Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.12.25 UAPB Agenda PacketMEETING NOTICE MPOJC Urbanized Area Policy Board Wednesday November 12, 2025 – 4:30 PM City of North Liberty – City Hall 360 N. Main Street AGENDA 1.Call to Order A.Recognize alternates B.Consider approval of meeting minutes C.Set next Board meeting date, time and location (January 28th, Iowa City City Hall) 2.Public Discussion of any item not on the agenda* 3.Administration A.Confirm entities that will nominate Johnson County representatives to the East Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG) Board of Directors B.Appoint a nominating committee for Calendar Year 2026 Urbanized Area Policy Board officers C.Preliminary discussion of the FY27 MPOJC Budget 4.Transportation Planning A.Consider approval of safety target setting and performance measures for the MPO as required by the Federal Highway Administration B.Consider approval of elements of the MPOJC Long Range Transportation Plan revision a.Vision b.Guiding Principals c.Scoring Criteria C.Presentation from Iowa DOT District 6 staff on area transportation projects 5.Other Business 6.Adjournment *Public input is permitted on any agenda item. Please indicate to the Chair if you wish to comment on an agenda item. To request any disability-related accommodations or language interpretation, please contact MPOJC staff at 319-356-5230 or kent-ralston@iowa-city.org 48 hours prior to the meeting. MINUTES DRAFT MPOJC URBANIZED AREA POLICY BOARD JULY 9, 2025 - 4:30 PM JOHNSON COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES BUILDING- 2ND FLOOR CONF. RM. 855 S. DUBUQUE STREET IOWA CITY, IA MEMBERS PRESENT: Iowa City: Josh Moe Johnson County: V Fixmer-Oraiz, Rod Sullivan North Liberty: Chris Hoffman, Erek Sittig Coralville: Meghann Foster, Royce Petersen University Heights: Louise From University of Iowa: Greg Schmitt ICCSD: Molly Abraham STAFF PRESENT: Kent Ralston, Emily Bothell, Sarah Walz, Hannah Neel, Madelyn Stoen 1. CALL TO ORDER From called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM. The meeting was held at the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building in Iowa City. a. Recognize Alternates Ralston recognized Erek Sittig as an alternate for Brian Wayson of North Liberty b. Consider Approval of Meeting Minutes Hoffman moved to approve; Sullivan seconded. The motion carried unanimously. c. Set Next Board Meeting date, time, and location Tentatively scheduled for September 17, 2025, at 4:30 PM. The location is to be determined. 2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. 3. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING a. Public Hearing and consideration of resolutions of adoption and certification for the FY2026-2029 MPOJC Transportation Improvement Program i. Staff presentation of the FY2026-2029 MPOJC Transportation Improvement Program Neel explained that the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a programming document for all surface transportation projects that receive state or federal funding, including streets, highways, transit, rail, bike, and pedestrian projects in the Iowa City Urbanized Area. The MPOJC submits the TIP annually to the Iowa Department of Transportation to document the status of local transportation projects. Projects must be included with an accurate scope and funding amount. Neel presented the final draft FY2026-2029 TIP document to the Board, which included the draft project list approved by the Board at their May meeting and the transit apportionment amounts, approved by the Board at their January meeting. Nine projects are receiving Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program funding, Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) funding, and/or Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) funding. These projects include: • North Liberty and Coralville’s Forevergreen Road Extension Phase II Project: $838,084 in STBG funds programmed for FY2029 • Iowa City and University of Iowa’s Burlington Street Bridge “Building Better Connections” Project: $9,574,243 in STBG funds and $425,757 in TAP funds, programmed for FY2030 – to be included in the FY2027-2030 TIP • Iowa City’s North Dodge Street (Pedestrian Facilities) Project: $565,372 in TAP funds, programmed for FY2027. • North Liberty’s West Forevergreen Road Trail Project (from Covered Bridge Road to South Jasper Avenue): $465,500 in TAP funds, programmed for FY2027 • Coralville’s Northridge Trail Reconstruction Project: $303,620 in TAP funds, programmed for FY2028 • Coralville’s Iowa River Trail Connection Project: $347,750 in TAP funds, programmed for FY2029 • University Heights’ Melrose Avenue Complete Streets Project: $750,000 in CRP funds, programmed for FY2026 • Coralville and Johnson County’s Dubuque Street NE and Forevergreen Road Roundabout Project: $612,209 in CRP funds, programmed for FY2027 • North Liberty’s Dubuque Street Improvement Phase III Project: $1,715,000 in CRP funds, programmed for FY2030 – to be included in the FY2027-2030 TIP Neel noted that the Iowa DOT added a new project programmed for 2029: over $14 million in National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) funding and just over $1 million in Primary Road Funding (PRF) for a culvert extension project along I-380, from north of Swan Lake Road to north of County Road F12 (120th Street). Neel stated that the MPOJC received nearly $5 million in FY24 Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 operating assistance funds. These funds were apportioned to each of the three MPOJC transit agencies using a fixed percentage- based allocation based on a historic average of previous apportionments. Neel shared three additional changes to the FY2026-2029 TIP that were made after the Board approved the draft document at their May meeting: • The FTA 5310 funding (for enhanced mobility of seniors and individuals with disabilities) was reduced by 7.1% for each agency, per the release of the final funding amounts • Project cost estimates for Iowa City Transit and CAMBUS facilities were updated, though the federal funding amounts remain unchanged • A project for a bridge over Ralston Creek at Kirkwood Avenue and South Dubuque Street was added at the request of the Iowa DOT, with a total cost of $3.7 million, and approximately $2.9 million in grant funding in competitive highway bridge grant funding Neel shared that a public hearing notice was published in both The Gazette and Iowa City Press-Citizen thirty (30) days prior to the meeting date. All agencies on the public input list were contacted, and posters were placed on all fixed-route buses. No public comments were received. Neel stated that the MPOJC will submit the final document to the Iowa Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal Highway Administration by July 15, 2025. ii. Public Hearing From opened the public hearing and there were no members of the public present for the public hearing. From closed the public hearing. iii. Consider a resolution adopting the FY2026-2029 Transportation Improvement Program for the Iowa City Urbanized Area and authorizing the MPO chairperson to sign associated documents contained therein Sullivan moved to approve; Moe seconded. The motion carried unanimously. iv. Consider a resolution certifying compliance with federal requirements for conducting the urban transportation planning process in the Iowa City Urbanized Area Fixmer-Oraiz moved to approve; Moe seconded. The motion carried unanimously. b. Presentation on the development of the Safe Streets & Roads for All (SS4A) - Safety Action Plan Mindy Moore, Consultant Project Manager with HDR, gave a presentation of the SS4A action plan, starting with an overview of the Safe System Approach, public involvement (presented by Kristen Veldhouse), and the project schedule. Cara Hamann (member of the public) asked whether the high-injury network analysis would be stratified by road user type (e.g., pedestrians and cyclists). Moore replied that HDR had created separate networks in the Des Moines safety action plan and would assess whether that approach is feasible in Johnson County, given lower pedestrian and cyclist volumes. Moore highlighted Federal Highway Administration-endorsed countermeasures and emphasized the collaborative process of identifying safety concerns on specific corridors. Kristen Veldhouse with HDR presented the Public Engagement strategy, explaining that community involvement is essential to the success of the Safety Action Plan. Moore then presented the project schedule. Which begins in July 2025 and concludes in November of 2026. Key milestones include: • Policy Board meetings (3): July (current meeting) 2025, January 2026, November 2026 • Safety Committee meetings (6): August, November 2025, January, April, July, September 2026 • Transportation Technical Advisory Committee meetings (3): September 2025, March, September 2026 • Trails and Bike Committee meetings (3): September 2025, March, September 2026 • Draft Plan: July 2026 • Open House: August 2026 • Final Plan: November 2026 • Engagement Booths (2): September/October 2025 and March-June 2026 • Public Survey: September-October of 2025 • An Open House is scheduled for March 2026 • Progress Dashboard: August-November 2026 • Safety Analysis: July 2025-January 2026 • Recommended Strategies Development: February- August 2026 c. Update on the ‘Trip Connect’ transportation service from the Johnson County Mobility Coordinator Schneider described Trip Connect as a micro transit service designed to connect individuals to employment, education, and childcare during hours when fixed-route transit is unavailable. The service uses smaller, curb-to-curb vehicles booked through a mobile app. Johnson County contracts with Neighborhood Transportation Service (NTS) Horizons as the operator, who in turn contracts with VIA, the software provider. Schneider stated that VIA offers expanded features that can be implemented if future adjustments are needed. Service operates six days per week from 5:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m., excluding Saturdays, with a $2 fare per ride. Riders may book trips at least one hour and up to seven days in advance within Coralville, Iowa City, North Liberty, Tiffin, University Heights, and rural communities north of I-80, including Solon, Swisher, and Oxford. Two vehicles are available during service hours, one of which is ADA accessible but has not yet been requested. Schneider shared that the app functions similarly to Uber. Users enter a destination, are matched with a driver, and pay through the app. Schneider noted that over half of the riders book same-day trips, suggesting the on- demand structure is highly valued and similar to ride-share platforms. She also provided city-to-city trip data (Dec 2024–June 2025). Schneider addressed potential overlap with fixed-route services. A manual review of trip addresses showed that approximately 10% of trips could have been completed via fixed-route service. She emphasized that this overlap is being monitored and that the VIA app could eventually integrate fixed-route options—either by restricting some ride requests or by suggesting fixed-route alternatives. She noted that at the time of the meeting, the software was not set up that way, but it is a conversation that they do look forward to having with the transit managers later in the month Sullivan asked for clarification on why there is no overlap. Schneider responded that fixed-route schedules vary. Iowa City Transit routes generally end at 10:00 PM, though some end earlier. Coralville’s late-night service only covers a small area. Some high-employment destinations are not served during late hours, contributing to the need for Trip Connect. Ralston noted that although duplication should be avoided, some overlap may serve individuals with mobility or comfort challenges that prevent fixed-route use. Schneider agreed, noting most rides are under 15 minutes. She reiterated that the pilot is helping clarify usage trends. She cited a North Dodge Hy-Vee employee who relies on Trip Connect after fixed routes stop at 6:00 PM. Schneider noted that Thursday is currently the busiest day. Sunday, initially high, is now the slowest. Overall, ridership is relatively consistent across the week. Moe inquired about idle time and operating costs per ride. The handout listed $127 per ride. Schneider clarified that each vehicle costs $93.25 per hour, and with two vehicles running, the current average cost is $127 per ride. She added that 27% of trips had more than one passenger. Ralston compared this to SEATS service costs. Schneider expressed satisfaction with early ridership. She emphasized the focus on trips for employment and education, even though other trip purposes (e.g., shopping or dining) are also eligible. Sullivan asked whether reimbursing Uber or Lyft rides might be more cost-effective than operating a micro transit service. Schneider explained that while some communities partner with ride-share providers, Uber was excluded from the Trip Connect bidding process due to the lack of ADA vehicles. Additionally, Uber and Lyft do not guarantee ride availability and are often not transparent about service limitations. Cost unpredictability is another concern, particularly for low-wage workers. Fixmer-Oraiz noted that subsidies exist for all transit types and asked about comparative costs for fixed-route and paratransit services, and that it would be helpful to compare per-trip costs across services. Schneider agreed, noting that discussions with transit managers are ongoing. She suggested exploring whether underperforming fixed routes could be scaled back to fund more flexible micro transit options. Ralston referenced page 50 of the newly approved TIP, which includes cost trends. He cited Coralville’s fixed-route cost at approximately $5 per ride and noted that CAMBUS averages around $2. SEATS, by contrast, can exceed $100 per ride depending on the year. A member of the public asked whether Trip Connect eligibility is limited, referencing personal experience with Coralville’s Route 34. They questioned Uber’s transparency, referencing regulatory barriers. Schneider responded that ride-share pricing can surge unexpectedly, making budgeting difficult. She added that Medicaid is now contracting with Lyft, though the company has limited data-sharing transparency. Schneider recalled meeting with job seekers during the project’s design phase. She remembered one woman working at Oakdale who could not find Uber service for a 6:00 AM shift. Moe asked whether location data could be shared with employers and whether they could become potential funders. Schneider explained they had just received the data that day and had not yet reached out. Kirkwood Community College, the top destination, had previously provided a small grant match. Schneider acknowledged the need for assistance in engaging potential business partners and noted her role is focused on connecting people to resources rather than fundraising. Fixmer-Oraiz praised Schneider’s outreach efforts and expressed enthusiasm for employer engagement, especially with Kirkwood. Schneider responded that Kirkwood offers night classes, but fixed -route service ends around 6:30 or 7:00 PM. She agreed that this is an opportunity for collective conversation and noted ongoing rider confusion about different bus fare policies. She encouraged coordination across systems. Ralston asked whether Schneider had been surprised by any key data findings. Schneider replied that she often receives calls from individuals seeking rides to or from North Liberty. She acknowledged the challenge of limited funding and affirmed that expanding to early morning or daytime North Liberty service is a key interest. SEAT S has also reported unmet paratransit demand in that area. 4. OTHER BUSINESS Ralston clarified that the age range for young drivers was 14-20 years old. 5. ADJOURNMENT Fixmer-Oraiz moved to adjourn; Petersen seconded. The motion carried unanimously. From adjourned the meeting at 5:39 PM. Date: November 5, 2025 To: Urbanized Area Policy Board From: Kent Ralston, Executive Director Re: Agenda Item #3(A): Confirm entities that will nominate Johnson County representatives to the East Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG) Board of Directors The MPOJC Bylaws stipulating how appointments are made to the ECICOG Board of Directors were revised and approved in 2020. Per the revised Bylaws, each January the Johnson County Board of Supervisors appoints one elected official representative and one citizen representative to the ECICOG Board, and the Urbanized Area Policy Board appoints two elected official representatives to the ECICOG Board according to the following process: A. One elected official seat and one citizen representative will be designated by the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. B. One elected official seat will be filled by the four largest municipalities by population which will alternate annually. The 2026 representative is to be designated by Iowa City. C. One elected official seat will be filled by the remaining municipalities which will alternate annually. The 2026 representative is to be designated by Lone Tree. I intend to contact Johnson County, Iowa City, and Lone Tree and request that they designate representatives to the ECICOG Board of Directors. The designees will be recognized by the MPOJC Policy Board at our January meeting. I will also ask each entity to designate alternates and encourage them to send alternates to ECICOG Board meetings when the designee cannot attend. I will be available at your November 12th meeting to answer any questions you may have. Date: November 5, 2025 To: Urbanized Area Policy Board From: Kent Ralston; Executive Director Re: Agenda Item #3(B): Appoint nominating committee for calendar year 2026 Urbanized Area Policy Board officers At your January meeting, you will elect a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for the calendar year 2026 Urbanized Area Policy Board. The Chairperson is responsible for presiding over all meetings of the Board. The Chairperson and/or Director are also responsible for signing contracts and other federally required documents. As Director, it has been my practice to discuss agenda items and major work program activities with the Chair prior to each Board meeting. The Vice Chairperson assumes the duties of the Chair when he/she is not available. Please consider appointing a three-person nominating committee to recommend a Chair and Vice-Chair for the 2026 Urbanized Area Policy Board – past practice has not included the Director in these discussions. The nominating committee will then report at the January meeting where the Chair and Vice-Chair will be elected. Currently the Chair is Louise From (Mayor, University Heights) and the Vice-Chair is Rod Sullivan (Johnson County Board of Supervisors). Both the Chair and Vice-Chair have served in these roles for two-years; there is a two-year maximum term for these posts. A list of past Board Chairpersons is attached for your reference. I will be available at your November 12th meeting to answer any questions you may have. MPOJC Urbanized Area Policy Board Chairpersons Year Chairperson Organization 2025 From University Heights 2024 From University Heights 2023 Thomas Iowa City 2022 Thomas Iowa City 2021 Donahue North Liberty 2020 Donahue North Liberty 2019 Berner Tiffin 2018 Berner Tiffin 2017 Mims Iowa City 2016 Mims Iowa City 2015 Gill Coralville 2014 Gill Coralville 2013 Neuzil Johnson County 2012 Kuhl North Liberty 2011 Kuhl North Liberty 2010 From University Heights 2009 From University Heights 2008 Ricketts University of Iowa 2007 Bailey Iowa City 2006 Bailey Iowa City 2005 Stutsman Johnson County 2004 Weihe Coralville 2003 Champion Iowa City 2002 Dorst North Liberty 2001 O’Donnell Iowa City 2000 Herwig Coralville 1999 Hippee North Liberty 1998 Stutsman Johnson County 1997 Lacina Johnson County 1996 Kubby Iowa City 1995 Axeen Coralville 1994 Novick Iowa City 1993 Ambrisco Iowa City 1992 Duffy Johnson County 1991 Courtney Iowa City 1990 Courtney Iowa City 1989 Schottelius University Heights 1988 Roberts North Liberty 1987 Ambrisco Iowa City 1986 Donnelly Johnson County 1985 Dvorsky Coralville 1984 Sehr Johnson County 1983 Balmer Iowa City 1982 Kattchee Coralville 1981 Kattchee Coralville Date: November 5, 2025 To: Urbanized Area Policy Board From: Kent Ralston, Executive Director Re: Agenda Item #3(C): Preliminary discussion of the FY27 MPOJC Budget Prior to the preparation of the MPO budget for your consideration in January, it has been my practice to discuss any proposed changes to the MPO scope of services or operations with the Board. Administratively MPOJC is part of the City of Iowa City and follows Iowa City budgeting procedures. Pages from the current year (FY26) budget are attached for reference. The focus and purpose of the MPO remains to: • Fulfill requirements necessary for local communities to receive state and federal transportation capital and operating funds • Produce professional studies to support transportation-related decisions and capital project selection/funding • Coordinate transit planning and transit reporting consistent with state and federal regulations for Iowa City Transit, Coralville Transit, and the University of Iowa Cambus system • Assist local entities with review of development proposals and associated transportation planning • To serve as a forum for other regional issues/discussions Capital expenses for FY27 are expected to be very similar to recent years; including a replacement schedule for our traffic counting equipment, traffic model and traffic signal software maintenance, and mapping software maintenance. I am not proposing any changes to the level of MPO staffing for FY27 and anticipate an approximate 5.7% increase in the total MPO budget – primarily due to increases in staff salaries and health benefit costs. I anticipate using $310,000 of Iowa Department of Transportation ‘Planning Funds’ in FY27. This is an increase from $280,000 used in previous years as a result of increases provided by the transportation legislation. This increase ensures an appropriate balance of funds per DOT guidelines and defrays local funding necessary for MPO operations. I also anticipate utilizing approximately $50,000 of internal reserves to ensure an appropriate balance of funds per internal guidelines and to stabilize local assessments. I will be available at your November 12th meeting to answer any questions you may have. The formal budget will be provided to the Board for consideration at your January meeting. MPOJC Budget FY26 – FY28 MPOJC is designated by the Governor of the State of Iowa as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Iowa City Urbanized Area. The MPOJC Transportation Planning Division must fulfill the state and federal requirements of the 3-C transportation planning process. This process is required of all urbanized areas to maintain eligibility for grant programs and transportation operations funds of the United States Department of Transportation and the Iowa Department of Transportation. The Administration Division consists of a half-time Executive Director, and a .2 FTE Administrative Secretary. The Administration Division provides oversight and support to the staff of MPOJC. The Executive Director supervises all MPOJC personnel, coordinates the budget process and the preparation of division work programs. As MPOJC staff also serve the City of Iowa City Neighborhood and Development Services Department, this budget reflects Iowa City specific funding for 0.5 FTE Administration and 1.0 FTE Transportation Planner for Iowa City duties. 1Forecasts assume a 3% increase 2Student interns are funded entirely by the University of Iowa FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 Budgeted Proposed Forecast1 Forecast1 Salaries and Benefits $690,100 $699,200 $720,176 $741,781 Technical and Professional Services & Maintenance, Travel and Education $68,219 $75,620 $77,889 $80,225 Operating Costs;including office supplies,traffic counting and mapping equipment/software 8,700 $11,050 $11,382 $11,723 Subtotal $767,019 $785,870 $809,446 $833,729 University of Iowa Student Interns 2 $23,817 $23,817 $23,817 $23,817 TOTAL $790,836 $809,687 $833,263 $857,546 Expenditures Summary of FY26 Assessments Note: Figures do not include specific funding for Iowa City Neighborhood & Development Services, equivalent to 0.5 Administration Budget ($96,250) and 1.0 FTE Transportation Planning ($148,343). Iowa City $121,144 Johnson County $35,430 Coralville $36,132 North Liberty $33,155 Tiffin $7,305 University Heights $1,988 SubTotal $235,154 Rural Communities Solon $943 Lone Tree $424 Swisher $285 Oxford $226 Hills $270 Shueyville $228 SubTotal $2,375 Other Sources Iowa DOT $280,000 Carryover $23,748 University of Iowa $23,817 SubTotal $327,565 Total $565,094 Urban Communities MPOJC Assessment Explanation 1. Assessment for Rural entities is 1% of the overall MPO assessment. Rural Board communities utilize MPO planning services but are not eligible for MPO grant funds. 2. 0.5 FTE of Administration Division and 1.0 FTE of Transportation Planning Division are for Iowa City related functions and are not reflected in assessments to other communities. 3. This budget does not include East Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG) assessments. 4. Assessment figures may not reflect exact population percentages shown due to rounding. Urban Entity Population Population %Total % of Total % of Total Urban Board Assessment MPO Budget Assessments Iowa City 74,828 51.52%$121,144 21.4%51.0% Johnson County 21,884 15.07%$35,430 6.3%14.9% Coralville 22,318 15.37%$36,132 6.4%15.2% North Liberty 20,479 14.10%$33,155 5.9%14.0% Tiffin 4,512 3.11%$7,305 1.3%3.1% U-Heights 1,228 0.85%$1,988 0.4%0.8% Subtotal 145,249 100.0%$235,154 41.6%99.0% Rural Entity1 Population Population %Total % of Total % of Total Rural Board Assessment Budget Assessments Solon 3,018 39.68%$943 0.2%0.4% Lone Tree 1,357 17.84%$424 0.1%0.2% Swisher 914 12.02%$285 0.1%0.1% Oxford 722 9.49%$226 0.0%0.1% Hills 863 11.35%$270 0.0%0.1% Shueyville 731 9.61%$228 0.0%0.1% Subtotal 7,605 100.0%$2,375 0.4%1.0% Total 152,854 100.0%$237,529 42.0%100.0% Other Funding Sources Iowa DOT $280,000 49.5% Carryover $23,748 4.2% University of Iowa $23,817 4.2% MPO Total $565,094 100.00% 50% Admin for Iowa City NDS 2 $ 96,250 1.0 FTE for Iowa City NDS 2 $148,343 Total Budget $809,687 Date: November 5, 2025 To: Urbanized Area Policy Board From: Kent Ralston; Executive Director Re: Agenda Item #4(a): Consider approval of safety target setting and performance measures for the MPO as required by the Federal Highway Administration The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) now requires that MPO’s set targets for five safety performance measures as part of the Highway Safety Improvement Program and report them to the Iowa DOT by February 27th each year. For each measure, we must choose one of the following options: 1) adopt the State’s targets (below) by agreeing to plan and program projects so that they contribute to the accomplishment of the State’s target for each performance measure, or 2) set our own quantifiable target for each measure within our metropolitan area. While MPO targets are not formally evaluated to measure progress toward meeting adopted targets, the State’s targets will be evaluated by the FHWA. In either event, we are required to state how the annual projects programmed in our Transportation Improvement Program show progress towards meeting the adopted targets and provide similar information about how projects are satisfying the performance measures in the next update to the Long Range Transportation Plan in 2027. Similar to past years, I recommend that we (again) adopt the State’s targets. If at any time we feel that creating our own local targets would provide an additional benefit, we will have an opportunity to do so each year. I have attached supporting information from the Iowa DOT for your reference. At their November 4th meeting, the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee unanimously recommended adopting the State’s targets. Please be prepared to consider this item. I will be at your November 12th meeting to answer any questions you may have. Date: November 5, 2025 To: Urbanized Area Policy Board From: Hannah Neel, Associate Transportation Planner Re: Agenda Item #4(b): Consider approval of elements of the MPOJC Long Range Transportation Plan revision As mentioned at your last meeting, MPOJC staff is in the process of updating the MPOJC Long Range Transportation Plan, Connect 2055. The Plan will be the culmination of a multi-year planning process in which residents, municipal staff, and elected officials in the metro area help create a regional vision of our future transportation network. This plan builds on the previous plan’s vision, guiding principles, and scoring criteria with some minor modifications to ensure that the Plan is comprehensive, cooperative, and continuing. 5a. Vision To ensure the strategic use of public investments and policies for the creation of a safe, efficient, and equitable transportation network that enhances economic opportunity and growth while preserving our environment and quality of life. 5b. Guiding Principles (Goals) 1) Economic Opportunity – supports growth, innovation, job creation, and productivity. 2) Environment – preserves and protects our natural resources, including land, water, and air. 3) Quality of Life – enhances livability and creates vibrant and appealing places that serve residents throughout their lives. 4) System Preservation – maintains the existing facilities in good and reliable condition. 5) Choice – offers accessible and affordable multi-modal transportation options. 6) Safety – enhances the safety of all users through a well-designed/maintained transportation network. 7) Efficiency – builds a well-connected transportation network with coordinated land use patterns to reduce travel demand and delay, miles traveled, and energy consumption. 8) Health – invites and enhances healthy and active lifestyles. 9) Equity – provides mobility and access for all people and all neighborhoods. 2 5c. Scoring Criteria Historically, MPOJC has used a set of scoring criteria to prioritize capital infrastructure projects for inclusion in the Long Range Transportation Plan, primarily due to fiscal constraints. The current scoring criteria have been applied in two previous iterations of the Long Range Transportation Plan, as well as for evaluating MPOJC grant applications. To better align the scoring criteria with our guiding principles, staff is proposing several minor changes to the language of the criteria to clarify its intent. Additionally, we are suggesting a few new criteria for consideration under the categories of Environment, Quality of Life, and System Preservation. The revised scoring criteria is attached for your review, with proposed changes highlighted. The Transportation Technical Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval of the vision, guiding principles, and draft scoring criteria at their November 4th meeting. Please be prepared to consider this item. DRAFT SCORING CRITERIA 1: Economic Opportunity – Supports metro area growth, innovation, job creation, and productivity A. Project improves/provides direct access to planned growth area, existing jobs, or retail +5 B. Project involves is sponsored by more than one MPO jurisdiction +1 each (Points Possible: 7) Total Points Possible: 12 Score: 2: Environment – Preserves and protects our natural resources, including land, water, and air quality A. Project promotes air quality improvements via congestion reduction through one or more of the following: Geometric improvements (physical improvements that improve motorist operations), ITS/signalization improvements, Reduction of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), Improvement to turning movements +1 each (Points Possible: 4) +3 B. Project preserves the natural environment through Stormwater Management practices such as: Incorporating permeable pavements, bioretention, soil restoration, etc. +1 each (Points Possible: 3) +3 C. Project includes specific plans for planting shade trees or native plantings +3 Total Points Possible: 7 9 Score: 3: Quality of Life – Enhances livability and creates vibrant and appealing places that serve residents throughout their lives A. Project directly enhances safe route(s) to school (within a ¼ mile), or provides direct access to for locations specifically serving multi-family developments, elderly housing, or assisted living facilities +5 B. Project enhances access to healthcare options or a grocery store (within a ¼ mile) +2 Total Points Possible: 5 7 Score: 4: System Preservation – Maintains existing facilities in good and reliable condition A. Maintenance or improvement to existing facility/infrastructure +3 B. Project improves pavement condition or bridges that are in poor or very poor condition +3 Total Points Possible: 5 6 Score: 5: Efficiency – Builds a well-connected transportation network and coordinates land use patterns to reduce travel demand, miles traveled, and fossil fuel consumption A. Project is in a corridor with existing congestion (defined as having LOS E or F during peak hours according to the adopted MPO Travel Demand Model) +7 B. Project is in a corridor with forecasted future congestion (defined as having LOS E or F during peak hours according to the adopted MPO Travel Demand Model, LOS map is attached) +7 Total Points Possible: 14 Score: 6: Choice – Offers multi-modal transportation options that are affordable and accessible A. Project is on an existing bus route (bus route map is attached) +3 B. Separated Project includes a trail or wide sidewalk sidepath (8’ or wider) +3 (10’ or wider) +5 C. Project reduces modal conflict (pedestrian hybrid beacons, grade separation, dedicated bicycle lanes or sharrows, bus pull-off, etc.) +3 Total Points Possible: 9 11 Score: 7: Safety – Designed and maintained to enhance the safety and security of all users A. Project is in a corridor with a history involving two or more documented bicycle or pedestrian collisions in the last five years (collision maps are attached) +7 B. Project is in a corridor listed in the top 25 highest MPO accident locations or top 10 highest accident mid-blocks in the last three years (accident tables are attached) +7 OR C. Project will correct a sight distance or related safety issue documented by an expert (planner/engineer) +7 Total Points Possible for A&B: 14 OR Total Points Possible for C: 7 Score: 8: Health – Invites and enhances healthy and active lifestyles A. Project extends regional trail network (map is attached) +3 B. Project addresses critical gap in the regional trail network +5 A. Project includes a segment of a multi-use off-street trail that links communities (10’ or wider) +5 OR B. Project includes a segment of a multi-use off-street trail (10’ or wider) +3 Total Points Possible: 8 5 Score: 9: Equity1 – Provides access and opportunity for all people and neighborhoods A. Project improves transportation network in lower-income neighborhoods +5 B. Focus of the project is to correct ADA non-compliance +3 Total Points Possible: 8 5 Score: 10: Local Commitment – Gauges local commitment to the project, including local and/or state funds pledged A. Local match 20.1% - 30% +1 B. Local match 30.1% - 40% +3 C. Local match 40.1% - 50% +5 D. Local match 50.1% - 60% +7 E. Local match 60.1% - or more +9 Total Points Possible: 9 Score: Total Score: 1Lower-income neighborhoods are defined as being at or below 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) by block group. Source: 2020 Decennial Census