ROCHESTER - OLMSTED COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
MEMORANDUM
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
TO:
District 6 ATP
FROM:
Mitzi Baker, ROCOG Executive Director
DATE:
March 6, 2017
RE:
Year 2021 ROCOG-ATP Projects
BACKGROUND
In late 2013, the D-6 ATP recommended a methodology to use in programming MnDOT District
6 ATP federal funds with an allocation specifically for ROCOG. In December, 2013, the
ROCOG Board adopted this method with the first year of programming the ROCOG funds as
year 2018. The next year to program projects with this funding is the year 2021.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects for Year 2021:
MnDOT is projecting the ROCOG distribution of annual federal funding from ATP 6 for Yr
2021 as $2,370,000 in federal funds available for programming by ROCOG.
ROCOG approved the use of these federal funds to be used to fund two projects:
1) Members Parkway Extension/new Public Street in Rochester. The local match will be
provided jointly by Olmsted County and the City of Rochester.
2) Consulting services to assist in the implementation of the newly updated Rochester Comp
Plan Transit Element, primarily for work to develop the transit nodes & corridors system.
Description of Year 2021 projects:
1
ATP March 6, 2017 memo
1
Construct Members Parkway Extension & Public Street using STBG funds in the amount of
$2,070,000 (project site graphic below), with the local match split between the City of Rochester and
Olmsted County.
The project will extend Members Parkway
to the NW and join a new public street
that will intersect with West Circle Dr
where the former traffic signal was. Those
traffic signals will relocate to the new
south location. These actions are designed
to improve access spacing along West
Circle Dr in a high-traffic generation part
of the city.
This project is a later phase of the project
Now under construction shown below.
Current
Construction
Project
2
ATP March 6, 2017 memo
2
Consultant planning services to assist in implementation of Rochester Comp Plan’s
transportation and supporting land use recommendations. The funds would be used by the
Rochester-Olmsted Planning Dept. (i.e. ROCOG staff) for hiring and managing consulting
planning services. The recommended federal dollar amount of STBG funds is $300,000 with a
local match of $75,000 to be provided by the City of Rochester. Since the use of these funds is 4
years out, the specifics on the planning services will be developed in the year 2019 time-frame,
after Comp Plan adoption and next steps processes are more developed during years 2017-18.
ROCOG and Rochester-Olmsted Planning staff see a need for funds to use for planning services
to implement the upcoming transit elements of the Rochester Comprehensive Plan. This work,
and the Comp Plan in general, is designed to support and coordinate with the community and
regional goals of the DMC work, mainly mode shift goals for an increased percentage of trips
into the downtown from single auto drivers to transit trips.
The graphic on the following page shows a number of land use “nodes” that will need to be
developed or redeveloped over time to provide the density to support a higher level of transit
such as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). The nodes are in red, green, and blue, with expected increased
employment density in the purple nodes. The primary transit corridors are also shown that will
connect the nodes with each other and the DMC area; these corridors will also need development
and redevelopment to increase density.
The focus of the consulting services will be the development of small area plans for the major
nodes to lay out the framework for developers, property owners, and the City of Rochester to
develop the land in such a way that bus rapid transit stations can be located in the areas to serve
planned dense land use. An example of a small area plan is shown below.
Further notes on eligible uses for
federal funds:
As ATP members are aware, STBG
funds can be used for a wide variety of
uses besides road construction, buses,
bike/ped facilities and bridges, such as:
Parking facilities, traffic control
equipment, planning, bus
shelters/stations, road/transit safety
measures, as examples.
Example of a Small Area Plan
supporting Bus Rapid Transit
3
ATP March 6, 2017 memo
Note: The current District 6 ATP
written restrictions on the use of
STP/STBG funds are: no use for
ROW, no use for project engineering.
ROCOG project criteria for use of
ATP funds in the ROCOG region show
no restrictions on use for planning
services.
Further Discussion:
During our TTAC meetings, there was a
request for background information about
other Minnesota ATPs using, or could use,
federal funds for planning. This was then
expanded with the help of the FHWA to other
MPOs around the country with some
examples. This information is provided
below as background information.
Information on other Minnesota MPOs has been provided by Bobbi Retzlaff:
ATP 3
The ATP provides subtargets to each of its 4 regions: 3 RDC areas and the St. Cloud MPO. The
ATP decided each region could decide which types of projects are eligible to receive STP funds.
The MPO decided planning studies and right of way acquisition are eligible activities. However,
no planning studies have been submitted.
ATP 1
ATP 1 does not have a policy limiting the use of funds for planning related activities. However,
ATP 1 has never funded planning through its allocation.
Metropolitan Council Transportation Advisory Board
In general, TAB decided planning related activities are not an eligible STP activities. However,
there are exceptions. TAB has funded/will be funding the Travel Behavior Inventory and OnBoard Transit Surveys. These activities support the regional travel demand model and have
region-wide benefits.
Examples of MPOs using STP/STBG funds for planning purposes in other Federal regions
besides Minnesota:
4
City/State Salt Lake City, Utah MPO Notes from Local FHWA Division Office Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) Salt Lake City has been using STP funds for planning for 4 years. Dallas ‐ Ft. Worth, Texas North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) Little Rock, Arkansas Metroplan Boise, Idaho Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) For several years now COMPASS has allocated about $306k of STP TMA off‐
the‐top funds for planning purposes. Omaha, Nebraska Omaha ‐ Council Bluffs Metropolitan Planning Agency (MAPA) MAPA (Omaha MPO) hasn’t quite started using STBG for planning purposes, but are putting the wheels in motion. MAPA is planning on doing is having up to $250K a year of STBG funding available that member jurisdictions can submit proposals to compete for the funding to perform planning studies. Kansas City, Missouri Mid‐America Regional Council (MARC) The Kansas City MPO (Mid America Regional Council) regularly uses STP/STBG funds for planning purposes. Fort Collins, Colorado North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) Staff for the Dallas Fort Worth area MPO uses STBG monies quite frequently. All of the TMAs in Arkansas use STBG to supplement PL funds. The Fort Collins MPO has used the STP funds in the past for planning purposes. 5
ATP March 6, 2017 memo
Ohio MPOs Idaho: Indiana: North Carolina: Texas: 6
1) Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordination Agency (NOACA), Cleveland, OH 2) Ohio‐Kentucky‐Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI), Cincinnati, OH 3) Mid‐Ohio Regional Planning Commission, (MORPC), Columbus, OH 4) Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission (MVRPC), Dayton, OH 5) Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments (TMACOG), Toledo, OH 6) Eastgate Regional Council of Governments (Eastgate), Youngstown, OH Several Ohio MPOs use STBG for planning. STP & STBG funds have been used regularly by all five of our MPOs. Used for planning activities to supplement their allotments of PL and 5303 funds. Indiana’s MPOs including South Bend ‐ www.macog.com. & Anderson ‐ www.mccog.net Use STP and now STBG funds for planning purposes. Many of our TMAs use STBG funds. STBG funds to supplement planning funds, mostly for MTP updates and some special projects. All of the MPO boards support the use of the additional funds, especially if it helps to advance other projects. Capital Are Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) – Austin North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) – Dallas‐Fort Worth •Houston‐Galveston Area Council (H‐GAC) – Houston‐Galveston In Texas several of the TMAs that receive their own allocation of STPBG funding have used their STPBG funds for planning activities. The STPBG funds and work activities are reflected in the individual MPO UPWPs and in the MPO TIPs/STIP.