open space commission

FLAGSTAFF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

CITY OF FLAGSTAFF COCONINO COUNTY ARIZONA DOT Office: 100 West Birch Avenue Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 Mail: 211 West Aspen Avenue Flagstaff, Arizona 86001

Phone: (928) 213-2651 Fax: (928) 779-7696 www.flagstaffmpo.org [email protected]

A G E N D A Technical Advisory Committee

1:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. – Thursday, August 4, 2011 _____________________________________________________________

Coconino County Human Resources Building – Weatherford Room 420 N. San Francisco Street, Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Regular meetings and work sessions are open to the public. Persons with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation by contacting the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Office at 928-779-6693. The FMPO complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to involve and assist underrepresented and underserved populations (age, gender, color, income status, race, national origin and LEP – Limited English Proficiency.) Requests should be made by contacting the FMPO at 928-213-2651 as early as possible to allow time to arrange the accommodation. A quorum of the FMPO Executive Board may be present. CALL TO ORDER TAC COMMITTEE MEMBERS Justin Feek, ADOT Senior Transportation Planner, Chair Jeff Bauman, Flagstaff Transportation Manager, Vice-Chair Rick Barrett, City of Flagstaff Engineer Bill Towler, Coconino County Community Development Director Jim Cronk, Flagstaff Development Services Director Andy Bertelsen, Coconino County Public Works Director (Tim Dalegowski, designated alternate) Audra Merrick, Development Engineer (for John Harper, ADOT, Flagstaff District Engineer) Heather Dalmolin, NAIPTA

FMPO STAFF David Wessel, FMPO Manager Martin Ince, Multimodal Planner Meg Roederer, Administrative Specialist

I.

A. PUBLIC COMMENT PRELIMINARY GENERAL BUSINESS

(At this time, any member of the public may address the Committee on any subject within their jurisdiction that is not scheduled before the Committee on that day. Due to Open Meeting Laws, the Committee cannot discuss or act on items presented during this portion of the agenda. To address the Board on an item that is on the agenda, please wait for the Chair to call for Public Comment at the time the item is heard.)

B. ANNOUNCEMENTS

(Reconsiderations, Changes to the Agenda, and other Preliminary Announcements)

C. APPROVAL of MINUTES. 1) Meetings of May 5, 2011 and June 2, 2011 Pages 4-14

Technical Advisory Committee Agenda Packet August 4, 2011 / of 65

http://www.flagstaffmpo.org/�

mailto:[email protected]�

D. ROTATION of OFFICERS The City will assume the chairmanship and the County the Vice Chair.

RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Discussion and Possible Action

E. BILL TOWLER APPRECIATION

II. OLD BUSINESS (Continued, postponed, and tabled items.)1. FY 2011 Highway Safety Improvement Program & Projects verbal

FMPO Staff: Martin Ince, Multimodal Planner REQUESTED ACTION: Discussion only

Status update. Sponsors will report on application status. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Discussion only

2. FY 2012 Highway Safety Improvement Program Process & Projects Pages 15-19 FMPO Staff: Martin Ince, Multimodal Planner

REQUESTED ACTION: Discussion only Staff will present Kimley-Horn materials for the general program and seek input.

RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Discussion and Direction

III. NEW BUSINESS (Continued, postponed, and tabled items.)1. 2011 Trip Diary Survey Pages 20-22

FMPO Staff: Martin Ince, Multimodal Planner REQUESTED ACTION: Discussion Only

One proposal was received from National Research Center, the firm that conducted the last survey.. Discussion will include general questions to repeat from the previous survey, new questions to pursue, general overview of methodologies concerning technology and outreach, and guidance on schedule for preparation and release of the survey.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: General discussion and direction 2. Regional Plan Update Pages 23-28

FMPO Staff: David Wessel, FMPO Manager REQUESTED ACTION: Discussion Only

Staff will present results from the two-week Charrette exercise that concluded Friday, July 23. Staff will seek to summarize transportation issues and opportunities to date and seek TAC input on observations, concerns and analyses to pursue.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: General discussion and direction 3. U.S. 180 Winter Congestion Study Pages 29-59

FMPO Staff: David Wessel, FMPO Manager REQUESTED ACTION: Discussion Only

Staff will update the TAC on progress made on this study and the model update component. Input from the TAC will include public involvement plan, web-page content and direction on stakeholder interviews.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion Only 4. FMPO Calendar Page 60

FMPO Staff: David Wessel, FMPO Manager REQUESTED ACTION: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion only

IV. CONCLUDING GENERAL BUSINESSD. REPORTS

Pages 61-65

1) Executive Board June 22, 2011 Action Summary


CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF NOTICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing notice was duly posted at Flagstaff City Hall on ,at a.m./p.m. in accordance with the statement filed by the Recording Secretary with the City Clerk.

Dated this day of , 2011.

2) Staff Report

E. ANNOUNCEMENTS (Informal Announcements, Future Agenda Items, and Next Meeting Date)

TAC September 1, 2011 Coconino County Human Resources Bldg

Management Committee August 12, 2011 ADOT, Conference Room

Executive Board August 24, 2011 City of Flagstaff, City Hall Staff Conference

Fall Retreat: September 28, 2011

Consultation with Rural Elected Officials October 26, 2011

ADJOURNMENT





Draft Minutes Technical Advisory Committee

1:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. – Thursday, May 5, 2011 _____________________________________________________________


CALL TO ORDER Chair Feek called the meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. TAC COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT Justin Feek, ADOT Senior Transportation Planner, Chair Jeff Bauman, City of Flagstaff Transportation Manager, Vice Chair John Dalby, ADOT Designated Alternate for Audra Merrick, ADOT Flagstaff District Development Engineer Randy Ryan, County Designated Alternate for Bill Towler, Community Development Director Heather Dalmolin, Sr. Manager Internal Services NAIPTA Excused Absent Rick Barrett, City of Flagstaff Engineer Bill Towler, Coconino County Community Development Director Audra Merrick, ADOT Flagstaff District Development Engineer Andy Bertelsen, Coconino County Public Works Director Jim Cronk, Flagstaff Development Services Director

FMPO STAFF & Others Present David Wessel, FMPO Manager (departed at 1:50 pm) Martin Ince, FMPO Multimodal Planner Meg Roederer, FMPO Administrative Specialist Justin Pryzby, Flagstaff Citizen I.


Mr. Pryzby of 409 E. Cherry Ave. #2 commented on the US 180 Winter Congestion Study in consideration of bicycle safety. Mr. Pryzby would like to address the consultant at the appropriate time with specific suggestions. He mentioned there was a death (David Mauller) on the road and mentioned ADOT’s policy on rumble strips. Mr. Wessel stated HDR has been hired and are currently in the data collection phase with the intent to go out to the public. Mr. Wessel stated before we do go out to the public we need to make sure the data is in place. The methodology is to employ a fair amount of modeling of the effectiveness of some of the treatments and get the model developed in order to be responsive to people once they pose questions or have alternate solutions. Mr. Wessel stated a standard policy of the FMPO is to promote multimodalism and bicyclists are a big part of that and are looking at multimodal solutions for winter congestion. Mr. Wessel stated we welcome your participation later in the process this summer and will be running ads in the paper and on the website for public participation. Mr. Pryzby inquired if HDR is doing data collection or design. Mr. Wessel stated HDR is




doing low level design work and will look at general solutions and range of effectiveness and will find a set of solutions. Mr. Wessel stated it will be a scoping effort and if there is a solution proposed for road improvements those improvements need to include accommodation for bikes such as bike lanes and this would be an appropriate place for the discussions. Mr. Pryzby confirmed it would be later in the summer.

B. ANNOUNCEMENTS

Mr. Wessel recommended rearranging the agenda discussing New Business Item 6: US 180 Winter Congestion Study first to accommodate Mr. Wessel attending a regional plan meeting on time. Next discuss Old Business Item 1: FY 2011 Highway Safety Improvement Program & Projects and New Business Item 2: FMPO FY 2010-2014 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment together. Chair Bauman agreed and adjusted the agenda.

C. APPROVAL of MINUTES

Mr. Bauman made a motion to approve the April 7, 2011 Minutes and Ms. Dalmolin seconded, which passed unanimously.

II. NEW BUSINESS (Continued, postponed, and tabled items.)

1. US 180 Winter Congestion Study

Mr. Wessel stated he discovered data to help with the travel time study, which is cell phone data provided by AirSage, Inc. Mr. Wessel stated money has been spent on blue tooth technology with disappointing results and consequently has received additional information. Mr. Wessel explained the cell phone data is similar to Blue Tooth in that you look at each segment and get an average travel time for each segment then add up average travel times and those become your total route travel time. Mr. Wessel stated the cost for one year is $4,500 and two years is $9000 and requests recommendation from the TAC to amend the Work Program and that he does have additional funds to carry forward. Mr. Wessel stated the other opportunity through the same company is origin destination center, which would provide more assistance to the model update. Mr. Wessel mentioned that it basically lays out a 1000 meter grid and the grid can be moved strategically. Mr. Wessel stated origin destination is more expensive at $20,000 and wanted to inform the TAC of the opportunity if it would be beneficial to the process but does not necessarily recommend it at this time. Mr. Bauman asked what the data looks like for $9000. Mr. Wessel explained the cell signals are tracked through various points through towers and it will provide the travel time between the positions. Mr. Wessel stated one issue with AirSage is that it has a deal with Sprint and it will soon be with Verizon but is unsure if the Verizon data is retroactive. Mr. Wessel stated the Sprint coverage is not particularly good and there needs to be a determination that we receive descent data. Mr. Bauman asked if it is going back in time for all the data of a twelve month period. Mr. Wessel stated it is for two three month periods from mid-Christmas through President’s Day and it is every day. Mr. Wessel stated right now we have twenty four hours a day for five three day periods in one season, so it would be a much richer data set at a lot less cost. Mr. Dalby asked how it helps such as determining the number of lanes in each direction. Mr. Wessel stated it gives us travel time and helps calibrate the model, so in a worst case scenario if it takes five hours we can replicate that in the model and determine how to mitigate three hours of congestion. Mr. Wessel stated a consideration is if the Sprint coverage is good. Mr. Ryan made a motion to recommend the purchase of the $9,000 data set and Mr. Bauman seconded, which passed unanimously.

III. OLD BUSINESS (Continued, postponed, and tabled items.)

1. FY 2011 Highway Safety Improvement Program & Projects

2. FMPO FY 2010-2014 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)\Amendment Old Business Item 1: FY 2011 Highway Safety Improvement Program & Projects and New Business Item 2: FMPO FY 2010-2014 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment were discussed together. Mr. Ince introduced the topic and explained the County Kona Trail Sidewalk does not meet eligibility because there is no crash history for pedestrians and as a result the benefit cost ratio does


not meet eligibility. Mr. Ince stated he worked with David Wessel and spent time working out information on a positive cost ration and were unsuccessful but there may be hope if either the project costs come down or use the Highway Safety Manual Predictive Method for determining crashes but for the moment it is off the table. Mr. Ince stated the remaining projects from the City, County and ADOT are working diligently to get the JPA’s completed and clearance letters forwarded. Mr. Ince stated the City has scheduled it for City Council on May 17, 2011 and County BOS on May 10, 2011. Mr. Ryan stated the County BOS is on June 2, 2011 per Mr. Dalegowski. The City Council and County BOS action is to approve the JPA. Mr. Bauman stated he has had communication with Ms. Higgs at ADOT and the clearance letters should be completed today and the deadline for the JPAs is Thursday, May 12. Mr. Ince stated looking ahead to next year’s HSIP program we need to look at backup plans if the Kona Trail does not become an eligible project and move up another project or look at a new project. Mr. Ince stated if Kona Trail does go forward it will need a full environmental determination and the process takes time. Mr. Ince suggested to keep this as a TAC agenda item and to pursue all three options 1) Kona Trail Eligible 2) Moving up other projects 3) New Projects and in June or July and to try and have a resolution. Chair Feek stated Kona Trail is a $450,000 project and this year it is slated for $160,000. Chair Feek stated the $160,000 is for two City projects with a TIP Amendment for submittal to ADOT and the projects are ready to go. Mr. Bauman stated the projects are design projects and is it reasonable they are ready for construction in FY12. Chair Feek stated it easier to get clearances for design. Mr. Bauman does not think the process will be done that quickly. Mr. Ince inquired about guard rail and sign if it might be ready this time next year. Mr. Bauman stated those are both designs that are not underway. Chair Feek does not know how long it will take. Mr. Ince stated we should be ready for next year with some backup projects. Chair Feek stated best to start now and get as many ready as you can and if it needs to be pushed to 2013 at least they are ready to go. Mr. Ince stated item FMPO FY 2010-2014 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment to delete $160,000 for the Kona Trail Sidewalk in fiscal year 11 and shift $80,000 in design funds to the City of Flagstaff Guardrail project and $80,000 in design to the two intersections in Flagstaff. Mr. Ince stated both projects could use more money for design because of the complexity and plan sheets for guard rails will be more than $30,000 and intersections may cost more than $150,000. Chair Feek commented on the approval process. Mr. Bauman stated he has discussed it with Ms. Higgs at ADOT and the need for it to be revised upward. Mr. Ince commented on eligibility of projects and that he has not received FHWA approval on eligibility just on the one project that is ineligible but the other projects have benefit cost ratios of one or greater and at least we have that and that’s good. Ms. Dalmolin made a motion to delete the Kona Trail sidewalk because it is no longer eligible and shift the $160,000 to design the City of Flagstaff Guardrail project and City of Flagstaff intersections with the TIP amended accordingly. Mr. Bauman seconded, which passed unanimously.

2. Steves/Fanning Railroad Crossing Closure Study Mr. Bauman made a motion to table the item for a future meeting and Ms. Dalmolin seconded, which passed unanimously.

IV. NEW BUSINESS (Continued, postponed, and tabled items.)1. FMPO FY 2012-2016 Transportation Improvement Program

Mr. Ince explained the 2012-2016 TIP seeks an action to release the TIP for public comment as presented with conditional approval to update the maps in the existing TIP to reflect the new projects and add a map for safety projects. Ms. Dalmolin stated NAIPTA is asking for a final adjustment to the transportation TIP adding some recent funding that they were notified about. She stated NAIPTA has been awarded $165,000 and ADOT is giving NAIPTA $350,000 from the lapsing 5307 in STP funds from their programs and it needs to be added to the 2012-2016 table. Ms. Dalmolin will provide that to Mr. Wessel within the next week. Chair Feek mentioned Kona Trail will need to be updated in the TIP. Ms. Dalmolin made a motion to release the 2012-2016 TIP for public comment as presented and Mr. Bauman seconded, which passed unanimously.


2. FMPO FY 2012 Unified Planning Work Program Mr. Ince stated the status of the UPWP and explained the Work Program is a federal requirement that addresses the projects and sources of funding for the coming year. Mr. Ince stated the routine projects include the safety program, transportation enhancement grants, Safe Routes to School grants, three ADOT grants (5310, 5316, and 5317), the collection of traffic data, model update, Title VI Report and the Transportation Improvement Program. Mr. Ince mentioned the cyclical efforts include the Five Year Transit Plan and Trip Diary Survey. Mr. Ince stated the carry forward items from last year’s Work Program include the Regional Plan efforts such as the ASU Decision Theater, monitoring the state wide long range plan, Doney Park Multimodal PARA grant, assistance to the city of flagstaff traffic impact analysis and modeling, and the Winter Congestion Study. Mr. Ince stated the new task as the Adaptive Signal Control project. Chair Feek stated the Work Program will need to be updated to reflect the $9,000 purchase of a data set for the US 180 Winter Congestion Study. Chair Feek provided an update of the Flagstaff Regional Plan PARA regarding the $50,000 in the Work Plan for the ASU Decision Theater. Chair Feek stated they are almost done with scoping and basically the data that will go into the model for ASU to run the decision theater event has been going back and forth in discussions over the last month. Chair Feek stated it was decided the PARA grant would take care of the data sets and FMPO will use its funds for funding the decision theater itself and there will be two separate contracts. Chair Feek stated he sent it internally today to get the technical consultant (Kimley-Horn) to start working on it. Chair Feek stated they are going to look at transportation and perhaps another element, which is water because part of the terms are growth of the future and population projections, so transportation and water are a focus of the ASU Decision Theater event. Chair Feek explained the theater is live data with the ability to use different variables and it updates live with the different scenarios. Chair Feek stated the end product is being determined but they are working toward it. Mr. Ince stated the idea is to narrow the scope of alternatives. Chair Feek stated it is within budget and some of the data may not be as fluid but will show the relations and it might be a little static but it will be good and illustrate the plan. Chair Feek mentioned a meeting is not currently scheduled but will keep the TAC updated. Mr. Bauman made a motion to recommend the UPWP as presented for adoption by the Executive Board and Mr. Ryan seconded, which passed unanimously.

3. Flagstaff Regional Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan

Mr. Ince stated the Plan is a requirement of the special needs transit grant programs that were reviewed at the last TAC meeting and those grant program sections are 5310, 5316 and 5317. Mr. Ince explained beginning in 2007 the federal government (FHWA) requires that every COG and MPO that receives grant money through 5310, 5316 and 5317 prepare and annually update a human services transportation coordination plan. Mr. Ince stated it includes several elements such as an inventory of current transportation providers, an assessment of transportation needs for individuals with disabilities (older adults/low income), list of strategies and activities to address identified gaps, achieve efficiencies in service delivery, and implementation priorities for the strategies and activities based on resources, time and feasibility. Mr. Ince stated there is a further requirement of all the local agencies that apply for funding need to be included and participate in the preparation of the Plan. Mr. Ince stated for the first two years ADOT hired a consultant to prepare the first plans to get the local COGS and MPOS started. Mr. Ince stated this is the third year the FMPO has prepared its own annual update. Mr. Ince stated typically the process of preparing the update parallels and tracks with the grant programs and in January we send a mass mailing and email notifying eligible agencies and entities of the three grant programs with a public workshop at the end of January that ADOT hosts. The FMPO works with NACOG and has one workshop instead of two separate ones and as part of the process, information on buses, taxi vouchers and NAIPTA is collected from the eligible agencies. This information is included in the annual update of the coordination plan. Mr. Ince stated NAIPTA has received funding through the grant program to hire a mobility manager and NACOG is seeking the same and it may be in June. Mr. Ince stated he spoke to NACOG and is planning a coordination mobility workshop in June with NACOG’s mobility manager and NAIPTA’s mobility manager, Kathy Chandler. Mr. Ince stated there are advantages for the region with two mobility managers because they can pursue coordination, information collection and help meet the transportation needs of the identified populations. Mr. Ince


stated the FMPO will still have a role but it with the mobility managers the document will be more robust with implementation of the strategies. Mr. Ince explained the grant applications were reviewed at the last TAC meeting and those were forwarded to ADOT but it needs to be approved by the Executive Board to meet the requirement. Ms. Dalmolin commented on corrections and suggested revising the Mountain Line fares, typos on page 11, and Mountain Campus is now Campus Shuttle Services. Ms. Dalmolin made a motion to present the Flagstaff Regional Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan with the corrections mentioned for recommendation by the TAC to the Executive Board. Mr. Bauman seconded, which carried unanimously.

4. FMPO Calendar

The TAC reviewed meeting dates and topics for the next agenda. The probable agenda items for June 2, 2011 TAC meeting are the adoption of the TIP, Railroad Closure Study, Winter Congestion and discussion of the Trip Diary Survey.

V. CONCLUDING GENERAL BUSINESSD. REPORTS

There was no discussion.

E. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Feek made two announcements.

• Doney Park Study is in the final phases and had a public meeting last week that was a good turnout for the program of projects. Chair Feek stated the next steps are to draft a final report, a TAC meeting to review the final report and then wrap it up in August. Chair Feek offered to send the information to the TAC if requested.

• The PARA program will have next years go around in June with a likely project cap of $250,000. There will be 45 days to apply for the grant. Mr. Ince suggested this as an agenda item for brainstorming the next meeting. Chair Feek clarified the projects do not have to meet all transportation elements and the dollar range does not need to be the maximum of $250,000.

ADJOURNMENT Chair Feek adjourned the meeting at 2:25 p.m.





Draft Minutes Technical Advisory Committee

1:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. – Thursday, June 2, 2011 _____________________________________________________________


CALL TO ORDER Chair Feek called the meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. TAC COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT Justin Feek, ADOT Senior Transportation Planner, Chair Audra Merrick, ADOT Flagstaff District Development Engineer Bill Towler, Coconino County Community Development Director Tim Dalegowski, County Designated Alternate for Andy Bertelsen, Coconino County Public Works Director Rick Barrett, City of Flagstaff Engineer Excused Absent Jeff Bauman, City of Flagstaff Transportation Manager, Vice Chair Andy Bertelsen, Coconino County Public Works Director Heather Dalmolin, Sr. Manager Internal Services NAIPTA Jim Cronk, Flagstaff Development Services Director FMPO STAFF & Others Present David Wessel, FMPO Manager (left meeting at 3:04 pm) Martin Ince, FMPO Multimodal Planner Meg Roederer, FMPO Administrative Specialist Georgi Ann Jasenovec, FHWA Kelly LaRosa, FHWA (telephonically until at 2:45 pm) I.


None.

B. ANNOUNCEMENTS None.

C. APPROVAL of MINUTES

Mr. Barrett made a motion to table the May 5, 2011 Minutes due to alternate TAC members at the May meeting not present for the June meeting to approve and Mr. Towler seconded, which passed unanimously. Mr. Wessel recommended regular TAC members discuss the May minutes with the alternate members before the next meeting.

II. OLD BUSINESS (Continued, postponed, and tabled items.)




1. FY 2011 Highway Safety Improvement Program & Projects Mr. Wessel explained the objective of the discussion is to provide a status update on the safety program, review the Kimely-Horn materials and address the unprogrammed $450,000. Mr. Ince continued the discussion and provided a status report on the FY2011 projects. Mr. Ince stated the City and County JPAs were approved. Mr. Dalegowski stated the County clearances were submitted May 28, 2011. Mr. Ince stated the City clearances were also submitted and received clearances. Mr. Ince explained that clearances only apply to construction or procurement projects and not design work. Mr. Ince mentioned the City project for transverse pavement markings was the only project that needed clearances. Mr. Ince stated clearances for the project have been received for right-of-way and environmental and will be notified soon regarding utilities. Mr. Ince explained the background on the Kimley-Horn documents. Mr. Ince stated as part of the 2010 safety project the FMPO set aside $40,000 to prepare application documents as well as develop a procedure and process to establish a program, a process and to fill-in a program of projects for the next five years. Mr. Ince stated the documents all relate to task two and he will provide comments back to them (Kimley-Horn.) Mr. Ince stated task three is developing evaluation criteria and Kimley-Horn has not provided information yet and that may be available for the next TAC meeting. Mr. Ince commented that much of the information still seems scattered and recommended a single set of guidance documents with a step-by-step format vs. a series of documents that tend to create confusion. Mr. Ince recommended clarification on the responsibilities of the FMPO and local sponsors. Mr. Ince stated more responsibility will go to the local sponsors in the future but the FMPO may need to provide technical assistance on crash data due to access in order to help local sponsors with the process. Mr. Ince stated the lesson learned from this year is the process is still evolving between the COGS/MPOS, ADOT, FHWA and local sponsors. Mr. Ince stated we may need to hold off on our own process before settling on it in order to be consistent with ADOT and FHWA guidance documents and applications and if it does not need to be reproduced at the local level we will not do that and will refer to FHWA and ADOT. Mr. Ince welcomed comments from the TAC by email or at the meeting on the draft documents and in particular from Mr. Dalegowski and Mr. Bauman. Mr. Dalegowski suggested starting the process earlier. Mr. Wessel mentioned that the flow chart is helpful but needs to be tied to the schedule, as well as, referencing the documents by name in the schedule. Mr. Wessel suggested the schedule needs a status report to the Executive Board. Mr. Wessel described three processes of the safety program. 1) 600,000 received annually allocated through the TIP 2) Local projects submitted for competition from the larger statewide 3) Work with the district and prepare priority projects on the region for the state system. Mr. Wessel recommended Kimley-Horn address all three situations. Ms. LaRosa explained it is outside the Kimley-Horn scope of work to compete with the State projects. Ms. LaRosa stated the scope of work is to establish a five year program for the FMPO sub allocation of HSIP funds and to compete for state funds is outside the specific project. Mr. Barrett inquired if Kimley-Horn was the consultant that did the safety study for the RTP. Mr. Wessel stated “yes.” Mr. Barrett asked if there will be a safety study involved with the $40,000 that Kimely-Horn will spend in developing a program. Mr. Wessel stated “no” and explained the schedule states a network screening document should be updated every three-four years and the safety assessment that is available now is the baseline screening document. Mr. Wessel stated it is a challenge with $600,000 to deliver a turn lane or anything else. Mr. Barrett asked if any of the $600,000 sub allocation can be used for safety studies. Mr. Wessel inquired if it is appropriate use to reassess the safety data or do we program $40,000 every four years to update the safety screening. Ms. LaRosa stated it would need to be part of the priorities and if the RTP needs updating it would be outside the scope and may need to be done separately. Mr. Wessel cited an example if in year four to program an additional $40,000 to update the baseline safety screening and every four years as part of the $600,000 we program a safety assessment. Ms. LaRosa explained it could be a potential project but the purpose for Kimely-Horn is to establish criteria on how to prioritize projects to get the call for projects in and then start evaluating them accordingly. Mr. Wessel appreciated the explanation from Ms. LaRosa.


Ms. Jasenovec suggested on the countermeasures listing only those projects that are HSIP eligible. Mr. Ince asked if there are ADOT/FHWA guidance documents on countermeasures and that maybe there does not need to be a local version. Ms. Jasenovec stated that there are documents available. Mr. Wessel asked if it is necessary to have it since there is a reference to a website on crash modification factors. Mr. Ince stated those listed on the site may not be eligible for HSIP. Mr. Wessel stated if there is a legitimate safety problem based on severity and frequency of accidents that needs to be fixed but the fix is ineligible it should be identified and programmed somehow. Ms. Merrick requested an example. Mr. Ince provided an example regarding drainage and ice formations causing accidents as a safety issue with an improvement to the drainage as a countermeasure fix but it is not eligible for HSIP funds. Mr. Barrett asked if it is a safety problem, why it is not eligible? Ms. LaRosa stated there are many safety projects that are ineligible for HSIP funds. She explained the HSIP program is specific to projects that reduce fatality and serious injury crashes. Ms. LaRosa stated there is a list of suggested treatments in the HSIP manual and understand that there are agencies that could use HSIP funds and the agency could do an engineering study that may qualify the project for approval. Ms. LaRosa stated for example bike lanes and sidewalks are very difficult to get approved with HSIP finds because it is difficult to address a fatality or serious injury trend even though we all may agree it would improve safety but by definition it is not eligible for HSIP funds according to federal regulations. Mr. Wessel appreciated the clarification and stated there is a process that could be worked in order to prove a benefit – cost ratio but requires due diligence if it is a treatment or countermeasure outside the norm. Mr. Barrett inquired if de-icing programs would apply. Ms. LaRosa stated de-icing would be considered a maintenance program. Mr. Wessel referred the TAC to the TIP table and referenced fiscal years 2012-2016. Mr. Wessel explained in FY12 there is a balance of $450,000 and if we can move a project forward. Mr. Wessel stated based on Ms. LaRosa’s comments the Kona Trail sidewalk in not eligible. Mr. Dalegowski confirmed Kona Trail may not be eligible but the Tovar Trail has had a fatality but that may not be eligible either because sidewalks generally do not meet the criteria. Mr. Wessel stated in FY12 there may not be time to design and deliver the Tovar Trail. Mr. Dalegowski stated there would only be time for design. Mr. Wessel stated in FY13 there is the Zuni intersection and sign replacement and if either project could be moved to FY12. Mr. Ince stated sign replacement will probably not be ready. Mr. Wessel explained sign replacement is an inventory of safety related signs. Mr. Barrett stated it involves a reflectivity standard. Ms. Jasenovec stated NACOG and CYMPO are focusing on sign replacement projects. Mr. Wessel stated it is budgeted in FY10 and FY11 but has not started yet and do not know if an inventory will be ready to do sign replacement in FY12. Mr. Barrett explained it has taken a long time to do the scope of work as well as agree on a scope and fee to the point of it costing more and FY10 funds were needed to supplement FY11. Mr. Wessel mentioned he is not confident the intersection design and clearances could be done but believes the funds could be obligated but not constructed. Mr. Barrett stated the issue is the estimate is not at a 100% to complete the improvements and the City portion would also need to move forward into FY12. Mr. Wessel asked if the same is true for FY14 on the Turquoise Switzer Canyon project. Mr. Barrett responded “yes” and mentioned both locations potentially may have roundabouts at approximately $800,000-$1,000,000. Mr. Wessel recapped the conversation for Ms. LaRosa attending telephonically. Mr. Wessel stated we are discussing the projects in the out years and moving them into FY12 as a result of the County project being ineligible and are looking at intersection improvements that are under design in FY11 and if they can move forward but the total cost for the projects are more than that. Mr. Wessel stated his understanding of measuring the effectiveness of the safety program – lives saved or injuries prevented per dollars spent - is the full project should be paid for with safety money and the benefit cost ratio is done against the full project cost not just the safety money involved. Ms. LaRosa stated “correct” and confirmed the benefit cost ratio is done for the full project cost and if multiple funding sources are used it should not affect the benefit cost ratio. Mr. Wessel suggested systematic improvements for the $450,000 such as County rumble strip projects on Leupp and Townsend Winona but is unsure if it could be $450,000. Ms. LaRosa stated that when the criteria is setup on the prioritization of safety projects and a call for projects is done you may get a range of short term and long term projects. She stated short term projects may come in at $50,000-$60,000 or you may receive long term projects that


require phases and it will help with programming over a five year period as well as fill-in the gaps. Ms. Merrick asked about if the guard rail figure of $150,000 is accurate. Mr. Wessel stated it may change. Ms. Merrick stated that will be from the $450,000. Mr. Wessel stated that may change as a result of the City inventory project. Mr. Ince stated the $150,000 was a remainder from the County project of the to make up the $600,000 and Mr. Bauman does not have an accurate idea on the cost of the guard rail until the inventory is complete. Mr. Ince stated project identification is a bigger issue than project evaluation due to obligation and need to come up with other projects that fit and review the safety component of the RTP. Mr. Wessel stated as projects are brought forward we will need to review the approved criteria. Mr. Ince suggested looking at the project list FHWA and ADOT have and do a systemic approach and see if they will work locally. Mr. Wessel stated we will work with the TAC members individually (particularly Mr. Dalegowski and Mr. Bauman) and will bring a host of projects forward and run through the criteria. Ms. Merrick asked if the County has a sign replacement project. Mr. Dalegowski stated the County is going through NACOG to do a sign inventory and sign replacement. Ms. Merrick asked if there is enough money from NACOG for the project. Mr. Dalegowski explained “that remains to be seen” with the money split between four counties to provide $125,000 per year to do the inventories and then the replacement will be based on the inventories. Mr. Dalegowski stated the County has started an inventory but not through this program. Mr. Wessel suggested NACOG do the County inventory and if there are signs in the FMPO area we do the replacement. Mr. Dalegowski mentioned if the FMPO did the inventory and sign replacement that would free up money for other counties. Mr. Barrett inquired about trading funds between MPOs. Mr. Wessel stated it was permissible in previous years and provided the example of CYMPO having a large project in FY12 and FMPO giving them money and in turn the FMPO has a large project in FY13 and then they give us their money. Ms. LaRosa stated ADOT may need to coordinate and would not be opposed to it if all parties agreed to it. Mr. Wessel stated that concludes the Safety Program for now and commended and thanked Mr. Ince, Mr. Bauman, Mr. Dalegowski and Ms. Knaggs as well as Ms. Higgs, her staff and FHWA.

2. Steves/Fanning Railroad Crossing Closure Study

Mr. Wessel explained the item was tabled to give ADOT an opportunity to review the Study. Mr. Wessel provided background information. He stated there was a request to the FMPO from the Flagstaff City Council to review the Study findings and determine if the FMPO concurred with the findings and the conclusion being that the benefits and closure did not outweigh the costs. Mr. Wessel stated after staff review the FMPO recommends the findings. Ms. Merrick stated ADOT reviewed the Study and concurred with the staff recommendation. Mr. Barrett thanked Ms. Merrick for her efforts in a prompt review of the Study. Chair Feek made a motion to support the findings (no closures) from this Study and Mr. Towler seconded, which passed unanimously.

III. NEW BUSINESS (Continued, postponed, and tabled items.)

1. FMPO FY 2011-2015 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment

Mr. Wessel stated the FY11 TIP has been approved by FHWA. Mr. Wessel stated this is an amendment to the transit table to include new section 5307 and surface transportation program flex funds for capital improvements. Mr. Wessel stated the agenda packet includes letters and tables forwarded from NAIPTA. Mr. Wessel explained NAIPTA received two new allocations for funds. The first allocation is from CYMPO because they failed to spend their money and it is now being transferred to NAIPTA with obligation due soon. Mr. Wessel stated the other is a STP Flex, which is when the state annually flexes from highway to transit approximately $7,000,000, which is pieced out on a per capita basis; therefore NAIPTA needs to program it. Mr. Wessel stated NAIPTA will use the money for facilities at their site as it relates to the Mountain Link project and is looking to amend the FY11 TIP in order to obligate the funds. Mr. Barrett asked about the 2008-5307 and 2009-5309 in the NAIPTA letters. Mr. Wessel stated the money was awarded to CYMPO in 2008 and 2009, which is expiring and it needs to be transferred to NAIPTA which has to be programmed in the TIP before it is too late. Mr. Towler asked if the deadline is June 30, 2011. Mr. Wessel confirmed the deadline. Mr. Barrett asked about the application process referenced in the letter. Mr. Wessel explained the NAIPTA application is on standby and ready to go because there needs to be a TIP amendment, STP amendment then the grant application is


submitted. Chair Feek mentioned this needs to be processed quickly. Mr. Towler made a motion to recommend the TIP amendment and Mr. Barrett seconded, which passed unanimously.

2. FMPO FY 2012-2016 Transportation Improvement Program

Mr. Wessel presented the draft TIP, stated no public comments were received and the changes since May are included in the draft TIP with the map amendments, shift in program years for some enhancement projects and changes to the Transit table for FY 2011 to reflect funds recently received. Mr. Towler made a motion to recommend the FY12 TIP for adoption to the Executive Board and Mr. Barrett seconded, which passed unanimously.

3. 2011 Trip Diary Survey Mr. Ince explained a Trip Diary Survey was completed in 2006 and it must be conducted in five-year cycles to keep information current and gather trend data. Mr. Ince stated the process is in progress to prepare a request for proposal for the second survey. Mr. Ince mentioned before the RFP moves too far along he wanted to provide the TAC an opportunity to provide additional information from their agency and include that feedback in the survey. Mr. Ince stated 2400 packets were sent out in 2006 to a random sample population with a response rate of 14% with 320 surveys returned and the target goal was 400. Mr. Ince stated part of the problem was the survey was involved because people were asked to fill out all their travel for the day (making it difficult for people to participate) vs. a Gallup or mall survey. Mr. Ince stated the objective this time is to increase the participation rate with a higher number of responses for accuracy and predictability of the model. Mr. Ince referenced the agenda packet staff report stating that transit trips were underrepresented and the original survey relied on mailings and people filling out paper copies. Mr. Ince speculated there may be a way of doing the survey through Google. Mr. Towler suggested Survey Monkey and explained the randomness will be lost but it does not affect the responses. Mr. Towler suggested sending a postcard with a website because that is how the County has surveyed property owners in the last few years and saved money. Mr. Wessel mentioned perhaps utilizing a smart app for phones. Ms. Jasenovec volunteered to send an email to field planners on what has worked for them and provide that feedback to Mr. Ince. Mr. Towler inquired about the usability and practicality of the Study and if it is worth the $35,000. Mr. Ince stated it helps with grant applications for sidewalks, FUTS trails, bike friendly and pedestrian community especially with the mode split information. Ms. Jasenovec stated due to sustainability initiatives and livability it is encouraged at FHWA. Mr. Wessel mentioned if the current administration is continued performance measuring and monitoring is very important and stated it is valuable. Mr. Wessel has used it for mode split information on calibrating the model, referenced it during the RTP development, as well as, referenced the survey during the development of the transit tax that passed in 2008. Mr. Wessel stated the Trip Diary Study is referred to on a regular basis frequently and provides a broader picture on how we are doing. Mr. Towler stated high gas prices stimulate a mode shift such as using shuttle service to Phoenix. Ms. Jasenovec asked if input has been received from NAIPTA or NAU on formulating the questions. Mr. Ince stated NAIPTA’s input has been received. Mr. Wessel stated the survey goes out in late -September and NAIPTA’s Mountain Links will be running. Mr. Towler provided Mr. Ince the County contacts that did the last surveys, which was Holly Yeager and Tiffany Atol. Mr. Barrett inquired if the Study could be in the Spring. Mr. Wessel stated he will follow-up with NAIPTA on the Mountain Links Schedule. There was discussion only.

4. 2012 P.A.R.A. Grant Application Ideas

Chair Feek stated the application details. Mr. Towler stated the Highway 180 project as a possible project. Mr. Wessel commented on the Bellmont T-I project. Mr. Towler commented on a bike path from the Bellmont T-I. Mr. Wessel stated the discussion is on prospective ideas for applications to ADOT’s Planning Assistance for Rural Arizona program. Chair Feek commented on recreational use trails as eligible but it does not fund planning/staff positions. Mr. Barrett inquired about process and procedure such as a traffic impact analysis. Ms. Merrick inquired about the use of consultants. Chair Feek stated it needs to be with ADOT on call consultants. There was discussion only.

5. FMPO Calendar


There was discussion only. Mr. Towler mentioned his retirement date is September 1, 2011. Ms. Roederer stated Management Committee has been rescheduled to Thursday, June 9th

and will look into Executive Board meeting dates due to City Council and Board of Supervisor summer recess schedules. Ms. Roederer announced the next TAC meeting is on July 7, 2011.

IV. CONCLUDING GENERAL BUSINESSD. REPORTS

There was no discussion.

E. ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements.

ADJOURNMENT

Chair Feek adjourned the meeting at 3:11 p.m.


FLAGSTAFF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION STAFF SUMMARY REPORT To: FMPO Technical Advisory Committee From: Martin Ince, Multimodal Planner Date: July 26, 2011 Meeting Date: August 4, 2011 Title: Highway Safety Improvement Program Recommended Action: Discussion ACTION SUMMARY: The TAC is asked to review draft documents prepared for the FMPO’s 5-year HSIP program. DISCUSSION: Background/History: The FMPO is using approximately $40,000 in HSIP funds from FY 2010 to have a consultant, Kimley-Horn Associates, establish a process and program of projects for the FMPO’s on-going 5-year HSIP program. Key Considerations: A variety of documents produced under Task 2 were distributed and discussed at the June TAC meeting. Comments have been forwarded to the consultant. Additional documents for Task 3 have since been submitted by the consultant, and are attached to this report. The documents include draft project evaluation and prioritization criteria and a draft scoring sheet using existing HSIP projects. Community Involvement: This process will be open and accessible to the public. Alternatives/Consequences: No other options or alternatives have been considered. Attachments/Exhibits Draft Evaluation and Criteria Prioritization Draft Project Score Sheet

Item No.


FMPO 5-Year Safety Program DevelopmentHighway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

The Focus is ResultsObjective: Reduce fatalities and serious injuries resulting from crashes.

Evaluation Criteria and PrioritizationAll projects proposed by local sponsors for funding through the HSIP program will be evaluatedand prioritized by the FMPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) based on the criteriadescribed below. Each criterion has been assigned an eligible point value corresponding to thelevel of emphasis in evaluation and prioritization. Some criteria apply to all projects while othersapply only to systematic projects or to spot improvement projects. A maximum of 100 points isavailable for each project.

Step 1 – Initial Eligibility Screening

All proposed systematic projects must be on the Systematic Projects list on page 27 of theArizona Highway Safety Improvement Program Manual (issued in March 2010) or havepreliminary approval from ADOT as being an eligible systematic project. Any proposedsystematic project not meeting this criterion will be rejected and eliminated from furtherconsideration.

All proposed spot improvement projects must have a benefit-cost ratio greater than or equal to1.0. Any proposed spot improvement project not meeting this criterion will be rejected andeliminated from further consideration.

Step 2 – Project Evaluation

Total Project Cost – 5 points maximumHow does the project cost compare to FMPO’s annual HSIP funding allocation?

5 points: $600,000 0 points: > $600,000

Demonstrated Support or Need for Project – 10 points maximumIs the project identified as a needed or recommended project in a previously approvedplan or document?

10 points: Yes 0 points: No

Project Impacts – 10 points maximumWhat are the project’s anticipated environmental, utility relocation, and right-of-wayimpacts?

10 points: None 5 points: Minor 0 points: Major




Promotion of Safer Travel for Pedestrians or Bicyclists – 10 points maximumDoes the project promote safer travel for pedestrians or bicyclists – a stated priority forthe FMPO region per the FMPO Regional Transportation Plan?

10 points: Yes 0 points: No

Scale of Benefits – 65 points maximum (criterion applies to systematic projects only)How beneficial is the systematic project in terms of positive geographic or populationimpacts on crash severity and crash rates?

65 points: Major regional positive geographic or population impact.45 points: Minor regional positive geographic or population impact.25 points: Major concentrated positive geographic or population impact.10 points: Minor concentrated positive geographic or population impact.

Benefit/Cost Ratio – 25 points maximum (criterion applies to spot improvement projectsonly)What is the benefit/cost ratio for the project?

25 points: 5.015 points: 3.010 points: 2.0 5 points: 1.0

Crash Severity – 20 points maximum (criterion applies to spot improvement projectsonly)The severity of crashes is accounted for by calculating the crash history cost. The crashhistory cost is calculated by converting the previous 5 years crashes to motor vehiclecrash costs by severity per the table on page 21 of the Arizona Highway SafetyImprovement Program Manual (issued in March 2010). Alternately, crash severity maybe calculated for the existing condition using the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (1st

Edition – 2010) Part C – Predictive Method.20 points: $5,800,00015 points: $800,000 and < $5,800,00010 points: $400,000 and < $800,000 5 points: $42,000 and < $400,000 0 points: < $42,000




Crash Rate – 20 points maximum (criterion applies to spot improvement projects only)The crash rate indicates the level of crash exposure. The crash rate for the previous 5years crashes is calculated as crashes per million vehicle miles traveled (MVMT) forsegments and crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV) for intersections. Alternately,crash rate may be calculated for the existing condition using the AASHTO HighwaySafety Manual (1st Edition – 2010) Part C – Predictive Method.

20 points: 4.0 MVMT or > 2.0 MEV10 points: 2.0 MVMT and < 4.0 MVMT or 0.5 MEV and < 2.0 MEV 0 points: < 2.0 MVMT or 0.5 MEV

Step 3 – Project Prioritization

The point totals from the various project evaluation categories are summed and then theprojects are ranked from the highest point total to the lowest point total. The highest rankedprojects should have the highest priority for HSIP funding. The FMPO TAC identifies whichprojects should be recommended for HSIP funding consideration based on available HSIPfunding.


FMPO 5Year Safety Program DevelopmentHighway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

Project Evaluation & Prioritization CriteriaProject Score Sheet

Total Score Project Project Value Points Y/N Points Value Points Y/N Points Impact Points Value Points Value Points Seg/Int Value Points Score Rank

Transverse Pavement Marking Upgrades 150,000$ 5 N 0 None 10 Y 10 Major Regional 65 0 0 0 90 1Guardrail Improvement Program 150,000$ 5 N 0 None 10 N 0 Major Regional 65 0 0 0 80 2Sign Management Inventory 50,000$ 5 N 0 None 10 N 0 Major Regional 65 0 0 0 80 3Beulah Boulevard Bike Lanes 175,000$ 5 N 0 None 10 Y 10 Spot Improvement 0 8 25 343,000$ 5 Seg 4.2 20 75 4Kona Trail Sidewalk Extension 610,000$ 0 Y 10 Major 0 Y 10 Spot Improvement 0 3.11 15 5,800,000$ 20 Seg 6.2 20 75 5Lone Tree ‐ Zuni Intersection 425,000$ 5 Y 10 Major 0 Y 10 Spot Improvement 0 10.67 25 500,000$ 10 Int 1.5 10 70 6Sinclair Wash FUTS Crossing at Woodlands Village Blvd 150,000$ 5 N 0 Minor 5 Y 10 Spot Improvement 0 8.67 25 ‐$ 0 0 45 7Switzer Canyon Drive ‐ Turqoise Drive Intersection 425,000$ 5 N 0 Major 0 Y 10 Spot Improvement 0 1 5 308,000$ 5 Int 0.8 10 35 8Townsend‐Winona Road Guardrail End Treatments 35,000$ 5 Y 10 None 10 N 0 Minor Concentrated 10 0 0 0 35 9Woody Mountain Roundabout 300,000$ 5 N 0 Major 0 N 0 Spot Improvement 0 3 15 0 0 20 10

0 1112

Crash Rate (20)Support/Need (10) Impacts (10)Project Cost (5) Benefit/Cost Ratio (25)Pedestrian/Bicycle (10) Scale of Benefits (65) Crash Severity (20)Spot Projects Only Spot Projects OnlyAll Projects All Projects All Projects All Projects Systematic Projects Only Spot Projects Only


12131415161718192021

Total: 2,470,000$

DRAFT ‐ FY 2011 Projects have been input as example projects for the prioritization tool.



FLAGSTAFF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION STAFF SUMMARY REPORT To: FMPO Technical Advisory Committee From: Martin Ince, Multimodal Planner Date: July 26, 2011 Meeting Date: August 4, 2011 Title: 2011 Update – Trip Diary Survey of Community Travel Patterns Recommended Action: Discussion ACTION SUMMARY: The FMPO has received and is evaluating one consultant proposal to conduct the 2011 update to the Trip Diary Survey. Staff will summarize the proposed schedule and methodology from the proposal and ask the TAC to discuss ways to improve the quality and usefulness of the information produced by the survey. DISCUSSION: Background/History: The FMPO conducted a trip diary survey in fall of 2006 to gather information on travel patterns and mode choice in the FMPO region to help with transportation planning. The FMPO’s intent is to repeat this study every five years to keep the information current and to provide trend data. Key Considerations: The City issued an RFP for the Trip Diary Survey on June 29, 2011, which was open until July 20, 2011. One proposal was received, from National Research Center (NRC) of Boulder, Colorado. This firm also conducted the 2006 survey. The proposal includes Charlier and Associates as a sub-consultant for analysis of the results. The FMPO has $35,000 budgeted for the study; the fee proposal from NRC is $34,976. Key dates (proposed, tentative) Staff meets to review proposal Aug 2 Notice to proceed Aug 18 Finalize instrument design Sep 12 Sampling and notification Sep 12 to Sep 30 Advertising and promotion Aug 29 to Oct 7 Travel diary survey week Oct 3 to Oct 7 Collect and analyze data Oct 10 to Dec 2 Draft report Jan 16 Final report Jan 30

Item No.


Methodology A random sample of 2,700 households in the FMPO region, and 300 students living in NAU dormitories, is sent a pre-notification announcement in the form of a postcard (households) or email (students). The announcement is scheduled to arrive about 1 week before the survey packet. A trip diary survey packet is mailed to the same households and students 5 to 7 days before the survey. A cover letter explains the survey and assigns a travel day during the survey week (October 3 to 7). The packet includes a cover letter, instructions, the trip diary form, a household survey, and a business reply envelope. A reminder postcard or email is sent and scheduled to arrive 1 to 2 days before the assigned travel day. The survey is to be taken by the person in the household who is age 16 or over and who most recently had a birthday. This provides variation in respondents and helps ensure a representative sample of Flagstaff’s population. The individual taking the survey is asked to record all of their trips during a 24-hour period on the assigned travel day, including origin and destination, mode of travel, time of day, number of people in the vehicle, and miles or blocks traveled. A trip is defined as any one-way travel from one point to another that takes you further than one city block (about 200 yards) from the origin. Participants are also asked to complete a household survey, which collects basic demographic data as well as attitudes and opinions about the transportation system. The 2006 study used an initial mailing size of 2,400 (2,100 households and 300 students). A larger mailing of 3,000 will generate about 400 responses, if the previous survey’s response rate of 14 percent is matched. 400 responses will yield a 95 percent confidence interval of ±5 percent around the results. The consultant will also assist the FMPO in developing and implementing a communications plan to promote the survey and increase the response rate. Like last time, results will be divided into 3 geographic areas – core of Flagstaff, rest of Flagstaff, and rest of FMPO. We will also ask that results for the City of Flagstaff be tabulated. Items for discussion: Transit trips were vastly underrepresented in the previous survey; as a result we do not

have good information on transit trips.


The survey relies on mailing out a packet of printed materials and having respondents return surveys. The expense of production and mailing limits the number that can be distributed; 2,400 packets were distributed in 2006 and 3,000 are proposed for 2011. Staff will discuss with the consultant methods to increase participation within the cost parameters.

The RFP asked respondents to consider a web-based survey as an alternative. In their

proposal NRC indicated that entering travel information via the web would introduce an extra step that might discourage participation. Respondents are asked to bring the trip diary form with them to record trips. A web-based form would require them to transfer the hand-written trip information to the website. Smart phones apps are another possibility, but the technology is untested and smart phones may not yet be in common usage to ensure a representative sample of the population.

This survey needs additional/more-effective promotion and publicity to increase

participation rates.

The household survey from 2006 included a number of questions regarding the transit tax election, which were since approved. It is no longer necessary to ask these questions, as a result there is an opportunity for additional questions on the survey.

Some information/questions should be repeated every 5 years to allow us to analyze

trend data. The survey produced a lot of good, useful information for transportation planning. We

need to make sure this information is accessible and available. Community Involvement: Promotion and publicity will be essential to making the survey successful. Alternatives/Consequences: A trip diary survey is one of the most effective ways of measuring modal split and travel patterns. No other options or alternatives have been considered. Attachments/Exhibits A copy of the Trip Diary Survey of Community Travel Patterns from May 2007 can be downloaded from the FMPO website by clicking on this link: http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=6402


http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=6402�

FLAGSTAFF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION STAFF SUMMARY REPORT To: FMPO Technical Advisory Committee From: David Wessel, FMPO Manager Date: July 25, 2011 Meeting Date: August 4, 2011 Title: Regional Plan 2012 Process Update Recommended Action: Advise and endorse strategies for analyzing growth scenarios and preparing for

Circulation Element draft ACTION SUMMARY: Action by the TAC provides staff with solid technical direction, assists staff in anticipating TAC’s technical needs and avoids possible misuse of staff time. DISCUSSION: Background/History:

• The Regional Plan update is mandated by state law to occur every ten years. A recent

extension permits this to extend to 2015. City staff remain hopeful of concluding the plan in early to mid-2012.

• The Regional Plan update will consist of many elements including a Circulation Element. FMPO has committed to updating its Regional Transportation Plan to comply with the update.

• The process to date has consisted of the following: o Cycles of Open House and Focus Group input followed by CAC discussion,

drafting and tentative adoption of draft policies for several elements. o Securing of an ADOT Planning Assistance for Rural Areas grant to assist with

scenario analysis and public input. o A design Charrette held in mid-July where the public helped to produce three

growth scenarios. • Next steps:

o Analysis by the PARA grant consultant, Kimley Horn (KHA), of the growth scenarios. Relevant measures selected by the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) scenario subcommittee include: Vehicle Miles Traveled per capita, Mode share,

o Selection and modification of a final scenario by the CAC. o Analysis of final scenario by KHA, FMPO (transportation) and others. o ASU Decision Theater to resolve outstanding issues. o Major elements to complete include: Land Use, Circulation, Housing,

Economic Development, the latter being a new element. Key Considerations:

Item No.


o Policy Considerations: There will be a full array of policy considerations in the draft Circulation Element including but not limited to Efficiency, Effectiveness, Safety, Complete Streets, Connectivity and Economic Development. Staff is interested primarily in technical analysis direction at this time.

o Proposed Analysis – Scenarios, Very high level Trip Distribution

• A dendritic (dichotomous) mapping exercise by regional quadrant based on staff insight related to distribution. Total impact to any given roadway is the sum of all total trip percentages from each quadrant.

Trip Generation • Broad application of average residential trip rates and average non-residential

trip rates. With the following adjustments: o Average residential rate declines modestly as the scenario density

increases and the relevant mix of housing goes from single family detached to more attached and multifamily units. Will not be as great as modeled trip rates as it is anticipated that in the future the wage structure will not be as strongly tied to housing type.

o Non-residential trip rates do not change by scenario o Sum of residential and non-residential trips divided by two to reflect

productions and attractions. o Lowering total trips for each scenario by:

3% “healthy” vacancy rate. Conservative 2nd

Internal capture increased as scenario density increases.

Home ownership rate adapted to each quadrant (southeast quadrant having the highest assumed rate)

Mode share increased as scenario density increases and adapted to quadrants. More dense scenarios assume higher gas prices, so mode share rates go up more than might normally be expected.

Trip Assignment • Using a spread sheet exercise use trip generation and distribution to assign trips

to the existing network, no adaptation for congested times. Solutions to Scenario Circulation

• City and FMPO Staff review of FMPO 2009 Regional Transportation Plan evaluated roadways – including those rejected or cited as conditional by the RTP - and general assessment of their need in each scenario.

• Staff estimate of impact of various multimodal solutions and strategies on resolving circulation issues including:

o Widening – generally add capacity of new lanes to the equation o New Route – how much traffic can be shifted to a parallel route o Transit – can increased service provide assistance o Reduction or shift of land use in the highest demand area. o Operational improvements

Preliminary results/observations • At a population of 150,000 all major arterials and many minor arterials are

significantly over-capacity regardless of the Scenario. • Higher densities do have less impact due to assumed mode share and due to

less loading on the exterior reaches of many highways. The latter point will be offset a little by an inability to restrict infill of vacant county lots.

• Alternate routes hold some promise.


• Widening of I-40 is critical as are regional connections to it. • Transit, if not made more time competitive, will have trouble making significant

contributions to congestion relief. Concentrating some uses to areas more easily served by transit will provide some benefits. There may be some assumptions regarding technology and a mobile office concept might make park-n-ride a viable option in the future where it is not today.

• The ability to shift growth to areas where excess roadway capacity exists is not readily apparent.

Additional Scenario Analysis recommended • Refine distribution for all scenarios • Add through trips to the matrix with assumed growth factor • Quantitative assessment of transit demand by sub-quadrant (or corridor) growth

areas o Proposed Analysis & Tool Development – Final Scenario (and iterations), High level

• Transit cost tool – to estimate changes in level of service and fairbox recovery • Maintenance cost tool – to estimate long-term cost impacts of roadways • Sensitivity testing – experimentation with the current “3D” model to test sensitivity to

design, density, diversity variables and check against current conditions and latest research.

• Review/Update construction costs • Reassess project scoring with Citizens Advisory Committee and rescore projects.

Community Involvement: • Nearly 100 members of the public participated in the Charrette process on July 14-15

and stakeholders including the city council, NAU and Planning & Zoning from the City and County attended the second week.

• Hundreds of individuals received the Charrette Users Guide directly or indirectly through organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce or Friends of Flagstaff’s Future.

Fiscal Impacts: • FMPO has supported this effort through considerable staff time, $3,000 for a multi-day

facilitation, and $2,000 for advertising and printing. Attachments/Exhibits: • .Table – Preliminary Staff Analysis of Roadway Needs for Charrette Growth Scenarios

• Information is not definitive. Primary conclusion is that most roads are needed for all three scenarios.

• .Table – Scenario A: Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment (DRAFT) • For discussion purposes only, Note that the Northeast and South quadrants are

hidden from view Scenario Image Links: Scenario A download at http://flagstaff.az.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=14171 Scenario B download at http://flagstaff.az.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=14172 Scenario C download at http://flagstaff.az.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=14173


http://flagstaff.az.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=14171�



Regional Plan 2012 Preliminary Staff Analysis of Roadway Needs for Charrette Growth Scenarios

x = needed, L = limited or part, M = maybe, N = No, F = feasibility question, E.D. = existing deficiencyAlpha_ID Project RTP Score RTP Status E.D. "A" "B" "C"

35 Lone Tree Road Overpass (1) 25.95 Yes x x x59 W. Rte 66 Widening 25.94 Yes x x x6 Butler Avenue Widening 23.29 Yes x x x

66 University Avenue Realignment 22.03 Yes x x x16 Fourth St. Upgrade - 66 to Cedar 22.03 Yes x x x58 Route 66 Enrichment 22.03 Yes x x L73 West Street Upgrade 20.78 Yes E x x x2 Beulah Boulevard Extension 20.6 Yes E x x x1 Bellemont TI Reconstruction 20.52 Yes E x x x

44 Milton Road Upgrade 19.54 Yes x x x7 Clay Avenue Extension 19.3 Conditional x M x

12 Fort Valley Road Upgrade 19.27 Yes E x x x56 Riordan Ranch St Extension - S 19.27 Conditional x x x17 Fourth St. Widening - Soliere to Butler 19.04 Yes x x x77 Woody Mountain Road Upgrade 18.02 Yes x x x38 Lone Tree Rd Realignmnt & TI 17.54 Yes x x x29 Industrial Drive Widening 17.51 Yes E x x x31 J.W. Powell Blvd - Airport 17.4 Yes x x x43 Metz Walk Extension 15.51 Conditional x x x45 Milton - new cross street 15.51 Yes x x x71 Walnut - Florence Connector 15.38 Conditional M N M27 I-40 Widening - Country Club to 89 bypass 15.1 Yes x x x60 E. Rte 66 Widening (F40) 14.23 Conditional x x L4 Beulah Boulevard Upgrade 13.95 Yes x x x

39 Lone Tree Rd Widening - Sawmill to Pine Knoll 13.88 Yes x x x21 High Country Trail Extension 13.77 Yes M x x3 Beulah Boulevard Realignment 13.59 Yes M x x

24 I-40 Widening - Woody Mtn. to Lone Tree 13.41 Yes x x x63 Townsend-Winona Widening - 89 to Koch 12.7 Yes x N N62 Switzer Canyon Dr RR Underpass 12.67 No F F F76 Woody Mountain Road TI 12.67 Yes x x x42 McConnell Road Extension - W 12.44 Yes N M M9 Empire Extension 12.43 Yes N x N

41 Mcconnell Drive Upgrade - existing 12.25 Conditional N N x22 I-17 Widening 11.83 Yes x x x64 Townsend-Winona Widening - Koch to Rio Rancho 11.44 Yes x M x47 New Lone Tree Road TI 11.34 Yes M x x54 Ponderosa Parkway Extension 11.19 Yes x M x

Capital Programming Staff and FMPO Manager review this list of RTP evaluated projects and asked, "Would it this road be necessary or helpful to the scenario development pattern."

Scenario


8 Clay Avenue Upgrade 11.06 Conditional x x x36 Lone Tree Rd Realignment - south of 40 10.75 Yes M x x80 Stardust Trail Extension 9.92 #N/A E x M x14 Fourth Street Extension - South 9.34 Yes x x x33 Lake Mary Rd Widening - Beulah to JWP 9.27 Conditional x x x40 McConnell Drive Extension - E to Lone Tree 9.24 No x x M32 J.W. Powell Blvd Extension to mid-point 8.96 Yes x x x26 I-40 Widening - Lone Tree to Country Club 8.35 Yes x x x72 Walnut Hills Drive Extension 8.27 Yes x M x55 Railhead Avenue Extension to 89 bypass 6.86 Yes x x N65 Townsend-Winona Widening - Rio Rancho to Leupp 6.7 No x M N20 Herold Ranch Rd Widening 6.32 Yes x x x49 New Woody Mountain Collector 6.3 Yes x x x75 Woody Mountain Rd SW 6.29 Yes x x x74 Woody Mountain Rd Airpark 6.2 Conditional x x x61 Switzer Canyon Dr - Butler to JWP 5.93 Conditional M x x50 Palmer Avenue Extension 5.72 Yes x x x30 J.W. Powell Blvd Extension to Herold Ranch 4.89 Yes x x x57 Riordan Ranch St Extension - N 4.88 No x M x69 US 180 Upgrade - Far North 4.06 Yes E x x x28 I-40 Widening - 89 bypass to Winona 3.89 No x x x78 Anita Drive Extension 3.66 Conditional x M x70 US 89 Bypass 2.71 Conditional x x N5 Butler Avenue Extension 2.46 Yes x x x

52 Pipeline Arterial (2) - east end 1.54 No N N N68 US 180 Bypass 0.01 No M46 New Little America Collector -0.11 No M N53 Pipeline Arterial (1) - west end -1.31 No N N N10 Enterprise Drive Overpass n/a No ? ? ?11 Fanning Street Extension n/a No N N N13 Fourth Street Extension - North n/a No N N N15 Fourth Street TI n/a No N N N18 Gemini Drive Extension n/a Yes19 Herold Ranch Road Extension (under I-40) n/a No F F F23 I-40 Widening - Bellemont to A-1 n/a No x x x25 I-40 Widening - A-1 to Woody Mtn. n/a No x x x79 Zuni Drive Extension n/a Conditional x x x


Transportation InfrastructureScenario A

Quadrant People Units Jobs Trips/hh Trips/1ksf Total2.5/HH 9 30

NW 11,500 4,600 4,100 41,400 41,000 82,400 NE 11,500 4,600 13,900 41,400 139,000 180,400 SE 29,600 11,840 3,500 106,560 35,000 141,560 SW 15,100 6,040 11,600 54,360 116,000 170,360 Total 67,700 27,080 33,100 243,720 331,000 574,720

New Dema New Dema Total Capacity vs.Facility Quadrant Capacity LOS E (.9) Volume v-o-c NW NW Demand Demand Fix

41,200 287,360 Vacancy 0.03 39,964 278,739 2nd Homes 0.10 38,492 267,295 Internal Capture 0.05 36,567 253,930 Mode shift 0.96 35,836 248,851

13% Capacity vsN-S reduce widen divert transit A.M./Ops DemandWoody Mtn. NW/SW 20,000 18,000 6,000 0.30 20% 8,240 49,214 -29,214 10000 20000 15000 1500 17,28689a SW 22,000 19,800 8,000 0.36 0% - 15,716 6,284 6,284Woodlands NE 40,000 36,000 19,000 0.48 5% 2,060 27,831 12,169 12,169Beulah NW/NE 42,000 37,800 22,000 0.52 2% 824 43,881 -1,881 -1,881Milton NW/NE 46,000 41,400 35,000 0.76 33% 13,596 106,564 -60,564 10000 n/a 10000 3000 1000 -36,564I-17 SW/SE 80,000 72,000 49,000 0.61 1% 412 69,211 10,789 10,789US 180 NW/NE 23,000 20,700 16,000 0.70 15% 6,180 34,018 -11,018 1500 1000 -8,518Beaver NE 18,000 16,200 7,000 0.39 3% 1,236 20,400 -2,400 500 -1,900San FranciscNE 19,000 17,100 7,000 0.37 2% 824 19,988 -988 500 -488Lone Tree NE/SE 22,000 19,800 11,000 0.50 1% 412 43,864 -21,864 20000 9000 7,136Switzer/TurqNE 21,000 18,900 13,000 0.62 0% - 18,168 2,832 2,832West NE 21,000 18,900 7,000 0.33 0% - 11,215 9,785 9,785Fourth NE 40,000 36,000 20,000 0.50 2% 824 36,496 3,504 3,504Country ClubNE/SE 46,000 41,400 33,000 0.72 5% 2,060 63,766 -17,766 20000 2,234

89 NE 60,000 54,000 40,000 0.67 5% 2,060 66,939 -6,939 20000 13,061


FLAGSTAFF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION STAFF SUMMARY REPORT To: FMPO Technical Advisory Committee From: David Wessel, FMPO Manager Date: July 26, 2011 Meeting Date: August 4, 2011 Title: US 180 Winter Congestion Study and Travel Time Data Status Report Recommended Action: Advise staff on concerns and direction for moving forward. ACTION SUMMARY: TAC input will guide the Public Involvement Plan, business interviews, and initial issues to be raised on the MindMixer website. DISCUSSION: Background/History: • ADOT agreed to provide $75,000 in State Planning & Research funding to the FMPO to

study solutions to this issue. The FMPO programmed additional funding and the County contributed $5,000 toward the economic impact evaluation. FMPO recently revised its work program to bring additional funds to this effort and to the travel time study by NAU.

• HDR, Inc., the selected consultant, will update and use the regional transportation

model to evaluate the effectiveness of many solutions. • A kick-off meeting was held with the Winter Activity Task Force where additional

solutions, stakeholders and public involvement strategies were identified Key Considerations: • Public Involvement – A major impetus for this study is to resolve impacts to

neighborhoods. Secondarily, winter recreation is a key economic opportunity and relevant stakeholders should be involved.

o Public involvement strategy – See attached Public Involvement Plan Are there revisions or issues with the PIP? MindMixer will be used as a public forum for responding to ideas or

issues over the next three months and as an additional forum to release related reports and information. See attached list of issues.

• Are issues better phrased so as to be more objective? • Are there other issues that should be addressed? • Is there a sequence of issues that might be more

advantageous?

Item No.


o Business Outreach – see attached survey form Plan is to coordinate with the Chamber of Commerce to announce the

study, a Survey Monkey tool, and the MindMixer rollout. Follow-up will be a personal visit by the FMPO intern to drop off a

contact sheet, paper form and contact information. • Working Paper #1 – Existing Conditions Report

o Report is near complete, pending travel time data from N.A.U. N.A.U. is nearing completion of isolating single M.A.C. addresses through all of the stations on the alternate routes. Time from these “floating cars” will be used to validate the software’s “sum of the average segment times” methodology.

• Economic Analysis – NAU, a sub-contractor to HDR, has completed a survey of 400 Phoenicians with known interests in winter recreation. The survey is exploring behaviors and preferences for different winter recreation experiences. It will be used in assessing latent demand for such experiences and as an indicator for the success of various strategies such as dispersed snow play sites.

• Peer Communities comparisons –Draft is attached for discussion purposes. Final version will be included in Working Paper #4: Solution Identification and Criteria Setting. Bend, OR and Tahoe, CA are two of the cities that have been investigated.

• Model Update – The network has been updated. The 2010 assessors data has been converted to model land uses and is undergoing quality control. A successful initial run is completed and calibration efforts will commence soon.

• Next Steps – o Mindmixer launch - August o Business interviews - August o Base Model calibration – August o Winter model construction - September o Alternatives evaluation – September/October

Community Involvement: • See above Fiscal Impact This a $130,000 study, primarily funded through ADOT. Costs and funding partners

associated with potential solutions will be identified through the study. Attachments/Exhibits: US 180 Winter Congestion Study :

o Public Involvement Plan o Business Interview Questions o Business Interview Fact Sheet o MindMixer Prospective Issues List o Draft Peer Communities Comparison o US 180 Schedule


DRAFT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN US 180 WINTER CONGESTION MITIGATION STUDY

Prepared for:

Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization

Prepared by:

HDR Engineering, Inc.

July 27, 2011


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Project Background .............................................................................................................................. 1

Study team ................................................................................................................................................ 1

Project Technical Overview .................................................................................................................. 1

Project Goals ....................................................................................................................................... 2

Public Involvement Program Overview ................................................................................................ 2

Winter Recreation Task Force .................................................................................................................. 3

Communication Goals .......................................................................................................................... 3

Principles Guiding Public Interaction .................................................................................................... 4

Project Stakeholders ............................................................................................................................ 4

Agency and Elected Officials Public Meetings ........................................................................................... 5

Public Involvement Program Elements ................................................................................................. 6

Technical Advisory Committee .................................................................................................................. 6

MindMixer ................................................................................................................................................. 7

Public Meeting ........................................................................................................................................... 8

Fact sheets and Webpage ......................................................................................................................... 8

Media Strategy .......................................................................................................................................... 9

On-line Outreach ....................................................................................................................................... 9

Individual Interviews ................................................................................................................................. 9

Responses to Public Inquiries .................................................................................................................... 9

Program Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 10


PROJECT BACKGROUND

The City of Flagstaff is located approximately 2.5 hours north of Phoenix, Arizona and has several snow play areas in its vicinity. The ski area located north of Flagstaff on US 180 attracts up to 300,000 skiers per year. In recent years, spontaneous snow play has increased within the US 180 corridor, overloading the capacity of the corridor intersections and creating operational and safety concerns. Travel times between the Arizona Snowbowl and downtown Flagstaff has been reported to be up to five hours on peak weekends. The Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization (FMPO) is conducting a planning level feasibility study to identify solutions to peak winter activity congestion on US 180.

STUDY TEAM

Name Organization Telephone Email

Dave Wessel Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization

928-226-4841 [email protected]

Cheryl Cothran

AHRRC, Center for Business Outreach, Northern Arizona University

928-523-2132 [email protected]

Michael Gorton

HDR Engineering, Inc. 602-474-3916 [email protected]

Heather Honsberger

HDR Engineering, Inc. 602-522-4346 [email protected]

Regularly scheduled coordination will provide the forum for an ongoing information exchange, consideration of choices, planning for the meetings, and ongoing decisions that enable the project to move forward.

PROJECT TECHNICAL OVERVIEW

In order to evaluate the current conditions and potential solutions, many of the tasks undertaken by the study team will involve agency and stakeholder participation. The major project tasks include:

1. Data Collection of Existing Conditions

2. Problem Identification and Needs Analysis

3. Evaluation of Economic Impacts and Potential of Winter Activity

4. Solution Identification and Criteria Setting

5. Alternatives Development and Evaluation

6. Public Involvement

7. Recommendations and Final Report


PROJECT GOALS

The general project goal is to identify cost-effective means of addressing congestion in the US 180 Corridor, while considering public safety, convenience, and economic impacts. Preliminary alternatives to be examined include public or private transit, traveler information, signal timing plans, and capital improvements. Specific goals include:

• Addressing congestion and level of service for snow play areas during peak winter recreation activity

• Improving emergency service access to recreation areas during periods of heavy congestion

• Maintaining acceptable levels of service for the local community

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW

The overall intent of the public involvement program is to inform the community about the US 180 Winter Congestion Mitigation Study, involve the community in the identification and development of potential alternatives, and obtain public input and evaluation of proposed congestion mitigation measures. The public involvement program, described herein, is intended to be a comprehensive approach to informing and educating both public and agency representatives. The Public Involvement Plan (PIP) establishes general guidelines for messaging and notification, public meetings, and solicitation of comments and input. The PIP is subject to revision and update as necessary.

The study team’s objective is to identify the public’s experience and expectations for congestion management in the US 180 corridor and understand community and stakeholder values and priorities. This understanding will ensure that proposed improvements reflect both technical recommendations and community values.

Information about the US 180 Winter Congestion Mitigation Study and planning process will be available to the public in a variety of forms. Initial public outreach and advertisement about the project will be conducted by MindMixer, a project partner that will provide a virtual town hall forum to enhance stakeholder participation. In addition to the MindMixer site (discussed in more detail below), project information and materials will be available at the public meeting and community locations, targeted media coverage, existing available social media accounts, and via e-newsletters.

A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) composed of agency representatives from the Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization and Northern Arizona Winter Recreation Task Force will provide guidance and input to the study team.


WINTER RECREATION TASK FORCE

The Northern Arizona Winter Recreation Task Force (WRTF) includes the following organizations:

Organization

Arizona Department of Transportation

Arizona Department of Public Safety

Arizona Snowbowl

City of Flagstaff

Coconino County

Flagstaff Convention and Visitors Bureau


Flagstaff Nordic Center

Recreation Resource Management

U.S. Forest Service

The study team seeks to include all interested groups into the public process. Activities to promote the meaningful inclusion of minorities and low-income population groups in the public process will be used during public outreach. The public meeting will be held for a period of time that may accommodate different working shifts that might hinder participation. Meetings will be held in locations that are convenient to low and moderate income neighborhoods and accessible to disabled populations, such as community centers, senior centers, and schools.

COMMUNICATION GOALS

The intent of the public involvement program is to establish a comprehensive communication network to ensure that study information is easily accessible to agencies, the public, and interested stakeholders. The following communication goals have been established to meet the objectives of the public involvement program:

• Create interest in the US 180 Winter Congestion Mitigation Study process • Establish and maintain productive partnerships with individuals, agency representatives,

organizations, and other stakeholder interests • Actively engage stakeholder groups in the process to provide guidance, generate ideas,

communicate about the process to their communities, agencies, and interest groups • Direct information to the public and media through a variety of methods • Incorporate a record of public recommendations into the decision-making process


PRINCIPLES GUIDING PUBLIC INTERACTION

Four principles will guide the development and implementation of the information gathering, community involvement, and public information components:

• Build on existing partnerships and communication networks • Develop, distribute and display user-friendly and community-appropriate information • Coordinate closely with local jurisdictions, organizations, and user groups • Respond in a timely manner to questions and concerns

PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS

Reaching out to key stakeholders will help the study team better understand the current transportation issues and needs of the Flagstaff US 180 Corridor. Together with the FMPO Technical Advisory Committee and the WRTF, the study team identified four general stakeholder groups for this project that will be targeted to receive information and education early in the planning process in order to involve them at critical stages for public input.

General categories of stakeholders include:

1. Government Representatives and Agencies • Arizona Department of Transportation • City of Flagstaff (police, planning, public works, and community development) • Coconino County (sheriff, planning, public works, and community development) • Elected officials • Flagstaff Public Transit - Mountain Line • FMPO • U.S. Forest Service •

2. Local businesses

The following businesses are either located on or near US 180 or provide transportation services in the US 180 corridor.

• A Friendly Cab • Anytime Shuttle • Apex Taxi • Arizona Shuttle • Arizona Snowbowl • Flagstaff Medical Center • Flagstaff Nordic Center • Fort Valley Plaza • Guardian Ambulance • Recreation Resource Management (Wing Mountain)


• Sun Taxi • The Nature Conservancy

3. Neighborhood Organizations, Community Organizations, and Interest Groups

Initial public outreach strategies identified in the MindMixer Marketing and Outreach Plan will include the following organizations:

• Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce • Flagstaff Convention and Visitors Bureau • Flagstaff Hiking Club • Flagstaff Ski Club • • Fort Valley/Highway 180 Corridor Planning Committee • Neighborhood Associations

o Noho o La Plaza Vieja

• Northern Arizona Winter Recreation Task Force • Phoenix Ski Club • • Senior citizen groups • Service clubs (Rotary, Kiwanis, Lion’s Club)

4. Citizens-at-Large

• Community members • • Commuters • NAU students, staff, and faculty • Recreational travelers

Additional stakeholders will be identified throughout the public process and will be added to the stakeholder list and e-newsletter list.

AGENCY AND ELECTED OFFICIALS PUBLIC MEETINGS

The participation of agency and elected officials is crucial to the success of the project. Participation will be achieved primarily by means of a technical advisory committee (TAC), resource and regulatory agency meetings, and participation on the MindMixer site.


PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM ELEMENTS

The public involvement program is expected to begin in August 2011 and conclude in November 2011. The outreach schedule includes two phases: Solution Development and Criteria Setting and Solution Evaluation. A brief schedule overview follows, with a detailed discussion of each element discussed below.

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The TAC will be composed of representatives from the FMPO, the Northern Arizona Winter Activity Task Force, and representatives directly involved in the project. Members of the TAC will also be asked to provide information from their meetings to others. This will be accomplished through individual, ongoing conversations as well as through the public meetings.

The TAC will be tasked with the responsibility of providing direction to the study team. The TAC will be briefed on the project progress, provided with technical, policy and community information, and be asked to provide advice and recommendations on peer community research, solutions for evaluation, and alternatives to present to the public.

The study team will meet with the TAC twice during the public process, once during the rollout of MindMixer, and once before the public meeting.

July

•Individual interviews

August

•MindMixer rollout, including media strategy, and on-line outreach•TAC meeting•Project webpage•Fact sheets

September

•Public surveys•Open discussion on MindMixer

October

•Presentation of recommended solutions on MindMixer•Open discussion on MindMixer

•TAC meeting

November

•Public meeting•Open discussion on recommended solutions on MindMixer


MINDMIXER

MindMixer [www.mindmixer.com] has been used effectively as a tool for both initial idea generation and idea prioritization. Many times, citizens are more apt to participate in the prioritization of concepts if they have also been involved in the development of those concepts. MindMixer can be used as a high-level idea generation platform for citizens to submit ideas about any number of topics beginning at project kick-off. These ideas can then be the seeds for the consultant-driven concepts or implementation strategies, which in turn can then be prioritized by the same citizens. This model completes the participation circle for citizens; "I provided my ideas, my ideas were incorporated into the possible solutions, and I helped prioritize the solutions." This level of active participation, from beginning to end, leads to deeper engagement and better support as the project moves to implementation. This participation model has been used very effectively in several cities across the country.

In order to maximize participation in the public process, the study team will collaborate with MindMixer to create a virtual town hall that is available at any time for stakeholders to access. This approach to the public participation process will provide the basis for the community to define measures of success for the project, generate and communicate potential solutions to congestion management, and help to rank identified potential solutions.

MindMixer will be implemented in two phases.

PHASE ONE – AUGUST/SEPTEMBER

ROLLOUT: The MindMixer rollout will begin in August 2011, when students are returning to Northern Arizona University, and leading up to the winter snow play season. Rollout includes choosing a URL, designing and launching the site, and site marketing and outreach.

DISCUSSION: The MindMixer site will be live for August and the beginning of September with specific discussion questions posted. Questions will center on the measures of success, vision for the corridor, and creative solutions for congestion management. During this time, members of the study team will engage in active dialogue on the MindMixer site to moderate comments and respond as appropriate. For example, if a suggestion that would violate any laws or is technically infeasible is posted, the study team can answer and address the issue immediately.


http://www.mindmixer.com/�

The site will go static in mid-September to allow time for the study team to digest the input received and consider suggestions during the development of alternatives.

PHASE TWO – OCTOBER/NOVEMBER OPEN DISCUSSION ON RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS: The site will go live again in mid-October with the presentation of the solutions that have been developed with thoughtful consideration of public input. Participants will be asked to comment on proposed solutions, offer suggestions for improvement, and rank them in order of preference.

PUBLIC MEETING

A traditional public meeting/workshop will be held in early November. The MindMixer site will publicize the meeting and encourage attendance by stakeholders. The study team will provide acknowledgement of what has been heard at the MindMixer site and show how that input has been integrated into the recommended solution. The MindMixer site will remain live and open for comment and discussion until the end of November. One external project meeting is planned to coincide with Phase Two of the MindMixer implementation. The meeting will include a presentation and open house setting. The recommended solution developed as a result of public input will be presented. Attendees will be invited to provide comments at exhibit stations, computer stations, and during a Q&A session. Several methods for gathering community input will be used, including annotation of base maps, written comments, and a survey utilizing a rating system for solutions. A summary of public comment will be considered by the study team in developing the final report.

FACT SHEETS AND WEBPAGE

Notice of public meetings and information on the study purpose, membership, and activities of the TAC will also be included on the MindMixer site and updated at project milestones. Project updates will also be provided to the FMPO, NAU, and Flagstaff Convention and Visitors Bureau for inclusion on their respective websites.

Fact sheets may also be used as the basis for a poster series that can be exhibited at community locations such as city halls, libraries, local events, and community centers. This information will be updated as the project progresses to reflect the community responses to each phase of the project.

An initial package of information will be developed in preparation for the TAC meeting. The information will serve as a basis for creating a fact sheet.


MEDIA STRATEGY

The project team will work with the FMPO and MindMixer to engage the media in order to proactively communicate a uniform message about the study and generate interest in participation.

Prior to the public meeting, FMPO will publish a newspaper display advertisement in the Arizona Daily Sun informing readers of the opportunity to attend and provide comments on the project via MindMixer. Press releases will be drafted by the HDR team and issued by the FMPO to newspapers, television, and area radio stations (to reach targeted population) prior to public meetings. Press attendance will be encouraged to provide coverage of the stakeholder meetings.

ON-LINE OUTREACH

In addition to traditional media, e-mail and existing social media outlets will be utilized to communicate information about the project and drive traffic to the project webpage. The on-line outreach will be integrated with MindMixer.

E-newsletters will be developed prior to the public meeting and after the final report has been approved. The e-newsletters will provide information on upcoming events, study progress, public input, and future steps, while demonstrating how public input is being incorporated into alternatives development. The e-newsletter will be distributed to the e-list/interested parties list, and posted on the MindMixer site.

Facebook and Twitter are social media options that can be used to create interest in the project, disseminate information, and provide forums for feedback and discussion.

Information regarding the project can be posted and shared through the City’s Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/FlagstaffArizona) and linked to other organization’s pages throughout Flagstaff.

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS

In addition to raising awareness, select members of the stakeholder groups will be interviewed for more in-depth input and dialogue. HDR will work with FMPO staff and intern to help conduct interviews with the business community and other stakeholders.

RESPONSES TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES

Public inquiries are likely to be received by a variety of means, including public meeting comment forms, letters, e-mails, phone calls, and personal contacts with the public. All project-related comments and questions will be responded to by the appropriate study team member within a timely manner. The FMPO will serve as the point of public contact. It will document comments and responses in a central database that will be accessible to the study team as necessary. A list of frequently asked questions will be developed and included on MindMixer and distributed at public meetings.


http://www.facebook.com/FlagstaffArizona�

PROGRAM MONITORING

This PIP will be reviewed periodically during the project to ensure all elements of the plan are working effectively to engage the target audiences. Reviews will take place after each public meeting, and the plan will be adjusted based on information received at the meetings.


Business Interview Questions Thank you for your interest in the U.S. 180 Winter Traffic Congestion Mitigation Study. Taking the time to provide your answers is greatly appreciated and will help the study team develop implementable solutions to easing the winter traffic problem. Please mail the completed form to: U.S. 180 Winter Traffic Study c/o Michael Gorton, 3200 E. Camelback Road, Suite 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018 or send an email to [email protected]. You can also submit your answers online at: [insert surveymonkey link here] Comments should be submitted by August X, 2011. Name: ________________________________________________________ Business/Organization: ___________________________________________ Telephone: ____________________________________________________ Email: ________________________________________________________ 1. How does winter recreation activity impact your business or livelihood? 2. How is this better or worse during the busiest winter holiday weekends?


3. What if any, are the specific actions your business takes to take advantage of (or minimize the

impacts from) winter traffic?

4. What is your own experience with the winter traffic congestion? For instance, are there places or times you avoid traveling?

5. What are your suggestions for solving the U.S. 180 winter traffic congestion problems?

1) ______________________________________________________________________

2) ______________________________________________________________________

3) ______________________________________________________________________ 6. How would you define whether a solution to the winter traffic congestion problem is

successful?

4) _____________________________________________________________________

5) _____________________________________________________________________

6) _____________________________________________________________________

7. Are there any other issues or topics related to winter traffic congestion that you would like to discuss?

Please contact Dave Wessel, FMPO Project Manager, with any questions or comments at 928-226-4841/[email protected] or Michael Gorton, HDR Project Manager at 602-474-3916/[email protected].


Insert MindMixer photo

(to be created by MindMixer)

Study Overview

Flagstaff enjoys a tourism boost after abundant snowfalls. The snow attracts visitors eager to ski, sled, and play outdoors. Unfortunately, the visitors that Flagstaff attracts also cause extreme winter traffic congestion along the U.S. 180, the primary route to the ski and snow play areas.

In response to the frustration felt by the local community including neighborhood groups, emergency responders, and area businesses, the Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization (FMPO) is undertaking a study to identify and evaluate solutions to Flagstaff’s winter congestion challenges. The study will recommend implementable immediate, mid-term, and long-term alternatives to ease the peak weekend winter traffic congestion.

Get Involved

FMPO and the study team are asking for your input regarding possible solutions to easing Flagstaff’s winter congestion. A virtual town hall web site will be launched on August X, 2011 that provides interested individuals the opportunity to submit practical, creative, and resourceful ideas. The virtual town hall is powered by MindMixer which allows the public to generate ideas, help others evolve their ideas, and ultimately support their favorite ones.

To submit your ideas and join in the conversation, go to: www.INSERTURLNAME.com

Schedule

For the months of August and September, FMPO and the study team will be seeking input from the public using MindMixer on the issues and opportunities associated with winter congestion, along with ideas of possible solutions. That input will be analyzed and from it, a series of recommendations on how to ease the winter traffic congestion will be drafted. Once drafted, the recommendations will be posted on MindMixer and a public meeting will be held in November 2011 to provide the public with the opportunity to comment on the proposed study

recommendations.

For More Information, Contact:

Dave Wessel Michael Gorton FMPO, Project Manager HDR Engineering, Inc., Project Manager Phone: 928.226.4841 Phone: 602.474.3916 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]


http://www.inserturlname.com/�



Draft Issues and Opportunities Map The below map illustrates some of the areas of concern and opportunities for mitigation of winter congestion issues. Go to www.INSERTURLNAME.com, send an email, or give us a call and tell us what you think are the issues and opportunities associated with Flagstaff’s winter congestion.


http://www.inserturlname.com/�

MINDMIXER URL IDEAS

• www.FlagstaffSnowlutions.com

• www.US180Snowlutions.com

• www.WinterOnThe180.com

• www.WinterTrafficOnThe180.com

• www.SnowPlayTrafficDelay.com

• www.FlagstaffWinterTrafficStudy.com

• www.FlagstaffSnowboundTraffic.com

• www.US180WinterTrafficStudy.com

TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION ON MINDMIXER

Topic Introduction: Flagstaff has a tourism-dependent economy and the tourism industry is the largest private sector employer. Flagstaff has long been Arizona’s primary destination for winter recreation. In 2010, a study was completed [insert link to study here] which found that visitors coming to Flagstaff for snow play contributed a total annual economic impact to Flagstaff of $16 million. But many have suggested that these economic benefits must be balanced against the severe traffic congestion that can occur on Highway 180 on holidays and weekends from snow play visitors.

Economic Development

Topic Discussion Questions: How does the winter recreation activity impact your business or livelihood? Do you feel that winter recreation visitors help or hinder economic development? How could Flagstaff capitalize on the increased traffic generated by winter recreational visitors?

Topic Introduction: Flagstaff snow play visitors can cause extreme winter traffic congestion along the U.S. 180, the primary route to the ski and snow play areas. On the six to eight holiday weekend evenings each year, the ski areas and snow play areas result in queues of southbound traffic, leaving travel to a virtual standstill on numerous arterial roads. Residents in neighborhoods along U.S. 180 have stated they make plans to stay home during this peak period. Also, when talking with emergency responders, such as police, fire, and ambulance services, about winter traffic congestion they stated they are concerned about longer emergency response times in traffic.

Community Impacts

Topic Discussion Questions: Do you think that the winter traffic congestion caused by winter recreation activity is a big issue? If you live in Flagstaff, do you change your normal driving habits because of the winter traffic? Are there places or times you avoid traveling? If yes, what do you avoid and during what times?


http://www.flagstaffsnowlutions.com/�

http://www.us180snowlutions.com/�

http://www.winteronthe180.com/�

http://www.wintertrafficonthe180.com/�

http://www.snowplaytrafficdelay.com/�

http://www.flagstaffwintertrafficstudy.com/�

http://www.flagstaffsnowboundtraffic.com/�

http://www.us180wintertrafficstudy.com/�

Topic Introduction: Flagstaff snowfall attracts visitors eager to ski, sled, and play outdoors. A 2010 study [insert link to study] found that Flagstaff snow play visitors are almost entirely from out-of-town (96%) and the majority (55%) stay overnight in Flagstaff. Though most visitors state they are highly satisfied with their snow play experience, business and resort operators worry that the delays from the extreme congestion will discourage repeat ski and snow play visitors and will have a long-term impact on the Flagstaff tourist economy.

Visitor Experience

Topic Discussion Questions: Where do you go to experience snow play in and around Flagstaff? How do you get there? Did you encounter heavy traffic congestion and if so, did it discourage you from returning to Flagstaff? Did you visit any other local area attractions, and if no, was the traffic congestion a factor in this decision?

Topic Introduction: Over the years numerous solutions have been suggested by the community to ease winter traffic congestion. Possible solutions that have been mentioned are: providing transit and shuttle services, having two inbound lanes on U.S. 180 during the peak period using a managed lane or shoulder, or building an A-1 Mountain bypass.

Traffic Solutions

Topic Discussion Questions: What are your suggestions for solving the winter traffic congestion problem on U.S. 180? What ideas do you think could work? What suggestions do you think would not work and why?

OTHER MINDMIXER WEB SITE EXAMPLES

• http://www.go2030townhall.com Fargo, North Dakota: Comprehensive Plan Update

• http://www.joplintownhall.com/ Joplin, Missouri: Joplin Area Moving Forward


http://www.go2030townhall.com/�

http://www.joplintownhall.com/�


U.S. 180 Winter Traffic Congestion Mitigation Study

Peer Communities Best Practices

Draft 1

Prepared by: HDR Engineering, Inc.


July 27, 2011


This page intentionally left blank.


Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 12.0 Bend, Oregon .................................................................................................................. 1

2.1 Approach ....................................................................................................................................... 1

2.2 Travel Patterns .............................................................................................................................. 1

2.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 2

3.0 Lake Tahoe, California/Nevada .................................................................................... 23.1 Approach ....................................................................................................................................... 3

3.2 Travel Patterns .............................................................................................................................. 3

3.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 4

List of Figures Figure 1: Tahoe Background Map………………………………………………………………………………6


This page intentionally left blank.


1.0 Introduction Other winter recreation areas experience congestion like that on U.S. 180 in Flagstaff with similar causes that include geography, proximity to urban areas, and relatively few access points. Much can be learned from the various approaches used to improve access to and circulation in these areas, such as increasing vehicle capacity, implementing shuttle/transit services, and improving multimodal connections. The following are descriptions of some best practices used in the mountain communities of Bend, Oregon and Lake Tahoe, California/Nevada.

This information is being provided, by itself, for discussion purposes. It will ultimately be incorporated into Working Paper #4: Solution Identification and Criteria Setting.

2.0 Bend, Oregon The City of Bend, Oregon has been identified as a peer city for the Flagstaff U.S. 180 Winter Congestion Study. Bend is very similar to Flagstaff in terms of size, climate, and the ski area’s proximity to town. The Mt. Bachelor ski area is connected to Bend via Cascade Lakes Highway (State Highway 372), which is primarily a two-lane highway similar to US 180.

HDR contacted the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the City of Bend regarding winter traffic congestion on Cascade Lakes Highway. HDR spoke with the following individuals:

• Rick Williams, ODOT Assistant District Manager, (541) 388-6458; • Bill Hilton, ODOT, (541) 388-6054 • Robin Lewis, City of Bend Traffic Engineer, (541) 330-4025

The following is a summary of findings based on conversations with ODOT and the City of Bend.

2.1 Approach Bend’s approach has been to avoid roadway widening and instead optimize the existing roadway network. Bend has installed roundabouts instead of traffic signals at major intersections. These roundabouts have better operational efficiency than traffic signals during peak directional flow. They have also allowed the existing roadway network to handle peak traffic without roadway widening.

2.2 Travel Patterns Bend experiences less winter congestion compared to Flagstaff despite similar physical characteristics. The reasons for this are as follows:


• A large percentage of the skiers at Mt. Bachelor are locals and do not ski full days, especially on weekends. This means that the trip patterns associated with these users are spread out more evenly throughout the day. Flagstaff experiences a similar situation but the percentage of local skiers at Arizona Snowbowl is probably smaller than at Mt. Bachelor.

• Bend is approximately 4 hours from Portland, whereas Flagstaff is 2 hours from

Phoenix. The longer distance to Bend reduces the number of day trips from Portland and thereby decreases the amount of winter traffic on Cascade Lakes Highway.

• Bend’s snow play areas are located within the city and not on areas adjacent to Cascade Lakes Highway. According to ODOT, there is minimal snow play traffic on Cascade Lakes Highways, even on peak weekends.

• Mt. Bachelor is also served by Sunriver. According to ODOT, approximately one quarter of the traffic from Mt. Bachelor splits to go to Sunriver before Bend.

• Bend has a larger roadway network through which to disperse traffic. According to ODOT, approximately half the traffic going from Mt. Bachelor (after the turn-off to Sunriver) splits at the first roundabout (Mt. Washington Drive) to go to either side of the Deschutes River.

2.3 Recommendations The following are recommendations for winter congestion mitigation based on conversations with ODOT and the City of Bend.

• Encourage skiers to skiers to arrive/depart at different times. This can be accomplished through a change in hours of operation, pricing, etc.

• Identify snow play areas in corridors separate from the ski area. • Size roundabouts accordingly. While successful, many of the roundabouts in

Bend are too small and can be difficult for large vehicles to navigate in winter months.

3.0 Lake Tahoe, California/Nevada Lake Tahoe, and more specifically the Tahoe Basin, has also been identified as a peer city for the Flagstaff US 180 Winter Congestion Study. The Tahoe Basin is a very large area with a concentration of ski resorts on both the north and south shores of Lake Tahoe. The north shore includes the “resort triangle” while the south shore includes a major ski resort next to the City of South Lake Tahoe. The north and south shores are connected by highways on either side of the lake, although Highway 89 on the west shore is closed for major intervals during the winter months because of steep grades, sharp turns, and snow. While the physical characteristics and scale of Lake Tahoe are very different than Flagstaff, there are lessons learned that are applicable because of the peak winter congestion that occurs. Further background information on Lake Tahoe is shown in Figure 1.


HDR contacted the Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) regarding winter traffic congestion in the Tahoe Basin. HDR spoke with the following individual:

• Alfred Knotts, Tahoe Transportation District, (775) 589-5503 The following is a summary of findings based on conversations with TTD.

3.1 Approach The Tahoe Basin is protected by the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact, which is a Federal statute that requires transportation alternatives be developed without expanding the roadway network in sensitive areas (such as Highway 89 on the west shore). Therefore, TTD’s approach has been to optimize the existing roadway network and provide transit and shuttle ser vices. Transit service includes fixed route transit service as well as the development of a passenger ferry alternative between the north and south shore. This transit service is supplemented by ski shuttle service to and from all of the major ski resorts.

South Lake Tahoe has the highest concentration of population and employment and US 50 is characterized by peak winter congestion. TTD is planning a US 50 bypass that will provide and an alternate route around South Lake Tahoe, where much of the existing congestion exists. This idea of a bypass is unique to the south shore and is not applicable to other areas of the Tahoe Basin because of physical characteristics and environmental concerns.

3.2 Travel Patterns There are four primary travel markets in the Tahoe Basin:

• Internal North Shore: This includes the unincorporated communities of Tahoma, Homewood, Tahoe City, Kings Beach, Crystal Bay, and Incline Village, among others, and the town of Truckee.

• Internal South Shore: This includes the incorporated City of South Lake Tahoe and the unincorporated communities of Stateline, Nevada, and Meyers, CA.

• North Shore to South Shore: This includes connections via Highways 28 and 89 or waterborne transit.

• To/from Tahoe Basin: This includes connections to/from points outside the Tahoe Basin, including Reno, Carson City, Sacramento, and the Bay Area.

A recent Travel Mode Survey says that approximately 122,750 daily trips are made in the Tahoe Basin. Of this amount, approximately 99,100 daily trips (81%) are made by full time residents, with the remaining 23,650 daily trips (19%) made by visitors. Approximately 20,500 (17%) of all daily trips are made between the north and south shore. Over 90% of overnight trips into the Tahoe Basin are made by private automobile.


3.3 Recommendations The following are recommendations for winter congestion mitigation based on conversations with TTD.

• Similar to Flagstaff, most overnight visitors to the Tahoe Basin arrive by automobile. However, there is an opportunity for many users to “park once”, and use shuttle services to access ski areas and other destination. This is especially relevant in the resort triangle on the north shore and in South Lake Tahoe, where there is a high concentration of hotels and other accommodations.

• Partner with ski areas and private snow play areas to develop and coordinate private shuttle services. These facility owners/operators know their user preferences the best and can coordinate shuttle services with overnight hotel packages, etc.


Figure 1: Tahoe Background Map


§

∆

∆

∆

∆∏

∆∏ ∑

%

#∞

$

$

$

Work Product Public Involvement§ Refined Work Plan ∏ Technical Advisory Committee Meeting% Public Involvement Plan ∑ Public Meeting∆ Working Paper ∞ November 2011 Presentation to Winter Activity Task Force# Final Report and Executive Summary $ Technical Memorandum

July 27, 2011October

FMPO Model Update: Task 3 Model Calibration / Validation

Key

FMPO Model Update: Task 4 TransCAD Model Updates

Task 1: Data Collection / Existing Conditions

Task 0: Refine Work Plan

FMPO Model Update: Task 1 Land Use Update

FMPO Model Update: Task 2 Update Network, Bike, Ped,

Flagstaff US 180 Winter Congestion Mitigation Study and FMPO Model UpdateApril MayMonths June

Task 7: Recommendations / Final Report

Task 2: Problem Identification / Needs Analysis

Task 3: Economic Impacts / Potential of Winter Activity

Task 4: Solution Identification / Criteria Setting

Task 5: Alternatives Development / Evaluation

Task 6: Public Involvement Plan

Completed

November December

Completed

Completed

July August September

Pending travel time and TDM data

Expected August 12

Expected August 12

Expected August 12

Expected end of September

Expected end of August


AUGUST 2011 S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31

Office: 100 W. Birch Avenue Mail: 211 W. Aspen Ave Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Phone: 928-226-4849 Fax: 928-213-4825 Website: www.flagstaffmpo.org Email: [email protected]

2011 CALENDAR

Important Dates Annual UPWP Approval Process May 2011 Annual TIP Approval Process June 2011 Annual MPO Dinner 5/19/11 & ASTB Flagstaff Mtg 5/20/11 Annual FMPO Retreat Tentative 9/28/11 Note: November & December, 2011 Executive Board Meetings may be combined due to the Holidays—Date TBD


JANUARY 2011 S M T W T F S

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31

FEBRUARY 2011 S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28

MARCH 2011 S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31

APRIL 2011 S M T W T F S

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28 29 30

MAY 2011 S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31

JUNE 2011 S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30

SEPTEMBER 2011 S M T W T F S

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30

JULY 2011 S M T W T F S

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28 29 30

31

OCTOBER 2011 S M T W T F S

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31

NOVEMBER 2011 S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30

DECEMBER 2011 S M T W T F S

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30 31

TAC Management Committee Executive Board Holiday

c

c c

c c





Action Summary Executive Board

8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 22, 2011 _____________________________________________________________

Flagstaff City Hall Staff Conference Room, 211 W. Aspen Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Chair Overton called the meeting to order at 8:01 a.m. Roll Call. Present: Chair Scott Overton, Councilmember City of Flagstaff; Vice Chair Hank Rogers, Arizona Department of Transportation (telephonically); Matt Ryan, Supervisor Coconino County; Carl Taylor, Supervisor Coconino County; Art Babbott, Councilmember City of Flagstaff Excused Absent: Coral Evans, Councilmember City of Flagstaff Others Present: David Wessel, FMPO Manager; Meg Roederer, FMPO Administrative Specialist; Jim Cronk, City of Flagstaff Planning Director; Chris Bridges, CYMPO I. PRELIMINARY GENERAL BUSINESS

A. PUBLIC COMMENT None

B. ANNOUNCEMENTS

None

C. APPROVAL of MINUTES. Mr. Taylor noted Ms. Evans was listed twice under excused absent. Mr. Ryan made a motion to approve the Special Meeting Minutes of May 16, 2011 with the correction to the attendance and Mr. Babbott seconded, which passed unanimously.

II. EXECUTIVE SESSION Chair Overton adjourned the meeting for Executive Session at 8:03 a.m. for the FMPO Manager Personnel review. Chair Overton called the regular Executive Board meeting to order at 9:04 am. Chair Overton made a motion to recommend Mr. Wessel’s evaluation “as-is” with minor revisions and Board review for submittal to the City Human Resources Department with a supporting signature from Chair Overton and Mr. Babbott seconded, which passed unanimously.

III. OLD BUSINESS (Continued, postponed, and tabled items.)

1. Legislative and Regulatory Update and Review Mr. Wessel provided a legislative and regulatory update to the Board and introduced Mr. Chris Bridges of CYMPO. Mr. Bridges commented on the activities at CYMPO as well as provided


legislative input. There was discussion only.

IV. NEW BUSINESS (Continued, postponed, and tabled items.) 1. FMPO FY 2011-2015 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment

Chair Overton adjusted the agenda to discuss action items next after Old Business: Legislative and Regulatory update and review. Mr. Wessel explained the TIP amendments. Mr. Babbott made a motion to approve the TIP Amendments for the NAIPTA transit table to include new section 5307 and surface transportation program flex funds and Mr. Taylor seconded, which passed unanimously.

2. FMPO FY 2012-2016 Transportation Improvement Program

Mr. Wessel provided an overview of the draft FY2012 – 2016 TIP as recommended by the TAC. Mr. Ryan made a motion to approve the FMPO FY2012-2016 TIP with the condition of changing the Baderville references to the term Ft. Valley and to insert additional narrative to tie tables back to the Regional Transportation Plan. Mr. Babbott seconded, which passed unanimously. There was a also a discussion of Board interest in revisiting the design portion of the Lone Tree T-I in the I-40 DCR regarding cost-benefit, safety and implications for development.

3. Steves/Fanning Railroad Crossing Closure Study

Mr. Wessel explained the findings from this study and received Board comment and discussion. Mr. Taylor made a motion to validate and support the staff and TAC findings of the study and Mr. Ryan seconded, which passed unanimously.

V. OLD BUSINESS

2. NAIPTA/FMPO Merger Assessment Chair Overton adjusted the agenda to discuss Old Business: Item 2 NAIPTA/FMPO Merger and Old Business: Item 3 Corridor Coalitions: Action Plan following New Business Item 3: Steves/Fanning Railroad Closure Study. Mr. Wessel explained the NAIPTA/FMPO Merger is not advised at this time but there are efficiencies that can occur such as a heightened strategic focus, shared staff, FMPO move to NAIPTA building or merge administratively. Mr. Taylor stated Supervisor Fowler has allocated $10,000 of community initiative money to transit service in Page to pursue moving people from the reservation to Flagstaff and recommended formal conversations on a regional approach to bus service. There was discussion only.

3. Corridor Coalitions: Action Plan

Mr. Wessel briefly discussed the PowerPoint agenda slide six with the Board. There was discussion only.

VI. NEW BUSINESS (Continued, postponed, and tabled items.)

4. FMPO Calendar Chair Overton requested an agenda item on moving Executive Board meetings to a new day and time to better accommodate Board member schedules. Mr. Rogers suggested the third Thursday of each month. Mr. Wessel stated the July 27, 2011 meeting will probably be canceled. Chair Overton stated he is unavailable in July. Mr. Taylor stated he will be unavailable for the August meeting. Ms. Roederer stated rotation of officers as an upcoming agenda item and will be sending out a save the date email for the FMPO retreat currently scheduled for Wednesday, September 28, 2011. Mr. Taylor mentioned there may be conflict for the County Board members on the September 28 retreat date. There was discussion only.

VII. CONCLUDING GENERAL BUSINESS


D. REPORTS There was no discussion.

E. ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements.

ADJOURNMENT

Chair Overton adjourned the meeting at 10:03 a.m.


Memorandum – Staff Reports Date: July 25, 2011 To: FMPO Technical Advisory Committee From: Martin Ince, Multi-Modal Planner David Wessel, FMPO Manager Re: Ongoing Transportation Projects

Federal Reauthorization Both the House and Senate have issued overviews of their respective legislation. Commonalities include: Expansion of the TIFFIA loan program, consolidation of more than 80 programs into 30 or fewer programs. Major differences:

Funding: House – 30% reduction tied to trust fund revenue. Senate – current funding supported by general fund and/or yet-to-be-named revenue sources.

Length: House – 6-year bill. Senate – 2-year bill, this creates less flexibility or predictability for programming, but holds open the option of better funding as the economy improves.

Control – House – more to the state DOT’s. Senate – more to the major metropolitan areas. This is a very general statement, so caution should be exercised in its interpretation.

I-40 Design Concept Report – the Initial DCR is released and available for review. http://www.azdot.gov/I40StudyFlagstaff/ I-17 Design Concept Report. Initial DCR and Environmental documents to be released for comment in the month of September. Critical path issue appears to be final Woods Canyon bridge design. Camp Navajo EUL – Initial contacts with Bostonia have been favorable regarding support for local involvement and taxes to support impacts on local services. Fourth Street North - Staff completed model runs and will be meeting with city traffic and vitality staff on May 26, 2011 to evaluate implications. Evaluation suggests that narrowing Fourth Street north of 7th Avenue will have the effect of increasing cut through traffic on some local streets. Traffic calming to restrict traffic to the arterial may push Fourth toward Level of Service D. Mountain Links BRT Design – Ribbon cutting schedule for August 18. Doney Park Planning Assistance to Rural Areas Study (PARA). Treatment of equestrian facilities has been a late breaking issues. Placing bikes and horses in close proximity is objectionable to equestrians. Placing the respective users on opposite sides is the recommended solution. Construction costs are also an issue. Solutions recommended are reducing trail widths from 10 feet to 8 feet, designated equestrian zones or realms with little surface treatment, creating wide shoulders for multi-purpose use in some areas. The latter treatment also benefits maintenance. FHWA Initiative - Every Day Counts

Staff has circulated information on “Safety Edge” and “Warm Mix Asphalt”

Work Program Update (also see table below) Data Collection: FY 11 counts and submittals complete. FY 12 not initiated. TIP: FY 11 adopted. FY 12 not initiated. Long Range Planning


o Regional Plan 2012 – Successful Charrette process to develop three scenarios completed. Work to commence with Kimley Horn on Community Viz analysis. Next steps – scenario selection and final scenario evaluation; drafting of the circulation element.

o State Long Range Transportation Plan - What Moves You Arizona – Final draft under review.

Special Projects o US 180 Congestion Study – Working paper #1 – Existing Conditions. Data collection near

complete. Qualtrix on-line survey to examine Phoenix population attitudes toward winter recreation complete and latent demand evaluation near complete. MindMixer under contract and web-site construction underway.

o Safety Program – Kimley Horn submitted information on the process, schedule and application form as well as compiled state and federal documentation useful to the process. Awaiting input from staff and TAC. Guidelines and programmatic advice are pending.

o Travel Time Study – NAU is concluding its evaluation of the software. Initial conclusions are that the data streams are very thin and that the software is not designed to handle such low and infrequent volumes. NAU completed one test of the equipment (capture rate within a closed segment of roadway) and is commencing antennae receptivity this week (did the units placed at Sullivan/Humphreys and Beaver/Elm pick up the same signal simultaneously). The programmer is nearly complete in his attempt to track a single address through every station to create the equivalent of a floating car to compare to the sum of segment averages travel time that the software produces. The number of cars completing the route are few and the validation has not been attempted.

Regional Planning o Juniper Point project work complete for time being. o Staff is facilitating delivery of several trails projects for this summer

Public Participation o Website is being maintained o Staff successfully worked within the Regional Plan 2012 effort to assure adequate public

participation efforts are implemented and is assisting with the scope of work for the public involvement consultant.

o Staff coordinated with ADOT on outreach for the state plan.


open space commission

Documents