MPO Technical Committee

MPO TECHNICAL COMMITTEE AGENDA February 10, 2021 10:00 a.m. MPO Office 100 West Broadway, 2nd Floor Farmington, New Mexico  AGENDA FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING February 10, 2021 10:00 AM With in-person meeting restrictions still in place, this regular meeting will be held at the MPO Office, 100 W. Broadway, 2nd Floor, Farmington with virtual participation provided via a GoToMeeting link published in the final agenda. ITEM PAGE 1. Call to Order & Roll Call: Call meeting to order 2. Minutes: Approve the minutes from the January 13, 2021 Technical Committee 17-31 Meeting. 3. Farmington to Aztec Trail Proposal: Members will discuss 1 Introduced by: Peter Koeppel 4. Quarterly Education: Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) 2-10 Presented by: MPO Staff 5. TIP Project Updates from Technical Committee Members: Members will 11-13 provide updates on their TIP projects. 6. Reports from NMDOT a. Update from the Planning Bureau (Joseph Moriarty) b. Update from District 5 (Javier Martinez) 7. Committee Member Discussion Item(s) 14 No additional discussion items were presented for inclusion on the Agenda 8. Information Items 15 a. Proposed changes to delineating Metropolitan Statistical Areas Presented by: FMPO Staff 9. Business from Chairman, Members, and Staff 10. Public Comment on Any Issues Not on the Agenda 11. Adjournment The public body may only take action on an item if it is listed for action on the publicly noticed agenda. The public is invited to participate in this GoTo Meeting: By using a computer, tablet, or smartphone: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/597372317 or by dialing: 1 (646) 749-3122 and entering access code: 597-372-317 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: Farmington-Aztec Trail Project Prepared by: Peter Koeppel, MPO Officer Date: February 10, 2021 DISCUSSION The Technical Committee will discuss a trails proposal from Farmington to Aztec. 1  FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Agenda Item #4 Subject: Quarterly Education: Prepared by: Peter Koeppel, MPO Officer Date: February 10, 2021 PRESENTATION In 2020, we observed the 30th anniversary for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To recognize this milestone, the MPO is sharing some questions and answers about ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. These questions and answers are provided to help FHWA and its State and local transportation department partners better understand roles and responsibilities to provide accessible transportation facilities under the ADA and Section 504 and explain the FHWA's position on the implementation of the ADA and Section 504. Included in the packet is an edited version of these questions & answers. To access the complete Q&A’s or see additional resources, including training opportunities, criteria for developing accessible facilities and, design guidelines visit: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/programs/ada/ada_sect504qa.cfm. 2  Questions and Answers About ADA/Section 504 Public Agencies Covered By ADA and Section 504 What do these statutes require public agencies to do? These statutes prohibit public agencies from discriminating against persons with disabilities by excluding them from services, programs, or activities. These statutes mean that the agency must provide pedestrian access for persons with disabilities to the agency's streets and sidewalks, whenever a pedestrian facility exists. Regulations implement this requirement by imposing standards for accessible features such as curb cuts, ramps, continuous sidewalks, and detectable warnings. All State and local governmental agencies must provide pedestrian access for persons with disabilities in compliance with ADA Title II. Federal, State, and local governments must provide pedestrian access for persons with disabilities in compliance with Section 504 standards. The ADA does not require public agencies to provide pedestrian facilities, however, when a public agency provides a pedestrian facility, it must be accessible to persons with disabilities to the extent technically feasible. What is FHWA's responsibility for assuring access for persons with disabilities? FHWA is responsible for ensuring access for persons with disabilities in four areas: 1. For surface transportation projects under direct FHWA control: FHWA is responsible for ensuring that project planning, design, construction, and operations adequately address pedestrian access for people who have disabilities. 2. For Federally funded surface transportation projects that provide pedestrian facilities within the public right-of-way: FHWA is responsible for ensuring that the public agencies' project planning, design, and construction programs provide pedestrian access for persons with disabilities. FHWA-funded projects outside of the public right-of-way, such as Transportation Enhancement projects, must also adhere to these requirements. 3. For pedestrian facilities within the public right-of-way, or any other FHWA enhancement project, regardless of funding source: FHWA is responsible for investigating complaints. 4. FHWA should provide or encourage accessibility training for Federal, State, and local agencies and their contractors. FHWA does not have ADA oversight responsibilities for projects outside of the public right-of-way that do not use Federal surface transportation program funds. Can a public agency make private individuals or businesses responsible for ADA and Section 504 mandated pedestrian access? 3  No. The public agency is responsible for providing access for persons with disabilities. Private entities with joint responsibility for a public right-of-way, such as a private tenant on public property, are responsible for accessibility for persons with disabilities on the public right-of-way under Title II of ADA. The lease or other document creating this legal relationship should commit the private party to ensuring accessibility. What is FHWA's authority to implement ADA and Section 504 requirements? The DOJ regulations designate the DOT as the agency responsible for overseeing public agencies' compliance with the ADA. The DOT has delegated to the FHWA the responsibility to ensure ADA compliance in the public right-of-way and on projects using surface transportation funds. Transition Plans What should a transition plan include? The transition plan must include a schedule for providing access features, including curb ramps for walkways. The schedule should first provide for pedestrian access upgrades to State and local government offices and facilities, transportation, places of public accommodation, and employers, followed by walkways serving other areas. The transition plan should accomplish the following four tasks: 1. identify physical obstacles in the public agency's facilities that limit the accessibility of its programs or activities to individuals with disabilities; 2. describe in detail the methods that will be used to make the facilities accessible; 3. specify the schedule for taking the steps necessary to upgrade pedestrian access to meet ADA and Section 504 requirements in each year following the transition plan; and 4. indicate the official responsible for implementation of the plan. How does the transition plan relate to a public agency's transportation planning process? The ADA transition plan is intended to identify system needs and integrate them with the State's planning process. The transition plan and its identified needs should be fully integrated into the public agency's STIP and metropolitan TIP. Agencies should incorporate accessibility improvements into the transportation program on an ongoing basis in a variety of ways: 1. Any construction project that is programmed must meet accessibility requirements when built. 2. Accessibility improvements identified in the transition plan that are not within the scope of an alteration project should be incorporated into the overall transportation planning process. This can be accomplished through the development of stand-alone accessibility projects. 3. As a means to identify ADA compliance needs, during scheduling maintenance activities, the agencies should identify ADA accessibility 4  needs and incorporate them into the overall transportation planning process. What public agencies must make a transition plan? The ADA requires any public agency with more than 50 employees to make a transition plan setting forth the steps necessary to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. When should the FHWA review an agency's transition plan? DOT Section 504 regulation requires FHWA to monitor the compliance of the self- evaluation and transition plans of Federal-aid recipients. The FHWA Division offices should review pedestrian access compliance with the ADA and Section 504 as part of its routine oversight activities as defined in their stewardship plan. When and how should a transition plan be updated? An agency's transition plan should be updated periodically to ensure the ongoing needs of the community continue to be met. The transition plan should be coordinated appropriately with the STIP and the TIP. Changes to the plan shall be made available to the public for comment. The public agency should specifically target any local community groups representing persons with disabilities for comment, to ensure that the agency is meeting the local priorities of the persons with disabilities in that community. Projects Covered by the ADA and Section 504 What projects must provide pedestrian access for persons with disabilities? Any project for construction or alteration of a facility that provides access to pedestrians must be made accessible to persons with disabilities. What projects constitute an alteration to the public right-of-way? An alteration is a change to a facility in the public right-of-way that affects or could affect access, circulation, or use. Projects altering the use of the public right-of-way must incorporate pedestrian access improvements within the scope of the project to meet the requirements of the ADA and Section 504. These projects have the potential to affect the structure, grade, or use of the roadway. Alterations include items such as reconstruction, rehabilitation, widening, resurfacing, signal installation and upgrades, and projects of similar scale and effect. What activities are not considered to be alterations? The DOJ does not consider maintenance activities, such as filling potholes, to be alterations. The DOJ does consider resurfacing beyond normal maintenance to be an alteration. 5  The FHWA has determined that maintenance activities include actions that are intended to preserve the system, retard future deterioration, and maintain the functional condition of the roadway without increasing the structural capacity. These activities include, but are not limited to, joint repair, pavement patching (filling potholes), shoulder repair, signing, striping, minor signal upgrades, and repairs to drainage systems. Timing of Accessibility Improvements Does a project altering a public right-of-way require simultaneous accessibility improvements? Yes. An alteration project must be planned, designed, and constructed so that the accessibility improvements within the scope of the project occur at the same time as the alteration. The ADA does not stipulate how to perform simultaneous accessibility improvements. For example, a public agency may select specialty contractors to perform different specialized tasks prior to completion of the alteration project or concurrently with an ongoing project. Can a public agency delay compliance with the ADA and Section 504 on alteration projects through a systematic approach to schedule projects? No. All pedestrian access upgrades within the scope of the project must occur at the same time as the alteration. When does the scope of an alteration project trigger accessibility improvements for people with disabilities? The scope of an alteration project is determined by the extent the alteration project directly changes or affects the public right-of-way within the project limits. The public agency must improve the accessibility of only that portion of the public right-of-way changed or affected by the alteration. If a project resurfaces the street, for accessibility purposes the curbs and pavement at the pedestrian crosswalk are in the scope of the project, but the sidewalks are not. Any of the features disturbed by the construction must be replaced so that they are accessible. All remaining access improvements within the public right-of-way shall occur within the schedule provided in the public agency's planning process. Do maintenance activities require simultaneous improvements of the facility to meet ADA standards? No. Maintenance activities do not require simultaneous improvements to pedestrian accessibility under the ADA and Section 504. However, in the development of the maintenance scope of work identified accessibility needs should be incorporated into the transition process. When should accessible design elements be incorporated into projects in the public right-of-way? 6  FHWA encourages the consideration of pedestrian needs in all construction, reconstruction, and rehabilitation projects. If a public agency provides pedestrian facilities, those facilities must be accessible to persons with disabilities. A public agency is not relieved of its obligation to make its pedestrian facilities accessible if no individual with a disability is known to live in a particular area. This is true regardless of its funding source. Cost How does cost factor into a public agency's decision in its transition plan concerning which existing facilities must comply with ADA and Section 504 pedestrian access requirements? For existing facilities requiring accessibility improvements as scheduled in the transition plans, the public agency must provide accessibility improvements unless the cost of the upgrades is unduly burdensome. The test for being unduly burdensome is the proportion of the cost for accessibility improvements compared to the agency's overall budget, not simply the project cost. The decision that pedestrian access would be unduly burdensome must be made by the head of a public agency or that official's designee, accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for the decision. For a new project or an alteration project planned outside of the transition plan, with ADA accessibility improvements required within the scope of the project, can cost be a reason to decide what ADA-required improvements will be completed? No. Cost may not be a reason to fail to complete, construct or delay constructing a new facility so that the facility is readily accessible to and useable by persons with disabilities under the ADAAG standards. A public agency must complete any ADA- required accessibility improvements within the scope of an alteration project to the maximum extent feasible. What role does the “maximum extent feasible” standard play for ADA accessibility requirements in altered projects? In an alteration project, the public agency must incorporate the ADA accessibility standards to the maximum extent feasible. The feasibility meant by this standard is physical possibility only. A public agency is exempt from meeting the ADA standards in the rare instance where physical terrain or site conditions restrict constructing or altering the facility to the standard. Cost is not a factor in determining whether meeting standards has been completed to the maximum extent feasible. No particular decision-making process is required to determine that an accessibility improvement is not technically feasible, but the best practice is to document the decision to enable the public agency to explain the decision in any later compliance review. What should a public agency do when it does not control all of the public right-of-way required to provide access for persons with disabilities? 7 The public agency should work jointly with all others with interests in the highway, street, or walkway to ensure that pedestrian access improvements occur at the same time as any alteration or new project. The ADA encourages this cooperation by making each of the public agencies involved subject to complaints or lawsuits for failure to meet the ADA and Section 504 requirements. 8  Funding What sources of funding may be used to comply with ADA and Section 504 requirements? Federal Funding Opportunities for Pedestrian Projects and Programs ACTIVITY NHS STP HSIP RHC TE CMAQ RTP FTA TrE BRI 402 PLATCSP FLH BYW SRTS Pedestrian * * * * * plan Paved * * * * * * * * * * shoulders Shared-use * * * * * * * * * * * path/trail Recreational * * trail Spot improvement * * * * * * program Maps * * * * * * Trail/highway * * * * * * * * * * intersection Sidewalks, new * * * * * * * * * * * * * or retrofit Crosswalks, * * * * * * * * * * * * new or retrofit Signal * * * * * * * * improvements Curb cuts and * * * * * * * * ramps Traffic * * * * * calming Safety * * * * * * brochure/book Training * * * * * * * * * NHS National Highway System TrE Transit Enhancements STP Surface Transportation Program BRI Bridge (HBRRP) HSIP Highway Safety Improvement 402 State and Community Traffic Safety Program Program RHC Railway-Highway Crossing Program PLA State/Metropolitan Planning Funds TCSP Transportation and Community and System TE Transportation Enhancement Activities Preservation Program CMAQ Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality FLH Federal Lands Highways Program Program RTP Recreational Trails Program BYW Scenic Byways FTA Federal Transit Capital, Urban & Rural SRTS Safe Routes to School Funds Each program has its own specific requirements and provisions. Further details on these sources of funding may be found in the following memo: Flexible Funding for Highways and Transit and Funding for Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs, February 6, 2006, at www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/guidance/flexfund.cfm 9 To access to the complete Q&A’s or see additional resources visit: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/programs/ada/ada_sect504qa.cfm 10  FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Agenda Item #5 Subject: Status of TIP Projects Prepared by: MPO Staff & Technical Committee Members Date: February 10, 2021 BACKGROUND  The STIP Protocols, finalized in early 2014, require that each MPO shall develop a process to monitor the progress and status of each project in the first two years of the TIP. These monthly reviews help correct inconsistencies in the TIP, STIP, the MPO’s MTP, Agreement Request Forms (ARFs), etc. and provide for discussion among the members and NMDOT representatives.  The Policy Committee approved the new FFY2020-2025 TIP during a Special meeting on July 25, 2019.  The projects currently on the FFY2020-2025 TIP are listed below.  Work has begun on the new FFY2022-2027 TIP. 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 PROJECTS ON FMPO FFY2020-2025 TIP  Aztec F100091 – East Aztec Arterial Phase II  Bloomfield F100300 – East Blanco Bridge  Farmington F100099 – Foothills Drive Enhancement Phase II F100100 – East Pinon Hills Blvd Extension Phase I F100101 – East Pinon Hills Blvd Extension Phase II F100132 – 20th Street Phase III TF00001 – Red Apple Transit  San Juan County F100021 – East Pinon Hills Blvd Extension Phase III F100290 – CR 5500 Bridge Replacement F100320 – Kirtland Schools Walk Path Extension F100330 – Glade Run Recreation Area Trails Extension F100360 – CR 3000 Bridge Replacement F100370 – CR 3500 Bridge Replacement  NMDOT F100170 - NM 173 Safety Improvements F100340 – US 550 Pavement Rehab 11 F100350 – NM 371/N36 (PE) F100351 – NM 371/N36 (Const) ATTACHMENT  If available, the Status Reports–FMPO TIP Projects table for the current month will be included with the agenda. Otherwise, the table will be distributed at the meeting. INFORMATION ITEM  This is an information item only. Committee members will have an opportunity to provide any needed feedback/updates regarding current TIP projects status and details. 12  Status Reports - FMPO TIP Projects – February 2021 Aztec F100091 East Aztec Arterial Phase III Bloomfield F100300 East Blanco Bridge Phase I is 60% complete. Farmington F100099 Foothills Drive Enhancement Phase II City will advertise the project on 2/7/21 F100100 East Pinon Hills Blvd Extension Phase I NMDOT is updating the Environmental F100101 East Pinon Hills Blvd Extension Phase II F100132 20th Street Phase III TCP acquisition is complete. Requested ROW certification, but Environmental and ISA were expired. Environmental has been updated; ISA in process of updating. Anticipate PS&E in mid-February TF00001 Red Apple Transit San Juan County F100021 East Pinon Hills Blvd Extension Phase III F100290 CR 5500 Bridge Replacement 13 F100320 Kirtland Schools Walk Path Extension F100330 Glade Run Recreation Area Trails Ext. F100360 CR 3000 Bridge Replacement F100370 CR 3500 Bridge Replacement NMDOT F100170 NM 173 F100350 NM 371/Navajo 36 F100351 NM 371/Navajo 36  FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Agenda Item #7 Subject: Committee Member Discussion Items Date: February 10, 2021 DISCUSSION ITEMS There were no additional discussion items provided by Technical Committee members for inclusion on the Agenda. 14  FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Agenda Item # Subject: Information Items Prepared by: MPO Staff Date: February 10, 2021 INFORMATION ITEMS a. Proposed changes to delineating Metropolitan Statistical Areas. 15  The minutes from the January 13, 2021 Technical Committee meeting are on the following pages. 16  MINUTES FARMINGTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING January 13, 2021 Technical Members Present: Steven Saavedra, City of Aztec (verified by a verbal roll call) Beth Escobar, City of Farmington Virginia King, City of Farmington Javier Martinez, NMDOT District 5 Andrew Montoya, Red Apple Transit Scott Martin, San Juan County Dan Flack, Town of Kirtland Technical Members Absent: Jason Thomas, City of Bloomfield Staff Present: Peter Koeppel, MPO Officer Kathryn Leys, MPO Associate Planner June Markle, Administrative Assistant Staff Absent: None Others Present: Rosalyn Fry, City of Aztec Commissioner Sharon Cruz, NMDOT Joseph Moriarty, Planning Liaison, NMDOT Paul Sittig, NMDOT David Barnett, San Juan County Michelle Truby-Tillen, San Juan County All the Technical Committee members, as well as “Others Present” attended via GoToMeeting 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Nick Porell called the meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. 2. APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 9, 2020 TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING Mr. Martin moved to approve the minutes from the December 9, 2020 Technical Committee meeting. Ms. Escobar seconded the motion. The motion to approve the minutes passed unopposed. 3. ANNUAL ELECTION OF OFFICERS Subject: Annual Election of Officers Prepared by: Peter Koeppel, MPO Officer Date: January 13, 2020 17  BACKGROUND  As outlined in the MPO Committee Bylaws, the annual Election of Officers occurs every year.  Each January, 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.  Nick Porell has been serving as the current Technical Committee Chair; Jason Thomas has been serving as the current Vice Chair. ELECTION  Elections are to take place to select a Technical Committee Chair and Vice-Chair for 2021. RECOMMENDATION  It is recommended that the Technical Committee accept nominations and vote to elect the Chair and Vice-Chair for 2021. DISCUSSION: Mr. Koeppel stated that during the first meeting of the year, the annual election of officers is to take place. Nominations for Chair: Mr. Martin nominated Nick Porell; no other members were nominated. There was no opposition to Mr. Porell retaining the position of Chair of the FMPO Technical Committee. Nominations for Vice Chair: Mr. Porell nominated Beth Escobar; Virginia King seconded the nomination; there were no other nominations for Vice Chair; there was no opposition to Beth Escobar being named as Vice Chair of the FMPO Technical Committee. The nomination for Chair was repeated as there had been no second to Mr. Martin’s original nomination of Nick Porell. Re-nomination for Chair: Mr. Martin nominated Nick Porell; Beth Escobar seconded the nomination; there were no other nominations and there was no opposition to Mr. Porell retaining the position of Chair. 4. NATIONAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (PM 1) Subject: National Performance Management Measures for Highway Safety Improvement Program (PM 1) Prepared by: Peter Koeppel, MPO Officer Date: January 13, 2021 18  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: 1) Number of Fatalities, 2) Number of Serious Injuries, 3) Fatalities per 100 Million VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) or Fatality Rate, 4) Serious Injuries per 100 Million VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) or serious injury rate, and, 5) Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries.  The first three targets are common measures and must be identical to the targets established for the Highway Safety Plan (HSP).  MPOs may either: Agree to support State targets 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 & RECOMMENDATIONS  This item is being presented to both committees in November for their information. It will be brought back to both the Technical and Policy Committees in January for their recommendation/approval.  Staff recommends that the state targets be adopted for 2021.  FMPO Policy Committee action is due no later than February 27, 2021. ACTION ITEM  Staff recommends that the Technical Committee consider recommending approval of PM 1 and Policy Committee Resolution 2021-1 to the Policy Committee. 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 State/MPO targets:  23 USC 134(j)(2)(D)  23 USC 135(g)(4)  49 USC 5303(j)(2)(D)  49 USC 5304(g)(4) 19 DISCUSSION: Mr. Koeppel reported that this was the annual safety performance target setting required under Federal law. The background data was presented in November and Staff is seeking recommended approval to support NMDOT’s safety targets for 2021. Mr. Koeppel reiterated that the state and FMPO are required to set annual targets for five performance measures:  Number of total fatalities  Number of serious injuries  Fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles travelled (VMT) or fatality rate  Serious injuries per 100 million VMT or serious injury rate  Number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries The MPOs may choose to adopt the state’s targets or set their own quantifiable targets. Traditionally the FMPO has agreed to adopt the state’s targets. Staff recommends the adoption of the NMDOT safety targets for 2021: Chair Porell agreed that in the absence of the FMPO conducting a significant study of their own, NMDOT’s targets were adopted. There were no additional questions or comments by Technical Committee members. Chair Porell opened the public hearing; no comments were received; Chair Porell closed the public hearing. ACTION: Chair Porell moved to recommend adoption of NMDOT’s PM 1 Safety Targets for 2021 and approval of Policy Committee Resolution 2021-1. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. The motion passed with no opposition. 5. NATIONAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR ASSESSING PAVEMENT CONDITION AND BRIDGE CONDITIONS (PM 2) Subject: National Performance Management Measures for Assessing Pavement Condition and Bridge Condition (PM 2) Prepared by: Peter Koeppel, MPO Officer Date: January 13, 2021 20  BACKGROUND  23 CFR §490 Subpart C – National Performance Management Measures for Assessing Pavement Condition and 23 CFR §490 Subpart D – National Performance Management measures for Assessing Bridge Condition (see attached).  The FHWA required that MPOs establish four-year targets for six (6) performance measures and revisit those targets at the 2-year performance period midpoint. Those six performance measures to be considered are: 1) Percentage of interstate pavements on the NHS in good condition; 2) Percentage of interstate pavements on the NHS in poor condition; 3) Percentage of non-interstate pavements on the NHS in good condition; 4) Percentage of non-interstate pavements on the NHS in poor condition; 5) Percentage of bridges on the NHS in good condition; and 6) Percentage of bridges on the NHS in poor condition.  NMDOT has adjusted two 2021 targets – percentage of NHM bridge deck area in poor condition and percentage of Interstate pavements in good condition.  MPOs may: Agree to support State target OR establish their own targets. In 2018 the FMPO adopted some of its own targets for PM 2.  PMs with adjusted state targets for 2021: o BRIDGES on National Highway System (NHS) –  2.5% FMPO target for bridge deck area in poor condition [vs. State at 3.3% (2021)] o PAVEMENT on Interstate NHS o Not applicable to FMPO  PMs without adjusted state targets for 2021:  BRIDGES on National Highway System (NHS) – o 10% FMPO target for Bridges in Good condition [vs. State at 30.0% (2021)]  PAVEMENT on Non-Interstate/NHS – o 34.2% target for Pavement in Good condition o 12.0% target for Pavement in Poor condition  Reporting is for the final two years of the four-year performance period ACTION ITEM  MPO Staff recommend that the Technical Committee consider recommending approval of NMDOT’s PM 2 Targets for 2021 and PC Resolution 2021-2. 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 State/MPO targets:  23 USC 134(j)(2)(D)  23 USC 135(g)(4)  49 USC 5303(j)(2)(D)  49 USC 5304(g)(4) 21 DISCUSSION: Mr. Koeppel reported that Staff had provided background information and data in November 2020. This performance measure is on a four-year cycle and this is the mid-point of the performance period where state DOTs and MPOs may revisit the targets set two years ago. The performance goals and measures for PM 2 are: Pavement Condition Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in good condition Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in poor condition (FMPO has no Interstate highways) Percentage of pavements on the non-Interstate National Highway System (NHS) in good condition Percentage of pavements on the non-Interstate NHS in poor condition Bridge Condition Percentage of NHS bridge deck area classified as in good condition Percentage of NHS bridge deck area classified as in poor condition NMDOT made two recent adjustments to their four-year targets: Percentage of Interstate pavements on the NHS in good condition (not applicable to FMPO) Percentage of bridges on the NHS in poor condition (2.5% changed to 3.3%) The FMPO target set in 2018 for “Percentage of bridges on the NHS in poor condition” was set at 2.5. The Technical Committee needs to consider keeping the 2.5% target or adopting to NMDOT’s revised target of 3.3%. Staff recommends accepting NMDOT’s adjusted bridge performance target and retain the others set in 2018 (see proposed below): NMDOT NMDOT FMPO FMPO Performance Measure 2‐Year 4‐Year 2‐Year 4‐Year Target Target Target Target Percentage of bridges on the NHS in Good 36.0% 30.0% 10.0% 10.0% condition Percentage of bridges on the NHS in Poor 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% condition Percentage of Interstate pavements on the 57.3% 55.0% n/a n/a NHS in Good condition Percentage of Interstate pavements on the 4.5% 5.0% n/a n/a NHS in Poor condition Percentage of Non‐Interstate pavements on 35.6% 34.2% 34.2% 34.2% the NHS in Good condition Percentage of Non‐Interstate pavements on 9.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% the NHS in Poor condition 22 It was noted that in 2018, following a recommendation by NMDOT’s Asset Management Division, the target for percentage of FMPO bridges in good condition was set considerably lower than NMDOT’s targets. Most of the bridges in the region are actually in “fair” condition, but this is not a federal performance measure. The goal would be to move from “fair” to “good” conditions and not let “fair” become “poor”. Mr. Koeppel added that there are currently no bridges in the region in “poor” condition. Ms. Escobar asked if these were “targets” and what happened if the targets are not met. Mr. Koeppel responded that, in general, there are no consequences or penalties for FMPO. Mr. Martinez commented that for NMDOT if targets are not met they must develop a plan on how to address that goal and adjust STIP funding to allocate additional funding to those areas. Chair Porell opened the public hearing; no comments were received; the public hearing was closed. ACTION: Chair Porell moved to recommend approval of Policy Committee Resolution 2021-2 and NMDOT’s targets for 2021 (includes the revision from 2.5% to 3.3% on Percentage of bridges on the NHS in poor condition). Ms. Escobar seconded the motion. The motion passed with no opposition. 6. CRITICAL URBAN FREIGHT CORRIDOR DESIGNATION Subject: Critical Urban Freight Corridor Designation Prepared by: Peter Koeppel, MPO Officer Date: January 13, 2020 PRESENTATION Paul Sittig, NMDOT’s Technical and Freight Planning Supervisor, will provide an overview of the process for designating Critical Urban Freight Corridors under the provisions of the FAST Act. Mr. Koeppel stated that, per the FAST Act, states must define the critical urban freight network in urban and rural areas to better target future freight funding. Mr. Sittig will provide an update on how they are moving forward on this and explain the MPO’s role. Below is a summary of Mr. Sittig’s presentation: Critical Urban Freight Corridor Context New Mexico has: 101.16 miles of Critical Urban Freight Corridors 202.31 miles of Critical Rural Freight Corridors “Urban” defined by Census-designated populations of more than 50,000 people The purpose is to increase freight project funding opportunities (National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) funds and Federal INFRA grants). 23 Map of approved critical rural freight corridors map (in the FMPO region these have been nominated as critical rural freight corridors: US 550 north to Colorado border, portion of US 64, US 491). Critical Urban Freight Corridor Criteria  Connects an intermodal facility to the Primary Highway Freight System (PHFS), the Interstate System, or an intermodal freight facility;  Located within a corridor of a route on the PHFS and provides an alternative highway option important to goods movement;  Serves a major freight generator, logistic center, or manufacturing and warehouse industrial land; and/or  The corridor is important to the movement of freight within the region as determined by the MPO or the State. Critical Rural Freight Corridor Criteria 1. Is a rural principal arterial roadway and has a minimum of 25% of the annual average daily traffic (AADT) of the road measured in passenger vehicle units from trucks (FHWA vehicle class 8 to 13); 2. Provides access to energy exploration, development, installation, or production areas; 3. Connects the PHFS or the Interstate System to facilities that handle more than: a. 50,000 20-foot equivalent units per or; or b. 500,000 tons per year of bulk commodities 4. Provides access to: a. Grain elevator b. Agricultural facility c. Mining facility 24  d. Forestry facility e. Intermodal facility 5. Connects to an international port of entry 6. Provides access to significant air, rail, water, or other freight facilities in the state; or 7. Is determined by the State to be vital to improving the efficient movement of freight of importance to the economy of the State. Issue: More Priority Corridors Than CUFC Miles Farmington MPO (2045 MTP citing New Mexico Freight Plan) – 104.5 total existing miles in FMPO urban area, plus possible future miles. Need to focus on the most important miles and the priority freight projects. CFC corridors can be changed as projects are funded and/or freight priorities change; CFC nominations have no fixed federal schedule; can be rolling nominations that are proposed to be updated annually. The FMPO suggested the Aztec East Arterial bypass as well as NM 550 from Farmington to Aztec be considered for consideration. Process for Annual CRC Review - 2021  The MPOs discuss internally;  Reconvene in March  CFC reviews planned to begin every spring with MPOs  Re-submit to FHWA each August, as needed. NMDOT & MPO Roles in Corridor Nomination State DOTs lead designations of all CRFCs and designate CUFCs in consultation with the MPO in urban areas with populations of 50,000 to 499,999. FMPO will discuss with their Committees. MPOs representing urbanized areas with a population of 500,000 or more are responsible for designating the CUFC in their urban area in consultation with the State. Chair Porell recommended that any sections identified should correlate with projects in the TIP. As this goes forward, he thought consideration to access control for US 64 through Kirtland, as well as on NM 516 from Farmington to Aztec (roughly nine miles). Chair Porell also thought it important to document a discussion for US 550 for the proposed pavement rehab project in 2025. It will be important to keep the document living and, as projects are completed, to continue to work to fund near-term and future freight projects in the FMPO area. Mr. Martinez asked if freight corridors needed to be on the National Highway System. Mr. Sittig replied that they did not. Next Phase: State Freight Plan Update State Freight Plan update scoping in January 2021 Consistent with New Mexico 2045 Transportation Plan Develop a broader New Mexico Freight Network (persistent, connected statewide network). 25 Mr. Sittig noted that he would update the list of priority corridors based on the recommendations of FMPO staff and the discussion during the meeting. 7. FFY2022-2027 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) DEVELOPMENT Subject: FFY2022-2027 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Development Prepared by: Peter Koeppel, MPO Officer Date: January 13, 2021 BACKGROUND  The TIP is a short-term program of projects expected to be completed in the next four (4) years.  Projects included in the TIP must be regionally significant and fiscally constrained.  The TIP adoption process includes updating project information, adding new projects, and developing a TIP priority list.  A Call for Projects was issued on December 18, 2020 to start the new TIP adoption process.  See the schedule published in the Call for Projects memo distributed on December 18, 2020 for submittal deadlines for all projects. CURRENT WORK  Staff continues to discuss updates to current projects and/or new projects with the entities, Red Apple Transit, and NMDOT.  The STIP is scheduled to be updated in August 2021  The new TIP needs to be submitted to NMDOT by June 30, 2021.  A 30-day public comment period on the new TIP will open on April 22. Public hearings will be held during the May 12Technical Committee meeting and the Policy Committee meeting on May 27. INFORMATION ITEM  MPO Staff recommends that the Technical Committee review the TIP development process.  The final draft FFY2022-2027 TIP will be on the May agenda for the Technical Committee to consider forwarding a recommendation of approval to the Policy Committee for their adoption on May 27, 2020. APPLICABLE CITATIONS  23 CFR § 450.326 DISCUSSION: Mr. Koeppel stated that the initial Call for Projects email went out on December 18, 2020 to announce the start of the new TIP adoption process. Please review the email and let Staff know of any questions. NMDOT’s District 5 receives funding according to a formulas based on highway system miles, population, and needs. The District then selects the local projects to fund. 26 Should additional funding become available, other project may be funded. Projects from the old TIP will roll over into the new TIP and Mr. Koeppel urged the members to be prepared and to have projects shelf-ready for future funding opportunities that may occur. Chair Porell noted that the current TIP has no alternative transportation projects listed. The only current project is San Juan County’s Kirtland Schools Walk Path. He suggested a collaborative effort for the desired multi-use trail between Farmington and Aztec. He encouraged the Technical Committee members to consider ideas for future projects. It is important to take advantage of all the funding that becomes available. 8. STATUS OF TIP PROJECTS Subject: Status of TIP Projects Prepared by: MPO Staff & Technical Committee Members Date: January 13, 2021 BACKGROUND  The STIP Protocols, finalized in early 2014, require that each MPO shall develop a process to monitor the progress and status of each project in the first two years of the TIP. These monthly reviews help correct inconsistencies in the TIP, STIP, the MPO’s MTP, Agreement Request Forms (ARFs), etc. and provide for discussion among the members and NMDOT representatives.  The Policy Committee approved the new FFY2020-2025 TIP during a Special meeting on July 25, 2019.  The projects currently on the FFY2020-2025 TIP are listed below. 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 PROJECTS ON FMPO FFY2020-2025 TIP  Aztec F100091 – East Aztec Arterial Phase II  Bloomfield F100300 – East Blanco Bridge  Farmington F100099 – Foothills Drive Enhancement Phase II F100100 – East Pinon Hills Blvd Extension Phase I F100101 – East Pinon Hills Blvd Extension Phase II F100132 – 20th Street Phase III 27 TF00001 – Red Apple Transit  San Juan County F100021 – East Pinon Hills Blvd Extension Phase III F100240 – Glade Run Recreation Area Trails F100290 – CR 5500 Bridge Replacement F100320 – Kirtland Schools Walk Path Extension F100330 – Glade Run Recreation Area Trails Extension F100360 – CR 3000 Bridge Replacement F100370 – CR 3500 Bridge Replacement  NMDOT F100170 - NM 173 Safety Improvements F100340 – US 550 Pavement Rehab F100350 – NM 371/N36 (PE) F100351 – NM 371/N36 (Const) INFORMATION ITEM  This is an information item only. Committee members will have an opportunity to provide any needed feedback/updates regarding the status and details of current TIP projects. DISCUSSION: The Technical Committee members provided their TIP project updates: City of Aztec – Steven Saavedra NMDOT’s Right-of-Way Bureau is currently reviewing the right-of-way certification for the East Aztec Arterial Phase II. The City of Aztec is working on providing the needed environmental information as well. City of Bloomfield – Jason Thomas Mr. Thomas was not in attendance. City of Farmington – Virginia King Foothills Drive Enhancement Phase II The executed work agreement was received and the City of Farmington anticipates bidding the project in early February. East Pinon Hills Blvd Extension Phases I and II This project has been amended in the STIP from Informational to Fiscally Constrained. NMDOT will schedule an environmental update. 20th Street Phase III The acquisition and right-of-way audit are completed. The right-of-way certification request has been submitted. Following receipt of the right-of-way certification, the PS&E will be scheduled San Juan County – Nick Porell East Pinon Hills Blvd. Extension Phase III No update on this project. 28 Glade Run Recreation Area Trails Project is complete and can be removed from the TIP project list. CR 5500 Bridge Replacement The project is out to bid; closes on January 19. Kirtland Schools Walk Path Extension The 90% design review is complete and all certifications have been submitted to NMDOT (no right-of-way required). Final PS&E will be scheduled for February with construction to begin this summer. Glade Run Recreation Area Trails Extension San Juan County is working with the BLM on finalizing the NEPA document which will constitute the environmental certification with NMDOT and would allow for construction to proceed. District 5 – Javier Martinez NM 173 Safety Improvements The City of Aztec plans to relocate the water line this summer. NMDOT will advertise the project in September with construction beginning in 2022. US 550 Pavement Rehab This project is in the outer years of the current STIP and because it is not fiscally constrained, it cannot be moved forward in the new STIP being developed. NMDOT will get the project shovel-ready so that when addition funds become available it can be constructed. NM 371 / N36 Navajo DOT is reviewing the NMDOT agreement regarding project funding. Because this intersection is within the City of Farmington limits, a lighting agreement with the City will be needed. 9. REPORTS FROM NMDOT Planning Bureau – Joseph Moriarty Mr. Moriarty provided a reminder to Staff that the first quarter FFY21 reimbursement packets are due to him by January 25. The deadline to submit the FMPO draft 2nd quarter UPWP formal amendment to Mr. Moriarty is February 1. NMDOT will be issuing a consolidate call for projects this May for CMAQ, Recreational Trails, and the Transportation Alternatives programs. The available funding for these projects is yet to be determined. District 5 – Javier Martinez There is maintenance scheduled for the FMPO area this spring. Mr. Martinez will update the Technical Committee on the exact locations and start date at the next meeting. 29 10. COMMITTEE MEMBER DISCUSSION ITEMS Subject: Committee Member Discussion Items Date: January 13, 2021 DISCUSSION ITEMS Chair Porell reminded the members that applications for Local Government Road Fund (LGRF) funding are due by March 15, 2021. The applications must be accompanied by a resolution from the entity’s governing body. There were no additional discussion items provided by Technical Committee members for inclusion on the Agenda. 11. INFORMATION ITEMS Subject: Information Items Prepared by: MPO Staff Date: January 13, 2021 INFORMATION ITEMS a. TIP Amendment #6. Completed applications and the A-1340 forms for any new project or changes to existing projects were due to the MPO by January 11, 2021. If no Project Prioritization Methodology Reviews are required, this Amendment will be considered in February. DISCUSSION: Mr. Koeppel noted that amendments for the TIP Amendment #6 cycle can still be processed if sent to the FMPO. 12. BUSINESS FROM THE CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS AND STAFF There was no additional business from the Chairman, Members and Staff. 13. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY ISSUES NOT ON THE AGENDA Chair Porell welcomed Michelle Truby-Tillen. She was recently named as San Juan County’s Community Development Director replacing Larry Hathaway who has retired. There was no additional public comment on any issues not on the agenda. 30 14. ADJOURNMENT Ms. King moved to adjourn the meeting. Chair Porell seconded the motion. The motion passed with no opposition. The meeting was adjourned at 10:52 a.m. ___________________________ _________________________ Nick Porell, Technical Committee Chair June Markle, Administrative Assistant 31