October 11, :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 John Crapps MOA/Traffic Department Dave Post Alaska Dept. of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), Central Region Planning Wolfgang Junge DOT&PF, Central Region Brian Lindamood Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) Jamie Acton MOA/Public Transportation Department (PTD) Michelle McNulty MOA/Planning Department Adeyemi Alimi Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Jerry Hansen MOA/Project Management & Engineering (PM&E) DeeAnn Fetko MOA/Dept. of Health & Human Services (DHHS) Also in attendance: Name Craig Lyon Jon Cecil Aaron Jongenelen Paige Coatney Jess Smith Kim Mahoney Ryan Buchholdt John Weddleton* Bart Rudolph Barbara Karl Brad Coy Sara Perman Laura Carmack Elaine Main Cheryl Richardson Diana Rhoades Carol Wong Eric Miyashiro Representing MOA/Planning MOA/Planning MOA/Planning Matanuska-Susitna Borough UAA UAA MOA/Municipal Assembly MOA/PTD Airport Heights Community Council DOWL Alaska State Legislature UAA Land Management UAA Alaska State Legislature MOA/Long-Range Planning ADOT&PF *Policy Committee Member

2 Page 2 of 14 Due to the expected absence of Chair Mormilo, John Crapps acted as Chair. 1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL ACTING CHAIR CRAPPS called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m. Stephanie Mormilo and Sharen Walsh were excused. Dr. Jim Brown was absent. Dave Post represented the ADOT&PF in Todd Vanhove s absence. A quorum was established prior to Ms. Fetko arriving at 2:55 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. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MS. MCNULTY moved to reorder the agenda to hear Agenda Item 5(a) TIP Public Hearing Draft Release after Item 5(e) Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Measure. MS. ACTON seconded. Hearing no objections, the agenda was approved as amended. 4. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES None 5. BUSINESS ITEMS Agenda Item 5(a) was moved to be heard after Item 5(e) b Safety Performance Measures Targets BACKGROUND: Safety Performance Management (Safety PM) is part of the overall Transportation Performance Management (TPM) program, which FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) defines as a strategic approach that uses system information to make investment and policy decisions to achieve national performance goals. The Safety PM Final Rule supports the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), as it establishes safety performance measure requirements for the purpose of carrying out the HSIP and to assess fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. States are required by 23 CFR 490 Subpart B to establish and submit to FHWA annual targets for five safety performance measures. Targets are expressed as five-year rolling averages. The targets are applicable to all public roads in Alaska. DOT&PF coordinated with AMATS on the establishment of targets and the Metropolitan

3 Page 3 of 14 Planning Organizations (MPO) must inform DOT&PF, no later than 180 days after the HSIP annual report is submitted, whether they will support state targets or set their own targets. MR. LYON reminded the Committee that in the Federal Authorization Bill a process was added requiring the states to adopt Performance Measure Targets for Safety Performance, Travel Time Reliability, Pavement and Bridge, and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality. The MPO can either set our own targets or mirror the State s targets, and for the most part we have been mirroring the State s targets because they have been collecting all of the data, and we do not have the ability to collect our own data. The TAC is being asked to recommend supporting the State DOT Safety targets for 2019 to the Policy Committee. There were no comments. MR. JUNGE moved to approve. MS. MCNULTY seconded. c. Travel Time Reliability Measure Target BACKGROUND: MAP-21/FAST Act regulations require that identical travel time reliability targets be set in each state for the common travel time reliability performance measures. Additionally, travel time reliability targets must be coordinated between State DOTs and MPOs. The Alaska DOT&PF set the statewide travel time reliability performance targets for MPOs including AMATS must establish their own travel time reliability targets for each of the three travel time reliability measures for all public roads within 180 days after the State DOT reports its targets. MR. LYON explained that this is looking at the amount of time it takes to get from point A to point B on different routes. In the memorandum it shows the State has set a measure for the Interstate to remain in the 22 percent of the Travel Time Reliability, and Non-Interstate does not have a 2-year target, but the 4-year target is set at 70 percent. These are performance measures that we are to use and when prioritizing projects we want to look at a project that, if it were hitting the travel time, will help us meet that target. The TAC is being asked to recommend supporting the State DOT Travel Time Reliability targets for to the Policy Committee. There were no comments. MS. MCNULTY moved to approve. MR. ALIMI seconded.

4 Page 4 of 14 d. Pavement and Bridge Measure Target BACKGROUND: The Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) is one of a series of state plans required by federal rulemaking to achieve national transportation goals. TAMP provides a long term, systematic approach to cost effectively sustain our infrastructure. It also provides a 10-year financial plan that provides the connection between the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) which covers a span of more than 20 years and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), with its scope of four years. The TAMP includes National Highway System (NHS) bridges and pavements only. As of July 2017, Alaska has 1,160.7 miles of Interstate and miles of Non-Interstate roads. Except for 22.1 miles, all are owned and operated by DOT&PF. Alaska has 417 bridges on the NHS, all owned and operated by DOT&PF. States are required by 23 CFR to set pavement condition targets for NHS that include its Interstate and Non-Interstate inventory. DOT&PF staff coordinated with AMATS to evaluate the performance targets that MPOs plan to use for NHS pavements and bridges and to incorporate these targets into their transportation plans. DOT&PF staff prioritized projects for the NHS system to help meet these targets. MR. LYON noted that the memorandum shows the percentage of poor and good pavement conditions on the bridges. The State tracks this very well and we would like to mirror those targets again. The TAC is being asked to recommend supporting the State DOT Pavement and Bridge targets for to the Policy Committee. There were no comments. MR. ALIMI moved to approve. MR. JUNGE seconded. e. Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Measure Target BACKGROUND: FHWA s third Performance Measures rule requires State DOTs to develop targets for on-road mobile source emissions reductions from CMAQ-funded projects. Based on a rule applicability analysis, statewide 2-year and 4-year emission reductions are required based on pollutantspecific emissions reductions in current non-attainment and maintenance areas within the boundaries of AMATS: Anchorage - CO for Anchorage Maintenance Area, PM10 for Eagle River Maintenance Area. The Alaska DOT&PF set the statewide CMAQ emission reduction performance targets from October 1, 2017 through September 30, Conservative reduction performance targets are recommended for the initial performance period due to several factors that include: data gaps to quantify benefits from certain measures, inconsistencies in calculation methods between state and regional agencies; and uncertainty in forecasting further reductions based on year-to-year variability in historical CMAQ-funded benefits. MPOs including AMATS must establish their own CMAQ emission reduction target recommendations for each of the CMAQ emission reduction measures within 180 days after the State DOT reports its targets.

5 Page 5 of 14 MR. LYON noted that this is just basically measuring carbon monoxide and particulate matter. The State has to track others, but we just have the Limited Maintenance Area for carbon monoxide in Anchorage and PM10 in the Chugiak-Eagle River area. The TAC is being asked to recommend supporting the State DOT CMAQ targets for Federal Fiscal year to the Policy Committee. There were no comments. MS. ACTON moved to approve. MS. MCNULTY seconded. a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Public Hearing Draft Release BACKGROUND: The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is the AMATS area project plan for transportation improvements. It is the investment program consisting of capital improvements to the metropolitan transportation system. The TIP is the means of implementing the goals and objectives of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Additionally, the TIP process is used to satisfy the public participation process of the Program of Projects (POP) that is required in U.S.C. Section AMATS administers approximately $26 million in federal transportation funding annually through the Roadway, Non-Motorized, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program, and Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) within the urbanized area. The current TIP is approved through The ranking and scoring criteria for Roadway, Non-Motorized and CMAQ projects were reviewed and updated to account for changes to transportation planning outlined by the FAST ACT. A 30-day public review and comment period for the criteria ran from September 15 - October 15, Nominations for projects to be included in the TIP were solicited on January 31, Projects were scored and ranked and a Public Review Draft was created as required by the AMATS Public Participation Plan. The public comment draft was released for review on July 19th, and closed on August 20, comments were received and those comments are attached for review and comment. The Policy Committee postponed taking action on the public hearing draft at their September 20, 2018 meeting to re-open the public comment period until October 1, additional comments received during the re-opened public comment period were incorporated into the comment response summary. MR. LYON noted that the TAC is being asked to recommend the release of this for the Public Hearing Draft. This document would be presented to the Assembly and then to the Policy Committee for final approval. Again, this is our 4-year program of projects with the exact dollar figure and the exact allocation of what we will do with those projects. The TAC was presented this in detail at the last meeting, but just as a refresher, we reworked the criteria and put the Call for Nominations out; had projects nominated; ranked and scored all of the projects in the short-range in the first ten years of the MTP. Among the nominated projects and the projects in the MTP, we created a list of projects and put it out for public comment. Due to one of the four different public comment notices posted having the wrong address for responses some comments were not received, so the PC suggested extending the

6 Page 6 of 14 time period in case not everyone had the opportunity to comment. He added that all of the new comments incorporated will have the letter N in front of the comment number and the Comment column will be blank. The green color-coded comments do not require any action; the blue color-coded pertain to the Northern Access; and the yellow color-coded require some discussion by the Committee. New Comments/Responses coded in green: MS. MCNULTY referred to Comment #N10 stating that staff s response was that they cannot change the language because it is in the MTP, but the Committee can. MR. LYON explained that the center section of Spenard Road from Benson Boulevard just past 36th Avenue to Minnesota received several comments requesting to break out the section of that potential couplet from that centerpiece because maybe the centerpiece is not controversial, and we can do it. The language staff used when putting this project in the TIP is the same language in the MTP, and that is the reason for staff not being able to change the language. The TAC could recommend to the PC to break those up separately. That concept is included in the yellow color-coded comments for discussion, but those listed in the green section were not requesting any action to take place, just discussing the possibility. There were no further comments. MR. JUNGE moved to approve the comments as noted on the TIP Comment/Response Summary. MR. HANSEN seconded. New Comments/Responses coded in blue UMED Northern Access: MR. LYON noted that there are a number of comments both in support and in opposition of the project. The TAC s action last time recommended removal of the language, Remove a 0.5 mile 4-lane facility with non-motorized facilities from the project description and was forwarded to the PC for consideration. In response to Mr. Junge s request for clarification that the project would be removed from the TIP, MR. LYON stated, no, that it would just delete part of the language in the TIP. The project itself would still exist in the TIP, but the language would read, Construct north access to University Medical District. MR. JUNGE asked how people are going to know what the scope of the project is. If this, somehow, stays in the TIP and we have to evaluate and score it, we will not have a scope of how to judge that. How do you evaluate the criteria? MR. LYON stated that when staff evaluated the project using the project criteria, the language in the MTP was used, which included the 0.5 mile 4-lane facility with non-motorized facilities. If it gets into the TIP, it is in there with the first money being in design and the DOT&PF project manager would start design scoping.

7 Page 7 of 14 MS. MCNULTY added that in the UMED District Plan there was a statement suggesting a Traffic Demand Management Study and that would really affect the scope. She thinks some of the public concern was how it was written with that language in it and would identify what that scope would be. MR. JUNGE further added that it would be a predetermined alternative. Ms. Fetko arrived at 2:55 p.m. MR. POST asked what staff s justification for the 4-lane description when developing the MTP. MR. JONGENELEN replied that it pertained to the 2035 MTP, which was quite a while ago and he does not recall why it was decided upon. The Interim MTP done in was just carrying that forward, so when looking at the TIP scoring they looked at what was in the Interim MTP. MR. JUNGE clarified that the TAC has already reviewed most of the responses to these, but new comments have been added, including the late incoming letters from the University and the community councils were incorporated into the new summary. ACTING CHAIR CRAPPS asked for public comment. PAIGE COATNEY clarified that only 5 out of 39 are in favor and that was after the original deadline. She expressed her displeasure of this still being on the TIP and had submitted her comment on the AMATS website. Most government websites immediately send a response thanking her for submitting a comment and that it had been received, but she did not receive this type of response from the AMATS site leaving her unsure if her comment had been received. This is should be an automated generated response verifying that, indeed, the comment was submitted. Another suggestion is to not have comments directed to Mr. Lyon s own because it is public access and that way Mr. Lyon does not have to sort through his work . If the comments were submitted through the AMATS website it would eliminate any confusion in the future. BARBARA KARL pointed out that her comment was not and should be incorporated into the UMED comments, but was placed on page 22 in yellow. MR. LYON explained that it was coded in yellow because it was not simply related to Northern Access, but talked about short and long-term and the TDM Study, and they felt the TAC should be aware of this and make a decision. MS. KARL indicated that it was listed as UMED. MR. LYON reiterated that it is, but they did not want it to get lost in just UMED discussions. He noted that her original UMED comment is still in documented in the blue section. LAURA CARMACK with the University of Alaska Land Management Office and noted that the letter of support from Christine Klein, Chief Lands Officer was submitted on September 12th. It was included in the packet at the last TAC meeting, but she did not find it in this summary. MR. JUNGE asked for clarification that all of the comments had been incorporated. MR. LYON explained that it is not specifically written, but was included in the extra comments that had graphics or were received late and had been provided as a separate hand out to the Committee at the last meeting, but may have been inadvertently missed when incorporating all of those into the summary.

8 Page 8 of 14 There were no further public comments. MR. JUNGE moved to recommend that the previous position on blue comments be forwarded for the remainder of the blue comments to the Policy Committee. MR. ALIMI seconded. New Comments/Responses coded in yellow: ACTING CHAIR CRAPPS asked for public comments on the yellow section in general. CHERYL RICHARDSON asked when the public might receive staff responses to the new comments in yellow. MR. LYON explained that the yellow section consists of comments received, but require the TAC and the PC to make decisions on. Staff cannot make certain decisions on items such as removing a project from the TIP. BARBARA KARL referred to Comment N11 and strongly urged that a TDM Study be performed as a measure in the UMED Plan. There were no further general comments. Comment #N11 In response to Mr. Junge s question if a Transportation Demand Model or some type of modeling had been done, MR. LYON explained that every time an MTP is done or any updates to the MTP are done, we run a model and that is how these projects are selected, along with all of the other efforts performed. He does not know that this type of study is done for each individual project. MS. ACTON clarified that a Transportation Demand Model (TDM) and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Study are two different things. MS. MCNULTY noted that during the discussion at the last TAC meeting, it was her understanding that the way it is written in the MTP it does not include the TDM, and that is why we could not just change the language to recommend doing a TDM. However, it was also her understanding that it if this project were funded that would be the first step before going into design. Is that something we can be assured of or do we need to be more specific stating that we want this. MR. LYON stated that usually a TDM Study is separate and run for a certain area. When we do the MTP update, one of the things we use is our TransCam model and he is assuming that it is a small portion of what a TDM Study does. The idea is to have this Northern Access project in it and some TDM Study might be done as part of the Preliminary Engineering (PE) design when you do a full road project, but he does not know that for sure. It may need to be a separate standalone project before you can do that. ERIC MIYASHIRO with DOT&PF and previous project manager for UMED, was asked to respond. He noted that four alternatives were considered that had different routes that included Northern Lights and going through the campus. As part of the environmental alternative, project studies were completed prior to developing the final scope of the project.

9 Page 9 of 14 MR. POST asked if the effort analyze the alternatives and did they look at any of the Transportation Demand Management options and alternatives, and what the effects would be. MR. MIYASHIRO replied that it has been a few years and he cannot immediately recall if any were done. MS. WONG with MOA Long-Range Planning added that as part of the UMED District Plan, the TDM Study was highlighted because it looked at more than just the road network and said that if there was additional bus service in this area, how would that change the transportation; and if there were bike and pedestrian trails in this area, how would that change the demand. More than just a road network analysis was identified as a need for a true TDM Study. MR. LYON believes the gist of the last discussion was if we would do a TDM Study in conjunction with this or should we do a separate standalone and, he thinks, Ms. Karl is asking that we do a separate standalone TDM Study. It would be adding a project to the study portion of this TIP. MR. POST asked what if a TDM Study was done on a broader scale and specific to the Northern Access to UMED. MR. JONGENELEN stated that TDM Studies are pretty rare in Anchorage. MR. JUNGE expressed his concern would be that if you are doing studies independent of an actual project and if we are asked to execute the project, he is not sure we can use that data that happened independent of the project and it would be money thrown away. MS. MCNULTY asked if we could just require it to include a TDM Study in that language and connect it to a project. MR. JONGENELEN informed the Committee that a TDM Study would be something done before you initiate a road project to determine if the project needs to be done or not. Instead, a TDM Study is done to look at parking, parking structures, parking pricing, transit, bike and pedestrian, and other improvements besides that. He thinks that is what members of the community have been saying for quite some time, so if you did a standalone TDM Study, it would be contained with that and would determine if we need the UMED project or not. It is not do the TDM Study and immediately flow into the UMED project. MS. MCNULTY asked what happens if the TDM Study model results showed that we do need the UMED connection, but since it was approved independent of the project that data might not be used as part of what we have as the road project. MR. JONGENELEN stated that a decision has to be made to determine if you want to move forward with the project. You can always use some of that data, but you will not have the environmental document done at that point and will have to start completely over. MS. MCNULTY added that, from a community standpoint, it would validate the road and whatever constitutes what that project is. MR. JONGENELEN stated a Transportation Demand Model is not the same as a TDM Study because a demand model is basically looking at the network and showing where the traffic is flowing, and to put another road in where there is congestion. It does not actually look at other options and is harder to get the model to determine what people will choose besides a Single Occupancy Vehicle, when it is just a road model.

10 Page 10 of 14 ACTING CHAIR CRAPPS asked for public comment. CHERYL RICHARDSON noted that the previous funding for the Bragaw extension through the UMED was done under state laws, so this federal separation agreement is not appropriate. She asked if there was an official reading on when information becomes stale because she has seen stale information go into documents. Is there a deadline, a rule, a practice or a policy. She also commented that if a TDM Study shows horrendous congestion, you can still live with horrendous congestion. That is an option. Some places choose to protect that space by not doing a project. There were no further comments. MR. POST moved to include the prior recommendation for the removal of the 0.5 mile 4-lane facility with non-motorized facilities. MR. HANSEN seconded. MR. POST explained the reason for his motion is that a fair amount of study has been done in the past and will be looking at alternatives when the project is initiated. MS. MCNULTY expressed that there might not be community support if a TDM Study is not done and she, personally, would like to see it done prior to the project. MR. ALIMI shared the same thought. MR. JUNGE asked if the TAC can still recommend this be forwarded to the PC, but also recommend a standalone study. MR. LYON stated that it can be added as a friendly amendment. MR. POST asked for clarification that when we are looking at reasonable alternatives as part of this project and look at other non-road construction alternatives as part of the project itself. MR. MIYASHIRO replied that if your purpose and need is to improve access to the UMED District, you need to consider all of the alternatives that would provide that. MS. MCNULTY stated that the only way we can be ensured of getting the level of study necessary and what the community wants is to ask for a separate TDM Study. MR. MIYASHIRO does not think doing a TDM Study would make any difference for most of the comments submitted. MS. MCNULTY suggested a friendly amendment to move the project forward and do a TDM Study. MR. POST accepted the friendly amendment. MR. HANSEN seconded. Comment #N12 MR. LYON explained that the gist of this is comment related to the project from Spenard Road to Benson Boulevard to Minnesota and includes the couplet at the end of 36th Avenue is to separate the couplet portion of it that might attract some controversy, and do the centerpiece, which could be done without too much of a problem.

11 Page 11 of 14 MR. HANSEN asked that by separating it out, it is still within the TIP. MR. LYON indicated that it is still up to the TAC and the PC to decide. MS. MCNULTY added that we would have to be careful with the language to take it out to make sure the whole project is not removed. MR. LYON pointed out that the language in the MTP says, Project will rehabilitate from Benson Boulevard to Minnesota Drive to improve traffic flow. It includes the Spenard Road/36th Avenue couplet. If you were to just strike the last sentence, you are taking away a portion of the couplet and you would need to change the language regarding Spenard Road to read, Benson Boulevard to 36th Avenue. If you take away the couplet portion then you have that standalone project, and, if wanted, you could recommend adding another project. MR. LINDAMOOD noted that a work session is being scheduled to discuss the Spenard Corridor Plan. This would be serendipitous to try and figure this out at the same time the plan is being discussed. How long until this project is done and what is the risk of doing this when a decision is made in three months to do something else? MR. LYON is hoping to get this through the Assembly and approved by the PC in a December timeframe. MR. HANSEN asked if the couplet has to be mentioned in this because it actually goes from 30th Avenue and we just finished rehabilitating Benson up to 30th, so maybe the solution would be to leave Benson, remove the language regarding the couplet and just say up to Minnesota. MR. LYON suggested using the language may include the couplet. MR. HANSEN pointed out that we will not know until the study is done. By doing that, is there anything that would preclude that from happening, if in further studies down the line, it is determined the couplet is needed at 36th and Minnesota because he does not know that it would. MR. LYON believes that language were removed and left the parameters of Minnesota and what comes out of Spenard Road would be timely and would help feed whatever happens with the design, which we have projected for MR. POST s concern is that it depends on the purpose and need if it is described as trying to fix Spenard Road. A lot of the benefit of that couplet happens to be on other portions of the network and that could be ignored. We have Minnesota Boulevard backing up, routinely, in the evening and that was one of the primary benefits there. We need to be careful by saying that we have the flexibility still by being that ambiguous about it. MR. LINDAMOOD added that we run into the same risk of having two different versions of fix. MR. POST reiterated that his concern is that we are electing not to look at that. MR. LINDAMOOD is not saying to not look at it, but he thinks it does need to be looked at within context of the Spenard Corridor Plan. Once that plan is complete, that is going to color, potentially, some of the solutions being used as design options. ACTING CHAIR CRAPPS asked for public comment. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEDDLETON asked if the Spenard Corridor Plan and the Chugach Way Area Master Plan that are being worked on will include this. MR. LYON replied that the Spenard Corridor Study would include this whole area. There were no further comments.

12 Page 12 of 14 MS. MCNULTY moved for the language to read, Spenard Road at Minnesota Drive to 36th Avenue and Spenard Road and to delete the language that says, include Spenard Road/36th Avenue couplet, and Benson Boulevard to Minnesota Drive would remain. MR. HANSEN seconded. Comment #N32 MR. LYON explained that this comment was received from the South Addition Community Council and is asking for a Complete Streets studies of A, C, I, and L Streets within the next year that will identify capital improvements needed to make roadways compatible with adjacent homes and neighborhood character; accommodate vehicle traffic; slow traffic speeds and noise; promote improved transit service; allow people to safely walk along and cross the streets; and encourage more people to walk and bicycle. MR. JUNGE asked if the Complete Streets Policy had been adopted and, if not, is this comment asking us to implement into something that has not been finalized. MR. LYON mentioned that this is asking for a Complete Streets study, but he is not sure what a study is. Our Complete Streets Policy is different. MS. MCNULTY believes they are just asking for a study that looks at design using the concept of Complete Streets. MR. JUNGE feels this is premature since it has not been adopted by the PC. MS. MCNULTY added that South Addition Community Council is working on their own Neighborhood District Plan and that plan set the context, and this would be the element of that plan. This request might be more appropriate once the council has finished their plan and AMATS has finalized the Complete Streets Policy, MR. JUNGE suggested tabling the request until the Neighborhood Plan and the Complete Streets have been adopted. ACTING CHAIR CRAPPS asked for public comment. CHERYL RICHARDSON stated that she is part of the group that is working on the neighborhood plan. Two years ago they found that traffic and noise were the number one concern of 100 people that had attended a meeting that focused on the arterials. One month ago this resolution received no objection by the community council, but the council has been on record for a few decades that A, C, I, and L are overdesigned for the speeds we need inside our neighborhood. There are different things to do, but the easiest thing to do is go forward with the TDM Study, skinny streets, and Complete Streets. The Complete Streets Policy will not make a difference to this and we are looking at alternatives and what can be done. In regard to the Neighborhood Plan, we have been on record for years and are on record, thus far, in our community planning process. There were no further comments.

13 Page 13 of 14 MR. JUNGE moved to recommend that the Neighborhood Plan be completed and the Complete Streets Policy be adopted prior to consideration by AMATS. MS. MCNULTY seconded. Comment #N55 MR. LYON noted that a portion of this comment from Bike Anchorage refers to the separation of the couplet and also suggests that this project should include the addition of bike lanes. In response to Ms. McNulty s question that, if we did not adopt this, the project would not include bike lanes, MR. LYON is assuming this means on-street bike lanes and we do not automatically install those. The Bike Plan looked at compatibility, speed of the facility, and the amount of right-of-way that was available to determine if it made sense to put bike lanes in a certain area. It might make more sense for Elmore and Dowling than a high-volume traffic roadway like the Seward Highway. It would not automatically be included on any road project in Anchorage. MS. MCNULTY is hesitant to say that something should be included just because it is being asked for, but rather see an analysis demonstrate that it is warranted. MR. HANSEN agreed to wait for results of the analysis and just because it may not be on the Bike Plan, does not mean we are not going to put it in the project. MS. MCNULTY added that this will involve several rounds of public engagement because it has to go through the Context Sensitive Solution. MR. LYON mentioned that what we have done with other comments that are basically the same, we forward the comments to the project managers informing them of support for bike lanes. MR. JONGENELEN pointed out that earlier in the Comment/Response Summary is a staff comment to add non-motorized improvements in the Spenard project. Almost all of the roadway projects in the TIP include that same language and that gives flexibility to the design engineers when reviewing the projects. MR. JUNGE asked if the language would read include or will assess. MR. JONGENELEN replied that it would include non-motorized improvements. MR. LYON added that most of the other projects, including Fireweed Lane, state, This project will also include non-motorized improvements. ACTING CHAIR CRAPPS asked for public comment. There were no comments. MS. MCNULTY moved to provide a comment stating non-motorized facilities will be included in the project (see Comment #12) regarding recommending the removal of the Spenard Road/36th Avenue couplet. MR. JUNGE seconded.

14 Page 14 of 14 MR. LINDAMOD moved to forward to the PC the Public Hearing Draft per our changes. MR. JUNGE seconded. 6. Project and Plan Updates a Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Update MR. LYON introduced Mr. Jongenelen as the new AMATS Senior Transportation Planner formerly from DOT&PF. MR. JONGENELEN presented the MTP update. ACTING CHAIR CRAPPS asked for public comment. MR. JONGENELEN replied to Paige Coatney s question that the fiscal workshop is a follow up from the one that took place in August, but a date for the workshop has not yet been determined yet. MR. LYON added that the date will be posted on AMATS website for the public to view. MR. JONGENELEN informed everyone that work sessions are not the time for public testimony, it is just an informal event where everyone works together. 7. INFORMATION ITEMS - None 8. COMMITTEE COMMENTS MR. HANSEN announced that 100th Avenue between Minnesota Drive and C Street was opened this morning. 9. PUBLIC COMMENTS none 10. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no objections, the meeting adjourned at 4:08 p.m.