Gateway 1 Steering Committee

1
Gateway 1 Steering Committee

• March 4, 2009
• 4-8 pm
• Rockland City Hall Chambers

2
Agenda

• Plan/Entity Timeline
• Prioritize remaining Study Team Time and Tasks
• Plan Comment Review
• General Discussion Topics
• Pick SC Meeting Dates

3
Plan/Entity Timeline
2009
2010
June 2009 Deliver Plan to municipalities
4
June 2009 Plan must contain checked items

• Target Goals
• Local Actions
• State Actions
• AIA Function (subcommittees)
• AIA Structure
• Start Up Community Agreement
• Working Transportation Action Plan (inc. transit
  items)

• Working Core Area Maps
• TTR/TDR Framework
• Job Description for new Technical
  Advisor-Adminstrator
• Draft Bylaws
• Refined Transit Plan
• Refined Visual Assessment Actions
• Suggested Project Prioritization Criteria

4
5
Study Team

• Study Team Current Timeframe/Task List
• Now through June
• Current schedule 3 SC meetings and 20 community
  meetings
• Study Team Product SC-approved Plan and Start-up
  Agreement
• Schedule can change based on SC feedback
• Amount of hours available cannot change
• Still need an approved Plan Document by June
• MaineDOT willing to fund Technical Advisor as of
  July 1 prior to sign-up of 12 communities

5
6
Starting July 1

• Hire Technical Advisor/Administrator-to-be (TAA)
• TAA can work with existing SC to present Plan to
  communities and support outreach
• Goal have 12 or more communities sign Start Up
  Community Agreement within 90/- days
• TAA funded and under contract to MaineDOT for
  18-24 months (200K)

7
Plan/Entity Timeline
2009
2010
June 2009 Deliver Plan to municipalities
October 2009 12 Start-up Agreement -
Communities can now apply for Technical
Assistance (500k)
8
Next 12 to 15 months

• Technical assistance grants anticipated to be
  used for supporting and implementing Plan basic
  actions, outreach, ordinances, core area master
  plans, official plans, etc.
• Utilize RPCs to greatest extent possible
• TAA leads effort
• Help MaineDOT and communities continue Plan
  development
• Help communities write technical assistance
  grants (500k)
• Support amendment process for Comp Plans
• Work with communities to develop final
  Interjurisdictional Agreement

9
Plan/Entity Timeline
2009
2010
End of 2010 12 sign Interjurisdictional
Agreement 1.3 M in Funds become available
June 2009 Deliver Plan to municipalities
Oct. 2009 12 Start-up Agreement Communities
apply for Technical Assistance (500K)
Dec.. 2010 Start-up Agreement Expires
10
By end of 2010

• Required at least 12 sign interjurisdictional
  agreement (by Town or City Council vote)
• If so, MaineDOT provides 200k funding for TAA
  (now Administrator) for next 2 years to Entity
• If so, MaineDOT provides extra 1.3 M in funds
  from 2010/2011 Capital work plan to Entity for
  projects above already allocated funds

11
Entity Role
MaineDOT/Other Funding
Entity-Prioritized
Maintenance and Non-Capacity Proposals (Bridges/
Paving)
Safety Proposals
Mobility based Capital Improvement Proposals (TAP)
Sewer Water Infrastructure Proposals (DEP)
TransitCapitol Proposals (TAP)
Quality Community Proposals (Sidewalks, Street
Trees, etc.)
TAP funding plus other Municipal Project
Proposals all now prioritized by Entity
12
2011 and beyond

• Administrator meets regularly with
  Board/communities to work on/update Plan
• Administrator works with/for Entity Board
• Entity prioritizes TAP, grants, applications and
  municipal projects for 2012-2013 work plan
• Entity has dedicated allocation for corridor in
  2014-2015 work plan, in addition to prioritizing
  TAP, grants, applications and other municipal
  projects

13
Study Team Tasks Reprise

• Study Team Current Timeframe/Task List
• Current schedule 3 SC meetings and 20 community
  meetings
• Product is SC-approved Plan and Start-up
  Agreement
• Schedule can change based on SC feedback
• Amount of hours available cannot change
• Still need an approved Plan Document by June
• New Technical Advisor/Administrator could begin
  in July
• NEW schedule could add three more SC meeting
  instead of community meetings

14
What does SC want to accomplish with remaining
time and budget??
15
Plan Comment Review

• Implementation of Entity Approval Process
• Is a two-step process a good idea?
• Are we giving communities too much time or too
  little time
• What is the best way to handle this?

16
Plan Comment Review

• State Incentives/AIA Powers
• How exactly will the transfer of power or
  sharing of power for prioritization of DOT
  projects work?
• Is it shared or is it transferred?
• Can we define the amount of money that will be in
  question?
• What happens after a project is approved?

16
17
Plan Comment Review

• Enforcement
• - Should the land use requirements of the
  municipalities be enforced and if so how and by
  whom?

17
18
Plan Comment Review

• Towns that Opt Out
• - What we do if there are holes in the corridor
  from Towns that do not sign on? 
• - This will be an issue since if we take action
  on the corridor, they are de-facto participants. 
  
• - How will that be handled relative to "perks"
  and "penalties?

18
19
Plan Comment Review

• Transportation Action Package
• Issue with Plan sentence These improvements are
  not intended to be the full list of improvements
  that will be implemented over the next 25 years,
  but a starting point.
• Comment This sentence lessens the ability to
  create a vision for the corridor.
• Questions
• Where is the vision of the corridor spelled out?
• What is the current purpose of the TAC as part of
  the Plan?
• Is this the only dollars that the DOT will spend
  in the corridor?
• How will it evolve over time?
• How will communities have input in those changes?

19
20
Plan Comment Review

• Capacity and Need
• Should communities with less capacity yet high
  need be asked to do more?

20
21
Plan Comment Review

• Access Rule Changes
• How would proposed new access management fee
  system work?

21
22
Plan Comment Review

• Transit Planning
• - What are the underlying principles in making
  decisions as to which transit opportunities are
  available to the Corridor?

22
23
Plan Comment Review Targets

• PROPOSED NEW TARGET
• Reduce Pressure On Municipal Budgets And Property
  Taxpayers
• - Reducing sprawl, containing Fire, EMS and
  Policing services costs and focusing growth in
  core areas will allow municipalities to
  efficiently deliver services and reduce the
  pressure on municipal budgets and taxpayers

23
24
Plan Comment Review Targets

• Mobility and Safety Target
• Preserve and Improve Mobility and Safety
• Travel will be safely maintained at currently
  posted speed limits along Routes 1 and 90 outside
  of downtowns and village centers
• A majority of local trips will be able to be made
  on a local road network, without need to turn
  onto Routes 1 and 90
• Routes 1 and 90 will efficiently serve through
  traffic and thus avoid the diversion of through
  traffic onto the local road network
• Travel will be safely maintained at currently
  posted speed limits along Routes 1 and 90 outside
  of downtowns and village centers except in
  situations that warrant adjustments to posted
  speeds. In those instances the towns input must
  be included in the decision making process.
  Please note there have been pending recommended
  changes to speed limits on Route 1, that have
  been in place since well before the Gateway
  study. This is good as a general principal, but
  there must be language that allows some tweaking.
  

24
25
Plan Comment Review Targets

• Jobs-Housing Balance Target
• Reduce the corridors annual per household
  Vehicle Miles Traveled in 2030 by 20 compared
  with 2005 I believe this is number is still on
  the table to be further discussed. Its very
  low.

25
26
Plan Comment Review Targets

• Conserve Rural Lands and Wildlife Habitat Target
• From the time of Plan adoption to 2030, convert
  no more than 10,000 acres in the 20 Gateway 1
  municipalities from undeveloped rural land into
  house lots. Has there been any discussion of how
  to deal with property tax issues eg communities
  sharing revenues from shared commercial zone so
  dont end up with towns competing with one
  another for development the perceived need of
  every town to max out development along Route 1
  to grab tax revenue needs to be addressed.

26
27
Plan Comment Review Targets

• Support Alternative Modes Target
• Assure that at least 50 RECONSIDER IS THIS
  REALISTIC? of households in corridor towns have
  a meaningful transit option available to them for
  work and other necessary trips OR Assure that at
  least 50 of households live in corridor towns
  that have a meaningful transit option available
  to them for work and other necessary trips.
• 50 does seem too high. We must have current data
  regarding population in high density towns as
  well as more rural towns. Use that figure to
  determine the goal.
• No its too low and un-ambitious. It should be
  at least 80 of households in corridor towns Core
  Growth Areas have a meaningful transit option
  available to them for work and other necessary
  trips OR Assure that at least 50 of households
  live in corridor towns that have a meaningful
  transit option available to them for work and
  other necessary trips

27
28
Plan Comment Review Targets

• Support Alternative Modes Target
• - Reduce single-occupant auto journeys-to-work
  from 76 (2000) to 65 (2030) Again too low and
  un-ambitious.
• Preserve Visual and Community Character Target
• - In each subregion, retain at least 80 of
  visually distinctive and noteworthy segments and
  viewsheds along or as seen from Routes 1 and 90.
  How can we try to be so ambitious with this point
  and so lacking in ambition above?

28
29
Proposed SC Meeting Dates(Pick 5)

• April 8
• May 13
• May 27
• June 10
• June 24