Meeting Agenda

Columbia Area Transportation Study Organization (CATSO)

Coordinating Committee Meeting

December 6, 2018 - 2:30 pm

City Hall 701 E. Broadway Council Chambers

1. I. CALL TO ORDER MEMBERS PRESENT John Glascock, Chair, City of Columbia, Interim City Manager Mike Schupp, MoDOT Central District (for David Silvester) Jeff McCann, Boone County Thaddeus Yonke, Boone County, (for Presiding Commissioner Dan Atwill) Michelle Teel, MoDOT Multi-Modal Operations Tim Teddy, City of Columbia Community Development David Nichols, City of Columbia Public Works Mike Henderson, MoDOT Central Office MEMBERS ABSENT Brian Treece, City of Columbia Mayor Brad McMahon, Ex-Officio, Federal Highway Administration Daniel Nguyen, Ex-Officio, Federal Transit Administration ALSO PRESENT Mitch Skov
2. II. INTRODUCTIONS MR. GLASCOCK: Introductions. Mr. Schupp, would you lead off? MR. SCHUPP: Mike Schupp, MoDOT, representing Dave Silvester. MR. MCCANN: Jeff McCann, Boone County. MR. YONKE: Thad Yonke, here for Dan Atwell, Boone County. MS. TEEL: Michelle Teel, MoDOT. MR. GLASCOCK: John Glascock, City of Columbia. MR. TEDDY: Tim Teddy, City of Columbia. MR. NICHOLS: Dave Nichols, City of Columbia Public Works. MR. HENDERSON: Mike Henderson, MoDOT Central Office Transportation Planning.
3. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MR. GLASCOCK: I need an approval of agenda motion, please. MR. YONKE: Move to approve agenda. MS. TEEL: Second. MR. GLASCOCK: All of those in favor. (Unanimous voice vote of approval.) MR. GLASCOCK: All those of opposed? (No speakers.)
4. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MR. GLASCOCK: Approval of the minutes. MR. TEDDY: I’ll move that we approve the minutes. MR. MCCANN: Second. MR. GLASCOCK: All those in favor of approval of the minutes. (Unanimous voice vote of approval.) MR. GLASCOCK: All of those opposed. (No speakers.) MR. GLASCOCK: Approved.
5. DRAFT August 23, 2018 Meeting Minutes
   1. DRAFT CATSO Coordinating Committee Minutes 8-23-18
6. V. POTENTIAL REVISED SCHEDULE FOR 2050 LRTP COMPLETION MR. GLASCOCK: All right. Item 5, Potential Revised Schedule for the 2050 LRTP. Mr. Skov. MR. SKOV: Mr. Chairman, I think most of you are aware that Ms. Christian has resigned and taken another job within the City organization and is no longer on CATSO staff, so I’m the only person here. Given that resignation, we thought it appropriate to put a new schedule in place for the completion on the 2050 long-range transportation plan. We’re anticipating it will be spring when we will have a new employee in place, given the typical delays that we experience. So what is shown on the following few slides here is a draft revised schedule for the completion of that. We’d like to have some comments, if you have any, on this potential revision as far as anything you might believe would be appropriate as far as the timing. Once we get some kind of consensus or actually some kind of motion for approval for the revised schedule or whatever – whatever, again, comments you may have on it, we’ll send a letter to MoDOT or to One Dot specifically asking for their blessing on that schedule. I’m just going to go over it real quickly here. Task 1 is development of the financial plan. That’s pretty much largely all done at this point. The only thing that we’ll put a little more work into is potentially identifying some additional financing strategies for projects, but otherwise the other work on that is actually done. Just FYI, the inflation rate we’re using here is 3 percent annually. Task No. 2 is coordination for planning partners. We have moved that back somewhat, various things; street standards, major roadway plan, transit plan, the get about intra-structural working plan which, of course, is coming to an end now. That’s in the last stages that. The trail master plan for the City park and rec department, sidewalk master plan, the ADA sidewalk transition plan, the City of Columbia. Continuing on with Task No. 2, coordination, fast ec review, continually, which is sort of an ongoing thing which continues regarding performance measurements required by FHWA. University of Missouri master plan, the Columbia imagine comprehensive land use, et cetera. MoDOT’s long-range plan, strategic highway safety plan, otherwise, known as the blueprint, and vision zero, which, of course, is something that city of Columbia has adopted and is moving forward with. And then natural resources inventory and the public safety emergency operations plan of joint communications. Task 3 is basically just issues, goals and objectives, identifying the goals and objectives which seem to attract a lot of public interest. At – during the public meetings of the plan, basically soliciting public and stakeholder input, finalize the goals and objectives. We’re presuming that can happen this spring and actually publish a working draft of the plan in the spring. We’ll have a public meeting, at least one public presumably in April or May and potentially a follow-up one. I believe last time we did one just on goals and objectives alone. Task 4 is the implementation strategy for the plan. Development of a technical memorandum that responds to the goals and objectives public hearing and public comments received at that. Fast act compliance checklist, potentially some work sessions there. And then potentially – or we’re hopefully that the final adoption can actually occur at the August 22nd, 2019 CATSO coordinating committee meeting and public hearing at that meeting. Again, this is just a draft. It’s something we think is potentially reasonable, and maybe it’s too optimistic as far as the timing, but that’s the schedule I was intending to forward to One Dot and MoDOT with a letter asking for this basically extension on what would be our typical date, which would be the typical five-year date or the actual five year from the last year – last LRTP adoptions is February of 2019. MR. GLASCOCK: Any chance of federal funds being frozen since we don’t have it done? MR. SKOV: Well, in theory that could happen if our TIP doesn’t already contain the projects. So that’s our concern is that we couldn’t obligate federal funds, and there’s only one project I’m thinking of that potentially might be affected. MR. GLASCOCK: What’s that? MR SKOV: A project for which we’ve applied for TAP funds, additional alternative funds for Leslie Lane. That’s the one I would be – have some concern about. Potentially we could actually make that revision by February, I think, and it would still – that’s still going to be acceptable. MR. GLASCOCK: Mr. Teddy? MR. TEDDY: His last point was what I was going to say, was the remedy would be to get something into the TIP before the long-range plan completion deadline. But, yeah, the consequences are TIP is not going to be changed then until we get the long-range plan done once we pass that deadline date. MR. SKOV: Correct. Everything there, of course – everything that is already in it is fine, but any additional projects could be a concern, like that would use federal funds. MR. TEDDY: I have one other thing, and that’s there’s references to some city plans, such as the sidewalk master plan and the trails master plan. Those aren’t prerequisites to completing the long-range plan. Correct? MR. SKOV: No. MR. TEDDY: I mean, it’s more of a desire if there’s going to be any significance project that’s added to those, we’d like to include reference to it in the long-range plan. Would that be the case? MR. SKOV: Yes. MR. TEDDY: I was just thinking one way we could streamline is to not necessarily represent those things as things that have to be done as part of the long-range plan project schedule, because even the sidewalk master plan, updating it is a process, with public input and debate and discussion on the changes. So perhaps we just represent those things at items that would be cross referenced in the long-range plan, not necessarily steps towards the plan. MR. SKOV: No. I just meant what I intended to imply is coordination. MR. TEDDY: Coordination, okay. MR. SKOV: It’s not a presumption of being completed or updated prior or it’s part of the process for the LRTP. MR. TEDDY: Okay. So it was just clarification to folks that are reading this document that we’re not looking to complete updates to those things as part of this process. MR. GLASCOCK: Any other comments? (No speakers.) MR. GLASCOCK: I assume you need a motion for that? MR. SKOV: Please. MR. GLASCOCK: Entertain a motion to revise the schedule on the 2050 LRTP? MR. YONKE: I’ll move. MR. GLASCOCK: Second? MR. NICHOLS: Second. MR. GLASCOCK: Seconded. All of those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous voice vote of approval.) MR. GLASCOCK: All apposed? (No speakers.)
7. Potential Revised Schedule for 2050 LRTP Completion
   1. Item 5 Potential 2050 LRTP Schedule Revision
   2. Potential Revised CATSO 2050 LRTP DRAFT Timeline December 2018
8. VI. 2050 LRTP SURVEY RESULTS OVERVIEW MR. GLASCOCK: No. 6, 2050 LRTP survey results. MR. SKOV: I’m going to go to a different Power Point for this just to simply go over it very quickly. This is just – I just wanted to inform you of the results of the long-range transportation plan survey we did online. It was there for a number of weeks. I think we took it down in October. We did get 860 total respondents, which it’s actually – given what we’ve experienced in the past, is actually quite good we thought. Again, these are just sort of general responses here. As you might expect, the – as far as the work commutes here, 72 percent of the population commutes less than 10 miles to work. There’s 8 percent that it’s not applicable, presumably work at home or are retired. And then the rest there’s a much smaller percentage, 20 percent that would actually commute more than 10 miles to their work location. Primary motor transportation is what you would expect. 75 percent is driving alone with 6 percent carpooling, et cetera, and the next highest percentage was actually biking, as far as going to work. For non-work-related transportation, the percentage of people driving alone is even higher at 82 percent plus. Similar perspectives or percentages regarding carpooling or ride sharing and biking there. This is just sort of a subjective perception here, one being poor and four is excellent. Two is good and three is very good. So the majority of the people in the survey perceive the transportation system as being either good or very good. Smaller numbers at the fringes there. This can be a little confusing, as far as looking at it, but as far as rankings, the various transportation elements, the – you can see on left there the people who – the percentages that were the highest were people ranking trails and bicycle lanes, specifically trails really got a high score as being good or very good, 63 plus percent. Bike lanes next. Accessibility of roadways, et cetera, in the middle. And the small smallest, or I should say the one issue that wasn’t ranked as being good or very good, or at least a very small percentage, 8 percent, was traffic congestion. MR. GLASCOCK: What was the definition of traffic congestion – MR. SKOV: I don’t think there was one, Mr. Chairman. It’s just a general your experience for motor vehicle traffic. MR. GLASCOCK: The only place I thought that that happens is Stadium and I-70 and 63 and I-70. MR. SKOV: Agreed. MR. GLASCOCK: And it’s very short. MR. SKOV: It’s a very short peak hour, correct. Peak stacking issues at any intersection are pretty minimal, but that’s – MR. GLASCOCK: Sorry. MR. SKOV: Well, I’m – MR. GLASCOCK: Couldn’t believe it. MR. SKOV: Yeah, it is – it’s not what I would have expected. MR. GLASCOCK: No. MR. SKOV: And, of course, this is just sort of a related question, related to what was ranked highest in the previous slide. But the highest percentage of respondents, they maintain – maintenance of road conditions is the highest by far. At least, you know, not too far off 60 percent. Reducing traffic congestion for some reason got nearly 49 percent. Approving safety, 48 percent. Public transit, 40 percent. These are all, again, prioritizations as far as what would you prioritize for funding. And as you would expect, trails and bike lanes are the lowest two, as far as being prioritized for funding because they are rated as being in good shape. This is a, again, a subjective question about the quality of the pedestrian bicycle network. Most people who responded saw it as being good or fair. A few people thought it was poor, and a few people thought it was excellent. Again, there on the fringes that there’s lower numbers, but the same thing is true for the bicycle network. The majority of people thought it was good – actually good or excellent on this that’s what I’m seeing now. But anyway, opportunities for more biking and walking. Apparently people – most people said or at least a big chunk of people said they were unsure if they would bike more if there were more facilities available. And as far as the answers here, the choices, protected bicycle lanes which, of course, are a bicycle lane on the street with some kind of median or other kind of divider separating the bike lane from the motor vehicle traffic that seemed to the top – that was the top number of yes responses. Work and activity was important, setting a trail system and then more sidewalks after that. This is just a straight-up forward question: Do you use public transit or not? 86 percent said no. 14 percent yes. And, again, this is a follow-up question to that. Would you increase your public transit use if the following improvements were made? And the No. 1 ranking was frequent service, more frequent service and, No. 2, more transit routes, and then on from there. Again, this is the one I think is surprising. Do you think there’s a traffic congestion problem in the CATSO area? 63 percent of the people said yes. 37 percent no. I don’t know what we can glean from that, but… MR. TEDDY: So what I would suggest if we use these survey results in the text, we might have some explanation that the respondent was not given a definition of traffic congestion, it was just whatever each respondent think is congestion in their own mind, that’s how they responded. Because if you were – if you were to design facilities based on survey results, you might over design thinking that intersections are congested. To me congestion is you standstill in traffic or you wait two or three light cycles at an intersection. That, to me, is congestion. MR. YONKE: When there’s no accident. MR. GLASCOCK: Yeah. MR. YONKE: From the usual cause. MR. TEDDY: Right. MR. GLASCOCK: Mitch, I’ll just survey. Just a question. Is this a standard survey? Did we do all of these questions ourselves, or where do these come from? MR. SKOV: We came up with questions. MR. GLASCOCK: So we never asked about funding? Do you feel like it’s funded or appropriately funded or anything like that? MR. SKOV: I anticipate us doing a follow-up survey. MR. GLASCOCK: I’d like to have some funding questions there just to make sure that people understand – MR. SKOV: Okay. MR. GLASCOCK: – the problems. MR. SKOV: All right. And the only thing we came close to on that was prioritizing investments, that particular question. MR. GLASCOCK: Otherwise, you don’t know really what they’re anticipating to pay for it or if they know they’re pay for it. MR. SKOV: This is – I don’t know how much – this is sort of a follow-up question. Condition of traffic in the CATSO area. 38 percent thought it was staying about the same, 8 percent not sure, 48 percent thought it was getting worse, and then a very small percentage thought it was getting better. So, again, that’s very subjective, but – and I presume when they say traffic, the condition of traffic actually they’re talking about the traffic that they encounter. MR. TEDDY: Is this when school is in section? MR. SKOV: Yeah, this was when school is in session. That’s when we took – we didn’t put the survey out until school had started. And this is just something we put in because of federal highways, and this is on freight, and most people probably wouldn’t have an opinion on this. But about half of them said they thought there was some kind of need for improvement for semitrailer, freight, truck traffic, et cetera. Presumably they’re talking about – the one place where that might be an issue would be 63/70, I suppose. That’s a good example of place where you are having a lot of trucks go through and potentially getting an issue. But, again, this is pretty much split down the middle. I don’t know whether there’s any need for it or not. Most people were not sure. MR. YONKE: And the survey results were done right before the improvement out there for East Boulevard connecting to Conley actual came online, so nobody had a chance to see any improvement in the function of any of that before the survey. MR. GLASCOCK: Right. MR. SKOV: This is actually all I have about this, Mr. Glascock. Again, this is just an FYI. MR. GLASCOCK: Okay. So no vote needed? MR. SKOV: No.
9. 2050 LRTP Survey Results Overview
   1. LRTP Survey Results 10-17-18
10. VII. DRAFT 2050 LRTP NON-MOTORIZED PROJECT COST ESTIMATES MR. GLASCOCK: No. 7, Draft 2050 LRTP non-motorized project cost estimates. MR. SKOV: This is just a listing for your information, which our first draft listing for Non-motorized projects. We’re including the 2050 LRTP. It is a constraining list based on the anticipated revenue. It doesn’t include any illustrative projects so-called. There are other categories that do. Principle source documents for the list were the fiscal year 2019 City of Columbia capital improvements program or the CIP and the master sidewalk plan and also our current 2040 LRTP, the projects that we have in there, which have an inflation update. But we don’t need any formal action from you, but we do want some comments on this. Now, I will mention that the first slide here is sidewalks alone, and the number is based – the cost estimates are based on fiscal year ‘19 dollars. At some point we will need to put the projects into so-called bands across the board between 2018, 2019 and 2050 to reflect the fact that the – depending on when the projects are implemented, there’s going to be a difference in cost based on the inflation factors. That’s something I’d prefer not to do, but it’s something federal highway asked us to do to come up with what they believe is a more accurate number related to being constrained. And they’re very focused on a constrained list that meets the specs related to the revenue projected for the transportation period. Again, those are the sidewalks based on fiscal year ‘19 dollars. This is the trail issue or the trail list. Greenbelt trails, total of both categories, just under $54 million. Again, that’s fiscal year 2019 dollars. And the next step will be to make some kind of a choice as to how to distribute these across the board between 2018 and 2050. And I have limited the numbers or the projects here to those projects for which I have a cost estimate or a reasonable cost estimate. Anything that’s, for example, in the ten-year-plus CIP list, I’m not going to include that. Although I would, if we had a way – if we are able to come up with a cost estimate, I certainly would add those in. Again, I don’t need any specific action from the committee at this point. MR. TEDDY: I’ll make a comment. Again, this goes to how it’s presented in the plan. We might want to have notes in the text that indicate factors that influence cost estimates or overall length, number of driveways, number of intersections and issues such as existing utilities, just so that folks get an idea, if these costs seem really high to them, there’s some additional explanation of why that is. It’s because you are building in an area where it’s really – it’s really a second visit to that right-of-way, mostly, in these cases. And the number of – the length of the streets same inform feet and the number of intersections, if we can provide that data, that would give a basis for comparison of how much sidewalk we would be getting with each project and it would also say a little something about whether or not the it would be divisible into phases. If we can’t afford the 1 million project, maybe you break it down into two segments that connect intersections one at a time. MR. GLASCOCK: Well, how does this interface with our ADA plan to get rid of all of the end? Have we looked at that in reference to this? MR. SKOV: That’s something I’d have to look at. I can’t answer the question right now. MR. GLASCOCK: I think we need go back and look at that to make sure we’re addressing that plan. MR. SKOV: That is one of the coordinating plans included. MR. TEDDY: Maybe we could highlight the projects that would double benefit that way. MR. GLASCOCK: Yes. Absolutely. MR. TEDDY: Yeah. MR. GLASCOCK: That was just FYI, Mitch? MR. SKOV: Yes.
11. Draft 2050 LRTP Non-motorized Project Cost Estimates
    1. Item 7 12-6-18 DRAFT Non-motorized Project Costs
    2. Item 7 - DRAFT 2050 City Sidewalks & Trails Project Costs
12. VIII. MODOT STATEWIDE SAFETY TARGETS MR. GLASCOCK: No. 8, MoDOT statewide safety targets. MR. SKOV: Now, this is actually an action item. The following slide, after the one you are looking at, does have the statewide safety targets, fatalities, serious injuries, et cetera. They were provided to CATSO and the entering MPOs on August 30th, their target listing, which was included in the federal highway safety improvement program and the highway safety plan, et cetera. The highway safety improvement program is a core federal aid program that is all about reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries, and CATSO does have the option of providing a formal approval for the statewide targets or to establish our own specific targets for the CATSO metropolitan planning area. Our preference is to adopt the statewide targets. That’s the – as you see on the table here, the left column of numbers is the baseline based on years 2013 through 2017. Then there’s a five-year rolling average statewide target for calendar year 2019, which is based upon numbers from calendar year 2015 through 2019. Again, you can see what it is there. No. of fatalities, fatality rate per 100 million vehicles miles traveled. Serious injuries, the serious injury rate percentage 100 million VMT, and the number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries specifically. The targets are based upon numbers from the blueprint, the MoDOT blueprint for safety. Again, you can see at the bottom there. 9 percent fatality reduction, 5 percent serious injury reduction, presuming a 1 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled and a 4 percent non-motorized injury reduction. At their meeting on November 7th, the CATSO technical committee did review the proposal. They did have some discussion on it, but they did pass a motion recommending that the coordinating committee adopt the MoDOT statewide safety targets. This is something we have to do on an annual basis. The staff provides clients in the statewide safety targets to be acceptable. We’re certainly supportive of the committee formally adopting them. MR. TEDDY: Has a Vision Zero group weighed in on this at all? MR. SKOV: Yes, they’ve seen this. That’s something that I believe they continually – they’ve certainly seen it before. I don’t remember the last time they reviewed it but, yes, they have. That’s something we considered, as far as whether or not we would adopt our own version. But, yeah, we did have some coordination with them. Ms. Christian was actually – it is on the vision zero group, or was, so she brought these targets to them and they were – they were okay with it. MR. GLASCOCK: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion to approve the statewide safety target, MoDOT safety target. MR. TEDDY: Move to approve. MR. YONKE: I’ll second it. MR. GLASCOCK: All of those in favor say aye. (Unanimous voice vote of approval.) MR. GLASCOCK: Opposed nay. (No speakers.) MR. GLASCOCK: Been approved.
13. MoDOT Statewide Safety Targets
    1. MoDOT Statewide Safety Targets
14. IX. OTHER BUSINESS MR. GLASCOCK: Other business? (No speakers.) MR. GLASCOCK: Saying none.
15. X. GENERAL COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, MEMBERS, AND STAFF MR. GLASCOCK: General comments from the public. (None)
16. XI. NEXT MEETING DATE MR. GLASCOCK: Next meeting date? MR. SKOV: It will be February 28th, 2019. As usual, Thursday, 2:30 here in the council chamber.
17. XII. ADJOURNMENT MR. GLASCOCK: All right. Very good. We’re adjourned.
18. Members of the public may attend any open meeting. For requests for accommodations related to disability, please call 573-874-CITY (573-874-2489) or email [email protected]. In order to assist staff in making the appropriate arrangements for your accommodation, please make your request as far in advance of the posted meeting date as possible.