HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/2024 - TRANSPORTATION BOARD - AGENDA - Regular Meeting11/20/2024 Agenda Page 1
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
SUMMARY AGENDA
November 20th, 2024 6:00PM – 8:00PM
In person at 281 N. College, 1st Floor Conference Rooms or online via Zoom
This hybrid TRANSPORTATION BOARD meeting will be conducted in person at 281 N
College Ave, 1st floor conference rooms or you may join online via Zoom.
Participants should join at least 5 minutes prior to the 6:00 p.m. start time.
ONLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
You will need an internet connection on a laptop, computer, or smartphone, and may join the
meeting through Zoom at https://us06web.zoom.us/join Webinar ID:992 3667 9837,
Passcode 735155. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio).
Keep yourself on muted status.
For public comments, the Chairperson will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to
indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all
participants have an opportunity to comment.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BY PHONE:
Please dial +1-719-359-4580 and enter Meeting ID 99236679837; Passcode 73515. Keep
yourself on muted status.
For public comments, when the Chair asks participants to click the “Raise Hand” button if they
wish to speak, phone participants will need to press *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the
Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Transportation
Board. When you are called, press *6 to unmute yourself.
Documents to Share: Any document or presentation a member of the public wishes to
provide to the Transportation Board for its consideration must be emailed to
mdempsey@fcgov.com at least 24 hours before the meeting.
Provide Comments via Email: Individuals who are uncomfortable or unable to access the
Zoom platform or participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing comments
to mdempsey@fcgov.com at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. If your comments are
specific to any of the discussion items on the agenda, please indicate that in the subject line
of your email. Staff will ensure your comments are provided to the Transportation Board.
(Continued on next page)
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
SUMMARY AGENDA
November 20, 2024 6:00PM – 8:00PM
st
1. CALL TO ORDER [10 minutes for items 1-6]
2. ROLL CALL
3. AGENDA REVIEW
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION [3 minutes per participant]
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7. NEW BUSINESS [95 minutes]
a. Presentation on the update to the City’s Electric Vehicle Readiness Roadmap,
followed by Q&A (Dashiell Bubar-Hall, FC Moves) [20 minutes]
b. Parking: A panel presentation followed by Q&A (Eric Keselburg, Parking Services;
Clay Frickey, Planning; Matthew Behunin, YIMBY [75 minutes]
8. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS
a. No board reports sent prior to agenda distribution
9. OTHER BUSINESS [15 minutes]
a. Chair Person’s Items
b. Staff Liaison Report
c. City Council 6 Month Calendar Review
10. ADJOURNMENT
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
October 16, 2024, 6:00 p.m.
Online Via Zoom or In-Person at 281 North College
10/16 /202 4 – MINUTES Page 1
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Ed Peyronnin
Vice Chair:
Council Liaison:
Alexa Nickoloff
Susan Gutowsky
Staff Liaison: Melina Dempsey
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Peyronnin called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
2. ROLL CALL
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ed Peyronnin, Chair
Alexa Nickoloff, Vice Chair
James Burtis
David Baker
Jerry Gavaldon
Lourdes Alvarez
Emily Felton
Amanda Finch
Indy Hart
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Melina Dempsey, FC Moves
Kaley Zeisel, Transfort
Seth Lorson, FC Moves
Jerediah Burianek, Transfort
Troy Moreno, Transfort
Steven Zupparo, Transfort
Monica Martinez, PDT Administration
Annabelle Phillips, Transfort (remote)
Dashiell Bubar-Hall, FC Moves (remote)
PUBLIC PRESENT:
None
3. AGENDA REVIEW
Chair Peyronnin stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
10/16 /202 4 – MINUTES Page 2
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
None.
5. APPROVAL OF MINTUES – SEPTEMBER 2024
Hart made a motion, seconded by Gavaldon, to approve the September 2024 minutes as
written. The motion was adopted unanimously.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
a. Presentation on Transfort’s Microtransit, Optimization, and Action Plan, followed
by Q & A – Kaley Zeisel, Transfort and Seth Lorson, FC Moves
Kaley Zeisel, Transfort, stated Transfort began service in 1974, operates 23 routes at
full service levels with 53 buses, and oversees Dial-a-Ride, the paratransit service
operated by a third-party contractor. Zeisel stated Transfort has about 160 employees,
the majority of which are bus operators, and is now permanently fare free.
Zeisel discussed Transfort’s aspirational plan which is outlined in the City’s Transit
Master Plan that was adopted in 2019 and includes three additional bus rapid transit
lines, increased frequency, additional regional connections, mobility hubs, and
innovation zones. Zeisel outlined the plan for post-pandemic operations, which has
included rebuilding the workforce and adding positions to allow for improved working
conditions. In terms of service levels, Zeisel stated the plan is to return to full service
as staffing and budget levels allow.
Zeisel discussed the Transfort budget from 2019, which is used as a baseline, and
noted the expenses and budget directly correlate to service levels. Zeisel stated there
is currently about a $2.7 million gap in the budget, which is due to increased costs of
parts, equipment, fuel, personnel, contracted services, and technology and
maintenance. Additionally, Zeisel noted there is a $12.7 million annual gap in order to
operate 2019 service levels and fully build out the Transit Master Plan.
Zeisel stated a system optimization assessment is essential to align the available
budget with the goals outlined in the Transit Master Plan and will help evaluate existing
services and work with the community to help prioritize element of the Master Plan.
Seth Lorson, FC Moves Senior Transportation Planner, stated the overall system needs
to be redesigned to be fiscally sustainable, and that will require a dialogue with the
community about what Transfort could and should be in the short term for a five-to-ten-
year strategic plan. Lorson stated best practices will be examined and other systems
that have recovered post-pandemic in a more successful manner will be assessed.
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
10/16 /202 4 – MINUTES Page 3
Lorson outlined the planned public involvement plan’s guiding principles: engage
equitably, develop a dialogue, communicate effectively, and meet people where they
are. Lorson also noted both a technical advisory committee and a community advisory
committee have been established.
Dempsey discussed the definition of innovation zones which involve lower-density
suburban areas where fixed route is either currently non-existent or limited; therefore,
the Transit Master Plan recommends exploring adding microtransit, or on-demand
transit, to the innovation zones, and exploring other innovative modes of travel in those
areas. Dempsey noted the zones may better be addressed as microtransit zones.
Lorson asked Board Members to respond to a series of questions related to Transfort to
help inform the optimization project. He noted much of the initial outline is to institute a
full understanding of the challenges that Transfort is facing in terms of competing
interests within a constrained resource and budget. Lorson noted things such as
frequency and coverage may be competing interests.
Zeisel outlined the questions and comments provided to staff from Board Members
prior to the presentation. The first question related to why routes serving the west side
of town do not connect to the MAX line. The challenges of the campus transit center
location were discussed, and it was noted that the West Elizabeth Foothills Campus
Transit Center will allow for a one-seat ride. Zeisel noted that will be a long-term
solution and other shorter and mid-term solutions for the connection need to be
considered.
Alvarez suggested Transfort could do minor experimentation with different options that
wouldn’t require a lengthy process. Zeisel replied Transfort cannot be risk averse at
this time and needs to try different things.
Another question related to targets and goals. Zeisel stated Transfort is now eyeing
recovery and 2019 numbers. In terms of the largest challenges Transfort is currently
facing, Zeisel stated they are budget, staffing, though those numbers are stabilizing and
growing, and safety and security. Zeisel noted Transfort has budget offers in for Transit
Service Officers, which are not only enforcement positions, but also ambassador
positions. Additionally, Zeisel noted the offer for Sunday and holiday service is
currently above the line for funding.
Baker asked about ridership trends for the years prior to 2019. Zeisel replied ridership
was still increasing throughout those years while other transit agencies across the
country were seeing decreases in ridership.
Members suggested including in Google Maps that the bus service is fare free and
discussed areas where having additional cameras that are accessible by Police
Services.
Felton commended the goal of increasing ridership but questioned how Transfort is
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
10/16 /202 4 – MINUTES Page 4
looking to change habits. Ziesel replied youth is a high priority focus area and there is
a goal of building trust in transit and understanding of how to use the system at a young
age.
Felton asked about the highest age demographic using Transfort. Ziesel the largest
demographic number is 18-24 year olds.
Hart asked how Transfort is a data informed organization, specifically commenting on
the recent change to Transfort frequency during times that are not peak ridership times.
Ziesel replied Transfort has a great number of dashboards, though only hired data
analysts over the past few years. Ziesel also noted there are many factors that went
into the MAX timing decision, including the shifting of peak ridership times since the
pandemic.
Finch commented on the importance of marketing and promotion and asked who is in
charge of that for Transfort. Ziesel replied Anna Russo is in charge and encouraged
members to reach out with ideas.
Ziesel discussed the plans for advertising the permanent fare free structure.
Alvarez asked if there was originally a timeframe attached to the Transit Master Plan
and whether any of it has been implemented. Ziesel replied it was adopted in 2019 with
a plan for build out by 2040, which is what the funding gap is based upon. In terms of
completed portions, some electric buses have come on line and the MAX lines have
been planned for expansion.
Gavaldon asked who is serving on the citizen advisory committee and suggested
someone from the Transportation Board should have been included. Burtis replied he
is on the committee. Lorson commented on the importance of the diversity of the
committee. Gavaldon suggested more than just one Transportation Board Member
should have been included and asked if an Active Modes Advisory Board Member is on
the committee. Lorson replied in the affirmative and noted the Transportation Board
serves an advisory entity in the current capacity. Ziesel noted staff will continue to
return to the Board for input.
Baker commented on wanting to ensure the Board can assist Transfort and be a
positive advocate.
Burtis asked if there are certain lines that have more safety incidents than others and
whether that correlates with lower ridership. Ziesel replied it is noticed on Flex and
MAX and stated some of the safety and security incidents are a result of lower ridership
and less people being present.
Nickoloff commented on the importance of having sidewalks to bus stops cleared of
snow.
Hart stated he is hopeful about the future of Transfort and stated it is important and
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
10/16 /202 4 – MINUTES Page 5
refreshing to hear the answers that have been provided.
Finch commented on the desire for a park and ride situation and made some
suggestions about how to teach people to ride the bus in conjunction with riding the
trolley. Ziesel noted there are park and ride locations, one of which is behind the new
King Soopers on South College.
Members thanked Ziesel and Lorson for their candor and presentation. Chair
Peyronnin noted the Board would like to have them return in a couple months.
8. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS
Finch reported on an incident with a driver running past her child’s school bus and the bus
driver telling her that despite having cameras on the buses, there is a lack of response from
Police Services.
Hart commented on the importance of education and reported on watching a driver run
through the pedestrian crossing light on Horsetooth at the Power Trail. Hart also
commented on the value of attaching speed data to road width and suggested using parked
cars as road separators for bike lanes which can then shrink road widths with just painting.
Members discussed looking at the LCUASS standards as a Board.
Felton reported on an inoperable speed limit monitoring device on Dunbar and on Fort
Collins being the first city with a historic roadside marker on Overland Trail.
Burtis reported on attending the kick off for the Transfort optimization project citizen
advisory committee, which he stated was similarly constructed to this meeting. Additionally,
he reported on himself and his child almost getting hit by a car at City Park and Springfield.
He also stated he would like to discuss the YIMBY parking minimum memo at an upcoming
meeting. Dempsey stated the item could potentially be discussed at the next meeting.
Baker expressed concerns with the rollout of signage for the new speed cameras and
stated the current signage feels like revenue generation is the goal over increasing safety.
Members discussed the signage and the success of other programs throughout the country,
particularly Pennsylvania.
Gavaldon reported on serving on the Police Chief Advisory Committee and stated he sent a
memo to the Chief to request an officer come before the Board to discuss the speed
cameras. Gavaldon commended Chief Swoboda’s work in the community. Additionally, he
commented on a bike registration program that the city had in the 1960’s and suggested it
should be returned.
9. OTHER BUSINESS
a. City Council 6-Month Calendar Review
Dempsey noted the 6-month calendar dates are in the Board’s packet.
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
10/16 /202 4 – MINUTES Page 6
b. Staff Liaison Report
Dempsey outlined upcoming meeting topics.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m. by unanimous consent.
Electric Vehicles
Readiness Roadmap
Update
11/20/2024
Dashiell Bubar-Hall
FC Moves
Why Electric Vehicles
•Electric vehicles are not the highest priority,
but they play a role
•GHG emission reductions
•Sustainability goals
•Long-term reduction for cost of
vehicle ownership
2
•Electric vehicles are here to stay
•Increasing market share
•More models and vehicles types
available
•Increased affordability
•20% of new vehicles purchases
locally
Electric Vehicle Readiness Roadmap
•EVRR Format
•Introduction
•Vision and goals
•EV overview
•Vehicle types
•Charger types
•EV Market Assessment
•Local trends and projections
•Readiness Strategies
•Recommended strategies
•Added points of emphasis with the update
•Equity
•Evenhanded portrayal
•Electric transportation options (e-bikes, e-
scooters, carshare)
3
Types of Electric Vehicles 4
Types of Chargers 5
Cost of Ownership Considerations
•Fuel Cost
•82 Kw ~ 350 Miles of range (sedan)
•$5.74 Residential off-peak ($0.07
Kw/h)
•$16.40 Public charging ($0.20 Kw/H)
•$35.00 Gas ($3.00/Gallon 30 MPG)
•Maintenance Costs
•EVs require less maintenance in general,
but maintenance costs tend to be higher
for similar services on EVs compared to
gas vehicles. Overall savings varies
•Purchase Price
•EVs have a higher purchase price than
gas competitors but state and federal
incentives make a meaningful difference.
6
•Depreciation
•EVs tend to depreciate faster than the
gas alternative, largely due to battery
degradation concerns. Used EVs are
eligible for new state and federal
incentives making their low price point
even more affordable, but battery life
and replacement costs are still
substantial concerns
•Insurance Rates
•Insurance for EVs are typically higher
than comparable gas vehicles and
have been increasing at a higher rate
Lifetime GHG Emissions 7
GHG emissions 8
EV Overview 9
•84% of EV owners can reliably charge at home
•27% of Non-EV Owners could reliably
charge at home if they had an EV
•Primary barriers to EV adoption were purchase price,
charging availability, and battery performance in cold
weather
•Expanding public charging was the highest priority
by a large margin
•Renters were more likely to report not being able to
charge at home than homeowners.
•Multifamily residents were less likely to purchase an
EV and cited access to charging as the main barrier
10EVRR Community Questionnaire
Race/Ethnicity Census Questionnaire 4/24
Middle Eastern/North African
and White
78%74.92%
African and African
American/Black
1.40%0.34%
American Indian/Alaska
Native
0.80%0.34%
Asian/Asian American 0.80%2.03%
Native Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander
0.20%0.34%
Hispanic/Latinx/Spanish
Origin
12.40%12.20%
Prefer to self-identify NA 2.37%
Decline to specify NA 7.46%
Total Respondents NA 295
11EVRR Vision Statement
Fort Collins will promote the community’s adoption of electric vehicles through
equitable access to charging infrastructure, engaging outreach and education,
innovative policy approaches, and leading by example.
12EVRR Goal Areas
•Mobility: Support the electrification of shared transportation options in Fort Collins, including carshare,
rideshare, shared micromobility, and transit, to ensure equitable access and foster a sustainable, interconnected
transportation system.
•Equity: Engage disproportionately impacted communities to develop suitable EV-related outreach, projects,
and incentives that increase awareness and access to electrified transportation options.
•Environmental: Reduce local contributions to climate and air pollution from transportation sources through
increased adoption of electrified transportation options.
•Utility/ Grid Infrastructure: Identify the need for additional level 2 and 3 public charging infrastructure
throughout the city and support the installation of needed infrastructure and corresponding utility
improvements.
•Residential Charging: Increase access to charging infrastructure for rental properties and multi-family units,
prioritizing the most affordable housing stock.
•Policy: Review and update existing City policies related to electric vehicles, electric transportation devices, and
charging infrastructure. Recommend additional policies to facilitate increased adoption and access to
alternative electrified transportation options.
For More Information, Visit
THANK YOU!
https://www.fcgov.com/fcmoves/ev-readiness-roadmap
Dashiell Bubar-Hall dbubar-hall@fcgov.com
Headline Copy Goes Here
Sr Manager, Parking Services
Eric Keselburg, CAPP
Transportation
Board –Parking
Services Overview
11/20/2024
Headline Copy Goes HereOverview
2
•Authority
•Operation
•Downtown Parking
•Citation/Enforcement
•Downtown Parking Study
•Residential Parking Permit Zones
Headline Copy Goes HereAuthority - Special Commission Officer (SCO)
3
Section 2-503(b)(2): - Police Services.
For the purposes of the enforcement of this Code and the preservation of public
peace, certain individuals, whether or not employed by the City, may be
appointed by the Chief of Police as special police officers to enforce particular
provisions of this Code, and as peace officers to enforce particular provisions of
the state law; provided, however, that such officers shall be given only such
limited authority with respect to enforcement as is set forth in the administrative
regulations relative thereto, which shall be adopted by the Chief of Police. Such
appointment, in and of itself, shall not constitute employment with the City.
Pursuant to Section 2-503 of the Code, the City's Chief of Police is authorized to
adopt this Administrative Regulation to appoint these individuals as Special Police
Officers and grant them limited authority to enforce certain sections of the Code.
Using Special Police Officers provides a reasonable and economical approach to
law enforcement in the City.
All persons granted the authority of a Special Police Officer under this
Administrative Regulation and employed by the City of Fort Collins is required to
pass a pre-employment criminal background check, unless not required to do so
by the Special Commissioned Officer policy and take an oath of office
administered by a designee of the Chief of Police.
Headline Copy Goes Here
4
Operation – Primary Coverage Area
Headline Copy Goes Here
5
Operation – Primary Coverage Area
The City of Fort Collins is approximately fifty-seven
(57) square miles in size;
•Parking Services proactively manages the parking
system for approximately six (6) square miles of the City
of Fort Collins,
•The rest of the City of Fort Collins is patrolled, primarily
reactively, by Fort Collins Police Services, Community
Service Officers (CSOs).
-Proactive regularly enforced
-Greater enforcement area
Headline Copy Goes Here
6
Operation – Primary Coverage Area
2023 citations issued: 46,782
Parking Enforcement Officers: 44,193
The City of Fort Collins is approximately fifty-seven
(57) square miles in size:
•Parking Services proactively manages the parking
system for approximately six (6) square miles of the City
of Fort Collins.
•The rest of the City of Fort Collins is patrolled, primarily
reactively, by Fort Collins Police Services, Community
Service Officers.
Headline Copy Goes Here
7
Operation – Primary Coverage Area
2023 citations issued: 46,782
Parking Enforcement Officers: 44,193
Other City regulatory groups: 2,589
The City of Fort Collins is approximately fifty-seven
(57) square miles in size:
•Parking Services proactively manages the parking
system for approximately six (6) square miles of the City
of Fort Collins,
•The rest of the City of Fort Collins is patrolled, primarily
reactively, by Fort Collins Police Services, Community
Service Officers.
Headline Copy Goes HereDowntown Parking - Map
8
The total public parking supply is 4,846 spaces (3,149 on-street and 1,697 off-street)
And 4,865 private spaces (private parking lots or private parking)
Headline Copy Goes HereDowntown Parking – Informational Insert
9
At first overtime citation – education opportunity *
* 6-month rotation
Headline Copy Goes HereDowntown Parking –Block Face Rule
10
Block Face:A portion of the street or highway between intersections, including all on-street parking.
Helpful Parking Tips:
•You may move your vehicle to another
block face before your time is up.
•For long term parking options use
parking structures and/or surface lots
(pay by the hour or permit parking).
•Your first overtime citation is a zero-
dollar fine, and information is typically
provided.
•If a street has no posted time
restrictions, vehicles may park all day.
Block Face Rule
After leaving a parking space in a time-restricted lot or block face, the same vehicle may not park
in the same lot or block face for 4 hours, even if the maximum time restriction hasn't been met.
Headline Copy Goes HereCitation/Enforcement - Revenue
11
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 - YTD
Violations $991,114.82 $664,117.47 $1,064,139.41 $1,196,778.30 $1,343,886.50 $922,435.11
Permits $692,069.10 $562,647.50 $684,627.00 $673,532.00 $655,115.55 $487,521.00
Hourly Users $833,520.59 $288,598.96 $563,209.47 $691,217.18 $795,576.08 $595,826.13
General Funds $48,613.50 $50,058.00 $317,022.00 $874,583.00 $954,442.00 $758,738.30
$0.00
$200,000.00
$400,000.00
$600,000.00
$800,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,400,000.00
$1,600,000.00
Parking Revenue/Funding
Violations Permits Hourly Users General Funds
Headline Copy Goes HereDowntown Parking Study - Background
12
2017 – Downtown Plan2013 – Parking Plan
The most convenient and desirable on-
street spaces are free while less
convenient garage parking costs money.
This discourages the use of parking
garages and encourages driving around
looking (trolling) for available on-street
spaces. This practice creates congestion,
air pollution, a perception that there is no
parking available and general frustration.
The 2013 Parking Plan identified this
phenomenon as “parking structure
avoidance” due to “upside down pricing”.
Headline Copy Goes HereDowntown Parking Study – Why?
13
1) Curb Management;
demand for public street curbs
and public parking facilities,
1) Curb Management;
demand for public street curbs
and public parking facilities,
Headline Copy Goes HereDowntown Parking Study – Why?
14
2) Better management tools to
address demand crunches, to
improve user experience,
Headline Copy Goes HereDowntown Parking Study – Why?
15
3) Support broad community
goals; Our Climate Future,
economic vitality, reduce traffic
congestion, and fund parking
asset maintenance needs.
Headline Copy Goes HereDowntown Parking Study – Who?
16
Request for Proposal completed and
vendor of choice decided; subject
to contract negotiations.
Both parties are in agreement
regarding scope of work. There are
only a few final details are being
worked out pertaining to contract
details- notice of awardee pending.
That said, the task item and
description timeline should reflect
actual. Which also aligns with the
Downtown business need for
engagement to occur after the
holiday season.
Headline Copy Goes HereDowntown Parking Study - TDM
17
Headline Copy Goes HereResidential Parking Permit Zones
18
Headline Copy Goes HereResidential Parking Permit Zones – U+2 Elimination
19
The Residential Parking Permit (RP3) boundary area
is defined by Code. The eleven (11) established RP3
zones are proactively patrolled by Parking staff; with
appropriate staffing levels and coverage aligned with
Colorado State University.
With the elimination of the Occupancy ordinance
(U+2), Parking Services has begun monitoring
occupancy impacts within the established RP3 zones
to identify the potential need to expand permit
allowances, while meeting the intent of the program.
For all neighborhoods; there should be sufficient
Traffic Code to address occupancy impacts, caused
by the allowance of additional occupants.
Headline Copy Goes HereResidential Parking Permit Zones
20
Zone 1 –Spring Court
Zone 2 –Sheely Subdivision
Zone 3 –Mantz Subdivision
Zone 4 –Old Prospect Subdivision
Zone 5 –University North Subdivision
Zone 6 –Historic Fort Collins High School Neighborhood
Zone 7 –Old Town West Neighborhood
Zone 8 –University East
Zone 9 –Western Heights
Zone 10 –Lake Street
Zone 12 –East Side
•All zones provide 2-hour parking, except Zone 2
Headline Copy Goes HereResidential Parking Permit Zones – Permits Issued by Zone
21
Headline Copy Goes HereResidential Parking Permit Zones – Permits Issued by Zone
22
Headline Copy Goes HereResidential Parking Permit Zones – Occupancy
23
Zone Parking Spaces Permits Issued Parking Occupancy Avg
10-Lake St 35 8 76%
12-East Side 611 382 42%
1-Spring Court 2 0 25%
2-Sheeley 455 209 12%
3-Mantz 246 110 18%
4-Old Prospect 197 64 20%
5-University North 816 498 51%
6-Old FCHS 609 311 30%
7-Old Town West 727 290 24%
8-University East 1143 547 28%
9-Western Heights 240 139 29%
Grand Total 5081 2558 32%
Average actual occupancy counts. Two (2) parking studies performed, September 2024 and October 2024.
Headline Copy Goes HereResidential Parking Permit Zones – Occupancy by Zone
24Average actual occupancy counts. Two (2) parking studies performed, September 2024 and October 2024.
Headline Copy Goes HereResidential Parking Permit Zones – Occupancy by Zone
25Average actual occupancy counts. Two (2) parking studies performed, September 2024 and October 2024.
Headline Copy Goes Here
Headline Copy Goes Here
November 20, 2024Clay Frickey, Planning Manager
Transportation Board Update
Land Use Code Phase 2
Headline Copy Goes HereTeam Structure
Co-PM Co-PM
Technical Lead
Megan Keith
Operational focus,
day-to-day
management
Sylvia Tatman-Burruss
Relationship and strategic
focus
Noah Beals
Oversees Work Streams, provides
technical expertise
Work Stream
Work Stream
Work Stream
Planning Mgr.
Clay Frickey
2
Headline Copy Goes Here
3
Plans & Vision
Headline Copy Goes Here
4
Establishes process
and requirements for
development
approvals
Sets development
standards
Guides future
community planning
Regulates property
use and public benefit
What the Land Use Code Does What the Land Use Code Doesn’t Do
Subsidize Development
Regulate Building Code
Regulate Street Design and Construction
LCUASS Building Code +
others
How do homeowners interact with the LUC? Example: Building an addition
on your house (setbacks, floor area, roof design, etc.)
How do business owners interact with the LUC? Example: Where can I
locate my business? What uses are allowed on my property? (use standards)
Headline Copy Goes Here
5
Structure Plan
P
P
P
P
P
P Priority Place Types Designated in City Plan
Co
l
l
e
g
e
A
v
e
.
Harmony Rd.
Mulberry St.
Drake Rd.
Headline Copy Goes HereCompliance with House Bills
•HB24-1313 – TOD
•Requires communities to have an average zoned density of 40 units per acre along high frequency transit
•No public hearing required for mixed-use and multifamily development
•Communities must develop strategies to mitigate gentrification and displacement
•HB-1152 – Accessory Dwelling Units
•ADUs permitted everywhere single-unit dwellings are allowed
•HB24-1304 – Multifamily Parking
•No minimum parking requirements for new multifamily/mixed-use development along transit corridors
6
Headline Copy Goes Here
8
Timeline
2024
September October November December
2025
January February March April May June July
Project
Work
Begins
Draft Code
Release
Council
Work
Session
Council
Work
Session
Focus
Groups
StartCommunity
Engagement
Kick-Off
Internal and
Legal Review
Boards and
Commissions Review
Staff and Consultant Code Iteration
Finalize Scope Draft
Refinement
August 2025: First and Second
Reading of Code
Council
Work
Session
Engagement
Summary
Headline Copy Goes Here
9
Process
Council Priorities
Draft Guiding Principles
Diagnostic + Audit
Headline Copy Goes Here
Draft Guiding Principle Alignment with Council Priorities
Draft Guiding Principle: Enable more housing and
compatible infill, especially along transit corridors
and near commercial centers
Advances Council Priorities:
Draft Guiding Principle: Create resilient
commercial and employment centers that are
adaptable to future needs
Advances Council Priorities:
Draft Guiding Principle: Create better form
standards for greater predictability along transit
investment corridors
Advances Council Priorities:
Draft Guiding Principle: Improve predictability of
the Land Use Code, especially to support small
business owners
Advances Council Priorities:
10
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
1
Ig
n
i
t
e
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Ce
n
t
e
r
s
3
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
He
a
l
t
h
4
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
1
Ig
n
i
t
e
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Ce
n
t
e
r
s
3
Ac
t
i
v
e
M
o
d
e
s
8
Ig
n
i
t
e
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Ce
n
t
e
r
s
3
Ac
t
i
v
e
M
o
d
e
s
8
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
He
a
l
t
h
4
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
He
a
l
t
h
4
He
a
l
t
h
43
Headline Copy Goes Here
Headline Copy Goes Here
6 Commercial Center Visits:
•One per Council District
•Held October 4-14th
1 Business Kick-Off Event
Project Updates: Engagement
12
Visit #6
Visit #2
Visit #3
Business Kick-Off
Visit #1
Visit #4
Visit #5
Headline Copy Goes HereCommercial Center Visit Photos
13
Headline Copy Goes HereCommercial Center Visit Photos
14
Headline Copy Goes Here
15
Engagement Summary
•Themes Generated from participant worksheet responses:
Likes:
•Locally-owned businesses
and elements like outdoor
seating
•Features like bike parking,
seating, and pedestrian
buffers were well-received
•Easy access to residential
areas and nearby transit
options
•Amenities such as childcare
and diverse housing options
nearby
Dislikes
•Large parking lots, lack of
sidewalks or walkways, and
the need for better pedestrian
crossings and bike parking
•Bus stops that feel
disconnected from
surrounding areas
•Lack of mixed-use
opportunities, particularly on
the second story of buildings
Headline Copy Goes Here
Headline Copy Goes Here
Advances Council Priorities:
Draft Guiding Principle: Enable more housing and compatible infill, especially
along transit corridors and near commercial centers
What LUC Updates Could Have an Impact?
17
Potential LUC Updates Potential Outcomes
•Set minimum intensities
near transit
•Permitted Uses
•Process Review
•Parking Requirements
•Housing diversity and
choices near transit
•More mixed-use in
transit corridors and
around transit stations
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
1
4
Ig
n
i
t
e
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Ce
n
t
e
r
s
3
Headline Copy Goes HereParking Overview
18
•Phase 1 updated residential standards
•Reductions available close to MAX
•Density incentives for structured
parking
•Existing building exemption
Headline Copy Goes Here
19
Key Questions for Parking
•Should we eliminate parking minimums?
•Should we adjust parking maximums?
•How can we improve design standards for parking lots to accommodate all modes
of travel?
Headline Copy Goes Here
Parking
Minimums
People over Pavement
We believe that housing is a human right, not parking.
Economy EquityPeopleEnvironment
Why the focus on parking?
People
Parking minimums take up space!
People want walkable and bikeable
communities like Old Town
Unused parking wastes space that could be
used for housing and businesses
Environment
Sprawl harms the environment!
Spread out cities make it more difficult to
walk, bike, and drive between places
Transit routes are less efficient and more
expensive per rider
Parking lots contribute to “heat islands”
making our city hotter
Excessive parking minimums create development where
more land sits as empty parking lots than is used for the
primary purpose of the buildings .
Anyone recognize this satellite view?
Economy
Building parking is expensive!
There is no such thing as free parking. A single
parking space typically costs between $9,000
and $50,000. These costs are built into the
price of goods, services, and housing.
Parking mandates are estimated to have
increased average rents by $225 per-month.
These costs get passed on to tenants and
customers.
Fairness
High parking costs lead to inequities!
Those don’t own cars are forced to pay for
the cost of building parking they don’t use
Lower-income households pay to store
higher-income households’ cars
A brief history of parking
in Fort Collins
As cars became popular in the early 1900s, the
most desirable part of cities quickly became
filled with cars, and not enough parking.
College/Oak - 1908
Two approaches to the
problem:
(1) Parking meters became
popular in larger, denser cities
like Denver
(2) Off-street parking minimums
became prevalent in smaller
cities like Fort Collins, affecting
nearly all new developments.
The Problem:
Off-street parking minimums are
based on really bad science
Developed in the mid-1900s
based on few, if any, case
studies
Copy/pasted from code to code
with almost no contemporary
data to support
No Parking Requirements
Does NOT mean no more
parking spots
≠
Parking Requirements
Parking Recommendations
The Solution:
HB24-1304
By June 30, 2025, Fort Collins must stop enforcing
minimum parking requirements as part of land use
approvals for multi-family residential developments,
adaptive reuse for residential purposes, or adaptive
mixed-use that are at least 50% of residential, AND
one-quarter mile of certain transit stops.
Our Proposal
By June 30, 2025, Fort Collins must stop enforcing
minimum parking requirements as part of land use
approvals for multi-family residential developments,
adaptive reuse for residential purposes, or adaptive
mixed-use that are at least 50% of residential, AND
one-quarter mile of certain transit stops.
But what about…
But what about… disabled parking
●Fort Collins can maintain accessibility requirements
But what about… my favorite spot?
●Allow or Require Residential Permits
●Mandatory Cash out of Employer-Paid Permits
●Unbundle Parking from Building Leases and Sales
●Parking is still readily available in cities that have
ended their minimum mandates.
But what about… business concerns
●Dynamic Pricing Meters
●Peak Hour Surcharges
●Dedicate parking revenues to housing, transit, pedestrian
improvements, infrastructure, services. that benefit everyone.
People who invest in buildings
know how much parking their
occupants need.
These cities already ended
parking minimum mandates:
Culver City, Burlington, Charlottesville, Albany, Corvallis,
Duluth, Longmont , Roanoke, Beaverton, South
Bend, Cambridge, Ann Arbor, Hartford, Gainesville,
Bridgeport, Salem, Birmingham, Richmond, Buffalo,
Champaign, Anchorage, St. Paul, Durham County,
Lexington, Minneapolis, Raleigh, Sacramento, Portland,
Vancouver, San Francisco, San Jose, and Austin
…And It Worked
Champaign, IL stopped enforcing an oversupply of parking:
●Onsite parking construction decreased dramatically
●Developers relied on market demand
●Tenants saved $43-49 million
●Rental unit density increased by 79%
●Increased revenue for city from long-term permit sales in
city facilities, while short-term permit sales decreased
●Less expensive housing
●More infill, less sprawl
●Boost transit ridership
●Good for business
Benefits:
Fort Collins is not full.
Pedestrian Areas
Fort Collins is not full.
Pedestrian Areas
Parking Lots
Thank
you!
Transportation Board – Staff Report and Council 6-month calendar – November 2024
Staff Report
• Upcoming TBoard meeting agenda items: Potentially Police Services and Traffic in
December to discuss safety, red light cameras and speeding. Still waiting on confirmation
from both. What is another topic of interest if they are not available?
Council 6 -month calendar
• Tuesday, December 10th: Work session discussion on the Strategic Trails Plan
• Tuesday, December 3rd: Larimer County Regional Transportation Capital Expansion Fee
Schedule (Ordinance 1st Reading)
• Tuesday, January 14th: 10-Year Transportation Capital Improvement Program (Work Session
Discussion)
• Tuesday, January 14th: Strategic Trails Plan: Update (Work Session Discussion)