HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 02/19/2003..
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES of the
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
February 19, 2003
5:45 p.m.
City of Fort Collins - Community Room
215 N. Mason Street
FOR REFERENCE:
CHAIR:
Christophe Ricord
472.8769
VICE CHAIR:
Bruce Henderson
898.4625
STAFF LIAISON:
Don Bachman
224.6049
ADMIN SUPPORT:
Cynthia Cass
224.6058
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Joe Dumais
Neil Grigg
Bruce Henderson
Edward Jakubauskas
Tim Johnson
Brad Miller
Christophe Ricord
Brent Thordarson
Heather Trantham
CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:
Don Bachman
Cynthia Cass
John Daggett
Tom Frazier
Randy Hensley
Mark Jackson
Cam McNair
Ron Phillips
Kathleen Reavis
Timothy Wilder
ABSENT:
Dan Gould
Ray Moe
GUESTS IN ATTENDANCE:
Everitt Bacon
Melissa Bordewin
Bob Felsburg
Rich Follmer
RA Plummer
Gary Thomas
.,
Transportation Board
APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes
February 19, 2003
Page 2 of 8
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Ricord called the meeting to order at 6 p.m.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There was a motion by Johnson and a second by Henderson to approve the minutes of
January 15, 2003 as presenter. The motion carried by a unanimous vote (9-0).
4. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT
None.
5. DISCUSSION ITEMS
a. MASON TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR UPDATE — K. Reavis
Reavis stated that the focus of tonight's discussion will be the downtown portion of the
corridor. She began a PowerPoint presentation, which was the same one that the City
Council saw at their Study Session last Tuesday. Highlights of the presentation were:
What Have We Been Doing?
- FTA New Starts Update
- BNSF Coordination
- Alignment Concepts
- Grade Separation -Drake
- Station Analysis
Summary of Public Open House
Focus — Downtown Issues
- Railroad Related Design Issues
- Two -Way Conversion of Mason/Howes
Importance of BNSFRole
- Ownership of 4.5 Miles (South of Laurel)
- Joint Use Agreement on Mason Street in Downtown
- Downtown Improvements Influence Use of Remaining Corridor
BNSF Objectives
- Improved Safety
- Ease of Maintenance
Safety Objectives in Downtown Area
Maintenance Issues in Downtown Area
Transportation Board
APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes
February 19, 2003
Page 3 of B
BNSEICity Dialogue
- Started with BNSF wanting full -height solid barrier
- Now discussing In -Street Railing (West Side Only), Enhanced Crossings at
Intersections, Open Ballast, and Two -Way Conversion of Mason/Howes
One -Way Couplet History
Why is Conversion Being Considered?
Two -Way Couplet
Evaluation Criteria
Summary of Findings for Two -Way Operation
- Improved Travel Time for BRT
- Comparable Auto, Bike, and Pedestrian Operations
- Less On -Street Parking Impact
- Better Vehicular Accessibility
- Improved Railroad Safety
- Comparable Capital Costs
Other Key Factors Supporting Two -Way Operation
- Complements Objectives of Downtown Strategic Plan
- Public Support
Opportunities for Public Input
Next Steps
- Continue Dialogue with BNSF
Refine/Evaluate Alternatives
Progress Environmental Assessment
Board Questions/Comments:
Miller: Will U-Turns be allowed at intersections? Reavis: The U-turn issue is a little
problematic. We haven't really looked at that for downtown, but I should
mention the left -turn issue from our analysis. When the Master Plan was done, it
recommended eliminating all left turns off of Mason from Laurel to Cherry.
When we did our analysis, we found that it seems to be difficult to do from a real
estate standpoint because there are a lot of locations where people need to be able
to make left -turns. The areas where we're planning to allow left turns would be at
Cherry, Laurel, LaPorte, Mountain and Mulberry. A U-turn might be a little
difficult due to the width of the street.
Dumais: If someone leaves Washington's fairly inebriated, is it going to be clear enough
that there is a fence there or will the fence blend in too much? I'm a little worried
that someone may try to run across the street, even in front of a train and bounce
off the fence... Reavis: Trying to put this nicely, before they hit the fence, they
would hit the curb. There are some things you can try to avoid and then there are
some behavior that sort of defies common sense.
Johnson: Gould couldn't be here tonight, but he there was one point that he liked and that
was that he liked the two-way much better because of the operation of transit and
folks know where to go no matter which direction they're going.
Transportation Board
APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes
February 19, 2003
Page 4 of 8
Johnson: The second point, with regard to the barrier, near intersections where people are
doing left turns, it might have to be marked in such a way as to catch the driver's
attention and not be so transparent that the driver doesn't see it if they are cutting
the corner a little bit. Reavis: We've talked about what sort of end -treatments
would make them visibly appealing — but that's a good point also to make sure
they aren't something that someone doesn't see until it's too late. That's another
part about having them pulled back away from the crosswalk, so that if someone
were making a left turn or a U-turn, they would have plenty of clearance.
Thordarson: Would you have curbing on the other side of the crosswalk like is done on a lot
of the newer intersection improvements where you have a pedestrian refuge area?
There's curb on the intersection side of the crosswalk as well as on the median
side where the roadway continues out of the intersection —just to add more of a
barrier there. Reavis: I don't know how we would do that on Mason with the
tracks through there, but it may be something we could do on Howes, at those
intersections where we have center left turn lanes to work with. We do need to do
some other work on the enhanced crosswalk ideas. Perhaps it could be done with
the decorative pavement treatment or something else to give a sense of pedestrian
space.
Mr. Thomas: The fence is obviously pretty open from the side and viewed from end on it
looks solid. Is there a problem when trying to make a left tum with seeing a train
behind the fence when looking down the length of the fence? Reavis: We've
looked at that in terms of the design and you're right, you do have that issue when
you're looking straight on to it, but again, it's pulled back far enough from the
intersection, you're going to be able to see beyond it and also the height of it is
about 5-6' and the train is so much taller than that you're going to be able to see
it. We do want to make sure that it's not brought too close to the intersection so
that it would cause any of those visibility problems.
Dumais: Is the height such that people would try to jump it? Reavis: We want it tall
enough that people won't go up to it and try to swing a leg over easily. At 6' we
think we're safe.
Thordarson: Has the railroad expressed a willingness to carry financially some of the
improvements given the benefits they're getting from the project? Reavis: It's
interesting, one of the things they have expressed an interest in is that if the open
ballast were to be done, that's something that I think the RR would take care of.
It's something that is that important to them. They really want to see that opened
up for their maintenance. I think they would cover that cost.
Chair Ricord: First, I'd like to thank Kathleen and the consultant for the presentation. It
really helps us visualize some of the challenges, changes and issues that you're
struggling with right now. Secondly, I'd like to express support for the two-way
couplet. It seem like most people are supportive of that that I've talked to. As far
as local circulation goes, that will improve. I'm having a little trouble visualizing
what happens here (referring to map on wall). It looks like the railroad will
actually be raised. Reavis: We've been struggling with that from the graphics
standpoint. It's actually an illusion of the way this is drawn. The elevation of the
track will not change from what it is today.
Transportation Board
APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes
February'19, 2003
Page 5 of 8
Chair Ricord: Who will take care of the trash and debris that collect on the fence railings?
Reavis: Primarily the City will be responsible for that. Ricord: Council member
Weitkunat brought up the potential for Art in Public Places and I thought it was a
good idea. It could be very interesting visually. Felsburg stated that the theme
issue will be one of the topics of next week's meetings.
Johnson: As part of our education plan, we should think about the connection between the
Downtown Strategic Plan and this project. We need to make sure that there are 1-
2 board members at every meeting next week as I believe it would be effective
and I would encourage everyone to do it in a way so that you're listening to the
public, for instance, if you're hearing questions coming up that we might be able
to answer straight away and then you should let those of us who will be working
on the tax campaign hear those so we can get the correct information to the voters
right away and not be surprised.
Volunteers came forth for Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday night's meetings.
Staff agreed to email flyers to the board.
The board decided to take an informal vote on supporting going back to the two-
way couplet and everyone was in agreement.
b. TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN — M. Jackson
Jackson and Bacon gave a visual presentation updating the board on the project, with
emphasis on the Preliminary Transportation Analysis Summary that was prepared to
summarize the findings of the scenario analysis in terms of key transportation
characteristics.
Board Questions/Comments:
Henderson: How is congestion defined and can it be related to LOS? Bacon: The way
we define congestion is by a letter grade, for instance, LOS A-C = uncongested, easy
movement in the traffic stream. LOS D = Growing congestion, more limited movements.
LOS E-F = Congested, indicates failure in terms of mobility.
Henderson: Are you going to make any attempt to validate for the people, that they
visualize E and F as congestion versus A and C and that sort of thing. Bacon: We try
and tailor it to Fort Collins because we realize that congestion to someone who lives in
Los Angeles as compared to someone in Laramie, Wyoming are two different things.
Trantham: How helpful were the modeling results being that they were all the same?
Does that mean if we contract our GMA then we are responsible for fewer facilities
fiscally? Jackson: What it means in mind is that if we contract, we lose the opportunity
to gain any impact fees or any mitigation from development that's going to occur to the
degree that we have the GMA that encompasses these areas of big impacts.
Trantham: So what is the model sensitive to? How far would you have to expand the
GMA or would it ever be sensitive to that if you took it all the way to ...
1-�, -"N
Transportation Board
APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes
February 19, 2003
Page 6 of 8
Bacon: It tends to be sensitive to a lot of those things, but when we're talking about very
small nuances, in my opinion anyway, of a GMA boundary and the fact that development
won't necessarily stop outside the GMA just because you don't call it the GMA, the
model can be sensitive to those things. If you look at today versus the future, the model
is obviously sensitive to the growth in the future because you see how much that's
changing over time. The issue to me, isn't whether the model is sensitive or not, it's are
these alternatives significantly different from a transportation standpoint or not and I
think our results are that they are probably not very different. There might be other
reasons to do GMA contraction/expansion, but transportation isn't one of them, at least in
my opinion.
Johnson: I think we're going to have a robust discussion about this sometime. I think
that clearly it depends on the ratio of your cost versus what you take in. What I really
want to get at is that you brought out a statistic that I'd like to ask you more about. The
average trip length — how do you define a trip? Bacon: A trip is defined as a distinct
origin and destination. Johnson: In the way we collect fees, we talk about impacts for
street Oversizing for 1 mile, so you can see that what we're basing it on is way out of
kilter. That's probably what has led us into this enormous capital deficit that we're trying
to deal with right now. As we go forward, I suspect that one good thing for the
community to do will be to do an accounting for how much we still fall short based on
this kind of a trip length and actually ask that Street Oversizing takes into account, not
the one -mile .. but something that reflects what the average trip length is. Bacon: Just to
clarify, the model calculates different trip types. A commute trip is different than a
shopping trip etc. Commute trips are longer so they weight that number a little higher.
c. DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC PLAN — R. Hensley & J. Daggett
Hensley stated that there are three documents that staff would like feedback on. These
were included in the board's packets.
Hensley went over the Market/Urban Design Framework (formerly "Policy") Working
Paper, which is a draft of the policies that will shape the future of downtown Fort Collins.
To a large degree, it provides the context for the transportation effort in the Downtown
Strategic Plan.
Daggett then introduced the proposed policy statements/questions related to Parking,
Bicycle/Pedestrian, Freight Delivery, Traffic/Circulation, and Transit/Multi-Modal.
Board Ouestions/Comments:
Trantham: Do you have any information from other cities such as Portland and how they
balance their employees who need to be downtown versus people who go there to shop.
How do they do it? Daggett: That is a work in progress at this point. We have six peer
cities that we're gathering information from and that is not back yet. We will be happy to
bring that to you when we have it.
,o-
Transportation Board
APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes
February 19, 2003
Page 7 of 8
Johnson: Could you remind us of how many parking spots are in the study area?
Hensley: 9,300. Johnson: That's where some of the things under P3 come in to play
when you talk about public/private partnerships and see if you can find some way to use a
lot of these spots that might be open during the day. I think that one thing I brought up
today was kind of the incongruity of parking is that every time we make a parking
structure or parking lot, we have one less reason to go downtown. A comment I have for
P2 is that I think we should be talking about long term and short term for the two bullet
points there. I think those are your goals. Another thing about the parking structures
downtown is that a lot of people have no clue where College Avenue is when they get in
there. We need to have maps or signage pointing to College and list the shops and what
not; it could be a friendly way for people to know where to go.
Grigg: We need to make it so that more people are willing to walk a block or two instead
of trying to find a spot directly in front of their destination.
Johnson: In terms of a continual bikeway, look carefully at the ways to link Jefferson
with the potential of reaching all the way to the southeast corner of the city.
There was a motion far Chair Ricord to prepare a memo stating the board supports the
draft policies and the direction the plan is going at this stage. There was a second and
the motion carried unanimously.
Hensley asked for confirmation that the board is comfortable with leaving the paid
parking topic on the table for further investigation and discussion. Chair Ricord offered
to include that in the memo as well.
d. TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL FUNDING STRATEGY — Finance Subcommittee
Johnson gave a brief report on the previous night's City Council meeting. The next
meeting of the campaign committee is Thursday, 7:30 p.m., at Perspectives.
6. ACTION ITEMS
a) ELECTION OF OFFICERS - All
Chair Ricord stated that he did not desire to accept nominations for another term.
Bruce Henderson was nominated and elected Chair and Heather Trantham was
nominated and elected Vice Chair.
7. REPORTS
a) BOARD MEMBER REPORTS
Johnson: DMU. The DMU demo was great. I was encouraged by seeing it.
RTA. Would like to see the board get an update on this, perhaps in April?
Staff needs to ask the MPO to come.
Transportation Board
APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes
February 19, 2003
Page 8 of 8
Thordarson: DMU. I talked to Mary Warring and found out that about 500 people
went through the demo car.
Open House. We learned a lot from having the open house at the mall.
People seemed most interested in the Mason Corridor graphics. So I think
the larger, splashier visual aides are the ones that are going to draw the
most attention.
Henderson: Trails. Last month when we talked about the potential change to the bike
path that was going to route around Paragon Point — can someone get back
to us with more information on the status of that? Bachman: I checked
with Parks staff and it is in their purview. I didn't get a lot of new
information. Council did hear this issue in a Study Session, but the
homeowners still see this as an impasse. This will be discussed at the
February 26 Parks and Rec Board meeting. Henderson: I'm the liaison to
that board, so I'll attend the meeting and speak during public give the
transportation board's input at that time.
Trantham: Modeling. I included in your packets some reading material. Modeling
has always been a pet issue of mine. I wanted to make this more
comprehensive, but then decided to just do it.
b) STAFF REPORTS
McNair: Cone Zone Report. The report was distributed and Johnson suggested that
it be placed on the City's web site.
8. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
t 1111-10
Chair Ricord adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
4��
Cynthia Cass
Executive Administrative Assistant
City of Fort Collins — Transportation Services