Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 07/18/2001BOARD MEMBI Dan Gould Bruce Henderson Tim Johnson Tom Kramer Brad Miller Ray Moe Christophe Ricord Heather Trantham Steve Yeldell REGULAR MEETING MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD July 18, 2001 5:45 p.m. City of Fort Collins — City Hall West — CIC Room 300 LaPorte Avenue FOR CHAIR: VICE CHAIR: STAFF LIAISON: ADMIN SUPPORT: PRESENT: CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Don Bachman Gary Diede Randy Hensley Mark Jackson Cam McNair Ron Phillips Kathleen Reavis Cynthia Scott Ken Waido GUESTS IN ATTENDANCE: Alan Beatty Christophe Ricord Dan Gould Don Bachman Cvnthia Scott 472.8769 482.1074 224.6049 224.6058 ABSENT: Brent Thordarson Mary Warring Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 2 Chair Ricord called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Alan Beatty, an original Transportation Board member, stated that it was always a pleasure to work on this group and that he appreciates the fine work that this Board has continued to do. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion by Johnson and a second by Kramer to approve the June 20, 2001 Transportation Board minutes as presented DISCUSSION: Johnson noted that it is valuable to keep a more detailed record of the Board's discussion on the Truck route and the Air Quality Redesignatlon. He said that Phillips had put forward a good explanation about how the projections are made based on VMT growth etc and also fuel consumption in the areas. If it is at all possible, Johnson would like to see if those details can be recaptured. Additionally, the sense of the motion at the end of page 5 was not included in the minutes. He stated that he would like this added as well. The motion was repeated and amended to include the changes that Johnson brought up. The question was called and the motion passed unanimously 9 — 0. 3. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT None. 4.a. N. COLLEGE PROJECT - REAVIS Reavis thanked the board for the opportunity to present to them tonight. She stated that staff would be asking for the Board's endorsement of the preferred alternative for the corridor. She then introduced Rich Folmer, Michelle and Jennifer from FHU and Peter from EDAW. A copy of the analysis was included in the board's packets showing all the different alternatives that the board considered in the evaluation process. Since the last update, staff has met several times with the Technical Advisory Committee for the project. Through the tech team meetings, the preferred alternative was selected. There was also a public open house last week at Streets to show the preferred alternative to the public. There was a good turn out and positive feedback. There are some particular site issues with some of the businesses that still need to be worked through, but overall, it was well received. Folmer took the floor and explained the preferred alternative and used a simulation model as a visual tool. Reavis explained that the next step will be to get this board's endorsement on the preferred alternative and then project will go to a City Council Study Session on August 28. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 3 Upon conclusion of the presentation, the floor was opened to the board members for questions and comments: Gould: Asked staff to go over a comparison of the preferred alternative and #4 in terms of what is different between the two and what leads to the degradation of LOS for 44. Folmer explained the difference, saying that there is only one left turn lane on NB Jefferson in the preferred alternative (#2). Pedestrian crossings are different in the two as well. Kramer: Does the acceleration lane go up to the bridge by the old power plant? Folmer: Yes. Moe: If you're going NB on College and turning right at Jefferson, can you accommodate a semi at that location? Folmer: Yes. Trantham: I think it's better that the merge lane is longer, especially for big trucks, but it's been my experience in other places in town that everybody just waits til the last minute to merge. They honk and speed up and create a dangerous situation anyway. I wondered if you have any data or anything that tells you that it is going to be safer just because it's longer. Folmer: I don't have any specific data on that. Personally, I am hoping that everyone will stay in this lane until a certain point. Trantham: Hopefully with some good signage, it will make it a safer transition and people will let other people in. Secondly, I wondered about the evaluation of the criteria. The first one is between different alternatives, things like the cost are all neutral and that implies to me that the costs are all the same, but what are you trying to say here. Folmer: They are all within 10%. We didn't feel that that was a big enough difference to give different rankings to any of these alternatives that may change their final tally. It was just a judgement call on our part since there is only 10% difference. The last question I have is that between the criteria, there is no weight given to each, so that implies that all of these things are equally important. Was that the intent? Reavis: No, it wasn't part of our preface. We debated that among our tech team and it was felt that the evaluation process would best be started with equal weights. Then if there were a situation where there was a tie or something that needed more analysis, then a more detailed analysis of those issues could be conducted. Henderson: When you spoke to the property owners and businesses in the area, did they have a strong preference for alternative 42 or how did that play out? Reavis: They didn't have a strong preference for one alternative versus the other, but there was a lot of discussion and issues about the NB left Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 4 and certainly, the representative for Taco Johns felt that that was a very important thing. We heard from others that didn't think that that was so important and that the other things outweighed that. At the public meeting, Taco Johns felt that they could live with allowing the N13 left for an interim period of time and recognized that over time that the through movement would need to be removed. Johnson: That building that is on the NE comer of Jefferson and College — is there enough room to do all that you want to do there without having to tunnel under that for the pedestrians and the cyclists? Reavis: This was probably one of the more difficult sites to work with on the project. Interestingly enough, it was not the issue about the pedestrian or bike improvements in front, it was the access issue. Did the modeling take into account the build out of the Downtown River Corridor at all? Reavis: Yes, it actually took into account the whole build out of downtown, not just the river corridor area It appears that there might be an opportunity at Cherry and Willow to do an underpass for peds and bikes. The question is, is staff thinking about any criteria for a trigger — something that would trigger the use of something like that. Reavis: Not so much in terms of the trigger. We actually looked at this project as an at -grade facility for the area — not to say that we couldn't give that some more thought for other areas. We're finding that we have some other workable situation to provide good ped crossings in this area. Johnson: I would suggest that for further phasing, that this intersection be looked at mainly because there will be a lot of kids moving through that intersection. If there is a lot of build out from the Downtown River Corridor, the nature of the recreational type of draws will have a lot of movement at certain times that could shut down movement across College as they all try to meander across the street there. Right now there is opportunity and land available, at least on the north side, for that kind of facility. Reavis: That's a good suggestion and we need to take a look at an under or over pass. Johnson: The criteria that is used on page 42 — the 1't and 3rd ones — I would like to note that you have LOS and vehicle delay and then you hit the vehicle circulation number again in #3 and I think that in part, that alternative 44 is zero when maybe it might not have if you had included all the movement factors in the first line. It's like getting two votes. Yeldell: I was looking at Jefferson and Cherry Street volumes per day. That was the component to me that said absolute last resort do we shut down that left turn because Cherry Street is NOT going to become a lesser arterial, it will only become a greater arterial. As I look at simulation, in 2020 peak time, it indicates we can keep that open. (there was a discussion about Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 5 stacking issues and staff agreed that this is something that will be addressed later down the road. Johnson: The last idea I had for a future phase is that we have the north end transit center being put in place and opening yet this summer and if we look at the Aztlan area as a place where people are going to be congregating and possibly circulating back and forth, we might look at that block between Maple and Cherry and make it inviting to come through that half block. If we put an alleyway in in the future, consider also having a very nice kind of ped facility that takes people over and directs them right to that park center. Ricord: Could you speak more to the aesthetic piece? Characterize it and help me understand a little bit more why #4 has a higher rating than #2 or the other alternatives in terms of aesthetics. Folmer: Basically, #4 provides extra space to work with. Miller made a motion to endorse the preferred alternative that staff has presented There was a second Discussion: Chair Ricord stated that he sees things a little differently after hearing that the other members would be supporting alternative #2. He stated that in looking through the analyses, either #2 or #4 are going to be a vast improvement over what is there now. However, for me it comes down to more of a philosophical question of values. In the case of having the added amenity for alternative modes and also the aesthetic enhancement, I'm willing to trade that offfor LOS in this case. I'm more supportive of alternative #4 than #2. Chair Ricord called the question and the motion carried by a majority vote, 8 —1. 4.b. US 287 WIDENING PROJECT — REAVIS Chair Ricord reminded everyone that there is a specific time allotted for each presenter to make a presentation, so members are asked to withhold comments and questions until the conclusion of the presentation. He stated that the board is being asked to make a recommendation, but it is not clear as to which alternative they are being asked to recommend. It says in the text that the thinking is either A4 or A5. He asked that staff speak in more detail about what exactly is the action they seek. Reavis introduced Bethany from CDOT and Shawn and Michelle from JF Sato as they are the primary presenters for the evening. From staffs perspective, it was felt that any of the alternatives that were along the existing alignment were preferable versus the alternatives that went to the west and was a new alignment/roadway. Bethany stated that the difference between A4 and A5 is that A5 involves the relocation of the dam. Other than that, the two alternatives are pretty much the same. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 6 Shawn explained the process that staff and the consultants went through in choosing what they feel should be the preferred alternative. The floor was open to members for comments/questions: Johnson: I don't like B. My inclination is to lean hard on A4. Henderson: I noticed under "noise" that A4 does have a greater impact than A5 does. Can you comment on that? Sato: CDOT has a policy about the noise so a noise contour would be built based on the proposed action and with most contours that were identified how many receptors within an area that will be affected. Once these are identified, then possible mitigation plans are looked at to avoid that noise. Trantham: I'm glad to hear that our concerns were heard in terms of alternative B the last time you were here. I'll go with A4. Yeldell: I think the $7.5M difference between 4 and 5 for those nine houses that are affected on the noise - - do a lot of noise mitigation. I like 4. Miller: I support alternative 4. Ricord: Footnote # 1 at the bottom of the page talks about construction costs. It says that it does not include ROW acquisitions, relocations, and utilities. If we were to include those figures and add them to the cost of A4 and A5, would we still see the same disparity between the two roughly or would the cost of alternative 5 increase even more. Sato: Actually you would not see much of a difference. It would make some difference, as the property on one side is not really comparable to the property cost on the other side. Henderson moved to recommend alternative A4. There was a second by Miller. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 4.c. ROUNDABOUT RESOLUTION - BRACKE Bracke stated that the City Manger, the Mayor a couple of Council members have asked that staff come up with some criteria for when roundabouts are placed at intersections. The resolution before the board lists six criteria that staff feel should be looked at anytime there are intersection improvements in terms of whether or not it should be a traditional intersection or a roundabout. They are: 1. COST — both capital and maintenance costs 2. AVERAGE DELAY — this is the mechanism by which we determine LOS and the City maintains LOS standards 3. ACCIDENT ANALYSIS — there are currently vehicle accident prediction models and we can compare the safety of the two intersections 4. ALTERNATIVE MODE MOBILITY — the study shall include an evaluation of pedestrian and bicycle mobility 5. SPATIAL REQUIREMENTS — roundabouts generally may provide more than enough capacity to postpone or eliminate the need for roadway widening between intersections Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 7 6. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS — an air quality analysis will be completed that compares the emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen Bracke also pointed out that this would only apply to arterial/arterial intersections or arterial/collector type intersections. We are building a lot of roundabouts in neighborhoods, collector/collector intersections, local intersections primarily for traffic calming. They don't really count to these criteria. It is just the big ones. Board comments/questions: Gould: I was wondering about the wording of #5 "Spatial Requirements." I find that wording confusing in terms of the criterion is toward being the most efficient use of space. I don't understand that part. Bracke: A lot of it comes down to cost. For instance, how much land is it going to take? Sometimes it might impact buildings, historic structures, residential areas, etc. We have to look at the impacts on size. Kramer: My only question is on the accident analysis. I had a discussion with a State patrolman on that and he said there really is no Colorado law on if there is a collision in a roundabout in terms of left-hand turns/movements. A ticket can't be written, therefore no accident report. How do you get a real good analysis of accidents then? Bracke: Even if there are no tickets written, there are still incident reports that are filed that we include in our analysis. Miller: Of the six criteria you have, do you have in your mind any weighting or priority of any of those or should that be included in your recommendation to Council? Bracke: At this time, they are all pretty much equal but we did discuss that issue. If anything DELAY and ACCIDENTS should be the highest in my opinion. Miller: It may be something to think about doing. Henderson: If the proposed intersection were on a State highway, should that preclude it from consideration? Bracke: Yes, it probably will make a difference. Johnson: I like Brad's notion of having order here, so if you feel that one or two of these are more important than the others put them first. When you talk about the resolution itself, when you compare cost we should be comparing cost at the same LOS. We weren't doing that when we were doing this for Lemay/Mulberry one where we had a LOS B for the roundabout and we were comparing it to something that had a LOS D. I think we need to point that out to people, that if we took that standard intersection to LOS B, what would that take. That's the kind of comparison we ought to be pointing out to the public. Maybe that's too much detail to put in here, but I think it's kind of an understanding we Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 8 should all have going into this that that's what we need to do. Bracke: We'll see what we can do about that. Moe: I'm excited about this. I think that after the difficulties upstream, it's nice to see that we're still taking an aggressive look in measuring that. I'm very much in support of it. Ricord: Having looked through this pretty carefully, I'm wondering if there is the potential for us to preclude any alternatives by having this kind of adoption for any other opportunities. My sense is that we're not, but I wanted a staff opinion about what you think. Bracke: I think the evaluation criteria could in itself eliminate a roundabout. For instance, I thought for certain that the intersection at Overland and Drake was a good opportunity for a three -lane roundabout. We took it through the analysis and found that it didn't pass the criteria. It turns out that it is better as a stop sign controlled intersection with a little modification to the south leg of Overland Trail and some realignment. This way it is a much better alternative than a roundabout. Ricord: From staff s perspective, has there been more or less public support for the concept of roundabouts since the Lemay/Mulberry issue. Bracke: Since the decision not to proceed, I have received a number of phone calls from people who were silently in support of the roundabout and they were sorry to see it go. They did not take the effort to support it publicly. I didn't receive any calls or letters in the negative. There was a motion by Johnson for the board to advise Council to support the roundabout resolution. 5.a. FORT COLLINS I-25 SUB -AREA PLAN UPDATE — JACKSON & WAIDO Jackson introduced Ken Waido from the City's Planning staff. A memo from the Natural Resources Board was distributed as an FYI. He stated that he would focus on the I-25 Sub -area Plan as opposed to the Regional Corridor Study Area Plan that he has been talking about for the past few months. In terms of the Regional Plan, the message from the many groups involved is that a more fine-grained look needs to be taken at what is being done. The analysis is too general etc. The sub -area plan does just that. Here is the chance to get a flavor of what exactly the sub -area plan is about. He said that he would like to devote the time to Waido who is the project manager for the sub -area plan and discuss the land use aspects and implications. This board has received the transportation portion of the plan before - - the potential Master Street Plan as such. Waido referred to a displayed map of the draft land use plan and explained land use alternatives that were considered. The study area is a component of the regional plan. The northern boundary is CR 52, south is CR 32, western boundary is .5 mile west of the interstate and as far as CR 5 on the east. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 9 He then talked extensively about the land use plan and gave a summary of cost and revenue estimates for road improvements within the I-25 Sub -area Plan. The floor was then turned over to the board. Board comments/questions: Johnson: If we leave our boundary well to the east of CR 5, we should let the county be concerned about how to fund that. We have so many capital needs in the city that we do not know how to fund, that I think that leaving that for the County is a good project for them. We have already approved the development in the northeast part of Ft. Collins — north of Vine and west of the interstate — we haven't begun to work or to build in that area and I think we need to focus our efforts on the west side of the interstate so I don't support this sub -area plan. Waido: That's a good timing question. This is a plan for if and when the area was to develop. That area has a plan for it to develop in an infrastructure that will support that development ultimately whenever it happens. There are areas already within the growth management area that have been there for 20 years. I've heard that what you want to do here is entice the development and I look at it more as when and if it happens this is the plan for the way it should happen. Henderson: With the Mountain Vista sub -area Plan, what does that lock in as far as development to the east of I-25. Waido: No. Because of our shortfall with capital for streets right now, we're taking on a huge obligation here. Trantham: I agree with things that Tim said. I don't think it has to do with teaching the county a lesson, I think it is being realistic about what we can pay for and what we can't. Waido: The oversizing obligation for the improvements within the study area is estimated at $21.9M. The oversizing fee estimates for revenue generation is $40.3M. Miller: What specifically are we being asked to do? Is this just an FYI? Jackson: Yes, this is an update. We do plan on coming back to you as we move forward. Miller: I'm all for looking as ahead as we can to plan things out, but I certainly echo the comments that have been made here as far as the implementation and when and if it comes and who pays for it. Kramer: The only thing I see is from the other advisory board and what we heard tonight, there is always stuff annexed in the city east of the interstate already. So there's not really a hard boundary unless you are going to Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 10 throw something back out of the city. I think the plan is fine, but here again, it definitely has to be development paying for it only. Johnson: The cost apart from the interchanges are 10% in excess of the revenues that you are citing. Waido: You have to remember that development is going to pay a share as well as street oversizing. Johnson: We need to sit down and talk about this because I am not convinced at all that that's the way this will shake out. Secondly, the part that we neglect completely is that if we add a lot of development into an area like this and what our street oversizing does not do today and doesn't really at all, is part of it when developers pay street oversizing, part of the contribution comes from the General Fund with the assumption that we all use those streets, therefore we all benefit. We all pay as a community. What is not taken into account, is when you have higher density development on this side and they bring traffic into the city, making us having to widen an intersection, contribution is not fair. That comes to us by way of fixing existing deficiencies with new taxes. If you bring in greater development, you are creating a greater problem on that end and that is something as a city that we have to get after and address sooner rather than later. Waido stated that the Sub -area Plan would go to City Council on September 18. The intent is to make some decisions on the land use map. Jackson added that the board will see the plan again and staff will ask for a recommendation to Council. Chair Ricord stated that he hopes that it is not before its time. The significance of this is astronomical to the community. 6. a. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Gould: Mason Street Transportation Corridor. There is a proposal being made now for the MSTC for funding from the Federal Transit Authority. I was involved in preparing a couple of supporting letters for that. I thought that was a nice practical milestone in this process for the MSTC. Future A¢enda Items. There are areas that we haven't had much discussion about such as, the I-25 corridor Plan, Regional Transit District that is under discussion at the MPO level. Is there a study going on? Bachman: We can have the new Executive Director of the MPO come and talk about that. Bike Lane Improvement Request. Some time ago, I made a request that staff look into the opportunity to improve the bike lane near the Operation Electric site on Mason since they moved out. This would be a good time to change the parking on this block from diagonal to parallel to match the rest of the corridor. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 11 Kramer: Magazine Article. There was a small article in a magazine about how planning ahead resulted in a high-speed train commute from one city to another. Having something like this could really change us. I thought it was interesting and liked how it points out that planning ahead is so important. Miller: Lack of STOP Sign - SafetyIssue. At the NE corner of Harmony and College, in the parking lot, there is a dangerous situation. If you're not aware when leaving the lot, you can easily roll right into College Avenue and get hit. Transfort Article/Letter to Editor. Did I miss something? From reading the article it seems that council wants staff to look at Transfort as a primary service as opposed to the grid system. (A couple of members relayed their interpretation of the editorial.) Yeldell: Hydrogen Task Force Report. There is one more meeting on July 30 to finalize a recommendation to the report. There will be a series of recommendations in there, one of which will be the pursuit of a hydrogen cell powered bus. Request for Agenda Items. Would like to see some attention given to some of the true transportation issues such as the new traffic control system. What is the plan, where are we and again, what can we expect? It was agreed that September might be a good time to have this item come to the board. Trantham: Compliment. The presentation done from the front of the room was so much better than the slide show. Johnson: ITE Award. As a board we should give the highest commendation to Susanne Durkin -Schindler who was the task force leader. The City should recognize her for that. Perhaps we could invite her here and tell her thank you from the group. Parking for Bicycles. Would like a report to compare parking for bicycles cost to what the parking space cost per car is. This would include maintenance and revenues. It would help to keep things in perspective. Finance Sub -Committee Report. We need to look at how the impact is when we do have growth and how it impacts the old part of the city and the ability of street oversizing — the fact that it doesn't deal with that issue very well. We need to find some kind of nexus to tie development into bringing more congestion to the heart of the city. This is a long-term proposition and I'm not sure we can solve it in a few months' time. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 12 6. b. STAFF REPORTS Bachman distributed a couple of items one of which was a memo from John Daggett comparing Boulder's bus service to Fort Collins'. The second item was the SMARTTrips Annual Report. Bachman went over the tentative agenda for the August board meeting, but first noted that the board meetings will be held in the new City building located at 215 N. Mason, in the Community Room located at the north end of the building. Items for the agenda: • I-25 Sub -area Plan Adoption (tentative) • Discussion on short-term capital • Information discussion on Street financing (tentative) McNair stated that in spite of the high number of cones out there on the streets, we are not yet peaked out. During the weekend of July 28, CSU will be closing College Avenue. At that moment portions on all four arterials will be closed at the same time. In addition, a contract is being awarded for the Taft Hill Improvements. So that will complete the sweep. Construction on Taft will begin at Drake in August. OTHER BUSINESS There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, . 40Ck�I Cynthia Scott Executive Administrative Assistant /a ri 44 � ,;.y LidAitat 6Y) 13T � ) ql Z00) .