Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 04/18/2001REGULAR MEETING MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD April 18, 2001 5:45 p.m. City of Fort Collins — City Hall West — CIC Room 300 LaPorte Avenue FOR REFERENCE: CHAIR: Christophe Ricord 472.8769 VICE CHAIR: Dan Gould 482.1074 ADMIN SUPPORT: Cynthia Scott 224.6058 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Gould Bruce Henderson Tim Johnson Tom Kramer Brad Miller Christophe Ricord Brent Thordarson Heather Trantham (late-unexcused) Mary Warring Steve Yeldell CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Matt Baker Don Bachman Marcus Bodine Ann Marie Ferry Tom Frazier Claudia Benedict Randy Hensley Mike Herzig Cam McNair Ron Phillips Kathleen Reavis Cynthia Scott Chair Ricord called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. ABSENT: Ray Moe GUESTS IN ATTENDANCE: Natalie Brown — DAR Liaison Rich Follmer - FHU Michelle - FHU Tess Jones - CDOT Jana McKenzie Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes April 18, 2001 Page 2 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion and a second to approve the March 21, 2001 Transportation Board minutes as presented Discussion: Warring referred to page 12, 2ad paragraph the following sentence: `Based on my own personal experience with CR 5, I understand the premise of ROW." She stated that she does not recall making that comment. The gist of what she was saying is that she does n't feel CR 5 would have the need to be a four -lane arterial based on driving it everyday and seeing the pattern of development. She requested that the sentence be changed to read as follows: "Based on my personal experience with driving CR 5 that I do not see the necessity for a four lane arterial between SH-14 and Harmony now or in the long term future based on the pattern of development in the area." It was noted that on page 1 where it says "Chair Johnson called the meeting to order..." that should be changed to "Chair Ricord" instead. The question was called and the motion passed unanimously 10 — 0. 3. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT None Don Bachman, Policy & Budget Analyst for the Transportation Service Area was introduced. Don will be the staff liaison for the board beginning in May. 4. CONE ZONE REPORT - 2001- McNair McNair thanked the board for allowing this item to be first on the agenda. He introduced Marcus Bodig and Claudia Benedict with GIS and Mike Herzig and Ann Marie from Engineering. The purpose for the presentation is two -fold. One is a heads up that it will be an interesting construction season. He said that he hopes by giving out information in advance, the trouble spots can be avoided. The second purpose is to give the board a preview of a project coordination program that is being developed. It is not complete yet and this board is the first to see it other than staff. It will show the way that staff tries to coordinate among all the projects that go on in the city, not just projects that Engineering manages, but other departments and contractors as well. McNair then gave a presentation with the following highlights: ■ Project Coordination Map — Captures all known capital construction projects, was previously published only once a year, will soon be on the web with links to project web sites. Mike Herzig demonstrated how this program works. All the project managers will eventually be able to update their own projects so information is always current. At the moment, this program is only accessible internally. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes April 18, 2001 Page 3 ■ Major Traffic Impacts —there are several projects in 2001 expected to cause significant delays/congestion. Each of the following projects were presented in detail to the board: 1. Timberline/Drake 2. Timberline/Harmony 3. Harmony, Corbett to Cambridge 4. Timberline @ Trilby 5. Lemay, Riverside to Lincoln 6. Lemay, Horsetooth to Prospect 7. Horsetooth, Shields to College 8. Drake, west of Shields 9. Foothills Mall area 10. Doctors Lane area 11. Shields, Trilby to Fossil Creek Dr. 12. Shields, south of Trilby 13. Taft Hill, Drake to Horsetooth 14. Downtown (Locust St. Outfall, Oak St. Outfall, and Mason St. @ Civic Center Area) At the conclusion of the presentation, there were several suggestions from the Board. It was suggested that the City news would be a good place to present the web site to the community and to show how it works and secondly, it was suggested that an entire issue of City news be dedicated to talking about the construction projects going on this summer. McNair said that he will be meeting with Kelly DiMartino, the City's public relations officer tomorrow to go over all the outreach options that she has available and that he will forward these suggestions to her. 4.b. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS PROCESS — Hensley Hensley said that the City Manager has asked for input and feedback from the board, which is a little departure from the normal procedure where this board advises City Council. Hensley said that this is not meant to take away the board's opportunity to advise City Council, as the board can still communicate directly to them if desired. Hensley referred to the memo that was included in the board's packets. He explained that last year when staff was in the thick of talking about transportation funding alternatives and it got down to the end where they were talking with the Council Finance Committee and getting ready to make some specific recommendations, John Fischbach and the council went on a retreat. They decided before any decisions were made, they really needed to get a handle on what types of Capital projects the City is facing over the next 10 years. Mr. Fischbach then asked all of the service area directors to go back and put together a Capital project list. Hensley stated that it is important to note that it is not truly a Capital Improvements Projects process because the list was not prioritized and there was no public involvement. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes April 18, 2001 Page 4 Staff set about creating an inventory list of Capital projects. When compiled, it created a very thick notebook. Council then asked for it to be narrowed down, to be more focused. This is where staff is currently in the process. Mr. Fischbach is in the process of putting together what his recommendations are going to be to City Council about Capital projects and he has asked for the board's input. The type of feedback that he is looking for is not necessarily a list of the board's priorities, although that is perfectly acceptable if that is what is desired. What Mr. Fischbach is really looking for is what are the major issues you see, what are the major factors that would make one project more important than another and so on. Hensley added that it may the kind of thing one would write on a comment sheet at an open house at the mall. Phillips added that there would be more opportunities for input. For instance, once Mr. Fischbach makes a recommendation to Council, there will be another opportunity to see this again and provide input. Hensley asked for Scott's assistance in compiling a list of board members' comments and based on the board's action, format them and send to the City Manager. Mr. Fischbach needs this information as soon as possible as he is using it for budgeting purposes. Hensley began at the back of the packet, attachment 5, where all the Capital projects that transportation staff is aware of over the next 20 years are listed. Attachment 4 is a narrowed down list of 32 projects that are the second tier of priorities. They are on the - radar screen, but not very bright and are a 10-year outlook. Attachment 3 is a list of 22 projects that staff refers to as the first tier, or high priority projects over the next 10 years. Attachment 1 is a list of 10 projects that are Transportation staffs highest priorities for the next 4 years. Project descriptions of those 10 projects are included as Attachment 2. Hensley briefly discussed the criteria the City used in coming up with the list. Some of those were Level of Service (LOS), accident/safety history, and items that would further City Plan. He explained that in the past, the process was informal. Many cities have well defined prioritization processes with well-defined criteria, objectives, a mix of quantitative and qualitative methodology and staff is researching that right now because our City needs that. Even the Metropolitan Planning Organization has a defined process. Hensley then turned the floor over to the board for feedback and Chair Ricord asked each member to speak to the item. Thordarson: Overall, in looking the list over that has been generated thus far, it looks like we're addressing the most glaring deficiencies that exist in terms of current traffic flow. Harmony and Timberline both need to be addressed in the short term. I also favor addressing existing deficiencies. At least one existing major arterial project, such as Prospect between Shields & Lemay, should be included as a priority. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes April 18, 2001 Page 5 In terms of the specific projects on the list, Harmony will be completed, with the exception of the bike lanes from Taft Hill (@ the RR tracks) and College Avenue. So you will have a very nice bike facility with the exception of a very congested area that is about an eighth of a mile in length. It would really be nice to see that addressed as part of the Harmony project. Also, I wonder if we could consider the Harmony/Shields roundabout as part of this project. Thordarson said he has a question about the Timberline and Vine improvement as it addresses something quite a bit further out in the future in terms of anticipated demand. I wonder if there are other projects that might be little more immediate in their need in terms of the first cut list. McNair explained that the intersection of Vine at Lemay is a troublesome intersection now. The only other major route into the northeast area is Vine and Timberline. The City wants to encourage development in the northeast area because they have a nice master plan and they are really trying to model it after the City Plan type of development. The problem is, you can't get there. We would like to do both, but we probably can't afford to because of the RR tracks and trying to build an overpass is expensive. If a choice had to be made, it would be staffs desire to focus on Timberline as the major entryway for traffic into the Mountain Vista area. Thordarson said that Taft Hill south of Horsetooth or Prospect would be one choice to replace one of the two Vine intersection projects on the list. Thordarson's last comment was that if there were anyway to provide additional funds for transit, it would be nice to see. It looks as if we are primarily focusing on existing buses in terms of the immediate short-term. If there was some way to come up with some funding to increase the coverage as part of the higher priority level, that would be great. Warring: On the high priority projects, the list totals $185M and $34M a year comes from Street Oversizing, so that is possibly $30-40 M over 10 years. Where does the rest come from? Warring said that since Street Oversizing represents such a small percentage, projects that are community oriented such as transit or Mason Street Corridor as opposed to projects that are being done for anticipated growth need to be the highest priority. "I think we need to start looking at prioritization with the question of how it's going to be paid for as a primary concern as opposed to something that we talk about in a secondary capacity. That would be my hope — that we look at those projects that need to be funded with tax dollars like transit and things that is not something that growth is necessarily going to pay for. On the second tier list, you have the Truck Route Relocation for $85M and I think that represents a significant percentage of the total for the second tier projects. I wonder if it's really compatible w/City Plan to spend $85M of taxpayers' money to push a road out into a peripheral area outside the City. I don't see that as consistent with compact development. It seems sprawling. I can't see that as a priority at all." Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes April 18, 2001 Page 6 Gould. Asked a couple of questions for clarification on funding the MSTC then stated that overall, he sees the reasoning of the list as there is no denying the need for arterialization, but wonders about putting both Timberline (@Vine) and Lemay (@Vine) on the first list of 10 projects. Perhaps leave the cheaper one in and I would really like to put in a plug for getting more balance in the top 10 list by going to something that has a lot of community value and that is the Pedestrian Plan and ADA Improvements. I would like to see that substituted in for one of the two arterializations with the idea that it would show real commitment to some balance of all the different users of our mobility infrastructure. Johnson: Some of the points that Brent and Mary made are good. The overall number for the highest priorities comes to about $80M and that is the 4 year list. If you take a one - cent sales tax, that generates about $20M a year. So, it would be a one -cent sales tax for 4 years. My view is that this list has to be pared substantially from what we are looking at. I don't think the City will come up with one -cent on these projects. Whenever we are discussing funding, transit has to be bumped up to one of the next priorities in the Transit Plan. We also need to focus as much money as we can on the interior problems that we have. Brent mentioned Prospect and Shields north of campus where there are horrendous situations with bicycling safety in that area. Pedestrian Plan improvements, yes. Yeldell: I agree with Mary on the Truck Route Relocation project. It should not have a priority anywhere within city projects. As I review the various lists, I see three different things that drive the projects: Congestion, convenience, and upgrade. As you look at those through there, that's where I was getting to the 1994 Congestion Management Plan as to not looking at things discreetly, but as an overall, citywide congestion management plan. How these things would fit into that and what impact they would have elsewhere. I agree with Mary on the Vine/Lemay project. When it comes to setting some priorities, since it is for a new development, it would have a lower weight than those things that are effecting immediacies. In looking at the Shields/Harmony Roundabout, maybe this is just a review, but it says the cost is $500,000. The one above that on the list (another roundabout project) is $350,000. Why the big cost difference? Moving on to Shields/Horsetooth, the EB turn is bad in terms of safety. There are a lot of accidents there because it backs up past the turn lane. Miller: All things considered, and given that this is a four-year distillation of the projects, I say it looks fine to me. Kramer: I was interested in the fact that Prospect to I-25 is another good east/west connection, but I wondered how much that would cost and what kind of environmental impacts there would be. I don't see anything wrong with the list. Henderson: I think it's a well -worked, well thought through list. I would like to see more transit on there, maybe sacrificing the Vine/Lemay intersection. What I would like to see is the Pedestrian Plan on the highest priority list and I was wondering if the Bicycle Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes April 18, 2001 Page 7 Plan could be split into phases in order to make it more doable since it has such a high price tag. With transit I see that we are replacing, but not purchasing new busses and we have new ones on all the other lists and I am concerned we're going to get behind the curve with being able to handle any plans. Trantham: I think the list looks pretty good and I agree with just about everyone on the board in terms of prioritizing this list. I would like to see projects that are more beneficial to the existing community. Chair Ricord: Generally, what I am hearing and what I agree with is that the modal shift possibilities should have first priority. I agree with the idea of phasing the Bicycle Plan, but I think the whole plan should be a priority. If it were phased, I think it is more politically palatable. In staying with phasing, some of the things that we see in attachment 3, specifically along Lemay and Lincoln, are three individual projects. Those three total almost $30M. Two of those are good candidates for phasing. It may be more palatable as far as tax initiatives are concerned. On attachment 4, I think the Surface Parking -Downtown River Corridor should be dropped. Chair Ricord thanked everyone for his or her comments. He said that the board is not required to make a formal recommendation, but is to provide Fischbach with a list. Hensley asked what form the board would like their comments to be presented to Fischbach in. There was a brief discussion about what form the memo should take. Chair Ricord liked the suggestion to group individual comments together to form a bulleted list and asked that the board be copied on it. Johnson then suggested that the Transportation Board's Finance Committee, which is scheduled to meet on the 4a' Thursday of the month, could focus on this issue only at their next meeting. Those members are Henderson, Ricord, Thordarson and Johnson. The group could take a look at it and see if anything is missing. It was suggested that the memo the group comes up with could be e-mailed to everyone and hard copy sent to Ricord. 4.c. DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR GRADE SEPARATED PEDESTRIAN, CYCLIST & EQUESTRIAN STRUCTURES — Reavis Reavis stated that the manual was included in the board's packets in hopes that they would have time to look at it before tonight. There will be an Open House on the 25`h and a notice was distributed. Photos of grade separated crossings in Fort Collins and other areas were shown. Reavis then referenced the manual and explained why it was developed in the first place. It was important to get the guidelines created so that going into a project up front, staff would know what the components are that need to be looked at. Not just a structural and functional issues, but the visual, the security, landscaping, constructibility, etc. as well. She also pointed out that the manual includes sections on ongoing issues associated with these facilities in terms of the operations and maintenance and how to minimize those costs over time. The document itself is not a regulatory document, it is a guidance document in terms of design techniques and when someone needs to do an under or Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes April 18, 2001 Page 8 overpass, the manual is the resource to use. The regulatory side is found in the City's Street Standards manual and it is important to remember that the manual is not meant to stand alone, it needs to be used in concert with the Street Standards manual, the ASHTO Guidelines and other regulatory documents. Reavis stated that this manual will be going to City Council for approval with a resolution, not as an ordinance. She said that if there is anything this board could do to support this project as it moves forward, it would be appreciated. Reavis asked for feedback from the board. Gould: I think it's great, but I am still wondering what should be the guidelines for the cut -through areas. Perhaps it would be better to be proactive and just design for the inevitable cut -through traffic. Yeldell made a motion to approve the document as presenter. There was a second by Warring. Discussion: Trantham: I think it's pretty complete and seems like a document that will be useful and I hope it does get used and followed. Henderson: Greatjob! Miller: Looks good. Gould: I support it. Warring: It's nice. Chair Ricord called the question. The motion carried unanimously. 4.d. HARMONY ROAD ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN — Reavis Reavis introduced Rich Follmer, consultant, and Tess Jones, CDOT, who have been partners in developing the plan. Jones distributed hard copies of the presentation and tr copy of the draft Executive Summary for the project and a copy of the Access Plan handout that has been used at some of the public meetings. Reavis stated that she gave an update to the board a year ago. At that time, the Harmony Road Access Control Plan and the S. College Avenue Access Control Plan bundled together as one project. Over the past year, staff finalized a lot of the planning issues on the Harmony corridor project and they felt it was probably better to bring this part of the project forward rather than holding it back because many issues are still being worked out on the S. College Corridor. The goal is to come up with a long-range access plan for the Harmony corridor that works for the agencies involved as well as the business and property owners along Harmony Road. The cornerstone of the project is safety and equitable access and mobility along the corridor. It is known that improvements will come about over time. The plan intent is to improve safety and traffic flow for all modes of transportation. She mentioned that this is a joint project between the City of Fort Collins, CDOT, and Felsburg Holt and Ullevig. Reavis said that there was an extensive public outreach on the Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes April 18, 2001 Page 9 project. There were 4 public workshops and staff worked a lot with individual property owners and business owners along the corridor to make sure that their needs are being met. A lot of the new development that is coming in along the Harmony corridor at this time, staff worked with them in developing updates and changes to ensure that everyone was in sync in terms of what needed to happen and where. One question that is always asked is "When will this happen and who will pay?" The "when" is really through redevelopment or development along the corridor or when safety conditions become apparent that need to be fixed prior to new development. In that case, if it is through the DP, the "who" would be a combination of public and private funds. If it's a safety enhancement project, it's primarily public funds. This isn't as prevalent on Harmony, but in some cases, property owners may just decide to improve their own frontage for their own purposes, without actually redeveloping their property, which in that case would privately funded. Reavis showed the Long -Term Access/Circulation Plan for Harmony that includes the typical cross section for Harmony. She explained that staff is looking for the Board's support on the project tonight. She added that this will be taken to the Planning & Zoning Board and then City Council for their approval as well. Intergovernmental agreements will be made between the City of Fort Collins and the Colorado Department of Transportation. It would actually be an update to the existing IGA as there is already one in place. Some of the features that were used on North College/Jefferson/Mulberry would be incorporated into the IGA in terms of review process, amendment process, etc. Chair Ricord asked for board questions/comments. Gould: Relative to the double left -turn lanes of the intersection upgrades, will there be accommodations for pedestrian refuge zones? Reavis: Yes, our Street Standards would apply to all of the improvements that are mentioned. Johnson: How will the $25M cost be shared? Reavis: I didn't break them down in terms of public/private dollars. A lot of this will come about over time through development. Jones: There is no State money funded for work on this corridor in the next 6 years. Reavis: It is on the MPO Regional Transportation Plan for Harmony Road and listed as a CDOT Project for the widening to six lanes. It isn't on the short list, but it is in the plan. In terms of how that $25M would get apportioned over time, it's really hard to make that prediction because a lot of it is dependent on future growth. Yeldell: Add statement to the various components as to whether or not it is a short or long-term proposition, in other words, clarify which are long-term changes. Kramer: Like the idea that we're not going to try triple left -turn lanes. That is ridiculous. Gould moved to recommend approval of the Plan as presented There was a second by Henderson. Discussion: None. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes April 18, 2001 Page 10 5.a. N. COLLEGE AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT UPDATE — Reavis Reavis again introduced Rich Follmer, the consultant who helped on this project as well and Tess Jones with CDOT. Reavis informed the Board that the Open House that was originally scheduled for April 23 would now be held on April 30 in the event that anyone was interested in attending. After presenting the latest update to the project, the floor was opened to the board for comments/questions. Warring: 1) In reference to alternative #2, it is not acceptable to build a public road to accommodate a few businesses there. 2) With eliminating the left turn on Cherry from Jefferson, you did counts to see how many people turn into Taco Johns, have you done an origin type of study; where is all that traffic coming from? I'm wondering how eliminating that will impact Willow. 3) Alternative #4 has the best ped/bike access, which is good. Gould: I think you're on the right track. Don't see any lethal problem with any of them. Johnson: I think your effort to try to get CDOT to look at getting one truck through at a time makes sense. It's enough to get one of those big trucks to turn at a time, so a double turn is not needed in my opinion. Yeldell: 1) Would prefer we not lose the left turn onto Cherry. 2) This is a high pedestrian zone in city, please make sure they are taken into consideration. Miller: 1) Steve's pedestrian related comments are right on. 2) Agree that the double left -turn lane idea should be eliminated. Kramer: I'd like to see the double lefts onto Jefferson with TRUCKS ONLY in the right outside lane, not so much to accommodate truck traffic, but to help ease congestion in general. Henderson: If I were to have to eliminate one of the alternatives, I could reasonably say since #3 is a combination of #1 and #2, you could take it out. Trantham: 1) Alternative #4 is preferred, as it is the most pedestrian friendly. 2) Before eliminating left bound turn onto Cherry, do more analysis on where traffic will go and what are the consequences. The board thanked Reavis for the update and opportunity to provide input. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes April 18, 2001 Page 11 5.b. 2001 WORK PLAN REVIEW —All Chair Ricord stated that there is a City Council retreat this Saturday. Their objective is primarily to set goals and developing a priority agenda for the next couple of years. He stated that it would be wise of the board to send some kind of a recommendation to council that outlines some of the topics that are important. The Work Plan can be talked about in conjunction with the recommendation to be made before their retreat. Chair Ricord then distributed a document entitled, "Recommendations for Council Policy Agenda". After a lengthy discussion, it was agreed that the following Recommendations for Council Policy Agenda would be submitted for Council's consideration. Ongoing: 1) Full funding of maintenance using the General Fund to backfill annual deficit. 2) Complete funding for the traffic signal system. 3) Mason Street corridor/matching funds. 4) Continued focus on life cycle costing for transportation projects (wouldn't hurt to do for all big city capital projects). New: 1) Enforcement of traffic laws/traffic safety/new dedicated enforcement resources for traffic laws and traffic safety. 2) Keep the funding of transit to the next level as a central, high priority item (any new tax proposals). 3) High frequency downtown shuttle for the downtown river corridor to facilitate movement of people downtown and reduce/eliminate need for publicly subsidized parking structures. 4) Update Transportation Master Plan using LUTRAQ principles, travel demand modeling, etc. 5) Establish a well-defined Capital Improvement Program with prioritization criteria. This listing will be placed in a memo format addressed to the Mayor and City Council Members with a copy to John Fischbach. 6.a. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Trantham: Asked that staff be more realistic about time limits on the agenda. After a discussion, it was agreed that staff will do a better job of assigning time allotments on the agenda items, board members will try to save questions for after the presentation, and the chair will do a better job of keeping staff/board members on track. It was also agreed that the Chair will review the agenda with staff liaison Don Bachman before it is finalized and sent out in the packets. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes April 18, 2001 Page 12 Yeldell: 1) Hydrogen Task Force meeting was cancelled due to snow. 2) Notified the board/staff that he would be absent from the May meeting due to his plans to attend Wayne Allard's Colorado conference. Johnson: Noticed tree damage along Horsetooth west of Lemay. He asked if this was due to salt or chemical damage from snow removal. Staff stated that it is from the hot, in -place recycling (asphalt paving) train that McNair showed on a slide earlier tonight. The damage is not permanent and in the future they will be much more careful about that. Gould: Comment on an old bicycle safety issue and that maybe there is a possibility for some solution now. On north Mason, in the 100 block, the preferred way to ride north on that street is on the right side in the bike lane. However, that block has diagonal parking and saw that there has been a sign instructing bicycles to go to the west side of mason which means you cross two traffic lanes and RR tracks, then after Mountain Avenue, you have to cross back over. The reason that could never be changed, was due to the Operation Electric store who opposed it, maintaining that they needed the diagonal parking. The store has since moved out, so perhaps Reavis can be very opportunistic in this situation. Ricord: 1) Recently saw Transfort buses go by his residence with lots of people in them. This was very encouraging. 2) Crosswalk @ PVH that crosses Lemay at some place other than Doctors Lane, 1 block to the south. A lot of people jaywalk there and is a very dangerous situation. People get halfway across and then use the turn lane as a refuge. It's only a matter of time before something serious happens there. Not sure what the solution is other than to have a crosswalk there. Staff indicated they would talk to the Traffic Engineer about this. 6.b. STAFF REPORTS: It was agreed that the Finance Sub -committee would meet at 6 p.m. on May 2. 7. OTHER BUSINESS There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, &t Cynthia Scott Executive Administrative Assistant