MPO Policy Board Meeting   12/1/2020

All right, now we are recording.

And I'll just read the quick thing about meeting online.

The governor has declared a state of emergency due to COVID-19 pandemic and the nature of this declared emergency makes it impractical or unsafe for this Charlottesville Albemarle MPO policy board to assemble in a single location.

This meeting and the required public hearings will be held utilizing electronic virtual communication with the Zoom software application.

In accordance with virtual meeting procedures and policies as outlined in item 4-01 of the Virginia State Budget HB 29

as effective April 24th, 2020.

The meeting will be recorded and made available to the public at campo.tjpdc.org.

And I will call roll.

Ann Mallek?

Here.

Lloyd Snook?

Here.

All right.

So moving on to matters from the public.

If there is anyone from the public who would like to speak, you can raise your hand in the Zoom webinar.

Speak for a maximum of three minutes.

All right, I don't see anyone with their hand raised.

Last chance.

All right, moving on to agenda item three, public hearing for the Title VI in UPWP updates.

Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak at this public hearing?

You can raise your hand in the Zoom webinar if you'd like to speak for this public hearing.

All right, seeing no one.

So, yeah, I can do that.

We have a memo and the Title VI plan, which helps us be in compliance with federal regulations.

to help us not discriminate against minorities and underserved people.

needs to be updated every couple of years.

So we've updated it.

And basically with this update, we just updated the tables and the populations and also the public outreach to match our new public outreach plan.

And I think that in the future, we're going to look into updating, like doing a more robust update, having more public engagement strategies

So we're asking, and there were a couple comments on it.

The MPO tech committee, they were in the memo.

Do you guys want me to read the comments?

I can read.

No, you know what?

The meeting is really short.

So the comments are in there.

If anybody has any questions, just raise your hand or let me know.

This is John Lynch.

I just had a quick comment.

I think some of the comments from the committees were looking at more robust ways in the future to enhance

both public participation, which I know we're going to talk about later, but also the minority groups that we serve.

Yeah so we are going to do a study on equity in transportation to learn more about the minority groups and how our transportation planning is affecting them and kind of where they are and then connect with them and find out what they want and what their needs are.

You know it's difficult because we don't provide direct services and we don't really have a lot of financial

kind of sway to choose where money goes.

So kind of all that we can do is study where they are and kind of what they need.

We've already spoken with one minority group representing Latinos and we're making connections with them to

involved them in the planning.

But again, you know, the people that they're serving are trying to stay in their homes and feed their children and, you know, just get basic necessities and asking them to come and read a Title VI plan is just

not a good use of their time and it would probably be really frustrating for them.

Okay, is there a motion?

All right.

Oh, that's me.

Supervisor Malek?

Yes.

Director Snook?

Yes.

All right, the motion passes.

Do you want to go to that memo?

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

We had mentioned that due to some of the updates that have been required for VDOT as far as the reporting and how we are allocating our time, we need to be much more precise with our reporting for staff.

expenses when we do our invoicing.

So going through the work plan, we realized that there were some reallocations that needed to be made as far as where the project time was going to need to be spent by staff.

There were certain things that we got

and in turn to help us with putting together the primers.

We realized there wasn't as much work that needed to be done with the performance measures as staff got more familiar with that process.

And so the purpose of updating this unified planning work program is to reallocate the resources where they are going to be most effectively used.

and then also to put additional resources towards some of the initiatives that were discussed in this committee as well as the other MPO committees regarding needs for more robust updates to the public participation plan that we didn't really have the resources to put staff time into

at this point.

So we're trying to go ahead and make those revisions at this point so we can go ahead and move forward with the work.

Obviously, the overall budget is the same.

We did restructure it a little bit, nothing too drastic, but we think that this better reflects where staff time will be spent while still maintaining the programming that we had discussed when the plan was initially adopted.

I advertise the public hearing for both of the documents.

Okay.

Any questions or comments from the board?

All right.

Is there a motion?

That's all right.

My comment will be, I think it's going to be a really important document for the PPP to get clarified and then make sure that we're implementing it.

because when we've gone awry in the last several years, it's because we hadn't followed the process to make sure that people had access to things and decisions were made without notification.

So I'm really looking forward to a much more robust approach to this.

I know we discussed it two years ago, maybe one year ago, and I thought it had been adopted, but then I couldn't find any adopted documents anywhere last year when we were, last fall when we were working on the,

on the 2020 South Trail.

So this is important and I look forward to it getting done.

Any additional questions or comments?

Second.

Supervisor Malek?

Yes.

Councilman Snook?

Yes.

All right, the motion passes.

Now on to agenda item for general administration.

All right.

Take a vote.

Supervisor Malek?

Yes.

Councilman Snook?

Supervisor Galloway?

Yes.

I have to abstain because that's the one I missed.

All right.

Second.

Supervisor Malek.

Same.

Councilman Snook.

Yes.

Okay, the meeting minutes are approved.

Okay, thank you all.

You've seen this a couple of times already.

CTAC has reviewed this twice, as well as the technical committee.

But with some suggestions, we have made a couple of small changes.

Just as a reminder, what we're trying to do is to create a more public process for our smart scale selection process.

Having the MPO Policy Board as well as both of your committees become more actively involved in selecting the

options that we have.

I don't want to say the projects at that point, but the options that we have for our smart scale projects, so that you start to see these projects a lot earlier in the process.

You have a lot more say into what projects come to you.

As we learned with the growth of smart scale, a lot of times, by the time the projects got to the NPO Policy Board,

They had already been fully vetted and there was very little time to consider other types of projects to meet the deadlines.

And so what we're proposing is to start earlier, select a couple of projects for a very robust public engagement process, and then select a couple of projects that would go through the normal requirements of BDOT selection process.

and really engage the MPO Policy Board and your two committees more in this process.

And at the same time, of course, providing more public input.

Again, we historically we really haven't gone out to the public for suggestions of what projects that we would be submitting.

Now, of course, those all have to meet the VDOT smart scale minimum requirements.

We can't just choose a project because it's regionally popular, but it has to meet our long range transportation plan and goals.

But there are a number of those projects that would qualify.

And so we're looking to open that up more.

have a public process and allow the MPO Policy Board to make those decisions.

One of the changes that we wanted to make sure that was included that had not been included in this policy in the past and it's kind of a precedent that's been set by the Commonwealth Transportation Board

You know, the CTB follows the recommendations that the VDOT staff provides to them in the scoring process.

But in that legislation, the CTB does have the ability to waive those recommendations and choose projects on their own.

They just have to be able to publicly justify why they may choose a lesser ranked project.

Well, we wanted to give the NPO Policy Board that same ability to waive any of these policies that you may choose.

For instance, if we went through a lengthy process in reviewing a potential project, but closer to the application period, another project come up that for whatever reasons that you would feel justified to say, wow,

This wasn't an option when we began this process a year ago, but now we think it has a priority and should be considered for application.

You have the right to waive this process and put another project in its place.

And so we wanted to make sure that you had that right.

Pretty much everything else is the same.

I will give you a heads up, especially for CTAC and the policy board.

There will be a lot more involvement on your behalf and a lot more work that we'll be asking you to do throughout this process.

I believe for CTAC, that's going to be a very welcome change.

As Supervisor Mallek knows, CTAC has struggled in really identifying its mission and its role in the NPO process.

This is going to give CTAC a front row seat with work attached to it to help us come up with the projects that would ultimately be submitted for smart scale funding.

Yes, I have.

So I appreciate the fact that this is going to happen.

I think that it's sort of a dial back to 10 years ago as far as having the much more discussion about a broad range of projects first.

To me, where the idea invitation, the invitation to bring ideas to the list should happen during the LRTP process.

So that when we get CTAC out doing a much more

outward facing process for the LRTP, then we will get a better broad braced list of projects that then people can react to.

I worry about waiting until later in the smart scale process to ask for invitations because that

is maybe confusing.

My question that still hasn't been answered is who's going to make the decisions.

Where the weakness lies now, in my opinion, is that you might have six alternatives and somewhere somebody out of you decides there are now only two.

So that part of the process needs to have a lot more sunshine so that we don't later find out that a better option was discarded by somebody.

because of their own agenda earlier and so I would love to have some specifics added as you get further on in this process so that we have a recipe to follow, a plan to follow and we don't get fall prey to some other organization saying oh we want in and we want to take over this this committee work because then you end up spending a whole lot of public taxpayers dollars without the right process so I look forward to getting more information about

Sure.

And I'll be glad to answer now, especially in the projects that you classify as the major projects.

Those will have, as I've said for those that are familiar with it, the model that we use for the hydraulic and 29 as well as the 29 solutions where we would ask the policy board to appoint advisory panels.

Each advisory panel will be made up to

most fulfill the needs for that particular project.

If it's in a business community, you may have more businesses represented.

If it's in a neighborhood community, you may have more neighbors represented.

If it's a cross-jurisdictional boundary like Free Bridge, you would probably have elected officials from the city and the county.

And just like the Route 29 solutions,

We intend for every meeting to be a public meeting.

Every meeting that no matter how many options are considered, they're discussed at a meeting.

When they're discarded as not being the best selection, they'll then be identified why they were not selected and why it went from 10 to 5 to 2 or something like that.

So with the two major projects, everything will be through that advisory panel.

I wish we had the resources to do all of our projects that way because I am a big believer of that Route 29 solutions process.

But for the minor projects, those will still go through the public process through the tech committee and CTAC.

But we may have a consultant that does work within their offices, but to address what Supervisor Malek is saying, we can certainly require them that during these public sessions, identify if projects went from six to two options,

why certain ones were discarded and how we came about that process.

When we went from six to two on the pedestrian bridge, it wasn't ready for smart scale, but all of a sudden all these people say, well, what happened to the other four and where are they?

And we had to really work hard to find out about them.

Sure.

Let me, I will want to comment that there is the possibility that projects will have gone through a planning process outside of the smart scale process.

So if that occurs and, you know, for instance, the city of Charlottesville may have gone through a planning process that submits as a recommendation a roundabout at a certain intersection.

We'll accept that plan and without really knowing how it was derived.

Yes, ma'am.

and it does bring to mind one more very important topic.

I've said it many, many times and I'm sure I'll say it many, many more.

This is just for the MPO Policy Board.

We're not trying to mandate how Albemarle County selects their projects.

We're not trying to mandate how City of Charlottesville selects theirs, how CAT, Jaunt or other eligible entities do.

Any additional questions or comments?

John Lynch, just one one comment in terms of over the probably the first half of next year you will see some efforts on a statewide to do something something similar but really as Chip had mentioned at the planning stage they're going through a detailed analysis of different corridors and V-trans needs that are being met and analyzing those so they can prioritize

those planning studies with limited budget for that type of work to get the larger or the planning projects ready.

Those are gonna be prioritized and looked at where the biggest need is to do those planning studies.

Now, that's not gonna

mean that only those projects can be submitted for a smart scale.

It's where the state resources can be used from a planning standpoint.

So as Chip pointed out, if we use a consultant to do some of these studies and it's in that analysis as a high priority, we should be able to get some funding for it.

If it's a low priority,

then we may not be able to get state funds.

Well, that's really still to be determined right now.

They're talking about, I know the TJPDC had a presentation as well as there's been webinars on the process.

And so they made a brief mention of it to the CTV.

I don't think they'll see any detailed

presentations until next year in terms of what the actual plan is.

They're really doing the planning work and the analysis right now.

But the key there, I think, is it's going to be focused on where there is needs, and the needs are talking about

for congestion safety as well as corridor preservation.

And there's a fourth one that doesn't come to mind right now.

But really from I think from the more rural districts, it would be better to include more than just congestion because obviously you're right and if if we're just looking at congestion, the urban areas are going to beat us down heads and tails every time.

Right.

Any other questions or comments?

Let's see, what are we doing here?

What is this called?

Oh, that's right.

Second.

Supervisor Malek.

Yes.

Councilman Snook?

Yes.

Thank you all.

Good afternoon.

Great, great.

Good afternoon.

This is Chris Wishman with the Virginia Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment.

I'm going to attempt to share my screen here, or I may have to be given the ability to do that.

And I appreciate Mr. Lynch's comments just now.

He gave me a head start on the presentation that I was planning to give today.

I do want to keep my remarks pretty brief with the board.

As Mr. Lynch mentioned, we have presented some information with the technical committee on two occasions.

So we've been with the

the Campo technical committee back in September and then just a few weeks ago on November 17th to give some information on this draft policy for the prioritization of the trans midterm needs.

Great.

Great.

OK, so thanks for the invitation to talk with the board today.

So I do want to be fairly brief and allow any questions

Time for any questions.

So I'm going to go through just a few slides to give a little bit of context.

You know, what are we talking about with this policy for prioritization of the trans mid-term needs?

And then, you know, what's its significance?

Mr. Lynch sort of alluded to that in his remarks just a few minutes ago, and I'll get into that a little bit more.

And then in terms of next steps, you know, where are we now and where are we headed with this policy?

So just for a high level background and overview with V-Trans, what we have is the state's multimodal long range transportation plan.

And it is essentially helping the Commonwealth meet several federal requirements as well as different requirements from the Virginia code.

So there's been some discussion in this meeting around the smart scale prioritization process,

and V-Trans as the statewide plan is sort of intrinsically linked to smart scale and that the V-Trans midterm needs are one of the criteria for a project to be eligible to compete for funding.

So that's sort of one of the topics that is of most interest at the local level, but we go through and do this planning and policy development exercise on a four year recurring basis.

And one other requirement in the Virginia Code is that we really, every four years, have to take a fresh look from the state's perspective of what the needs for the transportation system are.

We can't simply sort of aggregate all of the existing plans from around the state.

We have to come at it from a fresh perspective.

So with that in mind, there are really four pillars that we're working through in developing V-Trans.

So the pillar I'll be really focusing on today is the second one here, which is the development, identification, and prioritization of the V-Trans midterm needs.

So when I talk about midterm needs, you know, what does that mean?

So a need as defined, you know, within V-Trans is really, it's a problem identification exercise.

So we're looking at the entire state network and trying to identify where there are issues, various types of issues.

Mr. Lynch mentioned, we look at congestion, safety, we look at needs for bicycle and pedestrian access, transit access, and a whole variety of categories with the midterm needs.

And we're really focusing in on using a data-driven process that's looking at really sort of existing

existing condition or quantifiable observed data to assess the midterm needs for the next 10 years.

So we're really looking at the period just outside the six year improvement program.

And again, we're using these needs as a screening criteria for smart scale under the board action piece of the table here.

So in January of 2020, back this past January, the CTB adopted the policy for identifying

the trans midterm needs.

And that set of needs was used to screen the smart scale round four projects.

And at that time, when they took that action, they also directed our office to develop a method to prioritize the midterm needs.

So that's really what we're focusing on today is that process and the policy that's now under consideration by the board.

And

In terms of the significance, so this is probably the key takeaway slide.

You know, what's the policy going to be used for?

So the CTB has received sort of two briefings and has had conversations on two occasions on this topic.

So back in May of 2020, and then again in July, and the discussion was really around developing a project study or a project development pipeline.

So the idea would be to use the V-Trans needs, the prioritized V-Trans midterm needs and sort of create a pipeline of, you know, what interchanges, what sections of highway, what intersections need to be studied around the state and within each district and really target our limited dollars for studies, advanced activities towards those locations.

So how this will take shape, as Mr. Lynch mentioned, is still under development.

But this is sort of the charge that we were given in developing this process.

So just briefly to talk a little bit about what we're doing with the prioritization.

I don't want to go into a great deal of the technical details, although there are a great deal of technical details.

But essentially what we were doing

is trying to take the big circle, the big pie on the left, which is the nearly 40,000 miles of roadway segments that have an identified V-trans midterm need and sort of break that pie into manageable pieces or manageable bites to in some way prioritize again where we need to focus our study dollars.

So this

This graphic depicts essentially what the results of this process are as four categories of priorities one through four.

Priority one being the smallest share of roadway miles and sort of, again, targeting towards a priority one.

To do this, we have a four-step process.

Within step one, we're really defining the geographies that we're prioritizing.

We have a statewide prioritization and a district prioritization.

So this is very similar in philosophy to what's done in smart scale, where you have a statewide high priority pot of money and a district grant program.

We've sort of modeled the prioritization in a way after that.

So there are there's a set of prioritization that is just within Culpeper District, and it's only comparing roadway segments within Culpeper to one another.

and then for our corridors of statewide significance, so like US 29 or 64, those are being compared to other corridors of statewide significance statewide.

So that's step one.

And then within step two, what we did is looked at every need category.

I mentioned we have congestion, safety, bicycle access.

So within each category, we sort of prioritize within that category, you know, where's the very high congestion need

relative to the others and essentially rank the segments within each need category as part of step two.

And with step three, we brought the needs together and applied some weighting to define, okay, this segment is priority one location after sort of combining everything together.

And then finally, in step four, we had some requests as we've briefed the CTB and other internal stakeholders on this process that there are certain factors that should be accounted for that we had not.

So step four is really making minor adjustments for influencing factors, those being bridges in need of repair, pavement need repair, and then vulnerability to flooding from sea level rise

Storm surge or inland and river flooding.

So this step four is really to make a slight adjustment to the prioritized score as a final step.

And the result, all that is locations, priority locations statewide in district one through four.

So we've we've gone through this process.

We've done a series of outreach.

I mentioned we've been with your technical committee on a few occasions.

Mr. Lynch mentioned the workshops that we've held.

So I wanted to put this slide in here so that the links would be available to some of the more detailed materials and recordings of those meetings if you all are interested in hearing more about this.

I mentioned that we have results.

So we have on our website, which is www.vtrans.org some web maps that represent the results of this process that you can go, you know,

As you sit in this meeting, you don't want to get too distracted, but you could go and take a look at these as we speak.

So just a few final noteworthy points.

Again, the idea behind the prioritization is to help target funds toward studies and project development activities.

It at this time, you know, won't affect the midterm needs that are being used to screen in projects for funding.

It's really being geared towards the studies.

And we often get questions about since these needs are on the roadway, what does that mean for like a new facility?

I know in you all's area, the river crossing, the bicycle pedestrian infrastructure crossing the river is an important project, and that's not on a roadway facility.

So how does this set of needs accommodate projects like that?

So a few points here that are important.

One is that

You know, we're identifying issues on the network.

We're not attempting to identify what the solution should be.

So keep in mind as you're reviewing this that if a solution or an improvement can justifiably improve a location of a need, then it would be considered as meeting that.

As well as the needs aren't meant to prescribe what mode or type of improvement that would

be eligible or meet the need.

It's sort of up to the entities, the local or regional bodies to determine what the solution should be.

A third point here is that this is our first attempt at executing this policy, sort of working through the technical process.

So ultimately it will be the policy itself that is the guiding light and is the document that takes precedent.

So if there is some sort of error in the data or something that's found in the maps,

It's ultimately the policy and technical guide that would be what we follow.

And then finally, a final note here is for some technical assistance that our office, Office of Automotive Planning and Investment, is putting out there now.

So we're developing a program called the Growth and Accessibility Planning Technical Assistance Program.

So I won't go into a lot of detail on this now.

There is an upcoming webinar on December 9th

where you can find out more about that.

But it's eligible for localities or PDCs, MPOs are eligible to apply to do some planning work under this assistance program.

So in terms of next steps, we have just finalized our 30-day public review and comment period.

We had the document, the policy document and the results out there beginning at the end of October.

Up until yesterday, we were receiving comments.

We did extend the offer to staff at TJPDC knowing that we were going to be with you all today.

That if you all have any additional comments that you'd like to send, we can accept those this week as well.

We'll be taking everything that we've heard to the CTB in December at their workshop meeting.

And then they'll have some discussions around this policy.

and what it may mean and how it may be implemented.

And then the idea would be for the CTB to again look at this in January and potentially take some action then.

So I'm your contact for the Culpeper district.

My contact information is here.

Just a time check.

We're running right on target with our

I'll jump in.

My question is, so this is your discussion today is about the process as opposed to the projects, which will come later.

I mean, over many years, I've been to the workshops and up in Culpeper or down here where we're supposed to put things on maps and show, you know, help people understand where our problems are.

But we're not doing that today.

This is just the how to.

Well, so

What we've attempted to do with the V-Trans midterm needs identification is use a data-driven process that is sort of influenced by things that we hear.

So an example would be, I think you were involved last year in 2019 when we did the needs identification, we came out with maps and said, you know, does our data-driven process

Do the results of that match the reality that you know better than us on the ground?

So that's been essentially what we replicated this year more in the virtual setting.

We haven't come out anywhere obviously with physical maps, but we've provided sort of the results of our process in a way through this web application where folks can go in and help sort of ground truth the results.

So yeah, it is very similar to the process that

has been undertaken in the past.

And as I mentioned, with the needs, again, this is a problem identification.

And with the prioritization, it's where's our most pressing problem.

So this, again, isn't necessarily saying what the project is or what needs to be done.

And I know at the beginning, you said you didn't just take all the old things on the list and move them all forward.

But I do hope that someone in your process is actually looking at all the good work that's been done in each one of the jurisdictions over the many years, because we've spent a lot of blood and sweat on these LRTPs and projects over the years.

I know many years ago when there was a presentation by the Renaissance people when they were doing the job you're doing now and they hadn't looked at any of our stuff.

They had gotten all their information on some census figures.

And I'm sorry to say I had a bit of a tantrum because we had all these great studies and they didn't even read them.

So I'm sure you'll do a better job.

Yeah.

Our hope would be that if you were to overlay, you know, say your LRTP projects with

with the need that there would be good alignment there.

So that's the type of review that, you know, we sort of rely on the technical committees and the folks, you know, local regional planners to help us, you know, make sure that what we're doing is in alignment.

Additional questions or comments?

All right.

Just a quick time check.

We're running just a couple of minutes behind, but I know we wanted to leave

Ample time for some of the upcoming discussions.

Hi, this is Andrew Pike.

Oh, yeah, sorry.

Oh, yeah.

Yes, good afternoon.

This is Steven.

So as that's brought up, a quick introduction.

I'm the Highway Safety Planning Manager at VDOT, and I work probably a quarter to a third of my time with OIP on performance management.

And so I'm going to present on the target setting that's required each year for safety performance.

If you could go to slide number two, and I'll get into this.

Hopefully, I'll hit the highlights of these slides.

There's a lot of information.

I won't get into all the details.

You'll have it there for you should you have any follow up discussions.

Each year we are required by federal code to submit five safety measures to the Federal Highways, FHWA.

DMV must submit its over 10 safety performance measure targets to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, every year and three of our five overlap with them, so we work closely with DMV

in concurring on our targets each year.

And then at the end of the summer, we submit our five and MPOs must submit by the end of February the following year their targets or their agreement to support our statewide targets.

Next slide.

So here are the five performance measures we're really looking at

The severe crashes are fatalities and serious injuries.

And serious injuries are typically those where someone is transported away by ambulance.

So it's more than just a sort of a minor bruise or scrape where someone sort of denies being removed from the scene.

And then we look at those for

all people and then just for those that are non-motorized, our bicycle and pedestrian involved crashes.

And then those are normalized by the vehicle miles traveled across the Commonwealth each year in terms of rates for fatalities and serious injuries.

The code requires us to submit on five-year average values.

And if you could go to the next slide, I'll explain why.

The intent was that the five-year averages would be used to kind of take away sort of random variations from year to year.

And so in this chart here on the left, you can see the annual numbers are the red squares with a trend line going through those squares pointing up to the upper

Upper right.

And the five-year averages are the blue circles, which has the flatter trend line.

So you can see that both are U-shaped, but the five-year averages don't have the amount of variation in them.

And that was the intent of the federal legislation was to not penalize if you have a huge fluctuation.

But when we were setting our targets for 2019, which would have been happening in the spring of 2018, we had started to see sort of the pivoting of those two trend lines.

So you can see the completely different slopes there for the five-year averages versus the annual numbers.

And that was the first year that we were required here in Virginia to have the Commonwealth Transportation Board

review and approve our targets.

We had been doing it the previous years just within VDOT and DMV.

And so when the board saw that our numbers were going up and yet that five-year trend was kind of flat, they asked us to develop a more data-driven model and method for developing our targets rather than just looking at a

at a trend line sort of simplistic view of the future.

Next slide.

And so we developed sort of a two-stage, a two-step process that actually happens in parallel.

First would be to look at the anticipated benefits of our infrastructure projects.

And here we focused on smart scale approved projects that are going to be completed

before that 2021 time period.

And we also looked at our highway safety improvement program projects to look at the potential benefits or crash reductions, if you will, for those projects.

And second of all, we did some research and found that there are very few states that are

are doing more data driven analysis, but there was a national study that looked at statistical models to understand what factors were driving the reduction in fatalities after the recession here in the mid 2000s.

And so we took that approach to try to find the factors that would be influencing fatalities and serious injury outcomes here in Virginia.

and so we did that first for the 2020 targets and this is talking about our update for the 2021 targets and our prediction models for that.

And then we combine those two.

So we look at what are those predictions in terms of a baseline and we subtract out the benefits of expected reductions and benefits from those smart scale and highway safety improvement program projects.

Next slide.

So there's a lot of information on this slide.

I just want to tell you that when we looked at the projects, we kind of categorized them into three, which is your traditional smart scale project is sort of on a spot at an intersection interchange or is along a corridor.

And we looked at the benefits much like we would for the safety benefits when we're prioritizing smart scale projects.

And then we have sort of a hybrid sort of medium cost project area and those

those tend to be lower cost corridor projects, such as adding shoulders and guard rail and rumble strips, or maybe improving the signal timing and signal apparatus along a corridor or something sort of in the mid cost area.

And then finally, with our safety improvement program, we are doing a lot of systemic improvement projects, and those are sort of low cost,

signing and marking and other type improvements, including rumble strips that are installed across the system, which attempts to address more crashes by being low cost and spread more broadly.

And so we looked at those three types and looked at the potential reductions for each of those on an annual basis

for both the fatally killed people and the serious injured people there.

And you can see that the numbers are not that staggering.

So it is very difficult to address our fatalities and serious injuries because they are really spread across the network.

We're talking only about six to 7% of all the crashes on the network.

Even though they are high numbers in terms of our fatalities,

that we don't want to see, it is hard to address those.

And so you see the reductions are quite low per year from those projects.

Next slide.

For our prediction models, we're trying to look at the factors that would adjust what's happening to our vehicle miles traveled, which is your exposure to risk, if you will,

What are those other factors that are influencing that to determine the outcome of fatalities or serious injuries?

And in doing so, we found that there was a lot of variation that we couldn't account for on an annual basis.

And so we actually have an annual factor as well that we predict into the future to account for all of those unknowns that you can't really build into a statistical model.

Next slide.

A lot of factors here down the left side here that are shown with an up or a down arrow.

I want to focus on just a few of those that are of interest.

We did look at other spending programs.

And so you will see down there that the behavioral programs were significant for

driving down our fatal crashes and our serious injury crashes.

And the non-motorized behavioral programs were significant in driving down our bicycle and pedestrian crashes.

So those are those NHTSA grants that go out to your local jurisdictions for education, enforcement, encouragement, outreach, like click it or ticket, drive sober, get pulled over, and related

walking and biking outreach that happens across the Commonwealth.

So that was very interesting.

We were the first in the nation to kind of associate that improvement by spending those sort of what we call behavioral programs that NHTSA supports with their grants.

And then you can see also that resurfacing and maintenance has an impact.

So in addition to those,

sort of capital improvements from SmartScale and HSIP that our maintenance dollars are important too because you get new pavement surfaces, you get new markings and new signs, potentially some new guard rail out there, et cetera.

And those are showing a positive influence in terms of those severe crashes.

And so some very good understanding there that

We do have some influence with where we program our funds in terms of driving down the numbers.

Next slide.

So I'm just going to show you one of our prediction outcomes.

This is for fatalities.

And we use the 2019 year data sort of to validate our models.

You can see that the orange line of our predictions is a bit off for that year, but we are showing

as sort of a steady increase from that low in 2014 up through 2019 and into 2021.

What is interesting there, if you look really closely, you can see an increase in 2020.

And so for 2020, not knowing what the pandemic would do with our vehicle miles traveled or some of the influences on some of the other factors,

We held a steady course of predicting those based on the past trends through 2018.

And so you can see a slight increase in fatalities there.

And actually I looked at our dashboard today and we are at plus seven from last year, from year to date, 774 versus 767 through December 1st.

So even with the pandemic, we are actually seeing an increase.

in our fatalities.

So this was our baseline.

If you go to the next slide, you can see for each of these, we had the baseline across the top and we reduced those expected project reductions in fatalities and serious injuries there in row two.

And then one thing that we did not have, could not build into the model really was

the reductions that would come from new legislation.

And last year, the General Assembly passed and was signed that there would be a handheld device ban that goes into effect January 1.

And so working with NHTSA and our Highway Safety Office at DMV, we

have those predictions in the annual reductions there in the red.

And row three, which gives us accounting for those reductions are annualized targets.

And so you can see that compared to last year's, this was a slide we gave to the board for that comparison to see that we've kind of tempered a large increase that we thought we were gonna see last year for 2020.

Next slide.

So with these numbers, we have outreach with our quarterly meetings to the MPOs where we present this data in the September time period.

And the MPOs have until the end of February to assess that information and report back to us by the end of February each year.

Next slide.

And so we take that annual data and we turn it into our five-year averages and we present to the MPOs the percent changes that we're expecting to see in those five-year averages here over the next couple of years in terms of the measures and also in terms of the vehicle miles traveled so that we can calculate the rates.

Next slide.

What we've prepared for the MPOs is a spreadsheet that provides that specific region with all of this data and so that the MPO staff can test scenarios of the percentage changes and what they're seeing for trends in their region versus the statewide trends that we present.

Next slide.

We also have a template letter that we send out, which is where the response will indicate whether or not the MPO will be supporting the statewide goal or adopting their own target for one or more of the five measures.

Next slide.

That's it.

Hopefully that quick overview gives you a

A flavor for the annual process.

Hey, Steven, this is John Lynch.

How you doing?

Great, sir.

Good.

Just an observation.

You were showing the fatalities and the serious injuries that were trending significantly different.

If I remember correctly, fatalities were up 51%.

And I don't remember the number for serious injuries.

Is that the typical trend that we see?

That, John, is, Mr. Lynch, is sort of a national trend.

with fatalities jumping.

And about 50% of that increase has been in the non-motorized, mostly pedestrian fatalities jumping up.

And then some of the other areas as well, like roadway departures increasing as well.

And then nationwide, our serious injuries in here in Virginia are kind of flattening out.

We had a lot of reductions through to

about five or six years ago, and it's kind of leveled out since then.

And so that downward trend is not happening anymore.

Thank you.

I will say I'm very glad to hear you talk about the HSIP projects because I think next year we will see three come online and Albemarle and we should, they're all at intersections and all with tremendous congestion and when people have to wait then they get anxious and they do something stupid and then we have lots of crashes.

So that's going to bring about some good improvements for your data.

I also am on the front line of hearing constant complaints from residential neighbors who are concerned about

racing cuts through traffic, et cetera, et cetera.

And why do we have to wait till somebody dies?

So I have a real dilemma with this whole process because I remember when we worked on it four or five years ago, we had a terrible time trying to figure out how we would ever predict or how to do anything other than adopt a state targets.

So I'll look forward to hearing this a little bit more.

But

I'm always after the local John's people, the district and local VDOT people to say, look, we have to do things in a small way when the small problem happens and not wait for somebody to die.

So this is sad.

Roundabouts, we talked about that.

Rumble strips, you mentioned rumble strips.

And so does this mean that there's a statewide program where you're going to be

I mean, the rubble strips are now being put in more because that is another thing where our neighborhoods are really, really desiring structures such as that in order to bring the speed down.

So that was just really happy news when you mentioned that.

And as far as statewide systemic things, resurfacing maintenance, does that include signs as well?

Or maybe, John, you tell me this is something I should bring up with you.

We have lots of signs that are completely covered in grunge.

And I don't know if there's a statewide program where some contractor goes around and washes all the signs off, because a lot of them are not readable anymore.

And we need to get them back into process.

Anyone else?

All right.

And just a quick time check.

We're about 15 minutes behind.

All right, good afternoon.

So my name is Andrew Pike.

I'm a program analyst at the Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment, a colleague of Chris Wishman's, here to talk today about transportation performance management and performance-based planning and programming.

Please feel free to stop me or send questions to the end.

Next slide, Lucinda.

So just a quick agenda.

You've heard a little bit about OAP.

I'll just give a quick highlight.

Then we'll talk about performance-based planning and programming, get into the details about transportation performance management, what the federal process looks like, and take a look at the state and Campo targets and actual performance over the past few years.

And then we'll get into next steps.

Next slide, please.

Thank you.

So you heard Chris, my colleague, talk a little bit about OIFI.

So we're the Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment.

Been around for a while, almost 20 years now, established in 2002.

In 2018, we staffed up and now have 12 staff covering three main program areas.

So we're responsible for the state's long range transportation plan, METRANS, which Chris discussed.

We're also responsible for the smart scale process.

And then where I fit in is performance management.

And so we work with VDOT and DRPT and other motor agencies and also key planning partners and MPOs and PDCs.

Next slide, please.

And so specific to performance management, we're really focused on implementing the federal framework for performance-based planning and programming and transportation performance management.

We're also looking at new performance management, new performance measures that capture more of the surface transportation network.

and using data-driven target study methodologies, which Steven referenced in the safety target presentation.

And then we're also looking at performance trends and data to inform investment in policy decisions.

And lastly, kind of a longer term effort is working on a data sharing platform with reporting and analytical tools to help me share this performance information and data to more convenient passion with planning partners.

Next slide, please.

So thinking about performance-based planning and programming at a higher level, right, this has been, this isn't something that new.

The federal process may be new, but using data to inform decisions for investment and planning is something that most agencies and individuals are involved in.

When we kind of translate performance-based planning and programming into plan and invest manage,

So we think about how do we plan at the state level, corridor level, regional level at different timescales.

And then how do we invest in various transportation funding programs?

And then we look at how we're doing.

So we're monitoring and evaluating progress.

So did those planned investments improve performance on the performance measures that we're most interested in?

And hopefully you then create a virtual cycle where

that monitoring and evaluation informs future planning efforts, which then inform future funding programs and projects that are implemented.

Next slide, please.

So thinking more specifically about the federal transportation performance management process, all of this flows out of congressional action, the FAST Act and MAP 21, in which Congress wanted a little bit more information on

how states were performing, how federal funds were impacting the service transportation network.

That resulted in rule makings by the Federal Highway Administration and Transit Administration whereby they established performance measures that states and MPOs had to set targets for and track performance for.

And so states and MPOs have set targets at this point.

and are incorporating that information into long range plans and into transportation improvement programs.

So, you know, the goal with all this is really to utilize performance data to inform planning and investment decisions.

The federal piece of it really just sets a foundation.

States and MPOs are not required to use federal performance measures to prioritize investments.

But we are required to report out on these measures and the results.

And there are impacts to state DOTs related to funding or additional reporting requirements if targets are not met.

But no such requirements have been imposed.

Next slide, please.

So I just mentioned MAP21.

That set the performance measures for

A few different categories, safety asset conditions, system performance.

And then on the transit side, transit asset management and public transit agency safety plans.

And Steven mentioned Commonwealth transportation's role in this process and establishing targets for these measures.

I'm going to focus largely on asset condition and system performance today.

Next slide, please.

So where are we in this federal process back in 2018?

States and MPOs, established targets for asset conditions, so bridge and pavement condition, and then system performance measures, which for Charlottesville, Albemarle is limited to highway reliability, and then truck travel time reliability, which is a freight reliability measure.

So we've set performance measures.

The performance period is a four-year period.

We're right in the middle of it right now.

The state just submitted a report.

in October detailing our progress over the first two years and how we intend to continue implementing the process and trying to achieve those four-year targets that we've set.

At this mid-period, we have the opportunity to adjust targets, and Virginia took that opportunity and adjusted one target, the percentage of deck area in good condition of bridges.

I'll reference that in a future slide.

So that adjustment then allows MPOs to adjust that same target.

Charlottesville, Albemarle is one of three MPOs in the state, along with Hampton Roads and TPD, the TC region that set some targets of its own for its particular region.

So Charlottesville, Albemarle has the opportunity to adjust additional targets if it so chooses.

Next slide.

So just like I mentioned in the agenda, just wanted to give a quick recap of performance over the first few years in this federal transportation performance management period.

So for pavement condition, this is interstate good condition and poor condition.

The state and Campo share the same targets and performance is improving.

Next slide.

I'm looking at the non interstate NHS, same measures, pavement in good condition and pavement in poor condition, sharing the same measures, likewise, meaning the target here.

I will note that the federal measures are specific to the National Highway System, and that represents about 15% of the VDOT-maintained network for

both Lane Miles and the structures in the state.

So it's just one portion of the network.

Next slide, please.

Bridge condition, you can see that there's kind of a mix of performance here on that first target with the asterisks is where the state adjusted that target downward.

That was due to a number of factors, including

originally having a little bit of limited insight into some of the baseline data for structures that does not maintain but which are required to be reported on.

So that's border bridges that are maintained by other states or federally managed bridges, National Forest Service, Park Service, that kind of thing.

Next slide.

This is moving into system performance, so adding the asset condition.

I'm looking at reliability, so this is person miles traveled that are reliable on the interstate and the non-interstate NHS.

You can see different targets for the state and Campo here, but both the state and Charlottesville Albemarle meeting those targets and seeing some improvement.

Next slide, please.

The last of the system performance measures is specific to freight reliability.

So here again, this is actually limited just to the interstate, the freight reliability.

You can see that there are different targets from the state in Charlottesville, Albemarle, and that this measure's improving at the MPL level and a little bit up and down at the state level at this time.

Next slide, please.

So like I mentioned,

Now is the time for MPOs to take action on adjusting targets if they so choose.

And that information has been presented previously at MPO quarterly coordination meetings, which take place among OIP, VDOT, DRPT, and our MPO and PDC partners.

Action on any adjustments is necessary by March 25th.

The other current activity related to performance, federal performance management is what Steven Reed just discussed in the highway safety measures, which is an annual process.

And those are due to be established by MPOs by February 27th of next year.

With that, I believe we're at the end.

Next slide.

Yes, sorry, one more slide.

on the requirements.

So this gets back into tying it into performance-based planning and programming.

So it's not just about setting measures or setting targets for the federal measures.

It's about including that information in investment programs and then also in long-range plans and reporting out on that information.

So there are requirements related to the development of the TIP and the LRTPs.

With that, we're at the end.

I'm happy to take any questions and really appreciate the opportunity to meet with you.

Any questions or comments from the board?

Hearing none.

On to

That's me.

So, and I'm hoping that Andrew and Steven and Chris can stay around and help answer some questions.

I'm just trying to get to the other, to share the other screen.

I don't know why it's not showing up.

OK. All right.

So there's a memo in your packet about the setting the performance targets.

So this includes the safety targets and we are due to set them.

I'm hoping to get guidance from the board on

whether we should continue to work with the state targets or set our own targets.

If we do set our own targets, we can make a recommendation of what the target should be based on the trends that the state has provided for us.

So we can go over the asset and system condition targets here.

Let's see if I can make this bigger.

I don't know if I can.

So the targets in bold, the MPO had set different from the states, and we will need to decide if we want to continue to keep those targets, adjust them, or go back to the state targets.

So I'm hoping in January we can vote on a decision of what we want to do with the targets.

Are there any questions?

So in your packet, there's two workbooks.

They're Google documents or Excel documents, and those have the targets in there.

So you can see that for the percentage of deck area bridges in good condition, well, that one actually

We need to adjust, decide to adjust to match the states or to continue with what the state previously had.

So the state target for 2021 is 30

Our current target is 23% and the actual amount of the percentage of deck area bridges in good condition is 10.9% in our metropolitan area.

I have a question because I don't know what to do about this.

And so is there guidance?

What is the impact of the number we pick?

And does it result in changes in behavior or spending or something?

Okay, I'll try to answer it and then OP guys, if you want to jump in and correct me or anything, feel free.

There is no financial consequences to having our own targets.

The state will report their state targets to the FTA or the feds, and then they will be going off the state.

So the funding is not going to change.

The one thing that would change is that we would need to

report why we didn't, if we didn't meet our targets, we would need to report why we didn't meet the targets.

And we have to do that reporting anyways in our TIP and our long range transportation plan, it would just be a little bit of additional kind of discussing on how we're trying to meet those targets and

Why we didn't or why we didn't meet them.

If we adopted the state targets, then we would just copy the state language into the long range transportation plan and into the TIP and go along with how the state is strategizing to meet the targets.

So it's the as far as I can tell the only consequence is that

We would be doing a little bit more work to making our own reports.

It's not that much more work because the state will give us all of the data anyways in those workbooks.

However, if we do decide to set our own targets, it could help facilitate a discussion among decision makers in our area about local finances and how our conditions are improving or not improving over time.

I guess my question sort of following on that is where we've got to just look at the percentage deck area of bridges in good condition.

Our target is 23%.

Our actual is 10.9%.

Does that mean that we are supposed to have done something to basically double our output since that goal was set?

Yeah, since Virginia has most of the road maintenance and funding goes through the state.

So this would be the state kind of taking actions to do that.

So if we were to again, say, 23 percent,

No, we're kind of saying to ourselves, come on guys, get with it.

The state uses their targets, the average for the state.

I guess this will reflect my relative ignorance of how this all works, being a newbie on council and so on.

So I think Charles Proctor is going to talk.

And this is one exception.

Yeah, I was part of the discussion before when we first set these targets and at the time when we were looking at what was coming up in the

Current six-year plan at the time, probably four years ago, there were several bridges in the city on 250 that were deficient.

And those were going to be improved.

So we felt at that time that once those improvements were made, the area of decking in good condition would rise up.

I don't know if that

Well, I remember seeing something in the news just about two months ago saying that this was about to get going.

Either the contract had just been signed or something was going to happen to to deal with a couple of bridges on the bypass, a couple of bridges over railroad tracks, things like that.

Does that mean that somebody sat there and said, hey guys, we said we were going to get to 23%.

We're falling short.

We've got to do this so that we can fulfill our commitment under this target that we've set.

We look at the information and the city controls most of the bridges within the city.

So it's not something that we really can provide input on.

We do participate and provide funding through the SDR program for a lot of the maintenance.

No, it's just that we were at the time, those were identified as projects that were in the six year plan.

So we felt that they would be done in a reasonable amount of time that it would reflect in the score, but they haven't been done.

So it's not somebody, not a shaming thing or anything.

It's just how they haven't been done as soon as we thought they would be done.

Well, and I think that, this is John Lynch, I think what Chuck's saying is those projects, and it may have been the funding didn't come on board, or they could be behind.

I'm not really sure what the scenario is.

But the other big one that would, is the Belmont Bridge as well, because I believe that deck area is in,

in poor condition.

And so when that, that would be included in those, those numbers as well.

I guess what I'm, what I'm really trying to figure out is whether setting this number, putting us something to, to replace the question mark.

What does that actually mean that anybody else goes out and does?

Does that mean the city council and board of supervisors are all supposed to sit there and say, hey guys, we made a commitment to MPO that we're all going to improve our bridges.

And so now because we're doing that, we on city council are going to now spend $2 million a year on bridges or something that we weren't doing before.

Is that what actually happens or is

Well, I mean, I think if you look at the way that both the statewide target as well as the MPO target were developed was based on the current condition of those bridges and what work was planned to fix those.

And so that's where we thought we would be.

But obviously, those projects didn't get complete.

So I think it's reasonable to leave the current target for the next year.

And as those bridges come on board, we should be able to meet it.

And we could look at if there's other ones that are programmed for money that because you can't

Improve the condition of your bridges if you're not given any money.

So it really should be based on what's programmed and what's in the plan to be able to move those projects forward.

So is there some place, a list of the bridges that are in poor condition?

Yeah, that information exists.

That was my question, is what information was used to develop the actual numbers?

Well, I remember when Chuck was trying to help us years ago, it was the same level of confusion on my part about where the numbers came from and what they were going to achieve.

And I guess the new player now is that we have the railroad, the bridge at Old Ivy Road that is going to be a really significant improvement.

And I guess it's something that is newly come online into the program.

So it may not be reflected in any of our numbers so far, but it will certainly make a big improvement when it ever happens.

If someone could send the links to the lists and extra homework so that we can be more, I mean, I studied the stuff that I was given, but I'm not prepared to do any better today because I don't have

any more information.

So yeah, the links are these three and number nine.

That's all the information that I have.

OK. Yeah, I have to look.

I think we have most of the

actual data for all the bridges is online on the VDOT website.

And I can dig up that link and try to send it to you.

So you can look at the conditions of the bridges that are posted on that in that database.

Okay, great.

And

I don't think there's cost data.

It just gives you a ranking of the different parts of the bridge, the deck, the superstructure, and the substructure.

But most of them are like, it's just a matter of mill and overlay of the decks in a lot of the cases.

I know like Derry Road Bridge has got some significant, the whole deck's gotta be replaced.

But the railroad bridge, I'm not sure about that one.

We obviously, Belmont Bridge is gonna be replaced.

So when these come online, they'll have a tremendous effect on the score that we're gonna be seeing in future rounds.

Is there another category for bridge superstructure?

Because I think of the probably half a dozen that have been done in the Whitehall district over the last couple of years, they've been major peers and important work because they were 100 years old and falling apart.

If anything on the if anything on the bridge falls below

I guess in the interest of time we can move on to the safety performance targets unless there's more questions or discussion about the system conditions.

Okay, so the safety performance targets are adjusted every year.

So we again need to decide if we want to stick with what the state is using as their targets or adjust ours based more on local trends.

And so in this table here, the safety performance targets table, you can see the state target is here and then our projected trend is here and then

If we decide to adjust them, then the percent change of fatalities will predict the number of fatalities.

So we could just decide one number and they'll align.

So if you look at the percent change for fatalities, the state's target is 3.2% and

Our projected trend is a negative 4.3%.

So a positive value is an increase and a negative value is a decrease.

So some of these differences are pretty significant and, you know, again,

This is kind of I'm looking for direction from the board on whether we want to just stay with what the state's doing, which is what we did last year.

Or if we want to change our targets, it might just be a symbolic change.

Hey, Lucinda.

I'd like to weigh in on this.

If you look at the two graphs that were part of the workbook, the trend is actually trending.

If you look at the data, it was really high several years ago and then it dropped down and it's trending upward.

So I think as we move forward in time, the trend line is going to start to rise.

Okay.

I guess as a general proposal, I think that the state measures may just be sufficient.

I think our population is growing so fast.

And I don't know if these are these these data sets are managed for per 100,000 people or anything like that for comparison, because it seems logical that as our population increases by X percent a year,

Yeah, so if you need any more information, I'm happy to get it for you.

This is just something that I'm hoping that we can vote on in January.

So we have time to go over it.

And it's not like huge consequences.

And just perhaps to hit the note I was hitting before, is there anything, if we pick a number of fatalities that we're setting as a target, what are we supposed to do upon having set that target?

We could

We choose our transportation projects based on those targets.

There's a lot of decision factors that go into those decisions.

You know, there's the county and the city and the state that are all making those decisions so I'm not really sure.

This is something that's new.

It started in 2017 and it didn't get rolling until 2018.

So I think it's a new system and this is kind of a beginning step maybe to developing more of a system, you know, of

making our transportation decisions based on this.

At this current moment, there's no system in place to do that.

I mean, I guess to me, it just sounds like it's really just more symbolic than anything.

And it comes down to if we want to signal, we think we're at above or below a state trend.

And then it's up as, you know, in the city of Charlottesville, it's just up to us as a locality, what we want to make of sending that signal.

I sort of have a hard time figuring out why we would want to set a goal for fatalities of anything other than zero.

Yeah, those were definitely some of the discussions we had when we originally sent to set the targets.

Why aren't we setting them low?

It's just, it doesn't really come with for the

MPO, there's no consequences, but it gives you something to strive for.

I know throughout the smart scale project process, most of the applications that we pursue are to address safety issues.

And that's what we generally tend to focus on, because those are where we see the biggest needs in the area.

But that's something that we want to work forward with you all on

and more identifying the projects moving forward like Chip was talking about earlier.

So in that frame, is it important that we have pre-established a lower number so that we can then say, and this project will help us to get to this lower number?

Because I remember several years ago, we were discouraged from making things too low because then it becomes unattainable and you have a sense of failure.

And I don't know what the penalties are or not.

But I'm all in favor of making choices that will help us to

get a little more ammunition behind our projects.

There's no financial penalties for not meeting our targets.

If the state doesn't meet their targets, I think eventually there would be a penalty for the state

Yeah, we'll have to vote on it at the January meeting to meet the deadlines.

And I guess that I could prepare, you know, I mean, honestly, I think that, well, I would work with maybe Chuck

Lucinda, this is Stacy Londrey.

If Andrew is still on the line, he may be able to speak to this a little better than I can, but there may be more independent utility for those MPOs that are in transportation management areas that receive funding, separate funding that they allocate for the CMAQ and RSTP programs to set separate goals or separate targets different than the state's targets.

Andrew,

Yeah, I think that definitely gives them more flexibility in terms of the projects that they have control over.

And so that has an impact on how they then want to set targets.

We're still kind of in the midst of the target setting for 2021.

So we haven't seen all of the MPOs submit targets yet.

In the past, it's definitely been a mix and it's typically been

Sorry, when I say mix, it's been a mix of MPOs adopting state targets or setting their own and it is typically the larger jurisdictions, larger regions that decide to set their own targets.

TPB is obviously an exception in the Washington region given that it is multi-state.

So they have multiple actors and other factors to balance.

But it is something that larger MPOs have

Most MPOs just go with the state target.

Yeah.

So I guess if there's no more questions, I don't want to hold you all up.

I'll just prepare something for the next meeting and then at that meeting the board can decide if they want to keep stick with the state or, you know, adopt more local targets.

Okay.

Well, I guess on to agenda item 10.

So right as I started to update the Title VI plan, we were asked by the state to conduct a review and audit of our Title VI plan.

So they're auditing the previous one, not the one that was just adopted today, and we've already filled it out and sent it in.

So I'm just letting you know that that's happening.

all the MPOs are being audited for this.

So it's just a kind of general thing that's happening.

Okay.

Any questions or comments?

Okay.

Item 11.

Are there any items anyone would like to add to the agenda?

All right.

One, two additional matters from the public.

If there's anyone in the public who would like to speak, you can hit the raise hand icon in the Zoom webinar and speak for up to three minutes.

Last call, I see no one with their hand raised.

All right, I will close public comment.

And meeting adjourned.

Thank you, everybody.

Be safe.

Thanks, folks.

Thanks, everyone.

Thank you, everyone.

Good night.

Take care, John.