Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 08/17/2022 TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR August 17, 2022, 6:00 p.m. Virtual Meeting Via Zoom 8 /1 7 /202 2 – MINUTES Page 1 FOR REFERENCE: Chair: Indy Hart Vice Chair: Council Liaison: Cari Brown Emily Francis Staff Liaison: Aaron Iverson 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Brown called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. 2. ROLL CALL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Cari Brown, Vice Chair York Jerry Gavaldon Rob Owens BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Indy Hart, Chair Stephanie Blochowiak Nathalie Rachline CITY STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Ruhlen Courtney Geary PUBLIC PRESENT: James Burtis 3. AGENDA REVIEW Iverson stated there were no changes to the published agenda. 4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION James Burtis commented on the Active Modes Plan and noted it does not include any specific timeline or plans for improving sidewalk infrastructure to be ADA compliant. Additionally, he stated the Plan does not include mention of improving connectivity with public transportation. He suggested it would be beneficial for the City to create a bike parking map to help encourage riders. TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 8 /1 7 /202 2 – MINUTES Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – JULY 2022 Brown made a motion, seconded by York, to approve the minutes of the July 2022 meeting as amended per an email written by York. The motion was adopted unanimously. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Active Modes Plan Review Prior to Council Adoption – Cortney Geary Cortney Geary, Active Modes Manager, stated the draft Active Modes Plan has been available for public review and a great deal of outreach to Boards and Commissions has also occurred. She highlighted input from the Planning and Zoning Commission specifically related to the delta between current funding levels and the cost of near-term improvements. Additionally, she noted the Bicycle Advisory Committee will be voting on whether to offer support for the Plan at a special meeting in mid-September. Regarding James Burtis comments, Geary noted the gap in funding for mid- and near- term sidewalk improvement projects is $150 million. She suggested a section could be added to the Plan to include more detail on that timeline. Additionally, she stated an internal bike parking map does exist and the suggestion to improve it and provide it to the public is a good one. Geary provided commented on community engagement and efforts to ensure the voices of historically underrepresented groups are elevated. Trung Vo, Toole Design Group, stated many comments have already been received on the online draft version of the Plan. He outlined the structure of the Plan document and its included components and discussed the ways individuals can provided feedback on the Plan online. Aaron Villere, Toole Design Group, further detailed the Plan’s pedestrian infrastructure recommendations and implementation path. He noted the crash data utilized is based primarily on police reporting and the crash risk analysis uses a series of different factors. Mr. Villere also further detailed the bicycle infrastructure recommendations noting they also include linear facilities as well as spot projects. He discussed the recommended 35 miles of side paths, which are shared use paths within rights-of-way adjacent to roadways, 6 miles of buffered bicycle lanes, 3 miles of conventional bicycle lanes, and 21 miles of neighborhood bikeways. Mr. Villere further detailed the implementation plan which started with project prioritization based on feedback received from City staff, the project team, and the public. He noted all projects were prioritized based on key categories: network TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 8 /1 7 /202 2 – MINUTES Page 3 connectivity, safety and comfort, access, and health and equity. He went on to outline the near-, mid-, and long-term project recommendations. Geary stated the draft Plan will be open for public review until August 24th, followed by a few other events, with adoption hearings scheduled for December. Brown asked if income was considered as part of the near-term projects to ensure lower income residents would benefit. Geary replied in the affirmative and stated lower- income residents were one of the demographic groups considered in the health equity index which helped inform the priorities. York stated it would be helpful to have an idea of what items to advocate for with City Council per year for funding once the Plan is adopted. Geary replied there is a section on alternative funding options given staff does not believe historic and anticipated funding levels will be adequate to implement the near- and mid-term improvements. She stated that information could be made more explicit in the Plan document to make it easier for advocates and staff to determine advocacy needs. Gavaldon asked how the sidewalk gap analysis was completed and if it was solely based on a study completed nine years ago. Additionally, he stated the dollar amount needed to fill all sidewalk gaps is not attainable and he would instead prioritize other items. He requested more specifics on the crash data utilized and asked about alternative funding options. Geary replied the pedestrian needs assessment is referenced, but is not part of the research of the Plan. She noted the crash risk analysis, level of comfort analysis, identification of the spot projects, and the network recommendations were all generated by Toole Design Group as part of this Plan. Gavaldon expressed concern there are other redundant aspects of the Plan that are based on previous studies or research. Geary noted the crash data comes through Traffic Operations and Police Services. Regarding funding options, Geary stated there are a number of new funding programs at the state and federal levels and there is a discussion of grant programs for which recommended items could be eligible. Additionally, she noted the Community Capital Improvement Program would be tax-funded. Board members opted to postpone a vote on this item until after the Bicycle Advisory Committee makes a recommendation. Brown encouraged staff to provide a full presentation to the Disability Advisory Board. Geary replied presentation have been given to Summit Stone and People First and the draft Plan has been sent to a recommended list of contacts. TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 8 /1 7 /202 2 – MINUTES Page 4 b. Update on Vision Zero Planning Effort – Rachel Ruhlen Rachel Ruhlen, FC Moves, stated the Vision Zero effort accepts no loss of life and no serious injuries in transportation systems. To become a Vision Zero city, a municipality must have a clear goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries, which Fort Collins does, must have a Vision Zero Plan in place, which is currently underway, and must have key departments, such as Police, Transportation, and pu blic health, involved. Ruhlen noted CSU has Vision Zero in place and has a President’s Vision Zero task force in which Fort Collins is involved. Ruhlen outlined Vision Zero’s safe systems approach which does hold individual road users responsible for following the rules, but also holds planners and policy maker responsible for prioritizing safety into their design and policy. She noted traffic speed is at the heart of Vision Zero and stated building redundancy of hazard prevention into the system is critical for planners. Ruhlen discussed other cities that have achieved Vision Zero and provided comparisons of Fort Collins to other cities in Colorado and peer cities around the nation. She outlined preliminary data from the 2021 Traffic Operations Roadway Safety Report. Brown asked what constitutes an ‘injury’ in the data. Ruhlen replied an injury is anything requiring medical attention. Ruhlen discussed crash data related to vulnerable users and Board members discussed the need for proper categorization of motorcycles, E-bikes, and other mobility devices. Ruhlen stated the police report forms may need to be revised in order to assist in getting more accurate data on device type. York stated the sole focus on speed could lead to motor vehicle users being unsatisfied and he commented on separating motor vehicles from other modes as being an engineering solution that would help lead to zero negative encounters between motor vehicles and more vulnerable users. Ruhlen concurred modes need to be separated on roadways with higher speeds; however, in places where that is impossible, motor vehicle speeds will need to be managed. Board members agreed the use of the word ‘manage’ could be more palatable than ‘decrease.’ Ruhlen noted most crashes occur at inte rsections and arterial roadways and she highlighted data indicating vulnerable users, particularly bicyclists and pedestrians, make up a small percentage of total crashes, however, they are much more likely to be involved in severe crashes. She commented on the high injury network idea that is more corridor based. Ruhlen discussed the technical advisory committee for the Vision Zero effort, but stated no public input has been solicited specifically on this planning effort in part because a great deal of public outreach has already been done with the Active Modes Plan and other recent planning efforts. TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 8 /1 7 /202 2 – MINUTES Page 5 Ruhlen requested input from Board members regarding any barriers to achieving Vision Zero. Brown replied more access to bicycle-friendly driver classes would be important and while she is skeptical zero fatalities could be a reality, she will remain hopeful the goal is achievable. Owens stated he is also skeptical about the ability of the city to achieve zero traffic fatalities and serious injuries as long as people still have the ability to look at phones when driving and drive under the influence. He stated there are infrastructure improvements that could help to minimize fatalities and injuries; however, zero is a lofty goal. York stated he believes the goal is achievable; however, the question is whether the public has the willingness to make the necessary changes from a political and financial perspective. He commented on an article related to driver training not being all that useful. He stated the goal is achievable with time assuming the necessary resources are committed to making infrastructure changes. Gavaldon concurred with Owens that achieving the goal of zero deaths and serious injuries is quite a lofty goal. He commented on the importance of commitment from users of all modes of transportation, including pedestrians. He supported maintaining the higher goal and noted each life saved will be significant. York asked if it could be beneficial to focus on areas that are safer than others, or the areas that have already achieved Vision Zero, to see what lessons could be learned. Brown stated it could be beneficial to communicate injury data related to rear-end crashes to businesses that have vehicle stacking issues. Ruhlen stated the Vision Zero plan will go before Council at a work session in December and will hopefully be adopted early next year. c. Update on Spin E-scooter/E-bike Program – Rachel Ruhlen Rachel Ruhlen, FC Moves, stated Spin has been the city’s E-scooter/E-bike provider for one year and the one-year contract is renewable for up to a total of five years. She stated a few minor changes were made to the second year contract. She outlined the data related to the number of trips taken on the devices and noted the vast majority of trips were taken on E-scooters. She presented a map of trip locations which showed usage to be concentrated around the CSU campus, but with other roadways starting to be used more frequently. York stated the geofencing that is designed to keep the scooters off trails may not be working as he sees them on trails frequently. Gavaldon concurred. York stated he has also seen the scooters staged at Edora Park next to the Spring Creek Trail. He suggested a future conversation may need to occur about the fact that people who own E-scooters regularly ride them on trails and geofencing the Spin TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 8 /1 7 /202 2 – MINUTES Page 6 devices out may inadvertently be creating a separate class of rider. Ruhlen commented on the Spin Adaptive program which provides adaptive bicycles to people free of charge. Additionally, she stated the Spin Access program allows for individuals without smart phones and credit cards to use the devices and also allows for income-qualified individuals to use devices for half off. Ruhlen provided contact information for the Spin local team to report improperly parked devices or riders in improper locations. Ruhlen asked Board members to weigh in on benefits of shared E-scooters given the wide-ranging dislike of the devices. Owens replied the mobility provided by the devices is a benefit, particularly for those who may not have a vehicle. York noted the last mile use of the devices is valuable. Gavaldon commended the slower, manageable speeds of the scooters. Ruhlen outlined possible Code changes related to parking of Spin E-scooters or E-bikes. She noted personally-owned devices can be parked on roads; however, the Spin devices are not allowed to be parked on roads despite the fact that they block sidewalks and are meant to be ridden on roads. She discussed the possible use of painted parking boxes on roadways and the use of incentives for riders to end their trips in such boxes. York asked if any outreach to scooter riders regarding parking has occurred. Ruhlen replied in the negative but stated she is considering working with Spin to do a survey of users and this question could be included. Brown stated there could be a disadvantage to the street parking for individuals in wheelchairs who may need to use the roadway or bike lane when the sidewalk is narrow or has a blockage. Gavaldon asked what the contract expects of Spin in terms of recovery time of parked devices and whether that expectation is being met. Ruhlen replied the system works so that when one person ends a ride on a scooter, another person can take it. She stated the contract includes a recovery time of two hours after a scooter or bike is requested to be moved. Gavaldon stated he does not believe individuals should be responsible for reporting improperly parked devices and Spin should be responsible for meeting its contract obligations and providing reports showing they are doing so. He stated there needs to be a compelling reason for any potential Code change. Ruhlen noted Spin can look at a map and be able to locate each device; however, the map cannot indicate whether the devices are properly parked. She noted the longest idle time of most of the devices is less than three days. York stated allowing roadway parking will help to keep sidewalks clear ; however, it could TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 8 /1 7 /202 2 – MINUTES Page 7 provide obstacles for people riding bicycles or running on roadways or in bike lanes. He stated roadway parking would need to be done in a very defined area in order for it to be an advantage. He also suggested a rider should be penalized on the current ride if they do not use the proper parking areas rather than having a discount on a future ride. Ruhlen outlined the other possible Code change related to toy vehicles on roadways. She noted the definition of toy vehicles do not include E-scooters by state law but does include things like motorized skateboards and hover boards. She stated the current Code only allows toy vehicles to be on sidewalks and not roadways and does allow non- motorized devices on paved trails. She commented on the confusion about where to ride which types of devices in Fort Collins. She noted sidewalks are not designed for the speed of toy vehicles, even if they do not have motors, making sidewalks unsafe for pedestrians. She requested input on a possible Code change eliminating the prohibition of using toy vehicles on roads. Gavaldon stated he would like more data prior to making a change to the Code. Owens stated there is a clear objective given utilizing toy vehicles on sidewalks provides safety hazards and only allowing their use on sidewalks provides a very fragmented network for those users. He expressed support for the Code change. York suggested a minimum age requirement for the use of toy vehicles on roads. Gavaldon asked if there is accident data related to toy vehicles. Ruhlen replied the accident report forms completed by police officers only include categories for pedestrian, bicycle, motorcycle, and motor vehicle; therefore, accurate data is difficult to ascertain. Additionally, she stated crashes are significantly underreported, particularly if it is a crash involving a vulnerable road user. York commented on bike racks being full of Spin bikes and not having space for other users. 8. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Gavaldon commented on observing cyclists using cell phones. He stated there are some appeals coming before Council related to Planning and Zoning Commission decisions. York commented on an article discussing the efficacy of different types of work to improve the safety of various modes. He stated it indicated education was quite low in efficacy based on dollars spent. He announced the August 28th Open Streets event followed by Tour de Fat the next weekend. 9. OTHER BUSINESS a. Bicycle Advisory Committee Report Owens reported the BAC received the same two presentations from Rachel Ruhlen. TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 8 /1 7 /202 2 – MINUTES Page 8 Additionally, he commented on the negative aspect of using a disincentive for parking shared scooters outside of a parking block noting people may need to get to a destination quickly, which is the advantage of a dockless system. b. City Council 6-Month Calendar Review Iverson stated budget hearings will begin in September and he outlined those dates. Additionally, he highlighted other items on the 6-month Council calendar including work sessions on Our Climate Future, the Active Modes Plan, and Vision Zero. c. Staff Liaison Report Iverson stated the Transportation Board will have two new members beginning in September. He stated the budget will be discussed at next month’s meeting . 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. by unanimous consent.