TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING · 2021. 1. 4. · Zoom Meeting Phone Number: 1 (253) 215-8782, enter Meeting ID 871-7733-5735 1. Call to Order 2. Introduction of Members and Attendees

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, January 6, 2021, 12:00 – 2:00 P.M.

To join the Zoom Meeting via computer, go to: www.fastplanning.us/keepup/zoom Zoom Meeting Phone Number: 1 (253) 215-8782, enter Meeting ID 871-7733-5735

1. Call to Order 2. Introduction of Members and Attendees 3. Approval of the January 6, 2021 Agenda 4. Approval of the December 2, 2020 Meeting Minutes 5. Committee/Working Group Reports (including the Chair’s Report) 6. Public Comment Period (Non-Action Items) 7. Old Business

a. Chena Riverwalk, Stage III Update on Policy Board action and next steps for project development

8. New Business a. Tanana Loop & South Chandalar Dr Intersections Construction Increase (Action Item)

Consideration of approval of a Construction phase increase of $90,329 b. Road Service Area Expansion Plan

Project update and overview by consultant team c. Non-Motorized Plan Update (Action Item)

Consideration of releasing the Draft Non-Motorized Plan for a 30-day public comment period

9. Other Issues 10. Informational Items

a. Obligations and Offsets 11. Committee Member Comments 12. Adjournment

Next Scheduled Technical Committee Meeting – Wednesday, February 3, 2021

Page 1

jcfoxText BoxPg 2-10

jcfoxText BoxPg 11




TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes – December 2, 2020

Zoom Meeting URL: https://fastplanning.us/keepup/zoom/ Telephone Number: 1 (253) 215-8782, Meeting ID: 872 1032 8280

1. \Call to Order Jackson Fox, Chair, called the Zoom meeting to order at 12:00 p.m.

2. Introduction of Members and Attendee The following were present:

Name Representing *Jackson Fox, Chair FAST Planning *Olivia Lunsford, Vice Chair FAST Planning **Andrew Ackerman City of Fairbanks Engineering **Bob Pristash City of Fairbanks Engineering **Bill Butler City of North Pole **Steven Hoke (absent) ADEC Air Quality **Kate Dueber Alaska Railroad Corporation **Judy Chapman DOT&PF Planning **Sarah Schacher DOT&PF Preconstruction **John Perreault FNSB Planning Commission **Kellen Spillman FNSB Community Planning **Michelle Denton FNSB Transportation **John Weinberger Fort Wainwright Planning **Justin Burgess AES Transportation **Jakob Theurich UAF *Deborah Todd FAST Planning *Randi Bailey DOT&PF Planning *Don Galligan FNSB Community Planning Bill Rogers McCafferty’s Coffee House/Sand Castle Recording Peter Stern BPAC Ivet Hall DOT&PF Jason Hill DOT&PF Phoebe Bredlie Kinney Engineering Brian Lindamood Alaska Railroad Michael Lukshin Federal Highway Administration

* FAST PLANNING Staff members ** FAST PLANNING Technical Committee members

Page 2

December 2, 2020 Technical Committee Meeting Minutes

2

3. Approval of the December 2, 2020 Agenda Motion: To approve the December 2, 2020 Technical Committee Agenda. (Pristash/Ackerman).

Discussion: No further discussion.

Vote on Motion: None opposed. Approved.

4. Approval of the November 4, 2020 Meeting Minutes Motion: To approve the November 4, 2020 Meeting Minutes. (Chapman/Pristash).

Discussion: No further discussion.


5. Committee/Working Group Reports (including the Chair’s Report) Mr. Fox noted the following updates: Zoom Etiquette: Ms. Lunsford created some new guidelines about what to expect

and the procedures for attending, presenting, and commenting in a virtual meeting format.

6. Public Comment Period (Non-Action Items) No public comment.

7. Old Business No old business.

8. New Business

a. Lacey Street Reconstruction Stakeholder Meeting Update Review of final design concepts for Lacey Street and next steps for project

development Mr. Fox explained that there had been six Lacey Street Stakeholder Meetings and provided a synopsis and slideshow of what had taken place at each meeting to come up with the four final design concepts shown in the meeting packet and posted on the FAST Planning website Lacey Street Reconstruction Project webpage. Ms. Lunsford provided a presentation of the 360-degree design concept immersion graphics that were created by Corey DiRutigliano of Bettisworth North.

b. Chena Riverwalk, Stage III – Design Increase (Action Item) Update on communications with Alaska Railroad regarding land interest

and review of alternatives for recommendation to the Policy Board Mr. Fox provided a brief introduction for the Chena Riverwalk, Stage III Project stating that he had a telephone conference with Jim Kubitz and Andy Donovan of the Alaska Railroad regarding the letter that FAST Planning sent to the Alaska Railroad Board requesting a long-term land interest to install this path along the river between Peger Road and Pioneer Park. Mr. Fox stated that they had taken it to the Alaska Railroad Board and the latest communication he had received stated that the Board was not interested in granting a long-term lease interest at this time due to potential parcel sales and had entered into a long-term lease with a tenant that was constructing a facility at the corner of Peger and Phillips Field Roads and commercial interest in one of the properties where the path would be built. Mr. Fox stated that the Railroad would like to hold off for at least one year to see how those sale and lease possibilities unfolded. Mr. Fox then introduced Sarah Schacher of DOT to present the options that were considered and dismissed by DOT. Ms. Schacher stated that one option was to hold off and wait and from a DOT

Page 3


3

perspective they did not consider that a viable option because the project sat stagnant for an entire year. Ms. Schacher stated that DOT did not view condemnation or waiting another year to see if the Railroad’s sentiment changed as viable options. Ms. Schacher stated that they were expected to advance their projects to construction. Ms. Schacher stated that in the current City of Fairbanks permit, issued by the Railroad in 2014 when the project was State-funded, the City had been paying in good faith to renew that permit annually but the project design they had developed was not compatible with that permit for a variety of reasons. Ms. Schacher stated first and foremost there was not enough design detail conducted at the time that permit was obtained to understand the footprint of the project and all the impacts of the floodplain, floodway, and where the path would have to be with respect to the river because the whole point of having a riverwalk project was to have a path where the river could be viewed from the path and to do that you had to elevate it and that created a larger footprint. Ms. Schacher stated that the permit the City had allowed only for an 8-ft. easement area and that was 8-ft. to construct and maintain it. Ms. Schacher stated that their Design Guide recommended a 10-ft. path and that was a bigger impact. Ms. Schacher stated that another thing was that the permit was revocable, at will, if the Railroad found use to be incompatible with their lease interest. Ms. Schacher stated that with Federal funding they needed to have a secure interest. Ms. Schacher stated that there were conditions in the current permit that did not work for a Federal-aid project. Ms. Schacher stated that DOT came up with two options moving forward. Ms. Schacher stated that the first option would be to change the scope of the project so it did not involve acquiring Railroad land by constructing a new path on the east side of Peger Road from Phillips Field Road to Chena Landings Loop which allowed people out of the subdivision from Phillips Field to Peger Road and pedestrians could come out of the subdivision to get into the Chena Landings Loop without having to cross Phillips Field Road to get to the signal. Ms. Schacher stated that the second thing that could be added to that scope was resurfacing the existing path from the Chena River to Chena Landings Loop which would be of benefit to the Railroad, the subdivision, would bring it up to ADA compliance and the Railroad had platted it as a non-motorized trail/public utility easement area so they should not have any right-of-way difficulties with it, but the catch was that nobody maintained that path. Ms. Schacher stated that they would have to find an entity to maintain it. Ms. Schacher stated that currently DOT had entered into a Maintenance Agreement with the City of Fairbanks and DOT could only enter into a Maintenance Agreement with a municipality and the Railroad was not a municipality. Ms. Schacher stated that past discussions with this section of path was that the Railroad wanted to see some lighting because it was pretty dark in that area but they would have to have someone agree to maintain that section as there were Federal dollars used on that. Ms. Schacher stated that second option would be to request closure of the project participation with FHWA, which closed the project, the funds would be repurposed somewhere else, and the project work they had done would be saved for reuse later. Ms. Schacher stated that the drawback for that option was that it was unclear if FHWA would allow that. Ms. Schacher stated that there was a possibility FHWA would participate. Ms. Schacher stated she knew that Federal Highways frowned on that so they looked at these very carefully and if they did not agree that this was a reasonable thing to participate in, the Federal dollars already spent which was close

Page 4


4

to $400,000 would have to be paid back to Federal Highways. Ms. Schacher stated that presumably that would fall back to DOT and she thought they could expect some ramifications to the MPO in terms of DOT oversight on the projects they initiated or new policies designed to protect DOT’s risk in incurring non-par in the future. Ms. Schacher stated that from her perspective as a DOT employee that worked a lot on Federal Highway projects, Option 2 was not a good option, but it was an option. Ms. Schacher stated that Option 1 was a relatively straightforward design, they could advance it quickly at a cost savings of potentially $1-$1.2M if the Railroad was agreeable to some connection of the existing path to Chena Landing. Ms. Schacher stated that none of the options precluded building this riverwalk project in the future, but they would not initiate another Federal project without a very clear land agreement place. Ms. Schacher stated that the obvious disadvantage was that they did not get the riverwalk path they envisioned but that required Railroad property and circumstances had changed.

Public Comment Period: Peter Stern commented that he liked the idea that Ms. Schacher came up with. Mr. Stern stated that this was an area that he walked year-round, so he was familiar with the condition of the road and used Chena Loop Landing as a roadway to get back to Peger. Mr. Stern stated that he had been lobbying a long time to get the surface repaved. Mr. Stern stated that his question was that currently the pedestrian bridge had blocks on it intended to keep motorized vehicles from traversing the bridge, so if that was going to be called an ADA-compliant route, he was curious what would happen and if they were going to have to open it and snowmachines would go through there. Mr. Stern stated that in wintertime there was no maintenance on it but in the fall, someone had gone through and cut down the vegetation alongside the path. Mr. Stern stated that with the new path that was being proposed depending on the type of commercial structure that was in there he was curious if they would end up with driveway cuts on that path if it turned out to be a gas station. Mr. Stern stated that if they ever got to the point where they could build the path along the north side of the Chena River and that became the alternate way to get across the Chena River, if the river was in high water it was his understanding that they would still be able to get personnel down to Phillips Field Road to be able to cross the intersection, so at this point in time, he would be in favor of Ms. Schacher’s option of moving forward with the project in a way that would benefit everyone.

Motion: To support an ‘Option 3’ on the Chena River Walk Phase III project to keep the project open with the existing scope, for a minimum of one year, or until the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) acts on FAST Planning’s easement request along the Chena River, reiterating FAST Planning’s and the Community desire for a pathway along the Chena River. (Spillman/Denton).

Discussion: Mr. Spillman stated that he did not think it was in the best interest of FAST Planning or the community of Fairbanks to cut bait on this project quite yet. Mr. Spillman stated that they had heard very strongly from the community that they desired this pathway. Mr. Spillman stated that he had Resolutions from the Borough Assembly over 20 years old, this had been before the Chena Riverfront Commission countless times, and it had been before the Planning Commission recently for Local Planning Authority Approval as being consistent with the Plan. Mr. Spillman stated

Page 5


5

that there was clearly community desire for this project. Mr. Spillman stated that he thought they needed to have a more robust community discussion before they closed this project out. Mr. Spillman stated that after a year maybe that was in the best interest and they heard from community that they were not interested in taking that risk. Mr. Spillman stated that he also thought there were some other options that had not been looked in to. Mr. Spillman stated that they could talk about a potential rezone. Mr. Spillman stated that the Alaska Railroad and the Borough just rezoned all the residential tracts right up to that existing walkway to a Residential Zone and put a waterway setback overlay on the rear 25 ft. of all those properties prohibiting any structural development in the rear 25 ft. Mr. Spillman stated that if something like that were to come forth with these existing parcels they were talking about, that could potentially lead to a more equitable path to development. Mr. Spillman stated that every rezone request that he had seen in the last ten years along the Chena River had implemented either a waterway setback or a waterway protection area to protect the 25-ft. of the Chena River and that was potentially something they could look at. Mr. Spillman stated that the Borough had received a grant from the Office of Economic Adjustment through the Department of Defense to update their Recreational Trails Plan. Mr. Spillman stated that he thought this was a good corridor they could look at in that Recreational Trails Plan and have something showing in that Plan that any future subdivision of those tracts would require the dedication of that or an easement on that. Mr. Spillman stated that he thought there were too many issues they had not looked at yet. Mr. Spillman stated that he knew there had been a lot of conversation about the flood issues and it was his department that managed the floodplain regulations and he was not aware of any of these floodplain issues they were talking about. Mr. Spillman stated that he talked to the Floodplain Administrator about this project and thought there were a lot of other options. Mr. Spillman stated that floodplain development in a special flood hazard area was not that difficult, particularly for non-structural developments. Mr. Spillman stated that if you were talking floodways, which there was very minimal floodway on this project, that was a little more difficult but there were other options to be pursued there. Mr. Spillman reiterated that he was not in favor of killing this project right now and there was nothing that led him to believe that the original purpose and need that this project was developed under was not still there and believed the project, as scoped, achieved that.

Mr. Ackerman stated that regarding this motion, he was very sympathetic to Mr. Spillman’s comment that the project was very supported and initiated by the community and had been involved with it over the last three years drafting the environmental document. Mr. Ackerman stated that he was also hearing the DOT concerns. Mr. Ackerman stated that he was concerned about the potential long-term impact it had on future Federal projects that we worked on that were funded by DOT. Mr. Ackerman stated that he was still on the fence about waiting a little while but was not in support of waiting a whole year, maybe a month or two and during that time, they could have the City Engineer propose some ideas out there that the Railroad might be more amenable to since they were amenable to the public purpose which was to put in a pathway along the river. Mr. Ackerman added that the real estate packet that the Railroad put out as part of their marketing campaign labeled the existing/proposed Chena River Walk Trail, so it was a marketing tool they were

Page 6


6

using to get people to invest in those properties. Mr. Ackerman stated that he thought it was an asset from an economic standpoint that would improve the use. Mr. Ackerman stated that as far as the vagrancy issue, he thought that the more bikes and people they got going through these properties, the more eyes on the ground would reduce vagrancy in the short term. Mr. Ackerman stated that he would be in favor of the option where they preserved their permit and a 10-ft. wide area with the Railroad.

Mr. Fox asked Mr. Ackerman if he was discussing and not proposing a new motion to postpone the item.

Mr. Ackerman stated that he wanted to give other people an opportunity to comment before he did that but guessed that he would be proposing a new motion.

Mr. Fox stated that if Mr. Ackerman decided he would like to propose a new motion he could speak up at the appropriate time.

Ms. Chapman asked Mr. Spillman if she understood him correctly, that if they were able to put a trail or a riverwalk in the rear 25 ft. flood setback then they would not be dealing with the Railroad.

Mr. Spillman stated that he thought they were confusing a lot of terms and processes. Mr. Spillman explained that they had floodplain management regulations that they regulated through their Title 15 in support of Federal CFRs and that was different than their zoning powers. Mr. Spillman stated that they had base zoning regulations and overlay zoning regulations. Mr. Spillman stated that as an example, the most recent subdivision the Alaska Railroad did, there was a large rezone of about 30 lots in that area including the largest tract in the area that actually had the entire easement on it that the existing trail was contained in, and in the rear 25-ft. of that, the Planning Commission and the Assembly added a waterway setback overlay so there was no structural development permitted in a waterway setback overlay, it was still owned in fee by those landowners, but not useable for development other than open space or trails.

Ms. Chapman asked Mr. Spillman if the Railroad would still just give them a permit in that waterway setback overlay if one existed if they would have built it that way.

Mr. Spillman stated that Ms. Chapman was correct, and he had also mentioned a third option where they were updating the Recreational Trails Plan and anywhere there was a recreational trail plan connection shown on a parcel in the Borough and that parcel were to subdivide, it was a platting requirement that the shown trail connection was dedicated or an easement was put on that for recreational trail purposes as an aspect of the platting process.

Ms. Chapman stated that would be in cases where an owner was going to subdivide, and this had already been subdivided.

Mr. Spillman stated that Ms. Chapman was correct but so were all those residential parcels that the Railroad just subdivided.

Ms. Chapman commented that her other comment was that they moved to get their ducks in a row on some of the thorny issues in the planning phase rather than doing it during design because it ran up the cost of the project and FHWA might not be amenable to extending. Ms. Chapman stated that she thought that FHWA would have a voice in any motion to delay and it made them nervous to have Federal funds

Page 7


7

stalled out and sitting in the TIP and preferred to keep things moving with their Federal partners. Ms. Chapman stated that she agreed that it was more comfortable to DOT to move on if they were not ready to move forward right now but she appreciated the detail that Mr. Spillman offered and found it interesting.

Mr. Spillman stated that his biggest concern was that the project had been opened and started for a long time and in the planning phase over decades and his biggest concern was that they were disenfranchising the community and not alerting the public to this. Mr. Spillman stated that he appreciated that they a public testimony aspect of this and the meeting he had attended they had hundreds of people comment on this. Mr. Spillman stated that the other proposed options either shut down or minimized the project and it would not be fair to the community to just close this out at the committee level.

Mr. Ackerman stated that they could do that in a shorter time frame and if they needed to talk to the Chena Riverfront Commission and have some public dialogue on this he would say that they could accomplish that in the next three months but was concerned about letting this project hang out much longer and would be in support of Option 1.

Mr. Butler stated that he was in favor of Mr. Spillman’s motion and his reason for that was that he thought the everyone sitting around the table knew that government did not move quickly and he understood that they wanted to move forward but in terms of having government get something done, a year was moving quickly.

Mr. Spillman stated that he would urge the Technical Committee to keep the time frame at one year due to the pandemic and thought it was a bad time to be speeding this project up. Mr. Spillman stated that if after a year they had not done something then they could pursue other avenues, but he did not think there was an argument that there was a strong community need for the project

Mr. Pristash stated that he had always been in favor of Option 1 and it made a lot of sense from a bicycle commuting to him. Mr. Pristash stated that it did not meet the spirit of the nomination and did not give them a riverwalk. Mr. Pristash stated that he had a feeling that the Railroad was going to use that flooded area and it would be filled in. Mr. Pristash stated that it was not fully expressed to the Railroad what was really going on there.

Mr. Butler stated that the meeting only had six more minutes and he was prepared to call the question.

Motion: To call the question. (Butler/Denton). Vote on Motion: None opposed. Approved.

Vote on Motion on the Table: Six in favor. Four opposed. (Ackerman, Chapman, Schacher, Theurich). Two abstentions. (Dueber, Weinberger). Approved.

Motion To extend the meeting to 2:15 pm to discuss Item 8c. (Denton/Chapman). Vote on Motion: None opposed. Approved.

c. 5th Avenue Reconstruction Project Design Increase (Action Item) Mr. Fox introduced Ms. Schacher to provide an explanation for the 5th Avenue Reconstruction Project design increase request from DOT.

Ms. Schacher explained that what they had here was an adjustment to the TIP amount the TIP amount had not been adjusted since the original scope, schedule,

Page 8


8

and estimate was developed at the time of project nomination and that was a few years ago. Ms. Schacher stated that when they were developing the cost estimate for it, they had not involved the City of Fairbanks because they had not determined if they would be designing the project so it was developed as an internal to DOT-only cost estimate and there were a number of unknowns that were not listed. Ms. Schacher stated that the big ones that always got them in design were the utility and right-of-way costs associated. Ms. Schacher stated that for this project there were 40-50 parcels that required temporary interest and 4-5 parcels that required permanent interest, so they were into a full-blown right-of-way map, and developing parcel plats. Ms. Schacher stated that in past projects when there were no permanent acquisitions, they had been able to get through with some exhibits and figures for temporary construction easement needs but that was not going to work for this project. Ms. Schacher stated there was some utility impacts that they had not fully understood. Ms. Schacher stated that the level of effort was not fully estimated and there had been a considerable amount of time and effort spent with public involvement that otherwise might have progressed their preliminary design further than it was and was not included in the original estimate so more funding was needed. Ms. Schacher stated that this was a $226,300 increase over what was currently in the TIP to get through final plans and advertising.

Mr. Fox noted that with this increase request, FAST Planning did not have sufficient offset funding at this time so the increase request could be approved by the Technical Committee and Policy Board but it was pending project closures so if a motion was made to approve the increase, it might take a couple months for FAST Planning to cover it.

Public Comment Period: No public comment.

Motion: To approve the 5th Avenue Reconstruction Project design increase. (Schacher/Denton).

Discussion: Mr. Spillman asked whether the Technical Committee could approve this or whether they were recommending approval to the Policy Board for the funding increase.

Mr. Fox explained the Technical Committee had a threshold of $150,000 for approval of design project increases and this exceeded that amount, so it would have to go before the Policy Board for approval at their December 16, 2020 meeting.

Mr. Pristash stated that they had a hard time at the Technical Committee deciding and recommending these increases, but this was part of the environment they were in. Mr. Pristash stated that what he looked at coming up with the estimate was what 5th Avenue had become and what it would cost to construct it. Mr. Pristash stated that anyone who looked at the project could see that if you had a million-dollar project it would probably cost 20% of that to design it and even though this was more than the original estimate, he would recommend approval.


9. Other Issues No other issues.

Page 9


9

10. Informational Items

a. Obligations and Offsets Mr. Fox explained the obligations and offsets included in the meeting packet.

11. Technical Committee Member Comments No Technical Committee Member Comments.

12. Adjournment Motion to Adjourn: (Chapman/Spillman). The meeting adjourned at 2:09 p.m. The next Technical Committee meeting is Wednesday, January 6, 2021. Approved: ______________________________________ Date: __________

Jackson Fox, Chair FAST Planning Technical Committee

Page 10

Policy Board Action Items

December 16, 2020

Motion: To accept member list for the Project Enhancement Committee. (Matherly/Edwards). None opposed. Approved.

Motion: To continue [Chena Riverwalk, Stage III] project as is for another year to continue discussion with the Alaska Railroad. (Matherly/Tomaszewski). None opposed. Approved.

Motion: To approve the 5th Avenue Reconstruction project design increase as presented. (Edwards/Matherly). None opposed. Approved.

___________________________________ ___________________________ Ryan Anderson, P.E. Date Chair, Policy Board

12/16/2020

Page 11

1

Jackson Fox

From: Griffin, Guan (DOT) Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 11:32 AMTo: Jackson FoxSubject: Add'l Funding needed for Tanana Loop and S Chandalar Intersection Improvements NFHWY00014Attachments: 12.07.20 Tanana Loop Cost Breakdown.pdf; Tanana Loop PDA Request 9-14-20

Hi Jackson, As the project is completed and we have a better picture of the total project cost. The total needed for the project is $90,329. Please see attached project cost breakdown. The parts not including in the previous PDA request are: 643(025) Traffic Control increased by $73,504.80 Change order #16 $25,000 final $20,087.56 In September, I moved $89,981 from CENG to cover the project increase at the time under the expression we would have enough CENG to complete the project and close out the project as well. Later it was found that several mischarged billings or timesheets to other projects and were corrected. Now obviously I need the PDA request for the project. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks a lot for the consideration. Guangyan Griffin, P.E. Construction Manager State of Alaska | Department of Transportation & Public Facilities | Northern Region Construction 2301 Peger Road, Fairbanks, AK 99709 Office: 907.451.5087 | Cell: 907.687.5831 | Fax: 907.451.5487

Page 12

Tanana Loop NFHWY00137

Item # Item Description Unit Unit Price Plan Qty Plan Amt Final Qty Final Amt% Overrun /Underrun

Original Contract Items:201(006) Selective Tree Removal EACH $ 200.00 2 $ 400.00 5.00 $ 1,000.00 150%

201(003B) Clearing and Grubbing LS $ 10,000.00 All Req'd $ 10,000.00 100% $ 10,000.00

202(001) Removal of Structures and Obstructions LS $ 95,000.00 All Req'd $ 95,000.00 100% $ 95,000.00

203(006) Borrow TON $ 14.00 7600 $ 106,400.00 14162.77 $ 198,278.78 86%

203(001) Unclassified Excavation LS $ 84,696.00 All Req'd $ 84,696.00 100% $ 84,696.00

203(103) Obliteration of Roadway LS $ 2,000.00 All Req'd $ 2,000.00 100% $ 2,000.00

301(001D) Aggregate Base Course, Grading D‐1 TON $ 40.00 1340 $ 53,600.00 954.85 $ 38,194.00 ‐29%

401(001E) HMA, Type II; Class B TON $ 120.00 1888 $ 226,560.00 2049.58 $ 245,949.60 9%

401(004C) Asphalt Binder, Grade PG 52‐40 TON $ 1.00 100 $ 100.00 98.93 $ 98.93 ‐1%

401(008E) HMA Price Adjustment, Type II; Class B CS $ 11,100.00 All Req'd $ 11,100.00 12,302.60 $ 12,302.60 11%

401(009) Longitudinal Joint Density Price Adjustment CS $ 3,100.00 All Req'd $ 3,100.00 3,814.50 $ 3,814.50 23%

401(015) Asphalt Material Price Adjustment CS $ ‐ All Req'd 100% $ ‐

501(128) Cast‐in‐Place Concrete Retaining Wall LF $ 200.00 118 $ 23,600.00 118.9 $ 23,780.00 1%

603(020)‐018 End Section for Pipe 18 Inch EACH $ 400.00 4 $ 1,600.00 4 $ 1,600.00 0%

603(021)‐018 Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe 18 Inch LF $ 73.00 579 $ 42,267.00 573 $ 41,829.00 ‐1%

603(021)‐024 Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe 24 Inch LF $ 105.00 1001 $ 105,105.00 999 $ 104,895.00 0%

604(001) Storm Sewer Manhole, Type I EACH $ 7,500.00 14 $ 105,000.00 14 $ 105,000.00 0%

604(003) Reconstruct Existing Manhole EACH $ 2,400.00 1 $ 2,400.00 1 $ 2,400.00 0%

604(004) Adjust Existing Manhole EACH $ 360.00 5 $ 1,800.00 5 $ 1,800.00 0%

604(005) Inlet, Type A EACH $ 4,500.00 11 $ 49,500.00 11 $ 49,500.00 0%

60(001) W‐Beam Guardrail LF $ 39.00 637.5 $ 24,862.50 688.90 $ 26,867.10 8%

606(006) Removing and Disposing of Guardrail LF $ 1.00 612 $ 612.00 612.00 $ 612.00 0%

606(013) Parallel Guardrail Terminal EACH $ 4,450.00 2 $ 8,900.00 2.00 $ 8,900.00 0%

608(001B) Concrete Sidewalk, 6 inches thick SY $ 62.00 4774 $ 295,988.00 4798.24 $ 297,490.88 1%

608(006) Curb Ramp EACH $ 1,350.00 33 $ 44,550.00 34 $ 44,550.00 0%

608(116) Pedestrian Barrier A EACH $ 32,000.00 1 $ 32,000.00 100% $ 32,000.00 0%

608(116) Pedestrian Barrier B EACH $ 49,000.00 1 $ 49,000.00 100% $ 49,000.00 0%

608(116) Pedestrian Barrier C EACH $ 17,250.00 1 $ 17,250.00 100% $ 17,250.00 0%

609(0024A) Curb and Gutter, Type 1 LF $ 30.00 4967 $ 149,010.00 Deleted CO5 $ ‐ ‐100%

615(001) Standard Sign SF $ 100.00 364.25 $ 36,425.00 369.25 $ 36,925.00 1%

615(006) Salvage Sign EACH $ 170.00 28 $ 4,760.00 28.00 $ 4,760.00 0%

618(002) Seeding LB $ 130.00 110 $ 14,300.00 128.80 $ 16,744.00 17%

618(003) Water for Seeding MGAL $ 170.00 55 $ 9,350.00 0.00 $ ‐ ‐100%

620(001) Topsoil SY $ 8.00 6009 $ 48,072.00 7156.00 $ 57,248.00 19%

621(112) Plantings LS $ 55,000.00 All Req'd 55,000.00$ Deleted CO12 $ ‐ ‐100%

625(001) Pipe Hand Rail LF 240.00$ 612 $ 146,880.00 653.95 $ 156,948.00 7%627(004) Fire Hydrant Adjustment EACH $ 1,150.00 1 $ 1,150.00 100% $ 1,150.00 0%627(010) Adjustment of Valve Box EACH $ 400.00 1 $ 400.00 0% $ ‐ ‐100%640(001) Mobilization and Demobilization LS $ 50,000.00 All Req'd 50,000.00$ 100% $ 50,000.00

641(001)Erosion, Sediment and Pollution Control Administration LS $ 7,800.00 All Req'd 7,800.00$ 100% $ 7,800.00

641(003) Temporary Erosion, Sediment and Pollution Control LS $ 16,500.00 All Req'd 16,500.00$ 100% $ 16,500.00

641(004)Temporary Erosion, Sediment and Pollution Control Additives CS $ 10,000.00 All Req'd 10,000.00$ 1737.13 $ 1,737.13 ‐83%

641(006) Withholding CS $ ‐ All Req'd ‐$ 100% $ ‐ 641(007) SWPPP Manager LS $ 5,000.00 All Req'd 5,000.00$ 100% $ 5,000.00 642(001) Construction Surveying LS $ 47,500.00 All Req'd 47,500.00$ 100% $ 47,500.00 642(003) Three Person Survey Party HR $ 350.00 50 $ 17,500.00 30.53 $ 10,685.50 ‐39%

643(002) Traffic Maintenance LS $ 95,000.00 All Req'd 95,000.00$ 100% $ 95,000.00

643(023) Traffic Price Adjustment CS $ ‐ All Req'd ‐$ 100% $ ‐

643(025) Traffic Control CS $ 76,000.00 All Req'd 76,000.00$ 149,504.80 $ 149,504.80 97%

643(101) Public Information Program LS $ 5,500.00 All Req'd 5,500.00$ 100% $ 5,500.00

646(001) CPM Scheduling LS $ 2,500.00 All Req'd 2,500.00$ 100% $ 2,500.00

660(002) Flashing Beacon System Complete, Rectangular LS $ 60,000.00 All Req'd 60,000.00$ 100% $ 60,000.00

Page 13

Tanana Loop NFHWY00137

Item # Item Description Unit Unit Price Plan Qty Plan Amt Final Qty Final Amt% Overrun /Underrun

660(003)Highway Lighting System Complete, Tanana Lp, S Chandalar Dr, and Alumni Dr

LS $ 325,000.00 All Req'd 325,000.00$ 100% $ 325,000.00

660(013) Relocate Electrolier EACH $ 4,000.00 6 24,000.00$ 6 $ 24,000.00 0%670(010) Methyl Methacrylate Pavement Markings LS $ 125,000.00 All Req'd 125,000.00$ 100% $ 125,000.00

Original Contract Amount: 2,730,037.50$ Total: 2,698,310.82$ New Items Added By Change Orders:

615(900) Standard Sign Changes Tanana CO 5 LS $ 3,562.80 All Req'd $ 3,562.80

609(02A) Curb and Gutter, Type 1 CO 9 LF $ 33.99 5045.30 $ 171,489.75

109(900) Time and Material Changes CO 8 CS Deleted CO 16 ‐$

621(112) Planting Trees and Shrubs Changes CO 12 LS $ 56,725.00 All Req'd $ 56,725.00

109(900) Time and Material Changes CO 16 CS 100,000.00$ 95,087.56 $ 95,087.56

660(900) Signals and Lighting Changes CO 17 LS (4,080.00)$ All Req'd (4,080.00)$

203(900) Excavation and Embankment Changes CO 24 LS 613.56$ All Req'd 613.56$ 608(900) Sidewalks Changes CO 24 LS $ 804.24 All Req'd 804.24$

Total of New Items: 324,202.91$

Total of Project To Date: 3,022,513.73$ Original Contract Amount: 2,730,037.50$

Amount Over Original Contract: 292,476.23$ Previous Amended PDA (184,243.00)$

Estimated previous saving due to ICAP rate decrease by 2.89% (22,000.00)$ Needed for Contract Payment 86,233.23$

Plus ICAP 4.75% 4,096.08$ Total Project Need: 90,329.31$

Page 14

FAST Planning FFY20 Offsets September 28, 2020

Project Federal Total w/ Match

FMATS Intersection Improvements FFY19 $132,298 $145,430 Project deobligation; bids rejectedPlack Road Bike/Pedestrian Facility $489,454 $538,039 Project closureFMATS Sidewalk Improvements FFY19 $264,545 $290,805 Reduction to Bid AwardBirch Hill Bicycle & Pedestrian Facility $255,495 $280,856 Project closureFMATS 2045 MTP $20,701 $22,756 Project closureBirch Hill Bicycle & Pedestrian Facility $124,946 $137,349 Project closureFMATS Area Surface Upgrades FFY18 $73,347 $80,628 Project closureFMATS Freight Mobility Plan $5,907 $6,493 Project closureYukon Drive Improvements $28,013 $30,794 Project closureFAST Improvement Program FFY20 $80,908 $88,939 Reduction to Bid Award

Total Offset Funding to Date $1,475,614 $1,622,088

COMMITTED FUNDS

FAST Improvement Program FFY20 Construction Increase $159,701 $175,554 Executive Director approved 10.25.19 (Johansen & Danby Path Resurfacing)FAST Improvement Program FFY20 Design Increase $90,970 $100,000 Technical Committee approved 11.06.19FAST Improvement Program FFY20 Utilities Increase $21,378 $23,500 Executive Director approved 01.23.20FAST Non‐motorized Plan Update $33,659 $37,000 Executive Director approved 02.03.20FMATS Sidewalk Imp. Program FFY19 Construction Increase $146,529 $161,074 Executive Director approved 02.04.20FAST Intersection Improvement Program FFY20 Construction $158,319 $174,034 Executive Director approved 02.05.20 (1st & Lacey and 10th & Lathrop intersections)McGrath Road Upgrade Utilities Increase $136,273 $149,800 Technical Committee approved 02.05.20FAST Improvement Program FFY20‐22 Design (Prelim. Engineering) $236,522 $260,000 Policy Board approved 02.12.20Tanana Loop & South Chandalar Intertersections Design Increase $40,837 $44,891 Executive Director approved 02.21.20Tanana Loop & South Chandalar Intertersections Construction Increase $137,456 $151,100 Technical Committee approved 02.25.20Minnie Street Corridor Study Planning Increase $72,731 $79,950 Technical Committee approved 03.04.20Road Service Area Expansion Plan $18,194 $20,000 Executive Director approved 04.13.20Gillam Way Rehabilitation Construction & Utilities Increase $47,976 $52,738 Policy Board approved 05.20.20FAST Intersection Improvement Program FFY20 Construction Increase $59,822 $65,760 Executive Director approved 05.21.20College Road Bus Pullouts Design Increase $45,485 $50,000 Technical Committee approved 06.03.20FAST Improvement Program FFY18‐19 Design Increase $40,937 $45,000 Technical Committee approved 06.03.20Cowles Street Reconstruction Design Increase $28,826 $31,687 Policy Board approved 06.17.20

Total Committed Offsets $1,475,614 $1,622,089

Remaining Funds to be Obligated $0 $0

McGrath Road Upgrade $828,033 $910,226 Reduction to Bid Award (AC Buffer)Tanana Loop & South Chandalar Intertersections Construction Increase ($207,473) ($228,067) Policy Board approved 06.17.20Cowles Street Reconstruction Design Increase ($50,510) ($55,524) Policy Board approved 06.17.20FAST Sidewalk Improvement Program FFY19 ($94,706) ($104,107) Executive Director approved 08.14.20McGrath Road Upgrade ($861,431) ($946,940) Policy Board approved 08.19.20

($386,087) ($424,412)

1

Page 15

1

Jackson Fox

From: Jackson FoxSent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 2:41 PMTo: Andrew Ackerman; Bill Butler; Bob Pristash; Jakob Theurich; John Perreault; John Weinberger; Judy

Chapman; Justin Burgess; Kate Dueber; Kellen Spillman; Michelle Denton; Sarah Schacher; Steve HokeCc: Olivia Lunsford; Deborah Todd; Bailey, Randi L (DOT; Donald GalliganSubject: Draft Non-motorized Plan Update

Happy Holidays Technical Committee members! Using the link below you can download and begin reviewing the Draft Non‐motorized Plan Update. This document is scheduled to go before the Technical Committee on January 6 and Policy Board on January 20 for consideration of releasing the document for a 30‐day public comment period. The comment period will likely run from January 20 to February 20, but please bring your initial comments to our January 6th meeting for discussion. https://fastplanning.us/projectsandprograms/nmpupdate/ Also, in case you are interested, the Draft AMATS Non‐motorized Plan can be found at the link below if you want to compare/contract Anchorage’s Draft Plan with our own…. https://www.muni.org/departments/ocpd/planning/amats/technical_advisory_committee/2020/120320/5a_non_motorized_plan_public_review_draft.pdf Thanks, Jackson C. Fox Executive Director FAST Planning 100 Cushman Street, Suite 205 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Main (907) 205‐4276 Cell (907) 590‐1618 www.fastplanning.us

Page 16

CONNECT FAIRBANKSFAIRBANKS AREA SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

NON-MOTORIZED PLAN

DRAFTDecember 2020

Page 17

2

REAL FREEDOM STARTS

WITH TRANSPORTATION

INDEPENDENCE.

Page 18

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

WHAT IS TRANSPORTATION INDEPENDENCE?How easy would it be for you to get where you need to go in Fairbanks without a car? Ten percent of people in our community depend on other ways of getting around every day due to age, health, financial constraints, or just a desire to improve their health or save money.1 It isn’t always easy, especially because much of our infrastructure has been designed around cars and trucks. Connect Fairbanks aims to increase transportation independence, so Fairbanksans can travel safely and efficiently in their communities with or without a car.

WHAT IS CONNECT FAIRBANKS?Connect Fairbanks is a regional non-motorized transportation plan. It outlines policy, programmatic, and infrastructure improvements to increase the number of Fairbanks area residents walking, cycling, and accessing transit and improve the safety and comfort of those who already do. Connect Fairbanks updates the Fairbanks Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (NMP), published in 2012.

WHY WAS THIS UPDATE NEEDED?The 2012 NMP recognized a resurgence of interest in non-motorized travel, spurred by desires for better health, transportation options, environmental quality, and access to the area’s natural surroundings. Connect Fairbanks considers changes in the region and in bicyclist and pedestrian planning and design practices since the 2012 NMP was adopted.

1 Greater Fairbanks Transportation Survey, Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, 2014

Full implementation of this plan will add approximately:

37.8 MILES of shared-use paths;

17.2 ROAD-MILES of bikeable shoulders or bike lanes;

2.8 ROAD-MILES of sidewalks;

Improvements at over 8 CROSSINGS to improve pedestrian and/or bicyclist comfort and safety.

10.2% of our community1 use non-automobile modes for commuting:

1 American Community Survey data, 2014-2018.

A bicycle typically costs a small fraction of a motor vehicle in upfront costs and operating costs which are estimated over at $9,000 per year on average1

1 https://newsroom.aaa.com/auto/your-driving-costs/

$ $$$$$

3.3% WALK

1.0% CYCLE

1.2% USE TRANSIT

3.3% WORK AT

HOME(2014-2018)

1.3% USE OTHER

MEANS

4.3% OF HOUSEHOLDS DON’T HAVE

ACCESS TO AN AUTOMOBILE

Page 19

4

Source: Carlson, Susan A., et al. “Inadequate Physical Activity and Health Care Expenditures in the United States.” Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, vol. 57, no. 4, 2015, pp. 315–323., doi:10.1016/j.pcad.2014.08.002.

HOW MUCH ACTIVITY IS “ENOUGH”?

15010

ActiveInactive Insufficiently Active Insufficiently Active

MINUTES OF EXERCISE PER WEEK

$$+737

HIGHER ACTIVITY LEVELS, LOWER HEALTHCARE COSTS.

$$$+1,313

Inactive

$

Active

AVERAGE ANNUAL HEALTHCARE EXPENDITURES

CURRENT AND FUTURE NEEDS PLANNED PROJECTS

WHO WORKED ON THE UPDATE?Fairbanks Area Surface Transportation Planning (FAST Planning) led the development of Connect Fairbanks, with support from their Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). FAST Planning is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the urbanized areas of the Fairbanks North Star Borough, including the cities of North Pole and Fairbanks.

WHAT DOES THE PLAN DESCRIBE?Over time, FAST Planning hopes to increase transportation independence for all Fairbanksans by broadening the variety of safe, efficient travel options. Connect Fairbanks proposes community-informed active transportation investments with a connection to goals established by the community. It also lays out a framework to connect routes for those traveling without the use of a vehicle.

Just 150 mins of physical activity per week measurably improves your health. That’s just one 22-minute walk a day.

Fairbanks

North Pole

LOCAL AGENCIES

STATE AGENCIES

AREA RESIDENTS

Page 20

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

Q: Are people walking, cycling, or taking transit to access your business?

A: We have walkers and bikers all the time! Customers have learned that it is a fun destination to access by foot or pedal. We also benefit from proximity to other businesses. People may be on a bar hop through downtown and would most likely walk to us instead of driving to and from each place.

-Kara Nash

Profession: Small Business Owner

Outdoor Activity:Summer: 15-20 hrs/wkWinter: 5-10 hrs/wk

# Years in FBX: 12

Page 21

6

THIS IS A PLAN FOR EVERYONE.

Connect Fairbanks envisions a system that is accessible and comfortable for people with a wide range of abilities.

Walking and cycling are important ways for people to get around the Fairbanks Region. People walk or cycle to the store, to work and school, to transit stops, or just down their street or path for exercise or to get fresh air. But walking and cycling are not just ways for people to get from point A to point B. They also provide a myriad of health, economic, environmental, and social benefits.

It’s good for your body and your brain.Studies show that cardiovascular exercise, such as walking and biking, has a positive effect on mental health. People who walk and cycle are less likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues than those who do not.

Our non-motorized system should be accessible to everybody.It is critical when planning bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to make sure everyone has equitable access. The infrastructure should empower people using mobility devices, such as walkers, canes, crutches, and wheelchairs to navigate the Fairbanks area independently.

According to the Alaska Statewide Active

Transportation Plan, if the walking and cycling

commute mode splits were to double, there

would be $6.5M in health, transportation, and

environmental benefits to the region.

Page 22

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

Page 23

8

More people walking and cycling means fewer cars on the road…When people walk and cycle, they are often foregoing a car trip, reducing traffic congestion, emissions, stormwater pollution, and wear and tear on the roadway. This can lead to reduced maintenance costs for roadways, reduced climate impacts, and improved local air and water quality.

…and safer conditions for all roadway users.More people walking and cycling creates a heightened awareness among the community to expect people walking and cycling, which in turn reduces crash rates with motor vehicles.

Walking and cycling are viable year round.Fairbanksans are hardy and if given the chance, may be comfortable walking and cycling year round. However, snow berms at bus stops, unplowed sidewalks, and icy paths create barriers that can make winter walking and cycling challenging.

All of this is good for quality of life and the local economy.The presence of cycling and walking infrastructure may improve quality of life and increase property values nearby. This kind of infrastructure can also spur economic growth. People walking and cycling are more likely to stop on pass-by trips to make purchases than those in motor vehicles, and increased cycling can add jobs and economic stimulus through added visits to bicycle shops. Also, scenic and cultural destinations with good bicycle infrastructure may see increases in bicycle tourism.

Page 24

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9

Q: What do you consider the benefits of commuting by bicycle in Fairbanks/North Pole to be?

A: Health and Happiness! Everything’s better on a bike!

-Adam Koegle

Profession: Network Communications Specialist

Outdoor Activity:Bike/Run/Ski/Paddle, 10-15 hours per week

# Years in FBX: My whole life!

Page 25

10

VISION

Connect Fairbanks envisions an independent future for all Fairbanksans through transportation network improvements, supportive agency programs, and policies that benefit pedestrian and bicycle travel and connect people with public transit.

Goals Objectives Performance Measures

1.PLAN FOR, PROVIDE, AND PROMOTE A NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT IS CONTINUOUS, ACCESSIBLE, RELIABLE AND SAFE.

Maintain a current inventory of the entire non-motorized transportation system.

Update the inventory at least every 2 – 4 years. Update in GIS after completion of each project.

Improve the continuity of the non-motorized transportation system.

Implement all high priority projects by 2030

Report and increase the miles of sidewalks in the FAST Planning area each year.

Report and increase the miles of shared use paths in the FAST Planning area per year.

Report and increase the miles of dedicated on-street bicycle facilities in the FAST Planning area per year.

Improve the accessibility of the non-motorized transportation system for users of all abilities.

Implement the recommendations in the ADA Transition Plans as they are developed/updated by the City of Fairbanks and ADOT&PF.

Implement low stress (Level of Traffic Stress 1 or 2) facilities on all collectors and arterial roads or provide a parallel network by 2035.

Improve the safety of the non-motorized transportation system.

Reduce the number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes by 50 percent by 2040.

2.PLAN FOR AND PROVIDE A NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT CONNECTS RESIDENTS AND VISITORS TO ESSENTIAL SERVICES AND DESTINATIONS

Maintain a current inventory of essential destinations (e.g., employment and retail centers, tourist and recreational destinations)

Inventory major residential areas and other major generators of non-motorized travel and update at least every 2 - 4 years.

Improve the connectivity of the non-motorized transportation system.

Provide bicycle and pedestrian connections to all inventoried major generators by year 2035.

Page 26

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11

Goals Objectives Performance Measures

3.DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT YEAR-ROUND NON-MOTORIZED TRAVEL

Ensure that agency staff has access to current best practices for non-motorized facility selection and design.

Provide one bicycle and pedestrian design specific training to transportation agencies in the area per year.

Every year, update a list of best practice design documents for transportation agencies in the area to reference.

Promote a bicycle and pedestrian friendly culture.

Achieve Bronze level Bicycle Friendly Community Status from the League of American Bicyclists by 2022 and maintain status afterward.

Implement policies and programs recommended in this plan by 2025.

4.DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT PROGRAMS AND STRATEGIES TO INCREASE AWARENESS OF EXISTING NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND THEIR SAFE USE.

Engage businesses, tourism associations, and Fairbanks area residents in the planning process.

Continue to convene the Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee at least quarterly.

Promote awareness of the existing non-motorized transportation system and how to use it.

Implement a promotional program, in coordination with community partners (i.e., bike to work week, walk to school day) each year.

Update the Fairbanks Region Bikeways map every 2-3 years.

Develop a public annual bicycle and pedestrian count report.

Increase the proportion of Fairbanks area residents that cycle or walk to work.

Increase the proportion of Fairbanks area residents that walk to work from 3.3 percent1 to 6.6 percent by year 2035.

Increase the proportion of Fairbanks area residents that cycle to work from 1.0 percent1 to 2 percent by year 2035.

5.DEVELOP, FUND, AND PROMOTE A LIST OF PRIORITIZED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THAT IMPLEMENT THIS PLAN AND ADEQUATELY MAINTAINS A YEAR ROUND SYSTEM

Encourage local governments to provide adequate funding to ensure the primary non-motorized network is maintained to provide year-round access

Implement recommendations from the Seasonal Mobility Task Force.

Maintain and fund a priority list of capital improvement projects that meets the targets of the objectives of this Plan

Ensure that the projects in this plan are included in each Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) update and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

1 Based on the American Community Survey 2018 5-Year Estimate for the Fairbanks-North Star Borough

Page 27

12

SAFE STREETS MAKE A DIFFERENCE

When asked about walking and cycling in the community, 31% of community members surveyed explicitly mentioned a safety concern using the words “dangerous,” “hazard,” or “unsafe.”

Page 28


“Drivers pose a huge threat to our safety. With one-way roads, they often don’t look both ways for pedestrians. Pedestrians

aren’t common enough for drivers to take them into

consideration.”

-Kara Nash

“Two of the biggest challenges now in my

mind are aging sidewalks or lack of safe bike

lanes where there are no sidewalks. Small shoulders

are hazardous to use, but sometimes that’s the only option, especially anywhere on the south

side of the Mitchell Expressway.”

-Adam Koegle

Page 29

14

WE’VE MADE PROGRESS

In 2012, Fairbanks’ first Non-Motorized Transportation Plan set a framework for the cycling and walking systems in the FAST Planning region and included a list of projects to improve those systems. Since then, public agencies have made progress toward improving walking and cycling facilities and policies across the Fairbanks area.

Page 30


24 projects with major bicycle and/or pedestrian elements have been constructed, including

• Cushman Street Reconstruction• 10th Avenue: Cushman to the Steese• Goldhill Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility• Noble Street Upgrade

10 projects are currently in the works, including

• Lacey Street Project• Cowles Street Reconstruction• Minnie Street Upgrade• 5th Avenue Reconstruction

In addition, FAST Planning adopted a Complete Streets Policy and updated the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) criteria to better evaluate non-motorized projects.

Page 31

16

WE HEARD YOU

We received 227 COMMENTS from community members through interactive maps, emailed comments, a community survey and virtual open houses. Here’s what Fairbanksans had to say.

I LOVE HAVING THE ABILITY TO HOP ON A BIKE PATH RIGHT FROM MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND BIKE ALL THE WAY INTO TOWN!

This is a great route [along Tanana Drive between Farmers Loop

Road and N Tanana Drive], but the pavement is broken and cracked,

making riding painful.

IT WOULD BE GREAT TO PUT IN A CROSSWALK AT THE BUS STOPS [ALONG

COLLEGE ROAD] SO PEOPLE FROM CAN MORE

SAFELY REACH TRANSIT AND/OR RECREATION

OPPORTUNITIES AT CREAMER’S.

There's less than no shoulder [on McGrath Road] at some points: I've almost been hit twice and verbally assaulted for running on just this section...

Would like to see the bike path continue up Chena pump and even around Chena ridge.... lots of people run/bike the loop and it would make bike commuting much safer if there was a path or wider shoulder.

JOHANSEN BIKE PATH IS FULL OF CRACKS AND I HAVE FALLEN SEVERAL TIMES AS A

RESULT (ROLLERSKIING).

Illinois St. needs a bike lane. I once held up traffic biking from Minnie St. to College St. because there was a truck behind me too big to pass safely. There were plenty of angry drivers that day!

Page 32


The Farmer's Loop path is amazing and gets used a lot.

A bike/walking path that went along the Richardson Highway from Fairbanks to North Pole would be amazing!

College Road, in general,

needs more pedestrian

crossing options.

4-FOOT SIDEWALK IS DANGEROUS AND

INTIMIDATING.

LOVE THE IDEA OF CLOSING LITTLE-USED STREETS TO

CAR TRAFFIC AND KEEPING THEM OPEN FOR BIKES

AND PEDESTRIANS, WHILE BEAUTIFYING DOWNTOWN

WITH GREENERY.

The farmers loop path is an excellent example of non-motorized improvement being integrated into the overall road system upgrade. Thank you.

FNSB PLEASE ENCOURAGE TROOPER ENFORCEMENT WHEN 4-WHEELERS AND

DIRT BIKES ARE ON THE BIKE PATH.

Seems silly to have so much downtown parking when the city has an agreement with the parking garage for free short-term parking. This would free up space for bike lanes and reduce risk of crashes near businesses.

THE MILLER HILL BIKE PATH WAS A GREAT IDEA, BUT NOT COMPLETING

THE PAVEMENT MAKES IT DANGEROUS.

For user health and safety, Yankovich sorely needs a bike path that has physical separation from traffic.

Page 33

18

HOW DID WE DEVELOP AND PRIORITIZE OUR PROJECTS?

Selecting projects is one of the main steps in the process of creating this plan. Our project list came from many different sources to be as comprehensive as possible. Those sources include the following:

The 2012 Fairbanks NMP

Page 34


Envision 2045 (the Fairbanks Metropolitan Transportation Plan)

FAST Planning’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee

Public feedback

An assessment of bicycle and pedestrian related facility needs not

expected to be addressed by projects in Envision 2045

Page 35

20

RECOMMENDED PROJECTS

Small, targeted changes can make a big difference. Connect Fairbanks recommends wise, community-supported transportation investments that create a more robust network by connecting the walking and cycling infrastructure we already have and leveraging projects and goals from other local and regional plans.

Page 36


Once proposed, each project was screened based on the goals and objectives to best help us reach our vision. This evaluation, along with factors like cost estimates, context-sensitive knowledge, and inclusion in Envision 2045, was used to establish project ranking:

HIGH PRIORITY MEDIUM PRIORITY LOW PRIORITY

Page 37

22

REC

OM

MEN

DED

PR

OJE

CTS

: FA

ST P

LAN

NIN

G A

REA

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

MIT

CHEL

LEX

PY

COLL

EGE

RD

SKYLINEDR

OLD

STEE

SE H

WY N

DENNIS RD

PHIL

LIP

SFI

ELD

RD

BA

DG

ER R

D

RICH

ARDS

ON H

WY

GAF

FNE Y

RD

WOLLRD

BALLAINE RD

DALE RD

S UNIV

ERSIT

Y AVE

MCGRA

THRD

LAKLOEYDR

NELSON RD

FARM

ERS

LOO

P RD

GOLD

HILL

RD

CHEN

APUM

PRD

PLA

CK

RD

HU

RST

RD

STEE

SE HW

Y

NEWBY RD

YAN

KO

VIC

H R

D

BENN LN

HO

LMES

RD

BR

AD

WAY

RD

OLD

RICH

ARDS

ON H

WYR

EPP

RD

PAR

KS

HW

Y

PERS

INGE

RDR

NORDALE RD

MP-

3

MP-

15

HP-

16

MP-

10

LP-1

6

MP-

22

HP-

1LP

-8

HP-

18

LP-1

7

MP-

11

MP-

16

HP-

11

LP-2

0

MP-

26

MP-

29

MP-

5

MP-

32

MP-

33

HP-

19

LP-9

MP-

30

MP-

20

MP-

21MP-

34 LP-

5

City

of

Nor

th P

ole

City

of

Fairb

anks

MP-

9

HP-

6

HP-

20H

P-9

MP-

17

HP-

4

MP-

1

LP-3

HP-

2H

P-12

LP-1

0

LP-1

MP-

6

HP-

13

LP-1

1

LP-2

HP-

5

HP-

3

MP-

31

LP-4

LP-1

3

HP-

8

LP-1

2

MP-

19

HP-

21

HP-

14

LP-1

4

MP-

2

Hig

h Pr

iorit

y Pr

ojec

t

Med

ium

Prio

rity

Proj

ect

Low

Prio

rity

Pro

ject

MP

O B

ound

ary

City

Bou

ndar

ies

[0

12

34

Mile

s

!! !

Page 38

23

!

!

GEI

ST R

D

DANBYST

MIT

CH

ELL

EXPY

RIC

HA

RD

SON

HW

Y

THIR

D ST

COLL

EGE

R DUNIVERSITY AVE

WILBURST

S CUSHMAN ST

GILLAM WAY

COWL

ES ST

WEN

DEL

LAV

E

AURORA DR

NOBLE ST

SEV E

NTE

E NT H

AVE

PHI

LLIP

SFI

ELD

RD

BARNETTES

T

LACEY ST

TENT

HAV

E

GA

FFN

EY R

D

SEVE

NTH

AVE

DAV

IS R

D

SCUSHMANSTEXT

S UN

IVER

SITY

AVE

THIR

DAV

E

MIN

NIE

ST

SEC

ON

DAV

E

F IRST

AVE

ILLINOISST

OLD

STEE

SEHW

Y

TWEN

TY-T

HIR

D A

VE

WCOW

LE

SST

E COWLES ST

PEGER RD

AIR

POR

T W

AYA

IRP

ORT

FRO

NTA

GE

RD

LATHROP ST

OLD

RIC

HA

RD

SON

HW

Y

STEE

SE H

WY

JOH

AN

SEN

EXP

YW

EMBL

E YA V

E

HP

-15

City

of

Fairb

anks

MP

-9

HP

-9H

P-9

MP

-8 HP

-9

LP-1

8

HP

-20

HP

-9

HP

-4

MP

-1

MP

-7

HP

-13

HP

-5

MP

-2

Hig

h Pr

iorit

y Pr

ojec

t

Med

ium

Prio

rity

Proj

ect

Low

Prio

rity

Pro

ject

MP

O B

ound

ary

City

Bou

ndar

ies

[

! !LP

-9

MP-

10

HP-

19

MP-

15

MP-

16

MP-

10LP

-16

HP-

11

MP-

28

LP-2

5

LP-7

HP-

10

MP-

18

MP-

4LP

-19

MP-

27

LP-1

5

REC

OM

MEN

DED

PR

OJE

CTS

: CEN

TRA

L FA

IRB

AN

KS

Page 39

24

!

DAWSON RD BUZBY RD

PERIDOT ST

LAU

RA

NC

E R

D

BADG

ER R

D

HOLLOWELL RD

WOLL RD

SAIN

TNI

CHOL

AS

DR

BENN LN

PARHAM-MCCORMICK RD

NELSON RD

MISS

IO

NRD

PLA

CK

RD

DYKE RD

HU

RST

RD

HOMESTEAD DR

E EI

GH

TH A

VE

W F

IFTH

AVE

CO

NIF

ER D

RLY

LE A

VE

NEWBYRD

BROCK RD

NPH

S B

LVD

RIC

HA

RD

SON

HW

Y

R EPP

R D

ROZAKRD

MIST

LETO

E DR

OLD R

ICHAR

DSON

HWY

BLANKET

BLVD

LP-6

City

of

Nor

th P

oleMP

-17

LP-3

HP

-2

LP-1

MP

-6

LP-1

3

LP-1

1

LP-2

LP-1

2

Hig

h Pr

iorit

y Pr

ojec

t

Med

ium

Prio

rity

Proj

ect

Low

Prio

rity

Pro

ject

MP

O B

ound

ary

City

Bou

ndar

ies

[0

1M

iles

MP-

22!

MP-

30

MP-

20

MP-

26M

P-26

MP-

23

LP-1

0

LP-2

0

HP-

12

REC

OM

MEN

DED

PR

OJE

CTS

: NO

RTH

PO

LEPage 40


RECOMMENDED PROJECTSProject Number

Associated MTP Project Number Project Name Project Description

Estimated Cost ($M)

HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTSHP-1 MR-42 Airport West

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

Construct bicycle lane and sidewalk or shared use path from the Fairbanks International Airport to the neighborhoods west of the Airport and planned non-motorized facilities along Dale Road.

$1.6

HP-2 N/A 5th Avenue ADA Improvements

Make ADA upgrades to provide access to the park on 5th Avenue in North Pole.

$0.5

HP-3 N/A Van Horn Road Bicycle Facility Improvements

Provide separated bicycle facilities on Van Horn Road between Peger Road and S Cushman Street.

$4.5

HP-4 N/A Clay Street Bicycle Facilities

Provide bicycle a connection on Clay Street to downtown Fairbanks between 10th Avenue at the Steese Highway and Wendell Avenue.

$1.0

HP-5 N/A Old Steese Improvements

Reconstruct the Old Steese Highway from the Johansen to the terminus of the Wendell Avenue Bridge project and provide separated bicycle facilities, sidewalk, and transit facilities. Alternatively, bicyclists and pedestrians can share a path; however, use of a sidewalk in this area for bicycle transit is not recommended.

$16

HP-6 N/A Farmer's Loop Path Rehabilitation

Repave the path along Farmer's Loop Extension to connect to the Old Steese Improvements (HP-5).

$5

HP-7 MR-45 Bike Lane Signing and Striping

Signing and striping of existing paved shoulders within City of Fairbanks to accommodate bicyclists as designated bike lanes for seasonal use.

$2

HP-8 N/A Mitchell Expressway Path Rehabilitation

Repave and rehabilitate the path along Mitchell Expressway between the Chena River and Goldhill Road. $2.5

HP-9 N/A Airport Way Frontage Road Conversion

Implement the conversion of frontage roads to non-motorized paths per the Airport Way Functional Features Plan.

$5

HP-10 MR-17 5th Avenue Reconstruction

Reconstruct 5th Avenue from Barnette Street to Noble Street in order to provide improved facilities for all users.

$1.6

Page 41

26

Project Number


Estimated Cost ($M)

HP-11 MR-30 College Road Pedestrian Crossings

Install pedestrian crossings1 on College Road. $0.5

HP-12 N/A 8th Avenue Resurfacing

Resurface the path on 8th Avenue in North Pole $0.8

HP-13 N/A Johansen Path Reconstruction

Repave the path on the south side of Johansen Expressway between Peger Road and University Avenue.

$0.4

HP-14 N/A Sheep Creek Road and W Tanana Drive Enhanced Crossing

Improve pedestrian and bicycle crossing facilities at the intersection of Sheep Creek Road and W Tanana Drive.

$0.7

HP-15 LR-26 Old Steese Highway/Johansen Expressway

Install guide signs to direct northbound non-motorized travelers on the Old Steese Highway to the shared-use path along the Johansen Expressway.


Project Number


Estimated Cost ($M)

MEDIUM PRIORITY PROJECTS

MP-1 N/ADavis Road Sidewalk Improvements

Repave, repair, and widen the sidewalks along Davis Road between University Avenue and Peger Road.

$1.0

MP-2 N/A Wein Park Path Connection

Improve the connection of the Wein Park Path with the 10th Avenue/Cowles Street intersection.

$0.7

MP-3 SR-33Parks Highway/Chena Pump Road-Geist Road

Investigate potential improvements to make the crossings of the ramp terminals more comfortable for non-motorized users.

$0.5

MP-4 MR-337th Avenue (Fbks): End of Sidewalk– 3rd Avenue

Construct sidewalk along 7th Avenue from where the MLH Manor (near Noble Street) existing sidewalk ends to 3rd Avenue. Approximately 0.2 miles.

$0.7

MP-5 VLR-31

Ballaine Road Bicycle Corridor: Yankovich Road-Goldstream Road

Major reconstruction of the old Ballaine Road Bike Path through the Goldstream Valley.

$6

MP-6 N/A Hollowell Road Bicycle Facilities

Add buffered bicycle facilities between Repp Road and Plack Road.

$2

MP-7 N/A 12th Avenue Bicycle Facilities

Provide bicycle facilities along 12th Avenue between the Steese Highway and Barnette Street.

$2

MP-8 N/A Turner Street Bicycle Corridor

Create a park strip or pedestrian and bicyclist corridor between 2nd Avenue and 5th Avenue.

$1.8

MP-9 N/A Noyes Slough Pedestrian Bridge

Construct a pedestrian bridge over Noyes Slough from Slaterville to College Road.

$3

MP-10 MR-22Lathrop Street: Eagan Ave - 16th Ave

Construct sidewalk from existing sidewalk to the end of Lathrop Street.

$0.5

MP-11 SR-17 Chena River Walk Stage III—Segment 1

Expand the Chena River Walk to the north side of the Chena River with approximately 2,200 linear feet of pathway from Peger Road to the existing Chena River pedestrian bridge crossing at Pioneer Park. Construct a connection of the existing pedestrian facilities along Peger Road.

$2.2

Page 43

28

Project Number


Estimated Cost ($M)

MP-12 MR-6Tanana Loop Reconstruction (UAF)

Reconstruct 1,700 feet of Tanana Loop between Yukon Drive and North Tanana Drive. Widen the sidewalk to 8 feet and extend it to North Tanana Drive. Add bike lanes to both sides of the roadway.

$2.5

MP-13 MR-28Fairbanks Street: Birch Lane–Teal Avenue

Construct sidewalk on west side of Fairbanks Street. $0.6

MP-14 MR-66Geist Road: Parks Highway–Fairbanks Street

Construct an extension of the existing shared-use path on the north side of the road to the Parks Highway.

$1.0

MP-15 SR-18

Old Airport Way: Mitchell Expressway–Airport Way

Construct sidewalk along Old Airport Way. $0.8

MP-16 MR-41

Fairbanks International Airport to South University Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

Resurface University Avenue South/Airport Perimeter Road, realign approximately 2,500 lineal feet of University Avenue South and adjacent railroad, and construct an adjacent pedestrian facility.

$4

MP-17 N/A Santa Claus Lane Bicycle Facilities

Add buffered bicycle lanes on Santa Claus Lane between Richardson Highway and E 5th Avenue.

$0.3

MP-18 MR-11 Lacey Street Reconstruction

Reconstruct Lacey Street from 12th to 1st Avenue and provide improved facilities for all users.

$12

MP-19 N/A Chena Greenway

Construct a greenway along Chena River Road through Fort Wainwright. Project will need to coordinate with FHWA and receive Fort Wainwright for approval.

$4

MP-20 MR-35Old Steese Highway/Farmers Loop Road

Investigate potential improvements to make this unsignalized intersection crossing more comfortable for non-motorized users.

$5

MP-21 MR-51 Chena Pump Road Crossing

Construct a pedestrian/bicycle crossing along Chena Pump Road between Chena Ridge Road and Chena Small Tracts for safe access to the Interior Alaska Land Trust Chinook Conservation park.

$1.5

MP-22 MR-3 Dyke Road Improvements

Construct paved shoulders for bicyclists and pedestrians along Dyke Road from Laurance Road to the Old Richardson Highway.

$2

Page 44


Project Number


Estimated Cost ($M)

MP-23 MR-255th Avenue (NP): Santa Claus Lane–Therron Street

Construct sidewalk from Santa Claus Lane to 5th Avenue’s terminus at Therron Street.

$0.8

MP-24 MR-268th Avenue (NP): St Nicholas Drive–Blanket Boulevard

Construct sidewalk from the terminus of the shared use path west of Blanket Boulevard to St. Nicholas Drive.

$0.5

MP-25 MR-27Dartmouth Drive: Chena Pump Road– Stanford Drive

Construct sidewalk along Dartmouth Drive. $1.2

MP-26 MR-65

Richardson Highway (NP) Alternate Route: Peridot Street– Laurance Road

Designate and construct pedestrian and bicyclist improvements to parallel routes on the north and south sides of the Richardson Highway through North Pole.

$2

MP-27 MR-32 2nd Avenue (Fbks): Hall St – Clay StConstruct sidewalk along the north side of 2nd Avenue. $0.6

MP-28 LR-12Phillips Field Road: Peger Road–Illinois Street

Realign Phillips Field Road from Chena Landings Loop to Jack Lindsey Lane to follow the north bank of the Chena River, including a non-motorized path/widened shoulders from Chena Landings Loop to Illinois Street along the riverfront to complete Segment 2 of the Chena Riverwalk, Stage III project.

$6

MP-29 MR-43Chena Lakes–Plack Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

Construct bicycle and pedestrian trail connection between Chena Lakes Recreational Area and Plack Road.

$0.5

MP-30 MR-68

Fairbanks-North Pole Bicycle and Pedestrian Multi-Use Path

Construct bicycle and pedestrian path connection between Fairbanks and North Pole by extending the proposed path from the Richardson Highway/Badger Road intersection to North Pole. Continue to allow bicyclists on Richardson Highway when complete. Because frontage road development is likely, the cost estimate for this project covers the addition of bicycle and pedestrian facilities to that project.

$1.0

MP-31 N/A Ballaine Road Separated Path

Create a separated path along Ballaine Road between Farmer's Loop Road and Goldstream Road.

$4

Page 45

30

Project Number


Estimated Cost ($M)

MP-32 MR-67

College Road Complete Street (University Avenue to Steese Expressway)

Make College Road a Complete Street with three vehicle lanes, bike lanes, bus pullouts, and pedestrian crossings.

$2.5

MP-33 MR-7 Bradway Road Reconstruction

Reconstruction of Bradway Road in the Badger Road area to provide a maintainable pavement structure and to provide for increase in travel demands, separated bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities.

$10

MP-34 MR-59Chena Pump Road Roundabout Interchange

Study a potential roundabout and safety and mobility improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians at the Chena Pump Road/Parks Highway interchange.

$4

LOW PRIORITY PROJECTS

LP-1 N/A

Old Richardson Highway: VFW Street to Dyke Road Bicycle Facilities

Add separated bicycle facilities at the south end of Old Richardson Highway between VFW Street and Dyke Road.

$1.0

LP-2 N/ALaurance Road (West) Bicycle Facilities

Add separated bicycle facilities to Laurance Road between the Old Richardson Highway and Richardson Highway.

$2

LP-3 N/A Dawson Shoulders Add separated bicycle facilities from Lineman to Hurst. $0.8

LP-4 N/A Peede Road Bicycle Facilities

Add bicycle facilities on Peede Road between Badger Road and Brock Road.

$5.5

LP-5 MR-29 Boat Street Path: Chena River Bridge

Improve the ramp connections onto the bridge to provide a smooth transition for cyclists.

$0.5

LP-6 MR-345th Avenue--Mission Road/Richardson Highway

Investigate potential improvements to allow non-motorized users to cross the Richardson Highway at this location. This may require an overpass, which could be completed in conjunction with a future interchange at this location.

$0.2

LP-7 LR-87th Avenue (Fbks): Cowles Street–Steese Highway

Install bicycle route signs and/or pavement markings. Consider full Bicycle Boulevard treatments.

$0.5

LP-8 LR-11Davis Road: University Avenue–Peger Road

Construct sidewalk on the south side of Davis Road. $1.1

LP-9 VLR-33Mitchell Expressway Parallel Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

Construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities parallel to Mitchell Expressway.

$8

Page 46


Project Number


Estimated Cost ($M)

LP-10 N/A

Mistletoe Drive/ Laurance Road (East) Bicycle Facilities

Add separated bicycle facilities to Laurance Road between Mistletoe Drive and Nelson Road.

$1.0

LP-11 N/A

Old Richardson Highway and Homestead Drive Bicycle Facilities

Add separated bicycle facilities along Old Richardson Highway and sharrows on Homestead Drive to provide connections between Richardson Highway and Perimeter Drive.

$3

LP-12 N/A Repp Road Bicycle FacilitiesAdd bicycle facilities between Badger Road and Pool Street. $4

LP-13 N/A Brock Road Bicycle Facilities

Add bicycle facilities on Brock Road between Peede Road and Repp Road.

$4

LP-14 N/A Peede and Nordale Crossing Add enhanced crossing. $0.3

LP-15 MR-24 Peger Road: Chena River – Airport WayConstruct separated path on east side of Peger Road. $1.0

LP-16 MR-31Egan Avenue Pedestrian Improvements

Install pedestrian facilities between Moore Street and Lathrop Street along Egan Avenue.

$1.5

LP-17 MR-64

Farmers Loop-Chena Hot Springs Road Trail Connections: FNSB

Construction of an all season trail connection that will link from Farmers Loop Road in the McGrath Road area to Chena Hot Springs Road. This will connect the Farmers Loop Bike Trail and adjacent winter trails (including the Birch Hill Trail) to the Chena Hot Springs multi-use trail.

$4

LP-18 N/A 2nd Avenue Festival Street

Create a festival street along 2nd Avenue between Cushman Street and Lacey Street.

$0.5

LP-19 VLR-123rd Avenue (Fbks): Hall Street–Steese Highway

Construct sidewalk along the 3rd Avenue from Hall Street to the Steese Highway shared-use path connection.

$0.5

LP-20 MR-44Nelson Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility

Construct a bicycle and pedestrian facility along Nelson Road to the Laurance Road Path going to Chena Lakes by adding shoulders or a separated multi-use path.

$8

LP-21 LR-25Johansen Path Bridge to Charles Street

Complete the partially constructed bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing of the Johansen Expressway between the railroad depot and College Road and provide a paved connection to the railroad depot and Illinois Street.

$10

Page 47

ALLOCATIONS PHASE AMOUNT FFY20 OBLIGATIONSPERCENT

OBLIGATEDSTP All $2,046.5 $0.0 0%STP AC All $1,774.0 $0.0 0%CMAQ All $727.8 $0.0 0%PL All $321.2 $321.2 100%OFFSET All $547.8 $523.8 96%

TOTAL $5,417.3 $845.0 16%

IRIS STP PHASE OBLIGATION DATE TIP AMOUNTFFY20

OBLIGATIONSPERCENT

OBLIGATED COMMENTS

Design $109.8 0%

Right-of-Way $27.3 0%

Utilities $9.1 0%

$1,137.0 0%

$318.5 0% FFY22 AC

NFHWY00336 Coordinator's Office Planning $100.0 0%

Z622070000 Cushman Street Bridge Rehabilitation Design $2.3 0% Phase Placeholder

Utilities $4.5 0%

Construction $268.4 0%

NFHWY00282 NFHWY00559 FAST Sidewalk Improvement Program Construction $17.3 0%

TBD Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update Planning $136.5 0%

NFHWY00269 North Pole Streetlight Standardization Right-of-Way $2.3 0% Phase Placeholder

NFHWY00158 Old Rich Hwy Intersection Improvements Right-of-Way $2.3 0% Phase Placeholder

Design $2.3 0% Phase Placeholder

Construction $1,455.5 0% FFY22 AC

NFHWY00448 Woll Road Resurfacing & Widening Right-of-Way $227.4 0%

TOTAL $3,820.5 $0.0 0%

IRIS CMAQ PHASE OBLIGATION DATE TIP AMOUNTFFY20

OBLIGATIONSPercent

Obligated COMMENTS

NFHWY00282 NFHWY00559 FAST Sidewalk Im

Documents

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING · 2021. 1. 4. · Zoom Meeting Phone Number: 1 (253) 215-8782, enter Meeting ID 871-7733-5735 1. Call to Order 2. Introduction of Members and Attendees