Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 06/15/2005MEETING MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD June 15, 2005 5:45 p.m. City of Fort Collins -Municipal Building Community Room 215 N. Mason Street FOR REFERENCE: CHAIR: Brent Thordarson VICE CHAIR: Gary Thomas STAFF LIAISON: Mark Jackson ADMIN SUPPORT: Cynthia Cass BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Sara Frazier Neil Grigg Jeannette Hallock-Solomon Tim Johnson Ed Robert Gary Thomas Brent Thordarson Heather Trantham Lee Watkins CITY STAFF: Don Bachman Kathleen Bracke Cynthia Cass Tom Frazier Mark Jackson Diane Jones Kyle Lambrecht Ron Phillips 679-2165 482-7125 416-2029 224-6058 ABSENT: Bruce Henderson Kevin Westhuis OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Kurt Kastein, Council Liaison Rick Price Nancy York Will Darocette Dave Martinez, CDOT Holly Miller, FHU Chris Primus, Carter Burgess APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board June 15,2005 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Thordarson at 6.00p.m. 2. AGENDA REVIEW Page 2 of 15 Item "6d" will be moved up so that it becomes item "6b" and will be followed by the discussion with Council Liaison Kurt Kastein. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Rick Price: I live here in Fort Collins and I have a business at the end of Mason Street. I run bicycle and walking tours around the world. I visited with you on May 18. Since then, I've made comments and appeared at public sessions asking questions about the Fort Collins bicycle program and I've received feedback and input from the following boards and groups: Air Quality Advisory Board Parks and Recreation Board Fort Collins Economic and Vitality and Sustainability group Natural Resources Board City Council Senior Advisory Board Fort Collins Bike Town meeting On the 13a' we will discuss the structure for a North Front Range Bicycle Coalition which is just taking shape. You can watch for that in the future. I'd like to share with you some of the ideas of the ideas about how I think the Transportation Board might solicit input on the future of bicycling in Fort Collins. I think this is important given the following critical issues: 1) the current budget process going on in the City of Fort Collins 2) the impending Federal highway funding legislation 3) the frozen Bike/Pedestrian Coordinator position in the City which has resulted in a much reduced Bike Month and the effective elimination of the 1995 Bicycle Program Plan implementation 4) interest in reviving the Mason Street Transportation Corridor 5) increased concern about economic growth jobs in Fort Collins, traffic congestion and quality of life I think that the Transportation Board should either recommend to Council or that the board itself should reconvene a Bicycle Focus group just as it did in 1995 to revise and rethink implementation of the Bicycle Program Plan for the City. I know that: 1) The Bike Program Plan is in the proposed budget before Council. 2) That the Transportation Master Plan includes most elements of the Bike Program proposed in 1995. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board June 15,2005 Page 3 of 15 However, I also know that the economic climate in the region requires us to innovate, and to be as creative as we can if we intend to maintain the quality of life in Fort Collins and balance transportation, job growth, and economic development. A Bicycle Focus group that includes representatives from EV SAG, from the local business community, and from the newly forming North Front Range Bicycle Coalition would help City staff and Council to think through some of the difficult issues reviving in the bike program. For example: 1) The Bike Program Plan was composed initially of facilities construction followed by a program of education and encouragement. This second part was limited to Smart Trips marketing activities. It needs to be moved out of there and into a more pro -active department where public education and encouragement can be promoted more aggressively. 2) Volunteer opportunities should be developed to move the Bike Program along and to get it into the public arena more: - Bike Month could be organized with volunteer help - Bike Rangers could help with public outreach - The Senior Advisory Board told me they don't offer bike rides on our trail system for seniors because they can't afford it?! I'm not sure what cost they refer to but volunteers could likely resolve that. - Certainly there are more volunteer opportunities. The Bicycle Focus Group could further help with: 3) Public Relations: See attached "Whom to call at City Hall" with bike related issues; there was no document available to advise cyclists whom to call resulting in considerable frustration among cyclists who had the impression that the City simply doesn't care so I put one together. 4) Finally, a bicycle focus group would help mobilize the bike community to publicize bicycling opportunities and the active lifestyle available in Fort Collins to cyclists across the country. To get the word out that Fort Collins is a great place to live or to locate a business. A month ago, the League of American Bicyclists renewed the Silver Medal award for Fort Collins as a bicycle friendly community. We are one of seven of the best bicycle communities in the nation. Why hasn't the City's public relations arm bragged about this to the press? To the Community? To anyone? Are we embarrassed by it? Have we decided we don't want this award anymore? Or has it just fallen between the cracks along with the Fort Collins Bicycle Program Plan. Thank you. You can find my statement on-line as well. This is my imagination on a quiet afternoon. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 15 Transportation Board June 15,2005 Jackson said that David Averill, on the City's Transportation Planning staff, has been in contact with Mr. Price and that he is excited about working with him on updating the Bicycle Program Plan. Mr. Price stated that Averill has been very helpful and supportive as has other City staff. Will Darocette: I am a civil engineer and am also a member of the League of American Bicyclists and a lead cycling instructor. I've been in contact with Ward Stanford and Eric Bracke concerning non -responsive traffic lights. One of the things that has come out of those discussions has been an engineering and intersection design issue. The City of Fort Collins still specifies and installs "open" traffic detection loops on straight -through lanes. These loops are less sensitive and less directional (meaning that they have a diffuse hot -spot) than the figure 8 loops that are typically specified on left -turn only lanes. These Figure 8 loops are more strongly directional and consequently they can be set to be more sensitive to less metal mass without being triggered by vehicles in adjacent lanes. Why doesn't the current design standard specify the Figure 8 loops compared to the "open" loops for through lanes? The difference in cost and maintenance between the two loop types is small compared to the total cost of retrofitting an intersection. If all sensor equipped traffic signals are responsive to non - motorized vehicular traffic, it encourages safe vehicular -style cycling and discourages scofflaw behavior. This small change in intersection design standards would improve the cycling environment in Fort Collins and encourage responsible, predicable behavior among its cyclists. Thordarson asked if Mr. Darocette already has a request into Bracke or Stanford regarding this. Mr. Darocette said that he talked with Stanford concerning what the design standard was and I have a growing list of locations where there are non -responsive traffic signal detection loops. I am actually one of the contact points for the North Front Range Bicycle Coalition to speak to the City staff on that. How do the standards get changed? Jackson: Staff does an annual review of the various design standards and takes different things into consideration as we progress and learn what works and what doesn't. There is a process for that. If you will leave contact information with me, I will put you in contact with Mike Herzig in Engineering. He's the "keeper" of the design standards. Johnson asked that Mr. Darocette report back to the board after he has an opportunity to meet with Mike Herzig. Phillips added that there are many factors involved besides the type of loop that is installed. Bicycles are becoming lighter and lighter and are very difficult to detect. There are a lot of issues involved here that Traffic Operation is considering when working through this problem and they are very aware of all the issues. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (MAY 2005) There was a motion and a second to approve the minutes of May 18, 2005 as presented DISCUSSION. Johnson stated that on page 5, under his own comments, sixth line, he would like to add the words "south of" inserted before "Harmony': The question was called and the motion carried by a unanimous vote, 9-0 with the revision. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board June 15,2005 5. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT Page 5 of 15 Kastein is present, but will speak to the board later in conjunction with item 6b. 16. DISCUSSION/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS I a. I-25 N EIS PROJECT UPDATE — K. Bracke/CDOT Bracke introduced the project team. Dave Martinez, CDOT, gave an overview of the project which is an Environmental Impact Statement for the N. I-25 area. The purpose and need for the project is to meet the long-term travel needs between the Denver metropolitan area and the rapidly growing population centers along the I-25 corridor north to the Fort Collins -Wellington area. The EIS process consists of the following steps: 1) Scoping 2) Purpose & Need 3) Develop Alternatives a. Screen alternatives — LEVEL ONE b. LEVEL TWO (Where we are in the process now) c. LEVEL THREE 4) Prepare draft EIS 5) Agency review 6) Final EIS 7) Record of Decision (ROD) in early 2007 Holly Miller went over the Purpose & Need step of the process, which can be summarized as follows: safety concerns, provide mobility and accessibility, aging infrastructure, modal alternatives and interrelationships, and economic growth demands. Chris Primus discussed the forecasting methodology that has been done for the project. Holly Miller stated that in LEVEL TWO, there were six different categories of highway alternatives that were looked at: Add general purpose lanes, new highways, new parallel arterials, upgrade classification, managed lanes, and limited access lanes. Each one was described. The primary solutions recommended for further evaluation in LEVEL THREE are: • 8 general purpose lanes on I-25 to SH 1 • Toll lanes on I-25 to SH 14 • HOT lanes on I-25 to SH 14 0 Limited access lanes on I-25 to SH I APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board June 15, 2005 Page 6 of 15 The complementary solutions recommended for further evaluation in LEVEL THREE are: • Commuter Rail • Bus Rapid Transit • HOV lanes on I-25 to SH 14 • 6-lane I-25 to SH 1 • New parallel arterial roads • Upgrade US 85 to expressway • Congestion management measures • No action alternative The next steps were outlined which are: • Level 3 Evaluation • Schedule Level 3 Results — November 2005 Draft EIS — 2006 Final EIS — early 2007 How to stay involved www.cdot.info/northi25eis/ (970) 352-5455 or (303) 779-3384 There was a brief period for questions. Jackson complimented the team for all their hard work and the fine, professional job they have all done on this. b. BUILDING ON BASICS UPDATE — D. Bachman Bachman reported that Council had a Work Session the night before and that there were four questions that staff posed: 1. Which projects does Council wish to consider including on the ballot? 2. What additional information does Council need prior to selecting projects for the ballot? 3. Should O & M be included within the tax package? 4. Is the November election still appropriate? Council was provided with a set of possible recommended scenarios. They did not talk about each and every project on the list in detail. They had consensus on some of the projects and were apart on others. After about an hour and half, they came up with a $59M price tag for 10 years including O&M against a $56M projection of 2004 dollars. It was an amazing amount of progress. Bachman then went over the list with the board and reported what the Council discussed. The next step is for staff is to go back and recalculate the O & M cost and see how close we get to the $56M. Council will take another cut at it in July. At that point, we'll have to have some pretty solid direction from the Council in order to go back and write the ballot language because that has to be approved in August and do the second reading in September. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board June 15,2005 Page 7 of 15 Bachman stated that he asked this be moved up on the Board's agenda because Council Member Kastein's item is to discuss transportation finance and it seemed to make more sense to have the BOB update first. That way if the board wants to make a new recommendation given the stage that Council is at, they can do so. Board Comments/Ouestions: Robert: From a transportation viewpoint and maybe from a BOB viewpoint, this is a just a band -aid treatment postponing the hurt for maybe 10 years. There are so many things to be funded and so little money to do it. Is there any talk about separating some of this and funding it with a separate additional tax because that changes the parameters of the whole thing? Johnson: One other question I wanted to get in front of the board and council was to ask the question — what possibilities do we have on these short lists for leveraging opportunities such as College at Mulberry and College at SH 1? Bachman: In the TMP CIP, we did talk about where developer funding would partially offset some of these programs, particularly Street Oversizing. In most cases however, where we're talking about spending Street Oversizing Fees, there is also an existing deficiency that require local city capital money to fund. Is there a possibility of creating special districts to create a funding source for some of them? That's what we're doing right now on the Timberline project. We're pursuing a special district at the request of the developers. Jackson: We did assume during the CIP and the TMP that on State facilities in Fort Collins... Chair Thordarson asked Council Member Kastein to join the board and begin his discussion. c. DISCUSSION W/KURT KASTEIN —AM Kastein shared what has been done in the past, noting that there have been two new taxes in the last two ballot items to the public that didn't pass. Another option is an RTA. With an RTA you have to talk about a shareback scenario which would give you money for the City, but would also put money into the region so at that point you're talking about trading money that you're going to give to the regional pool that you could spend internal to Fort Collins on other things. Discussion: Kastein: On this particular list of items — BOB — there are some things that I get excited about. I think that the Library and the Discovery Museum are great. The transportation things that we added I thought were pretty good and are high priority items. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board June 15,2005 Page 8 of 15 Jackson: A couple of years ago, as part of the package that Council was talking about, there was a discussion about the possibility of implementing a Transportation Maintenance Fee (TMF). Where do you think Council is at with that discussion? Kastein: Good reminder. We decided at our retreat that we were going to settle on a concept called the Price of Government and that right now we won't up the ante for that in the immediate budget cycle. A TMF would up that ante, but I really think it's something that has to happen in the next couple years. Right now it's not on our radar screen. Johnson: With regard to the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), we're trying to think of ways to really reach out and get people excited and aware of transportation funding needs. Maybe a small group of us who are willing to go out and do a rubber chicken circuit could put together a small presentation to make people aware of it. Kastein: How strategical is that plan? In terms of the implementation steps to make things happen. Is it lined up that way? Is it mostly prioritized within the modes? Bachman: Yes, projects are prioritized within the modes with potential revenue sources and they are prioritized according to a lot of factors, but basically things that point out need; accident rates, capacity or lack of. There are several scoring factors that are used. The problem is not only that there is a lack of funds to leverage, but there is also a lack of match on our side to create the leverage. Grigg: One of the problems with communicating the message, I think, is that some members of the community are suspicious that we're trying to lump some things in that they don't want such as the Mason Corridor. I just think there is an underlying suspicion about what's in the package. We're going to have to do something more than just educate the community, we have to figure out how to get them to buy into it. Thomas: The comment I have is one I picked up about BOB itself is that it lacks sizzle. It has a couple of placeholders if you will, but it doesn't have that burning vision that might inspire people to vote for it. Were you driven by need or by sell -ability? Kastein: It's some kind of combination of the two. I think that Council is pretty realistic about the need part of it. We're not going to go forward with the survey. Even though that was something we talked about doing and is good thing to do, we decided that we were less interested in that. As a council, we feel like it's our job to say what the need is and to try to weigh along with that how many other people support it and if it's sell -able in that sense, but that's not the driving factor. Robert: When I was first introduced to this concept of having the citizens decide not only what you're going to do but almost to the point of saying what street you can build or not build, I understood that this new council was going to be taking a more critical look at their prioritization of need versus "nice to have" and I haven't seen that happen in anything. What I'm seeing is sell -ability versus not. I'm concerned about that. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board June 15,2005 Page 9 of 15 I really think that there is a pulse among us here that we'd like to get on some kind of bandwagon and sell a product we think is good, i.e. mobility in our city. And to have it offset some nice things that we should have whether it is an event center or whatever, we really have to get out from underneath things like BOB and sell our own program. If you take transportation mobility things out of the BOB, we would sure build a nice, neat fuzzy package in BOB and then you go out and sell the other factors. I see this as closing a door for 10 years. Johnson: I don't see it as closing a door. The kind of initiative that we have to have in capital, we're talking way beyond what we have in BOB. I think we calculated before that funding at this rate means about a 300 year funding cycle under the TMP. I think that's what we have to get people to look at. Is that adequate? Can we move it up to a hundred year funding cycle? Kastein: Let me ask you this: what do we do with the Mason Transportation Corridor? Is it left in as an option or do we decide that's something that should be a citizen initiative? Hallock-Solomon: I personally think we should put it in as a project that changes the one -ways back to two -ways. Just leave that as a project. Don't even call it Mason Street Corridor. Get that passed. I didn't even know that was part of the MTC project until I got here. Just do it in sections. Johnson: The idea with Mason is that there is a lot of potential redevelopment that can follow along that corridor and is a new attractor to the whole community, right through the core of the community. The people who are developing are very intrigued and interested and it may become a strong driver of the process. I wouldn't rule it out right now, I just don't know where it fits. Grigg: I favor separating the MTC. Thomas: I support the MTC. I think ultimately, it will become a feature the city will be proud of. There is a ton of hostility out there. I agree with Neil that it needs to be separated out. T. Frazier: I just wanted to try to help you as transportation leaders. As clarification, the Mason Corridor project is a bike/ped project and it's a BRT project. The negative vibes that you're getting are BRT vibes. We're in the process of turning dirt this summer for the other half. So every time you talk about the Mason Corridor project in terms of people don't want it, you're throwing dispersions on something that they voted for a couple times and that we're going to start building. We just need to practice saying "Bus Rapid Transit" because that's the piece that people get upset about. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board June 15, 2005 Page 10 of 15 Kastein: Talking about strategy, I hear the same things about the corridor. If we were to do it today, there's no way it could be a part of an integrated transportation package that would pass. It could possibly work as a separate item where it was a citizen initiative to do that. When you think about the strategy - that is definitely a key piece that you have to solve right off the bat. I don't know if we need Council help on that, talking about getting you started on a strategy, getting us all together or what. Right now there's not a whole lot of energy from a Council perspective to take on this thing again. Maybe in a year we can start talking about the transportation thing again. But keep thinking about those big strategies. Thordarson: In the work you're doing right now for Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO), do you have a sense yet or do you think you will whether or not that would have a measurable impact on the list of capital projects? In terms of what priorities the City decides to go forward with? Kastein: No, I really don't think it will have any impact on the capital items because we all recognize the capital items are separate money that has to be raised. Thordarson: The question is more this: If you've changed the City budget would you take another look at the list and do you think some things will just fall off because they're no longer priorities?" Kastein: I have been personally trying to convince everyone that the BFO thing and the tax/BOB thing have to march in (inaudible) because our priorities have to be the same for both. We can't apply BFO on a tax package of $5M/year. How can we apply it to a General Fund budget of $90M a year? You have to do the same thing for both. If it follows the BFO process and if we can talk about it as we prioritize other things then we can see these things jump (inaudible) to the budget and see if it makes sense or not. Otherwise we look voters straight in the face and say we've done our work on this $5M item and the $90M General Fund budget. Don mentioned that we included maintenance in the BOB items. What we did was we put in a yearly amount for maintenance and that gets multiplied by 10 for every single item on this list. So there's 10 years of maintenance associated with every item that's a capital item that has maintenance with it. So even if it doesn't get implemented for nine years, it carries with it a 10 year O & M funding mechanism which I think is a great starting point. With that there are a couple items on this list that may not survive. One of them is the Senior Center expansion and that's because it was budgeted at much more than $4M, it was more than twice that and we may not be able to build a Senior Center that amounts to anything for $4M and the Senior Center expansion carries with it some amount of Full-time Employees (FTEs) which are maybe $80,000/year when they are fully loaded with overhead and all that stuff. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board June 15,2005 Page 11 of 15 The other one is a place holder for the Performing Arts Center. It's really there just as a cultural place holder for things that we might want to do to stimulate our cultural arts in Fort Collins that has big bang for the economy. I was thinking about a partnership with the Performing Arts Center folks where we get private dollars invested and be able to have seed money for the City to do that. I don't know if it's realistic to put a place holder dollar amount in there or not. Do you have a meeting before Council meets again? Bachman: No, this is it. Kastein: I was going to email Darin and Ron to ask transportation staff to think about the next $9M that could go to transportation on this list. What would your next $9M in priorities be in case that $9M becomes available? It would be great if you could think about that and maybe have something ready in case. Thomas: I have a question. We're getting ready to come before the Council at the next Work Session for our periodic board review. What would Council like to hear from us when we do that? Kastein: In general, how are things going, are you getting the support you need from our staff and from council? I'll tell you from my perspective I don't attend Transportation Board meetings for two reasons. One is that I don't want to be the guy directing you. It's a conscious choice not to be the Council guy that "owns" the Transportation Board. The second thing is it's a time thing for me frankly. You need to tell us though, if you need more interaction with the Council as a whole or with me or whatever, you need to let that be known. I think it's good to talk about what strategic direction you would like to pursue that you don't feel you have Council support for. If you want to talk about getting the community excited about something I think it's reasonable to bring that up before the Council and see if Council agrees. Thomas: Another question I had for Council is: Do you feel us? Do you feel what we're doing here? What impact are we having when providing recommendations to Council? Kastein: Absolutely. I know that you have a good relationship with our staff and that's always been the case. I can count on Ron's opinion about what the Transportation Board has been talking about, what they're pushing for. I know when he recommends items to Council that it's been through the process with the board. That's a good thing and I see that happening. The Transportation Board is pretty visible in the city. It's probably one of three or four boards that really gets a lot of attention and I think you do a good job. We need your input. It was huge on the TMP in particular. And when you were talking about bringing items to BOB, you guys gave us a prioritized list of things you thought were important. We put that against another list that was pretty equivalent to what staff had showed us. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board June 15, 2DO5 Page 12 of 15 Watkins: I have a question regarding tax basis — with Centerra going in down at I-25 and highway 34, a lot of our sales tax could be drawn away. We've got three major interchange locations that would be ideal to lure some high revenue generators, but all three have some issues of some sort. Most of them are environmental issues. If we had a CostCo here, that would generate tremendous money because it would pull from Greeley, Longmont up to Cheyenne and all around. Has Council thought about ways they can tap into that? Kastein: The policy agenda discussion is something the Council is going to start on the 20a'. That's when we talk about our big vision things in addition to the BFO which is 90% of our big vision things. We are going to develop a policy agenda that marches along with that. There will be additional items in there. One of the things that I have thought about is relooking at some of those options even on interchanges and also things like the Harmony corridor and look again at our Land Use Code and the sub -area plans that we have in light of the economic factors to decide if we need to do something different. There's been talk about that. We'll see if it gets on our policy agenda. That's where something like that has to start. It's on my personal list of things to bring up at our policy agenda talks. Watkins: It seems to me it's critical that we do something to increase our tax base. We need to be pro -active. We've got to pull people off of I-25. Roberts: We're supposed to be the advisor to the Council. Why don't you task us with some items to work on? We're working for you indirectly. Kastein: You already have a policy plan for your board. Robert: Yes, we have a work plan but I'm not hearing much from Council in terms of feedback from the Council to our board. Lay it on us. There's a lot of talent sitting around here waiting for something to do. The board thanked Kastein for coming. Since there is more work to do on this item, there was a motion by Thomas to hold a special meeting on June 29, location to be determined by staff to consider additional recommendations. There was a second by Johnson. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. d. US 287 BIKELANES PROJECT UPDATE — K. Bracke Bracke introduced Kyle Lambrecht from the City's Engineering department and added that there are many other City departments involved in the project such as Traffic Operations, Natural Resources, Storm Water, and Parks as well as CDOT staff and representatives from Felsburg, Holt and Ulevig (FHU), City Visions, Fehr & Peers, and Lund Partnership. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board June 15,2005 Page 13 of 15 Bracke stated that the project covers the portion of S. College from Harmony Road to Carpenter. The goal of the project is to provide connectivity to the on -street bike lanes in the area as well as to the new future off —road trail system in the area and also to provide connectivity for cyclists using the Fox Trot Transit System. The overall project summary includes the vision plan for the corridor. The goals of the project are to serve multiple types of cyclists. It will serve experienced as well as recreational riders. A series of Open Houses were held. There was great attendance at each of them. The Vision Plan is focused on both the commuter and the recreational cyclists, integrating all the different types of bike facilities we have on the corridor and integrating with the transit system. The vision plan document will be finished this summer. Bracke went over the details of Phase I and what Phase 2 entails. e. PIKES PEAK RTA — B. Thordarson The Board agreed that they would still like someone to come and talk to them in person regarding this topic. Staff will set that up. Chair Thordarson asked that there be more financial details at the time of the presentation. 7. ACTION ITEMS None at this time. 18 REPORTS I a. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Thomas: Loveland. Sad news. Their Transit Manager passed away suddenly. Budgeting for Outcomes How can we, as a board, weigh in on the transportation offers? Phillips: I don't know if we'll be able to have anything for the July meeting, but certainly by August we'll have a pretty good read on what's happening. You may want to have another special board meeting at some point. We can tell you more at the meeting in July. At this point there's not much to share. Frazier: Board Retreat. It was brought up a couple meetings ago about the retreat. Perhaps at our next meeting, we can plan on a specific date to have it. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board June 15,2005 Page 14 of 15 Salazar. There has been news about transportation lately, and one of them was about Senator Salazar talking about the short window of opportunity for Northern Colorado. That's all I'll say about it unless somebody else wants to say more. Is this something that we need to be thinking about and talking about? Jackson: Just a generic response, the City of Fort Collins is as proactive as it can be on every major planning effort that we know of that has an impact on Northern Colorado. Mountain Avenue. There's a yellow stripe on the median now and now that I noticed that one, I look around as I drive around the city and there are more of them which is a wonderful safety thing, especially at night. Hallock-Solomon: Question. Do we have to publicize if more than three of us attend a meeting or when do we have to? Jackson: If it's a formally called meeting or if there is a quorum or a reasonable expectation that you're going to make a decision. Robert: Ride the Rails Invitation. Has anyone besides me received an invitation to Ride the Rails? Jackson: Transportation Planning staff received it and Kathleen is going to attend on our behalf. It's on the 27`h. Thordarson: Potential Public Relations Outreach Opportunity. If we were able to pull something together, would the board be interested in staffing a New West Fest booth? I think it's during the third week of August. There might be about 18 hours total and there are 11 members of the board. We could talk about the TMP, hand out bike maps, get feedback on what people see as deficiencies in the street system, just let people know that we're there. It would certainly be a chance to interact with a lot of people. We'd have to come with something as an eye grabber. Is there any City/Board funds we could use to rent the booth? Phillips: We need to check on that — see what the City Policies say. Sip_nals in Flash Mode. When signals go to flash mode at night, does the "walk" signal still work? Phillips: I think the theory is that if traffic volumes are low enough to go into flash mode, then someone could cross safely, but we'll check to be sure. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board June 15,2005 b. STAFF REPORTS Page 15 of 15 Jackson: Surface Transportation Policy Project. They just released a report that I think should be considered required reading by everybody in the business. It's called Driven to Spend and talks about the cost of transportation in America. I highly recommend it. Neat A -enda: • Safety & Enforcement Theme - July • Rob MacDonald for the Pikes Peak RTA if possible • Wrap up on BOB item at Council Work Session • Referendum D Update Phillips: Fort Collins Ranked #9. In a report from Allstate Insurance, Fort Collins was ranked as the 9`t' safest city in terms of auto accident rates. 19. OTHER BUSINESS 10. ADJOURN Chair Thordarson adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Cass, Executive Admin Assistant City of Fort Collins — Transportation Services