Community Planning Association

Transcription

1 Item 2-a Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho Transportation Model Advisory Committee October 12, 2004 MINUTES Members Attending: Vern Brewer, Holladay Engineers, Inc. Gary Inselman, Ada County Highway District Stephen Hunt, ValleyRide (for Kelli Fairless) Kendall Kemmer, Ada County Highway District Kathleen Lacey, City of Boise Shawn Martin, Ada County Highway District Ron Milam, Fehr & Peers Associates (via telephone conference) Joe Rosenlund, JUB Engineers,Chair Gary Sanderson, Idaho Transportation Department Dave Szplett, Washington Group Members Absent: Casey Bequeath, Canyon Highway District #4 Jim Buffington, Nampa Highway District #1 Dan Coonce, Idaho Transportation Department, District #3 Susan Graham, Parametrix, Inc. Leon Jensen, Canyon County Development Services Jim Pline, Pline Engineering June Ramsdell, Department of Environmental Quality Paul Raymond, City of Nampa, Vice Chair Ted Reynen, Keller Associates Others Attending: David Ausherman, Fregonese Calthorpe Associates Kent Fugual, Project Engineering Consultants, Ltd. Sai Kumar Sarepalli, Holladay Engineers, Inc. Mary Ann Waldinger, COMPASS Steve Waldinger, Forsgren Associates Jay Walker, Parametrix Debbie Winchar, COMPASS Jay Witt, COMPASS Phill Worth, Kittelson & Associates Call To Order Chair Joe Rosenlund called the meeting to order at 9:09 a.m. Introductions were made of all attendees. Approve August 31, 2004 Minutes Kathleen Lacey stated that on page 2, under Dynamic Validation of the Peak Hour Model, Ron Milam commented that the low estimates coming out of this model at the time are a direct result that the factors 800 S. Industry Way Suite 100 Meridian, Idaho (208) Fax (208)

2 were developed specifically for the Downtown Boise Mobility Study. Kathleen commented that more definition is needed. Ron Milam added the characteristics of downtown are different from the entire region. In a downtown setting, there are peak hour trips as a percent of daily, which are generally lower than out in the suburbs. Mary Ann Waldinger replied that for the Downtown Boise Mobility Study it was the old 1997 calibrated model specifically validated for the downtown core, different demographics and different TAZ structure. The specific Downtown Boise Mobility Study Peak Hour factors were not used to calibrate the regional peak hour model. The regional peak model used trip factors from the 2002 household travel data. Kathleen Lacey continued that on page 3, the 4 th paragraph, reference was made that TMAC would make a recommendation to the COMPASS Board to hire an additional person, or consultant, to assist. Kathleen stated that since information was received from COMPASS staff that no deadlines had been missed, there did not appear to be a need for a consultant. This should be made clear in the minutes. Jay Witt asked, a consultant in regards to general modeling assistance or to the mode choice model? The discussion was centered on the mode choice tool that is being developed for the modeling capabilities. For development of that tool, a consultant will be hired. Kathleen suggested that it be clarified in the minutes. Dave Szplett stated on page 3, Jay spoke about the mode choice model. Dave felt that more of the discussion should have been a part of the minutes with regard to the scope, process and products. Dave suggested adding a sentence that TMAC discussed the scope, process and products of the mode choice. Dave Szplett moved and Kathleen Lacey seconded to approve the August 31, 2004 as amended. There being no further discussion, the motion passes unanimously. Approve the Use of the Regional Peak Hour Model The peak hour model has been up and running for a few months and it has been validated to same 24- hour standards. This is not commonly done in other Metropolitan Planning Organizations as they choose not to validate their peak hour model due to the time it takes. Joe Rosenlund stated there has been discussion that the model does not do many of the low volume rural areas very well and that should be made clear and suggested creating a map showing that this model is valid for specific areas of the region. Jay Witt responded that this is more of a policy call for this Committee, not so much the performance of the model and how the model is built, but how to use the model once it is built. Part of the action to this item could be to start establishing a Peak Hour Model policy. Dave Szplett commented if TMAC accepts the new peak-hour model, it should be approved for the use of interstates and principal and perhaps, minor arterials. Dave Szplett moved and Kendall Kemmer seconded to accept the use of the new peak-hour model for roadways classified as minor arterials or higher with the caveat that any use should be validated by the user for any specific application. Jay Witt suggested amending the motion to allow for the use of the model, the application of the twocounty region as well as Ada County specifically, regardless of functional classification

3 After further discussion, Dave Szplett moved and Kendall Kemmer seconded to replace the original motion and to accept the use of the new peak-hour model for use in the two-county region, for regional studies accepting any sub-regional study involving collector roadways. There being no further discussion, the motion passes unanimously. TMAC Chair After discussion, Vern Brewer moved and Dave Szplett seconded to allow Joe Rosenlund to remain as the TMAC Chair until the last meeting of the calendar year. Kathleen Lacey asked if Joe would still be a voting member if he is no longer with ACHD? Jay Witt replied that Joe would no longer be a voting member but could still preside over the meeting as Chair. There being no further discussion, the motion passes unanimously as stated. INFORMATION ITEMS Update on Mode Choice Model RFP Jay Witt stated that at the last meeting, discussion took place regarding progress towards developing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a mode choice tool to be developed to incorporate the data used for travel demand modeling both 24 hour and peak, into a tool that can be used to analyze qualitatively as well as quantitatively, the impacts of certain transit projects. The RFP was issued at the end of September. On October 7 th a pre-bid took place with four potential candidates, one in person and three via conference call. TMAC is encouraged to contact COMPASS if there is an interest to help the selection committee regarding the review of these proposals. Proposals are due October 22, The proposal will be selected by the first week in November with the actual RFP drafted and signed by the end of November. Presentation on Scenario Building Process for CIM and the Use of the COMPASS Model Phill Worth, Kittelson & Associates, introduced David Ausherman of Fregonese Calthorpe Associates, who is primarily responsible for the land use planning aspect of the long-range transportation plan. They bring a particular expertise in scenario planning, looking at a variety of future growth options and considering what those options may reveal in terms of how the region would work, what the impacts of growth might be on the transportation system and, how to find better efficiencies in both land use and transportation systems to serve the region. This is part of the fundamental approach that will be taken with the Communities in Motion (CIM) project. MaryAnn, Jay and others will be called upon to use the model for the purpose of CIM. In the effort to use the model, we also want to make sure that we use reasonable performance measures to evaluate the difference scenarios that are developed by the public, staff and elected officials. Phill Worth stated the performance measures need to answer key questions that are being asked by the elected officials and the public. The key questions are in the areas of quality of service, what is the benefit of the investment that is being made in the system, and what is the efficiency that will be achieved out of the investments being made? - 3 -

4 Performance measures are used in a variety of ways:! Track performance over time; have the investments made resulted in the benefit hoped for, are we able to keep up with the growth, is the VMT increasing at the same rate as the population?! Gives an opportunity for accountability.! Is a link between the planning done and the implementation thereof.! Is a critical bridge between the goals for the plan of the project or the agency. Kathleen Lacey commented that she understands the purpose behind performance measures and their intent, however she is concerned that by consolidating this data and presenting it to the elected officials and the public, is it divorced from the affect that these roadway improvements may have on society, neighborhoods and, individuals as a whole. Phill replied that he wants the public involved, they help with accountability and also help with the decision making process. Some, if not all, of the performance measures need to be readily understood by the public. Kathleen stated it is easy to be convinced by the data of these performance measures that significant improvements are made on particular corridors, links and arterials. We do not see what that impact is going to be on the community. The concern is that by using these performance measures without complimentary materials, we are not doing what the Plan is meant to do, which is the consolidation of land use and transportation. Kathleen would to see while moving through this Plan, how much strength the performance measures are going to have as the public is involved, and not an enormous reliance on performance measures being totally separated from the other issues. Phill commented this suggests that there is a desire to make sure that there are performance measures that report on things other than just the transportation performance, but quality of life should be an aspect of the performance measures in more than just one measure, such as the environmental, social and cultural impacts. Dave Ausherman stated that a set of measures has been done for the different scenarios. We are looking for the optimum link between land use and transportation improvements. Scenarios are then used to see which are the most robust improvements. Phill added that when using the performance measures in a comparative process, then whether it is a qualitative or quantitative assessment becomes less meaningful. Jay Witt voiced a mechanic s question as to how these measures are going to be used within CIM. It sounds like there will be some sort of matrices that will contain all the scenarios listed out that come out of the public involvement meetings as well as the bookend scenarios, which will basically provide the comparison and have a final rank associated with them, a scoring mechanism. Will this information be available? Phill explained there is a three-step process. An evaluation approach has been developed for the project and Jay has just described the essence of this evaluation approach. The Plan Coordination Team (PCT) will be meeting this afternoon to discuss the framework for the evaluation approach. Assuming they accept that framework, it then takes two more steps to finally become a complete approach that would be applied for the project. Jay asked if that framework is available, would it be beneficial for TMAC to start reviewing this framework, or would it be better to wait for the PCT to develop their evaluation approach? Phill replied that he would ask Charles Trainor and the PCT. Discussion continued regarding conflicting community values. Kathleen Lacey asked how to give consideration to the conflicting values and is there a way to develop performance measures that can accommodate these values and give a clear picture? Ron Milam replied that every community is going - 4 -

5 to have a different set of values. For such a large regional plan it is hard to pick a single set of performance measures that will encompass each community s independent values. To the extent that the values are known, perhaps because of some sort of survey, it should be made explicit and recognize what the differences are for someone that lives in downtown Boise versus someone that lives out in the suburbs. Recognize the difference and then tailor the performance measures to measure performance that is meaningful to both sets of values. Discussion continued regarding cost. Phill stated it would be possible to develop a report on cost per new trip basis, which would involve planning-level estimations of costs for the type of improvements that were identified to support a scenario, then do simple math of how many new trips resulted and what was the cost per trip. Phill cautioned that a lot of thought must be given to make sure we can anticipate that there will be different results of a measure across the scenarios. Jay Witt asked what the next steps would be, for TMAC what are your expectations? The framework will be discussed at the PCT meeting today. The PCT will be asked to volunteer a list of Team members to participate in a min-working session, which would occur either October 21 st or 22 nd. The purpose would be to look at the compilation of performance measures that agencies throughout the region are already using or are considering using. Then, using a pool of performance measures along with ideas from the Team in this work session to create a preliminary list of possible performance measures, which would be married with the evaluation framework to then become the evaluation approach in total. It will then be distributed to the PCT a week in advance of the November 9 meeting. If it is endorsed at the November meeting, it will then be taken to the Steering Committee, a subset of the COMPASS Board and elected officials from the partnering counties. Ultimately it will go to the COMPASS Board and the Idaho Transportation Board each for their own evaluation and endorsement. Phill explained the reason it was decided to develop this decision-making tool in advance of knowing what it is that is being contemplated, was in the hope that it would keep the tool objective and a bias would not be built into it because of the desired outcome. The decision-making tool is being built first and then it will be applied later. If the Boards agree to it, it will then be the tool that is used for ultimate decision-making. This tool is not created just for this Plan. The expectation is that this tool becomes a tool that is applied repeatedly, with not only Plan updates but also more importantly it is applied at the corridor level. Phill distributed a handout of performance measures that was developed by ValleyRide. ValleyRide at this point, has acknowledged that it is just a wish list of performance measures they are considering using. NEXT MEETING Tuesday, December 7, 2004, 9:00 a.m., at COMPASS. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m. T:\FY05\800Maintenance\820 Committee Support\TMAC\Minutes\minutes doc - 5 -