ANCHORAGE METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING

Transcription

1 POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING Mayor s Conference Room, 8 th Floor 632 West 6 th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 1:30 PM Members Present: Name Representing Todd Vanhove* Alaska Dept. of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) Chris Schutte Executive Director, MOA Economic & Community Development Cindy Heil Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Air Quality John Weddleton MOA/Municipal Assembly Chris Constant MOA/Municipal Assembly Also in attendance: Name Craig Lyon Joni Wilm Vivian Underwood Aaron Jongenelen Steve Johnson Teri Buck* Dana Mendoza Jillanne Inglis Joann Mitchell Jeanne Bowie Cheryl Richardson Zack Fields Representing MOA/Planning Department MOA/Planning Department MOA/Planning Department DOT&PF Bike Anchorage ADEC MOA/DHHS, Air Quality MOA/Employee Relations Kinney Engineering Kinney Engineering Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) *AMATS Technical Advisory Committee Members **Designated Assembly Alternate Due to the expected absence of Chair Kemp, Todd Vanhove acted as Chair. 1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL ACTING CHAIR VANHOVE called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Chris Schutte, Executive Director, MOA Economic and Community Development, represented Mayor Berkowitz. A quorum was established.

2 Page 2 of PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ANNOUNCEMENT CRAIG LYON encouraged public involvement in this meeting of the AMATS Policy 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. HEIL moved to approve the agenda. MR. SCHUTTE seconded. ASSEMBLY MEMBER CONSTANT noted that comments received from Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System (FMATS), regarding a resolution this Committee forwarded to them, had amendments to the document. This was surprising since this Committee was sternly advised not to make any amendments because it would interfere with the process. It appears that FMATS has a little more flexibility than what AMATS was granted in this process. Hearing no objections, the agenda was approved. 4. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES February 22, 2018 MS. HEIL moved to approve the minutes. MR. SCHUTTE seconded. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEDDLETON referred to his discussion with Mr. Lyon that was noted in the minutes, 5 th Paragraph, Page 11, and requested to have the word bike stricken from the sentence that reads, Assembly Member Weddleton asked if the bike trail project was reviewed by the BPAC as he does not believe Anchorage has bike trails. Hearing no objections, the minutes were approved as amended. 5. BUSINESS ITEMS a Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Major Amendment #1 BACKGROUND: Funding for the Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Update consultant contract was not obligated in time to utilize it in A Request for Proposal (RFP) was released and a consultant has been selected and funds need to be obligated in 2018 to cover that contract. The modification requires the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the (PC), and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) approval, as stipulated in the Operating Agreement. Staff will continue to adhere to the overall program direction and intent of work tasks as approved by the PC. Changes within this adjustment do not affect the total program budget, but will be forwarded to the PC and ADOT&PF for approval. Staff requested for the adjustments to become effective immediately. MR. LYON informed the Committee that $55,000 had been set aside for a contract in the 2017 budget for this plan, but it took much longer than expected to complete the purchasing process

3 Page 3 of 10 and the money was awarded too late in the year to spend. This money needs to be in the UPWP in order to pay those that have been contracted and are already doing the work, so relatively small dollar figures were taken from other tasks to honor the $55,000 contract. There is a possibility, at the end of the calendar year that we might have to move some money in the budget, which is a normal process. In response to Assembly Member Constant s question as to how to understand the table that shows money being transferred from one pool to the next, MR. LYON explained that it is more challenging to understand the transfers by looking at the table, but a summary of the changes are shown in the memorandum making it much easier to view. This memorandum has to be forwarded to the finance department to allow them to track the grant. There were no public comments. ASSEMBLY MEMBER CONSTANT moved to approve. MS. HEIL seconded. Hearing no objections, this motion passed. b Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Administrative Modification #18 BACKGROUND: An administrative modification to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is needed to update Table 4 - Non-Motorized; Table 5 - Congestion Mitigation Air Quality; and Table 7 - Transit. MR. LYON noted that minor changes have been made in Table 4 and Table 5, which are part of our allocation. A significant number of changes have also been made in Table 7, which is not part of our allocation, but are Federal Transit Administration (FTA) monies to both the railroad and the Public Transportation Department reflecting what they are planning to do this year. The $2 million in Table 4 Non-Motorized for the Dimond Center Pedestrian and Transit Improvements was not used back in 2015, but was actually used for bus stop and facility improvements and documentation is required in order to receive the correct funding from the federal government. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEDDLETON asked if the Dimond Center modification is just an accounting process and does not affect what has been done. MR. LYON replied that it is money from 2015 and he is almost certain that it is just for accounting purposes. MR. JONGENELEN added that the request was made by Transit. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEDDLETON noted that it looks as if money is being taken from it, but they are not done with that project yet. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEDDLETON referred to the railroad money and asked if it is AMATS money. MR. LYON stated that it is not and both the railroad and Public Transportation Department get different pots of different Federal Transit Administration money. AMATS only has Federal Highway Administration funds to utilize, but Surface Transportation dollars being spent inside the AMATS area still have to be reflected in the TIP, even if we do not control them.

4 There were no public comments. Page 4 of 10 ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEDDLETON moved to approve. MR. SCHUTTE seconded. Hearing no objections, this motion passed. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEDDLETON moved to reorder the agenda to hear Agenda Item 5(c) after the general information items to allow Zach Fields with BPAC time to arrive for the presentation. MR. SCHUTTE seconded. Hearing no objections, this motion passed. 6. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS a. Glenn Highway Integrated Corridor Management Study JEANNE BOWIE with Kinney Engineering provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Corridor Management Study. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEDDLETON noted, in regard to travel flexibility, that it seems it would be better to get to work on time, but the data shows that 45 percent of the commuters say they have a 15 minute leeway. The trip home shows a less flexible schedule and he wondered what the dynamic is there because it seems coming home would be more flexible. He also noted that autonomous vehicles are coming and have had their first fatality, and, he believes, a big event is being held somewhere on March 30th for a group that is interested in these vehicles. This information should be included in the study. He asked about taxi cabs being included as one of their stakeholders. They are not transit, but what would encourage cabs to go to Eagle River or further out. MS. BOWIE replied that ITE is having a conference in June and taxi cabs have not been reached out to. MR. SCHUTTE mentioned that he had completed the survey and stated that it was very well done. It was one of few surveys available that are actually intuitive and engaging. There were no public comments. b Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Update MS. UNDERWOOD presented the update regarding the approval list of projects that can be modeled and will be provided to this Committee in May. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEDDLETON asked if an issue/response summary is done when public comments are received. MS. UNDERWOOD explained that they have focused their comment/response summaries on specific documents. She had mentioned to a member of the public that a comment/response summary would be done on the survey input, but that is becoming onerous and there are hundreds of comments. We are reviewing public input to make sure everything is being received. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEDDLETON expressed

5 Page 5 of 10 concern that when people submit comments, they want to know that it had been received. He asked if an could be sent notifying them that their submittal had been considered and the website location (if an issue/ response was done) to find the response. MS. UNDERWOOD noted that we do have a summary online of all of the comments received up through the first public meeting and did post notice of its availability. It is a summary and not a response to each of the individual comments. The summary of the charrette was also available online, but, again, an individual comment/response was not done. This makes everything transparent and allows everyone to see what their neighbors had to say. We are considering doing something different for the next survey and the next public meeting by having a community online comment blog where people can view everyone else s comments. Comment/response summaries have been done for individual technical memorandums, but, typically, we do not do comment/response summaries for survey responses. When the document gets to the public review stage, we definitely do comment/response summaries. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEDDLETON asked that when the document becomes available, is it difficult for staff to those who commented letting them know it is posted, or does the public have to search for it. MR. LYON believes it is difficult because there are hundreds and hundreds of comments. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEDDLETON thinks it is important to a lot of people to not have their comment end up in a black hole because they are dissuaded from participating any further. MR. SCHUTTE asked what type of confirmation of received comments is expected because, he thinks, the scope of that would be a challenge for any department when dealing with hundreds of comments. He agreed that a mechanism by which at least notification that the comment has been received is an important first step and, beyond that, a notification that the comment has been addressed in the issue/response matrix. ASSEMBLY MEMBER CONSTANT noted that the tactic would be, rather than get specific to the individual because that is an onerous process, to send an automatic response when the final document is published. It would inform the public that the process has been finalized and is available to be commented on, if a response is requested, otherwise they will be able to view what is there. When the final document has been processed, then an automatic response will be generated. The first response will be notification that the comment was received and the second would just be notification that the process has been completed and can be viewed at a designated location. He thinks there is a way to make this a general practice. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEDDLETON concurred. MS. HEIL pointed out that a lot depends on how the comments are submitted. For example, the State has five ways of accepting comments and they do not have enough time to manually enter everyone s phone number or . The systems that allow electronic commenting, automatically sends a confirmation, plus a copy of their comment. Comments that have been faxed, mailed, submitted orally, or in person are extremely difficult to respond to. She added that the majority of their comments are received orally without any contact information. ASSEMBLY MEMBER CONSTANT would like to have a methodological response whenever possible. MS. UNDERWOOD mentioned that AMATS provided an list for anyone interested in receiving information. She added that they have not received many comments via for the survey. There were no public comments.

6 Agenda Item 5(c). Page 6 of 10 c. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Letter to Policy Committee BACKGROUND: In December 2017, the AMATS Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, responding to recent pedestrian deaths on Anchorage roadways, drafted and approved a letter to the AMATS. The letter requests that AMATS undertake a comprehensive effort to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on Anchorage roadways, and outlines the number of fatal collisions reported since 2006 (181), 67 of which included bicyclists and pedestrians. The letter also indicates that a study of the 2015 Municipal Traffic Department s Annual Traffic Report suggests that high automobile travel speeds and a lack of adequate pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure are partially responsible. It highlights a need to adopt a Vision Zero philosophy and selective reduction of vehicle speed limits as part of a comprehensive approach to this problem. Finally, the letter suggests incorporating a number of tools that have been successfully used to reduce crash and fatality rates, in this Vision Zero approach. MS. WILM informed the Committee that earlier this year some tragic fatalities had occurred and BPAC thought it was important to devise a letter addressing the importance of the reasons why Anchorage is experiencing these fatalities. ZACH FIELDS with BPAC noted that speed and safety have been discussed relating to many different projects and collisions. Data shows there are wide variations and fatality rates across the nation, and, he thinks, it is safe to assume that humans are equally careless or careful across different countries, so when looking at the widely diversion of fatality rates, it is reasonable to assume those are based on differences in infrastructure. The Mayor s Vision Zero initiative is a great framework to address this because our letter suggests designing roadways that take into account the realities of human behavior; and try to take steps that will reduce fatalities; and among those is reducing vehicle speeds through narrow lane widths, implementing road and lane diets, and additional steps. The Committee discussed the list of things to do that are mentioned in the letter and noted that they are already being done in Anchorage. These were not being done 30 years ago, but are being retrofitted significantly into new road projects. MR. FIELDS thinks the letter and other BPAC members may have their own opinions on the best opportunity to make additional improvements beyond those that are being implemented now. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has offered some good guidance on flexibility and restriping, and the biggest opportunity would be to look at pavement preservation. During this process, we should look at changing lane configurations, narrowing lanes and adding bike lanes. This is not done systematically and given that we do pavement preservation on more lane miles annually than we do, for example, a whole redesign of Spenard Road, presents the biggest opportunity to make safety improvements. These improvements would also benefit the quality of life in neighborhoods, economic development, and improve access for other roads.

7 Page 7 of 10 ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEDDLETON is currently researching why it costs so much to create a bike lane. He was informed that if you change the position of lanes and come upon intersections, these intersections have sensors that also have to be moved, which involves engineering and a lot of money. He asked that when pavement preservation is done, do most intersections have those sensors underneath them and create an issue. JIM AMUNDSEN replied that it is a problem with almost every intersection in Anchorage. If lanes are shifted or narrowed to add bike lanes, the sensors have to be moved. MR. FIELDS mentioned that the practice, so far, has been not to extend bike lanes through intersections. He suggested adding a bike lane close to the intersection with pavement preservation and leaving the sensors and lane configuration as is in the intersection, which would still be an improvement. The sensors could then be addressed at a later date. MR. SCHUTTE asked, in regard to loop sensors, if a car has to be perfectly aligned in the center of a travel lane for the sensor to work. Would shifting a car two or three feet to the left not allow it to detect? MR. AMUNDSEN explained that anything more than a couple feet of shift is enough to risk not triggering the sensors. MR. SCHUTTE knows that not every project in Anchorage is completed to the exact specifications of the drawings, so is it fair to say that we do not entirely understand where that loop exists at every intersection and definitively say that moving it three feet a certain direction would not work, but only moving it two feet would work. Is it possible to do something like that without digging up the sensors? MR. AMUNDSEN stated that he has been told that this cannot be done. ASSEMBLY MEMBER CONSTANT used, as an example, the Cordova Street Bike Corridor from 5th Avenue to 15th Avenue in which approximate $1 million was appropriated for this project. So far, $1 million has been spent on restriping paint for, basically, eight blocks with three inches of paint in two places. Mistakes were made and this was supposed to have been completed last year, but is still not done. The money we program for bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements often vanishes. He agreed that we need to find systematic ways to make changes, but we still need to keep in account the projects we have already approved. MR. FIELDS stated that the answer lies in how to get your largest pots of money working on safety. There are models on how to build projects quickly at a much lower cost. MS. WILM added that we have a number of moving parts that include the Non-Motorized Plan, the Coordinated Transportation Plan, the Street Typologies Plan, and Vision Zero. One of our biggest challenges is coordinating all of this together with a set of recommendations to help improve bike and pedestrian safety. If the Committee is considering a plan of action to address this letter, it might be helpful to schedule a work session in May or June to discuss the findings of all of these because we do have national experts currently working on these issues. She thinks it is important to analyze the data they have been collecting and have them give us a firm set of recommendations we can use to move forward, especially regarding costs. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEDDLETON expressed that when he was a member of BPAC, we looked at a number of projects and commented on them. He asked if there is a list of pavement preservation projects available that could be commented on. MR. AMUNDSEN explained that DOT&PF has a public involvement process that is not necessarily sent to any specific elected official group. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEDDLETON asked if the list of projects could be sent to BPAC six months in advance allowing them to comment. MR. AMUNDSEN noted that our pavement preservation projects are to preserve what is striped on the ground as we speak. If

8 Page 8 of 10 we start moving stripes and lines, it requires engineering to go back and do a comprehensive analysis of what the effects will be, before we start moving them. MR. SCHUTTE asked for clarification what action is being asked of this Committee regarding the letter and what is the consequence of that action? MR. LYON replied that the Committee is being requested to take comprehensive actions to manage and reduce automobile travel speeds and adopt the Vision Zero philosophy of design on Anchorage roads. MS. WILM thinks that taking some comprehensive actions is a great idea, but, as she mentioned earlier, with the national experts that are currently analyzing data with the best way for us to move forward, she encouraged a work session in the May/June timeframe and, hopefully, the Vision Zero analysis will be completed by then. MR. SCHUTTE s understanding is that this is more of an informational item rather than an action item. MR. LYON believes the suggestion is to address this as an action item by scheduling a work session to review what the experts have determined and their recommended actions that might deal with the topics that BPAC is concerned about. ACTING CHAIR VANHOVE offered another option, which would be to have Scott Thomas with DOT&PF Traffic Safety provide the same presentation he gave the TAC. MR. SCHUTTE thinks it would be good to have some form of action so that it is communicated back to BPAC, and the public at large, that we have accepted this letter, and BPAC will know it was not submitted to a black hole. MR. FIELDS pointed out that the reason for the request for action was a bit generic because there are multiple policies that this could affect, and determining which would be the right policies, and how to use each of them to reach a certain goal. MR. SCHUTTE thinks that is a great idea and asked if some form of recognition today, whatever form that takes, be valuable to the BPAC. MR. FIELDS feels a work session makes a lot of sense because you can look at what other states and localities are doing to reach these goals and the constraints that exist on projects. MR. SCHUTTE asked, for today, if this Committee took some form of action, recognizing the letter, would that have any form of value to BPAC. MR. FIELDS stated that, as far as he is concerned, scheduling a work session is a very tangible and meaningful follow up. ASSEMBLY MEMBER CONSTANT noted that if the concern is having an action that recognizes this discussion, then he thinks the Committee should move to accept this letter, schedule a work session, and have Mr. Lyon draft a letter back to BPAC stating that the PC accepted the letter and is going to move forward on their recommendation. ACTING CHAIR VANHOVE asked for public comment. CHERYL RICHARDSON thanked BPAC for bringing forward this letter and the Policy Committee for accepting it. It has been a long time coming and will be appreciated all over town. PIERCE SCHWAB, Director, Bike Anchorage, noted that we are very much in support of the principles in this letter. He also believes that some kind of formal response would be helpful. Their hope is that AMATS staff, and maybe the consultants working on a lot of these plans, will incorporate more of these principles, such as reviewing speed limits and lane diets.

9 Page 9 of 10 DANA MENDOZA, Air Quality Project Manager with the MOA Department of Health and Human Services noted that she is new to Alaska and is working on Bike to Work Day and trying to work actively helping with pedestrian and bicycle issues in the community. She has been dealing with the public and will be teaching people cycling throughout the community, and safety is their number one topic. With our goals in economic development, the Live Work Play initiatives in addition to Vision Zero, and wanting to be a winter bike destination, she thinks this is the perfect time to really take all of those plans and use them to make as grand of a gesture that you can with the policies because it is prudent. The need is there for current cyclists all the way down to getting people more active and this will help our community on so many levels. She wanted to emphasize the importance of the letter and really bringing the Complete Streets Policy to Municipal wide attention and not let another four or ten years pass while they make more plans. There were no further comments. MR. SCHUTTE moved for the to instruct staff to draft a letter to the TAC and the BPAC informing them that we have received and enthusiastically supported their letter; and for this Committee to schedule a work session to review the following coordinated plans: Vision Zero, Non-Motorized, Coordinated Transportation, and the Complete Streets Policy this summer. MS. HEIL seconded. ASSEMBLY MEMBER CONSTANT requested to add to the motion, with the intent to create action items. His purpose for this is to come up with tangible ways to proceed and not just a session to discuss plans, but to generate action. MR. SCHUTTE and MS. HEIL agreed to the friendly amendment. ACTING CHAIR VANHOVE restated the motion. Hearing no objections, this motion passed. 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS MS. HEIL informed the Committee that we are entering the dust season and will be discussing this with DOT and the MOA. One of the monitors, for a portion of yesterday, was reading moderately unhealthy for sensitive populations for PM10. We do not want air quality problems in Anchorage and she is hoping that the street sweepers are actively cleaning the streets. The moderate reading was located on Laurel Street off of Tudor. ACTING CHAIR VANHOVE added that he received an yesterday from Air Quality asking for the cooperation between MOA and DOT in dispensing magnesium chloride mainly in the Eagle River areas. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEDDLETON asked if it was due to the wind stirring up the dust since the streets have not been cleared off yet. MS. HEIL replied that it is due to the freeze/thaw process in which the material applied preventing slippery roads dries and is retained in the air. The material then settles and freezes and repeats that process each day until the material is picked up. It can also be carried in from cars entering and exiting the big

10 Page 10 of 10 roadways. AMATS is affected because it has to show conformity with the carbon monoxide and PM10 area in Eagle River, and that is based on the monitoring data because your maintenance area with the Limited Maintenance Plan does not have to be modeled, which is a lot cheaper and eliminates a lot of effort. However, it is based on your monitoring data and the last time we did this we could not meet the easy test, and had to do a very detailed analysis to show that we were still okay. If the levels remain high, we will have a very difficult time and could lose our ability to do Limited Maintenance and have to go back to modeling, which is expensive. 8. PUBLIC COMMENTS CHERYL RICHARDSON thinks it is important to know that there is no real healthy level of particulate load. It is a scale that just keeps on going. The more particulate in the air, the more people get sick and some of us are more congested this time of year. She thanked Ms. Heil for the process encouraging the Street Departments to come forward, but she always feels that the healthy facts of air quality are not put forward as strongly as they should be, and hopes we can do a better job in the future. 9. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no objections, the meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m.