The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTTAC 10-16-08 Meeting Notice JCCOG Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Thursday October 16, 2008 - 10:30 a.m. Emma Harvat Hall Iowa City City Hall Agenda 1. Call to order; recognize alternates; consider approval of meeting minutes 2. Public discussion of any item not on the agenda 3. Discussion and consideration of a recommendation on the scoring criteria and process for JCCOG-allocated Surface Transportation Program and Transportation Enhancement funds 4. Consider a recommendation on amending the metro-area Federal Functional Classification map for streets and highways 5. Consider a recommendation on amending the transit element of the JCCOG Transportation Improvement Program for a new Coralville Transit Facility 6. Consider a recommendation on criteria for placing unfunded 'illustrative' projects on the JCCOG Transportation Improvement Program 7. Update on the JCCOG Public Transit Expansion Exploratory taskforce 8. Update on the federal passenger rail funding legislation 9. Update on the JCCOG metropolitan area bicycling plan 10. Update on federal transportation policy and funding program legislation issues 11. Update on recent activities 12. Other business 13. Adjournment shared on cityntlpcdllagendas\jccoglltac-agd10-16-08 PRELIMINARY DRAFT - SUBJECT TO APPROVAL MINUTES JCCOG TRANSPORTATION TECHINICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2008 -10:30 AM EMMA HARVAT HALL IOWA CITY CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Coralville: Iowa City: Dan Holderness, Vicky Robrock Brian Boelk, Ron Knoche, Crystal Smith, Barb Morek Terry Dahms Dean Wheatley Louise From Larry Wilson, Brian McClatchey Cathy Cutler Johnson County: North Liberty: University Heights: University of Iowa: Iowa DOT: STAFF PRESENT: Darian Nagle-Gamm, Brad Neumann, Kent Ralston, John Yapp 1. CALL TO ORDER: RECOGNIZE ALTERNATES: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Neumann called the meeting to order at 10:32 AM. Crystal Smith was recognized at an alternate for Rick Fosse of Iowa City. It was moved by Wilson and seconded by From to approve the meeting minutes of May 13, 2008. The motion carried unanimously. 2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA There was no public discussion of any item not on the agenda. 3. CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION ON HOW TO PROCEED WITH SURPLUS JCCOG FY09-10 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT FUNDS Yapp stated that JCCOG had received updated figures concerning surplus funds. There is $401,213 in STP funds and $181,954 in enhancement funds. The surplus funds could either be distributed in FY10 or FY11. Holderness moved and Wilson seconded to recommend the use of the surplus JCCOG STP and TE funds for FY1 O. The motion carried unanimously. 4. CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE FY09-12 JCCOG TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO ADD A SEGMENT OF THE CLEAR CREEK TRAIL Yapp stated that the Clear Creek Trail is part of the anticipated American Discovery Trial through Johnson County. In 2006 they received federal funding of $198,000 for Clear Creek Trail development. The funds will connect Highway 6 and First Avenue in Coralville. Wheatley moved and Knoche seconded to approve a recommendation to amend the FY09-12 JCCOG Transportation Improvement Program to add a segment of the Clear Creek Trail. The motion carried unanimously. 5. CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION ON A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE 2008 AMTRAK REAUTHORIZATION BILL Yapp stated that Congressman Braley's staff asked for a letter of support for the Amtrak Reauthorization Bill. This would be a new funding bill to provide for maintenance and expansion. JCCOG has provided a draft letter that would be sent to Iowa senators and representatives to show support for regional passenger rail service. The bill calls for a 20% state funding share for capital expense including expansion of infrastructure. Regina Bailey is the MPO representative for the State Passenger Rail Advisory Committee. Dahms stated that he would like the letter to have added language to press for a concession from the railroads to allow trails within their right of way. He urged everyone's support from the committee and stated that trails within rail rights-of- way have been constructed in other parts of the country. Morek moved and Dahms seconded to approve the letter with added language to explore the opportunity to allow trails within the railroad right of way and overcome any legal barriers. Knoche stated he didn't think this was the appropriate place for such a letter because Amtrak doesn't own the right of way and this is just a reauthorization bill. Many on the committee discussed that it would be more appropriate to pursue Dahms' request by another means, such as through the State Rail Committee. Yapp said he would follow up with our representative on the State Rail Committee. The motion was denied to approve the letter with added language to explore the opportunity to allow trials within railroad rights of way. Wilson and Dahms voted for approval. Yapp stated that the issue of trail within railroad rights of way could be added to the next Regional Trails and Bicycling Committee agenda. McClatchey offered some word-choice amendments to the letter to make the tone consistent with the committee's discussion on passenger rail. Holderness moved and Morek seconded to recommend a letter of support for the 2008 Amtrak Reauthorization Bill with edits mentioned by McClatchey. The motion passed unanimously. 6. CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION ON REVISIONS TO THE FEDERAL FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAP Ralston stated that JCCOG is currently updating the federal functional classification map. Federal funding can only be spent on roads that are classified as collector or higher in the classification system. The maximum amount of all the roads in the urbanized area that can be classified is 35%. Currently the urbanized area is 10 miles short of the 35% limit. Yapp stated that the committee could just ask staff to make the recommendation, they could form a subcommittee, or they could make the recommendation themselves. Holderness stated that all of the minor arterials add up to 8.3 miles. The addition of Oakdale Boulevard as a collector adds up to 9.5 miles. Holderness recommended that all minor arterials not currently on the map be added, plus Oakdale Boulevard. McClatchey asked if these classifications could be changed in the future. Ralston stated that they could. Holderness moved and Knoche seconded to recommend adding all minor arterial streets and Oakdale Boulevard as a collector to the Federal Functional Classification Map. The motion carried unanimously. 7. CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION ON AMENDING THE SCORING CRITERIA FOR JCCOG SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT FUNDS Ralston stated that last year during the funding process for JCCOG STP and TE funds, the potential to revise the scoring criteria was discussed. Ralston stated JCCOG is looking to the committee to determine what criteria they would like to include in the revised scoring criteria. Wilson stated that he would like transportation sustainability addressed in the scoring criteria. Holderness agreed and also stated that fiscal constraints and availability of funding for local match should also be addressed. Holderness also stated that cost benefit analysis and vehicle emissions should be considered. The committee agreed to have staff propose new criteria based on their suggestions and present to the committee as a future agenda item. 8. CONSIDER A RECOMMNEDATION ON AMENDING THE FY09 JCCOG WORK PROGRAM TO ADD A PROJECT TO DEVELOP A FLOOD TRAFFIC PLANNING RESOURCE DOCUMENT Neumann stated that JCCOG performed traffic counts during the flood to determine the severity of traffic congestion in the area. JCCOG is asking the committee to approve a recommendation to develop a flood traffic planning document to help mitigate future traffic concerns due to flooding. Wheatley moved and Holderness seconded a motion to recommend amending the FY09 JCCOG work program to add a project to develop a flood traffic planning resource document. The motion carried unanimously. 9. DISCUSSION OF THE JCCOG METROPOLITAN BICYCLE PLAN Yapp stated that Iowa City requested that JCCOG develop a Bicycle Plan. The RTBC proposed that a regional bicycle plan be developed and that communities in the urbanized area participate in the planning process. The RTBC will oversee the project. 1 O. UPDATE ON THE JCCOG PUBLIC TRANSIT EXPLORATORY TASKFORCE Yapp stated that last week was the first meeting with the taskforce. The discussion revolved around the difficulty and expense of providing extensive fixed-route transit service to other parts of Johnson County. The meeting consensus was to survey passengers on the existing North Liberty route as well as gather demographics and a cost estimate for a transit route between Iowa City and North Liberty on North Dubuque Street. The use of employer-based van pool programs was also discussed. 11. UPDATE ON THE PROPOSED AMMENDMENTS TO THE MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES Ralston stated that while much of the MUTCD will remain unchanged some major revisions are being proposed for the 2009 version. Ralston noted that one big change to the manual is that private property will now have to comply with MUTCD regulations. Ralston stated that he would keep the committee apprised of changes to the manual. 12. UPDATE ON THE AIR QUALITY NON-ATTAINMEN TISSUES IN SCOTT COUNTY Ralston stated that one sensor in Scott County measured air pollutants above the 35 micrograms per cubic meter of air threshold. Ralston stated that Johnson County has not exceeded threshold, but has been hovering at 34 micrograms per cubic meter of air for several years. Ralston noted that Scott County has contracted with two University of Iowa professors to study whether particulate formation during winter months impacts air quality monitoring. Ralston stated that JCCOG has offered to act a as a local liaison between Scott County officials and the University of Iowa research team. 13. UPDATE ON TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT MOVES THE ECONOMY IN THE 21ST CENTURY (TIME-21) FUNDING Ralston stated that Time-21 was passed in 2007 and that preliminary figures have been released on how much funding will be appropriated. Ralston noted that the Iowa Department of Transportation says that these numbers may be inflated. A chart was provided as to how much each municipality may receive in funding. 14. DISCUSSION OF THE JCCOG COMPLETE STREETS POLICY Ralston stated that there have been recent questions regarding the complete streets policy and staff wanted to provide a reminder as to what the complete street policy is, as well options available to satisfy the adopted policy. Essentially, the policy states that bicycle and pedestrian facilities must be included in any project funded by JCCOG. 15. UPDATE ON RECENT ACTIVITIES Yapp stated that staff is working on the Dubuque Street corridor study. Knoche stated that the McCollister Boulevard Bridge has been delayed due to flood- related issues and the Court Hill trail is currently underway and should be completed this fall. Wilson stated that the flood has taken most of the attention at the University and that hopefully things will return to normal. McClatchey stated that Cambus is cutting routes to save money as well as creating routes to deal with flood related changes. Twelve more buses were purchased in July to replace the 1989 models. Robrock stated that Coralville Transit has lost their main facility due to flooding and will not be able to return. They have yet to determine when or where they will be getting a new bus barn. 16. OTHER BUSINESS No other business. 17. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:00. = -=JCCOG ~ ...~ m e m 0 r._ Date: October 8,2008 To: JCCOG Transportation Technical Advisory Committee From: Kent Ralston; Assistant Transportation Planner lJl-- Re: Agenda Item #3: Discussion and consideration of a recommendation on the scoring criteria and process for JCCOG-allocated Surface Transportation Program and Transportation Enhancement funds At your August 12, 2008 meeting, we discussed the potential for revising the JCCOG Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Transportation Enhancement (TE) funding application scoring criteria. At that time, staff explained that the desire to r~vise the scoring criteria stems from the need to better reflect current philosophies on how JCCOG funds should be utilized, as well as the need to meet new Federal Highway Administration planning requirements and Environmental Protection Agency air quality standards. We also attempted to clarify some criteria based on differences in opinion on how to interpret the questions. Based on your recommendation to the Urbanized Area Policy Board, staff was directed to prepare a set of revised STP and TE scoring criteria for consideration. In addition to the existing adopted criteria, the revised applications were to include elements specifically addressing fiscal constraints and environmental issues exhibited by projects. Revisions to the applications will need to be adopted by the Urbanized Area Policy Board and will be used during the next JCCOG STP and TE grant application cycle. The revised STP and TE scoring criteria are attached. Please be prepared to discuss the following discussion points and make a recommendation to the Board. 1. Both the STP and TE applications require the applicant to provide a statement from a senior staff member or elected official indicating that your community is prepared to fund the local match and implement the project within three years from the time JCCOG funds are awarded. Is a three-year timeframe reasonable to implement projects? If so, we will incorporate a statement in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) indicating that projects in the TIP for more than three years may have their funds reallocated by the Board. 2. Both the STP and TE scoring criteria (question #1) give preference to new construction rather than reconstruction projects. Is this your preference? 3. For the 'safety concern' questions in both the STP and TE scoring criteria (question #2), we will provide a list of high vehicle collision locations, and high pedestrian and bicycle collision locations. We will be updating this data this winter so you will have it available before we enter into the next funding cycle in fall 2009. 4. For the 'multiple modes of transportation' question in the STP scoring criteria (question #4), we specifically identified design techniques which facilitate different transportation modes. Is this how you would like to proceed? 5. For the 'traffic flow' question in the STP scoring criteria (question #5), staff proposes using a traffic model or an intersection model to calculate whether the proposed project will reduce overall emissions, vehicle miles traveled, or delay at intersections. There may be unique projects which do not lend themselves to being modeled, but we are confident we can estimate either emissions-reductions or vehicle miles traveled. Is this how you would like to proceed to address this criterion? 6. For the 'origin and destination' question in the TE scoring criteria (question #3), we identified schools, multi-family residential areas, and commercial development as being favored origins and destinations. Is this appropriate? Please bring any questions you may have to the October 16th meeting. jccogtp/mem/newTTAC TE STP Scoring Criteria.doc DRAFT - (Proposed changes in bold / deleted items in strikethrough) Surface Transportation Project Application - required information The following information must be provided for all Surface Transportation Project proposals, and will be provided to the JCCOG Transportation Technical Advisory Committee and Urbanized Area Policy Board. JCCOG staff may contact you if additional information is required. Project sponsors will have the opportunity to answer questions about projects at a meeting of the JCCOG Transportation Technical Advisory Committee. 1 . Your name, phone number, and JCCOG affiliation 2. Brief description of the scope and intent of the proposed project. Attach a location map/visual description of the project. Include any attachments and visual aids to adequately describe the project. 3. Dollar amount of pledged local match Dollar amount of other funds secured Dollar amount of STP funds requested Total project cost Dollar ammount of foderal funds requested (required minimum 20% looal match). 4. Please provide a statement from a senior staff member or elected official indicating that your community is prepared to fund the local match and implement the project within three years from the time JCCOG funds are awarded. 5. Will the proposed project involve establishment of a. new facility, or improvo ::m oxisting faoility that is within 5 yoars of the end of ite: useful Iifo or is it a reconstruction of an existing facility? 6. How does this project further the goals and/or policies of your community's Comprehensive Plan? 7. Will your project comply with the adopted JCCOG Complete Streets Policy? Explain how each mode of transportation will be affected by the proposed project? List nil modos of transportation impactod by tho proposod projoct. 8. In order for JCCOG staff to calculate whether the project will reduce vehicle emmissions, or vehicle miles traveled, please provide the length of road segment, number of through lanes, number of turn lanes, and proposed alignment. How .....ill tho projoct impact tho flo,,{ of traffic? jccogtp/STP Project Application.doc DRAFT - (Proposed changes in bold / deleted items in strikethrough) JCCOG STP Project Evaluation Scoring System The following information about your Surface Transportation Program project proposal will be used to establish a point total for your proposed project. This point total will be one of several factors considered by the JCCOG Urbanized Area Policy Board in making a decision of which projects to fund. 1, Is the capital asset a new facility or an existing facility proposed for improvment v.'ithin five years of the end of its useful servioe life proposed for improvement as noted in your Capitallmprovments Project list? A. No - 0 points B. Yes - 3 points; major rehabilitation reconstruction project C. Yes - 5 points; reconstruotion projeot new construction 2. Is a focus of the project to address a safety concern at an intersection or midblock, or improve safety at a location with a collision history involving bicyclists or pedestrians? Will tho proposed project improve the traffic aooident history at an interseotion or midblook, or improve safety at an identified hazard for bicyolits and pedestrians? A. No - 0 points B. Yes - 4- 3 points; not in top 25 high accident intersections or top 10 highest accident mid-blocks C. Yes - J 5 points; top 25 high accident intersections or top 10 highest accident mid-blocks 3. Is the proposed project consistent with the community's comprehensive plan? A. No - 0 points B. Yes - 5 points 4. Will the proposed project facilitate multiple modes of transportation? This may be indicated by the following amenities (1 point each) Bus Shelter Wide sidewalk (8' or wider)_ Wide travel lane (14' or wider)_ Other_ Bus pull-off_ Sparated trail_ Marked on-street bike facility_ Will tho proposod project facilitate the use of multiple modes of transportation? This may be indioated by the provision of such amenities as ovorwidth sidowalkc, wide curb lanes, trails separated from tho road....'ay, or bus stop pull ofts and shelters. /'.. No 0 points B. Yes/moderate 3 points C. Yes/signifioant 5 points 5. Will the proposed project improve the flow of traffic by reducing the volume/capacity ratio ot a roadway or level-ot-service ot an intersection as indicated in the adopted JCCOG Long Range Mutltimodal Transportation Plan? No 0 points A. Yes, it will have an undocumented, positive effect - J 1 point. B. Yes, it will improve a projected traffic flow deficiency - 43 points. C. Yes, it will improve an existing traffic flow deficiency - 5 points. 6. Is the proposed project projected to reduce vehicle emmissions, or vehicle miles traveled as calculated by JCCOG staff? A. No - 0 points B. Yes - 5 points 7. Does the project involve more than one JCCOG jurisdiction? A. One JCCOG jurisdiction - 0 points B. Two JCCOG jurisdictions - 3 points C. Three or more JCCOG jurisdictions - 5 points jccogtp/STP Scoring.doc DRAFT - (Proposed changes in bold / deleted items in strikethrough) Transportation Enhancement Project Application - required information The following information about your Transportation Enhancement project proposal will be provided to the JCCOG Transportation Technical Advisory Committee and Urbanized Area Policy Board for evaluation. JCCOG staff may contact you if additional information is required. You will have the opportunity to explain the project at a meeting of the JCCOG Transportation Technical Advisory Committee. 1 . Your name, phone number, and JCCOG affiliation 2. Brief description of the scope and intent of the proposed project. Attach a location map/visual description of the project. Include any attachments and visual aids to adequately describe the project. 3. Dollar amount of pledged local match Dollar amount of other funds secured Dollar amount of TE funds requested Total project cost Dollor amount of fedeml funds requested (required minimum 20% locol match), ond totol project COGt. 4. Please provide a statement from a senior staff member or elected official indicating that your community is prepared to fund the local match and implement the project within three years from the time JCCOG funds are awarded. 5. Will your project comply with the adopted JCCOG Complete Streets Policy? Explain how each mode of transportation will be affected by the proposed project? List all modos of transportation impactod by the proposed projoct. 6. Will the proposed project involve establishment of a new facility, or is it a reconstruction of an existing facility? Will tho proposed project in'.'olve establishment of a new right of way? 7. Does your project impact any known enviromentally sensitive areas/features? If applicablo, doscribe tho torrain where the proposed project is located. jccogtplTE Project Application.doc DRAFT - (Proposed changes in bold / deleted items in strikethrough) JCCOG TE Project Evaluation Scoring System The following information about your Transportation Enhancement project proposal will be used to establish a point total for your proposed project. This point total will be one of several factors considered by the JCCOG Urbanized Area Policy Board in making a decision of which projects to fund. 1. Is the capital asset a new facility or an existing facility proposed for improvment within fivo yoars of tho end of its useful servioo life proposed for improvement as noted in your Capitallmprovments Project list? A. No - 0 points B. Yes - 3 points; m:Jjor roh:Jbilitation reconstruction project C. Yes - 5 points; reconstruotion projeot new construction 2. Is a focus of the project to address a safety concern at an intersection or midblock, or improve safety at a location with a collision history involving bicyclists or pedestrians? Will the proposed Transport:Jtion Enh:Jnoomont projoot improve s:Jfety :Jt :J location '::hich is in tho top 25 highest oollision intersootions or top 10 highest oollision mid blooks in tho Iowa City Urbanizod Are:J, or improve :In identified haz:Jrd or barrior for bioyolists or podostrians? (oollision lists attaohed) A. No - 0 points B. Yes - 3 points; not in top 25 high accident intersections or top 10 highest accident mid-blocks C. Yes - 5 points; top 25 high accident intersections or top 10 highest accident mid-blocks 3. Will the proposed project provide direct access to a school or improve access (within % mile) to multi-family residential or commerical development? Will tho proposed projoot provide aooess or improvo :Joooss to :J m:Jjor origin or destin:Jtion point in the community? A. No - 0 points B. Yes - 5 points 4. Is the project an extension of an existing pedestrian/bicycle facility, or p:Jrt of the noted in the JCCOG Long Range Trails Plan or Long Range Wide Sidewalks Plan? (attached) A. No - 0 points B. Yes - 5 points 5. Does your project meet an identified goal for your community in the adopted JCCOG Metro Area Bicycle Master Plan? (attached) A. No - 0 points B. Yes - 5 points * Transportation Enhancment projects that do not include separated trails or wide sidewalks may not fit into the scoring framework provided herin and should be deliberated separately based on their merits. jccogtplTE Scoring.doc Date: October 8, 2008 wJCCOG r.--..... memo To: JCCOG Transportation Technical Advisory Committee From: Kent Ralston; Assistant Transportation Planner ~ Re: Agenda Item #4: Consider a recommendation on amending the metro-area Federal Functional Classification map for streets and highways As your August 12, 2008 meeting, staff noted that we are currently in the process of working with the Iowa Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration to update the Federal Functional Classification System map for the Iowa City Urbanized Area. The functional classification system is a hierarchy of five roadway classes and indicates which roads are Federal Aid Routes. The functional classification system's significance to JCCOG's activities is that federal funding can only be spent on roadways functionally classified as collector, or higher, in the classification system. You will recall from our previous discussion that only 35% of the total road mileage in the Iowa City Urbanized Area can be listed in the Federal Functional Classification System. Currently, the urbanized area is 9.73 miles under the 35% limit. At your last meeting the Committee made a recommendation to the Urbanized Area Policy Board requesting 9.5 miles of roadway be added to the classification system. The Board concurred with the TTAC recommendation and it was forwarded to the Iowa DOT for approval. The Iowa DOT reviewed the recommendation and informed JCCOG that the request to change Forevergreen Road from a local street to a minor arterial could not be approved until the 1-380 / Forevergreen interchange project is listed on both the Capital Improvement and Transportation Improvement Programs. Please be prepared to discuss whether you would like to have the Iowa DOT approve the current recommendation without Forevergreen Road (7.8 miles), or if you would like to recommend that the Forevergreen Road segment be replaced with an alternate road segment. Staff recommends considering both the addition of Jones Boulevard (Forevergreen Road to Penn Street) and Forevergreen Road (Highway 965 to Jones Boulevard) as a collector streets to the Federal Functional Classification system map (2.5 miles). The Iowa DOT concurs with this recommendation. Your original proposal along with staffs recommendation is attached for your review. Your recommendation will be forwarded to the Urbanized Area Policy Board and the Iowa DOT for final approval. Please bring any questions you have to the October 16th meeting. Jccogadml agd/kr -ttac-ffcmap, doc CX) o - CX) - o ~ CI) (f) (f) l/) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) l/) (f) (f) l/) CJ Q) Q) ~ Q) Q) Q) Q) .~ ~ Q) Q) ~ c cu E E E E E E E E E E E E - l/) 0 N N ..- CO ('I') CO CO (Q 0 I.() II) C ..- ..- N N 0 ..- 0 0 U; N 0 N c 0 eu eu eu eu eu eu :i:i 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C CU Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) CJ t ... t t t t t ... ... !E <( 0 <( <( <( <( <( 0 0 t5 '0 .- l/) ... ... ... ... ... ... U n; l/) 0 Q) J! 0 0 0 0 0 CU Q) Q) .!!! .S 0 .S c: c: .S c: - 0 0 - 0 0 0 (.) :2 0 I- :2 :2 :2 :2 :2 I- 0 0 I- 0 l- I'- CO 0 0 0 m +< I.() C I.() CO N 0 m v +< +< I.() 0 <C ('I') N 0 CO ..- I.() +< CO m +< +< V N ..- I'- ..- I.() +< ..- I'- Q) ::J (f) c: ~ Q) "E E Q) ~ eu ::i ::J > "0 c: ... Q) >- eu "E Q) Q) ~ 0 > - ::J CO 0 a::: eu (f) <( (f) 0 t > Q) CO ..- >- ~ N Q) c: Q) E Q) .r::. - Q) u - C3 .0 ::J 0> - >- ~ ::i "0 0 0 eu 0 c::: a::: u ;: eu <9 e' CO >- CJ) ;: ~ 0 .r::. CJ) Q) (f) 0 eu - 0 0> 0 > Q) ... - - J: 0 ~ c: Q) 0 Q) Q) 0 - 0 0 ~ ::J "0 - co 0 ...., .:; - c: 0 Q) ..- I.J... 0 eu 0 CJ) Q) ::J N 0 - - c: ... Q) > 0 >- .- I.() 0 Q) <( .- Q) eu .- CO 0 ::J 0> > Q) c: "0 ... ..- <( ;: ~ m - Q) C 0 Q) 0 .- >- Q) .r::. - >- CI) - > 0 (f) eu ,2> CJ) eu E co <( Q) ;: (f) ;: .r::. .r::. 0 J: c: C) >- .r::. t u .r::. ... c: .r::. ;: - 0> Q) "0 ,2> CI) N 0 0 0 Q) tn J: ..- Z a::: J: :2 0- J: "E "E "E eu eu > eu > "E Q) > Q) ::J "0 Q) ::J eu "0 0 ... ::J 0 > eu CO eu 0 CO Q) "E 0 > "E CO ::J a::: eu Q) eu 0 eu c: ::J eu .::t:. c: CO > c: > Q) ~ Q) Q) "0 0 Q) ::J "E ... Q) ... CO c: I- Q) ::J ... eu ::J Q) eu .- 0 e' 0 Q) 0 c: 0 ,~ CO CO > 0 Q) eu <( a. 0 (f) 'C a. "0 .- E > E - .- E 0 Q) Q) cu .::t:. 0 ~ ... c: ... 0 eu eu u 0 eu u 0 0 a::: 0 0 CJ) u: :2 0 :2 ...., I.J... ~ >- t "is Q) Q) >- .0 C. - :.:J :~ ':; C3 eu .r::. c eu t ... ;: ::J 0 0 ::E 0 0 z - a. CO ~ E Q) +-' tn ~ Cf) s::::: o +-' CO o ~ tn tn CO () CO s::::: o +:i (.) s::::: :J lJ.. CO '- Q) "'0 Q) lJ.. Q) ..c: +-' o +-' tn +-' s::::: Q) E "'0 s::::: Q) E CO "'0 Q) "'0 s::::: Q) E E o (.) Q) ~ l/) .!! E C") c:i "I"'" cu - o I- 'C C l! C) r--. o o N I '<t o o N E o .::: Q) :0 .!!! 'CO > ro - c: ::l o U - c: Q) u Q) ... 1ii o ~ II I- o <( ~2JCCOG ~memo ,...... Date: October 1, 2008 To: JCCOG Transportation Technical Advisory Committee From: Brad Neuman~sistant Transportation Planner Re: Agenda item #5: Consider a recommendation on an amendment to the FY09-FY12 JCCOG Transportation Improvement Program: Coralville Transit project Coralville Transit is requesting that the FY09-12 JCCOG TIP be amended to include the following project: Add a Transit Facility to the Coralville portion of the FY09-12 TIP: .:. Add: Transit Facility - $8,210,000 total - $1,000,000 State (grants) - $7,210,000 local (FY09) This facility will include maintenance, storage, and administration space and is necessary to replace the flood damaged Coralville Transit Facility located at 314 3rd Avenue. The City of Coralville, FEMA, and the FT A have determined that the flood damaged facility will not be repaired. The City of Coralville is currently searching for additional funding sources. Inclusion of this project in the TIP is necessary for any Federal funds to be utilized for the project. Staff is asking for a recommendation from the TT AC regarding this amendment. All recommendations will be forwarded to the JCCOG Urbanized Area Policy Board for approval at their October 29,2008 meeting. If you have any questions please give me a call at 356-5235 or email me at brad-neumann@iowa-citv.orQ. cc: John Yapp jccogadm/agenda/transamendments.doc =..:. -=JCCOG ~ r~ m e m 0 ..-.... Date: October 8, 2008 To: JCCOG Transportation Technical Advisory Committee From: John Yapp, Executive Director 7 ~ j &y- Re: Agenda item #6: Consider a recommendation on criteria for placing unfunded illustrative projects in the JCCOG Transportation Improvement Program. When we go through the process of developing the FY10-13 Transportation Improvement Program later this winter, I would like to offer the opportunity to place illustrative projects in the TIP. Illustrative projects are those projects for which no federal funding has yet been identified, but are placed in a funded year in the TIP and State TIP (STIP) for illustrative purposes. Inclusion in the TIP will not automatically trigger any review of plans or environmental documents. The main benefits of having an illustrative project included in the TIP/STIP are: 1. It allows an amendment to the programming documents to be processed much faster once funding is identified since the project is already in the adopted document; and 2. It shows there is some commitment to the project when applying for federal grant funds. Iowa DOT would like to include illustrative projects on only a limited basis in the STIP. To that end, I have criteria to propose for inclusion of the projects in the JCCOG TIP to avoid simply submitting a "wish list" of projects. I recommend illustrative projects be included only if: 1. The project is in a funded year in the City's Capital Improvements Program; and 2. Enough preliminary design work has been done on the project to develop an itemized engineer's estimate; and 3. Federal funds for the project are actively being sought. This means that application for funds has already been made, or will be made within the next year; and 4. The municipality within which the projects reside has committed to the minimum 20% local match required for most federally funded transportation projects. This commitment can be in the form of a letter from the mayor or city manager/administrator of a community. Let's discuss these proposed criteria for illustrative projects at our October 16 meeting. It is important that illustrative projects be well-developed projects with solid community support, and should not be a wish list of projects. If you concur, please consider a recommendation on these criteria to the JCCOG Urbanized Area Policy Board. jccogadm/agd/ttac-jy10-7-0811.doc =- .=:JCCOG - ---=:- ~ ~~ m e m 0 (.... Date: October 6, 2008 To: JCCOG Transportation Technical Advisory Committee From: Brad Neuma~istant Transportation Planner Re: Agenda Item #7: Update on JCCOG Public Transit Expansion Exploratory Taskforce The JCCOG Public Transit Expansion Exploratory Taskforce met for the first time on July 22, 2008. The taskforce members, as well as representatives from the League of Women Voters, area transit managers, the University Parking and Transportation Director, and North Liberty administration, were presented with an overview of how local transit systems are funded, including the array of federal, state, and local resources necessary to support public transit. Much of the discussion revolved around the difficulty of providing extensive fixed-route transit service to other parts of Johnson County without significant subsidy due to the lower population densities and longer travel times. Some of the local transit systems are considering cutting back on service due to rising fuel prices, making transit expansion even more difficult. There was some discussion of alternatives to fixed-route transit in Johnson County, including the existing SEATS service, which is provided to all non-urban Johnson County residents by appointment, and the University of Iowa van pool program and the potential for other municipal or employer-based van pool programs. As a result of the discussions at the 'July 22 meeting, JCCOG staff collected additional information regarding the following points of interest: 1. Survey the passengers on the existing North Liberty route to determine what factors are important for them in choosing transit service. 2. Speak to the other incorporated towns in Johnson County to determine the interest level in transit service and how much they currently budget for SEATS service. 3. Investigate the costs, travel time, and population demographics for a transit route between Iowa City and North Liberty on North Dubuque Street. 4. Contact major employers in the area to determine interest in employer-based van pool programs. The information that JCCOG collected on the four points listed above will be presented to the taskforce at their second meeting on October 15, 2008. I will give an update regarding the taskforce's discussion on these points at the TAC meeting on October 16. cc: John Yapp jccogtp/mem/pteet10-15,doc wJCCOG rrii.... m e m 0 Date: October 1, 2008 To: JCCOG Transportation Technical Advisory Committee From: Brad Neuman~tant Transportation Planner Re: Agenda item #8: Update on federal passenger rail funding legislation In late September, House and Senate negotiators reached a deal on major railroad safety reform and rail investment legislation. The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 and the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (HR2095) will increase funding for Amtrak and improve rail safety. The deal merges bills that had already separately passed the House and Senate. Rep. Bruce Braley was a co-sponsor of the bill and guided the bill through the Transportation Committee. The bill includes $1.6 billion for rail safety programs and $13 billion for Amtrak. The $13 billion for Amtrak includes the creation of a new $1.9 billion 'State Capital Grant Program' through FY 2013. This program would award states for the construction of new passenger rail service between cities. The proposed passenger rail service between Chicago-Quad Cities- Iowa City would be eligible to apply for funding under this program. The states are eligible to apply for these funds with a minimum 20% state match. The bill also includes a provision mandating a Federal Railroad Administration study into the viability of the widespread use of biolubricants in freight and passenger rail as an alternative to petroleum-based lubricants. The University of Northern Iowa's National Ag-Based Lubricant Center (NABL) will playa large role in the study. In Iowa, the State's Passenger Rail Committee has met once and are planning another meeting later this fall. The committee is working on a budget proposal for the state legislature and marketing plans for passenger rail programs in Iowa. The communities in Iowa that could see Amtrak routes through their communities are also planning another meeting for this fall and are anxiously waiting to see what happens in Illinois. The Illinois state legislature has not moved on their rail improvements to Iowa. The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, which is made up of nine states, has received a $297,000 grant from the federal government for addition passenger rail studies. cc: John Yapp wJCCOG r,....... m e m 0 Date: October 9,2008 To: JCCOG Transportation Technical Advisory Committee From: Kristopher Ackerson, Assistant Transportation Planner ~ Re: Item 9: Update on the JCCOG metropolitan area bicycling plan In August, 2008, Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG) staff began developing a bicycle master plan for the urbanized area as part of the JCCOG FY2009 Transportation Planning Work Program. The purpose of this regional approach to bike planning is to establish common goals among communities in the metropolitan area, as well as to identify unique needs and priorities of each community. The planning process involves several steps. An inventory of bicycle accommodations and determination of the level of service are the first steps. To date, JCCOG staff has met with Coralville, Iowa City, North Liberty, and University of Iowa staff, including planners, engineers, and chiefs of police. Meetings are also planned with representatives of Johnson County, Tiffin, University Heights, and the Iowa City Community School District. The next step is the community needs assessment. The needs assessment considers factors such as demographic characteristics, population growth, and cycling participation trends. Staff developed an online survey and hosted two community workshops in Coralville and Iowa City to gather input from residents. Approximately 160 citizens attended the workshops. The needs assessment, combined with the inventory and level of service analysis, will be used to create the recommendations for the communities. The following project timeline is anticipated to allow time for communities to apply for the Bike Friendly Communities program in August, 2009: · August 5th - Kick-off meeting with RTBC (complete) · August/September - Meet with city staff (on-going) · Late September - Coralville / North Liberty / Tiffin / Johnson Co. Workshop (complete) · Early October - Iowa City / Univ. Heights / Univ. of Iowa Community Workshop (complete) · October - Online Survey (on-going) · Early November - Summary of Community Workshops and draft chapters for RTBC · Early February - Draft Plan submitted to RTBC for comment · Late March - Draft Plan submitted to TT AC for comment · May - Public Open House during Bike to Work Week I will be at your October 16 meeting to answer any questions you have about this process. wJCCOG r,....... m e m 0 Date: October 8, 2008 To: JCCOG Transportation Technical Advisory Committee From: John Yapp, Executive Director 7 ~ It~ Re: Agenda Item #10: Update on federal transportation policy and legislation issues The following is a summary of federal transportation policy and legislation issues; let me know at our October 16 meeting if you have questions or would like more information on any of these topics. Highway Trust Fund Fix: On September 15 the President signed into law a bill restoring the Federal Highway Trust Fund balance. This bill transferred $8.017 billion out of the General Fund of the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund. This is a temporary fix, as costs of construction and maintenance continue to outstrip road use tax revenue. A more durable solution is expected to be considered as part of the next federal transportation legislation. The U.S. DOT Secretary, Mary Peters, has advocated for a strategy to help resolve the shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund. As a mid-term fix, Secretary Peters is proposing that the transportation spending bill next year does not include earmarks, or congressionally designated funds. SAFETEA-LU, the current Federal transportation legislation, expires in September 2009. As a long-term fix, Secretary Peters is proposing to reform the way revenue is generated for transportation projects and to identify new funding mechanisms for transportation infrastructure. Proposal from Iowa DOT for the next federal transportation legislation: The Secretary of Transportation has announced a new framework proposed by the U.S. Iowa DOT administration for the next federal transportation legislation. The reform proposal includes: 1. A renewed federal focus on maintaining the performance of the interstate highway system. 2. Greater flexibility for state and local decision making on transit and highway priorities. This would include the creation of a 'metropolitan innovation fund' that allows cities more flexibility in investing in transit, highways and traffic issues. This would replace the many targeted funding programs administered by DOT currently. 3. Proposed requirements for accountability and measurements to ensure that investments will deliver results. There would be performance standards for transportation investments. 4. Would refocus an emphasis on safety using data driven approaches and require that funds be used where data reflects safety issues. 5. Would streamline the federal review process for new transportation projects by reducing the timeframe for federal environmental and planning requirements. Iowa in Motion - The Iowa Transportation Plan: Iowa DOT is preparing to restart the public input process for the state transportation plan known as Iowa in Motion. Some of you will recall that several years ago Iowa DOT began developing this plan by identifying trends and issues, holding public meetings around the state, and identifying investment, cost, and revenue priorities around the state. Iowa DOT staff would like to start the public comment process on the plan; this will likely occur later this fall and winter. Iowa DOT will be working with the state Metropolitan Planning Organizations, including JCCOG, to schedule public meetings related to the plan, and to solicit public input. We will share more information as it becomes available; the content of this plan is important for how it will influence the state funding programs we all work with. jccogadm/agenda/ttac-jy1 0-7 -08 ,doc ~JCCOG ...,-ii.... Date: October 8,2008 To: JCCOG Transportation Technical Advisory Committee From: John Yapp, Executive Director / ~ Y ~ Re: Update on Recent Activities This is a list of the major work activities being conducted by JCCOG Transportation Division staff; routine data collection and reporting are not necessarily included. Let us know at our October 16 meeting if you have any questions about these projects or another item. Streets and Highways 1. Assisted with Living Roadways Trust applications for Interstate 80 landscaping improvements for Iowa City and Coralville 2. Conducting a traffic study for Scales Bend Road in North Liberty and Johnson County 3. Assisting the University of Iowa with the West Campus Traffic Study 4. Dubuque Street traffic study between Church Street and Jefferson Street Public Transit 1. Working with Iowa DOT on the update of the Passenger Transportation Development Plan (PTDP); Our PTDP has been identified by Iowa DOT as an example for 'best practices' 2. Prepared a transit facility feasibility study and infrastructure grant application for Coralville Transit 3. Assisted with Iowa City Transit's Triennial Review 4. Prepared information and conducted research for the JCCOG Transit Expansion Exploratory taskforce 5. Prepared year-end reports for Coralville and Iowa City Transit Pedestrian and Bicycle 1. Conducting the JCCOG Bicycle Plan process 2. Conducting an evaluation of Yield to Pedestrian signs 3. Developed a plan for marking downtown Iowa City bike routes 4. Assessing scooter/moped use of downtown Iowa City bike racks Traffic Engineering Activities 1. All-way stop analysis for the River Street / Woolf Ave intersection 2. Conducting traffic calming evaluation of Glendale Road 3. Conducted an intersection study for Main St / Oak Crest Hill Road in Hills 4. Updated a traffic signal warrant study for Highway 1 / 5th Street in Solon 5. Began traffic signal warrant study for Penn St / Jones Blvd in North Liberty 6. Began data collection for Mormon Trek Boulevard traffic study Multi Modal! Other 1. Assisting with passenger rail planning at the state and local levels 2. Participating with the Chamber of Commerce Transportation and Legislative Subcommittee 3. Assisting with EPA Brownfields Assessment application preparation 4. Submitted Roadway Safety Foundation grant application for funds for marketing transportation programs to seniors 5. Assisted JC Emergency Management with Emergency Operations Center funding applications 6. Assisting University Heights with land use planning and review of development proposals 7. Updates to the JCCOG scoring criteria for Surface Transportation Program and Transportation Enhancement funds 8. Participating the Johnson County and cities on discussion of overlapping municipal fringe areas 9. Helping to coordinate discussion of Affordable Housing issues in metropolitan area jccogadm/mem/recentactivities-jy1 0-7 -08.doc