Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 04/19/2000Draft minutes to be approved by the Transportation Board at their May 17, 2000 meeting. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD April 19, 2000 5:45 p.m. City of Fort Collins — City Hall West 300 LaPorte Avenue FOR REFERENCE: Chair: Tim Johnson................416-0821 Vice Chair: Chris Ricord.................472-8769 Staff Liaison: Randy Hensley.............416-2058 Admin Support: Cynthia Scoff...............224-6058 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Gould Tim Johnson Tom Kramer Brad Miller (late) Ray Moe Chris Ricord Brent Thordarson Heather Trantham (late) Mary Warring Steve Yeldell CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Daggett Gary Diede Susanne Durkin Tom Frazier Randy Hensley Mark Jackson Ron Phillips Cynthia Scott Timothy Wilder ABSEN : Bruce Henderson GUESTS IN ATTENDANCE: Leigh Winfield D-A-R Advisory Board Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 5:55 p.m. Leigh Winfield, representing the Dial -A -Ride Advisory Committee, was introduced. Mr. Winfield or another representative will be attending future Transportation Board meetings. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes April 19,2000 PUBLIC COMMENT None Page 2 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion and a second to approve the March 15, 2000 Transportation Board meeting minutes as presented Discussion: Warring stated that dialogue regarding Trucks on Vine Drive was not included in the minutes. She asked that Scott include that discussion. The minutes, with the exception of Warring's addendum, were unanimously approved 3. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT None 4. ACTION ITEMS a) DOWNTOWN RIVER CORRIDOR —Wilder Wilder said that the primary agenda of the Downtown River Corridor Implementation Plan (DRCIP) was to start coordinating existing projects in the DRC and to identify new projects based on existing plans and studies that have been adopted, including City Plan. There was an extensive outreach process that included: • An October 6 Community Meeting ■ A joint Downtown River Corridor/Floodplain regulations open house on April 3 ■ Meetings with community organizations ■ Meetings with City boards and commissions The changes in projects and priorities are: • Projects in the 100-year Poudre River floodplain are recommended as 1s' or 2n° priority. Projects for purchase from willing sellers are located at the Oxbow, N. College and Vine, and the Triangle (south of Buckingham Park). • The "Cache La Poudre River Habitat Restoration" project is recommended as a is` priority. • The "Address Contaminated Sites" project is recommended as a 1" priority. • The "Recreational River Channel Enhancements Feasibility Study" project is recommended as a feasibility study and as a 1•` priority. • "Jefferson/Linden Intersection Improvements" is recommended as a 1" priority. However, this project would most likely be completed with the other streetscape improvements. ■ The titles of some projects have changed slightly. There are now 17 projects from an original list of over 100. A listing and description of these were included in the Board's packets. After the May 16 Council meeting, an interdepartmental team will follow up on issues including design, timing, cost, and funding sources. Council will be asked what they see as overall community priorities. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes April 19, 2000 Page 3 Wilder briefly explained how to use the matrix that was part of the information in the packets. The matrix includes the Project, Next Step, Cost of Improvements and Possible Funding Sources. Upon conclusion of Wilder's presentation, Chair Johnson asked for board member's comments. BOARD COMMENTS/QUESTIONS: Thordarson: Looks like a good focus in relation to transportation. Ricord: Under the 1" Priority list, Lincoln/Willow/Linden Streetscape and Bridge — shouldn't those be treated separately? TW: We consulted with Engineering on that and it will require 4 lanes, making the bridge a required improvement in conjunction with the streetscape. CR: "Off -street Public parking" - What exactly does that mean in here? TW: It was simply a way to start. CR: Is there a plan for a public library in that area? TW: One possibility is in the Civic Center area at Maple and Howes and another possibility is across from El Burrito. CR: I see that the Oxbow project made to the 15' priority list - I don't agree with it. Gould: Access — make sure we provide mobility. The naming of the projects is everything. 1st priority' could be called "access" instead. Warring: I don't agree with the prioritization. There are important things at the end and even though you say you can skip to those, in general if you have items at the top, that's what is going to be the priority. We are putting a lot of money into street and transportation issues and we have our natural areas and floodplain protection at the bottom and 1 disagree with that. They should be towards the top. In respect to the funding sources, I noticed on Linden/Willow and Lincoln, MPO is listed as a possible source. I don't understand that. What about the General Improvement District? That isn't listed anywhere as a source. TW: The GID is a very limited source of funds. There are a lot of different types of improvement districts and we're not sure which one is the most appropriate at this point. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes April 19, 2000 Page 4 MW: The underlying concern that I have is - are some of these things what the community wants to see prioritized right now? We have the signal system, street maintenance, road needs and they are significant. I don't think General Fund monies or things like that should be allocated to these topics right now. TW: A later version of this matrix will show no General Funding with the various improvements because we heard from Council that they probably wouldn't use that kind of funding. Yeldell: Has there been a study for the overall improvement as it affects VMT in the various corridors of the city? TW: No. SY: as we do things like this, we need to know what the impact is going to be. Johnson: There is $300M in transportation needs, so I can't support the 1 s` priorities on this list. We must look at integrating facilities. There are two parking structures downtown and there is a transit program, although it's not as strong as we would like it to be, but to not think about integrating the shuttle system with present facilities and to talk about off-street public parking as a first priority?! We must look at integrating these facilities first instead of asking if additional parking is needed after you make use of that. You can also look at the Mason Street project as a way to distribute parking throughout the whole community. I can't support the 1s' priority based on that. There was a motion to draft a list of the Transportation Board's concerns/comments to staff and City Council. The draft should capture the sentiment of the comments made during this session. Hensley will send it to Wilder. There was a second and the motion carried unanimously. Phillips suggested that everyone e-mail any additional comments soon. b) TRANSFORT STRATEGIC OPERATING PLAN — Daggett Daggett gave the Board an in-depth PowerPoint presentation on the Transfort Strategic Operating Plan (TSOP). He first explained that planning began in November of last year in an effort to examine the role of Transfort in providing mobility and accessibility in the community in the years ahead. The plan is being coordinated with the Mason Street Transportation Corridor Project and the Colorado State University Strategic Transportation Plan. It is also charged with maintaining transit's compatibility with City Plan. A consulting firm has been retained to complete the planning elements that include the determination of a strategic approach for the transit system as well as the development of a general operating plan and an update to Transfort's official operating document, the Transit Development Plan. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 April 19, 2000 The essential question for the Board is: "What is transit for?" COVERAGE (dispersed service everywhere) or PRODUCTIVITY (frequency and speed where there's demand). A lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of each type of service ensued. The following are main comments from the board: "Productivity" would be better at reducing VMT - Combine the two — have Dial -A -Ride provide the coverage and use transit buses for productivity Would be more efficient to provide transit routes in each quadrant of the City, rather than having a bus travel from one side of the city to the opposite side. (Make more efficient use of vehicles.) - City Plan should be the driving force in the decision - Productivity will lead to more coverage Focus on 70% productivity and 30% coverage - Public perception is important in terms of funding Don't exclude coverage for feeder system - Experiment with new technology Dial -A -Ride has to be included in the consideration because it's in the fixed route cost Need some coverage in order make the core area work extremely well - Reminder: City Plan also says to connect major activity centers with high frequency transit - If there are additional resources, focus on the productivity portion NEXT STEPS: There will be an Open House on May 8 from 5 — 8 p.m. in the CIC. In the immediate future, staff will draft and refine the Strategic Plan and then develop an Operating Plan to support the Strategic Plan. Staff will come back to the board in June or July and hope to have the Plan adopted by City Council in October. There was a motion to recommend that Transfort's Strategic Operating Plan should focus allocation of service on the productivity model without eliminating the coverage model. There was a second Discussion: Some board members felt it is premature to do a motion at this point. The motion carried by a majority vote. (7-3) c) TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT STATEMENT — Gould, Ricord, Warring A hand-out was distributed that basically outlined the content of three different letters to send to City Council. After a very brief discussion, there was a motion to send the frst letter to City Council and copy board members via e-mail. The motion carried unanimously. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes April 19,2000 Page 6 5. DISCUSSION ITEMS a) MASON/MCCLELLAND STUDY RESULTS - Durkin/Moe Durkin and Moe provided a report on the McClelland Extension project. This study was undertaken to determine if improvements for vehicular traffic on a roadway parallel to College Avenue would be a cost-effective solution to congestion on College Avenue. Three design elements were discussed: 1. Two -Way McClelland Extension to Prospect Road 2. One -Way Couplet Mason/McClelland from Horsetooth to Harmony 3. Drake to Rutgers Connection BOARD COMMENTS/QUESTIONS: Thordarson: How much would right-of-way acquisition add to this — 50%, 100% more? RM: It can be significant. Between Rutgers and Drake, there is some available right-of-way but other than that, no. BT: So, with that additional expense you're looking at a price tag that is comparable to what it would cost to do the transit, bike/ped portion of the Mason Street corridor. So you've found something that barely changes the way it is going to be anyway. RM: The question has come up, what is this going to do to relieve College and we've said earlier that College has such a demand, given its supply, that whatever you do pull off, will in essence, be replaced and I think this really illustrates that. It doesn't matter what solution you throw at it, you can add more lanes out there and have the same net result, so therefore let's pick the quality of the alternative that you want to do. Miller: Which one of the alternatives would move more people? RM:The lead team is still working on values such as that. Gould: Does the model include parking? Are there a larger number of cars arriving? RM: Keep in mind that we're dealing with person trips. How do you get from one point to another and you have a different sort of choices on how that person trip occurs. We've been primarily dealing with one set of auto trips, but as an alternate to that, if you provided some sort of transit, bike or ped, would you save some funds by not having to fill up another floor of a parking garage or something like that? Yeldell: You don't reflect on the matrix the decrease on College (by 3,000), just an increase in overall VMT (by 15,000) on the corridor. What VMT growth number should be used? How does the 15,000 increase reflect on the growth numbers? RM: It's probably low. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes April 19, 2000 Page 7 Durkin stated that no action or direction from the board is needed at this point as this is just an FYI only at this point. We have to address the issues that are presented to us by our lead team as well as from citizens asking that same question. It is certainly a better strategy to address these issues up front rather than have them linger at the back side where we will be criticized for not exploring these options. I think that in order to make this a situation that has some merit in terms of overall mobility in the corridor, no matter what the mode of travel, I think you will more than likely see the Lead Team probably recommend that we do this intersection improvement here at Horsetooth and maybe the Rutgers extension, but I don't know for sure. We also know that if we were to approach the railroad today, and ask if we could add cars within their right-of-way, they would say no. Johnson: I think the sense of the board is that the BASE option makes the most sense and is worth looking into. (Improve Horsetooth intersection and extend McClelland to Rutgers.) Miller: I think we have to be careful from a perception standpoint because if the perception is that we're not open to even looking at these kinds of things, then that's a mistake. Warring: How did we ever get to the point of letting the concept that transit can be construed as roads? How did that ever go on? That is just not factually correct. SD: What I have heard is that when they voted for the item and saw "transportation corridor' they thought it was for all modes and because the ballot language was somewhat abbreviated, they were under that misconception. I also have to say as a counter to that, at every public meeting we have held, I have not heard one person tell me they want more automobiles in the core area. Everyone has said to keep it free of automobiles. Johnson: Someone needs to list the comments heard tonight and bring it for consideration in the future. Yeldell: I think the numbers from the JFK/College parallel should be rolled into this example so you can see what it does. Durkin thanked the board for their time and stated that staff will come back with a conceptual plan in the future and eventually ask the board to make a recommendation. b) TRUCK BYPASS UPDATE — Jackson No action needed tonight, just a basic project overview on how staff has strategized to attack the next round of the truck route relocation project. Jackson then gave the same PowerPoint presentation as to City Council two weeks ago. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes April 19,2000 Page 8 The project itself is very clear in its charge. It will be a cooperative effort between city, county, regional and state agencies. A significant amount of public outreach and involvement and communication will be the course of the project. Staff took forward a phased planning effort that will comply with the ballot language and hopefully set the stage for a successful analysis and recommendation for reduction of truck traffic on both SH 14 and US 287 within the City of Fort Collins Urban Growth Area and perhaps even beyond that in northern Larimer County and Upper Front Range region as well. Warring: Does the ballot language specifically state that the truck traffic has to come off of SH 14? MJ: It says that trucks should be encouraged to use the existing interstate system unless they have local deliveries. BOARD COMMENTS/QUESTIONS: Warring: After seeing the presentation, it looks like a good plan. It seems to me that first bullet is inconsistent with the rest of what you're doing and in fact the 4"' bullet on page 14 limits the through traffic to SH 14 and US 287 and the board has... Phillips explained that this is just presentation material and is not legal language. What we've said is that we're going to include looking at all through truck traffic no matter where it is and discouraging it. We want to encourage it to stay on I- 25/1-80. This could have been said differently, but doesn't control the outcome. Ricord: The only comment I would make on this that Mary spoke about earlier, is the language that has reference to state highways. I would also hope that in future presentations that other alternatives to pass through are mentioned. Johnson: Chief Harrison said that signage for a dedicated truck route would be an effective strategy. MJ: I agree and we'll look at that. Warring: Doesn't the ballot initiative specify almost a concurrent effort of getting the pass -through trucks out and the relocation efforts? So, for instance if there are recommendations like offering incentives for pass -through traffic that we could then immediately fund them at the same time you're working on the site — you don't have to wait until the study is completed. MJ: Good point. I'll check into that. 6. REPORTS a) Board Member Reports Warring: ! eaaaue of Women Voters. A flyer was distributed on an upcoming forum — The Future of Regional Transportation. The panel includes Ron Phillips, Tom Norton, Jim Disney and Jeff Kullman. Encouraged board members to attend. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes April 19, 2000 Page 9 Yeldell: LUTRAQ. Growth numbers that we've been achieving show that we are already at the numbers that we are supposed to be at 10 years from now. In light of that, if you look at the overall City Plan and the way it's laid out, and what is supposed to be implemented in relation to transportation, they all have to come together first. Trantham: Overland Trail. On the FYI enclosure, Overland Trail is still designated as a four -lane arterial, south of Drake and it seems to be the road to nowhere and if it's not going anywhere, there's no reason to have it on the Master Street Plan. MJ: I try to look at MSP issues quarterly and that is one of the things that I want to look at. Gould: Soapbox Article, Last Friday there was an excellent Soapbox in the Coloradoan in regard to traffic laws. Phillips suggested attaching it to the letter from the Safety committee. Ricord: Soapbox Article. I brought copies of that article for everyone. Thordarson: Reported on another case of bad motorist behavior. Hensley: Council Finance Committee Report. There was a meeting this morning and that information will be passed on to the finance sub- committee soon. A synopsis will be sent to Warring as well. Mason Street Transportation Corridor Workshop on May 3 will focus on the model. It will be from 3 — 8 p.m. @ the Streets Facility. Board & Commission Terms. A note from Karla Smith in the City Clerk's Office — an ordinance will be brought to Council on June 6 which will extend every board members' term, meaning that they will expire on December 31 rather than June 30. The year of expiration will not change. Letters will be sent out after the ordinance passes to inform board members of this action. Phillips: CDOT Transportation Survev. Shared results of survey that was prepared by Kelly Nordini of CoPIRG. Examples of questions asked were: What % of funds should be spent on each mode (Rail/Bus, Highways, HOV); What would make it easier for you to travel (public transportation or roads/highways); What priority should each mode have for the state's transportation system (Denver Light Rail, Passenger Rail or Highway Construction); etc. Attached to the survey was a fact sheet on the transferability of highway program funds. Roundabout. Staff is exploring an appeal process with CDOT. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes April 19, 2000 Page 10 7. NEXT AGENDA - Pedestrian Plan Update — K. Reavis - INFORMATIONAL - Access Plan for Harmony Rd/S. College — Reavis — INFORMATIONAL - LUTRAQ Overview of Discussions/Recommendation - INFORMATIONAL - Follow-up Letter for Traffic Enforcement/Safety - ACTION OTHER BUSINESS There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Cynthia . Scott Executive Administrative Assistant