ARC COMMITTEE MEETING FOLLOW-UP
TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE
February 21, 2014 Meeting Notes
TCC Members or Alternates Present:
ARC
John Orr
Atlanta
Jonathan Lewis
Barrow
--Bartow
--Cherokee
--Clayton
--Cobb
Eric Meyer
Coweta
Tavores Edwards
DeKalb
Patrece Keeter
Douglas
Randy Hulsey
EPD
Gil Grodzinsky
Fayette
Phil Mallon
Forsyth
Fulton
GDOT
GRTA
Gwinnett
Henry
MARTA
Newton
Paulding
Rockdale
Spalding
Walton
--Roussan Francois
Matthew Fowler
Brian Borden
Phil Boyd
Cheri Hobson-Matthews
----Erica Parish
Miguel Valentin
-----
Advisors (Non-voting):
GDOT I’modal Nicole Spivey
GHMPO
---
FHWA
FTA
Tamara Christion
---
Other Attendees
Bessie Reina, GDOT
Brian Allen, GS&P
Cam Yearty, GDOT
Chris Haggard, City of Johns Creek
Cindy Jenkins, City of Johns Creek
Daniel Studdard, Grice Consulting
Doug Joiner, SRTS
Henry Green, GDOT
Jennifer Harper, PCIDs
Julia Billings, GDOT
Kaycee Mertz, GDOT
Kristin Wescott, City of Sandy Springs
Michelle Wright, City of Douglasville
Sally Flocks, PEDS
Shaun Green, ABI
Tedra Cheatham, Clean Air Campaign
Yvonne Williams, PCIDs
Wade Carroll, Jacobs
Action Taken: None
1. Welcome, approval of 2/7/14 TCC Meeting Summary, Public Comment Period
John Orr, ARC, welcomed attendees. He stated that the draft 2/7/14 TCC meeting summary had
been previously distributed for comments and none were received. He asked for questions or
comments, and hearing none, stated the meeting summary was accepted as distributed.
There was no request for public comment at this meeting.
2. ARC Non-SOV Trip Planner
Janae Futrell, ARC, presented an overview of an on-line program for the general public as well
as HST customers, which expands the One-Click Program to provide transit and other options
for trip planning in the Metro Atlanta area. This will be an all-inclusive portal to mobility
services and providers throughout the Atlanta region for individuals without access to a private
vehicle. As envisioned, the service will link older adults, persons with disabilities, persons of
limited income and anyone with limited access to a vehicle, to the region’s existing, often
disconnected network of mobility service providers. Successful implementation should help
simplify the task of making non-SOV trips regardless of number of jurisdictions crossed or
providers utilized.
Futrell cycled through several screenshots of the draft trip planner, whose key features include:









An intuitive mapping platform which displays potential routing options.
A robust querying capability which allows users to search by service modes (such as rail,
bus, shuttle, taxi, etc.) in order to better accommodate user preference for mobility
service.
The ability to receive customized service suggestions based upon any user information
volunteered to the system, such as the existence of specific disabilities, personal income,
access to a personal vehicle or veteran’s status.
Detailed trip itineraries which include trip duration estimates, trip cost, booking
requirements and more.
Integration with Georgia Commute Options, which helps link users to nearby carpools.
An option to save a user profile with the user’s characteristics and service preferences,
thereby decreasing service searches on subsequent visits.
The ability for users to comment and rate service providers in terms of customer
satisfaction.
Support for multiple languages, thereby better serving persons with limited English
proficiency.
A back-end data collection and analysis capability to help improve service planning.
Futrell stated that further testing and revision of the system would continue through the summer,
while the finished trip planner should be ready by fall.
Gil Grodzinsky, EPD, asked if trip times would be informed by real-time vehicle location data.
Futrell answered that for the time being, the system is limited to General Transit Feed
Draft 2/25/14
Page 2
Specification (GTFS) data, which simply links geographic route data to static schedules made
available by participating transit agencies. She added that staff hopes to integrate real-time
transit vehicle location data into the system in the near future.
Miguel Valentin, Rockdale County, inquired about how the system would react if a user
attempted to find a trip from their current location to a location outside of the trip planner’s
supported geography. Would the system offer a trip option that would place the user as far as it
could? Futrell answered that there is not a great capability in the system for certain intermodal
trips but the consultants are working on it.
Jonathan Lewis noted that the City may soon implement a bike sharing program and asked if
there would be an opportunity to integrate this service into the trip planner. Futrell answered that
this would be a great addition to the system and that staff would work with him to identify next
steps to make his suggestion a reality.
3. PLAN 2040 RTP/TIP Update (see www.atlantaregional.com/rtpupdate)
David Haynes, ARC, presented on the current status of the ongoing PLAN 2040 RTP/TIP
update, targeted for adoption in March. He explained that the ongoing public comment period
would end February 21st. He urged sponsors to contact ARC staff by the end of the business day
to report any minor problems or errors with the project list. He reminded that it would not be
possible at this point to submit any major project changes (such as new projects or scope
modifications to existing projects) due to the tight timeframe for finalizing all documentation
associated with the update.
The majority of comments received from the public thus far involve specific projects; no
negative feedback about the overall planning process has been received. Haynes added that he
will bring draft findings from the public comment period to TCC prior to a request for approval.
4. Breaking Ground 2013 Report1
Patrick Bradshaw, ARC, presented a summary of the forthcoming Breaking Ground 2013 report,
ARC’s annual progress report on project delivery. The report follows the funding authorization
status for individual project phases scheduled to advance during the specific fiscal year. For the
2013 report, 268 project phases were analyzed. Of these, 63% advanced on time, 36% were
delayed to a later fiscal year and 1% were dropped from the TIP altogether. This finding
improved upon last year’s advancement rate of 43%.
Bradshaw displayed a series of slides which offered more detail of these high level findings, such
as the advancement status of specific project types, of specific sponsor types and of project phase
types. He noted that advancement by project phase types (such as preliminary engineering,
right-of-way acquisition and construction) explains much of the improvement found in this
year’s report. More preliminary engineering (PE) and fewer right-of-way (ROW) phases were
1
Published annually since 2003 and available as a static report and a dynamic dashboard at
www.atlantaregional.com/programdelivery
Draft 2/25/14
Page 3
scheduled in 2013 than in previous years. While PE phases tend to become authorized for
funding on time (and therefore show as advancing in the Breaking Ground report) PE activities
often take longer than expected to complete. As a result, ROW phases are often delayed, since
these phases are typically scheduled to begin during the subsequent fiscal year. Bradshaw stated
that recent fluctuations in advancement rates over the last five fiscal years are partially explained
by this apparent inverse relationship between phase advancement and share of ROW phases
scheduled. Bradshaw expanded on this point through a quick overview of how projects were
programmed into the TIP during FY 2013 as a result of the 2012 TIP solicitation for new
projects. This activity impacted FY 2013 through the addition of 25 phases, with 24 of these
being for PE activities. Bradshaw stated that all of these phases advanced on time.
ARC expects to distribute the final report to TCC members in early March before a general
publication later that month. He noted that the report, its findings, the methodology utilized to
create it and possible improvements could all be possible subjects for discussion during
upcoming Project Delivery Task Force meetings.
Haynes stated that high-level findings from the Breaking Ground report help populate the
transportation element of the recently launched ARC Regional Scorecard2, which reports
observed outcomes as a result of the implementation of PLAN 2040 as a whole.
Grodzinsky asked for additional clarification on the lower advancement rates for ROW phases.
Bradshaw answered that while other factors impact the timely advancement of ROW phases,
previous Breaking Ground reporting efforts seem to suggest that the sponsor delay in finishing
work on PE activities explains much of reported ROW delay. Bradshaw noted that this trend
helped inform a policy found within the TIP Blueprint that suggests an additional timing cushion
between PE and ROW phases in certain circumstances. Amy Goodwin, ARC, who manages the
LCI program, agreed, noting that several milestones in PE phase completion, such as developing
a project framework agreement, receiving an approved concept and moving through necessary
environmental approvals sometimes take ten months or longer for each activity. Matthew
Fowler, GDOT, added that an approved environmental document is necessary in order to
authorize ROW work, adding that this documentation is often the biggest factor behind ROW
delay. He also agreed that providing more space between PE and ROW phases would help
improve advancement rates for ROW as they are reported in Breaking Ground.
Roussan Francois, Fulton County, asked if individual projects funded from GDOT’s Local
Maintenance Improvement Grant program were included in the Breaking Ground analysis. Orr
answered that they are not, as these projects are not required to be documented in the TIP.
Francois then asked if projects funded entirely through local funds advanced faster than projects
which received federal funding. Bradshaw answered that the report does not thoroughly
compare the advancement rates between projects fully funded by local sources to projects which
2
Initially, an RTP Annual Report (annual PLAN 2040 Plan Management Report) was identified. This has evolved
into the PLAN 2040 Scorecard, available on-line at www.atlantaregional.com/plan2040/regional-scorecard. The
scorecard reports progress on the five key areas of PLAN 2040 goals against which progress will be measured Community, Economy, Environment, Mobility, and People
Draft 2/25/14
Page 4
receive federal or state funding assistance. He added that many projects funded with only local
funding sources are not required to be documented in the TIP and therefore not analyzed by the
Breaking Ground report. Wakhisi added that this topic may also make a good discussion topic
for the Project Delivery Task Force. Valentin added that he hoped that staff would place more
focus on documenting improvements and suggestions for changes to the federal processes which
transportation projects must traverse, with an end goal of improving project delivery times.
5. Project Delivery Task Force
Kofi Wakhisi, ARC, updated the committee on the planned Project Delivery Task Force. TCC
approved the adopting resolution at their February 7th meeting, however TAQC and Board
approval have been delayed until March due to the recent weather events. Staff are looking to
complete some preliminary work in the meantime. He noted that task force meeting discussion
topics and agendas will all be driven by task force membership. Intended outcomes of the task
force include gaining a better understanding of what activities project sponsors perform to
shepherd a project through the plan development process (PDP), increasing project sponsors
understanding of the work planners must perform to meet federal guidelines, and identifying
strategies to accelerate project delivery. Wakhisi stated that 15 people have volunteered for the
task force, which includes representatives from GDOT, MARTA, FHWA GDOT, as well as
cities and counties throughout the Atlanta region.
Wakhisi then shared a proposed outline of task force activities in 2014. By April, staff expect to
have a confirmed schedule of discussion topics, a draft list of problem statements and objectives
for subsequent task force activates. In September, the group will work on refining issue
statements, sharing project delivery information and identifying some draft strategies for
improving project delivery. Finally, in November staff aim to have action plan, document
opportunities for training to improve project delivery outcomes and begin developing a strategy
for addressing any MAP-21 federal regulations relating to project delivery.
Phil Mallon, Fayette County, asked about the meeting frequency of the task force. Wakhisi
stated no more than once a month, unless the task force membership expresses interest in
meeting more often.
Both Orr and Wakhisi encouraged task force members to start submitting proposed agenda items
to staff so as to make more efficient use of the scheduled April kick-off meeting. Orr also
thanked committee members and task force volunteers and reiterated ARC’s support for
increasing project delivery outcomes.
6. Subarea Coordination – Next Steps
Orr solicited feedback for how to best structure future outreach and coordination between ARC
staff and subregional geographies, noting that ARC hopes to build upon the successes of earlier
subregional outreach completed during the development of the PLAN 2040 RTP update. One
immediate issue requiring subregional coordination is the pending review and revision of the
roadway functional classification system within the Urban Area Boundary which was adopted by
ARC and approved by FHWA in 2013. Functional classification determines eligibility for major
Draft 2/25/14
Page 5
portions of federal funding for surface transportation improvements. ARC has been working
with GDOT to develop a process for this review. The current goal is to provide data to local
jurisdictions and collect feedback by March, which would allow both GDOT and ARC ample
time to review and further refine over the summer.
Orr reminded committee members that ARC plans to hold project solicitations in 2014 for both
the Transportation Alternatives Program and the urban suballocation of Surface Transportation
Program, which represents another opportunity for subregional coordination.
Hulsey stated that there needs to be parity between the functional classification system and the
regional thoroughfare network. Orr agreed, adding that this may also make a great topic for an
upcoming TCC work session meeting.
7. Announcements
Orr made several announcements regarding staff promotions and other job changes:

David D’Onofrio, ARC, was recently promoted to the position of principle planner,
filling a recently vacated position.

Nathan Soldat has accepted a position with Atlanta Beltline Incorporated (ABI) and will
be leaving ARC.

Shaun Greene, formerly with GRTA, has also joined ABI.

Jannine Miller, formerly the executive director of GRTA, has accepted a position with
Home Depot. Kirk Fjelstul, GRTA, now serves as interim executive director.
Job vacancies:

Kyung Hwa Kim, ARC, stated she has an open senior planner position in her section.

Cheri Hobson-Matthews, Henry County, also noted a vacancy. The Henry County transit
department director recently retired.
Handouts supplied at meeting:
 2/21/14 TCC Agenda
Handouts supplied in advance on ARC website (www.atlantaregional.com/tcc)
 2/21/14 TCC Agenda
 2/7/14 Draft Meeting Summary
 Presentations:
o One-Click/One-Call Trip Planner
o Breaking Ground 2013
o Project Delivery Task Force
Draft 2/25/14
Page 6