operations subcommittee 1:30 p.m. january 22, 2019 · 2020. 4. 29. · downtown las vegas, could be...

OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE AGENDA – JANUARY 22, 2019

of 2

NOTICE AND AGENDA OF

PUBLIC MEETING

OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

1:30 P.M. JANUARY 22, 2019

RTC/RFCD ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

600 S. GRAND CENTRAL PARKWAY, ROOM 108

LAS VEGAS, NV 89106

(702) 676-1500

This agenda with full backup is available at the Regional Transportation Commission Administration Building, 600 S. Grand Central Pkwy,

Las Vegas, Nevada; the Regional Transportation Commission’s website, http://www.rtcsnv.com; or by contacting David Gloria at

702-676-1623.

THIS MEETING HAS BEEN PROPERLY NOTICED AND POSTED IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS:

Clark County Government

Center 500 S. Grand Central Pkwy.

Las Vegas, NV 89155

City of Henderson

Office of the City Clerk 240 Water Street

Henderson, NV 89015

CC Regional Justice Center

200 Lewis Ave. Las Vegas, NV 89155

RTC

600 S. Grand Central Pkwy. Las Vegas, NV 89106

RTC website

www.rtcsnv.com

Nevada Public Notice

website https://notice.nv.gov

BY: ________________________________________________________

DocuSign Envelope ID: 615D647E-0DCD-4725-8C5B-5DE4E1BA83DB

http://www.rtcsnv.com/


https://notice.nv.gov/

OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE AGENDA – JANUARY 22, 2019

Page 2 of 2

Items 2 through 6 are items for possible action. Items 1, 7, and 8 are discussion items and no action

can be taken. Please be advised that the Operations Subcommittee has the discretion to take items on the

agenda out of order, combine two or more agenda items for consideration, remove an item from the agenda

or delay discussion relating to an item on the agenda any time.

1. CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Meeting of September 18, 2018 (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

3. DISCUSS AND RESOLVE VARIOUS TRANSIT SYSTEM/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING

OPERATION/LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

4. REVIEVE A PRESENTATION FROM REPRESENTATIVES OF NEXAR, INC. ON

TECHNOLOGY CAPABLE OF IDENTIFYING ROADSIDE INFRASTRUCTURE (FOR

POSSIBLE ACTION)

5. DISCUSS POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS TO STANDARD DRAWING 332.S1 “SERVICE

PEDESTAL FOUNDATION” AND STANDARD DRAWING 321 “LIGHTING STANDARD

FOUNDATION” (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

6. DISCUSS FINDINGS OF AN AUDIT CONDUCTED ON THE REGIONAL STANDARD

DRAWINGS WITH RESPECT TO CURRENT ACCESSIBILITY LAW AND GUIDELINGS (FOR

POSSIBLE ACTION)

7. DISCUSS TOPICS OF INTEREST


During the initial Citizens Participation, any citizen in the audience may address the Subcommittee on an item featured on the

agenda. During the final Citizens Participation, any citizens in the audience may address the Subcommittee on matters within

the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction, but not necessarily featured on the agenda. No vote can be taken on a matter not listed on the

posted agenda; however, the Subcommittee can direct that the matter be placed on a future agenda.

Each citizen must be recognized by the Chair. The citizen is then asked to approach the microphone at the podium, to state his

or her name, and to spell the last name for the record. The Chair may limit remarks to three minutes’ duration, if such remarks

are disruptive to the meeting or not within the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction.

The Regional Transportation Commission keeps the official record of all proceedings of the meeting. In order to maintain a

complete and accurate record, copies of documents used during presentations should be submitted to the Recording Secretary.

The Regional Transportation Commission appreciates the time citizens devote to be involved in this important process.

In compliance with Nevada Revised Statute 241.035(4), the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada shall

create an audio and/or video recording of the meeting and retain such recording(s) for the required period of time.

The Regional Transportation Commission Meeting Room and Conference Room are accessible to the disabled. Assistive

listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. A sign language interpreter for the deaf will be made available

with a forty-eight hour advance request to the Regional Transportation Commission offices. Phone: 702-676-1500

TDD: 702-676-1834

Any action taken on these items is advisory to the Regional Transportation Commission.


5063

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

OF

SOUTHERN NEVADA

AGENDA ITEM

Metropolitan Planning Organization [X] Transit [ ] Administration and Finance [ ]

PETITIONER TINA QUIGLEY, GENERAL MANAGER

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA

RECOMMENDATION BY PETITIONER:

THAT THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA

OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS

PARTICIPATION

GOAL: MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE

INITIAL CITIZENS PARTICIPATIONSUBJECT:

FISCAL IMPACT:

None

BACKGROUND:

In accordance with State of Nevada Open Meeting Law, the Regional Transportation Commission of

Southern Nevada Operations Subcommittee shall invite interested persons to make comments. For the

initial Citizens Participation, the public should address items on the current agenda. For the final

Citizens Participation, interested persons may make comments on matters within the Operations

Subcommittee's jurisdiction, but not necessarily on the current agenda.

No action can be taken on any matter discussed under this item, although the Operations Subcommittee

can direct that it be placed on a future agenda.

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________

JOHN R. PEÑUELAS, JR., P.E.

Director of Engineering Services - Streets and Highways

tde


colemanz

Text Box

OPS Item #1 January 22, 2019

MINUTES

OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE


SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 These minutes are prepared in compliance with NRS 241.035. Text is in summarized rather than verbatim format. For complete contents, please refer to

meeting recordings on file at the Regional Transportation Commission.

THIS MEETING WAS PROPERLY NOTICED AND POSTED

IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2018

Clark County Government Center

500 S. Grand Central Pkwy.

Las Vegas, NV 89155

City of Henderson

Office of the City Clerk

240 Water Street

Henderson, NV 89015

CC Regional Justice Center

200 Lewis Ave.

Las Vegas, NV 89155

RTC

600 S. Grand Central Pkwy.

Las Vegas, NV 89106

RTC Website

www.rtcsnv.com

Nevada Public Notice

https://notice.nv.gov

CALL TO ORDER

Mr. Kaizad Yazdani, Chair, called the meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. in Meeting Room 108 of the Regional

Transportation Commission Administration Building.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Department of Public Works, Chair

Irene Lam, City of Henderson (Alternate), Vice-Chair

Michelle Castro, Nevada Department of Transportation

Mike Hudgeons, City of North Las Vegas

Jim Keane, City of Boulder City

Gena Kendall, City of Las Vegas

MEMBERS ABSENT:

Ed Kaminski, Clark County Department of Building and Fire Prevention (Non-voting)

Lt. Greg Munson, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Non-voting)

RTC STAFF:

John Peñuelas, Director of Engineering Services-Streets and Highways

Joe Damiani, Manager of Engineering

Shital Patel, Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation Projects and Operations Manager

Julia Uravich, Project Engineer

Chris Schwarz, Regional Traffic Control Coordinator

Jesse Diaz, Marketing & Communications Coordinator

David Gloria, Administrative Specialist

Tamika Davis-Edwards, Office Specialist

INTERESTED PARTIES:

Jeff Freels, City of North Las Vegas

Amanda Moss, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association

Joseph Norby, City of Las Vegas

Patrick Riley, RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc.

Jose Rodriguez, City of Henderson

Niccole Solano, Clark County

Cassidy Wilson, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association

DocuSign Envelope ID: C89C381A-19B6-44D0-B1EF-5EAE6942C4EC


https://notice.nv.gov/

colemanz

Text Box


Minutes-Operations Subcommittee Meeting of September 18, 2018

Page 2 of 10

Item: 1. CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

Comments: No comments were made.

Motion: No motion was necessary.

Vote/Summary: No vote was taken.

Item: 2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Meeting of July 17, 2018 (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)


Motion: Mr. Jim Keane, City of Boulder City, made a motion to approve the minutes.

Vote/Summary: 6 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried.

Ayes: Michelle Castro, Mike Hudgeons, Gena Kendall, Jim Keane, Irene Lam, Kaizad Yazdani

Nays: None

Absent: None

Item:

3. DISCUSS AND RESOLVE VARIOUS TRANSIT SYSTEM/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING

OPERATION/LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

Comments:

Mr. John Peñuelas, Director of Engineering Services – Streets and Highways for the Regional

Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, stated that he was not aware of any issues that

required discussion at this time.



Item:

5. DISCUSS CURRENT PAVEMENT MARKING SPECIFICATIONS AND THE

DESIRABILITY OF MODERNIZING AND INCORPORATING A PERFORMANCE BASED

COMPONENT (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

Comments: Mr. John Peñuelas, Director of Engineering Services – Streets and Highways for the Regional

Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), set forth that the purpose of this item was to

obtain the Operations Subcommittee’s (Subcommittee) feedback on existing Uniform Standard

Specifications and Drawings related to pavement markings. Also, the RTC desired the members’ input

on the possible inclusion of a performance-based specification regarding pavement markings.

Mr. Peñuelas mentioned that the relevant federal authorities were proposing to update the Manual on

Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to include minimum retroreflectivity standards for

pavement markings. Although full implementation of such requirements was likely some years in the

future, the RTC Director of Engineering Services thought it prudent to start talking about performance

standards for pavement markings in Southern Nevada. He felt that this was important for a number of



Page 3 of 10

reasons, including but not limited to the fact that the designations would play a significant role in the

deployment of autonomous vehicles. Mr. Peñuelas was aware that California agencies were already

making changes to the state’s pavement marking specifications to afford better detection by

autonomous vehicles.

Ms. Gena Kendall, City of Las Vegas (Las Vegas), thought that the establishment of performance

measures would be beneficial. She went on to say that Las Vegas employed various techniques to

maintain pavement markings. She cited one example, painted markings, and noted that the city found

this to be a cost-effective practice. Mr. Peñuelas remarked that the specifications did allow for the use

paint. He also noted that there was a variance between the RTC and the Nevada Department of

Transportation (NDOT or Transportation Department) regarding the entities’ definition of Type 1 film.

Next, Ms. Kendall shared that maintaining the pavement markings in heavily trafficked areas, such as

downtown Las Vegas, could be challenging. Mr. Peñuelas commented that when this topic had been

previously discussed, the agencies’ internal maintenance capabilities had not been addressed. He

wondered if maintenance might have to be handled by external parties in some instances.

Mr. Mike Hudgeons, City of North Las Vegas (North Las Vegas), related that North Las Vegas staff

members handled minor pavement marking jobs. He said that external parties carried out major work.

Mr. Jim Keane, City of Boulder City, set forth that his maintenance crews prefer Botts’ Dots pavement

marking because the material tended to last longer. He went on to say that painted markings required an

annual touch-up in order to keep them visible to roadway users. Mr. Keane was not certain if the need

for annual maintenance was due to the type of paint being used. In response, Mr. Peñuelas recounted an

incident that occurred in the City of Henderson (Henderson) whereby the polyurea liquid pavement

markings tended to degrade more quickly than expected and the city decided to arrange for painted

markings. Mr. Peñuelas remarked that the Botts’ Dots were more durable, but were susceptible to

breaking or losing reflectivity. He noted that polyurea or tape marking may not be as visible in the

daytime but usually retained nighttime reflectivity. Ms. Kendall was amenable to the setting of

guidelines on the thickness of the polyurea markings.

Mr. Keane asked for the representatives of the other local agencies to talk about their experiences with

tape-based pavement markings. In the opinion of Chair Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Public Works, it

was difficult to gauge how well any type of pavement marking fared. In his experience, pavement

marking life span can depend on the product or installation. Chair Yazdani continued, sharing that

Clark County intended to use polyurea pavement marking product because the material tended to last

three to six months longer than paint. Ms. Kendall asked if this finding was the standard or if the

asphalt type used in Southern Nevada affected the life span of the pavement markings. Chair Yazdani

said that pavement markings in Southern Nevada was likely impacted by the lack of rain and the type of

asphalt that is used within the region.

Vice-Chair Irene Lam, City of Henderson, asked for details on what a performance-based component

would require of the contractor. Mr. Peñuelas said the specification might be structured to require the

contractor to deliver a certain level of retroreflectivity within a specific time frame. He further stated

that a warranty bond or some sort of assurance could be put in place so that if the product failed to meet

those requirements, there would be a legal recourse to call for it to be brought up to standard. He

mentioned that this was approach that California had taken. The RTC Director of Engineering Services

then asked the Operations Subcommittee members if they would like RTC personnel to research this

technique.



Page 4 of 10

Mr. Hudgeons wondered if more research on materials should be done prior to imposing any

performance requirements on contractors. He thought that it might appear unfair since contractors were

required to do something that agencies could not accomplish. Mr. Hudgeons noted that the City of

Phoenix, Arizona has weather similar to that of Las Vegas, Nevada, but the pavement markings on

Phoenix roads seemed to be more durable. He thought this should be explored.

Ms. Kendall inquired as to whether the supplier would provide the guarantee. Mr. Peñuelas said that the

specific guarantor would depend on the contract between the supplier and the contractor since

installation played an important role in the quality of pavement markings. Chair Yazdani suggested that

the entities find a product that worked and then explore the performance-based components. He

mentioned that Clark County had conducted a test of pavement marking products on Desert Inn Road.

Referring to that test, Mr. Peñuelas understood that relevant parties could not agree on the best

pavement marking product and/or none of the products used in the test deck were particularly

noteworthy. He believed it was possible to establish a reasonable performance specification for which

the industry could deliver. Chair Yazdani was concerned as to which parties would be responsible for

addressing the lack of performance; namely, the contractor or the manufacturer. He said a possible

solution would be to require a manufacturer’s representative to be onsite during the installation process

and evaluate the product.

Vice-Chair Lam remarked that Henderson had experienced success with the Liquid Pavement Marking

(LPM) 5000 if the material was sprayed at 50 mils. She noted that the specification set forth 35 mils as

the proper setting, but Henderson staff members had discovered that a 50 mils setting was more

effective. Chair Yazdani asked for Vice-Chair Lam to specify the time the product needed to dry when

sprayed at 50 mils. He mentioned that he was concerned about the time a roadway may be closed to

traffic while this process took place. Mr. Jose Rodriguez, City of Henderson, said that LPM 5000 dried

quickly. Ms. Kendall asked if the price had increase since Henderson used more of the product. Mr.

Rodriguez responded that the cost had remained the same since the contractor had bid the city for use of

the product at 80 mils. In Chair Yazdani’s opinion, the Henderson situation indicated the need for

research. He noted that the manufacturer’s specification might work well in certain regions that did not

experience the heat of Southern Nevada or installed on a different asphalt material. With this and

previous comments in mind, he reiterated that having a manufacturer’s representative onsite for some

projects could prove helpful. Mr. Joe Damiani, RTC Manager of Engineering, added that the

representative could, at least, instruct the installation crew prior to installation.

Chair Yazdani went on to say that having a test site with multiple products would help to determine

those products that were most effective. Mr. Peñuelas was under the impression that a test deck was

currently in place to make such an assessment. Chair Yazdani clarified that the referenced experiment

involved the evaluation of one product from one manufacturer versus the study of multiple products

from multiple manufacturers. Mr. Peñuelas commented that he would prefer to not reinstate an official

test deck. He agreed that it would be more worthwhile to have combinations of criteria based on

products that worked at various locations.

Mr. Peñuelas moved on to the issue of pavement markings for high-volume versus low-volume

trafficked areas and specifying the type of tape for each condition. Mr. Damiani agreed that this was a

challenge. Mr. Damiani stated that each entity would have to inform RTC staff members about the

changes to individual specifications pertaining to the agencies in order to make adjustments to the

Uniform Standard Specifications. Mr. Peñuelas believed that it would be more beneficial to maintain

uniform standards so entity staff members could reference them rather than having regional standards

filled with entity-specific guidelines.



Page 5 of 10

Chair Yazdani asked if any Operations Subcommittee members had discussed the possibility of mixed-

design asphalt being the cause of failure with asphalt manufacturers. Mr. Peñuelas said that this matter

had been discussed in years past. Mr. Shital Patel, Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation

Projects and Operations Manager, did not recall the outcome of those conversations though. The

members briefly discussed this matter. Mr. Peñuelas suggested that any agreed-upon recommendations

should be incorporated into the Uniform Standard Specifications. He encouraged the members to talk to

their colleagues and provide input at future meetings and to RTC staff members.

Vice-Chair Lam mentioned that for a recent Henderson project, a contractor did not want to provide a

warranty due to the poor state of the pavement. Based on this experience, she advised the

Subcommittee members to be mindful that this situation could arise for them as well. Mr. Peñuelas

concurred. He then asked for Ms. Michelle Castro to relate NDOT’s perspective on this issue. Ms.

Castro replied that she was aware that the Transportation Department had specifications on record to

address this issue. She further stated that NDOT occasionally uses the RTC specifications for projects.

Mr. Peñuelas asked how NDOT’s qualified products list (QPL) process works in regard to how the

agencies reference the QPL in the entities’ contract documents. Chair Yazdani answered that products

had to meet both the RTC specifications and be on NDOT’s QPL to be acceptable for Clark County. In

addition, Mr. Patel mentioned that the NDOT QPL might be used for those instances when the RTC did

not provide specifications. Chair Yazdani agreed and said there were some products on the NDOT QPL

that do not meet the RTC specifications.

Next, Mr. Peñuelas announced that certain industry representatives wanted to address the

Subcommittee.

Mr. Patrick Riley, RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc., shared that his company provides several products

to the RTC, including paints, thermal plastics, and reflectors. He went on to say that he had worked in

Phoenix and noticed that the Arizona and Nevada pavement markings were similar but the pavement in

Arizona was different than that found in Southern Nevada. Mr. Keane asked if he could detail the

pavement differences. Mr. Riley replied that since he was not an engineer he could not adequately

describe the variances. Chair Yazdani asked if the adhesive used in Southern Nevada was also used in

Phoenix. Mr. Riley answered in the affirmative. Chair Yazdani then inquired as to Mr. Riley’s opinion

on the differences in pavement marking life expectancy for Phoenix and Southern Nevada. Mr. Riley

believed that the life expectancy was similar but that the markings tended to get dirtier in Southern

Nevada. Based on this comment, Mr. Damiani suggested that the RTC and the entities further study the

asphalt mix design in Southern Nevada and investigate the pavement components used in Phoenix. Mr.

Riley also noted that the State of Arizona used more rubberized pavement and thermoplastics. Mr.

Peñuelas wondered if more regular cleaning of pavement markings would increase the life span of the

designations. Some members did not think that increased cleaning would necessarily lead to more

durable markings. The members followed by discussing these distinctions and commented that making

a determination as to what specifically contributes to or diminishes life expectancy is difficult.

Mr. Peñuelas requested that the representatives for each local agency provide the jurisdiction’s special

provisions for pavement markings in the next few weeks following the meeting. He said that the RTC

would compare the provisions and denote the differences. Mr. Peñuelas noted the evaluation would

constitute the start of an industry review. Mr. Patel followed by recommending that RTC and entity

personnel speak with Geotech staff members as well. Mr. Peñuelas agreed and made a further

recommendation that the parties should talk to representatives from Arizona about the pavement

markings used within the state.



Page 6 of 10

Chair Yazdani made a formal request directing staff to review all of the Southern Nevada entities’

special provisions on pavement markings sections and report back on recommendations, if any,

regarding additions and/or modifications to Uniform Standard Specifications at the next Operations

Subcommittee meeting.

Motion: No motion was necessary


Item: 4. DISCUSS PROCESS FOR CONTRACTOR NOTIFICATION TO THE PERMITTING

AGENCY FOR ROADWAY WORK ZONES NEAR TRAFFIC SIGNALS (FOR POSSIBLE

ACTION)

Comments: Mr. John Peñuelas, Director of Engineering Services – Streets and Highways for the Regional

Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), displayed the “Notification of Road Work

Near Traffic Signals” webpage featured on the RTC website. He explained the notification process,

saying that contractors are required to submit an online notice form when a project involves work near

traffic signals. Mr. Peñuelas detailed that the contractor must specify the type of work to be done, note

the participating jurisdiction, and upload the traffic plan. Once submitted, the information is sent to the

permitting agency and the Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation (FAST). Mr. Peñuelas shared

that the overall feedback from participating contractors and local government entities had been positive.

He was now seeking input from the Operations Subcommittee members about any improvements they

believed were needed and if Clark County would be willing to use the online notification process.

Mr. Jose Rodriguez, City of Henderson (Henderson), stated that with the current system the agencies

may be unaware that a contractor has finished work until members of the public file complaints or

otherwise make comment to the jurisdictions. As such, Mr. Rodriguez recommended that the process

include a “completion notification” component. He went on to say that he had experienced some

technical malfunctions related to emails and attachments in the past, but he now found the digital

resource to be very useful for quick and consistent communications.

Next, Mr. Peñuelas, Mr. Rodriguez, and Mr. Jesse Diaz, RTC Marketing & Communications

Coordinator examined a display of an email with text to confirm receipt of a notification form from a

contractor. This email would be disseminated from a participating agency and sent to the contractor.

They realized that a telephone number for the appropriate agency contact was not in the message. Mr.

Penuelas explained that the contractors needed this information in case agency staff members did not

communicate with them within 24 hours of submitting the notification form.

Mr. Jeff Freels, City of North Las Vegas (North Las Vegas), remarked that the tool had been effective

and some of the major contractors were using it. That being said, he was aware that a number of other

contractors were not participating and instead sending emails directly to the North Las Vegas traffic

department. He thought that making the contractors more aware of the online system would be

beneficial. Mr. Freels went on to say that he agreed with Mr. Rodriguez that a completion notification

should be put in place. In response, Mr. Peñuelas and Mr. Diaz discussed the development of an

automated email reminder that could be sent on the projected completion date.

Next, Mr. Peñuelas mentioned that one of the challenges in convincing contractors to use the digital

tool was the fact that not all of the local agencies were using the web-based form. He followed this



Page 7 of 10

remark by asking Chair Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Public Works, if enhancements could be made

to the notification process that would encourage Clark County to participate. Chair Yazdani responded

that Clark County’s current system functioned efficiently. In addition, he noted that Clark County had

not received notification of work completion like certain other Southern Nevada local government

entities. Mr. Peñuelas followed by asking if resolving the completion notification issue would entice

Clark County to use this online system. He added that the tool had resulted in productive coordination

efforts involving contractors and participating agencies. Mr. Shital Patel, Freeway and Arterial System

of Transportation Projects and Operations Manager, noted that he was aware that blocked Clark County

intersections were the source of the majority of public’s complaints and involved the most significant

communication breakdowns.

Chair Yazdani inquired as to whether the RTC and FAST had been receiving notifications about road

work near traffic signals from Clark County staff members. Ms. Niccole Solano, Clark County Public

Works, spoke up and said that she was involved in Clark County’s daily traffic control review process.

She explained that the entity’s master project forms are uploaded directly to the Clark County’s website

on a daily basis and are accessible to RTC staff. In her opinion, the crux of the issue involved

convincing contractors to participate in the online notification process. Mr. Peñuelas agreed, and added

that developing a simplified and consistent process for all of the agencies would also be a positive step.

Chair Yazdani wondered if Clark County’s use of the RTC’s notification form would be useful since

the source of the communications breakdown seemed unclear. In that regard, he asked if the problem

may involve a lack of access to information, failure to check the Clark County website, or lack of

notification. In the opinion of Mr. Patel, he thought that two factors had given rise to this issue. One

factor involves instances when contractors do not notify personnel with Clark County traffic operations

about a project. Ms. Solano agreed that this does occur, but she stated that if the RTC receives a

complaint, Clark County staff members should be notified in the event a fine should be issued to the

contractor due to lack of notification. Mr. Peñuelas reiterated that use of the RTC web-based form

would enable the local agencies to be aware of those contractors who fail to submit the proper project

notifications. He suggested that Clark County use the RTC form on a limited trial basis. Chair Yazdani

commented that he would have to discuss this matter with his Clark County colleagues prior to making

a decision.

Mr. Rodriguez then discussed how Henderson staff members utilized an online notification system to

check on road work near traffic signals. He noted that this system was similar to that used by FAST.

Ms. Solano asked Mr. Rodriguez about the rate of contractors commencing work prior to getting

agency approval using this online notification system. Mr. Rodriguez replied that this situation used to

happen frequently, but at the current time it was only occurring approximately once or twice per week.

In Mr. Rodriguez’s opinion, the operation of Henderson internal online notification system, coupled

with the city’s requirement that the contractors provide 48 hours advance notice prior to starting work,

has reduced the number of instances.

Mr. Peñuelas then asked Mr. Freels about the number of incidents of contractors failing to inform North

Las Vegas about projects near traffic signals. Mr. Freels shared that there had been some challenges in

the past, but the number of instances of this occurring was very few at present. Mr. Peñuelas told the

Operations Subcommittee that it would be helpful to know if the notification processes were working

effectively for the individual agencies. He reiterated that it would be highly beneficial to create a

simplified, consistent system for all of the Southern Nevada entities.



Page 8 of 10

Mr. Joseph Norby, City of Las Vegas (Las Vegas), commented that the RTC’s online notification

process had proven to be of tremendous help to Las Vegas’s traffic operations department. He shared

that prior to its implementation, the city received notifications approximately 50 percent of the time. He

categorized the rate of advance notification as “dramatically improved.” He followed these statements

by suggesting that the addition of an “anticipated end time” field to the digital form. He believed that

this facilitates more effective coordination of roadway projects. Mr. Peñuelas believed that such a field

could be developed.

Chair Yazdani asked the Subcommittee members about how many contractors were making requests to

have the timing of traffic signals adjusted, but failing to start work after modifications were made. Mr.

Norby replied that for Las Vegas-based projects, technicians were sent to project sites but did not make

changes to traffic signals until contractors were ready to commence work. He believed that the addition

of an anticipated end time field would reduce split-phased timing plans. In the opinion of Chair

Yazdani, the inclusion of the proposed field would not necessarily solve the problem. He believed that

operations could be improved through better communications by and among the work teams and the

requirement of additional project requests when issues arise. Mr. Peñuelas agreed but stated that the

notification process should not become overly complicated. The RTC Director of Engineering Services

thought that an anticipated end time field might eliminate the need to make additional project requests.

Chair Yazdani mentioned that he had another appointment that required his attention and could no

longer participate in the meeting. He asked that Vice-Chair Irene Lam, City of Henderson, lead the

remainder of the meeting.

Citing from personal experience, Mr. Chris Schwarz, RTC Regional Traffic Control Coordinator,

shared that contractors seemed to be in the habit of submitting requests, but failing to realize that they

should wait for the traffic signal notification from the appropriate agency. Due to this issue, he had

been educating contractors on the appropriate procedures. Mr. Schwarz went on to say that he agreed

with Mr. Norby’s suggestion to add the “anticipated end time” field as part of the effort to resolve the

matter.

The members continued to discuss the logistics of the online notification system. The Subcommittee

advocated for a streamlined process that involved the most pertinent data. Some members remarked

that culling voluminous, extraneous information was time-consuming and counter-productive. Ms.

Michelle Castro, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), said that the information in the

system was useful, but she was unsure if NDOT was using this data. She went on to note there were

inconsistencies between the local agencies’ project identification numbers and the numbers that NDOT

used. This made it difficult to know to which local agency the plans applied to. Mr. Diaz suggested to

add a new field to the online form that would require agencies to specifically denote projects related to

or of interest to NDOT. Ms. Castro remarked that if the online notification process was so modified, the

field should include the traffic control plan number. She explained that with this information, the

agencies could work to approve the traffic control plan through NDOT and the Transportation

Department would have a resource for project coordination.

Next, Ms. Solano asked if specific fields for each of the agencies’ permitting numbers could be featured

in the web-based form. Mr. Peñuelas said this was possible, but the RTC thought that the profusion of

numbers would make the system less user-friendly. The members discussed this matter with

representatives agreeing that new fields would have to be created for each entity. The Subcommittee

believed that this would help to better match the identification numbers of the agencies and those of

NDOT. Mr. Peñuelas said he would discuss the concept with Chair Yazdani.



Page 9 of 10



Item:

6. DISCUSS TOPICS OF INTEREST

Comments: Mr. John Peñuelas, Director of Engineering Services-Streets and Highways, Regional Transportation

Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), reported that the RTC had contracted with Kimley-Horn

Associates to review the Uniform Standard Drawings related to Public Access Right-of-Way

Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG). Per the agreement, the company was to make recommendations

on how to modify these standards to make them compliant with the 2010 Americans with Disabilities

Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). Mr. Penuelas shared that this measure constituted the first step

in revising individual Uniform Standard Specifications and Drawings.

Next, Mr. Joe Damiani, RTC Manager of Engineering, talked about the agency’s work to include

private development on the Regional Project Coordination Committee (RPCC) GIS Project Map. Mr.

Damiani detailed that this digital map featured infrastructure and utility work that had been planned, in

design, and soon-to-start construction. As part of an effort to include private development on the RPCC

GIS Project Map, Mr. Damiani mentioned that the RTC had talked to the Southern Nevada local

government entities and the Southern Nevada Home Builders Associations (SNHBA) about arranging

for the RTC’s concurrence of the jurisdictions’ traffic impact analyses after the entities had approved

them. He shared that talks were continuing but the intent was to move forward with this proposal.

Ms. Gena Kendall, City of Las Vegas, asked how the process would work in those instances when a

traffic study was not required. Mr. Damiani replied that a concurrence would not be necessary. Mr.

Shital Patel, Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation Projects and Operations Manager, added

that the RTC’s concurrence would relate to projects that had an impact on the roadway. Mr. Damiani

agreed with Mr. Patel’s interpretation. Mr. Peñuelas also agreed, but noted that comments from RTC’s

Transit Amenities personnel would need to be considered, if applicable to a given situation. Mr.

Damiani acknowledged that this would be in order.

Ms. Kendall went to ask if the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association would need to pay for

submittals. Mr. Peñuelas answered that the organization would not. In addition, he explained that the

proposal of the RTC’s concurrence on traffic impact analyses was intended to facilitate communication

about and coordination of projects to enhance traffic management and navigation.

Vice-Chair Irene Lam, City of Henderson (Henderson), pointed out that sometimes the tentative map

was approved before projects underwent a traffic analysis. As such, right-of-way matters would have

already been resolved. She asked if there were a way to evaluate right-of-way before a traffic study was

conducted. Mr. Damiani responded by outlining Clark County’s process of examining right-of-way and

traffic impacts as he understood it. He explained that Clark County staff members would send all

entitlement projects to RTC’s Transit Amenities staff members who would, in turn, provide feedback.

Clark County and RTC personnel would follow by discussing these matters and settling upon the most

opportune time to address the entitlement issues.

Referring to the example that Mr. Damiani set forth, Ms. Kendall inquired as to the other matters that

were studied besides bus turnouts. Mr. Damiani answered that bus turnouts were the primary concern.



Page 10 of 10

Mr. Patel added that it was important for the local government entities to be specific about right-of-

way.

Next, Vice-Chair Lam commented that Henderson was considering the use of tape for pavement

markings on bike lanes instead of paint. She asked how such a change could be incorporated into the

regional standards. Mr. Peñuelas answered that the Operations Subcommittee could begin to address

this at the next meeting if that was feasible for Henderson staff members.



Item:





ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 3:27 p.m.


__________________________________

David Gloria, Recording Secretary

__________________________________

Marek Biernacinski, Transcription Secretary


47


OF

SOUTHERN NEVADA

AGENDA ITEM






OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSS AND RESOLVE VARIOUS TRANSIT

SYSTEM/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING OPERATION/LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES (FOR

POSSIBLE ACTION)


TRANSIT SYSTEM/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING OPERATION/LAW

ENFORCEMENT ISSUES

SUBJECT:

FISCAL IMPACT:

None

BACKGROUND:

Representatives from the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada Transit or Planning

staff will be present to discuss transit system/traffic engineering operation issues as requested by the

Operations Subcommittee members.


__________________________



tde


colemanz

Text Box


6485 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

OF

SOUTHERN NEVADA

AGENDA ITEM


PETITIONER: TINA QUIGLEY, GENERAL MANAGER




RECEIVE A PRESENTATION FROM REPRESENTATIVES OF NEXAR, INC. ON

TECHNOLOGY CAPABLE OF IDENTIFYING ROADSIDE INFRASTRUCTURE (FOR

POSSIBLE ACTION)


PRESENTATIONSUBJECT:

FISCAL IMPACT:

None

BACKGROUND:

Nexar, Inc. currently has a contract with the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada

(RTC) for a pilot project to demonstrate the ability of their system to identify and report the location of

temporary traffic control devices within roadways. This technology could also be used to identify other

types of infrastructure such as traffic signs, street furniture, street lights, drainage features, bicycle

features, etc. The presentation will give an overview of the current project with the RTC and inform the

Operations Subcommittee on other uses of the technology.


__________________________



tde


colemanz

Text Box



OF

SOUTHERN NEVADA

AGENDA ITEM






DISCUSS POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS TO STANDARD DRAWING 332.S1 “SERVICE

PEDESTAL FOUNDATION” AND STANDARD DRAWING 321 “LIGHTING

STANDARD FOUNDATION” (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

GOAL: INCREASE SAFETY FOR BOTH MOTORIZED AND NON-MOTORIZED USERS

STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGSSUBJECT:

FISCAL IMPACT:

None

BACKGROUND:

This item was forwarded to the Operations Subcommittee by the Specifications Subcommittee at itsDecember 12, 2018 meeting.

Background from the Specifications item: The City of North Las Vegas and Clark County request that

this discussion item come before the Specifications Subcommittee. Modifications to the drawings will

allow safer and more convenient access to power service meters and address issues identified by the

Small Cell Site Working Group.


__________________________



tde


colemanz

Text Box


1

Tamika Davis

From: Michael Hudgeons <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 4:32 PMTo: John PenuelasCc: Julia Uravich; Jeffrey Freels; Shannon Sowers; Dale Daffern; Tom Brady; Curt Kroeker;

Tim ReesmanSubject: Re: RTC STANDARD DWG. 332.S1 (SEE ATTACHED)/ SERVICE PEDESTAL FOUNDATION

/

JP,

I don't see this as a rush job, just an item that needs to be clarified. Thanks for the help!

Mike Hudgeons, P.E. City Traffic Engineer City of North Las Vegas 2250 Las Vegas Boulevard North, Suite 201 702-633-1224 Office702-249-1022 Cell702-649-4696 Fax

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:01 AM John Penuelas <[email protected]> wrote:

Mike,

The procedure is just what you did. Send us what you want and we’ll redline it up and get it into the appropriate committee(s). We are contemplating cancelling the November Ops meeting because it falls during the week of T‐Day. This could go to Specs first in December and be ready for Ops approval in January. And EAC approval in February. That seems a little convoluted for something that is pretty simple. Maybe we could take it straight to the November EAC. We’ll think about it. Is it a rush job in your opinion?

John R. Peñuelas, Jr., P.E., PTOE | Director of Engineering – Streets & Highways RTC of Southern Nevada 600 S. Grand Central Parkway, Suite 350, Las Vegas, NV 89106 O: 702‐676‐1611 | [email protected]

From: Michael Hudgeons [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 10:27 AM To: John Penuelas Subject: Fwd: RTC STANDARD DWG. 332.S1 (SEE ATTACHED)/ SERVICE PEDESTAL FOUNDATION /


2

JP,

Please see requested blue book change below. Currently the only conditions addressed are pedestals behind sidewalk or within sidewalks (nothing for pedestals installed in the landscape buffer between the sidewalk and roadway). I'm not sure what the process is to request this change so figured I check with you to see if you can provide some direction.

Let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss.

Thanks,

Mike Hudgeons, P.E.

City Traffic Engineer

City of North Las Vegas

2250 Las Vegas Boulevard North, Suite 201

702-633-1224 Office

702-249-1022 Cell

702-649-4696 Fax

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jeffrey Freels <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:44 PM Subject: Re: RTC STANDARD DWG. 332.S1 (SEE ATTACHED)/ SERVICE PEDESTAL FOUNDATION /To: Michael Hudgeons <[email protected]>

10-4.

Jeff Freels


3

Traffic Operations Supervisor

City of North Las Vegas, Public Works

2829 Fort Sumter Dr.

North Las Vegas, NV 89030

|O|(702) 633-1264 Ext. 4022 |F|(702) 633-1304 |C|(702) 239-2123

[email protected]

Normal Hours: M-Th (5:30am-3pm) PST

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is also legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender and immediately destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 8:36 AM Michael Hudgeons <[email protected]> wrote:

Jeff,

Just to confirm, when the pedestal is located between the back of curb and sidewalk, you want to pedestal to open facing the direction of traffic correct?

Thanks,

Mike Hudgeons, P.E.



Error! Filename not specified.


4


702-633-1224 Office

702-249-1022 Cell

702-649-4696 Fax

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Dale Daffern <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:04 PM Subject: Re: RTC STANDARD DWG. 332.S1 (SEE ATTACHED)/ SERVICE PEDESTAL FOUNDATION / To: Sowers, Shannon <[email protected]> Cc: Mike Hudgeons <[email protected]>, Timothy Reesman <[email protected]>, Jeffrey Freels <[email protected]>, Curt Kroeker <[email protected]>, Tom Brady <[email protected]>

Hi Shannon,

I think Mike could take the item to Operations Subcommittee for approval and then to Tom at the Specifications Subcommittee for review and approval.

THX DD

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:28 PM Shannon Sowers <[email protected]> wrote:

ALL,

FOR THE CONTRACTORS & DEVELOPERS, WE NEED AN ADDENDUM TO THE SUBJECT TO ADDRESS A THIRD SITUATION TO THE FIRST TWO ADDRESSED IN NOTE 4., WHEN THE SERVICE PED IS INSTALLED "IN FRONT" OF THE NEW SIDEWALK.

THE DWG. CURRENTLY ADDRESSES PLACEMENT "IN BACK", OR "IN" THE SIDEWALK.

"4. CABINET COVERS SHALL OPEN TOWARDS THE STREET WHEN CABINETS ARE LOCATED AT BACK OF WALK. CABINET COVERS SHALL OPEN PARALLEL TO THE SIDEWALK FACING THE DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE SIDEWALK."


5

THANKS,

SS

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: BK-INSP-MFP01 <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:12 PM Subject: Send data from CH-PRSK-MFP01 10/16/2018 12:12 To: Sowers Shannon <[email protected]>

Scanned from CH-PRSK-MFP01

Date: 10/16/2018 12:12 Pages: 1 Resolution: 300x300 DPI ----------------------------------------


1

Tamika Davis

From: Michael Hudgeons <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 9:33 AMTo: Tom Brady; John PenuelasSubject: Re: RTC Specs Meeting

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Completed

Tom, This would be within the landscape buffer between the roadway and sidewalk. This can be addressed by modifying note 4 on standard drawing 332.S1 to read, "Cabinet covers shall open towards the street when cabinets are located at back of walk. Cabinet covers shall open parallel to the sidewalk facing the direction of traffic when located within the sidewalk or within the landscaped buffer area between the back of curb and sidewalk." I've copied JP on this email so he has the requested language. Let me know if you have any questions or require additional information. Thanks, Mike Hudgeons, P.E. City Traffic Engineer City of North Las Vegas 2250 Las Vegas Boulevard North, Suite 201 702-633-1224 Office 702-249-1022 Cell 702-649-4696 Fax

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 3:34 PM Tom Brady <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Mike,

The meter pedestal item will be referred to the next Operations Subcommittee Meeting. It wasn’t quite clear how the 3 alternate that we are asking for works. Is this in front or behind a landscape buffer. RTC asked if you could bring a write-up alternative for adding to the meeting that clarifies…or words it how you would prefer.

Tom


2

From: Michael Hudgeons <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 11:08 AM To: Tom Brady <[email protected]> Subject: Re: RTC Specs Meeting

Tom,

I don't recall receiving any drafts of proposed spec/plan changes. We did bring up the item related to meter pedestal placement (when located between the roadway and the sidewalk).

Thanks,

Mike Hudgeons, P.E.




702-633-1224 Office

702-249-1022 Cell

702-649-4696 Fax

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:55 AM Tom Brady <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Mike,

The RTC specification subcommittee meeting today is covering a few items and I just wanted to doublecheck with you that you had a chance to take a look at it. If you had any comments and let me know and I will at least bring them up or will hold off on approving items. But just let me know.

--

Tom Brady, P.E.,LEED AP City of North Las Vegas


1

Tamika Davis

From: Kaizad Yazdani <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 6:20 PMTo: John PenuelasSubject: Re: November Ops Meeting

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

John, I am okay with it. FYI, we should look at revising 2 drawings that we have one is the streetlight foundation and the other the power pedestal foundation. I am part of the small cell site working group and you may be aware that there are issues with cell providers and licensees trying to add conduits at the pole and power pedestals to existing foundations without compromising the wires or maintaining the integrity of the pedestals and foundation. This matter has some urgency to get done. We can talk more if you are coming to the ITE conference. THANKS. Kaizad J. Yazdani Clark County Public Works Traffic Management Division, Manager Tel# (702)455-2992

From: John Penuelas <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 11:13:02 AM To: Kaizad Yazdani Subject: November Ops Meeting Kaizad, Do you have an objection if we cancel the November Operations meeting? We don’t have anything pressing. We’re pounding away on the drawings bringing them up to ADA/PROWAG compliance but we’ll not be ready for input until December. John R. Peñuelas, Jr., P.E., PTOE | Director of Engineering – Streets & Highways RTC of Southern Nevada 600 S. Grand Central Parkway, Suite 350, Las Vegas, NV 89106 O: 702‐676‐1611 | [email protected]



OF

SOUTHERN NEVADA

AGENDA ITEM






DISCUSS FINDINGS OF AN AUDIT CONDUCTED ON THE REGIONAL STANDARD

DRAWINGS WITH RESPECT TO CURRENT ACCESSIBILITY LAW AND GUIDELINES

(FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

GOAL: INCREASE SAFETY FOR BOTH MOTORIZED AND NON-MOTORIZED USERS

STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGSSUBJECT:

FISCAL IMPACT:

None

BACKGROUND:

Kimley-Horn and Associates recently completed an audit of the regional standard drawings to determine

the extent to which they reflect and adhere to current accessibility law and guidelines. The Americans

with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the proposed Public Right-Of-Way Accessibility Guidelines

(PROWAG) both give direction and guidance on how to provide safe and effective infrastructure for all

road users regardless of physical or mental capabilities. This item will allow the Operations

Subcommittee to review and understand the results of the audit and direct staff accordingly.


__________________________



tde


colemanz

Text Box


4733


OF

SOUTHERN NEVADA

AGENDA ITEM






OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSS TOPICS OF INTEREST


TOPICS OF INTERESTSUBJECT:

FISCAL IMPACT:

None

BACKGROUND:

The Operations Subcommittee members can share information about activities, meetings, news and

other topics of interest in an informal manner.

While no action may be taken on the subjects discussed, this item provides an opportunity for the

exchange of information and may serve as the forum to recommend future Operations Subcommittee

agenda items.


__________________________



tde


colemanz

Text Box


5064


OF

SOUTHERN NEVADA

AGENDA ITEM






OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS

PARTICIPATION


FINAL CITIZENS PARTICIPATIONSUBJECT:

FISCAL IMPACT:

None

BACKGROUND:

In accordance with State of Nevada Open Meeting Law, the Regional Transportation Commission of

Southern Nevada Operations Subcommittee shall invite interested persons to make comments. For the

initial Citizens Participation, the public should address items on the current agenda. For the final

Citizens Participation, interested persons may make comments on matters within the Operations

Subcommittee's jurisdiction, but not necessarily on the current agenda.

No action can be taken on any matter discussed under this item, although the Operations Subcommittee

can direct that it be placed on a future agenda.


__________________________



tde


colemanz

Text Box


operations subcommittee 1:30 p.m. january 22, 2019 · 2020. 4. 29. · downtown las vegas, could be...

Documents