Loading...
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