Recommendation: If acceptable, approve the minutes of - Seda-Cog

Transcription

SEDA-COG METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) MEETING
December 12, 2014 – SEDA-COG, Lewisburg, PA
9:00 A.M.
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. PUBLIC FORUM
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
C. *Approval of the MPO
Meeting Minutes for
September 26, 2014
Recommendation: If acceptable, approve the minutes of the September
26, 2014 SEDA-COG Metropolitan Planning Organization meeting.
See pages

Staff will review details for projects in Northumberland County to be
considered for ARC Local Access Road Program funding.
See pages

Member discussion and consideration of adopting the Ralpho Township
access road project in Northumberland County as a priority project for
the SEDA-COG TIP.
Approximate Time: 5 minutes
D. *ARC Local Access Road
Projects
Recommendation: If acceptable, approve adding the Ralpho Township
Local Access Road Project in Northumberland County to SEDA-COG’s
TIP, contingent upon application approval and attainment of all
state/local approvals during project development.
E. *TIP Administrative
Modifications and
Amendments

PennDOT District 2-0 will present the TIP amendments.
See pages
Recommendation: If acceptable, approve the TIP amendments for
PennDOT District 2-0.

PennDOT District 2-0 will present the TIP administrative modifications.
Recommendation: If acceptable, approve the TIP administrative
modifications for PennDOT District 2-0.

PennDOT District 3-0 will present the TIP amendments.
Recommendation: If acceptable, approve the TIP amendments for
PennDOT District 3-0.

PennDOT District 3-0 will present the TIP administrative modifications.
Recommendation: If acceptable, approve the TIP administrative
modifications for PennDOT District 3-0.
F. *SEDA-COG MPO Public
Participation Plan
Adoption

Mr. Robert Watts of the McCormick Taylor, Inc. consulting team will
review the Public Participation Plan (PPP), outreach activities, and public
comments on the Draft Plan.

Member discussion and consideration of adopting the PPP.
See separate
handout
Recommendation: If acceptable, approve adopting the SEDA-COG
MPO Public Participation Plan.
G. *SEDA-COG MPO 2015
Meeting Dates
H. *Election of MPO
Officers and Member Reappointments

Members should review the proposed 2015 MPO meeting schedule.
See page
Recommendation: If acceptable, approve the 2015 MPO meeting dates
and times.

Staff will present the member re-appointment process and entertain
election of officers.
See pages
Recommendation: Reappoint or elect officers, as desired.
1
SEDA-COG METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) MEETING
December 12, 2014 – SEDA-COG, Lewisburg, PA
9:00 A.M.
I. SEDA-COG MPO
Strategic Planning Process
Summary
See separate
handout

Mr. Brian Funkhouser of the CDM Smith consulting team will present a
summary of the Strategic Planning Process.

Member discussion and comments on the strategic planning process.
J. FY 2015-2016 Unified
Planning Work Program

Staff will recap the priorities previously adopted for the FY 2015-2016
Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP).

Open discussion.

Staff will highlight elements of the Draft PA Long Range Transportation
Plan (LRTP), the public comment process, and candidate projects.

Members should offer comments on the Draft PA LRTP and provide
guidance on specific candidate projects to be submitted to PennDOT.

Staff will provide a status update on approved Transportation
Alternatives Program projects.
See pages

Staff will review Marcellus Shale activity resources and news items.
See pages

Open discussion.
N. General Discussion

See enclosed general discussion items.
See pages

Adjourn meeting at noon. Lunch provided.
None

Next MPO meeting date – February 6, 2015
K. Draft Pennsylvania Long
Range Transportation Plan
L. Transportation Alternatives
Program Update and
Discussion
See pages
See pages
M. Marcellus Shale Activity
Update
O. Adjournment
2
Agenda Item D
RECONSTRUCTION OF PROGRESS ROAD
ARC PROJECT SUMMARY FY 2014-2015
SEDA-COG LOCAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
JULY 2014
Project Title: Reconstruction of Progress Road
Project Grantee: Ralpho Township – Northumberland County
County(ies) Served: Northumberland County is designated as a Transitional county. Based on the
ARC Local Access Road criteria, there is no required match. The county has a total of 3 distressed areas.
Basic Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Goal/Strategy:
ARC Goal #3: Develop and Improve Appalachia’s Infrastructure to make the region economically
competitive.
State Objective 3.5: Pennsylvania will provide communities with the resources needed to spur locallydriven community and economic development.
State Strategy 3.5.5: Continue to allocate resources for development and improvement of access roads
for economic and community activities.
Purpose: Northumberland County and Ralpho Township are proposing to reconstruct Progress Road in
Northumberland County which serves as an access point to the 144-acre local industrial area in Ralpho
Township off of State Rt. 487.
Funding:
ARC
Local/Other
Total Project Cost
Amount
$270,000
$30,000
$300,000
Percentage
100%
100%
100%
Source
County
Status
Pending
Committed
Description:
This project involves reconstruction of 0.226 miles (1,194 LF) of Progress Road from PA Route 487 and
ending near the old Fleetwood site which was recently purchased by CC Industries. Specifically this project
will strengthen the roadway, install a cul-de-sac, upgrade the storm water drainage and improve an underlying
issue by removing an old abandoned railroad track within the road right-of-way. The road will be
reconstructed to bring it up to federal standards and make it accessible for 18 wheel truck traffic. The road will
serve will serve 144 acres and several businesses including Catawissa Components and Polar Tech as well as
the 330,000 sq. f.t former Fleetwood building which was recently purchased by CC Industries.
1
RECONSTRUCTION OF PROGRESS ROAD
Rationale:
This road is the access point to the 144-acre local industrial area in Ralpho Township and will serve
several businesses including Catawissa Components and Polar Tech as well as the former Fleetwood
building which was recently purchased by CC Industries and proposes to create 200 jobs and retain
another 200 jobs.
Benefit:
This project will retain 200+ jobs that were at risk of being lost in this area by the closure of an existing
operation. With the acquisition and upgrade of this factory the company (CC Industries) has plans to
expand their operations and add an additional 200 jobs. They hope to bring online a new product line in
the coming years which is awaiting final approval.
Output/Outcome:
Output
•
Outcome
Transportation improvements to a 0.226 miles • Create 200 jobs and retain 200 jobs at full build
of (1,194 LF) foot road.
out.
2
ARC Local Access Road Checklist
December 2014
SEDA-COG Metropolitan Planning Organization
Checklist for ARC Local Access Road Program Project Developers
Project:
Area
Coordination
Engineer
Budget/Cost
Reconstruction of Progress Road in Ralpho Township,
Northumberland County
Item
Developer has notified officials from the municipality
that will serve as project sponsor, and provided a letter
of support from the municipality.
Developer has notified the county planning department
and/or MPO member for the county in which the project
is located.
Developer has met with PennDOT personnel in the
District in which the project is located, on-site if
possible.
Response
Yes
No
X
Notification
occurred,
letter is
pending
X
X
Developer has selected or retained an engineer for
designing the project.
Developer has provided a project cost estimate for
review by PennDOT District Personnel that has been
determined to be generally acceptable.
Developer has provided a project schedule for review by
PennDOT District Personnel that has been determined to
be generally acceptable.
X
Sponsor has identified sources of funding for all project
phases?
X
X
X
Potential ARC Local Access Road Projects
SEDA-COG Region
PROJECT/PURPOSE
Chestnut Street Access Road Improvement Project (Northumberland
County)
Reconstruct 0.75 miles of Chestnut Street from 3rd Street to 10th Street in
the City of Sunbury. Chestnut Street is a major access point for schools,
county institutions, business, industry, and recreational and cultural
assets. The Chestnut Street improvements will serve 22 existing
companies and institutions and help retain 400 jobs.
Chestnut Street Access Road
Location
ARC DRAFT
FUND
REQUEST
$600,000
Agenda Item E
SEDA-COG MPO
District 2-0
2015-18 TIP Amendment
12/12/14
* Positive number denotes a deposit/Negative in parentheses denotes a debit
Amendment
Project Title
Hwy and Bridge Line Item
Clinton County
T 478 Chatham Run II
Pine Creek Township
Clinton County
T 737 Jacks Crk Bridge
Decatur Township
Mifflin County
T 455 Doe Run
Walker Township
Juniata County
T 359 Licking Crk
Miford Township
Juniata County
Fund Type
MPMS Phase Amts. Fed. STA
STP
581
Before
82367 CON Adjust
STP
581
After
STP
581
185
Before BOF
BOF
185
Adjust
After
BOF
185
NHPP
Before
Adjust NHPP
After
NHPP
183
Before
101406 CON Adjust
183
After
183
183
Before
4605
CON Adjust
183
After
183
183
Before
95284 CON Adjust
183
After
183
183
Before
4101
CON Adjust
183
After
183
Before FFY Totals
Adjustment FFY Totals
After FFY Totals
Fed. ($)
209,766
0
209,766
FFY 2015
State ($) Loc/Oth ($)
5,108,237
0
5,108,237
665,234
(665,234)
0
Fed. ($)
FFY 2016
11,380,511
0
11,380,511
209,766
0
209,766
0
30,484
30,484
0
45,044
45,044
0
45,294
45,294
0
45,487
45,487
0
166,309
166,309
1,258,533 11,380,511
0
0
1,258,533 11,380,511
FFY 2017
8,206,000
0
8,206,000
966,777
0
966,777
9,121,273
0
9,121,273
1,258,533
0
1,258,533
0
121,937
121,937
0
180,174
180,174
0
181,174
181,174
0
181,949
181,949
5,773,471
0
5,773,471
Fed. ($)
0
0
0
10,088,050
0
10,088,050
Fed. ($)
1,897,717
0
1,897,717
8,206,000
0
8,206,000
0
0
0
1,897,717
0
1,897,717
FFY 2018
Outer Years
Grand Sum
State ($) Loc/Oth ($) Fed. ($) State ($) Loc/Oth ($)
24,904,514
0
0
0
0
0 24,904,514
1,632,011
(665,234)
0
0
0
0
966,777
8,591,283
20,868,806
0
0
0
0
0
0 12,277,523
0
152,421
0
0
0
0
152,421
0
225,218
0
0
0
0
225,218
0
226,468
0
0
0
0
226,468
0
227,436
0
0
0
0
227,436
8,591,283
0
0
0
0 47,405,331
0
0
0
0
0
166,309
8,591,283
0
0
0
0 47,405,331
H:\SEDA-COG\2014 Meetings\December 2014\Dist 2-0 Amendment 1 Retros SEDACOG
Remarks
Line Item
Fully funded
Fully funded
Fully funded
Partially funded estimate is $413,239.
Short by $231,290
Fiscal constraint is maintained.
SEDA-COG MPO
2015-18 Hwy Bridge TIP
Amendment
District 2-0
12/12/2014
Amendment
Project Title
Clinton County
Group 2-15-ST 92
Various Routes
Clinton, Mifflin, Juniata Co(s)
Fund Type
STP
581
Before
82367 CON Adjust
STP
581
After
STP
581
185
Before BOF
BOF
185
Adjust
After
BOF
185
NHPP
Before
Adjust NHPP
After
NHPP
581
Before
XX
CON Adjust
581
After
581
Before FFY Totals
After FFY Totals
Fed. ($)
209,766
0
209,766
FFY 2015
5,108,237
(5,000,000)
108,237
FFY 2016
1,380,511
0
1,380,511
Fed. ($)
Fed. ($)
FFY 2017
8,206,000
0
8,206,000
966,777
0
966,777
8,679,806
0
8,679,806
209,766
0
209,766
0
5,000,000
5,000,000
5,108,237
0
5,108,237
Fed. ($)
1,897,717
0
1,897,717
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,380,511
0
1,380,511
0
0
0
9,646,583
0
9,646,583
8,206,000
0
8,206,000
0
0
0
1,897,717
0
1,897,717
FFY 2018
Outer Years
Grand Sum
Remarks
14,904,514 Line Item
(5,000,000)
0
0
0
0
9,904,514
966,777
0
0
0
0
0
966,777
8,591,283
19,168,806
0
0
0
0
0
0 10,577,523
0 Let Spring 2015
5,000,000
0
0
0
0
5,000,000
8,591,283
0
0
0
0 35,040,097 Fiscal constraint is maintained.
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,591,283
0
0
0
0 35,040,097
\\PDKBHOME2K01\user\cmullins\SEDA-COG\2014 Meetings\December 2014\Copy of Amendment 5 701 ROUTES SEDACOG
SEDA-COG MPO
District 2-0
12/12/14
Amendment
Project Title
Clinton County
Paul Mack Boulevard
SR 120, Section 320
Clinton County
Fund Type
STP
581
Before
82367 CON Adjust
STP
581
After
STP
581
185
Before BOF
BOF
185
Adjust
After
BOF
185
NHPP
Before
Adjust NHPP
After
NHPP
581
Before
93310 CON Adjust
581
After
581
Before FFY Totals
After FFY Totals
Fed. ($)
209,766
0
209,766
FFY 2015
5,108,237
0
5,108,237
Fed. ($)
FFY 2016
11,380,511
(5,000,000)
6,380,511
209,766
0
209,766
5,108,237
0
5,108,237
0
0
0
FFY 2017
8,206,000
0
8,206,000
966,777
0
966,777
9,121,273
0
9,121,273
1,258,533
0
1,258,533
0
5,000,000
5,000,000
1,258,533 11,380,511
0
0
1,258,533 11,380,511
Fed. ($)
0
0
0
10,088,050
0
10,088,050
Fed. ($)
1,897,717
0
1,897,717
8,206,000
0
8,206,000
0
0
0
1,897,717
0
1,897,717
FFY 2018
Outer Years
Grand Sum
Remarks
(5,000,000)
0
0
0
0 19,904,514
966,777
0
0
0
0
0
966,777
8,591,283
20,868,806
0
0
0
0
0
0 12,277,523
0 Let August 2016
5,000,000
0
0
0
0
5,000,000
8,591,283
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,591,283
0
0
0
0 46,740,197
H:\SEDA-COG\2014 Meetings\December 2014\Dist 2-0 Amendment 2 SR 120 320 Paul Mack SEDACOG
SEDA-COG MPO
District 2-0
12/12/14
Amendment
Fund Type
STP
581
Before
82367 CON Adjust
STP
581
After
Clinton County
STP
581
185
Before BOF
BOF
185
Adjust
After
BOF
185
NHPP
Before
Adjust NHPP
After
NHPP
Seven Mountains Resurfacng
581
Before
93311 CON Adjust
581
SR 0322, Section 716
After
Mifflin County
581
Before FFY Totals
After FFY Totals
Project Title
Fed. ($)
209,766
0
209,766
FFY 2015
5,108,237
0
5,108,237
Fed. ($)
FFY 2016
6,380,511
(5,000,000)
1,380,511
5,108,237
0
5,108,237
0
0
0
1,258,533
0
1,258,533
FFY 2017
8,206,000
0
8,206,000
966,777
0
966,777
9,121,273
0
9,121,273
1,258,533
0
1,258,533
209,766
0
209,766
Fed. ($)
0
5,000,000
5,000,000
6,380,511
0
6,380,511
0
0
0
10,088,050
0
10,088,050
Fed. ($)
1,897,717
0
1,897,717
8,206,000
0
8,206,000
0
0
0
1,897,717
0
1,897,717
FFY 2018
Outer Years
Grand Sum
Remarks
(5,000,000)
0
0
0
0 14,904,514
966,777
0
0
0
0
0
966,777
8,591,283
20,868,806
0
0
0
0
0
0 12,277,523
0 Let November 2015
5,000,000
0
0
0
0
5,000,000
8,591,283
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,591,283
0
0
0
0 41,740,097
H:\SEDA-COG\2014 Meetings\December 2014\Dist 2-0 Amendment 3 SR 322 716 Seven Mt SEDACOG
SEDA-COG MPO
District 2-0
12/12/14
Amendment
Project Title
Clinton County
Seven Mountain ITS
SR 0322, Section 717
Mifflin County
Fund Type
STP
581
Before
82367 CON Adjust
STP
581
After
STP
581
185
Before BOF
BOF
185
Adjust
After
BOF
185
NHPP
Before
Adjust NHPP
After
NHPP
Before NHPP
104261 UT Adjust NHPP
After
NHPP
Before NHPP
CON Adjust NHPP
After
NHPP
Before FFY Totals
After FFY Totals
Fed. ($)
209,766
0
209,766
209,766
0
209,766
FFY 2015
5,108,237
0
5,108,237
5,108,237
0
5,108,237
0
0
0
Fed. ($)
1,258,533
(1,258,533)
1,258,533
0
300,000
300,000
0
958,533
958,533
1,258,533
0
1,258,533
FFY 2016
1,380,511
0
1,380,511
Fed. ($)
FFY 2017
8,206,000
0
8,206,000
966,777
0
966,777
9,121,273
(441,467)
8,679,806
Fed. ($)
1,897,717
0
1,897,717
0
0
1,380,511
0
1,380,511
0
0
0
0
441,467
441,467
10,088,050
0
10,088,050
8,206,000
0
8,206,000
0
0
0
1,897,717
0
1,897,717
FFY 2018
Outer Years
Grand Sum
Remarks
0
0
0
0
0 14,904,514
966,777
0
0
0
0
0
966,777
8,591,283
20,868,806
0
(1,700,000)
0
0
0
0 11,836,056
0 Let August 2016
300,000
0
0
0
0
300,000
0
1,400,000
0
0
0
0
1,400,000
8,591,283
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,591,283
0
0
0
0 36,740,097
H:\SEDA-COG\2014 Meetings\December 2014\DIST 2-0 Amendment 4 SR 322 717 Seven Mt ITS SEDACOG
SEDA-COG MPO
2015-18 HIGHWAY AND BRIDGE TIP
FISCAL CONSTRAINT TABLE
Actions Completed
for Engineering District 2-0
10/1/14 to 12/12/14
Administrative Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Project Title
Lock Haven RR Warn Devices
SR 150 SEC R94
Clinton County
SR 220 Pavement Restoration
SR 220 SEC C08
Clinton County
Kish Crk/Ramp/Jacks
SR 22 SEC A05
Mifflin County
Hwy & Bridge Line Item
Reserve Line Item
Clinton County
Reserve Line Item
Clinton County
Auction Road Phase II
SR 220 SEC N32
Clinton County
Reedsville to Burnham
SR 322 SEC 715
Mifflin County
Auction Road Phase II
SR 220 SEC N32
Clinton County
Reserve Line Item
Clinton County
Reserve Line Item
Clinton County
Paul Mack Boulevard
SR 120 SEC 320
Clinton County
Seven Mtns. Paving
SR 322 SEC 716
Mifflin County
SR 322 SEC 715
Mifflin County
Reserve Line Item
Clinton County
Reserve Line Item
Clinton County
Paul Mack Boulevard
SR 120 SEC 320
Clinton County
Bucktail Trail Hwy II
SR 120 SEC 319
Clinton County
SR 120 SEC 319
Clinton County
SR 120 SEC 319
Clinton County
Reserve Line Item
Clinton County
Reserve Line Item
Clinton County
220 Pavement Restoration
SR 220 SEC C08
Clinton County
Reserve Line Item
Clinton County
SR 322 SEC 715
Mifflin County
SR 322 SEC 715
Mifflin County
MPMS
96703
88526
4670
82367
82367
94746
93312
94746
82367
82367
93310
93311
93312
82367
82367
93310
99985
99985
99985
82367
82367
88526
82367
93312
93312
Phase Amts.
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
PE Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
PE Adjust
After
Before
PE Adjust
After
Before
PE Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
PE Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
FD Adjust
After
Before
PE Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
FD Adjust
After
Fund Type
Fed.
Sta.
RRX
RRX
RRX
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP 581
NHPP 581
NHPP 581
581
581
581
NHPP 581
NHPP 581
NHPP 581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP 581
NHPP 581
NHPP 581
NHPP 581
NHPP 581
NHPP 581
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
FFY 2015
State ($)
Fed. ($)
0
3,799,790
(3,799,790)
0
2,567,319
(2,567,319)
0
6,367,109
6,367,109
6,367,109
(1,960,000)
4,407,109
3,812,891
1,560,000
5,372,891
400,000
400,000
5,372,891
(766,015)
4,606,876
4,407,109
766,015
5,173,124
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,173,123
(430,000)
4,743,123
0
230,000
230,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
200,000
200,000
200,000
(200,000)
0
4,743,123
200,000
4,943,123
0
0
0
0
230,000
(225,114)
4,886
4,943,123
225,114
5,168,237
0
0
0
0
0
Loc/Oth ($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FFY 2016
State ($)
Fed. ($)
707,267
707,267
7,651,031
(7,651,031)
0
11,185,175
0
0
0
0
0
9,418,103
0
9,418,103
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
500,000
500,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,767,072
7,651,031
9,418,103
11,185,175
0
1,958,533
(500,000)
1,458,533
0
Loc/Oth ($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,305,511
0
11,305,511
11,305,511
(133,308)
11,172,203
0
133,308
133,308
0
133,308
(133,308)
0
0
11,172,203
133,308
11,305,511
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FFY 2017
State ($)
Fed. ($)
707,267
707,267
0
Loc/Oth ($)
0
0
0
9,396,273
0
9,396,273
9,396,273
0
9,396,273
0
0
0
0
9,396,273
0
9,396,273
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9,396,273
9,396,273
0
9,396,273
(275,000)
9,121,273
0
0
0
275,000
275,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,656,000
(8,656,000)
0
0
0
8,656,000
8,656,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
FFY 2018
State ($)
Fed. ($)
707,267
707,267
0
0
0
0
0
10,489,000
0
0
0
0
10,489,000
10,489,000
0
10,489,000
0
Loc/Oth ($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,489,000
0
0
10,489,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,489,000
0
10,489,000
0
0
0
10,489,000
(8,591,283)
1,897,717
0
8,591,283
8,591,283
0
0
0
0
8,591,283
8,591,283
8,591,283
(8,591,283)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Outer Years
State ($)
Fed. ($)
0
0
Grand Sum
0
0
0
6,058,000
0
6,058,000
6,058,000
0
6,058,000
0
0
0
0
6,058,000
0
6,058,000
0
0
0
0
200,000
(200,000)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
200,000
200,000
200,000
(200,000)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
200,000
0
200,000
200,000
0
200,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
200,000
0
0
6,258,000
200,000
0
6,258,000
0
0
0
6,258,000
0
200,000
0
6,258,000
200,000
0
0
0
Remarks
Loc/Oth ($)
0
0
0
0
0
2,121,801
2,121,801
11,450,821
(11,450,821)
0
2,567,319
(2,567,319)
0
27,710,345
14,018,140
41,728,485
43,495,557
(1,960,000)
41,535,557
3,812,891
1,560,000
5,372,891
0
400,000
400,000
40,734,267
(766,015)
39,968,252
4,407,109
766,015
5,173,124
5,173,123
(230,000)
4,943,123
200,000
30,000
230,000
200,000
0
200,000
200,000
(200,000)
0
16,248,634
200,000
16,448,634
11,505,511
(133,308)
11,372,203
0
133,308
133,308
8,656,000
(8,656,000)
0
133,308
(133,308)
0
230,000
(225,114)
4,886
16,315,326
9,014,422
25,329,748
28,101,806
(500,000)
27,601,806
0
500,000
500,000
26,343,273
(275,000)
26,068,273
8,591,283
0
8,591,283
0
275,000
275,000
RRX Crossing project approved and funded by statewide line item.
Return Funds to the Line Item due to carry over not needed on 2013
TIP. Part of NHPP/581 Fund swap.
Return Funds to the Line Item due to carry over not needed on 2013
TIP. Part of NHPP/581 Fund swap.
Reserve Line Item.
Reserve Line Item.
Increase match updated estimate.
Add PE phase using NHPP funds to match updated consultant
agreement. Part of NHPP/581 Fund swap.
MA is to balance out NHPP/581 swap between SEDA-COG TIP and IM
Reserve LI.
MA is to balance out NHPP/581 swap between SEDA-COG TIP and IM
Reserve LI.
Reserve Line Item.
Advance PE funding from FFY 2019 to FFY 2015.
Advance PE funding from FFY 2019 to FFY 2015.
Remove 581 funding from the project
Reserve Line Item.
Reserve Line Item.
Add Additional PE funding to project in FFY 2016.
Project not eligible for NHPP and swapped out for Paul Mack Blvd.
Reserve Line Item.
Reserve Line Item.
CON phase increase due to additional quantities on concrete patching.
Reserve Line Item.
Add FD phase and swap 581/NHPP funding for CON phase
Add FD phase and swap 581/NHPP funding for CON phase
SEDA-COG MPO
Actions Completed
10/1/14 to 12/12/14
Project Title
1
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
SR 322 SEC 715
Mifflin County
SR 322 SEC 715
Mifflin County
SR 322 SEC 715
Mifflin County
Reserve Line Item
Clinton County
Fishing Creek Brg II
SR 2004 SEC A05
Clinton County
Fishing Creek Brg II
SR 2004 SEC A05
Clinton County
Reserve Line Item
Clinton County
Reserve Line Item
Clinton County
Reserve Line Item
Clinton County
Trib to Locust Rn Bridge
SR 3002 SEC A02
Junitata County
SR 3021 over Warble Run
SR 3021 SEC A02
Junitata County
SR 3002 SEC A02
Junitata County
Reserve Line Item
Clinton County
SR 3002 SEC A02
Junitata County
SR 3002 SEC A02
Junitata County
SR 3002 SEC A02
Junitata County
Reserve Line Item
Clinton County
Reserve Line Item
Clinton County
SR 3002 SEC A02
Junitata County
SR 3002 SEC A02
Junitata County
SR 3002 SEC A02
Junitata County
SR 3021 over Warble Run
SR 3021 SEC A02
Junitata County
2015 SEDA-COG Bridge Pres.
SR 44 SEC P13
Clinton County
PA 120/ Montours Run
SR 120 SEC A09
Clinton County
Mill Run Bridge
SR 120 SEC A14
Clinton County
Reserve Line Item
Clinton County
MPMS
96703
93312
93312
93312
82367
3864
3864
82367
82367
82367
4090
4164
4090
82367
4090
4090
4090
82367
82367
4090
4090
4090
4164
69514
3797
69493
82367
Phase Amts.
Before
CON
FD Adjust
After
Before
ROW Adjust
After
Before
UTL Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
PE Adjust
After
Before
ROW Adjust
After
Before
FD Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
ROW Adjust
After
Before
UTL Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
ROW Adjust
After
Before
UTL Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
PE Adjust
After
Before
PE Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Fund Type
Fed.
Sta.
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
STP
STP
STP
STP
STP
STP
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
0
0
0
581
581
581
185
185
185
581
581
581
185
185
185
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
0
0
0
0
0
0
50,000
(50,000)
0
50,000
50,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
BOF
BOF
BOF
0
0
0
0
0
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
BOF
BOF
BOF
FFY 2015
State ($)
Fed. ($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
665,234
(665,234)
0
0
665,234
665,234
0
5,168,237
(60,000)
5,108,237
60,000
60,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
439,319
(150,000)
289,319
302,000
75,000
377,000
302,000
75,000
377,000
0
Loc/Oth ($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FFY 2016
State ($)
Fed. ($)
0
0
0
0
0
209,766
(209,766)
0
0
209,766
209,766
0
0
0
212,180
(212,180)
0
212,180
212,180
162,180
(162,180)
0
53,045
(53,045)
0
0
0
725,000
(725,000)
0
0
0
107,166
(107,166)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,030,511
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,305,511
725,000
12,030,511
12,030,511
50,000
50,000
0
0
0
0
320,239
320,239
0
0
600,000
600,000
0
0
0
0
0
212,180
215,225
427,405
0
427,405 12,030,511
(320,239)
(650,000)
107,166 11,380,511
0
0
Loc/Oth ($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FFY 2017
State ($)
Fed. ($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
912,141
(912,141)
0
0
0
54,636
(54,636)
0
0
966,777
966,777
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loc/Oth ($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,656,000
8,656,000
0
8,656,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
400,000
400,000
0
0
0
50,000
50,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,656,000
0
8,656,000
(450,000)
8,206,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
966,777
0
966,777
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FFY 2018
State ($)
Fed. ($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loc/Oth ($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,591,283
0
8,591,283
8,591,283
0
8,591,283
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,591,283
0
8,591,283
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Outer Years
State ($)
Fed. ($)
200,000
(200,000)
0
100,000
(100,000)
0
50,000
(50,000)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grand Sum
Remarks
Loc/Oth ($)
0
0
0
200,000
350,000
550,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,250,000
0
2,250,000
2,250,000
0
2,250,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,250,000
0
2,250,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
200,000
(200,000)
0
100,000
(100,000)
0
50,000
(50,000)
0
200,000
350,000
550,000
665,234
(665,234)
0
934,766
(934,766)
0
0
665,234
665,234
30,802,794
934,766
31,737,560
36,696,031
(60,000)
36,636,031
50,000
10,000
60,000
0
50,000
50,000
212,180
(212,180)
0
0
212,180
212,180
1,074,321
(1,074,321)
0
53,045
(53,045)
0
54,636
(54,636)
0
212,180
1,182,002
1,394,182
31,955,199
(1,420,239)
30,534,960
0
1,000,000
1,000,000
0
50,000
50,000
0
50,000
50,000
0
320,239
320,239
439,319
(150,000)
289,319
302,000
75,000
377,000
302,000
75,000
377,000
1,073,943
(107,166)
966,777
RRX Crossing
project
approved
and funded by statewide line item.
Remove
phases
not needed
on TIP.
Remove phases not needed on TIP.
Remove phases not needed on TIP.
Reserve Line Item.
Remove project construction phase from TIP. Project was fully
obligated on 2013 SEDA-COG TIP.
Remove project construction phase from TIP. Project was fully
obligated on 2013 SEDA-COG TIP.
Reserve Line Item.
Reserve Line Item.
Reserve Line Item.
Switch PE phase funding from BOF to 581.
Add ROW phase to the 2015 TIP
Remove FD phase
Reserve Line Item.
Remove from TIP to complete future MA.
Reserve Line Item.
Reserve Line Item.
Re-add phases due to switch to 581 funds from BOF funds.
Funding Source.
Increase due to additional funding needed for survey and department
charges.
Increase due to additional funding needed for survey and department
charges.
Reserve Line Item.
SEDA-COG MPO
Actions Completed
10/1/14 to 12/12/14
Project Title
1
52
53
54
55
2015 SEDA-COG Bridge Pres.
SR 44 SEC P13
Clinton County
Roundhouse Road Reconstruct
SR XXX SEC XXX
Mifflin County
Reserve Line Item
Clinton County
Seven Mountains ITS
SR 322 Sec 717
Mifflin County
MPMS
96703
69514
102439
82367
104261
Phase Amts.
Fund Type
Fed.
Sta.
Fed. ($)
FFY 2015
State ($)
Before BOF
CON Adjust
BOF
After
BOF
0
0
Before APL
CON Adjust
APL
410,000
After
APL
410,000
0
Before NHPP
CON Adjust NHPP
After
NHPP
0
0
Before NHPP
PE Adjust NHPP
After
NHPP
0
0
Before FFY Totals 26,377,109 22,166,159
410,000
0
After FFY Totals 26,787,109 22,166,159
Loc/Oth ($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FFY 2016
State ($)
Fed. ($)
170,820
107,166
277,986
0
0
0
33,534,656
707,267
34,241,923
Loc/Oth ($)
0
0
0
0
70,008,066
0
70,008,066
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FFY 2017
State ($)
Fed. ($)
0
0
1,458,533
(200,000)
1,258,533
200,000
200,000
50,373,452
707,267
51,080,719
Loc/Oth ($)
0
0
0
0
34,624,000
0
34,624,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FFY 2018
State ($)
Fed. ($)
0
Loc/Oth ($)
0
0
1,897,717
0
1,897,717
0
0
54,342,717
707,267
55,049,984
0
34,365,132
0
34,365,132
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Outer Years
State ($)
Fed. ($)
0
Grand Sum
0
0
11,342,000
0
11,342,000
0
0
42,582,000
(550,000)
42,032,000
Remarks
Loc/Oth ($)
0
7,950,000
350,000
8,300,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
170,820
107,166
277,986
0
410,000
410,000
14,698,250
(200,000)
14,498,250
0
200,000
200,000
376,323,291
2,331,801
378,655,092
RRX Crossing
projectfor
approved
funded
by SEDA_COG
statewide line
item.
Provide
BOF funding
MPMS#and
69514
(2015
Bridge
Presev.) this replaces the 185 funding.
Add CON Phase using APL funding.
Reserve line Item.
Add PE phase for MPMS# 104621 (Seven Mountains ITS) - 200K. CON
will be added awaiting an amendment.
Fiscal constraint is ok as $ 2,331,801. is due ARC Funding and
statewide RRX funding. Also Out years funding adjustments.
SEDA-COG MPO
2015-18 TIP
Amendment
District 3-0
12/12/14
Amendment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Project Title
SR 54 to Columbia Co
Highway Reconstruction
Montour County (80-M21)
West St to Luzerne Co
Highway Restoration
Columbia County (339-06M)
SR 239 over West Creek
Bridge Replacement
Columbia County (239-018))
Packer IslandBr to 8th St
Northumberland County (147-110)
Packer IslandBr to 8th St
Northumberland County (147-110)
SEDA-COG Line Item
Reserve Line Item
Columbia County
SEDA-COG Line Item
Reserve Line Item
Columbia County
Burnside Rd to SR 61
Highway Resurfacing
Northumberland County (125-14M)
Fund Type
MPMS Phase Amts. Fed. Sta.
Before
581
87569 CON Adjust
581
After
581
581
Before
878820 FD Adjust STP 581
After
STP
Before STP
74029 CON Adjust STP
After
STP
Before
581
96678
FD Adjust NHPP 581
After NHPP
581
Before
96678 ROW Adjust NHPP 581
After NHPP
Before NHPP 581
68016 CON Adjust NHPP 581
After NHPP 581
Before STP
68016 CON Adjust STP
After
STP
Before
581
87911 CON Adjust STP 581
After
STP
Before FFY Totals
After FFY Totals
Fed. ($)
0
150,000
150,000
1,290,000
1,290,000
300,000
300,000
FFY 2015
2,901,657
1,825,000
4,726,657
0
100,000
(100,000)
0
0
0
275,000
(275,000)
0
150,000
150,000
0
2,487,000 1,467,065
(450,000) (1,450,000)
2,037,000
17,065
1,620,000
(1,440,000)
180,000
0
0
4,107,000
0
4,107,000
0
4,743,722
0
4,743,722
Fed. ($)
0
0
1,090,000
(1,090,000)
0
0
0
0
0
FFY 2016
State ($) Loc/Oth ($) Fed. ($)
3,398,343
1,425,000
4,823,343
0
0
0
0
0
0
125,000
(125,000)
0
0
1,100,000
(1,100,000)
0
0
0
90,000
90,000
0
0
0
0
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,090,000
0
1,090,000
0
200,000
(200,000)
0
4,823,343
0
4,823,343
0
0
200,000
(200,000)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
200,000
200,000
200,000
0
200,000
FFY 2017
FFY 2018
Outer Years
Grand Sum
State ($) Loc/Oth ($) Fed. ($) State ($) Loc/Oth ($) Fed. ($) State ($) Loc/Oth ($)
6,300,000
1,450,000
0
4,700,000
1,450,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 11,000,000
100,000
50,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
150,000
1,290,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,290,000
275,000
0
25,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
300,000
125,000
25,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
150,000
450,000
5,504,065
(450,000)
(3,450,000)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,054,065
1,620,000
(1,350,000)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
270,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
(1,000,000)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,200,000
1,450,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 16,414,065
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,450,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 16,414,065
Remarks
Increase Construction phase funding due to
maintaining four lanes of traffic during
construction.
Change Final Design phase from 581 to
STP. Increase phase amount to $150,000.
Advance Construction phase funding to FFY
2015. Release funding in FFY's 2016 &
2017.
NHPP. Increase phase amount to $300,000.
NHPP. Advance phase to FFY 2015.
Increase phase amount to $350,000.
Release 581
2016
funding.
Reduce
line
item amount in FFY's 2015,
2016 & 2017. Reduce NHPP line item
amount in FFY 2015.
Reduce STP line item amount in FFY 2015.
Add STP line item amount in FFY 2016
Change Construction funding from 581 to
STP in FFY's 2016 & 2017.
SEDA-COG MPO
2015 HIGHWAY AND BRIDGE TIP
Actions Completed
10/1/14 to 12/12/14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Project Title
3-0 SD Bridge Line Item
Reserve Line Item
Columbia County
US 11 Soil Slide Repair
SR SEC 126
Reserve Line Item
Columbia County
SR 1020 over Fishing Creek
SR 1020 SEC 008
Columbia County
SR 61 ov Susquehanna River
SR 61 SEC 115
SR 61 SEC 115
Reserve Line Item
Columbia County
Reserve Line Item
Columbia County
Reserve Line Item
Columbia County
SR 54 Corridor Study
SR 54 SEC 090
Montour County
Scott Twp. RR Xings
SR XXX SEC RRX
Columbia County
Continental Blvd RRX
SR 54 SEC 89R
Montour County
Rose Rd (T-768) RRX
SR XXX SEC 09R
Pottsville Street RRX
SR XXX SEC 10R
SR 44 & Center St. RRX
SR 44 SEC 65R
Reserve Line Item
Columbia County
SR 42 over US 11
SR 42 SEC 068
Columbia County
SR 54 over Stony Brook
SR 54 SEC 076
Montour County
SR 1017 over Rolling Green Run
SR 1017 SEC 007
Snyder County
Reserve Line Item
Columbia County
Reserve Line Item
Columbia County
CSVT Design Phases
SR XXX SEC XXX
Snyder County
CSVT Design Phases
SR XXX SEC XXX
Snyder County
Scott Twp. RR Xings
SR XXX SEC RRX
Columbia County
Reserve Line Item
Columbia County
Reserve Line Item
Columbia County
MPMS
68016
102632
68016
88051
96593
96593
68016
68016
68016
103583
90615
103036
103043
103150
103151
68016
93505
93524
6877
68016
68016
7588
7588
90615
68016
68016
Phase Amts.
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
FD Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
STUDY Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
PE Adjust
After
Before
UTL Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
FD Adjust
After
Before
ROW Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Before
CON Adjust
After
Fund Type
Fed.
Sta.
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
185
185
185
185
185
185
HSIP
HSIP
HSIP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
HSIP
HSIP
HSIP
NHPP
NHPP
NHPP
HSIP
HSIP
HSIP
HSIP
HSIP
HSIP
RRX
RRX
RRX
RRX
RRX
RRX
RRX
RRX
RRX
RRX
RRX
RRX
RRX
RRX
RRX
STP
STP
STP
STR
STR
STR
STP
STP
STP
STP
STP
STP
BOF
BOF
BOF
STP
STP
STP
SXF
SXF
SXF
SXF
SXF
SXF
RRX
RRX
RRX
BOF
BOF
BOF
STP
STP
STP
Fed. ($)
2,551,647
(295,000)
2,256,647
295,000
295,000
FFY 2015
State ($)
0
0
0
131,875
(20,000)
111,875
0
20,000
20,000
300,000
300,000
1,790,353
(290,353)
1,500,000
1,223,400
(300,000)
923,400
2,256,647
290,353
2,547,000
923,400
(200,000)
723,400
200,000
200,000
250,000
250,000
370,800
370,800
7,956
7,956
164,800
164,800
164,800
164,800
2,290,000
(80,000)
2,210,000
100,000
25,000
125,000
40,000
40,000
15,000
15,000
58,000
100,000
158,000
2,210,000
(100,000)
2,110,000
2,500,000
1,250,000
3,750,000
600,000
600,000
250,000
(250,000)
0
158,000
150,000
308,000
2,110,000
(150,000)
1,960,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loc/Oth ($)
0
0
0
0
0
FFY 2016
State ($)
Fed. ($)
0
0
0
0
1,223,400
(1,223,400)
0
0
0
0
1,223,400
1,223,400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,223,400
1,223,400
0
0
0
0
0
164,800
164,800
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loc/Oth ($)
0
0
303,250
303,250
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FFY 2017
State ($)
Fed. ($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loc/Oth ($)
0
0
896,750
896,750
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FFY 2018
State ($)
Fed. ($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loc/Oth ($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fed. ($)
7,881,000
7,881,000
0
0
Outer Years
State ($)
Grand Sum
0
0
4,853,250
0
0
4,893,600
7,881,000
0
7,881,000
0
0
0
4,893,600
0
4,893,600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,729,000
0
3,729,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,853,250
0
4,893,600
0
Remarks
Loc/Oth ($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,432,647
(295,000)
10,137,647
0
295,000
295,000
6,185,125
(20,000)
6,165,125
0
20,000
20,000
6,117,000
(923,400)
5,193,600
9,671,353
(290,353)
9,381,000
1,223,400
923,400
2,146,800
2,256,647
290,353
2,547,000
7,040,400
(200,000)
6,840,400
0
200,000
200,000
0
250,000
250,000
0
370,800
370,800
0
7,956
7,956
0
164,800
164,800
0
329,600
329,600
6,019,000
(80,000)
5,939,000
100,000
25,000
125,000
0
40,000
40,000
0
15,000
15,000
58,000
100,000
158,000
2,210,000
(100,000)
2,110,000
2,500,000
1,250,000
3,750,000
0
600,000
600,000
250,000
(250,000)
0
158,000
150,000
308,000
2,110,000
(150,000)
1,960,000
Reserve line Item.
MA is to add the Construction phase to the SEDA-COG TIP in FFY
2015.
Reserve line Item.
Increase the FD phase for MPMS# 88051 due to additional Design
work.
Adjust the Construction phase funding for MPMS# 96593 to the new
estimate as provided by the District Bridge Engineer.
Adjust the Construction phase funding for MPMS# 96593 to the new
estimate as provided by the District Bridge Engineer.
Reserve line Item.
Reserve line Item.
Reserve line Item.
MA is to add MPMS# 103853 Study Phase to the SEDA-COG TIP in
FFY 2015.
Statewide RRX Line Item Funding.
Reserve line Item.
MA is to cover the AC amount that was not converted from the 2013
TIP.
TIP.
TIP.
Fund swap with Northern Tier RPO.
Fund swap with Northern Tier RPO.
Adding Earmark Funding.
Adding Earmark Funding.
Technical Correction to add project for AC Conversion
Fund swap with WATS MPO.
Fund swap with WATS MPO.
SEDA-COG MPO
2015 HIGHWAY AND BRIDGE TIP
Actions Completed
10/1/14 to 12/12/14
Project Title
1
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Reserve Line Item
Columbia County
Reserve Line Item
Columbia County
T-325 ov Chillisquaque Crk
SR XXX SEC LBR
Montour County
SR 61 SEC 115
Reserve Line Item
Columbia County
SR 44 over Dry Run
SR 44 SEC 051
T-406 Slate Rd over Spruce Run
SR XXX SEC XXX
Columbia County
Reserve Line Item
Columbia County
Packer Island Br to 8th St
SR 147 SEC 110
Reserve Line Item
Columbia County
From US 11/15 to SR 61
SR 1023 SEC 09M
Snyder County
MPMS
68016
68016
6339
96593
68016
88796
104290
68016
96678
68016
81509
Phase Amts.
Fund Type
Fed.
Sta.
Fed. ($)
185
308,000
Before BOF
CON Adjust
BOF
185
(160,000)
After
BOF
185
148,000
2,547,000
Before NHPP
CON Adjust NHPP
(60,000)
After
NHPP
2,487,000
183
Before BOF
CON Adjust
BOF
183
160,000
After
BOF
183
160,000
Before NHPP
PE Adjust NHPP
60,000
After
NHPP
60,000
185
Before
CON Adjust
185
After
185
0
185
Before
ROW Adjust
185
After
185
0
AC13
Before
CON Adjust
AC13
After
AC13
0
581
Before
CON Adjust
581
After
581
0
581
Before
PE Adjust
581
After
581
0
581
1,960,000
Before STP
CON Adjust
STP
581
(311,740)
After
STP
581
1,648,260
581
Before STR
CON Adjust
STR
581
311,740
After
STR
581
311,740
Before FFY Totals 23,236,447
Adjustment FFY Totals 2,558,356
After FFY Totals 25,794,803
FFY 2015
State ($)
111,875
(35,000)
76,875
0
75,000
30,000
105,000
0
76,875
(18,000)
58,875
18,000
18,000
0
1,180,000
(65,000)
1,115,000
65,000
65,000
1,115,000
(77,935)
1,037,065
77,935
77,935
2,690,625
(5,000)
2,685,625
Loc/Oth ($)
FFY 2016
State ($)
Fed. ($)
Loc/Oth ($)
FFY 2017
State ($)
Fed. ($)
303,250
0
0
25,000
10,000
35,000
0
0
0
99,000
99,000
0
0
0
0
25,000
109,000
134,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,446,800
164,800
2,611,600
303,250
0
0
0
0
0
0
303,250
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
650,000
0
650,000
0
0
1,559,750
0
1,559,750
FFY 2018
State ($)
Fed. ($)
Loc/Oth ($)
896,750
0
303,250
0
Loc/Oth ($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
896,750
0
0
0
0
0
0
896,750
0
896,750
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,690,250
0
2,690,250
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Outer Years
State ($)
Fed. ($)
Grand Sum
50,000
4,853,250
50,000
7,881,000
4,853,250
7,881,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,853,250
0
4,853,250
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,729,000
0
33,917,500
0
3,729,000
33,917,500
0
0
40,938,200
0
40,938,200
Remarks
Loc/Oth ($)
0
48,477,250
0
48,477,250
0
0
0
0
6,523,125
(195,000)
6,328,125
10,428,000
(60,000)
10,368,000
100,000
200,000
300,000
0
60,000
60,000
6,130,125
(18,000)
6,112,125
0
18,000
18,000
0
99,000
99,000
1,180,000
(65,000)
1,115,000
0
65,000
65,000
41,371,500
(389,675)
40,981,825
0
389,675
389,675
122,064,322
2,827,156
124,891,478
Reserve line Item.
Reserve line Item.
Increase the Construction phase for MPMS# 6339 to cover its AC
amount and to cover additional Rock Excavation.
Add PE phase.
Reserve line Item.
MA is to add the Right-of-Way phase
Add project using ACT 13 Bridge Funds.
Reserve line Item.
Increase the PE phase to cover Railroad involvement, the current
agreement amount and Department charges.
Reserve line Item.
Increase the Construction phase to its low bid cost. The project is also
in AUC.
Fiscal constraint is ok as $ 2,827,156. is due to Statewide RRX
funding, Earmark Funds, ACT SD Bridge funds and local funding.
Summary of Transportation Projects in the SEDA-COG Region
Approved for TIP Addition
Pending Available Funding/Actions by Other Parties
MPMS
Number
Route/
Road
Location
SR 487/
Country Club Town of
Rd/ Swisher Bloomsburg,
Columbia County
Circle
Granville
T-750
Roundhouse Township, Mifflin
County
Rd
Project Name
Requested
by/Sponsor
Description
During FFYs 2013-2014
Estimated Cost /
Funding Request
Lightstreet Road
and Swisher Circle
Intersection
Improvements
Town of Bloomsburg
The Town of Bloomsburg and Bloomsburg
University propose a transportation project for
approximately 850 LF of road at the
intersection of Lightstreet Road, Country Club
Road and Swisher Circle to improve safety and
better manage the heavy pedestrian and
vehicular traffic at the intersection. Specifically
this project proposes to construct turn lanes
on Lightstreet Road and Country Club Road
and replace the existing traffic signal. The
transportation improvements will serve
Bloomsburg University, a major employer in
Columbia County, as well as provide secondary
benefits to the merchants located in
downtown Bloomsburg. This project is
expected to reduce crashes at this intersection
by 90%. The transportation improvements will
also accommodate the proposed expansion of
student housing at Bloomsburg University
which is estimated to create 25 construction
jobs.
$350,000
Reconstruction of
Roundhouse Road Granville Township
Reconstruct 3,150 LF of Roundhouse Road,
which is a major access road for the MCIDC
Plaza, the SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority rail
yards, the Greater Lewistown Corporate
Center, the First Energy substation, as well as
other small employers. This project involves
reconstruction of Roundhouse Road from SR
103 and proceeding 3,150 LF west. The project
will include new pavement, roadway widening,
and drainage improvements. This access road
will serve over 1 million sq. ft. of industrial
space and 30 existing companies employing
approximately 300 people.
$544,199
MPO
Approval
Date
Funding
Committed
Date/Notes
DCED
requested full
application on
2/11/13; SEDACOG
submitted
application to
DCED on
3/25/13;
Project
approved by
FHWA in
September
12/14/2012 2013
2/14/2014
Agenda Item G
2015 MPO Meeting Dates
The MPO meetings are usually held on a Friday, unless otherwise notified. While five (5)
meetings are normally scheduled, a sixth meeting has been included below to cover special
business that may arise and to bridge the gap between meeting dates. It’s anticipated that there
will also be some Long Range Transportation Plan committee meetings during 2015.
Meetings will begin at 9:00 a.m. and last until around 12 noon, followed by a lunch provided
for members.
Proposed 2015 Dates
February 6
April 17
June 12
August 7
October 2
November 20
Agenda Item H
Staggering of MPO Voting Member Terms
Next Appointment in
2015
Clinton County
Representative (already
completed)
Next Appointment in
2016
Transit Representative
Next Appointment in
2017
Montour County
Representative
Next Appointment in
2018
Juniata County
Representative
Mifflin County
completed)
Multi-modal
Representative
Snyder County
Representative
Northumberland
County Representative
Town of Bloomsburg
completed)
SEDA-COG Board AtLarge Representative
Union County
Representative
Columbia County
Representative
Borough of Berwick
Representative
When the above terms expire, each of these voting members will be re-appointed to full four-year
terms. Actual membership may change as members resign, as appointing authorities replace their
representatives, or as recommended by the MPO for approval. Appointments of the voting members
are as follows:
• 1 member representing Clinton County – appointed by the County Commissioners
• 1 member representing Columbia County – appointed by the County Commissioners
• 1 member representing Juniata County – appointed by the County Commissioners
• 1 member representing Mifflin County – appointed by the County Commissioners
• 1 member representing Montour County – appointed by the County Commissioners
• 1 member representing Northumberland County – appointed by the County Commissioners
• 1 member representing Snyder County – appointed by the County Commissioners
• 1 member representing Union County – appointed by the County Commissioners
• 1 member representing Transit – appointed by the SEDA-COG Board
• 1 member representing Multi-modal interests – appointed by the SEDA-COG Board
• 1 member serving as an at-large member of the SEDA-COG Board – appointed by the SEDA-COG Board
• 3 members representing the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Central Office, District 2,
and District 3) – appointed by PennDOT
• 1 member representing the SEDA-COG Transportation Program
• 1 member representing the largest municipality (by total population) in the UZA as of the most recent
decennial Census – appointed by the municipality
• 1 member representing the 2nd largest municipality (by total population) in the UZA as of the most
recent decennial Census – appointed by the municipality
Agenda Item K
News Details
Page 1 of 1
Public Invited to Comment on Draft Long Range Transportation Plan
News for Immediate Release
Nov. 17, 2014
Harrisburg – The public is invited to comment on the state’s draft, Long Range Transportation Plan, which will help guide future
12-Year Programs and regional plans, by visiting
www.PAOnTrack.com( http://www.paontrack.com/ )
.
“Our Long Range Transportation Plan provides a vision for Pennsylvania’s future by focusing on system preservation, safety,
stewardship and personal and freight mobility,” PennDOT Secretary Barry J. Schoch said. “I encourage the public to join us in
establishing these goals because our transportation network impacts all of us for generations to come.”
The draft plan, which includes goals, objectives and recommendations based on department research and public input, is viewable
by clicking “Draft Long Range Plan” on the homepage. Comments can be submitted through the “Comment Here” section under
“Public Participation.”
The public comments contributing to the plan were collected from more than 2,500 people who took a survey this spring identifying
their top transportation priorities and appeal of various investment scenarios. That feedback, which identified bike and pedestrian
facilities, public transportation, new roads or widening and pavement condition as the top public priorities, supplemented
PennDOT research to contribute to the draft report.
Feedback will be accepted through Monday, Dec. 15. In addition to online feedback, comments will be accepted by emailing
ra-PennDOTLRTP@pa.gov( mailto:ra-PennDOTLRTP@pa.gov )
or by mail to PennDOT’s Center for Program Development and Management, c/o Statewide Long-Range Planning, P.O. Box
3365, Harrisburg, PA, 17105-3365.
For more information on PennDOT and transportation planning, visit
www.dot.state.pa.us( http://www.dot.state.pa.us/ )
.
Follow PennDOT on Twitter at
www.twitter.com/penndotnews( http://www.twitter.com/penndotnews )
or "like" the department on Facebook at
www.facebook.com/pennsylvaniadepartmentoftransportation( http://www.facebook.com/pennsylvaniadepartmentoftransportation )
.
Media contact: Erin Waters-Trasatt, 717-783-8800
###
http://www.pa.gov/Pages/NewsDetails.aspx?agency=PAGovNews&item=16310
11/18/2014
PA On Track – Pennsylvania Long Range Transportation Plan and
Comprehensive Freight Movement Plan
Over the past two years, PennDOT has been working to complete a new statewide Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Comprehensive Freight Movement Plan (CFMP) under the branding of
PA On Track. More information is available at www.paontrack.com.
The Draft PA LRTP was provided to MPOs/RPOs on November 6, and was made available to the public
on November 15 for a 30-day public comment period. PennDOT has requested that MPOs/RPOs assist
in the public review process by:
1. Providing comments on the Draft LRTP.
Comments will be accepted until 5:00 p.m., Monday, December 15, 2014. PennDOT will provide
responses to the comments on Monday, January 12, 2015.
2. Identifying candidate projects.
Comments will be accepted about candidate projects that should be included in the LRTP/CFMP.
Projects to be considered for the LRTP/CFMP list should be on or connected to the Multimodal
Economic Competiveness (MEC) Network, and must meet at least one of the following criteria:
•
•
•
Improves freight logistics and infrastructure to increase speed and efficiency for freight
moving into, out of, and through the state, ultimately benefitting the economy and
transportation flow.
Requires the use of discretionary (e.g. Spike funding) or legislative funding (e.g. general fund
assistance).
Crosses regional boundaries (e.g. States/MPOs/RPOs/PennDOT Districts/DCED PREP
Regions).
The following information (if known) should be provided for each project submitted for
consideration:
•
•
•
•
•
Detailed description of where the project is located (include a map, shapefiles preferred).
Explanation of why the project should be on the list and why it is regionally significant.
Explanation of the land use context and relationship to other modes (roadway, transit, rail,
air, ports, bicycle, pedestrian and other) in the area.
Actions needed to implement the project and an estimate of cost, if known.
Contact information for organization(s) or individuals familiar with the project.
3. Making the Draft LRTP available to the public.
Please note that a printed copy of the Draft LRTP is available for review in the SEDA-COG lobby;
the Draft LRTP and PA On Track website link are posted on SEDA-COG’s website; and a regional
spotlight news item about the Draft LRTP has been posted to SEDA-COG’s homepage.
Staff is reviewing the Draft LRTP, and will provide comments to PennDOT about the narrative elements
of the Plan by the close of the comment period. We will incorporate them into PennDOT’s clearance
transmittal spreadsheet; we welcome input from MPO members about the comments, and we would be
glad to echo any of your comments with the staff comments.
Staff has also identified the projects in the table below that could be submitted for consideration to be
included on the project list in the LRTP/CFMP. These projects are included on the current SEDA-COG
LRTP (as either fully funded projects or as illustrative projects), or have been raised as major priorities of
area stakeholders. The projects seem to meet the criteria to be considered for inclusion on the state’s
new LRTP/CFMP. MPO members are requested to provide comments about the candidate projects and
any others to include with a submission from the MPO to PennDOT.
Project
Estimated Cost
Central Susquehanna Valley Transportation (CSVT) Project
Snyder, Union, and Northumberland Counties
$612,788,843
Complete SR 220 to 4 Lane from Salona Exit (SR 477) to I-80
Clinton County
$100,000,000
High Speed Interchange at I-80 and SR 220 (Future I-99)
Clinton County
$110,000,000
Railroad Expansion for Great Stream Commons and the Timber
Run Industrial Park
Union and Lycoming Counties
Rehabilitation of Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge over the
Susquehanna River
Snyder and Northumberland Counties
$6,000,000
$40,000,000
Amtrak Lewistown Station ADA and Amenity Upgrades
Mifflin County
Routes 11 and 15 Corridors Traffic Signal Enhancements
Montour, Snyder, and Union Counties
Projects Outside of SEDA-COG MPO Counties:
Project
Route 322 Potters Mills Gap Project
Centre/Mifflin County Line to Potters Mills
Estimated Cost
$142,000,000
Route 322/144/45 Corridors Improvements (formerly SCCCTS)
Centre County
$656,000,000
Complete SR 220 to 4 Lane Limited Access from Jersey Shore to
Linden (Future I-99)
Lycoming County
$410,000,000
SCHOHARIE
CORTLAND
D AA
CCAANNAA D
UUSSAA
CHAUTAUQUA
Lake Erie
1
c
®
Erie Area Port
( Erie
! !
!
International
o Erie!
®
!
! 3
!
NEW
2
§
¦
¨
90
7
8
9
10
11
12
YORK
TOMPKINS
Major Tourist Destinations
SCHUYLER
Carnegie Museums
Seven Springs Mountain Resort
STEUBEN
Prince
Gallitzin State Park
Raystown Lake Recreational Area
Pine Creek Gorge
Little League World Series
CHEMUNG
!
( BRADFORD
13
14
15
16
17
18
CHENANGO
19
20
21
22
23
Gettysburg Battlefield/Natl. Park/Visitor Center
Hershey Park
Knoebels Amusement Park and Resort
Elk Mountain Ski Resort
TIOGA
Pocono Raceway
BROOME
Camelback and Camelbeach Waterpark/Ski Resort
Dorney Park and Wildwater Kingdom
Sands Casino Resort Bethlehem
Peddlers Village
DELAWARE
Independence National Historical Park
SugarHouse Casino
GRE
ULSTER
!
( SAYRE
!
( WARREN
o Bradford Regional
®
5
ASHTABULA
§
¦
¨
81
!
!
!
( MEADVILLE
§
¦
¨
o
®
!
( OIL CITY
Venango Regional
!
( ST. MARYS
4
#
o
®
DuBois Regional Airport
!
(DUBOIS
MAHONING
LOCK HAVEN !
(
o University Park
®
#
376
INDIANA
Pittsburgh
International ®
o
!6
!
Pittsburgh Area Port c !
!7
(!
Pittsburgh
®
!
(
22
£
¤
!Pitcairn
H
o
Allegheny County ®
Johnstown !
(
o Arnold Palmer
®
Regional
§
¦
¨
76
BROOKE
§
¦
¨
70
OHIO
!9
!
119
£
¤
422
£
¤
o
®
Johnstown
Cambria County
!8
!
79
o
®
Harrisburg
Altoona-Blair County
§
¦
¨
LER
0
10
20
Miles
o
®
!
( Chambersburg
! Chambersburg
H
HAMPSHIRE
§
¦
¨
81
WASHINGTON
MORGAN
13
c
®
o
®
!
H
Pennsylvania Turnpike, Included in PFN or AADT _
> 50,000
Limited Access, AADT _
> 50,000
Comprehensive Primary Freight Network (PFN)
Rail Lines > 10,000,000 Net Rail Tonnage Annually
Amtrak Pennsylvanian
Amtrak Keystone Corridor
Ports
SASP Commercial and Air Cargo Airports
Major Intermodal Facility
222
JERSEY
Lehigh Valley
International ®
o 20
!
!
Allentown !
Bethlehem
Intermodal
(
! Transloading
H
HUNTERDON
! o
!
Center
19 ®
Queen City Municipal
SOMERSET
MI
o
®
!
!
!
(
!
(
!
!
§
¦
¨
176
§
¦
¨
276
§
¦
¨
76
CECIL
HARFORD
CARROLL
Pennsylvania Turnpike, AADT < 50,000
Limited Access, AADT < 50,000
Regional Railroad Meeting Tier 2 Criteria
General Aviation Reliever Airports and Commercial Service
Airports Serving a Micropolitan Statistical Area
Major Tourist Destinations by PREP Region
MPO Core Cities
Micropolitan Urban Cluster
Small Urban Area (Population to 49,999)
Urbanized Area (Population 50,000 - 199,999)
Urbanized Area (Population 200,000 or more)
!Morrisville
H
Intermodal
Terminal
Northeast
Philadelphia
Philadelphia
23
! c Area Port
22 !
!!
(!
Philadelphia
BURLINGTON
! Mustin Terminal
o H
®
Philadelphia International
o
®
§
¦
¨
95
1
£
¤
83
MERCER
®
BALTIMORE COUNTY
Tier 2
21
!
( Reading
Lancaster
§
¦
¨
MARYLAND
FREDERICK
BERKELEY
15
£
¤
MORRIS
WARREN
!
(
Lancaster
(
York!
!
!
GETTYSBURG!
(
JEFFERSON
Tier 1
Harrisburg International
§
¦
¨
ALLEGANY
MINERAL
!
H
o
®
o
®
!
( East Stroudsburg
NEW
£
¤
!
( Lebanon
14
!
!
Rutherford Intermodal Terminal
76
!
( SOMERSET
GARRETT
PRESTON
!
(
Capital City
70
MARION
78
!
!
!
!
476
§
¦
¨
10
§
¦
¨
WEST VIRGINIA
22
SUSSEX
18
§
¦
¨
!
( POTTSVILLE
£
¤
!
( HUNTINGDON
MARSHALL
MONONGALIA
LEWISTOWN
99
219
£
¤
§
¦
¨
!
( Altoona
§
¦
¨
84
380
!
!
15
!
!
( SUNBURY !
81
!
(
80
ORANGE
§
¦
¨
§
¦
¨
17
§
¦
¨
!
( Berwick
!
( Bloomsburg
SELINSGROVE!
(
!
( State College
§
¦
¨
99
§
¦
¨
HANCOCK
µ
£
¤
LEWISBURG !
(
28
M
WETZEL
180
80
COLUMBIANA
! Taylor
!
(H
Scranton
!
( Wilkes-Barre
§
¦
¨
220
§
¦
¨
!
( NEW CASTLE
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton
o
International ®
Williamsport
11
!
!
12 Regional
Williamsport !
o
(!
! ®
!
!
M8
!
( Sharon
SULLIVAN
15
79
TRUMBULL
! 16
!
£
¤
OHIO
FERSON
MONT
1 Presque Isle State Park
2 Splash Lagoon/Waldameer Water Parks
ALLEGANY
3 Presque Isle Downs and Casino
CATTARAUGUS
4 Cook Forest State Park
5 Allegheny National Forest
6 Pittsburgh Zoo and PPG Aquarium
OTSEGO
NEW CASTLE
DELAWA R E
CAMDEN
GLOUCESTER
SALEM
ATLANTIC
CUMBERLAND
Multimodal Economic
Competitiveness Network
11/4/2014
MO
PA On Track Long Range Transportation Plan
Clearance Transmittal Comment Form
Comment
District/
No.
Organization
Page
Comments
1
SEDA-COG
MPO
4
How will the project prioritization process and actual projects selected for inclusion in PA On Track impact
funding decisions? For example, what bearing will they have on TIP approvals, Multimodal Transportation
Fund rounds, Rail Freight Assistance Program rounds, Capital Budget line items, Bureau of Aviation
grants, and so forth?
2
SEDA-COG
MPO
50
Table 5, Show the State Roads & Bridges value as $1.3 billion; show the Total Estimated Additional
Annual Investment value as $2.3 billion.
3
SEDA-COG
MPO
51
Final bullet of Increasing freight tonnage is redundant, since the truck and rail tonnage statistics are
included on Page 52 under the Motor Carrier and Rail Freight bullets.
4
SEDA-COG
MPO
52
Perhaps identify major rail freight bottlenecks under the Rail Freight bullet, similar to what was done for
the Motor Carrier bullet.
5
SEDA-COG
MPO
53
Changes in commodity flow bullet, second line, "…begin..." should be spellled "…being…".
6
SEDA-COG
MPO
57
Have draft criteria been developed yet for Tier III of the MEC Network? What role with the various MEC
Networks play, and how will they influence the other network planning systems in existence (Business
Plan Network, Core PA System, MPO/RPO prioirty networks, etc.)?
7
8
9
10
\\SEDA-VFILES\vol1\USR\Transportation\RPO_MPO Meetings\2014\December 12\Item K\4.PA_On_Track_LRTP_CT_SEDA-COG MPO_Comments
Page 1 of 1
PA On Track Web-Based Public Involvement Survey Responses
Clinton
¿
I
(
l
&
%
¢
I
Columbia
$
d
"
!
Montour
}
I
$
d
"
!
Union
}
I
Northumberland
Snyder
I
}
¢
I
Mifflin
Juniata
Comment Category
Ï
Ä
I
Bike/Ped (16 Comments)
# of Respondents by Municipality
0
µ
Bridge (2 Comments)
Freight (20 Comments)
1-2
Highways / Traffic (88 Comments)
5-8
Other (4 Comments)
3-4
Mapping by SEDA-COG, November 2014
Sources: PennDOT, SEDA-COG
Spatial Comment Distribution
Transit (8 Comments)
Agenda Item L
Projects Selected for Statewide Transportation Alternatives Funding during the 2014 Application Cycle
County
Project Sponsor
Adams
Borough of Gettysburg
Allegheny
Allegheny
Allegheny
Bedford
Blair
Bucks
Bucks
Bucks
Butler
Butler
Cambria
Cambria
Cambria
Carbon
Centre
Centre
Title
Gettysburg Inner Loop (GIL) Segments
A1 and A2
Planning Partner
Statewide Award
Adams MPO
$334,236
Sports & Exhibition Authority of
Lower Hill Infrastructure Project
SPC MPO
Pittsburgh and AC
River Towns Bike-Ped Trail
Sharpsburg Borough
SPC MPO
Infrastructure
City of Pittsburgh, Department Joncaire Street Steps Improvement
SPC MPO
Project
of Public Works
H and BT Rail Trail Completion Phases Southern Alleghenies
Broad Top Township
3 and 4
RPO
The Pennsylvania State
Juniata Gap Road Pathway
Altoona MPO
University
Multi-modal Enhancements to New
New Britain Borough
DVRPC MPO
Britain Station
Lower State Road to 202 Parkway
Doylestown Township
DVRPC MPO
Connector Trail
Route 13 Streetscape - Croydon
Bristol Township
DVRPC MPO
Section Phase 2
Kiester Road Corridor Safety
Slippery Rock Township
SPC MPO
Improvement Project
Butler-Freeport Community Trail
Buffalo Township
SPC MPO
Repaving
Creslo Neighborhood Safe Route to
Adams Township
Johnstown MPO
School
Ebensburg Borough
State College Borough
Centre
Centre Area Transportation
Authority (CATA)
Chester
Tredyffrin Township
Clarion
Clarion County
Columbia
Town of Bloomsburg
Crawford
Crawford County Board of
Commissioners
$383,781
$384,000
$513,712
$650,000
$150,000
$792,634
$1,000,000
$661,250
$426,880
$147,459
Johnstown MPO
$500,000
Johnstown MPO
$908,500
NEPA MPO
$2,010,752
Centre Region MPO
$946,880
Centre Region MPO
$777,753
State College Bike Repair Stations
Centre Region MPO
$5,300
CATA Transit Stop Lighting and Safety
Improvement
Centre Region MPO
$50,000
DVRPC MPO
$1,097,360
Climax Tunnel Phase III Project
Northwest RPO
$780,000
Phase VI - East Second Street
Improvements
SEDA-COG MPO
$459,600
Conneaut Lake Revitilization Project
Northwest RPO
$400,000
Ebensburg Sidewalk Project
Cambria County Conservation & Ghost Town Trail Extension, White
Mill to Shawnee
Recreation Authority
D&L Trail - Carbon County Pedestrian
Carbon County
Bridge
Puddintown to Orchard Bike
College Township
Connector
West College Avenue Streetscape
Ferguson Township
Project - Sidewalk
Centre
$946,680
East Central Avenue Multi-Use Trail
County
Project Sponsor
Cumberland
Lower Allen Township
Dauphin
Dauphin County
Delaware
Title
Planning Partner
Statewide Award
Allendale- Beacon Hill Trail Phase II
HATS MPO
$220,000
Capital Area Greenbelt Link Trail to
Fort Hunter
HATS MPO
$1,493,000
DVRPC MPO
$444,100
DVRPC MPO
$300,000
Erie MPO
$500,000
Northwest RPO
$220,650
Franklin Co MPO
$150,924
Scranton/WilkesBarre MPO
$126,422
Lancaster MPO
$1,100,000
Lebanon MPO
$617,694
Lehigh Valley MPO
$215,939
Lehigh Valley MPO
$449,000
Nether Providence Township Walkable Wallingford
Delaware
Prospect Park Borough
Erie
City of Erie
Forest
Jenks Township
Franklin
Borough of Waynesboro
Lackawanna
Lackawanna Heritage Valley
Authority
Lancaster
Providence Township
Enola Low Grade Trail Improvements
Lebanon
Lebanon County Planning
Department
Lehigh
Salisbury Township
Lebanon Valley Rail-Trail (LVRT) Phase
7
Neighborhood Transportation
Alternatives Network
Lehigh
Whitehall Township
Luzerne
Dallas Township
Luzerne
Wilkes University
Lycoming
City of Williamsport
McKean
McKean County
McKean
City of Bradford
Mercer
SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP
Montgomery
Borough of Pottstown
Montgomery
Upper Merion Township
Montgomery
Cheltenham Township
Montgomery
Jenkintown Borough
Montgomery
Upper Dublin Township
Prospect Park Town Center
Cranberry Area Pedestrian
Improvements
Rt 66 Corridor Pedestrian Safety
Improvements
Borough of Waynesboro RRFB
Crosswalk Light Project
Carbondale Riverwalk
Lehigh - Jordan Greenway Trail
Back Mountain Trail - Mile 7
Wilkes University Streetscape
Improvements
Williamsport Pathway to Health
Project - Phase 3
$130,000
$1,000,000
Williamsport MPO
$1,000,000
North Central RPO
$1,000,000
North Central RPO
$464,700
Shenango Valley MPO
$429,677
Walk and Bike Pottstown
DVRPC MPO
$300,000
First Avenue Road Diet
DVRPC MPO
$430,856
DVRPC MPO
$1,000,000
DVRPC MPO
$90,000
DVRPC MPO
$1,000,000
Knox and Kane Rail Trail
Elm Street Gateway Improvement
Project - Phase 4
SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP
MULTIMODAL TRAIL
Elkins Park West Commercial District
Streetscape
School Zoning Signalization for
Jenkintown Borough
Virginia Drive Road Diet and Trail
County
Project Sponsor
Northampton
City of Bethlehem
Philadelphia
City of Philadelphia
Philadelphia
Title
City of Bethlehem Pedestrian
Improvements
Philadelphia Bike Share Program
Philadelphia Parks & Recreation Frankford Creek Greenway Section 1
Pike
Pike County
Susquehanna
Herrick Township
Susquehanna
Montrose Borough
Westmoreland
Westmoreland County
Wyoming
Keystone College
Wyoming
Wyoming County
York
City of York
Mott Street Pedestrian Bridge
D and H Rail-Trail Phase II
Improvements
Montrose Borough South Main
Streetscape Program
Turtle Creek Rail Trail - Phase III of
WHT
Trolley Trail
Nicholson Tourism Center at Historic
DL-W Station
Heritage Rail Trail Ext NWT
Downtown Connection
Planning Partner
Statewide Award
Lehigh Valley MPO
$300,000
DVRPC MPO
$250,000
DVRPC MPO
$1,000,000
NEPA MPO
$461,725
Northern Tier RPO
$1,000,000
Northern Tier RPO
$189,000
SPC MPO
$250,000
Northern Tier RPO
$755,903
Northern Tier RPO
$821,276
York MPO
$1,006,526
$33,044,169
Project Sponsors: A Project Manager from PennDOT Engineering District will be contacting you in the coming weeks to schedule a
project kick-off meeting to define the scope and responsibilities for the steps required to advance your project. Please be advised
that you cannot proceed with any element of this project for which you expect to be reimbursed until after the Project Manager
notifies your office that you have authorization to proceed. Activities conducted prior to receiving notification from your Project
Manager may render your project ineligible for reimbursement and/or significantly delay implementation.
Chris Metka | Central Office TAP Coordinator
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Center for Program Development and Management
400 North Street, 6th Floor | Harrisburg PA 17120
Phone: 717.787.8065 | Fax: 717.787.5247
cmetka@pa.gov
December 2014 Update
Transportation Enhancements (TE) Projects Status Update
2011-2012 Funding Round
93047 – 11-56E Downtown Beautification Project Phase V – Town of Bloomsburg
Funds Obligated?
Project Advertised?
Project Let?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Notice to
Proceed?
Yes.
CON begun?
Yes.
This decorative street lighting project was let on October 4, 2012; low bid of 4 total bids was
$309,183.55 (or $58,816.45 below the TE award). Physical work was completed in June 2013.
93049 – 45-57E Market Street Enhancement Project Phase II – Lewisburg Borough
Funds Obligated?
Project Advertised?
Project Let?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Notice to
Proceed?
Yes.
CON begun?
Yes.
This curb extensions project was let on March 29, 2012; low bid of 9 total bids was $147,775 (or $43,170
below the TE award). Physical work was completed in October 2012.
93037 – Monument Square Streetscape Project Phase 3B – Mifflin County
Funds Obligated?
Project Advertised?
Project Let?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Notice to
Proceed?
Yes.
CON begun?
Yes.
This streetscape improvement project was let on June 21, 2012; low bid of 4 total bids was $216,934 (or
$53,099 below the TE award). Physical work was completed in February 2013.
93502 – 11-59E Flat Iron Project – Berwick Borough
Funds Obligated?
Project Advertised?
Project Let?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Notice to
Proceed?
Yes.
CON begun?
Yes.
This landscaping & scenic beautification project was let on March 14, 2013; low bid of 9 total bids was
$197,121 (or $126,669 below TE award). Physical work was completed in September 2013.
81509 – 1023-09M North Old Trail Sidewalk and Curbing Enhancement Project – Shamokin Dam
Borough
Funds Obligated?
Project Advertised?
Project Let?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Notice to
Proceed?
Yes.
CON begun?
Yes.
The borough continues to coordinate with PennDOT’s SR 1023 (Old Trail) resurfacing project manager,
since PennDOT has been handling the TE project design and construction oversight for the borough.
Permitting and right-of-way issues pushed the SR 1023 resurfacing project out to a 3/13/14 let. Physical
work was completed in November 2014. TE funds were returned to regional line item and put towards
TAP projects, since regular highway funding cost savings were planned for the sidewalk and curbing
work.
93501 – 0-58E Restoration of 1895 Buggy Showroom – Mifflinburg Buggy Museum
Funds Obligated?
Project Advertised?
Project Let?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Notice to
Proceed?
Yes.
CON begun?
Yes.
This transportation museum building restoration project was let on May 23, 2013. The approximately
$50,000 cost increase to meet the low bid for this project was handled through the Statewide
discretionary TE line item ($10K was added for contingency due to the nature of this project for a
historic building’s restoration (the Museum will provide inspection services). Physical work was
completed in April 2014.
93504 – 2054-61E Downtown Danville Streetscape Improvements – Danville Business Alliance
Funds Obligated?
Project Advertised?
Project Let?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Notice to
Proceed?
Yes.
CON begun?
Yes.
This streetscape and crosswalk improvement project’s notice to proceed was issued 12/3/12. Physical
work was completed in October 2013.
Transportation Alternatives (TA) Projects Status Update
2013 Funding Round
97841 – 254-40E Broadway Streetscape Improvements Phase 1 – Milton Borough
Funds Obligated?
Project Advertised?
Project Let?
Yes.
No.
No.
Notice to
Proceed?
No. 3/16/15 est.
CON begun?
No.
Project was approved for TA funding by the MPO on 5/20/13. Funds have been obligated; the notice to
proceed is estimated for 3/16/15; completion of construction is estimated for 11/1/15.
97849 – 0-60E Buffalo Valley Rail Trail Lewisburg Extension – Buffalo Valley Recreation Authority
Funds Obligated?
Project Advertised?
Project Let?
Yes.
No.
No.
Notice to
Proceed?
No.
CON begun?
No.
Project was approved for TA funding by the MPO on 5/20/13. Funds have been obligated; completion of
construction is estimated for 11/1/15.
97842 – 2017-15E Selinsgrove Street Light Expansion – Selinsgrove Borough
Funds Obligated?
Project Advertised?
Project Let?
Yes.
No.
No.
Notice to
Proceed?
No.
CON begun?
No.
Project was approved for TA funding by the MPO on 5/20/13. Funds have been obligated; completion of
construction is estimated for 11/1/15.
98107 – East Water Street Streetscape Project – City of Lock Haven
Funds Obligated?
Project Advertised?
Project Let?
Yes.
No.
No. 1/8/15 est.
Notice to
Proceed?
No. 4/6/15 est.
CON begun?
No.
Project was approved for TA funding by the MPO on 5/20/13. Funds have been obligated; physical work
is estimated for completion by 12/4/15.
Agenda Item M
United States Government Accountability Office
Report to Congressional Requesters
August 2014
OIL AND GAS
TRANSPORTATION
Department of
Transportation Is
Taking Actions to
Address Rail Safety,
but Additional Actions
Are Needed to
Improve Pipeline
Safety
GAO-14-667
August 2014
OIL AND GAS TRANSPORTATION
Highlights of GAO-14-667, a report to
congressional requesters
Department of Transportation Is Taking Actions to Address
Rail Safety, but Additional Actions Are Needed to Improve
Pipeline Safety
Why GAO Did This Study
What GAO Found
Technology advancements such as
horizontal drilling and hydraulic
fracturing (pumping water, sand, and
chemicals into wells to fracture
underground rock formations and allow
oil or gas to flow) have allowed
companies to extract oil and gas from
shale and other tight geological
formations. As a result, oil and gas
production has increased more than
fivefold from 2007 through 2012. DOT
Increased oil and gas production presents challenges for transportation
infrastructure because some of this increase is in areas with limited
transportation linkages. For example, insufficient pipeline capacity to transport
crude oil has resulted in the increased use of rail, truck, and barge to move oil to
refineries, according to government and industry studies and publications GAO
reviewed. These transportation limitations and related effects could pose
environmental risks and have economic implications. For instance, natural gas
produced as a byproduct of oil is burned—a process called flaring—by operators
due, in part, to insufficient pipelines in production areas. In a 2012 report, GAO
found that flaring poses a risk to air quality as it emits carbon dioxide, a
greenhouse gas linked to climate change, and other air pollutants. In addition,
flaring results in the loss of a valuable resource and royalty revenue.
GAO was asked to review oil and gas
transportation infrastructure issues.
This report examines (1) overall
challenges that increased oil and gas
production may pose for transportation
infrastructure, (2) specific pipeline
safety risks and how DOT is
addressing them, and (3) specific rail
safety risks and how DOT is
addressing them. GAO analyzed
federal transportation infrastructure
and safety data generally from 2008 to
2012 or 2013 (as available), reviewed
documents, and interviewed agency,
industry, and safety stakeholders, as
well as state and industry officials in
states with large-scale shale oil and
gas development.
Due to the increased oil and gas production, construction of larger, higherpressure gathering pipelines (pipelines that transport products to processing
facilities and other long-distance pipelines) has increased. However, these
pipelines, if located in rural areas, are generally not subject to U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT) safety regulations that apply to other pipelines, including
emergency response requirements. Historically, gathering pipelines were smaller
and operated at lower pressure and thus posed less risk than long-distance
pipelines. But the recent increase in their size and pressure raises safety
concerns because they could affect a greater area in the event of an incident. In
2011, DOT began a regulatory proceeding to address the safety risks of
gathering pipelines, but it has not proposed new regulations. Although states
may regulate gathering pipelines, an association of state pipeline regulators’
report on state pipeline oversight shows that most states do not currently
regulate gathering pipelines in rural areas.
oversees the safety of the U.S.
transportation system.
What GAO Recommends
DOT should move forward with a
proposed rulemaking to address safety
risks—including emergency response
planning—from newer gathering
pipelines. DOT generally concurred
with the recommendation and stated
that it is developing a rulemaking to
revise its pipeline safety regulations.
View GAO-14-667. For more information,
contact Susan Fleming at (202) 512-2834 or
flemings@gao.gov or Frank Rusco at (202)
512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov.
Crude oil carloads moved by rail in 2012 increased by 24 times over that moved
in 2008. Such an increase raises specific concerns about testing and packaging
of crude oil, use of unit trains (trains of about 80 to 120 crude oil cars), and
emergency response preparedness. Crude oil shippers are required to identify
their product’s hazardous properties, including flammability, before packaging the
oil in an authorized tank car. DOT has issued safety alerts on the importance of
proper testing and packaging of crude oil. However, industry stakeholders said
that DOT’s guidance on this issue is vague and that clarity about the type and
frequency of testing is needed. In July 2014, DOT proposed new regulations for
crude oil shippers to develop a product-testing program subject to DOT’s review.
Additionally, unit trains, which can carry 3 million or more gallons of crude oil and
travel to various locations through the country, are not covered under DOT’s
comprehensive emergency response planning requirements for transporting
crude oil by rail because the requirements currently only apply to individual tank
cars and not unit trains. This raises concerns about the adequacy of emergency
response preparedness, especially in rural areas where there may be fewer
resources to respond to a serious incident. Also in July 2014, DOT sought public
comment on potential options for addressing this gap in emergency response
planning requirements for transporting crude oil by rail.
United States Government Accountability Office
Contents
Letter
1
Background
Increased Oil and Gas Production Presents Challenges for
Transportation Infrastructure That Could Pose Environmental
and Safety Risks and Have Economic Implications
DOT Has Not Fully Addressed Safety Risks from Expansion of
Federally Unregulated Gathering Pipelines
DOT Is Working to Address Risks Related to the Increase in
Transportation of Oil by Rail
Conclusions
Recommendation
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
4
30
47
48
48
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
50
Appendix II
Impacts of Shale Oil and Gas Development on Highways in
Selected States
56
Appendix III
Comments from Department of Transportation
58
Appendix IV
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
60
12
22
Tables
Table 1: Characteristics of U.S. Gathering and Transmission
Pipelines
Table 2: National-Level Industry and Safety Stakeholders GAO
Interviewed
Table 3: State-Level Stakeholders GAO Interviewed
9
53
54
Figures
Figure 1: Shale Plays and Basins in the Contiguous 48 States
Figure 2: Increased Domestic Oil and Gas Production from Shale
and Tight Sandstone Formations from 2007 to 2012
Page i
5
6
GAO-14-667 Oil and Gas Transportation
Figure 3: Oil and Gas Transportation from Production to Users
Figure 4: Crude Oil Refinery Receipts by Pipeline, Rail, Truck, and
Barge from 2008 to 2012 (Millions of Barrels)
Figure 5: Estimated Number of Crude Oil Rail Carloads in the
United States, 2008 to 2012
Figure 6: Crude Oil Unit Train
Figure 7: North American Originations and Destinations of Crude
Oil Carloads Hauled by Rail, 2012
Figure 8: Proposed Upgrades to Crude Oil Rail Tank Cars
8
15
31
32
33
42
Abbreviations
AAR
DOT
EIA
FRA
INGAA
LNG
Mcf
MMBtu
NOx
NTSB
PHMSA
PSI
STB
Tcf
Association of American Railroads
Department of Transportation
Energy Information Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
liquefied natural gas
thousand cubic feet
million British thermal units
nitrogen oxides
National Transportation Safety Board
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
pounds per square inch
Surface Transportation Board
trillion cubic feet
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page ii
GAO-14-667 Oil and Gas Transportation
Department of Transportation
News for Immediate Release
September 29, 2014
Public-Private Partnership Board Approves CNG Project for Public Transit, Private
Fleet Fueling
Harrisburg – Pennsylvania’s Public-Private Partnership (P3) Board today approved a
project seeking a private partner to develop clean-burning compressed natural gas (CNG)
fueling stations at public transit agencies around the state that would also provide public
access to the facilities.
“This is a tremendous opportunity for PennDOT and its transit-agency partners to team with
the private sector to take advantage of the state’s natural gas resources, save money and
improve our environment,” said PennDOT Secretary and P3 Board Chairman Barry J.
Schoch. “This is another example of the options we now have to expand or improve services
because Governor Corbett signed the P3 law.”
Through the project, the private partner will design, build, finance, operate and maintain
CNG filling stations at up to 37 transit facilities. Each fueling site must provide access to
CNG for public transit and other CNG vehicles alike.
In addition, PennDOT will enter into a CNG supply contract with the selected partner as well
as purchase agreements with each of the transit agencies. PennDOT would receive a portion
of the fuel sales revenue, with the money being returned to transit agencies to assist with
future capital projects.
To kick off the project, PennDOT will release a Request for Qualifications to solicit interested
parties and expects to invite qualified teams to submit proposals early next year. A project
team could be selected in summer 2015.
In September 2012, Corbett signed into law the Public and Private Partnerships for
Transportation Act, which authorized P3 projects in Pennsylvania. This law allows PennDOT
and other transportation authorities and commissions to partner with private companies to
participate in delivering, maintaining and financing transportation-related projects.
As part of the P3 law, the seven-member Public Private Transportation Partnership Board
was appointed to examine and approve potential public-private transportation projects. If
the board determines a state operation or project would be more cost-effectively
administered or delivered by a private company, the department or appropriate
transportation agency can advertise a competitive RFP and enter into a contract with a
company to completely or partially deliver the transportation-related service or project.
To learn more about P3 in Pennsylvania, visit www.P3forPA.pa.gov.
In 2013, Pennsylvania became the second-largest natural gas producing state in the nation.
The abundance of low-cost natural gas has driven electric and natural gas prices down
nearly 40 percent since 2008, saving the average Pennsylvania resident nearly $1,200
annually in lower energy costs. After importing 75 percent of its natural gas just five years
ago, Pennsylvania has become a net exporter of gas for the first time in more than 100
years.
Media contact: Rich Kirkpatrick, 717-783-8800
###
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
IN RELATION TO
CNG FUELING FOR TRANSIT AGENCIES PARTNERSHIP PROJECT
THROUGH A
PUBLIC-PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
ISSUED: NOVEMBER 24, 2014
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATION DUE DATE: DECEMBER 23, 2014
1.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
1.1.
Overview
PennDOT is pleased to present this RFQ to prospective entities or groups of entities (the “Proposer”)
interested in entering into an exclusive arrangement to provide the Required Project Services (the
“Project”).
PennDOT is the Commonwealth agency whose mission is to provide a safe intermodal transportation
system that attracts businesses and residents and stimulates the Pennsylvania economy. Act 89 of 2013
created a new deputate for multimodal transportation at PennDOT. PennDOT is responsible for programs
in the following areas: local and public transportation; rail freight; ports and waterways; and aviation and
airports. PennDOT is also responsible for the efficient management and administration of more than $1
billion in state and federal funds supporting public transportation services and infrastructure. PennDOT
continuously strives to: improve public transportation service and mobility options; maximize the benefits
of capital investment in public transportation; analyze and maximize productivity and efficiency in
partnership with all public transportation providers; increase safety, speed and ridership on
Pennsylvania’s passenger rail services; use improvements of rail stations and intermodal facilities to spur
economic development. During Fiscal Year 2012-13, Pennsylvania bus riders accounted for 435,496,595
fixed route trips. Currently in Pennsylvania, 523 fixed route buses or 16 percent of the transit fleet for the
Commonwealth runs on alternative fuels, including CNG, diesel equivalent and others.
As will be specified in PennDOT’s Phased CNG Fueling Implementation Plan for Transit Agencies (the
“CNG Fueling Implementation Plan”, a draft of which will be made available during the RFP phase to
Short-Listed Proposers for comment), Transit Agency participation in the Project will be phased across
four stages. These stages will be based on multiple factors, including fleet size, fleet age and the CNG
needs of particular Transit Agencies. At this time, PennDOT expects the participating Transit Agencies
to include the following:
Participating Transit Agencies
1.
Altoona Metro Transit (AMTRAN)
2.
Area Transportation Authority (ATA)
3.
Beaver Country Transit Authority (BCTA)
4.
Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority (BARTA)
5.
Borough of Mount Carmel
6.
Butler Transit Authority (BTA)
7.
Cambria County Transit Authority (CamTran)
8.
Capital Area Transit (CAT)
9.
Carbon County Community Transit (CCTA)
10.
Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA)
11.
City of Washington
12.
County of Lackawanna Transit System (COLTS)
5
Participating Transit Agencies
13.
County of Lebanon Transit Authority (COLT/LT)
14.
Crawford Area Transportation Authority (CATA)
15.
Dubois, Falls Creek, Sandy Township Joint Transportation Authority (DuFAST)
16.
Endless Mountains Transportation Authority (EMTA)
17.
Erie Metropolitan Transit Authority (EMTA)
18.
Fayette Area Coordinated Transportation (FACT)
19.
Hazelton Public Transit (HPT)
20.
Indiana County Transit Authority (IndiGO)
21.
Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority (LANTa)
22.
Luzerne County Transportation Authority (LCTA)
23.
Mercer County Regional Council of Governments (MCRCOG)
24.
Mid County Transit Authority
25.
Mid Mon Valley Transportation Authority (MMVTA)
26.
Monroe County Transportation Authority (MCTA)
27.
New Castle Area Transit Authority (NCATA)
28.
Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAAC)
29.
Pottstown Area Rapid Transit (PART)
30.
Red Rose Transit Authority (RRTA)
31.
River Valley Transit (Williamsport RVT)
32.
Schuylkil Transportation Authority (STS)
33.
Transit Authority of Warren County
34.
Venango County Transportation Office (VCTO)
35.
Westmoreland County Transit Authority (WCTA)
36.
York Adams Transit Authority (YATA)
The following map shows the geographic location of the Transit Agencies that PennDOT expects to
participate at this time, classified by fleet size. Detailed transit maps are available on the PennDOT
website (www.dot.state.pa.us) under the following links: PennDOT Organizations—Bureaus and
Offices—Bureau of Public Transportation—Public Transit and Rail Information for Passengers—Public
Transit.
6
PennDOT ultimately intends to select a Development Entity with experience in successfully
implementing and managing all aspects of the Required Project Services. PennDOT’s goal is to select a
highly qualified Development Entity that will provide the best value for, and whose selection will be in
the best interest of, the Commonwealth. The Department recognizes that Proposers may include firms
with experience managing large-scale CNG fueling program initiatives as well as those that specialize in
CNG fueling station infrastructure development and management. The successful Development Entity
shall coordinate with PennDOT, participating Transit Agencies and the FTA and comply with all
Commonwealth and federal laws and regulations.
PennDOT currently contemplates that the Development Entity will enter into a PPA with PennDOT
toprovide the Required Project Services..
The RFP will provide further details concerning the Development Entity’s obligations in respect of the
Required Project Services.
1.1.1.
Terms and Conditions of the PPA
Should a PPA result from this RFQ, it is the intent of PennDOT that the Development Entity shall
manage and perform all Required Project Services. Key conditions of the PPA currently anticipated by
PennDOT are described below. Such conditions and are subject to change.
(a)
In exchange for the exclusive right to provide CNG fuel to Transit Agencies, the Development
Entity will supply CNG fuel on a take or pay basis based upon terms to be outlined in the
subsequent RFP, and ultimately in the PPA.
7
The Marcellus Shale Impacts Study: Chronicling Social and
Economic Change in North Central and Southwest Pennsylvania
By:
Kathryn Brasier, Lisa Davis, Leland Glenna, Tim Kelsey, Diane McLaughlin, Kai Schafft, Kristin Babbie,
Catherine Biddle, Anne Delessio-Parson, and Danielle Rhubart
Pennsylvania State University
September 2014
Executive Summary
The Marcellus Shale is a natural gas-bearing geological formation that lies beneath portions of
Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Maryland and West Virginia. Recent advances in hydraulic fracturing and
horizontal drilling technologies have increased the technical and economic feasibility of unconventional
gas extraction and led to rapid expansion of the industry in Pennsylvania. Between 2005 and mid-2013,
6,833 unconventional gas wells were drilled in the commonwealth (Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, 2013).
The development of the Marcellus Shale has created significant questions about the potential
implications for the commonwealth’s communities and natural environment.
This research is the first wave of a longitudinal project examining the impacts of Marcellus Shale
development in Pennsylvania. Overall, the research is exploring the social and economic impacts of
Marcellus Shale development in Pennsylvania, focusing on the experiences of four study counties Bradford, Greene, Lycoming, and Washington - with very high levels of natural gas extraction and
related activities.
This phase of the study focused on aggregate change in the four study counties. It examined countylevel indicators of change related to population, housing, local economies, crime, health and healthcare
access, K-12 education, agriculture and local governments. It also examined the experiences of youth
and low-income residents in communities with shale-based development.
Overall, the research had four goals: (1) Identify and document indicators of economic, social,
institutional and infrastructural change related to Marcellus Shale development; (2) Analyze collected
data to understand and interpret trends in relation to drilling activity and in comparison to historical and
current regional, state and national trends; (3) Describe the experiences of critical populations and
institutions relative to activity level; and (4) Examine and evaluate strategies communities have used to
effectively manage change.
Page | 1
To achieve these goals, the researchers: formed topical advisory committees to provide background
information about the topics; gathered publicly available data and performed descriptive analyses
related to each topic; and conducted focus groups with representatives of agencies and organizations
related to health, housing and human services, K-12 education, economic development and local
businesses, agriculture, and local government. They also conducted additional focus groups with highschool youth.
The results from this phase of the study are available in nine topical reports, which are described
below.
 Report #1: Population Change and Marcellus Shale Development. The analysis indicated that
patterns of population change varied across the study counties, and that the associations with
Marcellus Shale development are not clear.
 Report #2: The Impact of Marcellus Shale Development on Health and Health Care. Very few
indicators in health or healthcare service delivery changed in relation to Marcellus Shale
development, with the exception of increases in the number of complaints logged by
responding emergency medical service personnel. Focus group data indicate increased
demands on human service providers, including mental and behavioral health services. Many
of the workers associated with the natural gas industry have employer-provided insurance,
but that coverage is valid in other states and may not transfer to local areas.
 Report #3: Marcellus Shale Gas Development and Impacts on Pennsylvania Schools and
Education. The analyses indicated very little change in enrollment, student demographics, and
student outcomes associated with Marcellus Shale development. Drop-out rates were not
changed either, although focus group data suggest the potential that industry-associated
opportunities may affect post-secondary educational aspirations of youth.
 Report #4: Youth Perspectives on Marcellus Shale Gas Development: Community Change and
Future Prospects. Youth described their views on the effects of the natural gas industry on
their home communities; safety concerns about traffic and road conditions; destruction of
natural areas; uncertainty about the impacts of the industry on their communities now and in
the future; and relatively low interest in working for the industry. Most of the participants had
at least ambivalent feelings about the changes they had seen taking place in their
communities.
 Report #5: Housing and Marcellus Shale Development. The share of housing that was owneroccupied, rental or vacant varied more in counties with smaller populations and more limited
housing stocks prior to Marcellus development. The median value of owner-occupied housing
increased in the study counties more than the state average during the period of Marcellus
Shale development. Focus group participants described the use of temporary housing by both
natural gas workers and low-income families, displacement of local people from existing
housing, and increased homelessness among low-income individuals and families.
 Report #6: Effects of Marcellus Shale Development on the Criminal Justice System. The
analyses showed relatively little change in most indicators, with the exception of increased
rates of calls for service for which the Pennsylvania State Police responded, arrests for driving
The Center for Rural Pennsylvania
Page | 2
under the influence, and traffic violations in counties with high levels of Marcellus Shale
activity.
 Report #7: Local Government and Marcellus Shale Development. Analysis of the county audit
data through 2011 did not show clear effects of natural gas development on local government
budgets. Local officials raised concerns related to impacts on roads from truck traffic, housing
problems, their lack of preparation for the growth of the industry, and a lack of transparency
by the natural gas industry. They reported spending impact fee dollars on new equipment or
new infrastructure to replace what has been damaged, directly or indirectly, by drilling.
 Report #8: Local Economic Impacts Related to Marcellus Shale Development. Counties with
the highest levels of drilling activity generally experienced increased business activity,
employment, and wages. During the study period, the number of residents working increased
only modestly, suggesting that many of the new jobs that had been created were going to
non-residents who either commuted into the county or were living there temporarily.
 Report #9: Establishing a Baseline for Measuring Agricultural Changes Related to Marcellus
Shale Development. Focus group data with farmers and representatives of agricultural
services and businesses brought out the following themes: shortages in some farm inputs
(e.g., lime) and difficulty of retaining farm labor due to Marcellus development; the ability of
farmers to use lease and royalty income to stay in business and reinvest in their operations;
changes in the types of operations (such as dairy to beef); intergenerational property transfer;
mistrust of natural gas companies; lack of monitoring and company accountability;
uncertainty about environmental impacts; uncertainty about long-term impacts; and
conflicting views about the impacts on quality of life.
Additionally, the research documented strategies used by individuals, farms, businesses, local health,
housing and human service agencies, and school districts to adapt to changes brought on by Marcellus
Shale development. These include more consistent use of legal expertise and consultation, monitoring
and management of well development activity, development of new products and business
opportunities, and collaboration and planning across geographic and organizational boundaries. The
research identified several themes that were discussed by focus group participants but were not specific
to an individual topical report. These include community conflict and divisions, unequal distribution of
the benefits and costs of development, concerns about the quality of life in their communities, and
concerns about water quality.
There were a number of limitations to this research. First, the publicly available data are measured at
the county level, and are aggregate indicators at specific points in time. As such, they cannot provide
measures of the components that make up those aggregate data. Second, while county level analyses
are useful to identify overall effects, county level data do not capture more localized data points. Third,
the analyses cannot establish causality but rather assess an association in time. There are relatively few
data points during Marcellus Shale activity, and the data that were identified were not specific to
Marcellus Shale. Finally, it is difficult to define Marcellus Shale activity and who is part of the industry.
Page | 3
The researchers provided three overall policy considerations, as well as considerations related to each
of the topics studied. The first overall policy consideration is to increase capacity to identify problematic
change and implement collaborative strategies to respond as quickly as possible. The second overall
policy consideration is to increase capacity to identify and collaboratively plan for future expected and
unexpected change, thus improving the ability to take advantage of opportunities and minimize risks
and problems associated with change. The final policy consideration relates to improving the data
available to identify and understand changes. These considerations apply to Pennsylvania communities
affected by Marcellus Shale development, but also to those impacted by other types of change, such as
suburban sprawl, economic change, or population decline.
As stated previously, this research is the first wave of a longitudinal project describing the impacts of
Marcellus Shale development in Pennsylvania. This phase focused on aggregate change in the study
counties. However, one of the main lessons from this phase of the project is the need to examine the
distribution of the risks and opportunities across communities and populations and over time. Tracking
these changes over time can assist with identifying ways in which shorter-term gains can be leveraged
into strategic and longer term planning that will maximize the opportunities for Pennsylvania’s social,
economic and environmental sustainability, both now and in the future. The systematic gathering and
analysis over time of local, regional and state-level data will be critical in generating information that
local stakeholders and state policymakers will need to effectively respond to these new and often
unprecedented challenges and opportunities.
Page | 4
Agenda Item N
PennDOT Act 44 Allocation Payments
December 2014
County
Total
Bridge
Count
% of
Actual Payment
Total
Bridge
Closed Posted Deck Area Statewide Amount Act 44
Deck Area Bridges Bridges FCS Calc Deck Area
(Msf)
0.0327
1
8
0.0084651
0.12
$6,185.92
CLINTON
18
COLUMBIA
90
0.1112
2
31
0.0906511
1.32
JUNIATA
36
0.0293
1
9
0
0.00
MIFFLIN
49
0.0703
0
7
0.0249349
0.36
$18,221.32
MONTOUR
26
0.0278
3
6
0.0144561
0.21
$10,563.88
NORTHUMBERLAND
92
0.1214
5
26
0.0973935
1.42
$71,170.86
SNYDER
34
0.0412
0
9
0.0121180
0.18
$8,855.30
UNION
41
0.0499
1
20
0.0365179
0.53
$26,685.67
Source: PennDOT, November 2014
Reflects Bridges > 20' long
$66,243.82
PennDOT Act 89 (formerly Act 26) Allocation Payments
December 2014
County
Total
Bridge
Count
Total
% of
Actual Payment
Closed Posted Deck Area Statewide Amount Act 89
Bridge
Deck Area Bridges Bridges FCS Calc Deck Area
(Msf)
0.0327
1
8
0.0084651
0.12
$4,374.68
CLINTON
18
COLUMBIA
90
0.1112
2
31
0.0906511
1.32
JUNIATA
36
0.0293
1
9
0
0.00
MIFFLIN
49
0.0703
0
7
0.0249349
0.36
$12,886.12
MONTOUR
26
0.0278
3
6
0.0144561
0.21
$7,470.77
NORTHUMBERLAND
92
0.1214
5
26
0.0973935
1.42
$50,332.04
SNYDER
34
0.0412
0
9
0.0121180
0.18
$6,262.47
UNION
41
0.0499
1
20
0.0365179
0.53
$18,872.10
Source: PennDOT, November 2014
Reflects Bridges > 20' long
$46,847.63
PENNDOT MUNICIPAL SERVICES INFORMATION CENTER
COUNTY LIQUID FUELS PAYMENTS - 2014
COUNTY
LF PAYMENT
PERCENTAGE
NET PAYMENT
6/2/14
NET PAYMENT
12/1/14
TOTAL NET
PAYMENT – 2014
CLINTON
0.34
$49,678.14
$52,026.23
$101,704.37
COLUMBIA
0.58
$84,269.72
$87,844.35
$172,114.07
JUNIATA
0.19
$27,112.08
$28,262.14
$55,374.22
MIFFLIN
0.47
$68,418.00
$71,320.21
$139,738.21
MONTOUR
0.14
$20,074.61
$20,926.15
$41,000.76
NORTHUMBERLAND
1.26
$184,496.24
$193,097.08
$377,593.32
SNYDER
0.24
$35,176.19
$36,668.32
$71,844.51
UNION
0.19
$16,163.38
$28,348.24
$44,511.62
December 5, 2014
Mr. Daniel Farley, Manager
Bureau of Maintenance and Operations
PennDOT
400 North Street
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Re: Comments on 2014 Green Light-Go Application from Danville Borough
Dear Mr. Farley:
I am writing to offer comments on the 2014 Green Light-Go Program application
from Danville Borough. Please be aware that this applicant’s signal retiming and
synchronization project represents a high priority for the SEDA-COG Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO).
Increasing mobility of people and for freight by reducing congestion and improving
efficiency of existing traffic signals are key objectives of the MPO and its Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Regional Operations Plan. The MPO acknowledges
that Danville Borough is a core community for the entire 8-county region and the
Bloomsburg-Berwick Urbanized Area. Danville Borough experiences acute vehicular
congestion due to its location at the intersection of two principal arterials (US 11 and
SR 54) and as a result of heavy traffic volumes attracted to Geisinger Health System
facilities in Danville Borough and adjacent Mahoning Township.
According to the Census Bureau’s 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-year
estimates, Danville Borough had a daytime population increase of 3,418 people due to
work-related commuting (or a 73% increase over the borough’s total resident
population); comparable increases were estimated for Mahoning Township (3,295
people and 79%). The significant commuter flows, combined with out-of-synch
traffic signals, create significant congestion during the AM and PM peaks.
Comprehensive retiming and synchronization of the signals within Danville Borough
should cost effectively reduce congestion, enhance mobility, reduce greenhouse gases,
and improve safety for motorists and pedestrians. The project intent and benefits
have also been widely supported by the SEDA-COG MPO members and planning
staff from Montour County. The SEDA-COG MPO therefore endorses approval of
Danville Borough’s 2014 Green Light-Go application for the critical corridor and
designated corridor signals, and stands ready to offer planning and programming
support to facilitate the project’s design and implementation.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
James Saylor, P.E., PTOE
Transportation Planning Program Director
SEDA-Council of Governments
FAQs on Fee for Local Use
Vehicle Code, Section
1935 Added by Act 89 of
2013
Q.
A.
When can counties pass ordinances imposing the fee for local use?
On or after January 1, 2015, the effective date of Section 1935.
Q.
A.
When can counties notify PennDOT of passage of an ordinance?
On or after January 1, 2015, the effective date of Section 1935.
Q.
A.
What will be the effective date for imposition of the fee?
No less than 90 days from when the county notifies PennDOT of passage of
the ordinance.
Q.
A.
Does PennDOT have a sample ordinance for use by counties?
No. The ordinance should, however, include an effective date at least 90 days
after PennDOT will receive notice that the ordinance has been passed.
Q.
A.
Where will the counties send the ordinance?
To Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Deputy Secretary
for Planning, 400 North Street, Harrisburg, PA 17120-0041.
Q.
A.
Can a county impose a fee of less than $5?
No. Section 1935 only provides for a fee of $5 for each nonexempt vehicle registered
to an address located in the county.
Q.
A.
Are the owners of trailers subject to the fee?
Yes. Trailers are vehicles under the Vehicle Code.
Q.
A.
Are the owners of recreational vehicles (RVs) subject to the fee?
Yes. RVs are motor homes or camping trailers, both of which are vehicles
requiring registration with PennDOT.
Q.
A.
Are the owners of boats subject to the fee?
No. Boats are registered by the Fish and Boat Commission, not PennDOT.
Q.
A.
Are the owners of ATVs subject to the fee?
No. ATVs are registered by the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,
not PennDOT.
Q.
Will the $5 fee be subject to automatic adjustments under Section 1904(c) of the
Vehicle Code?
No. The fee is not being charged by PennDOT under the Vehicle Code, but is
rather imposed at the discretion of the county by local ordinance.
A.
1
Q.
A.
What are nonexempt vehicles?
Those vehicles which are not exempt from registration fees under the Vehicle Code,
i.e. those for which a registration fee are due.
Q.
A.
What vehicles are exempt from registration under the Vehicle Code?
Those exempt under Vehicle Code Sections 1901 (“Exemptions of persons, entities
and vehicles from fee”), 1302 (“Vehicles exempt from registration”), 1303
(“Vehicles of nonresidents exempt from registration”), 1335 (“Registration plates for
manufacturers and dealers”), and 1337.1 (“Fleet owner transporter registration plate”).
Q.
A.
Can a county exempt vehicles other than those exempt under the Vehicle Code?
No.
Q.
A.
Can a county limit the time during which the fee will be assessed?
Yes, but this should be addressed in the ordinance if known at the time of the ordinance.
The Department will require at least 90 days’ notice before an assessment is to expire to
insure proper billing for registrations in the county.
Q.
A.
What unit of PennDOT will be collecting the fee?
Driver and Vehicle Services (DVS) will be collecting the fee as part of the
vehicle registration process.
Q.
A.
What will DVS do with the fees?
DVS will deposit the fees with the Department of Treasury, which will establish the
Fee for Local Use Fund.
Q.
A.
What unit of PennDOT will distribute the funds to the counties?
The Bureau of Municipal Services.
Q.
A.
What unit of PennDOT should counties contact with questions?
Counties should contact the Bureau of Municipal Services with any questions. If
necessary, the Bureau will interact with Driver and Vehicle Services or the Office
of Chief Counsel.
Q.
Where should individual vehicle owners direct questions about the fee or their
vehicle registration?
Individual vehicle owners should contact PennDOT’s Driver and Vehicle Services
Customer Care Center in state at 1-800-932-4600 or out of state at 1-717-412-5300.
A.
Q.
A.
Will PennDOT be developing guidelines in relation to the fee for local use?
Yes, the Bureau of Municipal Services will be developing guidelines for use of the
funds consistent with Section 1935 and the Pennsylvania Constitution, distribution of the
funds, and to establish reporting and oversight procedures to insure proper expenditure
of the funds.
2
Q.
A.
Will PennDOT solicit input from county organizations and counties when developing
the guidelines?
Yes.
Q.
A.
When will the funds be distributed to counties?
Tentatively on June 1 and December 1.
Q.
A.
How will the funds be distributed to counties?
Tentatively similar to county liquid fuel funds. Liquid fuel funds may not be
commingled with other funds. Thus, fee for local use funds will be distributed in
addition to liquid fuel funds, not in the same transaction.
Q.
Must the counties maintain fee for local use funds in an account separate from
county liquid fuel funds?
Yes.
A.
Q.
A.
How can counties use the funds?
Counties can use the funds for transportation purposes or allocate them to political
subdivisions within the county in accordance with Section 9010(c) of the Vehicle
Code, subject to constitutional limitations.
Q.
A.
What does Section 9010(c) of the Vehicle Code provide?
Section 9010(c) allows funds to be apportioned to political subdivisions within the
county through a formula based on road mileage and population.
Q.
Can counties distribute fee for local use funds to municipalities and other
governmental entities through an application process?
Yes, such a process is anticipated to be allowed under the guidelines as long as
the municipality or other governmental entity uses the funds for permitted
transportation purposes.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Can counties distribute fee for local use funds to non-profit corporations through
an application process?
Yes, such a process is anticipated to be allowed under the guidelines as long as the
non- profit corporation uses the funds for permitted transportation purposes, e.g. the
creation of highway and bridge planning studies.
What constitutional limitations apply to use of the funds?
Article 8, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution restricts the diversion of proceeds
from vehicle registration fees. Such funds may only be used for construction,
reconstruction, maintenance and repair of and safety on public highways and bridges and
costs and expenses incident thereto. Fee for local use funds consequently can
constitutionally only be used by counties, or political subdivisions within a county
if distributed by a county under Section 9010(c), for construction, reconstruction,
maintenance and repair of and safety on public highways and bridges and costs and
expenses incident thereto.
3
Q.
A.
Can the fee be used for transit purposes?
No. Transit is not a highway or bridge purpose within the confines of Article 8, Section
11.
Q.
A.
Are the uses for the fees limited to those in Section 9010(b) of the Vehicle Code
addressing allowable uses for county liquid fuel funds?
No. Although those uses would be constitutional uses, the phrase transportation purposes
used in Section 1935 reflects that other constitutional uses are also permissible. Further
information will be provided in the guidelines.
Q.
A.
Can the fee be used to meet match requirements in Department highway projects?
Yes, the Department expects to allow this use under the guidelines.
Q.
A.
Can the fee be used to meet match requirements in Department multimodal projects?
Yes, the Department expects to allow this use under the guidelines if distributed to
a municipality eligible for multimodal funding.
Q.
A.
Can the fee be used for the construction of sounds walls?
Yes in some instances. The Department expects to allow this use under the guidelines if
included in a highway project as a mitigation measure for environmental purposes and
all warrants are met. This would be consistent with the use of Motor License Funds for
such projects.
Q.
A.
Can the fee be used for trail projects?
Yes in some instances. The Department expects to allow this use under the guidelines for
the portions of trails that are located within highway right of way. This would be
consistent with the use of Motor License Funds for such projects.
Can the fee be used for right of way acquisition?
Yes in some instances. The Department expects to allow this use under the guidelines
when for a highway or bridge purpose. This would be consistent with the use of Motor
License Funds for right of way acquisition.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Can the fee be used as repayment for Pennsylvania Infrastructure Bank loans?
Yes.
Q.
A.
Can the fee be used as security for Pennsylvania Infrastructure Bank loans?
Yes.
Q.
A.
Will counties be subject to design requirements in relation to the funds?
Yes, tentatively similar to those applicable to county liquid fuels funds although the
provisions of Section 9010(b) do not explicitly apply.
Q.
A.
Will counties be subject to recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the funds?
4
Q.
A.
Will counties be subject to audit requirements in relation to the funds?
Q.
A.
Is there an interim contact person at the Department?
Yes, Deputy Secretary of Transportation James D. Ritzman at (717) 787-3154.
5
Non-Exempt Registered Vehicles by Owner County as of October 19, 2014
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Owner County
Adams
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Bedford
Berks
Blair
Bradford
Bucks
Butler
Cambria
Cameron
Carbon
Centre
Chester
Clarion
Clearfield
Clinton
Columbia
Crawford
Cumberland
Dauphin
Delaware
Elk
Erie
Fayette
Forest
Franklin
Fulton
Greene
Huntingdon
Indiana
Jefferson
Juniata
Approximate Non-Exempt
Registered Vehicles
117,055
930,844
80,018
162,162
63,537
383,519
123,690
71,052
579,117
212,494
138,321
5,364
68,490
116,515
447,733
41,704
84,540
39,976
68,539
86,871
234,289
257,558
398,911
36,702
226,653
144,022
6,417
164,979
19,524
39,340
49,536
87,048
50,029
28,645
Owner County
Lackawanna
Lancaster
Lawrence
Lebanon
Lehigh
Luzerne
Lycoming
McKean
Mercer
Mifflin
Monroe
Montgomery
Montour
Northampton
Northumberland
Perry
Philadelphia
Pike
Potter
Schuylkill
Snyder
Somerset
Sullivan
Susquehanna
Tioga
Union
Venango
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Westmoreland
Wyoming
York
Total
Approximate NonExempt Registered
Vehicles
175,405
488,647
87,990
135,123
300,776
282,198
125,038
41,782
108,033
46,913
155,042
682,053
19,897
280,817
98,216
56,044
694,983
58,135
20,342
148,884
42,977
86,233
8,052
47,531
49,156
39,178
56,134
43,297
211,435
60,128
349,279
33,976
449,239
11,048,127
Note 1. The registration counts exclude vehicles that are exempted from fees where this can be
identified by indicators on PennDOT’s vehicle database; those vehicles that can’t be identified are
not excluded. Vehicles are exempted by the following Sections of Title 75:
• Title 75 Section 1901(a), 1901(b) and 1901(c) – Exemption of persons, entities and vehicles
from fees.
• Title 75 Section 1302 – Vehicles exempt from registration.
• Title 75 Section 1335(c) - Registration plates for manufacturers and dealers.
(Refer to the specific Sections for all exemptions.)
See Attachment A below for a list of vehicles that can be identified.
Note 2. There is no way to determine all exempt vehicles from the vehicle data base; for example,
special organizations such as the boy scouts must re-certify each year that their vehicles are exempt.
Note 3. The registration counts represent the vehicles on the Department vehicle registration system
at a specific time (in this case October 19, 2014). This data changes daily as people purchase and sell
vehicles, and as they move from one address to another.
Attachment A
Vehicles Exempted from Fees Excluded from the
Registered Vehicles by County Report
Tag Type 23 - COMMONWEALTH COMMERCIAL
Tag Type 33 - COMMONWEALTH OF PA
Tag Type 21 - MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
Tag Type 22 - MUNICPAL GOVERNMENT MOTOTCYCLE / MOPED
Tag Type 25 - PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Tag Type H7 - TEMPLE UNIVERSITY FREE ISSUE
Tag Type H8 - PITTSBURGH UNIVERSITY FREE ISSUE
Tag Type H9 - LINCOLN UNIVERSITY FREE ISSUE
Tag Type 34 – MASS TRANSIT
Tag Type 13 – EMERGENCY VEHICLE and Fee Exempt Code beginning with ‘23’
Tag Type 82 - EMERGENCY VEHICLE / FREE
Tag Type 12 – DISABLED VETERAN and Disability Code 1 ($0) and registered gross weight
is not more than 9,000 pounds.
Tag Type E4 – SEVERELY DISABLED VETERAN and Disability Code 1 ($0) and registered
gross weight is not more than 9,000 pounds.
Tag Type 12 – DISABLED VETERAN and Disability Code 1 ($0) or Disability Code 2 ($10)
and registered gross weight is not more than 9,000 pounds.
Tag Type E4 – SEVERELY DISABLED VETERAN and Disability Code 1 ($0) or Disability
Code 2 ($10) and registered gross weight is not more than 9,000 pounds.
Tag Type 29 – PRISONER OF WAR and registered gross weight is not more than 9,000 pounds.
Tag Type U8 – CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR and registered gross weight is not
more than 9,000 pounds.
FEE FOR LOCAL USE FUND ESTIMATED REVENUE
County Option $5 Motor Vehicle Registration Fee
Act 89 of 2013
COUNTY
Adams
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Bedford
Berks
Blair
Bradford
Bucks
Butler
Cambria
Cameron
Carbon
Centre
Chester
Clarion
Clearfield
Clinton
Columbia
Crawford
Cumberland
Dauphin
Delaware
Elk
Erie
Fayette
Forest
Franklin
Fulton
Greene
Huntingdon
Indiana
Jefferson
Juniata
Lackawanna
Lancaster
Lawrence
Lebanon
Lehigh
Luzerne
Lycoming
McKean
Mercer
Mifflin
Monroe
Montgomery
Montour
Northampton
Northumberland
Perry
Philadelphia
Pike
Potter
Schuylkill
Snyder
Somerset
Sullivan
Susquehanna
Tioga
Union
Venango
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Westmoreland
Wyoming
York
Totals
REGISTRATIONS
116,989
943,189
80,706
163,631
63,855
386,995
124,503
71,883
581,282
211,836
140,190
5,441
69,484
118,906
447,497
42,248
85,406
40,406
69,250
87,633
234,483
291,988
401,714
37,214
229,770
145,530
6,542
164,700
19,490
39,528
49,329
89,197
50,490
28,567
177,863
487,791
88,950
135,524
302,028
288,159
125,439
42,638
109,192
47,112
155,707
684,687
19,971
282,362
99,118
56,334
702,919
58,399
20,705
150,801
42,913
87,345
8,180
48,002
49,734
39,459
56,691
43,785
211,470
60,654
352,463
34,347
448,467
11,159,081
$5 FEE ESTIMATE
584,945
4,715,945
403,530
818,155
319,275
1,934,975
622,515
359,415
2,906,410
1,059,180
700,950
27,205
347,420
594,530
2,237,485
211,240
427,030
202,030
346,250
438,165
1,172,415
1,459,940
2,008,570
186,070
1,148,850
727,650
32,710
823,500
97,450
197,640
246,645
445,985
252,450
142,835
889,315
2,438,955
444,750
677,620
1,510,140
1,440,795
627,195
213,190
545,960
235,560
778,535
3,423,435
99,855
1,411,810
495,590
281,670
3,514,595
291,995
103,525
754,005
214,565
436,725
40,900
240,010
248,670
197,295
283,455
218,925
1,057,350
303,270
1,762,315
171,735
2,242,335
55,795,405
2013 Registration Data Source: PennDOT Bureau of Motor Vehicles
http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms/stats/ReportofRegistration2013.pdf
CCAP 10-8-14
2014 Planning Partners’ Meeting
October 27 – 29, 2014
The Atherton Hotel
State College, PA
Day 1
Monday, October 27, 2014
1:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.
PennDOT District Session (by invitation)
Regency A
1:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.
MPO/RPO Session (by invitation)
Mr. Chris Allison, Transportation Planner, Cambria County Planning
Commission
Mr. Matthew Stewart, Senior Planner, Mercer County Regional Planning
Commission
Regency B
1:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.
Coffee Service
Located outside the back doors of the Regency Ballroom
3:00 p.m.
Hotel Room Check-in Begins
1:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.
Registration
Located at the side entrance to the Regency Ballroom
5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
Reception
Upper Lobby
7:00 p.m.
Dinner on Your Own
Day 2
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
6:45 a.m. – 8:00 a.m.
Breakfast
Upper Lobby
7:00 a.m.
Registration Continues
8:00 a.m. – 11:45 a.m.
General Session
Regency A and B
8:00 a.m. – 8:15 a.m.
Deputy Secretary Remarks
Mr. James D. Ritzman, P.E., Deputy Secretary for Planning
1|Page
8:15 a.m. – 8:45 a.m.
PA Long Range Transportation and Comprehensive Freight Movement
Plan
Mr. Brian D. Hare, P.E., Division Manager, Center for Program
Development and Management
Mr. Brian D. Wall, Transportation Planning Specialist Supervisor, Center
for Program Development and Management
8:45 a.m. – 9:15 a.m.
STIP Approval Findings
Mr. Matt Smoker, Transportation Planning Program Manager, FHWAPA Division
Mr. Keith Lynch, Director of Program Development, FHWA-PA Division
9:15 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
Breakout Sessions (Select One)
1.
Innovative Public Involvement Techniques for Long Range
Transportation Plans-The Williamsport MPO Experience
Regency A
Mr. Mark Murawski, Transportation Planner, Lycoming County
Planning Commission
2.
Corridor Modernization Update /Green Light Go
Regency B
Mr. Doug Tomlinson, P.E., Division Chief, Bureau of
Maintenance and Operations
3.
SHRP2 Program
Executive Boardroom
Mr. Sean Oldfield, Transportation Planning Specialist, Bureau of
Planning and Research
Ms. Selena Griffett, P.E., Project Development Engineer, Bureau
of Project Delivery
10:00 a.m. – 10:15 a.m.
AM Break
10:15 a.m. – 10:45 a.m.
P3 Projects
Mr. Dale Witmer, Deputy Director, Public-Private Partnerships Office
10:45 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
Safety Update
Mr. Glenn Rowe, P.E., Division Chief, Bureau of Maintenance and
Operations
11:00 a.m. – 11:15 a.m.
Local Bridge Bundling
Mr. Justin Bruner, P.E., Acting Bridge Asset Management Section Chief,
Bureau of Maintenance and Operations
2|Page
11:15 a.m. –11:45 a.m.
State Transportation Innovation Council (STIC)
Ms. Kenita Honesty, Transportation Planning Manager, Bureau of
11:45 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Lunch Buffet
Upper Lobby
1:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.
General Session Continues
Regency A and B
1:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Planning Catalyst Team
Mr. Brian Hare, P.E., Division Chief, Center for Program Development
and Management
1:30 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.
SharePoint Q and A
Ms. Kenita Honesty, Transportation Planning Manager, Bureau of
2:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.
Services for Local Governments
Ms. Kristen Sims, C.P.A., Audit Manager, Center for Program
2:30 p.m. – 2:45 p.m.
PM Break
2:45 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.
Breakout Sessions (Select One)
1. Discussion on Programming Local Bridge Removals
Regency A
Mr. T. Jay Cunningham, P.E., ADE for Design, District 3-0
Mr. Lloyd Ayres, P.E., Bridge Engineer, District 3-0
Mr. Mike Mausteller, P.E., Portfolio Engineer, District 3-0
2. Bridges, A System Approach
Regency B
Mr. Mark Bredl, P.E., Assistant District Bridge Engineer, District 1-0
3. Autonomous Vehicles
Executive Boardroom
Mr. Allen Biehler, P.E., Carnegie Mellon University
3:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Capital Planning Tool – Tracking Capital Assets and Transit Planning
Ms. Michelle Tarquino, Transportation Planning Specialist, Bureau of Public Transit
4:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.
Air Sage – Traffic Data
Mr. Scott Thompson-Graves, P.E., P.T.O.E., Vice President, Whitman, Requardt &
Associates, LLP
3|Page
4:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Optional Session on MPMS IQ Enhancements
Mr. John Parker, Transportation Planning Manager, Center for Program
4:30 p.m.
Dinner on Your Own
Day 3
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
6:45 a.m. – 8:00 a.m.
Breakfast
Upper Lobby
7:00 a.m.
Registration Continues
8:00 a.m. – 12:45 p.m.
General Session Begins
Regency A and B
8:00 a.m. – 8:05 a.m.
8:05 a.m. – 8:30 a.m.
MPO/RPO Caucus Meeting Summary
Mr. Chris Allison, Transportation Planner, Cambria County Planning
Commission
Mr. Matthew Stewart, Senior Planner, Mercer County Regional Planning
Commission
8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.
FHWA Update
Ms. Renee Sigel, Division Administrator, FHWA
9:00 a.m. – 9:30 a.m.
Twelve Year Program—Planning and Public Outreach
Ms. Jessica Clark, Transportation Planning Manager, Center for Program
Ms. Leanne Doran, McCormick Taylor
Commissioner George Khoury, P.E., State Transportation Commission
9:30 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
Multimodal Program
Mr. Toby Fauver, AICP
Deputy Secretary for Multimodal Transportation
10:00 a.m. – 10:15 a.m.
AM Break
4|Page
10:15 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.
Deputy Secretaries Round Table
Mr. James D. Ritzman, P.E.
Deputy Secretary for Planning
Mr. Scott Christie, P.E.
Deputy Secretary for Highway Administration
Mr. Toby Fauver, AICP
Deputy Secretary for Multimodal Transportation
Mr. Kurt Myers
Deputy Secretary for Driver and Vehicle Services
Mr. Brad Mallory
Executive Deputy Secretary for Administration
11:30 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.
Secretary Remarks
Honorable Barry J. Schoch, P.E., Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation
12:15 p.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Map 21 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
12:30 p.m. – 12:45 p.m.
Lunch Buffet Following Closing Remarks
Upper Lobby
5|Page
PHILADELPHIA: Uber gets OK for much of Pennsylvania, not Philly | Technology New... Page 1 of 3
CentreDaily.com
Previous Story
Next Story
Uber gets OK for much of Pennsylvania, not
Philly
By MARYCLAIRE DALE
Associated PressNovember 13, 2014
FacebookTwitterGoogle PlusRedditE-mailPrint
Drivers with the Taxi Workers Alliance of Pennsylvania protest on near Love Park
in Philadelphia Oct. 8, 2014, as Uber and Lyft are making a concerted push to
bring their ride-share services to Philadelphia. The state's Public Utility
Commission is expected to vote Thursday Nov. 13, 2014 on Uber X's application
to operate in many other parts of Pennsylvania.
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, TOM GRALISH — AP Photo
PHILADELPHIA — The ride-sharing service Uber X won an experimental license Thursday to arrange
private rides throughout much of Pennsylvania, a victory that came with a warning "to abandon its
anarchist ways" and comply with state regulators.
The state's Public Utility Commission said the taxi industry needed innovation, but it called Uber X's twoyear license a "last chance" for the company — which once defied an agency cease-and-desist order —
to cooperate.
"Innovation alone is no excuse for ignoring the law, any more than a new and innovative way to rob banks
should be encouraged and condoned," said PUC board member John H. Cawley, who reluctantly voted
yes.
http://www.centredaily.com/2014/11/13/4455193_uber-x-seeks-approval-for-non.html?sp... 11/19/2014
PHILADELPHIA: Uber gets OK for much of Pennsylvania, not Philly | Technology New... Page 2 of 3
The 4-1 vote will allow the smartphone app-based service to provide cars in the Pittsburgh area and
across much of the state, but not in Philadelphia, where the city's oft-feared parking authority regulates
taxis.
The Philadelphia Parking Authority has been sparring with Uber X drivers, impounding cars and issuing
$1,000 fines. The agency considers them unlicensed cabbies because they do not have taxi medallions,
which can run as much as a half-million dollars.
Uber has muscled its way onto taxicabs' turf across the country, sparking similar controversies in Las
Vegas, Chicago and Miami as regulators try to decide how, or if, the company should operate. The taxi
industry, meanwhile, has fought back to try to protect its drivers' livelihoods. Critics have complained that
Uber is skirting safety, insurance, pricing and other regulations.
"The rules and regulations out there, they were built decades ago," Uber X spokesman Taylor Bennett
said this week. "We've been trying to craft new regulations that actually apply to this business model, that
welcome more choice into the city, and give people opportunities to start their own companies."
The company started about four years ago in San Francisco and now operates in 230 cities worldwide. In
Nevada, Uber X has faced fierce opposition from the state's huge taxi industry, and some cars were
impounded in state stings. A judge last month, though, refused the state attorney general's attempt to
shut down the service.
The Pennsylvania license covers everywhere but Philadelphia and a few counties excluded from Uber's
application: Beaver, Clinton, Columbia, Crawford, Lawrence, Lycoming, Mercer, Northumberland and
Union.
Bennett said the company hopes to work with Pennsylvania lawmakers and regulators "to get the details
right" and continue to offer ridesharing.
Riders use Uber's smartphone app to seek out independent drivers using their own cars. Uber does not
own the vehicles or employ the drivers but instead "partners" with them and takes 20 percent of their
earnings.
The Uber X service started in Philadelphia in recent weeks despite failed talks to win approval from
Fenerty's agency. Uber has been paying the drivers' fines, Bennett said.
"Uber has no license to be here. They're operating as hack cabs," parking authority director Vincent
Fenerty said Wednesday. "If the Legislature changed the law, where people could ride-share, and set the
proper guidelines ... the PPA would abide by (that)."
The cheaper Uber X service is a recent addition to the company's array of services. "Uber Black" and
"Uber SUV" drivers have been operating legally with limousine licenses for about two years in
Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and elsewhere.
"Let me put it in plain English, Uber," Cawley said. "This is your last chance with this commission ... to
abandon its anarchist ways and to finally become a responsible, lawful corporate citizen."
FacebookTwitterGoogle PlusRedditE-mailPrint
Join The Conversation
Centre Daily Times is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and
observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or
in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain
http://www.centredaily.com/2014/11/13/4455193_uber-x-seeks-approval-for-non.html?sp... 11/19/2014

Recommendation: If acceptable, approve the minutes of - Seda-Cog

Transcription

Similar documents

Blue Mountain Ski Resort, Palmerton, PA Sunday August 21st

Fender PD250 Speaker System Set-Instructions

lf you`re fqking rhis drug, don`t eql fhot

Let SeNKO heLp yOu gO GREEN

Untitled

GAMES ON DEMAND EDMuND METhENy

The Executive Summary

UTA Rideshare Program - Mountainland Association of Governments

Ski Rigging Instructions