Fillable AUGUSTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY (ARTS) POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING (City of Augusta)

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank AUGUSTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY (ARTS) POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING (City of Augusta) Form

Use Fill to complete blank online CITY OF AUGUSTA (GA) pdf forms for free. Once completed you can sign your fillable form or send for signing. All forms are printable and downloadable.

AUGUSTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY (ARTS) POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING (City of Augusta)

On average this form takes 13 minutes to complete

The AUGUSTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY (ARTS) POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING (City of Augusta) form is 32 pages long and contains:

  • 0 signatures
  • 30 check-boxes
  • 38 other fields

Country of origin: US
File type: PDF

U.S.A. forms for City of Augusta

BROWSE CITY OF AUGUSTA (GA) FORMS

Related forms
Fill has a huge library of thousands of forms all set up to be filled in easily and signed.
Fill in your chosen form
Sign the form using our drawing tool
Send to someone else to fill in and sign.
find another form
 
AUGUSTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY (ARTS)
POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING
THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2019 AT 11:00 A.M.
AUGUSTA RICHMOND COUNTY MUNICIPAL BUILDING
535 TELFAIR STREET, 2
nd
FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AUGUSTA, GEORGIA 30901
MEETING MINUTES
ARTS POLICY COMMITTEE
VOTING MEMBERS ATTENDING:
VOTING MEMBERS ABSENT:
Dr. William Molnar, CHAIRMAN of
POLICY COMMITTEE
Gary Bunker, VICE CHAIR of POLICY
COMMITTEE
Sharon Dottery, Interim Transit Director
represented by Burshunda Harden
Marcus Campbell, representing Hardie
Davis, Jr., Mayor of Augusta
Edward Hicks representing Radney Simpson,
representing Commissioner
Georgia Department of Transportation Russell
McMurry
Scott Cooper, Edgefield County Chairman
Gary Jones, Mayor City of Grovetown
Robert Buchwitz, Chairman City of Hephzibah
John B. Morrison, Garrison Commander USASC & Fort
Gordon
Robert Pettit, Mayor City of North Augusta
Jonathan Dicks, Mayor City of Burnettown
Phillip Stewart, Mayor City of Blythe
Doug Duncan, Columbia County Commission
Christy Hall, Secretary of Transportation SC
Vernon Dunbar, Mayor City of New Ellenton
Tommy Paradise representing Dean Campbell, Chairman
Edgefield County, SC
Rick Osbon, Mayor City of Aiken
NON-VOTING MEMBERS ATTENDING:
NON-VOTING MEMBERS ABSENT:
Vacant, Chairman ARTS Citizens Advisory Committee
Ben Davis, Jr., 3rd Congressional District Commissioner,
SC
John Burriss, 2nd Congressional District Commissioner,
SC
Emily O. Lawton, SC FHWA Division Administrator
Jamie Buswell, Congressional Representative District 10
Don Grantham, GA State Transportation Board
Tamara Christion, FHWA, Transportation Planner
Rob Sherman, ARTS Project Director
OTHERS ATTENDING:
Rick Toole, Alfred Benesch & Company
Olen Daelhousen, VHB Inc.
Lauren Leary, VHB Inc.
Keith Smith, VHB Inc.
Augusta – Richmond County
Marques Jacobs, Augusta Engineering Dept.
Christa Jordan, Parks & Recreation
John Ussery, Engineering
Adrienne Ayers-Allen, Augusta Regional Airport
ARTS POLICY COMMITTEE
OTHERS ATTENDING:
SCDOT – Planning
Kenny Larimore, SCDOT – Planning
Adam Humphries, Preconstruction
Seth Leslie, SCDOT
Alex Bennett, SCDOT
Pat Smooten, Pond Co.
Eric Lusher, Pond Co.
GDOT
Ellen Wright, Tennille Office
Todd Price, Tennille Office
Lower Savannah Council of Government
Dana Luttrell, LSCOG
Augusta Planning and Development Dept.
Carla Delaney
Mary Elizabeth Burgess
Dr. Oliver Page
Udomekong Udoko
Mariah Harris
Warren Richard
Lynn Russell
Erik Engle
Go-To-Meeting:
Frank Childs
Aviance Webb (FTA)
Aiken County Planning & Development
LJ Peterson, Transportation Planner
Joel Duke, Director
1. Welcome and Introductions (Acknowledge Go-To-Meeting)
2. A
pprove the minutes of the Policy Committee meeting December 6, 2018.
A
motion to approve was made by Gary Bunker, seconded by Scott Cooper and unanimously approved
by all committee members present.
3. C
onsider approving the FINAL FY 2020 Unified Planning Work Program (see attached)
.
A
pproval tabled until Lower Savannah Council of Government’s comments are recorded properly.
Approval will be decided via an email vote.
4. J
oel Duke presented this item.
Consider adopting the Transportation Alternatives Set-aside (TAP) FY 2019-2020 Application
Process. (Approved by the ARTS South Carolina Policy Subcommittee on 1/31/2019)
Please see the attached application process.
5. Ra
tify email vote taken from February 14 through February 26, 2019 adopting the
Safety
Performance
Management
T
argets
(PM1)
approved
by
the
Georgia
Department o
f
Transportation a
nd South Carolina Department of Transportation (see attached).
A
motion to approve was made by Gary Bunker, seconded by Scott Cooper and unanimously approved
by all committee members present.
6. D
r. Oliver Page presented this item.
Presentation by Dr. Oliver Page on the highlights from ARTS 2011-2017 Annual Traffic Crash
Analysis. In keeping with the Federal and State Safety Performance Measure (PM 1) ARTS undertakes
annually an analysis of traffic crash data. The purpose of this task is to identify locations and rates of
traffic fatalities and serious injury, hazardous locations and crash frequency. The multimodal nature
of traffic safety also includes identifying non-motorized crashes. The importance of an annual review
of crash data determines whether progress towards safety targets, is achieved. Outcomes from this
analysis can provide input to recommend interventions that improve the safety of all roadway users.
Gar
y Bunker asked if there was an explanation as to why the fatalities declined up until 2013-2014
and then increased after that point.
Dr. P
age explained that it could be due to the downturn in the economy (declining vehicle miles
travelled) followed by an economic upturn (increase in vehicle miles travelled and exposure to traffic
crashes) or distracted driving due to the increasing use of cellphones and technology present in
vehicles.
Dr. Molnar stated that Secretary of Transportation, Christy Hall, is focusing on decreasing the number of
driving fatalities in South Carolina.
Please see the attached presentation. This item was for information purposes only.
7. Ole
n Daelhousen presented this item.
Presentation by VHB Inc., on the Congestion Management Process deliverable. (See attached)
Mr
. Daelhousen explained that the next steps of the Congestion Management Process will be
programming and implementation strategies, evaluating the effectiveness of the strategies and
submitting the draft and final Congestion Management Reports.
No
questions or comments were made after this presentation. This item was for information purposes
only.
8. St
atus of Regional Transportation Projects:
a.
Georgia Highways
Please see the attached handout.
b.
South Carolina Highways
Please see the attached handout.
c.
Presented by Udomekong Udoko
Augusta Public Transit
Mr. Udoko explained that Augusta Public Transit (APT) is working with Engineering Dept., and
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) staff to complete an assessment of bus stops along
the fixed route system. APT is evaluating where new bus shelters can be installed.
d.
Presented by Dana Luttrell
Best Friend Express
South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and Office of Public Transit have
released a call for projects for FTA section 5310 funds. Rural 5310 serves seniors and persons
with a disability. Agencies can apply for a transit vehicle or purchase a service agreement under
the 5310 program. Agencies can also apply for mobility management funding if they have an
existing mobility management program is place. Funding is available in all Council of
Government (COG) regions in the state for the next fiscal year. Each COG will rank projects they
received from their region and SCDOT will consider these rankings when they award funding.
In October 2018, APT placed an order for a new 14-passenger cut away for the BFE fleet. The
vehicle has arrived and will be placed in rotation.
e.
Presented by Adrienne Ayers-Allen
Augusta Regional Airport
Ms. Ayers-Allen explained that the Augusta Regional Airport has received $14 million in funding
from FAA/GDOT (90% FAA, 5% GDOT & 5% Local Match) for Airport Improvement Program
(AIP) projects. Currently the Augusta Regional Airport is on the Ramp Rehabilitation Project
program, which consists of fixing all pavement projects that have deteriorated over the years on
both the north and south side of the ramps. Augusta Regional Airport is currently building a new
electrical building on the southeast portion of the estate to house all of the electrical equipment.
Aug
usta Regional Airport is working on access control upgrades both inside and outside the
terminal. The installation of two passenger-boarding bridges are now complete. The direct flight
to Dallas, TX has official started.
Dr. M
olnar asked if there were any other direct flights coming to Augusta.
Ms. Ayers-Allen explained that Augusta Regional Airport is working extremely hard to
communicate with different carriers and bring more direct flights to Augusta.
9. Othe
r Business
10. Adjourn
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM -
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES GUIDELINES
Program Overview:
Transportation Alternatives Set-aside (TA) funding is available through set-aside funds in the
Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program authorized in the Fixing America’s Surface
Transportation Act (FAST) ACT on December 4, 2015. (FAST Act § 1109; 23 U.S.C. 133(h)). These
set-aside funds include all projects and activities that were previously eligible under the
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) program. The STBGP Set-Aside provides funds “for
projects or activities described in section 101(a)(29) or 213, as such provisions were in effect on
the day before the date of enactment of the FAST Act.” Transportation projects funded under
this grant program must originate through a competitive grant project selection process in
consultation with State DOTs.
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) codified the TAP under sections
213(b) and 101(a)(29) of title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.). The FAST Act repealed section 213,
removed the former 101(a)(29), and re-codified the program (STBG Program - TA Set-aside)
under 23 U.S.C. 133(h).
STBG TA Set-aside funds for alternative transportation encompass a variety of smaller-scale
transportation projects such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, recreational trails, safe routes to
school projects, safe routes for non-drivers to access daily needs, community improvements such
as historic preservation and vegetation management, construction of turnouts, overlooks, and
viewing areas, and environmental mitigation related to stormwater and habitat connectivity.
Program Management:
The statutory authority and implementation responsibility for the Transportation Alternatives
(TA) funding as outlined in the FAST Act funding legislation authorizes Metropolitan Planning
Organizations in Transportation Management Areas (TMAs), areas with population of 200,000,
to manage the program funds and select projects through a competitive process in consultation
with the state (23 USC 133(h)(4). The MPOs, in consultation with the Federal Highway
Administration and state-level Department of Transportation (DOTs), are responsible for carrying
out the federal transportation planning process for federal-aid projects and programs.
Additionally, projects and/or programs selected for funding must be included in the Metropolitan
Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
The Augusta-Richmond County Planning and Development Department serves as the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the urbanized areas of Augusta-Richmond County
Meeting Minutes Attachment for Item#4
AUGUSTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY (ARTS)
and parts of Columbia County in Georgia; as well as parts of Aiken and Edgefield Counties in South
Carolina. This includes the local municipalities of Augusta, Grovetown, Hephzibah and Blythe in
Georgia; and Aiken, North Augusta, New Ellenton and Burnettown in South Carolina. The MPO,
in consultation with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), is responsible for
developing the twenty (20) year long range transportation plan and Transportation Improvement
Program pursuant to the federal transportation planning regulations. The Augusta Regional
Transportation Study (ARTS) identifies highways, roads, public transit, bicycle/pedestrian and
other multimodal alternative transportation projects and programs eligible for federal-aid
funding. The ARTS focuses on regional transportation issues such as, but not limited to,
congestion management, traffic safety, air quality, freight and rail, public transit, paratransit,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities to build a multimodal transportation system for all users.
ARTS is governed by three MPO committees; the policy committee, technical coordinating
committee and citizens’ advisory committee. These committees are responsible for reviewing
and approving projects and programs included in the ARTS. The decision-making process for
transportation planning and programming transportation capital infrastructure projects is guided
by a set of transportation goals for the ARTS. These goals include the following:
• Develop a Transportation System Integration with Planned Land use,
• Develop a Transportation System that is Financially and Political Feasible and has broad
support,
• Develop a Transportation System that will allow Effective Mobility Throughout the Region
and Provide Efficient Movement of Persons and Goods,
• Develop a Transportation System that will Enhance the Economic Social and
Environmental Fabric of the Area, using resources wisely while minimizing adverse
impacts,
• Promote efficient land use and development patterns to improve safety and economic
vitality to meet existing and future multimodal transportation needs,
• Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and non-
motorized users, and
• Develop a multimodal transportation network that utilizes strategies for addressing
congestion management and air quality issues in the ARTS region.
Program Guidelines:
Who Can Submit An Application?
Eligible Project Sponsors: Under 23 USC 133(h) (4) (B), the eligible project sponsors to receive
TA Set-aside funds and implement projects are:
• Local governments within the Georgia portion of the MPO study area boundaries;
• Regional transportation authorities;
• Transit agencies;
• Natural resource or public land agencies;
• School districts, local education agencies, or schools;
• Tribal governments; and
• Other local or regional governmental entities with responsibility for oversight of
transportation or recreational trails (other than a metropolitan planning organization or
a State agency) that the GDOT determines to be eligible, consistent with the goals of
subsection (c) of section 213 of title 23.
Under TAP, States, MPOs and nonprofits are not eligible as direct grant recipients of the funds.
Nonprofits are eligible to partner with any eligible entity on an eligible TAP project, if State or
local requirements permit.
In Georgia, eligible project sponsors should be familiar and have experience with the GDOT’s
process for locally administered projects. The local project sponsor must be certified under
GDOT’s locally administered projects program at the time that the TA Set-aside funds application
is submitted. The current list of Local Public Agencies (LPA’s) with LAP Certification within the
ARTS MPO area is included as an attachment to this document. For more information relative to
this process, refer to http://www.dot.ga.gov/PS/Local/LAP.
An eligible project sponsor must have the fiscal, managerial and engineering capabilities to
manage project delivery consistent with FHWA, and/or GDOT’s project development process,
procurement and construction contract requirements pursuant to state policies and procedures,
as well as federal regulations. A project sponsor must demonstrate financial stewardship and
commitment to provide the required local matching funds.
What Types of Projects Can Be Funded?
Eligible Projects: TA Set-aside funds may be obligated for projects or activities described in 23
USC 101(a)(29) or 213, as such provisions were in effect on the day before the date of enactment
of the FAST Act. Former 23 USC 213 (b)(1) is as follows:
1) Transportation Alternatives as defined in section 101 [former 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(29)]: The term
“transportation alternatives” means any of the following activities when carried out as part
of any program or project authorized or funded under this title, or as an independent
program or project related to surface transportation:
a. Construction, planning, and design of on-road and off-road trail facilities for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and other non-motorized forms of transportation, including sidewalks, bicycle
infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle signals, traffic calming techniques, lighting and
other safety-related infrastructure, and transportation projects to achieve compliance
with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).
b. Construction, planning, and design of infrastructure-related projects and systems that will
provide safe routes for non-drivers, including children, older adults, and individuals with
disabilities to access daily needs.
c. Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for pedestrians, bicyclists,
or other non-motorized transportation users.
d. Construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas.
e. Community improvement activities, which include but are not limited to:
i. Inventory, control, or removal of outdoor advertising;
ii. Historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities;
iii. Vegetation management practices in transportation rights-of-way to improve
roadway safety, prevent against invasive species, and provide erosion control; and
iv. Archaeological activities relating to impacts from implementation of a
transportation project eligible under title 23.
f. Any environmental mitigation activity, including pollution prevention and pollution
abatement activities and mitigation to:
i. Address stormwater management, control, and water pollution prevention or
abatement related to highway construction or due to highway runoff, including
activities described in sections 23 U.S.C. 133(b)(3) [as amended under the FAST Act],
328(a), and 329 of title 23; or
ii. Reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or to restore and maintain connectivity
among terrestrial or aquatic habitats (Former 23 U.S.C. 213(b)(2)-(4)).
2) The recreational trails program under 23 U.S.C. 206 of title 23.
3) The safe routes to school program eligible projects and activities listed at section 1404(f) of
the SAFETEA-LU.
4) Planning, designing, or constructing boulevards and other roadways largely in the right-of-
way of former Interstate System routes or other divided highways.
Limitations
TA Set-aside funds cannot be used for the following activities:
• State or MPO administrative purposes. Exceptions:
o See FHWA’s Memo Allocating Indirect Costs to Projects, dated September 4, 2015.
o Region Transportation Plan (RTP) administrative costs of the State for RTP set-
aside funds.
• Promotional activities, except as permitted under the SRTS (200 CFR 200.421(e)(3)).
• Routine maintenance and operations, except trail maintenance as permitted under the
RTP.
• General recreation and park facilities, playground equipment, sports fields, campgrounds,
picnic areas and pavilions, etc.
Treatment of projects
Projects funded under the TA Set-aside (excluding RTP projects) shall be treated as projects on a
Federal-aid Highway Program. [23 USC 133(i)] and as such is subject to ALL applicable federal
laws. TA Set-aside funded projects and/or activities must be for public use. Program income
generated from these projects in the form of “user fees” are discouraged, however are allowed
if such income is utilized to fund routine maintenance of eligible facilities.
Youth Conservation Corps
States and regional transportation planning agencies are encouraged to enter into contracts and
cooperative agreements with qualified youth service or conservation corps to perform
appropriate projects. Such contracts and cooperative agreements are exempt from some
Federal-aid highway program contracting requirements. [§1524]
Program Funding:
The Federal share is 80% for most projects as determined in accordance with 23 USC 120. The
TA Set-aside is part of the Federal-aid Highway Program and as such is subject to ALL applicable
federal regulations. The project sponsor after receiving authorization from the GDOT and
concurrence by FHWA, covers ALL project and/or program cost and is then reimbursed with
federal funds.
The local match requirement is 20% and may not consist of any other US DOT funds, nor funds
awarded from any other federal agency. However, there are exceptions for projects that are
within, adjacent to, or provide access to federal lands. There is no allowance for use of donated
property or in-kind services as the local share.
“Standard” Federal share
23 USC 120 establishes a Federal share that applies to the entire Federal-aid highway program
(except where other statutory language establishes a different and more specific share):
Up to 80% of the total project cost for eligible projects.
Project sponsor(s) must provide a minimum 20% local match of the total project cost
except where applicable in accordance with federal legislation. 23 USC 104. [§1508(1); 23
USC 120; 23 USC 120(c)(1)]; 23 USC 120(c)(3); [§1528(c)]; [§52004(4)(A)(i); 23 USC 504(e)]
TA Set-aside funds are cost reimbursable.
Up to 90% for projects on the Interstate System (including projects to add high occupancy
vehicle lanes or auxiliary lanes but excluding projects to add other lanes).
ARTS MPO STBG TA Set-aside Available Federal Funds:
STBG
FY 2019 – 2020
GDOT
(Federal amount)
TOTAL
The maximum amount of federal STBG TA Set-aside funds for any proposed project is $450,000.
The local project sponsor must include a fee of $50,000 or less in the project budget for project
oversight review by GDOT. TAP funds are available for obligation within a period of three years
after the last day of the fiscal year for which the funds are authorized.
The Innovative Financing option that was available for Transportation Enhancements in previous
transportation legislation is not available for TAP funded projects under MAP-21. This means the
federal /local proportion will be applied to each invoice submitted by the project sponsor to
GDOT. The Advance Payment Option that was available for Transportation Enhancements in
previous transportation legislation is not available for TAP funded projects under MAP-21.
Any work started or completed before the applicant receives an executed contract with notice
to proceed shall not be reimbursed with federal-aid funds and cannot count as local matching
funds.
A TA Set-aside funded project must be procured through a competitive bid process unless prior
approval is obtained from FHWA, or GDOT to use another method of construction procurement.
Project Screening and Selection:
TA Set-aside funds must be obligated for eligible projects submitted by eligible local project
sponsors through a competitive grant project selection process.
The ARTS MPO’s policy committee will approve projects for funding and subsequent inclusion in
the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The MPO’s technical coordinating committee
and citizen advisory committee will evaluate and select eligible projects to recommend to the
MPO policy committee. The MPO staff will screen applications to be sure that funding requests
meet the federal eligibility requirements and to insure that sufficient detail information is
provided to evaluate the project worthiness and completeness.
Priority will be given to projects that assist the MPO in achieving ARTS goals and provide system-
wide network connectivity and access to the regional transportation system. There must be a
transportation linkage to the project for it to be considered for funding. Projects must be located
within the Georgia portion of the MPO boundaries (refer to map on page 12). The public must
have community input in the selection of eligible projects receiving TA Set-aside funds. Thus,
projects should originate from a comprehensive, continuous and cooperative planning process,
and be included in one or more of the following types of plans, in which public participation is
documented as part of the planning and project development process:
Metropolitan Transportation Plan – ARTS 2040 LRTP
Transit Development Plan
Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Congestion Management System Plan
Comprehensive Plan
Growth Management Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Master Plans
Redevelopment Plans
Sustainable Development Plans, or
CDBG Consolidated Plan
Additionally, eligible projects will also be evaluated based on several competitive factors
including:
1. Financial = 5 points
a. Project Sponsor’s experience with locally administered projects funded under GDOT and its
project development process
b. Realistic expectations and cost derived from a preliminary project cost estimation or planning
process
c. A high level of local match funding and ability to pay
d. Right-of-way not included in funding request
e. Non-participating work that is determined to be a benefit to the project
f. Project sponsor’s ability to cover additional costs for project cost overruns
2. Public input = 5 points
a. Consistency with adopted capital improvement budget, plans, policies, or other infrastructure
investments tools
b. Opportunity and evidence of public involvement and/or public hearing
3. Safety = 5 points
a. Improves pedestrian and/or bicycle safety access
b. Minimizes vehicular traffic conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists
4. Livability and Quality of Life = 5 points
a. Enhances livability, demonstrates quality of life, and improves population health
b. Total population served and level of exposure or access including the amount or density of
nearby population or employment
c. Supports active transportation and encourages physical activity, helping to improve public
health and reduce health care costs.
5. Coordinated efforts = 5 points
a. Project supporting a community’s Complete Streets policy and context sensitive design is on
a designated local, regional, state or national bicycle trail, or is part of a regional plan, provides
connectivity among other facilities or regions of activity, adds to or enhances existing network
b. Completes planned corridors, fills gaps
c. Paired with other infrastructure work
d. Part of an economic development or community improvement initiative
6. Constructability = 5 points
a. No environmental issues
b. Limited or no right-of-way acquisition
c. Technical Merit including feasibility, adherence to design standards, realistic
scope/schedule/budget and project readiness
7. Transportation Mobility and Access = 5 points
a. Proximity of project to public transit bus stop
b. Provides access or fill a gap linking to transit bus shelter
8. Maintenance factors = 5 points
a. Evidence of a maintenance plan that includes tasks, schedule, cost, source of maintenance
funding, and responsible parties
9. Previous Transportation Enhancement (TE), TAP, and TA Set-aside funding = 5 points
a. Number and scale of previously awarded projects
b. Timely implementation and appropriate maintenance on previous projects
The competitive factors will be given a maximum score of five (5) for meeting the requirements. Maximum
total score is 45 points.
Funding Application
The funding application should include the following items and attachments. Explanations
should be complete and concise.
1. Cover Letter;
2. Application Cover Page with applicant contact information;
3. General Project Description with location maps, project boundary, site plan, project
length, and photographs of existing site or facility;
4. Statement of Purpose and Need;
5. Itemized Budget of all project elements and their costs, including quantity, unit prices,
and so on;
6. Provide a list of the source(s) for matching funds and amounts;
7. Documentation showing local support (letters of commitment and resolution, etc.);
8. Identify ownership of all property and if property is to be acquired, the values of the
property;
9. Provide description of plans for maintenance and management of the project including
maintenance costs and the sources of funding;
10. Provide any previously prepared assessments of the impacts of the project. (If none have
been prepared, but are required, these impact assessments, such as environmental,
archaeological, and so on, must be completed before the project is implemented);
11. Provide notarized signature of an individual authorized to commit the applicant to a
contract;
12. Other Attachments e.g. copy of supporting planning document or project profile sheet
(Attachments larger than 8½” x 11” must be folded to the 8½” x 11”).
13.
Application should be fifteen (15) pages maximum; this does not include attachments.
What's the ARTS Transportation Alternatives Program application schedule?
• Summer 2019 (June): TA application period opens Monday, June 3, 2019
(Call for TA applications)
• Friday, July 12, 2019: Last day for TA applications to be submitted to ARTS
• Monday, July 15, 2019: ARTS staff will screen applications, review and evaluation
period.
• Week of July 22, 2019: ARTS review committee meets to rank and recommend proposed
TA Set-aside projects for funding
• August 14, 2019: Technical Committee will review and endorse TA project selection
• August 14, 2019: Citizen Advisory Committee will review and endorse TA project
selection
• September 5, 2019: Policy Committee will review and endorse TA project selection
• October 2019: TIP Amendment process: Public review and comment meeting subject
to 21-day comment period.
• December 5, 2019: ARTS MPO Policy Committee scheduled to adopt the TAP projects
and submit to GDOT for approval and inclusion in the State’s TIP.
• December 9, 2019: ARTS Project Director issues notice of grant award.
• Final Award will be made by GDOT upon execution of contract and issuance of notice-to-
proceed.
Applicants are encouraged to seek clarification from MPO staff prior to submitting an
application. Applications received after the deadline will not be considered for funding.
Incomplete applications will not be considered for funding. Applications can be mailed or
delivered to the Augusta Planning and Development Department.
Submit: Two (2) Originals, three (3) copies and One (1) electronic scanned copy of the complete
application and attachments to:
Robert Sherman III, Director
Augusta Planning and Development Department
535 Telfair Street, Suite 300
Augusta, GA 30901
Email: arts@augustaga.gov
Office: (706) 821-1796
Fax: (706) 821-1806
Supplemental Information
Applicable Federal Laws and Regulations as well as design guidelines for consideration in project
development:
• Americans with Disabilities Act
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Letting/Procurement Procedures
• Davis-Bacon Wage Requirements
• Disadvantaged and Minority Business Enterprises
• National Environmental Policy Act
• Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
• Uniform Relocation Property Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act
Sample Design Guidelines:
• Accessible Public Rights-of-Way, Planning and Designing for Alterations, Public Rights-of-Way
Access Advisory Committee, 2007.
• Context Sensitive Design Manual, GDOT, ROADS web page.
• Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach, Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) and Congress for the New Urbanization (CNU), 2010.
• Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO, 2011.
• Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, AASHTO, 2012.
• Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, AASHTO, 2004.
• Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), FHWA, 2009.
• Pedestrian and Streetscape Guide, GDOT, ROADS web page.
• Proposed Guidelines for Public Rights-of-Way (PROWAG) 2, United States Access Board, 2011.
• Urban Bikeway Design Guide, NACTO, 2012.
GDOT List of Certified Local Public Agencies 2019
1
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE PROGRAM
(TA-Set Aside Program)
GRANT APPLICATION EVALUATION SHEET
Type of Project:
Project Location:
Project Cost:
TAP Funds Requested:
Applicant:
Contact Info:
Office Phone:
Email:
PART I: Application Screening: Is the Application Complete? Circle One YES or NO
If yes, refer application to Evaluation Committee.
Application Content
Circle only one.
1. Application Cover Page with applicant contact
information.
YES
NO
2. Provide notarized signature of an
individual authorized to commit the
applicant to a contract.
YES
NO
3. General Project Description with location
maps, project boundary, site plan, project
length, and photographs of existing site or
facility.
YES
NO
4. Statement of Purpose and Need
YES
NO
5. Itemized Budget of all project elements and
their costs.
YES
NO
6. Provide a list of the source(s) for matching
funds and amounts.
YES
NO
7. Documentation showing local support (letters
of commitment and resolution. etc.)
YES
NO
8. Identify ownership of all property and if
property is to be acquired, the values of the
property.
YES
NO
9. Provide description of plans for maintenance
and management of the project including
maintenance costs and the sources of funding.
YES
NO
2
10. Provide any previously prepared
assessments of the impacts of the project.
(If none have been prepared, but are
required, these impact assessments, such
as environmental, archaeological, and so
on, must be completed before the project
is implemented).
YES
NO
11. Is the Proposed Project work eligible?
YES
NO
12. Has this project received prior federal-aid
funds? If yes, list TIP project #.
YES
NO
Amount:
When?
13. Is the project in the ARTS LRTP?
YES
NO
14. Is the project in the ARTS TIP?
YES
NO
15. Is the project in the ARTS Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan?
YES
NO
3
PART II Evaluation Factors - Score between 1 – 5
(Maximum Total Score = 45 points).
EVALUATION FACTORs
SCORE
1. Financial = 5 points
a. Project Sponsor’s experience with
locally administered projects funded
under GDOT and its project
development process
b. Realistic expectations and cost derived
from a preliminary project cost
estimation or planning process
c. A high level of local match funding and
ability to pay
d. Right-of-way not included in funding
request
e. Non-participating work that is
determined to be a benefit to the TAP
project
f. Project sponsor’s ability to cover
additional costs for project cost
overruns
2. Public input = 5 points
a. Consistency with adopted capital
improvement budget, plans, policies,
or other infrastructure investments
tools
b. Opportunity and evidence of public
involvement and/or public hearing
3. Safety = 5 points
a. Improves pedestrian and/or bicycle
safety access
b. Minimizes vehicular traffic conflicts
with pedestrians and cyclists
4. Livability and Quality of Life = 5 points
a. Enhances livability, demonstrates
quality of life, and improves
population health
b. Total population served and level of
exposure or access including the
amount or density of nearby
population or employment
4
EVALUATION FACTORs
SCORE
5. Coordinated efforts = 5 points
a. Project supporting a community’s
Complete Streets policy, is on
a
d
esignated local, regional, state o
r
n
ational bicycle trail, or is part of
a
re
gional plan, provides connectivity
among other facilities or regions of
activity, adds to or enhances existing
network
b. Completes planned corridors, fills gaps
c. Paired with other infrastructure work
d. Part of an economic development or
community improvement initiative
6. Constructability = 5 points
a. No environmental issues
b. Limited or no right-of-way acquisition
c. Technical Merit including feasibility,
adherence to design standards,
realistic scope/schedule/budget and
project readiness
7. Transportation Mobility and Access = 5 points
a. Proximity of project to public transit
bus stop
b. Provides access or fill a gap linking to
transit bus shelter.
8. Maintenance factors = 5 points
a. Evidence of a maintenance plan that
includes tasks, schedule, cost, source
of maintenance funding, and
responsible parties
9. Previous Transportation Enhancement (TE) or
TAP funding = 5 points
a. Number and scale of previously
awarded projects
b. Timely implementation and
appropriate maintenance on
previous projects
TOTAL
5
TA
P Applications received…….
Applicant
Date Submitted
Project Location
Grant Amount
Project Cost
Total TAP federal-aid funds requested
(Maximum $450,000 per project)
1
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE PROGRAM
(TA-Set Aside Program)
GRANT APPLICATION EVALUATION SCORE SHEET
PART I: Application Screening: Is the Application Complete?
Application Content
Project
Project
Project
Project
1. Application Cover Page with
applicant contact information.
2. Provide notarized signature
of an individual authorized to
commit the applicant to a
contract.
3. General Project Description with
location maps, project
boundary, site plan, project
length, and photographs of
existing site or facility.
4. Statement of Purpose and Need
5. Itemized Budget of all project
elements and their costs.
6. Provide a list of the source(s) for
matching funds and amounts.
7. Documentation showing local
support (letters of commitment
and resolution. etc.)
8. Identify ownership of all
property and if property is to be
acquired, the values of the
property.
9. Provide description of plans for
maintenance and management
of the project includin
g
maintenance costs and the
sources of funding.
2
Evans to
Lock Rd
Walton
Way
Kissingbower
August
Medical
10. Provide any previously
prepared assessments of the
impacts of the project. (If
none have been prepared,
but are required, these
impact assessments, such as
environmental,
archaeological, and so on,
must be completed before
the project is implemented).
11. Is the Proposed Project work
eligible?
12. Has this project received prior
federal-aid funds? If yes, list TIP
project #.
Amount:
13. Is the project in the ARTS LRTP?
14. Is the project in the ARTS TIP?
15. Is the project in the ARTS
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan?
3
4
PART II Evaluation Factors - Score between 1 – 5
(Maximum Total Score = 45 points).
5
EVALUATION FACTORs
Evans to
Lock Rd
Walton
Way
Kissingbower
August
Medical
1. Financial = 5 points
a. Project Sponsor’s
experience with locally
administered projects
funded under GDOT and its
project developmen
t
process
b
. Realistic expectations and
cost derived from
a
p
reliminary project cost
estimation or plannin
g
process
c. A high level of local match
funding and ability to pay
d. Right-of-way not included in
funding request
e. Non-participating work that
is determined to be a
benefit to the TAP project
f. Project sponsor’s ability to
cover additional costs for
project cost overruns
2. Public input = 5 points
a. Consistency with adopted
capital improvement
budget, plans, policies, o
r
o
ther infrastructure
investments tools
b. Opportunity and evidence
of public involvement
and/or public hearing
3. Safety = 5 points
a. Improves pedestrian and/or
bicycle safety access
b. Minimizes vehicular traffic
conflicts with pedestrians
and cyclists
EVALUATION FACTORs
Evans to
Lock Rd
Walton
Way
Kissingbower
August
Medical
6
4. Livability and Quality of Life = 5
points
a. Enhances livability,
demonstrates quality of life,
and improves population
health
b. Total population served and
level of exposure or access
including the amount or
density of nearby
population or employment
5. Coordinated efforts = 5 points
a. Project supporting a
community’s Complete
Streets policy, is on a
designated local, regional,
state or national bicycle
trail, or is part of a regional
plan, provides connectivity
among other facilities o
r
re
gions of activity, adds to
or enhances existin
g
network
b. Completes planned
corridors, fills gaps
c. Paired with other
infrastructure work
d. Part of an economic
development or community
improvement initiative
6. Constructability = 5 points
a. No environmental issues
b. Limited or no right-of-wa
y
ac
quisition
c. Technical Merit including
feasibility, adherence to
design standards, realistic
scope/schedule/budget and
project readiness
7
EVALUATION FACTORs
Evans to
Lock Rd
Walton
Way
Kissingbower
August
Medical
7. Transportation Mobility and
Access = 5 points
a. Proximity of project to
public transit bus stop
b. Provides access or fill a gap
linking to transit bus
shelter.
8. Maintenance factors = 5 points
a. Evidence of a maintenance
plan that includes tasks,
schedule, cost, source of
maintenance funding, and
responsible parties
9. Previous Transportation
Enhancement (TE) or TAP
funding = 5 points
a. Number and scale of
previously awarded
projects
b. Timely implementation
and appropriate
maintenance on previous
projects
TOTAL
8
TA
P Applications received…….
Applicant
Date
Submitted
Project Location
Grant
Amount
Local
Match
Total
Cost
Columbia
County
1/5/2018
Evans to Lock Rd Multi-Use Trail
Between N Belair Rd & Hunterdale
$450,000.00
$1,677,685.00 $2,127,685.00
Augusta
Richmond
County
1/5/2018
Walton Way Accessible Sidewalk
Renovation – b/w 7
th
& 11
th
Sts
$440,000.00
$119,461.11 $559,461.11
1/5/2018
Sidewalk Installation along
Kissingbower Rd b/w Marschalk &
White Rds.
$240,000.00
$60,000.00 $300,000.00
1/5/2018
Street Lighting in Augusta Medical
District – Interior Streets
$340,000.00
$85,000.00 $425,000.00
Total TAP federal-aid funds requested
(Maximum $450,000 per project)
$1,470,000.00 $1,942,146.11 $3,412,146.11
MEETING MINUTES ATTACHMENT FOR ITEM #5
Augusta Regional Transportation Study (ARTS)
2019 Safety
Performance
Management
T
argets (PM1)
F
ederal regulations require state departments of transportations (DOTs) to establish and report annual safety
performance targets by August 31 of each year. MPOs are required to either adopt and support their DOT's statewide
safety targets or set their own safety targets specific to their areas. The South Carolina Department of Transportation
(SCDOT) established its first set of safety targets on August 31, 2017, requiring the same compliance by COGs
beginning with the fiscal year 2019 establishment of targets.
Annual targets are expressed as five-year rolling averages. SCDOT, in coordination with the South Carolina
Department of Public Safety, has established statewide targets for the number of fatalities, number of serious injuries,
and rate of fatalities. In addition, SCDOT established statewide targets for the rate of serious injuries and the number
of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries. The following table outlines South Carolina's 2015-2019 Statewide
Safety Targets.
2019 SOUTH CAROLINA PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Performance Measure
2015-2019 Targets
Number of Fatalities
988
Fatality Rate
1.79
Number of Serious Injuries
2,986
Serious Injury Rate
5.42
Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and
Serious Injuries
380
2019 GEORGIA PERFORMANCE MEASURES
•
Number of Fatalities - To maintain the 5-year rolling average for traffic fatalities under the projected 1,655
(
2015-2019) 5-year average by December 2019.
•
Rate of Fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) - To maintain the 5-year rolling average for
the rate of traffic fatalities per 100 million VMT under the projected 1.31 (2015-2019) 5-year by December
2019.
•
Number of Serious Injuries - To maintain the 5-year rolling average for serious injuries under the projected
24,324 (2015-2019) 5-year average by December 2019.
•
Rate of Serious injuries per 100 million VMT - To reduce the 5-year moving average serious traffic injuries
for every 100 million-vehicle miles traveled by 3% from baseline 19.6 (2015-2019) 5-year average to 18.9
(2015-2019) 5-year average by December 2019.
•
Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries - To maintain the 5-year rolling average for non-
motorized fatalities and serious injuries under the projected 1,126 (2015-2019) 5-year average by December
2019.
4/30/2019
1
Performance Management 1 –
Safety Targets
What do they mean?
ARTS TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
ARTS CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 2019
PM1 – 2015-2019 Targets
PerformanceMeasure
Georgia
2015‐2019Targets
SouthCarolina
2015‐2019Targets
NumberofFatalities
1,655
988
FatalityRateper100millionVMT
1.31
1.79
NumberofSeriousInjuries
24,324
2,986
SeriousInjuryRateper100million
VMT
18.9
5.42
NumberofNon‐motorizedFatalities
andSeriousInjuries
1,126
380
Highlights from the
ARTS Annual Traffic Crash and
Intersection Analysis:
2011-2017 Report
ARTS TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
ARTS CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 2019
Objectives
Informs and Educates stakeholders
and public
Identifies crash trends, high crash
intersections and roadway segments
Assists in the siting and
recommendation of safety
improvements
Validates attainment of safety
targets and remediation success of
interventions
July 2016
Fatal and Injury Collisions – 4 County
MEETING MINUTES ATTACHMENT FOR ITEM #6
4/30/2019
2
Fatalities & Serious Injury – 4 County Fatality Rate per 100 Million VMT
Non-Motorized Fatal and Serious
Injury Collisions – 4 County
Non-Motorized Fatalities and Seriously
Injured: 4 County
Bicycle and Pedestrian Fatality Map
Traffic Collision Heat Map
4/30/2019
3
Crash Prone Intersections
Top 20 Intersection Crash Locations
2015-2017 (Ranked by Crash Severity)
Rank County Intersection Crashes
Property
Damage
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatality
Crashes
Crash
Severity
Index
1 Edgefield WFiveNotchRd&MurrahRd&MurrahRdExt 10 2 8 0 2.60
2 Edgefield BriggsLn&BriggsRd 7 3 4 0 2.14
3 Edgefield CallisonHwy&Hwy378W&WalkerRd 6 3 3 0 2.00
4 Edgefield AugustaRd&EdgefieldRd&Hwy19&PineHouseRd 12 7 5 0 1.83
5 Aiken CherokeeDr&JeffersonDavisHwy&ParkerDr 27 16 11 0 1.81
6 Richmond TobaccoRd&WindsorSpringRd 160 106 54 0 1.68
7 Edgefield AirportRd&Hwy191&OldPlankRd 6 4 2 0 1.67
8 Aiken RobertMBellPkwy&TrolleyLineRd 21 14 7 0 1.67
9 Columbia BobbyJonesExpy&OldEvansRd&WashingtonRd 153 104 49 0 1.64
10 Aiken AtomicRd&OIdEdgefieldRd 20 14 6 0 1.60
Any Questions
VHB Inc., Presentation
Meeting Minutes for Agenda Item #7
Project Status Report for Augusta Regional Transportation Study
(ARTS)
Policy Committee Meeting
Date: March 7, 2019
Columbia County
• M005753 – SR 383 From North of I-20 to SR 104
o
.Withdrawn from November letting. New let date moved to April 2019
• 0008350 – S
R 388 From I-20 to SR 232 - TIA
o Widening (1.59 m
iles)
o Scheduled for N
ovember 2019 let
o ROW acquisition is unde
rway and on schedule
Richmond County
• 210327 – I-20 at Savannah River and Augusta Canal
o Bridge r
eplacement to include widening (0.65 miles)
o Contractor completed geotechnical investigations. Survey efforts and p
avement
evaluations along the interstate initiated. Final design ongoing
.
• 220680 – SR 4 From Milledgeville Road to Government Street - TIA
o Widening (1.59 m
iles)
o Scheduled for June 2019 l
et
o ROW acquisition still unde
rway
• 0013927 - S
R 4/US 25 BU at Savannah River at South Carolina Line
o Bridge R
eplacement (0.20 miles)
o Scheduled for let June 2021
o Stakeholder meeting held January 17, 2019
. PCRF submitted to OPD for signature.
Holding baseline schedule
ARTS POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING
March 7, 2019
SCDOT Project Update
1. 0034300 - SC 125 (East Buena Vista Avenue/Atomic Road) Corridor Improvement –ARTS
• Current Budget - $800,000 P
E, $2,527,000 ROW, $38,000 UTIL, $8,694,172.58 CONST
• Construction is now complete, w
ith the final inspection was held Monday, October 15, 2018
• Contractor has completed all punch list ite
ms
2. 0034292 - S
C 302 (Silver Bluff Road) Corridor Improvement – Aiken County - ARTS
• Current Budget - $920,000 P
E, $1,700,000 R/W, $73,781 UTIL, $6,198,935.63 CONST
• Improvements include widening corridor to 3 lanes, addition of
turn lanes, curb and gutter
and signalization of three intersections
• Construction P
hase is currently underway (work began on March 29, 2016)
• SCDOT a
nd Eagle Construction have negotiated a new construction completion date of July
31, 2019.
• To a
ccelerate construction, and reduce impacts to the traveling public, SCDOT is offering
i
ncentives to the contractor to potentially finish up to 120 days before July 31.
3. 0041446 - SC 126 (Belvedere-Clearwater Road) Widening - ARTS
• Current Budget - $1,300,000 P
E, $2,139,600 ROW, $12,000,000 CONST
• Preliminary Engineering Phase has been completed, including Environmental Studies a
nd
F
inal Right-of-Way Plans
• Environmental Document/Public Hearing Certification was approved on
April 26, 2016
• Environmental Permitting Coordination i
s currently underway
• Right-of-W
ay Phase is underway (86 tracts) -- Right-of-Way Consultant (PRIMACQ) is in
the process of securing right of way for the project (83 tracts secured).
• Current S
chedule
o Construction O
bligation – 12/2019
o Letting – 02/
2020
4. 0040695 - S
C 118 (Hitchcock Parkway) Corridor Improvement - ARTS
• Current Budget – $3,300,
000 PE (per obligation from widening carried over), $1,496,800
R
OW, $12,200,000 CONST (Federal Resurfacing fund to pay for resurfacing of Hitchcoc
k
P
arkway)
• Right-of-W
ay obligated in December 2018 with initial property owner contact beginning
Quarter 1 of 2019.
• Current S
chedule
o Construction O
bligation – 4/2020
o Letting – 6/
2020
5. P037361 – S
C 19 (Whiskey Road)Intersection with Eagle Road and S-447 (Old Whiskey
Road) - ARTS
• Current Budget - $450,000 P
E, $400,000 ROW, $1,250,000
• Surveys a
nd traffic study have been completed.
• SCDOT i
s currently negotiating a contract with Parrish and Partners to provide design
s
ervices, Consultant working under a Limited Notice to Proceed to begin plan development
while contract negotiations are finalized.
• Current S
chedule
o Right o
f Way – Q3 2019
o Construction – Q1 2021
P
age 1 of 1
Download
Save PDF to desktop
Email
Email completed PDF
Send for Signing
Email for others to sign
Print
Print document
Choose a Field
Click on a field and
select the person that should complete it
Want to add a signature?
You can add a signature field
and assign it to someone else
to sign
Choose a Field
Click on a field and
select the person that should complete it

AUGUSTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY (ARTS) POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING (City of Augusta)

This document is locked as it has been sent for signing.

You have successfully completed this document.

Other parties need to complete fields in the document. You will recieve an email notification when the document has been completed by all parties.

This document has been signed by all parties.

Completed 12 February 2021

Message

View Audit Log
Print With Audit Log
Duplicate Document