Puget Sound Regional Council’s Responses to the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
Certification Review Guide
from U.S. Department of Transportation

Submitted by PSRC to Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration on September 1, 2005

This page includes every word of the original, but does not include two graphics.  Attachments are not included here either.
Click here to download the Word document file source as received by PITF from PSRC. 

Background on the Certification Process is provided here.

Value added notes from Public Interest Transportation Forum to guide citizen participation in PSRC's recertification.

Highlight of this document:  Go to Section on Fiscal Constraint

Go to Section on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

Go to Section on Congestion Management System (CMS)

Although the State requirement for compliance with the Growth Management Act is covered in the PSRC responses, the State requirement for Least Cost Planning is not mentioned in this document.

Hit Counter

Study Area Organizational Structure

1. What is the status of the MPO designation?

Governor Booth Gardner designated the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the four counties of King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish as documented in a September 24, 1991, letter (see Attachment 1). This designation remains in effect, since the MPO has not been redesignated.

2. Are changes being considered? If so, please explain.

No changes are being considered to the MPO designation.

3. Who are the MPO members?

PSRC membership includes the four counties, King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish, and most of the cities they contain. Of the 82 cities in the region, 70 are members of PSRC. Statutory members include the four port authorities of Bremerton, Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma; the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT); and the Washington State Transportation Commission. Associate members include the Puyallup Tribe of Indians and the Tulalip Tribes, Island County, Thurston Regional Planning Council, and the University of Washington’s Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs. In addition, a memorandum of understanding with the region’s six transit agencies outlines their participation in PSRC.

4. Who is represented on the policy board (voting/non-voting)?

As required by state and federal law as well as PSRC’s Interlocal Agreement, the Transportation Policy Board (TPB) includes representation from local elected officials; WSDOT; transit operators; the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency; regional business; labor, civic, and environmental groups; and citizens at large, as well as voting members representing each caucus of the state Legislature. The Growth Management Policy Board (GMPB) includes local elected officials, as well as representatives from business/labor, environmental, and community organizations. These Boards make recommendations on key transportation and growth management issues to the Executive Board. PSRC encourages participation and involvement of communities, individuals, and other interests in the decisions and actions of the agency.

PSRC utilizes a number of other advisory bodies to provide ideas and valuable insights on ways to address important regional issues. Other committees, involving member agency staff and representatives of business, environmental, citizen and other interests, research and resolve technical issues related to regional policy development, and review and recommend major transportation projects, including bicycle, pedestrian, and other transportation enhancement projects, for funding.

For additional information please see Attachment 2, which includes a PSRC membership roster (2a), PSRC board membership lists (2b), an organization chart of the board and committee structure (2C), and committee and rosters (2d) and bylaws (2e). Voting and non-voting members are identified on the board and committee lists (2b).

5. Describe the MPO voting structure.

PSRC is governed by a General Assembly and Executive Board. The General Assembly meets at least annually, to review and ratify all key decisions of the Executive Board, including the annual budget, new officers, the regional transportation plan, and the regional growth management strategy. The Executive Board carries out delegated powers, and managerial and administrative responsibilities, between meetings of the General Assembly. Policy Boards are established to advise the Executive Board on policy issues. The Executive Board may also establish task forces and ad hoc committees to make recommendations on key issues.

General Assembly membership consists of all local, general-purpose governments in King, Snohomish, Kitsap, and Pierce counties that are members of the organization. Votes at the General Assembly are made on a weighted basis. Pursuant to PSRC’s Interlocal Agreement (see Attachment 3), county governments are entitled to fifty percent of their respective county’s vote.

The 32 members of the Executive Board are appointed by PSRC’s membership to ensure all are represented. The Board is chaired by the PSRC President, meets monthly and serves as the governing board. The Executive Board uses a weighted vote system based on population to make decisions.

Transit agencies are not direct members of PSRC’s Executive Board. However, pursuant to RCW 47.80.060, fifty percent of the county and city local elected officials who serve on the Executive Board must also serve on transit agency boards or on a regional transit authority. Community Transit, Kitsap Transit, Sound Transit, Pierce Transit, and Seattle Monorail Project are non-voting members of the TPB. Tribal Nations that are members of PSRC have voting membership on the TPB.

6. What impacts did the 2000 Census have on PSRC’s organizational structure?

Overall, the 2000 Census did not have any impacts on PSRC’s organizational structure. The 2000 Census did recognize Marysville as an urbanized area. The Marysville Mayor, the Snohomish County Executive, and PSRC met on September 5, 2002, to resolve this issue. The outcome of the meeting was to recognize Marysville as an urbanized area that will continue to be served by PSRC as the four-county MPO.

7. Please list the providers of public transportation that operate to or within the Puget Sound metropolitan area and indicate the types of services that they provide.

There are currently eight public transportation agencies in the central Puget Sound region:

· Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit)

· Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation (Community Transit)

· City of Everett – Transportation Services (Everett Transit)

· King County Department of Transportation (King County Metro)

· Kitsap County Public Transportation Benefit Area Authority (Kitsap Transit)

· Pierce County Public Transportation Benefit Area Authority (Pierce Transit)

· Seattle Popular Monorail Authority (Seattle Monorail Project)

· WSDOT (Washington State Ferries)

Community Transit, Everett Transit, King County Metro, Kitsap Transit, and Pierce Transit provide local, fixed-route bus services, demand-response paratransit services, and vanpool/rideshare services. King County Metro also operates limited streetcar services along the Seattle waterfront and the Elliot Bay Water Taxi. Sound Transit provides regional express fixed-route bus services, commuter rail services, and light rail service. Washington State Ferries operates automobile/passenger ferry and passenger-only ferry services. Seattle Monorail Project does not operate services at this time. In addition, the City of Seattle contracts for services to be provided on the existing monorail in downtown Seattle, and Pierce County contracts for limited ferry service to Anderson and Ketron Islands.

8. Please list other agencies that are conducting transportation planning or are proposing projects in the Puget Sound metropolitan area, including major projects such as streetcar lines, monorail, etc., and describe the extent to which they are participants in the Puget Sound metropolitan area transportation planning process.

The Puget Sound region has a tiered transportation planning process, including statewide, regional, local, and private sector (for example, railroads) planning. Within the region, WSDOT, four counties, eight transit providers, and 86 cities all perform transportation planning for their pieces of the network. The state, all four counties, all transit agencies, and a vast majority of the cities are participants in the Puget Sound metropolitan planning process, which ensures coordination. Some of these jurisdictions’ facilities are regional and are reflected in the regional transportation plan, while others are local and may support the policies of the regional plan, but may not be contained in the regional plan. The focus of PSRC’s Regional Transportation Plan, Destination 2030, is on the regional system, as defined by the Metropolitan Transportation System, which includes state routes, major locally owned principal arterials, regional high capacity transit, and other regional-level facilities.

Under the state’s Growth Management Act, which governs planning in the region, various roles are prescribed at the various levels. Multi-county planning policies guide growth and transportation planning across all local jurisdictions. These multi-county planning policies are adopted by PSRC as part of the regional growth strategy, VISION 2020. The multi-county planning policies guide the development of countywide planning policies within each county, which in turn establish the policy framework for local comprehensive plans, including transportation elements, developed by counties and cities. This framework promotes policy consistency across the planning tiers while recognizing that planning for different facilities is appropriate at different levels. Under state law, PSRC has a role to certify that local comprehensive plans meet state requirements and that they are consistent with regional plans.

Many local agencies are engaged in transportation planning as part of their local comprehensive planning. Local comprehensive plans are developed to meet their local growth needs and respond to regional policy direction (for example, supporting centers development and improving corridor connections within and between centers). Systems such as the Seattle Monorail and the South Lake Union Streetcar arose out of a local City of Seattle planning process. The jurisdictions proposing these facilities, in this case the City of Seattle, are members of PSRC and are planning under the regional framework. Because the regional transportation plan is focused on the regional network, not all of these locally proposed projects arise out of the regional planning process. However, local projects, while not part of the Metropolitan Transportation System, can still support the implementation of regional policies contained in the plan.

9. Please indicate which entities have been designated by the Governor of the State of Washington to be recipient(s) of FTA Section 5307 funds allocated to the Puget Sound Transportation Management Area.

The following entities have been designated by the Governor to be recipients of FTA Section 5307 funds:

· Seattle-Tacoma-Everett urbanized area:

- Metropolitan King County (Metro)

- Community Transit

- City of Everett

- Pierce Transit

- PSRC

- Sound Transit

- Washington State Ferries

· Bremerton urbanized area: Kitsap Transit

· Marysville urbanized area: Community Transit

10. What types of Air Quality issues exist in the Puget Sound metropolitan area? What AQ agency(ies) have jurisdiction in the area?

The central Puget Sound region is currently designated as a maintenance area for carbon monoxide and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter. The air quality agencies with jurisdiction in this region are the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and the Washington State Department of Ecology.

 

Metropolitan Planning Boundaries (450.308)

1. Describe relationships between the following boundaries:

A. Census designated urbanized area boundary

B. WSDOT & FHWA approved urbanized area boundary (used for federal functional classification purposes)

C. MPO/Governor approved Metropolitan planning area boundary

D. Non-attainment/maintenance area boundary Urban Growth Boundary

The MPO boundary includes all of the other boundaries listed. As defined by 23 USC, WSDOT and FHWA federal-aid highway urbanized area boundaries (also called highway urban areas) include, at a minimum, the federal Bureau of the Census designated urbanized area (UZA) boundary for each UZA in an MPO region. The highway urban area also includes locations outside the census UZA to include nearby municipalities and other areas with urban characteristics. There are three UZAs in PSRC’s region – Bremerton, Marysville, and Seattle-Tacoma-Everett – and two highway urban areas. PSRC, in cooperation with WSDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), designates the highway urban areas boundaries for King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. The results from the 2000 federal census were used to update the map.

The MPO/Governor-approved metropolitan planning area is defined by the Interlocal Agreement for regional planning of the central Puget Sound area, which was entered into, by, and between the counties, cities, towns, political subdivisions, and municipal corporations of the State of Washington, and federally recognized Indian tribes within the four-county region. This Agreement is made pursuant to provisions of the Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1967, Chapter 39.34 R.C.W. and has been authorized by the legislative body of each jurisdiction. Boundaries of the nonattainment/maintenance areas are determined by the local air agency, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the Environmental Protection Agency based on monitoring data.

Urban growth area boundaries are collected annually from the county comprehensive plans. In the past, most updates to the boundary occur near the end of the calendar year. In turn, the boundary is updated at the beginning of the following year.

2. Does the MPO boundary cover the entire non-attainment area(s). If not does another agreement exist? (43 USC 7401 et seq.)

Yes, the MPO boundary fully encompasses the maintenance areas.

3. Have FHWA and FTA been provided a current map of the boundary approved by the MPO and the State?

Yes, FHWA and FTA have been provided current maps of the boundary approved by the MPO and the State (see Attachment 4).

4. What impacts did the 2000 Census have on PSRC’s urbanized boundaries?

A. Does the current MPO boundary cover the area that is urbanized (as identified by the 2000 Census) and the area expected to urbanize in the next 20 years? If not, when will the current boundaries be revised?

Yes, the MPO boundary currently covers the area that is urbanized and the area that is expected to urbanize in the next 20 years. By state requirement and Interlocal Agreement, MPO boundaries are county-based; in the case of PSRC, this includes the counties of King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish.

B. Have revised boundaries been approved by the Governor and local officials? If not, when is this expected to occur?

There are no revised boundaries.

5. Is transit service provided to areas outside the UZA boundary and is that service considered to be rural and funded by Section 5311 of the FTA Act?

Public transit agencies for the urban areas within PSRC’s MPO boundary provide service outside the UZA boundary, and, under current eligibility requirements within Washington State, those agencies are not eligible for FTA 5311 (rural transit) funding. However, other agencies and governments such as social service agencies and Tribal Nations located in PSRC’s MPO boundary but outside the UZA boundary are eligible for FTA 5311 funding, but none currently receive such funding.

6. Are there Tribal lands within the planning boundary and are the affected tribes participants in the MPO?

Yes, there are Tribal lands within the planning boundary. Two Tribal Nations, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and the Suquamish Tribe, are full MPO members; two other Tribal Nations, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians and the Tulalip Tribes, are associate members. Other tribes participate in other ways, including project submittals for PSRC’s federal funds, planning consultations, and public involvement.

7. Are there Forest Service lands or other federal lands with the planning boundary?

Yes, there are Forest Service lands and other federal lands within the planning boundary.

Agreements and Contracts (450.310 and 312)

1. Is there an agreement or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the state and the MPO citing the responsibilities for carrying out transportation planning and programming?

There is a Memorandum of Understanding for Transportation Planning Coordination and Cooperation between the Puget Sound Regional Council and the Washington State Department of Transportation, dated December 3, 1996 (see Attachment 5). In addition there is a Memorandum of Understanding Regarding STIP Management between PSRC and WSDOT, dated October 15, 1998 (see Attachment 6).

Given the changes to the organizational structure of the state Transportation Commission and its impacts on WSDOT, as well as the general need to update the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), these three entities are in the process of drafting a new MOU. This Memorandum, when final, intends to supercede both earlier MOUs between PSRC and WSDOT. The most recent draft of this new MOU is enclosed as Attachment 7.

2. Is there an agreement between the MPO and the transit operator(s), which specify cooperative procedures for carrying out transportation planning including corridor and sub-area studies?

There is an agreement between PSRC and the transit operators specifying cooperative procedures for carrying out transportation planning. This MOU was last updated on June 30, 2003, and is enclosed as Attachment 8.

3. Is there an agreement defining the relationship between PSRC, Washington State DOE, and WSDOT for air quality planning?

There is an MOU between the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and PSRC, last updated in May 2002, which defines the relationship between these entities for air quality planning (see Attachment 9).

4. Are there any agreements covering Federal lands, Indian Tribal lands or military bases?

There are no agreements specifically covering Federal lands, Indian Tribal lands, or military bases. However, membership does represent the lands; for example, Tribal Nations are members of PSRC and participate in its processes.

5. Are there any other agreements between the MPO and other entities? If so, what are they?

Please see the response to question 6, below.

6. When were each of these agreements signed?

The remaining intergovernmental agreements and the dates they were signed are as follows:

· Project Agreement between Puget Sound Regional Council and King County for BNSF Rail Corridor Preservation Study Support, August 8, 2005 (see Attachment 10).

· Associate Membership Agreement, Thurston Regional Planning Council, January 14, 2005 (see Attachment 11).

· Memorandum of Agreement Between the Puget Sound Regional Council and the Central Puget Sound Economic Development District, dated June 27, 2002, amended March 26, 2003, and June 9, 2004
(see Attachment 12).

· Project Agreement between Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority and the Puget Sound Regional Council for High Capacity Transit Planning Support, November 1, 2003 (see Attachment 13).

· Memorandum of Agreement to Implement a Regional Reduced Fare Permit for Senior and Disabled Persons, dated May 1, 2003 (PSRC is not a party to this agreement, but helps to facilitate – see Attachment 14).

· Agreement for the Seashore Transportation Forum, signed February 11, 2003 (see Attachment 15).

· Memorandum of Agreement to Implement A.D.A. Paratransit Eligibility for Persons with Disabilities between City of Everett; Intercity Transit; Island County Public Transportation Benefit Area; Jefferson Transit Authority; King County Department of Metropolitan Services; Kitsap Transit; Pierce Transit; Skagit Transit; Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation and the Washington State Department of Transportation, February 15, 1995 (PSRC is not a party to this agreement, but helps to facilitate it – see Attachment 16).

PSRC also maintains a current list of contracts entered into by the agency (see Attachment 17).

7. Are the agreements being updated? If so, what are the significant changes in the update?

As mentioned above, the MOUs with WSDOT are in the process of being updated and consolidated. One significant change will be to recognize the recent changes in state law pertaining to the role of the Transportation Commission, and also to be more specific about how the different departments within WSDOT interact with PSRC. The most recent draft of this agreement is enclosed as Attachment 7.

8. Has the PSRC set up any alternative procedures for agreements such as a single cooperative agreement with the State, transit operators, and the air quality agencies; or, have they included all of the subject roles, responsibilities, and cooperative actions in the prospectus of their Unified Planning Work Program?

PSRC has not set up any alternative procedures for agreements such as a single cooperative agreement. Instead, PSRC has chosen to include the roles, responsibilities, and cooperative actions in the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP; see Appendix C of Attachment 18, PSRC’s Biennial Budget and Work Program, Fiscal Years 2006-2007).

9. Do the agreements establish roles and responsibilities for conducting planning in the metropolitan area, including the provision of technical capabilities and funding in support of the process?

The Interlocal Agreement (see Attachment 3), which is signed by all members and established PSRC, its structure, and authority, explicitly provides provisions regarding technical capabilities, including regional database development and other technical functions. The UPWP then allocates funding for technical studies through the work program.

 

Unified Planning Work Program (450.314)

1. When does the planning start for the annual update of the UPWP? When is the first meeting held and who is included?

The process initially begins in the fall with a meeting of the Executive Committee, which includes the Executive Board officers, to discuss and provide direction for the Operations Committee. The budget review process begins with an Operations Committee meeting to review and refine the budget and work program. The process also includes review by the GMPB, TPB, Regional Staff Committee, and other PSRC staff committees, and analysis and input from the countywide planning organizations, member jurisdictions, and state and federal agencies, to help assure that the budget and work program contains items important and helpful to member jurisdictions. The Operations Committee presents the regular or supplemental budget and work program to the Executive Board, and ultimately to the General Assembly for action.

2. How is the program developed? Who determines responsibilities?

As discussed above, the program is developed through a series of briefings and input received from members and other stakeholders, in compliance with state and federal requirements. Ultimately, the General Assembly has final say on the document and responsibilities.

3. Does the UPWP document all planning activities performed with funds provided under title 23 and title 49?

Yes.

4. Other than the Planning Emphasis Areas supplied by the Federal agencies, how does PSRC determine its priorities?

The process outlined above helps determine the priorities through outreach with our member jurisdictions, other stakeholders, and federal and state partners. For example, on page 14 of the budget and work program (see Attachment 18) is a table that identifies the major planning efforts for the next 10-year period. PSRC developed this in conjunction with its members and federal and state partners, and it helps to determine the priorities for the next few years.

5. Does the agency receive enough guidance from the Federal agencies as to the national priorities?

Yes.

6. Who determines what projects are ultimately included as a work element in the UPWP? How are the priorities determined?

As discussed above, the inclusive process provides an opportunity to allow input and feedback from a variety of different sources, including all members and transit agencies, the state Legislature, FHWA, FTA, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and other local agencies.

7. Does the UPWP consider freight activities? How? What kinds of freight activities are included in the UPWP?

The UPWP supports a variety of freight planning activities. It supports staffing for a public/private Regional Freight Mobility Roundtable (established in 1994 and on-going), which is nationally recognized for its achievements as a sustained and respected "communication hub." Participants include all private freight modes (rail, highway, marine, air cargo, and intermodal) and all levels of government, including federal agency representatives. Participating federal entities are the FHWA, the Federal Railroad Association, the US Maritime Administration (MARAD), FTA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Department of Defense. In the last fiscal year, one of the presenters was the vice-chair of the Surface Transportation Board.

The UPWP also supports staff coordination for the regional freight interagency team (the Freight Action Strategy Corridor Agency Staff Team – FAST CAST). This work has been jointly sponsored with WSDOT since 1998, but beginning in July 2005, with the agreement of WSDOT, it has been reassigned to PSRC, which will act as the lead for this work. This team screens, recommends, and collaborates to build key freight projects within our region. The team uses the Roundtable as a sounding board and operates under an MOU signed by the policy leadership of the respective city, county, and port participants. State agencies and private railroads are also involved.

Lastly, the UPWP supports development and updating of the region’s regional freight element of the adopted Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), Destination 2030. This includes consultation with the above noted Roundtable and agency officials on the FAST CAST. The 2007 update of Destination 2030 will update and supplement the freight components of the 2001 Destination 2030 plan.

8. Are the planning factors covered in the UPWP? How are they documented?

Yes, the planning factors are covered in the UPWP (see Attachment 18), initially in the discussion of the agency mandates and also in discussions throughout the document. For example, see pages 9 and 10 of Appendix C.

9. 23 CFR 450.312(a) and 314(a) states that transit shall be a participant in the development of the UPWP. How is transit involved in the makeup of the UPWP?

There are a number of ways that transit operators get feedback into the UPWP. First, they are participants in the Transit Operators Committee and TPB, where the document is discussed and molded. Second, through their elected leadership on the Executive Board and General Assembly, they have an additional review. Finally, the agency staff has individual discussions with each transit agency as part of the development process. For example, see the sections on Sound Transit and the Seattle Monorail in Appendix C of Attachment 18.

10. Does PSRC use a formal public participation process in the development of its UPWP? Explain.

The draft UPWP is included on all agendas for meetings of the Policy Boards, the Executive Board, and the General Assembly, all of which are open, public meetings. Time is provided at each of these meetings for public comments. The agency has received citizen comments on the document in the past.

11. What types of FTA and FHWA funding have been utilized for planning in the Puget Sound metropolitan area during the past three years?

FHWA Funds:

FTA Funds:

FHWA Planning (PL funds)

Section 5307

Value Pricing Program

Section 5303 (PL funds)

Surface Transportation Program

Jobs Access Reverse Commute

12. Has the area utilized FTA section 5307 funding for planning during the past 3 years and has that been included in the UPWP?

Yes. A list of planning projects programmed with FTA 5307 funds in this region is identified in Appendix C of PSRC’s Biennial Budget and Work Program, FY 2006-2007 (see Attachment 18). A copy is also available on PSRC’s website at http://www.psrc.org/datapubs/pubs/budget/fy2006-2007budget.pdf .

13. Is there a Prospectus for the Puget Sound metropolitan area, 450.314 (c) and does it include agreements?

No.

14. Is planning for Title VI compliance and DBE Goal development reflected in the UPWP, including work by transit operator(s)?

The UPWP has specific elements/tasks on Title VI compliance and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal development activities for PSRC. Both Title VI and DBE issues are discussed later in this document.

15. Is New Start Planning being conducted in the Puget Sound metropolitan area? Is it included in the UPWP?

No. There is no FTA New Start Planning being conducted in PSRC’s region. Sound Transit confirms the only FTA 5309 New Start funds in PSRC’s region are in Sound Transit project-level projects. For more information on this subject, please contact Lisa Wolterink, Sound Transit Grants Coordinator, at 206-689-3359 or wolterinkl@soundtransit.org.

16. Is planning for other major transportation projects in the area included in the UPWP and what are the sources of funding?

Yes. All regionally significant projects in the region, regardless of funding sources, are included in appendix C of the UPWP (see Attachment 18). The funding sources are varied and are included in the document. For example, the Seattle Monorail, Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID), WSDOT corridor studies, and the ferry system are all included.

 

Transportation Planning Process

1. How do the MPO, the State, and transit operators cooperatively determine their mutual responsibilities in the conduct of the planning process, including the following products?

A. Corridor refinement studies

B. Unified Planning Work Program

C. Transportation Plan

D. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

PSRC has a joint MOU with all seven of the region’s transit agencies (revised June 2003 to add Seattle Monorail – see Attachment 8). PSRC also has an MOU with WSDOT (see Attachment 5). These MOUs identify respective organizational roles and relationships for policy planning, project planning and programming, and broader planning coordination responsibilities. The MOUs include specific reference to mutual involvement in major corridor studies, the UPWP, the MTP, and the TIP. On an ongoing basis, coordination activities are addressed in a variety of technical and policy venues. The Transportation Operators Committee (TOC) includes representatives from each of the public transit agencies as well as WSDOT Public Transportation and Rail Division, WSDOT Ferries, and City of Seattle (for the older existing monorail system). Transit agencies and WSDOT are also represented on other PSRC technical committees and on the TPB and Executive Board. Many elected officials on PSRC’s GMPB are also members of local and regional transit agency boards.

2. How is the development of both the Transportation Plan and the TIP coordinated with other providers of transportation (e.g., regional airports)?

Representatives of the region’s major ports, state and regional freight mobility interests, and non-motorized interests are well represented on PSRC’s technical advisory committees, such as the Regional Project Evaluation Committee, the Bike-Pedestrian Advisory Committee, the Prosperity Partnership, and PSRC’s policy boards, where the MTP and TIP are approved.

3. How are the seven planning factors taken into consideration by PSRC?

A. Are they a routine part of the planning process?

Yes. The region’s MTP, Destination 2030 (see Attachment 19), adopted in May 2001, and its subsequent refinement document approved in 2004, Destination 2030: 2004 Review and Progress Report (see Attachment 20), provide a broad range of policies and strategies that address the seven planning factors and provide guidance for the region’s on-going processes for system preservation, investments, improvements, and monitoring for all regional transportation interests (highways, streets, roads, transit, ports, ferries, and bike-pedestrian). These regional planning documents also provide both integrated and modal-specific action strategies that are routinely used by staff and policy boards to guide assessment of project and program needs, project prioritization (TIP), and transportation system monitoring (CMS).

B. Are other agencies involved?

Yes, all public agencies, PSRC members and non-members alike, are engaged through the many technical and policy committees in a wide range of system, corridor, and modal planning activities.

C. Which, if any factors do not apply?

None. All factors have been specifically addressed and are engaged through transportation, growth management, and strategic economic planning.

D. Has consideration of the factors resulted in changes in decisions (long range strategies, alternatives considered, projects selected, etc.)?

Consideration of the factors through the region’s adopted plans has enabled the achievement of broad local, regional, and state consensus on key projects and program priorities, which have now been funded through significant local ballot and state legislative action over the past five years.

4. How does the MPO approve the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and its updates?

PSRC continues to employ broad technical, policy, and public input for its on-going plan review, refinement, and update processes. The 2001 Destination 2030 plan and its refinement, 2004 Review and Progress Report, provide complete annotations of the public involvement and decision processes used to comply with both state and federal plan development and update processes (see Attachments 19 and 20). See Attachment 2c for a diagram of PSRC’s committee structure.

5. How do the MPO and the Governor approve the TIP and its amendments?

PSRC approves the TIP after a public comment period, a recommendation from the TPB, and approval from the Executive Board. The TIP and any amendments are submitted to WSDOT, which prepares the recommendation to the Governor. Upon state approval, the TIP becomes part of the draft STIP, pending federal approval.

6. In nonattainment or maintenance areas, how does the MPO coordinate the development of the Transportation Plan with the SIP development process (including the development of transportation control measures)?

At the beginning of any annual, biennial, or triennial process for development, refinement, and/or updating of the MTP and the regional TIP, PSRC conducts periodic consultation meetings with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, the Washington State Department of Ecology, WSDOT, FHWA, FTA, and EPA to assess and obtain the most current assumptions, data, and modeling procedures to assure coordination and compliance with SIP activity and federal air quality conformity requirements.

An air quality analysis is conducted on the long-range transportation plan, ensuring conformity with the adopted motor vehicle emissions budgets in the SIP. All transportation control measures identified in the SIP have been implemented and remain in place.

7. In nonattainment or maintenance areas, how does the MPO require conformity with the SIP, in accordance with EPA regulations, as a condition for approval of any Transportation Plan or program?

In addition to the consultation processes noted above, PSRC conducts regional air quality conformity testing using the latest EPA-approved air quality models to determine conformity of all transportation system projects being proposed for inclusion in the regional plan (MTP) or TIP. PSRC procedures require a formal public finding of air quality conformity, presented to PSRC policy boards, before any approval actions can be taken to allow TIP project selection and funding, or to allow projects to be included in the adopted MTP.

8. How did the state participate in development of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan?

As previously noted in questions 1-3 above in this section, WSDOT is involved in all aspects of MTP development, refinement, and updates. The state’s participation is carried out as described in the formal MOU noted in question 1 (see Attachment 5), as well as through highly cooperative participation with many of PSRC’s technical and policy committees and boards. Additionally, WSDOT routinely involves PSRC, along with all affected local jurisdictions, transit agencies, or ports in its major corridor studies, which examine needs, options, and opportunities for multi-modal improvements to the region’s major transportation corridors. Much of the regional transportation and land-use modeling conducted by PSRC is used by the state for its major corridor studies. PSRC has also participated actively in WSDOT’s companion update to the Washington Transportation Plan (WTP).

9. If the metropolitan planning area includes Federal public lands and/or tribal lands, how were the affected Federal agencies and Indian tribes involved in the development of the plans and programs? Were military reservations involved in the planning process?

All of the above categories – federal lands, tribes, and military – are included within the central Puget Sound region and these have been consulted and invited to comment and participate in development of the MTP and the regional TIP. Federal land interests (National Parks and Forests) regarding state highways are further coordinated through WSDOT. Several Tribal Nations have become members of PSRC and further outreach is specifically designed to receive input from Tribal Nations. Military representatives also participate in the region’s freight and logistical planning activities through regular representation on the region’s Freight Mobility Roundtable.

10. What is the role and how is the transit operator involved in the MPO’s overall planning and project development process?

As mentioned above in response to question 1, PSRC has a joint MOU with the seven transit agencies in the region (see Attachment 8; see question 7 in the section titled "Study Area Organizational Structure" for more detail on the types of services that each of the transit operators provide). The MOU includes specific procedures identifying how transit agencies are involved in PSRC planning activities. Specifically, transit agencies help to identify long-term transit needs, review travel demand forecasts, develop transit scenarios evaluated in the EIS, and determine future financial needs. Primarily, transit agencies participate in the planning process through the Transportation Operators Committee. However, transit agencies are also represented on other technical committees, including the Regional TDM Roundtable, Regional HOV Policy Advisory Committee, Regional ITS Advisory Panel, Regional Project Evaluation Committee, the Regional Staff Committee, and the Regional Technical Forum. At the policy level, PSRC includes formal transit agency participation on the TPB, and the agency’s by-laws call for one-half of PSRC’s Executive Board’s local elected officials to also be members of local or regional transit agency boards.

11. How is the transit authority’s planning process coordinated with the MPO’s planning process?

PSRC staff reviews and participates in regular updates of short-term, local Transit Development Plans (TDPs) and longer-term plans that are prepared by transit agencies on a regular basis. PSRC participates in monthly planning meetings with agencies such as Sound Transit, which helps in the coordination of the plan updates. These plans form a foundation for transit input to the MPO planning process. PSRC periodically conducts a formal review of the local and regional transit plans, including the Sound Transit System Plan and local TDPs. This formal review procedure provides an assessment of the consistency between the transit agency plans and PSRC plans – Destination 2030 and VISION 2020. The TPB reviews and approves these assessments of consistency.

12. Describe PSRC’s Congestion Management System (CMS) and current efforts in making enhancements to the CMS.

PSRC considers the current CMS a process, rather than a tool. CMS is integrated into PSRC’s regional planning and programming processes and is integral to corridor-level programs. In addition to PSRC, the agencies involved in CMS activities include cities, counties, transit agencies, WSDOT, FHWA, FTA, and Tribal Nations. The cities and counties, WSDOT, and transit agencies all have roles in data collection for, and in determining improvements to, those parts of the CMS network that are under their operating authority. These responsibilities include the identification and use of performance measures against which potential strategies can be evaluated. PSRC has a growing role in data collection, performance monitoring, evaluating the effectiveness of implemented strategies, and implementation of the CMS.

The MOUs between PSRC and WSDOT (see Attachment 5), and between PSRC and the transit agencies (see Attachment 8) affirm that all parties will cooperate and coordinate in development and implementation of the CMS. Because so many agencies and organizations are involved in congestion management in our region, our CMS consists of a layered approach of local, regional, and state planning activities that meet CMS requirements under a regional framework or umbrella concept. Many of these CMS-related activities are led by WSDOT, local governments, and transit agencies, and typically do not use the CMS label explicitly. These efforts typically focus on developing and implementing multimodal alternatives that evaluate and prioritize congested locations.

The update to the MTP will include an update and enhancement to the CMS. The MTP will be updated in two phases. Phase One (2006-2007) will include consideration of the following:

1. Integrating CMS and least-cost planning into the plan update and decision process.

2. Providing the transportation element to the VISION 2020 update.

3. Coordinating with implementing agencies and providing information that will help inform pending regionally significant transportation decisions.

4. Establishing a basis for the major update planned in 2008.

5. Establishing policies, programmatic strategies, and criteria that will help guide prioritization and funding decisions.

Phase Two (2007-2008) will complete plan update and environmental processes to support decisions in the VISION 2020 update.

The update process will utilize the nine issue areas, consistent with those used in the WTP Update, as the organizing framework. As with the WTP Update, four of the issue areas will address congestion. The issue area that will focus most on system delay is the Congestion and Mobility analysis.

The Congestion and Mobility analysis will integrate the CMS into the transportation decision process by combining two critical issues. The first issue will establish a list of the critical transportation issues that the region will face in the coming decades. The list will include regional program-level decisions on such issues as tolling, regional transit strategies, construction mitigation, CTR revisions, and rural center connectivity. A second analysis will identify the locations with the highest vehicle delay currently and in the near future.

Combining the critical transportation issue areas and those with the highest levels of congestion and delay areas will result in a prioritized list of areas to evaluate. This list will likely include areas in all four counties and at least one or two rural locations. The analysis of the selected locations will use a.m. peak period data, and will look at origins and destinations of travel in the peak period. It will identify the travel types (modes) and will evaluate:

1. Operational issues that occur in the congested segment, including accident data.

2. Person throughput and volume per lane, travel times (for all modes), and travel speed.

3. Transit capacity (seats available) and ridership, and park and ride lot utilization.

4. Transportation demand programs.

The alternatives analysis portion of the Congestion and Mobility section of the update will develop programmatic solutions sets that can be applied to each of the analysis areas. The solutions sets must include at least transit, freight strategies, roadway expansion, operational and safety measures, tolling, and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures. The solution sets will be evaluated to determine the relative cost and benefits of each alternative, and how it relates to long-term system level strategies.

Based on the alternatives analysis, policy and programmatic changes will be recommended for Destination 2030, which will be the basis for project level criteria that will be used to:

1. Prioritize funding for PSRC’s federal funds.

2. Support a Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) update.

3. Establish a CMS monitoring program that will address roadways (both Single and High Occupancy Vehicles), transit, TDM, walking, and biking.

As part of the Congestion and Mobility section of the Destination 2030 update, a CMS committee will be established. The committee will be responsible for developing this section of the update and for review of the annual CMS report.

A. How are congestion management strategies or actions, which improve the mobility of people and goods, considered in the planning process?

Congestion management strategies are evaluated as part of corridor, regional, and local studies. For example, WSDOT’s Congestion Relief Analysis project, which PSRC actively participated in, considered alternative congestion pricing, transit, and road building scenarios. The I-405 project considered and recommended TDM, public transit, and operational improvement strategies. Other corridor studies, such as the SR-520 Bridge Replacement and Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement projects, also considered and recommended TDM, public transit, and operational improvement strategies.

Identifying and evaluating optional strategies for dealing with congestion is a critical component of the CMS. Alternatives development and analysis is conducted at the state, regional, and local level, and, for the central Puget Sound region come together in the MTP (Destination 2030). The majority of these studies involved a broad range of roadway, transit, and demand management strategies.

Recent state, regional, and local work that has identified and evaluated options for addressing congestion and mobility issues in the central Puget Sound region include: modeling, the WTP, Congestion Relief Analysis, corridor studies, High Capacity Transit (HCT) studies, the Traffic Choices Study, and local arterial analysis.

B. How are travel demand reduction and operation management strategies provided for in the management system?

Many CMS strategies are developed, evaluated, and ranked via corridor studies by:

· Assessing current and future baseline conditions.

· Identifying potential strategies.

· Collaboratively developing performance criteria (mobility, environmental, cost, social impacts, etc.).

· Screening then evaluating potential strategies against the performance criteria, and selecting a preferred alternative.

WSDOT’s Urban Planning Office and Corridor Planning program conduct a variety of planning studies for interstate and state highways, including Route Development Plans (RDPs), environmental studies pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and technical analyses. WSDOT staff regularly works with interested community members, cities and counties, PSRC, state agencies, and other WSDOT offices to promote consensus in decisions and cooperation in the study process. Studies are usually funded with state, local, and occasionally federal funds, and study priorities are usually determined by legislative direction and departmental priorities.

Each corridor: (1) is treated as a system, (2) involves a wide range of alternative actions, (3) is a collaborative effort, and (4) seeks consensus at the corridor level on a priority action system/program. These corridor studies have been responsive to VISION 2020 and Destination 2030, and to congestion urgency and the difficulties of limited budgets. A significant success story has been the I-405 Corridor Program under WSDOT leadership; it has been an example that could be readily applied to other corridors. These initiatives help to carry out the region’s CMS. When appropriate to the problem under review, each example considered a range of TDM strategies.

Most studies involve multiple planning, technical analysis, and public involvement steps, and are completed over the course of several years. Some studies involve multiple phases, as funding allows or as a result of a series of incremental decisions. For example, an RDP could result in a set of early action strategies that would require subsequent design and environmental review documents. WSDOT staff involves affected agencies with interests and expertise on each study.

C. How are congestion management strategies considered in the planning process?

Please see the question and response in section A, above.

D. How does PSRC assure that any project increasing single occupancy vehicle (SOV) capacity has resulted from a congestion management strategy prior to programming the project?

This is a requirement of TMAs designated as nonattainment areas for carbon monoxide and or ozone. The central Puget Sound region is no longer in nonattainment status for CO, Ozone (1-hour and 8-hour standard), and PM-2.5 and PM-10 criteria pollutants. It is in maintenance status for CO, Ozone 1-hour, and PM-10, and attainment status for Ozone 8-hour and PM-2.5. Due to many constraints to adding roadway capacity to address congestion (e.g., environmental and long-term sustainability concerns, neighborhood impacts, and financial constraints), the state, regional, and local governments have been very proactive in implementing TDM, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), and transit policies, programs, and facilities. These strategies are most prevalent in the corridor study/route development and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) processes, and benefit from the policies, strategies, and guidance provided in the adopted MTP.

E. Explain how PSRC's planning process provides for periodic evaluation of the effectiveness of the congestion management systems.

Monitoring and data collection is a multiple agency effort. PSRC cooperates with WSDOT, the Transportation Research Center (TRAC), local cities, counties, and transit agencies to collect a wide range of data to evaluate performance measures. Some examples of state and regional monitoring include: WSDOT’s Grey Notebook, WTP, TRAC reports on regional HOV system performance, and PSRC’s Puget Sound Milestones.

F. Describe how transit operators are involved in the development of the CMS.

The MOU between PSRC and WSDOT (see Attachment 5), and between PSRC and the transit agencies (see Attachment 8), affirm that all parties will cooperate and coordinate in development and implementation of the CMS. Transit operations and the role they play in addressing roadway congestion are an integral part of the CMS. Through the TOC and other technical committees, the transit operators are involved in determining appropriate performance measures, identifying and collecting needed transit data, and evaluating alternative actions. Transit agencies are directly involved in all of the major corridor studies, as appropriate, and participate in the development of the regional long-range plan.

G. Has the CMS been updated to include those areas which are within the expanded boundaries as a result of the year 2000 census?

The MPO boundaries were not expanded as a result of the 2000 census. The CMS network identifies facilities where transportation data will be collected, strategies will be evaluated, and the performance of the transportation system will be monitored. This network consists of all facilities on the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS, see Appendix 4 of Attachment 19, Destination 2030). Regional roadways on the MTS are generally those classified as Principal Arterial or higher.

The MTS is the regionally significant transportation network of Destination 2030. The plan emphasizes an integrated multi-modal transportation system and describes the regionally significant modal components of that system. The MTS consists of regionally significant multi-modal transportation facilities and services that are crucial to the mobility needs of the region. The MTS serves as a planning tool used to identify regional transportation problems, and to analyze and develop regional solutions, and it serves as a focus for required state and regional transportation system performance monitoring, particularly for the federally required CMS.

With the 2000 census, the urban area boundaries were expanded and altered, which, in turn, also affected the Federal Functional Classifications of roadways near affected boundaries. As roadways are added to the Federal Functional Classification System as a Principal or higher-classified facility, they are added to the MTS, which in turn updates the CMS network. These updates are not limited solely to census years but are also modified as the road network is amended, as PSRC staff identifies the need to make necessary additions and alterations to the MTS.

 

Metropolitan Transportation Plan Development

1. When and how was the MTP last modified/updated and provided to FTA and FHWA?

In May 2001, a major review of the region’s MTP, Destination 2030 (see Attachment 19), was completed, the document was adopted as a full plan update, and it was submitted to FTA and FHWA. Subsequently, in April 2004, to meet the then three-year MTP update cycle, PSRC conducted a thorough review and refinement of all implementation actions, and system and financial changes, since 2001 with the formal development, documentation, approval, and submittal of Destination 2030: 2004 Review and Progress Report (see Attachment 20) to FTA and FHWA. A minor amendment was also made to the MTP in March 2005.

2. Does the MTP discuss the full 20-year scope of the plan? If not, how does this truly reflect the full timeframe of the MTP? Does the MTP plan for the full metropolitan area anticipated to be developed during the next 20 years?

The region’s MTP went beyond the 20-year requirement, using a 30-year plan horizon of 2030. The 2001 MTP and corresponding 2004 Progress Report addressed and incorporated planning for the entire metropolitan area and beyond, by including all urban and rural areas within the four-county central Puget Sound region.

3. What type of relationship does PSRC have with the land use authorities for the planning area it covers?

Due to requirements of Washington State’s 1991 Growth Management Act (GMA), PSRC is in a unique national position as an MPO empowered with both regional transportation and growth management planning responsibilities. PSRC is required to prepare and utilize an integrated long-range growth, transportation, and economic plan and strategy as a guide to development and assessment of the consistency of all local city and county comprehensive plans. The region’s MTP, meeting requirements of both state and federal planning statutes, is the regional plan against which PSRC must certify consistency for all local transportation elements of comprehensive plans. This requirement to have compatible and consistent local and regional plans has significantly heightened the predictability and confidence of implementation of the region’s MTP in accordance with its adopted policies and investment strategies. Attachment 21 is a schedule for PSRC’s major transportation and growth programs.

4. Are the land use assumptions included in the MTP based on the most current data?

Yes. Again, benefiting from Washington State’s GMA requirements that local plans be periodically updated to be consistent with the MTP, PSRC receives timely updates to local land use plans. Additionally, PSRC monitors patterns and rates of development throughout the region to track and report on the consistency of regional growth in comparison to planned regional growth.

5. To what extent do land use plans influence the MTP, or vice versa?

Noting the nature of the above discussion in questions 3 and 4 about consistency and integration of transportation and land-use planning in the PSRC region, the MTP and local land use plans have a highly coordinated and iterative relationship to assure they each reflect and project the most current realities possible.

6. How does the state participate in the development of the MTP? Is the MTP coordinated with the statewide transportation plan?

As previously described in the responses to questions 1 and 8 of the "Transportation Planning Process" section of this document, PSRC has formalized state participation in the MTP and has benefited from state participation in local transportation and regional corridor planning. As noted in the response to question 12 of the section, PSRC has been fully involved in development of the WTP Update anticipated for completion by WSDOT in late 2005.

7. Does the MTP include a financial plan, which not only compares revenue from existing and proposed sources, but also demonstrates how existing and proposed revenues cover all forecasted capital, operating, and maintenance costs? (See section on Financial Planning/Fiscal Constraint.) Please also describe the changes to the plan during the past 3 years due to voter initiatives and legislation.

Yes. Balancing and updating financial projections of current and future total transportation system costs and revenues for all system modes for maintenance, preservation, and expansion was a major focus of the 2001 MTP (Destination 2030) and the corresponding 2004 Progress Report. Please see Chapter 6 "Finance" of Destination 2030 (Attachment 19) for a thorough description of specific projections of costs, revenues, and assumptions, including reasonably anticipated new revenues sources, that went into the adopted MTP. Also see the 2004 Progress Report (Attachment 20), particularly Chapter IV "Implementing Programs" and Chapter V "Staying the Course," for last year’s update of progress in major project implementation activity and securing new modal transportation revenues since MTP adoption in 2001.

8. How does the MTP address the seven TEA-21 planning factors?

Regarding the seven planning factors, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) February 6, 2003, Certification Review Finding Report provided positive and constructive finding comments with no recommendations for corrective actions following the U.S. DOT’s 2002 federal visit and certification review. Therefore, the following set of comments summarize, by planning factor, how PSRC has addressed the seven TEA-21 planning factors through its existing MTP documents: in Destination 2030 (see Attachment 19) and, with an emphasis on more current planning, as reported in the updated MTP companion document entitled Destination 2030: 2004 Review and Progress Report (see Attachment 20), submitted to the U.S. DOT and WSDOT in 2004.

1. Support economic vitality.

PSRC’s planning process serves a gateway region linking the Pacific Rim to inland markets and is closely tied to other West Coast states. Under PSRC’s VISION 2020 plan, the state GMA-mandated regional policy framework document guiding regional and local comprehensive and transportation planning, there are three foci of policy attention. These are land use, transportation (Destination 2030), and economic strategies. PSRC has further reorganized to bring a stronger focus and integration of economic strategies into its planning, and has made great progress towards development of a vibrant regional economic strategy dealing with selected economic "clusters" within the context of a global economy. This economic development planning activity is called the Prosperity Partnership and is guided by PSRC’s Economic Development District (EDD) Board. Strategic transportation needs form part of this strategy, and continue to be explored and updated in conjunction with PSRC’s other previously noted policy boards and the public/private Regional Freight Mobility Roundtable. Please see pages 7 and 8 of Attachment 20, which respectively describe the investment and finance principles that are being used by the region and helped provide guidance and recommendations for successful State Legislative actions in 2005 that resulted in significant new transportation revenues for multimodal system improvements directly supporting regional economic development needs.

2. Increase the safety and security of the transportation system.

Within the region, safety of public travelers, whether by land, sea, or air, is largely the responsibility of modal operating agencies, but this also has implications for the nature and costs of regional and state transportation plans. Similarly, transportation security is typically the responsibility of given modal transportation operators who more recently have additional coordination, oversight, and support from federal and/or state agencies that have national and state jurisdiction for security. Safety and security projects are eligible for funding under the regional TIP process. In the realm of regional transportation planning, PSRC is increasingly aware of the need to protect against system disruptions and does not simply explore capacity shortfalls. This alertness is in response to ongoing hazard response planning done in the region, the threat of terrorist attacks, and the priority needs of freight for day-to-day system reliability, and resilience or redundancy. See pages 17 – 19 of Attachment 20 for additional discussion of roadway safety and transportation security activities.

The WTP Update, estimated for completion in late 2005, also addresses this topic with a specific safety/security element as one of nine thematic policy priorities. Based in part on the Destination 2030 plan and its 2004 Progress Report, PSRC staff has had on-going participation in the timely review of safety data and materials being used in the WTP Update and presented to the Washington Transportation Commission. PSRC continues monitoring work by the FHWA to determine the possible security role of MPOs (convening forum for regional system monitoring and emergency response coordination) and state DOTs (use of ITS for surveillance) within the national programs of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). (We also recognize that the broad context for such efforts is in two federal agencies, the U.S. DOT and DHS).

3. Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight.

VISION 2020, Destination 2030, and the implementation of funding actions in the regional TIP have respectively focused from broad policy directions to more specific project and program selection actions that support regional plan polices. The use of these policy and planning documents by the region has helped foster implementation of system projects and efficiency improvements that support and enable access to the twenty-five designated Regional Growth Centers and the nine Regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers in the region, and along the major corridors that connect and provide access to such centers. The region’s plans (and supporting TIP policy priorities) have been increasingly focused on strategic transportation investments and improvements that provide greater access to all types of centers, and to the corridors that link or serve these centers. See Chapter IV "Implementing Programs" of Attachment 20 (pages 25 – 41) for a more detailed discussion of planning and implementation actions regarding improved mobility for all modes of transportation.

From the freight perspective, the entire region is a node within an international network of intermodal freight supply chains. To address this transportation plan element, the region co-sponsors public/private freight discourse through the previously mentioned Regional Freight Mobility Roundtable. PSRC also works with a broad partnership of public jurisdictions and freight interests to identify and implement a phased system of freight projects under the Freight Action Strategy (FAST Corridor). The FAST Corridor program description was included in Destination 2030, and the status of further freight mobility planning is described on pages 33 and 34 of Attachment 20.

4. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of life.

As noted in the 2002 review, regional environmental issues were addressed in the draft and final EIS documents for Destination 2030, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). VISION 2020 and Destination 2030 provide clear and integrated policy direction to protect and enhance the environment and regional quality of life by focusing future growth within the region’s planned and designated urban growth areas. A number of policies and demand management strategies aim to promote energy conservation by reducing the extent of current dependency on automobile travel. The region’s plans, policies, and strategies have consciously targeted transportation and economic investments into urban centers, and compact communities and corridors within the region’s urban growth areas, to help achieve such environmental objectives.

Further support for these regional plan policies and strategies can be seen in the nature of major corridor planning initiatives undertaken by WSDOT and other co-lead agencies, in compliance with requirements and procedures of NEPA. These corridor planning programs and projects provide a substantial focus and sensitivity to protecting and enhancing the environment and quality of life for all adjacent communities. The major corridor programs that are in various stages of planning and implementation activity cover large parts of the region and include I-405 (240 square miles), SR-520 HOV Project, SR-167 (King and Pierce Counties), Alaskan Way Viaduct (SR-99), SR-16 Narrows Bridge, I-90, and SR-509, to note a few.

5. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight.

PSRC’s Destination 2030 is a multimodal and intermodal plan. It recognizes and influences the decisions of relatively freestanding transportation authorities (e.g., the six local transit agencies, the regional Sound Transit agency, the ports, and WSDOT). In addition to the reporting on the status of modal improvement plans described above under planning factor 3 (the reference to see Chapter IV "Implementing Programs," pages 25 – 41 of Attachment 20), please also refer to positive progress in modal improvements and connectivity described on pages 46 – 52 of the document.

Intermodal centers are a major feature of Destination 2030 and its focus on designated Regional Growth Centers and Regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. From the freight perspective, the region is the third largest marine container load center in North America. The cooperative freight mobility program addressed such system events as the intermodal transfer of marine containers to rail and highway arteries, and their transport to inland national markets (70 percent of import containers move inland by rail to Chicago and other points east including additional intermodal transfer to Europe).

6. Promote efficient system management and operation.

In concert with the seven federal planning factors, Destination 2030 is broadly organized under a hierarchy of three investment strategies/priorities to assure efficient system management, operation, and development. These are:

· To maintain and preserve existing systems.

· To optimize systems, i.e., HOV, HCT, and Urban Centers; ITS and TSM; and consideration of market incentives and Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) programs to optimize transportation system performance.

· To invest in selective and strategic capacity expansion.

This investment strategy is detailed in Chapter 3 of Destination 2030 (see Attachment 19). For more recent progress reporting on this effort see pages 14 and 15 (Congestion Management System), and pages 19 – 22 (Transportation System Management and Transportation Demand Strategies) of Attachment 20. Additional specifics on utilization of the CMS for efficient system management and operation were noted earlier in parts B, C, and D of the response to question 12 in the section titled "Transportation Planning Process."

7. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

As noted just above, system preservation is a primary priority in the regional planning policies and in the aforementioned investment strategy and principles. The funding challenge facing the central Puget Sound region is made more acute by the high cost of preserving key parts of the existing transportation system. Two leading examples of high-cost but also high-priority preservation projects have received attention in the MTP documents and have resulted in state and federal funding actions: the Alaskan Way Viaduct (SR-99), one of the only two major north-south arteries through Seattle, which is complicated by its deteriorating sea wall along Seattle’s waterfront and subject to earthquake risk; and the SR-520 floating bridge, one of the two urban links joining Seattle to its eastern suburban neighbors across Lake Washington, which is also subject to deterioration of its structures and requiring high costs for replacement.

See pages 52 – 61 of Attachment 20 for a discussion of the challenges and progress regarding financing to achieve system preservation and improvements. PSRC is helping to consolidate partnership efforts and discussions to develop longer-term funding strategies and actions for all the region’s transportation needs. Destination 2030 has been highly beneficial in providing the overview technical and policy framework for these discussions. Technical data on project costs and revenue forecasts continue to be routinely updated while public and private regional leaders are working closely with the Legislature and WSDOT in a common effort to improve and achieve more sustainable system financing.

9. How does the MTP address freight considerations?

The MTP incorporated freight considerations through a variety of freight planning activities. PSRC engaged the previously noted public-private Regional Freight Mobility Roundtable. Participants in this on-going activity include all private freight modes (rail, highway, marine, air cargo, and intermodal) and all levels of government, including federal agency representatives. Participating federal entities are FHWA, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S Maritime Administration (MARAD), FTA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Department of Defense (DOD). Such planning input and coordination for the MTP and its progress report refinement also included coordination with the regional freight interagency team (FAST CAST, the Freight Action Strategy Corridor Agency Staff Team). This work has been jointly sponsored with WSDOT since 1998, but beginning in July 2005, with agreement of WSDOT, it is being reassigned to have PSRC lead this effort. For freight input to the MTP, this team screened and recommended key collaborative freight projects within the region, using the Roundtable as a sounding board.

A. What are the freight transportation issues in your area?

Freight issues are divided into three categories that are also being addressed in the WTP Update: (a) gateway activities, (b) needs of Washington producers, and (c) local distribution. All modes of freight transportation are affected and engaged: rail, marine, trucking and air cargo. Generic issues are capacity, system reliability, and tailoring of strategies that support the private sector actions.

B. Are you doing any, or have you completed any freight studies? If yes, what are they?

Freight planning activities are ongoing. Public and private sectors are involved in a FAST-sponsored freight study currently being conducted, and on-going freight planning elements of the Regional Economic Strategy. This economic strategy is being conducted through a consultant-supported effort of PSRC, and is expected to be completed by the end of 2005. This will allow the results to provide input to a number of interregional efforts, including the inter-state West Coast Corridor Coalition, WSDOT’s WTP Update, and the upcoming MTP Update. The regional work will be informed in large part by the statewide planning activities in which we have been engaged. Most notable among these are the Marine Cargo Forecasts (WPPA and WSDOT, 1994), the Strategic Freight Transportation Analysis (2002-2007), and the Rail Capacity Study (WPPA, 2004), and follow-up with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific (UP) railroads (both of which are active members of the Roundtable).

C. Do you have a freight working group/task force? If yes, how does it work and who is included on it? If not, how is freight transportation handled?

The previously noted Regional Freight Mobility Roundtable and the FAST partnership serve as the region’s "working group" and have both been cited as a national model for regionally cooperative freight planning. These efforts include from the public sector: FHWA, FTA, FRA, MARAD, DOD, and the U.S. Coast Guard, as well as WSDOT, local ports, and other regional and local participants and private sector participants representing all modes of freight mobility – the railroads, the marine shipping lines, air cargo, and the trucking industry, as well as non-profit organizations including the University of Washington, and liaison with the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperative and multi-state groups (West Coast Corridor Coalition and the Chicago-Seattle northern tier states).

D. What tools do you use in making decisions about freight transportation improvements? (Freight Forecasting, Cost Benefit Analysis, Market Analysis, Etc.) Can you describe the tools you use?

PSRC has used freight forecasting in the past, based on surveys and technical efforts to refine a truck-forecasting module in the metropolitan travel model (FAST Corridor Phase II, 2002). As explained above, PSRC relies heavily on the tools used to develop statewide forecasts by freight mode. PSRC has also worked with the Secretary’s Office of the U.S. DOT to help scope freight benefit/cost analysis tools for evaluating freight mega-projects that may provide regional level analysis, e.g., the FAST Corridor or the systemically connected CREATE project in Chicago. It is PSRC’s understanding that U.S. DOT work will be completed in September 2005.

In the PSRC region, market dynamics are illustrated by the overflow of West Coast container traffic from California ports into our region, partly due to congestion issues and the surge of Asian imports in recent years. The Puget Sound region is a gateway region dealing with international market trends and is currently documenting (FAST studies) the Puget Sound region "freight story." The freight dynamics are constantly changing and the PSRC region is flattered to be looked to as a laboratory for developing long range solutions. Current incremental actions include the FAST Corridor Phase I action package (a system of 15 rail grade separation and port access projects valued at $500 million, with eight of these complete, six in the pipeline process, and one still seeking a complete funding package).

10. Does the MTP include design concept and scope descriptions of all existing and future transit facilities for the purpose of air quality analysis and cost estimates?

Yes. All such facilities are described for air quality conformity testing in Appendix 3 of the MTP (see Attachment 19). Appendix 9 further enumerates the costs for all regionally significant projects proposed for improvement and investment as part of the MTS.

11. Did PSRC include a summary, analysis, and report on the disposition of comments received as part of the public involvement process for the MTP?

Yes. While environmental documents are not federally required for system plans, Washington State laws do require formal environmental documents and processes for all such system plans. PSRC prepared formal draft and final EIS documents, including documentation and responses to all comments received during scoping and development of the MTP and its draft EIS. The draft EIS on the draft MTP was released for public comment on August 31, 2000. The final EIS was prepared in two volumes and released on May 10, 2001. Volume 1 contains the environmental analysis of the final preferred MTP (Destination 2030) and Volume 2 contains full documentation of all public comments received, along with responses to such comments. The two volumes of the final EIS exceeded 1,000 pages and were also prepared in a CD format, which is available upon request from PSRC’s Information Center.

12. Are there air quality circumstances such that the plan must be coordinated with the development or maintenance of transportation control measures?

No. The region has complied with and completed all previous SIP Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) and no conditions currently exist to suggest the need for new or additional measures.

13. Please describe the PSRC process for public review of the plan.

Destination 2030 was developed using an inclusive process. The majority of PSRC staff worked on plan development in some capacity, providing expertise in diverse areas including growth management strategies, plan review, urban design, legal research, regulatory reform, economics, demographics, forecasting, pricing, finance, congestion and travel demand management, and needs assessments for the various modes of transportation, including roads, transit, ferries, and nonmotorized facilities. Staff provided the analysis, modeling, writing, and graphic design. PSRC hired and managed consulting firms to perform analysis for an EIS and to prepare public involvement materials. PSRC also hired a professional facilitator to ensure all viewpoints were heard at important public meetings.

PSRC made an effort to widely distribute information about the plan in a variety of mediums, including the Internet, television commercials through a partnership with KING TV, a promotional video, a CD-ROM, newsletters, focus groups, and presentations to community groups.

The public process relating to plan development began with the issuance of a Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of the Environmental Impact Statement in fall of 1999 (for a copy of this document, please contact PSRC’s Information Center at infoctr@psrc.org or 206-464-7532). The scope of the environmental review was guided by public comments in response to this document. PSRC also conducted a series of focus group meetings with planning and public works staff representing jurisdictions throughout the region. The environmental analysis involved multiple phases over a 16-month period, including the testing of four scenarios and a full benefit cost analysis.

Public collaboration was early, continuous, and broad. It included a partnership with KING TV reaching millions to raise general awareness and link people via www.king5.com . A monthly newsletter was distributed to approximately 10,000 people. Direct mail and follow-up phone calls were placed to 8,000 homes in targeted communities. General awareness was enhanced by blanket newspaper advertising and aggressive news media outreach. A random sample statistical survey was conducted with 6,000 households. Updated information was available at all times on PSRC's website, www.psrc.org . Key meetings were videotaped and replayed on dozens of public television stations. The plan was featured at over 300 public meetings.

Destination 2030 was developed with careful consideration of issues related to environmental justice. From the outset, the process sought to ensure that the burdens and benefits of implementing a regional transportation strategy were not inequitably distributed across groups based on race, income, age or disability. Public outreach efforts provided valuable input regarding the analysis of infrastructure investments, accessibility, modal choices, traffic safety, community development, growth management, congestion, noise, and air quality.

14. Please describe how the plan considers the relationships among land use and all transportation modes (5303).

Please see responses above in this section to questions 3, 4, and 5.

15. What are the major trip destination centers in the region and the number of auto and transit trips to those centers?

The region’s largest trip destination center is the Seattle Central Business District (CBD), which receives 200,000 auto person trips (in 165,000 vehicles) and 80,000 transit person trips each weekday. Combined with the adjacent Denny Regrade and First Hill centers, this metropolitan center attracts 520,000 auto person trips (in 315,000 vehicles) and 100,000 transit person trips each weekday. The next largest center is east of Lake Washington, where the combination of the Bellevue CBD, Overlake, and Redmond attract 460,000 auto person trips (in 255,000 vehicles) and 10,000 transit person trips each weekday. The region has 19 additional designated Regional Growth Centers and nine Regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers.

16. How do you identify priority corridors?

The responses previously provided under question 12 of the section titled "Transportation Planning Process" note the region’s utilization of the CMS process to identify priority corridors. Additionally, the general public and elected officials of the region have the benefit of real-time input from local media and computer-based major freeway and HOV performance monitoring, as well as video camera traffic surveillance, to gain a highly repetitive pattern of regional corridor transportation problems. This is supplemented by periodic local, regional, and state systems management assessments (of pavement, bridge, ITS, and transit) of modal system reliability and structural integrity/adequacy for major components of corridor travel facilities. Regional and state policy makers have a broad consensus regarding priority attention to safety and preservation in establishing regional system investment priorities.

17. Does your process generate information that leads to a good understanding of the travel problems in priority corridors?

Yes. This is accomplished in a variety of ways. PSRC utilizes state-of-the-art travel demand models, highly rigorous and on-going (over ten years) longitudinal household travel surveys, input from specific transit system on-board surveys, and, as needed, results from special corridor travel surveys that may be conducted to fine tune specific data/information desired for a given corridor.

18. What is the date of your last travel survey?

The last Household Activity Survey was in 1999. The next survey is planned for 2006.

TIP and Project Selection

TIP

1. Is the TIP updated at least every 2 years, on a schedule compatible with STIP development?

Yes. PSRC’s current adopted TIP is for 2005-2007 (see Attachment 22). PSRC’s 2006 project selection process will lead to a newly adopted TIP in October 2006. NOTE: This requirement has now changed to a four-year TIP.

2. How do the MPO, state, and transit operator(s) collaborate on the development of the TIP?

As discussed in previous answers, PSRC has an MOU with WSDOT and with the transit operators (see Attachments 5 and 8) that identifies each agency’s responsibilities. WSDOT and each of the transit operators are members of PSRC’s technical and policy committees that collaborate on the TIP, which includes recommending projects and adopting the TIP.

3. Does the TIP show Section 5309 Federal Transit Administration funding committed to the area in the first year of the TIP, pursuant to 23 CFR 450.324(m)(1)? How are anticipated Section 5309 funds shown in the second and third year of the TIP?

Yes, the TIP shows discretionary FTA 5309 funds, both 5309 Bus Allocation and 5309 New Start funds. The 5309 Bus Allocation funds are primarily programmed in the TIP’s first year. For 5309 Bus Allocation funds to be shown in the TIP’s second or third year, they must be in an approved federal appropriation. The 5309 New Start funds are in all three TIP years. For the New Start funds to be shown in the TIP’s second and third years, they must be in an approved FTA "Full Funding Agreement."

4. Are there specific criteria used in determining which projects will be included in the TIP?

A. What process was used in developing these criteria?

Prior to the project selection process, PSRC adopts a Policy Framework that provides policy guidance on how the region will prioritize projects, and implement VISION 2020 and Destination 2030. Using that policy guidance, coupled with federal and state requirements, project evaluation criteria are developed and refined by the PSRC technical committees that implement policy direction. The most recent Policy Framework is included as Appendix C5 of the TIP (see Attachment 22).

B. How are projects prioritized?

PSRC employs a criteria-based project evaluation system, using policy direction from the adopted Policy Framework as discussed above. Projects are then ranked by PSRC staff using the criteria, then reviewed by PSRC’s technical committees, and project recommendations are made to PSRC’s policy boards. The policy boards review and approve projects to be included in a Draft TIP for public comment.

C. Are any STP or Section 5307, 5309 funds suballocated among jurisdictions or modes?

No, PSRC does not suballocate funds to individual jurisdictions. PSRC has an adopted policy to fund non-motorized projects with 10% of the biennial amount of Surface Transportation Program (STP) and CMAQ funds, however projects are recommended through a competitive process.

5. Are TIP projects consistent with the long range MTP? How is consistency determined?

Yes. Each project is reviewed to determine if it is identified in Destination 2030, or if it is consistent with adopted policies in Destination 2030. Project sponsors are required to provide this information in TIP applications for any new or existing projects proposed for inclusion in the TIP. This information is then reviewed by PSRC staff to verify consistency. In addition, the TIP contains a discrete data field that identifies the project in the MTP (MTP#, see Appendix A of Attachment 22).

6. Is the TIP financially constrained by year? (Also see Financial Planning / Fiscal Constraint)

Yes for FTA funds, and no for FHWA funds.

FTA formula funds (Section 5307 and Section 5309 Fixed Guideway) are constrained by year, to match the apportionments. The amounts for the TIP’s second and third years are programmed based on formula fund estimates, and adjusted annually as those year’s FTA apportionments become available. As noted above, the 5309 Bus Allocation funds are primarily programmed in the TIP’s first year. For 5309 Bus Allocation funds to be shown in the TIP’s second or third year, they must be in an approved federal appropriation. The 5309 New Start funds are in all three TIP years. For the New Start funds to be shown in the TIP’s second and third years, they must be in an approved FTA "Full Funding Agreement."

FHWA funds in the TIP are given multi-year project selection approval in Washington State, in recognition of the "obligation authority" feature that limits all FHWA funds each year to a specific obligation amount for each state. WSDOT manages the state’s FHWA obligation authority.

7. Does the TIP identify "illustrative projects" (projects not in the officially recognized TIP that would be given priority if additional funds were found)?

No, however PSRC did approve contingency lists of projects in July 2004 to receive PSRC’s federal funds if they became available prior to the 2006 project selection process. Some additional funds were made available to the region, the lists were scrutinized for project currency, and contingency list projects were recommended for funding in 2005.

8. How is public involvement incorporated in the TIP development process? (Also see Public Outreach) How has this involvement affected the content of the TIP?

The following is from the most current project selection process, taken from the Executive Summary of the approved 2005-07 TIP:

"On September 9, 2004, the Transportation Policy Board authorized release of the Draft 2005-2007 Regional TIP for public review and comment. PSRC has launched an aggressive and successful outreach campaign and is using more strategic ways of communicating about PSRC’s funding and the draft TIP. All of the items mentioned below, as well as information outlining the entire process, have been on PSRC’s website throughout the year.

· Up-to-date information was available on the TIP pages of PSRC’s website at www.psrc.org/projects/tip/index.htm , including instructions for making public comments.

· Periodic discussions were held during meetings of the Growth Management Policy Board (GMPB), TPB, and TPB’s technical committees between February 2003 and September 2004.

· PSRC’s Policy Boards At Work series featured several items regarding the 2004 project selection process, including the development of the Policy Framework document and the July 2004 TPB recommendations. At Work is sent by email and U.S. mail to over 440 committee members, legislators, and interested parties.

· From January to June 2004, public comments were solicited at monthly meetings held by the following four countywide growth management policy organizations and technical committees regarding recommendations for projects:

- Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council.

- Pierce County Regional Council.

- Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee.

- King County Growth Management Planning Council. The Council has designated the King County elected officials on TPB to oversee their countywide process. Public review of recommended projects was conducted through the three subarea planning groups: Eastside Transportation Partnership, South County Area Transportation Board, and SeaShore Transportation Forum.

· Articles on the 2004 project selection process were featured in the March, May, August, and September editions of PSRC’s Regional VIEW newsletter. The newsletter is published monthly and distributed to almost 8,000 agencies, cities, towns, organizations, and individuals. In addition, the Regional VIEW is posted on PSRC’s website and widely distributed to public libraries, universities, and news organizations in the region.

· All applications submitted for the STP/CMAQ Regional Competition and FTA Regional Competition were posted on PSRC’s website.

· A news brief about the competition workshops appeared in the Bremerton Sun.

· Eight articles related to studying the acquisition of the eastside Burlington Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF) rail line appeared in newspapers around the region. The study was among the projects recommended to receive PSRC funds. The BNSF study and funding potential has also been featured in the Regional VIEW and numerous editions of the At Work series.

· An article related to the Rural Town Centers Pilot Program appeared in the Snoqualmie Valley Record. The Pilot Program was among the projects recommended to receive PSRC funds.

· Nearly 1,000 letters were sent to representatives of all local jurisdictions and agencies recommended to receive PSRC funds, including mayors, councilmembers, and legislators.

· A news release was sent to over 165 media outlets announcing the Executive Board’s July 22, 2004, approval action to allow the recommended projects to be included in the Draft TIP and for air quality analysis to begin. At least seven articles were published in local newspapers regarding the funding recommendations, including two articles in the Bremerton Sun about potential SR-305 funding, and articles about each county’s funding in the Tacoma News Tribune, Seattle Times, Daily Journal of Commerce, Central Kitsap Reporter, and the Bremerton Patriot.

· Customized news releases were sent to local papers, including dailies, weeklies, and business journals, highlighting specific projects in their reporting areas, resulting in six articles, one each in The King County Journal, The Everett Herald, The Bremerton Sun, The Daily Journal of Commerce, and two in the Port Orchard Independent.

· A news release was issued when the Draft TIP was released for public comment. This news release helped to satisfy FTA’s "program of projects" requirement for federal transit funds, and can be found on PSRC’s website at http://www.psrc.org/datapubs/infocenter/news091004funding.htm .

· The 165 media outlets (daily and weekly newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations) serve people throughout the four counties. They include the following newspapers aimed at traditionally underserved populations and other groups: Asia Today, Beacon Hill News, NW Asian Weekly, e the people website, El Mundo, Filipino American Herald, Hokubei Hochi, International Examiner, Jewish Transcript, Korea Central Daily, Korea Times, Korean Post, La Voz News Magazine, Muckleshoot Tribe News, Northwest Ethnic News, Puyallup Tribal Newspaper, Quilceda Messenger, Real Change, Seattle Gay News, Snoqualmie Tribe, South Seattle Star, Suquamish Tribe Newspaper, Tacoma Senior Scene, Tacoma True Citizen, The Hispanic News, and The Federal Way Mirror.

· Comments were requested in writing by mail, email, or fax, or by using the comment form on PSRC’s website. Public comments could also be made in person at the TPB meetings on September 9 and October 14, and the Executive Board meeting on October 28, 2004.

· To encourage public comments, PSRC used an innovative web-based mapping program on the agency’s website, at http://www.psrc.org/projects/tip/currenttip/webmap.htm . Projects recommended for new funds were rendered in an interactive map, enabling visitors to the website to view transportation projects in proximity to their neighborhood or individual commute. Visitors could also send a comment directly to PSRC using a comment form built into the program."

Due to public comments made during the review period of the draft 2005-2007 Regional TIP, the TPB placed a condition on one of the projects in the TIP.

9. Has the TIP been included in the STIP without modification?

Yes.

10. What is the process for modifying/amending the TIP and how are amendments coordinated with the STIP?

PSRC establishes and provides criteria and procedures for making modifications to the Regional TIP. Attachment 1 of Appendix C of the 2005-2007 Regional TIP (see Attachment 22) is the Administrative Procedures for Developing, Updating, and Amending the Regional Transportation Improvement Program, adopted by PSRC on October 19, 1995, and revised on June 28, 2001. Modifications can be made in three ways: through monthly corrections, monthly routine amendments, or the Annual Air Quality Amendment. Unlike corrections or routine amendments, the Annual Air Quality Amendment can include modifications that require a new regional air quality conformity finding.

The criteria used to distinguish the three types of modifications were developed in consultation with state and federal agencies. The criteria are consistent with regional policy direction and will be refined as needed. More information on modifications to the TIP can be found on PSRC’s website at http://www.psrc.org/projects/tip/currenttip/amendments/amendments.htm .

Corrections: Modifications that qualify as corrections are completed by PSRC administrative action. To be considered a correction, the change must not trigger an air quality conformity analysis. Also, with one exception, it must not add a new project to the TIP, or add a future phase to an existing project. The exception is if the work involves basic repair, rehabilitation, or facility or fleet replacement. To qualify for this exception, new projects must be less than $2 million, and changes in costs to existing projects must be less than $2 million. In addition, the modification must meet all of the following criteria to qualify as a correction:

· The project must be consistent with VISION 2020 and Destination 2030.

· The TIP's financial constraint finding must be retained when the correction is made.

Routine Amendments: Modifications qualifying as routine amendments are processed using the formal amendment procedure established by WSDOT. In order to be considered a routine amendment, the proposed modification must meet all of the following criteria:

· The project must be consistent with VISION 2020 and Destination 2030.

· The TIP's financial constraint finding must be retained when the amendment is made.

· If a new project or a future phase is being added to a project already in the TIP, the project must be exempt from regional air quality conformity requirements or included in the previous conformity finding, which will remain unchanged by the amendment.

Annual Air Quality Amendments: Modifications that do not qualify as corrections or routine amendments must wait until the Annual Air Quality Amendment. The Annual Air Quality Amendment is essentially an annual update of all new changes to the TIP, and includes new projects and modifications that require a new regional air quality conformity finding. Minor changes that would qualify as corrections and routine amendments can also be made at this time. Similar to the eligibility requirements for other types of modifications, the projects must be consistent with VISION 2020 and Destination 2030, and the TIP's financial constraint finding must be retained when the amendment is made.

Once the modifications are approved by PSRC boards or processed administratively, they are sent to WSDOT for review/approval by the governor and federal funding agencies, and subsequent amendment to the STIP.

11. Is an annual list of projects for which Federal funds have been obligated published or otherwise made available for public review? Does the TIP public involvement process also serve as the Section 5307 Program of Projects public involvement process for FTA funded projects?

Yes, the information on annual project obligations is included as an appendix in the TIP document. Yes, PSRC serves that function for the region’s transit agencies with projects in the TIP funded with 5307 funds.

12. Does the TIP list major projects from the previous TIP that were implemented and identify any significant delays in the planned implementation of major projects?

Yes, completed projects are listed in Appendix H of the adopted TIP (see Attachment 22). Delayed project information is collected monthly for projects funded with PSRC’s federal funds and Appendix H provides a website link for current project lists. In addition, Appendix H provides a website link to PSRC’s Action Strategy, which provides a status report on all the projects contained in the first ten years of the long range plan.

13. Has PSRC included a summary, analysis, and report on the disposition of comments received as part of the public involvement process for the TIP? Please describe.

Yes, during the TIP public comment period, comments are solicited on projects proposed for inclusion in the TIP. All comments and responses are then reviewed by the TPB and Executive Board prior to the scheduled adoption action. Appendix B of the adopted TIP (see Attachment 22) includes all comments received, and responses/disposition of those comments.

14. Are major changes in the TIP process being planned? If so, what are they?

The TIP will be a four-year program in accordance with SAFETEA-LU.

 

Project Selection

1. Beyond the first year of the TIP:

A. Are projects (except NHS and Bridge, Interstate Maintenance, and Federal Lands Highways programs projects) selected by the MPO?

Yes.

B. What project selection procedures have been agreed to for Title 23 and Federal Transit Act funded projects? How are they documented?

Under the federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), PSRC is responsible for programming and maintaining the three-year regional TIP, and for selecting projects to receive funds from three federal funding programs: STP, CMAQ, and FTA.

Under TEA-21, PSRC is required to document the process used for programming these funds. The "Policy Framework for PSRC’s Project Selection Process" (Policy Framework, see Appendix C5 of Attachment 22) is intended to serve this purpose, by providing policy direction and guidelines for the recommendation and selection of projects to receive PSRC funds.

Every two years, the Policy Framework document is refined and updated, and adopted for use during PSRC’s next project selection process. The 2004 version of the Policy Framework is a further refinement of the 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2002 versions of the document. In addition to more general policy direction, the Policy Framework contains specific information for PSRC’s 2004 project selection process for programming PSRC funds, as part of the development of the 2005-2007 regional TIP.

The 2004 version of the Policy Framework maintains strong and direct support for the development of centers and connecting corridors policy focus adopted by the region in 2002. The intent of the centers policy focus and guidance for programming PSRC funds is to support implementation of the policies and projects established in Destination 2030, adopted by the region in May of 2001, and the plan update adopted in 2004. The Policy Framework also supports local comprehensive (GMA) plans by promoting and guiding more focused, coordinated regional and countywide programming activities for PSRC funds.

In addition, PSRC has MOU’s with WSDOT and the transit operators, as previously discussed (see Attachments 5 and 8).

Based on FTA procedures, and as requested by FTA, PSRC gives one year of project selection approval to projects using FTA funds. For projects using STP and CMAQ funds, PSRC, in cooperation with WSDOT and FHWA, gives multiyear project selection approval so that these projects may proceed in a more accelerated manner towards implementation. Multiyear selection approval allows the sponsor of a project identified in any year of the TIP to obligate federal funds during the first year of the TIP, up to a yearly funding limit or cap. The cap is equal to the region’s allocated share of STP and CMAQ funds for the year, plus the carryover STP and CMAQ funds from past years. Carryover funds are programmed, but unobligated, funds from previous years.

This accelerated process for STP and CMAQ funds was developed in 1993 and modified in 1995 after discussions with PSRC’s Regional Project Evaluation Committee (RPEC). The process was approved by PSRC’s policy boards, WSDOT, and the U.S. DOT, and will continue to be used for this Regional TIP. The 2004 Policy Framework for PSRC’s Project Selection Process provides the necessary documentation and guidance on the project selection process.

2. How does PSRC consult with the state and transit operators in selecting projects for the TIP?

PSRC has an MOU with WSDOT and one with the transit operators (see Attachments 5 and 8) that identifies each agency’s responsibilities. WSDOT and each of the transit operators are members of PSRC’s technical and policy committees that collaborate on the TIP, which includes recommending projects and adopting the TIP. See also the response to the following question.

3. How does the state cooperate with the MPO in selecting projects from the TIP?

All projects included in a regional TIP must receive project selection approval before proceeding to implementation. Selection approval is a TEA-21 action that gives the region responsibility and authority to manage the project’s funds. As directed by TEA-21, PSRC and WSDOT have project selection authority to approve projects in the region that use federal transportation funds. The agency authorized to provide project selection approval varies depending on the source of federal funds:

· PSRC has selection authority in consultation with WSDOT for projects using MPO-managed funds: STP, CMAQ, FTA funds. PSRC’s selection approval is final after conferring with WSDOT. A copy of PSRC’s approval action for projects in the regional TIP is included in Appendix I of the adopted TIP (see Attachment 22).

· WSDOT has selection authority in cooperation with PSRC for projects using all other funds. Both PSRC and WSDOT must approve the selection of the projects for funding.

4. Has a process been established to allow PSRC, the state, or transit operator(s) to develop a revised "agreed upon" list of projects if appropriated Federal funds are significantly less than the funds authorized?

Two events during 1999, the endangered species listing for the central Puget Sound region and the passage of I-695, had a severe impact on the ability of projects programmed in the Regional TIP to proceed to implementation. These events resulted in the critical delay of state and local transportation projects, which put the region at risk of losing federal transportation funds if projects didn’t move rapidly forward to obligation. This risk was averted when the region acted quickly with a two-step reprogramming action to reallocate federal funds from delayed TIP projects to other existing TIP projects that were ready to go and could obligate. Since that time, the region approved a list of contingency projects when projects were approved during the 2004 project selection process.

5. Are projects in the same funding category aggregated in the TIP? If so, how are projects selected from the listing to proceed to construction or other phase of work?

No, PSRC does not group projects.

6. What is the public involvement process, for project inclusion in the TIP, including amendments?

Please refer to the response to question 8 in the section titled "TIP" for projects to be included in the TIP, and to question 10 for amendments to the TIP.

7. What is the relationship between the FTA Section 5307 program of projects for the designated recipient and the TIP? Is there an agreement for the two to be combined?

As required by 23 USC and 49 USC for transportation management areas, PSRC, in consultation with the affected public transit operators, selects the projects to receive the FTA Section 5307 funds. PSRC has an agreement with the public transit operators in its MPO region, a copy of which is available on PSRC’s website at http://www.psrc.org/datapubs/infocenter/2003moutransit.pdf .

8. Does the area intend to utilize FTA Section 5307 funds for ADA complementary paratransit service operating assistance?

Yes. Two agencies in the region are using 5307 funds for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) operating assistance in the current TIP – Community Transit and Everett Transit.

 

Financial Planning / Fiscal Constraint

1. How are the financial plans included in the MTP and the TIP?

TIP: Exhibits 5 and 6 in the TIP (see Attachment 22) document the financial feasibility of TIP projects. All of the projects have demonstrated reasonable expectations that the funds programmed in the TIP will be available. Figure 5 is a financial summary of the TIP, including only those funds managed by PSRC and WSDOT. Exhibit 6 illustrates the financial feasibility of the TIP by providing a comparison of funding commitments to revenues for the three-year period; this exhibit also references only those funds managed by PSRC and WSDOT.

MTP: Destination 2030 is a plan that is built around its financial strategy. The financial plan is an integral part of the overall plan.

2. Does the MTP/TIP financial plan identify revenues by source (local, private, State, and Federal)?

TIP: Yes and no. Exhibit 5 and 6, referred to above, identify state and federal revenues, but not local and private. The TIP’s individual project listings identify when local funds are in a specific project, such as when matching funds are required to use Federal funds, or when the sponsor provides "over match." As noted above, local funds in the TIP have demonstrated reasonable expectations those funds are available.

MTP: Destination 2030 identifies transportation revenues by source of authority (cities, counties, transit taxing districts, state, and federal) as well as by tax-base source (motor fuels, property values, taxable retail sales, motor vehicle registrations and values, fares, and other operating revenues, etc.). The principal transportation tax bases traditionally have been retail sales, registered motor vehicles, taxable motor fuel consumption, and the taxable value of motor vehicles. The allowable uses of nearly all existing transportation funding sources in the region are restricted to specific uses, by source, by expenditure, and often by geography or jurisdiction.

3. What sources (the state, transit operators, etc.) does PSRC use to gather information for developing revenue estimates and what assumptions are used?

TIP: PSRC develops its estimates for federal funds in consultation with WSDOT, FHWA, and FTA. PSRC bases the estimates for the TIP on "past trends" of FHWA and FTA funds, using the annual WSDOT funding allocation for FHWA programs, and the most recent appropriations for FTA programs, and typically does a "straight-line" projection of those amounts into the future.

MTP: Revenue estimates for Destination 2030 are based on two general classes of variables: (1) a tax base forecast that is linked to the region’s long-range economic and demographic forecast, and (2) a financial strategy that examines and embraces new revenue potential for each type of operating authority responsible for project implementation. Revenue streams are estimated (both current law and financial strategy) by specific funding source for independent implementing authorities.

4. Are the state, transit operators, and other local recipients providing adequate projections for future revenue to the MPO?

TIP: Yes. The non-federally funded projects in the TIP are primarily from WSDOT and Sound Transit. Both agencies only submit their non-federally funded projects that are reasonably expected to have those funds available. E.g., WSDOT’s projects are from its "current law" budget and/or from the state’s 2003 "Nickel Funding Package," and Sound Transit’s projects are from its voter-approved Phase One funding package.

MTP: PSRC works closely with implementing agencies to ensure there are reasonable estimates of projected revenues. This is often an iterative process that relies upon detailed local knowledge of the implementing agencies’ finance staff, and the macro-forecasting tools and methods used by PSRC. Typically, this means there are both a "bottoms up" and a "top down" approach to detailed revenue projections by source and implementing authority.

5. What are the sources of information for capital, operating, and maintenance costs of proposed investments?

TIP: Project sponsors identify the funding sources when proposing them for inclusion into the TIP. As noted above, all projects in the TIP have demonstrated reasonable expectations that their funding will be available.

MTP: Capital projects included in Destination 2030 have costs that are estimated by the project sponsors. The methods vary by implementing agency and have undergone varying degrees of outside scrutiny and review. Operating and maintenance costs are for various programs, and are estimated from various local sources. PSRC conducted a survey of local (city and county) operation, maintenance, and preservation needs, which was used to build an estimation model for these needs in the future. Also, PSRC collects historical data about agency-level expenditures on transportation in order to monitor change and establish a historical baseline. Other agencies, such as WSDOT, develop very detailed multi-year maintenance and preservation programs.

6. How does PSRC establish that financial plan costs and revenue projections are based on data reflecting the existing situation and historical trends?

TIP: TIP revenue projections are based on historical trends, as described in the response to question 3. Sponsors develop the cost estimates for each project, as described in the responses to questions 4 and 5.

MTP: PSRC’s tax-base forecasting model is directly integrated with our regional economic and demographic model. These models are estimated using historical data for all appropriate explanatory variables. Typically, PSRC utilizes a new forecast every three years. Short-run changes in revenue availability are typically a function of changes in law and policy, which can be immediately addressed through changes in the tax rates applied to the underlying forecast.

7. Does the financial plan for the MTP and the TIP include proposed new revenue or new revenue sources?

TIP: The TIP does not include new revenue or new revenue sources.

MTP: Destination 2030 does assume that new revenues will be made available during the life of the plan. New revenues are estimated in a manner consistent with the financial strategy articulated in the plan. In 1998, the state Legislature and Governor created a Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation (BRCT) to conduct a comprehensive analysis of statewide transportation needs and priorities. The Commission, which was comprised of public and private sector representatives, was charged with developing recommendations for identifying, funding, and delivering key transportation services and projects. The BRCT Final Report recommended that existing statewide revenue sources be enhanced and new sources found. Destination 2030 builds upon the BRCT recommendations

8. If new revenue sources are required to demonstrate financial constraint of the MTP and the TIP, what strategies have been identified to ensure the availability of the new funds?

TIP: Not applicable.

MTP: The BRCT revenue recommendations, combined with Destination 2030 finance principles, provide a reasonable basis for estimating new transportation revenues that constitute a Destination 2030 financial plan. New transportation revenues include new statewide sources, regional option revenue sources, local options sources, and additional utilization of existing revenue authority. The implementation of new revenue sources will clearly require that action be taken within a number of decision-making arenas, in the state legislature, within the region, and ultimately at the polls. Since adoption of Destination 2030, PSRC has continued its monitoring of changes in transportation finance.

At the end of April 2003, the Legislature passed a 10-year statewide transportation funding package that will help to implement a number of key projects and programs included in Destination 2030. This package included a 5-cent fuel tax increase. During the 2005 legislative session, a new funding package was enacted, which will apply another 9.5 cents to the fuel tax over a four-year period. The state has demonstrated a commitment to follow through on recommendations of the BRCT. Meanwhile, the region has been authorized to submit a funding plan to the voters, which could substantially implement a number of significant projects and programs included in Destination 2030.

9. Is the TIP financially constrained by year and by funding sources?

Please see the response to question 6 in the section titled "TIP."

10. Funding for projects included in the first two years of the TIP shall be committed or reasonably be expected to be available. How does PSRC assure that these funds are available or committed?

All of the projects in the TIP have demonstrated reasonable expectations that the funds programmed will be available, as described in the responses to questions 1 and 5 of this section.

11. Does PSRC anticipate utilizing any innovative financing techniques for major projects? If so, which projects, and what techniques will be utilized?

Not at this point.

 

Public Outreach

1. When was PSRC’s public involvement process last adopted/revised? Is there at least a 45-day public comment period before the process or revision is adopted?

PSRC’s Public Participation Plan was first adopted in the early 1990s when PSRC was created. It was last revised in 2002 to include new technologies for involving the public, such as the Internet and email publications. PSRC held two 45-day public review and comment periods before the revisions were adopted.

The plan is based on the adopted bylaws of the agency, meets all federal and state requirements for public involvement, and includes elements of the agency’s work program such as the Regional VIEW Newsletter and the agency’s Information Center. The plan was developed with review by PSRC’s governing board and went out for public review and comment.

2. How does the process provide citizens, public agencies, transportation agency employees, private sector transportation providers, and others affected by transportation plans, programs, and projects with timely information about transportation issues and processes?

Citizens use the website, call or visit the Information Center regularly, receive publications and mailings, make comments at PSRC meetings, call or email PSRC staff, utilize opportunities for public comment, and attend informational and input gathering events held by PSRC. PSRC uses a variety of mediums to interact with the public, they include:

· Website: PSRC maintains an extensive website, www.psrc.org , which is updated almost daily. The site includes information on the agency’s responsibilities, programs, publications, and press releases; contact information for all staff; a search function; the Title VI Plan, complaint procedures and complaint form; and a comment form so visitors may comment directly to PSRC on any subject. There is also a "Get Involved" page to encourage people to participate by signing up to receive the agency’s Regional VIEW newsletter, attending meetings, requesting a speaker, or contacting the Information Center for copies of plans, reports, or other information.

· Information Center: PSRC maintains a comprehensive Information Center that is open to the public five days a week. Information Center staff can be reached by phone or email, and their contact information is included in every publication produced by PSRC. Information Center staff regularly answer questions and respond to requests for information from citizens, businesses, and staff from cities, ports, agencies, and organizations throughout the central Puget Sound region.

· Publications: Each year, PSRC issues a multitude of publications, reports, and maps as part of the agency’s work program, and responds to and processes a large number of data requests. The information is used by planning and public works departments throughout the region, and can be accessed by the public through the website and Information Center.

· Press releases: Press releases are routinely emailed to about 70 individual reporters representing daily and weekly newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations, and to other contacts throughout the central Puget Sound region. These include numerous Title VI-protected groups. All press releases include the abbreviated Title VI Notice to the Public and contact information for agency staff.

· Meetings open to the public: All PSRC board and committee meetings are open to the public. Time for citizen comments is reserved at the start of all meetings, and is announced by the meeting chair. Meeting dates and times are posted well in advance on the agency’s website and in the Regional VIEW, and all meeting agendas contain the following statement, "Sign language and communication material in alternate formats can be arranged given sufficient notice by calling (206) 464-7090, TDD/TTY: (206) 464-5409."

· Opportunities for public comment: PSRC routinely provides opportunities for public comment, and continues to work to find new and innovative ways to solicit public comments and involve all segments of the population in the central Puget Sound region. Comments are accepted by phone, fax, email, U.S. mail, and in-person at any of the meetings. PSRC responds to all comments received.

· Staff is accessible: Staff is accessible in person, on the phone, by mail, by fax, by email, or by online comment forms. Contact information for all staff is provided on the agency’s website.

· Mailings: PSRC routinely uses direct mail to keep the public informed of the agency’s programs, public comment periods, meetings, and publications. See the next section for details.

· Events: Events such as workshops, open houses, and forums are held regularly, as needed.

Public agencies, transportation agencies, and private-sector transportation providers have seats on the Regional Staff Committee, Regional Project Evaluation Committee, Transportation Operators Committee, Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Seattle-Tacoma-Everett Federal Transit Administration Caucus, and the Regional Technical Forum. The groups meet regularly to discuss and provide input to agency activities.

3. How is reasonable public access provided to the technical and policy information used to develop plans and TIPs, and to the public meetings where Federal-aid highway and transit programs are considered?

Destination 2030 was developed using an inclusive process. The majority of PSRC staff worked on plan development in some capacity, providing expertise in diverse areas including growth management strategies, plan review, urban design, legal research, regulatory reform, economics, demographics, forecasting, pricing, finance, congestion and travel demand management, and needs assessments for the various modes of transportation, including roads, transit, ferries, and nonmotorized facilities. Staff provided the analysis, modeling, writing, and graphic design. PSRC hired and managed consulting firms to perform analysis for an EIS and to prepare public involvement materials. PSRC also hired a professional facilitator to ensure all viewpoints were heard at important public meetings.

PSRC made an effort to widely distribute information about the plan in a variety of mediums, including the Internet, television commercials through a partnership with KING TV, a promotional video, a CD-ROM, newsletters, focus groups, and presentations to community groups.

The public process relating to plan development began with the issuance of a Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of the EIS in fall of 1999. The scope of the environmental review was guided by public comments in response to this document. PSRC also conducted a series of focus group meetings with planning and public works staff representing jurisdictions throughout the region. The environmental analysis involved multiple phases over a 16-month period, including the testing of four scenarios and a full benefit cost analysis.

Public collaboration was early, continuous, and broad. It included a partnership with KING TV reaching millions to raise general awareness and link people via www.king5.com . A monthly newsletter was distributed to approximately 10,000 people. Direct mail and follow-up phone calls were placed to 8,000 homes in targeted communities. General awareness was enhanced by blanket newspaper advertising and aggressive news media outreach. A random sample statistical survey was conducted with 6,000 households. Updated information was available at all times on PSRC's website, www.psrc.org . Key meetings were videotaped and replayed on dozens of public television stations. The plan was featured at over 300 public meetings.

Destination 2030 was developed with careful consideration of issues related to environmental justice. From the outset, the process sought to ensure that the burdens and benefits of implementing a regional transportation strategy were not inequitably distributed across groups based on race, income, age or disability. Public outreach efforts provided valuable input regarding the analysis of infrastructure investments, accessibility, modal choices, traffic safety, community development, growth management, congestion, noise, and air quality.

PSRC sought public comment during the development of Destination 2030 via open houses, public meetings with stakeholder groups, public meetings with all of PSRC’s boards and advisory groups, news releases, the website, advertisements, and the Regional VIEW newsletter. PSRC received over 1,300 public comments throughout the process and they are all included in the Final EIS.

TIP: The projects included in the TIP receiving new funds were developed through extensive collaboration with local governments, transit agencies, WSDOT, and PSRC. In 2004, PSRC launched an aggressive and successful outreach campaign to communicate more strategically to the public about PSRC funds and the project selection process. The culmination of this outreach was the formal public comment and review period for the projects recommended to receive new funds. This public comment period ran from the September 9, 2004, TPB meeting through the October 28, 2004, Executive Board meeting.

In addition to specific efforts related to the recommendation and TIP development processes, all PSRC meetings are open to the public and public comments are requested at the start of every meeting. Following are some of the highlights of the interagency coordination and public involvement that took place throughout development of the TIP:

· Up-to-date information was available on the TIP pages of PSRC’s website at www.psrc.org/projects/tip/index.htm , including instructions for making public comments.

· News releases were issued at critical points throughout the TIP development process. These releases were sent to more than 165 media outlets (daily and weekly newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations) serving people throughout the four counties, including newspapers aimed at traditionally underserved populations and other groups. These newspapers included: Asia Today, Beacon Hill News, NW Asian Weekly, e the people website, El Mundo, Filipino American Herald, Hokubei Hochi, International Examiner, Jewish Transcript, Korea Central Daily, Korea Times, Korean Post, La Voz News Magazine, Muckleshoot Tribe News, Northwest Ethnic News, Puyallup Tribal Newspaper, Quilceda Messenger, Real Change, Seattle Gay News, Snoqualmie Tribe, South Seattle Star, Suquamish Tribe Newspaper, Tacoma Senior Scene, Tacoma True Citizen, The Hispanic News, and The Federal Way Mirror.

· Periodic discussions were held during meetings of the GMPB, TPB, and TPB’s technical committees between February 2003 and July 2004.

· PSRC’s Policy Boards At Work series featured several items regarding the 2004 project selection process, including the development of the Policy Framework document and the July 2004 TPB recommendations. At Work is sent by email and U.S. mail to over 440 committee members, legislators, and interested parties.

· From January to June 2004, public comments were solicited at monthly meetings held by the following four countywide growth management policy organizations and technical committees regarding recommendations for projects.

- Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council.

- Pierce County Regional Council.

- Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee.

- King County Growth Management Planning Council: The Council has designated the King County elected officials on TPB to oversee their countywide process. Public review of recommended projects was conducted through the three subarea planning groups: Eastside Transportation Partnership, South County Area Transportation Board, and SeaShore Transportation Forum.

· Articles on the 2004 project selection process were featured in the March, May, August, and September editions of PSRC’s Regional VIEW newsletter. The newsletter is published monthly and distributed to almost 8,000 agencies, cities, towns, organizations, and individuals. In addition, the Regional VIEW is posted on PSRC’s website and widely distributed to public libraries, universities, and news organizations in the region.

· All applications submitted for the STP/CMAQ Regional Competition and FTA Regional Competition were posted on PSRC’s website.

· A news brief about the competition workshops appeared in the Bremerton Sun.

· Eight articles related to studying the acquisition of the eastside BNSF rail line appeared in newspapers around the region. The study was among the projects recommended to receive PSRC funds. The BNSF study and funding potential has also been featured in the Regional VIEW and numerous editions of the At Work series.

· An article related to the Rural Town Centers Pilot Program appeared in the Snoqualmie Valley Record. The Pilot Program was among the projects recommended to receive PSRC funds.

· Nearly 1,000 letters were sent to representatives of all local jurisdictions and agencies recommended to receive PSRC funds, including mayors, councilmembers, and legislators.

· A news release was sent to over 165 media outlets announcing the Executive Board’s July 22, 2004, approval action to allow the recommended projects to be included in the Draft TIP and for air quality analysis to begin. At least seven articles were published in local newspapers regarding the funding recommendations, including two articles in the Bremerton Sun about potential SR-305 funding, and articles about each county’s funding in the Tacoma News Tribune, Seattle Times, Daily Journal of Commerce, Central Kitsap Reporter, and the Bremerton Patriot.

· Customized news releases were sent to local papers, including dailies, weeklies, and business journals, highlighting specific projects in their reporting areas, resulting in six articles, one each in The King County Journal, The Everett Herald, The Bremerton Sun, and The Daily Journal of Commerce, and two in the Port Orchard Independent.

· A news release was issued when the Draft TIP was released for public comment. This news release helped to satisfy the FTA’s "program of projects" requirement for federal transit funds, and can be found on PSRC’s website at http://www.psrc.org/datapubs/infocenter/news091004funding.htm .

· Comments were requested in writing by mail, email, or fax, or by using the comment form on PSRC’s website. Public comments could also be made in person at the TPB meetings on September 9 and October 14, and the Executive Board meeting on October 28, 2004.

· To encourage public comments, PSRC used an innovative web-based mapping program on the agency’s website, at http://www.psrc.org/projects/tip/currenttip/webmap.htm . Projects recommended for new funds were rendered in an interactive map, enabling visitors to the website to view transportation projects in proximity to their neighborhood or individual commute. Visitors could also send a comment directly to PSRC using a comment form built into the program.

4. How are public involvement processes reviewed periodically in terms of their effectiveness in assuring that the process provides full and open access to all?

All public outreach and its results are published in the annual Title VI Report & Update (see Attachment 23 for the 2004 annual report). This information is used to determine the most effective methods of outreach when beginning a new project, and examines the effectiveness of efforts to reach Tribal Nations, Title VI populations, and ADA populations. In addition, PSRC hired a consultant, Cocker Fennessy, to perform a comprehensive evaluation of the agency’s public involvement program, examine other MPO activities, and identify best practices in public involvement. This effort was completed in July 2004.

5. Is adequate public notice (at least 30 days) given for public review and comment of key decisions, including the approval of plans, TIPs, and major amendments?

Yes. Notice is given at least 30 days in advance and in a number of ways, including, but not limited to: agenda mailings by both email and U.S. mail, the Regional VIEW newsletter, news releases, and advertising in the five major regional newspapers.

6. Is explicit consideration and response offered to public input received during the planning and program development processes?

Yes. Citizen involvement has a meaningful influence on PSRC’s planning process and this is documented in the annual Title VI Report & Update (see Attachment 23). The following are three specific examples of when public involvement impacted PSRC decisions:

· Due to public comments made during the review period of the draft 2005-2007 Regional TIP, the TPB placed a condition on one of the projects in the TIP.

· The 1,200 public comments received during the scoping period for the VISION 2020 update determined what issues would be studied for background information prior to development of the draft EIS.

· Numerous public comments have been made at TPB meetings regarding least-cost planning. The Policy Board chair has kept this topic on the agenda for several months and has made least-cost planning policy a key issue in the early preparation work for the update of Destination 2030.

7. How are the needs of those traditionally under served by transportation, such as low-income and minority households, taken into account? Does the public involvement process have an identified strategy for engaging these groups in transportation decision-making? (See additional Title VI and Environmental Justice questions)

The process to develop Destination 2030 included environmental justice considerations from the outset. PSRC set out to ensure that the burdens and benefits of implementing Destination 2030 are equitably distributed across groups based on race, income, age, or disability. PSRC’s analysis included: (1) outreach and meaningful participation from minority and low-income population groups in the development of the plan, and (2) an assessment to determine any discrimination of minority and low-income population groups in the distribution of impacts and benefits associated with the projects and programs advanced in Destination 2030.

The TIP includes a similar analysis of the distribution of impacts and benefits associated with the projects and programs receiving PSRC funds. Consideration of minority and low-income populations was also included in the regional evaluation criteria used in PSRC’s 2004 project selection process.

The process to update VISION 2020 has included meetings with minority, low-income and disabled groups to discuss the needs of these groups and how the region’s long-range growth strategy will address them.

Outreach efforts made by the Prosperity Partnership include information about PSRC and its plans and projects. The Prosperity Partnership has met with numerous Title VI protected community groups to ensure participation from the entire community.

One of PSRC’s current strategies for engaging Title VI populations is to meet with minority community groups during plan development and to ensure that analysis includes impacts on minority groups and that the information is available to everyone. For more discussion on this topic, please see the Title VI discussion below.

8. How are Indian tribal governments and/or related public agencies involved in the development of transportation plans and programs per 23 CFR 450.312?

Tribal Governments are included in PSRC’s membership and hold voting seats on PSRC boards. During the initial process to update VISION 2020, PSRC’s Executive Director sent letters to each of the Tribal Nations inviting them to participate in the process. Tribal Governments have projects included in the Regional TIP and have also been recommended for projects in the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, which enables the projects to compete for federal Economic Development Administration (EDA) funding.

9. When written or oral comments are received on the draft transportation plan, financial plan or TIP, as a result of the public involvement process or the interagency consultation process required under the EPA conformity regulations, is a summary analysis and report of the disposition of the comments made part of the final plan and TIP?

All public comments are discussed with the boards to determine appropriate action. In some cases, this means providing additional information to the person commenting. In other cases, comments provide the impetus for additional research direction. In one case, public comments led to putting a condition on one of the projects in the TIP. All public comments are included in the final documentation of the TIP, Destination 2030, and VISION 2020.

10. If the long range transportation plan or TIP differs significantly from the one which was made available for public comment and raises new material issues which interested parties could not reasonably have foreseen with public involvement opportunities provided earlier, is additional opportunity for public comment on the revised plan or TIP made available?

If this situation occurs, the new information will be released to the public for an additional review period.

11. Is the metropolitan public involvement process coordinated with statewide public involvement processes wherever possible to enhance the public consideration of issues, plans and programs, and to reduce redundancies and costs? How is this accomplished?

PSRC actively coordinates with WSDOT, and WSDOT holds positions on PSRC boards and advisory committees. PSRC participates in updates to the WTP, works actively with the Washington State Legislature, and upon recommendation by WSDOT, the Governor and federal funding partners have final approval of the regional TIP and all TIP amendments. All of the State Legislators representing the PSRC region hold ex-officio membership on PSRC’s TPB; they receive agenda packets and the At Work series, which highlights the work of PSRC’s boards.

12. Are ridesharing agencies, airport authorities, and/or private sector transportation providers and city officials involved in PSRC's planning? How is this accomplished?

All of these groups sit on at least one of PSRC’s advisory boards, which meet regularly to discuss and provide input to the agency’s activities.

13. Are local, State, and Federal environmental resource and permit agencies involved in PSRC’s planning? How is this accomplished?

Yes. All of these groups sit on at least one of PSRC’s advisory boards, which meet regularly to discuss and provide input to the agency’s activities.

14. Are technical and other reports prepared to document the development, refinement, and update of the transportation plan, consistent with the U.S. DOT planning regulations in 23 CFR Part 450?

Yes. PSRC meets federal, state, and local requirements in all of its work areas. All documentation is available from PSRC’s Information Center and in many cases on PSRC’s website.

 

Air Quality

1. How do the MPO, local transit operator, and local air pollution control district incorporate and implement the air quality goals and objectives of the 1990 CAAAs and the EPA's final rule on transportation conformity for the following:

A. Unified Planning Work Program development;

Air quality planning tasks performed by PSRC and the region’s air quality agencies are outlined in the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP, see Attachment 18), and the December 2001 MOA between PSRC, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency details the coordination and responsibilities of each agency.

B. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) development;

A conformity analysis is conducted for TIP development and updates prior to adoption by PSRC boards, and subsequent approval by the state, FHWA, and FTA.

C. Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) development;

A conformity analysis is conducted for each plan development and update prior to adoption by PSRC boards, and subsequent approval by the state, FHWA, and FTA.

D. Public participation in MTP and TIP conformity;

A public scoping meeting is held to provide information on the assumptions and methodologies used in each analysis. The scoping meeting is advertised in The Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, posted on the agency’s website, and published in the Regional VIEW. In addition, the conformity finding is released along with proposed projects during a public comment period.

E. Financial plans for constrained MTP and TIP;

The MTP and TIP meet all financial requirements.

F. Timely implementation of applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) Transportation Control Measures (TCMs).

All transportation control measures identified in the SIP have been implemented and remain in place.

Self-Certifications

1. How was the latest self-certification document developed for your area?

The latest self-certification document, signed by PSRC on August 31, 2004, and signed by WSDOT September 8, 2004, was developed in conjunction with WSDOT, and was submitted to WSDOT and included in the regional TIP submittal. In turn, WSDOT submitted the self-certification document and supporting review package (see Attachment 24) to FHWA and FTA.

2. Please discuss the content of your most recent self-certification.

In accordance with 23 CFR 450.334, WSDOT and PSRC jointly certified that the planning process for the King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties’ urbanized areas addresses the major issues of in the metropolitan planning area and is conducted in accordance with federal law. In addition, the supporting review package briefly describes the same topics covered in this response to the Certification Review Guide.

 

Title VI and Related Requirements

1. Are there assurances that no one has been excluded from participation in, or denied the benefit of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex national origin, or physical handicap, any program receiving assistance from the U.S. DOT? How is this accomplished?

As a part of a comprehensive Title VI effort, PSRC has an adopted Title VI Plan (see Attachment 25), publishes an evaluation report annually on its work to implement its Title VI Plan, and has established a team that meets at least quarterly to discuss and work towards implementation of the Title VI Plan. The goal of the Title VI Plan is to ensure participation from Title VI populations and that the benefits and impacts of transportation projects are not unfairly distributed.

PSRC’s adopted Title VI Policy is as follows: "The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) assures that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (PL 100.259), be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity. PSRC further assures that every effort will be made to ensure nondiscrimination in all of its programs and activities, whether those programs and activities are federally funded or not. In the event PSRC distributes federal aid funds to another governmental entity, PSRC will include Title VI language in all written agreements and will monitor for compliance. PSRC’s Title VI Coordinator is responsible for initiating and monitoring Title VI activities, preparing required reports, and other PSRC responsibilities as required by Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, and Title 49 CFR Part 21."

PSRC’s Executive Director is responsible for ensuring implementation of the agency’s Title VI program. The Title VI Coordinator, under supervision of the Executive Director, is responsible for coordinating the overall administration of the Title VI program, plan, and Assurances.

Five areas of PSRC’s work program, referred to in the plan as Title VI Program Areas, have been identified as applicable to Title VI regulations: (1) Communications & Public Involvement, (2) Planning & Programming, (3) Environmental Affairs, (4) Consultant Contracts, and (5) Education & Training.

The agency’s Title VI-related responsibilities fall into two main categories: "general responsibilities," applicable to all five Title VI Program Areas, and "Program Area responsibilities" that are specific to each Title VI Program Area. It is important to note that the first three Title VI Program Areas noted above are extremely interrelated – they have been treated separately in the plan for purposes of clarity and corresponding to agency organization. For example, the Communications & Public Involvement program area applies to and affects the agency work program as a whole, particularly agency efforts and responsibilities related to planning, programming, and environmental affairs.

One staff member has been assigned to each Title VI Program Area as that area’s Title VI Liaison. Staff assigned as Title VI Liaisons generally have prime responsibility for that area of the agency’s work program. Title VI Liaisons, under supervision of the Title VI Coordinator, are responsible for the day-to-day administration of the Title VI program, and for carrying out the "Program Area responsibilities" in their assigned Title VI Program Area. Other staff members are assigned to assist the Liaisons or consulted and involved, as needed. Refer to Appendix 4 of the plan for an organization chart of staff with specific responsibilities in the agency’s Title VI program.

In addition, PSRC recently engaged in a large effort regarding its environmental justice (EJ) program, including performing an extensive literature review, forming an EJ advisory group, and hiring a public relations and government affairs consultant to develop an EJ research plan for the agency. This effort has been documented, in part, in the attached Draft Environmental Research Review and Future Agency Work (see Attachment 26).

2. What efforts have been made to engage low-income and minority populations?

During major updates to plans and programs, PSRC meets with Title VI populations and their representative community groups to engage these groups in the process.

PSRC uses extensive U.S. and electronic mailing lists to disseminate information and give notice for public comment opportunities. Both mailing lists include hundreds of community groups that represent Title VI-protected groups throughout the region. PSRC sends press releases to newspapers that are published by and for Title VI-protected groups. PSRC uses voluntary Attendance Forms at agency meetings open to the public to collect statistical data on meeting attendees to meet federal guidance designed to help track representation of all segments of the population. Groups representing Title VI populations are added to the agency's U.S. and electronic mailing lists regularly, as they are identified. As described in the next section, PSRC routinely assesses the need for providing information in languages other than English. PSRC evaluates the effectiveness of all communications and public involvement efforts and makes appropriate adjustments to its communication strategy. PSRC also keeps a list of potential interpreters in the event that a need for translation services has been identified or requested.

For more information on this process, please see the FY 2004 Title VI Annual Report & Update (Attachment 23), VISION 2020 Update Environmental Justice Research Plan (Attachment 26), and the Scope of Environmental Review for the Update of VISION 2020 (Attachment 27).

A. What issues were raised and how are their concerns documented?

Many issues have been raised at these meetings, including the desire to be continuously involved in PSRC activities, transportation options, and the need for increased affordable housing, especially near job sites. Meeting summaries are produced after meetings with Title VI groups and any comments made are included in official records and discussed with the boards. The results are also included in the annual Title VI Report and Update.

B. In what instances have comments raised during consultation resulted in changes to policy, plans, programs or projects?

These meetings have led to increased and ongoing communication. Job access and housing affordability are being studied in the VISION 2020 Update.

C. How does PSRC respond to comments when they do not result in a change?

PSRC responds to all comments. Responses may include additional information, PSRC’s decision to study the matter, or discussion of any action the agency has decided to take.

3. How does PSRC measure that Title VI and Environmental Justice are being implemented?

PSRC documents the results of outreach activity in the annual Title VI Report & Update and in the publication of the TIP, Destination 2030, and VISION 2020. Measurements reported on in the annual Title VI Report & Update include: results of PSRC outreach, the number of people PSRC has contact with or receives comments from, the number of hits received by the PSRC website, names of newspapers that represent Title VI populations and receive agency news releases or that PSRC advertises with, the number of newspaper articles featuring PSRC’s work that are published, the number of community groups representing Title VI populations that receive PSRC’s Regional VIEW and/or that PSRC meets with.

The process to develop Destination 2030 included environmental justice considerations from the outset. PSRC set out to ensure that the burdens and benefits of implementing Destination 2030 are equitably distributed across groups based on race, income, age, or disability. Our analysis included (1) outreach and meaningful participation from minority and low-income population groups in the development of the plan, and (2) an assessment to determine any discrimination of minority and low-income population groups in the distribution of impacts and benefits associated with the projects and programs advanced in Destination 2030.

The TIP includes a similar analysis of the distribution of impacts and benefits associated with the projects and programs receiving PSRC funds. Consideration of minority and low-income populations was then included in the regional evaluation criteria used in PSRC’s 2004 project selection process.

The process to update VISION 2020 has included meetings with minority, low-income and disabled groups to discuss the needs of these groups and how the region’s long-range growth strategy will address them.

Outreach efforts made by the Prosperity Partnership include information about PSRC and its plans and projects. The Prosperity Partnership has met with numerous Title VI protected community groups to ensure participation from the entire community.

4. How does PSRC determine the needs, values and issues of low-income and minority populations? (Examples: neighborhood or community advisory groups; targeting visioning process; local studies done for other major public capital investments, such as sports arenas, jails, sewage treatment plants, hospitals; MPO interviews and involvement with businesses, community leaders, and residents; focus groups; and preference surveys.) How does PSRC seek viewpoints of communities that have no spokespersons or community-based organizations?

PSRC meets with stakeholder groups, seeks public comment from everyone, and continues to expand its mailing list. PSRC seeks public comment through the newspaper, advertising, the Regional VIEW Newsletter, the website, open houses, public access programming, and public meetings.

In addition, PSRC has the lead role in facilitating a regionally coordinated process for FTA Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program activities in the central Puget Sound region. Six of the transit agencies in the region – Sound Transit, Community Transit, Everett Transit, King County Metro, Kitsap Transit, Pierce Transit – provide JARC funded services. As part of its regional coordination role, PSRC prepares a Regional Job Access and Reverse Commute Plan (revised June 2002) that documents the geographic distribution of low-income and disabled populations, the distribution of potential employment locations, and the transportation gaps that exist.

5. Has PSRC developed a demographic profile of the metropolitan planning area including the locations of different racial/ethnic and low-income groups?

PSRC completed and published its Demographic Profile in October 2003. The profile is available to the public in a variety of formats and is used as the basis for all of PSRC’s Environmental Justice analysis. A copy is included as Appendix 7 of the Title VI Plan (see Attachment 25).

6. What aspects of the regional transportation system are identified as part of a regional analysis of benefits and burdens? How are benefits and burdens of the regional transportation system distributed across different racial/ethnic and economic groups?

Environmental Justice analysis done by PSRC is based on the identified Metropolitan Transportation System, which includes regionally significant roads, transit routes, freight routes, pedestrian and bicycle routes, ferry routes and aviation facilities.

After reviewing the broad distribution of projects and programs identified in Destination 2030, coupled with the wide distribution of minority and low-income population groups in the central Puget Sound region, it can be concluded that any adverse effects and benefits associated with implementing Destination 2030 are not distributed to minority and low income populations in a significantly different manner than to the region’s population as a whole. This is not to say that individual projects and programs would have no adverse effects on these population groups. A determination of no adverse effects – or identification of mitigation for adverse effects – must be made on a project-by-project basis. Such a determination would need to be evaluated during project level environmental analysis.

The Environmental Justice analysis of the TIP showed projects receiving PSRC funds have been equitably distributed with respect to minority and non-minority populations. Of people with projects touching their census blocks, 26.2 percent were members of minority groups, a ratio only slightly higher than the minority proportion of the regional population, 23.6 percent. The block-level minority analysis showed an even closer match: Of blocks in proximity to TIP projects, 25.1 percent are minority blocks, which compares very closely to the regional proportion of minority blocks of 25.6 percent.

The 9.2 percent poverty rate among residents with TIP projects touching their block group was slightly higher than the regional poverty rate of 8.6 percent. The neighborhood-level poverty analysis showed that 40.8 percent of block groups touched by projects were poverty neighborhoods, which is a slightly higher percentage than the proportion of poverty block groups region wide, 35.6 percent. For more information about this topic, please review the VISION 2020 Update Environmental Justice Research Plan (see Attachment 26).

7. How does PSRC communicate information about the distribution of benefits and burdens?

PSRC publishes all of the Environmental Justice data, both on the website and within the relative documents, which are available in print from PSRC’s Information Center. PSRC also presents the data for discussion with its Boards and advisory groups.

8. How does PSRC compare investments across different modes? How are highway capital costs compared to public transit capital costs and costs to support walking and bicycling?

The EJ component of the TIP was built on the Environmental Justice Demographic Profile, and included a study of all TIP projects awarded PSRC-managed funds since 1998. The study investigated the distribution of projects among neighborhoods identified in the Demographic Profile as communities of concern, and assessed the equity in the placement of those projects with respect to EJ populations. The analysis involved a comparison of the number of EJ neighborhoods that were within 100 feet of a TIP project with the number of non-EJ neighborhoods within 100 feet of a TIP project. Neighborhoods were defined as EJ neighborhoods in accordance with their classification in the Demographic Profile. Like the analysis done in peer regions, the study did not come to any judgment as to the effects of projects, or whether a neighborhood's proximity to a project represented a benefit or a burden. Findings showed that minority and low-income households were not disproportionately located near the set of projects in the TIP.

9. What does PSRC do to ensure that their services are accessible to persons with disabilities?

PSRC offices and selected meeting locations off-site are always accessible. Sign language is offered on every agenda packet. PSRC maintains a TTY line and prints the phone number on all agendas and publications. PSRC has also worked towards making its website usable by screenreaders, which are used for Internet access by persons with disabilities.

10. Are the actions needed to comply with the ADA and 49 CFR Parts 27, 37, & 38 identified?

Yes, the actions are identified. Through the regional TIP, project sponsors are required to certify that they comply "with all applicable federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to...the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the U.S. DOT regulations 'Transportation for Individuals with Disabilities' (49 CFR Part 27, 37, and 38)..." Project sponsors also are required to provide annual certification (see Attachment 28) of compliance at the beginning of each year for which they have a project in the current TIP. Also, any time a TIP project is modified or amended, the project sponsor is required to re-certify compliance.

In addition, since 1995, WSDOT and the following paratransit providers in the region have maintained a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to Implement ADA Paratransit Eligibility for Persons with Disabilities: City of Everett, King County Metro, Kitsap Transit, Pierce Transit, and Community Transit in Snohomish County.

PSRC also coordinates the MOA to implement a regional reduced fare permit for senior and disabled persons, in compliance with ADA requirements regarding paratransit service (Attachment 16). This MOA, last updated in May 2003, sets forth that public transportation operators must establish procedures to comply with the requirements of the ADA and the Urban Mass Transit Act, including eligibility criteria and procedures for certifying eligible persons. In addition to other coordinating provisions, the MOA requires all of the parties to that agreement meet at least twice annually through the PSRC's Regional Reduced Fare Permit Task Force to discuss any relevant matters pertaining to the regional implementation of the Regional Reduced Fare Permit, the ADA or the Urban Mass Transit Act.

11. Have there been any lawsuits or complaints (Title VI or ADA) lodged with PSRC during the past 3 years? Have any of these complaints been lodged against the planning process in the Puget Sound metropolitan area?

PSRC received two Title VI complaints during the previous three years. Both complaints were from Mr. Don Shaffer, a citizen and private business owner in the City of Kent. The complaint concerned the construction of the Kent Commuter Rail Station. Mr. Shaffer also filed complaints with the City of Kent, King County, Sound Transit, FTA, and others on the matter. As PSRC's complaint procedures do not allow it to investigate itself, PSRC referred both complaints to WSDOT, FHWA, and FTA. On the first complaint, these agencies made the determination that FTA was the appropriate investigating agency. FTA notified Mr. Shaffer that an investigation was not warranted, because Mr. Shaffer did not demonstrate the requirements for a Title VI issue. Therefore, Mr. Shaffer's complaint was closed.

The second complaint was accepted by WSDOT for investigation, since WSDOT was not a listed party. WSDOT is currently investigating the complaint. Both complaints are enclosed as Attachments 29 and 30.

12. What is the population breakdown by race by census tract for the Puget Sound TMA? Are there concentrations of specific groups?

The demographic profile answers this question at the block level (a much finer geography than census tracts). The maps (1-5) identify concentrations of the following population groups: Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic or Latino, and Total Minority (or everyone other than Non-Hispanic Whites).

PSRC set the following thresholds for determining whether a specific geographic area had concentrations of racial and ethnic minorities:

Map 1: 23.6 percent or more total minority (the regional average)

Maps 2-5: 10.0 percent or more Black/African American, AIAN, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino

For additional information, attached is a spreadsheet table (see Attachment 37) with the same statistics at the census tract level, with county and regional totals at the bottom.

13. Does PSRC have contracting opportunities? If so, what is the level of DBE contracting?

PSRC does have some contracting opportunities, as set forth in its UPWP. PSRC has established a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program in accordance with regulations of the U.S. DOT, 49 CFR Part 26. PSRC has received federal financial assistance from the U.S. DOT, and as a condition of receiving this assistance, PSRC has signed an assurance that it will comply with 49 CFR Part 26. A complete description of PSRC’s commitment in hiring minority or women subcontractors can be found in the attached Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program for the Puget Sound Regional Council for fiscal year 2005 (Attachment 31). We will be submitting the program for fiscal year 2006 in the fall of 2005, and will provide FHWA and FTA with copies at that point.

 

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

1. Who is responsible for ITS in PSRC and what are their duties?

PSRC maintains the Regional ITS Architecture (RA). ITS planning responsibilities are located with in the Transportation Planning group at PSRC, and are closely tied with the Congestion Management System and the Metropolitan Planning Process. Some of the staff duties include:

· The Architecture is currently being updated with assistance of consultant services and converted to turbo Architecture so updates can be more easily completed in house. PSRC staff is managing the consulting contract.

· Staff responds to any ITS related questions.

· All projects in the TIP must meet the federal ITS requirements. All TIP applications submitted to PSRC are screened with a question specific to ITS.

· Staying up to date on ITS developments via training and conferences and local working groups.

· Having a PSRC staff member on the ITS Washington board.

· Managing the ITS element of the Destination 2030 update including contributing to the CMS.

2. What is PSRC’s involvement with the development of the ITS Implementation Plan and Regional ITS Architecture for the Puget Sound metropolitan area?

PSRC developed the Regional ITS Architecture (RA), with assistance of consultant services and under the guidance of the ITS Advisory Committee. The Architecture was completed in 2001. PSRC maintains the RA and now in the process of updating it to be consistent with national ITS Architecture.

The RA is incorporated in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan Destination 2030 under Maintenance and Preservation as well as System Optimization. All projects in the TIP are required to meet federal ITS requirements if applicable and are screened on the TIP application with a question specific to ITS.

3. Who will be responsible for maintaining the regional ITS architecture once it is complete? Who will be responsible for ensuring all future ITS projects are consistent with the Implementation Plan and Regional ITS Architecture?

PSRC is responsible for maintaining the architecture, which is currently being updated with the help of consultant services. PSRC’s architecture was completed in 2001. The current National Architecture is Version 5.0. The central Puget Sound Regional Architecture, completed in 2001, is based on the National ITS Architecture Version 3.0. Three areas have been greatly expanded since Version 3.0 and need to be incorporated in to the Regional Architecture so it remains consistent with the National Architecture. These areas are Operations and Maintenance, Commercial Vehicle Operations and Emergency Management.

WSDOT is currently updating the Statewide Architecture to incorporate these changes. This contract would also include the creation of a Turbo Architecture database, which will allow for more streamlined updates of the Architecture in the future allowing for work to be done in house.

All projects in the TIP are required to meet federal ITS requirements if applicable and are screened on the TIP application with a question specific to ITS, which is reviewed by PSRC staff. All projects that are amended in to the TIP are reviewed monthly to ensure that they are consistent with Regional ITS Architecture.

4. Is a systems engineering process in place for the development of ITS projects in the region? Who will be responsible for ensuring that all future ITS projects will be developed using a systems engineering process?

When a project applicant selects "yes" on the TIP application they are directed to the following information on PSRC’s website to conduct a self systems engineering process. All projects in the TIP are required to meet federal ITS requirements if applicable and are screened on the TIP application with a question specific to ITS. PSRC staff review all TIP application to make sure that the ITS element of the project conforms to the Regional Architecture.

To be eligible for federal highway trust funds, projects with ITS elements need to address four steps to ensure compliance with regional and federal ITS requirements. The requirements direct all ITS projects using federal highway funds to be developed based on a systems engineering analysis, which includes demonstrating how the project fits into the Regional ITS Architecture. The following summary provides a quick overview of these key steps. More in-depth information on how to develop your ITS project is also provided in several downloadable documents from PSRC’s website (Guidance for Complying with Federal requirements for Intelligent Transportation System Projects in the Puget Sound Region).

1. Is Your Project an ITS Project?

The first step is to assess whether your project includes any ITS elements? ITS is defined as advanced information processing, communications, sensing, or control technologies that are used to improve the safety and efficiency of the transportation system. Examples include interconnecting traffic signals, transit signal priority systems, variable message signs, closed-circuit television cameras, automatic passenger counters, and traffic signal control software.

2. Meeting the Federal and Regional ITS Requirements

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) requires that all ITS projects using highway trust funds (including the mass transit account) must "conform" to the National ITS Architecture and ITS technical standards. Information on the federal and regional ITS requirements are found on the link on PSRC’s website.

3. Fitting Your Project Into the Regional ITS Architecture

The third step is to demonstrate how your project fits into the Puget Sound Regional ITS Architecture. The Regional ITS Architecture defines a regional framework for ensuring institutional agreement and technical integration for the implementation of ITS projects in the Puget Sound region. It is designed to provide guidance and serve as a resource for the development of local ITS projects.

4. Conduction a Systems Engineering Analysis

The fourth step is to conduct a systems engineering analysis on your project. Systems engineering analysis is a structured process that is meant to assist with developing the final design of a system. The analysis should be on a scale commensurate with the project scope - that is, the more complex the project, the more complex the analysis.

Additional information to assist with ITS project development includes the following links on PSRC’s website:

· Traffic signal system development example: (illustration of how to meet the requirements)

· Key Puget Sound Region ITS Documents (direction and guidance on ITS requirements)

· Key ITS Resources (websites with ITS resources)

5. Is PSRC involved with any other ITS activities? What are they? Are they included in the UPWP? If they are major ITS activities, have project level architectures been developed for them? Were they developed using a systems engineering process?

PSRC is not the primary initiator of any major ITS projects in the region aside for the development and update of the Regional Architecture. Some of the ITS activities that PSRC participates in include:

· PSRC funds, provides general website maintenance and filed public inquires for the Smart Trek website. Smart Trek provides WSDOT real time travel information.

· PSRC participates with the Regional Transit Technology Group.

· Transportation Choices Study using GPS unit to determine congestion pricing.

· PSRC is an active member of ITS Washington.

· PSRC was invited and participated in an ITS Architecture peer exchange workshop in 2004.

· In cooperation with WSDOT, PSRC participated in a Transportation Operators Workshop in 2001.

· Staff attends trainings, workshops and conferences when they are available in the area.

The ITS section of the current UPWP includes: (A) updating the ITS element of Destination 2030, (B) maintenance of the ITS Regional Architecture, (C) participate in the agencies database integration program and (D) Convert the regional architecture to Turbo Architecture format.

6. What other modal entities in addition to PSRC are involved in the ITS planning effort for the Puget Sound TMA?

The ITS Advisory Panel was formed of local, state, federal, transit, and private stakeholder agencies to assist in the development of the regional Architecture. PSRC has actively involved all are member agencies as part of the ITS Architecture development. Below is an example of some of the agreements that exist with in the region amongst the regions agencies. Also as a sub committee of the ITS Advisory panel the Regional Transit Technology Group was formed to coordinate transit ITS projects and issues. PSRC staff attends these meetings as they meet quarterly. Local Agreements:

· Regional Traffic Control roles and responsibilities among public agencies

· Transit Signal Priority agreement

· Regional Parking Management agreement

· Fare Management and Transit Information agreement

· ITS Backbone agreement

· Regional Multi-Modal Traveler Information Center agreement

· Incident Management agreements

· 511 Three-Digit Traveler Information Telephone Number agreement

· Data Archiving agreement

· Communications agreement

7. How is the Puget Sound metropolitan area doing with regard to compliance with its March 2005 date for ITS plan compliance?

PSRC’s Regional ITS Architecture was completed in June 2001 and is currently being updated (2006). This documentation includes The Regional ITS Architecture, Regional Transit Architecture, and Guidance for Complying with federal requirements for ITS Projects, System Integration Strategy and Mainstreaming ITS in to the Transportation Planning Process.

 

Travel Demand Forecasting

1. Who is responsible for travel forecasting?

PSRC maintains and operates the model, contracting with consultants only for major improvements.

2. Does your organizational structure include a technical committee to review planning assumptions and forecasting methods?

Yes – the Regional Technical Forum, with the ad hoc subcommittee for Land Use and Travel Demand Forecasting. A list of members is enclosed as Attachment 32.

3. Do you have a strategic plan and a guaranteed minimum level of funding in your UPWP for maintenance and improvements to travel forecasting methods?

The strategic plan is an outgrowth of the Recommendations for Integrated Land Use and Travel Models, prepared in June 2001. The latest version of the plan is in the section "Next Steps for Model Improvement", in Land Use and Travel Demand Forecasting Models: Executive Summary (July 2005). PSRC has an ongoing commitment to funding the data collection activities and model improvements necessary to keep the models above the usual state-of-the-practice. For instance, both the FY04-05 and FY06-07 budgets contained well-funded project tasks for collecting data (2.02) (building permits, employment data, parking surveys, a new household travel survey), maintaining and improving travel models (2.03 and 2.04) and creating a new land use model (2.05).

4. Have you convened a peer review or other independent assessment of your travel forecasting methods? If a peer review was convened, please provide the following information:

· The date of the most recent peer review

· The stated purpose of the peer review

· A list of participants

· Recommendations arising from the peer review

· The MPO's plan and/or schedule to address the peer review recommendations

WSDOT convened a peer review on behalf of the PSRC travel demand model in March 2005.

a. Date: March 23-25, 2005

b. Purpose: To update and validate the model in preparation for pricing analysis in WSDOT’s Congestion Relief Analysis, Phase II.

c. Participants:

i. Alan Horowitz, University of Wisconsin

ii. Ken Cervenka, North Central Texas Council of Governments

iii. Kyung-Hwa Kim, Portland Metro

iv. Bob Harvey, Sound Transit (Seattle)

v. Mark Bradley, Consultant

vi. Guy Rousseau, Atlanta Regional Commission

d. Recommendations: see Attachment 33, findings from the Travel Demand Model Review Panel.

e. MPO’s schedule to address findings: The recommended model improvements are currently in process and being funded by WSDOT, with completion expected by mid-August 2005.

 Requested Documents and Information

 

Attachment

Requested Documents & Information

1

1. Documentation designating the urbanized area as a MPO

2 and 3

2. MPO structure and voting membership of the Policy Board, including bylaws for the MPO technical, policy, and any other committees

4

3. Map(s) showing:

A. Census designated urbanized area boundary

B. WSDOT & FHWA approved urbanized area boundary (used for federal functional classification purposes)

C. MPO/Governor approved Metropolitan planning area boundary

D. Non-attainment/maintenance area boundary

E. Urban Growth Boundary

5 – 16

4. All MPO agreements defining planning and programming responsibilities with other agencies:

A. Operators of public transit services

B. Air Quality agencies

C. WSDOT

D. Local Governments

E. Others

18

5. Current Unified Planning Work Program

25,
Appendix 5

6. Approved Public Involvement procedures

22

7. Current TIP, including financial plan

22,
Appendix C5

8. TIP project selection procedures

34

9. Congestion Management System

24, 25, 31

10. Latest self-certification document and statement, including supporting documentation

a. Title VI (Plan)

b. Disadvantaged business enterprises in the FHWA/FTA funded planning projects

c. American with Disabilities Act and US DOT regulations governing transportation for people with disabilities

35

11. An inventory of the current state of transportation in the metropolitan area.

See response
at right

12. Key planning assumptions used in developing travel demand forecasts.

Response:

a. Travel Behavior: Derived from the 1999 Household Activity Survey – 2-day travel diaries from 6,000 households

b. Land Use Forecasts:

2000

2010

2020

2030

Population

3,275,809

3,671,194

4,115,318

4,535,087

Households

1,282,966

1,474,785

1,688,343

1,889,087

Employment

1,748,793

2,010,590

2,278,603

2,535,899

i. Urban Growth Boundary remains unchanged

ii. Growth occurs according to current comprehensive plans

c. Transportation Infrastructure: As defined in Destination 2030.

d. Costs: The model is calibrated and runs in year 2000 dollars. Auto operating costs and transit fares are assumed to be unchanged. Ferry fares (auto and passenger) rise according to system long-range plan. Parking costs show a slight increase, less than historical trends in real dollars.

36

13. Descriptions of the methods used to develop forecasts of future travel demand.

38 - 45

14. Other materials/documents that would be useful to the Review Team to address the review questions/items.

Attached:

A. What is the Puget Sound Regional Council?

B. PSRC 2004 Annual Report

C. Washington CEO Special Report: PSRC, Partnering for Prosperity

D. FY 2005 speaking engagements of Bob Drewel, PSRC’s Executive Director

E. VISION 2020+20 summary

F. Sample presentations on key topics

G. Key issues of PSRC’s Regional VIEW

H. Sample issues of PSRC’s At Work publication

 

Response Preparation List

 

Topic: Person Preparing Response:
Study Area Organizational Structure Robin Rock
MPO Planning Boundaries Kevin Murphy
Agreements and Coordination Robin Rock
Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Kevin Murphy
Transportation Planning Process Charlie Howard
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Charlie Howard
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Project Selection Charlie Howard
Financial Planning/ Fiscal Constraint Charlie Howard and Kevin Murphy
Public Outreach Rick Olson
Air Quality Charlie Howard
Self-Certification Robin Rock
Title VI / ADA / Environmental Justice Robin Rock
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Charlie Howard
Travel Demand Forecasting Larry Blain

 

 

Attachments:

1. MPO designation letter

2. Information on PSRC’s membership, boards, and committees:

A. Membership Directory

B. Board membership lists

C. Board and committee structure

D. Committee rosters

E. Committee bylaws

3. PSRC’s Interlocal Agreement

4. Maps showing:

A. Census designated urbanized area boundary

B. WSDOT & FHWA approved urbanized area boundary (used for federal functional classification purposes)

C. MPO/Governor approved metropolitan planning area boundary

D. Non-attainment/maintenance area boundary

E. Urban Growth Boundary

5. WSDOT MOU

6. WSDOT STIP MOU

7. Most recent revised WSDOT MOU document

8. Transit MOU

9. Air Quality MOU

10. BNSF Agreement

11. Thurston Planning Agreement

12. EDD Agreement

13. Sound Transit HCT

14. Reduced Fare Agreement

15. Seashore

16. ADA Paratransit

17. Contract list

18. PSRC’s Biennial Budget and Work Program, Fiscal Years 2006-2007 (UPWP)

19. Destination 2030

20. Destination 2030: 2004 Review and Progress Report

21. Schedule for PSRC’s Major Transportation and Growth Programs (norm)

22. 2005-2007 Regional TIP

23. FY 2004 Title VI Report & Update

24. 2004 Self-Certification

25. Title VI Plan

26. VISION 2020 Update Environmental Justice Research Plan

27. Scope of Environmental Review for the Update of VISION 2020

28. TIP Certification Form

29. First Don Shaffer complaint

30. Second Don Shaffer complaint

31. DBE Contracting

32. Regional Technical Forum’s ad hoc subcommittee for Land Use and Travel Demand Forecasting

33. Findings from the Travel Demand Model Review Panel

34. CMS Documentation

35. Inventory of state of transportation

A. Puget Sound Milestones, MTS: Roadways & Ferries

B. Puget Sound Milestones, MTS: Regional Transit

C. Puget Sound Milestones, MTS: Regional Airports

D. Puget Sound Milestones, Transportation Finance: 1989-2000

36. Executive Summary – Land Use and Travel Demand Forecasting

37. Population by Race and Hispanic/Latino Origin by Census Tract: 2000

38. What is the Puget Sound Regional Council?

39. PSRC 2004 Annual Report

40. Washington CEO Special Report: PSRC, Partnering for Prosperity

41. FY 2005 speaking engagements of Bob Drewel, PSRC’s Executive Director

42. VISION 2020+20 summary

43. Sample presentations on key topics

44. Key issues of PSRC’s Regional VIEW

45. Sample issues of PSRC’s At Work publication