September 8, :30 p.m.

Transcription

1 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Planning & Development Center Main Conference Room, 1 st Floor 4700 Elmore Road Anchorage, Alaska 2:30 p.m. Members Present: Name Representing Dave Post Alaska Dept. of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), Central Region, Planning Wolfgang Junge DOT&PF, Central Region Stephanie Mormilo MOA/Traffic Department Abul Hassan MOA/Public Transportation Department (PTD) Brian Lindamood Alaska Railroad Corporation Jerry Hansen MOA/Project Management & Engineering Sharen Walsh MOA/Port of Anchorage Hal Hart MOA/Planning Department Alex Edwards Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Also in attendance: Name Craig Lyon Joni Wilm Aaron Jongenelen Bart Rudolph Jim Amundsen Brad Coy Representing MOA/Planning MOA/Planning DOT&PF MOA/PTD DOT&PF DOWL 1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL CHAIR MORMILO called the meeting to order at 2:34 p.m. John Laux was excused. A quorum was established prior to DeeAnn Fetko arriving at 2:38 p.m. WOLFGANG JUNGE introduced himself as the new committee representative for DOT&PF replacing Ken Morton. He has been with DOT&PF over 22 years and just transferred from being in the aviation department for 10 years and for twelve years prior to that he worked in the highway department. 2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ANNOUNCEMENT CRAIG LYON encouraged public involvement in this meeting of the AMATS Technical Advisory Committee. He explained staff would first make their presentation, followed by any comments from Committee members, and the floor would then be open to public comment.

2 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA ANCHORAGE METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Page 2 of 6 MR. LINDAMOOD moved to approve the agenda. MR. HANSEN seconded. Hearing no objections, the agenda was approved. 4. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES July 14, 2016 and August 11, 2016 MR. POST moved to approve the minutes of July 14, MR. HART seconded. MR. LINDAMOOD moved to approve the minutes of August 11, MR. EDWARDS seconded. Ms. Walsh chose to abstain from voting as she was not present at the meetings. Mr. Junge abstained as he was not yet seated on the committee. 5. BUSINESS ITEMS a) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Administrative Modification #12 BACKGROUND: An administrative modification to the AMATS Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is needed to update Table 7 Transit. MR. LYON explained that these funds are outside of the AMATS allocation not allowing them to prioritize the funds, but are still required to show them in the TIP as they are federal funds being utilized for surface transportation in the AMATS area. AMATS staff recommends the TAC approve the modifications shown in the table below. Table 7 Transit Updated the 5337 Track Rehab and Preventive Maintenance based on a request from the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC). Current FFY TIP (Modification 11) Project Track Rehab $100 $ Preventive Maintenance $700 $1, Total $800 $1,

3 Page 3 of 6 Draft FFY TIP (Modification 12) Project Track Rehab $0 $400 $400 Preventive Maintenance $1,700 $1,700 $1,710 Total $,1700 $2,100 $2,110 There were no public comments. MR. LINDAMOOD moved to approve the TIP Administrative Modification #12. MS. WALSH seconded. In response to Mr. Edwards request for clarification regarding the ARRC match being noted as 5337 and Line 12 is noted as 5307, MR. LYON believes it is a typographical error because these belong in the 5337 category. The legal size document is the governing document and it shows b) Air Quality Advisory Committee Appointments MR. LYON informed the TAC that the AMATS Air Quality Advisory Committee provides AMATS with advisory recommendations on air quality planning and facilitates public involvement in the air quality planning process. Members of this nine-member committee serve rotating three-year terms. Committee bylaws limit members to two consecutive terms. Robert DeVassie, P. E. is a project and design engineer and consultant coordinator with Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. He is recommended for service to the Committee based on his education and experience with design and construction management of transportation facilities in Alaska. John Finley, M. D. specializes in cardiology and critical care, and has practiced and taught in Alaska for four decades. He has also researched and published about pulmonary and cardiovascular topics. His recommendation to the committee is based on his extensive health experience. Alan Czajkowski, B. S. is Director of Maintenance and Operations for the Municipality of Anchorage, which includes management of the Street Management Division. His experience coordinating maintenance of Anchorage roads, especially dust control from the roadways, will be an asset to the committee. MR. LYON noted appreciation for outgoing members Tom Grman and Bruce Lee for their dedicated service as members of the AMATS Air Quality Advisory Committee. Staff also fondly acknowledges the service of Neil Thalaker, who served two full terms on the committee. Mr. Thalaker passed away in July MR. HART asked what the Air Quality Advisory Committee will be reviewing at their next meeting. MR. LYON noted that they will focus on an introductory briefing on the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and a briefing regarding conformity issues updating the committee on new regulatory standards. The agenda will be posted and available following the TAC meeting.

4 Page 4 of 6 This committee normally meets quarterly, but have not met since August 2015 due to not having a full committee and staffing issues. There were no public comments. MS. WALSH moved to recommend approval of the new appointments. MR. LINDAMOOD seconded. 6. INFORMATION ITEMS a. Complete Streets Policy MR. LYON and JONI WILM provided a presentation on the policy. MS. WALSH confirmed that the recommendation to this is already in the 2014 Official Streets and Highways Plan (OS&HP) and asked if there was any background explaining how it was included in the plan. CHAIR MORMILO replied that the OS&HP is what recommended creation of the street typology map meaning they are related to a Complete Streets Policy, but it is not the same debate. MR. LYON added that the work program is what recommended the adoption of a Complete Streets Policy based on what was in the previous MTP. MS. WALSH asked for clarification that this is a recommendation to have a policy and make a typology. MS. WILM explained that this is a resolution to begin work on a document that will be a policy, or it could be a policy and a street typology map, which are both recommended through the MTP and the OS&HP combining them into one; or it could be a recommendation to just do a policy. MS. WALSH asked if this policy would be a guiding document and for whom and about what. MS. WILM replied that the policy would be a guiding document for AMATS related transportation and related transportation agencies for the development of Complete Streets. The idea behind Complete Streets is that streets are being designed as best they can to accommodate all users such as bicycles, pedestrians, transit riders, vehicles, freight and other users of the streets. MS. WALSH referred to the Design Criteria Manual and asked how that is not already being practiced. MR. HANSEN noted that it is being practiced and all of the Municipal adopted plans are being followed and he does not believe the determination of whether a street is complete or not has much to do with the Design Criteria Manual. The Design Criteria Manual is basically a guideline as to how a road is designed technically. MS. WALSH pointed out that what makes a street complete is if it has, among other things, a sidewalk and a bike lane, which is a Title 21 issue. CHAIR MORMILO added that there is a lot of overlapping that includes Title 21 and the Design Criteria Manual, but the policy, in her mind, is attempting to put together a plan that tries to make sure that all of these are being considered and not saying that these have not been considered in the past, but just really making sure that everything is being addressed and complies. MR. JUNGE asked if they do not follow the Context Sensitive Solutions process that addresses this very subject, or is this considered the retitling of a process. MR. HART noted that everyone recognizes the different disciplines and the groups that represent them do bring good material to the table for discussion and they are attempting to

5 Page 5 of 6 sort through that information and put forward a united thought process. The direction taken in the next twenty years will be really important as some plans will take effect in the next few months. There are several big changes in this plan that are different from the last twenty years and there is not a significant amount of land to develop in relation to what was developed over the last fifty years meaning that people will be in tighter proximity. It also means, to him, that they have to have the same language and the TAC needs to have the same understanding of whatever language is chosen. He hopes that everyone understands the implementation of the Context Sensitive Design because he feels there seems to be a variety of understanding of what that is, and hopefully that will be clarified. Transit is also being added to the mix, which is great to see. MR. HANSEN added that the process begins that way, but as the public gets involved it really dictates a lot of what happens. CHAIR MORMILO indicated that one of the nice things about the street typology map and one of the ideas of having this in place is when they identify a road as a transit corridor, or if there is focus on being pedestrian and bike connectors where another one is very specifically a freight connector, they can very clearly state that these have been identified as freight routes and they are not going to completely disregard the design and the implementation of providing for bikes and pedestrians, but in that case their focus will be on providing for freight and making sure they consist of large turning radius for those trucks that may need to use it. Hopefully identifying the doubles route so they can make sure that is also in place allowing it to be presented from the very beginning during the public process and telling the public that this is what the corridor is looking at and this is what the typology is, and this is what the design is going to look like allowing you to guide it from the very beginning. That is where she sees the street typology map and this Complete Streets coming through, which is identifying what the desired roadway will look like and the typology and who the primary user is going to be so that they can better guide those conversations. MS. WALSH noted that in prior years when they used collector designations it meant they would have certain features and arterial would have certain features, and wondered if that was already a typology. MS. WILM explained that those street designations do not take into account the surrounding land use and how that is affecting the road. The street typology map is nice to have while going through that process and ranking particular streets because it provides information as to its main purpose, who is using it, is it a place or a throughway; and it allows them to better assess what type of street it should be. MR. HANSEN knows this is a federal requirement, but one of things it does not address is an ADA and he wonders if it should. CHAIR MORMILO noted that this is an informational item and the questions before the Committee is 1) schedule a work session to discuss the intent of this resolution, or 2) if the Committee is satisfied with reviewing and providing any edits and comments to staff prior to next month s meeting. MR. POST is glad to see in the Complete Streets that not all streets can be designed for all users and thinks the Complete Streets Policy really needs to recognize that flexibility. He asked how the Complete Streets Policy typology is different from an accumulation of the plans like the bike plan, the pedestrian plan, transit planning efforts, and freight planning efforts or is it a reflection and a recognition in one location of those various plan efforts. MS. WILM does not know that various planning efforts and the MTP have gone into detail of what the street design should be. Other projects currently in progress such as the Spenard Road Corridor Plan could maybe go into more detail about street specific design, but as far as long-range plans

6 Page 6 of 6 there is always broad language that allows them to do a more pedestrian and bike friendly design. She does not know to the extent of which the engineers who are designing the actual streets, when presenting them to the department, are referring to those plans, but thinks, for the most part, they are referring to the Design Criteria Manual to see what should be in the design. MR. POST commented that the reason he was advocating for that flexibility is that often times they are dealing with projects that are at a planning conceptual level and understanding the costs. With AMATS currently receiving approximately $24 million annually some of the costs of the incremental improvements can sometimes be significant. Whatever comes out of the Complete Streets and street typologies effort needs to recognize the trade-off because it is not whether the specific uses are missing out on something, it is often times whether or not the users are at significant cost and are often times receiving some sort of benefit in a remote area as opposed to others. The question, to some extent, is how to prioritize. His recommendation is that as long as the TAC is willing to bring forward changes at the next meeting, he does not believe a work session is necessary. MR. HART noted that if the TAC does not hold a work session, his recommendation to staff would be for them to confer with each of the agencies prior to this being presented to the Committee and allow an opportunity for that dialogue. MS. WILM added that she had intended to bring an example of Fairbanks Complete Streets Policy, but she did review it and it did address some of the comments regarding remote areas not meeting all of the Complete Streets elements that urban streets would need. She will send a link to the Committee for their viewing. MS. WALSH recommended this be on the next agenda, but give a deadline for comments to be submitted to Mr. Lyon in order to make that timeframe. CHAIR MORMILO stated that the agenda has to be posted one week prior to the meeting so any comments would have to be submitted prior to the 6 th of October. There were no public comments. 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS MR. LYON noted that as part of the public involvement of the Travel Demand Model Update a thumb drive has been provided to each of the Committee members that has a fact sheet on the model update, the latest Bike Plan Map and the AMATS Boundary Map. He also informed the Committee that AMATS 40 th anniversary was last April and refreshments have been provided in celebration. 8. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None 9. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no objections, the meeting adjourned at 3:11 p.m.