METROPOLITAN PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE 9:00 A.M. JANUARY 9, 2018

Transcription

1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1056AFFF-9C16-44D5-98C9-F46FB9DF97E3 NOTICE AND AGENDA OF PUBLIC MEETING METROPOLITAN PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE 9:00 A.M. JANUARY 9, 2018 RTC/RFCD ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 600 S. GRAND CENTRAL PARKWAY, ROOM 108 LAS VEGAS, NV (702) This agenda with full backup is available at the Regional Transportation Commission Administration Building, 600 S. Grand Central Pkwy, Las Vegas, Nevada; the Regional Transportation Commission s website, or by contacting Marin DuBois at (702) THIS MEETING HAS BEEN PROPERLY NOTICED AND POSTED IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: Clark County Government Center 500 S. Grand Central Pkwy. Las Vegas, NV City of Henderson Office of the City Clerk 240 Water Street Henderson, NV CC Regional Justice Center 200 Lewis Ave. Las Vegas, NV RTC 600 S. Grand Central Pkwy. Las Vegas, NV BY: RTC Website Nevada Public Notice METROPOLITAN PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE AGENDA JANUARY 9, 2018 Page 1 of 3

2

3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1056AFFF-9C16-44D5-98C9-F46FB9DF97E3 Items 2 through 7 are items for possible action. Items 1, 8, and 9 are discussion items and no action can be taken. Please be advised that the Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee has the discretion to take items on the agenda out of order, combine two or more agenda items for consideration, remove an item from the agenda or delay discussion relating to an item on the agenda any time. 1. CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION CONSENT AGENDA (ITEMS 2 THROUGH 3) All items marked with asterisks (**) are considered by the Regional Transportation Commission Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee to be routine and may be acted upon in one motion. However, the Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee may discuss any consent item individually if requested by a Committee member or a citizen when the consent agenda is considered for approval. **2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Meeting of September 12, 2017 (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) **3. RECEIVE NOTIFICATION THAT THE MONTHLY CAPITAL PROJECT TRACKING REPORT AND THE UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM PROJECT ACTIVITY STATUS REPORT HAVE BEEN POSTED TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA S WEBSITE (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) **END OF CONSENT AGENDA** 4. APPROVE AMENDMENT CLARK TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) 5. RECEIVE A REPORT ON THE CITY OF HENDERSON AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT PLANNING STUDY (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) 6. ADOPT THE DRAFT INTERLOCAL CONTRACT FOR METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AMONG AND BETWEEN CLARK COUNTY, THE NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, THE CITY OF BOULDER CITY, THE CITY OF HENDERSON, THE CITY OF LAS VEGAS, THE CITY OF MESQUITE, THE CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, AND THE RTC, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) 7. RECEIVE A REPORT ON THE SOUTHERN NEVADA STRONG PLANNING INITIATIVE (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) 8. RECEIVE REGIONAL STAFF UPDATES 9. CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION METROPOLITAN PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE AGENDA JANUARY 9, 2018 Page 2 of 3

4 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1056AFFF-9C16-44D5-98C9-F46FB9DF97E3 During the initial Citizens Participation, any citizen in the audience may address the Subcommittee on an item featured on the agenda. During the final Citizens Participation, any citizens in the audience may address the Subcommittee on matters within the Subcommittee s jurisdiction, but not necessarily featured on the agenda. No vote can be taken on a matter not listed on the posted agenda; however, the Subcommittee can direct that the matter be placed on a future agenda. Each citizen must be recognized by the Chair. The citizen is then asked to approach the microphone at the podium, to state his or her name, and to spell the last name for the record. The Chair may limit remarks to three minutes duration, if such remarks are disruptive to the meeting or not within the Committee s jurisdiction. The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada keeps the official record of all proceedings of the meeting. In order to maintain a complete and accurate record, copies of documents used during presentations should be submitted to the Recording Secretary. The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada appreciates the time citizens devote to be involved in this important process. In compliance with Nevada Revised Statute (4), the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada shall create an audio and/or video recording of the meeting and retain such recording(s) for the required period of time. The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada Meeting Room and Conference Room are accessible to the disabled. Assistive listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. A sign language interpreter for the deaf will be made available with a forty-eight hour advance request to the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada offices. Phone: TDD: Any action taken on these items is advisory to the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada. METROPOLITAN PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE AGENDA JANUARY 9, 2018 Page 3 of 3

5

6 DocuSign Envelope ID: DC93406F-838F-4E1A-B BF6A89D53 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA AGENDA ITEM Metropolitan Planning Organization [ ] Transit [ ] Administration and Finance [X] SUBJECT: CITIZENS PARTICIPATION PETITIONER: TINA QUIGLEY, GENERAL MANAGER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA RECOMMENDATION BY PETITIONER: THAT THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION GOAL: ENHANCE PUBLIC AWARENESS AND SUPPORT OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: In accordance with State of Nevada Open Meeting Law, the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee (Subcommittee) shall invite interested persons to make comments. For the initial Citizens Participation, the public should address items on the current agenda. For the final Citizens Participation, interested persons may make comments on matters within the Subcommittee s jurisdiction, but not necessarily on the current agenda. No action can be taken on any matter discussed under this item, although the Subcommittee can direct that it be placed on a future agenda. Respectfully submitted, RAYMOND HESS Director of Planning Services mld Non-Consent

7

8 DocuSign Envelope ID: B616F13B-130C-491F-A58B-7A2D27112E1B MINUTES METROPOLITAN PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA SEPTEMBER 12, 2017 These minutes are prepared in compliance with NRS Text is in summarized rather than verbatim format. For complete contents, please refer to meeting recordings on file at the Regional Transportation Commission. THIS MEETING WAS PROPERLY NOTICED AND POSTED IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 Clark County Government Center 500 S. Grand Central Pkwy. Las Vegas, NV City of Henderson Office of the City Clerk 240 Water Street Henderson, NV CC Regional Justice Center 200 Lewis Ave. Las Vegas, NV RTC 600 S. Grand Central Pkwy. Las Vegas, NV RTC Website Nevada Public Notice CALL TO ORDER Mr. Robert Summerfield, outgoing Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:07 a.m. in Meeting Room 108 of the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada Administration Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Secrist, Chair, City of Mesquite Shane Ammerman, Clark County Comprehensive Planning (alternate) Lisa Corrado, City of Henderson Chris Dingell, Clark County School District Johanna Murphy, City of North Las Vegas Coy Peacock, Nevada Department of Transportation (alternate) Mark Silverstein, Clark County Department of Aviation Robert Summerfield, City of Las Vegas MEMBERS ABSENT: Susan Danielwicz, City of Boulder City Michael Dishari, Las Vegas Valley Water District Scott Lansing, Keolis North America Victor Rodriguez, Nellis Air Force Base James Schultzman, Vice-Chair, MV Transportation Robert Tekniepe, Clark County Department of Air Quality Joseph Varner, Bureau of Land Management RTC STAFF: Raymond Hess, Director of Planning Services Craig Raborn, Manager of Transportation Planning Beth Xie, Manager of Transportation Planning Chin-Cheng Chen, Principal Transportation Planner Ilya Chistyakov, Transportation Planner Marin DuBois, Management Analyst INTERESTED PARTIES: None

9 DocuSign Envelope ID: B616F13B-130C-491F-A58B-7A2D27112E1B Minutes-Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee Meeting of September 12, 2017 Page 2 of 9 Item: 1. CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION Comments: No comments were made. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken. Item: 2. DESIGNATE OFFICERS FOR (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) Comments: Mr. Raymond Hess, Director of Planning Services for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), explained that the RTC s Policies and Procedures provide that the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee (MPS or Subcommittee) be rotated alphabetically by entity each fiscal year. Therefore, the new Chair is the representative from the City of Mesquite, and the Vice-Chair is the representative from MV Transportation. Motion: Ms. Johanna Murphy, City of North Las Vegas, made a motion to designate the representative from the City of Mesquite as the Chair and the representative from MV Transportation as Vice-Chair of the Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee for Vote/Summary: 7 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried. Ayes: Shane Ammerman, Chris Dingell, Johanna Murphy, Coy Peacock, Richard Secrist, Mark Silverstein, Robert Summerfield Nays: None Absent: Lisa Corrado, Susan Danielwicz, Michael Dishari, Scott Lansing, Victor Rodriguez, James Schultzman, Robert Tekniepe, Joseph Varner CONSENT AGENDA (ITEMS 3 THROUGH 4) All items marked with asterisks (**) are considered by the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee to be routine and may be acted upon in one motion. However, the Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee may discuss any consent item individually if requested by a Subcommittee member or a citizen when the consent agenda is considered for approval. Item: **3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Meeting of May 9, 2017 (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) Item: **4. RECEIVE NOTIFICATION THAT THE MONTHLY CAPITAL PROJECT TRACKING REPORT AND THE UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM PROJECT ACTIVITY STATUS REPORT HAVE BEEN POSTED TO THE RTC S WEBSITE (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) Comments: No comments were made. Motion: Mr. Robert Summerfield, City of Las Vegas, made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Vote/Summary: 8 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried. Ayes: Shane Ammerman, Lisa Corrado, Chris Dingell, Johanna Murphy, Coy Peacock, Richard Secrist,

10 DocuSign Envelope ID: B616F13B-130C-491F-A58B-7A2D27112E1B Minutes-Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee Meeting of September 12, 2017 Page 3 of 9 Mark Silverstein, Robert Summerfield Nays: None Absent: Susan Danielwicz, Michael Dishari, Scott Lansing, Victor Rodriguez, James Schultzman, Robert Tekniepe, Joseph Varner **END OF CONSENT AGENDA** Item: 5. RECEIVE AN INFORMATIONAL UPDATE ON THE NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION S LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE, THE ONE NEVADA TRANSPORTATION PLAN (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) Comments: Chair Richard Secrist, City of Mesquite, discussed receiving an informational update on the Nevada Department of Transportation s long range transportation plan update, The One Nevada Transportation Plan (ONTP). Mr. Raymond Hess, Director of Planning Services for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), provided background on the item and said that the ONTP is an update to Nevada s Long Range Transportation Plan. State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) are required by the federal government to prepare these long-range plans to ensure continued movement of people and goods over a 20-year horizon. The ONTP seeks to meet these requirements as well as better align Nevada s transportation plans and processes to create a framework for more informed transportation decisions. From there, he introduced Mr. Coy Peacock, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), to provide the update. Mr. Peacock began by reiterating the project parameters that Mr. Hess outlined. As of this time, he estimated that the ONTP was about a third of the way finished, with goals and objectives being established alongside an analysis of existing conditions. The ONTP is currently in the needs assessment phase. He briefly reviewed the six different goals established for the ONTP, which include: safety, infrastructure conditions, system reliability, economic vitality, sustainability, and multi-modal enhancements. Additionally he highlighted community outreach strategies, saying each specific focus group addressed one of six different topics, including: organization, diversifying the economy, tourism and attraction, aging infrastructure, transportation behavior, and new technologies. Mr. Peacock stressed that NDOT is also working with local governments to identify goals and strategies that support each of these concepts. Mr. Peacock said the next steps include solidifying data plans and performance measures for tracking progress. He noted specific corridors that would be measured and described the need to develop a draft prioritization process that he hope will be completed by the end of Mr. Peacock shared a leaflet [attached] that provides information about the ONTP and explained that there are surveys available online where users can participate and share their thoughts on the ONTP. He detailed several other upcoming outreach efforts directed towards local entities, including group meetings with the cities of Mesquite, Caliente, Pahrump, Laughlin, Las Vegas, and Henderson. He concluded by directing the Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee (Subcommittee) to a website for information on these events and requested that Subcommittee members fill out the online survey to provide additional feedback on the report. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken.

11 DocuSign Envelope ID: B616F13B-130C-491F-A58B-7A2D27112E1B Minutes-Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee Meeting of September 12, 2017 Page 4 of 9 Item: 6. RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON THE REVISION TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN ACCESS 2040 (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) Comments: Mr. Raymond Hess, Director of Planning Services for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), stated that the RTC, as the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in Southern Nevada, was required to develop and maintain a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The current RTP, known as Access2040, was adopted on February 9, 2017 by the RTC Board of Commissioners. Staff started the process of making revisions to this document to bring in new projects funded with the continuation of Fuel Revenue Indexing (FRI). Additionally, this revision provides an opportunity to reassess the federally funded projects and determine whether changes should be made. Mr. Hess then introduced Mr. Craig Raborn, Manager of Transportation Planning for the RTC, to discuss further. Mr. Raborn began by recounting that most of the updates to the RTP thus far involved adding projects that had not been included. The main purpose of this revision is to work in the FRI 2 projects as well as updates and further programming to longer-term, federally-funded projects. Mr. Raborn said a call for project has recently concluded. He provided some key statistics from this review, which included: 47 total project requests $1.1 billion requested in total programming o In addition to the sum allocated for current programming, this created a total of $2.3 billion $1.8 billion was estimated for federal revenue income, creating a budget shortfall of $500 million Because of this shortfall, a selection process was required for project prioritization. He said staff was assessing all the requested projects, but that were still waiting for more information. He cited the need for updates on the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality component, which alone was estimated to account for nearly $600 million in requested projects. Also, he mentioned another issue was that many requests were made for the early 2020s, so specific project priorities for those years would need to be identified. He said this time around the public would be more heavily engaged in the comment process to help them see what is currently programmed, what is proposed, and how the public can provide feedback on list. Mr. Raborn said staff is aiming for an early 2018 adoption. Next, Mr. Raborn described a new citizen feedback tool called Community Remarks, which maps out each citizen comment based on which project it pertains to. The map allows users to see each programmed project, its location, and its intended goals. He detailed several of the public outreach efforts that would be undertaken alongside these tools and that the information will be shared with the local agencies. Then he pointed out that this new system of public outreach occurred early in the project development process, which should help integrate the citizen feedback into the overall strategy better than the typical method of after-the-fact comments. Mr. Raborn said that the map would list the 47 requested new projects, all of the FRI projects, and public comments on FRI 2 projects determined to be regionally significant. He noted the procurement process for the software was taking some time, but hoped the licensing would be completed over the following couple weeks. Ms. Lisa Corrado, City of Henderson, asked if staff anticipated problems with the public comment system. She expressed concern that comments would be reactions to projects that had already been submitted, which could create confusion when implementing the changes. She also noted that not every capital improvement project in progress will be included on the list and wondered how that could be conveyed to the public. Mr. Raborn replied that there would be opportunities for the public to comment

12 DocuSign Envelope ID: B616F13B-130C-491F-A58B-7A2D27112E1B Minutes-Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee Meeting of September 12, 2017 Page 5 of 9 on standard package plan projects, which should ensure people have a chance to comment on everything. He also remarked that the project mapping tool has several features that will provide context for each project to make sure that people are informed about the specifications. Mr. Robert Summerfield, City of Las Vegas, asked how the public s preferences for what is liked and disliked will be weighed. He noted that if some cities had significantly more participation than others, it could skew the results. Mr. Raborn said the data would not vary across jurisdictions, and the role of public comments is more informational than as a key variable in planning. Mr. Hess agreed and added that it is up to each local jurisdiction to come up with their own priorities based on their knowledge and resources. Overall, the Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee members agreed that this is a dialogue and that feedback should always be part of an ongoing communication process. In closing, Mr. Raborn explained that the hierarchy of this feedback process is dependent on multiple variables, including assessments of regional impact, overall effectiveness, and potential benefits across multiple jurisdictions. Ms. Corrado asked when this would be going live, to which Mr. Raborn replied that it would be live at the end of the month and run for 30 days. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken. Item: 7. RECEIVE A DRAFT OF THE CRASH ANALYSIS REPORT (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) Comments: Mr. Chin-Cheng Chen, Principal Transportation Planner for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), informed the Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee about the crash analysis report. He began by saying that the report was compiled a few months prior, with revisions made in the interim based on input from local government and the RTC, with the hope that it would be translated into some kind of strategy or law enforcement target area for education or project purposes. First, Mr. Chen shared a graph detailing the number of all types of vehicle crashes [graph included in agenda information], saying the average number of crashes in the span of five years is approximately 35,000. Mr. Chen s graph also compared the number of fatal crashes to serious injury crashes. He commented that while over the five-year span shows that the number of fatal crashes and serious crashes has not changed significantly, data indicates that the average number of crashes overall has declined. Mr. Raymond Hess, Director of Planning Services for the RTC, interjected, saying that the trend of decreasing numbers of crashes may correlate to the time period when metro stopped reporting non-lethal crashes, meaning it could reflect a reporting function rather than an actual decrease in number of crashes. Next, Mr. Chen reviewed how the crashes are categorized into four different vehicle types passenger, commercial, motorcycle, non-motorized), and that the majority of the 35,000 average crashes involved passenger vehicles (89 to 91 percent of crashes). Mr. Chen shared crash statistic figures as they related to other vehicle types: non-motorized crashes (four to six percent), commercial-vehicle crashes (four percent), and motorcycle crashes (one percent). He then presented a series of tables and graphs that broke down crash severity by year and vehicle type [included in agenda information]. Important takeaways were that seven percent of crashes involving pedestrians result in death and 16 percent in serious injury (more than any other type of crash), and bus crashes were least likely to be fatal. Also,

13 DocuSign Envelope ID: B616F13B-130C-491F-A58B-7A2D27112E1B Minutes-Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee Meeting of September 12, 2017 Page 6 of 9 while non-motorized and motorcycle crashes only made up six percent of the total number of crashes, those six percent accounted for 12 percent of all crashes involving injury and death. Mr. Hess clarified that crash types are classified in a hierarchy based on who the most vulnerable road user in that crash is. For example, a crash between a vehicle and a pedestrian would be classified as a pedestrian crash and not a vehicle crash. Mr. Chen agreed, saying a three-party crash involving a pedestrian, bicycle, and a passenger vehicle would be classified as a pedestrian crash. Mr. Chen continued by saying that 17 percent of crashes do not have a known cause listed in the police report. Of incidents in which the cause of the crash was known, the number one cause of crashes was failure to yield right of way. The table of primary crash factors that Mr. Chen shared [included in agenda information] included a number of different causes and the associated crash statistics improper driving, followed too closely, unsafe lane change, hit and run, etc. He then touched on fatality statistics and time-of-day statistics/tables. To be expected, he said, more crashes occurred during peak hours in the morning and evening when people were traveling to and from work during the weekdays, with weekend data showing fewer crashes. Mr. Chen noted the exceptions of more late night/early morning crashes on weekends compared to weekdays. He listed three different types of location analysis to include: high-frequency crash locations, fatal crash hotspots, and serious injury hotspots. Mr. Chen concluded by sharing age-related statistics, stating that persons aged 26 to 35 are more likely to be involved in a crash than other age ranges based on collected data. As Mr. Chen finished, Mr. Hess mentioned that the full report was available in the agenda information, and data presented was collected from information already gathered by the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). It had been collected here and by RTC to help inform future decision making. He hoped to update the report annually with a continuous five-year rolling average. Mr. Mark Silverstein, Clark County Department of Aviation, said that he had not heard any theories proposed and would like to hear more. To this, Ms. Lisa Corrado, City of Henderson, said her theory was that North Las Vegas documents serious injuries better than other jurisdictions. Mr. Hess said that this was a good point, that the data is only as good as the input, and that police agencies report different from one another. He added that when this information was presented to the RTC s Executive Advisory Committee, there was concern about the 17 percent of unknown crash causes. Mr. Hess noted that the sheer volume of data presented by the number of crashes (35,000) made specifics difficult, and this report was more of an aggregate looking at all the data. Mr. Hess believed that there is an effort underway by the Safety Record Coordination Committee to help states standardize crash report methodology. Next, Mr. Robert Summerfield, City of Las Vegas, asked if there is any information regarding distractibility as a factor or trend. He spoke specifically to the increase in LED lighting and animated signage possibly creating safety issues, saying there is a continued push on the City of Las Vegas to allow videos on LED signs. Mr. Summerfield said preliminary research conducted by the Federal Highway Administration showed that video increases distractibility, but there is nothing explicitly saying that video is not allowed. He wondered if there are data points that correlate to areas populated by these types of animated signs. Mr. Hess said that no, he did not believe that this is a field available to be filled in by a reporting officer. He offered that this statistic may fall under the unknown crash cause classification, because distracted driving is not an available option, but he could not be certain. He cited the anti-text/hands free law in Nevada and how it can often be hard to prove a driver was texting. Ms. Corrado then asked if all crashes immediately get reported to NDOT. Mr. Chen said that not all do, but eventually 99 percent will. He said sometimes it can take 12 to 18 months for the police department

14 DocuSign Envelope ID: B616F13B-130C-491F-A58B-7A2D27112E1B Minutes-Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee Meeting of September 12, 2017 Page 7 of 9 to report a crash. Mr. Hess confirmed that all crash reports are supposed to be sent to NDOT, but records can also need updating at a later time to reflect changes. Mr. Chen said that due to NDOT database cross reporting injuries and fatalities (sometimes an injury will turn into a fatality later and information will need to be updated), NDOT analysis can prove challenging. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken. Item: 8. RECEIVE A PRESENTATION OF THE VISUALIZATION OF THE HISTORIC TRAVEL TIME DATA (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) Comments: Mr. Raymond Hess, Director of Planning Services for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), explained how federal law requires the RTC to create a Congestion Management Process (CMP). This was approved and adopted earlier this year and since then, the RTC has worked on new methods for identifying and addressing bottlenecks in the Las Vegas Valley. Mr. Hess then introduced Mr. Ilya Chistyakov, Transportation Planner for the RTC, to provide an update on how the RTC is leveraging data collection tools to better review data. Mr. Chistyakov reported that one of his key responsibilities is working on and improving the CMP. One of the key variables in this process is collecting and analyzing real-time traffic data such as speed and location. The RTC has contracts through companies like INRIX to collect and analyze this information. Mr Chistyakov navigated to the INRIX website and demonstrated several of the built-in tools that INRIX offers for data analysis, such as: regional explorer, average speed, and bottlenecks and congestion scans. However, he noted that there are several limitations with these types of tools, explaining that there are many manipulations that need to be done to make the data viable, which includes great amounts of manual data entry and formatting of various tables. He said that while the data is useful, the tool is somewhat complex and hard to manage. Because of this, the RTC s goal is to create a visualization tool for performance metrics that makes the data easier to assess. He elaborated that the RTC s solution involves implementing new coding and programming that allows users to upload INRIX data files that can be processed and displayed in the visualization tool. He demonstrated estimated mean speed, free flow speed, comparative speed, travel time by segment, travel time index, and historic average congestion. Mr. Chistyakov noted that data could be input from different years to provide a year-by-year comparison of each performance metric. For the purposes of the CMP, the two most important criteria assessed were speed and congestion. He reviewed the various ways these metrics were reviewed and specifically noted that data can be assessed based on time of day to identify periods of peak travel time and peak congestion. Data can also be assessed based on road segment to help identify key corridors for congestion and bottlenecks. He talked about how each layer can be assessed on its own or together to provide a comprehensive view of traffic performance. He stated that the overall goal of this tool is to create a system-wide method of data visualization that everyone can access. He added that the data would likely be available for use next month. Mr. Hess provided some additional justification for why this tool is important; stating that an increased focus on performance-based planning is coming as a result of MAP 21 and the FAST Act. Because of this, the RTC needs a way to determine how its network is performing. This tool is just one part of the RTC s overall effort to integrate more performance evaluation and data management tools into its

15 DocuSign Envelope ID: B616F13B-130C-491F-A58B-7A2D27112E1B Minutes-Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee Meeting of September 12, 2017 Page 8 of 9 planning processes. As more data is collected, the RTC will better understand whether projects are achieving what they were designed to achieve. The tool will also help quantify the impact of various initiatives and projects on other programs. He said they are still brainstorming ways to apply this data and welcome the input of the Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee members. Ms. Beth Xie, Manager of Transportation Planning for the RTC, pointed out that INRIX allows only the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) and Nevada Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to access the data. She asked that the data be made available to consultants and other entities so that they can perform year-by-year data comparisons to improve their planning efforts. Mr. Craig Raborn, Manager of Transportation Planning for the RTC, said staff is still working things out with INRIX to collect historical data as far back as He said that once this data is found, the entities will be able to leverage it to perform some interesting analyses. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken. Item: 9. RECEIVE THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT FROM THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION DEPARTMENT (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) Comments: Chair Richard Secrist, City of Mesquite, discussed receiving the Accomplishments Report from the Metropolitan Planning Organization Department. Mr. Raymond Hess, Director of Planning Services for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), remarked that in an effort to bring awareness to projects completed over the past year, the RTC put together an Accomplishments Report that was included in the meeting packet. This report provides a reader-friendly digest of recent projects, accomplishments, and studies performed by the department. The report was meant to provide a broad overview to help keep people informed and will be created at the end of each fiscal year. He listed a few of the projects included in this edition of the Accomplishments Report and noted that they are open to any committee feedback on ways to improve the document. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken. Item: 10. RECEIVE REGIONAL STAFF UPDATES Comments: Chair Richard Secrist, City of Mesquite, discussed receiving regional staff updates. Mr. Raymond Hess, Director of Planning Services for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), stated that this item was designed to give the member entities a chance to discuss any issues they believe are important. Mr. Coy Peacock, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), noted that based on a recent transportation board meeting, the local newspaper reported that NDOT had acquired an additional $21 million in federal funds as a result of fourth quarter redistribution. Mr. Peacock wanted to point out, however, that NDOT had not actually received this sum in additional funds but, rather, had only raised its obligation limitation. He explained that the $21 million increase came out of the balances already above NDOT s obligation limitation. Because of the way this worked, these funds have already been

16 DocuSign Envelope ID: B616F13B-130C-491F-A58B-7A2D27112E1B Minutes-Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee Meeting of September 12, 2017 Page 9 of 9 programmed on the next widening phase of Interstate-15, north of Apex to Garnet Interchange. Ms. Johanna Murphy, City of North Las Vegas, noted that after the City of North Las Vegas had finished working with the RTC on the Complete Streets Corridor Ranking Study, it received funding from the Southern Nevada Health District through its partnerships and grants to develop a Complete Streets policy. The City of North Las Vegas formally adopted a Complete Streets policy that includes performance measures and implementation policies as part of its plan. She also noted that the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (SNRPC) will be giving final approval for the Neon to Nature project in the next two weeks, an initiative designed to enhance and modify the local trail system. Mr. Robert Summerfield, City of Las Vegas, said that the City of Las Vegas was partnering with the Form-Based Code Institute to provide a two-day class on the implementation of form-based codes. This is an objective that will support of the City Master Plan. He said that the class is open to anyone who is interested and entities should contact the City of Las Vegas Planning Department if they want to attend. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken. Item: 11. CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION Comments: No comments were made. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, MARIN DUBOIS Recording Secretary MAREK BIERNACINSKI Transcription Secretary

17 DOT L!I -w -9 p [TiEVADA NDOT History and Overview The Department was established in 1917 under the name of the Nevada Department of Highways, which began the process of constructing a surface transportation system. The program has since grown to 13,628 highway lane miles and 1,164 bridges. The Agency formally changed its name to the Nevada Department of Transportation in the late 1970s, commonly known as the NDOT. NDOT is organized into three regional districts and a headquarters unit, and administers state and federal funding used for construction, operations, and maintenance of the transportation system. NDOT connects communities, industry, and tourism destinations by improving transportation options for the citizens and visitors of Nevada. NDOT is responsible for an integrated transportation system across multiple modes for citizens, tourists and businesses alike. NDOT Funding Review Prioritizing transportation investments is a key element of the One NV Plan. The gap between available funding and transportation infrastructure needs is expected to increase fourfold nationally between 2025 and 2040 and longterm trends suggest a continued strain on the power of available funding streams, particularly gas taxes. With needs outweighing funding and projected revenue fiat for the foreseeable future, prioritization has never been more critical. U- 411 kv7f E Th Negative Long Term Revenue Trends Transportation is Evolving: Demographic shifts in transportation trends Increased emphasis on transit, walking and bicycling New technologies such as connected and autonomous vehicles, Hyperloop, and mobility as a service Defining transportation s role in economic development and growth 3.17

18 t A What is the One NV Transportation Plan? How Will We Get There? Who is Involved? The One NV Transportation Plan is an update to Nevada s Long- Range Transportation Plan. Nationally, State Departments of Transportation are required by the federal government to prepare plans that ensure the movement of people and goods over a continuous 20-year planning horizon. The One NV Transportation Plan seeks to not only meet these federal requirements but to better align Nevada s transportation plans and processes to create a framework that helps to make more informed transportation decisions. What are the Key Components of the One Nevada Transportation Plan? The plan will include specific goals and objectives designed to improve Nevada s transportation network. In general, the One Nevada Transportation Plan will aim to: Identify, track and report transportation performance measures to the public and decision makers Help make more informed and transparent project decisions Improve project prioritization and project certainty Create a lasting collaborative process to ensure the One NV Plan continuously moves Nevada toward the ultimate goal of achieving measureable transportation objectives while also adapting to changing conditions and technologies Why is this Important? Transportation connects us all and is critical for our quality of life and the health of the state s economy. Strategically planning for Nevada s transportation future allows us to grow and thrive, attract new businesses and provides mobility in a way that maximizes the public s investment. The DepartmentofTransportation isembarkingon a processto work closely with our transportation partners and stakeholders across the state to: Create a vision for the state s transportation future and to craft goals to achieve it Prepare scenarios of what the future of Nevada will look like during the next 20 years Identify transportation challenges and opportunities to achieve this vision Land Management A encies Develop projects and policies to meet these needs Local/Regional Governments Prepare a planning framework, collaborative process and innovative tools to achieve the state s transportation vision Federal Government This process is forther illustrated below: Neigh boring States Phase i Phase 2 Phase 3 Visioning Trends and Forecast Performance Planning NOOT Strategic Planning Existing and Future Long and Scenario Planning Agency Collaboration Tools Current and Final Report Performance-Based Conditions Range Vision Strategies Goals Performance Measures Implementation Program Decision and Future Performance Draft How Can I Participate? Approximate i8 Month Duration We will be crisscrossing the state to hear from as many of you as possible to help shape the vision along with giving feedback on plan elements. You can keep in touch with the development of the plan by: Visiting our website OneNVPlan.com Multi-State Plans Following us on social ing us at info@onenvplan.com The Department of Transportation is one of several transportation organizations in Nevada and works closely with each partner to create a transportation system that is responsive to the needs of our travelers. Some of these key partners are: Public Transportation Providers Tribal Governments Other Long-Range Plans and Programs The One Nevada Transportation Plan seeks to integrate the visions, goals and ideas from other state and regional plans and programs. This will help to identify policies, recommendations and opportunities for managing, enhancing and expanding Nevada s transportation system. Some of these plans include: Corridor Plans Modal Specific Plans Partner Agency Plans Calling the project manager: Regional Transportation Plans.. Nevada s population *111 grow to over 3 million residents by 2035, according to the State Demographer. It is only through your participation that we can truly achieve the vision of the One Nevada Transportation Plan. 0 NE EVADA TRANSPORTATION PLAN Transportation Asset Management Plans

19 5:00 11:00 10:30 7:00 7:00 2:00 10:30 4:00 11:00 10:00 3:30 8:00 10:00 7:00 I L I :i ci Location Date Mesquite Council Chambers 10 E Mesquite Blvd, Mesquite NV 9am 11 am Caliente City Hall Council Chambers 100 Depot Aye, Caliente NV 3:00 PM PM Pahrump Pahrump Community Library 701 East St, Pahrump NV 9:00 AM AM Laughlin Town Manager s Office 101 Civic Way, Laughlin NV 3:00 PM 5:00 PM Las Vegas North Las Vegas City Hall 2250 Las Vegas Blvd N Ste 100, N. Las Vegas, NV 8:30 AM AM Henderson City Hall Water St., Henderson, NV 12:00 PM PM Bonneville Transit Center 101 E Bonneville Aye, Las Vegas, NV 5:00 PM PM Lake Tahoe TRPA office 128 Market Street, Stateline, NV 5:00 PM PM Sept. 19 Sept. 19 Sept. 20 Sept. 20 Sept. 21 Sept. 21 Location I11 Fallon Council Chambers 55W Williams Aye, Fallon NV 8:30 AM AM Winnemucca City Hall 90W 4th St, Winnemucca NV 2:00 PM PM Elko Elko County Library 720 Court St, Elko, NV 9:00 AM AM Ely Convention Center 150 W 6th St, Ely NV 3:30 PM 5:30 PM Tonopah Convention Center 301 Brougher Aye, Tonopah NV 8:00 AM AM Hawthorne Mineral County Library 110 1st St, Hawthorne NV 1:30 PM PM Carson City Community Center 851 E William St, Carson City, NV 6:00 PM PM Comma Coffee 312 S Carson St, Carson City, NV 8:00 AM AM Ren 0/Sparks Reno: Hub Coffee 727 Riverside Dr., Reno, NV 1:00 PM 3:00 Sparks: Centennial Plaza 1421 Victorian Ave., Sparks, NV 5:00 PM PM Sept. 25 Sept. 25 Sept. 26 Sept. 26 Sept. 27 Sept. 27 Sept. 27 Sept. 28 Sept. 28

20

21 DocuSign Envelope ID: DC93406F-838F-4E1A-B BF6A89D53 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA AGENDA ITEM Metropolitan Planning Organization [X] Transit [ ] Administration and Finance [ ] SUBJECT: CAPITAL PROJECT TRACKING AND PROJECT ACTIVITY STATUS REPORTS PETITIONER: TINA QUIGLEY, GENERAL MANAGER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA RECOMMENDATION BY PETITIONER: THAT THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA (RTC) RECEIVE NOTIFICATION THAT THE MONTHLY CAPITAL PROJECT TRACKING REPORT AND THE UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM PROJECT ACTIVITY STATUS REPORT HAVE BEEN POSTED TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA S WEBSITE (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) GOAL: ENHANCE PUBLIC AWARENESS AND SUPPORT OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FISCAL IMPACT: None by this action BACKGROUND: Each month, two reports are prepared to document the progress made on the various tasks and studies currently underway by the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC). The Capital Project Tracking Report identifies capital projects under development by the RTC. The Project Activity Status Report identifies current planning studies as outlined in the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). Since member entities may be involved in these activities, the RTC Board of Commissioners is notified when these reports are available on the agency s website. Both the Capital Project Tracking Report and the UPWP Project Activity Status Report have been posted to the Transportation Planning page of the RTC website, located at: Respectfully submitted, RAYMOND HESS Director of Planning Services rch Consent

22

23 DocuSign Envelope ID: DC93406F-838F-4E1A-B BF6A89D53 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA AGENDA ITEM Metropolitan Planning Organization [X] Transit [ ] Administration and Finance [ ] SUBJECT: REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN PETITIONER: TINA QUIGLEY, GENERAL MANAGER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA RECOMMENDATION BY PETITIONER: THAT THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA (RTC) APPROVE AMENDMENT CLARK TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) GOAL: ENHANCE PUBLIC AWARENESS AND SUPPORT OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FISCAL IMPACT: None by this action BACKGROUND: The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) adopted the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) at its February 9, 2017 meeting. Federal regulations require the RTP to be amended when there are major adjustments to program elements. Amendment Clark will add three new projects and adjust funding for two projects in the RTP. A 21-day public review and comment period for this amendment started on December 12, 2017 and will end on January 8, The RTC has performed the required Environmental Protection Agency s conformity analysis and determined that this amendment has no adverse impact on air quality. The list of project changes and conformity determination document are attached. Respectfully submitted, RAYMOND HESS Director of Planning Services mf Non-consent

24 DocuSign Envelope ID: DC93406F-838F-4E1A-B BF6A89D53 Regional Transportation Commission AGENDA ITEM DEVELOPMENT REPORT Agenda Item Recommendation (as submitted): THAT THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA (RTC) APPROVE AMENDMENT CLARK TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) Agenda Item Requested by: Regional Transportation Commission Date: 12/07/17 Staff Discussion: The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) adopted the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) at its February 9, 2017 meeting. Federal regulations require the RTP to be amended when there are major adjustments to program elements. Amendment Clark will add three new projects and adjust funding for two projects in the RTP. A 21-day public review and comment period for this amendment started on December 12, 2017 and will end on January 8, The Nevada Department of Transportation requested this amendment to make following changes to the RTP: Clark Add project: RTCSNV Project # 6226: I-15 Harmon and Hacienda HOV Ramps. Project added to accommodate new Raiders Stadium. Add project: RTCSNV Project # 6227: US 95 Northwest Package 3C. Project moved from out years of the RTP to 2018 program year. Add project: RTCSNV Project # 6228: US 95 Southbound Ramp Extension to City Parkway. This project resulted from the ongoing I-515/US 95 Alternative Development Study. Fund change: RTCSNV Project # 6141: I-15/CC 215 System to System Interchange. Increased cost per financial management recent cost estimate. Fund change: RTCSNV Project # 6144: SR 160 Blue Diamond Package 2. Increased cost based on the updated scheduling papers. RTC has performed the required Environmental Protection Agency s conformity analysis and determined that this amendment has no adverse impact on the air quality. The list of project changes and conformity determination document are attached. Advisory Action: Approval Disapproval Hold Item Meeting Date: 12/21/2017 Executive Advisory Committee Discussion: Advisory Action: Approval Disapproval Hold Item * Conditions (if applicable)

25 Amendment RTCSNV Transportation Improvement Program Fiscal Year Projects Listed CL (Ver 8) STATUS In Progress - Programmed FEDERAL Title: SR 160 Blue Diamond Package 2 Description: Project Type: County: Clark Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Rd Expansion FED FY AQ: Exempt, Safety - Pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation. TCM:No NDOT: District 1 Limits: From Mountain Springs Summit to Beginning of Mountainous Area of Distance (mile) -4.5 Milepost begins at 22 ends at 17.5 Revenue Source PE 2018 NHPP $0 $0 $35,000,000 $0 $35,000, STBG State-Wide $0 $0 $10,000,000 $0 $10,000, State Gas Tax $0 $0 $13,131,579 $0 $13,131, State Match - Nv $0 $0 $2,368,421 $0 $2,368,421 ROW CON OTHER TOTAL TOTAL $0 $0 $60,500,000 $0 $60,500,000 ALL YEARS TOTAL $0 $0 $60,500,000 $0 $60,500,000 MPO RTCSNV (6144) Previously Approved Version CL (Ver 7) 17TIP(18-00) Title: SR 160 Blue Diamond Package 2 Description: Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Project Type: Rd Expansion County: Clark FED FY Lead Agency Nevada DOT AQ: Non-Exempt TCM:No NDOT: District 1 Limits: From Mountain Springs Summit to Beginning of Mountainous Area of Distance (mile) -4.5 Milepost begins at 22 ends at 17.5 Revenue Source PE 2018 NHPP $0 $0 $32,000,000 $0 $32,000, STBG State-Wide $0 $0 $9,000,000 $0 $9,000, State Match - Nv $0 $0 $2,157,895 $0 $2,157,895 ROW CON OTHER TOTAL TOTAL $0 $0 $43,157,895 $0 $43,157,895 ALL YEARS TOTAL $0 $0 $43,157,895 $0 $43,157,895 MPO RTCSNV (6144) Lead Agency Nevada DOT RTCSNV Project Listing Printed on Monday, December 11, 2017 Page 1 of 4

26 Amendment RTCSNV Transportation Improvement Program Fiscal Year Projects Listed CL (Ver 1) STATUS New Project FEDERAL Title: US 95 Southbound Ramp Extension to City Parkway Description: Construct new Southbound US 95 Exit ramp to City Parkway Project Type: County: Clark Rd Improvement FED FY Limits: AQ: Non-Exempt TCM:Yes NDOT: District 1 From Southbound US 95 to Northbound I 15 System Ramp of Distance (mile) 0.39 Milepost begins at.33 ends at.72 Revenue Source PE 2017 State Gas Tax $1,820,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,820, State Gas Tax $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $5, NHPP $0 $0 $13,395,000 $0 $13,395, State Match - Nv $0 $0 $705,000 $0 $705,000 ROW CON OTHER TOTAL TOTAL $1,820,000 $5,000 $14,100,000 $0 $15,925,000 ALL YEARS TOTAL $1,820,000 $5,000 $14,100,000 $0 $15,925,000 MPO RTCSNV (6228) Lead Agency Nevada DOT RTCSNV Project Listing Printed on Monday, December 11, 2017 Page 2 of 4