DRAFT 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

2 0 1 4 - 2 0 1 7 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n

I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m ( T I P )

Chattanooga-Hamilton County/North Georgia Transportation Planning Organization Volume 1

October 2013

Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency Development Resource Center, Suite 2000 1250 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402 Phone 423.757.5216 Fax 423.757.5532 Web: www.chcrpa.org/tpo.htm

1

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

FY 2014 – 2017

METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA

Prepared for the Chattanooga-Hamilton County/North Georgia Transportation Planning Organization by staff of the

Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency

Melissa Taylor, Director of Strategic Long Range Planning

1250 Market Street

Suite 2000 Development Resource Center

Chattanooga, Tennessee

(423) 757-5216

In cooperation with and financial assistance from:

Tennessee Department of Transportation, Georgia Department of Transportation, United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Northwest Georgia Regional Commission, Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency, Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority, Southeast Tennessee Human Resource Agency, Chattanooga-Hamilton County/North Georgia Transportation Planning Organization.

October 15, 2013

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency and Strategic Long Range Planning

Division would like to thank all those from the various local governments and many others who helped

contribute either by reviewing this document or by giving input.

Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency

John Bridger, Executive Director

Karen Rennich, Deputy Director & TPO Coordinator

Melissa Taylor, Strategic Long Range Planning Director

Yuen Lee, Research & Analysis Director

Betsy Evans, Senior Transportation & Air Quality Planner

Chattanooga-Hamilton County / North Georgia Transportation Planning Organization (TPO)

The Chattanooga-Hamilton County / North Georgia TPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) and

TPO Executive Board members representing the counties of Hamilton in Tennessee, and Dade, Catoosa

and Walker in Georgia including their respective municipal governments within the Chattanooga-Hamilton

County / North Georgia TPO Boundary.

The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), U.S. Department of Transportation,

under the State Planning and Research Program, Section 505 [or Metropolitan Planning Program, Section

104(f)] of Title 23, U.S. Code. This report was also supported and funded in part through programs of the

Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) and the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT).

The views and opinions of the authors [or agency] expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those

of the states or U. S. Department of Transportation.

ASSURANCE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION

The Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency (RPA) and Chattanooga-Hamilton County /

North Georgia (CHCNGA) Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) do not discriminate in their

programs, activities, or employment policies and procedures against qualified individuals because of race,

color, national origin, sex, or handicap.

No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States shall, solely by reason of her or his

disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination

under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance (Rehabilitation Act of 1973 29 U.S.C.

§ 794).

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, national origin or sex be excluded from

participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or

activity receiving Federal financial assistance (Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, and

as amended, and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 P.I. 100.259). This includes funds received

through the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), Georgia Department of Transportation

(GDOT), or other entities.

The Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency (RPA) further assures that every effort will

be made to ensure non-discrimination in all of its programs and activities, whether or not those programs or

activities are federally funded.

3

Table of Contents Volume 1 : 2014‐2017 Transportation Improvement Program Approval Resolution ................................................................................................................ 6

Certification Resolution ......................................................................................................... 10

Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 12

Development Process ............................................................................................................ 13

Public Involvement ................................................................................................................ 15

Revenue Development .......................................................................................................... 17

Revenue Sources ................................................................................................................... 18

Funding Programs .................................................................................................................. 18

Project Prioritization .............................................................................................................. 22

Business Rules & Policies ....................................................................................................... 24

Lump Sum Projects, “Groupings” ........................................................................................... 26

State & Transit Agency Project Submittal Process .................................................................. 26

Project Selection Process ....................................................................................................... 27

Amendment Process .............................................................................................................. 28

TDOT Amendment and Adjustment Process/Criteria ............................................................. 28

GDOT Amendment and Adjustment Process/Criteria ............................................................. 30

Operations and Maintenance ................................................................................................ 30

Air Quality Conformity ........................................................................................................... 31

Fiscal Constraint .................................................................................................................... 32

Individual Project Pages ......................................................................................................... 32

TDOT Grouping Project Descriptions ...................................................................................... 33

Tennessee Section Funding Summary .................................................................................... 34

Georgia Section Funding Summary ........................................................................................ 35

Operations and Maintenance Cost Summary ......................................................................... 36

How to Read a TIP Project Page ............................................................................................. 37

STP & TAP Local Projects ........................................................................................................ 39

Public Transit Project ............................................................................................................. 78

State of Tennessee Projects ................................................................................................. 104

4

Enhancement Activities ....................................................................................................... 113

CMAQ Projects .................................................................................................................... 115

Georgia Portion of TIP .......................................................................................................... 118

Illustrative Project List ......................................................................................................... 142

Appendix A: 2011‐2014 TIP Project Status Report ................................................................ 144

Appendix B: Project Application & Selection Process ........................................................... 154

Appendix C: Public Participation .......................................................................................... 182

Appendix D: Air Quality Interagency Consultation Procedures ............................................. 210

Appendix E: Glossary of Terms & Acronyms ......................................................................... 228

Volume 2 : Conformity Technical Memorandum .............................................. 234

5

Placeholder Page:

TIP Document Resolution

6

This page intentionally left blank.

7

Placeholder Page:

US DOT Letter

8


9

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS CERTIFICATION In accordance with 23 CFR 450.334, the Chattanooga Hamilton County North Georgia Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) does hereby certify that the transportation planning process is addressing the major issues in the metropolitan planning area and is being conducted in accordance with all applicable requirements of: (a) The MPO and state shall certify the metropolitan planning process every 4 years is in

accordance with:

(1) 23 USC 134, 49 USC 5303 (Highways and Transit) (2) In non-attainment and maintenance areas, sections 174 and 176 (c) and (d) of the Clean

Air Act, as amended 42 U.S.C. 7504, 7506 (c) and (d) and 40 CFR part 93 (3) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000d-1) and 49 CFR

parts 21 (4) 49 U.S.C. 5332, prohibiting discrimination, on the basis of race, creed, national origin, sex

or age in employment or business opportunity (5) Section 1101 (b) of the SAFETEA-LU (Pub. L 109-59) and 49 CFR part 26 regarding the

involvement of disadvantaged business enterprises in USDOT funded projects (6) 23 CFR part 230, regarding the implementation of an equal employment opportunity

program on Federal and Federal-aid highway construction contracts (7) Provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et. Seq. (8) The Older Americans Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101), prohibiting discrimination on the

basis of age in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance (9) Section 324 of title 23 U.S.C. regarding the prohibition of discrimination based on gender (10) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and 49 CFR part 27

regarding discrimination against individuals with disabilities Chair, TPO Executive Board Date

10


11

METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY 2014 – 2017

Purpose Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP‐21), the current transportation legislation, was signed into law on July 6, 2012. This latest legislation maintains requirement for a fiscally constrained program of projects based on the incorporation of national goals. As summarized in the online FHWA MAP‐21 Performance Management Fact Sheet1, “a key feature of MAP‐21 is the establishment of a performance‐ and outcome‐based program”. The “objective of the program is to invest resources in projects that collectively will make progress toward the achievement of the national goals”2. As a condition to receiving federal project funds, the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) must list all highway and public transit transportation projects proposed for funding under Title 23 (highways) and Title 49 (transit) of the US Code. The TIP must include any Federal Lands projects. Currently there are no such projects in the TIP but if any Federal Lands projects are amended into the TIP, they will be developed in accordance to 23 USC 204. The TIP also must contain all federal, state and locally funded regionally significant transportation projects regardless of funding source. Regional significance for each project in shown in the list included in the accompanying the Air Quality Conformity document. The TIP includes state and local roadway, bridge, bicycle, pedestrian, safety and public transportation (transit) projects. Project related activities, both capital and non‐capital in nature, such as planning studies, PE (Preliminary Engineering, NEPA and design), ROW (Right‐of‐Way) and CONST (Construction) are eligible for on and off‐roadway systems and capital and operating expenses for public transit. The 2014‐2017 TIP follows the eight federal planning factors laid out in the latest transportation authorization bill, MAP‐21 described above. This bill states that projects and strategies should:

1) support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency; 2) increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users; 3) increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users; 4) increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight; 5) protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns; 6) enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight; 7) promote efficient system management and operation

1Performance Management Fact Sheet: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/pm.cfm. 2 Statutory citation for alignment of TIP with national goals: §1203; 23 USC 150(c).

12

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/pm.cfm

8) emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. The TIP covers a four‐year period and is based on funds which are reasonably expected to be available for project implementation. The document provides a reasonable opportunity for all citizens and interested parties to review and comment concerning the development of the TIP and the intent to fund specific projects. Development Process The Chattanooga‐Hamilton County/North Georgia Transportation Planning Organization (TPO), a federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), is responsible for the development of both the Tennessee and Georgia portions of the TIP which are then incorporated into the State Transportation Improvement Program(s) (STIP). See figure 1 below for a map of the TPO planning area. The TIP is developed by the TPO through a comprehensive, continuing and cooperative effort with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), the Northwest Georgia Regional Commission (NWGRC), local transit operators, the public and other interested parties to implement projects, strategies, and services that address the current Federally legislated planning factors3. A new TIP is developed at least every four years and updates are made to the TIP/STIP annually and as necessary through Amendments and Adjustments/Modifications further outlined in the Amendment Process section of this document.

3 These planning factors may be found on the Federal Highway Administration’s website at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/map21/FACT%20SHEETS/Program%20Restructuring/MAP21_Metro_Planning_Fact_Sheet_draft.pdf or a hardcopy can be obtained upon request from the Regional Planning Agency located at 1250 Market Street, Suite 2000-DRC, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402.

13

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/map21/FACT%20SHEETS/Program%20Restructuring/MAP21_Metro_Planning_Fact_Sheet_draft.pdf

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/map21/FACT%20SHEETS/Program%20Restructuring/MAP21_Metro_Planning_Fact_Sheet_draft.pdf

Figure 1: TPO Planning Area

The TIP is based on transportation needs identified through the TPO transportation planning process including, but not limited to, the adopted long‐range, regional Transportation Plan, TPO adopted plans/studies such as the ITS Regional Architecture, Regional Freight Profile, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The TIP must incorporate local as well as state planned

14

projects within their boundaries that may utilize federal funds as well as including 100% locally funded projects determined to be regionally significant through the Interagency‐Consultation Committee on Air Quality which is further discussed in the accompanying Air Quality Conformity document. The metropolitan TIPs are included in the STIP by reference without modification once approved by the TPO and Governor, or his designee, and after needed air conformity findings are made. The expected date for this approval is on or before November 30, 2013. Beforehand, federal regulations require that the TIP be made reasonably available for public review and comment. Public Involvement In accordance with the TPO’s approved Participation Plan (PP), the public is given opportunities to review and comment on the proposed program of projects throughout the TIP development process. The TPO’s PP, outlines the methods and process for the TPO to gather public input for all of its planning activities. The PP details outreach efforts to ensure opportunity for citizens and stakeholders in the region to comment on various TPO activities including the development of the Transportation Improvement Program. Federal regulations require MPO’s to provide for a reasonable opportunity for public comment in accordance with the metropolitan transportation planning process requirements and a public meeting in Transportation Management Areas (TMAs). The regulations also require the publication of the proposed TIP in hardcopy format and/or other methods, to make it readily available for review and comment. Consultation and coordination with area stakeholders happens throughout the process and during TPO Technical Committee and Board meetings, through emails, and when necessary letters by postal mail when agreed upon by various stakeholders. For the development of this Chattanooga‐Hamilton County/North Georgia TIP the following public involvement methods were used:

1. MPO Board and Committee meetings which are open to the public and comments are accepted as part of the hearing;

2. Publication of public hearings and meetings notices in the regional Times Free Press newspaper and four smaller community papers: two in the north Georgia area, a minority paper in Chattanooga, and the Spanish version of the Times Free Press (advertisement is provided 14 days in advance of these meetings);

3. Publication of the draft and final documents are made available to public in hardcopy format at the Regional Planning Agency and other governmental offices, upon request, and via the TPO website at http://www.chcrpa.org/TPO.htm;

4. Comments by mail are sent to: the Chattanooga‐Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency, 1250 Market Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee, 37402; by telephone at 423‐757‐5216; by fax at 423‐757‐5532; and by email at [email protected];

5. For TIP amendments, public involvement procedures consistent with the metropolitan transportation planning process PP requirements are utilized (the PP is available at the Regional Planning Agency office upon request, or via the TPO website);

6. For the development of the 2014‐2017 TIP, notice of the upcoming TIP development process were provided at the last meetings of the TCC and Board for calendar year 2012. The actual process began in January 2013, additionally when the TPO provided official

15

notice of the “call for projects”, and notices for sequent TPO TCC and Board meetings held in March, April, and May 2013 to review draft lists as well as take final action of approval on the fiscally constrained list.

During the month of March, the projects submitted during the Call for Projects between February and March were evaluated and scored using the adopted Community to Region Performance Framework and performance measures detailed in Appendix B. The scores were provided to a selection committee for eligible TAP projects. The same was done for projects eligible for STP‐M funding including the TAP projects given there were fewer funds available for programming under TAP. The two TIP Selection Subcommittees met the week of April 8, 2013. Each committee reviewed the project evaluation scores and prioritized a list for recommendation to the TPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC). This list was fiscally constrained by the TPO staff based on the priorities of both committees and available funds within each federal program. The TCC reviewed the selection committees’ priorities and the fiscal constraint in their recommendation for the TPO Executive Board. A public meeting was held in the Development Resource Center located at 1250 Market Street in Chattanooga on May 9, 2013 to review and comment on the TCC’s recommendation and to review draft state and transit authority project lists. Comments from this meeting are included in Appendix C of this document. The Board took final action on the allocation for local projects on May 28, 2013. Following Board action on the local project programming, the TPO staff finalizes development of the draft document for review and comment by TDOT and GDOT. This review occurred between June 11, 2013 and July 24, 2013. At this same time the draft document is shared with the TCC and Board membership. Following the addressing of all State comments, staff consults with resource agencies involved in environmental protection, natural resource management, land use management, historic preservation, etc. as well as stakeholders with interests in economic development, freight, and multimodal facilities during the development of the TIP process. This consultation occurred between August 14, 2013 and September 27, 2013. Upon satisfying DOT partner comments, the TPO presented the draft document to the TCC for approval for public comment and recommendation for approval from the Board. The TPO holds at least one public meeting in the evening hours for the draft TIP document which includes notice of the public transit Program of Projects and when possible holds meetings in multiple locations. This meeting occurred on September 5, 2013 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., in the Development Resource Center, located at 1250 Market Street in Chattanooga. Any public comments received at the meeting or submitted to the TPO through email, fax, or phone calls can be found in Appendix C. Any comments received from the public and/or resource agencies are also included in Appendix C of this document. The TIP will be made available to every county and municipality throughout the TPO’s Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA). A list of attendees from each public hearing is on file at the offices of the Regional Planning Agency. Care has been taken to ensure that requirements of MAP‐21 were met in the development of this TIP. The TCC and Board proceedings are open to the public and comments may be received. Upon adoption by the TPO Executive Board, the TIP is submitted to FHWA and FTA for approval.

16

Revenue Development Federal funding for local, TPO selected projects in the TIP is provided through the metropolitan Surface Transportation Program (STP‐M) and Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) allocations. This amount varies from year to year; therefore estimates are made for the availability of funds for years FY 2014– FY 2017 in the TIP. In an effort to present reasonable estimates of available funding for future year projects, the TPO has elected to use the amount allocated under MAP‐21 to the TPO in FY 2013 as the base amount for future year projections. The FY 2013 allocations for the TN and GA portions are shown in Table 1. These revenues were then grown by 3% for TN and 1% for GA from one year to the next for each year 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 as shown in Table 2. After the required 20% local match, the total available revenue was calculated and provided in Table 3. TABLE 1. Metropolitan Unobligated Balances and Base Allocations

TPO Urbanized Area

Unobligated STP‐M Balance 2012

MAP‐21 2013 TAP Allocation

2013 + TN/GA DOT reported Unobligated Balances 2012

2014 Projection (2013*3% TN Growth Rt)

STP‐M TAP STP‐M TAP TN $12,975,205 $393,075 $18,150,835 $392,289 $5,330,899 $404,058

GA ‐ $127,051 ‐ $124,597 $1,488,123 $128,335 TABLE 2. Metropolitan Revenue Projections

TPO Urbanized Area

2014 Available Amount (includes unobligated rollover balance)

2015 Projection (2014*Growth Rt)



STP‐M STP‐M TAP STP‐M TAP STP‐M TAP TN $23,481,734 $5,490,826 $416,179 $5,655,551 $428,665 $5,825,217 $441,525GA $4,337,504 $1,190,792 $129,618 $1,203,478 $130,914 $1,216,163 $132,224 TABLE 3. Total 2014‐2017 Metropolitan Revenue

TPO Urbanized Area

Total Federal Funds Required Matching Funds Total Funds

STP‐M TAP STP‐M TAP STP‐M TAP

TN $40,453,328 $2,082,716 $10,113,332 $520,679 $50,566,659 $2,603,394GA $7,947,937 $645,688 $1,986,984 $161,422 9,934,921 $807,110

17

Revenues for state managed projects are provided by TDOT and GDOT and are equal to the programmed expenditures. Revenues for transit agency managed projects are provided by the Chattanooga Regional Transportation Authority and are also equal to the programmed expenditures. The revenues for these follow the agency’s approved inflation rates which differ by agency, but are typically between one and three percent. Revenue Sources In addition to the metropolitan allocations outlined above, there are other funds and funding programs used to fund projects in the TPO and these are outlined in the Funding Programs section. Some programs expend funds in a variety of different ways due to flexibility given to the states. One example is the Tennessee Department of Transportation grants program which offers statewide competitions for funding programs such as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) and Safe Routes to School (SRTS) as well as others depending on current legislated priorities. The Georgia Department of Transportation works directly with its local jurisdictions to establish their project priorities and process their grant applications for funding. Project grant awards for both states are announced by the state DOT’s and are included in the TIP. TDOT’s Multimodal Transportation Resources Division provides financial assistance for the operation of the public transit systems serving Hamilton County. The services provided by Hamilton County’s transit systems vary depending on the specific needs of the community and include fixed route bus, demand response minivan or van. The Multimodal Transportation Resources Division also provides capital assistance to public and private non‐profit organizations that provide transportation services to the elderly and people with disabilities. In addition, the Multimodal Transportation Resources Division administers a ridesharing and vanpooling program and offers various technical assistance training classes in such areas as lift maintenance, leadership development, passenger assistance techniques, and alcohol and drug testing regulations. The Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority (CARTA) provides public transportation services in the urbanized area of Chattanooga. In addition, there are a number of agencies and organizations that provide specialized transportation services to the elderly and disabled. Funding Programs Federal Funding Federal Highway Administration Funds are allocated to the state in several categories. These changed with the enactment of MAP‐21. For the purposes of clarity, the following chart provides SAFETEA‐LU categories as governed under MAP‐21. Additional funding program definitions and SAFETEA‐LU category definitions are provided in the subsequent Definitions section.

18

Map‐21 Federal Programs

SAFETEA‐LU Federal Programs Description Funding Ratio

National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) Combines the Interstate Maintenance, national Highway System, and on‐system Federal‐Aid Highway Bridges Programs into one program

Interstate Maintenance (IM)

Provides Funding to rehabilitate, restore, and resurface the Interstate System, Reconstruction is also eligible if it does not add new capacity, with the exception of High‐Occupancy‐Vehicle (HOV) lanes or auxiliary lanes in non‐attainment areas, which can be added

90% Federal 10% Non‐Federal

National highway System (NHHS)

Provides funding for major roads including the Interstate system, a large percentage of urban and rural principal arterials, the Strategic Defense Highway Network (STRAHNET), and strategic highway connectors.


Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation – State (BRR, BR, BRBD)

Provides funding for on‐system bridge replacement, or to rehabilitate aging or substandard bridges based on bridge sufficiency ratings.


Surface Transportation Program (STP) Program is largely the same as under SAFETEA‐LU with exception that STP funds can be used on bridge projects on any public road and for Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) projects

Surface Transportation Program – State (STP or S‐STP)

Provides funding for roads functionality classified as rural major collector and above. Funds may be utilized on projects in Rural Areas, Urbanized Areas, Small urban Areas, Enhancement, Safety and Rail‐Highway Crossings.


Surface Transportation Program – Local (S‐STP)

Provides funding to areas of 5,000 to 50,000 in population for improvements on routes functionally classified urban collectors or higher.


Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation – Local (BRR, BR, BRBD)

Provides funding for off‐system bridge replacement, or to rehabilitate aging or substandard bridges based on bridge sufficiency ratings.


Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Program is largely the same under SAFETEA‐LU.

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

Provides funding for making high hazard improvements on state highways (and at rail‐highway grade crossings).


Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) Program is largely the same as under SAFETEA‐LU.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)

Provides funding for transportation projects in air quality non‐attainment or maintenance areas. CMAQ projects are designed to contribute toward meeting the national ambient air quality standards.


19

Transportation Alternatives Program (TA) Combines the Transportation Enhancement Program, Safe Routes to School Program, and Recreational Trails Program into one program. Changes how some funds under this program can be used, but in general funding continues to support non‐motorized transportation accommodations.

Transportation Enhancement Program (TE or ENH)

Provides funding for a set of exclusive activities such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities, rehabilitation of historic transportation related structures, and a defined set of environmental mitigation activities.


Safe Routes to School Program (SRTS)

Provides funding to substantially improve the ability of primary and middle school students to walk and bicycle to school safely.

100% Federal

Recreational Trails Program (RTP)

Provides funding for the creation, rehabilitation and maintenance of multi‐use recreational trails.


Federal Lands and Tribal Transportation Programs Restructures the Indian Reservation Roads Program, Park Roads & Parkways Program, Refuge Roads Program, and Public Lands Highways Program into three programs.

Forest Highway/Public Lands or Public Lands Highways (FH/PL or PLHD)

Provides funding for roads providing access to and within Federal and Indian lands. Under Map‐21, the restructured programs include: • Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) • Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP)

• Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP)

100% Federal or 80% Federal 20% Non‐Federal

Urbanized Area Formula Grant (Section 5307) Program provides grants to urbanized Areas for public transportation capital, planning, job‐access and reverse‐commute projects, as well as operating expenses in certain circumstances. The Jobs Access and Reverse Commute Program was eliminated in MAP‐21, but the activities carried out under the program are an eligible expense under Section 5307.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA‐5307)

Section 5307 is a formula grant program for urbanized areas providing capital, operating, and planning assistance for mass transportation.

80% Federal, 20% Non‐Federal (Capital) 50% Federal, 50% Non‐Federal (Operating)

Federal Transit Administration Job Access/Reverse Commute (JARC‐5316 or FTA‐5316)

A Job Access project provides new or expanded transportation service designed to fill gaps that exist for welfare recipients and other low‐income individuals to and from jobs and other employment‐related services. Reverse commute projects facilitate the provision of new or expanded public mass transportation services for the general public from urban, suburban, and rural areas to suburban work sites. Under MAP‐21 this program has been eliminated but job‐access and reverse‐commute projects are eligible under the Section 5307 Program and Section 5310 Program


20

Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310) MAP‐21 consolidates the Elderly & Disabled Program and New Freedom Program into one program. Operating assistance is now available under this program.

Federal Transit Administration Elderly & Disabled Program (FTA‐5310)

Section 5310 grants provide funding for capital expenses of private, nonprofit groups providing service to elderly persons or persons with the disabilities. The State agency assures that local applicants and proposed projects are eligible and comply with federal requirements.


Federal Transit Administration New Freedom Program (FTA‐5317)

The New Freedom Program provides funding to serve persons with disabilities. The purpose of the program is to provide transportation services that either go beyond the minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities ACT (ADA), or provide new public transportation services which help meet the needs of people with disabilities.


Formula Grant of Rural Areas (Section 5311) The program is largely the same as under SAFETEA‐LU, with the exception that job‐access and reverse‐commute projects are eligible under this program.

Federal Transit Administration Formula Grants for Other than Urban Areas (Rural Areas) (FTA‐5311)

Section 5311 formula funding is provided to states to support public transportation in areas of less than 50,000 population. Funds are available for transportation systems providing rural, general public transportation. Funding is available for capital, planning, and operating assistance. In the Johnson City MTPO area, NET Trans is a recipient of these funds as their services are offered outside the MTPO’s urbanized area.


Bus and Bus Facilities (Section 5339) Program provides capital funding to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses, vans, and related equipment and to construct bus‐related facilities. Replaces the Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities Program

Federal Transit Administration (FTA‐5309)

Provides funding for establishment of new rail or busway projects (new starts), the improvement and maintenance of existing rail and other fixed guideway systems that are more than seven years old, and the upgrading of bus systems.


State Funding Although states receive federal funding, they also have other revenue sources that fund transportation projects. These revenue sources are identified for each state below. In addition, it should be noted that state funds are also used to cover the required match for federal funds. • State Industrial Access (SIA) Program – For cities whose population was 5,000 or greater as

of the 2000 census, these funds can be used for any type of highway construction. They can also be used for ridesharing, vanpooling, intelligent transportation systems, and incident management, and any activity also eligible for transportation enhancement funding. These funds will only be shown in the TIP when a project has been identified as Regionally Significant. Regional Significance is further defined by the TPO through a policy of the Interagency Consultation Process. The policy is available upon request at the TPO‐RPA offices.

21

• States of Georgia and Tennessee Gasoline and Motor Fuels Tax – Funding for a wide variety of transportation projects across the entire state, including major construction projects and maintenance type activities such as resurfacing and signalization upgrades.

Local Funding Most of the TPO’s municipal and county governments use their General Fund comprised of local taxes to conduct routine operations and maintenance of their transportation systems in addition to state aid from gasoline/fuel taxes. However, these jurisdictions also fully fund major construction projects, sidewalks, greenways, and bicycle facilities as well as required local matches to state or federal funding programs. Bonds also may be used to fund these capital transportation projects. The North Georgia counties of the TPO also take advantage of the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) for funding capital and maintenance projects. Other Funding Sources Other funding sources may exist in the TPO area for funding transportation improvements. These sources may include local private foundations, state enabling legislation opportunities such as toll facilities, dedicated funding for transit, rail authorities, Tax Increment Financing (TIF), Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), and local taxes or bonds. Currently, very little of these contribute to the TPO’s program of projects except for the foundations’ support of greenways, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities within the City of Chattanooga. Foundations provide an estimated $1.5 million annually for such projects. It is expected that these unique revenue sources may provide a higher percentage of the TPO’s revenue for transportation projects in the near future. Project Prioritization The performance measures and goals, as legislated in MAP‐21, are to be incorporated into the metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)4. Details associated with the performance measures being implemented by the TPO are provided in Appendix B: Project Application, Evaluation, and Selection Process. It is the responsibility of the Chattanooga‐Hamilton County/North Georgia Transportation Planning Organization to assure compliance with such requirements including consistency with the TPO’s adopted Transportation Plan and ensure citizens are given opportunity to fully engage in the transportation planning process in Chattanooga, Hamilton County, and the North Georgia counties of Catoosa, Dade, and Walker. The TIP is fiscally balanced and includes project phases that have a reasonable expectation of being ready for implementation by the year listed. Projects are subject to many considerations and actions from conception to completion that may impede or accelerate their progress. These considerations may include policy decisions, changes in design requirements, conflicts with other scheduled activities, unforeseen circumstances such as cutbacks in funding, shortage of manpower, and inflation of project costs. When projects are submitted, letters of commitment to fund the projects are included. Furthermore, the jurisdictions pass resolutions for local matching funds for projects in the year of expenditure. Funding for projects in the first

4 Statutory citation for establishment of performance measures.

22

two years is confirmed to be available and committed. Project cost estimates are based on best available engineering estimates provided by the local jurisdictions at the time the TIP is developed. Final cost for the actual projects may differ, as the projects are refined in the project development process prior to construction. When a project is affected by any of the factors, the projected fiscal year dates will be adjusted accordingly. The Chattanooga‐Hamilton County/North Georgia Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) adopted a resolution on June 2, 1992 setting requirements for the allocation of federal funds. The TPO will continue to adhere to the following official policy in its consideration of the distribution of federal and state monies to eligible projects of the TPO’s Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA). The following factors will govern decisions of the TPO in the allocation of Federal Surface Transportation Funds for local projects within the MPA: 1) Federal monies available to the TPO during each fiscal year. 2) The fiscal ability of sub‐entities to provide the required twenty (20) percent local match

to federal funds, if required, within the timeframe required 3) Project costs, including Right‐of‐Way, Preliminary Engineering, Design, and Construction

costs. 4) Incorporation or improvement of public transportation services, including special

services for the disabled. 5) Coordination with other public and/or private projects within the TPO MPA (Corridor

Planning). 6) Intermodal opportunities that will facilitate the movement of people and goods without

being hazardous to the environment. 7) Projects that will contribute a high degree of safety, mobility, and service facilities to the

entire TPO MPA. 8) Mileage of eligible streets by functional classification. 9) Population and land use shifts. 10) Traffic capacity. 11) Vehicular accident impacts. 12) Intergovernmental coordination. Should the expected local matching funds not materialize within the four‐year planning period of the Transportation Improvement Program, the TPO will have the obligation of reassigning those funds to a project with documented commitment of the required local match.

23

Furthermore, that project will already have been given a high priority ranking by the TPO. In no case will a formula allocation of federal funds to local projects be permitted. Also, should an expected project exceed adequate funding within the four‐year period of the Transportation Improvement Program from some other source to fulfill the development of such project, the TPO will have the obligation of reassigning those funds to another project. Business Rules and Policies For the development of this 2014‐2017 TIP, the TPO conducted a full evaluation of the TIP development process, reviewed other MPO TIP development procedures, and implemented a new Project Application and Selection Process. The TPO has a new set of established business rules which are intended to serve as guiding principles for TPO staff when developing and maintaining the TIP. These rules are as follows:

• Rule 1. TIP Development Cycle – Prior to the beginning of each major TIP update cycle, the TPO will detail a schedule of key TIP development milestones that coincide with TDOT/GDOT STIP schedule requirements and communicate key dates with local project sponsors prior to the beginning of the Federal fiscal year (October 1). Establishing key dates at the outset of each update cycle will give project sponsors ample notice for scheduling purposes and gathering the information required to submit projects for evaluation. Key TIP development milestones should include dates for the TIP workshop(s); issuance of the Call for Projects (if applicable for that particular year); deadline to submit project applications; TIP selection sub‐committee meetings; TPO Board meetings; and Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) and Interagency Consultation Committee (IAC) meetings. The TIP schedule should be posted on‐line, as well as emailed with a hard‐copy attachment to all local jurisdictions. Any expected deviations from the dates established at the outset of the TIP update cycle should be communicated to all project sponsors as early as possible, but no later than four weeks prior to the originally established date.

• Rule 2. TIP Amendment Cycles – TPO staff currently address administrative TIP modifications and amendments that do not require conformity analysis on an as‐needed basis. The TPO will continue to process amendments on an as‐needed basis. This provides flexibility for project sponsors to move projects forward more quickly and helps the TPO manage staff resources by spreading amendments out over time.

• Rule 3. Project Identification – Projects considered for each TIP cycle are drawn from the TPO’s adopted long‐range regional transportation plan, as the TIP serves as the first four (implementation) years of the long‐range planning document. All TIP projects must be consistent with the long range transportation plan. New projects (i.e., those projects not currently included in the fiscally constrained portion of the transportation plan) should be considered for the TIP only when new funds have been identified for a project that was unable to be fiscally constrained in the transportation plan and the project is shown in the plan’s illustrative list or when a stand‐alone call for STP‐M or TAP funds is needed to either 1) program unobligated dollars from a previous fiscal year, or 2) program new funds for a new year of the TIP. New major capacity additions to the TIP should be considered as part of a major TIP update cycle only, to align conformity determinations and ensure consistent regional priorities between the TIP and long‐

24

range transportation plan. One, distinct project sponsor should be clearly identified for each project as part of the TIP application.

• Rule 4. MPO Controlled TIP Funds – For roadway capacity projects funded all, or in part, by STP‐M or TAP funds, the TPO will request the project sponsor address access management as a design element and budget for such as part of the Preliminary Engineering phase. This will provide detail needed by the TPO to work with the project sponsor and impacted local communities as part of subsequent right‐of‐way (ROW) and Construction phases to help ensure land use and land development are appropriately considered as part of project development.

• Rule 5. TIP Project Evaluation – Based on initial testing of revised TIP project evaluation procedures applied to the 2014‐2017 metropolitan STP and TAP projects, as described in Appendix B, the TPO staff will develop summary guidance to accompany the TIP application on how to provide the appropriate level of detail for project scope, cost, and schedule and how to define the project sponsor. This same information will be used at each TIP workshop to inform and illustrate for sponsors the required level of detail when submitting a project for Federal funding. This guidance will also include information for sponsors on how to formally notify the TPO of any changes to project scope, schedule, and budget.

• Rule 6. TIP Project Costing – To address potential project cost overruns, the TPO will consider, before the next TIP cycle, a Local Program Contingency Fund which is recommended to be five to ten percent for each project (all phases: Preliminary Engineering, ROW, and Construction) and would be added as an incremental cost to the original estimate submitted by the local project sponsor. The TPO would hold this contingency funding in reserve as part of the project’s line item funding. Should the project cost exceed the original estimate for a given phase, the TPO would utilize the reserve funding to cover the additional costs (the project sponsor will be responsible for providing the 20 percent local match). Project cost overruns that exceed the contingency would then be considered for TPO approval and potential reprogramming as described in Rule 8.

• Rule 7. Project Programming / Phasing – The TPO will consider, before the next TIP cycle, adoption of a formal phasing schedule requirement for project sponsors of major capacity projects to help address scheduling and implementation challenges. The schedule would identify all relevant phases of the project with specific funding sources (Federal, state, local) as outlined on the TIP project page, but the sponsor would note for each phase the activities necessary to move the project to the next programmed phase. The recommended timeframe expected between programming phases for such major construction projects is three to four years which is a conservative phasing schedule for capacity‐adding projects (those associated with air quality conformity).

• Rule 8. Project Reprogramming – To present, all unobligated projects in the existing TIP have automatically been reprogrammed by TPO staff unless the staff has been informed otherwise. From this TIP forward, any project that has exceeded 10 percent of the original cost estimate, any changes to project scope, schedule, or budget that trigger delays in the excess of a subsequent programmed phase, and/or any programmed phase not obligated within two years will require the project sponsor to complete an “Exceptions List” form prior to the commencement of a new TIP development cycle. This list will then be vetted with the TPO Board and/or Committees to determine if the

25

changes/delays are reasonable and project should remain a priority with roll‐over funds applied, or the project should re‐compete for Federal funds through the established project selection process. The Exceptions List form will be developed by TPO staff prior to the next TIP cycle.

Lump Sum Projects, “Groupings” By mutual agreement between the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), Georgia Department of Transportation, and the Chattanooga‐Hamilton County/North Georgia Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) this Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes some preventative maintenance often denoted as 3‐R improvements and safety type projects to be lump sum funded with Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), National Highway Performance Program (NHPP), and/or Surface Transportation Program (STP). These lump sums are otherwise known as “Groupings” and each are further described in the definitions section of this document. The projects and project locations are not specifically listed in the project tables or project pages. Instead the projects are grouped by category of improvement such as various resurfacing or bridge replacements. They are minor projects that do not alter the functional capacity of a facility and do not impact regional air quality emissions. Minor projects must also be environmentally neutral. Due to the difficulty with project tracking the TPO staff has elected to eliminate the use of groupings for TPO controlled project funding and thus, those projects are evaluated and prioritized by the same process as major projects and have individual project pages. However, the TPO staff encourages project sponsors to consider their own groupings when developing projects for consideration such as a citywide resurfacing program which would include a number of various streets within one jurisdiction. State and Transit Agency Project Submittal Process As agreed upon by the State partners, the TPO staff in conjunction with TPO Board membership review a list of State projects, including those on these National Highway System, to provide feedback and/or prioritization on Transportation Plan priorities/consistency, further phasing and development of those projects based on local support, growth pressures, congestion‐ and/or safety‐related issues, and other major transportation planning documents such as the Strategic Highway Safety Plan and the Regional ITS Architecture. The outcome of this review and/or prioritization is provided to the States for their consideration in developing the projects for the next TIP cycle. A similar process is conducted with the transit authority and any partnering public transportation agencies to ensure projects are consistent with the Transportation Plan goals and objectives as well as outlined safety and security planning and programming. Following the TPO’s official notice of the development process a new TIP cycle, the States and transit agencies work with the TPO staff on the development of appropriate local, state, and federal revenues and provide the TPO with a fiscally‐constrained project list. This list is shared with the TPO TCC, Board, and public prior to being considered for final approval of incorporation into the TIP.

26

Project Selection Process 1. The TPO staff meets with municipalities to determine status of current projects,

determine need for completion of an Exceptions List form for potential roll‐over projects, and discusses need for new projects.

2. The local government gathers information to justify the need of the projects.

3. A project sponsor completes the online the project application(s) describing proposed

project(s) for inclusion of the project(s) in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

4. Preliminary description of the projects, including cost estimates for engineering, right‐

of‐way requirements, materials and labor, and location maps are submitted by the applicant. Estimates on phasing and length of time for implementation of the project, including anticipated start and completion dates, are also included.

5. Projects are reviewed for their purpose and assigned a scale category (1, 2, or 3) from

the adopted Community to Region Performance Framework and then evaluated accordingly based the TPO’s establish weights in each scale for the legislated performance measures in which the TPO established specific calculation criteria associated with each measure. This evaluation process also includes congestion criteria from the adopted Congestion Management Process. See Appendix B for the TIP project application and specific project evaluation, selection/criteria, and process.

6. A review committee(s) selected from members of the TPO TCC and Executive Board as well as interested transportation stakeholders receives and reviews the applications and project evaluation results then submits a list of prioritized projects for consideration by the TPO policy committees.

7. Utilizing the desired phasing requested by the project sponsors and the priorities of the committee(s), the TPO staff fiscally constrains to the best extent possible the projects based on the TPO’s available STP‐M and TAP designated allocation of funding.

8. At a scheduled or called TPO TCC meeting, the TCC reviews the list of prioritized projects

of the review committee(s) and recommends the list or a revised list to the TPO Executive Board.

9. The recommended projects undergo public review. 10. The TPO Executive Board reviews the recommended list of projects, public comment for

consideration, and approves the recommended list or a revised list for inclusion in the TIP.

11. All applicants are informed of the status of their projects. The applicants whose projects

were approved by the TPO may then request to receive contracts from the Tennessee or

27

Georgia Departments of Transportation or the Federal government for receipts of funds and/or engineering and contract management of the projects.

Amendment Process During the four year cycle of the TIP, project obligation dates and other project information such as costs and scope may change. The TPO strives to accommodate revisions to the TIP as expeditiously as possible within the limits imposed by federal guidelines and regulations. However, some changes may require revisions to the Transportation Plan and/or Conformity Determination Report, thus taking longer than expected. TDOT Amendment and Adjustment Process/Criteria Introduction: The amendment and adjustment criteria are to establish two categories of actions to meet Federal requirements and streamline the maintenance of the TIP. One category of action is a “TIP Amendment” and the other is a “TIP Administrative Adjustment.” For projects falling within the GA portion of the TPO, TPO staff will follow these TDOT procedures unless otherwise specified in the Georgia Portion at the end of this section. STIP/TIP Amendment: • An amendment is a revision to the TIP that involves major changes to a project or the

overall program and must meet the requirements of 23 CFR450.216 and 450.326regarding public review and comment, re‐demonstration of fiscal constraint, and transportation conformity. An amendment is required when changes to the TIP include:

• A major change in the total project cost(excluding groupings) (see Project Cost Change Thresholds, page 4); or

• Adding a new project or deleting a project from the TIP; or • A major change of project scope; examples include, but are not limited to, changing the

number of through‐lanes, adding/deleting non‐motorized facilities, changing mode (e.g., rolling stock or facility type for transit), changing capital category (i.e., transit funding), or changing termini; or

• Any change requiring a new regional air quality conformity finding, where applicable (including a grouping);

Amendment Documentation and Authorization Procedures: The TIP may be amended at any time, but amendments require federal approval and redetermination of TIP fiscal constraint and air quality conformity, where applicable. TDOT will review each amendment and submit the amendment to the appropriate Federal Agency. The federal agencies will review and respond to a formal written request for amendment approval from TDOT within 10 business days of receipt.

28

Authorization: The Federal Highway Administration and FTA match project authorization requests to the TIP prior to approving a request for project authorization. Therefore, all amendments to the TIP need to be approved by FHWA or FTA prior to TDOT requesting federal authorization approvals. Administrative Adjustments: A TIP administrative adjustment is a minor change from the approved TIP. Administrative adjustments must be consistent with 23 CFR 450, but they do not require public review and comment, re‐demonstration of fiscal constraint, or a conformity determination in nonattainment or maintenance areas. TIP administrative adjustments are defined as follows: • A minor change in the total project cost (see Project Cost Change Thresholds, below) • A minor change in project description that does not change the air quality conformity

finding in maintenance and/or non‐attainment areas; or • A minor change in project description/termini that is for clarification and does not change

the project scope; or • Shifting funds between projects within a TIP (i.e., funding sources and projects already

identified in the TIP) if the change does not result in a cost increase greater than the amendment threshold (see Project Cost Change Thresholds, below) for the total project cost of all phases shown within the approved TIP; or

• Adding an amount of funds already identified in the TIP for the current or previous year(s) if:

o The funds are currently identified in the TIP either in an existing project or as available funds and

o The change does not result in a cost increase greater than the amendment threshold (see Project Cost Change Thresholds, page) for the total project cost of all phases shown within the approved TIP; or

• Moving projects from year to year within an approved TIP, except those that cross air quality horizon years; or

• Adding a prior phase, such as environmental or location study, preliminary engineering or right‐of‐way, to a project in the TIP so long as such a change does not result in a cost increase greater than the amendment threshold (see Project Cost Change Thresholds, below) for the total project cost of all phases shown within the approved TIP; or

• Changes required to follow FHWA or FTA instructions as to the withdrawal of funds or reestablishment of funds withdrawn at the request of FHWA or FTA; or

• Moving funds between similarly labeled groupings, regardless of percent of change; or • Adjustments in revenue to match actual revenue receipts. Administrative Adjustment Documentation and Authorization Procedures: Administrative adjustments do not require federal approval. Adjustments made to TDOT‐sponsored projects in the TIP will be made by TDOT with notification to the MPO upon submission of the adjustment to FHWA/FTA. The MPO will make the changes to funding tables, and project sheets as needed without the need for distribution. Project Cost Change Thresholds: For changes to the cost of projects (excluding groupings), a sliding scale is outlined to determine which category of revision is required. All measurements for these cost changes will

29

be made from the last approved TIP or TIP amendment/administrative adjustment to account for incremental changes.

Total project cost of all phases shown within the approved TIP

Amendment Administrative Adjustment

Up to $2 million ≥75% < 75%

$2 million to $15 million ≥50% <50%

$15 million to $75 million ≥40% <40%

$75 million and above ≥30% <30%

Project Groupings: The use of project groupings is permitted under 23 CFR 450.324 (f) for projects in an MPO’s TIP. Projects that are funded by such groupings are to be of a scale small enough not to warrant individual identification and may be grouped by function, work type, and/or geographic area using the applicable classifications under 23 CFR 771.117(c) and (d) and/or 40 CFR part 93.Project groupings may only include projects that meet the following conditions: non‐regionally significant, environmentally neutral, and exempt from air quality conformity. The TIP will include a description of all grouping categories, eligible activities, and sufficient financial information to demonstrate the projects that are to be implemented using current and/or reasonably available revenues. All projects located within an MPO area must be included in the MPO TIP, including those projects that are eligible for grouping. Therefore, projects eligible for groupings that are located within the MPO planning area, may be grouped within the MPO TIP or listed individually in the MPO TIP, but may not be included in the Rural STIP. Projects Crossing MPO Boundaries: All projects whether included in a grouping or not that cross the MPO boundary and include an area outside of the MPO boundary will be listed in the TIP only. GDOT Amendment and Adjustment Process/Criteria There are no threshold amounts for cost increases in projects or project phasing for projects within the Georgia portion of the TPO Boundary. Determination of adjustment or amendment for these changes will be done on a project by project basis. Operations and Maintenance Operations and maintenance (O&M) involves recurring and non‐recurring operational activities, as well as maintenance activities. Some activities are scheduled and recurring (planned disruptions through work zones, etc.); others are unscheduled (accidents or nonrecurring special events). O&M is a key component of the transportation investment decision process.

30

The State DOTs contract with the local municipalities for maintenance. Each municipality recognizes the necessity of O&M and provides for their own plan and policy that is adequate to fit their specific needs. The TPO accepts these policies as their plan for the TPO planning area. Each county and municipality in the Metropolitan Planning Area has submitted a letter of commitment to the operations and maintenance under their jurisdiction. These letters are on file at the offices of the Regional Planning Agency. CARTA conducts the majority of its operations and maintenance with local forces (in‐house employees) and its operational services are carried out by full and part‐time drivers. CARTA contracts some of its Job Access services to a third‐party for daycare transportation. Depending on the repairs to be completed, CARTA will at times contract certain maintenance and repair projects to third‐party vendors. The funding sources for CARTA’s operations and maintenance include sections 5307 (the Urbanized Area Formula Funding program) which absorbs the 5316 (the Jobs Access and Reverse Commute program) and 5317 (the New Freedoms program) under MAP‐21 and 5309 (the Fixed Guideway Modernization program used only for the incline railway) as well as local funding from the City of Chattanooga and Hamilton County. In addition to these funding programs for maintenance, the City of Chattanooga and Hamilton County fund CARTA for various maintenance projects. The financial summary tables, provided at the end of this section, for both the Tennessee and Georgia portions of the TPO demonstrate that there are reasonably expected operation and maintenance revenues and expenditures for the life of the plan. These numbers were derived from the in progress 2040 Regional Transportation Plan, the endorsed 2014‐2017 local project list, and the proposed TIP in its entirety. The plan shows that the system will be maintained and operated during the life of the plan. Air Quality Conformity In January 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated the Chattanooga region as a particulate matter (PM2.5) non‐attainment area. This designation means the Chattanooga region exceeds the allowable amount of PM2.5 set by EPA in the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Particulate matter air pollution refers to microscopic, invisible airborne particles made up of dust soot, smoke and liquid droplets. The PM2.5 non‐attainment area includes Hamilton County in Tennessee and Catoosa and Walker Counties in Georgia. Transportation conformity is one of the major requirements placed on non‐attainment areas in order to ensure that the air quality is improved to an acceptable level. If it is not demonstrated, then an area may lose its ability to obtain federal funding for certain roadway projects. Conformity of the TIP is demonstrated when it is shown that vehicle emissions from the transportation system do not exceed the budget as prescribed in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). All of the roadway projects included in this TIP have been drawn from the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) for which the transportation conformity finding was most recently approved by USDOT on March 5, 2010. Since this plan meets conformity regulations of the EPA and USDOT under 40 CFR Part 93, and has been approved by appropriate agencies, this TIP is conforming. The Conformity Determination Report is available at www.chcrpa.org/TPO.

31

Interagency consultation was used in the development of the TIP as required by 40 CFR 93.105. Documentation of this consultation is documented in Appendix D. A Conformity Technical Memorandum also accompanies this TIP document as a supplemental standalone update to the 2035 Conformity Determination Report approved in 2010. The Technical Memorandum can be found in Volume 2 at the end of this document. Currently, the State Implementation Plan Air Emissions Budgets for the TPO’s Tennessee and Georgia counties do not include transportation control measures. Fiscal Constraint This 2014 – 2017 Transportation Improvement Program is fiscally constrained, in accordance to federal requirements. All projects in the TIP reflect expected funding from the various revenue sources from fiscal years 2014 through 2017. Also, a status report of the previous 2011 – 2014 TIP is provided in Appendix A. Any project from the previous TIP that was unable to be completed or fully obligated has been carried over to the 2014 – 2017 Program, and remains fiscally constrained. All project sponsors were required to revise their cost estimates for year of expenditure (YOE) dollars based on a minimum 3% inflation rate. Some project sponsors included the inflation rate within their 20% contingency. Project sponsors were provided cost estimating information supplied by TDOT/GDOT and were required to submit project considerations with YOE costs. The TPO reviewed and confirmed project cost estimates were in YOE prior to approving the project list which included CARTA transit projects. The following pages contain the financial summary tables for both the Tennessee and Georgia portions and the charts below depict funding percentages by general improvement type of capacity‐adding roadway projects, alternative transportation improvements, operational or operations and maintenance type activities, studies, etc. The financial summary table on the following page includes estimated funding amounts, programmed funds and any remaining funds for each program year within the TIP.

Individual Project Pages Project pages provide a substantial amount of information about each project programmed for funding within the four‐year program. The information includes sufficient description such as

32

type of work, termini, length, and phases, total project cost including the year of expenditure (YOE) dollar, federal and non‐federal funds expected for obligation for each program year, citation of lead agency/project sponsor, scope information to gauge necessary air quality analysis, and when appropriate notation of American with Disabilities Act information including transit project information relative to para‐transit and key station plans. A key on how to read these project pages has been created and can be found on page 37. TDOT Grouping Project Descriptions State HSIP Grouping Project Description‐ Any strategy, activity or project on a public road that is consistent with the state Strategic Highway Plan (SHSP) and corrects or improves a hazardous road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. Including workforce development, training and education activities, alignment, intersection interchange improvements, signalization, guardrail, lighting, marking, railroad crossings, railroad crossing pads, bells, lights, gates, pavement markings, bridge and tunnel inventory and inspections on all public roads, etc. State NHPP and STP Grouping Project Description‐ Resurfacing, guardrail, slide repair, signs, marking, intersection/interchange modifications, sight distance modifications, noise walls, wetland and or stream mitigation, safety improvements, bridge replacement, repair, rehabilitation, preservation, rock fall mitigation, sidewalks traffic calming, pedestrian and or bicycle facilities, ITS operations, maintenance, power, communications, construction, operate the TN 511 system, freeway service patrols, traffic diversion, non‐infrastructure, school and other flashing signals, bridge and tunnel inspection, rail‐highway grade crossing improvements, enhancement activities, etc.

33

NEW 6-6-13Funding FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Revenues Costs Revenues Costs Revenues Costs Revenues Costs

STP-State 36,960,000$ 36,960,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$

STP-M* 23,481,734$ 17,443,828$ 11,528,732$ 10,848,824$ 6,335,458$ 5,945,352$ 6,215,324$ 6,214,809$

5307 3,667,808$ 3,667,808$ 3,780,602$ 3,780,602$ 3,896,780$ 3,896,780$ 4,390,844$ 4,390,844$

5339 373,491$ 373,491$ 384,696$ 384,696$ 396,237$ 396,237$ 408,124$ 408,124$

5337 179,853$ 179,853$ 185,796$ 185,796$ 185,958$ 185,958$ 186,124$ 186,124$

5310 92,000$ 92,000$ 94,760$ 94,760$ 97,603$ 97,603$ 100,531$ 100,531$

TAP 796,347$ 508,142$ 704,384$ -$ 1,133,049$ -$ 1,574,574$ 1,574,574$

CMAQ 1,792,500$ 1,792,500$

HSIP 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$

NHPP 5,600,000$ 5,600,000$ 63,280,000$ 63,280,000$ 5,600,000$ 5,600,000$ 5,600,000$ 5,600,000$

ENH 6,759,168$ 6,759,168$

TCSP 978,300$ 978,300$

HPP 1,543,504$ 1,543,504$ 8,878,434$ 8,878,434$

Un-programmed TAP-Local Funds 288,205$ 704,384$ 1,133,049$ -$ -$

Un-programmed STP-Local Funds 6,037,906$ 679,908$ 390,106$ 515$

*Includes year-to-year balance. Please see page 17 for an explanation on funding allocation.

Operations and Maintenance Funding SummaryFY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Revenues Costs Revenues Costs Revenues Costs Revenues Costs

TENNESSEE SECTION OF THE CHATTANOOGA TPOSUMMARY OF FUNDS FY 2014 - 2017

Federal O&M 33,172,186$ 33,172,186$ 16,398,198$ 16,398,198$ 17,930,672$ 17,930,672$ 15,822,437$ 15,822,437$

Non-Federal O&M 6,746,359$ 6,746,359$ 3,810,029$ 3,810,029$ 4,745,168$ 4,745,168$ 4,218,109$ 4,218,109$

Total O&M 33,172,186$ 33,172,186$ 20,760,248$ 20,760,248$ 22,675,841$ 22,675,841$ 20,040,547$ 20,040,547$

34

GEORGIA SECTION OF CHATTANOOGA MPOTOTAL EXPECTED HIGHWAY

STIP FUNDS(MATCHED)

FY 2014 - FY 2017

FUND CODE LUMP DESCRIPTION 2014 2015 2016 2017 TOTALNHPP M001 102,000$ 4,213,620$ -$ -$ 4,315,620$ STP M230 5,421,880$ 1,488,490$ 1,504,348$ 1,520,204$ 9,934,921$ STP M233 -$ -$ 1,206,333$ -$ 1,206,333$ STP M240 23,426,105$ 17,500$ 17,500$ 17,500$ 23,478,605$ CMAQ M400 2,245,846$ 1,034,149$ 1,045,848$ 1,057,548$ 5,383,391$ HPP LY30 1,709,484$ -$ -$ -$ 1,709,484$ Nat'l Park F170 3,260,000$ -$ -$ -$ 3,260,000$ Local LOC 4,707,096$ -$ 29,529$ -$ 4,736,625$ NHPP M001 BRIDGE PAINT - INTERSTATE 81,000$ 81,000$ 41,000$ 41,000$ 244,000$ NHPP M001 ROAD MAINT - NAT'L HWY 284,000$ 284,000$ 284,000$ 365,000$ 1,217,000$ NHPP M001 ROADWAY LIGHTING -$ -$ -$ 8,000$ 8,000$ NHPP M002 CST MGMT 231,000$ 233,000$ 235,000$ 240,000$ 939,000$ STP L220 ENHANCEMENT 154,000$ 154,000$ 154,000$ 154,000$ 616,000$ STP M230 ROAD MAINT - GT 200K 74,000$ 74,000$ 74,000$ 110,000$ 332,000$ STP M240 OPERATIONAL 81,000$ 81,000$ 41,000$ 41,000$ 244,000$ STP M240 ROAD MAINT - ANY AREA 786,000$ 786,000$ 705,000$ 729,000$ 3,006,000$ STP M240 BRIDGE PAINTING 41,000$ 41,000$ 41,000$ 41,000$ 164,000$ STP M240 LOW IMPACT BRIDGES 41,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 236,000$ STP M240 TRAF CONTROL DEVICES 83,000$ 95,000$ 101,000$ 122,000$ 401,000$ STP M240 FORCE ACCT MAINT 146,000$ 146,000$ 146,000$ 122,000$ 560,000$ STP M240 TRAF&REV/D-B/STUDIES -$ -$ -$ 24,000$ 24,000$ STP M240 RW PROTECTIVE BUY 8,000$ 8,000$ 8,000$ 20,000$ 44,000$ TAP M940 RECREATIONAL TRAILS 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 40,000$ HSIP LS20 HWY RISK RURAL ROADS 24,000$ 24,000$ -$ -$ 48,000$ HSIP MS30 SAFETY 381,000$ 381,000$ 381,000$ 405,000$ 1,548,000$ HSIP MS40 RRX HAZARD ELIM 28,000$ 29,000$ 29,000$ 39,000$ 125,000$ HSIP MS50 RRX PROTECTION DEV 28,000$ 29,000$ 31,000$ 39,000$ 127,000$ SRTS LU10 SAFE RT TO SCH NON-INFR 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 2,000$ 5,000$ SRTS LU20 SAFE RT TO SCH INFR 11,000$ 11,000$ 11,000$ 19,000$ 52,000$ SRTS LU30 SAFE RT TO SCH ANY PROJ 3,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 5,000$ 14,000$ TOTAL 43,031,319$ 8,952,667$ 5,827,465$ 4,859,159$ 62,670,611$

Operations and Maintenance 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalF d lFederal $9 504 323$9,504,323 $5 825 039 0$5,825,039.0 $400 000 0$400,000.0 $0 0$0.0 $15 729 362 0$15,729,362.0Non-Federal $1,561,082 $1,393,540.0 $100,000.0 $0.0 $3,054,622.0Total $11,065,405 $7,308,579.0 $500,000.0 $0.0 $18,873,984.0

35

JuristictionsLocal Contribution to

Highway O&MState Contribution to

Highway O&M**Federal Contribution to

Highway O&MTotal Highway

O&MState of Tennessee $2,351,154 $3,275,450 $5,626,604City of Chattanooga $6,249,092 $4,882,903 $11,131,995Hamilton County, TN $10,720 $0 $10,720Collegedale, TN NA $237,780 $237,780East Ridge, TN NA $610,133 $610,133Lakesite, TN NA $53,095 $53,095Lookout Mtn, TN NA $53,267 $53,267Red Bank, TN $7,011 $338,890 $345,900Ridgeside, TN NA $11,337 $11,337Signal Mtn, TN $160,697 $219,699 $380,396Soddy-Daisy, TN NA $369,742 $369,742Walden, TN NA $55,190 $55,190TN TOTAL $6,427,520 $9,183,189 $3,275,450 $18,886,159State of Georgia $1,575,679 $1,575,679Dade County, GA NA $332,232 $332,232Walker County, GA NA $871,123 $871,123Catoosa County, GA NA $642,018 $642,018Chickamauga, GA NA $37,789 $37,789Fort Oglethorpe, GA NA $82,805 $82,805Lookout Mnt, GA NA $20,617 $20,617Ringgold, GA $480,597 $39,600 $520,198Rossville, GA NA $44,523 $44,523GA TOTAL $480 597 $2 070 707 $1 575 679 $4 126 983

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OF THE CHATTANOOGA TPOSUMMARY OF COSTS FY 2014 - 2017

Annual Average Highway Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs*

GA TOTAL $480,597 $2,070,707 $1,575,679 $4,126,983

TPO AREA TOTAL $6,908,118 $11,253,896 $4,851,129 $23,013,142

NA: O&M data were not provided

JuristictionsLocal Contribution to

Transit O&MState Contribution to Transit

O&MFederal Contribution to

Transit O&MTotal Transit

O&MCARTA $7,312,423 $2,059,799 $3,333,307 $12,705,530SETHRA $1,766,158 $1,766,158TOTAL $9,078,580 $14,471,687

*Operations and Maintenance estimates based on funding programs that are explicitiy for operations and maintenance activities only. Actual operations and maintenance expeditures may be higher than those shown here if other funding programs are used partially for operations and maintenance and partially for capital projects.** Amounts found under local jurisdictions represnt state funding allocated to these jurisdictions for O&M. Not all jurisdictions submitted information on these funds that they recieved from the state. As a proxy, we used the per capita amount times the population to estimate the average amount each jurisdiction have received from the State. This was used in lieu of the annual average for the maintenance funds.

Annual Average Transit Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs*

*Operations and Maintenance estimates based on funding programs that are explicitiy for operations and maintenance activities only, with the exception of federal 5307 funds where the amount transferred to operations is known. Actual operations and maintenance expeditures may be higher than those shown here if other funding programs are used partially for operations and maintenance and partially for capital projects.

36

Project num-

ber assigned

by the TPO

Project number

assigned by state DOT

Type of

Improvement The agency or

jurisdiction respon-

sible for the project

If the Project triggers air

quality conformity (non-

exempt) or if it doesn’t

(exempt)

Length of the project

County in which

the project will

be implemented

Total cost of completing the project, including all

phases of the project

Extent of the Project

Name of the project

Provides description of the project, which includes the type of improvements

Project number

assigned in the

TPO’s LRTP

Federal fiscal year

(starts in October

ends in September

of next year)

Phase of the project (preliminary

engineering, right-of

-way, construction)

Type of funding

programmed to

the project

Total (federal, state,

and local) funds

programmed to the

project

Federal funds

programmed

to the project

State funds

programmed

to the project

Local funds

programmed

to the project

FIGURE 2

HOW TO READ A TIP PROJECT PAGE

2014—2017 CHATTANOOGA URBAN AREA

37

THE TENNESSEE PORTION OF THE CHATTANOOGA URBAN AREA


FY 2014-2017

38

THE LOCAL TENNESSEE PORTION OF THE CHATTANOOGA URBAN AREA

TRANSPORTATION STUDY

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

AND TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM

FY 2014 – 2017

39

Lead Agency CARTA

2015

TIP # CARTA22

Route/Project Name Incline Cars

Termini or Intersection Chattanooga MPO

Project Description Replace two Incline Railway cars

Length

$2,692,000 $2,369,600 $322,400

Remarks

County Hamilton mi

Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds

Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-8

Total Project Cost $2,962,000

Conformity Status Exempt

CAPITALIZATION STP-M

Improvement Type Transit Capital Project

Fiscal Years 2014-2017

Amended on

Transportation Improvement Program

Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on

This map is for illustrative purposes only. Drawings depict conceptual project corridors and areas, not approved alignments.

NEW

Transportation Planning Organization FY2014-2017 TIP 40

Lead Agency CARTA

2014

TIP # CARTA23

Route/Project Name Transit Center Study


Project Description Study the concept of centralized transit center(s), study covers locations, routing, environmental documentation, service plan and conceptual drawings.

Length

$250,000 $200,000 $50,000

Remarks Funds will be flexed to FTA.

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# 188

Total Project Cost $250,000


STUDY STP-M



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency Chattanooga

2014

TIP # CENTRALAV1 _

Route/Project Name Central Avenue Extension

Termini or Intersection From 3rd Street to Riverside Drive

Project Description 4-lane roadway extension to include streetscaping, divided median, pedestrian sidewalk/greenway facilities, and bicycle facilities.

Length 0.4

$704,568 $563,654 $140,914

2015 $2,000,000 $1,600,000 $400,000

2017 $4,740,000 $3,792,000 $948,000

Remarks $14,963 obligated on PE-N in previous TIP. Resolution states Chattanooga will provide a community outreach plan to the TPO Board before requesting approval for expenditure of federal funds for the construction phase in 2017.

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN # 117216.00

LRTP# 11


Conformity Status Nonexempt

PE-D

ROW

CONST

STP-M

STP-M

STP-M

Improvement Type New Roadway


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2014

TIP # CHATT3R

Route/Project Name 11-14 3R Improvements on various streets in the City of Chattanooga

Termini or Intersection Chattanooga

Project Description Resurfacing of various streets in Chattanooga

Length

$1,440,000 $1,152,000 $288,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# Consistent with pp 226-229



CONST STP-M

Improvement Type 3R


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency Red Bank

2014

TIP # DAYTONBLVDISLAND

Route/Project Name Dayton Boulevard Pedestrian Islands

Termini or Intersection Red Bank

Project Description Construct pedestrian streetscape islands in the median of Dayton Blvd in various locations

Length

$17,500 $14,000 $3,500

2014 $432,500 $346,000 $86,500

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #




PE-D

CONST

TAP

TAP

Improvement Type Pedestrian


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency East Ridge

2014

TIP # EASTRIDGEADA

Route/Project Name East Ridge ADA Various Projects

Termini or Intersection East Ridge

Project Description Various ADA projects

Length

$620,000 $496,000 $124,000

Remarks $64,000 obligated in previous TIP.

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# 183



PE, ROW, CONST STP-M

Improvement Type ADA


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2014

TIP # ENTPARKHICK58 (Pa

Route/Project Name Enterprise Parkway

Termini or Intersection Hickory Valley Rd to 1 mi South of Hwy 58

Project Description New alignment for a four lane roadway.

Length 0.6

$541,727 $433,382 $108,345

2014 $818,030 $654,424 $163,606

2015 $11,098,043 $8,878,434 $2,219,609

2015 $3,395,730 $2,716,584 $679,146

Remarks Additional Pages (1 of 2).

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# 21e



PE-N

PE-D

CONST

CONST

HPP

HPP

HPP

STP-M

Improvement Type New Alignment


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2015

TIP # ENTPARKHICK58 (Pa

Route/Project Name Enterprise Parkway

Termini or Intersection Hickory Valley Rd to 1 mi South of Hwy 58

Project Description New alignment for a four lane roadway.

Length 0.6

$212,370 $212,370


County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# 21e



CONST LOCAL

Improvement Type New Alignment


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2014

TIP # ER3R1114

Route/Project Name Various


Project Description 11-14 3R Program - Various streets in East Ridge

Length

$570,000 $456,000 $114,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #





Improvement Type 3R


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2014

TIP # ER3R1417



Project Description 14-17 3R Program- Various Streets in East Ridge

Length

$221,273 $177,018 $44,255

2016 $619,255 $495,404 $123,851

2017 $223,173 $178,538 $44,635

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #




PE, ROW, CONST

PE, ROW, CONST

PE, ROW, CONST

STP-M

STP-M

STP-M

Improvement Type 3R


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2014

TIP # GOODWIN

Route/Project Name Goodwin Road

Termini or Intersection From Gunbarrel to Hamilton Place Blvd

Project Description 4 lane roadway extension

Length 0.3

$100,000 $80,000 $20,000

2015 $750,000 $600,000 $150,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# 81a



PE-N

PE-D

STP-M

STP-M

Improvement Type New Roadway


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency Hamilton County

2016

TIP # HAMCOSAFETY


Termini or Intersection Hamilton County

Project Description Addition of shoulder widths/safety improvements at Hunter Rd, Snow Hill Rd, and Standifer Gap Rd

Length

$2,300,000 $1,840,000 $460,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# 183



CONST STP-M

Improvement Type Safety


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2017

TIP # HCINTER

Route/Project Name Various intersections on Hwy 58


Project Description Realignment, traffic signal or roundabout, addition of turn lanes, etc.

Length

$1,768,000 $1,414,400 $282,880

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# 183




Improvement Type Intersection Improveme


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2016

TIP # HCTRAFFICSIGNAL



Project Description Geometric improvements and addition of traffic signal

Length

$1,200,000 $960,000 $240,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# 183






Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2014

TIP # HICKVALLENTPARK5

Route/Project Name Hickory Valley Rd

Termini or Intersection Enterprise Parkway Extension to Hwy 58

Project Description Widen from 2 to 4 lanes

Length 1.1

$274,373 $219,498 $54,875

2014 $295,250 $236,200 $59,050

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# 126



PE-N

PE-D

HPP

HPP

Improvement Type Widening


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2014

TIP # HWY58BIRCH

Route/Project Name Highway 58

Termini or Intersection At Birchwood Pike

Project Description Geometric improvements and addition of traffic signal

Length

$250,000 $200,000 $50,000

2015 $1,500,000 $1,200,000 $300,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# 183



PE

ROW, CONST

STP-M

STP-M



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2014

TIP # INTERHAMCO



Project Description 2011-2014- Intersection Improvements in Hamilton County

Length

$2,346,900 $1,975,600 $371,300

Remarks Ooltewah-Ringgold Rd at Standifer Gap, Hixson Pike at Thrasher 100% fed, East Brainerd at Ooltewah-Ringgold 100% fed, Mtn View & Ooltewah-Georgetown Rd

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# 183



CONST STP-M



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2016

TIP # MANUFACT/HAMM

Route/Project Name Manufacturers/Hamm Gateway


Project Description Extend Riverwalk along Manufactures Rd/Hamm Rd from US 27 to Moccasin Bend Interpretive Center

Length

$324,552 $259,692 $64,860

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #




PE STP-M

Improvement Type Bike/Ped


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2014

TIP # RB3R1114



Project Description 2011-2014 3R Program- Stabilization at Newberry St at Dayton Blvd, Resurfacing Dayton Blvd and various streets

Length

$350,000 $280,000 $70,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #





Improvement Type 3R


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2015

TIP # RB3R1417



Project Description 2014-2017 Resurfacing, slide repair, guardrail, signing, marking, and other preventative maintenance, which may include signalization upgrades and maintenance on functionally classified streets

Length

$1,503,300 $1,202,640 $300,660

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #





Improvement Type 3R


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2016

TIP # RBINTER



Project Description Signalization upgrades, loop detection, cabinets, LED lights, and pedestrian signals, mast arms/poles, and miscellaneous traffic control equipment on functionally classified streets.

Length

$589,500 $471,600 $117,900

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# 183






Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2014

TIP # RBSIDEWALKS

Route/Project Name Dayton Blvd & Ashland Terrace


Project Description 2011-2014- Dayton Blvd and Ashland Terrace Sidewalks

Length

$426,000 $340,800 $85,200

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #







Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency Chattanooga/Hamilto

2014

TIP # RIVERWALK

Route/Project Name Riverwalk


Project Description Phase I, II and III of the Riverwalk Extension

Length

$1,500,000 $1,200,000 $300,000

2014 $6,448,960 $5,159,168 $1,289,792

2014 $1,222,875 $978,300 $244,575

Remarks Funds were obligated in previous TIP. Our understanding is that 113906.00 is the PIN for this project. There was an additional pin associated with Phase III of this project (PIN # 115002.01), but our understanding is that they are now one project.

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN # 113906.00




CONST

CONST

CONST

STP-M

ENH

TCSP



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency Chattanooga/Hamilto

2014

TIP # RIVERWALKIV

Route/Project Name St. Elmo Riverwalk Extension


Project Description Phase IV- Extend Riverwalk to St. Elmo, includes St. Elmo Avenue bike/ped facilities

Length

$2,000,000 $1,600,000 $400,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #







Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2014

TIP # SAFETY1

Route/Project Name Retroreflectivity Sign Project

Termini or Intersection Chattanooga

Project Description Purchase and install signs in the City of Chattanooga to meet retroreflectivity requirements

Length

$370,000 $296,000 $74,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# 183



MAINTENANCE STP-M

Improvement Type Safety


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency Soddy Daisy

2014

TIP # SD3R


Termini or Intersection Soddy Daisy

Project Description Resurfacing, slide repair, guardrail, signing, marking, and other preventative maintenance, which may include signalization upgrades and maintenance on functionally classified streets

Length

$3,260,190 $2,608,152 $652,038

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #





Improvement Type 3R


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency Soddy Daisy

2014

TIP # SD3RINTER


Termini or Intersection Soddy Daisy

Project Description 2011-2014 3-R/Intersection Improvements. 9100-9500 block of Dayton Pike/Harrison Lane resurfacing/intersection restriping improvements, Pottery Lane to Fire Hall #3 Dayton/Sequoyah Road signal/intersection, Sequoyah Road/Hwy 27 traffic signal/intersection

Length

$2,435,192 $1,948,154 $487,039

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# 183




Improvement Type 3R/Intersection Improv


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2014

TIP # SHLWFRDA2J

Route/Project Name Shallowford Road

Termini or Intersection From Airport Rd to Jersey Pike

Project Description Widen from 2 to 4 lanes with intersection improvements to include signalized intersections with left turn bays &/or multi-lane roundabouts. Also to include bicycle & pedestrian sidewalk facilities.

Length 0.9

$466,500 $373,200 $93,300

2014 $994,300 $795,440 $198,860

2016 $1,000,000 $800,000 $200,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# 13b



PE-N

PE-D

ROW

STP-M

STP-M

STP-M

Improvement Type Road Widening


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency Signal Mountain

2014

TIP # SM3R

Route/Project Name Signal Mountain Resurfacing

Termini or Intersection Signal Mountain

Project Description 2011-2014 3R Program- James Blvd rehabilitation and preservation

Length

$592,800 $474,240 $118,560


County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #




CONST STP-M

Improvement Type 3R


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2014

TIP # SMADA


Termini or Intersection Signal Mountain

Project Description Old Town sidewalk rehabilitation and ADA compliance

Length

$583,100 $466,480 $116,620

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN # 117950.00

LRTP# 183



PE & CONST STP-M

Improvement Type ADA


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2014

TIP # SR58

Route/Project Name SR-58 Bike/Ped Facilities Phase II

Termini or Intersection From Webb Road to Murray Hills

Project Description Phase II- Extension of Bike/Ped facilities

Length

$185,178 $148,142 $37,036

2017 $1,037,339 $829,871 $207,468

2017 $1,968,216 $1,574,573 $393,643

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #




PE

ROW

CONST

TAP

STP-M

TAP



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2014

TIP # TAFTHWYPATH

Route/Project Name Taft Highway Bike/Ped Path

Termini or Intersection From Ridgeway Ave to Albert Drive

Project Description Bike/Ped path along Taft Highway

Length

$354,768 $283,814 $70,954

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #







Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency Collegedale

2016

TIP # TALLANT

Route/Project Name Tallant Road Roundabout

Termini or Intersection At Edgemon Rd

Project Description Install a three-leg roundabout

Length

$199,160 $159,328 $39,832

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# 183



CONST STP-M



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2014

TIP # TN01-MC007

Route/Project Name Shallowford Road

Termini or Intersection Gunbarrel Road to Jenkins Road

Project Description Widening from 2 to 5 lanes (4 thru lanes)

Length 1.0

$350,000 $280,000 $70,000

Remarks Several phases obligated in previous TIP and 08-11 TIP.

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN # 101576

LRTP# 108



CONST STP-M



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2014

TIP # TN01-MC020

Route/Project Name Hunter Road

Termini or Intersection Hunter Road at Ooltewah Harrison Road

Project Description Realign and regrade a section of Hunter Road at Ooltewah Harrison Road to improve safety and sight distances

Length

$154,531 $123,625 $30,906


County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN # 101883

LRTP# 183



CONST STP-M

Improvement Type Realignment


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2014

TIP # TN01-MC022

Route/Project Name Prospect Church Road

Termini or Intersection Bridge replacement (at log miles 0.62 and 0.79)

Project Description Replace and align two bridges (at log miles 0.62 and 0.79)

Length 0.1

$288,964 $231,171 $57,793

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN # 107377




PE & CONST STP-M

Improvement Type Bridge Replacement


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2014

TIP # TN01-MC16

Route/Project Name 3rd St/4th St

Termini or Intersection Mabel Street to Hampton Street and Lindsey Street to Riverfront Parkway

Project Description Lane and intersection improvements, roundabouts, ped, transit, and bike facilities

Length 1.2

$450,000 $360,000 $90,000

2015 $1,450,000 $1,160,000 $290,000

2016 $1,000,000 $800,000 $200,000

Remarks This project includes streetscaping, and a new road extension

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN # 043103.00

LRTP# 106



PE-N

PE-D

ROW

STP-M

STP-M

STP-M



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2014

TIP # TUCKER

Route/Project Name Tucker Road Roundabout

Termini or Intersection At Edgemon Rd

Project Description Install a three-leg roundabout

Length

$199,160 $159,328 $39,832

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# 183



CONST STP-M



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


PUBLIC TRANSIT PORTION OF THE

CHATTANOOGA URBAN AREA

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

PUBLIC TRANSIT PROGRAM

FY 2014-2017

78

Lead Agency CARTA

2014

TIP # CARTA1



Project Description Purchase of Security Equipment

Length

$48,000 $38,400 $4,800 $4,800

2015 $50,000 $40,000 $5,000 $5,000

2016 $50,000 $40,000 $5,000 $5,000

2017 $52,000 $41,600 $5,200 $5,200

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-2



CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

5307

5307

5307

5307



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2014

TIP # CARTA10



Project Description Non Fixed Route ADA Paratransit Service

Length

$10,000 $8,000 $1,000 $1,000

2015 $140,993 $112,794 $14,099 $14,099

2016 $148,215 $118,572 $14,822 $14,822

2017 $197,795 $158,236 $19,780 $19,780

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-4



OPERATIONS

OPERATIONS

OPERATIONS

OPERATIONS

5307

5307

5307

5307



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2014

TIP # CARTA11



Project Description Operating assistance

Length

$700,000 $350,000 $175,000 $175,000

2015 $700,000 $350,000 $175,000 $175,000

2016 $700,000 $350,000 $175,000 $175,000

2017 $700,000 $350,000 $175,000 $175,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-4



OPERATIONS

OPERATIONS

OPERATIONS

OPERATIONS

5307

5307

5307

5307



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2014

TIP # CARTA12



Project Description Purchase Bus Shelters

Length

$48,000 $38,400 $4,800 $4,800

2015 $50,000 $40,000 $5,000 $5,000

2016 $50,000 $40,000 $5,000 $5,000

2017 $52,000 $416,000 $5,200 $5,200

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-6



CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

5307

5307

5307

5307



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2014

TIP # CARTA13 (Page 1)



Project Description Miscellaneous Rail Equipment

Length

$10,000 $8,000 $1,000 $1,000

2014 $20,000 $16,000 $2,000 $2,000

2015 $10,000 $8,000 $1,000 $1,000

2015 $20,000 $16,000 $2,000 $2,000


County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-2



MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

5307

5337

5307

5337



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2016




Project Description Miscellaneous Rail Equipment

Length

$10,000 $8,000 $1,000 $1,000

2016 $20,000 $16,000 $2,000 $2,000

2017 $6,000 $4,800 $600 $600

2017 $20,000 $16,000 $2,000 $2,000


County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-2



MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

5307

5337

5307

5337



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2014


Route/Project Name Incline Railway


Project Description Rehabilitate Line Equipment (Incline Railway)

Length

$100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000

2014 $150,000 $120,000 $15,000 $15,000

2015 $100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000

2015 $156,745 $125,396 $15,675 $15,675


County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-7



MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

5307

5337

5307

5337



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2016




Project Description Rehabilitate Line Equipment (Incline Railway)

Length

$100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000

2016 $156,947 $125,558 $15,695 $15,695

2017 $100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000

2017 $157,155 $125,724 $15,715 $15,715


County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-7



MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

5307

5337

5307

5337



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2014


Route/Project Name Bus Purchase


Project Description Purchase 30-35 Foot Buses

Length

$100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000

2014 $406,864 $325,491 $40,666 $40,666

2015 $100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000

2015 $420,870 $336,696 $42,087 $42,087

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-8



CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

5307

5339

5307

5339



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2016


Route/Project Name Bus Purchase


Project Description Purchase 30-35 Foot Buses

Length

$10,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000

2016 $435,296 $348,237 $43,530 $43,530

2017 $100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000

2017 $450,155 $360,124 $45,016 $45,016

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-8



CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

5307

5339

5307

5339



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2014


Route/Project Name Van Purchase


Project Description Purchase Replacement Van

Length

$60,000 $48,000 $6,000 $6,000

2014 $60,000 $48,000 $6,000 $6,000

2015 $60,000 $48,000 $6,000 $6,000

2015 $60,000 $48,000 $6,000 $6,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-8



CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

5307

5339

5307

5339



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2016


Route/Project Name Van Purchase


Project Description Purchase Replacement Van

Length

$60,000 $48,000 $6,000 $6,000

2016 $60,000 $48,000 $6,000 $6,000

2017 $60,000 $48,000 $6,000 $6,000

2017 $60,000 $48,000 $6,000 $6,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-8



CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

5307

5339

5307

5339

Improvement Type Transit Captial Project


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2014

TIP # CARTA17



Project Description Purchase Support Vehicles

Length

$20,000 $16,000 $2,000 $2,000

2015 $20,000 $16,000 $2,000 $2,000

2016 $20,000 $16,000 $2,000 $2,000

2017 $20,000 $16,000 $2,000 $2,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-2



CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

5307

5307

5307

5307



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2014

TIP # CARTA18



Project Description Purchase Replacement Signage

Length

$2,000 $1,600 $200 $200

2015 $2,000 $1,600 $200 $200

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-2



CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

5307

5307



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2014

TIP # CARTA19



Project Description Rehabilitate & renovate incline railway cars

Length

$2,500 $2,000 $250 $250

2015 $2,500 $2,000 $250 $250

2016 $2,500 $2,000 $250 $250

2017 $2,500 $2,000 $250 $250

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-2



MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

5337

5337

5337

5337



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2014

TIP # CARTA2



Project Description Rehabilitate/Renovate intermodal bus terminal

Length

$5,000 $4,000 $500 $500

2015 $5,000 $4,000 $500 $500

2016 $5,000 $4,000 $500 $500

2017 $5,000 $4,000 $500 $500

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-2



MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

5307

5307

5307

5307



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2014

TIP # CARTA20



Project Description Rehabilitation/Renovate Intermodal Terminal (Incline Railway)

Length

$52,316 $41,853 $5,232 $5,232

2015 $53,000 $42,400 $5,300 $5,300

2016 $53,000 $42,400 $5,300 $5,300

2017 $53,000 $42,400 $5,300 $5,300

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-2



MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

5337

5337

5337

5337



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2014

TIP # CARTA21



Project Description Mobility Management

Length

$115,000 $92,000 $11,500 $11,500

2015 $118,450 $94,760 $11,845 $11,845

2016 $122,004 $97,603 $12,200 $12,200

2017 $125,664 $100,531 $12,566 $12,566

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-1



OPERATIONS

OPERATIONS

OPERATIONS

OPERATIONS

5310

5310

5310

5310



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2014

TIP # CARTA3



Project Description Rehabilitate Administrative/Maintenance Buildings

Length

$15,000 $12,000 $1,500 $1,500

2015 $15,000 $12,000 $1,500 $1,500

2016 $15,000 $12,000 $1,500 $1,500

2017 $15,000 $12,000 $1,500 $1,500

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-2



MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

5307

5307

5307

5307



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2014

TIP # CARTA4



Project Description Purchase Shop Equipment

Length

$44,000 $35,200 $4,400 $4,400

2015 $50,000 $40,000 $5,000 $5,000

2016 $50,000 $40,000 $5,000 $5,000

2017 $50,000 $40,000 $5,000 $5,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-2



CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

5307

5307

5307

5307



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2014

TIP # CARTA5



Project Description Acquire Automatic Data Processing Hardware

Length

$100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000

2015 $100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000

2016 $250,000 $200,000 $25,000 $25,000

2017 $350,000 $280,000 $35,000 $35,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-2



CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

5307

5307

5307

5307



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2014

TIP # CARTA6



Project Description Acquire Automatic Data Processing Software

Length

$100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000

2015 $100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000

2016 $100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000

2017 $100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-2



CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

5307

5307

5307

5307



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2014

TIP # CARTA7



Project Description Acquire Mobile Fare Collection Epuipment

Length

$20,000 $16,000 $2,000 $2,000

2015 $20,000 $16,000 $2,000 $2,000

2016 $10,000 $8,000 $1,000 $1,000

2017 $10,000 $8,000 $1,000 $1,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-2



CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

5307

5307

5307

5307



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2014

TIP # CARTA8



Project Description Purchase miscellaneous communication equipment

Length

$30,000 $24,000 $3,000 $3,000

2015 $30,000 $24,000 $3,000 $3,000

2016 $30,000 $24,000 $3,000 $3,000

2017 $30,000 $24,000 $3,000 $3,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-2



CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

CAPITALIZATION

5307

5307

5307

5307



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency CARTA

2014

TIP # CARTA9



Project Description Preventive Maintenance

Length

$3,435,260 $2,748,208 $343,526 $343,526

2015 $3,435,260 $2,748,208 $343,526 $343,526

2016 $3,435,260 $2,748,208 $343,526 $343,526

2017 $3,435,260 $2,748,208 $343,526 $343,526

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# PT-2



MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE

5307

5307

5307

5307



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


STATE OF TENNESSEE PORTION OF THE CHATTANOOGA URBANIZED

AREA

ALL STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS

FY 2014 – 2017

104

Lead Agency TDOT

2015

TIP # 33020

Route/Project Name I-124/US-27

Termini or Intersection North of I-24 to South of the Tennessee River


Length 1.5

$54,600,000 $43,680,000 $10,920,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN # 103917.00

LRTP# 88



CONST NHPP



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency TDOT

2015

TIP # 33025

Route/Project Name SR-29/US-27

Termini or Intersection From Riverfront Parkway to Manufacturers Road


Length

$17,500,000 $14,000,000 $3,500,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN # 112584.00

LRTP# 178



CONST NHPP



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency TDOT

2014

TIP # 33030

Route/Project Name SR-317/Apison Pike

Termini or Intersection From Old Lee Hwy to SR-321

Project Description Widen 2 lanes to 4 lanes

Length 2.2

$26,700,000 $21,360,000 $5,340,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN # 107637.03

LRTP# 17a



CONST STP-State



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency TDOT

2014

TIP # 33045

Route/Project Name SR317/Bonny Oaks Drive

Termini or Intersection From SR-17 to I-75 (TPR Option B)

Project Description Widen from 2-4 lanes (already 4 lanes either direction of listed termini specifically from Silverdale Rd east to I-75 and from Preservation Dr west to SR 17)

Length 5.1

$2,000,000 $1,600,000 $400,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN # 112152.00

LRTP# 15


Conformity Status NonExempt

PE-D STP-State



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency TDOT

2014

TIP # 33050

Route/Project Name SR-320/East Brainerd Road

Termini or Intersection From East of Graysville Road to Bel-Air Road

Project Description Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 4 lanes

Length 1.9

$14,500,000 $11,600,000 $2,900,000

Remarks

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN # 101431.00

LRTP# 94



CONST STP-State



Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency TDOT

2014

TIP # 33060

Route/Project Name NHPP Grouping


Project Description Resurfacing, guardrail, slide repair, signs, marking, intersection/interchange modifications, sight distance modifications, noise walls, wetland and or stream mitigation, safety improvements, bridge replacement, repair… (Cont. in Remarks Section)

Length

$7,000,000 $5,600,000 $1,400,000

2015 $7,000,000 $5,600,000 $1,400,000

2016 $7,000,000 $5,600,000 $1,400,000

2017 $7,000,000 $5,600,000 $1,400,000

Remarks rehabilitation, preservation, rock fall mitigation, sidewalks traffic calming, pedestrian and or bicycle facilities, ITS operations, maintenance, power, communications, construction. See page 36 for the entire grouping description.

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# 183



CONST

CONST

CONST

CONST

NHPP

NHPP

NHPP

NHPP

Improvement Type NHPP


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency TDOT

2014

TIP # 33065

Route/Project Name STP-S Grouping


Project Description Resurfacing, guardrail, slide repair, signs, marking, intersection/interchange modifications, sight distance modifications, noise walls, wetland and or stream mitigation, safety improvements, bridge replacement, repair… (Cont. in Remarks Section)

Length

$3,000,000 $2,400,000 $600,000

2015 $3,000,000 $2,400,000 $600,000

2016 $3,000,000 $2,400,000 $600,000

2017 $3,000,000 $2,400,000 $600,000

Remarks rehabilitation, preservation, rock fall mitigation, sidewalks traffic calming, pedestrian and or bicycle facilities, ITS operations, maintenance, power, communications, construction. See page 36 for the entire grouping description.

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# 183



CONST

CONST

CONST

CONST

STP-S

STP-S

STP-S

STP-S

Improvement Type STP-S


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


Lead Agency TDOT

2014

TIP # 33090

Route/Project Name HSIP Grouping


Project Description Any strategy, activity or project on a public road that is consistent with the state Strategic Highway Plan (SHSP) and corrects or improves a hazardous road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. (Cont. in remarks)

Length

$3,000,000 $2,400,000 $600,000

2015 $3,000,000 $2,400,000 $600,000

2016 $3,000,000 $2,400,000 $600,000

2017 $3,000,000 $2,400,000 $600,000

Remarks Including workforce development, training and education activities, alignment, intersection interchange improvements, signalization,… (See page 36 for entire grouping description.)

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# 183



CONST

CONST

CONST

CONST

HSIP

HSIP

HSIP

HSIP

Improvement Type HSIP


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


TENNESSEE PORTION OF THE CHATTANOOGA URBAN AREA

TRANSPORTATION STUDY

ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES

FY 2014 – 2017

113


2014

TIP # ENH1

Route/Project Name Enhancement Projects

Termini or Intersection City of Chattanooga designated corridors

Project Description Pedestrian and bicycle facilities, landscaping and scenic beautification, etc.

Length

$2,000,000 $1,600,000 $400,000

Remarks Includes Hwy 58 and Rossville Blvd awards.

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# 179



PE, ROW, CONST ENH

Improvement Type Enhancements


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


TENNESSEE PORTION OF THE CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY

(CMAQ) PROGRAM

FY 2014 – 2017

115

Lead Agency RPA-TPO

2014

TIP # GREENTRIPS

Route/Project Name Greater Chattanooga Area Green Trips Program


Project Description A web-based program to encourage more efficient use of the existing transportation system through reduction in single-occupancy vehicle travel, with an education, incentives, and encouragement program.

Length

$375,000 $292,500 $82,500


County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #

LRTP# Consistent with pg 229



EDUCATION CMAQ

Improvement Type Education/Outreach


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW



2014

TIP # TN021610.10

Route/Project Name Countywide ITS


Project Description PE/Design,Installation and Timing for Countywide ITS Signalization Upgrade

Length

$1,875,000 $1,500,000 $375,000

Remarks $5,910,915 obligated in FY2012.

County Hamilton mi


Amendment 1 #

TDOT PIN #



Conformity Status NonExempt

CONST CMAQ

Improvement Type ITS


Amended on


Amendment 2 #

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on


NEW


THE GEORGIA PORTION OF THE CHATTANOOGA URBAN AREA


Local and State projects in the Georgia Portion of the

Chattanooga Urban Area

FY 2014-2017

118

Lead Agency GDOT

2017

TIP # GA-0010917

Route/Project Name Various with the Chattanooga MPO


Project Description Oversight services for M230 & CMAQ funded TIP projects - FY 2017

Length

$17,500 $14,000 $3,500

Remarks

County mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN # 0010917

LRTP# 184



PE M240

Improvement Type Financial


Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on



Lead Agency GDOT

2015

TIP # GA-0010915

Route/Project Name Various within Chattanoooga MPO


Project Description Oversight services for M230 & CMAQ funded TIP projects - FY2015

Length

$17,500 $14,000 $3,500

Remarks

County mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN # 0010915

LRTP# 184



PE M240



Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on



Lead Agency GDOT

2016

TIP # GA-0010916

Route/Project Name Various within the Chattanooga MPO


Project Description Oversight services for M230 & CMAQ funded TIP projects - FY 2016

Length

$17,500 $14,000 $3,500

Remarks

County mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN # 0010916

LRTP# 184



PE M240



Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on



Lead Agency GDOT

2014

TIP # GA-0004019



Project Description Oversight services for STP/L230 & CMAQ funded TIP Proj-FY14

Length

$17,500 $14,000 $3,500

Remarks

County mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN # 0004019

LRTP# 184



PE M240



Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on



Lead Agency Catoosa County

2016

TIP # BattlefieldSmitherman

Route/Project Name Battlefield Parkway

Termini or Intersection At Smitherman Road

Project Description Improve intersection for safe navigation

Length

$500,000 $400,000 $100,000

Remarks

County Catoosa mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN #

LRTP# 183



CONST M230



Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on




2016

TIP # BattlefieldOldMill

Route/Project Name Battlefield Pkwy

Termini or Intersection At Old Mill Road

Project Description Improve functionality of intersection for safe navigation

Length

$500,000 $400,000 $100,000

Remarks

County Catoosa mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN #

LRTP# 183



PE, ROW, CONST M230



Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on




2017

TIP # SwansonStudy

Route/Project Name Swanson Rd


Project Description Study to evaluate infrastructure impacts of with addition of new school

Length

$279,000 $223,200 $55,800

Remarks

County Catoosa mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN #

LRTP# 188



STUDY M230

Improvement Type Study


Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on




2015

TIP # 3NotchRoundabout

Route/Project Name Three Notch Road

Termini or Intersection At Poplar Springs Road

Project Description Install roundabout to improve traffic flow in congested area

Length

$800,000 $640,000 $160,000

Remarks

County Catoosa mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN #

LRTP# 183



CONST M230



Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on




2014

TIP # GA-Resurfacing

Route/Project Name Various within Catoosa County 2011-2014 Program

Termini or Intersection Catoosa County

Project Description Various road resurfacing, slide repair, guardrail, signing marking and other preventative maintenance, including signalization upgrades and maintenance

Length

$2,215,784 $1,772,627 $443,157

Remarks

County Catoosa mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN #

LRTP# Consistent with pp. 226-229



CONST M230

Improvement Type 3R


Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on




2016

TIP # Not Assigned

Route/Project Name Various within Catoosa County 2014-2017 Program

Termini or Intersection Catoosa County

Project Description Resurfacing, slide repair, guardrail, signing, marking and other preventive maintenance, which may include signalization upgrades and maintenance on functionally classified streets.

Length 0.0

$1,377,500 $110,200 $275,500

2017 $1,377,500 $110,200 $275,500

$0 $0 $0 $0

Remarks

County Catoosa mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN #

LRTP#



CONST

CONST

M230

M230

Improvement Type 3R


Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on



Lead Agency Fort Oglethorpe

2014

TIP # CrossSt

Route/Project Name Cross Street

Termini or Intersection At Cloud Springs Road

Project Description Add turn lane, improve intersection, accommodate bike/pedestrians

Length

$250,000 $200,000 $50,000

Remarks

County Catoosa mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN #

LRTP# 183



PE, ROW, CONST M230



Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on




2014

TIP # CrossStudy

Route/Project Name Cross Street


Project Description Study of major intersection improvement and adding pedestrian and bicycle facilities, streetscaping and other such uses as well as to improve the roadway corridor

Length

$100,000 $80,000 $20,000

Remarks

County Catoosa mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN #

LRTP# 188



STUDY M230



Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on




2017

TIP # LakeshoreStudy

Route/Project Name Lakeshore Traffic Management Planning Study


Project Description Study to look at impacts Lakeshore Drive and three adjacent schools that are budgeted

Length

$50,000 $40,000 $10,000

Remarks

County Catoosa mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN #

LRTP# 188



STUDY M230



Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on




2014

TIP # CorridorStudy



Project Description Study to evaluate the Fort Town Drive-Mineral Avenue-Mack Smith Road-Prater Road-Spring Creek Road Corridors for widening and intersection improvements

Length

$150,000 $120,000 $30,000

Remarks

County Catoosa mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN #

LRTP# 188



STUDY M230



Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on



Lead Agency GDOT

2014

TIP # GA-0006658

Route/Project Name CR 390/3 Notch Road

Termini or Intersection Bridge on 3 Notch Rd

Project Description Bridge reconstruction

Length

$142,535 $142,535

2016 $29,529 $29,529

2016 $1,206,333 $965,066 $241,267

Remarks

County Catoosa mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN # 0006658

LRTP# 185



ROW

UTILITIES

CONST

LOCAL

LOCAL

M233

Improvement Type Bridge


Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on



Lead Agency GDOT

2014

TIP # GA-621530

Route/Project Name SR151/Alabama Hwy

Termini or Intersection From Holcombe Rd to US41/Nashville St

Project Description Widen from 2 to 4 lanes with turn lanes as needed

Length 2.0

$150,000 $120,000 $30,000

2014 $4,564,561 $4,564,561

2014 $19,720,468 $15,776,375 $3,944,094

2014 $2,480,000 $1,984,000 $496,000

Remarks

County Catoosa mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN # 621530

LRTP# 5



PE

UTILITIES

CONST

CONST

M240

LOCAL

M240

M230



Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on



Lead Agency GDOT

2014

TIP # GA-632885

Route/Project Name US 41

Termini or Intersection Tiger Creek

Project Description US 41 at Tiger Creek, 1.9 east of Ringgold

Length

$10,000 $8,000 $2,000

2014 $817,479 $653,983 $163,496

2014 $2,710,658 $2,168,526 $542,132

Remarks

County Catoosa mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN # 632885

LRTP# 185



PE

UTILITIES

CONST

M240

M240

M240



Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on



Lead Agency GDOT

2014

TIP # GA-0007545



Project Description Transportation improvements in Catoosa County

Length

$1,709,484 $1,367,587 $341,897

Remarks

County Catoosa mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN # 0007545




CONST LY30

Improvement Type 3R


Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on



Lead Agency GDOT

2014

TIP # GA-0011682

Route/Project Name I-24/SR 299

Termini or Intersection Bridge on SR 299

Project Description Bridge replacement- I-24 at SR 299 6 miles NE of New England

Length

$102,000 $81,600 $20,400

2015 $52,020 $41,616 $10,404

2015 $4,161,600 $3,329,280 $832,320

Remarks

County Dade mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN # 0011682

LRTP# 185



ROW

UTILITIES

CONST

M001

M001

M001



Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on



Lead Agency GDOT

2014

TIP # GA-0010775

Route/Project Name LaFayette Road


Project Description Replace traffic light controls and light fixture on LaFayette Rd

Length

$128,000 $128,000

Remarks

County Walker mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN # 0010775

LRTP# 185



CONST F170

Improvement Type Miscellaneous


Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on



Lead Agency GDOT

2014

TIP # GA-0010774

Route/Project Name LaFayette Road


Project Description Resurface LaFayette Rd and associated parking

Length

$3,132,000 $3,132,000

Remarks

County Walker mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN # 0010774




CONST F170

Improvement Type 3R


Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on



Lead Agency Walker County

2015

TIP # GA-InterImp

Route/Project Name Osburn Road


Project Description Osburn Road improvements in Walker County

Length

$585,000 $468,000 $117,000

Remarks

County Walker mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN # 0010184

LRTP# 183



CONST M230



Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on



Lead Agency Walker County

2014

TIP # WalkerStudy

Route/Project Name Wilson Road


Project Description Study of transportation improvements on Wilson Road in Walker County

Length

$50,000 $40,000 $10,000

Remarks

County Walker mi


Amendment 1

GDOT PIN # 0010183

LRTP# 188



STUDY M230



Amended on


Amendment 2

Amended on

Adjustment 1 #

Adjusted on

Adjustment 2 #

Adjusted on



ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECT LIST

FY 2014 – 2017

142

h

Illustrative List

TIP ID DescriptionTWype ofork

ProDat

g e Phase

Fund Code Notes

PROSPECTCHURCHRD

Bridge replacement, improve intersectioalignment, shoulder improvements, add gutter, sidewalks and lighting, improve sdistances

n curb and ight N

Aew lignment 2018

PE, ROCONS

W, T STP‐M

Project was never committed during 11‐14 TIP, keeping it as Illustrative since project was no resubmitted during 14‐17 Call for Projects

TN01‐MC16Lane and intersection improvements, rouped, transit, and bike facilities

ndabouts, RWoad idening 2018 CONST STP‐M

SHLWFRDA2J

Widen from 2 to 4 lanes with intersectioimprovements to include signalized interwith left turn bays &/or multi‐lane roundAlso to include bicycle & pedestrian sidefacilities.

n sections abouts. walk R

Woad idening 2018 CONST STP‐M

SAULOOPRD

Construct a north‐south 2‐lane road witand pedestrian facilities around the SoutAdventist University Campus between UDrive and Apison Pike

bicycle hern niversity

New Roadway 2018PE, ROW, CONST STP‐M

MANUFACT/HAMM

Extend Riverwalk along Manufactures RdRd from US 27 to Moccasin Bend InterprCenter

/Hamm etive

Bike/Ped 2018ROW, CONST STP‐M/TAP

GA‐642190 Widen from US41 to Tennessee state lineRWoad idening 2018 PE, ROW STP‐M

33010I‐24 Interchange Modifications at SR‐2 (BStreet) and SR‐58 (Market Street)

road InMterchanodifica

ge tion 2018 PE‐N, PE‐D NHPP

GA‐650520Widen CR384/Dietz Road from CR 382/BDr/Post Rd to SR 146

oynton RWoad idening 2018

PE, ROW, CONST M230

143

APPENDIX A

2011 – 2014 TIP PROJECT STATUS REPORT

144


145

TIP ID# Route Lead Agency Project Description Status

031909.3STP‐Local Project cost overruns

VariousTo cover STP‐Local/Urban cost overruns for current TIP

Removed per Federal guidance

031909.4STP‐Local Project cost overruns, previous TIPs

VariousTo cover STP‐Local/Urban cost overruns for previous TIP


033108.1Chattanooga MPO Area Various

TDOT

Retrofit 15 Norfolk Southern locomotives that perform switching and local freight delivery operations with automatic stop‐start idle reduction

Project complete

33000Chattanooga Smartway ITS Expansion

TDOT

Installation of CCTV cameras, dynamic message signs, and other equipment to expand the Smartway system in Hamilton and Bradley Counties.

Project complete

33003 I‐75 TDOTInterstate, interchange feasibility/environmental study

Project complete

33010 I‐Various TDOT Lights, pavement markings On‐going

33025 US27/I‐24 TDOTWiden from 4 to 8 lanes (the additional lanes are auxiliary lanes)

Rolled into 2014‐2107 Program

33027 US27 TDOTWiden from 4 to 8 lanes (the additional lanes are auxiliary lanes)

Project complete

Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (with auxilary Project33028 US27/Olgiati Bridge TDOT

Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (with auxilary lanes)

Project Complete

33030 SR60 TDOT Widen 2 lanes to 4 lanes Unknown

33041 SR317 Connector TDOT New 4 lane facility, design/build ProjectProject complete

33042 (new 33030)

SR317/Apison Pike TDOT Widen from 2 to 4 lanesRolled into 2014‐2107 Program

33043 SR317/Apison Pike TDOT

Widen 2 LN to 4 LN with center turn LN from SR‐321 to Layton Drive, widen 2‐LN to 2‐LN with center turn lane from Layton Drive to East Brainerd Road

Obligated PE‐N and PE‐D

33045SR317/Bonny Oaks Drive

TDOT

Widen from 2‐4 lanes (already 4 lanes either direction of listed termini specifically from Silverdale Rd east to I‐75 and from Preservation Dr west to SR 17)


146


33060 (ID assignment to new MPO area resurfacing)

Bridge replacement ‐local

TDOT

Bridge replacement, rehabilitation, and preservation projects in the urbanized areas to be determined during the annual bridge selection process (local)

Project complete

33061Bridge project cost overruns ‐ local

TDOTBridge replacement, rehabilitation, and preservation funds to cover cost overruns on project phases which were

Removed

33062Bridge replacement ‐state

TDOT

Bridge replacement, rehabilitation, systematic repair & preservation projects in the urbanized areas to be determined during the annual bridge selection process (State)

Project complete

33063Bridge project cost overrruns ‐ State

TDOT

Bridge replacement, rehabilition, and preservation funds to cover cost overruns on project phases which were included in previous STIPs (State)


33065 (ID assignment to new MPO area

Bridge Bond bucket TDOT

Bridge replacement, rehabilition, systematic repain & preservation projects in the urbanized areas. (State) (Projects using this funding category

Removed perresurfacing) will be processed thru the advance

construction procedures)


33075STP‐State cost overruns

TDOTSurface transportation program funds to cover cost overruns on project phases which were included in previous


33076STP‐State cost overruns

TDOTSurface transportation program funds to cover projects contained in the current STIP where cost overrruns have


33077NHPP‐Project cost overruns

TDOTNational highway performance program funds to cover cost overrruns


33078NHPP‐Project cost overruns

TDOTNational highway performance program funds to cover projects contained in the current STIP where cost overruns have


33079IM‐Project cost overruns

TDOTInterstate maintenance funds to cover cost overruns on project phases which were included in previous STIPs


33080IM‐Project cost overruns

TDOTInterstate maintenance funds to cover projects contained in the current STIP where cost overruns have resulted in an


147


33085Spot Safety Improvement Program

TDOT

Spot Safety Improvement Program, such as signaliation, intersection modification without signalization, sight distance modification, adding turn lanes, school flashing signals, flashing beacons, acquisition of land, RR grade crossing improvements, etc.

Project complete

33090Highway hazard elimination

TDOT

Such as alignment, spot, intersection improvements, signalization guardrail, lighting, marking, & railroad crossings such as intallation of pads, bells, lights, and pavement markings.

On‐going

33100Interstate National Highway System Improvements

TDOTResurfacing, slide repair, guardrail, signing, signalization, marking, & other preventitive maintanence

On‐going

33101State Route 3R Improvements

TDOTResurfacing, slide repair, guardrail, signing, signalization, marking, & other preventitive maintanence

Project complete

33110Freeway Service Patrols

TDOTOperation of motorist assistance service

Project completep

CARTA1 Various CARTA Support VehiclesProject complete

CARTA10 Various CARTA Automatic data processing softwareProject Complete

CARTA11 Various CARTAIntelligent transportation systems equipment

Project Complete

CARTA12 Incline Railway CARTA Rehabilitate Incline Railway CarsProject Complete

CARTA13 Various CARTAAcquire Mobile Fare Collection Epuipment

Project Complete

CARTA14 Various CARTA Rehab Admin/Maintenance BuildingsProject Complete

CARTA15 Various CARTAIntelligent transportation systems equipment

Project Complete

CARTA16 Bus Terminal CARTARehabilitate & renovate intermodal terminal

Project Complete

CARTA17 Various CARTA Operating assistanceProject Complete

CARTA18 Various CARTA Administration/PlanningProject Complete

148


CARTA19 Various CARTAMobility management ‐ short range planning and management activities and projects for improving coordination

Project Complete

CARTA2 Various CARTA Purchase bus sheltersProject Complete

CARTA20 Various CARTA Operating assistanceProject Complete

CARTA21 Various CARTARehabilitate/renovate miscellaneous rail equipment

Project Complete

CARTA22 Various CARTAAcquire surveillance/security equipment

Project Complete

CARTA23 Various CARTA Rehabilitate & renovate park & rideProject Complete

CARTA24 Incline Railway CARTARehabilitate & renovate incline railway cars

Project Complete

CARTA25 Training CARTA Employee education/trainingProject Complete

CARTA26 Various CARTA Preventive maintenanceProject Complete

CARTA27CARTA incline rail station

CARTACARTA incline rail station improvements

Project Complete

CARTA28 Bus Replacement CARTA Buy 2 replacement buses.Project Complete

CARTA29 Various CARTATrack rehabilitation for the Incline Railway

Project CompleteRailway Complete

CARTA3 Various CARTA Rehab/Renovate Storage FacilityProject Complete

CARTA30 Various CARTATransit Asset Management System‐ CARTA State of Good Repair

Project Complete

CARTA31

Bus, Van, & Electric Shuttle Replacement (State of Good Repair Grant)

CARTA

Purchase of 4 replacement transit buses, 11 replacement cutaway vans, and 6 replacement electric shuttle buses Project

Complete

CARTA32Shelters & Amenities(FTA Livability Grant)

CARTARecreation Center Passenger Shelters and Amenities Project

Complete

CARTA33Bus Replacement (TIGGER Grant)

CARTAPurchase of 3 30‐foot replacement electric buses equipped with a wayside inductive power transfer system,

Project Complete

CARTA4 Various CARTA Rehab line equipmentProject Complete

CARTA5 Various CARTA Purchase SignageProject Complete

149


CARTA6 Various CARTARehabilitate/Renovate intermodal bus terminal

Project Complete

CARTA7 Various CARTA Shop EquipmentProject Complete

CARTA8 Various CARTAPurchase miscellaneous communication equipment

Project Complete

CARTA9 Various CARTA Automatic data processing hardwareProject Complete

CENTRALAV1Central Avenue Extension

Chattanooga 2‐lane extensionRolled into 2014‐2107 Program

CHATT1

3R Improvements on various streets in the City of Chattanooga

ChattanoogaResurfacing of various streets in Chattanooga


CMPLTSTRTS1Enhancement Projects

VariousGreenways, Sidewalks, Bicycle Facilities and Amenities, Streescaping, transit

Removed

ENH1Enhancement Projects

Various

Pedestrian and bicycle facilities, acquisition of scenic or historic easements and sites, landscaping and scenic beautification, etc. Also includes TDOT's Roadscapes program.


ENTPARKHICK58 Enterprise Parkway Chattanooga New alignment for a four lane roadwayRolled into 2014 2107ENTPARKHICK58 Enterprise Parkway Chattanooga New alignment for a four lane roadway. 2014‐2107 Program

GREENTRIPS

Greater Chattanooga Area Green Trips Program

RPA‐TPO

A web‐based program to encourage more efficient use of the existing transportation system through reduction in single‐occupancy vehicle travel, with an education, incentives, and encouragement program.


HICKVALLENTPARK58

Hickory Valley Rd Chattanooga Widen from 2 to 4 lanesRolled into 2014‐2107 Program

HIGHSPEEDRAIL

Atlanta‐Chattanooga‐Nashville High Speed Rail/Mag‐Lev

Enterprise Center

Chattanooga to Nashville High Speed Ground Transportation Corridor, Chattanooga, TN

Project complete

INTER1

Intersection improvements in the Chattanooga MPO

Various

SUCH AS, ALIGNMENT, SPOT, INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, SIGNALIZATION, GUARDRAIL, LIGHTING, MARKING, & RAILROAD CROSSINGS‐

Removed

150


RESURF13R STP‐Local improvements

VariousResurfacing, slide repair, guardrail, signing, marking, and other preventative maintenance, including

Removed

SAFETY1Retroreflectivity Sign Project

VariousPurchase and install signs in the TPO Urban Area to meet retroreflectivity requirements


SCRS1Spring Creek Road & Other Areas of East Ridge

East Ridge

Feasibility Study to investigate transportation improvements and other connectivity to activity centers within and surrounding East Ridge, including evaluation of multi‐use (pedestrian and bicyle) facilities and special attention to Spring Creek Road

Removed per project sponsor request

SHLWFRDA2J Shallowford Road ChattanoogaWiden from 2 to 4 lanes from Airport Road to Jersey Pike


SRTS1Safe Routes to School Projects

VariousProjects focusing on increasing levels of walking & bicycling to school among elem. & middle school students


TN01‐MC007 Shallowford Road ChattanoogaWidening from 2 to 5 lanes (4 thru lanes) from Gunbarrel to Jenkins


TN01‐MC020 Hunter RoadHamilton County

Realign and regrade a section of Hunter Road at Ooltewah Harrison Road to improve safety and sight distances


TN01‐MC022Prospect Church Road

CollegedaleReplace and align two bridges (at log miles 0.62 and 0.79)


TN01‐MC16 3rd St/4th St Chattanooga

Widening of 3rd/4th from Lindsay St. to Hampton St. from a 3‐way to two‐way 4‐lane divided facility including streetscaping with roundabout at 3rd, 4th and Riverfront Pkwy., & 2‐lane extension of Siskin DR. to 3rd St. Palmetto St. intersection.


TN021610.10 Countywide ITS ChattanoogaPE/Design,Installation and Timing for Countywide ITS Signalization Upgrade


TN07‐EN005Signal Mountain/Sidewalks

Signal Mountain

Construct sidewalks and utility relocations


151


TN07‐TE006North Chickamauga Greenway Connection

Chattanooga

Planning, engineering, and construction to add a lane for pedestrian and bicycle passage, associated safety railing, and ADA ramps to the CB Robinson Bridge

Project Obligated

TRANSIT1Various Transit Capital Projects

CARTA Purchase of replacement busesProject Complete

AR‐472‐2011Various within the Chattanooga MPO GDOT

Oversight services for STP/L230 & CMAQ funded TIP Proj‐FY11 On‐going

AR‐472‐2012Chattanooga MPO Various GDOT


GA‐ 621530SR151/Alabama Hwy GDOT

Widen from 2 to 4 lanes with turn lanes as needed


GA‐0004019Various within the Chattanooga MPO GDOT


GA‐0006658CR 390/3 Notch Road GDOT Bridge reconstruction



Transportation improvements in Catoosa County




GA‐0009910CR 138/Alexander Bridge Road GDOT Bridge reconstruction

Project complete

GA‐0010774 LaFayette Road GDOTResurface LaFayette Rd and associated parking


GA‐0011682 I‐24/SR 299 GDOTBridge replacement‐ I‐24 at SR 299 6 miles NE of New England


GA‐11‐04CR835/Happy Vally Rd GDOT

CR 835/HAPPY VALLEY RD @ OVERFLOWCHATTANOOGA & OVERFLOW

Project complete

GA‐621530SR151/Alabama Hwy GDOT

Widen from 2 to 4 lanes with turn lanes as needed


GA‐632885 US 41 GDOTUS 41 at Tiger Creek, 1.9 east of Ringgold


152


GA‐InterImp Osburn Road Walker CountyOsburn Road improvements in Walker County


GA‐ResurfacingVarious within the Chattanooga MPO

Catoosa County

Various road resurfacing in Catoosa County


Lake View at CR80 Lake View Drive GDOT Intersection Improvement

Project complete

WalkerStudy Wilson Road Walker CountyStudy of transportation improvements on Wilson Road in Walker County


153

APPENDIX B

PROJECT APPLICATION & SELECTION PROCESS

154


155

Overview of the 2014‐2017 TIP Application Process

For the 2014‐2017 TIP, the TPO issued a unified Call for Projects encompassing the sub‐allocated Federal funds for the metropolitan Surface Transportation Program (STP‐M) and the new legislated MPO allocation of the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), formerly known as Transportation Enhancements (TE/ENH). Including both Federal fund sources in the same Call for Projects helped to streamline the process and allow a variety of project types to be competitive across all (eligible) fund sources.

Applications were solicited via the TPO’s on‐line SurveyMonkey portal, as has been the process with prior TIP cycles, and project sponsors were given approximately four weeks to prepare and submit project applications. The 2014‐2017 TIP application included a new section to support enhanced TIP project evaluation procedures and that section will be expanded with the next TIP cycle as outlined in the Expanded Project Evaluation section of this Appendix. The new section and future expanded evaluation questions require project sponsors to provide an additional level of detail related to project benefits and impacts across multiple performance measure categories, consistent with the recently developed 2040 RTP performance framework. These categories align with the Performance Measures of MAP‐21 and include:

• System Maintenance;

• Congestion Reduction;

• Safety and Security;

• Economic Growth/Freight Movement;

• Environmental Sustainability;

• System Reliability; and

• Project Delivery.

156

Overview of TIP Project Evaluation Procedures

To support the development of the 2040 RTP, the TPO has developed a new Community to Region performance framework which reflects and respects the differences between small‐scale community projects and large‐scale regional needs across three geographic scales “Within Community”, “Community to Region”, and “Region to Region” as show in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Community to Region Performance Framework

Table 1 aligns a set of systems‐level and project‐level performance measures to the 2040 RTP objectives and establishes weights by performance measure category for the three geographic scales.1 The 2014‐2017 TIP project evaluation process implements the same RTP performance framework and applies the same project‐level performance measures. This ensures that the TIP projects are being evaluated in a manner consistent with long‐range goals and objectives and allows TPO staff to leverage the project evaluation tools developed for the RTP.

The project evaluation section of the TIP call for projects, included in this Appendix, asks the project sponsors to respond to a series of questions that address each of the RTP project‐level performance measures. The TPO then uses this information to identify the appropriate performance scale for each project and, using an Excel‐based calculator, generate a project score using weights that vary by performance measure given the scale of the project. The result is a ranked list of projects, by score, within each of the three scales, and a combined ranking across all three scales. This technical evaluation was conducted for capacity‐adding projects (road and transit), bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and system operations projects.

1 The weights were established through an interactive stakeholder process.

157

- 3 -

Table 1. 2040 RTP Performance Measures for Systems‐Level and Project‐Level Evaluation (Applied to 2014‐2017 TIP)

Performance Measure Categorya 2040 RTP Objectivesb

System‐Level Measure

Project‐Level Measure

Scale 1 Pt. Within

Community

Scale 2 Pts. Community to Region

Scale 3 Pts. Region to Region

System Maintenance

Preserve, maintain and improve existing infrastructure

• Pavement: Percent Lane Miles in Good/Fair Condition

• Bridge: Average Health Index

• Project Addresses Pavement Deficiency

• Project Addresses Bridge Deficiency

15 15 15

Congestion Reduction

Reduce delay on critical regional thoroughfares

Average Commute Trip Time, Auto and Transit

Project Reduces Delay • Interstate/Expressway • Corridor Connection to Key Center

10 15 20

Safety and Security

Improve operations, maintenance, and ADA compliance

Number of Projects (and Total Funding) Addressing RTP Safety Areas

• Project Includes Countermeasure(s) to address RTP Safety Emphasis Areas

• Project Addresses Security or Emergency Response Need

15 15 15

Economic Growth/ Freight Movement

• Improve intermodal connections • Reduce delay on critical freight corridors

Annual Congestion Costs, Truck and Auto

Project Reduces Delay • Intermodal Connection • Freight Corridor

5 10 20

Environmental Sustainability

• Incentive complete streets projects• Support desired community character• Support healthy, safe communities • Promote safe connections to community resources

VMT per Capita • Project Reduces VMT • Project Promotes Nonmotorized Access to Community Resources

• Project is in Keeping with Community Character

30 20 10

System Reliability

• Expand set of travel options • Encourage connected, multimodal network

• Improve system operations • Incentive corridor protection plans

Mode Split • Project Located on Facility with Corridor Protection Plan

• Project Fills Gap in Existing System • Project Improves Efficiency through ITS

15 15 10

Project Delivery

Percent Projects Completed/Advanced from Previous Plan

Project Supported by TDOT and Local Jurisdiction

10 10 10

a Performance Measure Categories align directly with MAP‐21 national transportation goal areas. b Objectives are abbreviated from adopted 2040 RTP goals/objectives. They are aligned with a performance measurement category that most closely represents intent of objective; however many objectives (and corresponding performance measures) support more than one performance category.

158

- 4 -

Table 2. 2040 RTP Project Level Performance Measures Calculation Detail

Performance Measure Category

Project‐Level Measure

Calculation Detail

System Maintenance

Project Addresses Pavement Deficiency From January 29 performance measures workshop, project‐level condition data is not readily available. Points awarded (Yes/No) based on review of project scope to determine if pavement rehabilitation or repaving is included.

Congestion Reduction

Project Addresses Bridge Deficiency Points awarded (Yes/No) based on review of project scope, along with a cross‐check of any structurally deficient bridges on project facility using National Bridge Inventory database.

Safety and Security

Project Reduces Delay • Interstate/Expressway • Corridor Connection to Key Center

Vehicle‐hours delay within ½‐mile buffer of project facility calculated for all projects and used to assign portion of point value. Additional points (up to max) provided if project falls on either an Interstate/expressway or corridor connection to activity or employment center.

Economic Growth/ Freight Movement

Project Includes Countermeasure(s) to address RTP Safety Emphasis Areas

From performance measures workshop, and follow‐up with Tennessee Department of Safety, comprehensive crash data by project location is not readily available. Points awarded (Yes/No) based on review of project scope to identify if countermeasures that address RTP safety emphasis areas (Roadway Departure, Aggressive Driving, Intersection Improvement) are included. Note that safety was weighted the highest across all performance measurement categories at January 29 Performance Measures Workshop. Given data limitations, some points were shifted from safety category to other measurement categories that indirectly support safety improvements (e.g., VMT reduction).

Environmental Sustainability

Project Addresses Security or Emergency Response Need

Security points calculated (Yes/No) based on project scope, with cross‐check to identify if project provides network redundancy or enhances mobility in relation to “critical facilities” in region as identified through Climate Adaptation workshop.

System Reliability

Project Reduces Delay • Intermodal Connection • Freight Corridor

Vehicle‐hours delay within ½‐mile buffer of project facility calculated for all projects and used to assign portion of point value. Additional points (up to max) provided for projects reducing delay at either intermodal location or if project falls on freight network.

Project Delivery

Project Reduces VMT VMT reduction within ½‐mile buffer of project facility used to assign points for each project. Note that VMT reduction is also used as proxy for air quality and GHG emissions reduction.

159

- 5 -

TIP Business Rules

For the development of this 2014‐2017 TIP, the TPO conducted a full evaluation of the TIP development process, reviewed other MPO TIP development procedures, and implemented a new Project Application and Selection Process. The TPO has a new set of established business rules which are intended to serve as guiding principles for TPO staff when developing and maintaining the TIP. These rules are as follows:

• Rule 1. TIP Development Cycle – Prior to the beginning of each major TIP update cycle, the

TPO will detail a schedule of key TIP development milestones that coincide with TDOT/GDOT STIP schedule requirements and communicate key dates with local project sponsors prior to the beginning of the Federal fiscal year (October 1). Establishing key dates at the outset of each update cycle will give project sponsors ample notice for scheduling purposes and gathering the information required to submit projects for evaluation. Key TIP development milestones should include dates for the TIP workshop(s); issuance of the Call for Projects (if applicable for that particular year); deadline to submit project applications; TIP selection sub‐committee meetings; TPO Board meetings; and Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) and Interagency Consultation Committee (IAC) meetings. The TIP schedule should be posted on‐line, as well as emailed/hard‐copy attachment to all local jurisdictions. Any expected deviations from the dates established at the outset of the TIP update cycle should be communicated to all project sponsors as early as possible, but no later than four weeks prior to the originally established date.

• Rule 2. TIP Amendment Cycles – TPO staff currently address administrative TIP modifications and minor amendments (that do not require conformity analysis) on an as needed basis. The TPO will continue to process amendments on an as‐needed basis. This provides flexibility for project sponsors to move projects forward more quickly and helps the TPO manage staff resources by spreading amendments out over time.

• Rule 3. Project Identification – Projects considered for each TIP cycle should be drawn from the TPO’s adopted long‐range regional transportation plan, as the TIP serves as the first four (implementation) years of the long‐range planning document. New projects (i.e., those projects not currently included in the fiscally constrained portion of the transportation plan) should be considered for the TIP only when new funds have been identified for a project that was unable to be fiscally constrained in the transportation plan and the project is shown in the plan’s illustrative list or when a stand‐alone call for STP‐M or TAP funds is needed to either 1) program unobligated dollars from a previous fiscal year, or 2) program new funds for a new year of the TIP. New major capacity additions to the TIP should be considered as part of a major TIP update cycle only, to align conformity determinations and ensure consistent regional priorities between the TIP and plan. One, distinct project sponsor should be clearly identified for each project as part of the TIP application.

• Rule 4. MPO Controlled TIP Funds – For roadway capacity projects funded all, or in part, by STP‐M or TAP funds, the TPO will request the project sponsor address access management as a design element and budget for such as part of the Preliminary Engineering phase. This will provide detail needed by the TPO to work with the project sponsor and impacted local communities as part of subsequent right‐of‐way (ROW) and Construction phases to help ensure land use and land development are appropriately considered as part of project development.

160

• Rule 5. TIP Project Evaluation – Based on initial testing of revised TIP project evaluation procedures applied to the 2014‐2017 metropolitan STP and TAP projects, as described in Appendix B, the TPO staff will develop summary guidance to accompany the TIP application on how to provide the appropriate level of detail for project scope, cost, and schedule and how to define the project sponsor. This same information will be used at each TIP workshop to inform and illustrate for sponsors the required level of detail when submitting a project for Federal funding. This guidance will also include information for sponsors on how to formally notify the TPO of any changes to project scope, schedule, and budget.

• Rule 6. TIP Project Costing – To address potential project cost overruns, the TPO will consider, before the next TIP cycle, a Local Program Contingency Fund which is recommended to be five to ten percent for each project (all phases: Preliminary Engineering, ROW, and Construction) and would be added as an incremental cost to the original estimate submitted by the local project sponsor. The TPO would hold this contingency funding in reserve as part of the project’s line item funding. Should the project cost exceed the original estimate for a given phase, the TPO would utilize the reserve funding to cover the additional costs (the project sponsor will be responsible for providing the 20 percent local match). Project cost overruns that exceed the contingency would then be considered for TPO approval and potential reprogramming as described in Rule 8.

• Rule 7. Project Programming / Phasing – The TPO will consider, before the next TIP cycle, adoption of a formal phasing schedule requirement for project sponsors of major capacity projects to help address scheduling and implementation challenges. The schedule would identify all relevant phases of the project with specific funding sources (Federal, state, local) as outlined on the TIP project page, but the sponsor would note for each phase the activities necessary to move the project to the next programmed phase. The recommended timeframe expected between programming phases for such major construction projects is three to four years which is a conservative phasing schedule for capacity‐adding projects (those associated with air quality conformity).

• Rule 8. Project Reprogramming – To present, all unobligated projects in the existing TIP have automatically been reprogrammed by TPO staff unless the staff has been informed otherwise. From this TIP forward, any project that has exceeded 10 percent of the original cost estimate, any changes to project scope, schedule, or budget that trigger delays in the excess of a subsequent programmed phase, and/or any programmed phase not obligated within two years will require the project sponsor to complete an “Exceptions List” form prior to the commencement of a new TIP development cycle. This list will then be vetted with the TPO Board and/or Committees to determine if the changes/delays are reasonable and project should remain a priority with roll‐over funds applied, or the project should re‐compete for Federal funds through the established project selection process. The Exceptions List form will be developed by TPO staff prior to the next TIP cycle.

161

2014‐2017 Local Project Selection Process

The steps below provide a chronological set of events and activities associated with the submittal, preparation, and final selection of the local projects for the TPO’s designated allocation of Metropolitan Surface Transportation Program (STP‐M) and Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) funds for the development of the 2014‐2017 TIP.

1. Early notification of the upcoming TIP cycle was provided to the TPO TCC and Board members on September 28, 2012 and a workshop invitation was provide on December 12, 2012.

2. January 2013: A TIP development workshop was held on January 20, 2013 to discuss the new proposal for TIP project evaluation and selection and well as to review timelines, project eligibility, and discuss needs.

3. January – March 2013: The TPO met with municipalities to determine status of current projects and discuss need for new projects as many times as desired by project sponsors.

4. February‐March 2013: The official notice of the call for projects was provided to the TPO on February 7, 2013 which commenced the application submittal process and established the deadline as March 5, 2013. Project sponsors completed the online the project application(s), provided in the application section of this appendix.

5. March 2013: The local governments and project sponsors gathered supplemental information requested in the application to justify the purpose and need of the projects. This information includes preliminary description of the projects, including cost estimates for engineering, right‐of‐way requirements, materials and labor, and location maps are submitted by the applicant. Estimates on phasing and length of time for implementation of the project, including anticipated start and completion dates, are also included.

6. March ‐ April 2013: Projects were reviewed for their purpose and assigned a scale category

(1, 2, or 3) from the adopted Community to Region Performance Framework and then evaluated accordingly based the TPO’s establish weights in each scale for the legislated performance measures in which the TPO established specific calculation criteria associated with each measure. Points were awarded for each project for each measure and final points across all measures were calculated and assigned as the actual evaluation score for each project.

7. April 9 – 10, 2013: The STP‐M and TAP Review committee(s) reviewed the evaluated projects and prioritized the list for consideration by the TPO policy committees.

8. April – May, 2013: Utilizing the desired phasing requested by the project sponsors and the priorities of the committee(s), the TPO staff fiscally constrained to the best extent possible the projects based on the TPO’s available revenue of STP‐M and TAP designated allocations of funding.

162

9. May 7, 2013: The TPO TCC meeting reviewed the list of prioritized and fiscally constrained list of projects and took action on a revised list that was recommended to the TPO Board.

10. May 9, 2013: The TCC’s recommended projects underwent public review.

11. May 28, 2013: The TPO Executive Board approved by resolution the recommended list with staff edits to accommodated errors and a Federal rescission as well as accommodations to address concerns of the public voiced during the public review period (see attached).

163

ChatlanooUI-Hamlllon County

Regional PlannIng Agency

Executive Office

Development Services

Transportation Planning Organization (TPO)

RESOLUTION OF THECHATTANOOGA-HAMILTON COUNTY/NORTH GEORGIA

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATIONTO APPROVE A FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PROJECT LIST FOR

PROGRAMMING OF METROPOLITAN SURFACE TRANSPORTATIONPROGRAM (STP-M) AND TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM

(TAP) FUNDS FOR THE 2014-2017 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTPROGRAM

WHEREAS, the Chattanooga-Hamilton County/North GeorgiaTransportation Planning Organization (TPO) has the responsibility under 23 CFR450.324 to facilitate a process for the development of and preparation of documentationfor a four-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and

WHEREAS, this process involves the prioritization and selection ofprojects for programming ofthe Federally legislated metropolitan allocation of SurfaceTransportation Program funds and the Transportation Alternatives Program funds; and

WHEREAS, the these funds are allocated for the Tennessee and Georgiaportions of our Metropolitan Transportation Planning Area separately; and

WHEREAS, the TPO provided advanced notice of the application processto eligible project sponsors, held a TIP education workshop, and provided notice to thepublic; and

WHEREAS, projects were submitted during an application periodbetween February and March of2013 and said projects were evaluated and scored foreffectiveness in meeting transportation goals and performance measures set forth in theTPO's new approved Community to Region Scale for performance-based planning; and

WHEREAS, the TPO TIP Selection Subcommittee(s) reviewed theevaluated and scored projects for the TAP and STP-M funding programs; and

WHEREAS, the TPO staff presented to the TPO's Technical CoordinatingCommittee (TCC) a fiscally constrained recommendation based on the evaluation and theSelection Committee(s) prioritization; and

WHEREAS, the TCC accepted the staffs recommendation with an edit tothe Georgia portion as noted in the motion for approval and presented thisrecommendation to the public for comment on May 9,2013 in which opposition wasdocumented for one project and consideration given; and

Executive Office/TPO(423)757-5216Fax:(423)757-5532

1250 Market Street. Suite 2000, Development Resource CenterChattanooga, Tennessee 37402

www.chcrpa.org

Development Services(423)668-2287Fax:(423)668-2289

164

165

2014‐2017 TPO Local Project Application & Project Evaluation Criteria

The following pages contain the TPO’s Call for Projects application. This application was provided online via SurveyMonkey.com. TPO staff also provided hardcopies of the application during TIP related workshops and/or meetings and upon request. TPO staff also aided project sponsors in keying information into the online system. Given the SurveyMonkey tool had been utilized in the past for project submittals, the TPO staff conferred with the TPO membership to ensure this system met project sponsors needs. It was agreed that TPO staff would continue to utilize this format for future project submittal processes.

166

1. Applicant

2. Name of Project

3. Check the project category that most closely reflects the primary purpose of the project.

4. Please give a brief description of the project.

5. For which federal fiscal year is this project or project phase being requested for programming? Keep in mind the federal cycle is October 1 September 30. If a project is requested for programming in FY 2015, then it is expected that the project sponsor will be ready to begin contracts with the State DOT in October of 2014.

Section A. General Information

*

*

*

*55

66

Roadway Capacity

nmlkj

Transit Capacity

nmlkj

Intersection Improvement or Traffic Control (Traffic Operations)

nmlkj

Roadway Resurfacing/Rehabilitation (Preservation of Existing Road)

nmlkj

Bridge Maintenance/Repair (Preservation of Existing Bridge)

nmlkj

Bridge Capacity

nmlkj

Road improvement (noncapacity adding)/Realignment (Center Turn Lane, Restriping etc.)

nmlkj

Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvement/Complete Streets (this includes some transit facitiies such as shelters)

nmlkj

Safety Improvement

nmlkj

Planning Study

nmlkj

2014

nmlkj 2015

nmlkj 2016

nmlkj 2017

nmlkj Later

nmlkj

167

6. Please submit a cost estimate, location map, documentation of purpose and need, proposed phasing of the project (all phase timeline), estimated start date of project, and evidence of match dollars commitment from local elected officials (a signed resolution) to Betsy Evans at [email protected]. Projects will not be considered for the 20142017 TIP without complete information provided.

I am emailing this information following submittal of the application today.

nmlkj

I will email the information on or before March 31, 2012.

nmlkj

168

The following questions are used as screening criteria. If an applicant answers no to any of these questions, the applicant must go through the process to remedy their situation at a subsequent TPO meeting prior to proceeding with this application process.

7. Is this project on the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)? If no, the applicant must got through the process to be placed in the LRTP prior to this application. View the LRTP at http://www.chcrpa.org/TPO_reorganized/Plans_and_Programs/LRTP.htm, but direct attention to these two sections in particular based on your project: Strategy by Mode pages 211230: studies, safety, resurfacing, maintenance, operations, bike/ped complete streets, transit operations, and ITS related projects as these projects are typically TPO areawide projects which are not specifically identified in the Plan's Project List. Project Lists Appendix A: capacity adding roadway projects and specific transit projects.

8. If this project is a road or intersection improvement, is the road on the TDOT/GDOT Functional Classification System? Maps of the systems can be found here: http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/longrange/functionalclass.htm or http://www.dot.state.ga.us/maps/pages/highwaysystem.aspx. If not, the project is not eligible and must be added to the system prior to this application process.

9. If this project is a bridge, has an application for TDOT or GDOT's Bridge Replacement Funds been submitted for this project? When? If not, the applicant must go through TDOT's process prior to this application process.

10. If this project is a sidewalk or bikeway facility, is it part of the 2010 Chattanooga Area Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan? If not, the applicant should email Betsy Evans, [email protected] to ensure compatibility with the plan.

*

55

66

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

169

11. If this project is a greenway, is it part of the Trust for Public Land's (TPL) Chattanooga Greenways Master Plan (For verification contact TPL at (423) 2655229 or if it provides connections to other greenways or trail networks, please supply documentation.

12. Does your agency or municipality have a written policy stating that transportation services will be provided to all persons without regard to race, color, or national origin?

13. Are permanent records kept of all Title VI complaints?

14. Is Title VI information disseminated to your employees, applicants or other beneficiaries of service? If yes, how?

55

66

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

170

15. Will this project improve mobility within the community? This relates specfically to the new Community to Region scale developed as part of the new 2040 Plan and this new 20142017 TIP evaluation process. A copy may be obtained by emailing [email protected].

16. Will this project improve regional mobility? This relates specfically to the new Community to Region scale developed as part of the new 2040 Plan and this new 20142017 TIP evaluation process. A copy may be obtained by emailing [email protected].

17. Will this project address an existing pavement deficiency?

18. If the answer to Question 18 is "Yes," Please describe any current pavement deficiencies on this roadway and how this project would address these deficiencies?

19. Please note the year of most recent pavement resurfacing/rehabilitation.

20. Will this project address an existing bridge deficiency?

21. If the answer to Question 21 is "Yes," please describe any current bridge deficiencies on the project facility and how this project would address these deficiencies?

Section B. Project Evaluation Section of 20142017 TIP Call for Projects

*

*

*

55

66

6

*

55

66

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

171

22. Will this project address any of the following safety emphasis areas that have been identified for the region? To better assess your project impact relative to these, please visit our 2040 RTP website for the October meeting presentation at http://www.slideshare.net/CHCRPA/octobercaccttmeetingpresentation, see slides 33 and 34.

23. Please select safety countermeasures related to ROADWAY DEPARTURE that will be implemented for this project (check all that apply):

24. Please select safety countermeasures related to AGGRESSIVE DRIVING that will be implemented for this project (check all that apply):

Safety Countermeasures

Roadway Departure

gfedc

Aggressive Driving/Speeding

gfedc

Intersections

gfedc

Identify corridors & locations with significant number of roadway departure crashes.

gfedc

Installation of shoulder rumble strips & centerline rumble strips.

gfedc

Installation of guardrails & median barriers.

gfedc

Safety edge treatments on shoulders where required.

gfedc

Removal of hazardous obstacles in the clear zone on rightofway.

gfedc

Shoulder treatments eliminating shoulder drop offs; widening/paving shoulders.

gfedc

Other proven roadway departure strategy (please describe):

gfedc

55

66

Enforcement programs at high frequency aggressive driving areas

gfedc

Public information & education programs on the dangers of aggressive driving

gfedc

Other proven aggressive driving/speed reduction strategy

55

66

172

25. Please select safety countermeasures related to INTERSECTIONS that will be implemented for this project (check all that apply):

Identify intersections based on systematic analysis, high frequency crashes, or any other methodology

gfedc

Implement cost effective improvement strategies

gfedc

Increased enforcement at suspect redlight running intersections

gfedc

Public information programs on the importance of compliance with traffic control devices

gfedc

Other proven intersection strategy

55

66

173

26. Would this project address any security concerns? If so, please describe.

27. Would this project be located along a primary evacuation route? If so, please provide the name of the primary route and the parallel route.

28. Would this project promote safe, nonmotorized travel?

29. Please check the box of each infrastructure item that would be constructed/enhanced in association with this project.

*55

66

*

55

66

*Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Sidewalks

gfedc

Bike lanes/wide paved shoulders

gfedc

Special bus lanes

gfedc

Comfortable & accessible public transportation stops

gfedc

Frequent & safe crossing opportunities

gfedc

Median Islands

gfedc

Accessible pedestrian signals

gfedc

Curb extensions

gfedc

Narrower travel lanes

gfedc

Roundabouts

gfedc

Other (please specify)

174

30. Would this project be in keeping with the desired community character (e.g. supports local comprehensive plans, local green infrastructure plans, etc.)? If so, please list any local plans that were consulted when developing this project. What aspects of this project contribute to the plan's vision for the community? RPA maintains a list of Hamilton County area plans at http://www.chcrpa.org/Projects/Land_Use_Plans/Land_Use_Plans_AF.htm and for GA the Northwest Georgia Regional Commission maintains land use plans at http://www.nwgrc.org/ageplan.html.

31. Is the project located on a facility with a corridor protection or similar plan in place (e.g., access management or other travel demand management programs in place along corridor)? If so, please name the plan and describe how the project supports the objectives of the plan.

32. Would this project improve efficiency by filling any gaps in the existing system (e.g., support roadway grid system, fill gap in bicycle or sidewalk system, support connection to existing or planned transit stop/station)? If so, please describe.

33. Would this project improve efficiency through the application of ITS?

*

55

66

*

55

66

*

55

66

*Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

175

34. Which of the following ITS applications would be employed in this project to improve travel efficiency?

35. Please provide more detail about how the items checked in Question 35 would improve travel efficiency.

36. Is the project supported by TDOT/GDOT and local jurisdictions?

37. Which agency is providing the local funding match (a minimum 20% is required on most projects)?

38. Is local funding from a dedicated or historic funding source?

39. What percent of the total project cost has been committed by local funding sources?

You have now completed the application process. Thank you for your efforts!

55

66

*

*

*

*

Real time signage

gfedc

Improved traffic control center

gfedc

Signal synchronization

gfedc

Incident response

gfedc

Ramp metering

gfedc

Other (please specify)

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

176

Expanded Evaluation Application Section for TPO Local Call for Projects

Given the project evaluation criteria differed from the 2011‐2014 TIP, some questions asked in the Project Application were simplified to ensure project sponsors were able to address each criteria. For the future, the following criteria will be provided as outlined below along with guidance from TPO staff on how best to prepare for answers to these questions for future TIP applications.

• Will this project improve mobility within the community? [Y/N]

• Will this project improve regional mobility? [Y/N]

• Will this project address an existing pavement deficiency? [Y/N]

− Please describe any current pavement deficiencies on this roadway and how this project would address these deficiencies? [TEXT BOX]

− Please note year of most recent pavement resurfacing/rehabilitation [DROP DOWN LIST OF EACH YEAR FROM 2003‐2013 AND “BEFORE 2003”]

• Will this project address an existing bridge deficiency? [Y/N]

− Please describe any current bridge deficiencies on project facility and how this project would address these deficiencies? [TEXT BOX]

• Will this project address any of the following safety emphasis areas that have been identified for the region?

− Roadway Departure [CHECK BOX]

− Aggressive Driving/Speeding [CHECK BOX]

− Intersections [CHECK BOX]

• Please select all of the safety countermeasures that will be implemented for this project:

Emphasis Area Strategies

Roadway Departure

Identify corridors and locations with significant number of roadway departure crashes.

[CHECK BOX]

Installation of shoulder rumble strips and centerline rumble strips.

[CHECK BOX]

Installation of guardrails andmedian barriers. [CHECK BOX]Safety edge treatments on shoulders where required. [CHECK BOX]Removal of hazardous obstacles in the clear zone on right‐of‐way.

[CHECK BOX]

Shoulder treatments – eliminating shoulder drop offs; [CHECK BOX]

177

Emphasis Area Strategies

widening/paving shoulders.Other proven roadway departure strategy. [TEXT BOX TO DESCRIBE]

[CHECK BOX]

Aggressive Driving

Enforcement programs at high‐frequency aggressive driving areas.

[CHECK BOX]

Public information and education programs on the dangers of aggressive driving.

[CHECK BOX]

Other proven aggressive driving/speed reduction strategy. [TEXT BOX TO DESCRIBE]

[CHECK BOX]

Intersections

Identify intersections based on systemic analysis, high‐frequency crashes, or any other methodology.

[CHECK BOX]

Implement cost‐effective improvement strategies. [CHECK BOX]Increased enforcement at suspect red‐light running intersections.

[CHECK BOX]

Public information programs on the importance of compliance with traffic control devices.

[CHECK BOX]

Other proven intersection strategy. [TEXT BOX TO DESCRIBE] [CHECK BOX]

• Would this project address any security concerns? [Y/N]

− If so, please describe. [TEXT BOX]

• Would this project be located along a primary evacuation route? [Y/N]

− If so, which route? [TEXT BOX]

• Would this project be located along a corridor that parallels a primary evacuation route? [Y/N]

− If so, please provide the name of the primary route and the parallel route. [TEXT BOX]

• Would this project promote safe, non‐motorized travel? [Y/N]

− Please check the box of each infrastructure item that would be constructed/enhanced in association with this project.

Sidewalks [CHECK BOX]

Bike lanes/wide paved shoulders [CHECK BOX]

Special bus lanes [CHECK BOX]

Comfortable and accessible public transportation stops [CHECK BOX]

Frequent and safe crossing opportunities [CHECK BOX]

Median islands [CHECK BOX]

178

Accessible pedestrian signals [CHECK BOX]

Curb extensions [CHECK BOX]

Narrower travel lanes [CHECK BOX]

Roundabouts [CHECK BOX]

Other [TEXT BOX TO DESCRIBE] [CHECK BOX]

179

• Would this project be in keeping with the desired community character (e.g., supports local comprehensive plans, local green infrastructure plans, etc.)? [Y/N]

− Please list any local plans that were consulted when developing this project. [TEXT BOX]

− What aspects of this project contribute to the plan’s vision for the community? [TEXT BOX]

• Is the project located on a facility with a corridor protection or similar plan in place (e.g., access management or other travel demand management programs in place along corridor)? [Y/N]

− Please name the plan and describe how the project supports the objectives of the plan. [TEXT BOX]

• Would this project improve efficiency by filling any gaps in the existing system (e.g., support roadway grid system, fill gap in bicycle or sidewalk system, support connection to existing or planned transit stop/station)? [Y/N]

− Please describe. [TEXT BOX]

• Would this project improve efficiency through the application of ITS? [Y/N]

− Which of the following ITS applications would be employed in this project to improve travel efficiency:

Real‐time signage [CHECK BOX]

Improved traffic control center [CHECK BOX]

Signal synchronization [CHECK BOX]

Incident response [CHECK BOX]

Ramp metering [CHECK BOX]

Other [TEXT BOX TO DESCRIBE] [CHECK BOX]

− Please provide more detail about how the items checked above would improve travel efficiency. [TEXT BOX]

• Is the project supported by TDOT/GDOT and local jurisdictions? [Y/N]

− Which agency is providing the local funding match? [TEXT BOX]

− Is local funding from a dedicated or historic funding source? [TEXT BOX]

• What percent of the total project cost has been committed by local funding sources? [NUMERIC ENTRY]

180


181

APPENDIX C

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

182


183

Public Participation for the CHCNGA TPO 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program

As noted in the main text of the TIP document, the public has been engaged throughout the process during monthly Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) and Executive Board meetings which are advertised in five newspapers including a Spanish language publication, and on the TPO website (www.chcrpa.org/TPO.htm). TPO policy meetings specifically discussing this 2014-2017 TIP occurred between March and May 2013. A public meeting on the local projects recommended for programming under the TPO’s designated allocation of Metropolitan Surface Transportation Program (STP-M) and Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) funds was held on May 9, 2013 and two comments were received relative to one project. The sign-in sheet for this meeting and the comments accompanied with the TPO’s staff response are provided in this appendix. After submitting to and adequately addressing comments of state and federal partners during the months of June, July, and August the TIP was approved for a 14-day public comment period per the TPO’s approved Participation Plan by the TCC on X XX, 2013. A formal public meeting was held on X XX, 2013 from 4:30-6:00 PM at four locations within the TPO area to ensure adequate opportunity for all citizens to participate. Additionally, notice was provided to the Human Services Transportation Coordination Committee to encourage participation from the transit dependent sector. Copies of the public notice, comment cards, and public input received are included on the following pages of this appendix.

184

LEGAL NOTICE

PUBLIC MEETING MAY 9, 2013

DOWNTOWN CHATTANOOGA DEVELOPMENT RESOURCE CENTER

1250 MARKET STREET The Chattanooga-Hamilton County / North Georgia Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) will hold a public meeting on the evening of Thursday, May 9, 2013 (4:00-6:00 p.m. Eastern) in the First Floor Meeting Room, (Conference Room #1-A) at the Development Resource Center, 1250 Market Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402 for the purpose of reviewing project lists for the 2014‐2017 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM:

• Transportation Alternatives Program Project List for the 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program

• Surface Transportation Program Metropolitan Project List for the 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program

The Regional Planning Agency provides language assistance needs for Limited English Proficiency individuals. For additional information or to talk with staff, please contact the Regional Planning Agency at (423) 757-5216.

185

186

Public Comments/Questions for the Transportation Improvement Program May 9, 2013

Recorded Comments

Comment 1: Perrin Lance ‐ Representing Lincoln Park residents/president Ms. Vannice Hughley and Tiffany Rankins spoke upon their behalf for the Lincoln Park community which oppose the Central Avenue project from Blackford Street to Riverside Drive and requests the federal government deny the request for federal money given there was not sufficient notice provided to the Lincoln Park community. The individual indicated they would email a timeline of events outlining their concerns as their formalized public comment.

Comment 2: Wiley Morton – Representing Lincoln Park commented that the lack of land use planning in a public forum by the City played a big role in this situation where the community never had a chance to voice their opinions or hear how the project might impact them.

TPO Response

TPO staff response to Comment 1: Staff indicated they would await the email with full documentation of the complaint before providing an official response. Staff received the Lincoln Park official comment documentation on May 23, 2013 and May 24, 2013. Staff provided a response and forwarded the materials to the TPO policy memberships. The emails and opposition documents are included in the following pages. Staff also indicated they would verbalize this information during the TPO Board meeting prior to any action by resolution.

TPO staff response to Comment 2: Staff indicated they would verbalize this concern during the TPO Board meeting prior to any action by resolution.

187

Formal Complaint to the Chattanooga Hamilton County/North Georgia TransportationPlanning Organization Against the City of Chattanooga by the “Coalition to Save Lincoln

Park” Against a Proposed Extension of Central Avenue

Thursday, May 23rd, 2013

Summary: The “Coalition to Save Lincoln Park”, a group of concerned individuals andneighborhood associations led by the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Association formally asks theChattanooga Hamilton County/North Georgia Transportation Planning Organization (TPO)Executive Board to deny the allocation of Federal highway dollars to the City of Chattanooga’sproposed extension of Central Avenue to Riverside Drive.

Background:The City of Chattanooga is proposing a project called “Extension of Central Avenue to Connectto Riverside Drive”. This project is to be considered for up to $5.9 million dollars of Federalhighway funds. The proposed extension of Central Avenue would cut through and significantlymar the historic Lincoln Park located in the predominantly AfricanAmerican community ofLincoln Park located in downtown Chattanooga. The width of the road could be up to five lanesand trucks would not be prohibited. The route would effectively serve as a connector from I24 toAmnicola Highway, thus making it a heavily trafficked industrial corridor.

Founded in 1918, Lincoln Park was once Chattanooga’s only recreation center forAfricanAmericans during the time of segregation. It’s significance in local AfricanAmericanhistory and in the culture of the AfricanAmerican population throughout the Southeast cannot beunderstated.

Leaders of the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Association contend that their community was keptpurposefully excluded from the decisionmaking process by the City of Chattanooga that resultedin the decision to extend Central Avenue through their community.

Reasons:Sponsoring Entity (City of Chattanooga) failed to meaningfully include and exhibited apattern of purposeful exclusion against the most directlyimpacted community in theplanning and decisionmaking process.

Leaders of the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Association contend that their community waskept illinformed and excluded from the decisionmaking processes that have resulted inthe decision to extend Central Avenue through Lincoln Park. Elected leaders in theNeighborhood Association include Ms. Vannice Hughley, the President, and TiffanyRankins, the Secretary of the Association. Below follows a timeline of events relating theexclusion of the community from the process:

188

Timeline of Events:

November 5th, 2011 Leaders of Lincoln Park first learn about the attempt to extendCentral Avenue through their community by reading an article in the Times Free Press.Prior to this, nobody from City government had contacted the Lincoln Park NeighborhoodAssociation. Alarmed, the President of the Association, Ms. Hughley, contacts then MayorLittlefield to have him come speak to the situation.

February 23rd, 2012 Mayor Littlefield and representatives from City Engineering metwith leadership from the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Association to tell them that certainroutes are being discussed in relation to a proposed extension of Central Avenue. At thetime, alternative routes that did not run through Lincoln Park were still being considered.The general consensus at the time is that a route through Lincoln Park is not a “donedeal”.

June 12th, 2012 The next time Lincoln Park’s leadership heard about any proposedextension was when then Councilman Andrae McGary called Ms. Hughley the day of avote to accept funds for the project resolution. Resolution #27133, was described as “aresolution relative to Central Avenue extension from 3rd Street to Riverside Drive” indicating that a route has already been decided. Over the objections of Ms. Hughleyand her daughter, Tiffany Rankins, the Lincoln Park Secretary, and despite the assertionsfrom Lincoln Park residents that their community had not been significantly ormeaningfully involved in the process, the Council voted to pass the resolution and acceptthe funds for the project.

December, 2012 Ms. Hughley asked Mayor Littlefield to come down to Lincoln Park topresent more information. Ms. Hughley stated that Littlefield came down and stated thatthe project was moving forward regardless of their concerns and that the project hadbeen 40 years in the works.

February 19th, 2013 Maps of the proposed routes are presented to the public for thefirst time, and all three routes that are up for consideration go through Lincoln Park. Theroutes are considered a “done deal” by City Engineering. Ms. Hughley responds that thisis the first time she has seen any relevant maps. Although the meeting’s organizers saythat they have been meeting with some neighborhood members, Ms. Hughley states thatshe hasn’t met with her, the President of the Association, and no one else they seem toknow. Lincoln Park residents at the meeting concur, and no community member orstakeholder present publicly voice support for the proposed routes.

Sponsoring Entity argued against historic status of directlyimpacted site during NEPAphase and did not consider the site’s cultural significance in the AfricanAmerican

189

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timesfreepress.com%2Fnews%2F2011%2Fnov%2F05%2Fcentral-avenue-extension-change-downtown-chattanoo%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHDgJk9gQu4QOnNEWdnz9NAwqGIUw

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4fjKMoaaNLmbUxpTGdvMjhtS1U/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4fjKMoaaNLmbUxpTGdvMjhtS1U/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/12jpy5Y-Hrwd_VaOsOGaVirSEx_ip8DKt4_tWG4tdCv9Q_VtgzOv5gwN94S4F/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/12jpy5Y-Hrwd_VaOsOGaVirSEx_ip8DKt4_tWG4tdCv9Q_VtgzOv5gwN94S4F/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4fjKMoaaNLmTUF4eE5BV3pHUjA/edit?usp=sharing

community. Projects seeking Federal highway dollars are subject to the requirements of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires that entities planning for any kind oftransportation project must consider the environmental impact of their project, includingthe impact of the project on sites that could be deemed eligible for preservation under theNational Historic Preservation Act.

Eligibility for historic preservation is determined by four criteria as found in 36 CFR 60.6. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad

patterns of history; Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of

construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artisticvalues, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whosecomponents may lack individual distinction

Have yielded or may likely yield information important in prehistory or history

Entities proposing projects that could have an adverse effect on historic properties mustperform an Assessment of Section 106 Effects to Historic Properties by applying theCriteria of Adverse Effect, set forth in 36 CFR 800.5:

Criteria of Adverse Effect. An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter,directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify theproperty for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish theintegrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, orassociation. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historicproperty, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the originalevaluation of the property’s eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects mayinclude reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later intime, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative.

City Engineering identified the Lincoln Park property as a site in the Area of PotentialEffect that could be eligible under National Register of Historic Places or Section 106adverse effects.

As evidenced in the City of Chattanooga’s assessment of the Lincoln Park site asdocumented in the attached summary document, the City did not consider the sitehistoric because “it did not retain its historic size and features; however, the City alsochose to ignore the significance of the Lincoln Park site in regards to the first two criteriaof events and persons, especially as it relates to AfricanAmerican history. It should benoted that the entire document does not once mention the word “Black” or“AfricanAmerican”.

190

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4fjKMoaaNLmbXhNdE1EVjZMQkU/edit?usp=sharing

“Lincoln Park – The preliminary assessment is that Lincoln Park does not meet NRHPeligibility because it does not retain its historic size and features. The park has beenreduced in size by over half. Additionally, the only historic features that remain on thesubject piece of land are: 1) the old gate post, which stands at the southern edge of thepark along Cleveland Street; 2) and the concession stand, which has been altered.Extant features in the park date to the 1980s and 1990s. While the tennis courts may beat or near their historic location, the current ballfield is not.” from summary document“Central Avenue Extension NEPA 472013”

In its assessment, the City failed to consider the site’s local, regional, and nationalhistoric significance, especially as it relates to the AfricanAmerican community. The parkwas the city’s first and only recreation center for AfricanAmericans during the times ofsegregation. It featured an Olympicsize swimming pool, widely known as the largest ofits kind in the Southeast. It also featured the first lighted softball fields forAfricanAmericans in the Southeast. This fact’s significance alone makes it worthy ofpreservation. By featuring the first lighted softball fields for AfricanAmericans. Lincolnpark widened the world of athletics to include minority populations for the first time.Before then, if you were Black, sports ended for you when the sun went down. Thenewlyopened fields encouraged teams from the old Negro Leagues all over the South tocome to Chattanooga to play their baseball games. These facts can make Lincoln Parkworthy of consideration under the first criteria of events that contributed to a boardpattern of history.

In its assessment, the City also failed to consider the site’s association with significantpersons in our past. The site is wellknown in the local community for being the locationof AfricanAmerican baseball legend Willie Mays’ first professional baseball game. It wasalso home to numerous games of the Negro League professional baseball teams. TheNegro Leagues were leagues of professional baseball teams composed primarily ofAfricanAmericans.

Despite the storied history of Lincoln Park and its cultural relevance, the City ofChattanooga could find no reason to consider it worthy of preservation. It is interesting tonote, however, that City did identify the “Cumberland Corporation” property as potentiallyhistoric solely due to the property’s architectural characteristics. This indicates that theCity is, in not incorrectly applying the NEPA criteria, then at least incompletely.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically prohibits the use of Federal funds thatin any way promotes racial discrimination.

The Coalition contends that this incomplete and incorrect application of NRHP standardsto exclude Lincoln Park from historic preservation consideration and the resultingadverse effects of the Central Avenue extension that would be rendered upon the parkcould, whether through intent or not, may qualify as racial discrimination in the allocation

191

of Federal funds to the project. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically prohibits the allocation of Federal funds

in anyway the promotes racial discrimination regardless of the presence of absence ofany intent to discriminate based upon race, color, or national origin. Under the “DisparateImpact/Effects” theory for proving Title VI violations, any recipient of Federal dollarscannot utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjectingindividuals to discrimination based upon race or color. The incomplete and incorrectapplication of NRHP criteria by City Engineering as evidenced in the failure to incorporatethe site’s historical and cultural significance in the AfricanAmerican community as wellas the exclusion of the Lincoln Park community in the planning and decision makingprocess could construe discrimination against the local AfricanAmerican community ofLincoln Park.

Alternate routes could produce similar results accomplished by the Central Avenueextension.

The Central Avenue extension is being proposed as a way to alleviate congestion on E.4th and E. 3rd Streets while also reduce travel time for emergency vehicles to Erlangerfrom approximately 6 minutes down to 2.4. The Central Avenue extension to Riversidedrive had been previously proposed in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan.

The Central Avenue extension’s route through Lincoln Park is derived from a studycreated by the company Volkert. Five possible routes were suggested by the study, threeof which run through Lincoln Park and two of which do not. Through reading the Volkertstudy, the Lincoln Park Coalition has determined that Alternative Route #5 could, if givenproper street design, achieve similar results as a Central Avenue extension. Accordingly,the Lincoln Park Coalition believes that these possible alternatives should bereconsidered and another study commenced.

The City’s plans for the extension come prior to the Third Street Corridor Study asproposed by the Regional Planning Agency.

The Regional Planning Agency has just been awarded an EPA grant towards conductinga master planning effort to include the area surrounding Lincoln Park. Internally, this effortis known as the Third Street Corridor Study. The decision to extend the road, however, iscoming before the RPA’s attempted effort to create a unified plan between the areasmajor stakeholders, including Erlanger, UTC, the railroad, and Lincoln Park.

The City’s plans for the extension completely disregards the current plans by theLincoln Park Neighborhood Association towards community renewal.

Lincoln Park is proud of its past but its even more excited about its future. Though thepark has been closed for several decades, recent attention by the AfricanAmericancommunity has turned towards renewing Lincoln Park. Plans include:

a rehabilitation of the park to restore it to its former glory

192

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=218174654784255513855.0004d974f1be3ac4e6d25&msa=0&ll=35.050385,-85.292605&spn=0.004049,0.007215



securing the park in a Land Trust to ensure that the park will always remain tothose whom it was meant to serve.

AfricanAmerican tourism.

Lincoln Park is partnering with Chattanooga Organized for Action, a local communityorganizing nonprofit, and the Planning Free School, a grassroots community planningproject led by Courtney Knapp, Ph.D. candidate from Cornell University, to work throughthe process of drafting a Community Vision and Community Plan which will outline thevisions that the community has for it’s future visions and dreams which should berespected and uplifted.

Conclusion:The “Coalition to Save Lincoln Park” requests that the TPO deny federal funding to the City ofChattanooga’s planned extension of Central Avenue. The project was conceived, designed, andimplemented without the meaningful inclusion or consent of the community mostdirectlyaffected by the project. The Coalition also believes that awarding the project Federalfunds may be a Title VI violation. Federal funds should only be awarded to projects thatdemonstrate a degree of accountability to those most directly impacted to those projects.Ultimately, the Lincoln Park community is comprised of Federal taxpayers whose tax dollarsshould not be spent either for against them without due process.

Coalition Partners: Lincoln Park Neighborhood Association Battery Heights Neighborhood Association Churchville Neighborhood Association Foxwood Heights Neighborhood Association Hill City Neighborhood Association Glenwood Neighborhood Association North Brainerd Neighborhood Association Piney Woods Neighborhood Association Riverside Community Club Orchard Knob Neighborhood Association Westside Community Association

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

Taylor Melissa

From: Taylor MelissaSent: Friday, May 24, 2013 10:53 AMTo: '[email protected]'Cc: '[email protected]'Subject: FW: Review: TIP project public opposition

Importance: High

Mr. Lance: The TPO staff received your supplemental documentation to the public input we received from you and other representatives during the May 9th public meeting on the project list for the 2014‐2017 Transportation Improvement Program regarding opposition to one of the projects on the list: Central Avenue Extension from Blackford St. to Riverside Dr.. This documentation has been sent to the TPO Board membership (see email below) for their review and consideration relative to their potential action on the Metropolitan Surface Transportation Program (STP‐M) and Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) project list on Tuesday, May 28th. The materials will also be included in their printed packet the day of the meeting as well as included in the public web packet posted to our website no later than Tuesday morning given the time of receipt of this information and the upcoming holiday. As with all TPO meetings, Tuesday’s meeting is open to the public and given we have received public opposition associated with this agenda item, the TPO staff will provide an opportunity for public comment prior to asking the Board for action. Thank you for your comments and we will welcome you at the meeting on Tuesday. Should there be multiple individuals present at the meeting who wish to speak, we try to encourage designated spokespersons representing each interested organization and/or neighborhood and asked that those accompanying the speakers raise their hands so that we may identify the number of individuals associated with each spokesperson, organization and/or neighborhood. Thank you again for your participation in the process. Sincerely, Melissa Taylor Director, Strategic Long‐Range Planning Chattanooga‐Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency & TPO 423.260.7173 or 423.643.5944

From: Rennich Karen Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:53 PM To: TPO Board Subject: Review: TIP project public opposition Dear Board members, The TPO held a meeting on May 9th for the public to review the proposed Transportation Improvement Program project list. At that time, representatives on behalf of the Lincoln Park neighborhood in Chattanooga spoke in opposition to the Central Avenue extension (Blackford Street to Riverside Drive) project. They indicated they would follow‐up with a written statement regarding their opposition. Attached please find the email and supporting document regarding their input. The TPO’s Title VI Coordinator has been copied on this email as Title VI was mentioned in the public correspondence. The opposition statement will also be provided at Tuesday’s meeting along with an opportunity given for public comment during the meeting for this formal action agenda item (Item 4‐ Approval of the Transportation Alternatives

207

Program and Metropolitan Surface Transportation Program Project List for the 2014‐2017 TIP). If you have questions about this particular agenda item, please contact Melissa Taylor at [email protected]. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Karen Karen Rennich Deputy Director Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency 1250 Market Street, Suite 2000 Chattanooga, TN 37402 423.643.5903

208


209

APPENDIX D

AIR QUALITY INTERAGENCY CONSULTATION PROCEDURES

210


211

Air Quality Interagency Consultation Committee (IAC) TIP Involvement

In accordance with federal requirements, the 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

was developed in concert with established Air Quality Interagency Consultation procedures and public

participation involvement set forth in the TPO’s approved participation plan. The Chattanooga-Hamilton

County/North Georgia TPO’s Interagency Consultation Committee (IAC) was engaged in the early stages

of the development of the draft TIP and continued active participation and review throughout the

process. The IAC more extensively participated in the development of the Conformity Technical

Memorandum which shall serve as the Conformity Determination Report for the new 2014-2017 TIP.

The IAC was engaged early in the process and a list of review dates has been provided below for easy of

reference.

March 19, 2013 – The IAC was provided the draft list of local projects proposed for the 2014-2017.

April 26, 2013 – The IAC was provided the draft list of state and CARTA projects.

June X, 2013 – The IAC was emailed the proposed conformity planning assumptions, request to concur

on a conformity Technical Memorandum, and the draft list of non-exempt and exempt projects

including all local and state projects.

July X, 2013 – An IAC conference call to concur on a Technical Memorandum referencing existing

planning assumptions for the new TIP and to review non-exempt and exempt lists was held and

comments documented in the attached minutes.

July X, 2013 – The ICC was notified of the comments provided by the federal partners and expectation of

a follow up conference call.

July X, 2013 – Draft TIP/CDR submitted to federal partners and IAC for a 30-day review period and made

available to the TPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) and Executive Board for review.

August X, 2010 – IAC comment period ended and no additional comments were received.

September X, 2013 – Final TIP and Conformity Tech Memo submitted to TPO Board for approval and

submitted to TDOT for final submission to FHWA/FTA for official conformity determination (30 days).

November, 2013 – TDOT submits conforming TIP for incorporation into the State Transportation

Improvement Program (STIP).

212

213

214

215

CHATTANOOGA INTERAGENCY CONSULTATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES – April 4, 2013

1. Attendees A listing of attendees is included in Attachment A.

2. Approval of March 7, 2013 Minutes

Ms. Betsy Evans asked if there were any changes or comments on the minutes, there were not and the minutes were approved.

3. Use of Inventory Mode for TPO MOVES Runs

Mr. David Kall stated that historically, the Chattanooga TPO has used MOVES in rate mode in combination with an air quality post processor to calculate emissions for conformity. He stated that the Chattanooga TPO is recommending to the IAC that future conformity determinations utilize MOVES in inventory mode due to a number of issues:

Concerns expressed at the March IAC meeting regarding inherent differences in running MOVES in rate vs. inventory mode,

The fact that motor vehicle emissions budgets are developed using inventory mode,

The lack of resources available for investigating and reconciling the differences between rate and inventory mode. Mr. Kall then referenced the MOVES input table included in the packet that has been updated (yellow highlighted cells) to reflect slightly different inputs needed when running MOVES in inventory mode for all 12 months. Mr. Kall then stated that the Chattanooga TPO will still maintain the AQPP for other planning purposes, such as understanding the location of highest emissions. Mr. Marc Corrigan asked if we needed electric fuel formulation in the fuel formulation file since the fuel type and technology showed transit buses dedicated to electricity. No one in the group was sure on the answer and it was decided among the group to check on the issue. Ms. Evans stated that with no other questions or comments from the group on the use of Inventory Mode for the TPO’s MOVES runs that we have IAC’s concurrence.

216

4. HPMS Adjustment Factors

Mr. Kall stated that the previous travel demand model had a 2007 base year and used 2007 HPMS data to create HPMS adjustment factors and that the new travel demand model has a 2010 base year and therefore 2010 HPMS data was collected to create the HPMS adjustment factors, which are found in the table included in the packet. Mr. Kall further reviewed the table with the group. He stated that the factors were previously only applied in the air quality post processor since MOVES was run in rate mode, but they will now be applied to all inputs that rely on VMT in their calculation since MOVES will be run in inventory mode for creation of motor vehicle emissions budgets and for conformity. Ms. Evans stated that with no questions or comments from the group on the HPMS adjustment factors that we have IAC’s concurrence.

5. Tennessee Maintenance Plan

Mr. Errol Reksten stated that they have been working with Mr. Kall on the 2025 inputs and they have got MOVES running with those inputs. Mr. Reksten stated he is starting to work on the budgets and that the APCB Board will be involved with setting them up and looking at the budgets. Ms. Amanetta Somerville asked if the IAC would be able to see any revisions with the budgets before he takes them to the Board and Mr. Reksten replied that they would. Mr. Corrigan asked about some warning messages he received from the when running the 2025 inputs that Mr. Kall provided and asked for an offline discussion.

6. Safety Margins Mr. Kall stated that since MOVES will be run in inventory mode for both the motor vehicle emissions budgets and for conformity, the emissions results are expected to be exactly the same and therefore, safety margins need to be developed to account for possible changes in VMT, the number of vehicles, and the age of vehicle in the future. Mr. Kall stated that the following assumptions are proposed to develop a “worst case” scenario that can be used to explain the request of the transportation sector for a portion of the safety margin.

VMT increases by 10%

The growth in human population between 2010 and 2040 is twice the TPO’s estimate (leads to increased number of vehicles in source type population input)

All vehicles become two years older than current age distributions show (due to people replacing vehicles less often). He stated that these assumptions are very similar to those employed by the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) recently to develop safety margins in coordination with GA EPD and that you can see the information in the packet. Mr. Kall stated that ARC applied their worst case assumptions to the year 2040

217

since year 2040 standard emissions were already exceeding their budget year. He said that testing will be done for Chattanooga to determine if that is also the case or if worst case assumptions should be applied to the year 2025. There was brief discussion among the group and Mr. Kall further clarified the assumptions. The group concurred on using the proposed assumptions for the initial development of the safety margins.

7. 2014-2017 Exempt & Non-exempt Project List

Ms. Evans stated the she sent the list out to the group about two weeks ago and that she received a few comments which have been addressed in the updated document. Mrs. Evans briefly reviewed the list and the updates that were made. Mr. Corrigan requested that for future lists provided to the IAC for review that the project length be included for roadway capacity adding projects, the LRTP ID number and/or TIP number be included as well for research purposes and to have the exempt and non-exempt projects more clearly labeled. Mr. Corbin Davis asked when the 2014-2017 TIP projects from TDOT were expected and Ms. Evans stated that they have not be given a concrete date but it was suggested that they should be sending them sometime within the next few weeks and she also stated that once all of the state projects are received they will be sent out for IAC’s review. Ms. Krystal Harris stated the GDOT will be sending their project list early next week. Ms. Evans stated that if anyone in the group had comments or questions to send to her by the close of business today.

8. Other Items Mr. Kall asked GDOT about how historically the TPO has done the emissions for the model portion the Walker County donut area and GDOT has done the emissions for the donut portion and since the TPO is switching to inventory mode, would it make sense to add the VMT provided by GDOT to the model VMT and to do all of Walker County or do partial Walker County and GDOT do the rest of the county and add two together outside of MOVES. Ms. Harris suggested that Mr. Kall follow up with Habte Kassa at GDOT for that information.

9. Recap of Action Items and Discussion of Next Steps

Ms. Evans stated that Mr. Kall and Mr. Corrigan would follow up on the electric fuel formulation for MOVES, there will be an offline discussion set up with Mr. Kall, Mr. Reksten and Mr. Corrigan about the MOVES error messages, an email will be sent out to the entire group on a final verdict on selecting CNG buses in MOVES and Ms. Evans will provide an updated project list to the group if needed when she hears back from Dianna Smith.

218

IAC - List of Attendees – ATTACHMENT A – April 4, 2013

Last Name

First Name

Organization

Present Absent

In Person

Via Phone

Dugan Tom CARTA X

Veron Jill CARTA X

Clark Bill Catoosa County Commission Chairman

X

Meadows J. Olney Catoosa County Public Works Director

X

Colby Bob Chattanooga Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau

X

Reksten Errol Chattanooga Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau

X

Spencer Sydney Chattanooga Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau

X

Bridger John Chattanooga Hamilton County RPA

X

Taylor Melissa Chattanooga Hamilton County TPO

X

Evans Betsy Chattanooga Hamilton County TPO

X

Brown Rozanne Chattanooga Hamilton County TPO

X

Lee Yuen Chattanooga Hamilton County RPA

X

Leach Steve City of Chattanooga X

Littlefield Ron City of Chattanooga X

Payne Bill City of Chattanooga X

Kenemer David N.W. GA Regional Commission X

Smith Dianna EPA - Environmental Protection Agency – Region 4

X

Somerville Amanetta Environmental Protection Agency – Region 4

X

Andrews Clint FHWA - Federal Highway Administration – Alabama Division

X

Harris David FHWA - Federal Highway Administration – Alabama Division

X

219

Last Name

First Name

Organization

Present Absent

In Person

Via Phone

Davis Corbin FHWA - Federal Highway Administration – Tennessee

Division

X

Claxton Teresa Federal Highway Administration – Tennessee Division

X

Edwards Andrew FHWA - Federal Highway Administration: Georgia

Division

X

Jones Latoya Federal Highway Administration Georgia Division

X

Day Ann-Marie Federal Highway Administration Georgia Division

X

Martin Elizabeth FTA - Federal Transit Administration – Region 4

X

Harris Krystal Georgia DOT X

Kassa Habte Georgia DOT X

Schropp Patti K. Georgia DOT (Atkins Consult) X

Bradley Mike Georgia DOT X

Steve Walker Georgia DOT X

Peevy Phillip Georgia DOT X

Georgia Regional Transportation Authority

Quarles Karen GDOT Transit X

Johnston Jimmy Georgia Environmental Protection Division - Air Protection Branch

X

Kelly Jim Georgia Environmental Protection Division - Air Protection Branch

X

Munsey Elisabeth Georgia Environmental Protection Division- Air Protection Branch

X

Grodzinsky Gil Georgia Environmental Protection Division - Air Protection Branch

X

Leamon Todd Hamilton County X

Coppinger Jim Hamilton County X

Corrigan Marc TDEC - Tennessee Department X

220

Last Name

First Name

Organization

Present Absent

In Person

Via Phone

of Environment and Conservation

Lowe Vicki Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

X

Comer Ralph Tennessee DOT X

Fleming Deborah Tennessee DOT X

Jones Alan Tennessee DOT X

Midgett Angela Tennessee DOT X

Hill Terrance Tennessee DOT X

Herritt Kevin Tennessee DOT-OCT X

Yuknavage Jerry Tennessee DOT X

Rock Bob Tennessee DOT X

Hirst Ronda Tennessee Multimodal Resources X

Joffrion Liza Tennessee Multimodal Resources X

Sherri Carroll Tennessee Multimodal Resources X

Heiskell Bebe Walker County Commission X

Brooks Larry Walker County X

Kall David Cambridge Systematics X

Selin Tracy Cambridge Systematics X

221

CHATTANOOGA INTERAGENCY CONSULTATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES – May 2, 2013

1. Attendees A listing of attendees is included in Attachment A.

2. Approval of April 4, 2013 Minutes

Ms. Betsy Evans asked if there were any changes or comments on the minutes, there were not and the minutes were approved.

3. 2040 Regional Transportation Plan Exempt and Non-exempt Project List

Ms. Melissa Taylor stated that the project list consists of staff identified projects and projects submitted from the call for projects and that the TPO has tagged them as exempt or non-exempt to the best of their ability with the information they know about the project. Ms. Taylor stated that the group had until the close of business May 9th, 2013 to provide questions or comments on the list. She then reviewed the projects that were recently edited and shown in red text. Ms. Taylor then moved onto six projects that are labeled “IAC” that needed the group’s opinion on the exempt status of the project. There was discussion among the group about the details of the three interchange modification projects. It was decided to send out the drawings for the three projects in an email to the TDOT project contact, EPA, TDEC and FHWA for their review and the decision on the exempt status will be sent out to the rest of the group. The group then discussed the three transit projects on the list and it was decided to get more information about the projects from CARTA and the consultants and provide the results with the group before May 9th.

4. 2014-2017 TIP State & CARTA Exempt and Non-exempt Project List Ms. Evans stated that the list consisted of the projects that TDOT, GDOT, and CARTA submitted to the TPO to be included in the new 2014-2017 TIP and that the TPO needed the group’s concurrence on the exempt status of the projects. She stated that she had sent out the list a week ago and that the group had until close of business May 9th, 2013 to provide any questions or comments on the projects and their exempt status. Ms. Evans said she did receive a question about project CARTA2, and stated that the project was strictly renovating the

222

facility and would not change bus routes or driving patterns. Mr. Corbin Davis asked for more information on the GDOT Osburn Road Intersection Improvement project and Ms. Taylor stated that she believed the project was to add a couple of short dedicated turn lanes at specific locations along the length of that corridor. There were no other questions on the project list.

5. Tennessee Maintenance Plan Mr. Errol Reksten stated that the next step is to take the Maintenance Plan to the APCB’s board. Mr. David Kall stated that he working on providing an updated average speed distribution input to send to APCB. Ms. Evans stated that she will send out a copy of the draft Maintenance Plan whenever Mr. Reksten has it ready to the IAC group for review before it goes to the APCB Board.

6. Other Items There were no other items of importance.

7. Recap of Action Items and Discussion of Next Steps

Ms. Evans stated that she will send out an updated copy of the April minutes, Ms. Taylor will sent out the drawings for all three interchange modification projects on the RTP list, Ms. Evans will follow up with CARTA on the Transfer Center project, and Mr. Kall is going to send APCB the update average speed distribution inputs.

223

IAC - List of Attendees – ATTACHMENT A – May 2, 2013

Last Name

First Name

Organization

Present Absent

In Person

Via Phone

Dugan Tom CARTA X

Veron Jill CARTA X

Clark Bill Catoosa County Commission Chairman

X

Meadows J. Olney Catoosa County Public Works Director

X

Colby Bob Chattanooga Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau

X

Reksten Errol Chattanooga Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau

X

Spencer Sydney Chattanooga Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau

X

Bridger John Chattanooga Hamilton County RPA

X

Taylor Melissa Chattanooga Hamilton County TPO

X

Evans Betsy Chattanooga Hamilton County TPO

X

Brown Rozanne Chattanooga Hamilton County TPO

X

Lee Yuen Chattanooga Hamilton County RPA

X

Norris Lee City of Chattanooga X

City of Chattanooga

Payne Bill City of Chattanooga X

Kenemer David N.W. GA Regional Commission X

Smith Dianna EPA - Environmental Protection Agency – Region 4

X

Somerville Amanetta Environmental Protection Agency – Region 4

X

Andrews Clint FHWA - Federal Highway Administration – Alabama Division

X

Harris David FHWA - Federal Highway Administration – Alabama

X

224

Last Name

First Name

Organization

Present Absent

In Person

Via Phone

Division

Davis Corbin FHWA - Federal Highway Administration – Tennessee

Division

X

Allen Scott Federal Highway Administration – Tennessee Division

X

Edwards Andrew FHWA - Federal Highway Administration: Georgia

Division

X

Jones Latoya Federal Highway Administration Georgia Division

X

Day Ann-Marie

Federal Highway Administration Georgia Division

X

Martin Elizabeth FTA - Federal Transit Administration – Region 4

X

Harris Krystal Georgia DOT X

Kassa Habte Georgia DOT X

Schropp Patti K. Georgia DOT (Atkins Consult) X

Bradley Mike Georgia DOT X

Steve Walker Georgia DOT X

Peevy Phillip Georgia DOT X

Georgia Regional Transportation Authority

X

Quarles Karen GDOT Transit X

Johnston Jimmy Georgia Environmental Protection Division - Air Protection Branch

X

Kelly Jim Georgia Environmental Protection Division - Air Protection Branch

X

Munsey Elisabeth Georgia Environmental Protection Division- Air Protection Branch

X

Grodzinsky Gil Georgia Environmental Protection Division - Air Protection Branch

X

Leamon Todd Hamilton County X

Coppinger Jim Hamilton County X

225

Last Name

First Name

Organization

Present Absent

In Person

Via Phone

Corrigan Marc TDEC - Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

X

Lowe Vicki Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

X

Comer Ralph Tennessee DOT X

Fleming Deborah Tennessee DOT X

Jones Alan Tennessee DOT X

Midgett Angela Tennessee DOT X

Hill Terrance Tennessee DOT X

Herritt Kevin Tennessee DOT-OCT X

Yuknavage Jerry Tennessee DOT X

Rock Bob Tennessee DOT X

Hirst Ronda Tennessee Multimodal Resources X

Joffrion Liza Tennessee Multimodal Resources X

Sherri Carroll Tennessee Multimodal Resources X

Heiskell Bebe Walker County Commission X

Brooks Larry Walker County X

Kall David Cambridge Systematics X

Selin Tracy Cambridge Systematics X

226


227

APPENDIX E

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS

228


229

Acronyms & Definitions

ADA - Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: Federal law that requires public facilities (including

transportation services) to be accessible to persons with disabilities including those with mental

disabilities, temporary disabilities, and the conditions related to substance abuse.

CONST – Construction (phase of a project): The phase of a project after the preliminary

environmental and engineering work is completed, where the project is being built and the

improvements are prepared for implementation.

DOT - Department of Transportation: Agency responsible for transportation at the local, state, or

federal level. For title 23 U.S.C. federal-aid highway actions, this would mean the Federal Highway

Administration and for federal-aid transit actions under title 49 U.S.C, this would mean the Federal

Transit Administration.

EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: is an agency of the federal government of the United

States charged with protecting human health and with safeguarding the natural environment: air,

water, and land.

Executive Board: A standing committee created for the purpose of serving as spokespersons for the

citizens of the metropolitan area and is the designated MPO to prioritize and direct federal

transportation funds to local projects. The Board is comprised of elected officials from the cities over

5,000 population and the counties of Nashville-Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson and Wilson

in the urbanized area. The Executive Board also has representatives from TDOT, representing the

Governor. The Board is responsible for creating policies regarding transportation planning issues. The

Executive Board meetings are open to the public and where any member of the public can address the

MPO on any transportation issue.

FHWA - Federal Highway Administration: Division of the U.S. Department of Transportation

responsible for administrating federal highway transportation programs under title 23 U.S.C.

Fiscal Constraint: A requirement, originally of ISTEA, that all plans be financially – constrained,

balanced expenditures to reasonably expected sources of funding over the period of the TIP or Long-

Range Transportation Plan.

FTA - Federal Transit Administration: Federal entity responsible for transit planning and programs

under title 49 U.S.C.

FY - Fiscal Year: A federal fiscal or budget year; runs from October 1 through September 30 for the

MPO and the federal government.

ISTEA - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991: Federal law which restructured

transportation planning and funding by requiring consideration of multimodal solutions, emphasis on

the movement of people and goods as opposed to traditional highway investments, flexibility in the use

of transportation funds, a greater role of MPOs, and a greater emphasis on public participation.

ITS - Intelligent Transportation System: Use of computer and communications technology to

facilitate the flow of information between travelers and system operators to improve mobility and

transportation productivity, enhance safety, maximize the use of existing transportation facilities,

conserve energy resources and reduce adverse environmental effects; includes concepts such as

“freeway management systems,” “automated fare collection” and “transit information kiosks.”

RTP – Regional Transportation Plan: A document resulting from regional or statewide

collaboration and consensus on a region or state's transportation system, and serving as the defining

230

vision for the region's or state's transportation systems and services. In metropolitan areas, the plan

indicates all of the transportation improvements scheduled for funding over the next 20 years. It is

fiscally constrained, i.e., a given program or project can reasonably expect to receive funding within

the time allotted for its implementation.

MAP-21 - Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act: was signed into law by President Obama on July

6, 2012. Funding surface transportation programs at over $105 billion for fiscal years (FY) 2013 and 2014, MAP-21

is the first long-term highway authorization enacted since 2005.

MPO Activities: Are plans, programs and projects related to the MPO process.

MPO - Metropolitan Planning Organization: The forum for cooperative transportation decision making;

required for urbanized areas with populations over 50,000.

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act: Passed in 1970, NEPA requires federal agencies to

integrate environmental values into their decision making processes by considering the environmental

impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions.

NHPP- National Highway Performance Program: provides support for the condition and performance of the

National Highway System (NHS), for the construction of new facilities on the NHS, and to ensure that investments

of Federal-aid funds in highway construction are directed to support progress toward the achievement of

performance targets established in a State's asset management plan for the NHS.

Obligated Funds: Funds that have been authorized by and committed to legally by a federal agency

to pay for the federal share of the project cost.

Officials: Are people who have governmental decision-making, planning or administrative

responsibilities that relate to MPO activities.

PE-Design – Preliminary Engineering (phase of project): a process to begin developing the design of the

facilities and system, to analyze the function and operation of the system, evaluation cost efficiencies

and prepare for the final design of the project.

PE-NEPA – Preliminary Engineering National Environmental Policy Act (phase of project): this is the early

stage of the Preliminary Engineering phase where the project sponsor must follow the National Environmental

Policy Act’s requirements.

Public: Includes citizens, public agencies, advocacy groups and the private sectors that have an

interest in or may be affected by MPO activities.

Public Participation: Is an integral part of a planning or major decision-making process. It provides

opportunities for the public to be involved with the MPO in an exchange of data and ideas. Public

participation offers an open process in which the rights of the community, to be informed to provide

comments to the Government and to receive a response from the Government, are met through a full

opportunity to be involved and to express needs and goals.

ROW - Right-of-Way: Real property that is used for transportation purposes; defines the extent of the

corridor that can be used for the road and associated drainage.

SAFETEA-LU - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for

Users - legislation enacted August 10, 2005, as Public Law 109-59. SAFETEA-LU authorizes the

Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 5-year

period 2005-2009.

SR – State Route: a roadway owned, financed and maintained by a state.

231

STIP - State Transportation Improvement Program: The TDOT Four Year Work Program as

prescribed by federal law.

STP – Surface Transportation Program (STP-M or U-STP): A program funded by the National

Highway Trust Fund. STP-M provides funding to areas of 5,000 to 50,000 in population for

improvements on routes functionally classified urban collectors or higher. U-STP Provides funding to

Census designated urbanized areas over 50,000 in population (e.g. MPO areas based on US Census)

for improvements on routes functionally classified urban collectors or higher.

TCC - Technical Coordinating Committee: A standing committee of most metropolitan planning

organizations (MPOs); function is to provide advice on plans or actions of the MPO from planners,

engineers and other staff members (not general citizens).

TDM – Transportation Demand Management: a method of planning for and implementing

transportation improvement in a manner that reduces traffic congestion and pollution by influencing

changes in travel behavior.

TDOT – Tennessee Department of Transportation: the transportation planning agency for the state

of Tennessee. TDOT manages federal and state funding, often applied in combination with local

funding, for transportation projects across the state.

Transportation Enhancements: Specific activities which can be funded with Surface Transportation

Program (STP) funds; activities include pedestrian/bicycle facilities, acquisition of scenic easements

and scenic historic sites, scenic or historic highway programs, scenic beautification, historic

preservation, rehabilitation/operation of historic transportation structures, railway corridor

preservation, control/removal of outdoor advertising, archeological planning/research and mitigation

of highway runoff water pollution.

TEA-21 - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century: Federal Legislation that authorized

funds for all modes of transportation and guidelines on the use of those funds. Successor to ISTEA,

the landmark legislation clarified the role of the MPOs in the local priority setting process. TEA-

21emphasized increased public involvement, simplicity, flexibility, fairness, and higher funding levels

for transportation.

TIP - Transportation Improvement Program: A priority list of transportation projects developed by a

metropolitan planning organization that is to be carried out within the four (4) year period following its

adoption; must include documentation of federal and state funding sources for each project and be

consistent with adopted MPO long range transportation plans and local government comprehensive

plans.

TMA - Transportation Management Area: An area designated by the U.S. Department of

Transportation given to all urbanized areas with a population over 200,000 (or other area when

requested by the Governor and MPO); these areas must comply with special transportation planning

requirements regarding congestion management systems, project selection and certification;

requirements identified in 23 CFR - 450.300-33.6.

TSM - Transportation Systems Management: Strategies to improve the efficiency of the

transportation system through operational improvements such as the use of bus priority or reserved

lanes, signalization, access management, turn restrictions, etc.

UPWP - Unified Planning Work Program: Developed by Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPOs);

identifies all transportation and planning activities anticipated within the next one to two years,

including a schedule for the completion of the identified tasks and activities.

232


233

Chattanooga-Hamilton County/North Georgia Transportation Planning Organization

C o n f o r m i t y T e c h n i c a l

M e m o r a n d u m

Volume 2 October 2013

Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency Development Resource Center, Suite 2000 1250 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402 Phone 423.757.5216 TDD No. 423.757.0011 Fax 423.757.5532 Web: www.chcrpa.org/tpo.htm

234

Technology

DRAFT 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)