Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.19.21 TTAC Agenda Packet MINUTES MPOJC TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 10, 2020 – 10:30 A.M. ZOOM MEETING PLATFORM MEMBERS PRESENT: Coralville: Dan Holderness, Scott Larson, Kelly Hayworth Iowa City: Jason Havel, Ron Knoche, Darian Nagle-Gamm, Mark Rummel, Scott Sovers North Liberty: Ryan Rusnak University Heights: Louise From University of Iowa: Brian McClatchey Johnson County: Tom Brase STAFF PRESENT: Kent Ralston, Emily Bothell, Brad Neumann, Sarah Walz, Frank Waisath 1. CALL TO ORDER Neumann called the meeting to order at 10:30 AM. The meeting was held online through the Zoom meeting platform in accordance with Iowa Code Section 21.8 due to complications preventing in-person meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic. a. Recognize alternates Scott Larson was recognized as an alternate for Vicky Robrock (Coralville). b. Consider approval of meeting minutes From moved to approve, Holderness seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None 3. CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE MPOJC URBANIZED AREA POLICY BOARD REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ADOPTED FY2021-2024 MPOJC TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN (TIP) Neumann explained that the same TIP project had been approved in May 2020 for FY2020, but it needed to be reapproved by the Committee for FY2021 in order for the amendment to carry over correctly. Holderness moved to approve, Knoche seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 4. CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE MPOJC URBANIZED AREA POLICY BOARD REGARDING SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT (STBG) AND TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM (TAP) SCORING CRITERIA FOR FUNDS ALLOCATED BY MPOJC Bothell explained that previously the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee had concurred with the scoring criteria for STBG and TAP. However, the Urbanized Area Policy Board wished to add points under the ‘Environment’ criteria for Stormwater Management practices. Holderness agreed with the inclusion of Stormwater Management practices into the criteria and wondered whether the point value allocation was a staff or Board recommendation. Bothell responded that staff came up with the point value but was open to changes. Holderness recommended that at least three points be allocated for Stormwater Management practices due to its importance in future projects. Ralston asked whether the points should be awarded as one per listed practice or as a whole. Holderness clarified that any of the practices being performed should be awarded all three points. Knoche asked what a vegetation and landscaping improvement would look like. Bothell responded that it could include any vegetation that limits the amount of runoff or increase absorption, such as street trees. Ralston added that if there were other strategies to employ that they may not have considered, they would be willing to do so. Knoche asked if the Stormwater Management was replacing anything or if it was an additional criterion. Bothell explained that it was an addition. Knoche agreed that three points was a good allocation for the criterion. Larson asked if soil quality restoration would be acceptable to put within the criterion, since some vegetation on new projects is not going to limit runoff and therefore would not count towards this point allocation. Ralston added that staff would look to specific recommendations from the Committee on specifics. Larson responded that soil restoration would be important to incorporate to push for the improvement of top soil. Staff indicated they would add a topsoil component to the criteria. Ralston added that the criteria were vague, but they would look to the engineer on the project to justify the point allocations and if there was a dispute, it would come back to the Committee. Ralston asked Holderness if the envisioned breakdown would be one point for each activity listed or three points for the completion of any Stormwater Management practice, since there are graduated levels elsewhere in the criteria. Knoche responded that within the Environment criterion, there is one point each with a maximum possible number system, and that would make sense to follow for the Stormwater Management practices as well. McClatchey mentioned that the list of variables on the list is important to clarify in that case. Knoche responded that the inclusion of the phrase “such as” is important since the list is not exhaustive, therefore the maximum point potential is important to incentivize multiple Stormwater Management practices. Holderness agreed. Ralston summarized the Stormwater Management point breakdown to incentivize multiple options with graduated point levels, but with a maximum of three points total for the criterion. Holderness moved to approve Ralston’s summary, Knoche seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 5. DISCUSSION REGARDING POTENTIAL FEDERAL FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION CHANGES FOR MPOJC URBANIZED APREA ROADWAYS Bothell explained that Coralville and North Liberty had submitted amendments for the Federal Functional Classification map. Overall, the amendments equaled 21.56 miles, 5.35 of which were new roadways and would add to the overall urbanized roadway area. Once the Committee reviewed the amendments for any changes, staff would work with the Iowa DOT for pre-approval of those changes which would then be returned to the Committee for final approval. Holderness asked if 8 miles were still available for classification. Bothell responded that they were. Holderness asked how often this process was repeated and Bothell explained that it precedes every STBG and TAP cycle, therefore occurring every two years. Ralston clarified that if there was a reason to classify out of cycle, that would also be possible with coordination from the Iowa DOT. 6. CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE MPOJC URBANIZED AREA POLICY BOARD REGARDING ELEMENTS OF THE MPOJC LONG RANGE PLAN REVISION Bothell explained that the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee had previously agreed with the MPOJC Long Range Plan vision, guiding principles, and scoring criteria. The Long Range Transportation Plan criterion needs to be approved by the Board in order for staff to score/rank projects to be included in the 2050 Long Range Plan. Knoche asked how the criteria would be used in the Long Range Plan differently than for STBG and TAP funding. Bothell responded that these criteria will be used to determine projects for the Long Range Plan because it is fiscally constrained, so having specific criteria helps determine the best projects to include in the framework. Knoche asked if this process was completed for the last update and Bothell responded that it had been. Nagle-Gamm asked if there was flexibility of what projects were included into the fiscal planning of the Long Range Plan based on shifting needs, and Bothell responded that there was flexibility because the projects would be in the plan but not fiscally constrained, so rearranging could occur. Ralston added that Long Range Plan amendments are common within the five years that the plan is in action and could be considered along the way. Knoche moved to approve the above criteria for the Long Range Plan, Holderness seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 7. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PENDING ‘NEEDS ASSESSMENT’ REQUIRED FOR THE MPOJC LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN REVISION Bothell explained that Committee members would be asked to submit projects for the ‘Needs Assessment’ in order to be included in the Long Range Plan. Upon submission, public meetings would be held to discuss the projects and decide whether to include them in the fiscally constrained portion of the Long Range Plan. Ralston added that this is the most difficult part of the plan to consider and plenty of time would be allocated for contemplation. 8. CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE MPOJC URBANIZED AREA PO LICY BOARD REGARDING SAFETY TARGET SETTING AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR THE MPO AS REQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Ralston explained that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires the MPOJC to set and report five safety improvement targets to the Iowa DOT. They had the option to either go with the state’s pre-approved targets or set their own. The FHWA also requires the MPOJC to set pavement/bridge and system reliability targets and report them every two years. In 2018, the MPOJC unanimously decided to support the state’s two and four year targets and since the two year review, the “Person-miles traveled on the Interstate that are reliable” and “Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Index” targets have been updated. The committee needs to decide to accept the state’s targets or set their own, and either decision will require justification within the Transportation Improvement Program and the Long Range Plan. Staff recommended accepting the state’s targets with the possibility of adding individual targets if the situation arises in the future. McClatchey asked what happens if the targets are not met. Ralston responded that there are no penalties at the moment, but they may occur in the future, potentially by being tied to funding. The FHWA reviews the DOT targets, but nothing is checked locally. Up until now, most MPOs in the state have decided to accept the state’s targets without creating individual targets. Knoche asked if there was any local data about how the targets were coming along. Ralston responded that collision analyses are conducted every two years and the MPOJC is keeping tabs on the trends. Holderness moved to approve the State targets, Knoche seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 9. UPDATE ON THE METRO TRAIL COUNT PROGRAM Walz explained that trail counts are performed every year between spring and fall. The counter used does not differentiate between pedestrians and bicycles and the counts are only performed for seven days, meaning the weather can affect the numbers. There was a noticeable increase in trail usage this year, likely due to COVID. In the next fiscal year, the MPOJC will be purchasing a new counter to get more counts and longer counts for popular trails. They are looking into new technology as well that could count bikes only. Hayworth asked about the difference between the spring 2020 and fall 2020 count on the Clear Creek Trail because the increase was highly noticeable. Walz responded that some of the counts, including Clear Creek, that were lower in the spring were surprising, but since the majority of students had left by that point, it made some sense. Due to the work from home policy at the university, the adjustment period could account for the dip in numbers in the spring. Walz clarified that none of that reasoning had been confirmed with other data, but it seemed to make sense and Hayworth agreed. Ralston added that the use of trails is very noticeable and speaks to the quality of trails in Johnson County. Walz added that the Iowa City Bike Library had added some new maps for self-guided rides to compensate for canceled group rides that would have been held in May during Bike Month and that many people have been trying to explore new trails that they had not used before, so that really speaks to the value of the trails in the region. McClatchey agreed and believed that the data collected is also very valuable even though weeks are smaller periods of time and very weather dependent and believes that the potential for even longer counts in the future will be very important to understanding the trends. Ralston responded that Coralville requested a longer count on their Woodpecker Trail and that counter was left out for a month so having more equipment to do some of these longer projects would prove valuable. 10. OTHER BUSINESS Nagle-Gamm shared an update on the Iowa City Area Transit Study. The planning process is nearly complete and they have some guidance from the City Council as to how to proceed. They are hoping to work with Coralville to align their prices and finalize routes. The Iowa City Council has also asked them to evaluate expanded late night and weekend options to help third shift workers in particular. The next step is to host a public hearing on the route changes and is expected to happen this winter. The implementations are expected to occur in summer 2021 before the school year starts. They are also in the process of switching over to electric systems for their buses and received a federal FTA grant for the delivery of four all-electric buses next summer to replace four old diesel fuel buses. The bike share program has been delayed several times due to legal acquisition of the company providing the bikes and COVID-19, as the bikes are being made in China, but the launch is expected to happen in fall 2021 and the bike shares that have been operational nearby, such as in Cedar Rapids, have been very successful so far. McClatchey asked Nagle-Gamm if they going to provide only bikes. Nagle-Gamm responded that the company was willing to start with electric bikes only, but would likely be interested in adding scooters as well. McClatchey added that the program in Cedar Rapids was starting to phase out the bikes and Nagle-Gamm responded that the data shows that scooters are more popular than the bike options, so they may look into that option in the future, but e-bikes are preferred for Iowa City because they can be a car replacement option while scooters cannot. 11. ADJOURNMENT Nagle-Gamm moved to adjourn, McClatchey seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Neumann adjourned the meeting at 11:11 AM. .