| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
APPROVED
HELD ON MAY 19, 2009
TAB Members Present |
TAB Members Absent |
Others Present |
Ken Cole, Chairperson |
Travis Cunningham (excused) |
Dan Cleavenger |
Ron Barnes |
Heather Moos, Vice Chairperson (excused) |
Alan Sanderson |
Ian Bennett |
Mike James | |
Nick Camillone |
Ravi Seera | |
Jerel Campbell |
Amanda McKeever | |
Matt Tolman |
Randi Davis | |
Grady Van Noy |
Sgt. Bruce Jones | |
David Wier |
Ken Hall | |
Larry Woolf |
Scott Rigby | |
Craig Crocker | ||
Beth Huning Fred Rustam Steve Ketchum Kelly Jensen Gordon Haws |
Chairperson Ken Cole called the May 19, 2009 Transportation Advisory Board meeting to order at 5:33 pm. Chairperson Ken Cole chose to hold off on the first item and move directly to Item 2.
Item 2. Items from citizens present.
None.
Item 3. Discuss and take action on staff recommendation to approve the revised alignment
for Ray Road from Power Road to Ellsworth Road.
Fred Rustam presented the revised alignment of Ray Road from Power Road to Ellsworth Road to the Board. Mr. Rustam began by giving some background information.
In June 2002, the City of Mesa 2025 Transportation Plan was approved by the City Council. The Plan called for the planning and development of Ray Road from Power Road to Ellsworth Road. In November of 2004, Proposition 400 (the Regional Transportation Plan) had called for additional funding in the amount of a half-cent sales tax to provide for construction of this road. Also, in November of 2008, the Two-Year Streets Bond Program approved by Mesa voters provided funding for the proposed road.
Mr. Rustam displayed the earlier alignment that was approved by the City Council in November of 2003. The alignment showed the current Ray Road from where it ends at Sossaman Road and follows the general direction of the airport property, heading east, ending at Ellsworth Road. Also, part of the current alignment is the Hawes Road alignment, tying into the freeway interchange, which was constructed by ADOT but is not open for traffic at this time. This alignment had Ray Road shifting to the south as it headed east.
Mr. Rustam showed staff’s proposal which is based on discussions that were held with stakeholders including proposed development in the area. The proposed project also includes construction of Hawes Road alignment between Loop 202 and Ray Road.
Construction of this project is scheduled to start in October of this year and will be completed in the spring of 2010. Construction will include one lane in each direction until future development takes place. The ultimate build-out will include four lanes west of Sossaman Road (two lanes in each direction) and east of Sossaman Road to Ellsworth Road there will be three lanes in each direction. The lanes will be separated by a raised median.
The current project also calls for signalized intersections at Sossaman Road and Ray Road and at Ellsworth Road and Ray Road. There will be a stop sign at the intersection of Hawes Road and Ray Road for the time being. Conduit will be installed for future streetlights when development is in place.
Matt Tolman asked if there was any right of way action that needs to be taken regarding the proposed alignment. Mr. Rustam replied that there would be and that City of Mesa staff has been working with almost all of the affected property owners and there is a consensus from all of the property owners. Several property owners have signed up with exception for a couple of property owners who are waiting for the approval from this Board and from the City Council prior to signing the paperwork.
Larry Woolf asked how much of the $11.8M project cost is going to be covered by Proposition 400 funds. Dan Cleavenger explained that Proposition 400 money would cover a portion of the costs and the City would be responsible for the balance. That balance would be covered by the general obligation bonds approved by voters in November 2008. It was originally intended that the Proposition 400 funds would cover approximately 70% of the costs. Today, that percentage is probably a little higher. Boardmember Larry Woolf asked if this money was in addition to the $11.8M, and Mr. Cleavenger clarified that this money is included as a part of the $11.8M.
Chairperson Cole said that there were two individuals who wished to speak on this item. The first was Susan Demmitt with Bues Gilbert. She represents the owners of Pacific Proving property, which is the southern 1,600 acres of the GM Proving Grounds. This property is at the southeast corner of the 2003 Ray Road alignment and Ellsworth Road. This 1,600 acres constitutes the portion of the GM Proving Grounds that DMB does not own. When the City initially proposed to revise the Ray Road alignment from the approved 2003 Ray Road alignment, Pacific Proving property owners, along with DMB, were concerned about the relocation of the intersection of Ray Road and Ellsworth Road to the north. The concern stemmed from the fact that the 2003 alignment provided an intersection at Ray Road and Ellsworth Road for the property owners. Relocating that intersection north took that corner away from the Pacific Proving property. Pacific Proving has been working with the City, along with DMB and other stakeholders in the area, for the last year to ultimately find a compromised solution, which the Board had before them. This includes Ray Road slightly relocated north from the 2003 alignment and a future Ray Road south which will continue to provide arterial access to the Pacific Proving property.
Ms. Demmitt expressed support for the revised alignment. There were two points that Pacific Proving would like on the record regarding their support for the revised alignment. The first was it was their understanding that the Ray Road South, which will be built sometime in the future, will be a two way street similar to Ray Road North. The second point is that the intersection of Ray Road South and Ellsworth Road will be able to be signalized. Ms. Demmitt’s clients were looking for confirmation on both points as well as the confirmation that the plan will go forward to Council for their review and approval.
Alan Sanderson addressed Ms. Demmitt’s points. He confirmed that the plan is for both Ray Road North and Ray Road South to be two-way streets. There has not been any detailed modeling completed to determine the exact number of lanes that will be needed or how the two streets will meet, but the plan is that they will both be two-way streets. Ray Road South will continue to the east and be on one side or the other of the floodway that is near the location. DMB’s proposal for Ray Road North realigns with the relocated Warner Road within the DMB property. Mr. Sanderson also confirmed that the spacing is such that both Ray Road North and Ray Road South will be signalized with their intersection with Ellsworth Road.
Dan Cleavenger clarified that staff’s intent was to place this item on the City Council agenda for their approval.
Michael Blenis introduced himself as part owner and a representative of Ellsray Capital Group, which owns the land on the southwest corner of the 2003 Ray Road alignment of Ray Road and Ellsworth. The group owns approximately 90 acres at that location. Mr. Blenis provided a letter to the Board that stated that they felt the staff report was somewhat inaccurate in that it stated that all the stakeholders agreed and were all in support of the new alignment of Ray Road. Mr. Blenis and Ellsray Capital Group wanted to go on record and state that they do not support the realignment or change to the 2003 approved alignment of Ray Road. When the group purchased the property a number of years ago, they bought it based on the 2003 Ray Road alignment knowing they would have a corner there. The proposed alignment takes that corner away.
Mr. Blenis explained that he understood that the compromised alignment would eventually leave the group with a corner if the southern piece of Ray Road is built, but felt that the corner would be reduced because of lower traffic volumes due to the splitting of Ray Road. Mr. Blenis expressed his concern with a possibility of the southern portion of Ray Road not being built in the future. When the property was purchased by his group, the 2003 Ray Road alignment showed Ray Road being built by the City, with City funds. Mr. Blenis said that it appeared to him that this new alignment shows the southern portion of Ray Road being built by private development funds as development progresses. Mr. Blenis closed his comments by explaining that his group worked close with the City in this process and that his group also owns approximately 1,000 acres south of the airport. He wanted the Transportation Board to be aware that in approximately November of 2007 the City of Mesa asked his group to not contest the City trying to get STAN money reallocated to purchase the right of way for the State Route 802. His group agreed to that request and sometime after that, the group found out that Ray Road was being moved and that was disappointing and frustrating to their group as they felt like they were being asked to support one thing, supported it, and then Ray Road was proposed to be moved without their support. Mr. Blenis closed his comments by expressing his thanks to the Board for their time and being able to be on the record as not supporting the move of Ray Road.
Chairperson Cole asked the Board if there were any questions for Mr. Blenis and there were none. Chairperson Cole then verified that Mr. Blenis covered the points of the letter in his comments to the Board. Mr. Blenis confirmed that and thanked the Board once again. Chairperson Cole thanked Mr. Blenis and asked the Board if there were any points of discussion for this item at this time.
Ron Barnes expressed his confusion and asked if all the stakeholders were in agreement with the proposed alignment.
Scott Rigby responded to Mr. Barnes question and addressed the Board. He explained that the City had been working on this project for approximately a year and a half. The segment from Hawes Road to Ellsworth Road has been a difficult situation with property owners where the original alignment was proposed, in addition to trying to work with the interested parties to the east, including DMB and Laveen as well as Paragon Properties. The City has been talking to them about different options. At this point, this proposed alignment was the most conducive option the City could arrive at with the vast majority of property owners. Until this evening, Mr. Rigby was not aware that the Ellsray Capital Group was in complete objection with this proposed alignment. The property owners that are directly affected by this alignment are in support and the City does have all of the right of way dedications and easements, with the exception of one, who is waiting for action by this Board and, eventually, the Council. Mr. Rigby explained that the City had done its best to work with the property owners and that the goal was to keep the project moving forward and the City hopes, thinks, and believes that the Ray Road South option will continue to provide Paragon Property frontage and access when that road goes in, especially with the two-way alignment.
Alan Sanderson added that the reason the timing is so critical is because none of the properties to the east can be developed until water and sewer are available in the area. This project is more than construction of Ray Road. It brings water and sewer services to the area.
Scott Rigby explained that the last two properties west of Ellsworth were not willing to work with the City on the old alignment and this was the best opportunity to move forward.
Matt Tollman expressed his concern with “flip-flopping” and explained that those actions tend to create bad feelings. He wanted to confirm that everything is being taken care of above board. Also, he asked about the purpose of extending Hawes Road past the alignment, past Ray Road, as shown on the map. Fred Rustam responded that what Mr. Tollman was seeing was a mistake. Hawes Road would not be extended past the alignment. Hawes Road is being built only from Ray Road to the freeway.
Chairperson Cole asked what the timeframe is between Ray Road North and Ray Road South.
Alan Sanderson responded the two property owners who would have to cooperate and provide right of way in order to build Ray Road South are the two who are not willing to cooperate and that is what led to the property owners to the north offering their property. The timing for Ray Road South will be dependant on development of the adjacent property.
Chairperson Cole clarified that that this proposed alignment has been brought about by the fact that the City could not get right of way on the original alignment.
Alan Sanderson confirmed that Chairperson Cole was correct. He went on to explain that what is seen with the new alignment is two arterial streets within 1/8 of a mile. Mr. Sanderson explained that the City is not purchasing any of the right of way for this alignment and that it is being provided by the property owners to the north of the original alignment. Additionally, Mr. Sanderson explained that the same applies to Ray Road South. The City will not go out and purchase right of way and build the road. The street will be built as development occurs.
Also, Mr. Sanderson explained that the City is not building the full Ray Road, but instead, basically, the center portion. The rest of the road will be built by the developers when they develop. This goes for the south portion as well. Mr. Sanderson explained that the City has a Cityshare program where the developer is required to build so much and the City pays for extra width. He explained that the same thing would apply on Ray Road South and that this is the normal process.
Chairperson Cole asked if this would go under the State Route 802. Alan Sanderson responded that the freeway is completely elevated there so Ray Road will go under the freeway there.
Nick Camillone asked why the 2003 alignment dipped down as shown on the map of the 2003 alignment. Alan Sanderson explained that the dip was an attempt to get back to the standard section line location and it was not able to be on the section line across the airport because the airport property goes north of the section line and their runway clear zones go through the standard section lines as well. The dip was an attempt to keep it as standard as possible.
Mr. Camillone asked if the original alignment was also geared to bring the sewer and utilities to the area. Mr. Sanderson responded that it was and that it had always been in the plan.
Ian Bennett moved that the Board accept the staff’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Ron Barnes. The Board voted and the motion was passed unanimously.
Chairperson Cole thanked everyone for their information and time and moved to agenda item 1.
Item 1. Approval of the minutes of the Transportation Advisory Board meeting held on
April 21, 2009.
Chairperson Cole said that there was a proposed change to the minutes. Dan Cleavenger explained that Mr. Jerry Spellman addressed the Board last month about Sky Tran technology that he was proposing in lieu of the Light Rail. Mr. Spellman sent an email to staff after he reviewed the draft minutes and wanted to include some additional information in the minutes. Mr. Cleavenger read a statement that was prepared by staff to address some of Mr. Spellman’s concerns. That statement was also given to the Board members to review. Mr. Spellman wanted included that he had provided information that was not given to the Board. Mr. Cleavenger said that the Board should have received that information in the mail immediately following the last meeting.
Mr. Cleavenger said if the Board approved it, staff proposed adding the statement to the minutes and amending the minutes.
Nick Camillone explained that he did not think the statement need to be included in the minutes as described as long as the minutes said that Mr. Spellman wanted the Board to delay the decision until the Board reviewed the alternative proposal.
Chairperson Cole responded that Mr. Spellman had technology that was not approved and not ready. Chairperson Cole said in his opinion they were not going to be ready in two years. Instead, Chairperson Cole felt they were five to ten years out with their technology.
Mr. Camillone followed up that he would want it stated that part of the reason he did not support Mr. Spellman’s request was because of the delay that was inherent in the technology and it not being available. Mr. Camillone thought that was a considerable part of their discussion and the basis for the Board’s action that was taken.
Chairperson Cole clarified that the paragraph being discussed would be added to the minutes. It would not replace any part of the minutes.
Alan Sanderson suggested some alternative verbiage that would merge the proposed addition of the paragraph that was being discussed and the existing minutes. Dan Cleavenger further clarified the proposed merging of the two statements and explained that the Board had already taken action on Mr. Spellman’s proposal and staff would do a little wordsmithing to make the sentiments clear in the minutes.
Chairperson Cole asked for any additional questions or comments.
Ian Bennett expressed his concern with some of the discussion regarding the Main Street rail item. Mr. Bennett explained he thought the minutes should reflect the discussion the Board had with Metro about the effects it would have on downtown Mesa businesses should Light Rail go down Main Street. He explained he would like it shown that he does support Light Rail going down Main Street, and he would like people who have businesses that are going to be affected by it to know that the Board took that into consideration.
Dan Cleavenger explained that it would be easiest for staff if a comment was proposed by the Board to be added into the minutes. Mr. Cleavenger explained that staff would be happy to include any statements the Board wanted to include.
Chairperson Cole explained that it would be appropriate to include additional information in the minutes as the Board did have a significant amount of discussion. Additionally, citizens and some of the business owners who were present discussed that there would be impacts. Chairperson Cole asked for any suggestions.
Ian Bennett explained he recalled asking questions specifically about effects on the downtown structures regarding jackhammering and other construction activities. Chairperson Cole expressed his interest in summarizing that there was lengthy discussion on impacts to local businesses through construction, through utility relocation, and through construction duration, and the Board’s concern with impact to local businesses.
Jerel Campbell added that some of the people present came back and responded to the on-going discussions.
Larry Woolf expressed his concern with the minutes in that they may have been a little too brief. He recalled the Park and Ride lot was discussed at length as well and there was not much in the minutes showing the discussion other than stating a discussion took place. Mr. Woolf said at this point he would like to see staff go back and redo the minutes and include some of the discussion regarding that item and the discussion that took place regarding the Light Rail and approve the minutes at the next meeting.
Mr. Cleavenger explained that staff will work on expanding minutes in the future as well as go back and expand on the minutes from the previous month.
Nick Camillone wanted to express a general comment. He whole-heartedly supports that the minutes need to have a balance in proportionality to their length based on the length of the discussion of the topics and the meetings length, but he hopes that the Board is not getting to the point that they need to have a literal recording as if they were sitting in a court and have a court reporter reporting everything. Mr. Camillone knows it is in the interest of everyone to devote adequate attention and try to explore the issues with all the ramifications to all affected parties and he felt that was one of the hallmarks since he had been on the Transportation Advisory Board and he believes the staff has done that.
Ian Bennett wanted to clarify that he is not looking for a transcript of everything that is said at the meetings. He is concerned that residents who bring their concerns to the Board are not being reported and their concerns are not being recorded.
Chairperson Cole agreed that the Light Rail item was brief in the minutes and requested that staff add a little more to the minutes regarding the discussions on Light Rail with some of the property owners and questions asked and add the statement regarding Mr. Spellman’s item and bring that back to the Board next month.
Chairperson Cole received consensus from the Board to direct staff to proceed as Mr. Cleavenger described.
Item 4. Hear a presentation and discuss Regional ADA Certification In Person
Assessments Public Outreach Update.
Julie Howard, City of Mesa’s Transit Coordinator, began the presentation on the Proposed ADA Bus/Rail Pass and ADA Eligibility Program Update. Ms. Howard explained that since the acceptance of the Valley Metro Regional ParaTransit Study, a technical advisory group was created to make recommendations on small portions and pieces to implement in order to move toward a regional Dial-A-Ride. Valley Metro has started that process and part of that process has been to look at in-person assessments as part of the ADA certification process as well as a free bus and rail pass to go along with that process.
Scott Wisner, the Customer Service Manager, from Valley Metro RPTA joined Julie to present on the public hearings that have been held as well as give some results of the hearings and provide some timelines.
Mr. Wisner began by explaining that ADA certification is a federally mandated program that must be offered. This program is designed to assess a person’s ability to use the transit system. It is not a measure of someone’s disability or severity of someone’s disability. It is simply a measurement to see if an individual can use the fixed route system or not.
Mr. Wisner explained that ADA customers are customers who, because of a disability, are unable to use local bus or METRO Light Rail service for some or all trips in the service area. He explained that ADA paratransit services must be comparable to the level of service provided on the local bus or METRO Light Rail system.
Mr. Wisner explained that the current eligibility process, in place since 1994, has relied on a paper, mail-in application process to make determinations. A person makes a request to the office, an application is mailed to the person, they fill out that application, and then mail the application back to the office. Then the ADA Certification Office must work with a person’s healthcare provider to make the determination about the severity of their disability and how it impacts their ability to use the transit system.
Mr. Wisner continued to explain that the proposed change is in hopes of improving that process and to make better, more accurate determinations, and then expand their services once they have a very thorough process in place. The main focus is to ensure that current levels and quality of service are maintained and that they can afford to provide these services now and in the future.
Mr. Wisner went on to describe the proposed program. The proposed program gives Valley Metro RPTA the ability to give lifetime eligibility to some customers. Currently, because they do the paper process, they limit the certification to three years. The new process will enable some customers to be certified for their lifetime and they will not have to repeat the process again. Also, Valley Metro RPTA will be able to increase the standard certification from three years to five years. An ADA bus and rail pass will be added for some conditionally eligible customers, or those who can use bus and rail for some trips but need ADA Dial-A-Ride or paratransit for others. Also, this program will give the opportunity to do a taxi referral subsidy program or referral to other programs – rather than use Dial-A-Ride exclusively.
The typical application process was then explained by Mr. Wisner. The customer will complete and submit an application. The customer will be contacted to schedule an interview with a transportation case manager and free transportation will be arranged to the site if needed. The interviews and assessments (if needed) will be conducted in a single visit and the interviews should be conducted within one hour. The assessments (if applicable) will be conducted within one to two hours. Some determinations will be made immediately. Photos will be taken for creating the ID card or bus/rail pass. Finally, referrals to additional transportation options will be offered to qualified customers.
Mr. Wisner went on to explain the ADA bus and rail pass. He explained that the purpose of offering this pass is to reduce the cost and demand on Dial-A-Ride. He explained that Dial-A-Ride costs about $40 for each trip taken on it, whereas bus trip is typically between $2.50 and $3.00 to take. If Valley Metro RPTA is able to get people who have the ability to use the bus or rail system versus using Dial-A-Ride exclusively to using the bus and or rail system partially, the cities will incur some savings. Additionally, bus and rail options give people better opportunities to get around as there more consistent bus and rail schedules that do not require reservations. Travel training will be provided to those who need it. The passes will be renewed each year through the mail. The reason it is being done annually is to keep the customer contact information current and to make sure customers are using the pass. Mr. Wisner explained again that this pass is at no cost to the customer.
Mr. Wisner went on to explain the benefits of the program. He explained that the proposed process helps expedite determinations. Currently, many applications are returned incomplete due to insufficient information. Also, sometimes Valley Metro RPTA does not get responses from healthcare providers at all after numerous attempts. As a result, approximately 20% are returned as incomplete. The new program will allow customers to provide information directly to ADA office staff. A case manager will be assigned for each customer and this allows for more personalized service. The case manager will walk the application all the way through the process. The certification length will be increased to five years and some customers will receive lifetime certification. ADA bus and rail pass will be offered and referrals will be given to customers to give them more transportation options.
Mr. Wisner continued by explaining the public hearing process and public comment results. In April, there were a number of public hearings held and, prior to that Valley Metro RPTA, met with a stakeholders group. The outreach efforts included one stakeholders meeting, one outreach event at a major disability expo, five formal public hearings, including one hearing in Mesa, one webinar, 11 informational presentations to date (which continue to be offered and more are being held), one meeting with an individual, and some newspaper coverage.
A total of 54 comments were received from individuals and five comments were identified as being from Mesa residents. A total of 36 commenters did not indicate their residency.
Overall, Valley Metro received mostly favorable responses from the hearings. Most of the people did not have strong objections to the program. Most people were concerned by who would be conducting the testing and Valley Metro RPTA has been able to address that because they plan on hiring a certified company that has the staff in place who can make that determination. Valley Metro RPTA staff will not be making the determination.
Commenters were also concerned about the pending fare increase and service in general. Valley Metro RPTA received more comments about the pending fare increase and service related issues than they did about the ADA certification program. Mr. Wisner also reviewed the results from the five Mesa respondents.
The tentative implementation time was reviewed by Mr. Wisner. From April to September 2009, Valley Metro RPTA will continue informational presentations and conduct staff research. Additionally, they will finalize the process and work on the logistical details. They will go back to the Valley Metro Board and ask them to adopt this measure. If this project is adopted, Valley Metro RPTA will do an RFP to hire a private company to do the assessments and either Valley Metro RPTA staff will relocate to that private company’s location or that private company will relocate to Valley Metro RPTA’s location so that both are in the same location. From January to March 2010, Valley Metro RPTA will conduct internal preparation and fine-tune the process by doing dry-runs. From April to June of 2010, customer education will be done. Current applicants will be notified of the change. The pilot program is slated to start in April 2010. The full implementation will take place in June or July of 2010. The new program will be rolled out to customers when they are due to have their certification renewed.
Mr. Wisner then asked the Board for any questions they may have. Ian Bennett had some questions regarding the testing. He noted that this seemed to be an area of concern with some of the respondents. Mr. Bennett asked if this was a standardized test.
Mr. Wisner explained that there are several different kinds of test depending on a person’s disability. He explained that one of the most common test is the FACTS test, which is a cognitive test. The type of test will totally depend on the type of disability. In some people’s cases, a test will not be needed. The person doing the interview will be able to prescreen the applicant, be sure they understand the person’s limitations, and then choose the appropriate test if needed.
Mr. Bennett asked about the purpose of the testing. He asked if the purpose of the testing was to keep people off Dial-A-Ride or to match the person with a service.
Mr. Wisner responded that the purpose is not to keep people off of Dial-A-Ride. The purpose of the test is to determine if the person can use the fixed route bus system. The tests are not meant to be vigorous. They are meant to tell if the person can use the fixed route bus system.
Mr. Bennett then asked about eligibility, and Mr. Wisner explained that there are two types of eligibility right now. There is temporary eligibility if someone was injured or had a disability for a predetermined amount of time. For example, if someone had a broken leg and was going to be in a cast for three months, they could apply for eligibility for that timeframe. The other eligibility is the standard eligibility. The duration of that is typically three years and is for someone whose disability was not going to change in those three years. The new program proposes that some people’s disability will never change or never go away. For that reason, those individuals should not have to repeat the certification process, therefore they should be given lifetime certification.
Mr. Bennett also asked about the cost of Dial-A-Ride. Mr. Wisner had mentioned that Dial-A-Ride costs approximately $40 per trip. Mr. Bennett asked who was responsible for that cost: users or the City? Mr. Wisner explained that the City pays for that.
Mr. Bennett asked for clarification on the testing. He wanted to verify that the testing is done by a third party and Mr. Wisner confirmed this for him. Mr. Wisner also explained that the Easter Seals has a program that helps administer and develop these tests. These ADA certification tests are common all over the country and that most major cities have migrated to this system. Valley Metro RPTA intends to visit three to four peer cities to see their operations and adopt best use practices.
Mr. Bennett asked about the FACTS test that Mr. Wisner mentioned, specifically what it stood for. Mr. Wisner explained that the FACTS test is the Functional Assessment of Cognitive Transportation Skills. He explained that it is basically a memory test used to determine if a person can use the fixed route bus system independently. If a person cannot navigate the system independently, they will be approved for either conditional eligibility or full eligibility. Conditional eligibility is a determination where a person can use the fixed route system on some of the trips, but cannot on all of their trips. An example of that would be for someone with heat-related illnesses. They would not be able to walk to or wait for extended period of times at a bus stop during the summer months, but in the winter they would be able to use the fixed route system. Someone who is unable to use the fixed route bus system for any of their trips would be fully eligible.
Chairperson Cole asked for any additional questions.
Nick Camillone asked Mr. Wisner to explain what happens as a result of the assessment if somebody is categorized as ineligible for Dial-A-Ride. Mr. Wisner explained that the determination will not be on the spot. Valley Metro RPTA has 21 days to make the determination according to the federal mandate. The new process will allow Valley Metro RPTA to be able to make a determination within a couple of days. Once a determination is made, the applicant would get a letter with the determination showing they are conditionally or fully eligible for paratransit services or they have been denied for a given reason. When an applicant is denied, a reason must be given.
Mr. Camillone asked if there was an appeal process and Mr. Wisner verified that there is one.
Mr. Camillone asked how enforcement will work with this program. Mr. Wisner explained that there is no way to enforce the use of the free pass. He said the idea is to incentivize people to use the pass by making it free. The good thing about the new fare structure and the proposed ADA pass, because it’s a photo ID and it’s a Smart Card, Valley Metro RPTA will be able to track the usage of that card and generate reports for each user. Valley Metro RPTA will be able to collect data to make sure the program continues and make any needed modifications. The idea is if they can track and show significant usage of the pass, they will be able to show significant savings to the cities.
Mr. Camillone asked if there was a physical check of the picture and Mr. Wisner verified that the bus operators would be checking them.
Mr. Camillone asked what happens if the pass is not used. Mr. Wisner explained there is really nothing that will happen. Valley Metro RPTA will contact that person when they are set to expire. Mr. Camillone asked if they will deny them use and Mr. Wisner said that they will not deny them use of it. Mr. Wisner explained the idea is to get the card in the users’ hands and hope that they will use it. Some customers may decline to renew the card if they do not use it. A summary of their usage may be sent to the cardholders when they renew.
Mr. Camillone followed up by asking how large the user base is. He asked how many people are involved in this program and how many does Valley Metro RPTA hope to convert from Dial-A-Ride to the fixed route bus system. Mr. Camillone also asked about the transition plan in converting people to the bus/rail pass.
Mr. Wisner responded that there are approximately 11,000 ADA-certified individuals regionally. Mr. Wisner explained that this is a pretty low number for a city this size, in comparison to peers. Mr. Wisner said that the research Valley Metro RPTA did with their peers on a pass program shows that between 10 to 25% of the people who were given the pass utilized the pass. Valley Metro RPTA took that data and created a baseline and model and used 10%, which they consider to be a conservative number. The goal is to convert 10% to the bus/rail pass. Mr. Wisner explained that if they are able to convert 10%, there are substantial savings in the millions of dollars range than can be saved annually in that program alone.
Larry Woolf asked if the figure of 11,000 was Valley-wide ADA-certified individuals. Mr. Wisner confirmed that the 11,000 is Valley-wide.
Ron Barnes then commended Ms. Howard and Mr. Wisner and Valley Metro RPTA staff for this program. Mr. Barnes stated that this is long overdue and this shows that Valley Metro RPTA is being proactive. Mr. Barnes asked if this program would be Valley-wide, not just for Mesa or the East Valley. Mr. Wisner confirmed this for Mr. Barnes.
Mr. Barnes then went on to ask about the certification process. He asked if there would be multiple facilities where people can go to be certified. Mr. Wisner explained that it will be a regional process to certify individuals, but the initial recommendation is to have a single site for certification. Valley Metro RPTA looked at several different options but, logistically, the single site is the best option to start with. Valley Metro RPTA will provide transportation to the single facility. It is most likely that Valley Metro RPTA will move their staff to the contractor’s location.
Mr. Barnes asked about the implementation of program. He asked how long it will take everyone to get recertified. Mr. Wisner responded that it will take three years to get everyone certified through this process. He said it will take this long because almost everybody is certified for three years and they will all renew within those three years.
Larry Woolf asked if the paratransit program is still three different programs in the Valley. Mr. Wisner responded that this is the case and that this certification program is the first step that was recommended in the study. The goal at Valley Metro RPTA is to have a regional Dial-A-Ride system eventually.
Chairperson Cole thanked Mr. Wisner for his time and the presentation.
Item 5. Hear a presentation and discuss the quarterly update on the Mesa Bicycle Plan.
Ken Hall, Senior Planner with the City of Mesa Transportation Department, gave an update on the Mesa 2020 Bicycle Master Plan. The Board was given a draft copy of the Existing Conditions Paper. Mr. Hall explained that this document is a draft and will be modified in the future. Subsequent draft chapters will be submitted to the Board in the future.
The Existing Conditions paper is essentially the third chapter in the Bicycle Master Plan, which will have a total of nine chapters. The Existing Conditions paper is the largest chapter in the plan and is a collection of information that will be utilized throughout the planning process.
Mr. Hall went on to describe some of the features of the Existing Conditions paper. The paper looks at existing Transportation facilities and community transit, provides a brief analysis of land use, looks at the community bicycle network itself (on-road and off-road systems), and also additional demographics will be added in the future. Some of the maps and databases will also be modified in the future.
Mr. Hall invited the Board to review the document and said any comments or feedback would be welcomed.
In addition to the draft paper, there is an active 20-member Planning Advisory Committee, and Mr. Hall expects to utilize the committee’s feedback to assist in the development of the plan. The Committee will be instrumental in assisting with the goals, objectives, and some of the policy formulations of the document. The committee met in January and another meeting is scheduled to be held in June and then monthly throughout the summer and early fall.
Mr. Hall went on to describe some of the upcoming tasks. The first task described by Mr. Hall is completing a second community survey. A survey was conducted last summer which was a questionnaire that looked at safety issues, proficiency, how comfortable a person was riding a bicycle in the bicycle lanes, and things of that nature. The second community survey will be more of an infrastructure survey where pavement conditions, raw conditions of facilities where people ride along, possibly some design issues will also be surveyed. Design guidelines will also be worked on. Current design problems will be reviewed and best practices used throughout the country will also be reviewed. Ultimately, a set of design guidelines will be developed. Bicycle safety and education will be done in the future as well.
Work has begun on some of the tasks described above already and should be completed within the next three months. Once those are complete, draft documents will be released to the Board for review. The chapters that are expected to be completed include: design guidelines, safety & education, issues and needs assessment, goals and objectives. Work will begin on the long-range bicycle plan itself and the implementation strategy.
Mr. Hall then asked the Board if they had any questions.
Chairperson Cole asked Mr. Hall on how the Board can go about getting any edits or comments to him on the document. Dan Cleavenger interjected that future quarterly updates will be submitted to the Board prior to the meeting so that they can have ample time to review documents before the meeting. In the meantime, staff will send the Board Mr. Hall’s contact information to send any comments to him before the next meeting.
Ron Barnes mentioned that he recently participated in a complete streets design presentation in Washington, DC and in downtown Phoenix. Mr. Barnes asked how this concept was going to be introduced in Mesa and integrated into bicycle lanes.
Alan Sanderson responded that slowly over time this concept has been implemented into Mesa streets. Planning for bicycles and pedestrians has always been a part of Mesa’s planning, from subdivision layout to actual street design details. Some of the things Mesa has done over the years include narrowing some of the streets, especially the collector streets, extensive work on pedestrian ramps and curb design especially at the major intersection which can be daunting to street users, and implementing raised medians. There have been a lot of changes to the standards and designs practices and details and guidelines over the years to try to recognize that legitimate roadway users include more than automobile drivers.
Dan Cleavenger added that the current Transportation Plan is from 2002 and it is due to be updated soon. Updates to that plan will include the elements Mr. Barnes and Mr. Sanderson mentioned.
Chairperson Cole thanked Mr. Hall for the update.
Item 6. Discuss and take action on staff recommendation to prohibit eastbound left turns
from the driveway on the west side of 48th Street with centerline approximately 55
feet south of Main Street.
Ravi Seera, with City of Mesa’s Traffic Engineering, presented the staff recommendation to prohibit left turns from the eastern driveway at the Superstition Ranch Market, which is on the southwest corner of Main Street and 48th Street.
Staff received a request from a citizen to review the traffic conditions at this driveway because the citizen was concerned about conditions due to vehicles backing up on 48th Street because left turning vehicles are blocking through traffic from Main Street. Staff monitored traffic conditions during peak hours when the Ranch Market is busy and staff observed a lot of vehicles are making this movement and blocking traffic. Staff also looked at crash history for the past three years, and it was observed there was one crash that was attributed to this behavior. Staff contacted the owner of the Ranch Market, and he concurs with staff’s recommendation to prohibit left turns from this driveway. In order for Police to enforce this prohibition, signs will need to be installed and the prohibition must be entered into City Code. Mr. Seera then offered to answer any questions the Board may have.
Chairperson Cole verified that the driveway is 55 feet from the intersection and Mr. Seera confirmed this and discussed particulars of this driveway further. Chairperson Cole agreed with staff’s assessment .
Matt Tollman asked how many left hand turn tickets are written in Mesa. Sergeant Bruce Jones responded and said for example when there was a prohibition at Mesa Drive and Coury Avenue, hundreds of tickets were written.
Matt Tollman asked who owned the driveway and Mr. Seera responded that the City does not own the driveway, it is owned by the property owner. Mr. Tollman asked if raised medians on the driveway to force a right turn were considered to prevent individuals from making left turns, similar to what is at the Park and Ride. Dan Cleavenger responded a raised median in the driveway could still be bypassed by drivers and would not completely prevent a left turn. Mr. Cleavenger responded that the best option to physically prevent left turns there would be a raised median in the street, but that one could not be built on this particular street. Mr. Cleavenger also mentioned that in order to enforce the left turn prohibition, signs must be put up regardless.
Ian Bennett asked, considering the cost of the signs, and the prohibition is to be enforced, at what point would the sign pay for itself?
Dan Cleavenger responded that two signs will be installed and the signs cost approximately $100 each and will last 10 to 12 years and it is not a significant investment if it addresses the need and gets most people to comply with the prohibition.
David Wier moved that the Board accept the staff recommendation to prohibit eastbound left turns from the driveway on the west side of 48th Street. Ron Barnes seconded the motion and followed up with a question. He mentioned his concern with the signage. He asked if the owner was willing to change travel patterns.
Ravi Seera responded that the City can recommend this change but cannot force the owner to change the travel pattern in his parking lot.
Mr. Barnes continued that signs may not be needed if the patterns are changed and create a one way driveway, which might enhance the property owner’s operational flow. Staff offered to pass this suggestion on to the property owner.
The Board voted and passed the motion unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:26 pm.