MPO Technical Committee

MPO TECHNICAL COMMITTEE AGENDA January 10, 2018 10:00 a.m. Council Chambers Farmington City Hall 800 Municipal Drive Farmington, New Mexico  AGENDA FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING January 10, 2018 10:00 AM This regular meeting will be held in Council Chambers at Farmington City Hall, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. ITEM PAGE 1. Call meeting to order 2. Approve the minutes from the December 13, 2017 Technical Committee 28-39 Meeting. 3. Annual Election of Officers 1 ACTION ITEM Presented by: Derrick Garcia 4. Consideration of a recommendation to the MPO Policy Committee regarding the 2-16 adoption of NMDOT Safety Performance Measure Targets that must be adopted by the MPO before February 27, 2018 a. Review NMDOT’s Safety Performance Measure Targets and Proposed Policy Committee Resolution 2018-1. Staff to report on any public comments received to date. b. Public hearing on Safety Performance Measure Targets and Proposed Policy Committee Resolution 2018-1. c. Consider recommending approval of the Safety Performance Measure Targets and Proposed Policy Committee Resolution 2018-1. ACTION ITEM Presented by: Derrick Garcia 5. TIP Project Updates from Technical Committee members 17 Presented by: Derrick Garcia 6. Training: The Role of the Technical Committee to the Policy Committee 18-24 Presented by: Mary Holton 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) 25 9. Information Items 26 a. Status report on adding Kirtland to the MPO b. LTAP Trainings c. New Technical Committee member d. Status report on best practices regarding project prioritization methods Presented by: Mary Holton & 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: Annual Election of Officers Prepared by: DHUULFN*DUFLD, MPO Associate Planner Date: January 10, 2018 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.  Current Chair (Fran Fillerup), current Vice-Chair (Jason Thomas). ELECTION  Elections will take place to select a Chair and Vice-Chair for the Technical Committee for 2018. ACTION ITEM  It is recommended that the Technical Committee accept nominations and vote to elect the Chair and Vice-Chair for 2018. 1  FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Agenda Item #4 Subject: National Performance Management Measures for Highway Safety Improvement Program Prepared by: Derrick Garcia, Associate Planner Date: January 3, 2018 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. 2  ACTION ITEM  Consider recommending approval of the Safety Performance Measure Targets and proposed Policy Committee Resolution 2018-1. 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) 3  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. 4 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 5 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 6 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. 7 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. 8 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 9 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 10 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: 11 4 12  EXHIBIT A FMPO RESOLUTION 2018-1 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 13  EXHIBIT A FMPO RESOLUTION 2018-1 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 14  EXHIBIT A FMPO RESOLUTION 2018-1 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 15  EXHIBIT A FMPO RESOLUTION 2018-1 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 16  FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Agenda Item #5 Subject: Status of TIP Projects Prepared by: Derrick Garcia, MPO Associate Planner Date: January 3, 20187 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. 17  FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Agenda Item #6 Subject: Board Training – Role of the Technical Committee to the Policy Committee Prepared by: Mary Holton, AICP, MPO Officer Date: January 10, 2018 BACKGROUND or PREVIOUS WORK  The UPWP requires that Technical and Policy Committee trainings be conducted quarterly.  Finding #7 in the MPO’s Corrective Action Plan was amended in late October to include: “FMPO has been directed to prepare and present specifically to the Technical Committee on their role to the Policy Committee. This training will be developed by the MPO Officer, to include applicable CFRs, and will be provided during Q2 of FFY2018.”  This presentation is the result of this direction. CURRENT WORK  A presentation will be provided by the MPO Officer Mary Holton at the Technical Committee meeting in January 2018.  Additional information is attached, and provided in handouts. INFORMATION ITEM  Information only. 18 Page 133 TITLE 23—HIGHWAYS § 134 Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 105–178, § 1108(e), as amended by (1) encourage and promote the safe and effi- Pub. L. 109–59, § 1113(e), amended heading and text of cient management, operation, and develop- subsec. (f) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as ment of surface transportation systems that follows: ‘‘A State which is required to obligate in an ur- banized area with an urbanized area population of over will serve the mobility needs of people and 200,000 under subsection (d) funds apportioned to it freight and foster economic growth and devel- under section 104(b)(3) shall allocate during the 6-fiscal opment within and between States and urban- year period 1992 through 1997 an amount of obligation ized areas, while minimizing transportation- authority distributed to the State for Federal-aid high- related fuel consumption and air pollution ways and highway safety construction for use in such through metropolitan and statewide transpor- area determined by multiplying— ‘‘(1) the aggregate amount of funds which the State tation planning processes identified in this is required to obligate in such area under subsection chapter; and (d) during such period; by (2) encourage the continued improvement ‘‘(2) the ratio of the aggregate amount of obligation and evolution of the metropolitan and state- authority distributed to the State for Federal-aid wide transportation planning processes by highways and highway safety construction during metropolitan planning organizations, State such period to the total sums apportioned to the State for Federal-aid highways and highway safety departments of transportation, and public construction (excluding sums not subject to an obli- transit operators as guided by the planning gation limitation) during such period.’’ factors identified in subsection (h) and section 1995—Subsec. (d)(5). Pub. L. 104–59, § 315, added par. 135(d). (5). Subsec. (e)(3). Pub. L. 104–59, § 316(1), designated exist- (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section and section ing provisions as subpar. (A), inserted subpar. (A) head- 135, the following definitions apply: ing, realigned margins, substituted ‘‘Except as provided (1) METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA.—The term in subparagraph (B), the’’ for ‘‘The’’, and added subpar. ‘‘metropolitan planning area’’ means the geo- (B). graphic area determined by agreement be- Subsec. (e)(5). Pub. L. 104–59, § 316(2), added par. (5). 1994—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 103–429 substituted ‘‘chap- tween the metropolitan planning organization ter 53 of title 49’’ for ‘‘the Federal Transit Act’’. for the area and the Governor under sub- section (e). EFFECTIVE DATE OF 2005 AMENDMENT (2) METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION.— Pub. L. 109–59, title I, § 1113(b)(3), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 The term ‘‘metropolitan planning organiza- Stat. 1172, provided that: ‘‘Paragraph (1) and paragraph tion’’ means the policy board of an organiza- (2)(A)(ii) of this subsection [amending this section] tion created as a result of the designation shall take effect October 1, 2005.’’ Pub. L. 109–59, title I, § 1113(c), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. process in subsection (d). 1172, provided that the amendment made by section (3) NONMETROPOLITAN AREA.—The term ‘‘non- 1113(c) is effective Oct. 1, 2005. metropolitan area’’ means a geographic area Pub. L. 109–59, title I, § 1113(e), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. outside designated metropolitan planning 1172, provided that the amendment made by section areas. 1113(e) is effective June 9, 1998. (4) NONMETROPOLITAN LOCAL OFFICIAL.—The EFFECTIVE DATE term ‘‘nonmetropolitan local official’’ means Section effective Dec. 18, 1991, and applicable to funds elected and appointed officials of general pur- authorized to be appropriated or made available after pose local government in a nonmetropolitan Sept. 30, 1991, and, with certain exceptions, not applica- area with responsibility for transportation. ble to funds appropriated or made available on or be- (5) TIP.—The term ‘‘TIP’’ means a transpor- fore Sept. 30, 1991, see section 1100 of Pub. L. 102–240, set tation improvement program developed by a out as an Effective Date of 1991 Amendment note under metropolitan planning organization under sub- section 104 of this title. section (j). DIVISION OF STP FUNDS FOR AREAS OF LESS THAN (6) URBANIZED AREA.—The term ‘‘urbanized 5,000 POPULATION area’’ means a geographic area with a popu- Pub. L. 105–178, title I, § 1108(f), June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. lation of 50,000 or more, as designated by the 141, as amended by Pub. L. 110–244, title I, § 113(a), June Bureau of the Census. 6, 2008, 122 Stat. 1606, provided that: ‘‘(1) SPECIAL RULE.—Notwithstanding section 133(c) of (c) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.— title 23, United States Code, and except as provided in (1) DEVELOPMENT OF LONG-RANGE PLANS AND paragraph (2), up to 15 percent of the amounts required TIPS.—To accomplish the objectives in sub- to be obligated under section 133(d)(3)(B) of such title section (a), metropolitan planning organiza- for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2009 may be obli- tions designated under subsection (d), in co- gated on roads functionally classified as minor collec- operation with the State and public transpor- tors. ‘‘(2) SUSPENSION.—The Secretary may suspend the ap- tation operators, shall develop long-range plication of paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines transportation plans and transportation im- that paragraph (1) is being used excessively.’’ provement programs for metropolitan plan- ning areas of the State. ENCOURAGEMENT OF USE OF YOUTH CONSERVATION OR SERVICE CORPS (2) CONTENTS.—The plans and TIPs for each metropolitan area shall provide for the devel- Pub. L. 105–178, title I, § 1108(g), June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. opment and integrated management and oper- 141, provided that: ‘‘The Secretary shall encourage the States to enter into contracts and cooperative agree- ation of transportation systems and facilities ments with qualified youth conservation or service (including accessible pedestrian walkways and corps to perform appropriate transportation enhance- bicycle transportation facilities) that will ment activities under chapter 1 of title 23, United function as an intermodal transportation sys- States Code.’’ tem for the metropolitan planning area and as an integral part of an intermodal transpor- § 134. Metropolitan transportation planning tation system for the State and the United (a) POLICY.—It is in the national interest to— States. 19 § 134 TITLE 23—HIGHWAYS Page 134 (3) PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT.—The process termine that the size and complexity of the for developing the plans and TIPs shall pro- existing metropolitan planning area make des- vide for consideration of all modes of transpor- ignation of more than 1 metropolitan planning tation and shall be continuing, cooperative, organization for the area appropriate. and comprehensive to the degree appropriate, (e) METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA BOUND- based on the complexity of the transportation ARIES.— problems to be addressed. (1) IN GENERAL.—For the purposes of this sec- (d) DESIGNATION OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING tion, the boundaries of a metropolitan plan- ORGANIZATIONS.— ning area shall be determined by agreement (1) IN GENERAL.—To carry out the transpor- between the metropolitan planning organiza- tation planning process required by this sec- tion and the Governor. tion, a metropolitan planning organization (2) INCLUDED AREA.—Each metropolitan plan- shall be designated for each urbanized area ning area— with a population of more than 50,000 individ- (A) shall encompass at least the existing uals— urbanized area and the contiguous area ex- (A) by agreement between the Governor pected to become urbanized within a 20-year and units of general purpose local govern- forecast period for the transportation plan; ment that together represent at least 75 per- and cent of the affected population (including (B) may encompass the entire metropoli- the largest incorporated city (based on popu- tan statistical area or consolidated metro- lation) as named by the Bureau of the Cen- politan statistical area, as defined by the sus); or Bureau of the Census. (B) in accordance with procedures estab- (3) IDENTIFICATION OF NEW URBANIZED AREAS lished by applicable State or local law. WITHIN EXISTING PLANNING AREA BOUNDARIES.— (2) STRUCTURE.—Each metropolitan planning The designation by the Bureau of the Census organization that serves an area designated as of new urbanized areas within an existing met- a transportation management area, when des- ropolitan planning area shall not require the ignated or redesignated under this subsection, redesignation of the existing metropolitan shall consist of— planning organization. (A) local elected officials; (4) EXISTING METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREAS (B) officials of public agencies that admin- IN NONATTAINMENT.—Notwithstanding para- ister or operate major modes of transpor- graph (2), in the case of an urbanized area des- tation in the metropolitan area; and ignated as a nonattainment area for ozone or (C) appropriate State officials. carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) as of the date of enactment (3) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUC- of the SAFETEA–LU, the boundaries of the TION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be con- metropolitan planning area in existence as of strued to interfere with the authority, under such date of enactment shall be retained; ex- any State law in effect on December 18, 1991, of cept that the boundaries may be adjusted by a public agency with multimodal transpor- agreement of the Governor and affected met- tation responsibilities to— ropolitan planning organizations in the man- (A) develop the plans and TIPs for adop- ner described in subsection (d)(5). tion by a metropolitan planning organiza- (5) NEW METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREAS IN tion; and NONATTAINMENT.—In the case of an urbanized (B) develop long-range capital plans, coor- area designated after the date of enactment of dinate transit services and projects, and the SAFETEA–LU, as a nonattainment area carry out other activities pursuant to State for ozone or carbon monoxide, the boundaries law. of the metropolitan planning area— (4) CONTINUING DESIGNATION.—A designation (A) shall be established in the manner de- of a metropolitan planning organization under scribed in subsection (d)(1); this subsection or any other provision of law (B) shall encompass the areas described in shall remain in effect until the metropolitan paragraph (2)(A); planning organization is redesignated under (C) may encompass the areas described in paragraph (5). paragraph (2)(B); and (5) REDESIGNATION PROCEDURES.—A metro- (D) may address any nonattainment area politan planning organization may be redesig- identified under the Clean Air Act for ozone nated by agreement between the Governor and or carbon monoxide. units of general purpose local government (f) COORDINATION IN MULTISTATE AREAS.— that together represent at least 75 percent of (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall encour- the existing planning area population (includ- age each Governor with responsibility for a ing the largest incorporated city (based on portion of a multistate metropolitan area and population) as named by the Bureau of the the appropriate metropolitan planning organi- Census) as appropriate to carry out this sec- zations to provide coordinated transportation tion. planning for the entire metropolitan area. (6) DESIGNATION OF MORE THAN 1 METROPOLI- (2) INTERSTATE COMPACTS.—The consent of TAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION.—More than 1 Congress is granted to any two or more metropolitan planning organization may be States— designated within an existing metropolitan (A) to enter into agreements or compacts, planning area only if the Governor and the ex- not in conflict with any law of the United isting metropolitan planning organization de- States, for cooperative efforts and mutual 20  12/20/2017 The Technical Committee’s Role to the Policy Committee Federal law under 23 USC § 134, Metropolitan transportation planning, provides the following definition for a metropolitan planning organization: The term “metropolitan planning organization” means the policy board of an organization designated as an MPO. 21 1  12/20/2017 The “policy board” or Governing Body for the Farmington MPO is the FMPO Policy Committee. From NMDOT Planning Procedures Manual (page 48): “Technical Advisory Committees – the membership of these committees usually includes city/county/tribal engineers, road managers, and planning staff. They function as an advisory group, which reviews and makes recommendations on actions and information that is to be presented to the Policy Committee.” 22 2  12/20/2017 Section 4.B of the FMPO’s current JPA states that “An MPO Technical Committee shall be formed to act as technical advisors to the MPO Policy Committee.” The responsibilities of the Technical Committee, from the FMPO’s Bylaws (page 7), include: “providing technical review of all transportation plans within the urban area and input to the MPO Policy Committee on issues directed to it by its membership and the Policy Committee…Other responsibilities shall include those as may be designated from time to time by the MPO Policy Committee.” 23 3  12/20/2017 FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Organizational Chart FMPO Policy Committee (Governing Body for the MPO) FMPO Technical Committee (Provides Technical Advice to the MPO Officer Policy Committee) Fiscal Agent MPO Senior Planner MPO Associate Planner MPO Administrative Assistant 24 4  FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Agenda Item #8 Subject: Committee Member Discussion Items Date: January 3, 2017 DISCUSSION ITEMS No discussion items were presented to MPO Staff by Committee Members for this Agenda Item. 25  FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Agenda Item #9 Subject: Information Items Prepared by: Mary Holton, AICP, MPO Officer and Derrick Garcia, Associate Planner Date: January 10, 2018 INFORMATION ITEMS a. Status Report on Adding Kirtland to the MPO. The Town’s Board of Trustees voted on December 12, 2017, to become a member of the MPO. The JPA and the Bylaws will require revisions to add Kirtland. The Policy Committee will begin that process with staff at their meeting on January 25. b. LTAP Training. Staff has looked into the question of when LTAP will hold another project “complete timeline” course. UNM LTAP did not have an exact date in mind but said it is willing to work with the local governments and the FMPO on holding trainings in the Farmington area to become more accessible to the local governments in San Juan County. c. New Technical Committee Member. The City of Farmington has named Virginia King to be their representative for outgoing committee member Mr. David Sypher. Nica Westerling will remain as the alternate. d. Status Report on Best Practices Regarding Project Prioritization Methods. In anticipation of a future amendment to the MTP, Staff has been researching best practices for project prioritization methods. An update on best practices will be presented in February. 26  Minutes from the December 13, 2017 Technical Committee meeting are on the following pages 27  MINUTES FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING December 13, 2017 Technical Members Present: Jason Thomas, City of Bloomfield David Sypher, City of Farmington Cindy Lopez, City of Farmington Rosa Kozub (District 5 Alt. via phone), NMDOT Andrew Montoya, Red Apple Transit Manager Fran Fillerup, San Juan County Technical Members Absent: Bill Watson, City of Aztec Paul Brasher, NMDOT District 5 Staff Present: Mary Holton, MPO Officer Derrick Garcia, MPO Associate Planner Karen Walker, CD Administrative Assistant Staff Absent: June Markle, Administrative Assistant Others Present: Toni Sitta, EIT, Associate Project Engineer, City of Farmington Public Works Larry Hathaway, San Juan County Somie Chavez, FMPO Planning Liaison, NMDOT 1. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Fillerup called the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. 2. APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER 1, 2017 TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING Ms. C. Lopez moved to approve the minutes from the November 1, 2017 Technical Committee meeting. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion. The motion to approve the minutes passed unanimously. 3. PRESENTATION – STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Subject: Presentation – Stormwater Management in Transportation Planning Date: December 13, 2017 28  PRESENTATION Ms. Toni Sitta, EIT, Associate Project Engineer with the City of Farmington Public Works Department, and the Cities MS4 Coordinator presented 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. The following is a summary from Ms. Sitta’s presentation on Stormwater Management in Transportation Planning:  History of the Clean Water Act/NPDES  Runoff from urbanized areas is the leading source of water quality impairments to surveyed estuaries and the third largest source of impairments to surveyed lakes; set forth municipality regulations; o What we do on our land is reflected in our water;  History of “Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System” (MS4) permits; o An MS4 is a conveyance or system of conveyances that is:  Owned by a state, city, or other public entity that discharges to waters of the U.S.  Designed or used to collect or convey stormwater (storm drains, pipes, ditches, curbs, gutters, etc.) o Not a combined sewer; o Not part of a sewage treatment plan or publicly owned treatment works.  MS4s in New Mexico o Phase I – Albuquerque o Phase II – all others o Small MS4 programs – Farmington urbanized area is here  Hold monthly cooperative meetings with the four entities (City of Farmington, San Juan County, City of Aztec, NMDOT District 5); City of Bloomfield is an urban cluster and not part of this program;  Other small MS4 programs in state (Santa Fe, Las Cruces, Los Lunas and El Paso urbanized areas);  Work together and know who to reach out to.  Control measures for a stormwater management program include: o Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal/permittee operations; o Public education and outreach on stormwater impacts; o Public involvement/participation o Illicit discharge detection and elimination o Construction site stormwater runoff control 29  o Post-construction stormwater management in new development and redevelopment.  Improving the approach to stormwater management o Traditional approach – convey stormwater quickly from site to water body or detention  Not adequately controlling water quality and quantity impacts o New approach – low impact development/green infrastructure  View stormwater as a resource  Prevent pollution of local waters  Reduce flooding  Protect water resources  Manage stormwater on-site  Beautify neighborhoods  Green infrastructure o Systems that mimic natural hydrologic cycle to take stormwater and  Slow it down  Spread it out  Soak it in o Can be integrated into parks, parking lot landscaping, climate adaptation strategies, smart growth, flood restoration  Selecting and maintaining vegetation in arid and semi-arid climates o Create a plan o Use low water use plants o Use efficient irrigation systems o Consider soil amendments o Use mulch o Maintenance  Use trees o Reduce stormwater runoff o Reduce stormwater peak flows o Reduce erosion o Protects water quality Ms. Sitta also showed some examples of “green streets” along residential streets, commercial streets, arterials, parkways, and along freeways. Green streets incorporate vegetation, soil, and engineered systems (permeable pavements) to slow, filter, and cleanse stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces (i.e.: streets, sidewalks). Ms. Sitta also provided a list of resources and documents for additional information. The Technical Committee thanked Ms. Sitta for her presentation. 4. UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF POTENTIAL MTP AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 4, 5, AND 9 of the 2040 MTP Subject: Update on the Status of Potential MTP Amendments to Chapters 4, 5, and 9 30  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. INFORMATION ITEM  This is a discussion/direction item. No action is sought at this time.  §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 31  movement of people and goods in addressing current and future transportation demand. DISCUSSION: Mr. Garcia stated that MPO Staff met with representatives of the member entities in September and October to gather their input and recommendations for Chapters 4 (Project Prioritization Method), 5 (Roadway Plan), and 9 (Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan) to the MTP. Mr. Garcia stated that Staff now believes this amendment is not necessary. With the recent TIP Amendment, projects that were not consistent with the current MTP were addressed and removed from the TIP. Additionally, it is believed that it is premature to address changes to chapter 9 as that update will be pursued in 2018 Bike/Ped Plan Update. Mr. Garcia said changes to this Chapter should wait until the 2045 MTP update when the bike/ped update has been completed. He also thought additional discussions on the project prioritization methods were needed before considering changes to the current MTP Chapter 4. Mr. Sypher asked that as future project requests and scorings take place that the Committee would discuss project criteria and how they would apply to this MPO’s priorities. He thought there might be a difference in the MPO’s priority projects vs. those projects that make it onto the TIP and STIP. Mr. Sypher asked when discussions on revisions to include in the 2045 MTP might begin. Ms. Holton replied that prior to amending the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP); the Public Participation Plan will need to be updated and amended. This work will be done during 2018. Work on the 2045 MTP will take place in 2019 with adoption sought in the fall of 2020. Mr. Sypher reiterated his desire to discuss the project prioritization criteria and procedures and how committee members would be selected. Mr. Garcia said all these issues would be discussed. Mr. Sypher said he was excited about updating the bike plan. He commented that the City of Farmington has been working hard to make good use of existing rights-of-way, restriping, and generally being proactive. Mr. Sypher mentioned the City of Farmington’s honorable mention as a bicycle friendly community. He said he thought it was important to work together and continue to improve bicycle amenities as a region. He added that improving these facilities would be a tremendous opportunity to encourage tourists and bicycle enthusiasts. Mr. Fillerup asked if Staff still planned to work on and consider an amendment for the project prioritization method in Chapter 4 of the MTP. Mr. Garcia replied that this could be pursued and thought the first steps to consider would be to research methods and best practices from other MPOs. Mr. Sypher stated his concerns were that when this new scoring projects began there where existing projects that he called “grandfathered” in as our priority projects and new projects were slipped in behind the grandfathered projects. The Committee then discussed the need to resubmit and rescore all the projects so they were all scored consistently. Then the Committee considered how projects would be scored year after year in relation to the earlier scored projects. With changes in scoring committee members and differing viewpoints from one year to the next, how would scoring be 32 consistent. Mr. Sypher said he was very interested in working on this part of the project prioritization process. He thought it was important to get these concerns discussed and the methodology finalized prior to any future call for projects. Mr. Fillerup asked if projects would be scored in the meantime. Mr. Garcia replied that projects amended outside of the call for projects are currently not scored and the next call for projects will not be until 2019. He noted that the Committee expressed interest in addressing the project prioritization process prior to that call. The Technical Committee members agreed that this was needed. Mr. Garcia stated that Staff would begin putting some best practice information together for Committee consideration. Mr. Sypher also asked if the bicycle plan update was to be done in-house or through a consultant. Mr. Garcia said the RFQP had been issued and the proposals from the potential contractors are beginning to be reviewed. Ms. Holton asked that further discussion about the proposal be refrained from per confidentiality requirements in the state procurement code. Mr. Sypher said he was simply interested in the timing and what the process would be. He was not seeking any details. Mr. Sypher said he would have appreciated having the Technical Committee involved in the process and recommended that Staff look over the bike friendly city application that Anngela Wakan and Patience Williams submitted for the City of Farmington earlier this year. He thought there were some great ideas in that application that could be considered for the bike plan update. Mr. Garcia said there will be time for Committee and public input later on in the process. Ms. Holton stated that the project was in the hands of the City of Farmington’s purchasing department and further information would need to go through Kristy Benson as the procurement officer. Mr. Fillerup said that although the Technical Committee was not involved in developing the scope, each of the entities has had the opportunity to have a representative on the reviewing committee. The Technical Committee discussed their desire to have been involved with developing the scope. Mr. Fillerup asked if the Technical Committee would be afforded the opportunity to meet with the awarded firm to offer their input. Ms. Holton said that because the project is in the procurement process, the only thing she could say was that the Technical Committee will be the steering committee for the plan. Mr. Sypher said that if the steering committee had items they wanted to be considered that were not already made part of the RFP, they would not be able to be addressed. Mr. Fillerup restated that there is an interest on the part of the Technical Committee to work on changes to the Chapter 4 of the MTP, the project prioritization process. Mr. Garcia said he would have best practices information available for the Technical Committee to consider in January or February. 5. NATIONAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Subject: National Performance Management Measures for Highway Safety Improvement Program Prepared by: Derrick Garcia, Associate Planner Date: December 13, 2017 33  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. 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) DISCUSSION: Mr. Garcia reported that earlier this year, the federal government issued findings regarding national highway performance safety standards. Mr. Garcia reviewed the Safety Performance Measures issued by FHWA and the five performance measures that MPOs are required to establish within 180 days after the state DOT has established their safety performance measures: 1. Number of fatalities; 2. Rate of fatalities (per 100 million VMT); 3. Number of serious injuries; 4. Rate of serious 34 injuries (per 100 million VMT); 5. Number of non-motorized fatalities and non- motorized serious injuries. MPOs can either agree to support the state’s targets or establish specific numeric targets for a safety performance measure (number or rate). The Policy Committee will decide which option is best for the FMPO. Mr. Garcia said that this will again be presented to the Technical Committee in January for their consideration. Staff will recommend that the FMPO adopt the state’s targets at least for the first year since this will be new for every MPO and state DOT in the country. Mr. Garcia said that at a meeting in April with FHWA, NMDOT, and all the MPOs, the consensus was to adopt the state’s targets. The deadline for the MPOs to establish their targets is February 27, 2018. Mr. Garcia referred the Technical Committee members to Pages 6-9 of the Agenda where FHWA’s Safety Performance Measures Fact Sheet could be found. Page 8 of the Agenda shows the MPO Safety Performance Measure Fact Sheet from FHWA. MPOs must work with the state DOT office and coordinate with the State Highway Safety Office, transit operators, local governments, the FHWA Division Office, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration regional office, law enforcement and emergency medical service agencies. Depending on which option an MPO selects, it would: Pages 10-13 of the Agenda show the trends, projections, and rankings in NM traffic crash data developed by researchers at UNM. UNM worked with NMDOT to develop the calculations for each of the five safety performance criteria. Mr. Garcia referred to Pages 14-17 of the Agenda which shows the safety targets established by NMDOT in August 2017. On Page 14, Mr. Garcia noted that: “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.” NMDOT Planning Bureau followed up with FHWA-NM to notify them that the MPOs should adopt the NMDOT targets and that they should amend their MTPs to state that they will follow NMDOT targets. Since this time it was decided that amending the MTP was not 35 necessary and that a Policy Committee Resolution would suffice. Changes to the MTP could wait until the 2045 MTP is developed. Pages 15-17 of the Agenda detail each of the five performance target standards adopted by NMDOT. Shown below is NMDOT’s performance measure for the first standard (Fatalities) with the remaining four standards developed similarly: Mr. Fillerup noted that some of NMDOT’s targets are not rates, and asked if the MPO could calculate their own rate and adopt a target for our nominal amount of the state’s fatalities and injuries. He wondered if that information was available. Mr. Garcia said the state is behind in getting the traffic reports up to date and the information available to the MPO is data from 2010-2014. Additionally the information is county-wide data and the MPO planning area is much smaller than that. Mr. Fillerup asked, as an example, what would it mean for the MPO to adopt the state’s number of fatalities. Mr. Garcia referred to Page 8 of the Agenda: “MPO’s 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.” Mr. Garcia said he thought this would be an important consideration as the Committees revise Chapter 4 of the MTP on the prioritization of projects. Safety performance standards will be a critical factor in determining priority of projects statewide. Mr. Garcia restated that the draft of Policy Committee Resolution 2018-1 to adopt the state’s safety performance measures will be presented to the Technical Committee in January for their consideration. 36 6. STATUS OF TIP PROJECTS 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, Phase 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. DISCUSSION: Mr. Garcia had planned to give an overview of NMDOT’s new eSTIP website being used to manage the STIP and how MPO amendments are provided to NMDOT, but internet access was not available for this presentation. Mr. Garcia asked the Technical Committee members for their project updates: 37 Mr. Thomas reported that the City of Bloomfield is working to close out NMDOT comments between 60% design and PS&E. Three reviewers’ comments have not yet been resolved and the City of Bloomfield is waiting for NMDOT to address those comments. They are also seeking clarification of obtaining right-of-way certification. During the PS&E review, Mr. Stephen Lopez told the City of Bloomfield to follow the uniform code; however, the TLPA handbook said these procedures do not generally apply to MAP and co-op funds which are the funds in this current electrical phase of the project. The City will also be seeking easements from the property owners for the utility relocations. Mr. Thomas asked if NMDOT had any planned TL/PA and cradle to grave (now called Project Inception to Completion) trainings upcoming. He would like to have these trainings presented again. Mr. Garcia said he would look into this and report back. Mr. Sypher had no new updates for the City of Farmington projects. Mr. Fillerup reported that a PS&E for the Kirtland School Walk Path has been requested. San Juan County is working on the contract with the awarded firm for the bridge improvement project on CR 5500. The East Pinon Hills Boulevard Extension Phase III project is at 60% design. The County is working on details with BLM for the Glade Run Recreation Area Trails and then plans to enter into an agreement with NMDOT. Mr. Garcia asked if the County was pursuing the bridge improvement with 100% local funding. Mr. Fillerup said that was correct. Ms. Rosa Kozub had no updates on the NMDOT TIP projects. 7. REPORTS FROM NMDOT Planning Bureau – Somie Chavez Ms. Chavez reported that all the Annual Performance & Expenditure Reports (APER) had been received and reviewed. Local input on the NM Bike Plan can still be provided until the end of December. District 5 – Rosa Kozub There were no updates from District 5 to present. 8. COMMITTEE MEMBER DISCUSSION ITEMS 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. 38 9. INFORMATION ITEMS 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. DISCUSSION: Mr. Garcia attended the NM Data Users Conference in Albuquerque and efforts to prepare for the 2020 Census. The MPO Quarterly originally scheduled for December in Las Cruces was cancelled. 10. BUSINESS FROM THE CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS AND STAFF There was no business from the Chairman, Members and Staff. 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY ISSUES NOT ON THE AGENDA Ms. Holton wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. There was no additional public comment on any issues not on the agenda. 12. ADJOURNMENT Ms. C. Lopez moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. Mr. Fillerup adjourned the meeting at 11:06 a.m. ___________________________ ___________________________ Fran Fillerup, Chair June Markle, Administrative Assistant 39