RTC/RFCD ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 600 S. GRAND CENTRAL PARKWAY, ROOM 108 LAS VEGAS, NV (702)

Transcription

1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1CD558C4-1DDB-479D-B422-47C1091C6506 NOTICE AND AGENDA OF PUBLIC MEETING OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 1:30 P.M. JULY 18, 2017 RTC/RFCD ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 600 S. GRAND CENTRAL PARKWAY, ROOM 108 LAS VEGAS, NV (702) This agenda with full backup is available at the Regional Transportation Commission Administration Building, 600 S. Grand Central Pkwy, Las Vegas, Nevada; the Regional Transportation Commission s website, or by contacting Marin DuBois at THIS MEETING HAS BEEN PROPERLY NOTICED AND POSTED IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: Clark County Government Center 500 S. Grand Central Pkwy. Las Vegas, NV City of Henderson Office of the City Clerk 240 Water Street Henderson, NV CC Regional Justice Center 200 Lewis Ave. Las Vegas, NV RTC 600 S. Grand Central Pkwy. Las Vegas, NV RTC Website Nevada Public Notice BY: OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE AGENDA JULY 18, 2017 Page 1 of 2

2

3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1CD558C4-1DDB-479D-B422-47C1091C6506 Items 2 through7 are items for possible action. Items 1, 8 and 9 are discussion items and no action can be taken. Please be advised that the Operations Subcommittee (Subcommittee) has the discretion to take items on the agenda out of order, combine two or more agenda items for consideration, remove an item from the agenda or delay discussion relating to an item on the agenda any time. 1. CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION 2. DESIGNATE OFFICERS FOR 2017/2018 (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Meeting of May 16, 2017 (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) 4. DISCUSS AND RESOLVE VARIOUS TRANSIT SYSTEM/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING OPERATION/LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) 5. RECEIVE A PRESENTATION FROM REPRESENTATIVES OF ROADSAFE TRAFFIC SYSTEMS ON I-CONE INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (ITS) TECHNOLOGY (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) 6. RECEIVE A PRESENTATION FROM THE NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (NDOT) ON MINI-ROUNDABOUTS (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) 7. APPROVE NEW STANDARD DRAWINGS "EXCLUSIVE BUS/BIKE LANE MAJOR/MAJOR INTERSECTION DETAIL", "EXCLUSIVE BUS/BIKE LANE MAJOR/MAJOR INTERSECTION DETAIL", AND "EXCLUSIVE BUS/BIKE LANE SPECIAL SIGN DETAIL (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) 8. DISCUSS TOPICS OF INTEREST 9. CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION During the initial Citizens Participation, any citizen in the audience may address the Subcommittee on an item featured on the agenda. During the final Citizens Participation, any citizens in the audience may address the Subcommittee on matters within the Subcommittee s jurisdiction, but not necessarily featured on the agenda. No vote can be taken on a matter not listed on the posted agenda; however, the Subcommittee can direct that the matter be placed on a future agenda. Each citizen must be recognized by the Chair. The citizen is then asked to approach the microphone at the podium, to state his or her name, and to spell the last name for the record. The Chair may limit remarks to three minutes duration, if such remarks are disruptive to the meeting or not within the Subcommittee s jurisdiction. The Regional Transportation Commission keeps the official record of all proceedings of the meeting. In order to maintain a complete and accurate record, copies of documents used during presentations should be submitted to the Recording Secretary. The Regional Transportation Commission appreciates the time citizens devote to be involved in this important process. The Regional Transportation Commission Meeting Room and Conference Room are accessible to the disabled. Assistive listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. A sign language interpreter for the deaf will be made available with a forty-eight hour advance request to the Regional Transportation Commission offices. Phone: TDD: Any action taken on these items is advisory to the Regional Transportation Commission. OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE AGENDA JULY 18, 2017 Page 2 of 2

4

5 5063 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA AGENDA ITEM Metropolitan Planning Organization [X] Transit [ ] Administration and Finance [ ] SUBJECT: INITIAL CITIZENS PARTICIPATION PETITIONER TINA QUIGLEY, GENERAL MANAGER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA RECOMMENDATION BY PETITIONER: THAT THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION GOAL: E. ENHANCE PUBLIC AWARENESS AND SUPPORT OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: In accordance with State of Nevada Open Meeting Law, the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada Operations Subcommittee shall invite interested persons to make comments. For the initial Citizens Participation, the public should address items on the current agenda. For the final Citizens Participation, interested persons may make comments on matters within the Operations Subcommittee's jurisdiction, but not necessarily on the current agenda. No action can be taken on any matter discussed under this item, although the Operations Subcommittee can direct that it be placed on a future agenda. Respectfully submitted, JOHN R. PEÑUELAS, JR., P.E. Director of Engineering Services Streets and Highways tde

6

7 5986 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA AGENDA ITEM Metropolitan Planning Organization [X] Transit [ ] Administration and Finance [ ] SUBJECT: OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OFFICERS FOR 2017/2018 PETITIONER: TINA QUIGLEY, GENERAL MANAGER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA RECOMMENDATION BY PETITIONER: THAT THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE DESIGNATE OFFICERS FOR 2017/2018 (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) GOAL: E. ENHANCE PUBLIC AWARENESS AND SUPPORT OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada Policies and Procedures provide that the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Operations Subcommittee be rotated alphabetically by entity and designated at the first meeting in July. The current Chair is the member frrom the City of North Las Vegas and the current Vice-Chair is the member from the City of Boulder City. The new Chair would be the member from the City of Boulder City and the new Vice-Chair would be the member from Clark County. Respectfully submitted, JOHN R. PEÑUELAS, JR., P.E. Director of Engineering Services Streets and Highways tde

8 5986 Regional Transportation Commission AGENDA ITEM DEVELOPMENT REPORT Agenda Item Recommendation (as submitted): DESIGNATE OFFIERS FOR 2017/2018 (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION Agenda Item Requestor: Meeting Date: 6/26/2017 Discussion: Regional Transportation Commission Staff Advisory Action (check one): *Approval Disapproval Item Held *Conditions (if applicable):

9 OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE Chair Vice-Chair 2016/2017 City of North Las Vegas City of Boulder City 2015/2016 Nevada Department of Transportation City of North Las Vegas 2014/2015 City of Las Vegas Nevada Department of Transportation 2013/2014 City of Henderson City of Las Vegas 2012/2013 Clark County City of Henderson 2011/2012 City of Boulder City Clark County 2010/2011 City of North Las Vegas City of Boulder City 2009/2010 Corrected 1/19/10 Nevada Department of Transportation City of North Las Vegas 2009/2010 Clark County City of Henderson 2008/2009 City of Boulder City Clark County 2007/2008 City of North Las Vegas City of Boulder City 2006/2007 City of Las Vegas City of North Las Vegas 2005/2006 City of Henderson City of Las Vegas 2004/2005 Clark County City of Henderson 2003/2004 Nevada Department of Transportation Clark County 2002/2003 City of Las Vegas Nevada Department of Transportation 2001/2002 City of Henderson City of Las Vegas Member Entities City of Boulder City Clark County City of Henderson City of Las Vegas Nevada Department of Transportation City of North Las Vegas

10 15.2 MEMBERSHIP A. The Member Agencies, in alphabetical order, are Clark County, City of Henderson, City of Las Vegas, NDOT, City of North Las Vegas, and the RTC. The OMC membership shall consist of one representative from each Member Agency, represented by the Director, Assistant Deputy Director(s) of Public Works, the Deputy Director(s), Assistant Director for Operations or District I Engineer of NDOT, and the General Manager of the RTC. Each representative shall have a designated first and second alternate at a minimum with full authority to act in the absence of the representative. Each Member Agency shall have one vote on actions taken by the OMC. B. Through the OMC the Member Agencies shall make the final determination regarding which traffic control and/or ITS Field Devices will be operated and/or maintained by FAST OFFICERS AND DUTIES A. The members of the FAST OMC shall elect a chair and a vice-chair annually at the first meeting in August. B. The succeeding chair will officiate at the August meeting and will serve for 12 months. The chair and vice chair shall be rotated alphabetically by voting entity. C. The chair shall preside at all FAST OMC meetings, call the meetings, and represent the FAST OMC at all meetings. D. In the event that the chair is unavailable to perform these duties, the vice-chair shall act in the place of the chair MEETINGS The OMC shall meet every other month (even-numbered months). Additional meetings may be held at the discretion of the Chairperson should such a need arise. All meetings shall comply with the notice requirements of the Open Meeting Law (NRS.241). A. The presence of a majority of the membership shall constitute a quorum of the FAST OMC. B. The FAST OMC shall follow a prepared agenda, subject to a publicly posted notice of public meeting as required by the Nevada State law. Items for discussion or action at a FAST OMC meeting must be submitted to the General Manager at least 12 working days prior to the meeting date. The General Manager may waive the 12 day requirement, in accordance with the RTC Administrative Procedures for Agenda Processing ROBERT S RULES OF ORDER Robert s Rule of Order will be used except as follows: 1. Seconds will not be required for any motion. 2. The chair can make motions and can vote on any motion POLICIES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 16.1 CREATION AND PURPOSE The Operations Subcommittee assists the Executive Advisory Committee in formulation of recommendations to the RTC. The Subcommittee's areas of interest include traffic management and roadway operations, such as standardized traffic control features. Additionally, the Subcommittee may consider recommendations concerning RTC transit operational matters MEMBERSHIP A. The membership of the Operations Subcommittee shall consist of the following: 1. The Traffic Engineer or other designated individual, from each RTC member entity (Clark County, City of Las Vegas, City of North Las Vegas, City of Henderson and City of Boulder City). 32

11

12 DocuSign Envelope ID: 9232E920-DDA0-46B6-A7B7-2562CC7D6051 MINUTES OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA MAY 16, 2017 These minutes are prepared in compliance with NRS Text is in summarized rather than verbatim format. For complete contents, please refer to meeting recordings on file at the Regional Transportation Commission. THIS MEETING WAS PROPERLY NOTICED AND POSTED IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS ON MAY 9, 2017 Clark County Government Center 500 S. Grand Central Pkwy. Las Vegas, NV City of Henderson Office of the City Clerk 240 Water Street Henderson, NV CC Regional Justice Center 200 Lewis Ave. Las Vegas, NV RTC 600 S. Grand Central Pkwy. Las Vegas, NV RTC Website Nevada Public Notice CALL TO ORDER Mr. Jim Keane, Vice-Chair, called the meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. in Meeting Room 108 of the Regional Transportation Commission Administration Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Keane, Vice-Chair, City of Boulder City Michelle Castro, Nevada Department of Transportation Eric Hawkins, City of Henderson (Alternate) Gena Kendall, City of Las Vegas Sgt. Jeff Richter, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Alternate) (Non-voting) Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Public Works MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Hudgeons, Chair, City of North Las Vegas Ed Kaminski, Clark County Department of Building and Fire Prevention (non-voting) RTC STAFF: John Peñuelas, Manager of Engineering Carl Scarbrough, Director of Transit Advertising and Amenities Ellen Marciel, Manager of Transit Advertising and Amenities Dante Bongolan, Project Engineer Cathy Halka, Senior Transportation Planner Ron Floth, Bicycle and Community Outreach Coordinator Marin DuBois, Management Analyst Tamika Davis-Edwards, Office Specialist INTERESTED PARTIES: Marc Cutler, Nevada Department of Transportation Dennis LeBlanc, RoadSys LLC

13 DocuSign Envelope ID: 9232E920-DDA0-46B6-A7B7-2562CC7D6051 Minutes-Operations Subcommittee Meeting of May 16, 2017 Page 2 of 7 Item: 1. CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION Comments: No comments were made. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken. Item: 2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Meeting of March 21, 2017 (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) Comments: No comments were made. Motion: Mr. Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County, made a motion to approve the minutes. Vote/Summary: 5 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried. Ayes: Michelle Castro, Eric Hawkins, Jim Keane, Gena Kendall, Kaizad Yazdani Nays: None Absent: Mike Hudgeons Item: 3. DISCUSS AND RESOLVE VARIOUS TRANSIT SYSTEM/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING OPERATION/LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) Comments: Ms. Ellen Marciel, Manager of Transit Advertising and Amenities for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), brought forward a discussion regarding the interlocal agreement among the local agencies for signage, noting the last agreement was done five years earlier. Consequently, she continued, the City of North Las Vegas had reached out to the RTC for revisions. Those updates were currently underway. Vice-Chair Jim Keane, City of Boulder City, asked if Boulder City was a part of this process. Ms. Marciel replied affirmatively. Mr. John Peñuelas, Manager of Engineering for the RTC, wanted to clarify that this was the agreement stating that local agencies would place signage on the streets if the RTC told them where signage should go. Ms. Marciel confirmed this, adding that each agency does a traffic analysis to determine the best signage locations. Mr. Peñuelas asked if Jacobs Engineering was involved in the process. Mr. Carl Scarbrough, Director of Transit Advertising and Amenities for the RTC, replied negatively. He elaborated by saying the design had recently changed to the use of brackets, and restated the importance of the traffic analyses for each region. He stated that all signs were customized for each stop with unique bus stop IDs, and signs were switched out the year prior. Ms. Marciel reiterated that the update was needed as a result of new signage branding that had been developed since the last agreement. Mr. Peñuelas then asked what the procedure was after the conversations occurred between agencies. Ms. Marciel stated that the agreement would be presented and approved by each agency s governing board. Mr. Peñuelas asked if the Operations Subcommittee (Subcommittee) needed to be involved in this process. Mr. Scarbrough replied that the Subcommittee did not need to be directly involved. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken.

14 DocuSign Envelope ID: 9232E920-DDA0-46B6-A7B7-2562CC7D6051 Minutes-Operations Subcommittee Meeting of May 16, 2017 Page 3 of 7 Item: 4. RECEIVE A REPORT ON THE REGIONAL BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) Comments: Mr. John Peñuelas, Manager of Engineering, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), introduced Ms. Cathy Halka, Senior Transportation Planner for the RTC, who would present the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Plan) to the Operations Subcommittee (OPS or Subcommittee). He stated that the Plan had recently been approved by the Executive Advisory Committee and was currently awaiting approval from the RTC Board of Commissioners. Following a detailed PowerPoint presentation [attached], Ms. Halka provided details of the Plan. She began by saying that the Plan was funded by the Southern Nevada Health District and that she appreciated the support of the partners who helped in the process. She discussed how this Plan is an update to the 2008 Plan that is meant to reflect the changes in attitudes towards walking and biking in the Southern Nevada as well as new best practices that had been developed since the previous draft. She continued by stating that these updates provide opportunities for interjurisdictional coordination and will help update the active transportation network to connect regionally significant destinations. She added that the Plan will serve as a guide for facility development and will be part of the Regional Transportation Plan, as well as being eligible for RTC funding. However, she noted this Plan did not replace the need for regional plans that address solutions at a local level. From there, Ms. Halka moved on to the goals of the Plan. She highlighted the vision statement, which is: Southern Nevada will develop a safe, connected, and convenient walking and bicycling system that serves as a viable transportation and recreation asset while advancing the region s economic, educational, health, and environmental goals. She briefly described the four goals, which include: comfort and safety, access, education and encouragement, and equity and health. Ms. Halka reviewed several of the 30 performance metrics identified in the Plan used to measure success, including crash rates, the number of enhanced intersections, right of way space allocated for walking/biking, number/quality of crossings, and school walking/biking programs. Additionally, she recounted the public outreach efforts that helped inform the Plan s development. These included blast lists, pop-up meetings, online surveys, online mapping tools, charrettes/workshops, and social media and web updates. Ms. Halka then described several examples of the policies and programs that could be used to meet the Plan s goals. She said this includes incentivized end of trip facilities, expansion of bike share programs, encouraging development and adoption, expanding club ride to schools, and enhancing positive reinforcement and promoting active transportation. Then, Ms. Halka reviewed several of the design guidelines for biking facilities and pedestrian crossings included in the draft. She explained that the goal of these facilities was to create buffers between vehicle traffic and active transportation, as well as building infrastructure networks that support active transportation. She showed maps of the existing facility network, noting a total of 868 miles of facilities; though only 46 percent of those were considered high-comfort. Of this group, she noted that only six percent of high-comfort facilities were on-street. She showed the proposed network, noting that the improvements would increase the mileage of facilities to over 2,000 and would include a variety of new high-comfort bike facilities, both on-street and off-street. In particular, she noted increased bike boulevards and an increase of high-comfort facilities from 46 percent to 73 percent. She also described how the Plan examined comfort levels of the existing arterial bikeways, noting that only 15 percent qualify as the highest comfort level. She said the proposed buildout would increase that to 46 percent. Furthermore, Ms. Halka detailed how a prioritization criterion was developed to help guide infrastructure planning and programming efforts. She listed the five prioritization criteria as comfort and safety, access,

15 DocuSign Envelope ID: 9232E920-DDA0-46B6-A7B7-2562CC7D6051 Minutes-Operations Subcommittee Meeting of May 16, 2017 Page 4 of 7 equity and health, regional significance, and feasibility. She remarked how these were linked to the goals, but also included variables based on regional importance and ease of improvement. She briefly discussed how the Plan identified 30 different funding sources across the local, state, and federal levels. In conclusion, she noted the final version of the Plan was available online. Ms. Gena Kendall, City of Las Vegas, asked if the public engagement data was available for viewing. Ms. Halka replied that an overview of the data could be found in Chapter Two of the existing conditions section, and that more thorough breakdowns were included in the appendix. Ms. Kendall then asked if Ms. Halka intended to look at changes in ridership that may occur as the Plan was implemented. Ms. Halka replied that tracking ridership was one focus of the Plan, and while there were not as many opportunities to track it as staff would like, usage data would be examined over time to monitor the trends as much as possible. Mr. Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County, asked if there was a way to map out updates in real-time to let local entities know where improvements had taken place. Ms. Halka agreed this was a good idea and that the RTC had historically been responsible for tracking all existing data for each jurisdiction, and that the RTC planned to contact each jurisdiction periodically to ensure the map was up to date. She noted there was a second call for updates as the bike map was developed. Then, Mr. Yazdani asked how the RTC expected the Plan to be implemented in relation to developers. Ms. Halka replied that the development community would need to go through approval processes before doing work, and that the Plan would help serve as a guide during development. Mr. Peñuelas agreed and stated that implementation was the key for these kinds of projects. He said implementation would occur through adoption of guidelines into drawings and standards over time, and that it would be up to each agency to ensure that these standards were followed. He added that this Plan was meant to provide a regional vision, but was not intended to replace the work being done at the local level. He stated that the first step towards implementation was looking at inconsistencies in design drawing guidelines. He stated that identifying these inconsistent standards was important for bringing all jurisdictions up to code. Mr. Peñuelas noted that capital projects reimbursed by the RTC would include these standards, and must be consistent with guidelines. Mr. Peñuelas noted that staff intended to go through each guideline and create a list of modifications to existing drawings and specifications. He said the process would start with OPS, go out for industry review, and eventually receive RTC Board of Commissioners approval. Motion: Mr. Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County, made a motion to approve the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Vote/Summary: 5 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried. Ayes: Michelle Castro, Eric Hawkins, Jim Keane, Gena Kendall, Kaizad Yazdani Nays: None Absent: Mike Hudgeons Item: 5. DISCUSS TOPICS OF INTEREST Comments: Mr. John Peñuelas, Manager of Engineering for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), began by mentioning that the updates to hand hole specifications seemed to be resolved. However, he described how Valmont came back with additional topic recommendations when the update was sent out for industry review. Those topics would be reviewed by the Operations and Specifications

16 DocuSign Envelope ID: 9232E920-DDA0-46B6-A7B7-2562CC7D6051 Minutes-Operations Subcommittee Meeting of May 16, 2017 Page 5 of 7 Subcommittees in the future. Next, Mr. Peñuelas brought up another issue with street lights. He said the specifications for street light wiring would need to be reviewed as LED has become standard. He remarked that the specifications were written 20 years ago for now outdated technology. Vice-Chair Jim Keane, City of Boulder City, asked if that review would include spacing of lights and light distribution. Mr. Peñuelas said that it should. He added that Clark County had addressed some of those issues, but a firm solution had not been determined. Mr. Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County, explained that Clark County had done evaluations of the 60-, 80-, and 100-foot right of ways, and had created Qualified Product Lists (QPLs) for LEDs. He stated that when the 100-footers were evaluated, a QPL for retrofits was developed. He detailed this process, noting that there were 41 submittals during the first phase. He said of these 41, 18 met the specifications and moved on to phase two, which involved turning in physical fixtures for operations staff to evaluate. He said all that were submitted passed this review, noting many different pole heights throughout the region. Mr. Yazdani explained that starting April 1, 2017, all new developments in Clark County must install LED lights and said the QPL was posted on the website. He remarked that since so much time was spent developing this, Clark County was not allowing substitutions except in special cases. Ms. Gena Kendall, City of Las Vegas, said that the City of Henderson had a matrix of fixtures that were updated all the time. She pointed out that these reviews needed to be limited, lest they be too daunting to perform. She then mentioned the issue of color and briefly described how LEDs had a fixed range of color. She recounted how Summerlin wanted to use different fixtures than the recommendations based on the differences in color, and asked if this issue had been addressed. Mr. Yazdani replied that Clark County assessed intersections and went with the higher Kelvin that sat in the range of 5,000 to 6,000. He noted that roadway lighting was kept around 4,000. Mr. Yazdani explained that the bigger issue involved the other light facets, including the backboard light, the upward light, and the glare. He said these were rated on a scale and must be controlled based on new evaluation standards set forth in the RPO8. He said the reading is not just for the light being generated from the fixture, but included the overall light being seen. He said this meant that different surfaces would affect the rating. Returning to Summerlin, he said that even if they used a slightly different color, the lighting should be okay. He stressed that it was more important to maintain consistency between cool colors and warm colors on each roadway. Mr. Peñuelas asked if the QPL was based on evaluations and selections that assumed the current spacing in the Blue Book. He then asked if the current spacing was being modified. He clarified that he wanted to confirm that the fixtures noted in the QPL worked with the current spacing. Mr. Yazdani said they did. Mr. Peñuelas noted that it might be helpful if Mr. Yazdani sent him the specifications, which he could then share. Ms. Kendall agreed. She asked if there are specifics for consistency of color choice in the document. Mr. Yazdani replied that Clark County s assessments were completed over the past four years, and that while fixture pricing varied, it had leveled off and was fairly consistent. Mr. Peñuelas noted that the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) wanted to consider adding a standard drawing in the Blue Book that showed the bike/bus shared lane configuration. He said that would happen separately from the Bike Plan review. Ms. Michelle Castro, NDOT, asked if that would be added with the new standard drawings or separately. Mr. Peñuelas said it was meant to be separate. He also mentioned that links were sent out for the NDOT driveway drawings, which would be another issue for the Operations Subcommittee (OPS) to address. He said he would talk to Chair Mike Hudgeons, City of North Las Vegas, to come up with a strategy for addressing these issues. Vice-Chair Keane asked if he should send comments on the driveways specifications to Mr. Peñuelas. Mr. Peñuelas replied affirmatively.

17 DocuSign Envelope ID: 9232E920-DDA0-46B6-A7B7-2562CC7D6051 Minutes-Operations Subcommittee Meeting of May 16, 2017 Page 6 of 7 Mr. Yazdani said the standard drawing between NDOT and RTC standards for button spacing should be examined. He said the RTC specifications noted a minimum of three inches, but that the NDOT specifications said four inches. He admitted this was not a big deal, but wanted to note the inconsistency. Mr. Peñuelas agreed that they should match for consistency. Mr. Peñuelas then brought up several issues regarding general striping specifications materials and surface type. He discussed challenges with striping and the loss of reflective striping over time. He said this may need to be addressed by OPS as well. Mr. Yazdani asked if any entities were getting a polyuria truck, as he wanted to get feedback on the two to one mix and how often it had to be flushed. Ms. Castro said she would look into the details. Mr. Peñuelas suggested bringing in a contractor for a presentation. Ms. Kendall agreed, adding that there were issues with thickness. She felt it would be good to have someone come in to present on the components. Mr. Peñuelas announced that based on internal discussions, OPS would continue with its regular meeting schedule of every other month versus changing to meeting on a monthly basis. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken. Item: 6. CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION Comments: Mr. John Peñuelas, Manager of Engineering for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), said that Mr. Ron Floth, Bicycle and Community Outreach Coordinator for the RTC, was approached by a vendor regarding bicycle and pedestrian data collection technology. Mr. Peñuelas asked Mr. Dennis LeBlanc, RoadSys, LLC, to the podium to make a public comment. Mr. LeBlanc made the following comment: I m just going to do a quick presentation, talk real quick. What I do, my company is Roadsys LLC, and we work with agencies actually throughout the world, but specifically in the United States here, to collect data for bicycles and pedestrians. We also collect data for vehicles class B gap and volume, but what we find in talking with Cathy, just talking about data, there s a big gap missing with data for bikes and peds. And what we offer is both permanent and portable count stations that can collect very accurate bike and ped data. So what I d like to do at some point, I m going to be here for the next two days, I m in from Phoenix, if there s anybody that would like to meet with me either tomorrow or Thursday, I could definitely do a more formal presentation, but we use a piezoelectric technology that s going to be able to collect class B gap in volume for bicycles direction, it can be used for safety issues, we can signal traffic signals to change when a bike path is coming up to a signal, we can actually change the signal so it will make it the right-of-way for the pedestrians or the bicycles, so there s a lot of different technologies that we have going on. We work a lot at the DOT level, we were in the state of Florida, state of Maine, state of New York, but looking to work here obviously, regionally, with you guys, to help fill that gap for the bike and peds data collection. And I have a whole presentation on me that I can t do here, but if anybody s interested I can certainly take time tomorrow to do that. Any questions on anything? I could go on and on. Mr. Peñuelas asked in which cities this technology is implemented. Mr. LeBlanc responded by saying: We work with the state of Florida, very big, we re starting to work in Arizona, from Arizona we re

18 DocuSign Envelope ID: 9232E920-DDA0-46B6-A7B7-2562CC7D6051 Minutes-Operations Subcommittee Meeting of May 16, 2017 Page 7 of 7 working with ADOT there to get some stuff implemented. We have 300 units within the state of Georgia, we have our monitoring units, basically they collect data on every event when a bicycle goes by, that s an event. It s timestamped and tells us what type of vehicle it was, what type of bicycle it was, whether it s a skateboard, a wheelchair, roller blade, so it s very unique technology. It s very good data to help in showing how a bike plan progresses and works so you want the before and after, right. You want to see what happens before you put in protective bike lanes and that type of thing. And this shows before and after type. Mr. Peñuelas inquired about the sensor and its sensitivities. Mr. LeBlanc elaborated: It s a piezoelectric sensor. And we use two of them, think a lot like the road tube, when you put two road tubes out to count vehicles, you put two piezoelectric sensors out, about a foot apart, and that s going to be an algorithm when the first axel of the bicycle hits the sensor A, then it ll hit sensor B and the second axel will hit that, and there s an algorithm that will determine that axel spacing, which will determine the size of the bicycle. It s the pressure, the weight. It s actually like a little pressure plate. Ms. Gena Kendall, City of Las Vegas, asked what Class B referred to, about the count stations, and if the data had to be retrieved from the counter or if it was transmitted to the cloud. Mr. LeBlanc said: You can classify what s going by. Like a classification of the size of bicycle, and you have kids bikes, you have tandem bikes, you have trailers. We can actually classify that, so certain areas they want to know if there s a lot of skateboard traffic, so we can actually use axel spacing on skateboards to determine how many skateboards go by. And we can tell the speed of that also, so they can tell, some situations where speed is a factor on bicycles because there s pedestrians with bicycles, we can do speed studies, that type of thing. Very cutting-edge technology. Again, the state of Florida has adopted it, we re the sole source provider for them, the whole state. The ones we re selling in Florida, they re permanent count stations. Again, you re going to have these embedded in the pavement, so it s not a portable. We have other technologies that are portable because we know a lot of people want to have that. But like with the regional plan, there s going to be a lot of places where you want to have permanent count stations to see what s out there. And they re very cost-effective too, I can get into that later, they re not really that expensive. They re completely self-contained, there s no power needed, it s all solar powered. Here obviously they d probably run five or six years without changing the battery or anything. You can get it right to your laptop computer, right in your office. It s very interesting technology. So, again, more than happy to spend a lot of time with you over the next couple days if anybody is interested. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Marin DuBois, Recording Secretary Marek Biernacinski, Transcription Secretary

19

20 47 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA AGENDA ITEM Metropolitan Planning Organization [X] Transit [ ] Administration and Finance [ ] SUBJECT: TRANSIT SYSTEM/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING OPERATION/LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES PETITIONER TINA QUIGLEY, GENERAL MANAGER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA RECOMMENDATION BY PETITIONER: THAT THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSS AND RESOLVE VARIOUS TRANSIT SYSTEM/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING OPERATION/LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) GOAL: E. ENHANCE PUBLIC AWARENESS AND SUPPORT OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: Representatives from the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada Transit or Planning staff will be present to discuss transit system/traffic engineering operation issues as requested by the Operations Subcommittee members. Respectfully submitted, JOHN R. PEÑUELAS, JR., P.E. Director of Engineering Services Streets and Highways tde

21

22 5984 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA AGENDA ITEM Metropolitan Planning Organization [X] Transit [ ] Administration and Finance [ ] SUBJECT: PRESENTATION - icone INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (ITS) PETITIONER: TINA QUIGLEY, GENERAL MANAGER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA RECOMMENDATION BY PETITIONER: THAT THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA RECEIVE A PRESENTATION FROM REPRESENTATIVES OF ROADSAFE TRAFFIC SYSTEMS ON I-CONE INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (ITS) TECHNOLOGY (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) GOAL: A. IMPLEMENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS THAT IMPROVE AIR QUALITY IN SOUTHERN NEVADA FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: Representatives from RoadSafe Traffic Systems will present information to the Operations Subcommittee on the icone ITS device. The icone is a device that beams real-time traffic information over the Internet to a central website for use by government officials, emergency response personnel, trucking fleets, the public and information re-sellers, including GPS services like Garmin and navigation apps like WAZE. Respectfully submitted, JOHN R. PEÑUELAS, JR., P.E. Director of Engineering Services Streets and Highways JL

23 Smart Work Zones Present and Future What to Expect Paul Lamb New Business Development - Consultant RoadSafe Traffic Systems Things are changing dramatically with each passing year. Costs: 2007 ~ $50K/mo ~ $10K/mo. Planning: 2007 ~ 2 months 2017 ~ 2 days Deploy: 2007 ~ 2 weeks 2017 ~ 4 hours

24 Easy Setup Links to the Web Comprehensive Reports No Special Software or Programming Typical Type 1 deployment Diagram PCMS 1 1 Mile 4 1 Mile Miles 1 Mile 2 1/2 Start of lane closure merge 1 1 icone Traffic Sensor PCMS Portable Changeable Message Sign A few I-Cones matched with a Message Board can drive Real Time Stopped or Slowed Traffic Ahead messages to approaching Traffic. PCMS 1 {Blank} = 0 F F F SLOW TRAFFIC 3 MILES SLOW TRAFFIC 2 MILES SLOW TRAFFIC 1 MILE SLOW TRAFFIC AHEAD STOPPED TRAFFIC 3 MILES STOPPED TRAFFIC 2 MILES STOPPED TRAFFIC 1 MILE STOPPED TRAFFIC AHEAD Q = 0.25 F F F = 1 F = 2 F M F M F M!S = 3 M!S!S!S!S!S Notes Location of the icones and the PCMS can be adjusted based on site conditions (ramp locations, other static signing, overpasses, etc.) Free Flow/Slow/Stopped traffic trigger speeds are adjustable on a per icone basis Displayed message text is configurable on a per PCMS basis "Q" is the calculated queue length from icone-1, in miles, and resolves to the mid-points between icones. Condition tables may not cover all possible cases. Please refer to the specific deployment's logic and settings for details. = 0.25 F F F S Symbol Condition Avg Speed (V) F Free Flow 40mph < V!F S!F Non Free Flow V <= 40mph = 1 F F M Moderate / Slow 25mph <= V <= 40mph S A!S Non Stopped 25mph <= V!F S S Stopped V < 25mph = 2 F S A A A Any 0 <= V!F S >= 3 S A A A icone End Of Queue Warning (Type 1) November 11, 2014

25 CDOT PROJECT icone Average Speeds I-25 NB - Denver, CO Feb 6 21:00 to Feb 7 08:00, Avg Speed (mph) icone 1 icone 2 icone 3 icone 4 PCMS :00 00:00 03:00 06:00 Time (Local) FreeFlow Slow Stopped

26 CDOT Project 85 Speed CDOT Project 85 PCMS 1

27 Work Zone ITS Last Season A temporary system of speed detectors (radar) and messaging (PCMS) set up to monitor and manage traffic through a construction zone. icone Products builds and sells work zone sensors and operates the work zone ITS management systems. RoadSafe Traffic Systems manage the equipment on the job site. Scheduling is tied to the workers. Locations are tied to the project. Work Zone ITS This Season A temporary system of speed detectors (radar), messaging (PCMS), and navigation devices set up to monitor and manage traffic through a construction zone. icone Products builds and sells work zone sensors and operates the work zone ITS management systems. RoadSafe Traffic Systems manage the equipment on the job site. Navigation apps deliver data directly to the driver Scheduling is tied to the workers. Locations are tied to the project.

28 icone has joined Waze because Waze gets data into the car Putting work zone data into navigation for improved awareness and avoidance will be the next increment in work zone safety and mobility. Currently, icone projects in the US and Canada appear on Waze as a hazard located at the start of the lane closure. Eventually they plan to share: Radar base speeds Message board messages Workers present Flagger location Crash truck locations Arrow board status Contractor activity Differs from Scheduled activity Permitted Lane Closure Window Actual Lane Closures Texas I-35 Widening and Reconstruction, Austin District

29 Future navigation will require a few key pieces of construction related information. So this year icone is introducing Connected Tech Give workers the tools to participate in the crowd Capture more details Share more jobs Connecting key pieces of the work zone puzzle QUESTIONS THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME

30

31 5987 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA AGENDA ITEM Metropolitan Planning Organization [X] Transit [ ] Administration and Finance [ ] SUBJECT: PRESENTATION - MINI-ROUNDABOUTS PETITIONER TINA QUIGLEY, GENERAL MANAGER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA RECOMMENDATION BY PETITIONER: THAT THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE RECEIVE A PRESENTATION FROM THE NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (NDOT) ON MINI-ROUNDABOUTS (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) GOAL: E. ENHANCE PUBLIC AWARENESS AND SUPPORT OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FISCAL IMPACT: BACKGROUND: This item has been placed on the agenda at the request of Mr. P.D. Kiser, Assistant Chief Traffic Safety Engineer, NDOT. Mr. Kiser will be present to summarize a recent Transportation Research Board webinar on the subject and discuss the latest implementation efforts by NDOT. IstheUSReadytoTakeAdvantageofTheirBenefits.wmv Respectfully submitted, JOHN R. PEÑUELAS, JR., P.E. Director of Engineering Services Streets and Highways jl

32

33 5985 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA AGENDA ITEM Metropolitan Planning Organization [X] Transit [ ] Administration and Finance [ ] SUBJECT: STANDARD DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS PETITIONER: TINA QUIGLEY, GENERAL MANAGER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA RECOMMENDATION BY PETITIONER: THAT THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA APPROVE NEW STANDARD DRAWINGS "EXCLUSIVE BUS/BIKE LANE MAJOR/MAJOR INTERSECTION DETAIL", "EXCLUSIVE BUS/BIKE LANE MAJOR/MAJOR INTERSECTION DETAIL", AND "EXCLUSIVE BUS/BIKE LANE SPECIAL SIGN DETAIL (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) GOAL: A. IMPLEMENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS THAT IMPROVE AIR QUALITY IN SOUTHERN NEVADA FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: The Operations Subcommittee discussed the modification of Drawing to remove the 14-foot shared travel/bicycle lane and replace it with an exclusive bicycle lane and buffer at its March 21, 2017 meeting. The Nevada Department of Transportation requested that Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada staff bring back a new drawing detailing the design of shared bus/bicycle lanes and signs. This item fulfills that request. Respectfully submitted, JOHN R. PEÑUELAS, JR., P.E. Director of Engineering Services Streets and Highways jl

34 5985 Regional Transportation Commission AGENDA ITEM DEVELOPMENT REPORT Agenda Item Recommendation (as submitted): APPROVE NEW STANDARD DRAWINGS "EXCLUSIVE BUS/BIKE LANE MAJOR/MAJOR INTERSECTION DETAIL", "EXCLUSIVE BUS/BIKE LANE MAJOR/MAJOR INTERSECTION DETAIL", AND "EXCLUSIVE BUS/BIKE LANE SPECIAL SIGN DETAIL (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) Agenda Item Requestor: Meeting Date: 6/26/2017 Discussion: Regional Transportation Commission Staff Advisory Action (check one): *Approval Disapproval Item Held *Conditions (if applicable):

35 THE SIGN CAN BE MOUNTED ON THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAST ARM AS AN OPTION SPECIAL 30"X42" R8-3A 36"X36" R3-7R 36"X18" R3-BE R3-7R 36"X36" 30" (2'-6") 2.5" 11.5" 2.5" 2" 2.5" 4.75" 42" (3'-6") 19" 7" 2.5" 4" SPECIAL 30"X42" 4.75" 11.5" 2.5" 2" 2.5" 2.5" SPECIFICATION REFERENCE 628 PAINTING TRAFFIC STRIPING 633 PAVEMENT MARKERS 716 SIGN MATERIALS AGENCY APPROVED B C H L M N UNIFORM STANDARD DRAWINGS CLARK COUNTY AREA NEW DRAWING EXCLUSIVE BUS/BIKE LANE MAJOR/MAJOR INTERSECTION DETAIL DATE XX-XX-XX DWG. NO

36 SPECIAL 30"X42" R8-3A 36"X36" R3-7R 36"X18" R3-BE R3-7R 36"X36" 30" (2'-6") 2.5" 11.5" 2.5" 2" 2.5" 4.75" 42" (3'-6") 19" 7" 2.5" 4" SPECIAL 30"X42" 4.75" 11.5" 2.5" 2" 2.5" 2.5" SPECIFICATION REFERENCE 628 PAINTING TRAFFIC STRIPING 633 PAVEMENT MARKERS 716 SIGN MATERIALS AGENCY APPROVED B C H L M N UNIFORM STANDARD DRAWINGS CLARK COUNTY AREA NEW DRAWING EXCLUSIVE BUS/BIKE LANE MAJOR/MINOR INTERSECTION DETAIL DATE XX-XX-XX DWG. NO

37 30" (2'-6") 2.5" 11.5" 2.5" 2" 2.5" 4.75" 7" 42" (3'-6") 19" 2.5" 4" 11.5" 4.75" 2.5" 2" 2.5" 2.5" SIGN NUMBER SP-1 WIDTH 30" HEIGHT 42" BORDER WIDTH 0.75" BORDER RADII 1.875" BACKGROUND COLOR LEGEND & BORDER COLOR WHITE BLACK 716 SPECIFICATION REFERENCE SIGN MATERIALS AGENCY APPROVED UNIFORM STANDARD DRAWINGS CLARK COUNTY AREA EXCLUSIVE BUS/BIKE LANE SPECIAL SIGN DETAIL DATE XX-XX-XX DWG. NO B C H L M N NEW DRAWING

38

39 4733 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA AGENDA ITEM Metropolitan Planning Organization [X] Transit [ ] Administration and Finance [ ] SUBJECT: TOPICS OF INTEREST PETITIONER TINA QUIGLEY, GENERAL MANAGER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA RECOMMENDATION BY PETITIONER: THAT THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSS TOPICS OF INTEREST GOAL: E. ENHANCE PUBLIC AWARENESS AND SUPPORT OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: The Operations Subcommittee members can share information about activities, meetings, news and other topics of interest in an informal manner. While no action may be taken on the subjects discussed, this item provides an opportunity for the exchange of information and may serve as the forum to recommend future Operations Subcommittee agenda items. Respectfully submitted, JOHN R. PEÑUELAS, JR., P.E. Director of Engineering Services Streets and Highways tde

40

41 5064 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA AGENDA ITEM Metropolitan Planning Organization [X] Transit [ ] Administration and Finance [ ] SUBJECT: FINAL CITIZENS PARTICIPATION PETITIONER TINA QUIGLEY, GENERAL MANAGER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA RECOMMENDATION BY PETITIONER: THAT THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION GOAL: E. ENHANCE PUBLIC AWARENESS AND SUPPORT OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: In accordance with State of Nevada Open Meeting Law, the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada Operations Subcommittee shall invite interested persons to make comments. For the initial Citizens Participation, the public should address items on the current agenda. For the final Citizens Participation, interested persons may make comments on matters within the Operations Subcommittee's jurisdiction, but not necessarily on the current agenda. No action can be taken on any matter discussed under this item, although the Operations Subcommittee can direct that it be placed on a future agenda. Respectfully submitted, JOHN R. PEÑUELAS, JR., P.E. Director of Engineering Services Streets and Highways tde

42