Franklin County
2045 Long-Range Transportation Plan

Chairman's Message

The adoption of our county’s latest long-range transportation plan comes at a time of tremendous change.

The passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, or BIL, in November 2021 injected an additional $13 billion over the law’s five-year life into Pennsylvania transportation. Of that amount, $14.59 million was dedicated to Franklin County, which allowed us to add 15 previously deferred projects to our transportation construction program.

Nevertheless, challenges remain. Although there are millions available in new federal dollars through formula and discretionary programs, local governments are struggling to raise the local match required to secure new federal funds. Soaring inflation is diminishing our buying power. Franklin County’s population continues to surge— numbers from the 2020 U.S. Census reveal that the county registered its 23rd consecutive decennial population increase since its founding in 1784. This translates to growing demand for transportation infrastructure and services, and is reflected in changes to our landscape, as warehousing, distribution, and intermodal centers consume our farms and open spaces.

As we look ahead, we can expect to grapple with the economic and transportation changes that were wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath. The following influences are expected to change how we plan for the county’s future:

  • Federal performance-based planning and programming requirements;
  • Shifting approaches and technologies related to transportation asset management;
  • Increased focus on resiliency of the transportation system relative to weather-related events;
  • Expansion of mobility options, including deployment of new technology and changes in land-use patterns;
  • The imperative to address the needs of both our urban and rural communities; and
  • Challenges in generating local matching funds to secure the new federal funding being made available through IIJA/BIL.

This document, our latest long-range transportation plan, provides us with a framework for addressing these challenges to ensure that our transportation system remains a strategic asset for our county’s continued mobility and economic vitality. I invite your review of the plan and ask you to join us as we work together to ensure we maintain a dependable and sustainable transportation system for Franklin County.

Photograph of FCMPO Chairman Samuel Cressler

Samuel Cressler | Chairman
Franklin County Metropolitan Planning Organization

Geographic Position


  • Located in South Central Pennsylvania, Franklin County is 772 square miles in size and features a largely rural landscape. It is situated on Pennsylvania’s southern border: the Mason-Dixon line marks its boundary with Washington County in Maryland (Figure 1).
  • The county is located within Pennsylvania’s Ridge-and-Valley region, distinctive for its fertile farmland and thin-soil landscape. During the early part of the nation’s history, the “Great Valley” served as a major travel corridor from the East Coast to the nation’s interior. Today, it serves as a conduit for highways such as US 11 and Interstate 81.
  • The county’s most populous municipality is Chambersburg Borough, which had 21,903 residents as of the 2020 U.S. Census. Other urban centers include Greencastle, Waynesboro, and Shippensburg, which straddles the county’s border with neighboring Cumberland County.
  • Franklin County includes the Chambersburg-Waynesboro Micropolitan Statistical Area, one of 20 such regions in Pennsylvania. It borders two surrounding Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), those of the Hagerstown-Martinsburg MSA and the Harrisburg-Carlisle MSA.
  • Franklin County is considered part of the Northeast Megalopolis, a geographical area defined by the Regional Plan Association indicating a large scale of regional economies, shared natural resources, interconnected transportation systems, and densely developed urban populations stretching from Boston, MA, to Richmond, VA.
  • The county is adjacent to the federally designated Appalachian Region, which includes surrounding counties such as Fulton and Perry. The county’s western border with Fulton County features a 1,500-foot-high escarpment (long cliff) which has historically been a barrier to east-west transportation.
  • The center of the county is located within a 90-minute drive of jobs and attractions in suburban Baltimore and Washington, D.C.
  • The county’s strategic position within major market areas and along the Interstate 81 corridor make it an attractive location for warehousing and distribution centers.

Figure 1: Franklin County's Geographic Position

Franklin County Transportation Timeline

Cumberland Valley Railroad (CVRR) incorporated

CVRR reaches Chambersburg

First segments constructed of US 30/Lincoln Highway—the first transcontinental highway in the U.S.

PA Turnpike opens

First segments of I-81 constructed

Franklin County’s population exceeds 100,000

Conrail donates former rail corridor to Cumberland Valley Rails-to-Trails Council

BicyclePA Route S designated

Daily vehicle-miles traveled (DVMT) exceeds 4 million for the first time

I-81 Exit 17 constructed

CSX opens intermodal yard in Chambersburg

Franklin County Metropolitan Planning Organization designated

Norfolk Southern opens intermodal yard in Greencastle

I-81 Exit 12 interchange slated to open

LRTP Purpose

What is an LRTP?

The long-range transportation plan (LRTP) establishes goals and potential projects to improve the transportation system in Franklin County, consistent with the county’s overall vision. The LRTP considers a 25-year planning horizon and provides a framework for making transportation decisions that will support the county’s desired future.

Specifically, the LRTP inventories and assesses the county’s current land use, transportation patterns, and the operations of all transportation modes. The LRTP identifies needed improvements to the multimodal transportation system—highway/bridge, rail, air, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities—to facilitate a desired long-term outcome.

The LRTP is guided by the Franklin County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and serves several key functions, including:

  • Serving as the transportation element of the Franklin County Comprehensive Plan;
  • Guiding the MPO’s decisions on project prioritization for the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP);
  • Advising the county’s 22 municipalities on local and regional planning decisions that impact transportation;
  • Fulfilling federal and state transportation laws and regulations; and
  • Reflecting the needs and priorities of Franklin County’s residents, visitors, and businesses.

What is an MPO?

A metropolitan planning organization (MPO) is a transportation policy-making body comprised of representatives of local government and transportation agencies that own, operate, and fund transportation infrastructure. Federal law requires the formation of an MPO in any urbanized area with a population greater than 50,000; Franklin County became an MPO due to population growth reflected in the 2010 U.S. Census. MPOs ensure that decisions and spending on transportation projects and programs are based on a “continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative” (3C) planning process that reflects the needs and priorities of the county. MPOs administer federal and state funding for transportation projects and programs, consistent with the approved LRTP.

Why Develop an LRTP for Franklin County?

Developing and regularly updating an LRTP is a prerequisite to receiving federal transportation funding. Further, it helps ensure that transportation investment decisions are made strategically and considered in light of their long-term effect on the county.

Transportation decisions profoundly shape the county’s direction and growth. An LRTP helps determine what improvements are needed to guide the county in a cohesive, agreed-upon direction for the future. Without this solid direction, growth would occur in an unplanned and incremental manner, likely to the detriment of what makes Franklin County a great place in which to live, work, or visit.

What are the MPO's responsibilities?

The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is the official transportation planning organization for Franklin County recognized by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Federal law and regulations establish five core functions of an MPO. The Secretary of Transportation on behalf of the Governor of Pennsylvania designated Franklin County as an MPO on March 27, 2013. The MPO succeeded the Franklin County Rural Planning Organization (RPO), which was established in May 2009.


  • Prepare and maintain a Long-Range Transportation Plan considering a period of at least 20 years.
  • Establish and manage a fair and impartial setting for effective regional decision-making in the transportation planning area.
  • Identify and evaluate alternative transportation improvement options by using data and planning methods to generate and evaluate alternatives.
  • Develop a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)—a short-range (four-year) program of transportation improvements based on the LRTP.
  • Involve the general public and all significantly affected sub-groups residing in Franklin County in the four core functions listed previously


The implementation of the Franklin County Long-Range Transportation Plan will be guided by several overarching principles that provide a framework for plan implementation. The topic areas are listed below and directly mirror the policy ideas that were used to gauge public opinion through the MPO’s surveys:

  • Safety
  • Traffic Operations
  • Bicycle and Pedestrian Accomodation
  • Environmental
  • Economic Development
  • Maintenance and Preservation
  • Public Transportation
  • Travel and Tourism

The strategies presented within this section are consistent with and build upon policies previously adopted in other county plans. The implementation of the long-range transportation plan will guide the activities of the MPO; its partners at the local, county, state, and federal levels; and the public. Public responses to the MPO’s LRTP survey support the strategic directions of the plan by placing the most emphasis on safety, economic development, and maintenance and development. When prioritizing program spending, the public’s choices reflected the same three policy areas as priorities, but in a slightly different order: fixing the existing infrastructure (system maintenance), traffic management (reliable travel), and safety. Interestingly, the public’s survey responses recognized the difficult choices the MPO faces in providing a balanced program, because no potential implementation strategy received less than three stars out of five. As a result, plan implementation addresses some needs in all the policy areas, while focusing more significant efforts on strategies to affect safety, reliable travel, and system maintenance, consistent with public sentiment. The MPO will continue to work with stakeholders at the local, state, and federal levels and the public to make the plan’s vision a reality.

Appendix A: Investment Plan (2023–2047)

Transportation Improvement Program (2023–2026)

Appendix A TIP: Page 1

Appendix A TIP: Page 2

Appendix A TIP: Page 3

Appendix A TIP: Page 4

Balance of the Twelve-Year Program (2027–2034)

Appendix A Balance of the Year Program: Page 1

Appendix A Balance of the Year Program: Page 2

Appendix A Balance of the Year Program: Page 3

Appendix A Balance of the Year Program: Page 4

Countywide Line Items, Out Years (2035–2047)

In lieu of specific projects, line-item amounts were determined for the plan’s “out years” (2035-2047) in consultation with PennDOT District 8-0 and Central Office. The MPO used PennDOT’s 2023 Financial Guidance documentation for the 2023 program to determine the shares of funding to go toward three project types: Highway, Bridge, and Safety.

The MPO determined shares based on funding available for specific funding programs, i.e., “Highway” amounts based on funding allocations from NHPP, STP, and State Highway; “Bridge” amounts based on State Bridge and Off-System Bridges; and “Safety” from HSIP. The shares resulted in a 66/23/11 split, respectively, as shown in the following table.

Appendix A Countywide Line Items Table

Appendix B: Illustrative Projects

Note that the following projects are unfunded, and illustrative only. The MPO will consider the candidates from this project listing as future programs are being developed.

Illustrative Projects Tables

Appendix B Illustrative Projects: Page 1

Appendix B Illustrative Projects: Page 2

Appendix B Illustrative Projects: Page 3

Appendix B Illustrative Projects: Page 4

Appendix B Illustrative Projects: Page 5

Appendix B Illustrative Projects: Page 6

Appendix B Illustrative Projects: Page 7

Appendix C: Air Quality Determination

Transportation Conformity Determination Report - Franklin County

Executive Summary

As part of its transportation planning process, the Franklin County Metropolitan Planning Organization (FCMPO) completed the transportation conformity process for the updated 2045Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the FY 2023-2026 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).This report documents that theTIP and LRTP meets the federal transportation conformity requirements in 40 CFR Part 93. Note the TIP has not changed from previous conformitydeterminations.

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) requires that federally funded or approved highway and transit activities are consistent with (“conform to”) the purpose of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause or contribute to new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant NAAQS or any interim milestones. EPA’s transportation conformity rules establish the criteria and procedures for determining whether metropolitan transportation plans, TIPs, and federally supported highway and transit projects conform to the SIP.

On February 16, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. District v. EPA(“South Coast II,” 882 F.3d 1138) held that transportation conformity determinations must be made in areas that were either nonattainment or maintenance for the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) and attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS when the 1997 ozone NAAQS was revoked. These conformity determinations are required in these areas after February 16, 2019.Franklin Countywas maintenance at the time of the 1997 ozone NAAQS revocation on April 6, 2015 and was also designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on May 21, 2012. Therefore, per the South Coast II decision, this conformity determination is being made for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

This conformity determination was completed consistent with CAA requirements, existing associated regulations at 40 CFR Parts 51.390 and 93, and the South Coast II decision, according to EPA’s Transportation Conformity Guidance for the South Coast II CourtDecisionissued on November 29, 2018.

1.0 Background

1.1 Transportation Conformity Process

The concept of transportation conformity was introduced in the CAA of 1977, which included a provision to ensure that transportation investments conform to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for meeting the Federal air quality standards. Conformity requirements were made substantially more rigorous in the CAA Amendments of 1990. The transportation conformity regulations that detail implementation of the CAA requirements were first issued in November 1993, and have been amended several times. The regulations establish the criteria and procedures for transportation agencies to demonstrate that air pollutant emissions from metropolitan transportation plans, transportation improvement programs and projects are consistent with (“conform to”) the State’s air quality goals in the SIP. This document has been prepared for State and local officials who are involved in decision making on transportation investments.

Transportation conformity is required under CAA Section 176(c) to ensure that Federally-supported transportation activities are consistent with (“conform to”) the purpose of a State’s SIP. Transportation conformity establishes the framework for improving air quality to protect public health and the environment. Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding and approvals are given to highway and transit activities that will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing air quality violations, or delay timely attainment ofthe relevant air quality standard, or any interim milestone.

1.2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards

The CAA requires the EPA to set NAAQS for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. A nonattainment area is any area that does not meet the primary or secondary NAAQS. Once a nonattainment area meets the standards and additionalredesignation requirements in the CAA [Section 107(d)(3)(E)], EPA will designate the area as a maintenance area.

Franklin Countyis currently designated as a maintenance area under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The countyis in attainment of the 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Transportation conformity requires nonattainment and maintenance areas to demonstrate that all future transportation projects will not prevent an area from reaching its air quality attainment goals.

1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS

The EPA published the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), with an effective date of September 16, 1997. An area was in nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS if the 3-year average of the individual fourth highest air quality monitor readings, averaged over 8 hours throughout the day, exceeded the NAAQS of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). On May 21, 2013, the EPA published a rule revoking the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, for the purposes of transportation conformity, effective one year after the effective date of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS area designations (77 FR 30160).

On February 16, 2018 the D.C. Circuit reached a decision in South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, Case No. 15-1115. In that decision, the court vacated major portions of the final rule that established procedures for transitioning from the 1997 ozone NAAQS to the stricter 2008 ozone NAAQS. By court decision, Franklin Countywas designated asan “orphan” maintenance area since the area was maintenance for the 1997 ozone NAAQS at the time of its revocation (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015) and was designated attainment for the 2008 NAAQS in EPA’s original designations for this NAAQS (77 FR 30160, May 21, 2012).

2008 and2015 8-hour Ozone NAAQS

The EPA published the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), with an effective date of May 27, 2008. EPA revised the ozone NAAQS by strengthening the standard to 0.075 ppm. Thus, an area is in nonattainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS if the 3-year average of the individual fourth highest air quality monitor readings, averaged over 8 hours throughout the day, exceeds the NAAQS of 0.075 ppm. FranklinCounty was designated as an attainment area under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, effective July 20, 2012 (77 FR 30088).

In October 2015, based on its review of the air quality criteria for ozone and related photochemical oxidants, the EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to provide requisite protection of public health and welfare, respectively (80 FR 65292). The EPA revised the levels of both standards to 0.070 ppm, and retained their indicators, forms (fourth-highest daily maximum, averaged across three consecutive years) and averaging times (eight hours). Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA administrator is required to make all attainment designations within two years after a final rule revising the NAAQS is published. Franklin County is in attainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.


The Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) serves as the official transportationplan for a metropolitan area.TheLRTP documents the current and future transportation demand and identifies long-term improvements and projects to meet those needs. TheLRTP was recently updated by the FCMPOto guide decision-making about transportationimprovements in the county. The planning factors specified in federal regulations provide the framework for developing theLRTP. In addition,PennDOT provides guidance to help MPOs prepare LRTPs, and local policies and plans play a role in LRTP development to ensure transportation investments address current and future needs.The Franklin County LRTP includes projects from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) Twelve Year Program (TYP).

In addition, MPOs and Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs) each develop a TIP at the local level, which reflects the first four years of the PennDOT TYP.The Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) covers the entire state and includes the individual TIPs representing each Planning Partner. Federal Law requires TIPs to be updated at least every four years. Pennsylvania’s MPOs and RPOs update their TIPs every two years during the TYP update process.

The February 16, 2018, South Coast vs. EPA Court decision did not vacate EPA’s revocation of the 1997 ozone standard and the decision does not change the area’s attainment status. Therefore, while such areas might be required to meet conformity requirements as part of anti-backsliding controls, such areas are not considered nonattainment or maintenance areas under the Transportation Planning Rule (23 CFR 450.104). Such areas continue to complete 5-year plan update cycles as described in 23 CFR 450.324(c). The 5-year metropolitan transportation plan update cycle continues to apply from the date of the most recent MPO metropolitan transportation plan adoption (not the most recent FHWA/FTA conformity determination). While these areas have a 5-year plan cycle for transportation planning purposes, as a result of the court decision they must still meet the 4-year frequency requirements for conformity determinations on TIPs and LRTPsas required by 40 CFR 93.104.

Appendix A provides a listing of the regional significant projects that are funded in the TIP and LRTP within FranklinCounty. Regionally significant projects include transportation projects (other than exempt projects as defined under 40 CFR 93.126- 127) that areon a facility which serves regional transportation needs.

3.0 Transportation Conformity Process

Per the court’s decision in South Coast II, beginning February 16, 2019, a transportation conformity determination for the 1997 ozone NAAQS will be needed in 1997 ozoneNAAQS nonattainment and maintenance areas identified by EPA for certain transportation activities, including updated or amended TIPs and LRTPs. Once US DOT makes its 1997 ozone NAAQS conformity determination, conformity will be required no less frequently than every four years. This conformity determination report addresses transportation conformity for the FCMPO 2023-2026 TIP and 2045LRTP.

4.0 Transportation Conformity Requirements

4.1 Overview

On November 29, 2018, EPA issued Transportation Conformity Guidance for the South Coast II Court Decision (EPA-420-B-18-050, November 2018) that addresses how transportation conformity determinations can be made in areas that were nonattainment or maintenance for the 1997 ozone NAAQS when the 1997 ozone NAAQS was revoked, but were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQSin EPA’s original designations for this NAAQS (May 21, 2012).

The transportation conformity regulation at 40 CFR 93.109 sets forth the criteria and procedures for determining conformity. The conformity criteria forTIPs and LRTPs include: latest planning assumptions (93.110), latest emissions model (93.111), consultation (93.112), transportation control measures (93.113(b) and (c), and emissions budget and/or interim emissions (93.118 and/or 93.119). For the 1997 ozone NAAQS areas, transportation conformity for TIPs and LRTPs for the 1997 ozone NAAQS can be demonstrated without a regional emissions analysis, per 40 CFR 93.109(c). This provision states that the regional emissions analysis requirement applies one year after the effective date of EPA’s nonattainment designation for a NAAQS and until the effective date of revocation of such NAAQS for an area. The 1997 ozone NAAQS revocation was effective on April 6, 2015, and the South Coast II court upheld the revocation. As no regional emission analysis is required for this conformity determination, there is no requirement to use the latest emissions model, or budget or interim emissions tests.

Therefore, transportation conformityfor the 1997 ozone NAAQS can be demonstrated by showing the remaining requirements in Table 1 in 40 CFR 93.109 have been met. These requirements, whichare laid out in Section 2.4 of EPA’s guidance and addressed below, include:

  • Latest planning assumptions (93.110)
  • Consultation (93.112)
  • Transportation Control Measures (93.113)
  • Fiscal constraint (93.108)

4.2 Latest Planning Assumptions

The use of latest planning assumptions in 40 CFR 93.110 of the conformity rule generally applies to a regional emissions analysis. In the 1997 ozone NAAQS areas, the use of latest planning assumptions requirement applies to assumptions about transportation control measures (TCMs) in an approved SIP. However, the Franklin County SIP maintenance plan does not include any TCMs.

4.3 Consultation Requirements

The consultation requirements in 40 CFR 93.112 were addressed both for interagency consultation and public consultation.

As required by the federal transportation conformity rule, the conformity process includes a significant level of cooperative interaction among federal, state, and local agencies. For this air quality conformity analysis, interagency consultation was conducted as required by the Pennsylvania Conformity SIP. This included conference call(s) or meeting(s) of the Pennsylvania Transportation-Air Quality Work Group (including the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), DEP, EPA, FHWA, FTA and representatives from larger MPOs within the state).

Meeting and conference calls were conducted quarterly in 2022 to review all planning assumptions and to discuss the template and content for transportation conformity analyses in 1997 ozone orphan areas.

TheTIP, LRTP and associated conformity determination hasundergone the public participation requirements as well as the comment and response requirements according to the procedures established in compliance with 23 CFR part 450, FCMPO’s Public Participation Plan, and Pennsylvania's Conformity SIP. The draft document was made available for a 30-day public review and comment period, which included a public meeting.

4.4 Fiscal Constraint

The planning regulations, Sections 450.324(f)(11) and 450.326(j), require the transportation plan to be financially constrained while the existing transportation system is being adequately operated and maintained. Only projects for which construction and operating funds are reasonably expected to be available are included. The FCMPO, in conjunction with PennDOT, FHWA and FTA, has developed an estimate of the cost to maintain and operate existing roads, bridges and transit systems in the region and have compared the cost with the estimated revenues and maintenance needs of the new roads over the same period. The FCMPOTIP and LRTP has been determined to be financially constrained.

5.0 Conclusion

The conformity determination process completed for the FCMPOTIP and LRTP demonstrates that these planning documents meet the Clean Air Act and Transportation Conformity rule requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

Regionally Significant Project List Franklin County

Appendix D: Environmental Justice Assessment


The public involvement efforts for MPO/RPOs are guided by several federal mandates to ensure nondiscrimination in federally funded activities. These mandates are designed so that planning and public involvement activities are conducted equitably and in consideration of all citizens, regardless of race, nationality, sex, age, ability, language spoken, or economic status. These mandates include:

  • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Title VI of the Civil Rights Act states that “No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefit of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” MPOs are committed to providing open and inclusive access to the transportation decision-making process for all persons, regardless of race, color, or national origin.
  • Executive Order on Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898 February 11, 1994) – Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. MPOs/RPOs are committed to providing opportunities for full and fair participation by minority and low income communities in the transportation decisionmaking process.
  • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 stipulates involving persons with disabilities in the development and improvement of services. Sites of public involvement activities as well as the information presented must be accessible to persons with disabilities. MPOs/RPOs are committed to providing full access to public involvement programs and information for persons with disabilities. All public meetings are held in ADA-accessible locations. With advance notice, special provisions can be made for hearing-impaired or visually impaired participants.
  • Executive Order on Limited English Proficiency – Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency,” was signed on August 11, 2000. Recipients of federal funding “are required to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to programs and activities by LEP person.” MPOs/RPOs will make special arrangements for the provision of interpretative services upon request.

FHWA recently introduced the Environmental Justice Core Elements Methodology to ensure an MPO/RPO can meaningfully assess the benefits and burdens of plans and programs. Franklin County is committed to following the Core Elements approach, which includes efforts to:

  • Avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations.
  • Ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process.
  • Prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority populations and low-income populations.

By integrating the Core Elements into the planning process, state and local agencies are better equipped to carry out the investment strategy and project selection. The EJ process should be comprehensive and continuous with each task informing and cycling back to influence the next step.

Identifying Minority and Low-Income Populations

In developing its 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Franklin County conducted an Environmental Justice Benefits and Burdens analysis. A distributive geographic analysis was conducted to identify the locations and concentrations of minority, low-income and other Traditionally Underserved Populations (TUP). The identification of these populations is essential to establishing effective strategies for engaging them in the transportation planning process. When meaningful opportunities for interaction are established, the transportation planning process can effectively draw upon the perspectives of communities to identify existing transportation needs, localized deficiencies, and the demand for transportation services. Mapping of these populations not only provides a baseline for assessing impacts of the transportation investment program, but also aids in the development of an effective public involvement program. Minority population is defined as any readily identifiable group of Black, Hispanic, Asian American, American Indian, and Alaskan Native who live in geographic proximity and who would be similarly affected by a proposed FHWA program, policy, or activity.

Low-income population is defined as any readily identifiable group of persons at or below the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines who live in a geographic proximity who would be similarly affected by a proposed FHWA program, policy, or activity. As shown in Table EJ-1, based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) data, minority persons in Franklin County make up nearly 14 percent of the total population. The number of persons in poverty is just above 9 percent of the total regional population. Table EJ-2 identifies the total population by race and low-Income category. The White, Non-Hispanic category has the highest population in the county and most individuals that are low-Income, however, the category’s overall low-income percentage is about 9 percent, which is about the same as the county average of 9.25 percent. In contrast, nearly 25 percent of the Hispanic population and nearly 72 percent of the Native Hawaiian category is considered low income.

Table EJ-1: Profile of Low-Income and Minority Populations, 2019

Table EJ-2: Population Tabulations by Racial/Ethnic Groups and Low-Income Categories

Condition Assessment

In order to meaningfully analyze benefits and adverse effects of the transportation program, Franklin County has examined the existing conditions of transportation assets throughout the county and safety performance measures among the minority and low-income populations. These data assessments allow the county to track changes in crashes, poor condition bridges, and poor pavement mileage in the region and identify safety gaps and distribution disparities between minority and low-income populations.


Tables EJ-3 and EJ-4 provide the number and percentage of bridges by condition and by the concentration of minority and low-income population. Comparing the distribution of total bridges and poor condition bridges between low and high minority and low-income areas helps provide insights on potential equity issues. For areas with higher minority population shares, the percentage of total bridges and poor bridges is 27.2% and 28.5%, respectively. For areas with higher shares of low-income population, the percentage of total bridges and poor bridges is 26.2% and 34.4%, respectively. In both cases the share of poor condition bridges is near the percentage of total bridges in minority and low-income areas. The data does not indicate any disproportionate impacts to those communities related to bridge asset conditions.

Table EJ-3 and 4: Distribution of Poor-Condition Bridges by Minority Population Intervals

All Reported Crashes

Tables EJ-5 through EJ-8 show the number and percentage of crashes in Franklin County from 2015-2019 in areas of varying minority and low-income shares. This data is reviewed to identify if any disproportionate numbers of crashes occur in areas with high shares of minority or low-income population. As shown in Table EJ-5, about 42 percent of the total crashes occur within block groups that have higher shares of minority population, while nearly 58 percent of crashes occur

in block groups with lower shares of minority population. Similarly, nearly 36 percent of crashes occur within block groups that have higher shares of low-income populations, while 64 percent of crashes occur in block groups with lower shares, as shown in Table EJ-6. This data does not indicate disproportionate impacts for minority or low-income populations related to total crashes, fatalities or serious injuries.

Table EJ-5 and EJ-6

However, the bicycle and pedestrian crashes shown in Tables EJ-7 and EJ-8 show much higher numbers and percentages in areas with a higher share of minority populations. This may be a result of higher

levels of pedestrian and bicycle activity and usage in those areas. Franklin County will continue to review and evaluate safety needs for these populations in its planning process.

Table EJ-7 and EJ-8

Pavement Condition

Tables EJ-9 and EJ-10 identify the number and percentage of roadways with poor International Roughness Index (IRI) and with poor Overall Pavement Index (OPI) within minority and low-income population block group intervals. Poor pavement condition data in Franklin County may indicate a need for increased roadway resurfacing

and reconstruction. The data indicates that poor rated IRI and OPI pavement occurs at nearly equal amounts between areas with and without high shares of low-income and minority populations. The data does not indicate any disproportionate impacts to those communities related to pavement conditions.

Table EJ-9 and EJ-10

Benefits & Burdens of the 2045 Long-Range Transportation Plan

Franklin County reviewed transportation projects located in areas that were determined to have higher than average minority and lowincome levels. When evaluating the potential benefit or burden of a project, it should be noted that each type of project has a unique set of impacts and will affect individual populations differently. For example, maintenance projects tend to cause the least amount of impact on the population since they typically involve highway resurfacing or repaving work on existing roadways. Although these projects can cause delayed travel time and transit service, traffic detours, and work zone noise and debris, the projects are typically shorter in duration and result in improvements to the functionality of the roadway network by providing smoother driving surfaces and new roadway markings. While most bridge projects are identified as either a rehabilitation or replacement, both types of projects can lend itself to significant traffic detours, traffic delay, and noise. However, the benefits of these types of improvements result in safer bridge structures, improved roadway conditions and updated signage.

Capacity projects, which can involve the addition of new lanes to existing roadways, new roadways to the existing network, or at times the realignment of intersections or interchanges, in an effort to provide for more traffic mobility. Special attention needs to be made when planning capacity projects, especially to low-income

and minority populations. Not only can these projects result in right-of-way acquisitions to account for the additional capacity, but also construction impacts are normally more severe due to longer construction periods, travel pattern shifts, and delayed travel times among others. The consequences of the completion of capacity projects can involve the loss of property, increased traffic volumes, and decreased air quality, while other benefits can include improved transit service time, decreased travel delay, and safer roadway conditions which will result in improved quality of life for all residents and users of the roadway system.

Of all locatable projects on Franklin County’s 2045 LRTP, the number of projects in minority or low-income areas is lower than the number of projects located in non-minority and non-low-income areas. Tables EJ-11 and EJ-12 depict the types of projects and funding investments in each minority/income interval. Figures EJ-1 and EJ-2 illustrate the geographic proximity between different LRTP projects and the concentrations of minority and low-income populations by Census block groups based on 2015-2019 ACS data. Franklin County will continue to evaluate needs and investment opportunities in these areas to ensure all communities share in transportation investment benefits.

Table EJ-11: Distribution of Locatable Projects by Minority Population Intervals

Table EJ-12: Distribution of Locatable Projects by Low-Income Population Intervals

Figure EJ-1: Concentrations of Minority Populations by Census Block Groups & LRTP Project Locations

Figure EJ-2: Concentrations of Low-Income Populations by Census Block Groups & LRTP Project Locations

Appendix E: System Performance (2021)

2021 Performance Measures Annual Report ‐ Pavements

Pavement Appendix E: Page 1

Pavement Appendix E: Page 2

2021 Performance Measures Annual Report ‐ Bridges

Pavement Appendix E: Page 3

Pavement Appendix E: Page 3

Appendix F: Interstate TIP

Pavement Appendix F: TIP Table

Appendix G: County-Owned Bridges (with ADT)

Appendix G: Page 1

Appendix G: Page 2

Appendix G: Page 3

Appendix G: Page 4

Appendix G: Page 5

Appendix G: Page 6

Appendix H: Locally Owned Federal-Aid-Eligible Roadways

Appendix H: Page 1

Appendix H: Page 2

Appendix I: Public Comment Summary and Response

Appendix I: Page 1

Appendix I: Page 2

Appendix I: Page 3