Working Groups‎ > ‎MAP 21‎ > ‎Meetings‎ > ‎

February 13, 2013 (Meeting 2)

posted Jan 7, 2013, 12:20 PM by Page Smith   [ updated Mar 7, 2013, 3:52 PM ]

I80 CSMP MAP 21 Working Group


Status Reports; Rule Making Review; Goals, Objectives, and Deliverables

Date and time:

February 13, 2013 2:00 P.M. PCST

Meeting no:


Meeting place:


Minutes by:



Mark Wingate (WyDOT)

Rick Helman for Jeff Pulverman

Ned Hacker for Doug Hattery (Wasatch Front Regional Council)

Coy Peacock (NDOT)

Tom Mason (Cheyenne Metropolitan Planning Organization)

Carl Hasty (Tahoe Transportation District)

 Shawn Seager (Mountainland Association of Governments)

Andrea Napoli (NDOT 

Kristine Absher (Atkins)

Laycee Kolkman (HDR)

Danja Petro (Atkins)

Perry Gross (Atkins)






Chat or Mute while individuals get organized for the meeting

Group members were given an explanation fo the chat or mute beginning of the conference call meeting.


Roll call for RSVP and other attendees

Roll call attendees are noted above. Tom and Shawn were new to the group and provided some background context for the I-80 Corridor System Master Plan study and this working group by Perry.


Brief summary of ongoing MAP 21 related activities among meeting attendees

Perry suggested to the group ideas about the benefits of this detailed discussion of the federal transportation authorization including how other working groups might draw on the work. Carl emphasized the relationship between transportation and economic development as a potential focus for the group.


Overview of federal rule making with discussion of experiences

This item was deferred to future discussions.


Brainstorm potential Working Group deliverables that makes sense to the group. Additional work on goals, objectives, and deliverables in meeting 3 to present to Task Forces

The group identified potential individual and professional organizational information useful for the group’s discussion. It is noted that individual organizations were also coordinating their efforts with existing coalitions such as the “Five State Coalition”. The defining of planning performance measures through the group’s dialogue appears valuable. Coy advocated for this group to provide a forum for each of the member organizations to gather additional insights for enhancing the work they are undertaking. The group generally recognized that performance measures, the spectrum of advocacy documentation, and the group’s collective integration for enhancing individual implementation of MAP 21 (and future) federal authorizations would be valuable.


Next steps including identifying additional working group members

Perry indicated he needed to compile and organize for additional group consideration. Carl identified the distinction for rural and urban advocacy within the dialogue about the corridor. Perry described potential relationships between the different study working groups that could accommodate the needs of all jurisdictions within the study and beyond.



Adjourned at 2:40pm PST/2:40pm MST.