Scale * TERM is a Federal Transit Administration Transit Economic Requirements Model which helps transit agencies assess their state of good repair backlog, level of annual investment to attain state of good repair, impact of variations in funding, and investment priorities. The CAMPO Technical Committee recommends that Board of Directors approve the JEFFTRAN Transit Asset Management Plan targets as set forth by JEFFTRAN. If you have questions or require additional information, I can be reached at 573-634-6525 or by email at arotenberry@jeffcitymo.org. Agenda Item 6C Transit Asset Management Final Rule Fact Sheet The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) required the Secretary to develop rules to establish a system to monitor and manage public transportation assets to improve safety and increase reliability and performance, and to establish performance measures, and the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act reaffirmed this requirement. On July 26, 2016, FTA published the Transit Asset Management (TAM) Final Rule. You may view the Final Rule at: https://federalregister.gov/a/2016-16883 State of Good Repair The purpose of the Final Rule is to help achieve and maintain a state of good repair (SGR) for the nation’s public transportation assets. Transit asset management is a business model that uses transit asset condition to guide the optimal prioritization of funding. Currently, there is an estimated $85.9 billion transit SGR backlog. The regulations apply to all Transit Providers that are recipients or subrecipients of Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 and own, operate, or manage transit capital assets used in the provision of public transportation. State of Good Repair The condition in which a capital asset is able to operate at a full level of performance. A capital asset is in a state of good repair when that asset: 1.Is able to perform its designed function, 2.Does not pose a known unacceptable safety risk, and 3.Its lifecycle investments must have been met or recovered. TAM Plans Tier I vs. Tier II Applicability The Final Rule groups providers into two categories: Tier I and Tier II. TAM Plan Elements The following graphic shows the TAM Plan elements that are required by each category of provider. Since Tier II providers generally operate less complex systems, their TAM Plan requirements are not as extensive. 1.Inventory of Capital Assets 2.Condition Assessment 3.Decision Support Tools 4.Investment Prioritization 5.TAM and SGR Policy 6.Implementation Strategy 7.List of Key Annual Activities 8.Identification of Resources 9.Evaluation Plan Tier I Operates rail OR ≥ 101 vehicles across all fixed route modes OR ≥ 101 vehicles in one non- fixed route mode Tier II Subrecipient of 5311 funds OR American Indian Tribe OR ≤ 100 vehicles across all fixed route modes OR ≤ 100 vehicles in one non-fixed route mode Tier I & II Tier I Only   Assets Included in Plan It is expected that all assets used in the provision of public transit will be included in the TAM Plan asset inventory. This includes (with the exception of equipment) assets that are owned by a third party or shared resources. The inventory must include all service vehicles, and any other owned equipment assets over $50,000 in acquisition value. Agencies only need to include condition assessment for assets for which they have direct capital responsibility. Plan Responsibility Tier I providers must develop and carry out their own TAM plans. Tier II providers may develop their own plans or participate in a Group Plan, which is compiled by a Group Plan Sponsor (generally the State DOT or designated §5310 recipient). Tier II §5307 sub-recipients are not required to be offered a Group Plan, but may participate in one if a Sponsor invites them. Each Transit Provider must designate an Accountable Executive to ensure that the necessary resources are available to carry out the TAM plan and the Transit Agency Safety Plan, regardless of whether it develops its own TAM Plan or participates in a Group Plan. Performance Management Asset performance is measured by asset class, which means a subgroup of capital assets within an asset category. The following table shows assets for which performance needs to be reported to the NTD and the measure which will be reported. Assets: Only those for which agency has direct capital responsibility Performance Measure Equipment: Non-revenue support-service and maintenance vehicles Percentage of non- revenue vehicles met or exceeded Useful Life Benchmark Rolling Stock: Revenue vehicles by mode Percentage of revenue vehicles met or exceeded Useful Life Benchmark Infrastructure: Only rail fixed-guideway, track, signals and systems Percentage of track segments with performance restrictions Facilities: Maintenance and administrative facilities; and passenger stations (buildings) and parking facilities Percentage of assets with condition rating below 3.0 on FTA TERM Scale Useful Life Benchmark The expected lifecycle of a capital asset for a particular Transit Provider’s operating environment, or the acceptable period of use in service for a particular Transit Provider’s operating environment Target Setting Targets should be set by each transit provider or TAM plan sponsor for each applicable asset class for the coming year. Initial targets must be set by January 1, 2017 and then every fiscal year thereafter. It is recognized that Transit Providers may not have complete data while setting initial targets. To the extent feasible, targets should be supported by data such as the most recent condition data and reasonable financial projections for the future, but the overall end goal is to be in a system-wide SGR. Timeframes/Reporting TAM Plans A TAM plan must be updated in its entirety at least every 4 years, and it must cover a horizon period of at least 4 years. An initial TAM plan must be by October 1, 2018. NTD Each entity developing a TAM Plan will have to report annually to FTA’s National Transit Database (NTD). This submission should include: (1) projected targets for the next fiscal year; (2) condition assessments and performance results; and (3) a narrative report on changes in transit system conditions and the progress toward achieving previous performance targets. Additional Information Mshadoni Smith (Mshadoni.Smith@dot.gov) Final Rule Docket Number: FTA-2016-16883   https://www.transit.dot.gov/TAM  April 2017 Individuals should contact the ADA Coordinator at (573) 634-6570 to request accommodations or alternative formats as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please allow three business days to process the request. Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Room 120 320 E. McCarty, Jefferson City, MO 65101 Phone 573.634.6410 Fax 573.634.6457 Memorandum TO: CAMPO Board of Directors FROM: Katrina Williams, Transportation Planner DATE: June 14, 2017 SUBJECT: Status of Current Work Tasks Major active work tasks to be discussed at the June 21, 2017 Board of Directors Meeting include: • Visioning and Travel Demand Model update - A consultant has been chosen and staff continues contract negotiations. • JEFFTRAN System-Wide Assessment - The JEFFTRAN System-Wide Assessment is being conducted by the Lochmueller Group, Inc. A survey tool has been deployed. Staff is disseminating the survey and will conduct several public outreach events during the months of June and July. • MTP update - Staff continues the process of editing content and reformatting the plan, including review of the illustrative project list and integration of performance measures. • Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan - Staff has started the process to update the plan. Staff is coordinating with Mid-MO RPC, due to both agencies undergoing a similar update. • Capital Eclipse - Staff is assisting with planning for the upcoming solar eclipse celebration. Alex Rotenberry is participating in bicycle planning and Katrina Williams is participating in parking and transportation planning. The Capital Eclipse Event will occur August 19-21, 2017. • Healthy Schools, Healthy Communities - Staff is assisting with the development of an update of the action plan. • AMPO (Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations) – In May staff attended the 2017 AMPO Planning Tools and Training Symposium. Topics discussed included public involvement, scenario planning, and MPO/state coordination. Agenda Item 8A W E N E E D Y O U R I N P U T ! J E F F T R A N d o e s n o t d i s c r i m i n a t e b a s e d o n p o l i t i c a l a f f i l i a t i o n , r a c e , c o l o r , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l o r i g i n , s e x , a g e , i n c o m e l e v e l o r d i s a b i l i t y . I f y o u f e e l y o u h a v e b e e n d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t , p l e a s e c o n t a c t J E F F T R A N f o r t h e T i t l e V I C o m p l a i n t P r o c e d u r e a n d a T i t l e V I C o m p l a i n t F o r m , a l s o a v a i l a b l e a t w w w .j e f f t r a n .o r g . I n d i v i d u a l s s h o u l d c o n t a c t t h e A D A C o o r d i n a t o r a t (5 7 3 ) 6 3 4 -6 5 7 0 t o r e q u e s t a c c o m m o d a t i o n s o r a l t e r n a t i v e f o r m a t s a s r e q u i r e d u n d e r t h e A m e r i c a n s w i t h D i s a b i l i t i e s A c t . P l e a s e a l l o w 7 2 b u s i n e s s h o u r s t o p r o c e s s t h e r e q u e s t . FOR YOUR BACHELORETTE WWW.SURVEYMONKEY.COM/R/JEFFTRAN-SURVEY WE WANT TO KNOW HOW YOU USE JEFFTRAN AND HOW WE CAN IMPROVE SERVICE.