Building liveable cities for NC’s future.
News Archives
ltColExample
Our Mission
To promote strategies to advance North Carolina’s urban centers.

CITIES IN OUR COALITION

Archive for the ‘Transportation’ Category

State Budget Discussions and Equity 6.28.10

Monday, June 28th, 2010

The House and Senate came to an agreement on the budget over the weekend (see article link below). While the final language has not yet been released, I am hearing that the Mobility Fund was included in the budget, but without the supplemental Powell Bill and Interstate Maintenance money. While just rumor at this point, I will send you the final language when released later today or tomorrow.

The rumored plan is to vote on the bill Tuesday and Wednesday and send to the Governor for her signature before the end of the fiscal year.

Discussions of changing the equity formula became a part of the budget negotiations. Senator Nesbitt of Buncombe County advocated that they include an exemption to the state’s transportation equity formula in the budget for the Appalachian Development Highway System federal monies. (See how the exemption would affect your highway division here.)  The monies date back to 1965 when Congress designated the federal funds to be spent on the Appalachian Highway System. But, because the monies are required by state law to flow through the equity formula, they are, in effect, spent across the State. Here is an excerpt from an Asheville Citizen Times article on the issue:
“More than $30 million a year is earmarked for the highway system…but the money is going unused because of the way state and federal legislators hand it out. North Carolina law doesn’t allow spending in a region to tilt the formula for spreading road money equitably across the state. So for every dollar that highways like U.S. 74 receive in Appalachian Development Highway System funds, the far-western region has to give up 96 cents in other road funding. That’s because of how the General Assembly wrote the formula and because Congress doesn’t provide extra money for the mountain highways; it simply sets aside for them a slice of the money North Carolina would normally get to build all state highways.” (Asheville Citizen Times, 9/29/09)

The Appalachian Development Highway System monies, if exempted from the State Transportation Equity Formula, will be spent only in Graham, Cherokee, and Clay counties in highway division 14.  The total new monies that will be taken from all the other highway divisions and spent in division 14 over a seven year period represent a 75% increase in federal construction highway dollars for division 14.  (according to the table above provided by NCDOT)

Additionally, Rep. Hugh Holliman of Davidson County advocated that the first phase of the Yadkin River Bridge project be exempted from the formula. (Phase I is the actual bridge, while Phase II is to widen I-85 north of the bridge included as the first Mobility Fund project.)

There are rumors that the Appalachian Development Highway System funds were exempted from the equity formula in the budget bill. I am told there was much discussion around the issue, and the argument was successfully made that the urban areas had the loop money exempted, so this was in balance to that. I have not heard at this point whether any other changes were made to the equity formula.

As many of you have pointed out to me, the argument that the Appalachian Development Highway System funds were directed by Congress to be spent on the Appalachian Highway, the Surface Transportation Program/Direct Attributable (STP/STP-DA) federal monies are directed by Congress to be spent by metropolitan planning areas containing urbanized areas over 200,000 population. But, like the Appalachian Development Highway System monies, the STP-DA monies flow through the State’s transportation equity formula, and are therefore spent statewide. The metropolitan planning areas containing urbanized areas over 200,00 include Asheville, Fayetteville, Greensboro, Charlotte, Raleigh, Durham, and Winston-Salem (and their MPO member cities, for example, in Raleigh this includes the Capital Area MPO with cities such as Franklinton and Creedmoor).

Democratic Leaders Reach Tentative Agreement On State Budget
http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=144333&catid=57

NC Mobility Fund Update 6.15.10

Tuesday, June 15th, 2010

We are now at the conference committee stage of the budget process. This is when the Chambers negotiate the differences between their two budgets. As you know, the House included the Mobility Fund in their budget, but the Senate did not. Below is a list of both the Appropriations co chairs and the transportation conferees. If you have a representative on this list please call them and ask them to include the Mobility Fund in the final budget and two add two of the Governor’s provisions to the Fund – supplemental Powell Bill monies and dedicated Interstate Maintenance funds.

We believe that dedicating 6.5 percent of the Mobility Fund to new additional Powell Bill revenues is critical to its overall support and success. Including the Powell Bill supplement ensures that every community across North Carolina receives some of these new transportation dollars.

We are also asking the conferees to dedicate $30 million dollars of the Mobility Fund to interstate maintenance. According to a June 2nd article in Stateline, “Letting a road deteriorate from excellent condition to fair condition makes it three times as costly to fix.” We need to be smart about investing in our roads at a time when bids are at historical lows. Additionally, having Mobility Funds spent on our interstates will free up equity fund dollars traditionally spent on interstate maintenance to be spent elsewhere in a highway division.

Transportation Conferees:
Senate: Goss, Graham, Jenkins, Shaw, Stein
House: Cole, Martin, Coates, Gill, Heagarty, May, Parfitt, Williams, Dockham

Appropriations Chairs:
Senior Chairman Rep. Michaux
Chairman Rep. Adams
Chairman Rep. M. Alexander
Chairman Rep. Crawford
Chairman Rep. Haire
Chairman Rep. Jeffus
Chairman Rep. Tolson
Chairman Rep. Yongue
Co-Chairman Sen. Charles W. Albertson
Co-Chairman Sen. Linda Garrou
Co-Chairman Sen. A. B Swindell
Co-Chairman Sen. Charlie S. Dannelly

Mobility Fund Comparison-Governor/Senate/House

Monday, June 7th, 2010

As we enter the final state budget negotiations I have created a chart to outline the different provisions of the Mobility Fund as proposed by the Governor, the Senate, and the House.  I have also done a letter you can send to your delegation encouraging them to include the Powell Bill Supplement, dedicated Interstate Maintenance funds, and an end to the transfer from the Highway Trust Fund to the General Fund. Lastly, if your city council and/or you MPO has not passed a resolution in support of the Mobility Fund we have one of those as well.

NC Board of Transportation Meeting 6.3.10 (Summary by Jim Humphrey, CDOT)

Monday, June 7th, 2010

NC Board of Transportation Meeting 6.3.10 (Summary by Jim Humphrey, CDOT)

Secretary’s Remarks- Jim Trogden spoke of Mobility Funds, response to a Amtrak Train derailment in Mebane, expansion of mid-day train service between Raleigh and Charlotte, award of the contract for I-485 and the public event in Charlotte, more work to integrate NCTA into NCDOT (including plans to physically move them to NCDOT offices) and several other topics.

Legislative Update- Johanna Reese discussed the status of the Mobility Fund (same info which Julie White sent). All of NCDOT’s agency bills seem to be progressing nicely. Nina indicated she had heard some concern regarding a bill that would regulate bicycling on highways. She indicated the controversial part of the bill relates to a requirement that bicyclist move to single file “quickly” when a car approaches. It also does not allow bicyclist to ride more than 2 abreast. The bill number was not provided.

Transportation Intergovernmental Advisory Group- Jim Westmoreland provided an update regarding work which I think you are familiar with. Several subgroups have been formed to look at communication and education with local officials, future transportation funding strategy (reauthorization), reduce land use and transportation impacts (schools), census impact on MPO/RPO boundaries and coordination of TIGER II grants.

Art and Aesthetics on State Projects- Don Lee indicated a new policy was being developed. Art is typically free standing or on a structure. A DOT committee has been formed to develop the guidelines. There will likely be a submittal package required and a sponsor in local government or a local entity for any art structure. This will include a maintenance agreement. The draft guidelines will be published in June or July and distributed to an external advisory committee which will likely include local government officials.

Noise Barrier Aesthetics Update- Greg Smith provided an update. It appears that DOT is headed toward developing 3 or 4 types of wall finishes and 3 or 4 colors that can be selected during public involvement. They do plan to treat both sides of walls (which residents and business on the outside of the wall will appreciate) and plan to use more concrete columns/pillars and horizontal coping. Some on the board expressed concern over added cost compared to current practice. Greg assured them that the added cost was relatively small (about 5-10%). They had a good discussion regarding how noise walls affect the image of cities and the topic of gateways. Some on the board said if a city/town wanted something more than the standard wall, they would have to pay the cost. I did have a private discussion with Greg after the presentation and reinforced the need for flexibility particularly on gateway projects. I also suggested an advisory committee including local government be asked to review whatever is ultimately proposed. Another idea is to run the proposal thru the Complete Streets Committee. Greg seemed to appreciate my comments and I feel he will run whatever is proposed thru local folks at some time.

Ecosystem Enhancement Program- Bill Gilmore presented information regarding an interim budget. 84% of funds are geared toward restoration of wetlands..

I-95 Planning and Funding Report- Roberto Gonzales discussed the history and current status. The key aspect is work regarding potential tolling. They have found if tolling were implemented only at state borders, revenues would equal only 10% ($25m) of revenues that would be collected if the road were tolled thru-out the state ($250m). If tolls were implemented only at the borders, they could build about 1 mile of improvements per year. They are looking at tolling options that include all lanes and only new lanes. Another interesting aspect of the study is that they are working with FHWA to answer the question of how far from the toll road itself might money from tolls be spent to mitigate impacts of traffic that will divert from the interstate. The NCDOT continues to work with neighboring states, hold public input and expects to issue further results of their study later this year/early next year.

Work Program including STIP- Jim Trogden asked that this subject be delayed until next meeting. He said they had not been able to discuss loop schedules with affected areas.

Cash Model- Mark Foster presented info on a cash model which NCDOT utilizes to manage/optimize funds. Interestingly, NCDOT is the only state agency allowed to cash flow their business (SB 1005).

Data Integration Model- Victor Barbour provided information on an internal project begun in 2008 and finished in 2010 to integrate data previously contained in separate divisions. Although the info is used in many ways, one use is to allow managers (primarily) and employees to monitor their success in meeting performance targets. He showed a map of the state with counties shown in different colors indicating those above and below goals for crash rates. He also indicated how the same data may be obtained in graphical and tabular forms. You may wish to have your performance monitoring and IT folks call Victor to arrange a demonstration.

Low Impact Bridges- Lacy Love presented info on the NCDOT’s work to accelerate replacement/repair of bridges. They have done a lot of work with partner agencies to develop check lists for environmental screening, developed standard bridge plans and make sure scope creep does not occur to enable them to replace bridges in as little as 1 year. Bridge replacements that qualify are very simple and minimize damage to the environment (for instance, no detour bridge on site).

Next Meeting in Kinston- The board decided to have their next meeting in Kinston. They feel having the meeting in eastern NC will permit them to see important projects in that part of the state and talk to local officials. My impression is that most meetings will continue to be in Raleigh…and that they will occasionally travel east and west.

I hope this info is beneficial. If you have questions feel free to email me or call me at 704-351-5850.

Jim Humphrey

SB1136: Regulate Towing in Cities Alert

Friday, June 4th, 2010

SB1136: AN ACT TO STRENGTHEN THE REGULATION OF THE TOWING OF VEHICLES FROM PRIVATE LOTS IN CERTAIN COUNTIES AND CITIES, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE TRANSPORTATION OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.

The City of Charlotte has contacted Sen. Rucho, the bill sponsor, with concerns about this bill. See text of letter below. And suggested addition to the bill.

Senator Rucho,

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss SB 1136 earlier this week. As we discussed the City is concerned that the language in section (a2) of SB 1136 would prohibit the City from setting tow rates. The City has set these rates since 2003 in response to incidents where vehicle owners were charged exorbitant rates to get their vehicles back.

Attached you will find language suggested by the Police Department for the City to maintain the privilege to set the two rates. The language also clarifies that provisions of the City ordinance that may in the future be in conflict with the statute can be maintained and modified on a periodic basis.

I will stop by your office on Tuesday to discuss further. If in the meantime, you have any questions please call me at my office at 704.336.2009 or on my cell phone at 704.408.7393.

Thank you and have a good weekend.

Dana Fenton

(d) This section is not intended to preempt the ability of a city or county mentioned above to regulate by ordinance for the removal of unauthorized vehicles from private lots or for the establishment of a reasonable towing fee for services rendered.

Mobility Fund Update 5.3.2010

Thursday, June 3rd, 2010

The House Budget Bill does include the Mobility Fund. Below is a summary of what is in the Mobility Fund, and what is not.

Funds going into the Mobility Fund:
$39 million in GAP funds that are likely to be unspent FY 2009-10
$31 million from Highway Trust Fund transfer to the General Fund in FY2011-12
$45 million from Highway Trust Fund transfer to the General Fund in FY2012-13
$45 million from Highway Trust Fund transfer to the General Fund in FY2013-14 (and for future years)

This leaves $25.5 million to be transferred from the HTF to the GF for future years and $18 million transferred from the Highway Fund to the General Fund for future years. (It is the Governor and NCDOT’s desire to have the remaining funds currently transferred from the HTF and HF to the GF deposited into the Mobility Fund.)

The YRB project will consume all the Mobility Fund dollars until mid FY2013-14. The bill has a stakeholder process to develop the project prioritization process for future Fund projects. The bill also gives preferential consideration to projects qualified to receive state grants from the Congestion Relief and Intermodal Transportation Fund.

The Governor’s provision to allocate 6.5% of the Mobility Fund each year to Powell Bill is not in the House bill. Neither is the dedicated $30 million each year for Interstate Maintenance.

The budget bill next goes to conference committee where the House and Senate negotiate a final compromise bill. The Mobility Fund was not in the Senate Budget, so the issue is in contention and may or may not be in the final compromise budget bill.  The Governor, NCDOT, the League, and the Metro Mayors are also working to try to get the Powell Bill and Interstate Maintenance provisions into the budget bill during the conference process.

Mobility Fund Update 6.2.2010

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010

The House Appropriations Committee debated and voted on the budget today. Next stop, the floor of the House tomorrow morning at 10 AM for debate and first vote. They will vote a second time after midnight.  (Each bill needs two floor votes and the budget bill requires those votes to be on two separate days, which is why they will vote again after midnight.)

The Mobility Fund was included in the House budget with enough money to do the I 85 widening at the Yadkin River Bridge. While the leadership was not amenable to including the expansion of Powell Bill funds nor the dedicated money for Interstate maintenance, we were able to add the stakeholder process back in.

If the Mobility Fund remains in the budget after the full House votes tomorrow it will be eligible for debate in the conference committee where the House and Senate resolve their differences.

You can see the amendments to SB897 (the House version of the budget not reflecting amendments made in Appropriations today) by clicking here.

Mobility Fund Update 6.1.10

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

The House has included a Mobility Fund in their budget at this time. The budget bill (both the money report and the bill) is posted on line at http://www.ncleg.net/sessions/2009/budget/2010/S897-CSLRxf-40.pdf and http://www.ncleg.net/sessions/2009/budget/2010/budgetreport06-01-10.pdf. You can search on the term “Mobility” to find the language.

The House has written a new version of the Fund and it is substantially different from the Governor’s version.

1. The Governor’s proposal included new additional Powell Bill funds for cities; the House version does not.
2. The Governor’s proposal included new dedicated funds for Interstate maintenance; the House version does not.
3. The Governor’s proposal included a stakeholder process for designing the criteria for project selection; the House version does not.
4. The Governor’s proposal (after funding the Yakin River Bridge) included funds for future projects(DMV fee increases and a phase out of the transfers from the Highway Fund and Highway Trust Fund); the House version does not.

What does this mean and where are we?

The good news is that the House is creating a Mobility Fund. The bad news- its sole funded purpose at this time is the Yadkin River Bridge. If all goes as scheduled, the House Finance Committee will be voting on the bill at 4pm today, the House Appropriations Committee will be voting on the bill at 9 am tomorrow, and then to the House floor for votes later this week.

Please keep talking to your legislators about the importance of the Fund and the need to include it in the Budget bill. Ask them to include the Governor’s stakeholder process in the bill so your community can have a voice in the prioritization process.

There were news articles and editorials over the weekend in support of the fund you can read on the Metro Mayors Daily Clips page.

Update on NC Mobility Fund 5.26.10

Wednesday, May 26th, 2010

Update on NC Mobility Fund 5.26.10

The Governor has been working hard on the Mobility Fund. She kicked off the week Monday by hosting a press conference with mayors to encourage the House to include the Fund in their budget. She had a sit down with key House members yesterday and they were able to reach agreement. Word is spreading that the Mobility Fund will be included in the House budget. It will receive $22 million of the funds currently transferred from the Highway Trust Fund to the General Fund, GAP funds the NCDOT will not spend this year, and allow NC DOT to start their prioritization process. There will not be any of the proposed DMV fee increases. The first project will be the Yadkin River Bridge. I am hearing there will not be any additional funds or projects until NC DOT has finished their prioritization process and receives the blessing of the General Assembly.

Thank you for your resolutions in support of the Fund, your comments to the House budget website, and your calls to delegation members. Keep them coming!!! As soon as there is ink on a page to create the Fund I will alert you. In the meantime, please call your House delegation and thank them for recognizing the importance of creating the Mobility Fund this year. We want to keep talking to the members about the importance of the Fund to ensure it does not hit any snags between now and the final vote in the House.

After the House vote next week we are only half way there. After the House passes their version of the budget the work of the conference committee begins. The conference committee is charged with ironing out differences between the House and Senate budgets. Since the Senate did not include the Fund in their version of the budget we will have to encourage the Senate to agree with the House on this provision.

Stay tuned for updates.

Mobility Fund Update 5.24.10

Tuesday, May 25th, 2010

While the Governor and mayors held a press conference in support of the NC Mobility Fund just hours before, the House leadership just announced they do not plan include the Fund in their budget.

We are asking that you register your support for the NC Mobility Fund by sending your comments to the NC House via the website they have created to hear from you. Click here to complete the form and note that you support the House including the NC Mobility Fund in their budget.

We need to encourage as many people as possible to register their support of the Fund through the House’s website. Please ask all your council members, staff, family, neighbors, and friends to go to the website and ask the House to include the Mobility Fund in the budget.

Here are the talking points:

Need: North Carolina needs additional transportation resources that focus on mobility projects of statewide significance.

Solution: The Mobility Fund needs to be created this year, even if only with limited funding. Let’s get the Fund started.

Project Selection: The first project should be the Yadkin River Bridge. While the bridge is being built NCDOT can lead a prioritization process much like they have done over the last year for highway projects. We have confidence in NCDOT to partner with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure a data driven process that will target the Mobility Fund resources at projects of statewide significance that affect mobility.

Risk: Don’t just fix the Yadkin River Bridge without creating the Mobility Fund. Create the Fund and designate the Bridge as the first project.

The website is only accepting comments through tomorrow, so register your thoughts quickly.

215 north Dawson Street • raleigh, nc 27603 • phone 919.715.7895 •  fax 919.301.1098