HomeMy Public PortalAbout2017-06-01 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.
Technical Committee
Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 10:00 A.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 April 6, 2017
5. Communications received
6. New Business
A. Critical Urban Freight Corridors
Action Requested: Review, discussion, and recommendation to the Board of Directors.
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 looking for suggestions
from smaller MPOs on roads to include into their list of Critical Urban Freight Corridors. Staff is
recommending a one mile corridor along US 54, including the two Missouri River bridges.
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: Review, discussion, and recommendation to the Board of Directors.
Staff Report: JEFFTRAN was 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
B. Member Updates
8. Next Meeting Date - Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in the Boone/Bancroft Room
9. Adjournment
Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
Room 120 320 E. McCarty, Jefferson City, MO 65101 Phone 573.634.6410 Fax 573.634.6457
MINUTES
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
CAPITAL AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
April 6, 2017
VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT
Cole County: Larry Benz
Holts Summit: Mark Tate
Jefferson City: David Bange, Vice Chairman
JJ Gates
Mark Mehmert
Alex Rotenberry
Sonny Sanders, Chairman
Britt Smith
MoDOT: Bob Lynch
Steve Engelbrecht
Mike Henderson
Wardsville: David Elliott
Pedestrian or Biking Interest: Cary Maloney
Private Transportation Interest: Joe Scheppers
VOTING MEMBERS ABSENT
Paul Winkelmann, Callaway County
Eric Landwehr, Cole County
Matt Morasch, Jefferson City
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS ABSENT
Enos Han, Federal Highway Administration
Jeremiah Shuler, Federal Transit Administration
STAFF PRESENT (Non-Voting)
Katrina Williams, Transportation Planner
Anne Stratman, Administrative Assistant
GUESTS PRESENT
Diane Gillespie, Jefferson City Convention and Visitors Bureau
Jill Snodgrass, Downtown Jefferson City
Kelly Wilson, MoDOT
Presentation: Capital Eclipse Presentation by Ms. Diane Gillespie, Jefferson City Convention and Visitors Bureau,
and Ms. Jill Snodgrass, Downtown Jefferson City. Ms. Gillespie and Ms. Snodgrass spoke about activities and
logistics for the solar eclipse on August 21, 2017. Ms. Snodgrass explained that activities are planned August 19,
2017 through August 21, 2017.
1. Call to order, roll call, and determination of a quorum
Mr. Sanders called the meeting to order at 10:35 a.m. and asked Ms. Stratman to call roll. A quorum of 13
voting members was present.
2. Public comment
None received.
3. Adoption of the agenda as printed or amended
Mr. Benz moved and Mr. Mehmert seconded to adopt the agenda as printed. The motion passed
unanimously.
4. Approval of the minutes from the meeting of March 2, 2017
Mr. Benz moved and Mr. Smith seconded to approve the minutes from the meeting of March 2, 2017 as
printed. The motion passed unanimously.
Minutes/Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Committee
April 6, 2017 Page 2
5. Communications from the presiding officer
No correspondence was received. Mr. Rotenberry announced that the 2017-2021 Transportation
Improvement Program Amendment for sidewalks on the north side of Missouri Boulevard has been approved
by OneDOT.
6. Old Business
A. FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program Development
Mr. Rotenberry explained work has begun on the Fiscal Year 2018 Unified Planning Work Program. He
stated 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. Henderson moved to forward the FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program to the
Board of Directors. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Project Selection for Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funds
Mr. Sanders explained that the City of Jefferson received a project application for a traffic study at Clark
Avenue and Highway 50/63 and Dunklin Street. He stated that staff recommends forwarding this project
application for a traffic study at Clark Avenue and Highway 50/63 and Dunklin Street to the Board of
Directors for approval. Mr. Sanders explained that funding shall not exceed $93,658.26.
Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Benz seconded to select the project application for a traffic study at Clark
Avenue and Highway 50/63 and Dunklin Street for the remaining balance of STP funds in the amount of
$93,658.26 and forward to the Board of Directors. The motion passed unanimously.
C. 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Development
Mr. Rotenberry explained that work on the Program Year 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) has begun. He stated that changes include the introduction of performance measures, a section on
environmental justice, clarification of the responsibilities of the Technical Committee and the Board of
Directors, and the inclusion of new projects.
Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Henderson seconded to forward the 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement
Program to the Board of Directors with the ability to add projects and components to the multi-modal section
as staff deems appropriate. The motion passed unanimously.
7. New Business
A. Proposed Amendment to the 2017-2021 Transportation Improvement Program: Purchase of two
paratransit vehicles
Mr. Rotenberry explained that JEFFTRAN will be purchasing two E450 Elkhart Coach II, Floor Plan CC
Handi-Wheels buses equipped with Apollo 5 camera systems. He stated that they will use Federal Transit
Administration Section 5310 funds to make this purchase. Mr. Rotenberry explained that this project was
listed in the Program of Projects in the Transportation Improvement Program.
Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Bange seconded to initiate the public comment period and forward the proposed
Transportation Improvement Program Amendment to the Board of Directors. The motion passed
unanimously.
8. Other Business
A. Status of current work tasks
• Visioning and Travel Demand Model update.
• Work has begun on the Metropolitan Transportation Plan.
• JEFFTRAN System-Wide Assessment. Meetings with stakeholders and a public meeting were
held in March.
• MPO statewide coordination efforts.
Minutes/Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Committee
April 6, 2017 Page 3
B. Member Updates
Holts Summit
--Mr. Tate reported that a recent ballot measure was approved by voters in Lake Mykee and Holts
Summit to incorporate Lake Mykee into Holts Summit.
Jefferson City
--Mr. Bange gave an update on the following projects: (1) Stadium Boulevard/Jefferson Street project;
(2) Capitol Avenue sidewalks and curb/gutter project; and (3) Development Agreement with Helias
High School for work on Myrtle Street between Stadium Boulevard and Linden Drive.
--Mr. Gates gave updates on the Parks Master Plan Update.
--Mr. Mehmert gave an update on the JEFFTRAN System-Wide Assessment and new Handi-Wheel
Bus purchase.
--Mr. Sanders reported that the City of Jefferson was awarded the Bronze level for a Bicycle Friendly
Business.
--Mr. Smith gave an update on the following: (1) annual overlay project; (2) Parking Demand Study
for the downtown core; (3) RFQ process for a Planning Consultant for work at the Airport; and (4)
upgrade Union Pacific Railroad Crossing at DeLong’s.
Missouri Department of Transportation
--Mr. Engelbrecht reported that the lighting on the eastbound lanes of the Missouri River Bridge will
be upgrade to LED lighting.
--Mr. Henderson gave an update on following: (1) Buckle Up/Phone Down promotion; (2) Citizens
Guide to Transportation Funding in Missouri; (3) draft State Transportation Improvement Program;
and (4) Long Range Transportation Plan Update.
--Mr. Lynch gave an update on the following: (1) Route B project; (2) MoDOT is currently taking
public comment until June 5, 2017 on the Administrative Rules; and (3) renewal of the cost share
program.
Pedestrian or Biking Interest
--Mr. Maloney reported that he is working with Parks and Recreation to repurpose the track located across
the river into a BMX track.
8. Next Meeting Date - Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in the Boone/Bancroft Room.
9. Adjournment
Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Benz seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:45 a.m. The motion passed
unanimously.
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 Technical Committee
FROM: Alex Rotenberry, Transportation Planner
DATE: May 24, 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 staff
recommendation for priority freight corridors 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
Callaway Co.
Callaway Co.
!(94
CAMPO Freight Priorities
Municipal Boundary
MPO Boundary
Cole Co.
Cole Co.
Priority Corridor #2
Priority Corridor #1
Missouri River
M o n r o e S t .
Priority #1 inlcudes the Missouri River Bridge and the US 50/54/63 Tri-Level. (apprx. 1 mile)
Priority #2 inlcudes the Missouri River Bridge, US 50/54/63 Tri-Level, and a portion of US 50/63 to Monroe St. (apprx. 1.8 miles)
Source: CAMPO, City of Jefferson, MoDOTKW4/25/2017
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 Technical Committee
FROM: Alex Rotenberry, Transportation Planner
DATE: May 24, 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 Technical Committee
FROM: Alex Rotenberry, Transportation Planner
DATE: May 24, 2017
SUBJECT: JEFFTRAN Transit Asset Management Plan and Targets
The 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.
Agenda Item 6C
Staff recommends that the CAMPO Technical Committee forward the JEFFTRAN Transit Asset Management
Plan targets to the CAMPO Board of Directors to accept 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.
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 Technical Committee
FROM: Katrina Williams, Transportation Planner
DATE: May 24, 2017
SUBJECT: Status of Current Work Tasks
Major active work tasks to be discussed at the June 1, 2017 Technical Committee Meeting include:
• Visioning and Travel Demand Model update. A consultant has been chosen and staff
has begun contract negotiations.
• JEFFTRAN System-Wide Assessment. The JEFFTRAN System-Wide Assessment is
being conducted by the Lochmueller Group, Inc. The consultant held several
stakeholder meetings and interviewed staff in March. A survey tool is currently under
development and should be available for the public in May.
• MTP update. Staff has begun the process of editing content and reformatting the plan,
including review of the illustrative project list and integration of performance measures.
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan. The plan has been endorsed as a component of the City of
Jefferson Comprehensive Plan by the City Council on May 15.
• 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.
• From May 23-25, Staff attended the 2017 Planning Tools and Training Symposium.
Topics discussed included public involvement, scenario planning, and MPO/state
coordination.
Agenda Item 8A