TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING

APPROVED

HELD ON APRIL 21, 2009

TAB Members Present	TAB Members Absent	Others Present
Ken Cole, Chairperson	Ron Barnes (excused)	Dan Cleavenger
Heather Moos, Vice Chairperson	Travis Cunningham (excused)	Alan Sanderson
Ian Bennett		Mike James
Nick Camillone		Ravi Seera
Jerel Campbell		Victoria Kerr
Matt Tolman		Randi Davis
Grady Van Noy		Dale Brunk
David Wier		Sanja Grujakovic
Larry Woolf		Jodi Sorrell
		Sgt. Mark Njaa
		Beth Huning Fred Rustam

Christopher Scott

Chairperson Ken Cole called the April 21, 2009 Transportation Advisory Board meeting to order at 5:31 pm.

Item 1. Approval of the minutes of the Transportation Advisory Board meeting held on March 17, 2009.

David Wier moved to approve the minutes as written. Grady Van Noy seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Item 2. Items from citizens present.

None.

Item 3. Hear staff update regarding the effective date of the by-laws for the Transportation Advisory Board.

Alan Sanderson reported to the Board that while the Board had approved the Transportation Advisory Board by-laws at the January meeting, they had not yet taken effect at the March meeting because the meeting minutes had not yet been acknowledged by the Council. Therefore, there were not enough affirmative votes to accept the staff recommendation to approve the selection of the site at Juanita Avenue and Vineyard Street for the West Mesa Park and Ride, and the issue will be presented again.

Item 4. Discuss and take action on staff recommendation to approve the selection of the site at Juanita Avenue and Vineyard Street for the West Mesa Park and Ride, and recommend proceeding with property acquisition and design.

Mike James presented a report providing information on the recommended location and conceptual design for the West Mesa Park and Ride, and to convey information related to the public meeting held on January 22, 2009. Site 6 had been approved 5-2 at the March 2009 Transportation Advisory Board but the approval required 6, not 4 votes. The TAB by-laws have been revised, and staff is again seeking a recommendation from the Board. Mr. James advised that $9.4 million in stimulus funding had been obtained, and that the design and environmental clearance had to be completed by March 2010.

Considerable discussion was held regarding the pros and cons of Sites 5 (northeast corner of Mesa Drive and Baseline Road) and 6 (southeast corner of Juanita Avenue and Vineyard Street). Larry Woolf asked about how many spaces were going to be needed in the future. Mr. James said that 240 to 300 spaces would be filled initially, but in ten to fifteen years they would all be filled. David Wier asked if any traffic studies had been done, and Dan Cleavenger said that projected traffic counts for year 2030 show that the traffic on Mesa Drive and on Country Club Drive would be virtually identical. Jerel Campbell asked if the LINK would go into the Park and Ride at Site 6 or would the passengers have to exit and have to walk across Country Club at Juanita. Mr. James said they would have to cross Country Club. Nick Camillone asked if there would be a pedestrian refuge since Country Club is so wide. Mr. Cleavenger said that Mesa Drive and Country Club were the same width. Matt Tolman asked if riders would be drawn from the Superstition and Southern routes, and Mr. James said they would. Chairperson Cole pointed out that either location would eliminate the number of riders parking at the Big Box stores. Mr. Tolman asked if existing billboards could remain to provide revenue. Alan Sanderson checked with the Planning Director who said that the existing billboards would have to be removed when the site was developed. Mr. Campbell asked if the stimulus funding was an earmark; Mr. James said the funding is specific to the West Mesa Park and Ride, either site. Mr. Woolf asked if the retention area to the west of site 6 could be developed for additional spaces, and Mr. Sanderson indicated it could be looked at.

Chairperson Cole said that Jeff Wissler, one of the principals and owners of Site 6, wished to speak to the Board on the advantages of Site 6. He said that staff had recommended Site 6 because of the connection to the LINK; Site 6 is in better shape and would cost less to develop than Site 5; and while the visibility of Site 6 is not as good as Site 5, Site 6 does have amenities already in place (convenience store/gas station, restaurants). Merwin Grant spoke on behalf of Buddy Jobe, owner of Site 5, on the advantages of Site 5. He said the Old Mesa Drive area was an eyesore, and the Site 5 lot could be expanded at a reduced cost by using the City owned Old Mesa Drive. He said the LINK should not be used as a comparison since it would not go into the Site 6 layout, Site 5 has more flexibility, and the neighborhood in the vicinity of Site 5 was in favor of Site 5 eight to one.

Mr. Camillone asked about the cost per space at each site and Mr. James said the cost should be similar at both sites. However, the larger site would cost more overall. Vice Chairperson Moos asked if Engineering cost estimates were available. Christopher Scott referred to Citizen Comment No. 3 and the Staff Response in the report, which provided an estimated cost for each site per the Design Concept Report: $7,810,000 for the 8.8 acre Site No. 5 and $5,400,000 for the 7.1 acre Site No. 6. The estimates assume using the entire lot, which might not be necessary as the facility can be sized and designed to equalize the cost at either location. The price per square foot would be very similar, based on a December appraisal. Vice Chairperson Moos indicated she was concerned about the price comparisons.

Mr. James said that all of the comments were good. However, we need to move forward in order to get the stimulus funding.

Matt Tolman moved to recommend the selection of Site 5 at Mesa Drive and Baseline for the location of the West Mesa Park and Ride. The motion was seconded by Nick Camillone.

Chairperson Cole pointed out that while Site 5 has room for more spaces, Site 6 would connect to longer bus routes and the LINK route. Mike James stated that staff supports the bus connectivity as being more important.

Ian Bennett asked what would happen if neither site passed muster. Chairperson Cole said that the Board will make a recommendation, but Council would make the decision. With the deadlines for the stimulus funding, he was certain the Council would move forward on a selection. Mr. Camillone asked what the impact of the Light Rail extension would be on the LINK. Mr. James said the LINK would end near Main Street and Country Club Drive instead of the Sycamore Transit Center. Mr. Tolman commented that since the primary purpose of the Park and Ride is to catch express buses, the LINK should not be considered so important.

The motion to recommend the selection of Site 5 was approved 5 to 4, with Mr. Bennett, Mr. Camillone, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Tolman and Mr. Wier in favor, and Chairperson Cole, Vice Chairperson Moos, Mr. Van Noy and Mr. Woolf voting nay.

Vice Chairperson Moos commented that she feels the image of Mesa needs to improve. The trees at the Country Club site would shield the asphalt. She also said that traffic already backs up near the Mesa site.

Item 5. Discuss and take action on staff recommendation to extend light rail transit on Main Street from Sycamore to the vicinity of Mesa Drive.

Mike James introduced Wulf Grote and Marc Soronson of METRO, who provided an update on the Central Mesa Corridor Study.

The study, called the Central Mesa High Capacity Transit Study, follows a process to qualify for federal funding and is referred to as an Alternatives Analysis (AA). The purpose of the analysis is to identify a transit technology and alignment alternatives that increase access to employment opportunities, provide improved travel times, connect the western and central segments of the City with the light rail transit system, facilitates continued growth and development of a comprehensive and interconnected regional transit network, and supports economic development. The first phase of the study identified the most feasible alternatives. The second phase is a more rigorous evaluation of the alternatives previously identified.

Two transit technologies were evaluated as part of the study – bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail transit (LRT). These technologies were identified early in the study because they were technologies that were already in operation so there would be no significant additional maintenance requirements or needs.

Mr. Soronson described the six alternatives that were evaluated in the study, including preliminary ridership forecasts and capital cost estimates.

Public outreach efforts informed the public, special interest groups and involved agencies about the proposed project, and public input was incorporated into the recommendation.

The preliminary recommendation is to extend the Light Rail corridor along Main Street from Sycamore to Mesa Drive. The locally preferred alternative is scheduled to be presented to Council on May 18, 2009, and to the METRO Board of Directors and the MAG Regional Council in Summer 2009.

Matt Tolman asked what is being written in to the contract to ensure that Mesa doesn’t get hit with cost overruns. Mr. Grote said it is too early in the process to have that answer. Chairperson Cole asked if the project would be CM @ Risk. Mr. Grote said CM @ Risk is not allowed on the federally funded project. He also pointed out that individual contracts ran over, but overall the first 20 miles of the light rail project was within budget.

Larry Woolf asked how much of the $194 million is the contingency amount; that amount is not known at this time.

Ian Bennett asked if any of the alternatives would affect the older downtown structures, specifically jack hammering and other construction activities. There was lengthy discussion on the impacts to local businesses through construction, through utility relocation, and through construction duration, and the Board expressed concern with the impact to local businesses.

Jerry Spellman of Unimodal Systems addressed the Board regarding the SkyTran Personal Rapid Transit System, and his concern that the information on the SkyTran System had not been forwarded to the Board. Staff indicated that they would send the information to the Board members on the following work day. Mr. Spellman then provided information about Unimodal and SkyTran as a possible transportation technology for the Central Mesa Alternatives Analysis study, and requested that the decision on the Central Corridor be delayed until the Board is able to review the alternative proposal that Unimodal has presented to the City. Mike James advised the Board that Unimodal has yet to demonstrate that they have a viable technology. Chairperson Cole said in his opinion they were not going to be ready in two years; instead he felt they were five to ten years out with their technology, and that changing technology at this stage would delay the project and could delay the funding that is already in place. Nick Camillone stated that part of the reason he did not support Mr. Spellman’s proposal was because of the delay that was inherent in the technology not yet being available.

Ian Bennett moved to accept the staff recommendation to extend light rail transit on Main Street from Sycamore to the vicinity of Mesa Drive. David Wier seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.

Item 6. Hear staff update regarding the speed cushion program.

Ravi Seera presented an update on the speed cushion program after a pilot project in which the speed cushions were installed on Hermosa Vista Drive, a fire route, in July 2008. Subsequent traffic studies showed the speed cushions to be effective in reducing the 85^th percentile speed, and the speed cushions did not present a problem for emergency vehicles. Council approved the use of speed cushions on fire routes on February 5, 2009. A number of neighborhoods are in the process of establishing eligibility, and prioritizations will occur on June 1^st, based on speed and volume.

Item 7. Take action on the following Transportation staff reports.

Consent Agenda

The following items will be considered as a group by the Transportation Advisory Board and will be voted on with one motion. There will be no separate vote on these items unless a Board Member or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered as a separate item.

a. Consider staff recommendation to prohibit westbound left turns between 8:30 am and 9:00 am and between 3:30 pm and 4:00 pm, school days from the driveway on the east side of Power Road with centerline approximately 360 feet north of Adobe Street.

b. Consider staff recommendation to prohibit eastbound turns from the driveway on the west side of Alma School Road with centerline approximately 330 feet north of 8^th Street and to prohibit westbound turns from the driveway on the east side of Alma School Road with centerline approximately 213 feet north of 8^th Street during times when emergency traffic signal preemption at Fire Station #218 is activated.

David Wier moved to approve the items on the Consent Agenda and Larry Woolf seconded. Jerel Campbell indicated he wanted the items considered separately in order to further discuss the first item on the Consent Agenda, and Mr. Wier withdrew his motion.

Mr. Wier moved to accept staff recommendation on Consent Agenda Item b., to prohibit eastbound turns from the driveway on the west side of Alma School Road with centerline approximately 330 feet north of 8^th Street and to prohibit westbound turns from the driveway on the east side of Alma School Road with centerline approximately 213 feet north of 8^th Street during times when emergency traffic signal preemption at Fire Station #218 is activated. Mr. Camillone seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Campbell expressed his opinion that prohibiting the left turns from the Fremont Junior High School driveway onto Power Road was more of a convenience issue for the school rather than a significant traffic issue. Matt Tolman agreed, saying he is against excessive regulation. Ravi Seera explained that prohibiting the left turns would alleviate the on-site traffic flow and prevent the traffic from backing up all the way around the driveway and onto Power Road, which could result in more rear end crashes on Power Road. Mr. Woolf moved to accept staff recommendation to prohibit westbound left turns between 8:30 am and 9:00 am and between 3:30 pm and 4:00 pm, school days from the driveway on the east side of Power Road with centerline approximately 360 feet north of Adobe Street, and Mr. Weir seconded. The motion passed five to three, with Chairperson Cole, Mr. Camillone, Mr. Van Noy, Mr. Wier and Mr. Woolf voting in favor of the motion, and Mr. Bennett, Mr. Campbell and Mr. Tolman voting nay.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:56 pm.