MPO Technical Committee

MPO TECHNICAL COMMITTEE AGENDA December 13, 2017 10:00 a.m. Commission Chambers San Juan County Administrative Building 100 South Oliver Aztec, New Mexico  AGENDA FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING December 13, 2017 10:00 AM This meeting will be held in Commission Chambers at San Juan County Administrative Building, 100 South Oliver, Aztec, New Mexico. ITEM PAGE 1. Call meeting to order 2. Approve the minutes from the November 1, 2017 Technical Committee Meeting. 21-35 3. Presentation on Stormwater Management in Transportation Planning 1 Presented by: Toni Sitta, EIT, Associate Project Engineer, City of Farmington, Cities MS4 Coordinator and Coordinator for the San Juan Basin MS4 Advisory Group 4. Report on the status of the potential Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) 2-3 Amendment(s) to Chapter 5, Roadway Plan, and Chapter 9, Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Presented by: Derrick Garcia 5. Presentation and discussion on the Safety Performance Targets to be adopted 4-17 before February 27, 2018 by the MPO Presented by: Derrick Garcia 6. TIP Project Updates from Technical Committee members 18 Presented by: Derrick Garcia 7. Reports from NMDOT a. Update from the Planning Bureau (Somie Chavez) b. Update from District 5 (Paul Brasher) 8. Committee Member Discussion Item(s) 19 None presented for this agenda item. 9. Information Items 20 a. Staff Training(s) Presented by: Derrick Garcia 10. Business from Chairman, Members, and Staff 11. Public Comment on Any Issues Not on the Agenda 12. Adjournment The public body may only take action on an item if it is listed for action on the publicly noticed agenda. ATTENTION PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: If you are an individual with a disability who is in need of a reader, amplifier, qualified sign language interpreter, or any other form of auxiliary aid or service to attend or participate in the hearing or meeting, please contact the MPO Administrative Assistant at the Downtown Center, 100 W Broadway, Farmington, New Mexico or at 505-599-1466 at least one week prior to the meeting or as soon as possible. Public documents, including the agenda and minutes, can be provided in various accessible formats. Please contact the MPO Administrative Assistant if a summary or other type of accessible format is needed.  FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Agenda Item #3 Subject: Presentation – Stormwater Management in Transportation Planning Date: December 13, 2017 PRESENTATION Ms. Toni Sitta, EIT, Associate Project Engineer with the City of Farmington Public Works Department, and the Cities MS4 Coordinator will provide a presentation on stormwater management in transportation planning. Ms. Sitta also serves as the Coordinator for the San Juan Basin MS4 Advisory Group. In July 2017, FMPO made available a scholarship (to cover 100% registration, 50% airfare, and 50% hotel) to any of the member entities which are also designated as an MS4 community for a representative currently working in stormwater management to attend the recent 19th Annual EPA Region 6 Stormwater Conference in San Antonio, Texas on September 17-21, 2017. Ms. Sitta was the recipient of this scholarship. In exchange, she was asked to prepare and present this presentation. This scholarship and the presentation were developed in support of Task 5.2 of the MPO’s UPWP: 5.2 Storm-Water Management Support and encourage the integration of storm-water management principles and best practices into street design standards to reduce (or mitigate) the pollutant impacts of both pervious and impervious transportation surfaces. It is acknowledged that the member entities are dealing with this issue daily and it is ultimately their responsibility to meet federal requirements. However, the MPO will provide support and resources where needed. Staff Activities: • Host webinars and meetings for member entities to learn and discuss best practices • Support educational opportunities and the sharing of knowledge • Work with member entities, regional governments, and NMDOT on implementation of policies and best-practices This task was added to the UPWP after “Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation” was added as a planning factor (23 USC 134) upon the enactment of the “Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act” in late 2015. 1  FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Agenda Item #4 Subject: Update on the Status of Potential MTP Amendments to Chapters 4, 5, and 9 Prepared by: Derrick Garcia, Associate Planner Date: December 13, 2017 BACKGROUND  The FMPO Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) serves as the MPO’s Long- Range planning document and was adopted by the Policy Committee on September 24, 2015.  Beginning with the Call for Projects during the development of the FFY2018- 2023 TIP recently, some committee members expressed concerns with the Project Prioritization Method in Chapter 4 of the MTP.  Staff was additionally concerned that there are some projects in Chapters Five (Roadway Plan) and Nine (Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan) that need to be added, amended, or removed from the lists of Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects.  Staff wanted to ensure that all projects on the TIP were listed in the MTP to ensure compliance with requirements.  Staff met with all the member entities in September and October to discuss their input and recommendations to Chapters 4, 5, and 9. CURRENT ISSUES  Staff now feels that an amendment to the MTP for Chapters 5 and 9 may be premature or is not currently necessary, because: o Amendment #1 to the FFY18-23 TIP resolved an issue with MTP/TIP inconsistencies – which was the main factor that originally motivated the consideration of an MTP Amendment. o FMPO will soon begin the Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Update. This update is expected to identify projects that will likely need to be added to the MTP.  At this time, staff would like to focus on resolving the issues that the committee members have with the Project Prioritization Method, and ask that the members identify those issues during this meeting. FUTURE WORK  Staff will meet as necessary with committee members for their input, direction regarding the Project Prioritization Method.  Note that staff will begin to outline the steps necessary for a successful 2045 MTP Update in the next year, including updating the Public Participation Plan (PPP). The MTP Update is required to be completed in Fall 2020. INFORMATION ITEM  This is a discussion/direction item. No action is sought at this time. 2  §450.324 Development and content of the metropolitan transportation plan. (a) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall include the development of a transportation plan addressing no less than a 20-year planning horizon as of the effective date. In formulating the transportation plan, the MPO(s) shall consider factors described in §450.306 as the factors relate to a minimum 20-year forecast period. In nonattainment and maintenance areas, the effective date of the transportation plan shall be the date of a conformity determination issued by the FHWA and the FTA. In attainment areas, the effective date of the transportation plan shall be its date of adoption by the MPO(s). (b) The transportation plan shall include both long-range and short-range strategies/actions that provide for the development of an integrated multimodal transportation system (including accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of people and goods in addressing current and future transportation demand. 3  FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Agenda Item #5 Subject: National Performance Management Measures for Highway Safety Improvement Program Prepared by: Derrick Garcia, Associate Planner Date: December 13, 2017 BACKGROUND  23 CFR §490 Subpart B – National Performance Management Measures for Highway Safety Improvement Program (see attached).  The FHWA requires that MPOs establish targets for five (5) safety performance measures for all public roads in the MPO planning area within 180 days after the State establishes each target.  The five Performance Measures to be considered are: o Number of Fatalities o Rate of Fatalities per 100 Million VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) o Number of Serious Injuries o Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 Million VMT o Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Non-motorized Serious Injuries  MPOs may: Agree to support State target OR establish specific numeric targets for a safety performance measure (number or rate).  Reporting is done on an annual basis, leaving the choice to adopt State standards vs. establish MPO specific targets up to the MPO Policy Committee each year. CURRENT ISSUES  FMPO Policy Committee Action is due no later than February 27, 2018. FUTURE WORK  Technical Committee’s support for the Policy Committee’s upcoming decision in February to adopt the State’s standards for FFY18 will be sought during the January 2018 Technical Committee meeting.  The Safety Targets (along with the other Performance Management standards) will need to be amended into the MTPs in the next amendment/update cycle. o FMPO’s MTP isn’t due for an update until 2020. A resolution each year will suffice until then. ATTACHMENTS  NMDOT FFY2018 HSIP Safety Targets Summary outlining the targets as adopted by NMDOT with MPO input.  Fact sheets from the Federal Highway Administration detailing the requirements and standards.  Trends in NM Traffic Crash Data Presentation. 4  INFORMATION ITEM  This is an information item only. No action is sought during this meeting. APPLICABLE CITATIONS Requirement for MPOs to establish performance targets for Federal-aid highway measures and public transportation established by USDOT.  23 USC 134(h)(2)  49 USC 5303(h)(2)  49 USC 5304(d)(2) Requirements to include discussion in the metropolitan and statewide improvement program as to how the planned program will achieve the targets set by the State and MPO:  23 USC 134(j)(2)(D)  23 USC 135(g)(4)  49 USC 5303(j)(2)(D)  49 USC 5304(g)(4) 5  Safety Performance Measures Fact Sheet Safety Performance Measures Number of Fatalities: The total number of persons suffering fatal injuries in a motor vehicle crash during a calendar year. Rate of Fatalities: The ratio of total number of fatalities to the number of Five Performance Measures vehicle miles traveled (VMT, in 100 Million VMT) in a calendar year.  Number of Fatalities Number of Serious Injuries: The total number of persons suffering at least one serious injury in a motor vehicle crash during a calendar year.  Rate of Fatalities per 100 Million VMT Rate of Serious Injuries: The ratio of total number of serious injuries to the  Number of Serious Injuries number of VMT (in 100 Million VMT) in a calendar year. Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Non-motorized Serious Injuries:  Million VMT The combined total number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized Number of Non-motorized Fatalities serious injuries involving a motor vehicle during a calendar year.  and Non-motorized Serious Injuries Data Sources Fatality Data: Fatality Analysis Serious Injury Data: State motor Number of Non-motorized Fatalities Reporting System (FARS). Final FARS vehicle crash database. Agencies must and Non-motorized Serious Injuries: data is to be used if it is available, use the definition for “Suspected FARS and State motor vehicle crash otherwise FARS Annual Report File Serious Injury (A)” from the MMUCC, database. The number of non-motorized (ARF) data may be used, which is 4th edition by April 15, 2019. Prior to fatalities is the total number of fatalities generally available one year before April 15, 2019 agencies may use with the FARS person attribute codes: Final FARS data. injuries classified as “A” on the KABCO (5) Pedestrian, (6) Bicyclist, (7) Other scale through use of serious injury Cyclist, and (8) Person on Personal Volume Data: State VMT data is conversion tables. However, agencies Conveyance. The number of non- derived from the Highway are encouraged to begin using the motorized serious injuries is the total Performance Monitoring System MMUCC, 4th edition definition and number of serious injuries where the (HPMS). Metropolitan Planning attributes at the beginning of 2019 for injured person is, or is equivalent to, a Organization (MPO) VMT, if a complete and consistent data file for pedestrian (2.2.36) or a pedalcyclist applicable, is estimated by the MPO. the calendar year. (2.2.39) as defined in ANSI D16.1-2007. What You Need to Know About Establishing Targets States: • States will first establish statewide targets in their August 31, 2017 HSIP Annual Report for calendar year 2018, and annually thereafter. • Targets are applicable to all public roads regardless of functional classification or ownership. • For common performance measures (number of fatalities, rate of fatalities and number of serious injuries), targets must be identical to the targets established for the NHTSA Highway Safety Grants program in the Highway Safety Plan. • States also have the option to establish any number of urbanized area targets and one non-urbanized area target for any or all of the measures. If a State chooses to do so, it is required to report the urbanized area boundaries used and evaluate and report progress for each target. Urbanized and non-urbanized area targets are not included in the significant progress determination. Coordination and Collaboration: • Performance management connects the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and Highway Safety Plan (HSP) to the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) to promote a coordinated relationship for common performance measures, resulting in comprehensive transportation and safety planning. • The State DOT and MPOs in the State must coordinate when establishing targets, to the maximum extent practicable. • A wide range of stakeholders should work together to establish targets. This includes, the State DOT, State Highway Safety Office, MPOs, FHWA Division Office, NHTSA Regional Office, Law Enforcement Agencies and EMS (include all 4 E’s of Highway Safety) • Set targets that are data-driven and realistic, maintain momentum and remain focused. 6 What You Need to Know About Establishing Targets (continued) MPOs: • MPOs must establish targets specific to the MPO planning area for the same five safety performance measures for all public roads in the MPO planning area within 180 days after the State establishes each target. MPOs may select one of the following options for each individual safety performance measure: • agreeing to support the State target; OR • establishing specific numeric targets for a safety performance measure (number or rate). • MPOs that choose to establish a rate target must report the VMT estimate used to establish that target and the methodology to develop the VMT estimate. MPOs should make maximum use of data prepared for HPMS when preparing the rate-based target denominator. If an MPO develops data specifically for the denominator, it should use methods to compute VMT that are consistent with those used for other Federal reporting purposes. • MPO targets are reported to the State DOT, and made available to FHWA, upon request. MPO targets are not included in the assessment of whether a State has met or made significant progress toward meeting its targets. State Target MPO Target For Each Performance Measure, Performance Measure Target Reported in HSIP Target Reported in Highway Support State Target or Establish Annual Report for FHWA Safety Plan for NHTSA MPO-Specific Target Number of Fatalities  =   Rate of Fatalities per 100 Million VMT  =   Number of Serious Injuries  =   Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 Million VMT  Not required  Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Non-motorized Serious Injuries  Not required  Example Target Calculations 5-Year Rolling Average: Each target is based on a 5-year rolling average, which is the average of 5 individual, consecutive points of data. The 5-year rolling average provides a better understanding of the overall data over time without eliminating years with significant increases or decreases; and provides a mechanism for accounting for regression to the mean. If a particularly high or low number of fatalities and/or serious injuries occur in one year, a return to a level consistent with the average in the previous year may occur. The number targets are calculated by adding the number for the measure for each of the most recent 5 consecutive years ending in the year for which the targets are established, dividing by 5, and rounding to the tenth decimal place. The rate targets are calculated similarly yet rounded to the thousandth decimal place. This more accurately reveals the change from one 5-year average to another that might otherwise be obscured if the number was truncated. Example: Number of Fatalities Example: Rate of Fatalities per 100 Million VMT Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Number of Fatalities 471 468 493 468 462* Number of Fatalities 471 468 493 468 462* *From FARS Annual Report File, if Final FARS is not available Per 100 Million VMT 454.21 487.50 466.48 492.27 495.97 To determine the target for number of fatalities: Rate of Fatalities 1.04 0.96 1.06 0.95 0.93 • Add the number of fatalities for the most recent 5 *From FARS Annual Report File, if Final FARS is not available consecutive calendar years ending in the year for which the To determine the target for rate of fatalities: targets are established: 471 + 468 + 493 + 468 + 462 = 2,362 • Add the rate of fatalities for the most recent 5 consecutive • Divide by five and round to the nearest tenth decimal place: calendar years ending in the year for which the targets are 2,362 / 5 = 472.4 established: 1.04 + 0.96 + 1.06 + 0.95 + 0.93 = 4.94 • Divide by five and round to the nearest thousandth decimal place: 4.94 / 5 = 0.988 7  Metropolitan Planning Organization Safety Performance Measures Fact Sheet Safety Performance Measures The Safety Performance Management Measures regulation supports the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and requires State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to set HSIP targets for 5 safety performance measures. This document highlights the requirements specific to MPOs and provides a comparison of MPO and State DOT responsibilities. HSIP Safety Targets Established by MPOs How do MPOs establish HSIP targets? 1 Number of fatalities Coordination is the key for all stakeholders in setting HSIP targets. Stakeholders should work together to share data, review strategies 2 Rate of fatalities and understand outcomes. MPOs must work with the State DOT. MPOs should also coordinate with the State Highway Safety Office, 3 Number of serious injuries transit operators, local governments, the FHWA Division Office, 4 Rate of serious injuries National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) Regional Office, law enforcement and emergency medical services 5 Number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries agencies, and others. By working together, considering and integrating the plans and programs of various safety stakeholders, MPOs will be better able to understand impacts to safety performance to establish appropriate HSIP targets. Coordination should start with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). More information on the SHSP is available at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/shsp/. MPOs establish HSIP targets by either: 1. agreeing to plan and program projects so that they contribute toward the accomplishment of the State DOT HSIP target or 2. committing to a quantifiable HSIP target for the metropolitan planning area. To provide MPOs with flexibility, MPOs may support all the State HSIP targets, establish their own specific numeric HSIP targets for all of the performance measures, or any combination. MPOs may support the State HSIP target for one or more individual performance measures and establish specific numeric targets for the other performance measures. If an MPO agrees to support a State HSIP target, the If an MPO establishes its own HSIP target, the MPO MPO would … would…  Work with the State and safety stakeholders to address  Establish HSIP targets for all public roads in the areas of concern for fatalities or serious injuries within metropolitan planning area in coordination with the State the metropolitan planning area  Estimate vehicles miles traveled (VMT) for all public  Coordinate with the State and include the safety roads within the metropolitan planning area for rate performance measures and HSIP targets for all public targets roads in the metropolitan area in the MTP (Metropolitan  Include safety (HSIP) performance measures and HSIP Transportation Plan) targets in the MTP  Integrate into the metropolitan transportation planning  Integrate into the metropolitan transportation planning process, the safety goals, objectives, performance process, the safety goals, objectives, performance measures and targets described in other State safety measures and targets described in other State safety transportation plans and processes such as applicable transportation plans and processes such as applicable portions of the HSIP, including the SHSP portions of the HSIP, including the SHSP  Include a description in the TIP (Transportation  Include a description in the TIP of the anticipated effect Improvement Program) of the anticipated effect of the of the TIP toward achieving HSIP targets in the MTP, TIP toward achieving HSIP targets in the MTP, linking linking investment priorities in the TIP to those safety investment priorities in the TIP to those safety targets targets 8 FHWA-SA-16-084 Volumes for HSIP Rate Targets: MPOs that establish fatality rate or serious injury rate HSIP targets must report the VMT estimate used for such targets, and the methodology used to develop the estimate, to the State DOT. For more information on volumes for HSIP rate targets, see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/tools/technical_guidance/index.cfm. Roads addressed by MPO HSIP Targets: HSIP targets cover all public roadways within the metropolitan planning area boundary regardless of ownership or functional classification, just as State HSIP targets cover all public roads in the State. How do MPOs with multi-State boundaries establish HSIP targets? MPOs with multi-State boundaries must coordinate with all States involved. If an MPO with multi-State boundaries chooses to support a State HSIP target, it must do so for each State. For example, an MPO that extends into two States would agree to plan and program projects to contribute to two separate sets of HSIP targets (one for each State). If a multi-State MPO decides to establish its own HSIP target, the MPO would establish the target for the entire metropolitan planning area. Top 5 Things to Know about MPO HSIP Safety Performance Targets All MPOs must set a target for each of the 5 HSIP When do MPOs need to establish these  Safety Performance Measures targets? MPOs may adopt and support the State’s HSIP States establish HSIP targets and report them for the  targets, develop their own HSIP targets, or use a combination of both upcoming calendar year in their HSIP annual report that is due MPOs must establish their HSIP targets by February August 31 each year. MPOs must establish HSIP targets  27 of the calendar year for which they apply within 180 days of the State establishing and reporting its HSIP targets. Since FHWA deems the HSIP reports submitted  MPO HSIP targets are reported to the State DOT on August 31, MPOs must establish HSIP targets no later than MPO HSIP targets are not annually assessed for February 27 of each year.  significant progress toward meeting targets; State HSIP targets are assessed annually Where do MPOs report targets? While States report their HSIP targets to FHWA in their annual HSIP report, MPOs do not report their HSIP targets directly to FHWA. Rather, the State(s) and MPO mutually agree on the manner in which the MPO reports the targets to its respective DOT(s). MPOs must include baseline safety performance, HSIP targets and progress toward achieving HSIP targets in the system performance report in the MTP. Whether an MPO agrees to support a State HSIP target or establishes its own HSIP target the MPO would include in the MTP a systems performance report evaluating the condition and performance of the transportation system with respect to the safety performance targets described in the MTP including progress achieved by the MPO in achieving safety performance targets Assessment of Significant Progress While FHWA will determine whether a State DOT has met or made significant progress toward meeting HSIP targets, it will not directly assess MPO progress toward meeting HSIP targets. However, FHWA will review MPO performance as part of ongoing transportation planning process reviews including the Transportation Management Area certification review and the Federal Planning Finding associated with the approval of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. 9 FHWA-SA-16-084 Trends in NM Traffic Crash Data ‐ Trends, 12/5/2017 Projections, and Rankings Methods for Setting HSP and HSIP Targets Trends in Result of Linear New Mexico Regression Traffic Crash Data 5‐Year Moving Average Trends, Projections and Rankings 2017 Projection = Linear Regression (best fit straight line) based on 2011 to 2016 data 2018 Projection = Linear Regression (best fit straight line) based on 2011 to 2017 data Jessica Bloom, Research Scientist II, UNM 2014 + 2015 + 2016 + 2017 + 2018 383 + 298 + 404 + 366 +370 2018 Five−Year Moving Average = = = 364 John Nitzel, Principal Technologist, Ch2m 5 5 Ilene Hall, Planner April 5, 2017 Average Fatalities 2014 − 2018 2018 Five−Year Moving Average for Rates = Average VMT 2014 − 2018 Photo by NMDOT Methodologies Used Total Fatalities by Year • Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) The Annual VMT estimate for 2016 uses the 2015 Daily VMT #: (75,165,529.8 Daily VMT * 1.021 * 365) / 1,000,000 = 28,012 annual MVMT for 2016 where 75,165,529.8 is the 2015 DVMT and 1.021 is the 2.1% increase estimate for 2016 (per FHWA*) and 365 is the number of days in a year and 1,000,000 converts the units to millions • Crash Data ‐ 2015 is finalized, 2016 is preliminary * https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/tvt.cfm Source: NHTSA FARS, 2007 ‐ 2015. NMDOT Fatallog, 2016 preliminary. 10 1 Trends in NM Traffic Crash Data ‐ Trends, 12/5/2017 Projections, and Rankings Fatality Rate Serious Injuries (Fatalities per 100M VMT) Source: NHTSA FARS, 2007 ‐ 2015. NMDOT Fatallog, 2016 preliminary. The rates for 2016‐2018 use the FHWA 2015 VMT with a 2.1% increase. Source: NMDOT Crash Files, 2007 ‐ 2015. Serious Injury Rate Non‐Motorized (Serious Injuries per 100M VMT) Fatalities and Serious Injuries Source: NMDOT Crash Files, 2007 ‐ 2015. The rates for 2016‐2018 use the FHWA 2015 VMT with a 2.1% increase. Source: NMDOT Crash files and Fatallog files, 2007‐2015 11 2 Trends in NM Traffic Crash Data ‐ Trends, 12/5/2017 Projections, and Rankings Crash data source for all slides: FHWA Highway Statistics Series; New Mexico Traffic Crash Annual Reports 2007‐2015, UNM; Crash data source for all rate slides (VMT Data): NMDOT FHWA HPMS FARS; NMDOT Crash Data. various years. Note: VMT data are preliminary 12 3 Trends in NM Traffic Crash Data ‐ Trends, 12/5/2017 Projections, and Rankings Comments – Lessons Learned on MPOs • County crash and VMT data are available but MPO boundaries do not necessarily match county lines • Sample sizes for pedestrian fatalities/serious injuries, and total fatalities are relatively small and subject to greater statistical variation • Published NM data has evolved and early years were incomplete • Some inconsistency with FARS data – 2012, 2014 and 2015 • NMDOT may want to verify MPO data/trends for smaller MPOs, example ‐‐ pedestrian crashes and proportion and complexity of data analysis • VMT data are preliminary Source: 13 4  Federal Fiscal Year 2018 Safety Targets This document outlines the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2018 Safety Targets for New Mexico, as required by the 23 CFR 490, Final Rule on the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) published March 15, 2016 (effective April 14, 2017). The state is required to set annual targets for five performance measures: 1. Number of Fatalities 2. Rate of Fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles travelled (VMT) 3. Number of Serious Injuries 4. Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 million VMT 5. Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries The first three are common measures and must be identical to the targets established for the Highway Safety Program (HSP). The NMDOT undertook a coordinated effort with the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and other stakeholders to set the targets. 1. Numerous internal meetings took place in winter of 2016/2017 between the NMDOT Planning and Traffic Safety Bureaus to review and analyze crash data and trends. NMDOT contracts with the University of New Mexico (UNM) to maintain the state’s crash database. 2. With assistance from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the NMDOT conducted a Safety Target Workshop with the MPOs on April 5, 2017. The attendees reviewed the crash data and trends as well as the federal requirements for target setting. 3. On April 6, 2017, the MPOs held a quarterly meeting at which the MPO planners agreed to following the state’s safety targets, rather than setting their own targets. The MPOs agreed to follow up with their Policy Boards/Committees regarding resolutions adopting the state’s targets, when final guidance is available from FHWA. 4. On May 16, 2017, the NMDOT Traffic Safety Bureau held a meeting to discuss and adopt the targets required in the HSP. NMDOT Planning Bureau staff and MPO representatives attended. 5. NMDOT Planning Bureau held a follow up meeting with the MPOs on June 30, 2017 to review the final targets. 6. NMDOT Planning Bureau also followed up with Rodolfo Monge-Oviedo of FHWA-NM regarding guidance on how the MPOs should adopt the NMDOT targets. The guidance from FHW-NM is that the MPOs should amend their Metropolitan Transportation Plans to state that they will follow NMDOT targets and provide a separate document outlining the targets (or linking to the state targets), which is updated annually. 7. A draft of this summary was circulated to the MPOs for comments June 30 to July 27, 2017. As NMDOT received no comments, the summary is considered final. In setting the FFY2018 safety performance targets, NMDOT and stakeholders did not rely solely on the data projections, but used the data in combination with their discussions regarding other relevant factors and their assessment of the potential safety impacts of various strategies and projects. NMDOT worked with UNM to determine methodologies and assumptions required to set the targets. These are as follows:  NMDOT uses Excel to plot a linear best fit line based on 5-years of actual data to project for future years.  Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) - the Annual VMT estimate for 2016 uses the 2015 Daily VMT (75,165,529.8 Daily VMT * 1.021 * 365) / 1,000,000 = 28,012 annual Million VMT for 2016 where 75,165,529.8 is the 2015 Daily VMT. NMDOT FFY18 Safety Targets Memo – 8/2/17 Page 1 of 4 14  o 1.021 is the 2.1% increase estimate for 2016 (per FHWA - https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/tvt.cfm) o 365 is the number of days in a year o 1,000,000 converts the units to millions  Crash Data - 2015 is finalized, 2016 is preliminary. C1: Total Traffic Fatalities 500 386.0 402.0 400 367.8 366.0 365.3 369.0 347.4 342.2 413.0 300 366.0 361.0 349.0 350.0 358.4 352.4 352.6 352.5 364.1 311.0 298.0 200 Total Fatalities 100 5‐Yr Moving Average 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 FARS FARS FARS FARS FARS FARS FARS FARS FARS Prelim. Projected NMDOT Target Statement: Limit the increase in total fatalities to 6.4 percent from 342.2 in 2015 to 364.1 by December 31, 2018 (FARS; 5-year averages) NMDOT Justification: Five-year average fatalities fell by 7 percent between 2011 and 2015, but are expected to rise in 2016 based on preliminary data. January through May 2017 data show a slight decline from the first 5 months of 2016, but the May 2017 data are very preliminary and are expected to rise. The 5- year trend line indicates an increase of 6.4 percent from 2015 to 2018, and the State has determined this to be an achievable target for 2018. C2: Total Serious Injuries 2,700 1,911.3 1,870.8 1,818.8 1,693.6 1,800 1,563.6 1,884.0 1,940.0 1,899.0 1,922.0 1,445.0 1,368.2 1,709.0 1,624.0 1,271.0 1,219.4 1,314.0 1,249.0 1,329.0 1,325.0 900 1,138.0 1,056.0 Suspected Serious Injuries (Class A) 5‐Yr Moving Average 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 State State State State State State State State State Estim. Projected NMDOT Target Statement: Decrease the number of serious injuries by 15.6 percent from 1,445.0 in 2015 to 1,219.4 by December 31, 2018. NMDOT FFY18 Safety Targets Memo – 8/2/17 Page 2 of 4 15 NMDOT Justification: Five-year average serious injuries fell by 22.8 percent between 2011 and 2015. The State anticipates a continued reduction in serious injuries and considers the projected reduction to 1,219.4 an achievable target for 2018. C3: Fatalities per 100M VMT 2.0 1.520 1.414 1.430 1.361 1.435 1.5 1.326 1.316 1.330 1.540 1.390 1.390 1.380 1.360 1.392 1.388 1.341 1.240 1.309 1.299 1.0 1.090 0.5 Fatalities per 100M VMT 5‐Yr Moving Average 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 FARS FARS FARS FARS FARS FARS FARS FARS FARS Prelim. Projected NMDOT Target Statement: Limit the increase in the fatality rate to .31 percent from 1.326 in 2015 to 1.330 by December 31, 2018. NMDOT Justification: Although fatalities are expected to increase in 2018 from 2015, the State determines that the projected 2018 5-year fatality rate is an achievable target. Five-year average 2018 projections for urban and rural fatality rates are determined to be achievable targets. C4: Rate of Serious Injuries NMDOT Target Statement: Decrease the rate of serious injuries from 5.597 in 2015 to 4.456 by December 31, 2018. NMDOT FFY18 Safety Targets Memo – 8/2/17 Page 3 of 4 16 NMDOT Justification: Five-year serious injuries fell by 27.3% between 2011 and 2015. The State anticipates a continued reduction in serious injuries and considered the projected reduction to 3.59 an achievable target by 2018. C5: Number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries NMDOT Target Statement: Limit the increase in non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries to 228 by December 31, 2018. NMDOT Justification: Although fatalities are expected to increase in 2018 from 2015, the State determined that the projected number of 228 non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries in 2018 is an achievable target. NMDOT FFY18 Safety Targets Memo – 8/2/17 Page 4 of 4 17  FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Agenda Item #6 Subject: Status of TIP Projects Prepared by: Derrick Garcia, MPO Associate Planner Date: November 30, 2017 TRACKING INFORMATION (2018-2023 TIP)  Local Agreement Status (ARF)  ITS/Sys ENG Certification  ROW Certification  Public Involvement Certification  Design Completion 30 – 60 – 90%  Environmental Certification  Utilities Certification  Railroad Certification  Archeology Certification EXISTING PROJECTS IN FFY2018-2023 TIP City of Aztec  East Arterial Route, Ph II (F100091) City of Bloomfield  East Blanco Bridge City of Farmington  20th Street Phase III (F100132)  Foothills Drive Enhancements Phase II (F10099)  Anesi Trail (F100221)  East Pinon Hills Blvd Extension Phase I (F100100)  East Pinion Hills Blvd Extension Phase II  Red Apple Transit Capital/Operating (TF00001) San Juan County  Kirtland Schools Walk Path System (F100270)  Bridge Improvement CR 5500 Bridge #8130  East Pinon Hills Blvd Extension Phase III  Glade Run Recreation Area Trails (F100240) New Mexico Department of Transportation  US 64 Phase V (F100112)  US 64 Phase VI (F100113)  NM 173 (F100170) DISCUSSION ITEM  This is a discussion item only. Committee members will have an opportunity to provide feedback regarding TIP project status and details. 18  FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Agenda Item #8 Subject: Committee Member Discussion Items Date: December 5, 2017 DISCUSSION ITEMS No discussion items were presented to MPO Staff by Committee Members for this Agenda Item. 19  FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Agenda Item #9 Subject: Information Items Prepared by: Derrick Garcia, Associate Planner Date: November 30, 2017 INFORMATION ITEMS 1. Staff Training(s). Derrick Garcia attended the New Mexico Data Users Conference Affiliates Meeting on November 15th. Representatives from New Mexico Economic Development, UNM, US Census Bureau, and various local governments were present to talk about pressing issues including the upcoming 2020 Census. Training on various Census data tools was also provided. 20  Minutes from the November 1, 2017 Technical Committee meeting are on the following pages 21  MINUTES FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING November 1, 2017 Technical Members Present: Bill Watson, City of Aztec Jason Thomas, City of Bloomfield Cindy Lopez, City of Farmington Nica Westerling (Alt.), City of Farmington Rosa Kozub (Alt.), NMDOT District 5 Andrew Montoya, Red Apple Transit Manager Fran Fillerup, San Juan County Technical Members Absent: David Sypher, City of Farmington Paul Brasher, NMDOT District 5 Staff Present: Mary Holton, MPO Officer Derrick Garcia, MPO Associate Planner June Markle, MPO Administrative Assistant Staff Absent: None Others Present: Taylor Clem, City of Farmington Somie Chavez, FMPO Planning Liaison, NMDOT 1. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Fillerup called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. 2. APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 11, 2017 TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING Ms. C. Lopez moved to approve the minutes from the October 11, 2017 Technical Committee meeting. Mr. Watson seconded the motion. The motion to approve the minutes passed unanimously. 3. PROPOSED FFY2017-2018 UPWP AMENDMENT #3 AND PC RESOLUTION #6 Subject: Proposed FFY2017-2018 UPWP Amendment #3 and Policy Committee (PC) Resolution #6 Prepared by: Mary Holton, AICP, MPO Officer Date: November 1, 2017 BACKGROUND  The MPO maintains a Unified Planning Work Program which sets forth the tasks the MPO will undertake in a given fiscal year. 22   The Policy Committee approved the MPO’s two-year FFY 2017-2018 UPWP in June 2016; approved the first amendment in November 2016, and; approved the second amendment in June 2017.  This third amendment is necessary as NMDOT has informed the MPO that FFY2017 unexpended funds will carry-over for use in FFY2018. The MPO has estimated that the carry-over funds total $81,751.03. While the UPWP amendment addresses some minor corrections, it also proposes to devote the carry-over funds to the Bike & Ped Plan Update (4.3) and the Red Apple Transit Operational Study (4.4). ACTION ITEM  MPO Staff recommends that the MPO Technical Committee forward a recommendation of approval of Amendment #3 to the FFY2017-18 UPWP and approval of Policy Committee (PC) Resolution #6 to the MPO Policy Committee. DISCUSSION: Ms. Holton clarified that Amendment #3 to the 2017-2018 UPWP was a proposed amendment as was Policy Committee Resolution 2017-6. Ms. Holton stated that Page 2 of the Agenda showed the actual NMDOT Amendment Request Form submitted for this amendment to the UPWP. This request form is required by NMDOT. The proposed UPWP amendment and Policy Committee Resolution 2017-6 will be considered by the Policy Committee on November 16. Staff does recommend that the Technical Committee consider recommending approval of proposed UPWP Amendment #3 and PC Resolution 2017-6. Ms. Holton explained that the changes were shown in “red”. Most of the changes were minor and reflected financial updates to the MPO budget numbers for Quarters 3 and 4 of FFY2017. She added that the MPO will have some carryover funds into FFY2018 from FFY2017. Staff proposes to utilize the funding for the Red Apply operational study of up to $30,000 and to hire a consultant to prepare the update to the MPO’s 2008 bike/ped plan. Ms. Holton referred to Pages 33 and 34 of the Agenda which shows the proposed carryover funds of approximately $87,000. These carryover amounts (PL and FTA) have yet to be verified by NMDOT. With the current allocations and anticipated carryover, the total MPO budget for FFY2018 if $387,244.08. The carryover amount is shown on Page 24 of the Agenda under UPWP Task 4. Hiring a consultant for the bike/ped plan update is specified under Task 4.3-Bike and Pedestrian Planning/Complete Streets shown on Page 26 of the Agenda. Mr. Fillerup asked about the spelling of Anthony Lujan’s name in the UPWP document shown on Page 5 of the Agenda (spelled “Luhan”) and also about the traffic counts being taken only once this past year. Ms. Holton replied that the traffic counts were done in coordination with NMDOT this past year. NMDOT is considering the standardization statewide of when and how traffic counts are taken. Mr. Garcia said the number of times traffic counts are taken is up to the individual MPO. He added that NMDOT is currently developing a traffic count 23 contract that would standardize traffic counts for Mesilla Valley, Santa Fe, and FMPO. In the past, there have been issues getting the traffic count data received from Traffic Research & Analysis (TRA) transferred to NMDOT. Mr. Fillerup asked if, under a revised system for gathering the traffic counts, if the MPO would still have the same number of counts (speed and class) and count locations as in the past. Mr. Garcia said he has stressed the need for this to NMDOT and has also asked that all the data be available at an MPO level of access. Mr. Fillerup opened the public hearing on proposed UPWP Amendment #3 and PC Resolution 2017-6. No public comments were received during the meeting or from MPO Staff prior to the meeting. Mr. Fillerup closed the public hearing. ACTION: Ms. Westerling moved to recommend approval of proposed Amendment #3 and PC Resolution 2017-6. Ms. C. Lopez seconded the motion. The motion to approve was unanimous. 4. FFY2018-2023 TIP AMENDMENT #1 Subject: FFY2018-2023 TIP Amendment #1 Prepared by: Derrick Garcia, Associate Planner Date: October 23, 2017 BACKGROUND  On October 29, 2017 the Farmington MPO advertised Amendment #1 to the FFY2018-2023 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).  The amendment involves several projects in the TIP as described in the attached notice.  The Technical Committee will consider the amendment and may make a recommendation at their November 1, 2017 meeting. AMENDED TIP PROJECTS Below is the list of projects seeking amendment. For more details about each specific amendment please see the attached material.  Downtown Complete Streets Project Phase 1 (Farmington)  Foothills Drive Enhancements Phase II (Farmington)  US 64 Phase V (NMDOT)  US 64 Phase VI (NMDOT  Kirtland Schools Walk Path System (San Juan County)  Among the Waters Extension (Farmington)  Gateway Museum Trail (Farmington)  Gwynhaven Trail Extension (Farmington)  East Pinon Hills Blvd. Extension Phase I (Farmington)  East Pinon Hills Blvd. Extension Phase II (Farmington)  East Pinon Hills Blvd. Extension Phase III (San Juan County) 24 Amendment #1 can be viewed on the MPO website at: http://www.fmtn.org/DocumentCenter/View/15154 FUTURE WORK  Seek Policy Committee approval on November 16, 2017. ATTACHMENTS  The Public Notice advertising proposed Amendment #1.  Listing of projects in proposed Amendment #1  TIP Change Request Forms. ACTION ITEMS  Open a public hearing on proposed TIP Amendment #1.  Staff recommends the Technical Committee consider recommending approval of proposed Amendment #1 to the FFY2018-2023 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). DISCUSSION: Mr. Garcia reviewed the TIP Summary spreadsheet (Page 41 of the Agenda) for proposed Amendment #1 for the FFY2018-2023 TIP and then each of the individual projects in the proposed amendment: - Downtown Complete Streets Project-Phase I – remove from the TIP; - Foothills Drive Enhancements-Phase II – add MAP funding of $180,000 to FFY18 with local match equal to $60,000; update FFY19 local non-match funding to $808,829 and move to FFY2018; update scope to read: “Reconstruct travel lanes, provide additional street enhancements; construct new bike lanes and multi-use trail”; - US 64-Phase V – increase FFY18 NHPP funds from $8,330,400 to $8,351,845.44 due to revised estimate cost increase; - US 64-Phase VI – increase FFY19 NHPP funds from $7,758,357 to $8,270,997 due to revised estimate cost increase; - Kirtland Schools Walk Path System – update project termini: north along CR 6575 from intersection with CR6100 – 0.242 miles along CR 6100 from intersection with CR6575 to intersection with CR6400 (0.755 miles); - East Pinon Hills Boulevard Extension-Phase I – move FFY2019 funds of $4,000,000 to FFY2022; - East Pinon Hills Boulevard Extension-Phase II – move FFY2019 funds of $250,000 to FFY2022; move FFY2020 funds of $18,000,000 to FFY2023; - East Pinon Hills Boulevard Extension-Phase III – remove FFY2018 local bond funds of $8,000,000; add local bond funds in the amount of $14,800,000 to FFY2023; - Among the Waters Extension, Gateway Museum Trail, and Gwynhaven Trail Extension – remove all from the TIP. It was noted that the Complete Streets Project and the three trail projects were removed from the TIP because they are now locally funded. 25 Mr. Watson asked about the increase in funding for Phases V and VI of US 64 being requested by NMDOT. He was unaware that project funding could be increase based on a revised construction estimate. Ms. Kozub said she would have to defer to Paul Brasher to respond to this question but thought it perhaps had to do with the fact that NMDOT is the lead on these projects rather than the projects being a local lead project. She added that she was not familiar with the process of requesting to have more funds awarded to a local lead project, but recommended that an inquiry for additional funds could be made. Whether more funds might be available would also depend on the actual funding program identified for the project. Mr. Fillerup opened the public hearing on proposed Amendment #1 to the FFY2018- 2023 TIP. There were no public comments received and MPO Staff received no comments prior to the meeting. Mr. Fillerup closed the public hearing. ACTION: Mr. Watson moved to recommend approval of proposed Amendment #1 to the FFY2018-2023 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Ms. Westerling seconded the motion. The motion to recommend approval was unanimous. 5. 2018 ANNUAL MEETING SCHEDULE Subject: 2018 Annual Meeting Schedule Prepared by: Derrick Garcia, MPO Associate Planner Date: November 1, 2017 BACKGROUND  Each year the Technical Committee approves a resolution ensuring compliance with the open meetings act and establishes its meeting schedule for the coming year.  Last year Technical Committee meetings were moved to the 2nd Wednesday of each month at 10:00 a.m. Meetings continue to be rotated among the entities to facilitate member attendance. CURRENT WORK  Staff presented a proposed meeting schedule for discussion with the Technical Committee in October.  Staff is now seeking approval of the 2018 meeting schedule and Technical Committee Resolution 2017-1 at this meeting. ACTION ITEM  Review and consider approval of the 2018Technical Committee meeting schedule and Resolution 2017-1. 26 DISCUSSION: Ms. Holton stated that the Technical Committee had reviewed the proposed 2018 meeting schedule at their October meeting. She noted there had been some initial issues and questions that were addressed during the meeting and no additional issues have been raised. Mr. Fillerup asked if the potential overlap with the RTPO meeting schedule had been re-considered. Ms. Holton said any issue with this could be dealt with should the issue arise. Because this was determined to be an Action Item, Ms. Holton thought that a public hearing should be opened prior to the motion for approval. Mr. Fillerup opened a public hearing on the 2018 Technical Committee meeting schedule and TC Resolution 2017-1. There were no public comments made during the meeting or received prior to the meeting by MPO Staff. Mr. Fillerup closed the public hearing. ACTION: Ms. C. Lopez moved to approve the 2018 Technical Committee meeting schedule and TC Resolution 2017-1. Mr. Watson seconded the motion. The motion to approve was unanimous. 6. STATUS OF TIP PROJECTS Subject: Status of TIP Projects Prepared by: Derrick Garcia, MPO Associate Planner Date: October 25, 2017 TRACKING INFORMATION (2018-2023 TIP)  Local Agreement Status (ARF)  ITS/Sys ENG Certification  ROW Certification  Public Involvement Certification  Design Completion 30 – 60 – 90%  Environmental Certification  Utilities Certification  Railroad Certification  Archeology Certification EXISTING PROJECTS IN FFY2018-2023 TIP  East Arterial Route, Phase II (F100091)  US 64 Phase V (F100112)  US 64 Phase VI (F100113)  Kirtland Schools Walk Path System (F100270)  20th Street Phase III (F100132)  Foothills Drive Enhancements Phase II (F10099)  Downtown Complete Streets Project (F10040)  Anesi Trail (F100221)  Glade Run Recreation Area Trails (F100240)  NM 173 (F100170)  Red Apple Transit Capital/Operating (TF00001)  Glade Run Recreation Area Trails (F100240)  East Blanco Bridge 27   Bridge Improvement CR 5500 Bridge #8130  Among the Waters Extension  Gateway Museum Trail Extension  Gwynhaven Trail Extension DISCUSSION ITEM  This is a discussion item only. Committee members will have an opportunity to provide feedback regarding TIP project status and details. DISCUSSION: Mr. Garcia asked the Technical Committee representatives to provide updates for their entity’s projects: Foothills Drive Enhancements-Phase I Ms. Westerling reported that the City of Farmington is still awaiting a reply from NMDOT on the requested driveway variance. She met with Lawrence Lopez on October 19 following the Policy Committee meeting and he said he saw no issues with the variance. He expected a response to be provided in a day or two. However, Ms. Westerling said the City of Farmington has still not heard back from NMDOT. Foothills Drive Enhancements-Phase II The contract for the MAP funding was received; still awaiting the TAP contract. 20th Street-Phase III TAP contract has been received. Ms. Westerling said all the closeout paperwork for the first two phases of the 20th Street project has been completed. There have been many compliments on the final project. East Blanco Bridge Mr. Thomas reported that NMDOT is currently reviewing the PS&E documents and a tentative meeting has been scheduled for next week. One of the primary technical reviewers of the project and the bridge inspector for District 5, Patrick Romero, has retired. The City of Bloomfield is hopeful that his positive comments received during the 60% review will be verified and corroborated. Kirtland Schools Walk Path System Mr. Fillerup stated that with approval by the Policy Committee of Amendment #1 to the FFY2018-2023 TIP, this project will proceed to PS&E. Glade Run Recreation Area Trails Both San Juan County and BLM are working on the agreement for the Glade Run Recreation Area trails. Bridge Improvement-CR 5500 Mr. Fillerup reported that San Juan County is in the middle of awarding the design for this project. 28 Mr. Garcia asked about the CR350/CR390 intersection project. Mr. Fillerup stated that, with the exception of one change order, the construction was finished last week and the road is open. Red Apple Transit Capital/Operating Mr. Montoya reported that the report for the operational analysis was completed and the City of Farmington’s Purchasing Department is now working on the RFP process. The operational analysis is a study to look at the requirements need to move the transit hub to the downtown area of Farmington. The study will produce conceptual drawings on what the proposed new routes might be along with any routes/stops that could be removed. Mr. Montoya stated that the MRA Committee approved moving the hub to the downtown area which the original study determined to be the most viable location. If the operational study also shows this move would be operationally sound, then it will be brought before the Farmington City Council. An application for possible funding for the hub was submitted to the Federal Competitive Facilities Grant. The operational analysis is required as part of the grant application submittal. Awarded grants will be announced early next year. East Arterial Route-Phase II Mr. Watson reported that this project has run into some right-of-way issues. The City of Aztec is hoping to partially resolve some of the issues this week, but may still have to go through the appraisal process. They are hopeful to not have to go to condemnation. They continue to work toward the PS&E date in December. 7. REPORTS FROM NMDOT Planning Bureau – Somie Chavez Ms. Chavez stated that the Annual Performance & Expenditure Report (APER) for 2017 is due from the MPO on November 15. District 5 – Rosa Kozub Ms. Kozub was sitting in as the alternate for Paul Brasher who was unable to attend the meeting. He informed Ms. Kozub that there was no update to present for District 5. Presentation – State’s Prioritized Bike Network Plan – Rosa Kozub Ms. Kozub presented on the state’s Prioritized Bike Network Plan. The Planning Bureau is currently presenting the plan to all MPOs and RTPOs with public meetings already held in Las Cruces and Santa Fe. A public meeting will be held in Farmington on November 16 at the Farmington Civic Center. Ms. Kozub is working on this project with Wade Patterson, who is the bike/pedestrian/equestrian coordinator for the Planning Bureau. Also assisting with the project is Bohannan-Huston (BHI) out of Albuquerque and Alta Planning & Design, a national bike and pedestrian design, planning, and engineering firm. Shown below is a summary of Ms. Kozub’s presentation:  NM Bike Plan is looking at how best to provide residents and visitors with a safe and connected bicycle network at the statewide level through: 29  o Identification of priority corridors; o Creation of design guidelines by corridor type.  Will focus on roads owned and maintained by NMDOT  Will support implementation of the NM 2040 Plan  Plan Goals and benefits (developed to date): o Improved safety o Increased transportation options o Create network of bicycle connections across state (an integrate into the 2040 Plan) o Improve economic benefits associated with bicycle infrastructure:  Access to employment;  Recreational travel/tourism  Statewide Priority Network o Roadway designations indicating where improved bicycle infrastructure would be beneficial o Improvement plan rather than a project list (long term plan; no set budget currently for any construction).  Analysis and development: o Demand analysis (where people work, play) o Equity analysis o Statewide connectivity o Existing bicycle route designations o Connections to regional bicycle facilities (work to link into local facilities where possible) o Public input  Design Guidelines o Based on appropriate bicycle infrastructure for corridor types in the priority network o Incorporated into NMDOT roadway design and redesign process o Will vary depending on whether roadway passes through an urban or rural setting (urban look will be different than that passing through a rural town).  Plan implementation o Recommendations will be incorporated into roadway design during routine maintenance as well as major roadway reconstruction; o Create a list of priorities o Create vision for the long term supported by the public  Project is planned to be completed by June 2018. The schedule includes: o Outreach o Vision, goals, and objectives o Review existing data o Evaluate bicycle route designations o Conceptual tier designations o Identify statewide priority network o Establish design guideline o Final Documents  Outreach schedule: o Phase 1 – data collection from September to December 2017 o Phase 2 – present plan findings from March to May 2018  Public/stakeholder outreach meetings: 30  o Public meetings, meetings with MPOs and RTPOs, coordination with NMDOT districts, bike/ped/equestrian technical committee, and bicycle technical advisory (internal NMDOT group) and advocacy groups Mr. Fillerup noted that the BLM has contacts with bike enthusiasts and asked if a Farmington advocacy group to be included. Ms. C. Lopez also mentioned that many of these individuals had worked with the former City of Farmington Traffic Engineer in developing the current MPO bike/ped plan. Ms. Holton noted that this was only a focus group and not formal group. Ms. Kozub said for the technical aspects and due to budgetary considerations, NMDOT is working with the formally organized advocacy groups. She urged the local enthusiasts to participate and offer their public input in the public meetings.  Public/stakeholder outreach: involvement tools o Online interactive input map  Allows users to indicate the routes they currently travel by bike (can color code it)  Where users might like to travel if roadways were improved  Obstacles to bicycle travel  Only some roads are within the state’s scope  For informational purposes  Will consolidate information o Questionnaire – traditional survey o Webpage  Role of MPOs in plan development o Distribute information to agency staff and public o Review draft priority network o Evaluate connections to metropolitan and regional bicycle networks o Manage expectations (long range plan and a vision for the future)  Next steps o Data collection and public input o Define priority tiers o Identify the type of infrastructure that is most appropriate for corridor types o Apply priority designations to statewide network Ms. Westerling asked if multimodal paths not on highway rights-of-way were being considered. Ms. Kozub replied that realistically NMDOT cannot typically do this due to budget and right-of-way concerns. Sometimes, as part of a specific project, multi-use paths can occur with a roadway reconstruction, but then the local entity may have to pick up the maintenance costs. Mr. Fillerup asked about including roadway prohibitive speeds and volumes in the design guidelines. Ms. Westerling commented that a bike lane in a 30 mph speed zone will get used, but where the speeds are 50 mph, bicyclists do not want to ride it. Ms. Kozub agreed that it was logistical, but was not feasible for NMDOT. Mr. Fillerup asked if the bike map will note connections to recreational bikeways (those trails not on the roadway) on the map. Ms. Kozub said she was not sure specifically how this will play out, but it will be part of the demand analysis. The map 31 is looking to identify where people live, work, and play and then incorporating national forests and state parks to recognize those destinations. They are also trying to gather this information during the public meetings and pose the question of where are the local destinations. The group discussed having a signage plan in coordination with local governments to help facilitate tourists in getting from a local facility onto a state facility and vice versa. Ms. Kozub said it would not be feasible to map the multi-use paths on the state network plan. She recommended using city and MPO resources to map local facilities. 8. COMMITTEE MEMBER DISCUSSION ITEM(S) Subject: Committee Member Discussion Items Date: November 1, 2017 DISCUSSION ITEMS Technical Committee members did not bring forward any discussion items for inclusion in this Agenda Item. 9. INFORMATION ITEMS Subject: Information Items Prepared by: Derrick Garcia, Associate Planner Date: November 1, 2017 INFORMATION ITEMS 1. AMPO National Conference. 2. District 5 Funding Presentation. A presentation on District 5 funding for 2018 was given to the Policy Committee on October 19, 2017 by Rebecca Maes, NMDOT TIP Coordinator. A copy of that presentation is attached. 3. Corrective Action Plan (CAP) Update. DISCUSSION: a. Mr. Garcia reported on his attendance at the 2017 AMPO National Conference in Savannah, George on October 17-20, 2017. Good information and more information provided on the federal mandated performance measures and active transportation. 32 b. Rebecca Maes, STIP Coordinator for NMDOT presented to the Policy Committee on October 19 on District 5 funding. A copy of that presentation is found on pages 77-83 of the Agenda. Mr. Fillerup stated that it was helpful to know the 2018 outlook but would also like to know how the outer years and are being programmed. He would like to see project and funding information for each year of the FFY2018-2023 TIP. Ms. Kozub replied that NMDOT gets no actual apportionments from FHWA until that current fiscal year. NMDOT “assumes” the amount will be the same amount through 2020, but Ms. Kozub added this was only a guess, but was the best process NMODT has available to use. Mr. Filler thought that conversations could still take place using the apportionment estimates. He reiterated that the FMPO wants to be included in the District’s project selection process and learn what might be considered for the outer years. Ms. Kozub said she would relay this information to Paul Brasher. She explained that the new e- STIP which will be coming out in the next couple of weeks will provide this information in a more transparent format and district-based searches will be easily managed. Mr. Garcia added that once the e-STIP has been completely rolled out he will provide a presentation to the Technical Committee on the process. c. Ms. Holton reported that MPO Staff has been working on addressing the findings in the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) since February 2017. There continue to be some issues that need to be addressed. Other findings have already been closed out and others will be closed out as soon as certain final actions are completed as directed. Ms. Holton explained the remaining outstanding issues: Finding 4 – Specifies that the MPO is not complying with the STIP procedures manual in that a financial plan for all TIP projects is not provided. The “Notes on Implementation” state that: “The 2018-2023 TIP was approved by the FMPO TC and PC, but a financial plan to demonstrate fiscal constraint was not provided to NMODT or posted on the website, meaning the TIP is not fiscally constrained and FMPO is in violation of this finding.” Ms. Holton explained that this was why, late last week both the City of Farmington and San Juan County were contacted to review the Pinon Hills Boulevard project and then revise and amend the TIP to get it fiscally constrained. In addition Finding 4 states: “If FMPO staff successfully implements corrections for Finding 8, NMDOT will close Finding 4.1 with the understanding that FMPO staff plays an advisory role to the TC and PC.” Finding 7 – This Finding addresses the need for FMPO to provide training for the TC and PC. Ms. Holton said that in the June UPWP amendment the training program was detailed. The “Notes on Implementation” state: “…FMPO staff have made good progress. In order to close, NMDOT staff want to see more committee member training, specifically with regard to the CFRs, as well as to the TC in their role of providing technical assistance and recommendations to the PC. This additional training is in 33 response to Finding 4.1 and that the TC and PC approved a TIP that was not fiscally constrained (in June and July 2017).” Ms. Holton stated that in response to this, the Plan for Implementation has been written to read: “…This training will be developed by the MPO Officer, to include applicable CFRs, and will be provided during Q2 of FFY2018. Additional training on the CFRs will be developed and presented to both committees in the coming months.” Finding 8 – This Finding states: “FMPO staff does not consistently inform the Technical and Policy Committees (TC and PC) of the MPO’s requirements and consequences of committee actions, with regard to the administrative and legal requirements of the MPO. (Finding added via CAP amendment, 10/27/17.)” The Recommendation from NMDOT for this Finding states: “FMPO staff should provide staff reports and recommendations for each action item listed on the TC and PC agendas. The staff reports and recommendations should be based on the administrative and legal requirements of the MPO, as outlined in the PPM, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), U.S. Code (USC), UPWP, STIP Procedures Manual, and Cooperative Agreement with NMDOT.” Ms. Holton stated that the Plan for Implementation offered by FMPO states: “Staff memos will be modified with updating the Staff Recommendation section to include the appropriate citation(s) to the applicable NMDOT Policy & Procedures Manual (PPM), Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), U.S. Code (USC), UPWP, STIP Procedures Manual, and Cooperative Agreement with NMDOT. The consequences of committee action in not following the identified citation(s) will also be identified within the same section.” The persons responsible for this plan are the Associate Planner, MPO Planner, and MPO Officer. Ms. Holton stated that implementation will take place following the Policy Committee meeting on November 16. Mr. Fillerup asked if reimbursement from NMDOT for the 1st Quarter FFY2018 was expected. Ms. Holton said that, “yes, reimbursement was expected. Mr. Fillerup asked if the planning years of the TIP are an acceptable location for projects for which funds have not been identified by resolution or bond. Ms. Holton said this was the information provided to MPO staff from Rebecca Maes. 10. BUSINESS FROM THE CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS AND STAFF Mr. Fillerup reported on another fatal crash on NM 173 (at mile marker 11) that had happened earlier in the week. Both drivers involved in the crash were killed. Also in the recent past there have been three fatal vehicle crashes on US 550. He wanted to make sure these were on NMDOT’s radar and they were aware of the number of recent crashes. In a recent San Juan County Commission meeting, Nageezi area residents have expressed concern about debris left by contractors along US 550 in that area. Mr. Fillerup did visit with Mr. Javier Martinez of District 5 about the debris. He hoped the recent vehicle crashes would raise NMDOT’s awareness of the safety concerns and issues being experienced in and around San Juan County. 34 There was no additional business from the Chairman, Members and Staff. 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY ISSUES NOT ON THE AGENDA There was no public comment on any issues not on the agenda. 12. ADJOURNMENT Ms. C. Lopez moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Westerling seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously and Mr. Fillerup adjourned the meeting at 11:30 a.m. ___________________________ ___________________________ Fran Fillerup, Chair June Markle, Administrative Assistant 35