HomeMy WebLinkAboutFederal Certification of the Augusta Transportation Management
Augusta Richmond GA
DOCUMENT NAME: fel:>6R.AL Cr:s-R~;.-\\C,AT'ON o{..-tH~ t:lUCJO<;.TA-
t f<-Ar"C;;p062TI'T170N m AN"(~9 e:: /TJEg..),
DOCUMENT TYPE:
YEAR: \ Ot q <is
BOX NUMBER: to
FILE NUMBER: ) Ll 0 3 lo
NUMBER OF PAGES: dO
"'l:~~"'I5WOf TR.vv$,oO~
:f ~
I1i 0
~~;
~A7ES (ji- ~
u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRA nON
Georgia Division
61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Suite 17TI00
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
December 2, 1998
IN REPLY REFER TO
HIP-GA
The Honorable Larry Sconyers
Chair, Augusta Regional Transportation Study
525 Telfair Street
Augusta, Georgia 30911
Subject: Federal Certification of the Augusta Transportation Management Area Planning Process
Dear Mayor Sconyers:
Title 23 Section 134(i)(5) and Subtitle III of Title 49 Section 5305(e)(I) require the federal agencies to
certify the transportation planning process for each Transportation Management Area every three years.
On August 12-13, 1998, the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration met
with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission, the Georgia Department of Transportation,
Augusta Public Transit, the South Carolina Department of Transportation, and Aiken County to discuss
the local planning process as part of the second round of planning certification reviews. During the
review, an open public meeting was held to afford citizens an opportunity to provide their views of the
transportation planning process. Additionally, time was provided for local elected officials to meet with
the review team. The certification review is one method of monitoring the metropolitan planning process.
Other methods include reviews of the Unified Planning Work Programs, the Federal finding that the TIP
came from a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive process, and periodic meeting attendance.
As a result of the site visit in August, as well as our participation in the Augusta Regional Transportation
Study (ARTS) metropolitan planning process, the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal
Transit Administration are certifying the metropolitan planning process subject to certain corrective
actions and recommendations. Enclosed is the certification review report which contains a description of
the review process, summary of the discussions, the certification action itself, and corrective actions and
recommendations.
We look forward to presenting the results of the certification review at the December 3, 1998, meeting of
the ARTS Policy Committee. If you have any questions concerning the process or the certification report,
please contact Ms. Laurie Schroeder at 404-562-3632.
Sincerely,
~u :reihau , P.E. tufJ
V~~i~~dministrator
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Susan Schruth, Federal Transit Administrator Region, IV
Mr. George Patty, Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission
Mr. Robert Bowling, GDOT, Office of Planning
Mr. Steve Kish, GDOT, Office ofIntermodal Programs
Mr. Dick Torbik, SCDOT
. ~ 0 F T R~N
~~ aJO
~ O~
Q: ;;.
~ ~
0- --
w 0
o :z
c U
~ ~
(('<> ~~
S~rES Of.~
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Certification Report
For the
.Augusta Transportation Management Area
DECEMBER 3, 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section I. Introduction and Background Information ................,............,.... 1
A. Description of the Planning Area and Membership in the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) ..............,.............,......,........... f
B. Participants in the Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . 2
C. Major Regional Issues and Priority Planning Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
D. MPO Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Section II. Recommended Actions from Previous Review and Response by Metropolitan
Planning Partners. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Section III. Overview of Findings from Current Planning Process RevIew .................9
A. Focus Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Congestion Management System. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) ............................. 9
3. Environmental Justice ............................................ 9
4. Title VI." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
B. Certification Review Meetings with Elected Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
C. Certification Review Public Meetings .................................... 10
Section IV. General Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A. Notable Strengths .................................................... 12
B. Recommended Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
C. FHWAJFTA Action. . . .,. . . . ... . . .. . . .. ... .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Appendix A: Certification Review Agenda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-I
Appendix B: Certification Review Participants . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . B-1
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Pursuant to 23 U.S.c. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303, the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) and
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) must jointly review and evaluate the metropolitan
transportation planning process for each transportation management area (TMA) at least every three
years. Consistent with the provisions of 23 CFR 450.334(d), this joint review and evaluation
provide the basis for the FHW A/FT A certification action of the TMA planning process. The
FHW A/FT A certification finding remains in effect for three years, unless a new certification
determination is made sooner.
The first FHW A/FT A certification review of the Augusta, Georgia TMA planning process was
conducted in June 20-22, 1995. It involved discussions with staff representatives of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission, the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), the
South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT), and other participating agencies. As a
result of the certification review, as well as other regular participation in the metropolitan planning
process, it was determined that the transportation planning process for the Augusta TMA
substantially met the requirements of 23 CFR Part 450, Subpart C. As a result, the process was.
jointly certified by the FHW A and FT A, but three recommendations for enhancing the process were
identified. The final report was distributed on October 12, 1995.
This report documents the second certification review of the Augusta, Georgia metropolitan
transportation 'planning process. The site visit portion of the second FHW A/FT A Certification
Review of the Augusta TMA was conducted on August 12 - 13, 1998. The Certification Schedule
is included in Appendix A, and a list of review participants is included in Appendix B. This review
was conducted in accordance with the general guidelines reflected in the October 28, 1993,
FHW A1FTA Metropolitan Transportation Planning Regulations (23 CFR Part 450, Subpart C) and
the joint FHW A/FT A Region 4 Certification Guidelines (2/1 0/97).
A. Description of the Planning Area and Membership in the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO)
The Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission the designated MPO for the Augusta TMA~
the federal 3-C planning process as carried out by the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission is called the Augusta-Regional Transportation Study (ARTS). ARTS was established
in 1964 by agreement between the highway departments of Georgia and South Carolina. The study
area includes substantial portions of Aiken County, South Carolina and Columbia and Richmond
Counties, Georgia. As of January 1, 1996, the Augusta City government and the Richmond County
government consolidated. In addition to the three counties, three cities and F oct Gordon are
represented on ARTS. There are two fixed-route transit providers in the study area - Aiken County
Transit (formerly Best Friends Transit) and Augusta Public Transit.
B. Participants in the Review
The participants in the review included staff representatives of ARTS, GDOT, SCDOT, Augusta
Public Transit, Aiken County Transit, Aiken County Plarming and Development, FHW A, and FT A.
All local officials were invited to participate; the review team met with Mr. James Lester, ODOr
Board Member and Mayor Larry Sconyers of Augusta. Thirteen private citizens attended the public
meeting, including members of the ARTS Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). A complete list
of participants is included in Appendix B. The federal certification review team consisted of the
following: Mr. Alexander McNeil, FTA Region 4; Mr. Derek R. Scott, FTA Region 4; Ms. Laura
Schroeder, FHW A Georgia Division; and Ms. Jean Mazur, FHW A Georgia Division.
C. Major Regional Issues and Priority Planning Activities
ARTS provided the review team with a summary of recent MPO activities and regional issues:
. ARTS completed a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update in 1997.
. A major accomplishment for the MPO since the last certification review has been the flexing
of surface transportation program (STP) funds to transit
. The first three-year cycle of the congestion management system has been completed.
. Safety awareness issues have been of growing interest to the public and the media. A Safe
Communities coordinator has been working in Augusta for the last six months and has issued
a draft report.
. ARTS has taken a number of steps to try to increase public involvement in the planning
process including different products and types of advertisements.
. This past spring, GDOT deployed a Mobile Command Vehicle to assist in managing traffic
for the Masters Golf Tournament.
. ARTS surveyed freight-haulers last summer. This survey may be followed-up with a freight
inventory survey next summer.
. Railroad/roadway conflicts continue to be an issue in Augusta.
. It was noted that the fastest growing areas of Augusta are on the fringe of the City
boundaries. In terms of transportation plarming, these are the most challenging areas to deal
with.
Augusta Public Transit explained that the county and city governments consolidated in 1996
resulting in the expansion of the public transit boundaries. Augusta Public Transit continues to
perform route studies, surveys and schedule modifications to optimize performance. Variable bus
sizes, to best meet the needed demand, have been implemented. The transit agency has obtained
additional revenue by contracting for advertisements on buses and shelters and levied a 3 percent tax
on rental cars. The rental car tax is expected to generate $300,000 to $400,000 per year. Augusta
Public Transit is also considering a proposal to eliminate the use of fare transfers.
Aiken County Transit expanded in January 1996 from a one-route to a two-route system, There is
presently consideration to expand to a three-route system after October. In 1997, the office was
2
computerized and FT A also performed their triennial review of the transit system. Ridership has
increased 30 percent in the last year. Aiken County Transit implemented special holiday events that
have proven successful. Therefore, these events ~ill be continued in the future.
GDOT commended the ARTS transportation planning process. Besides the annual update to the TIP
last year, ARTS completed an RTP update and investigated MIS requirements for two transportation
corridors. ARTS has worked diligently to get the public involved in the transportation planning
process. GDOT also explained that Augusta has been participating in a GDOT research project to
update the trip generation and cross-classification methods. The research was a result of an FHW A
process review that recommended more consideration of transit in ~he planning process. The first
step to better integrating transit into the planning process is to convert the current vehicle-trip models
to person-trip models. The Augusta area was selected for the research because of the size and the
potential nonattainment status. ARTS staff contributed greatly to the home travel survey that was
performed as part of the research. The research will result in trip generation based on person-trips,
instead of the current vehicle-trip model, and four trip types. . GDOT is also considering the
development of a new trip distribution model. An additional comment by GDOT was that they
believe that there is good cooperation between Georgia and South Carolina for transportation
planning in Augusta, and they hope that South Carolina will benefit from the update of the travel
demand model. GDOT commended the work that ARTS has done on their CMS and other special
studies.
SCDOT also believes that there is a good relationship between Georgia and South Carolina. As part
of ARTS, there is a subcommittee that addresses South Carolina's needs and relays that information
to the full ARTS committees. South Carolina believes that planning process works well. South
Carolina worked with Georgia on the consideration of MISs in the 1-20 and 1-520 corridors. South
Carolina is currently performing a toll feasibility study for the Bobby Jones Expressway.
Aiken County's current planning emphasis is an effort to generate public interest and involvement.
This is being accomplished through a nwnber of mechanisms including presentations to various civic
organizations and the ARTS website. Aiken County does have an active bicycle group that
participates in the planning process. Another emphasis area for Aiken County is the Safe
Communities district.
D. MPO Needs
The MPO asked for technical assistance in a number of areas including:
· Air Quality Planning - The staff and review team discussed wh~t type of technical assistance
for air quality would be beneficial. The staff felt that a better understanding of the major
steps involved in the technical process would be helpful including a schedule of what has
to be done and by whom. They also wanted information on the best way to get the elected
officials involved in air quality issues. Finally, the MPO wanted to know how they could
proactively deal with the air quality issues. The review team added that there would be
3
future workshops for the potential nonattainment areas;
· Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) - ARTS requested technical assistance for ITS.
They would like examples of what ITS elements have been implemented in medium size
cities and multi-state areas. The staff noted that there is considerable local interest in ITS;
· Public Involvement - The MPO is looking for good examples of different public involvement
techniques;
· Transit - A number of issues were raised regarding transit. First, all the TMAs lost money
due to MARTA not performing a required rail transit safety study review. The transit
providers wanted to know whether Augusta would be given their funding after the study is
performed. The transit operators also wanted more information on the Congressional
initiatives for operating expenses. A final transit issue was long-range transit planning;
. Intersection Needs Prioritization - South Carolina DOT offered to share the formulas used
to prioritize intersections by the Columbia, SC MPO. The formulas used in Columbia are
an expansion of the formulas developed by SCDOT;
· TEA-21 - the staffwas interested in the implications ofTEA-21 for metropolitan areas. It
was noted that this topic could be presented at the Georgia MPO conference or even at a
regional MPO conference;
. Planning and Environmental Concerns - It was noted that FHWAlFTA will conduct a TEA-
21 stakeholders meeting for Atlanta in September; and
. Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning - the staffwas interested in finding good examples of where
bicycle and pedestrian planning was being integrated into the R TP process.
4
SECTION II
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FROM PREVIOUS REVIEW AND RESPONSE BY
METROPOLITAN'PLANNING PARTNERS
During the last certification review in 1995, three recommendations were identified for enhancing
the ARTS transportation planning process. The site visit for the current certification review focused
on those recommendations and how they have been addressed by the MPO. Summarized in this
section are the discussions of the recommendations from the previous certification review.
Recommendation 1: The MPO is encouraged to include the various opportunities for public
involvement that are available during the transportation planning process in
their next update of the public involvement plan.
MPO Action: Since the last certification, ARTS updated and expanded their public
involvement plan (PIP). The current process for notification of public
meetings includes numerous outlets such as newspaper ads, media press
releases, and announcements in government offices and on transit vehicles.
For the newspaper ads, ARTS has elected to use full advertisements with
innovative illustrations rather than the typical legal notice. Other means of
distributing information on the general planning process includes a planning
brochure, the citizen advisory committee handbook, and the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission web site. The staff noted that the
Chairman of the CAC is a non-voting member on the Policy Committee (PC)
and a voting member of the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC).
ARTS maintains a mailing list of interested persons and neighborhood
associations. ARTS is in the process of soliciting new members for their
CAC.
Public involvement was an importallt element of the RTP update process. To
solicit citizen input to the identification of solutions, transportation system
deficiencies were presented to the public rather than a list of proposed
projects. Two projects had termini changes based on input received during
the public involvement process. ARTS has made a diligent effort to find
meeting facilities that would be most conducive to public participation. One
meeting was held at the Augusta Mall. Due to the lack of participation at that
meeting (the meeting room was not in a good location within the mall),
ARTS has elected not to use those facilities again. ARTS also maintains
flexibility with the format of the public meetings. Most meetings are
conducted informally, but at a meeting where a formal presentation is needed,
formal presentations will be provided. Finally, ARTS made a conscious
effort to produce a document that was easily understood by laymen.
ARTS has a number of mechanisms for reaching the traditionally
5
underserved. Public meetings are advertized through the Augusta Housing
and Neighborhood Development Department. Additionally, groups
representing the traditionally underserved are maintained on the ARTS
mailing list. Augusta Public Transit has a CAC that specifically addresses
Americans with Disabilities Act issues. Aiken County Transit also addresses
issues for the traditionally underserved.
The review team asked if ARTS had a mechanism for measuring the
effectiveness of the public involvement process. ARTS has an informal
process for evaluating the public involvement process. Typically, ARTS
staff and GDOT staff will review the success of the meeting, including the
location, time, type of advertisement and tools used, and decide if any
modifications should be made for future meetings. ARTS also takes
advantage of impromptu changes that could be made at the meetings
including changing the format of the meeting or relocating directional signs.
The review team noted that if the public understands how the comments are
being incorporated into the planning process, then the documentation of the
consideration of the comments can be less explicit. The review team also
commented that summaries of the comments and the responses could be
included in the ARTS newsletter and/or the ARTS website. A final comment
by the review team was that all the comments and the corresponding staff
responses should be provided to the PC prior to their adoption of the
document.
The MPO has fully addressed this recommendation.
Recommendation 2: Those corridors requiring a major investment study (MIS) need to be
identified. The MPO should' develop roles and responsibilities of the
participating agencies and appropriately document the process. The lead
agency for each MIS needs to involve federal and state resource agencies and
the public in the MIS activity.
MPO Action: ARTS explained that since the last certification review, there had been two
scoping meetings for proposed major investments. The scoping meetings
were held for the 1-520 corridor and the 1-20 corridor. The conclusion of the
scoping meeting was that no additional analysis was necessary. Currently,
there is a MIS/study identified in the Unified Planning Work Program
(UPWP) for the Wrightsboro Road corridor.
The review team noted that under the new transportation legislation, TEA-21,
the MIS was eliminated as a stand-alone provision. The requirements are,
however, to be folded into the planning process or the National
6
Environmental Policy Act process. FHW AfFT A will be releasing guidance
in the future on the new requirements.
The MPO has adeqUately addressed this recoIrimehdation.
Recommendation 3: GDOT needs to complete the traffic forecasting model to update the LR TP.
MPO Action: Since the last certification review, GDOT completed the model update. The
RTP update was completed in September 1997, and the documentation was
fmalized in June 1998. The base year demographic data was from 1993 and
the forecast year for the RTP was 2015. Therefore, there was more than a
twenty-year planning horizon from the base-year socio-economic data.
GDOT noted that having a 20-year forecast horizon from the base year of the
socio-economic data has been standard practice in Georgia.
GDOT currently has a consultant under contract to update the trip generation
equations for the travel demand forecasting model. ARTS anticipates
beginning the next RTP update in calender year 2000 and completing it
between 2001-2002.
The review team explained that the current FHW AfFT A guidance (as issued
in May 1998) clarified that the 20-year horizon was to be 20 years from the
time when the PC adopts the RTP. The review team asked what the
differences were between the previous RTP and updated RTP. Staff believed
that the updated RTP contained only one new project and eight revised
projects. Three options were discussed to rectify the 20-year planning
horizon issue:
1) extend the forecast period
2) revert to the old plan with a 20-year planning horizon
3) work from the 2nd year of the FY 98 TIP
ARTS explained the growth rate in Augusta is only 0.75 percent per year.
Extending the forecast period from 2015 to 2020 would probably not result
in any new deficiencies. FHW A suggested that ARTS schedule public'
involvement meetings in the event that there are project changes. It was
noted that the financial forecasts would also have to be extended.
The financial forecasts for the RTP were based on historic funding levels
projected for 20 years and adjusted by the consumer price index. Operation
and maintenance costs were estimated based on the number miles of roadway
and the per mile cost of maintaining the roadway. The financial plan
included a local option sales tax program and innovative financing for the
7
Bobby Jones Expressway. South Carolina uses their Guideshare program to
project roadway operating costs. The methodology is similar the
methodology used in Georgia, but the costs are categorized by functional
classification. Operating costs for transit were included for Georgia and
South Carolina.
The MPO has fully addressed this recommendation.
8
SECTION III
OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS FROM CURRENT PLANNING PROCESS REVIEW
A. Focus Areas
1. Congestion Management System
ARTS staff explained that the CMS has been operational for four years. Travel time surveys are the
primary measurement tools used in the CMS. This past spring, ARTS ran travel time surveys on
those roadways that were designated "not presently congested" and "seriously congested." As part
of the CMS, ARTS is also meeting with local traffic engineers and officials to determine what
improvements are being made by the local departments. Deficiencies identified through the CMS
have resulted in collaboration with the medical community to address congestion in the vicinity of
the medical center complex. The CMS information and accident data is also being integrated into
the project development process for the 1-520/1-20 project.
2. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
Augusta explained that the ITS demonstration used during Masters Golf Tournament was extremely
successful. It included a mobile command center and HERO team brought in from Atlanta by
GOaT. Other ITS applications in Augusta include the monitoring of signal timings and including
conduit in the Bobby Jones Expressway construction project. It was noted that Augusta was not
identified as a priority for ITS in the Georgia State ITS Plan. They were going to request that
Augusta be given higher priority. Staff from Augusta attended FHW A's ITS Integration class. A
lump sum element is being considered for the TIP/RTP, and there is an ITS element in the current
UPWP. The traffic operations and planning staffs are working toward better consideration of ITS
in the planning process. It is anticipated that ITS will be a major element in the next RTP update
for Augusta. GDOT has also worked toward incorporating ITS into any projects that are already
in the "pipeline." The review team noted that TEA-2l requires that all ITS projects demonstrate
consistency with the ITS national architecture. FHW A is currently developing guidance on how this
should be accomplished.
3. Environmental Justice
The review team explained the definition of environmental justice; the USDOT's Executive Order'
on environmental justice states that planning and environmental activities cannot have negative
impacts on minority and low-income populations. ARTS currently has a checklist for each project
in the R TP that is used to identify other environmental considerations such as wetlands and potential
relocations. The checklist could be modified to reflect environmental justice considerations by
including census data information. This could be easily accomplished with ARTS geographic
information system capabilities. ARTS could also incorporate an element into the UPWP to address
environmental justice concerns. It was noted that when considering environmental justice in the
planning process, it should be looked at on a system level and not the individual route level.
9
4. Title VI
The purpose of the Title VI program is to assure that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color,
or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise
subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the recipient receives federal
assistance. There have been no Title VI complaints in Augusta. The transit agency provides a Title
VI report to GDOT every October. GDOT noted that a 1997 FHW A review of the Georgia
Department of Transportation' s Title VI Program commended GDOT for their consideration of civil
rights in the planning process and for their working relationship with the MPOs. Additionally,
Aiken County was represented at the FHW A Title VI training held in March 1998.
5. Air Quality
The MPO is seeking technical assistance to deal with the proposed changes in the air quality
standards. The MPO would like more information on the schedule for nonattainment designation
and State Implementation Plan submittals. There was a discussion of the emission model used for
conformity determinations. FHW A explained that the Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) is
updating the emissions model to make it more compatible with the travel demand model outputs.
EP A is hoping to release the updated model in fall 1999.
B. Certification Review Meetings with Elected Officials
The review team met with Mr. James Lester, GDOT Board Member and Mayor Larry Sconyers of
Augusta. Both felt that the planning process was working very well. They felt that it was truly a
cooperative process. There were a couple of transportation planning issues raised by Mr. Lester and
Mayor Sconyers. First, they talked about continued coordination with South Carolina. Georgia is
very interested in seeing the Bobby Jones Expressway extended into South Carolina. Currently,
South Carolina does not have money to construct the facility.
The second issue was the potential nonattainment status for Augusta under the revised national
ambient air quality standards. They were interested in knowing what could be done pro actively to
address air quality. The current Atlanta vehicle inspection/maintenance program and the plans for
reformulated gasoline in Georgia were discussed.
C. Certification Review Public Meetings
ARTS held a public meeting for the certification review on August 12, 1998. Thirteen citizens
attended the public meeting including Mr. Phil Croll who is chairman of the ARTS CAe. All of the
comments received regarding the planning process expressed satisfaction with the process. The
review team was impressed by the fact that the citizens felt that their comments were heard and
addressed (even though it may not have been the answer they favored). This comment was made by
a number of citizens. If a transportation concern is raised by a CAC member, the concern is
10
usually addressed by the next CAC meeting. The only concern raised, regarding the public
involvement process, was the lack of participation by the general public, but the attendee felt that
the lack of participation was due more to a lack of interest rather than a lack of effort on the part of
the ARTS staff.
11
SECTION IV
GENER<\L DISCUSSION
Overall, the review team was impressed with the transportation planning process being carried out
in the Augusta TMA. The Augusta Regional Transportation Study (ARTS) exemplifies what was
envisioned for the 3-C planning process. The roles of the participating agencies are well defined and
the process appears to run smoothly.
The transportation planning process of the Augusta transportation management area substantially
meets the requirements of23 CFR 450 Subpart C. The process is certified subject to the corrective
actions and recommended improvements being adequately addressed.
A. Notable Strengths
1. The recommendations that were included in the previous certification report have
been addressed.
2. The ARTS process has sought out ways to keep the public involved in the decision-
making process. All indications are that the citizens have a forum to have their concerns
heard and addressed.
3. The congestion management system (CMS) appears to be an effective tool which has
been integrated into the overall planning process,
4. The flexing of STP dollars to transit exemplifies a cooperative process. ARTS and
Augusta Public Transit are encouraged to share their experience with other transit providers
through the Georgia Transit Association (OT A),
B. Recommended Improvements
1. ARTS is encouraged to continue their efforts of better consideration of
environmental and environmental justice issues in the planning process.
2. An informal process currently exists to evaluate the effectiveness of the public
involvement process. The process needs to be documented in the ARTS Public Involvement
Plan (PIP).
C. Corrective Actions
1. The RTP needs to have at least a 20-year horizon from the time of adoption by the
MPO Pc. The MPO can use the newly adopted FY 99-01 TIP and RTP. However, FHWA
and FT A will take no action on those projects not included in the FY98-00 TIP and
corresponding RTP until the horizon year issue is resolved.
D. FHW A/FT A Action
Joint FHW AlFT A actions on future products of the TMA' s planning process, such as approval of
the UPWP, review of the RTP updates, and the 3-C finding on the TIP, will be partially based on
the progress made by the planning process participants in addressing these FHW AlFT A certification
review findings.
12
APPENDIX A
CERTIFICATION REVIEW AGENDA
A-I
AUGUSTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CERTIFICATION REVIEW
AGENDA
Day One - August 12, 1998
Time
Item
Responsibility
9:00am
Introduction
Review Team
9:30am
MPO Overview
MPO, Transit
Operator and
State
10:30am
Break
10:45 am
MPO Needs
MPO, Transit
Operator,
State and
Review Team
11:30am
Lunch
12:30pm
Discussion of Findings and Recommendations from
previous report/review
MPO, Transit
Operator,
State and
Review Team
2:30pm
Break
2:45pm
Discussion of Findings and Recommendations from
previous report/review (continued)
MPO, Transit
Operator,
State and
Review Team
4:15pm
Break
4:30pm
Open Time for Elected Officials
Review Team
5:30pm
Break
6:00-8:00pm
Public Meeting
Review Team
A-2
Time
9:00am
AUGUSTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CERTIFICATION REVIEW
AGENDA
Day Two - August 13, 1998
Item
Responsibilitv
Discussion of Special Emphasis/Initiative Areas
MPO, Transit
Operator,
State and
Review Team
A-3
APPENDIX B
CERTIFICATION REVIEW PARTICIPANTS
B-1
:- -:..
CERTIFICATION REVIEW P ARTICIP ANTS
Aiken County -
Jeanene Knapp
General Public -
Debby Balcer
Mark Balcer
Priscilla Bence
Philip Croll
John R. Evans
Peg Jones
Kim D. Lee
Lucille Loveridge
Terry Secites
E. Schumacker
Gladys Wallace
Jim Williamson
Aiken County Transit -
Jochen Ewing
Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission -
Paul DeCamp
J uriah Lewis
George Patty
Sirena Perkins-Rogers
Mary Pitts
Lynn Russell
Augusta Public Transit -
Heyward L. Johnson
Georgia Department of Transportation -
Frieda Black
Robert Bowling
Cora Cook
Keith Golden
Debbie Pennington
Columbia County -
Ronnie Hutto
Elected Officials -
Mayor Sconyers
Mr. Jimmy Lester
South Carolina Department of
Transportation -
Ron Althoff
Kenny Skenes
Dick T orbik
Federal Highway Administration,
Georgia Division -
Jean Mazur
Laurie Schroeder
Federal Highway Administration, South
Carolina Division -
David Beaty
Federal Transit Administration,
Region 4 -
Alex McNeil
Derek R. Scott.
B-2