Utah Transportation Commission
December 12, 2003
Salt Lake City, Utah

The regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission, held at the UDOT Rampton Complex, 4501 South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, was called to order at 9:03 a.m. by Commission Chairman Glen E. Brown. He welcomed those attending.

Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Clyde said there was one thing he would like to have included in the November minutes from the discussion with UP&L. He asked about the expectations for the Hunter Four plant, and their response was 2007 or 2008. Commissioner Wilson noted that it’s important to include the fact that if the permitting comes through and if the plant is going to be built, construction of the plant could possibly start in 2007.

Commissioner Warnick asked that the sentence on page 8, fourth line from the end of the first paragraph, starting out with “Some money was transferred . . .” be reworded to make it more clear.

Commissioner Warnick moved to approve the minutes of the November 21, 2003, Commission meeting held in Castle Dale, Utah, with the changes as noted. It was seconded by Commissioner Wilson and approved.

Public Comments
There were no public comments at this time.

Resolution
Abandonment of SR-295 in Orem
John Quick from Program Development said this resolution is a proposal to delete SR-295 from the State Highway System. The route is actually a driver’s course on what was the DMV site in Orem. The DMV has moved their offices and the property has been sold to private interests, so there is no longer a need for that drivers course at that site. This resolution will take the official action necessary to abandon that road.

Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the resolution. It was seconded by Commissioner Bodily and approved.

Realignment of Portion of SR-224
John Quick said this is an information item regarding a proposal for the Department to realign a portion of SR-224 that traverses through Park City and up to the county line. United Park City Mines has constructed about a 7/10 of a mile section that realigns a portion of SR-224, and replaces a 4/10 of a mile section. Region Two’s director, Randy Park, has reviewed this proposal and the construction of the road. This is the second such change that has been made in the alignment of SR-224. The last change actually had a resolution, but that might have been a little overkill. UDOT’s legal staff doesn’t believe there needs to be a resolution since the beginning or ending portion of the route is not changing. The Code just identifies a route as a beginning and ending point, and doesn’t even indicate the length, so they don’t think there needs to be much of an official action and could be done administratively. This is for the Commission’s discussion and information.

Chairman Brown asked if the old alignment is going to be torn up. Randy Park said that decision will be made by the property owners. Director Njord commented that he thought that it was important to bring this issue to a public setting like this to give the Commission a chance to look at this and to give the public an opportunity to say something before any kind of action was taken because of the amount of interest in this particular section of road. Also, as a matter of normal course when building roads, the Department has not brought these kinds of things to the Commission. Commissioner Wilson asked for further clarification on the difference between the last resolution and this item. Director Njord explained that state law describes state routes by their beginning and ending, and in the case of SR-224, there is still a beginning and an ending point. It’s just the route in between that has changed slightly. With SR-295, the whole road is being abandoned, and when the Highway Bill is passed in the Legislature, it will describe the new highway system and SR-295 will no longer be on it as a result of the Commission’s action today. SR-224 will still be there, and the beginning and ending routes will be the same.

Commissioner Bodily asked if there were any significant access points along the new road that will benefit the owner of the property. Mr. Park said that is one of the reasons the new road was built. They can also use the existing property where the old alignment sits for other purposes. The new alignment has a paved surface and drainage features have been added, so it’s an upgraded facility compared to what they had before. Bob Wells from Deer Valley Resort said what is being proposed here is a step two that didn’t just happen haphazardly. Two years ago, the Commission approved step one in the improvement of this road, and this step gets them a little closer to what they think is the total resolution. They’ll be back with step three, which hopefully will take care of the issues involving Wasatch County and Brighton Estates. Mr. Wells added that United Park City Mines has recently been acquired principally by a company called Talisker Corporation, and then introduced Jim Tadeson from Talisker. Mr. Tadeson said they paid for the construction of the new portion of road, and thinks that Mr. Park and his staff are satisfied with the level of construction.

Accpmplishments/Conditions and Needs Reports
Robert Hull, Traffic and Safety Engineer, said their presentation today would focus on three different segments: safety leadership and commitment, program overviews, and funding recommendations. In the leadership category, they have taken the role as champions for safety within UDOT, and they are taking a leadership role nationwide also. Utah has been chosen to be a lead state in a couple of areas. First is the mitigation of roadway departure crashes, and second is the implementation of integrated safety management process. Fatalities have been rising steadily over the last several years, but are currently on a downward trend. As of this year to date, there have been 258 fatalities, compared to 329 in 2002. Carlos Braceras, Deputy Director, said that the decrease is significant because of the increase in vehicle miles driven. Mr. Hull said their commitment is a 15% reduction in fatalities by the year 2010. The Safety Leadership Team consists of UDOT, UHP, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, UHS, and Emergency Medical Services. The functions they represent, or the ‘4 E’s for Success’, are Education, Enforcement, Engineering and Emergency Services. It’s a multi-agency, multi-disciplinary approach, and a data driven decision making process. The fifth E they want to introduce is ‘Everyone Else’. The Safety Team is the core organization to help drive the safe direction of the state, but they need help from everyone else. The Commission plays a vital part with the money and direction they give. A short video was shown of selected sights statewide. Additional discussion focused on cable barriers and concrete barriers.

Mr. Hull said the second segment for discussion is the Program Overview. In regards to federal funds, more information will be given later on the Roadway Safety Improvement Program (RSI). The RSI Program, formerly known as the Hazard Elimination Program, is done in partnership with FHWA. There was $6 million programmed in 2004. As for state funding, the first category to review is the Traffic Signal Program. Of the $6.8 million budgeted last year, $2.3 million has been expended on projects so far. Moving into the spring construction season, they are on pace to expend the rest of the $4.5 million by July 1st. In terms of warranted signals, they have 19 programmed so far, but will be doing more than the 48 programmed last year. Chairman Brown asked about the requests being made for warrant studies and if that was increasing. Mr. Hull replied they are actually receiving more requests for studies, but they are trying to develop a more proactive approach. They just kicked off some data analysis where they will identify every intersection on every road they have in the state and look at the crash history associated with each one of those intersections, whether they are signalized or not. Then they’ll try to use that information to generate warrant studies based on the crash history and some of the volume information associated with the intersections so they can get a jump on the petitions and requests from the cities. They’ll develop their own list of prioritized intersections and move ahead in that sense. Chairman Brown asked who could initiate a warrant study. Mr. Hull said that ideally it would come through the regions, but if a public individual contacts the Department and wants to have a location looked at, the Department will go back and see what the history is, and then initiate a study. Commissioner Warnick said the proactive approach would really be wonderful because most of the time the public perception is that UDOT waits until someone is killed before they study an intersection. Mr. Hull pointed out that after a light is warranted and installed, the crash severity is reduced significantly.

Chairman Brown asked how complex warrants get. Mr. Hull said there is a series of 11 warrants, and if any of those 11 warrants are met, it will trigger a signal being warranted at an intersection. The focus is on crashes because that’s the most common, but they also deal with sheer volumes. Plus, there’s a whole lot more that goes into it. They are trying to find more ways of saying yes to signals because of the advantages that are being provided. Mr. Braceras added that they are also trying to be flexible with the communities to understand what times of the day or year are of most concern, and make sure they are there for the studies during those periods of time. Mr. Hull said that in regards to signal design and construction time, they have experienced a high percentage reduction in delivery time of their signal projects. They have been employing design/build and are designing some of them in-house, as well as building some in-house with their construction crew. Because of some of the innovative processes they have been using, they are able to show a 35% reduction in time to expedite projects. However, because they are getting more efficient, it’s having an impact on how quickly they’re paying the bills for those signals, and it’s putting a little extra demand on the funding levels that will be needed in the future. Chairman Brown said he’s really happy to hear this because it’s been a sensitive area in the public over the years.

Mr. Hull said that they have been putting LED lenses in their signal heads for a little while now, and they only use 15 watts per lens versus the 150 watts used with the incandescents. As for maintenance, they were averaging five one-hour trips per intersection per year to change the light bulbs. The LED’s have a ten-year plus life span, and actually have a five-year warranty from the manufacturer. Commissioner Clyde asked for a report on the reliability factor. Mr. Hull said there will be a greater initial cost, but the labor cost of two incandescent lamp replacements will pay for an LED lens. Also, there is an offer from Utah Power and Light (UP&L) where they will pay for 30% of the LED replacement costs. The total cost of the LED program is $1.5 million. The proposal being made is for $500,000 from the signal program, $500,000 from the Transportation Commission, and $500,000 from UP&L. Without an influx of money, this could probably be done within three years of their existing signal program. Moving on to the Lighting Program, Mr. Hull said they had a program of $300,000 last year to provide lighting for safety on state facilities, and the demand for this lighting fund is increasing. There is actually a backlog of projects that are being requested. Several projects were highlighted that used the funds provided last year, with projects being done in many of the smaller communities around the state.

Mr. Hull said that the Safety Spot Improvement Program has a large impact for specific improvements. They have set up the opportunity of minimum guaranteed funding amounts for each of the regions so they can address some of their highest priorities specifically. The intent for this is to be responsive to immediate safety concerns, and to get projects completed within the year they were funded. Last year, $2.5 million was programmed and not every project was funded. There is still a backlog of projects. Mr. Hull reviewed examples of some past spot improvement projects in each of the regions. For the signing program, they were given $400,000 last year, which is hard to quantify. They produced about 41,000 square feet of signing, or about 4700 different kinds of signs. Some cooperative signing projects included the UHP and their Move Over signs, school zone signing upgrade in all the regions, and 511 Info signs with ITS. With the School Zone Program, they have updated the school zone manual, which was last put together in 1992. Training has been provided for the local communities on the new manual. They are also producing a School Zone Safety video. In regards to the ADA Ramp Replacement program, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed in 1990. ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) were then produced, giving technical requirements for accessibility to buildings and facilities. ADAAG calls for curb ramps to be provided wherever an accessible route crosses the curb. The Commission programmed a seven-year program, starting last year, of $1 million per year. The Department is currently working on an inventory of all the locations and evaluating each of the ramps, or finding out if they don’t exist at all. They are also establishing priority routes and locations, and other ramps are being addressed within current construction projects. Finally, for the Barrier End Sections, they are really putting emphasis on Texas turndowns and concrete sections. Federal and state funds have been combined to address this issue. About 76 Texas turndowns have been removed, as has 38 concrete terminal end treatments and 8,000 feet of unwarranted guardrail. To date, over 50% of Texas turndowns have been replaced statewide.

Mr. Hull discussed next year’s funding recommendations. He said Rob Clayton will cover the Roadway Safety Improvement Program later in the presentation. In regards to the Traffic Signal Program, based on the trend lines of projects that have been funded in the past, 57 traffic signals will be programmed for this year. They’re looking to program 66 signals next year. Because they are becoming more efficient and getting more from their money than in the past, and although the number of projects is up by about 18%, they are only asking for an increase in funding of about 3%, or $7 million. For the Lighting Program, there is already $300,000 worth of projects requested, and they anticipate $50,000 of additional projects to be requested, so they are looking for $350,000 for FY 05. The Spot Improvement Program is a bit more difficult. Potential projects are being evaluated right now, but the regions’ project requests will exceed the expected funding limits. They would like to increase the program for FY 05 from $2.5 million to $2.8 million. Unfunded projects will be held for FY 06. Mr. Hull said the last slide of his presentation shows the recommendations for all the programs, which they will ask the Commission to consider at the April workshop. He emphasized that they are making a difference with the money the Commission is providing. Safety is their highest priority, and the funding provided is saving lives. They have 7% fewer fatalities than last year at this point, and that’s a great achievement.

Chairman Brown called for a short break.

Rob Clayton from Traffic and Safety continued with the presentation and explained the Roadway Safety Improvement Program (RSIP). He said the RSIP was established by FHWA and has four primary objectives: to reduce crashes, to reduce the severity of crashes, to decrease the potential for crashes, and to make the most efficient use of available safety funds. Because it’s a federal program, they have to follow all of the federal guidelines. The requirements include locations that must have a correctable crash history, each project must have a benefit to cost ratio greater than one, all public roads are eligible, and projects should not be capacity driven. Mr. Clayton noted that they have created and defined a process to be as inclusive as possible so they can get input from as many people with an interest in safety issues as they can. He then explained the process in detail, as well as the TEA-21 funding history. He also reviewed the projects from each region that were programmed for FY 04 and FY 05, and said the Commission will be asked to act on an amendment to the STIP that includes those projects. It was noted during the review of the projects that the project at the SR-6 Peerless Port of Entry needed to be coordinated with Region Four and Motor Carriers, as Motor Carriers is looking at eliminating bringing in trucks traveling westbound.

Planning and Programming
2004 STIP Amendment #1
Bret Anderson from Program Development said what is before the Commission today is the list of projects that was discussed at the last Commission meeting, as well as the Roadway Safety Improvement Program that was just reviewed. There is one change on line 38 where it identifies the funding source as Railroad Protective Devices. That is incorrect and should be Safety Any Area. Mr. Anderson stated that they have gone through the public comment process and no comments were received. He also mentioned that because WFRC postponed their meeting to December 18, and because the WFRC needs to approve the projects in their area, this approval needs to be conditional upon what happens at the WFRC meeting next week.

Commissioner Warnick moved to approve the STIP Amendment #1 as outlined, with the condition that WFRC approve the projects in their area. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wells and approved.

Request for use of Corridor Preservation Funds
- Bryan & Diane Slade – US-89
Lyle McMillan, Chief of Right of Way, said there are two recommendations today. The first one for consideration is on US-89 for Bryan and Diane Slade. They would like to sell their home and purchase a home closer to their place of employment in Salt Lake. Mr. Slade has retired and has some health conditions, recently having a quadruple bypass. The Slades are requesting that UDOT purchase their home, which is on 1/3 acre. UDOT already owns both of the homes on each side of the Slades, and two homes across the street. The Corridor Preservation Advisory Council is recommending the Commission’s approval.

Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the Slade acquisition. It was seconded by Commissioner Lewis, and approved.

- Various Owners in Logan and Providence City – 100 East Corridor
Mr. McMillan said this request is in Providence, which is in the Logan area, and is a public agency application. The Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization (CMPO) is requesting that UDOT preserve one of their corridors that is off the state system. Because of the development and growth in the area, this is the last viable alternative for this corridor to be preserved. The area to be purchased is part of a Planned Unit Development, and the property owners have their permits to construct a building in that corridor, with a groundbreaking scheduled for spring. The property owners have been contacted and are amenable to working something out. The estimated value is $150,000, but they will get an appraiser in there to see what the impacts are, etc. The Advisory Council has reviewed this in depth, and the recommendation is for the Commission to approve the negotiation and the acquisition of this property to preserve the corridor. The property would be purchased in UDOT’s name, but the CMPO has agreed to take responsibility of the maintenance of the property in the interim, until the project is completed in 2007-2008. And, once the project is funded and completed, the CMPO will purchase the property back from the fund at the purchase price. UDOT and the CMPO will enter into a memorandum of agreement where all those details will be spelled out. Commissioner Bodily remarked that this is the #1 project on the MPO’s list, and is the next project in line to be completed. There’s a lot of development in that area, and they felt it was quite important to secure this property. It will be an alternative route into Logan and fits into the master plan the MPO has for the area.

Commissioner Bodily moved to approve the purchase of the property in Providence. It was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and approved.

Informational Items
MPO Overview
This agenda item was postponed to the January meeting.

Transportation Commission Meetings
The next regular Transportation Commission meeting is scheduled for Friday, January 23, 2004, at the Sandy City Offices, 10000 Centennial Parkway, Sandy, Utah. The following meeting dates and locations have also been scheduled:

• February 20, 2004 – Salt Lake City
  
• March 19, 2004 – St. George
  
• April 23, 2004 – Salt Lake City

The meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m.

The following Commissioners, staff members and others were in attendance:

Glen E. Brown, Chairman
Stephen M. Bodily, Vice-Chairman
Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
Jan C. Wells, Commissioner
Bevan K. Wilson, Commissioner
Ken Warnick, Commissioner
Jerry B. Lewis, Commissioner
LeAnn G. Abegglen, Commission Secretary
John R. Njord, Executive Director
Carlos M. Braceras, Deputy Director
David K. Miles, Engineer for Operations
Jim McMinimee, Project Development Director
Linda Hull, Director of Legislative and Government Affairs
Max J. Ditlevsen, Program Development Director
John Quick, Engineer for Planning
Bret Anderson, Program Development
Lyle McMillan, Chief of Right of Way
Tom Hudachko, Communications Office
Robert Hull, Traffic and Safety Engineer
John Leonard, Traffic and Safety
Katie Knaus, Traffic and Safety
Rob Clayton, Traffic and Safety
Glen Schulte, Traffic and Safety
Larry Montoya, Traffic and Safety
Peter Tang, Traffic and Safety
Rich Clarke, Engineer for Maintenance
Randy Park, Region Two Director
David Gibbs, Division Administrator, FHWA
Joe Gregory, FHWA
Jay Aguilar, Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization
Chuck Chappell, Wasatch Front Regional Council
Doug Hattery, Wasatch Front Regional Council
Bob Wells, Deer Valley Resort
Jim Tadeson, Talisker Property Corp.
John Demkowicz, Alliance Engineers