HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.23.21 TTAC MinutesMINUTES APPROVED
MPOJC TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2021 – 10:30 AM
ZOOM MEETING PLATFORM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Coralville: Dan Holderness, Vicky Robrock, Scott
Larson
Iowa City: Darian Nagle-Gamm, Mark Rummel, Ron Knoche,
Jason Havel, Scott Sovers
Johnson County: Tom Brase
North Liberty: Ryan Rusnak
University Heights: Louise From
University of Iowa: Brain McClatchey
RTBC: Robert Oppliger
Iowa DOT: Cathy Cutler
STAFF PRESENT: Kent Ralston, Emily Bothell, Brad Neumann, Sarah Walz, Frank Waisath,
Hannah Debruin
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 Kelly Hayworth.
b. Consider approval of meeting minutes
Oppliger 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 URBANIZED AREA POLICY BOARD (UAPB)
REGARDING LOCALLY DETERMINED PROJECTS FOR THE MPOJC FY2022 TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING WORK PROGRAM
Ralston explained that every spring, the MPOJC compiles a list of Transportation Planning Work
Program projects for the upcoming fiscal year. While it is required by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHW A) and the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT), it is also used by the
MPOJC to schedule and plan ahead for the year. Additional projects will come up throughout the year
and can be added to the list, but major projects will need to be approved by the committee and may
not be able to be completed within the next year. Ralston noted that the TPWP would be updated with
regularly occurring projects and federal planning work and would be returned to the Committee for
approval.
Nagle-Gamm moved approval, Knoche seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
4. CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE URBANIZED AREA POLICY BOARD REGARDING
MPOJC SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT (STBG) AND TRANSPORTATION
ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM (TAP) FUNDING ALLOCATIONS
Neumann explained that the Iowa DOT funding target for STBG projects is $7,380,000 million and
$520,000 for TAP projects for FY2025-2026. Four entities submitted a total of six STBG applications
requesting $16,971,450 and one entity submitted one TAP application requesting $500,000. Two of
the applications - Coralville’s Heartland Drive (STBG) and Iowa City’s Highway 6 Trail (TAP)) are not
currently in the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), but both items have been submitted for the
next LRTP to be approved in 2022.
MPOJC Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Minutes
_________________
Page 2
Neumann presented the projects in order from highest to lowest on the scoring criteria.
Neumann added that project scores can be amended before being sent to the Urbanized Area Policy
Board (UAPB) for their meeting on March 31, 2021. The scores are only one piece of information to
consider for recommendation and funding cannot be apportioned strictly according to the population of
MPOJC municipalities.
Coralville contested some of the scoring on their projects. For the Deer Creek Road project, Coralville
contested the safety criterion, which the MPOJC scored as a 0 out of 7 points. For the Heartland Drive
project, Coralville contested both the quality of life criterion, which the MPOJC scored as 0 out of 5,
and the health criterion, which the MPOJC scored as a 0 out of 3.
Larson withdrew the requests from Coralville to rescore the Heartland Drive project. Larson then
stated that all 7 points under Item 7c for safety at the Deer Creek Road and Highway 6 intersection
should be counted. Item 7c of the scoring criteria refers to a “sight distance or related safety issue
documented by an expert (planner/engineer).” T he intersection at Highway 6 and Deer Creek Road is
the only access point for the River Products Klein Quarry, Hawkeye Ready-Mix and Streb Concrete
batch plants, and LLC Pelling asphalt plant, meaning there is an uptick in heavy truck traffic at the
intersection. Larson stated the Highway 6 speed limit is 55 mph and there is a lot of slowing down
occurring on the highway for trucks to turn onto Deer Creek Road. Larson acknowledged that Item 7c
was originally created for a project that had visibility issues and that specific issue is not present at this
intersection, the previous points suggest other safety issues. The MPOJC has conducted a traffic
signal warrant analysis and found that it was warranted for the intersection. Larson noted that traffic
collision data marks only 1 accident at the intersection between 2013 and 2017, but the full corridor
had 6 accidents during that same period and has had 5 additional accidents between 2018 and 2021.
The intersection is also a hub for the metropolitan area, so traffic is not likely to diminish in near future.
Ralston added more details on when Item 7c was added and that staff has been using the criteria
consistently since then, but the scoring criteria judgement is up to the Committee, not staff.
Rusnak asked if all the other projects would be reconsidered for this year to create equitable
treatment of the criteria across jurisdictions.
Holderness added that the proximity to the railroad is another issue with the intersection as
construction vehicles have been hit by trains, posing a significant safety issue. Because the trucks
have lots of rocks and asphalt, that provides another dimension to the issue of safety. Additionally, the
accident numbers are increasing over time and increasing traffic on Highway 6 and Deer Creek Road
provide support that this project should score higher.
McClatchey added that a traffic control system seemed to be needed at the intersection, but the full
project included more than just that intersection. Larson agreed, saying that the full project includes
turn lanes, tapers on Highway 6, and a turn lane on Deer Creek Road to further increase safety at the
intersection.
McClatchey restated Rusnak’s question about reevaluation of other jurisdictions. Ralston replied
saying that after reviewing the other projects being evaluated this year, the Deer Creek Road and
Highway 6 project was unique in that the MPOJC has already conducted a traffic signal analysis and
found that it was warranted, providing empirical support that safety is a concern here. None of the
other projects have that same background, so it would not necessarily apply. However, if communities
wanted to review their own projects and contest their scores, either on this criterion or others, then
staff would reevaluate the scores. Rusnak responded saying that time to reevaluate would be good
with the new classification of this criteria, but there would not be time for it now given that voting on
funding allocation for these projects was about to take place. Ralston added that Item 7c has rarely
been applied due to the vagueness of the criteria, but it has been consistently applied historically.
Larson added that the argument was intended to be unique due to the busy quarry, 2 batch plants,
asphalt plant, as well as recreational uses with baseball, softball, bike trails, etc. The heavy
percentage of truck traffic f or industrial use being ushered to one point on a state highway is unique
and therefore warrants the additional consideration. From added that the situation in Coralville does
seem unique, but other communities should be able to go back and review their projects in order to be
MPOJC Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Minutes
_________________
Page 3
fair. McClatchey agreed with From and said that the 7 points would significantly alter the scoring and
should be considered carefully. Ralston added that the scoring is just a tool to be used in funding
allocations and does not need to be the only consideration made when allocating funding. Ralston
added that Coralville’s argument does seem to point to several safety issues, but the question is more
about whether or not it fits the criteria.
Neumann asked how the Committee wanted to proceed. Committee members could bring up any
concerns about their own projects for this or other criteria. Knoche added that the situation is unique,
but previous accidents should be covered in 7a and 7b, and signal warrant analysis should be
considered in terms of safety and not volume. If Item 7c would be reconsidered for this project, then it
should be changed for all other projects as well.
McClatchey asked if the points could be awarded with a caveat given that there is not time to
reevaluate each jurisdiction’s project under the potential new justifications. McClatchey also wondered
if the seven-point change would mean that much in the funding allocation, given that other criteria are
to be considered and this project has a strong argument for funding. Ralston responded that the
criteria wording should be reconsidered by staff in order to get the desired outcome in the future.
Ralston added that funds only needed to be allocated at the meeting in order to be included with the
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in July, but that does not mean that funds could not be
allocated at a later date and the TIP amended as appropriate. Ralston suggested against that
approach but offered it as an alternative for consideration. McClatchey added that the addition of
seven points today would not necessarily influence the Committee’s decision on funding allocation.
From advocated to award the seven points but include a caveat that some explanation be given to the
Urbanized Area Policy Board (UAPB) and the projects can continue moving forward. Ralston
responded that the conversation about this item will be shared with the UAPB.
Larson moved to award seven points to the Coralville project under Item 7c, From seconded.
McClatchey showed support to award the seven points and promote further investigation into the
scoring criteria in the future.
The motion passed by majority rule, 7-5.
Neumann opened the discussion for funding allocations. Havel proposed a scenario that would
allocate funds proportionately: 32% to Iowa City’s Taft Avenue project, 28% for Coralville’s Highway 6
and Deer Creek project, 26% and 24% for North Liberty and University Heights respectively. The total
was just above the funds available, but some rounding would bring it close to the total amount.
Scenario 1: Iowa City – Dodge Street Improvements: $0
Iowa City – Taft Avenue Reconstruction: $3,520,000
Coralville – Highway 6 and Deer Creek Road: $869,400
North Liberty – Ranshaw Way Reconstruction Phase 6: $2,938,000
University Heights – Sunset Street Pavement Repair: $115,440
Coralville – Heartland Drive to Commerce Drive: $0
Total: $7,442,840
Shortfall: $62,840
McClatchey asked if Taft Avenue was prioritized over the Dodge Street improvements and Havel
responded that it was. Rusnak agreed with the proportions in the scenario and believed it was
equitable. Holderness added that the proposal seemed fair and that with some rounding, the approach
seemed reasonable.
McClatchey asked if the projects would still be able to move forward with the shortfalls or if they would
need to be held off to wait for additional funding. Rusnak, From, Havel, and Holderness all stated that
their respective jurisdictions would be moving forward with their projects regardless.
From asked if rounding down could occur just in Iowa City, Coralville, and North Liberty and not for
University Heights. Holderness, Havel, and Rusnak agreed. Neumann asked if rounding should be
done by dollar amount or percentage breakdown. Holderness supported the percentage breakdown.
MPOJC Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Minutes
_________________
Page 4
Scenario 2: Iowa City – Dodge Street Improvements: $0
Iowa City – Taft Avenue Reconstruction: $3,500,000
Coralville – Highway 6 and Deer Creek Road: $864,560
North Liberty – Ranshaw Way Reconstruction Phase 6: $2,900,000
University Heights – Sunset Street Pavement Repair: $115,440
Coralville – Heartland Drive to Commerce Drive: $0
Total: $7,380,000
Shortfall: $0
Holderness moved approval of Scenario 2, Knoche seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Neumann introduced the TAP funding allocation. The Regional Trails and Bicycling Committee
(RTBC) recommended allocating the entire $520,000 available for the Iowa City Highway 6 Trail
project even though Iowa City only requested $500,000. Ralston added that there was no need to
withhold any funds and suggested awarding the full amount. Ralston continued that at the RTBC
meeting, there was discussion about the potential for an underpass, but that would need to be
explained later with project development. Oppliger, a member of the RTBC, was also curious about
underpass options.
Holderness moved approval to award the full $520,000 to the Iowa City Highway 6 Trail project,
Rusnak seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
5. CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE URBANIZED AREA POLICY BOARD REGARDING
PARTICIPATION IN THE ‘FEDERAL-AID-SWAP’ WHEREBY STATE FUNDING COULD REPLACE
FEDERAL FUNDING FOR LOCAL ROAD/BRIDGE PROJECTS
Ralston explained that in 2018, House File 203 was signed into law allowing for the ‘Federal-Aid Swap’
whereby funding dollars are swapped with state dollars to minimize federal regulation and streamline
local projects. For the past three years, the TTAC has recommended participating in the swap while
the UAPB has voted to ‘opt-out’ during each of these years. Some of the concerns mentioned are
Davis-Bacon wages, worker safety, and lack of data supporting the benefits of the swap. Currently,
MPOJC and Bi-State Regional Commission in the Quad Cities are the only MPOs in the state not
participating in the swap. Unless the MPOJC chooses to opt-out, the Iowa DOT will assume opting-in.
The Iowa DOT has also not been able to quantify project cost savings yet but indicates that most
project developments in the swap have been reduced by as much as six months.
Knoche asked if a motion for the recommendation was required today. Ralston confirmed. Knoche
moved to opt-in to the ‘Federal-Aid Swap’ program to conform with previous years, Larson seconded.
The motion passed unanimously.
6. CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE URBANIZED AREA POLICY BOARD REGARDING
APPROVAL OF THE FY2022-2027 MPOJC PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Neumann explained that the Passenger Transportation Plan (PTP) is required by the Iowa DOT and is
intended to coordinate planning for transit-related funding programs. The PTP incorporates federal
requirements for coordinated planning as well as addresses needs-based project justification. The
MPOJC is required to adopt a new PTP every five years, and the document being discussed will cover
fiscal years 2022-2027. In the years between required updates, the MPOJC provides the DOT with
agendas and minutes from the Johnson County Livable Communities Transportation Committee, the
Johnson County SEATS Advisory Committee, the Citizens Transportation Committee, and the
Johnson County Mobility Coordinator Advisory Committee. These committees have connections with
local human services and transit agencies and were brought together by the MPOJC to review the
PTP. Past priorities, updates to what has happened since the last PTP, recent developments, and
anticipated needs, goals and objectives for the next five years have been established. The update was
sent to the PTP committee members (including transit managers) and the Iowa DOT for comment.
Many of the recommendations depend on the Iowa City Transit Study which was just completed, and
all committees took part in the study. Late-night and weekend services, facilities and technology,
training and education, and regional service options remain the top priorities. The only federal funding
MPOJC Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Minutes
_________________
Page 5
that the PTP committee considered are the 5310 Funds. Historically, these funds have been used for
ADA support. The MPOJC will be holding a public hearing on this item on March 31, 2021 and staff
requested approval of the Plan from the TTAC.
Nagle-Gamm commented that a lot has changed in seven years, although many needs are still the
same, and that the transit study is helping to move things in the right direction. Nagle-Gamm
appreciated the updates and the input from the committees and moved approval of the plan.
McClatchey seconded and added that there was considerable public input into the transit study,
solidifying support for the plan. The motion passed unanimously.
7. CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE URBANIZED AREA POLICY BOARD REGARDING
ADOPTION OF LOCAL TRANSIT AGENCY SAFETY PERFORMANCE TARGETS
Neumann explained that the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan (PTASP) is required of
recipients of Federal Transit Administration grants, including Iowa City Transit, Coralville Transit, and
CAMBUS. Each organization has developed plans to establish procedures to provide a
comprehensive approach to manage safety, including safety measures. These plans were submitted
to the MPOJC and the performance targets specifically include fatalities, injuries, safety events, and
system reliability. The MPOJC is required to either adopt these safety measures or produce their own
and staff is requesting a TTAC recommendation to adopt these measures. The targets will need to be
sent to the DOT by July 20, 2021. The targets were based on historical data and staff is in support of
these measures to be approved.
McClatchey commented that the measures were required by federal regulations. Neumann added that
the measures are updated annually and will need to be included in the Transportation Improve ment
Program (TIP).
Nagle-Gamm moved approval, McClatchey seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
8. UPDATE REGARDING THE MPOJC FY2022 TRANSIT PROGRAM OF PROJECTS
Neumann explained that this update needed to be conducted annually and that it contained proposed
projects for federal funding. The projects will be included in the FY2022 Iowa DOT’s Consolidated
Transit Funding applications for each transit agency as well as the FY2022 -2025 TIP. Approval is not
necessary, just information being distributed to the Committee.
9. UPDATE ON THE MPOJC LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN REVISION PROCESS
Bothell explained that since the last Transportation Technical Advisory Committee meeting, MPOJC
staff has been scoring transportation infrastructure project lists submitted by each community,
gathering performance measure data, and gathering public input for the Long-Range Transportation
Plan. Public engagement has been performed through an online survey open between February 11,
2021 and March 12, 2021 in which over 600 responses were received. The data collected from this
survey will be used at a series of virtual workshops. Secondly, there was an online interactive map
recently developed and released for the public to view current projects and expected completion
dates. Bothell shared the map and walked through several features highlighting project descriptions,
cost estimates, and public comments. The map will be available for comment until April 16, 2021 and
Bothell invited Committee members to look at the map on the MPOJC website and provide feedback.
Lastly, the virtual workshops will start in April and likely continue into the fall. It will primarily be used to
continue to inform and engage the public.
McClatchey commented that the map was well done and the comment section would hopefully
generate interest. Ralston agreed and added that the MPOJC staff was working to get as much public
input on the projects submitted as possible.
Nagle-Gamm asked if the workshops would include open public comment or just be an overview of
the LRTP. Bothell responded that the first workshop is just scheduled for half an hour and is likely
going to be more of an overview, but hopefully the introduction of the map will open the conversations
on specific projects a bit more and help guide the MPOJC on the best way to distribute more
information.
MPOJC Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Minutes
_________________
Page 6
Oppliger asked where the information was located. Bothell responded that everything was on the
MPOJC website under Quick Links for the 2050 Long-Range Transportation Plan.
10. OTHER BUSINESS
Ralston informed the Committee that it was Holderness’ last meeting with the TTAC and wished him a
good bye. Holderness was grateful for the farewell and shared his appreciation for the Committee.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Rusnak moved to adjourn, Oppliger seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Neumann adjourned
the meeting at 11:50 AM.