11-17-2008 Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

NOVEMBER 17,2008 ROAD ADVISIORY COMMITTEE MEETING SUPPIJEMENTAL INFORMATION 1. 2009 Lesdslativc Issues: Action i'ti tliu.:: iu ~OiH:it the Committee's input and authorization to iobby on the County's hchaU' during the upcoming legislative session on several i~:~:lles: A.IIighw(lYY1L~lil!g: [believe it would he in Ihe ('Dimly':: be:,l intcn.::.;L Lu s'..>...:k new CUii\liiig fur ihe iIighway Distribuli0il FUlid {'ruw the gellt:lal rum: or othcr SOW'CI:S. B. Sidc path Law: North Dakota State Law currcntly rcquircs bicycle ridcrs to ride on the side path offthc road whcnever a side path exists (Including sidew~lk~) 'I'hp c.;:101~ r~th !9.'."/s \,".r~!'l? (.)!!(2(.; f:!.i!'l~/ S0~!!l!)~ i~ ~t:~t~~. ~.1:':~jr ~t~t~~ have repealcd this rule in response to the objcctions of cyclists and the liability exposure which rcsults from mandatory use of facilities know to bc hazardous. I understand the law has not been enforced in this arca so it historically has not been a significant issue. During a recent corridor study, the possibility of including a slightly widened lanc and/or a designated on strcet bicycle lanc was diseusscd by the Committec. Follow-on conversations with the Fedcral I Iighway Administration indicatcd that since NO has a side path law, FliW A could not fund a bike lane bccause it would be a violation of state law to use on street bike lane when a sidewalk exists. I recommend we work with othcr jurisdictions on the repeal of this law. C. Power Distribution: With realization of thc trcmcndous potcntial for North Dakota wind cm;rgy it has also become apparcnt that the infrastructure to transmit the powcr out ofthc gcneration is a significant chalkngc. I don't have a spccific recommcndation on this mattcr at this point, but fcel it is somcthing that wc should be supportivc of. I've enclosed a mcmo from Tim Solbcrg that providcs additional pcrspective on it. (Attachment 1) 2. Possible Economic Stimulus Fundin2:: Action I was contactcd by the North Dakota Department of Transportation last weck rcgarding the possibility of an cconomic stimulus package being passed by thc Congress that would include additional 2009 Federal highway funding. Whilc this could be vcry good news, the downside is that ncw funds would likely havc to bc obligatcd within 90 days of the legislation passing. I'll discuss this in morc detail during the meeting. The question that I'm asking for your decision on is if wc wish to fund any of our potential future projects early (in 2009) with thc stimulus funds. The two downsides of trying to accelcratc projects are that wc would havc to fund thc local match funds which wcre not included in thc 2009 budget and the fact that 90 days is a very ambitious schcdule to obligate funds.