Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 06/16/2021 TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR June 16, 2021, 6:00 p.m. Virtual Meeting Via Zoom 6/16/2021 – MINUTES Page 1  FOR REFERENCE: Chair: Nathalie Rachline Vice Chair: Council Liaison: Cari Brown Emily Gorgol Staff Liaison: Aaron Iverson 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Rachline called the meeting to order at 6:03 PM. 2. ROLL CALL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Nathalie Rachline, Chair Cari Brown, Vice Chair (arrived late) Jerry Gavaldon Indy Hart York Diego Lopez Rob Owens Kevin Borchert BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: CITY STAFF PRESENT: Kyle Lambrecht PUBLIC PRESENT: Aaron Fodge (CSU) Erika Benti (CSU) Chris Rawling (Olson Engineering) 3. AGENDA REVIEW Iverson stated there were no changes to the published agenda. 4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – MAY 2021 Iverson outlined changes to the May 2021 minutes submitted by Hart. Hart detailed his changes related to the nuance of his wording regarding restaurants and traffic back-ups on College Avenue. York made a motion, seconded by Borchert, to approve the May 2021 minutes as amended. The motion was adopted unanimously with Owens abstaining. TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 6/16/2021 – MINUTES Page 2  6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Council Liaison Meeting Report – Rachline and Brown Chair Rachline noted the Council liaison, Emily Gorgol, will not likely attend Transportation Board meetings regularly; however, she would be willing to attend once or twice a year at the request of the Board. She stated the Board can always put forth topics it would like the Council to consider and noted Council has recently developed a large list of priorities. Brown stated it is important for the Board to pay attention to Council’s priorities and to look at Council’s calendar five to six months out. Hart asked how receptive Councilmember Gorgol was to reading notes sent from the Board. Chair Rachline replied Councilmembers are so busy and the suggestion is to draw specific attention to any large items with a letter or phone call rather than relying solely on Councilmembers reading minutes. Hart noted the Mayor did respond the last time the Board sent a letter to Council. Gavaldon noted the Board’s concerns about Raising Cane’s and Starbucks on College Avenue did receive Council attention per the Leadership minutes. Gavaldon commented on Transfort buses not making complete stops, particularly while making rights turns on red lights. He noted he had shared his concerns with Drew Brooks. 7. NEW BUSINESS a. CSU Vision Zero Planning Effort – Aaron Fodge and Erika Benti (CSU) Erika Benti, CSU President’s Vision Zero Taskforce, discussed the public outreach process noting her group has already made 17 presentations to stakeholder groups. She stated Vision Zero is a way of reframing looking at roadway safety and is an international movement that started in Sweden. She noted the commonalities between all Vision Zero initiatives include the highest levels of leadership declaring it a priority, using data collection and analysis to prioritize improvements, making the data publicly available and transparent, looking at the initiative through an equity lens and engaging the community, and setting a timeline to achieve zero traffic deaths or serious injuries. Benti stated CSU would likely be the first university to have a Vision Zero initiative and she provided additional details about CSU’s Vision Zero Taskforce and need for changing campus infrastructure that will aid in reducing vehicle conflicts. Aaron Fodge, CSU President’s Vision Zero Taskforce, outlined the following actions for achieving Vision Zero: infrastructure improvements, education, enforcement, and policy- related improvements. He outlined the foci of the subcommittees that make up the Taskforce: complete street standards and design for all modes of transportation unique TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 6/16/2021 – MINUTES Page 3  to the University, assessment of various infrastructure components and formation of a crowd-sourcing mobile-friendly website, crash evaluation reporting, examining adding a conceptual review process in development review, and forming a transparent face wherein crash, ticket, and injury data among other pieces of information can be reported. Borchert asked if the limits of this initiative are the boundaries of the main campus or if it includes the vet teaching hospital, west campus, and other University properties. Fodge replied all campuses will be examined and he noted there is an incentive for CSU to work with the City regarding streets surrounding campus. He also noted the City is likely to consider a Vision Zero initiative as well. York asked if the Environmental Learning Center (ELC) and the farm by Budweiser will also be included. Fodge replied the farm will be included and bike trail and transit options are being considered. He stated the ELC would likely be better served under the City’s Active Modes Plan. Gavlson asked if bus service between campuses has been considered. Hart commented on routes that already connect campuses. Fodge stated the first shuttle serving the Foothills Campus directly was launched in January; therefore, Transfort now operates two buses per day that have routes connecting back to the main campus. He commented on the grant funding received for the City and CSU to work on a bus rapid transit route along West Elizabeth. Owens asked how many lane miles are being contemplated as part of this initiative and about the number of fatalities and timeframe for infrastructure and speed improvements. Fodge replied the death that occurred on campus in 2019 was the first in over 20 years; however, the bigger issues relates to building a culture of safety and separating modes. In terms of a timeline, Fodge stated the public process garnering feedback is still ongoing and Vision Zero is a commitment to continually striving to understand where deficiencies are located. Benti noted the plan is for the Taskforce to deliver recommendations to the administration at the end of the summer. Chair Rachline asked if City efforts are duplicating any of these efforts. Iverson replied the City will also be embarking on a Vision Zero planning effort, though CSU is ahead of the City in that process. He noted the City is strongly integrated in CSU’s efforts and stated all of CSU’s work will aid the City. Fodge noted CSU is contributing to the Active Modes Plan financially to ensure CSU is integrated into the effort and to ensure campus is permeable by all modes of transportation. He stated he does not believe the efforts are being duplicated. Borchert thanked the CSU team for their work and commended the data-driven aspect. He asked if it is anticipated there will be more of a mandate related to the course for students related to navigating campus safely. Benti replied the CSU Moves training has been offered to students to take voluntarily over the past couple years; however, it has been weaved into the recommendations of this Taskforce. She noted several other TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 6/16/2021 – MINUTES Page 4  universities around the country have adapted the CSU Moves training. York asked about the goals for future data collection and stated it would be beneficial to know about that ahead of time in order to ensure consistency with crash data reporting. Fodge replied the Taskforce would like to solve the issue related to non-reporting of near misses and stated it would like to develop a tool and related education for quick reporting of near misses. He also stated building on traffic count data throughout campus will be helpful. Hart commended the work of the Taskforce and thanked Fodge and Benti for their presentation. He also commended the collaborative work between the City and CSU. He encouraged regular reporting to the Board. Fodge replied they would be glad to do so. Gavaldon asked if there are any changes for the upcoming football season. Fodge replied ensuring the vendor for the pending bike and scooter share program is aware of the required no-ride perimeter around the stadium will be critical; however, everything else should be consistent with past years. b. Transportation Capital Project Prioritization Study – Kyle Lambrecht, Chris Rawling (Olson Engineering) Kyle Lambrecht, Engineering, introduced the topic of the Transportation Capital Project Prioritization Study (TCPPS) and introduced Chris Rawling with Olson Engineering. Mr. Rawling stated the City’s previous iteration of this study was called the Arterial Intersection Prioritization Study. He stated the main goal of the TCPPS is to identify a list of problem areas that need to be addressed and look at them from a multi-faceted, data-driven approach to try to understand which are the highest needs and develop a system by which they can be prioritized. He noted the TCPPS looks not only at intersections but at the entire arterial network with a more holistic view. He noted multi- modal metrics are also being considered in addition to solely vehicular metrics and stated the City is working with Larimer County to have the study area include the growth management area. Lambrecht commented on the importance of taking advantage of creating partnerships to better leverage funds. Mr. Rawling discussed the creation of a GIS tool to help with active management and keeping the study current through the life of the plan horizon. He outlined the steps of the study noting it is currently in phase one which involves the first pass at understanding where needs exist and developing the initial list of projects. He discussed prioritization metrics, including improving multi-modal safety and relieving intersection congestion, that will be used to take the project to the final concept design and cost estimating phase. He also commented on the importance of realizing ‘quick win’ projects and on focusing on long-term costs such as those related to utilities. TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 6/16/2021 – MINUTES Page 5  Lambrecht commented on the importance of formulating realistic cost estimates for projects given the budgeting for outcomes process. Mr. Rawling discussed public engagement and the online survey that has been developed for citizens to comment on needed improvements by mode of transportation. Lambrecht encouraged members of the Board to complete the survey and encourage others to do so as well. York stated some of the language relates to multi-modal transportation; however, the emphasis seems to be on motor vehicle transportation. He stated the map does not lead people to go off the motor vehicle mindset and think about other human-powered or transit infrastructure proposals or priorities. He also questioned how equity across the city is ensured. Brown asked if the City has considered sharing the survey on Next Door. Lambrecht replied he will follow-up with communications staff. Mr. Rawling replied that was discussed and he noted the survey was explicitly designed to have respondents think about all modes of transportation in an attempt to try to fold in as many thoughts about different modes as possible. He noted the comments received thus far have provided a good mix by mode. Mr. Rawling provided additional detail on the project timeline and discussed the efforts at equating both delay and safety to costs in order to provide an overall cost to each intersection. He noted the safety costs are pulled directly from the City’s annual crash report, which is a consistent methodology used to identify the areas with highest safety concerns. Owens asked if delay cost and safety cost are the only two criteria ranking arterial segments at intersections. Mr. Rawling replied they are screening criteria used to identify the master list of projects and once the second phase starts, the prioritization criteria that starts to consider things that are not related to just delay and safety will become involved. Gavaldon asked if there is still consideration of rebuilding the Horsetooth and Ziegler roundabout. Lambrecht replied he was not aware of that plan; however, he would follow up with information and traffic counts. York asked why CSU is not included as a major partner as the University creates a great deal of traffic through certain intersections. Lambrecht replied CSU is a major partner and he cited the Prospect and College intersection as an example. York asked if this study is completely funded and when final results should be expected. Lambrecht replied the project is fully funded, part of which is coming from Larimer County. He stated findings will be used to prioritize projects to seek additional funds for specific projects on the list. TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 6/16/2021 – MINUTES Page 6  York asked how this plays into the City’s Climate Action Plan goals and how those goals affect prioritization. Lambrecht replied part of the goal for intersection improvements is to add capacity to the transportation network through improved signal timing, adding turn lanes, and the like, to help reduce idling time. York stated that goal appears to be the antithesis of discouraging motor vehicle use. He suggested large capital projects should include corridors for human-powered modes and transit and questioned where funding should come from for those modes if most of the capital is expended on motor vehicle benefits. Lambrecht noted corridor improvements are based on complete street standards and include multi-modal improvements; however, he agreed part of the effort at improving capacity could be aimed at transit. Mr. Rawling commented on the goal to round out the multi-modal network while not reinventing work that has already been done. He stated the nature of the plan involves looking at vehicular items such as congestion; however, in looking at prioritization, it will be important to examine work done through other efforts to help improve all modes of transportation. York stated alternative modes must become the easiest, simplest ways to get places if those modes are to be encouraged, which may mean making using a motor vehicle less easy. Chair Rachline agreed. c. Budgeting for Outcomes Continuing Review and Staff Feedback – Iverson Brown asked about the adaptive bike share offer. Iverson replied that will be part of the new bike share/E-scooter program. Brown commented on the offer that would allow Transfort to do snow removal in house and on the offer that would provide Transfort the funds necessary to purchase bus stop easements in order to make the stops ADA compliant. She noted she will be advocating for these offers as part of her job. York commented on information missing in a trails link regarding offer 35.3. He also asked about the lack of an offer related to the Power Trail crossing at Harmony Road. Borchert asked how he would find out if there is a plan to put a crossing light at Ziegler at the end of the Rendezvous Trail. Gavaldon asked about the total net staffing increase for transportation-related items. Iverson replied he would follow up on that topic. Gavaldon asked about the lack of detail in the $1.7 million bridge program offer 21.2. Iverson replied he would follow up on that as well. Gavaldon asked about the parking enforcement and parking garage costs. York noted there is over $3.5 million in parking-associated offers and he questioned that expenditure as well. TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 6/16/2021 – MINUTES Page 7  Hart commented on the funding information provided in offer 13.5. He also expressed support for that offer noting it would enhance bicycle infrastructure and it already has funding from other sources and voter-approved taxes. He also expressed support for all restore offers and several enhancement offers. Borchert asked about offer 9.4 related to street sweeping and asked if there is special equipment for sweeping protected bike lanes in order to keep them safe. Iverson replied he believes they do require special equipment; therefore, there is an ongoing discussion about acquiring that equipment as the protected bike lanes will continue to increase in number. Borchert asked if issues in protected bike lanes could be reported on Access Fort Collins. Iverson replied in the affirmative. Gavaldon asked if repair, maintenance, and access are factored in when protected bike lanes are designed. Iverson replied those items are all considered and Streets staff are highly involved as that department performs the maintenance. Gavaldon expressed concern the facilities should not be built if there is no equipment to maintain them. Iverson replied he would share those comments with his team but stated he believes things are improving in those collaborations. Owens expressed interest in the offer related to buying five battery electric buses and in any offer that would ensure ADA compatibility for bus stops. He expressed support for the offer related to restoring Transfort service and stated he would like to see an increase in the frequency of bus routes and an expansion of the network. He asked if Transfort fares are planned to be reinstated. Chair Rachline noted there was an item in the Council priorities list related to considering free Transfort service. Brown noted there is no offer related to keeping fares free but stated she would strongly support that. Iverson replied he would do some research but noted Drew Brooks will be at the Board’s July meeting. York stated he did not believe there was a line item related to fares in previous budgets. Chair Rachline expressed support for all restore offers. She noted there are a lot of items that provide funding for consulting, surveys, and studies and questioned whether they are priorities. Chair Hart noted studies can be useful in providing data that is frequently requested by Boardmembers. Chair Rachline questioned what is to be covered with the funds requested for offers 21.16 and 21.17. She also asked what the Arthur’s Ditch project entails. She expressed support for any offer encouraging multi-modal transportation, discouraging single vehicle use, and any item that would increase accessibility or safety. Chair Rachline outlined the comments provided in the chat section stating Gavaldon commented he would like to see Transfort fares restored, Owens commented on the TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 6/16/2021 – MINUTES Page 8  fares being 3% of Transfort’s operating budget, Hart and York expressed support for other budget offers, and Brown listed the following offers as having support mentioned: 9.6, 19.11, 13.5, 13.9, 19.4, and 19.9. Brown recommended the Board submit a letter offering support for any unfunded offers after the City Manager’s recommended budget is presented in early September. Iverson stated offers could still be added through the budget office, not through staff. Brown noted there are also opportunities for mid-cycle appropriations. Iverson stated he would summarize the discussion and provide it to the Board. Brown encouraged members to specifically identify offers they support in order to provide a list to Council. 8. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Borchert reported he sent out an email updating Boardmembers on the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization. Hart commended recent trail maintenance improvements. York reported on the recent Planning and Zoning Commission worksession which was attended by the Commission’s Council liaison, Emily Gorgol. He stated she mentioned Council sees the interconnected level of transportation, housing, and the things people need and want to do and importance of making infrastructure and the Land Use Code fit those needs with minimal impact on the environment. He stated there will be an opportunity for citizens and Boardmembers to weigh in on possible associated Land Use Code changes. He also reported there will be an additional Council retreat to help narrow down the priorities list. York reported the Commission is considering the NISP pipeline project through a site plan advisory review process. He noted there is the potential for a great deal of transportation-related interruption along the pipeline corridor should the project move forward. He noted Land Use Code updates will be coming forth with the prioritization of housing stability, health, and affordability. He noted he discussed the importance of getting transit-oriented development included in the updates. He stated the impact of Land Use Code updates on City goals such as the Climate Action Plan was not mentioned. Gavaldon commented on buses not making complete stops and on near collisions with cars he has had on his bicycle on the CSU campus. He commented on cars stacking along College Avenue in the mornings. Chair Rachline commented on bike lanes being littered with stones and glass. TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 6/16/2021 – MINUTES Page 9  9. OTHER BUSINESS a. Bicycle Advisory Committee Report Gavaldon reported on the recent BAC meeting during which the Committee received presentations from Parks Planning and CSU’s Vision Zero initiative, and an Active Modes Plan update. He stated he provided a summary of the super issues meeting. b. City Council 6-Month Calendar Review Iverson noted the following on Council’s 6-month calendar: consideration of the Hughes Stadium plan amendment, a presentation on the Civic Center Master Plan, the East Mulberry Corridor Plan update, and budget hearings. c. Staff Liaison Report Iverson reported three proposals were received as a result of the RFP for the Active Modes Plan and those are currently under review. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m. by unanimous consent.