MPO Technical Committee

MINUTES FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING January 8, 2015 Technical Members Present: Bill Watson, City of Aztec Cindy Lopez, City of Farmington David Sypher, City of Farmington Larry Hathaway, San Juan County Technical Members Absent: Teresa Brevik, City of Bloomfield Dave Keck, San Juan County Staff Present: Mary Holton, MPO Officer Fran Fillerup, MPO Associate Planner Duane Wakan, MPO Planner June Markle, MPO Administrative Aide Staff Absent: None Also Present: John Shepard, City of Farmington (Alt.) 1. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Lopez called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. with a quorum present. 2. APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 18, 2014 TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING Mr. Sypher moved to approve the minutes from the December 18, 2014 Technical Committee meeting. Mr. Hathaway seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. 3. HOLD THE ANNUAL ELECTION OF OFFICERS Subject: Annual Election of Officers Prepared by: Duane Wakan, MPO Planner Date: January 1, 2015 BACKGROUND  At the first meeting of the New Year, the Technical Committee selects the Chair and Vice-Chair from their membership who will serve until the next annual election.  The Chair presides over the meetings and is responsible for the other duties  outlined in the Committee Bylaws and Operating Procedures document.  The Vice-Chair presides over the meetings in the absence of the Chair. ELECTION  Elections will take place to select a Chair and Vice-Chair for the Technical Committee for 2015. RECOMMENDATION  It is recommended that the Technical Committee accept nominations and vote to elect the Chair and Vice-Chair for 2015. DISCUSSION: After polling the other Technical Committee members present, Ms. Lopez postponed this agenda item until later in the meeting when additional members could be present to participate in the election. At the conclusion of the meeting and with only three regular members present, the election of officers was postponed until the Technical Committee meeting in February when all Technical Committee members could be in attendance. Mr. Watson moved to postpone the election of officers until the February meeting and Mr. Sypher seconded the motion. 4. REPORTS FROM NMDOT District 5 Update Mr. David Quintana was contacted by telephone and provided the following update: - US 64 from milepost 60-62 (F100111): substantially complete and open to traffic. Contractor has addressed the punch list items and will address the remaining items when weather permits. - US 64 from milepost 62-64: substantially complete with some minor punch list items still remaining to be completed. District 5 has closed the contract with Sterling Brothers and will issue a separate contract to another vendor this summer to address the remaining items. - The intersection of NM 516 and Light Plant Road: essentially complete with some minor paperwork for District 5 remaining to close out the project. - US 64 from milepost 58-60 (F100110): at PS&E readiness and right-of-way acquisition is in progress. There are still some encroachment issues to be addressed, but no delay in the start of the project is expected. The project is currently scheduled to begin this summer with completion in July 2016. Several encroachment hearings are being scheduled with the affected property owners. - US 64 from milepost 56-58 (F100112): final design was awarded to Wilson & Company. District 5 is negotiating a contract for this with construction scheduled to begin in the summer of 2017.  - US 64 from milepost 54-56 (F100113); design to begin concurrent with F100112. The construction funding for this phase of the project is not until FY2021. This phase will complete the US 64 corridor. - NM 173 safety project from mile marker 2.5 to NM 575 (F100170); final design with Wilson & Company. Construction is expected to begin in the summer of 2016. - Installation of a temporary signal flasher on NM 371 and N 36; project funded with state funds award to San Juan County during the last legislature. NMDOT will take the lead on design and construction management with construction to begin this summer. Mr. Quintana said the new Technical Committee schedule conflicts with another monthly statewide meeting he is required to attend. He said that either he or Mr. Habib Abi-Khalil would plan to at least regularly attend the Policy Committee meetings. Mr. Watson said the City of Aztec was concerned with the delay in establishing the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goals for Phase IB of the East Arterial Route project. This delay does not allow the city to begin advertising the project. Mr. Quintana stated that a contractor would need to know what the DBE goals were before they could appropriately bid on a project to ensure they meet the DBE goal. He said he would follow up with their OIG office to see the cause of the delay. Mr. Quintana asked Mr. Watson if the addition of utilities to the East Arterial Route project was for Phase II of the project. Mr. Watson said this was correct. Mr. Wakan asked to what fiscal year the additional funding for the utilities should be assigned. Mr. Quintana said that District 5 had programmed the severance tax funding the City of Aztec had received to FY2016 and the federal funding to FY2017. He said the local non-match could be in either year and it would make no difference in which year it was applied. Mr. Watson asked if the funds were not spent in FY2015 could they be pushed out to 2017. Mr. Quintana said this could be done. Mr. Watson asked about discussions for a planned traffic signal at the intersection of NM 173 and US 550. He noted that with the opening of the Dollar General at that intersection, there are safety concerns by citizens. Mr. Quintana said he would follow up with the District’s traffic engineer. He reported that he believed a signal warrant analysis had been conducted last spring and no signal was warranted at that time. With the opening of the retail establishment, a signal may now be warranted and Mr. Quintana will ask that additional counts be taken now to determine the need for a signal. Mr. Wakan and Mr. Quintana briefly discussed the next TIP Amendment cycle. Mr. Wakan has one amendment to submit and Mr. Quintana said he had a minor amendment to project #F100115. There is currently no contract development engineer assigned to the project and Mr. Quintana asked that Mr. Brian Samuelson’s name be added. He also asked that Mr. Adam Miera be added to project #F100114. Mr. Sypher thanked Mr. Quintana for providing the amended contract for the Pinon Hills Blvd. project to the City of Farmington on December 24. It will be presented to the Farmington City Council on January 20. Mr. Sypher said he had been asked by one of the City Councilors if there were plans to revamp NM 516. Mr. Quintana said there were maintenance items that would be addressed, but that there were currently no plans for any added capacity items. Mr. Sypher said the concern was at the east end of Main Street and Country Club Drive where construction of a third lane may be needed. Mr. Sypher said this should be considered and evaluated for future improvements. Mr. Quintana said there had been a study done ten or so years ago that suggested an added lane to NM 516. It was shown, however, that the proposed HiLine Road would alleviate traffic on NM 516. Mr. Quintana said he would research the old study to see what recommendations had been made. Mr. Sypher asked if Mr. Quintana would send a copy of the study to the MPO so they can evaluate whether this might still be a potential priority for the area. Mr. Quintana said NMDOT’s contract management unit frequently asks for potential project recommendations and if this corridor is a priority for the MPO, funding for a study could be requested this August. Mr. Sypher said he was not sure this project was a priority for the area, but was interested in gathering information to see if it might still be a priority. Ms. Holton said this should also be shared with the City of Farmington’s traffic engineer as well. The MPO view is the broader view of the region and the city should consider the specifics of this intersection. Mr. Sypher said that during the last application round for HSIP funding, the City of Farmington asked for funds to work on the intersection of Main and English. As a result of the application, Mr. Sypher understood that the state would be scheduling a road safety audit (RSA). Mr. Quintana said that if a RSA was recommended for this intersection, District 5 will take care of requesting the RSA. Once the RSA is completed and recommendations identified, another application for HSIP funds can be submitted. Mr. Sypher asked when he could expect to be contacted regarding the scheduling of the RSA. Mr. Quintana said the RSA should happen in fairly short order, perhaps within three months. Mr. Fillerup asked about the dates for the hearings mentioned earlier by Mr. Quintana for the US 64 project. Mr. Quintana clarified that these were encroachment hearings with the landowners and were not public hearings. The consultant will be developing a public information plan for the next phases (F100112 and F100113). He said there would likely be at least one meeting for each phase during the preliminary design. The meetings will be advertised prior to the meeting date(s) and NMDOT will provide a one month public comment period following the meeting(s). Ms. Lopez asked if District 5 would update the MPO with these dates. Mr. Quintana said the MPO as well as the Policy and Technical Committees would be alerted to the meeting dates through his monthly District 5 updates. NMDOT Planning Update Mr. Degani was unable to attend the meeting and provided the following update: Federal Register, Ozone The proposal to revise the ozone standard has been in the Federal Register. The comment period on the proposal to revise the ozone standard in the Federal Register ends March 17, 2015. Three public hearings are tentatively planned for this month. The EPA will review the air quality criteria for ozone (O3) and related photochemical oxidants and national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for O3. The EPA is  proposing to revise the primary standard to a level within the range of 0.065 to 0.070 parts per million (ppm), and to revise the secondary standard to within the range of 0.065 to 0.070 ppm. A separate Federal Register announcement provided details on those hearings. The information on the ozone standard revision is found at the following link: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-17/pdf/2014- 28674.pdf and information to provide comments from the FMPO. TAP and RTP applications Complete TAP applications are due to the TAP Coordinator by Feb 1, 2015 submitted via the FMPO as well as RTP applications from the FMPO or State/Federal agencies. Also, any projects with FFY15 construction awarded funds must have all their certifications and PSE packages by 7/15/15. Statewide Long Range Plan (SLRP) and Freight Plan More information on the SLRP and Freight Plan meetings and Statewide and Regional Working Group Assistance regarding the plans resource allocation/implementation will be forthcoming. Strategic Highway Safety Plan The Strategic Highway Safety Plan Safety (SHSP) Summit will be held March 24, 2015 at the Embassy Suites in Albuquerque (Lomas, just west of I-25). The Summit will incorporate a public review of the draft SHSP strategies that will help guide Highway Safety Improvement Program projects. TIP Template Update Comments were provided on the TIP Template Update which included “Project Start” and “Project End” dates as referenced in the FHWA 2 CFR Part 200 Uniform Guidance and Resources on Improving Performance and Outcomes among others. 2015 Transportation and Engineering Conference The 60th Transportation and Engineering Conference sponsored by New Mexico State University in conjunction with NMDOT will be April 22-24 in Las Cruces. The theme of the conference is “Honoring the Past…Designing the Future.” 2015 New Mexico APA Conference For the first time, the 2015 APA-NM conference will be unique by coordinating with the American Society of Civil Engineers for a theme of Building Alliances for a Livable New Mexico. The conference is scheduled for September 23-25 in Las Cruces for your planning purposes. Mr. Wakan highlighted some of Mr. Degani’s comments: Air Quality Standard (ozone) – there is a hearing tentatively planned for January. Staff will research the link provided in Mr. Degani’s report and provide additional information to the Technical Committee on the meeting date and location, and how to begin offering comments. The MPO’s deadline to submit any TAP and RTP application is February 1. Certifications and PS&E packages for projects with FFY15 construction funds must be submitted by July 15. The Statewide Long Range Plan (SLRP) working groups meetings are continuing and Mr. Fillerup attended two meetings during December. The Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Summit is scheduled for March 24 in Albuquerque. Mr. Wakan said this meeting will allow for a review of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and the pending changes as the Planning Division takes over this program. Mr. Wakan said that Staff would be attending this meeting and encouraged members of the Technical Committee to consider attending as well. Mr. Degani suggested the inclusion of “project start” and “project end” dates to the TIP template developed by Staff. There is a transportation and engineering conference on April 22-24 in Las Cruces. The New Mexico APA Conference is scheduled for September 23-25 in Las Cruces. For the first time, this conference will be coordinated with the American Society of Civil Engineers. 5. REVIEW THE FY2016-2017 TAP/RTP APPLICATIONS AND CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION(S) TO THE POLICY COMMITTEE Subject: TAP/RTP Projects Prepared by: Duane Wakan, MPO Planner Date: December 30, 2014 BACKGROUND  MAP-21 includes the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) and Recreational Trails Program (RTP).  TAP and RTP projects must be consistent with the State Long Range Plan (SLRP) and the MPO’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), as well as with other locally adopted plans in order to successfully compete for funding at the state level.  A Call for TAP Projects was issued by the MPO on September 11, and a Call for RTP Projects was issued on October 9.  After receiving project feasibility forms from applicants, the MPO met with NMDOT on November 18 in Santa Fe to review the proposals.  The deadline for the MPO to submit applications to NMDOT is February 1, 2015.  TAP Projects will be evaluated by a statewide evaluation committee using the six factors defined in MAP-21: Economic Vitality; Safety and Security; Accessibility and Mobility; Environmental Protection; Efficiency of System Management; and, Transportation System Preservation. CURRENT WORK  Present all TAP and RTP projects for review and recommendations.  Final approval of the list of projects to be submitted to NMDOT will be made by the Policy Committee on January 22.  ACTION ITEM  Staff recommends approval of the list of TAP and RTP projects for FY2016-17. This item is presented for review and recommendation by the Technical Committee. DISCUSSION: Mr. Wakan provided a background on the TAP and RTP applications received by the MPO. The projects will be scored and funding awarded by NMDOT. The projects must be consistent with the SLRP and the MPO’s MTP. Staff met with NMDOT on November 18 to review the projects being considered and to determine preliminary feasibility. Of the eight applications submitted, six will actually be moving forward: four TAP projects and two RTP projects. Mr. Wakan said that Staff would be seeking a recommendation for approval of the project(s) presented and those will go before the Policy Committee on January 22. Mr. Wakan presented a PowerPoint showing the locations and descriptions of the six TAP projects and the two RTP projects: TAP Applications 1. San Juan County – 10’ detached trail to connect various Kirtland Schools and the Kirtland Youth Association; cost is $1,000,000; the concept for this project was easily identified and outlined in 2035 MTP and the MPOs Bike & Ped Plan and is also a good Complete Streets and Safe Routes to School project. 2. City of Farmington – Red Apple Transit project to improve handicapped accessibility to eight existing bus stops, erect six new shelters, and two new bus turnouts; cost is $90,000 cost: • Bus shelter at Auburn and Navajo • Slab and bus shelters at Brookside Park & Auburn NB and SB; there may be some NEPA concerns to consider with these locations because they are entering public spaces; • Bus shelter at Mesa Verde & Butler (Veterans Memorial Park); • Slab and bus shelter at Gila & Iles (Walgreens); ensure ADA compliance; • Slab and bus shelter for the West Main WalMart in the parking lot; • Pull-out and shelter on 20th Street (library); NEPA requirement here because of entering the public library space); • Pull-out Scott at San Juan Boulevard (Berg Park); NEPA requirements will need to be considered here as well). 3. City of Farmington - 20th St. Sidewalk Phase III project (Phase I and II are currently programmed in the TIP); from Clayton to Hutton on the south side of the street only; $340,590; this project is consistent with the 2035 MTP, the MPOs Bike & Ped Plan and is also incorporating Complete Streets concepts. Mr. Sypher stated that coordinating with the electric utility has taken some time, effort, and expense. He wondered if this could enhance a future application of this type. Mr. Wakan said that NMDOT recommended the inclusion of hot spot crash data. NMDOT stated that HSIP funding should be considered when seeking future projects along this corridor. 4. City of Farmington – College Boulevard Bike/Trail Lane; about one-half mile north of Lion’s Wilderness Park to the north driveway of the BLM Office; cost is $190,000; identified in the MPO’s Bike/Ped Plan, is a Complete Streets concept, and is a connector trail. Mr. Sypher thought this was a good, simple, and reasonable project. RTP Projects 1. City of Aztec – Ruins/Riverside Connector Trail (approximately 8,700 feet); closed loop river trail at Riverside Park; cost is $624,000; identified in the 2035 MTP and the MPO’s Bike/Ped Plan; some environmental clearance concerns and NMDOT recommended the issues be addressed now by the City of Aztec and some parcels are not currently owned by the city. Those rights-of-way cannot be purchased until the environmental clearances have been received. Mr. Watson added that the environmental clearances must be received and appraisals compiled before the landowners can be approached. He added that he understood that the cradle-to-grave procedures needed to be followed. Ms. Holton stated that NMDOT rules and processes had to be complied with and any questions regarding that process should be directed to NMDOT. There was some discussion about the actual title of this project since Mr. Watson pointed out that the project did not involve Ruins Road. Staff said they would re-look at the title to find a better descriptive fit. 2. City of Farmington-Parks & Recreation – Anesi Trail Project – this is a 2.8 mile river trail along the Animas River; cost is $395,754; identified in the 2035 MTP, the MPO’s Bike & Ped Plan, the Riverine Plan, and the PRCA’s master plan; there are feasibility issues as the project is located in a flood plain. ACTION: Mr. Sypher moved to recommend approval on all six projects (the four TAP and the two RTP projects). Mr. Watson seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. 6. REVIEW FIVE DRAFT CHAPTERS OF THE 2040 MTP UPDATE Subject: 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Prepared by: Fran Fillerup, MPO Associate Planner Date: December 30, 2014 BACKGROUND OR PREVIOUS WORK  Staff is drafting updates to the chapters of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and adding new plan elements as determined.   This is the first set of five chapters to be presented. The target date for adoption is April 2015. Draft materials will be posted to the MPO webpage. CURRENT WORK  The following chapters drafts are presented for review:  Chapter 2 – Existing and Future Population and Employment Conditions: The MTP considers the potential future growth in population and employment in the region, which serves a basis for travel demand modeling, and drives future transportation system needs. This data was compiled by MPO staff as part of the travel demand model update of 2013.  Chapter 3 – Public Participation: The MPO undertakes a planning process that is cooperative, continuous and comprehensive and values the participation of stakeholder representatives, local elected officials, agency staff, federal and state staff, and the general public.  Chapter 4 – Project Prioritization Methodology: In accordance with MAP -21 transportation legislation and the recommendations of FHWA-NM in its review of the MPO, the MPO is developing a set of criteria for evaluating projects. This project prioritization methodology will help align proposals with regional goals and objectives, and demonstrate that consistency to federal and state agencies and the public.  Chapter 9 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: The MPO previously developed a Bike and Pedestrian Plan for the priority projects serving these modes of travel. The plan identifies the need to continue completing these networks, and increase intermodal connections in the area.  Chapter 11 – Security: The transportation system is an integral part of hazard mitigation and emergency response in the area. Local government agencies have developed plans to address potential hazards, and respond when emergencies occur. Through the local government entities represented in the MPO, the MPO supports the security needs of the area. To this end, security factors will be incorporated into the project prioritization methodology. DISCUSSION ITEM  Input on five chapters to the 2040 MTP will be sought. DISCUSSION: Mr. Fillerup gave a PowerPoint presentation of drafts of five chapters (Chapters 2, 3, 4, 9, and 11) of the 2040 MPO Update. Chapter 2 – Existing and Future Population and Employment Condition Mr. Fillerup said a lot of work had already been completed on this chapter with the development of the travel demand model which was updated in 2014. Potential future growth in population and employment in the region were studied and projections incorporated into the model update. Chapter 3 – Public Participation Chapter 3 summarizes the outreach completed by Staff and the consultant. The survey results were presented to the MPO Committees late last year. This chapter also explains who participated in the stakeholder meetings and who completed survey forms. Chapter 4 – Project Prioritization Methodology This is a new section for the 2040 MTP update. In accordance with MAP-21 transportation legislation and the recommendations of FHWA-NM in its review of the MPO, the MPO is developing a set of criteria for evaluating projects. The criteria are based on MPO goals and would be used to rank projects in the future. This project prioritization methodology is a tool used by other MPOs and in other transportation planning settings. Mr. Fillerup said that in developing this tool, Staff wanted it to be useful to the Policy and Technical Committees, keep it flexible, have it be quantitative and qualitative, and provide for transparency in decision-making. Mr. Fillerup referred to pages 4-8 and 4-9 of Chapter 4 which showed some preliminary guidance for scoring projects (see sample below). He explained that a simple 10-point score for each goal was selected: Table 4-2 from Draft Chapter 4 of the 2040 MTP Update Score from 8 to10 The project or program: (Points within this range are based on how • Is closely aligned with the goal closely all these factors are satisfied and on qualitative findings) • Meets one or more of the objectives associated with the goal • Produces positive findings to the criteria questions • Is supported by data, studies, or other documentation demonstrating how it meets the goal, objectives, and criteria Score from 5 to 7 The project or program: • Is loosely aligned with the goal • May meet one or more of the objectives associated with the goal • Produces positive findings to the criteria questions • Lacks clear data, studies, or other documentation demonstrating how it meets the goal, objectives, and criteria Score from 0 to 4 The project or program: • Does not address the goal • Does not meet the objectives associated with the goal • May produce positive findings to the criteria questions • Is not supported by data, studies, or other documentation demonstrating how it meets the goal, objectives, and criteria Mr. Fillerup asked for input and discussion from the Technical Committee. Below are some of the discussion items on this scoring method: - Was consideration given to aligning the MPO’s priorities with those of the state and Federal governments to ensure projects have a better chance of being selected. - The different funding programs will have different scoring criteria; some areas may be common. Prioritizing in a way that will ensure MPO projects are selected to receive federal funding is important. - Should the MTP list only those projects for which the MPO plans to pursue federal funding or should it be an all-inclusive approach to transportation planning for the region. Certain of the planned projects would then be identified for pursuing federal funding. - FMPO priorities do not always align with state priorities. Need to keep regional voice in expressing priorities. - Prioritization also needs to take into consideration that each of the local entities has different priorities and they are now in direct competition with each other for funding. - The MPO entities have worked very cooperatively with each other in the past. Projects were discussed, there were understandings of what a particular entity was hoping to achieve, fairness was sought, and the entities saw the importance of promoting regional ideas. - Difference of projects the MPO has a say in deciding and projects that will be decided on at the state level. Projects that must compete for selection at the state level need to closely match state and federal priorities in order to give them the best chance of being selected. Projects that the MPO can select for funding should have a different prioritization process where the entities take turns in receiving funding. - MPO’s approach to funding has been to submit as many as projects as possible. - Recent meeting with NMDOT dealt only with the overall feasibility of each of the projects and did not address whether that project might be funded or not. - Need to consider what happens to FMPO projects if the criteria in a specific NMDOT grant category differs from the priority criteria the MPO has developed. - Need balance and flexibility in order to change things if and when needed. - Need to do what is necessary to ensure MPO projects receive funding. It will require a regional balance and the cooperation of all the entities. Also need a balance of larger road projects with smaller bike/ped projects. - NMDOT makes distribution of funding; FMPO has no discretion over funding (only the operating fund). - How do we tie prioritization to pursuing the goals of the region. - Quantifying qualitative factors is difficult. Is the proposed prioritization process creating more work for MPO.  - All MPOs (both large and small) in state are treated the same by NMDOT; looking to streamline things; all MPOs are working on theirs now. Can we compare methodologies from other similar-sized MPOs outside of New Mexico. - Good discussion from Technical Committee; Technical Committee members are the peer reviewers for the document; submit changes directly to Staff; encouraged active engagement by Technical Committee as the document will be a future document for them as well as for the MPO. Mr. Hathaway had to leave the meeting. Mr. Fillerup reviewed a hypothetical test of the project prioritization methodology on the Kirtland School Walk Path System. This test followed the Goals, Objectives, Project Prioritization Criteria, and Score shown in Table 4-1 of Chapter 4 (see below). Hypothetical test of Project Prioritization Methodology Project Name Kirtland School Walk Path System Project Name Ruins-Riverside Connector Path Project Type Pedestrian - Sidewalk on street Project Type Trail - off street Goal Objective Criteria Score Out of Qualitative findings Score Out of Qualitative findings A. Support the economic vitality of 1. Invest in and maintain 1. How does the project or 6 10 Connects residential areas to 7 10 Potential benefit to tourism with the MPO region by investing transportation infrastructure serving program support economic vitality? commercial area on US 64. connection to Ruins and trails strategically in projects and programs economic activity centers system, plus more linkages to the which create long-term, financially- pedestrian network. sustainable economic value 2. Develop all modes of 2. Does the project or program transportation system for efficient improve quality of life within the delivery of goods and services and community or region? access to businesses, training and jobs 3. Enhance aesthetics and quality 3. Does the project or program of life factors of the transportation address workforce training or job system to attract visitors and new access transportation needs? residents 4. Expand transit services hours and days of operation to meet needs of residents in the workforce and San Juan College students seeking education and training B. Foster regional coordination on 1. Incorporate locally-adopted 1. Is the project or program based 10 10 Identified as mid-range project in a 10 10 Identified as mid-range project in transportation projects and policies plans in the MTP upon a locally-adopted plan? plan (2035 MTP). Assume: some plan (2035 MTP, COA plan). Assumes among all levels of government and coordination with CCSD. input with community, trails group. stakeholder groups 2. Involve local planners in the 2. Did the project or program have transportation planning process stakeholder input? 3. Maintain collaborative relationships within the region through ongoing public outreach to stakeholders and open public meetings C. Develop transportation network 1. Prioritize the completion of 1. Does the project or program 10 10 Creates sidewalk link in community 10 10 Connects other trails and pedestrian connections and associated facilities networks for individual modes help complete a transportation that did not previously exist. system. into a cohesive intermodal system network? 2. Increase intermodal 2. Does the project or program connections include intermodal connections? D. Manage congestion by prioritizing 1. Maximize use of current 1. Does the project or program 8 10 Improves walking in the area as an 8 10 Connects trail system and enhances projects that enhance the Quality of transportation system improve the efficiency of the alternative to driving/bussing. ability to make trips walking within Service (QOS) of capacity-efficient transportation system? Assume: Not a location of great COA. modes like carpooling, transit, congestion. biking, and walking and reduce overall person delay 2. Minimize congestion and delay 2. Does the project or program include Intelligent Transportation Systems features? 3. Integrate Intelligent Transportation Systems elements aimed at increasing system efficiency into the regional infrastructure E. Provide reasonable access and 1. Increased multi-modal 1. Does the project or program 7 10 Consistent with complete street 7 10 Improves walkability within COA, but prevent negative impacts of the accessibility by completing networks improve access for groups which concepts. Access large area of not shown to meet ADA. transportation system for all of the for all modes currently face some obstacles to community for 4 schools and approx region’s residents, regardless of age, access within the transportation 1900 students plus youth assoc. income, ability or location system? bldg., Does have sidewalk on only one side of street in most of project, but also fronts on sides with most development. Lacks improvements at crossings in project, need to satisfy ADA. 2. Expand transit service hours 2. Is the project or program and days of operation equitable consistent with environmental justice requirements? 3. Develop the Complete Streets 3. Is the project or program Design Guidelines for consistent with the Complete Streets implementation by local government Design Guideline and does it entities accommodate more than one mode? F. Minimize negative environmental 1. Minimize air quality impacts 1. Will the project or program 7 10 Assume: Some relation to improving 7 10 Assume: Some relation to improving impacts and enhance the create any new negative environmental impacts by providing environmental impacts by providing environmental quality of the MPO environmental impacts? option to walk instead of drive option to walk instead of drive region unless demonstrated. unless demonstrated. 2. Minimize impacts to existing 2. Does the project or program development help address any negative environmental impacts? 3. Develop strategies to educate the public about how travel choices affect air quality G. Build, operate and maintain the 1. Maximize transportation 1. Is the project or program 8 10 PFF says "yes", there is a plan for 10 PFF says "yes", there is a plan for metropolitan transportation system system performance per project financially sustainable and how will maintenance. maintenance. in a financially-sustainable, cost- costs it be maintained? efficient manner 2. Include life cycle costing into 2. Does the project or program proposals for all projects improve the cost efficiency of the transportation system? 3. Prioritize maintenance of the 3. Does the project or program existing transportation system improve upon existing infrastructure? H. Identify and implement new 1. Improve multi-modal street 1. Does the project or program 0 10 Does not include any crossings, only 0 10 Plan does not incorporate any ITS, or technology for balanced multi-modal design for high activity areas incorporate Intelligent mentions future Hawk flasher. other technology. transportation Transportation Systems elements? 2. Implement Intelligent 2. What other technology is Transportation Systems included in the project or program and what are the expected benefits? I. Develop a transportation system 1. Include local plans into MTP 1. How does the project improve 6 10 Provides pedestrian facility where 9 10 Connects trail system to Aztec Ruins, that enhances quality of life and development quality of life and aesthetics of the none has existed. Assume: does not enhances trail within COA along river works in concert with cultural and community and region? address access management or environmental resources. aesthetics of roadways. 2. Address aesthetics of major 2. Does the project or program thoroughfares within the region and employ the adopted Access gateways to the cities Management Plan? 3. Minimize access to adjacent developments along key arterials to maximize capacity consistent with access management principles 4. Include MPO review in local development review J. Integrate transportation and land 1. Encourage the local entities to 1. What are the land use impacts 4 10 Improves pedestrian access, but not 8 10 Improves connection of parts of COA use planning to improve quality of integrate regional transportation of the project or program? a demonstrated land use impact. on two sides of busy road by going life and to protect the natural policies into their adopted local under bridge. environment by using transportation plans investments to proactively shape land use patterns rather than react to growth 2. Emphasize connectivity and 2. How does the project or development of alternative travel program relate to adopted land use routes as a means to avoid widening plans? of roadways 3. Does the project or program improve connectivity of the transportation system? K. Ensure safety for all modes 1. Improve system safety through 1. How does the project or 5 10 Improves pedestrian safety by 5 10 Provides crossing of Chaco under improved levels of service and program improve the safety of the providing facility, but needs to bridge, but not other demonstrated reduced congestion transportation system? address crossings and ADA safety impacts. compatibility. 2. Promote safety design practices 2. Are there negative safety for all modes impacts of the project? 3. Minimize emergency vehicle response time L. Coordinate with local agencies on 1. Implement Intelligent 1. Does the project or program 0 10 Not expected to impact secuity, 0 10 Not expected to impact secuity, security planning and strategies Transportation Systems (ITS) support local and regional security hazard mitigation or emergency hazard mitigation or emergency technologies for improving the needs? response. response. safety and security of transportation modes 2. Coordinate transportation 2. Does the project or program system design and operation with address any natural disaster emergency response and disaster prevention needs? mitigation efforts M. Foster public private partnerships 1. Facilitate connections of all 1. Does the project or program 7 10 Addresses needs related to schools 10 10 Assume: some cooperation and aimed at reaching regional levels of government, school leverage any public private and youth association, assumes support from ATOS, aside from transportation goals districts, San Juan College, partnerships? some cooperation between county mention of the group. businesses, non-profit organizations and school district. and other interested stakeholders 2. Support public private 2. Is there a plan for the partnerships in identifying needs, sustainability or expiration of that accessing data and technical partnership? assistance as available N. Provide a transportation system 1. Promote access to healthcare 1. What are the health impacts of 8 10 Will improve ability of community 10 10 Will extend and connect recreational which promotes healthy living services for all users, with focus on the project? members to use roadways safely for trail system in COA and may promote populations without the ability to exercise. exercise. drive 2. Maintain existing complete 2. Does the project support active streets and expand complete streets transportation modes? infrastructure to promote active transportation modes Score Out of Score Out of 86 140 91 140 Following the presentation by Mr. Fillerup, the Technical Committee members provided their comments and suggestions to the proposed methodology: Mr. Watson noted that under Goal “N”, the Kirtland project was given an 8 and he wondered why this might not just as easily been a 7. He noted that just one number up or down in a single category could change the overall ranking of a project. The rankings are relying on the values of the MPO. Mr. Fillerup and Mr. Wakan explained that the Technical Committee would review all project scoring and make any necessary changes before a project’s score was finalized. Mr. Wakan noted that all planners would likely score the same project differently and suggested maybe using a weighted value or average score. Mr. Fillerup said the example given was not a quantitative analysis. Use of a traffic demand model where applicable could produce more quantitative results which would make the overall score much less subjective. Mr. Sypher added that the first one completed then becomes the standard from which others are scored. Mr. Fillerup said he would continue to review what other MPOs do that are the size of FMPO to help maintain flexibility, not be so subjective, and have data-driven aspects to the scoring, to be able to substantiate the decisions made (be more transparent) and still pursue the regional goals. Ms. Lopez commented that having a scoring system would assist the applicants in understanding the standards by which their application would be judged. In this way, they know what is required to fully answer all questions and address those ahead of time. Mr. Sypher added that the scoring system also shows where an entity’s energy should be focused. He added that the scoring could be reviewed since some questions could be worth upwards of 20 points while others might only be worth five points. Mr. Sypher thought it important to seek input from MRCOG and even NMDOT to see how the MPO’s prioritization criteria compared and what elements might be added to make FMPO’s projects more competitive statewide. Mr. Wakan said that the TAP and RTP applications were outlined specifically to answer questions of how their project met certain criteria. Most applications were answered fully and showed a level of effort and detail. Ms. Lopez said the criteria are needed so entities can more easily provide a complete project picture and include the detail and complexity required to compete on a statewide level. Chapter 9 – Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Mr. Fillerup explained that the Bike/Ped Plan is a plan all its own and was adopted in 2008. Chapter 9 in the 2040 MTP needs to be updated with information from each of the entities. The public participation comments have been consolidated into the draft of Chapter 9, but no goals or objectives have yet been updated for this chapter. The 2035 MTP contains numeric standards that will now be changed and updated to refer to the Complete Streets Advisory Group design guidelines for bike and pedestrian facilities along a roadway. Mr. Sypher asked if page 9-8 reflected any Complete Streets information. Mr. Fillerup said it did not. This chapter is still a work in progress. Mr. Shepard asked if the intent was to summarize the pre-existing bike and ped plan or will this chapter speak to bike and pedestrian activity of which the bike and ped plan is just one portion. Mr. Fillerup replied that the intent is not to simply rehash the plan but refer to it and provide a list and map of proposed bike and ped projects. Mr. Wakan added that the map will clearly show where the gaps are in the network and will help to prioritize the regional projects. Ms. Holton added that Mr. Fillerup will be working with the entities to determine what has been built so that the layer of existing network will clearly show where the gaps are and those can be factored into the priorities. Chapter 11 – Security Mr. Fillerup said that Chapter 11 dealt with hazard prevention and mitigation when hazards or an emergency occurs. This chapter is intended to acknowledge the work already done by others (emergency/incident response, 911, evacuation, flood plain management) and to acknowledge the role the transportation system already plays in responding to incidents and in preventing hazards. Mr. Fillerup added that security has been included in the project prioritization. Mr. Shepard added that there might be some funding mechanisms through FEMA that could potentially be coordinated with other transportation funding options. He added that some specific projects that identify truck routes and actual construction of a truck bypass even if this is not supported from the transportation aspect. Mr. Fillerup said Staff would present another five chapters to the February Technical Committee meeting. He encouraged comments and suggestions from Technical Committee members on the first five chapters and asked that they be sent to him in writing. Ms. Holton reported that the MPO is required to work closely with NMDOT to ensure that the MTP is in compliance with the SLRP. Staff is monitoring the progress of the SLRP progress and adoption of both is anticipated to be at the same time if possible. She noted that with some of the financial issues, the MPO will need to take their lead from NMDOT. Ms. Holton asked that Staff provide a list of all the chapters anticipated to be part of the MTP to the Technical Committee so they can review how the chapters stack up, consider consolidation of chapters, and address issues that have not yet been considered. ACTION: The update was received. 7. TIP PROJECT STATUS UPDATE Subject: Status of TIP Projects Prepared by: Duane Wakan, MPO Planner Date: December 30, 2014 BACKGROUND  The STIP Protocols, finalized in early 2014, indicate that each MPO shall develop a process to monitor the progress and status of each project in the first two years of the TIP.  MPO Staff has been conducting a monthly review of all FMPO TIP projects with the Technical Committee. These reviews have helped correct inconsistencies in the TIP, STIP, the MPO’s MTP and Agreement Request Forms (ARFs).  Reviewing the status of projects is an opportunity to review project details, programmed amounts, and any potential situations that may cause funding not to be obligated by September 30th. INFORMATION ITEM  This is an information item only and Committee members will have an opportunity to provide feedback regarding TIP project status and details. DISCUSSION: Mr. Wakan said that Ms. Jessica Griffin, Planning Division Supervisor, had asked the Technical Committee member to compile their communication issues with NMDOT and provide them to her to try to address. Since the initial deadline to provide these comments was January, Mr. Brian Degani suggested the members discuss at today’s meeting a firm date by which those comments could be submitted. Mr. Degani also suggested that a letter detailing the communication issues be sent to Mr. Tom Church, Transportation Secretary. Mr. Wakan said he thought a letter of this type should come from the Technical Committee and not the MPO. Ms. Lopez said she would not be the Chair of the Technical Committee going forward and that the issues being experienced with NMDOT Engineering were not issues she had experienced. She recommended that the incoming Chair draft this letter, have it reviewed by the Technical Committee, and then finalized for signature. Mr. Wakan asked if the Technical Committee members could set a deadline by which they could have their comments compiled on the issues encountered in communicating with District 5. This would be an example of what they have encountered and would detail maybe the most significant or frustrating project. Mr. Watson said he did not have the time to provide this type of documentation. Ms. Holton said that Staff does not know the details of the entity issues, so they cannot provide the information. Mr. Watson asked what had happed to the quarterly meetings with NMDOT and District 5 that were discussed and started last year. He said he would rather speak to Mr. Miguel Gabaldon directly and explain his concerns. Mr. Sypher said after the last Technical Committee meeting he learned that the issues with District 5 had been going on for quite some time. There had been two meetings held previously with NMDOT and District 5 that did not produce lasting results. The issue had been taken to management of the local governments and they directed Technical Committee members to address the issue at their level through the MPO. Following this direction and the two quarterly meetings, members had also sought assistance from the local Transportation Commissioner, Butch Mathews. Trying to work with him has produced mixed responses. Mr. Sypher said that he appreciated Ms. Griffin’s offer to try and correct the issues, but believed that the politics involved in attempting to rectify the issues of another department would be counter-productive. He thought that it would be more appropriate to speak with the supervisor over Planning and Engineering. Ms. Sypher said that the Technical Committee has tried to be open with District 5 on the continuing issues and believed that should be enough to investigate if someone was truly interested. District 5 says they will make changes, but no changes occur. Mr. Sypher stated that he thought his recourse was to speak with his boss and ask him how he wants Mr. Sypher to proceed. He did not think it was appropriate or beneficial to continue trying to address this at the lower levels. Mr. Watson said he would prefer a face-to-face meeting with whoever can get the ball rolling and whoever is willing to discuss the issues with the Technical Committee members. He added that the MPO needed to bring in whoever can help resolve the ongoing issues, and he and Mr. Sypher agreed that discussions needed to be pursued with individuals higher up in NMDOT hierarchy. Ms. Lopez said that Mr. Keck has previously expressed his desire to have the local government administrators address the issues at a political level. Mr. Watson said the City of Aztec’s City Manager talked with Mr. Mathews who went to bat to get funding and this was successful in eliminating the need for Legion Road. He added that the city is still struggling to get Mr. Gabaldon and District 5 to set the DBE goals for the East Arterial project so they can advertise the project. Ms. Lopez said that Mr. Keck had said he would send the Technical Committee members copies of the Federal Register that spoke to the requirements of the state DOTs for their timelines and in providing responses and reimbursements. Everyone thought this information had been provided. Mr. Watson thought that Mr. Gabaldon might not be aware of decisions being made within his district. He thought the quarterly meetings with NMDOT were extremely important even if the same issues are raised and discussed meeting after meeting. Mr. Wakan said Staff would work on getting a joint meeting with NMDOT and District 5 scheduled for February. He also noted that the Technical Committee members did not want to pursue providing documentation to Ms. Griffin that she would then take up the ladder at NMDOT. The Technical Committee agreed that: - Issues with one department should not be addressed by another department;  - Lower level officials cannot address changes that need to come from a higher level in a different department; - Need to speak to upper level official(s) who can affect a change; - Continue with quarterly joint meetings; - Continued discussion with entire Technical Committee present; - Cancelled meetings will simply be rescheduled; - Set a yearly calendar date for these meetings. Mr. Wakan said the deadline for TIP amendments is January 19 and the advertisement will be published on Sunday, January 25. Mr. Wakan said the list of federally obligated projects (East Arterial Route-Phase IB- $2,900,000; intersection of San Juan Boulevard and Scott Avenue-$18,528; safety project for the intersection of County Roads 350 and 390-$106,000) is posted on the MPO website. Mr. Sypher reported that the City of Farmington is waiting on the PS&E for Phase I of the 20th Street sidewalk project and Phase II is getting underway with 20 percent of the design completed. 8. INFORMATION ITEMS Subject: Information Items Prepared by: Fran Fillerup, MPO Associate Planner Date: December 30, 2014 INFORMATION ITEMS a. NMDOT Staff Members to Join Policy and Technical Committees. NMDOT has requested to have a staff member serve on the MPO Policy and Technical Committees. This matter was discussed on December 18, 2014, and a summary of the discussion was provided to NMDOT. Staff has requested an update on the part of NMDOT and any new information will be presented. b. TIP Template. MPO staff developed a template to organize information about projects being entered into the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) database. Any updates about the use of the form and review from NMDOT staff will be provided. c. Other. DISCUSSION: This item was tabled. 9. BUSINESS FROM THE CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS AND STAFF There was no additional business from the Chairman, Members and Staff. 10. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR There was no business from the Floor. 11. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Watson moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Sypher seconded the motion. Ms. Lopez adjourned the meeting at approximately 12:20 a.m. __________________________ ________________________________ Cynthia Lopez, Chair June Markle, MPO Administrative Aide