February 8, :30 PM

Transcription

1 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Planning & Development Center Main Conference Room, 1 st Floor 4700 Elmore Road Anchorage, Alaska 2:30 PM Members Present: Name Representing Stephanie Mormilo MOA/Traffic Department Dave Post Alaska Dept. of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), Central Region Planning Wolfgang Junge DOT&PF, Central Region Shawnessy Leon Alaska Railroad Corporation Carol Wong MOA/Planning Department Sharen Walsh MOA/Port of Alaska Teri Buck Alaska Dept. of Environment Conservation (ADEC) Jerry Hansen MOA/Project Management & Engineering (PM&E) Also in attendance: Name Craig Lyon Jon Cecil Joni Wilm Aaron Jongenelen Steve Johnson Sean Baski Steve Horn Scott Thomas Tina Tomsen Representing MOA/Planning MOA/Planning MOA/Planning DOT&PF Bike Anchorage DOT&PF Citizens Advisory Committee DOT&PF Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) *Policy Committee Member 1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL CHAIR MORMILO called the meeting to order at 2:32 p.m. Dave Post represented the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities in Todd Vanhove s absence. Shawnessy Leon represented the Alaska Railroad Corporation in Brian Lindamood s absence. DeeAnn Fetko, Abul Hassan and Dr. Jim Brown were absent. A quorum was established prior to Mr. Hansen arriving at 2:35 p.m. 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 Page 2 of 12 MR. JUNGE moved to approve the agenda. MS. BUCK seconded. Hearing no objections, the agenda was approved. 4. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES January 11, 2018 MS. WONG moved to approve the minutes. MS. WALSH seconded. MS. WONG noted a few minor corrections that will be forwarded to the secretary. Hearing no objections, the minutes were approved as amended. 5. BUSINESS ITEMS a. Draft Complete Streets Policy BACKGROUND: The AMATS 2035 MTP and the Official Streets & Highway Plan (OS&HP) recommend the development of a Complete Streets Policy. A resolution to begin work on this policy was approved by the AMATS Policy Committee in 2017 and work to develop this draft policy also began in 2017, and included the involvement of a Complete Streets Advisory Committee. This committee consisted of representatives from the following transportation agencies: AMATS, MOA Traffic, MOA Long-Range Planning, MOA Transit, MOA PM&E, MOA OECD, MOA DHHS, State of Alaska DHHS and ADOT&PF. Several case studies from the National Complete Streets Coalition (Best Complete Streets Policies of 2016) were used to help draft this policy, which was presented to the TAC as an information item at their January 11, 2018 meeting. Comments and recommendations from members of the TAC and the Complete Streets Advisory Group were compiled and will be considered by the TAC at a future date along with any public comments. MR. LYON explained that this Complete Streets Policy has been in their Work Program and the TAC is being asked to release it for a 30-day public review and comment. Any comments received from the public will then be combined with the agency comments already received and presented to the TAC at a future work session for discussion. It would then come before the TAC as an action item to review and recommend to the PC for approval. MS. WILM reiterated that it would prove to be much easier to collect all of the comments and incorporate them into a comment/response table to present at a work session and the TAC can determine what comments should be approved; and then present it at the TAC meeting for recommendation. In response to Ms. Walsh s question where to submit comments, MR. LYON replied that the table is posted online, but he did not include it in the meeting packet because their intention was to wait until all of the public comments had been received and view them during a work session.

3 Page 3 of 12 MR. POST asked if the Municipality elected not to go forward with adopting this, or to have the Complete Streets Policy incorporated as part of the process. MS. WILM thinks the Municipality s intention is to, once the Policy Committee has approved the draft, eventually adopt their own policy or some version of this one. She also does not think the Municipality has started that process. MR. POST asked for clarification that this policy pertains to which projects. MS. WILM replied that the policy pertains to all projects that receive AMATS funding. CHAIR MORMILO echoed by saying that the long-term intent for the Municipality and their policy, and what they have reviewed, is to continue to shoot for a Complete Streets Policy because it is something that is considered on every project that is moved forward. She does not know if this exact document will be adopted, or some form of it will be incorporated into our Design Criteria Manual (DCM). MR. POST asked if there was anything in this document that clarifies which projects this is applicable to. MR. LYON pointed out that the second bullet under Section 5 shown on page 3 reads, Transportation projects receiving money that passes through the local Anchorage MPO agency (AMATS) will be expected to follow a Complete Streets approach. CHAIR MORMILO noted that on the agenda this was to be reviewed and forwarded to the Policy Committee for approval, but clarified that today s action is to release this draft for a 30- day public review and comment period. There were no public comments. MR. HANSEN moved to release the Draft Complete Streets Policy for a 30-day public review and comment period. MR. JUNGE seconded. Hearing opposition, CHAIR MORMILO called for a vote. AYES NAYS ABSTAINED Mr. Hansen Mr. Post Ms. Leon Mr. Junge Ms. Buck Ms. Wong Ms. Walsh Chair Mormilo MOTION PASSED 6 TO 1 WITH 1 ABSTENTION b. Performance Measures Target Setting Procedures BACKGROUND: MAP-21 and the Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act have instituted the need for Performance Based Planning and part of embracing that at AMATS involves agreeing to the approach that we will take with the State of Alaska. A draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the MPOs in Alaska (FMATS & AMATS) and the SOA needs to be approved in order to fulfill the federal requirements.

4 Page 4 of 12 MR. LYON explained that the idea is to set measures for what you want to achieve, whether it is in the area of pavement maintenance, bridge maintenance, or safety targets. The projects that you plan for or build are designed to improve or meet those targets. As part of this, there has to be an agreement between the State of Alaska and the two Alaska Metropolitan Planning Organizations on what procedures will be used to set your performance measures and then draw up a Memorandum of Understanding to complete the agreement. The TAC is being asked to recommend this to the PC for their approval and signature. He added that the State has a certain amount of time after the passage of those federal regulations to set their targets and the MPO s have 180 days once the targets have been set to either set their own or agree to the one s the State had set. MR. JONGENELEN added that this was before the TAC and the PC last November requesting comments, but he does not believe any were received from this Committee. CHAIR MORMILO asked for clarification that the MOU is for all three entities. MR. JONGENELEN explained that it is the same document for both entities, but AMATS and FMATS will each have a signature page. In response to Ms. Wong s question if 2017 targets had been pulled for use as a comparison in the preparation of this, MR. LYON replied that the comparison is for the Safety Target Setting Performance Measures, which is the last item on today s agenda for discussion, and he has not had the opportunity to pull them. MR. JONGENELEN pointed out that there are no 2017 targets, only MR. LYON believes Ms. Wong is interested in the fatality rate. MS. WONG expressed that these are just numbers and she would like to know their progress compared to last year in terms of fatalities. CHAIR MORMILO noted that the 2017 data has not been completed yet. MS. WONG asked if 2016 was available. MR. JONGENELEN noted that 2014 or at least 2013 would be, but that may have been extrapolated to CHAIR MORMILO asked for public comments. SCOTT THOMAS with DOT&PF stated that he had been told the State also measures older drivers in the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). He suggested that AMATS check to see if there might be older driver reporting required at the MPO level, since we are already looking at this at the State level. There were no further comments. c. Freight Advisory Committee (FAC) Resolution BACKGROUND: The Freight Advisory Committee is the citizens forum for freight issues affecting the AMATS area. Specific responsibilities of this group include reviewing and commenting on freight planning issues and assisting in the promotion of public participation in the freight planning process. During the 4 th Quarter of 2017, the FAC considered the Committee s ability to review the scoping and design of documents related to certain freight routes. The FAC seeks the opportunity to comment on ADOT&PF routes and facilities that primarily focus on pull-outs within the Anchorage and Chugiak-Eagle River surface road network that accommodates Long Combination Vehicles (LCVs) for the purpose of driver/vehicle safety inspections. On November

5 Page 5 of 12 16, 2017 the AMATS FAC adopted a resolution in support of the Committee s request to evaluate ADOT&PF construction projects that impact certain freight routes. The FAC seeks the concurrence of the and Policy Committee to provide the FAC with the opportunity to review and comment on State routes and facilities related to pullouts. MR. LYON noted that Jon Cecil is now staffing the FAC and explained that this relates to construction work that might be occurring on Long Combination Vehicles (LCV) or doubles routes. He understands there are not many of these routes, but the Commercial Vehicle Enforcement (CVE) group expressed concern via and requested clarification that the pull-outs, during the scoping and design process, and the construction occurring at locations south of Potter Marsh and north of the Glenn Highway scales include a pull-out for LCVs. The resolution is complete, but this group is asking AMATS to request that DOT&PF provide scoping and design documents for those LCV routes for evaluation and comment by the FAC to help move the process along. MR. HANSEN commented on the resolution noting that it talks about the referenced routes and facilities for evaluation, but there is nothing referenced. MR. LYON referred to the third whereas that reads, routes detailed in Chapter 25 Operations, Wheeled Vehicles, 17 AAC , Allowable Long Combination Vehicle Length on Certain Routes and he is assuming that is what is being referenced. MS. WONG asked if immediate action on this resolution is necessary because there is a pending project, or could this wait one month to receive clarification. MR. LYON noted that a member from the FAC was asked to attend this meeting, but was unable to. It would also be beneficial to have a member from CVE, where this originated from, to appear before the TAC. As far as delaying this, he does not know which two projects are being discussed that this might impact. MR. JUNGE commented that it is a concern of the department on a couple of different levels. Our process is inclusive of all stakeholders and providing a preference to a specific stakeholder kind of throws out of balance their attempt to be inclusive of all groups equally. For example, the bicycle/pedestrian folks might send him a letter stating they want their own seat at the table during internal scoping and deliberative processes. With that said, he does not know what is broken and it is difficult to determine what problem they are attempting to fix, or what we can do within our existing processes to make it better without, necessarily, providing preferential treatment to a very specific user group. That could cause a lot of other user groups to want that same level of treatment, so we would be very hesitant to be on board with this without really understanding what the problem is and, maybe, looking at other ways to resolve the problem. CHAIR MORMILO asked for clarification that Commercial Vehicle Enforcement is a part of DOT. MR. JUNGE replied that, yes, it is and John Binder is a part of DOT and is part of the internal review process that would be looking at scoping these projects. CHAIR MORMILO stated that she is a little confused and wanted to know this because it was said that the concern was coming from CVE, and you would think they were a part of the discussion already.

6 Page 6 of 12 MS.WALSH asked if the drawings were not already released to everyone. Are these available somewhere for public review, comments, and a presentation? MR. JUNGE noted that it depends on what kind of projects, but we have public involvement plans for each of the Capital Improvement Projects that involves public outreach, open houses, and distribution online through websites (especially for the larger projects), and public hearings. She also asked what the purpose of the pull-out is. SEAN BASKI with DOT&PF explained that the concern is when someone is hauling doubles and if Commercial Vehicles Enforcement needs to pull them over, a rather long, large pull-out is necessary in order to make that accommodation. The Glenn Highway and south along the Seward Highway has limited opportunities to perform those operations safely, so basically they just do not perform them. In response to Ms. Leon s question if that type of criteria was a requirement of the design originally, SCOTT THOMAS with DOT&PF stated that we do not have a design tailored to enforcement for a pull-out, but we do have a standard that increased the size of our slow vehicle turnouts to a quarter mile for more use, which should be sufficient. MS. LEON noted that, if she understands this correctly, they might be trying to impose a standard that does not exist today, or a consideration of requirement. MS. WALSH pointed out that the actual resolution requested is for DOT&PF to provide scoping and design documents for the routes and facilities for evaluation and comments. This is all they are asking for, which is already out there for review and comments. She does not think there is any harm with what they are asking and the DOT may already be providing it. They are not asking to mandate the pull-outs, they just want us to make comments. MR. JUNGE asked if the Policy Committee really needs to pass a resolution to make something that is already available. MR. HANSEN asked, with the way this resolution is written, if the FAC gets to review these because the resolution is asking for the FAC to be notified. MR. BASKI explained that the distribution lists for our projects are rather extensive. For any projects that extend from within the Municipality of Anchorage all the way past Portage, we do send out all of the information to AMATS and to the Municipality for technical review. There is plenty of opportunity to pass those documents to each of the committees, but a lot of their concern is outside the core of the AMATS area. CHAIR MORMILO added that she noticed on the website that a FAC meeting is coming up very soon and it might be beneficial to postpone this in order to get some clarification. MR. HANSEN added that we constantly modify our distribution list of groups that receive our plans. Is it as simple as just, on those roads, adding an alternate? It seems so innocuous to add the FAC to the list for whatever roads are north of the weigh station and south of Potter Marsh. CHAIR MORMILO explained that AMATS keeps the mailing list as far as who is on the FAC and who gets what information, and all of these projects are distributed to AMATS staff. Does this need to say that DOT&PF is responsible for this, or does this agency review process need to be cleaned up internally. MR. JUNGE asked if this could just inclusively state that all advisory committees under the purview of AMATS be notified of the plans that are sent out for review. MR. LYON explained that, as staff, we try to make sure the right projects are being presented to the entities for a review, such as having informational items before the Bike and Ped Committee on things that will have an impact, and the project managers will present those projects. The same with the FAC. The challenge for staff, as Mr. Baski pointed out, is

7 Page 7 of 12 that AMATS ends at Potter Marsh, so anything south of that is outside of our planning area, but everything north of Eklutna counts. Another challenge is the budget and if we are bringing on staff and a consultant, then that is coming out of the project budget, which he has no control over. MR. JUNGE stated that all of the notifications could be passed on to any interested groups. In response to Mr. Post s question as to who the Freight Advisory Committee is an advisory to, MR. LYON noted that all of the committees, including this one, are advisories to the Policy Committee. The PC has asked that anything of this nature be presented to the TAC first. MR. POST expressed that it seems that if it is an advisory to AMATS, it might be good for AMATS staff to be spearheading that process and lead their committee s review. MS. BUCK indicated that Mr. Lyon attempted to get someone from the FAC to speak at this meeting. It would be worthwhile to have someone that was at that meeting, come before the TAC to answer the significant amount of questions we have, unless there is a deadline. CHAIR MORMILO asked for public comments. JON CECIL with AMATS informed the Committee that the next FAC meeting is February 14th and he will reach out to them and request their attendance at the next meeting. There were no further comments. MR. HANSEN moved to table the FAC resolution to have more information presented at the next meeting. MS. WALSH seconded. MS. WALSH added that Steve Ribuffo sits on the FAC and she thinks that most of us have a counterpart that also sits on that committee. MR. CECIL reiterated that he will attempt to have someone represent the FAC at the next meeting. d Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Administrative Modification #17 BACKGROUND: An administrative modification to the AMATS Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is needed to update Table 3 Roadway Improvements, Table 4 Non-Motorized, and Table 4A Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). The TAC is being asked to recommend approval of the TIP Administrative Modification #17 to the Policy Committee. MR. LYON noted the changes to the TIP are as follows: Table 3 Roadway Improvements Updated Table 3 to reflect an increase in the cost estimate for Abbott Road Rehabilitation Phase II, update the termini of Abbott Road Phase II, add in the

8 Page 8 of 12 expected increase in the AMATS allocation reflected in the Draft Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, and balance the program. Table 4 Non-Motorized Updated Table 4 to reflect the increase in the cost estimate for the Bicycle Plan Project Implementation and the Anchorage Areawide Trails Rehabilitation. Table 4A Transportation Alternatives Program Updated Table 4A to reflect the change in cost and schedule for Westchester Lagoon Trail Rehabilitation, Chugach Foothills Connector Phase II, and AMATS Mountain View Drive Pathway Reconstruction. MR. JONGENELEN added that it is necessary for this to be approved this month in order to keep Abbott Road moving forward. In response to Chair Mormilo s question regarding the Abbott Road Phase II changes, MR. JONGENELEN explained that the termini changed from originally being Jupiter to Birch to Elmore to Birch. It seems there was a miscommunication of what the termini of Phase I was, which was from Lake Otis to Elmore. It was originally shown as Lake Otis to Jupiter, and the federal government sent it back because the termini had not been updated in the TIP, so that is the reason for this modification. MR. JONGENELEN replied to Ms. Walsh that he did not have a chance to find out the reason for the substantial amount increase to Abbott Road. CHAIR MORMILO asked for public comments. STEVE JOHNSON with Bike Anchorage noted that in Administrative Modification #16 there was a reduction in the Spenard Road Reconstruction (Minnesota Drive to Benson Boulevard) and asked if that means the work is done, or that the project is being reduced. MR. JONGENELEN stated that for that particular project it would mean that the project will not have funding in CHAIR MORMILO clarified that it will not have AMATS funding. e. Safety Target Setting Performance Measures BACKGROUND: MAP-21/FAST Act regulation require that identical safety targets be set in each state for the common safety performance measures. Additionally, safety targets must be coordinated between State DOTs and MPOs. AMATS Staff assisted in the setting of the safety targets for the State of Alaska. The Alaska DOT&PF set the attached five safety performance targets for calendar year 2018, which will be recommended for inclusion in the 2017 HSIP annual report and the 2017 Highway Safety Plan. MPOs including AMATS must establish their own safety targets for each of the five safety measures for all public roads within 180 days after the State DOT reports its targets.

9 Page 9 of 12 MR. LYON explained that the MPO has the following two options when setting their own targets for each measure: 1. Establish a numerical target for each performance measure specific to the MPO planning area. 2. Agree to support the State DOT target. DOT&PF recommended the following Performance Measure Targets: Measure 2018 Target Fatalities 75 Fatality Rate (Per HMVMT*) 1.5 Serious Injuries 375 Serious Injury Rate (Per HMVMT*) 7.5 Non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious 55 Injuries (combined) *HMVMT = hundred million vehicle miles traveled. He further explained that he was involved in setting DOTs safety measures and is confident with the targets that have been set. AMATS staff recommendation is to utilize the same measures that DOT is using for their 2018 target. This is something both AMATS and DOT will have to do every year and AMATS will either agree with DOTs targets, or set our own. DOT has collected most of the data and it makes sense for AMATS to utilize their targets. He will attempt to find the most recent numbers that were tracked, but thought it was either 2013 moving on 2014 or 2014 moving on MR. THOMAS noted that he had just heard the 2015 data is in. CHAIR MORMILO clarified that, when looking at the 5-year average, these measures were for MS. WALSH asked if the fatality measure means that we hope to not have more than 75 fatalities and if the target should be zero. MR. JONGENELEN explained that achievable targets are supposed to be set. Zero fatalities within a year is not realistic because the problem that occurs if you do not meet your target is that penalties are applied to it. You do not want to set a zero target and end up with one or more fatalities and be penalized as a result. If the 5- year trend is showing an upward trend of fatalities, you are supposed to actually show an increase in your target to match it. FHWA has advised everyone to match what the trend is showing statewide and to not set expectations in a manner that cannot be met. The goal is trying to move towards zero, but we are not there yet. CHAIR MORMILO pointed out that it is statewide, but Anchorage accounts for a large number of crashes and fatalities just because it includes almost half of the State s population. MR. JONGENELEN added that these targets are considered the top of the threshold and if your data is below this it means you are doing well. You are not trying to achieve 75 fatalities within a year, but just trying not to exceed that number. He also added that these measures are due February 28th.

10 Page 10 of 12 In response to Ms. Wong s question as to what the checkmarks mean under Highway Safety Improvement (HSIP) and the Highway Safety Plan (HSP) columns, MR. JONGENELEN stated that this is a federal requirement and it signifies that it is being reported on that particular document. MR. POST expressed that he would imagine that the fatality and serious injury targets of 75 and 375 would be easy to meet within AMATS. He is curious regarding the hundred million vehicle miles traveled and asked if the rate within the MPO is higher or lower than a statewide average. MR. THOMAS replied that, as it was already mentioned, the Municipality of Anchorage has the bulk of the crashes within the State and this number is high. We have been heading towards the federal rate, which, statewide, is closer to one. Everyone wants to get below 1.0 in each state and we have come pretty close in the past. If you are measuring rates, which is where most of the miles travelled are, it may have a lower rate than the rest of the State, but it is one of the focus areas because it is where most of the crashes are. CHAIR MORMILO asked for public comments. TINA THOMSEN asked for clarification that when the national rate of one or less is being discussed, that this is referring to the fatality rate or the serious injury rate. MR. THOMAS stated that it is the fatality rate. There is not a national serious injury rate, but there is a State rate and our goal is to drive that number down. MR. THOMAS replied to Chair Mormilo that serious injury rates are not tracked nationally, but there is a goal to do that. There were no further questions or comments. MR. HANSEN moved to forward this to the Policy Committee for approval. MS. WALSH seconded. MR. POST stated that it is a matter of semantics. He would much prefer to see something for the 2018 target that says you are looking at less than or equal to because the way it reads right now, your target for fatalities is 75 and he finds it preferable to say less than or equal to. He is a little bit concerned that we are approving this without really having a clear understanding of what the injury and fatality rates are within the MPO. Do we adopt this and hope for the best or go ahead and analyze that. CHAIR MORMILO feels that in the future we probably will analyze it once we have a better understanding and will start looking at this more in-depth. MR. POST offered a friendly amendment under the 2018 Target column to have all of those targets be preceded by a less than or equal to sign. CHAIR MORMILO pointed out that this is something that was already done and adopted and signed by the State in March 2017, so she is not sure changes can be made to it. MR. JONGENELEN added that these are the State s targets, so when AMATS agrees to support these targets it basically means you are going to be showing how you are programming projects into your plan to support the targets that you see here. He reminded the Committee that these need to be completed in three weeks and are updated every year, so this is not set in stone.

11 Page 11 of 12 MR. POST clarified that we are not trying to go ahead and say that within the AMATS area, the fatality rate or the serious injury rate would be something, but, instead, we are saying that we would work towards achieving that on a statewide basis. MR. HANSEN supported what Mr. Post said because it look like they are trying to reach 75 fatalities, not less than. The language should be changed slightly to read, or less. MR. JONGENELEN noted that the State is currently revising this for their 2019 targets and he will pass this information along as a friendly recommendation. MS. WONG asked if it would be possible to break out the fatalities seasonally to see when the bulk of these occur and have it presented to the TAC. CHAIR MORMILO replied, yes, it is reviewed by user groups and that sort of analysis is done at the Municipal and Statewide level. MS. WONG feels that it would better inform them as they design projects in the future. For example, if the bulk of the fatalities happen in the winter, then they could plan for better lighting or visibility, or some other measure. CHAIR MORMILO expressed that this is something she has looked at as it relates specifically to bicyclists and pedestrians. She added that the worst crash months, generally, are September, October and November when you are starting to have a predominance of dark conditions; and, often, you do not have snow on the ground yet creating reflectivity to brighten things up resulting in dark conditions, dark clothing, and a wet environment making visibility very difficult. They have identified specific types of crashes that relate to lighting and similar sorts of things. MR. THOMAS added that there are subcategories of crash types and the State s plan is to go beyond reporting to the federal government and report to the Strategic Highway Safety Plan, and the State has had a Vision Zero since The target is working on reducing bike and pedestrian crashes and to reduce train collisions to maybe five percent, but we do not have to report that. 6. INFORMATION ITEMS a Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Update MR. JONGENELEN presented the MTP update. 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS MS. WALSH mentioned that Mr. Lyon put out a Call for Projects recently and she referred to an article in the last American Association of Port Authorities magazine about the person that is in charge of the U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System. The article pointed out that there is a Revision 3.0 of the Federal Funding Handbook for Marine Transportation System Infrastructure and encouraged ports to digest it, so she did. It talks about grant programs, such as port security grants and TIFIA, which Port of Alaska already does. The archived past opportunities in this handbook lists Metropolitan Transportation Planning (MTP) and states that its purpose is to establish a cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive framework for making transportation investment decisions in metropolitan areas. Program oversight is a joint Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit Administration responsibility; and the authorization was MAP-21 in She had asked Mr. Lyon that when we do a Call for Projects, why can we not have Port transportation be a part of that and his response was because it is not open to the public. That is a Catch 22 because we are required to

12 Page 12 of 12 secure the Port, but it is a vital part of freight transportation. She would like more information as to where that response came from and why that information is part of the handbook if it cannot be done. MR. LYON will track down the citation that states we can only spend our money on public rights-of-way. If you cannot access the Port without a security pass, that is not a public right-of-way. We have specifically asked FHWA that question because the previous administration wanted to use part of our allocation for the Port and FHWA was adamant about that. MR. JONGENELEN added that it can be used on roads to the Port. MS. WALSH stated that Terminal Road is a secured public right-of-way, but it is still a platted public right-of-way. CHAIR MORMILO clarified that it is not with public access. MS. WALSH pointed out that access allows for truck traffic. She would like to notify the person responsible for this information that it should not be in the handbook if it cannot be done. CHAIR MORMILO wondered if the same would apply to airports, even though most of that would be FAA funding, but funding has been used on public roadways approaching terminals. Once it gets on the secured sight of the airport, she does not believe this funding can be used. MR. JONGENELEN added that JBER is another example with military roadways and also railroad right-of-ways would not be eligible. MS. LEON stated that she would be interested in hearing that citation because the railroad is still required to do federal public involvement and declarations. MR. POST mentioned that the Draft STIP is out for public comment and will close March 16th. He encouraged folks to look at it and noted that there is a little surprise in there for the AMATS allocation. MR. LYON added that Mr. Post could present this at the next TAC meeting on March 8th. 8. PUBLIC COMMENTS TINA THOMPSON is a public member of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) and was asked to attend this meeting in case there were any questions about the letter that BPAC is submitting to the Policy Committee. This letter is asking that consideration be given for addressing road speeds and speed limits set throughout the Municipality in the interest of lowering pedestrian and bicycle deaths, which are disproportionately high compared to the traffic volume. As you can see with these target numbers, the bicycle and pedestrians involved 2/3 to 3/4 of the deaths. We have attended many sessions and have invited experts; and the national standards correlate traffic speeds with deaths and have found that many methods of traffic calming and the slowing of speeds can be used, which we feel are underused in the Municipality. There were no further comments. 9. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no objections, the meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.