Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 02/21/2001REGULAR MEETING MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD February 21, 2001 5:45 p.m. City of Fort Collins — City Hall West — CIC Room 300 LaPorte Avenue FOR REFERENCE: CHAIR: VICE CHAIR: STAFF LIAISON/ADMIN SUPPORT BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Johnson Tom Kramer Brad Miller Ray Moe Chris Ricord Brent Thordarson Heather Trantham Mary Warring Steve Yeldell CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Daggett Tom Reiff Randy Hensley Cynthia Scott Mark Jackson Marlys Sittner Vicky McLane Suzette Thieman Ron Phillips Christophe Ricord........................... 472-8769 Dan Gould.......................................482-1074 Cynthia Scott..................................224-6058 Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None ORSFNT- Dan Gould Bruce Henderson GUESTS IN ATTENDANCE: Darcy White - consultant DAR Committee Representative Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes February 21, 2001 Page 2 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion and a second to approve the January 17, 2001 regular meeting minutes of the Transportation Board as presented. Johnson stated that on page 3, he would like to add that the costs will likely exceed S500M and maybe double that and that the assumption that 1-25 will NOT ever expand beyond four lanes may not be acceptable. The motion carried unanimously with the above stated addition, 9-0. 3. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT None 4. ACTION ITEMS a) ELECTION OF OFFICERS - All Chair Johnson thanked the board for allowing him to serve as Chair for the last three years. He has enjoyed serving in this capacity. The floor was opened to nominations for Chair. Warring nominated Chris Ricord for Chair after Johnson stated he was not interested in serving another term. There was a motion and a second to elect Ricord as Chair of the Transportation Board. The motion carried unanimously, 9 — 0. The floor was opened to nominations for Vice Chair. Johnson stated that he had spoken to Gould, who is reportedly recovering well at home, and Gould expressed interest in serving as Vice Chair. Gould asked Johnson to make sure the board understands that he may be unable to attend meetings for an undetermined amount of time. Yeldell nominated Warring as Vice Chair. Johnson nominated Thordarson. Warring withdrew her name from the nominations. There was a motion and a second to elect Gould as Vice Chair and Thordarson as Gouid's alternate. The motion carried unanimously, 9 — 0. b) TRANSFORT STRATEGIC PLAN — Daggett Daggett stated that staff will be asking the board to make a recommendation to City Council to support the adoption of the service plan. Staff would then be back to Council in April for an adoption of the full plan that includes an operational plan that is driven off the service plans, as well as a financing plan and an implementation plan. The purpose of the Service Plan was to first take a look at the existing system and try to identify what opportunities and constraints exist and define service goals for the transit system in Fort Collins. The second stage involved the preparation of the service plan, which is basically a set of building blocks to move forward into the future. This is where the team is now in the process and needs the Board's input and recommendation before April. Daggett stated that this in no way effects the Dial -A -Ride service other than the later alternatives in 3 and 4 when some additional night service is provided. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes February 21, 2001 Page 3 Daggett explained that each alternative assumed the relocation of the Colorado State University Transit Center to the Lory Student Center location on the north side of the university campus, south of Meldrum and Laurel. Scenario 1 assumes no budget growth is required for its implementation, minimal redesign. Scenario 2 assumes the implementation of transit service in the Mason Street corridor and would require cost increases over Scenario 1, minimal redesign. Scenario 3 assumes the implementation of the Mason Street Corridor and budget growth equal to 1 - 1 % times the current budget. Transition to grid service. This scenario is a foundation for the preferred system, which is scenario 4 - see below. Scenario 4 assumes the implementation of the Mason Street corridor and budget growth at slightly more than twice the current budget. Next steps: Daggett stated that once the City has reviewed and approved the Service Plan, staff will develop the Operating Plan. That plan will include other changes and modifications identified by the City of Fort Collins. Implementation and a detailed financial and capital plan will be developed based on the approved Service Plan. Board comments/questions: Thordarson suggested a slight route change for Route 6 so that it would go by Rocky Mountain High School and the numerous apartment buildings in that area. Daggett said that staff would take a look at this suggestion. Miller asked about the subsidy that CSU gets. This was discussed at length. Daggett said that the word "investment" helps describe it better and that he tries to use it in place of "subsidy" at all times. Yeldell asked about the 8% increase - what were we projecting? Phillips stated that there isn't any real reason to project an increase in ridership. There was a lengthy discussion that centered on the model projections and the impacts in an increase in ridership, unexpected percentages, origin and destination, etc. Yeldell pointed out that if we were to look one year out and all of a sudden we are 50% off in ridership, it makes a lot of people look very foolish because we did not expect that beginning point to be much higher. He added that this could be built into an Excel spreadsheet. As an example, you could show what the range could be, based on different things happening. Trantham asked if the model calculates productivity in terms of increase in frequency. Daggett said it is sensitive to both coverage and frequency. Trentham asked if it takes into account lost ridership. Daggett said it does. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes February 21, 2001 Page 4 Johnson brought up funding issues. He said it would be helpful for the public to see that one —tenth of a cent will take us to scenario 3 and two -tenths of a cent brings us to scenario 4. They need to see what kind of a tax will get us there. Now that the Mason Plan is done, we need to be looking at scenario 2 or 3 as soon as possible. Daggett said that a key point is that scenario 2 won't happen until the $50M bill comes in from the federal government. Chair Ricord asked how Council responded to this issue at their meeting a week ago. Daggett said that they were reminded of their policy direction. After they got on board following the presentation, they were good with it. Chair Ricord brought forth the e-mail from absent board member Henderson. Daggett responded to the question Henderson had that was not already covered in tonight's discussion. The question was regarding peak time only commuter support. Moe made a motion to recommend adoption of the service plan. There was a second by Johnson. Discussion: Thordarson inquired about the traffic flow between Poudre Valley Hospital and the new south campus in terms of this being an area that may need to be looked at for transit service. Ricord said that there probably isn't a lot of travel between the two facilities in terms of employees, but isn't sure about patients. He added that in the whole scheme of things, it probably doesn't make sense to look at that in isolation. If the north/south flow were to be looked at in general terms, there may be patterns in which the hospital contributes, but on its own, the south campus probably won't generate much. Daggett also added that every 3-5 years the transit plan is updated, making it flexible for changes. Yeldell said that as much cost analysis as possible should be done because someone is going to bring it up. It should be clear what contributions there are such as from CSIJ, which will offset the overall subsidy the City provides. Chair Ricord stated that he would be supporting the motion. He commented that having the four phases and flexibility, the ability to tailor things as you go, is a significant piece to this. He added that there has been some really good work done on this and he thanked staff for the presentation. Chair Ricord called the question. The motion passed by a unanimous vote, 9 - 0. c) 1-25 REGIONAL CORRIDOR PLAN — Jackson & Moe Mark Jackson stated that there is a distinction between two plans that are parallel to each other. One is the 1-25 Regional Corridor Plan that is basically the overall corridor between Johnstown and Berthoud on the south and the north end of Fort Collins. This is the plan that will be discussed at tonight's meeting. The discussion will focus on a regional perspective. It is similar to an overall conceptual plan, whereas the Subarea Plan that is also going on deals specifically with the Fort Collins growth management area; more of the "nuts and bolts" of what we are Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes February 21, 2001 Page 5 talking about germane to our growth management area. In other words, the regional plan acts as more of a vision plan for the corridor while the sub -area plan takes those regional recommendations (visions) and allows each of the participating communities to tailor it specifically to their community - - to what their needs are. Also, the sub -area plan deals much more with land use where the regional plan does not. Jackson stated that transportation is only one of three elements of the plan. In addition to the transportation portion, there is also a design standards portion, which is really what this project was born from, and then there is an open lands /natural areas portion. More information is available on these issues via the project website at URL 125corridor. com. Next Tuesday evening, there will be a presentation to Council during a study session. Tomorrow evening is an open house at the Plaza Inn on E. Mulberry. All elements of the plan are out for citizen comment/review through March 2. Jackson turned the floor to Ray Moe with LSA. Moe explained that since some of the communities involved don't have master plans for transportation, the objective was to come up with a regional plan that everyone could buy into regionally and then hopefully have the support of the communities on making sure that they abide by the plan. Level of service was projected for the future and it was determined that everything in the corridor and everything leading up to it would deteriorate and be completely congested. The plan includes two roadways parallel to 1-25. On the east side of the interstate, it will be CR 5, starting at SH-14 (ideally), bypass around Timnath, tie into the Crossroads area, past Johnstown and then tying to Berthoud. The west side parallel route will be from Berthoud to Loveland, along the RR tracks to Boyd Lake Avenue and continue north on Timberline. The primary objective is to preserve the corridor, that each jurisdiction would enter into an agreement to preserve the corridor, not to say that it will be built in the next 5 or even 20 years, it is basically saying "don't build over the corridor, don't preclude yourself from having an opportunity to build it at some point in time." The estimated cost of the project (the east side and west side parallel roads) does not include ROW as the objective is that developments would provide those costs as they come in. It is simply to build the improvement, either widen it or construct it. The unit costs being used were also used in the Crossroads project. $100M was initially estimated for the roadway improvements and is now $106M. The other issue is the recognition of the interchanges along the corridor that will need to be improved eventually. Warring commented that one year ago, the SH-14 was an $18M project, so how can the other interchanges not be effected or susceptible to the same kind of rate increase? Moe guessed that that particular cost probably included a lot of cost to improve the frontage roads in that area and SH-14 east and west of 1-25. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes February 21, 2001 Page 6 Yeldell stated that if US-34 interchange is going to cost $42M and Harmony is $15M, how can US-34 cost three times as much? Moe explained that the Harmony interchange is a conventional diamond. US-34 is basically reconstruction with overcrossings and then the diamond wraps on either side. Kramer pointed out that Harmony was built that way to start with, whereas US-34 and SH-14 are currently of the cloverleaf design and will take much more to convert to a full directional interchange. Johnson asked about the reason for leaving out the east/west roadways. Moe said that was his decision because the issue is that if one doesn't do an improvement to Prospect, for example, then the loss is to the community where that is located, in this case, Fort Collins. Prospect would not be considered a regional improvement. The regional objective is to make sure you have continuity in the system from one end to the other and if the local community does not make those connections, they will suffer getting on and off and getting through that area. As part of the focus study for Fort Collins, three land uses will be looked at as well as different networks for those. Cost and locations for these will be known at a later time through that study. Moe displayed some graphics showing what the parallel roadways might look like. In general, it is a four -lane arterial with different characteristics - - it will look different in rural areas as compared to how it will look near activity centers. Performance issues were explained to the board in terms of how the parallel roadway would help VMT, congestion, etc. Overhead slides were shown depicting what would occur if the network was kept the same as it is now, adding the intensification of the corridor currently on the plans, plus the parallel roadways. Other scenarios where shown and explained. Ricord asked if the numbers/scenarios take transit into account. Moe replied that it does in some respects. He explained how regional transit could possibly impact the figures. In addition to autos, transit, pedestrian and bike facilities are important to the plan and have been included. Thordarson asked if there is a possibility that the diagonal connection (the one that ties into Timberline) could be more of an enhanced mobility corridor instead of just an arterial. Jackson said that it is something that could be looked into. Board comments/questions: Johnson stated that the parallel roadway is off the state highway system, so funding would be an issue. Moe said that this is a tough issue, because right now, that is the State Commission's opinion. However, there was a meeting with CDOT this morning and they will be doing an Environmental Assessment for TAFS so there could be an environmental document underway. Should these roads be included as part of that alternatives analysis, then there may be a better argument to include that in vying for some regional funds. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes February 21, 2001 Page 7 There are other funding ideas being discussed as well. Phillips added that the Commission has said that they will look at these on a case by case basis and if there is a proposal that significantly impacts the state system in a positive sense, then they would consider it. Johnson said that in the event 1-25 went from four to six lanes that would be done by way of State funds, not local funds. Moe said that it is too complex of an issue right now to say it would be one or the other. Johnson stated that if he understands this correctly, generally, local communities aren't expanding the freeway# Moe agreed and said that they would be doing local connections. ltt +Wr own erpeme. Yeldell and Johnson had the following comment/question: If 1-25 will not be expanded, what would it take? Should we be looking at another scenario that has more lanes on 1-25 in place first and then moving out to building the network? We have been focused so much on the costs that we have locally, that if we can build this with State money (build capacity on 1-25 as opposed to building parallel networks with local money) we should do it. The transportation needs of the City are enormous and we couldn't find a way to fund this right now. Moe stated that Johnson is a great finance person, but is jumping ahead. He reminded the board that the emphasis is preserving the corridor and making sure we're ready when developers come to the communities with plans for approval. Phillips stated that he believes most of it should be funded through development, not with local Capital funds, and that the Regional Transportation Authority is not the answer either. Most are local arterial streets and for communities that want to grow that much, we're trying to say this is your responsibility and you need to get your development impact fees, etc in line so that development is paying these costs. He further stated that whatever happens to 1-25, these streets need to develop because these areas are going to happen. We are trying protect the ROW. Kramer commented that it looks proactive instead of waiting to be rescued by the State after it's too late. If all you're trying to do is provide and save some ROW, then this is a positive first step to take. Phillips added that this is basically a Master Street Plan for a mile and a half on each side of 1-25. Kramer added that it would offer some relief if the interstate is closed for some reason. Johnson said that if you focus on 1-25 and go to six or even eight lanes, and we have a dedicated corridor for. rans„�,olatiog is it really necessary to have the additional parallel roadway oa state`dsthat additional lanes on I-25 will not be adequate. It is not just the freeway that is going to be congested, it will be access to and from it was well. A six -lane will definitely fail according to the analysis and we didn't evaluate an eight -lane per se. It may work in certain sections and not in others. All we want to do is preserve the corridor as a four lane with roadways. Thordarson asked if the ROW is preserved for six or eight lanes as well as the RR, can that be kept that as an alternative? Phillips stated that ROW is being preserved and acquired for as much as six lanes plus rail. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes February 21, 2001 Page 8 He also pointed out that if the current projections for employment and housing that are being looked at were not included in the original TAFS, couldn't those numbers have an impact? Moe agreed with this comment and said that will need to be considered. Miller said that there might be more emphasis on preserving the ROW for the alternative roads than there is for 1-25. "While I agree that we should preserve the ROW, I am a little afraid of 'if you build it they will come' type of thing and if the other roads are built too soon, maybe that will take traffic like Vine does today and we will regret not having done the widening of 1-25. We should put more emphasis on 1-25 widening than on the parallel roads while not ignoring the ROW needed for the other roads. " Yeldell asked what the cost is per mile to widen 1-25. Staff said that it is in the neighborhood of $10M. Yeldell said that the entire corridor plan is dependent on I- 25 not failing and that any plan put forth that does not include that taking place is doomed for failure overall. Therefore, that has to be included in it. You have to have 1-25 widening taking place, otherwise the overall plan fails. Moe said that it is projected that it will be D & E level of service, not F with a four -lane roadway along 1-25. Yeldell said that is on the marginal level and Moe concurred. Moe pointed out that the decision to widen or not widen 1-25 was the charge of the TAF Study as part of the Regional Transportation Plan and will be part of the environmental assessment that will be coming up for that. It may come out that widening is the answer. However, Moe pointed out that this issue is not under his domain. Miller said that perhaps the board is asking too much of Moe, stating that we should be preserving the ROW for the future in these two areas regardless of whether 1-25 widens or not. That's all Moe is here to bring to the board. Moe agreed and said that are many issues that each community will need to make decisions about eventually, but for now, it is regionally important to preserve the ROW. Warring said that there are a lot of questions in spite of all the work that has been done on this project thus far. She stated that she does not understand why the timeline was bumped up on this very critical study. Even though the objective is just to get ROW preserved, that costs money. The communities either have to pay for the property or they have to pay the lawsuits that are a result of trying to preserve it. I know you are going to go for IGA's, but with respect to the financing which I still have a lot of questions about the costs, how can you get a government to sign on to an agreement when there is not a realistic financial forecast for them? I think that there will be fallout if there are people signing on and then they see what the real costs are going to be. I'd like to see more time put into analyzing what this might cost because at this point you are asking the communities to sign a blank check. Phillips stated that this is in terms of a Master Street Plan, not in terms of who is going to build this road when and how much it is going to cost. We have a Master Street Plan in the City of Fort Collins that says, for instance, that Overland Trail is going to be a four -lane road, etc. that doesn't mean that we have to go out and buy ROW. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes February 21, 2001 Page 9 What it means is that when development happens along those roads, you have a plan in place that has been adopted that says you have to dedicate this ROW or we have a Street Oversizing Program or another impact fee program that will pay for that ROW through development. Warring said that most communities don't have those types of programs. Phillips reiterated that this is not a plan that says you have to make a commitment to fund and build certain roads. This is a plan that says these are what are going to be needed for the future and we need to look well out in the future so we can make plans for it. These communities have bought into the process by being a part of the study. He added that the Board seems to be making this go far beyond what it was intended to do. Warring stated that perhaps this is how we should start thinking about transportation planning because we are so far in debt that we are not even close to being able to accommodate all the needs we have. She stated that perhaps she is looking for a shift in how plans are approved and stated again that it needs more analysis. Trentham stated that she understands preservation of the ROW/institution of the Master Plan and agrees with that. She said that from her perspective, building all these roads, we're not even going to see a tremendous increase in the LOS, speeds, etc and we are not meeting our reduction rate of the VMT growth that is part of our mission statement. I don't see this as a visionary way to accommodate our real goals — VMT reduction. Johnson stated that he sees it as a Master Street Plan without the master street. We need to have that alternative as an alternative, but include what can happen with the master street, being 1-25, and how it affects the parallel roadways before he can support it. He has questions in terms of what it can do in terms of six lanes, eight lanes if need be, coupled with the TAFS. Phillips stated that this does involve TAFS. The decision in TAFS was not to widen 1-25 north of SH-66. Instead, we're going to concentrate on putting in the passenger rail alternative first. At some point in 20 years, if passenger rail is in and it needs to be widened, then that will be looked at. The emphasis is being put on passenger rail for this corridor, not widening the interstate. Johnson stated that we are effectively doing the same thing at local cost. Moe pointed out that it is local development's funds. Johnson said that he couldn't advise Council to support this without that master street in place. Phillips said that it is in place, but is just not as wide as Johnson thinks it should be. Johnson said that he takes it only as an option for looking at if we can keep Timberline smaller because you know as well as I that if we put the six -lane option on Timberline by Fossil Creek, we are going to have a community initiative. If we can use the dedicated corridor to preclude widening on either side of it, I think that is better because we have a dedicated corridor. We should at least have it as an alternative that we are looking at here. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes February 21, 2001 Page 10 Chair Ricord stated that he asked last time for air quality impact data and didn't see anything on that. Moe went back to the overhead slide on emissions showing how it would change with each scenario. Moe said that the bottom line is that air quality is directly related to issues such as VMT, VHT, congestion, LOS and with the improved corridor (parallel roadways), all those improve air quality. There was a motion to recommend to Council that they ask the corridor team to go back and to look at and give other alternatives to review in terms of developing this Master Street Plan for the 1-25 corridor. There was a second. Discussion: • Johnson said that he has made his reasons clear. Also, with east/west components left out, the dollar figure is far bigger than what has been brought up tonight. We need to be able to funnel as much traffic as we can with regard to future finances on the system as financed by the State and not more locally. • Yeldell concurred with Johnson and said that the MSP needs to include all that will feed into that network. Also, the concept of putting forth a plan that will not just acknowledge, but encourage rapid development without all of the costs understood of what they are and where they are going to come from, is a major funding issue. He added that this is a significant amount of money. • Kramer said that the plan itself is not necessarily flawed if you just want to keep ROW preserved. He would like to see that part of it go forward and understands that when it gets to the local plans, other decisions will need to be made. This is not something that you can sit around and wait on. If something isn't done, communities such as Johnstown and Berthoud will lose out on development opportunities. He stated that we can help other communities along if this master plan is in place. Development is going to happen anyway and preserving the ROW is a good idea. • Trantham said that it would be nice to have a statement about preserving something right now. If there is a way to emphasize what transit and other modes can contribute to the overall plan, that would be nice. The motion passed unanimously, 0. - 0. p oe a kht, 5. DISCUSSION ITEMS a) .2025 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION UPDATE — McLane Suzette Thieman, a planner with the Metropolitan Planning Organization, explained that every three years the MPO is directed to update the Regional Transportation Plan, which is a 20-year plan. There are two committees that serve on the MPO. One is called the Technical Advisory Committee and the other is the North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council (NFRT&AQPC). Both of those committees are very involved in the updating process. The first step was the prioritization process. She stated that there is an entire book just on the prioritization process and all the projects that were submitted. Transportation Board , Page 11 DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes February 21, 2001 The second step was to go to the NFRT & AQPC and look at vision, goals, and objectives. She referred to the one -page enclosure that was in the board's packets that outlined the council's goals, etc. Thieman said that there were over 400 projects that were submitted this time. There are various categories that the projects were placed in so that a bike project wouldn't have to compete against a transit project, for example. The TAC had to score and rank each and every project. She added that the Fort Collins representative on the TAC is Gary Diode and the Fort Collins City Council member on the NFRT&AQPC is Mike Byrne. At their March 1 meeting, the NFRT & AQPC will be going through their resource allocation step. This is a process in which they divide the money for each category. Some of the funding is restrictive, so that has to be considered. For instance, transit dollars can't be spent to widen a highway. Thieman distributed funding information for each category from the last updating process. She added that the NFRT & AQPC would also be reviewing the 10% SOV shift stated in the plan. They will decide whether that 10% SOV shift is realistic. After the resource allocation, staff will begin wrapping it up by going down the list of projects and applying funding to them. b1 RURAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY UPDATE - McLane Vicky McLane, MPO Program Manager, introduced herself and said that as we all know, transportation needs significantly exceed anticipated funding. The Regional Transportation and Funding Study, that she will update the board on, is a follow up to the North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study or TAFS. She explained that about a year and a half ago, the NFRT & AQPC asked MPO staff to hire a consultant and look at some options for funding transportation. The study process used focus groups and interviews including the Chambers of Commerce, newspapers, environmental, citizens, staff and elected officials to participate. Identification of the funding shortfall process involved identifying service and financial needs from Plans including Regional Transportation Plans, TAF Study, City & County of Broomfield, 1-25 Corridor Plan and Crossroads Plan. Various funding sources were identified and then the shortfall was determined. Funding options such as property tax; sales tax; DeBrucing, revenue sharing; visitor benefit tax; head tax; impact fees; tax increment financing; and motor vehicle fees were each evaluated in terms of pros and cons. Evaluation criteria used in funding options were: applicable regionwide; continuous, consistent and reliable; sufficient funds generated; and flexibility of funds (all modes, all systems). Transportation Board Page 12 DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes February 21, 2001 Preliminary solution sets are: • Primary RURAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY - Sales Tax - Visitor Benefit Tax - Motor Vehicle Fee Secondary IGA, PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, SPECIAL DISTRICTS - Property Tax - Impact Fees McLane went over what the potential revenues for 2005-2020 could be with the sales tax and the license plate fee. The next steps in the study are: Feedback on draft proposal; follow up on recommendations with local governments; working with COOT to preserve high priority rail corridors (TAFS); and linkages with RTD studies. Phillips said that there would be two ballot questions, one on whether or not to form the authority, the boundaries and so on, the way it is proposed - this all has to be agreed on by all the entities involved by intergovernmental agreement before it goes to the ballot. The second ballot issue is if the voters approve the funding scenario - - raising the sales tax, etc. B. REPORTS a) BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Thorderson: Portable Weigh Station. I noticed there was a portable weigh station set up on Timberline last week and when reading the paper the next day, it said that they issued something like 130 tickets. Phillips said as part of the SH-14 Study, options for keeping trucks on 1-25 will be discussed, maybe even including whether or not the City should buy a scale and have City Police and the State Highway Patrol work together. S. Shields Speeding Enforcement Needed. This seems to have become a section where motorists speed. Perhaps this would be a good area for the police to enforce more often. Kramer. Cabela's. I heard that there may be flights out of Cheyenne and compared to DIA, it will probably be much less costwise. Ye/de/h. Hydrogen Task Force. Met for the first time. CSU has a lab that is only one of a few in the country and the only one in this part of the country that has a full fuel cell research facility. The biggest source for hydrogen is natural gas and it costs 15- 18 times what it did one year ago. There will be a meeting next month and I'll have more details. Transportation Board Page 13 DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes February 21, 2001 Warring: Roundabout/Communication. I watched through the newspaper what was going on with the roundabout and it changed substantially since the board had seen it last year. I wonder if there is some way we can be updated on significant changes, not that we need to revote or constantly be voting on things because they change, but it almost doubled in cost and there were other modifications. I felt like I didn't know that project anymore because it had changed so substantially. I wonder if it is possible when significant community projects like that go through numerous changes that we could be updated in some way. I felt like we were out of the loop. Phillips agreed to update the board. Tranthem: Truck Route Study. Didn't go to the last meeting, but got an update from Mark Jackson. Apparently it was a good meeting. He broke the group into two smaller groups and picked the people for each group because there is a variety of opinions. Basically what came out of it were ideas of reviving the triangle plan and looking for incentives for the trucks to stay on 1-25 and 1-80. Johnson: Edore Park Connection. At Edora Park and the connection there between Stuart Street, during most snows, there is a north -facing hill that leads off of Stuart to the bike trail and it is never swept. Over the years, I've seen people fall. I called the Parks Department and asked if they could sweep that little piece from the trail up to Stuart since so many people use that connection and they said they could. I'll check it next time and see if they get it done. Positive Interactions. I wanted to thank the board for all the positive interactions on the roundabout. I tried to update you and learn as much as I could and then get back to the council members and as it turned out, we had significant support from the council based on our original recommendation when we compared apples to apples and oranges and oranges. We'll stay the course and see how it comes out. Miller thanked Phillips for being very available to all the board members the day of the council meeting. He said he very much appreciated that and thanked Phillips for taking the initiative. Ricord: Coloradoan Editorial Board/Letter to Editor. At one time we talked about having someone from the Coloradoan join us. Can we set up some kind of liaison condition where we could have some interaction with the Coloraodan. Yeldell said that he checked on this and was told that they did not see the need to send someone to Transportation Board meetings. They Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes February 21, 2001 b) STAFF REPORTS Page 14 were not interested at all. Phillips suggested that board members could ask to meet with the Editorial Board. Staff met with them last week on the roundabout and had an hour and half discussion that was very positive. That is one way to have a discussion. Yeldell said that it may not be a bad idea for an article/letter from the board (or an individual on the board) be written to the Coloradoan supporting the Council decision on the roundabout and why. 2001 Work Plan. I looked for the Work Plan at home and couldn't find it. Scott will send another. Ricord said that since it is needed for a "Report" item (6.b.) it would be a good idea to have it for next time. Miller said that it is a good idea to have the Plan in front of us as much as possible so we stay on track. It was agreed that review of the 2001 Work Plan would be on the next agenda. Phi/lips: Transfort/Dial-A-Ride Invitation. Staff would like to invite the board to tour the downtown transit center perhaps just before the April meeting. We could plan to most there at 5 p.m., show you what's going on with the renovation and remodeling and site work then proceed with the meeting at 5:45 as usual. This would be April 18, so please mark your calendars now. Bid Opening Tomorrow. The roundabout bid opening is tomorrow and we'll see what happens. We've done a memo to the Council regarding the estimation process. We'll share it with the board next time. Regrets. 1 have regrets about the way I handled the 1-25 Corridor Plan issue tonight. My love of debate and intensity sometimes gets in the way of a good interaction and relationships and I apologize for that. 1 feel so strongly that we made a remarkable start on regional cooperation and planning and this was never intended to be the and all of decision making for this corridor and the progress made has been remarkable. I hope I did not offend anyone. Johnson said that debate is a positive interaction and that if Phillips, as a staff member, feels strongly about something and doesn't say it, that is a disservice to the board. We need to hear it. Other members agreed. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes February 21, 2001 Page 15 Johnson said that since he made the motion, he is willing to sit down with staff and to write a note to Council and explain that we didn't ask to terminate this, but this is a continuation to ask that more be included. Next Agenda: • Truck Route Update by Jackson • Pedestrian & Bicycle Grade Separated Design Guidelines by Reavis • Roundabout Update 7. OTHER BUSINESS There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, tOC� Cynthia L. Scott Executive Administrative Assistant 1 h � �1ZI/DI.