REGIONAL TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 REGIONAL TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 28, :00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. Community Planning Association 800 South Industry Way, Suite 100 Meridian, Idaho (map on next page) ***AGENDA*** I. CALL TO ORDER Mary Berent 9:00 II. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Minutes of July 27, 2005 RTAC Meeting * Mary Berent 9:05 B. Approve Minutes of August 24, 2005 RTAC Meeting * III. INFORMATION ITEMS Memorandums are provided for review and comment; Committee action will be requested at a following meeting, as needed. A. Status of FY Transportation Improvement Patricia Nilsson 9:10 Programs* The COMPASS Board approved the final list at the September meeting. Staff will present the status of the final document that will reflect final mirroring with the State Transportation Improvement Program and all required elements for submission to the Federal Highway Administration. B. Draft Transportation Networks under Communities in Motion * Charles Trainor 9:20 Staff will discuss recommended draft networks and the upcoming open house meetings on October 5-6, 2005 in Nampa and Boise. 800 S. Industry Way, Suite 100 Meridian, ID (208) Fax (208)

2 C. Review Amendments to RTAC Bylaws * Toni Tisdale 9:50 Staff will review proposed amendments to the Bylaws to add voting membership for representatives from the Public Participation Committee. D. Discussion about Legislative Issues * Toni Tisdale 10:05 Staff requests assistance from RTAC members to obtain information about upcoming Legislative issues as well as make staff and the committee aware of transportation issues as they arise. E. Discussion about Set-Aside Funds * Toni Tisdale/ 10:15 A funding strategy was briefly outlined by a guest speaker at Patricia Nilsson the September COMPASS Board meeting. Staff will apprise the committee of this strategy and begin discussion to possibly implement this strategy at COMPASS. F. Overview of North Meridian Comprehensive Plan Amendment Steve Siddoway 10:25 Steve Siddoway will provide an overview of the North Meridian Comprehensive Plan Amendment along with possible implications. G. Discussion of Right-of-Way Preservation Sue Sullivan 10:40 Sue Sullivan seeks input from other agencies on the issue of escalating right of way costs. H. Discussion on Transportation Studies Coordination Project* Toni Tisdale 10:45 This is a standing item to update the Studies Coordination website. V. STATUS REPORTS A. Transportation Status Report* B. Staff Activity Report* C. Corridor Studies * VI. OPEN DISCUSSION Mary Berent 10:50 VII. ADJOURNMENT Mary Berent 11:00 Next meeting: Wednesday, October 26, 2005, 9:00 a.m., COMPASS. Post Agenda Item: Representatives from U.S. 20/26 Study area will meet immediately following the conclusion of the RTAC meeting. *Attachments pc: RTAC T:\FY05\800Maintenance\820 Committee Support\RTAC\Agendas\agenda doc

3 ITEM II-A Regional Technical Advisory Committee July 27, 2005 Community Planning Association ***Minutes*** ATTENDEES: ABSENT: Greg Abramson, City of Kuna Mary Berent, City of Middleton, Vice Chair Kevin Bittner, Valley Regional Transit Dean Gunderson, Ada County Leonard Herr, Department of Environmental Quality Leon Jensen, Canyon County (for Bonnie Ford-LeCompte) Don Kostelec, Ada County Highway District, Chair Shawn Martin, Ada County Highway District Paul Raymond, City of Nampa Steve Siddoway, City of Meridian Nichoel Baird Spencer, City of Eagle Dennis Stegenga, City of Star Sue Sullivan, Idaho Transportation Department-District 3 Toni Tisdale, COMPASS (Ex-Officio) John Anderson, Boise Air Terminal Casey Bequeath, Canyon Highway District #4 Wendel Bigham, Meridian School District Transportation Jim Buffington, Nampa Highway District #1 Karen Gallagher, City of Boise Gordon Law, City of Caldwell (Vacant), City of Garden City Pam Sheldon, Capital City Development Corporation Sarah Stobaugh, Boise Independent School District 800 S. Industry Way, Suite 100 Meridian, ID (208) Fax (208)

4 OTHERS ATTENDING: Patricia Nilsson, COMPASS Sai Kumar Sarepalli, Holladay Engineering Cindy Thiel, COMPASS Charles Trainor, COMPASS Jeanne Urlezaga, COMPASS Debbie Winchar, COMPASS CALL TO ORDER Chair Don Kostelec called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Since a quorum was not present, the Chair moved to Information Item IV-A. INFORMATION ITEM Review of Optimal Transportation Systems for Communities in Motion Charles Trainor stated that work is continuing on the Trend land use scenario as a baseline of comparison to Community Choices. The COMPASS Board s approval of the Blended land use scenario (name later changed to Community Choices) on June 20, 2005 permitted the Communities in Motion project to go forward with the development and evaluation of optimal transportation networks. Charles Trainor gave a PowerPoint presentation, which was also presented to the COMPASS Board on July 18, 2005, that compares Community Choices; a choice for our region that provides choices in housing and transportation, and Trend; what happens if current patterns continue. Charles Trainor commented that RTAC will be presented with a transit network for both Trend and Community Choices, a roadway network of Community Choices, and possibly a financial picture and costing for those systems at the next scheduled meeting on August 28, Open Houses will commence in early October at which time all this information will be shared with the public in order to receive input on what they would like to see happen. With quorum now present, the Chair moved to the Action Items. CONSENT AGENDA Approve May 25, 2005 Minutes Approve June 22, 2005 Minutes Dean Gunderson moved and Steve Siddoway seconded to approve the May 25, 2005 and June 22, 2005 minutes as written. There being no further discussion, the motion was unanimously approved. ACTION ITEMS Recommend Revision 4 of the FY 2005 Unified Planning Work Program After discussion, Steve Siddoway moved and Nichoel Baird Spencer seconded to recommend approval of Revision 4 of the FY 2005 Unified Planning Work Program. After further discussion, Steve Siddoway moved and Nichoel Baird Spencer seconded a substitute motion to recommend approval of Revision 4 of the FY 2005 Unified Planning 2

5 Work Program with the understanding that in the interim COMPASS and Valley Regional Transit staff will meet with the Ada County Highway District s staff to discuss the philosophy of Revenue Adjustment #2, which moves the responsibility of Key #8960 dollars for the Rail Corridor Feasibility Study from Valley Regional Transit to COMPASS and that the result of that meeting will be presented to the COMPASS Board along with a recommendation. There being no further discussion, the motion was unanimously approved. INFORMATION ITEMS Update on the Certification Review Process Toni Tisdale stated the Certification Review process has been completed. At the July 18, 2005 COMPASS Board meeting, Steve Moreno, Division Administer of the Federal Highway Administration, presented the final Certification Review report to the Board. There was only one corrective action which, for a first review, is excellent. The corrective action addresses the need to correct the financially constrained aspect of the Transportation Improvement Program and Long Range Transportation Plan. COMPASS, within the next three years, will incorporate the recommendations made. Accommodations were also made. The full Certification Review can be found on the COMPASS website at: Review Public Comment Draft of FY Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) for the Nampa Urbanized Area and Northern Ada County Patricia Nilsson stated a list of projects is located on the COMPASS website as well as a twocounty map. Patricia encouraged RTAC members to look in detail at the projects within their respective jurisdictions. Patricia encouraged members not hold back during the public comment period, which begins on July 18 and ends on August 16, if there is a strong feeling regarding a project (i.e. Caldwell s request to move up an I-84 project to 2006 that was delayed until 2008). As a technical committee RTAC should take on the responsibility for their respective agencies and forward comments to COMPASS. COMPASS will review the comments with the Idaho Transportation Department. COMPASS will host an all-day open house on Wednesday, August 3, 2005 from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Staff will prepare final TIPs for RTAC s review in August 2005 and for adoption by the COMPASS Board at the September 2005 meeting. Discussion on Transportation Studies Coordination Project Toni Tisdale stated that several changes have been made since the June meeting. If there are other changes to be made, please contact her as soon as possible. Steve Siddoway commented that the Downtown Meridian Transportation Management Plan was acted on by Meridian City Council and recommended for approval. Steve will forward the updated information to Toni. NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, August 28, 2005, 9:00 a.m., at COMPASS. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:34 a.m. T:\FY05\800Maintenance\820 Committee Support\RTAC\Minutes\minutes doc 3

6 ITEM II-B Regional Technical Advisory Committee August 24, 2005 Community Planning Association ***Minutes*** ATTENDEES: ABSENT: Mary Berent, City of Middleton, Vice Chair Kevin Bittner, Valley Regional Transit Leonard Herr, Department of Environmental Quality Don Kostelec, Ada County Highway District, Chair Bonnie Ford-LeCompte, Canyon County Shawn Martin, Ada County Highway District Steve Siddoway, City of Meridian Dennis Stegenga, City of Star Sue Sullivan, Idaho Transportation Department-District 3 Toni Tisdale, COMPASS (Ex-Officio) Greg Abramson, City of Kuna John Anderson, Boise Air Terminal Casey Bequeath, Canyon Highway District #4 Wendel Bigham, Meridian School District Transportation Jim Buffington, Nampa Highway District #1 Angie Brosious, City of Boise (for Karen Gallagher) Dean Gunderson, Ada County Gordon Law, City of Caldwell Paul Raymond, City of Nampa Pam Sheldon, Capital City Development Corporation Nichoel Baird Spencer, City of Eagle Sarah Stobaugh, Boise Independent School District (Vacant), City of Garden City 800 S. Industry Way, Suite 100 Meridian, ID (208) Fax (208)

7 OTHERS ATTENDING: Patricia Nilsson, COMPASS Sai Kumar Sarepalli, Holladay Engineering Charles Trainor, COMPASS Debbie Winchar, COMPASS Jay Witt, COMPASS CALL TO ORDER Chair Don Kostelec called the meeting to order at 9:12 a.m. Since a quorum was not present, the Chair moved to Information Item IV-A. INFORMATION ITEMS Review Optimal Transportation Systems for Communities in Motion Charles Trainor gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding Trend and Community Choices Transportation Network Development. This presentation was also given to the COMPASS Board on August 15, Charles Trainor stated that the CIM-Plan Coordination Team will be meeting on Friday, August 26 to wrap up its work on the Community Choices land use scenario. Open House meetings are scheduled for October 5, 2005, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., at the Hispanic Cultural Center of Idaho in Nampa, and October 6, 2005, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., at the Idaho Historical Museum in Boise. Update on the Development of a Mode Choice Model Jay Witt stated as of June 2005 development of a mode choice model for the two-county region was completed. COMPASS has been using this new mode choice model and it is working well at this point. As part of this development project, Fehr & Peers Associates (a consultant selected by staff in early 2005) developed and provided COMPASS with an integrated 3-D s analysis tool (three specific land use factors: density, diversity, and design). This tool allows COMPASS to take a given transportation network and see the impacts on that network associated with two different land use scenarios. In the beginning of the Communities in Motion project the various land use scenarios, with the 2009 network, were compared to each other to see what the differences would be in walk and bike trips. COMPASS will have this tool throughout the implementation of Communities in Motion to have the ability to compare the Trend to Community Choices. The consultant has also provided a Direct Ridership Model, which is a spreadsheet tool that allows COMPASS to look at the land uses around proposed rail stations or bus rapid transit stations (fixed route transit centers) to see which stations would perform better versus others. This tool is being used in Utah and Northern California to evaluate station location and rail development. With quorum not present, the Chair moved to the Action Items. CONSENT AGENDA Approve July 27, 2005 Minutes This item was tabled for the next scheduled meeting. 2

8 Recommend Resolutions Approving the Final FY Transportation Improvement Programs for the Nampa Urbanized Area and Northern Ada County Patricia Nilsson reviewed the modifications made to specific projects. After discussion of the modifications, Don Kostelec stated that regarding the City of Boise s August 16, 2005 letter regarding the draft TIP Comment and Procedural Improvement and various comments made regarding transportation impacts on land use, there has been no acknowledgement of land use decisions over the last 20 years and their impacts on the transportation system. What is included in the comprehensive plans, through the members involvement in the Demographic Advisory Committee, is fed into the COMPASS model. It is based on doing that land use analysis when evaluating transportation projects. That model, based on land use assumptions past, present, and future, go into the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). When questioning the needs for specific intersection improvements go back and look at the land use that is being implemented. That is where the need is coming from and this is something that has not been recognized. Those land use assumptions directly feed the CIP and that is where these projects are coming from. Don commented that he welcomes the opportunity to participate in an educational process regarding this issue. The project list was unanimously supported by the COMPASS Board at their April meeting. ACHD questions the motives and why they are now coming about. Thirty years of auto-oriented land use decisions gets you auto-oriented corridors. This is the state the valley is in, this has been reflected by the model, and that is where these improvements are coming from. There is discussion of a need for a 20-year project planning process. It has been done and is called the long-range transportation plan, it s called the CIP and it s integrated with land uses. These are some of the general frustrations from ACHD on seeing comments such as these coming forward after the COMPASS Board s approval of the list in April. Where we are considering changes now should come from the fact that we have said it s O.K, what is the public telling us that necessitates a change? The elected officials need our help to educate and bring them up to speed on what the implications of their decisions are and how their role as a member of COMPASS plays into all of these decisions. Sue Sullivan concurred with Don s comments and added that we should be thinking about the land use adjacent to these key corridors. If it has not been done in the past, we need to start collectively coming to a better understanding of that interface. If we have major corridors it can be extremely challenging to accommodate a land use; pedestrian facilities on a high-volume route without degrading mobility on the route. If we decide that mobility is important on a route, we have to understand that while we can try and do the best we can to be context sensitive, there are going to be limitations. Patricia Nilsson stated the TIP is a funding document. The context of the improvements is best articulated in the long-range transportation plan. It is hoped that in Communities in Motion on a corridor basis, that we get to a common understanding of the context of the segments along the road so that we are all seeing the same typology. RTAC is encouraged to invest their time and thought into the language of Communities in Motion that would then help to communicate the different streets types. Patricia commented that COMPASS staff appreciates being invited to the work sessions on the Five-Year Work Program for ACHD and would like to thank ACHD staff, Kathleen Lacey, and 3

9 others for their participation. That is a good setting to communicate concerns regarding particular projects that are even being considered to be done by ACHD. Steve Siddoway stated it is clear to the City of Meridian that the land use assumptions rolled into the model are key to everything that happens thereafter. Over the last week and a half, the City of Meridian has tried to take a more detailed look at the land use assumptions in the model by TAZ and have found some areas of concern. Steve commented he has had a telephone conversation to MaryAnn Waldinger and she asked that the comments be ed to her. Jay Witt replied that the Demographic Advisory Committee (DAC) is key to these issues. Steve commented that Anna Canning is the City of Meridian s representative on the DAC and she said that discussion is more general and not focused on looking at every TAZ in the city. After further discussion, a general consent was voiced by all RTAC members present, to recommend to the COMPASS Board the resolutions approving the Final FY Transportation Improvement Programs for the Nampa Urbanized Area and Northern Ada County, in addition to any other mirroring of funding that will take place with the Idaho Transportation Department. INFORMATION ITEMS Discussion on Rapid Transit Don Kostelec presented a PowerPoint presentation entitled Rapid Transit 101. Discussion on Transportation Studies Coordination Project Toni Tisdale stated that one change was made to the Downtown Meridian Transportation Management Plan to show that the Plan was approved by the City Council in July Funds in the amount of $10,000 were programmed to hire a consultant to provide an effective process. Staff was waiting to proceed until more information was available for the representatives of the Transportation Economic Land Use System (TELUS) program. The TELUS program has not made progress to date. The staff recommendation is to continue the Studies Coordination project as it is current operating and reprogram the $10,000 to another project. A general consent was voiced by all RTAC members present, to continue the Studies Coordination project as it is current operating and reprogram the $10,000 to another project. NEXT MEETING: Tentative meeting scheduled for Wednesday, September 28, 2005, 9:00 a.m., at COMPASS. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:25 a.m. T:\FY05\800Maintenance\820 Committee Support\RTAC\Minutes\minutes doc 4

10 ITEM III-A MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Regional Technical Advisory Committee Patricia Nilsson, AICP, Principal Planner DATE: September 21, 2005 RE: Status of FY Transportation Improvement Programs Action Requested: None. Background: At their September 19, 2005 meeting, the COMPASS Board approved the final project lists for the FY Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP). The Idaho Transportation Board is scheduled to approve the FY State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) on September 22, Status: Upon approval of the STIP, COMPASS will prepare the final TIP report that contains all information required by the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA). The one category of information that is still outstanding at this time is a refined description of the source of federal funds for several Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) projects. As you may remember in the review of the preliminary TIPs, ITD has created several new project funding categories that reflect project categories rather than funding sources. For example, STP-State was a funding category in previous TIPs. This year, the category Restoration and Expansion (R&E) may represent the use of STP-State, Safety, NHS or other funding sources. COMPASS staff has been communicating with the ITD Planning Division and FHWA on how best to represent this change in this year s TIP documents. Staff will distribute the final documents for the FY Transportation Improvement Programs upon their publication. PAN:dw T:\FY05\600Projects\685 TIP\FY06\RTAC Status Sept.doc 800 S. Industry Way, Suite 100 Meridian, ID (208) Fax (208)

11 ITEM III-B MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Regional Technical Advisory Committee Charles Trainor, Director of Planning DATE: September 21, 2005 RE: Draft Transportation Networks under Communities in Motion Action Requested Review the draft optimal transportation networks developed for consideration in the open house meetings on October 5-6, (This memo was also provided to the COMPASS Board in its September 2005 packet.) Background At its meetings in June, July and August 2005, the COMPASS Board was presented with versions of the optional transportation networks developed by the Plan Coordination Team. These networks are paired with the Trend and Community Choices land use scenarios, the two scenarios selected by the Board for continuation in the Communities in Motion process. In the development of these networks, there are some fundamental principles that underlie Communities in Motion: The Board approved a vision for the plan in 2003, We envision a Treasure Valley where quality of life is enhanced and communities are connected by an innovative, effective, multimodal transportation system. The process began with development of regional growth control totals that were to remain consistent between the land use scenarios. As accepted by the Board in March 2004, the two-county population for 2030 was set at 800,000 and the two-county employment total was set at 460,000. These totals were adjusted slightly during the scenario development process. Growth scenarios were created and evaluated with the above vision in mind and addressing concerns voiced by many participants in the November 2004 workshops. These included preservation of open space and agricultural lands, provision of housing choices, and fostering alternative transportation modes. The plan was to focus on regionally important facilities such as arterial and major alternative transportation system corridors, be policy-oriented, and result in project selection criteria that would help focus funding on projects that achieved desired outcomes. The scenarios were to present clearly distinct outcomes that would promote a meaningful discussion of what the community really wants to achieve in land use and transportation. The Community Choices land use scenario should be viewed as a future toward which we could 800 S. Industry Way, Suite 100 Meridian, ID (208) Fax (208)

12 strive, while the Trend land use scenario would be the current course. The optimal networks are not yet financially constrained and should not be viewed as the plan. Each network, whether we pick the Trend network or the Community Choices network, must be balanced against the reasonably available funds for building new facilities or adding new services. Each network is well outside of the range of available funds. For the preferred network, projects will be prioritized, resulting in a fundable list that is actually in the plan and an illustrative list that can later be added to the plan via amendment when new funding is obtained. Trend A question at the July 2005 Board meeting was Why are we still evaluating Trend? The Trend land use scenario is what is going on now and what is likely to go on for some time given the amount of preliminary platting underway in the region. The most recent information available to COMPASS indicates there are 30,000 lots being considered on 16,000 acres within Ada and Canyon Counties. Around one-third of the activity is in Canyon County. The very large ship that is our region will be extremely slow to turn. Another frequently asked question is, Shouldn t the plan be based on reality? If reality was the bounds of vision for the plan, then the plan would be Trend. The characteristics of the Trend land use scenario are: Development continues in the current pattern of low-density residential uses, with most housing built at densities well below the 7+ units per acre needed for effective transit. More and more homes will be remote from jobs, shopping and services, leading to an increased need to travel. Open space between cities will gradually vanish, creating by 2030 an unbroken expanse of urban/suburban development from Caldwell through Boise and from Kuna to north of Star and Middleton. The characteristics of the Trend optimal transportation network (Attachment 1) are: Personal vehicles will continue as not only the main means of transportation but will increasingly be the only effective means. Transit services will exist but only at levels similar to what exist today. Since current transit services provide less than 0.5% of trips today, by 2030 the split will be no better and perhaps lower. Walking and biking modes, particularly for work trips, will drop as the number of homes remote from employment sites increases. The approach used in developing the network can be summed up with Get the red (congestion) out! As noted below, this mission must be tempered by fiscal reality. Countering the Trend is a number of issues, one of which has become increasingly apparent just within the past few months: Oil costs have risen dramatically, with the per barrel price now around $70. While there may be some reduction once the Gulf Coast is restored from the effects of Hurricane Katrina, experts believe that substantially higher costs are here to stay due to global demand. What will $3.00-$4.00 per gallon gasoline do to household travel expenses, and will people reconsider their travel modes and home location decisions?

13 Land costs are also increasing. Some developers question whether low cost, lower density single-family housing can continue. In some communities, there has already been a shift to smaller lot sizes to compensate for the high cost of raw land. Water costs are also likely to increase, particularly if the weather patterns which have prevailed over the past decade continue. Generally, the population in the U.S. is getting older and household sizes are expected to decline. While this pattern does not hold true for all communities, there is a question as to whether the market is supplying the right mix of homes for the future population. Community Choices The outcome of the November 2004 and February 2005 workshops was distilled into the land use scenario now titled Community Choices. Workshop participants voiced their desire to see preservation of open space and agriculture (which are not necessarily the same thing), provision of more housing choices, and creation of a transportation system that provides effective travel choices. The Community Choices land use scenario attempts to accomplish this, with the effects shown in Table 1. Table 1 Comparison of Land Use Scenarios Trend Community Choices 125,400 acres 42,200 acres 72% single family 55% single family 20% new homes at transit density 52% new homes at transit density 20.7 Million Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel 19.6 Million Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel 272,600 Daily Hours of Delay 247,900 Daily Hours of Delay The travel analysis summarized in Table 1 does not include the effects of public transportation investments. It highlights that simply keeping homes closer to jobs and services can provide a transportation benefit. At 20 miles per gallon, the savings in energy alone would be 50,000 gallons of fuel per day--about $150,000 at today s cost. Over a year, that would amount to $38,250,000 per year in fuel costs counting only weekdays. The characteristics of the Community Choices land use scenario are: More housing built at higher density, with over half the new homes at a density that could support effective public transportation. Only a third as much land would be needed to meet growth, leaving more land in open space or available for agriculture. The higher density also promotes walking and biking compared with Trend, although even the Community Choices land use scenario will result in many more homes remote from jobs and services compared to today.

14 The characteristics of the Community Choices optimal transportation network (Attachment 2) are: A greatly expanded public transportation system (Attachment 3 and 4), resulting in 40,000 trips per day. This is still just 1.3% of the total daily trips of 3 million. However, the percentage of trips during peak hour for work purposes is expected to be much higher. Furthermore, the intent of the public transportation system, consistent with recent plans prepared for Valley Regional Transit, is to focus services along corridors where public transportation is likely to be more effective. (More evaluations are underway and will be presented at the Board meeting.) Fewer major roadway improvements are shown in the network. This was a conscious decision to not build everything. The approach used in developing the network was not simply Get the red out. Instead the approach focused on how to provide and facilitate alternatives through selective roadway improvements. A broad philosophy might be Put your investments where you want growth to happen. (And don t build roads where you don t want growth!) Congestion would exist under Community Choices, as it also would under Trend, but there will be effective alternatives available to most people. Under Trend, alternatives would be much more limited. Reality The land use scenarios and the optimal transportation networks need to be considered against some hard realities: Neither the Trend nor the Community Choices transportation networks is fully fundable with reasonably available resources. More money will be needed, of course. But just as important is the need for a project prioritization system to allow policy makers to judge the merits of the projects and determine what gets funded now and what must await new resources congestion levels will be worse than today. In a growing metropolitan area, this is a given. The improvements will make future congestion less bad than it will be without improvements. It will take time to change growth patterns. Many larger communities are now developing year growth scenarios, since shifting patterns of development and travel is a generational issue. Many will believe that the area is not ready for public transportation and that we should wait to invest in major new services and facilities until the region is bigger. The counter is that, without an effective public transportation system in place, it will be difficult to encourage a change in land use patterns. In particular, why should a developer build a transit oriented project near a future rail station unless the region has committed to implement rail? Preservation of agriculture will be difficult given the high land prices. At $70,000 per acre, a 160-acre family farm would go for over $11 million. How does that compare to the price of sugar beets? Are people willing to raise public funds to purchase land or development rights? Can clustering be done to allow such land to develop while retaining some open space, and would buyers want cluster housing? Keeping affordable single-family homes within areas of impact will be difficult given the high cost of land. It can only be done with smaller lot sizes/higher densities. But this triggers a negative reaction by nearby residents, who may push for the same or lower density than what exists now.

15 Status The information for the October 5-6, 2005 open house meetings (Attachment 5) is still in development. This information will include the best estimates of available resources, costs for the roadway and transit networks, and an outline of how project prioritization could be approached. Staff have also developed an analysis of the major travel patterns to depict where people will go under Trend and Community Choices scenarios. One interesting outcome is that no communities retain all trips, and for some smaller cities, the retention of work trips within the community is less than 5%. The issues noted above are really the meat for the open house discussion. We are not seeking feedback on whether a specific road should or should not be included in the optimal network. We want to know whether a person attending the open house not only sees value in the Community Choices option, but is willing to have the types of land uses envisioned in Community Choices in his or her neighborhood--maybe even next door. Do people understand the implications of each scenario, and what do they think of the possible strategies to meet the demands of each? What are people willing to pay for new services or new roads? How should these be funded? The Board itself is welcome to consider these issues. I invite Board members to attend one or both of the open house meetings to meet residents and find out first-hand their thoughts on Communities in Motion. Attachments (5) pc: CT:dw File Internal Correspondence T:\FY05\600Projects\661 CIM\02-InternalMemorandums\rtacmmo-sept05.doc

16 Bogus Basin Rd Ranch Mace Karcher Rd Marsing Rd Lincoln Rd Joplin Chateau Pennsylvania Reutzel W Hubbard Rd Attachment 1 S Mayfield Rd State HWY 21 Upper Blacks Creek Rd I-84 Warm Springs Ave HWY 21 Lake Forrest Columbia Rd Tablerock Law Amity Rd Yamhill Federal Way Trend Landuse Scenario And Transportation System State HWY 55 Market Rd W Chapparral Rd Edna Ln Emmett Rd Galloway Rd Lansing Ln Blessinger Rd I-84 Purple Sage Rd Purple Sage Rd Purple Sage Rd US Hwy 20 / 26 Homer Rd Dry Creek Rd Seamans Gulch Rd Horseshoe Bend Rd Ballantyne Rd Boise River Rd Beacon Light Rd Floating Feather Rd N Park Ln State HWY 16 Notus Middleton Linder Rd Notus Rd Wagner Rd Peckham Rd Friends Rd Allendale Rd Gotsch Rd Hill Rd Edgewood State St Eagle State HWY 44 Star Rd Can-Ada Rd Utahna Star Cartwright Rd Glenwood St Pierce Park Rd Gillis Island Wood S Channel Rd Simplot Blvd State Hwy 19 Hwy 19 Castle Riverside Arney US HWY 20 & 26 US Hwy 20/26 Catalpa W State St N Mountain View Dr Braemere Garden City Hill Rd Taft Kent McMillan Rd Eagle Rd Can-Ada Rd Star Rd Caldwell Ustick Rd Wagner Rd Adams Ustick Rd Ustick Rd Chinden Blvd Ustick Rd 13th 8th St Meridian Rd I-84 15th Main St Mitchell Jullion Maple Grove Rd Milwaukee St Edna St Irene 28th St State St Cole Rd Northview Meridian Cherry Ln 10th Ave Homedale Rd Fairview Ave Front Emerald I-184 Five Mile Rd Cherry Ln Reserve Fort St Shamrock Muirfield Hickory Jerico Pine Ave Walnut Myrtle 9th St Curtis Rd 1st St Franklin Rd Karcher Rd Franklin Rd Boise Ave Orchard Ave Lake Ave Vista Ave Orchard St Roosevelt Cole Rd Cassia E Corporate Dr Mallard I-184 Overland Rd Black Cat Ten Mile Rd Broadway Gekeler Apple Owyhee Curtis Rd Lone Star Rd Middleton Rd Happy Valley Rd Midland Blvd Robinson Rd Greenhurst Rd Powerline Rd 12th Ave Lake Shore Dr Lewis Ln Perch Rd State Hwy 55 Riverside Rd Deer Flat Rd Kuna Rd Missouri Ave Nash Ln Ross Ln Southside Blvd Bowmont Rd Rim Rd State Hwy 45 Melba Rd US Hwy 95 Apple Valley Rd Klahr Rd Hollandale Targee Victory S E 5th Way Victory Rd Elder S Cole Rd Bienapel Production Highlander Desert Kuna-Meridian Rd McDermott Rd McDermott Rd I-84 I-84 Nampa Boise Linder Rd Victory Rd Amity Rd E Gowen Rd Lake Hazel Rd Valley Heights Chapin Cloverdale Rd S Locust Grove Rd Lake Hazel Rd W Columbia Rd Hubbard Rd Greenhurst Rd Lewis Ln Deer Flat Rd Deer Flat Rd Boise Pleasant Valley Rd Ten Mile Creek Rd 4th St Kuna Rd King Rd Kay Avalon McDermott Rd School Ave S Cole Rd Kuna-Mora Rd Eagle Rd S Locust Grove Rd Kuna-Meridian Rd Kuna King Rd Swan Falls Rd UofI Rd Parma Market St Shelton Rd Hwy 20/26 Wamstad Rd Old Hwy 18 US Hwy 95 Rodeo Ln Dixie Rd Hwy 95 Red Top Rd Hwy 19 Wilder Greenleaf Melba US Hwy 95 Fargo Rd U.S. Hwy 95 Homedale Impact Areas New Interchange Study Interchange Study Areas Activity Center Arterial Commercial Central City City Compact Neighborhood Industrial Large Lot Residential Main Street Office Park Residential Subdivision Rural Housing Town Trend Road Network Improvment Type & # of Lanes Context Sensitive New Study Widen Existing / Study Widen Existing - 2/3 Lanes Widen Existing - 4/5 Lanes Widen Existing - 6/7 Lanes WIDEN EXISTING, 8 DRAFT September 1, 2005 Reflecting changes from 8/26 PCT - Miles S:\PROJECTS\CommunitiesInMotion\trendrd_B.mxd 0 2 4

17 Mace Karcher Rd Marsing Rd Lincoln Rd Chateau Reutzel W Hubbard Rd Attachment 2 S Mayfield Rd Upper Blacks Creek Rd I-84 - Miles State HWY 21 Warm Springs Ave Lake Forrest Columbia Rd Community Choices Preliminary Road Improvments Draft September 1,2005 US Hwy 95 Apple Valley Rd Reflecting changes from 8/26 PCT Klahr Rd UofI Rd State HWY 55 Parma State HWY 16 Emmett Rd Market Rd Galloway Rd Market St W Chapparral Rd Shelton Rd Edna Ln Hwy 20/26 I-84 Notus Boise River Rd Middleton Eagle Star Greenleaf Peckham Rd Wilder Wamstad Rd Rodeo Ln Fargo Rd Old Hwy 18 Purple Sage Rd Homer Rd Purple Sage Rd Purple Sage Rd US Hwy 20 / 26 Lansing Ln Can-Ada Rd Dixie Rd Notus Rd Red Top Rd Hwy 19 Simplot Blvd US Hwy 20/26 Hwy 19 Garden City Caldwell Allendale Rd Gotsch Rd US Hwy 95 Dry Creek Rd Beacon Light Rd Bogus Basin Rd Seamans Gulch Rd Horseshoe Bend Rd Ballantyne Rd Floating Feather Rd Hill Rd Linder Rd N Park Ln Meridian Rd Hwy 95 Cartwright Rd State St State HWY 44 Utahna Island Wood Pierce Park Rd Glenwood St S Channel Rd State Hwy 19 Castle Riverside Arney Joplin US HWY 20 & 26 Braemere Hill Rd Taft Homedale Meridian Ustick Rd Cherry Ln Karcher Rd Boise Orchard Ave Nampa Lone Star Rd Wagner Rd 10th Ave Lake Ave Middleton Rd Ustick Rd Friends Rd State Hwy 55 US Hwy 95 Eagle Rd Eagle Rd McMillan Rd Ustick Rd Adams Chinden Blvd Ustick Rd 13th 8th St 15th Homedale Rd Fairview Ave Emerald I-184 Five Mile Rd Jullion Mitchell Maple Grove Rd Edna St Irene Northview Cherry Ln Star Rd McDermott Rd Can-Ada Rd 28th St State St 50th St Cole Rd Main St Milwaukee St Woodbury Reserve Fort St Shamrock Jerico Muirfield Tablerock Front Myrtle Pine Ave Walnut 9th St Curtis Rd Liberty Black Cat Ten Mile Rd Franklin Rd Franklin Rd 1st St Mallard Boise Ave Cole Rd I-184 Emerald St Park Center Blvd Broadway Gekeler Victory Law Apple Elder Amity Rd Yamhill Production Overland Rd Targee Victory Rd Bienapel Desert Chapin Kuna Powerline Rd Southside Blvd Happy Valley Rd Midland Blvd Cloverdale Rd Robinson Rd Greenhurst Rd E Gowen Rd W Columbia Rd 12th Ave Federal Way Orchard St Roosevelt Pleasant Valley Rd Owyhee Vista Ave Curtis Rd Hollandale S E 5th Way I-84 Linder Rd Kuna-Meridian Rd S Locust Grove Rd Victory Rd Amity Rd Lake Hazel Rd HWY 21 S Cole Rd S Cole Rd Highlander Lake Hazel Rd McDermott Rd McDermott Rd Greenhurst Rd Hubbard Rd Lake Shore Dr Deer Flat Rd Missouri Ave Riverside Rd Perch Rd Deer Flat Rd Deer Flat Rd Ten Mile Creek Rd Kuna Rd Avalon Kuna Rd Nash Ln Ross Ln King Rd King Rd Ten Mile Rd Bowmont Rd Kuna-Mora Rd S Locust Grove Rd Kuna-Mora Rd Rim Rd State Hwy 45 Swan Falls Rd Impact Areas Future Interchanges Study Areas Activity Center Arterial Commercial Central City City Compact Neighborhood Industrial Large Lot Residential Main Street Office Park Residential Subdivision Rural Housing Town Number of Lanes 2/3 Lanes 4/5 Lanes 6/7 Lanes Melba Rd Melba 8 Lanes 4 Lane Expressway S:\PROJECTS\CommunitiesInMotion\comchoi_B.mxd

18 Mace Cartwright Rd Karcher Rd Marsing Rd Lincoln Rd 8th Ave Robinson Rd W Hubbard Rd Myrtle Attachment 3 State HWY 21 I-84 Warm Springs Ave HWY 21 Columbia Rd Edna Ln Lansing Ln Cherry Ln Middleton Rd Lone Star Rd Orchard Ave Midland Blvd Happy Valley Rd Greenhurst Rd 12th Ave Deer Flat Rd Kuna Rd Missouri Ave State Hwy 45 Southside Blvd Bowmont Rd Rim Rd Melba Rd Emmett Rd Lake Ave I-84 Wagner Rd 10th Ave Lake Shore Dr Perch Rd Nash Ln Galloway Rd Notus Rd Ustick Rd State Hwy 55 Riverside Rd Market Rd Market St Hwy 20/26 US Hwy 20 / 26 Boise River Rd Allendale Rd Gotsch Rd Peckham Rd State Hwy 19 US Hwy 20/26 I-84 Karcher Rd Franklin Rd Powerline Rd Purple Sage Rd Simplot Blvd Ross Ln Baseline Rd Shelton Rd US Hwy 95 Hwy 95 Hwy 19 Friends Rd US Hwy 95 Homedale Rd U.S. Hwy 95 US Hwy 95 Apple Valley Rd Klahr Rd Ustick Rd Purple Sage Rd Hwy 19 Community Choices Optimal Transit System State HWY 16 State HWY 55 Homer Rd Purple Sage Rd Hill Rd State HWY 44 Eagle Rd Ustick Rd Ustick Rd Franklin Rd Cloverdale Rd Black Cat Ten Mile Rd Linder Rd US HWY 20 & 26 Beacon Light Rd Bogus Basin Rd Dry Creek Rd Seamans Gulch Rd Star Rd McMillan Rd Adams Chinden Blvd Meridian Rd Emerald Five Mile Rd Fairview Ave Front Maple Grove Rd Boise Ave Orchard St 13th Cherry Ln Overland Rd Kuna-Meridian Rd 1st St E Gowen Rd Lake Hazel Rd W Columbia Rd Federal Way S Locust Grove Rd Avalon Pine Ave Floating Feather Rd State St Castle Edna St I-184 Victory Rd Taft Sunset Irene Pleasant Valley Rd King Rd Kuna Rd McDermott Rd Broadway Roosevelt Vista Ave Mitchell Ten Mile Creek Rd 4th St S Cole Rd Curtis Rd Glenwood St 9th St Law Milwaukee St Can-Ada Rd Pierce Park Rd W State St Deer Flat Rd Desert Northview Fort St Apple Park Center Blvd Owyhee Gekeler Cole Rd Bogart Joplin Braemere Tablerock Shamrock Reutzel Amity Rd Lake Hazel Rd Chapin Greenhurst Rd School Ave Edgewood S Channel Rd Garrett Hill Rd Jerico S Locust Grove Rd Walnut I-84 Hollandale Targee Annette Victory Rd Amity Rd Bienapel E Amity Rd Yamhill Eagle Rd S Cole Rd McDermott Rd Linder Rd McDermott Rd Can-Ada Rd Star Rd I-184 Overland Rd Kuna-Mora Rd S Locust Grove Rd King Rd Kuna-Mora Rd Pine Ave Swan Falls Rd UofI Rd Wamstad Rd Old Hwy 18 Rodeo Ln Dixie Rd Red Top Rd Fargo Rd Activity Center Arterial Commercial Central City City Compact Neighborhood Industrial Large Lot Residential Main Street Office Park Residential Subdivision Rural Housing Town Bus Route BRT and Commuter Rail Draft September 1,2005 -

19 Attachment 4 Communities in Motion Community Choices Public Transportation Options There are many options to provide public transportation services. The choice of which transportation technology and service is appropriate depends on a number of conditions. Physical barriers or high-density, extremely expensive land in urban environments often justifies the expense of subways or elevated systems that do not consume valuable surface. Technologies or services that operate on facilities separate from the general roadways can provide travel time advantages when congestion is high. High volumes of passengers support the higher expense of rail investments. The systems shown below are-- or could be--part of the Community Choices optimal network. The thing to remember is that whatever public transportation system is developed must work as a system. A successful public transportation system must connect people from the start of their trip to their destination as seamlessly as possible. Since travelers often must use more than one mode to get where they are going, making all the pieces work together is essential. People may walk or bike to a bus stop, take a bus to train station, and then walk to their final destination. Bus Buses are the most common public transportation mode in the U.S. Buses are rubber-tired vehicles operating on fixed routes and schedules on roadways. As of 2003, over 80% of the vehicles operated by transit agencies in the U.S. were buses, which carried over 60% of the nation s transit passengers. Buses are powered by diesel, gasoline, battery or alternative fuel engines contained within the vehicle. The low capital cost and flexibility of the routes are major advantages to buses compared with the often extremely high capital cost of other technologies. This is offset by higher labor costs when passenger demand is high, since bus capacity is limited and each bus requires a driver. Figure 1 - Articulated Bus in Virginia Average bus system speeds range from 5.2 mph in downtown areas to 14.3 mph in suburban areas. The suburban speeds were closest to the average bus speeds for ValleyRide s service in the Boise area. The use of roadways can be a constraint when roadway congestion is high. Capital costs are mainly for vehicle purchases and major maintenance. Vehicle costs vary widely, depending on the size and rating of the vehicle. Heavy-duty transit vehicles have a minimum service life of 12-years and would range in price from $300,000-$700,000. The latter cost is for articulated vehicles such as shown in Figure 1.

20 Bus Rapid Transit Bus rapid transit (BRT) is a relatively new term for transit systems providing high-quality bus services. They may use existing roadways or dedicated rights-ofway, or a combination of both. A BRT system may have dedicated roadway in areas where traffic congestion would be greatest, but also utilizes existing highways and roadways to reduce costs. Optimally, such routes offer advantages over regular bus service with greater service frequency, increased capacity, and higher speed. Figure 2 BRT Vehicle in Albuquerque NM Using a single bus BRT offers lower capacity than rail systems, which can combine several cars together with one operator. Use of larger capacity vehicles Figure 2 shows an articulated vehicle used on an 11-mile BRT corridor in Albuquerque brings BRT closer to rail in terms of capacity. Figure 3 - Bus Guideway in Adelaide Australia to steer itself along the guideway. Other features used to improve speed and capacity include signal preemption, honor fare systems to avoid boarding delays, and station spacing of 1-2 miles outside of downtown cores. On some systems, guideways are built to channel the bus in narrow corridors at higher speeds. An example from Australia is shown in Figure 3. The bus has side guide wheels The arguments in favor of BRT systems are: Provide quality of service similar to light rail at lower cost for vehicles and right-of-way. Function as interim systems until light rail is warranted. Reroute service if necessary or continue travel on general roadways. Opponents claim that BRT systems are still subject to traffic congestion, and that they suffer from poor ridership because they are unattractive to middle- and upper-class commuters. Demand Response (paratransit services) This mode uses cars, vans or small buses to provide service upon request to pick up and transport passengers. Typically, a vehicle is dispatched to pick up several passengers at different points before taking them to their destinations. Demand response service typically is used in low density areas where fixed-route service is not cost-effective or for supplemental service to fixed-route transit, notably for persons with disabilities that prevent them from using fixed-route services. Cost per passenger is substantially higher than fixedroute service sometimes running 5-7 times the cost for the same trip on a fixed route bus. Figure 4 - Demand Responsive Service in Lewiston ID

21 Figure 5 - Diesel Multiple Unit in Poland Commuter Rail Commuter rail is not so much a technology as a type of service. Commuter rail is urban passenger train service for local short-distance travel operating between a central city and adjacent suburbs. Service is operated on a regular basis by or under contract with a transit operator for the purpose of transporting passengers within urbanized areas, or between urbanized areas and outlying areas. Rail service can use either locomotive-hauled or self-propelled railroad passenger cars. Figure 5 shows a newer version of a self-propelled train, called a diesel multiple unit (DMU). Figure 6 shows a typical locomotive/passenger car train set. The DMU offers greater efficiency, faster acceleration and deceleration. It is often used in lighter demand corridors. A vehicle similar to this was tested in the Treasure Valley in Some versions of DMU are capable of mixing with regular rail service, while other DMU vehicles are too light and must be run on separate tracks or at times when heavier rail vehicles are not using the track. Commuter rail service does not include heavy rail rapid transit, light rail/street car transit service, or intercity rail service such as provided by Amtrak in the US. One definition of commuter rail service is that more than 50 percent of the average daily ridership uses the service at least three times a week. Figure 6 - Typical Locomotive/Passenger Car Trainset in Virginia Commuter rail stations are generally spaced farther apart than is usual for light rail or heavy rail rapid transit. The infrequent stops and the separate right-of-way make the average speed of commuter rail the highest of the rail options at 30 mph on the average for the systems tested.

22 Light Rail Light rail service uses lightweight passenger rail cars operating singly (or in short, usually twocar, trains) on fixed rails in right-of-way that is not separated from other traffic for much of the way. Light rail vehicles are driven electrically with power being drawn from an overhead electric line via a trolley or a pantograph. As noted above and shown in Figure 5, diesel engine powered units can eliminate the expense of overhead power lines. Light rail systems can handle steeper inclines than heavy rail, and curves sharp enough to fit within street intersections (though this is hardly true for all light-rail lines). They are typically built in urban areas, providing frequent service with small, light trains or single cars. Due to their light construction, these cars cannot be operated on the same track with freight train or regular passenger/commuter Figure 7 - Modern Light Rail in Minneapolis rail services. They are well-suited, however, to operate in urban centers where heavier rail vehicles would be unsafe and intrusive. Light rail systems in the US operate at an average operating speed of 12 mph. This includes operations on separate rights-of-way and on street in mixed traffic. The lower speed of light rail compared to commuter rail is a function of this service often running in shared rights-of-way on city streets and the more frequent stops. Light rail vehicles are capable of higher speed (60 mph) service when running on tracks with suitable crossing protection or separation. Figure 8 - Historic Streetcars in New Orleans Average capital costs for light rail systems constructed during the 1980 s were $19.5 million per mile in 1990 dollars. Costs for streetcar-type systems, such as pictured in Figure 8, could be up to one-half the cost of full light rail systems. Streetcar systems typically use smaller vehicles within downtown cores. Advocates for light rail and streetcar systems note that rail appeals to a larger market than do buses. Their higher capital costs may be offset by their greater operating efficiency and capacity when ridership is high. Nationally, the operating costs per passenger on bus were slightly higher than light rail according to 2003 statistics reported to the Federal Transit Administration. D:\download\661cim\02-InternalMemorandums\Transit-options.doc