Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 08/17/2005MEETING MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD August 17, 2005 5:45 p.m. City of Fort Collins Municipal Building Community Room 215 N. Mason Street FOR REFERENCE: CHAIR: Brent Thordarson 679-2165 VICE CHAIR: Gary Thomas 482-7125 STAFF LIAISON: Mark Jackson 416-2029 ADMIN SUPPORT: Cynthia Cass 224-6058 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Sara Frazier Neil Grigg Jeannette Hallock-Solomon Bruce Henderson Tim Johnson Ed Robert Gary Thomas Brent Thordarson Lee Watkins Kevin Westhuis CITY STAFF: Cynthia Cass Tom Frazier Mark Jackson Ron Phillips 1. CALL TO ORDER ABSENT: Heather Trantham OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Rob MacDonald Allen Brown Robin Stoneman Dave Gordon John Daggett Moselle Bernal The meeting was called to order by Chair Thordarson at 5:57 p.m. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 12 Transportation Board August 17, 2005 2. AGENDA REVIEW There were no changes to the agenda. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (JULY 2005) There was a motion by Robert and a second by Henderson to approve the July 21, 2005 Transportation Board meeting minutes as presented. The motion carried by a unanimous vote, 10 — 0. 5. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT None. 6. DISCUSSIONANFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. PIKES PEAK RTA PRESENTATION —MacDonald Rob MacDonald with the Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority introduced himself. He gave a PowerPoint presentation that included the following highlights: • Election Results • Pikes Peak RTA Timeline - Started in December 2002 and ended in November 2004 • Phases and Faces of a Coalition - Exploratory Phase (geneses of the idea) - Greater Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce (Transportation Committee) - Pikes Peak Transportation Coalition: Education Phase (Steering Committee, members) - Go with IA: Campaign Phase (Issues Committee, members) • Results and Conclusions (Good issue, good strategy, and good timing) • Fundraising • Unintended Consequences • Implementation The floor was opened to the board for questions. MacDonald fielded several questions and then gave the board the following web site link: www.oprta.com where more information on this topic is located. The board thanked Mr. MacDonald for his time. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board August 17, 2005 Page 3 of 12 b. CDOT SH-392 (CARPENTER ROAD) ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW STUDY UPDATE — M. Jackson Jackson introduced Allen Brown, PBS&J and Robin Stoneman, CDOT. Jackson encouraged the board members to attend the next Open House which will be next Wednesday night in Windsor. Jackson stated that the team presented an update about two weeks ago to the Natural Resources Advisory Board. It was well received and there was a good discussion. It was a good indicator of how well the project is doing. Robin Stoneman stated that the team would really like to get feedback from the group tonight. Allen Brown talked about how over the last several months, the team has developed a list of alternatives and screened through those. They are now nearing the end of the second phase of screening where a closer look at the reasonable alternatives is taking place. Those alternatives were shown to the board and explained in detail. (The alternatives were shown on a map in various colors to differentiate between them.) Discussion: Thomas: It looks like Option E, the southern route, is probably the most environmentally benign, just from the way you rated it. "A" is the second choice, but "A" is less expensive than "E". You can't tell from this what the magnitude is in the cost difference. Can you help out? Brown: I don't have all the numbers right in front of me. We are looking at a distance which is probably 4-5 times as long and it's all new alignment as opposed to "A" which is just a widening. Hallock-Solomon: On the blue alignment, where you jog and don't have an intersection on I-25, is that correct? Jackson: Yes. Hallock-Solomon: Will the other intersection still be there, the old 392? Brown: With I-25, yes. Hallock-Solomon: It just doesn't make logical sense to me. Jackson: It might fix certain mobility issues, but it doesn't really get to the heart of what you're trying to do and that was the sentiment at the last local agency technical advisory meeting as well. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 12 Transportation Board August 17, 2005 Brown: When we initially looked at a southern realignment, we thought that there might be some opportunity to revisit interchange locations on I-25. In working with the I-25 EIS group we found that many were not an option after all. Robert: When you first introduced this, you indicated there were going to be other priorities downstream. I'll be looking forward to that part. Watkins: I'd like to say that I specifically do not like the blue alignment either. All of the alternatives, it looks like are screened out. Does that mean that you're no longer considering those or what? Brown: Those are the recommendations that we're expecting to present next week. They are all draft at this point in time pending everyone's input. Unless we see something different, those will be the recommendations we take next week to the Open House. Then after getting public input we would finalize those recommendations and then carry forward those ones to the next level of screening. Watkins: I would think that at your Open House you would want to specifically point out the fact that the blue alignments do not connect directly with the interchange. And also, it would be difficult to make that trail connection with that other alignment as well. Chair Thordarson: Are you looking at all the potential impact of say the cost of gas per gallon on future traffic? Is there a way to factor some sensitivity to that? Jackson: Sort of The same question came up at the NRAB presentation asking about estimating the cost of fuel and such. The model that we use factors in the cost of fuel as one of the friction factors if you will, accounting for travel. We will be updating the City's model in conjunction with the update to the MPO's new model in 2006. I bet that will be one of the discussion points. Thomas: I was interpreting your comments earlier that Option E had some favor, but it's X'd off here. I'm confused. Brown: "E" has several issues associated with it. There are additional railroad crossing that goes through some development on the west side of Timberline. Also involved is the fact that there would be several different property owners to deal with as opposed to "D" which only has one. Jackson: There are pretty severe curves for a highway design too. Also, as the project moves along, I'd just like to stress that this won't be the last time that you see the project. You can be as involved as you would like to be as a board. Thomas: But do I understand that if I go back to your flow of work, if it gets an "X" here, that's it. You're not going to come back and do a qualitative analysis on this? Is that right? APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board August 17, 2005 Page 5 of 12 Brown: That is true. This is an important time to make a decision on "E" as to whether it continues forward or not. Thomas: Personally, I would like to see it as an option. That one has the least environmental impact from the sound of it and I would like to see that in the mix until you can at last quantify the price between that and the others. Hallock-Solomon: I agree. Johnson: As do I. Jackson said that the item will come before the board at its next milestone. 7. ACTION ITEMS a. AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE — R. Phillips & D. Gordon Phillips stated that the purpose of tonight's update is to inform the board where staff is at on the Airport Master Plan. The Master Plan process is something that airports need to go through every 10-12 years. The last time a Plan was adopted for the Fort Collins/Loveland Airport was in 1993. The current process to update it started about a year ago. An airport planning consultant was hired by the name of Barnard Dunkleberg & Company with offices in Tulsa and Denver. Federal funding was received from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to pay for 95% of this plan. The State threw in 2.5% which leaves the local share at 2.5%. The total cost contract is just under $500,000. Phillips introduced Dave Gordon who is the Airport Director. Dave reports to two cities, which can be a challenge, but he does a great job. He worked for a number of years as the director of the Jefferson County Airport. He has been here for three years. Phillips then turned the floor over to Mr. Gordon. Mr. Gordon gave a detailed presentation regarding the work completed to date, status of the project and a discussion of major elements of the Update. So far there are have been several public meetings and four study committee meetings. As a result of this input, changes to the draft Update have been made. The most notable comments received include: 1. Support to keep the crosswind runway; 2. Support of an air traffic control tower; 3. Development of more aircraft storage hangars and additional business development sites to serve the flying public; and 4. Support for a new parallel runway. Citizens and homeowner associations in the immediate area of the Airport have expressed concerns with additional aircraft overflights that would occur as a result of further development of the Airport. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board August 17, 2005 Page 6 of 12 The study has also identified the need for a runway extension which has generated numerous public comments on this issue, both pro and con. Generally speaking, the pro comments come from the Airport constituency and users, and the con comments come from residents who live in the general vicinity of the Airport and its flight paths. A common misconception people have about the extension is that it will allow larger planes to use the Airport. The truth of the matter is that the extension is needed to make the current aircraft perform better at this altitude. Our altitude, combined with a hot summer day makes the air thinner and it makes the aircraft perform less efficiently because of that. Due to that, corporate and Allegiant aircraft have to download fuel and passengers in the summer to meet requirements. They have said that if they have a 1,000 foot longer runway then corporate jets and Allegiant can use the Airport easier. They can carry more fuel and passengers. The bottom line is that 1,000' extension allows those aircraft to put on more weight in fuel and passengers and does not mean that we can bring in larger aircraft. Phillips added that staff is not looking to for this to become a big airport. He stated that it is important to understand that this Airport has been grossly neglected for a number of years. It is in desperate shape for maintenance, there are security issues, the fuel farm really needs to be moved from its present location, we need a tower and just the upkeep is a big deal. We need a few years of this federal money to just get us back up to speed with what we have. There is not a goal to grow this thing. A lot of commercial service is not in the plan and doesn't benefit us that much. Board Comments/Ouestions: Westhuis: I'm in agreement with you. I think this airport is a nice niche market type airport for northern Colorado. It has the convenience of Denver International Airport; I don't think there will ever be a need for this airport to be bigger. I agree that keeping it clean and updated is the thing we need to do. Hallock-Solomon: I see that this is an action item. What is it that you are asking from us? Are we looking at pieces or alternatives? Phillips: We put it on here as an action item, not knowing if you'd want to do something tonight or if you want to wait a month or two before you take come kind of action, but at some point we'd like a recommendation from the Board to the City Council on your feelings about this Master Plan. Hallock-Solomon: Is it based on alternatives or have you narrowed it down to an alternative? Phillips: Most of the stuff in the Airport Master Plan is pretty cut and dried and is based on FAA standards and that sort of thing. There are a few things that will be decision points. I believe it was mentioned earlier that one is an additional runway in the future, a control tower, and a runway extension. Those are the primary ones. The additional runway is in the 1993 plan so that is not a new thing. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 12 Transportation Board August17,2005 Hallock-Solomon: Is another issue land use? Is that something you'll want us to look at too? Phillips: Yes. Westhuis: So what I'm hearing is what's really being proposed is more of a cleaned up, well maintained version of what we already have? Gordon: Very similar to what we have already. Thomas: I went to one of your public meetings and read the newspaper and obviously there are a lot of people out there concerned that this is going to adversely impact their homes and you could argue this as an environmental issue because it affects the environment of their neighborhood. What's the offsetting impact; what do we get back for these folks standing some increased noise or whatever else in their homes? Gordon: (Referring to a large map) Here is a map showing the noise contours around the airport. These are existing conditions; existing meaning the number of aircraft, type of aircraft that fly out of this airport now and the next map is the 20 year noise contours for what we expect the aircraft count and type to be in 20 years. Right now we are at a 55 curve. Based on the FAA noise model, anything louder than 65 is considered a hazard to ones health. A lot of our noise complaints are coming from Fossil Creek area. The future predictions don't move much at all. We're still below that 65 number. That doesn't help the people that live in that area because for whatever reason they don't like the noise, people are sensitive to varying degrees of aircraft noise, but from a political basis and the position of the county and the city council when they approved this, they had no basis to say that it isn't safe or it isn't good for houses here. Thomas: As I mentioned before, what do we get back for doing this that we don't have today? Chair Thordarson: Can I ask one question? The do nothing alternative — does that noise contour change anyway? Gordon: If you do nothing and just leave the airport configuration the way it is, we are still forecasting 20 years of growth in the number of operations, not growth in the airport itself — at the end of that 20 year period, the volume of take offs and landings will get close to the maximum ability of this one runway to handle that many take offs and landings. Our master plan is showing that the 15-20 year time frame will probably need that parallel runway just to accommodate the numbers of take offs and landings. We don't have the ability, "we" meaning the cities to legally say we don't want any more planes. We take federal money and our grant assurances say that we will keep this airport open to the public. Our forecasts are based on what's happening in this region. Thomas: What do you get for doing this extra stuff? APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 12 Transportation Board August 17, 2005 Phillips: For instance, for Organ donor flights, a lot of those planes that are used for those are Lear jets. This 8,500' runway is too short for them to carry a full fuel load out of here. The Gulf Stream that's there now, if they have a full passenger load, they can't take on a full fuel load. They have to stop in Las Vegas or somewhere on their way to the west coast to refuel. They can't make a non-stop flight. Those kinds of thing influence corporate decisions. When you look at the projected growth on the commercial scheduled service in this proposed plan, that proposed growth is actually less than what it was in the 1993 plan and it's less for general aviation as well. So growth projections for both general aviation and commercial in this plan are somewhat less than they were 13 years ago. Gordon: To follow up on the question: What are we getting for our impact to the communities or for our money, first of all I don't think you can realistically say let's close the airport. Probably for the next 5-10 years, most of the money spent on this airport will be to maintain what we already have. What we're really doing the first several years is keeping what we have and getting it in better shape than what it is today. Watkins: Is it fair to state that if we don't consider this 1,000' extension that there is a real possibility that what we do have, we will not continue to have. For instance, Allegiant deciding that they can't extend their services or they are tired of losing passengers and decide to move and leave this airport? Gordon: Realistically, I don't think we will lose them if we don't do this extension, but I think we lose the potential for them and others that might find the airport to be more attractive with that extension. It's not a deal breaker if we don't have it, but I think it's important that the two cities appreciate the value of protecting it. Phillips: FAA will not fund the runway extension based on safety because they never will say that this is not a safe runway. However, because of the kind of decisions that have to be made with pilots figuring weights, fuel loads, density altitude and those kinds of things, a 1,000' extension is safer in my opinion than what we have now. First of all it gives another 1,000 feet of roll out if something goes wrong. It makes the decision point a little longer for that pilot to decide if he/she needs to abort this take off or not. In my opinion that's a safety factor. If you will recall the accident last winter in Montrose where the television network person's son was killed in that tragic accident, it's my understanding that the pilots made a decision not to de-ice and made a decision to take the shorter of two runways. We haven't heard yet what the FAA's decision is on that result, but that plane didn't get off in the distance they had and crashed at the end of the runway into a empty field. Those things are hard to measure, but if one pilot makes one calculation error on fuel or load or whatever, is a 1,000' runway extension worth it? I think probably it is. S. Frazier: I would extend that safety comment to also the safety to the houses around the airport. Also, in terms of air quality, there is probably more pollution if a plane has to land more often and take off again. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board August 17, 2005 Page 9 of 12 Chair Thordarson: I'd like to ask a procedural question. In terms of feedback that you would like to get, how much more time does the board have? Is there another opportunity for you to come back to the board? Phillips: I think September would work and probably October. We also have to go to the Planning & Zoning Board. I figured that you might not be ready to take action tonight because the Plan is not yet complete, but we did want to get what information we could in front of you. It's fine to wait. Chair Thordarson: We got a lot of food for thought tonight and would like to wait to take action at a future meeting. Johnson: I would strongly encourage that there be an airport vision statement. There are a few things that would be helpful to know such as: How does the budget work? I think if we had some sense on that now and projections in the future. How are we operating? How does this all fit, what are you doing right now and how are you projecting this out? What kind of subsidy is required by the City of Fort Collins? Find ways to minimize subsidy and have the players pay more and keep the place operating. To make decisions based on capital decisions like this, at least I know I need more information. Gordon: The vision statement has been an issue brought up by a lot of people. The existing master plan has a vision statement in it. This plan makes assumptions that the plan is based on to go forward. One element in the scope of work in the latest Plan is to do a strategic analysis of the airport role. That's the vision statement, so that will be developed. Financially, an important element of this Master Plan is a financial plan. Once we know what our 20 years worth of capital projects are going to be, we'll project out our revenues, look at the source of revenue from the airports income and fuel sales and such. There will be a pretty detailed element in the final Master Plan. Phillips: To answer one of your questions specifically, each city puts in $60,000/year of General Fund money for the airport. That's been at the same level for a number of years. Someday we'd like to get to the point where that's not necessary. Johnson: The projection for long term capital needs; I think that would be important for us to look at. Grigg: Maybe we need to make a list of things that we feel need further investigation. ] feel like even in a month or two we're still going to have a lot of stuff hanging out there. Westhuis: I think if this region wants to be a national/international leader in high-tech, biotech, and medical and be economically one of the best in the nation, then an airport of this magnitude is intricate to that. Grigg: We might work a statement like that into our recommendation. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 12 Transportation Board August 17, 2005 Thomas: Well that drives to the basis of the questions I've been asking. I think airports are good ideas, I think longer runways are intuitively a better thing for safety, but because there is all this resistance out there, I think we need to come back with a case for it if we want to support it. Robert: I'm just not sure what we're talking about when we say "all this resistance." I've only seen a few letters to the editor, written by people who have signed the waivers, I know them. You're always going to have a handful of people saying they don't like a certain thing. It's nice to address them and make sure that we've covered everything, but you can't always make everyone happy. Johnson: I would like a picture of the capital information for the next time we have this come to the board. Westhuis: Maybe you need to consider doing a PR campaign to set the public straight on the misconceptions. It was agreed that this item will tentatively be put on the September agenda and will include a financial summary presentation. The board thanked Phillips and Gordon for the presentation. 8. REPORTS a. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Frazier: Campus West. On Elizabeth Street where the pedestrian changes have been made, I have a couple of comments. I cross that street quite often and it's nice to see the improvement, but it seems that the flashing light for the pedestrian crossing doesn't make drivers stop. As a pedestrian, you can't see the light flashing, but I sometimes wonder if people don't interpret the flashing yellow to just mean "slow down" instead of stop. Sharp Turn/Safety Issue? As you're going westbound on Elizabeth and turning right into the church parking lot, it's so sharp. You have to really slow down to make that turn. I often see black marks on the pavement. I know there were a lot of changes made to this area, but this seems very unsafe. Pedestrian Safetv: I've asked a couple of times for figures on pedestrian safety for roundabouts. Jackson: I'll do some follow- up for you. Retreat. I think the topics that were brought up for our retreat were very good — they were in the minutes. If we have time, there are a couple of books by Robert Fritz, one of them is the Path of Least APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board August 17, 2005 Page 11 of 12 Resistance and the other one is Your Life as Art. He talks about how to create the solution rather than try to solve the problem. thought maybe you'd like to look at those books. Watkins: Construction. Last week there was a road construction project in front of my office on Prospect and it went incredibly smoothly. Kudos to the City, they did a great job. They used equipment there that recycles the pavement. I understand that the pavement has a shorter life span doing it that way, but they were in and out of there in three days. It was a neat operation. I even arranged for my engineers to get a tour by the City's inspectors. Thomas: Street Car. Last week we gave the MPO a ride. They had one of their monthly meetings here in town and they booked the street car and took it for a ride. Robert: Thank You. Just want to thank the City and the County for working together to put in the first new street improvements north of the railroad tracks on Vine Drive. It's coming along very nicely. Thordarson: Portland, OR. 1) The City is contracting its flex car to provide some of their service fleet. 2) Another thing they are doing there is they actually have a speed hump subsidy so the neighborhoods can come to the City with a street that they want humps on and if it's at a certain traffic volume per day, they are eligible for a 60% city subsidy so the neighborhood can buy it for $600. US 287 (between Fort Collins and Wyoming border). That road has changed a lot since all the improvements have been made. I was impressed. b. STAFF REPORTS Phillips: Fort Collins has been named A Bicycle Friendly Community again. This was announced at City Council last night. CMAQ. We were granted approval of five projects for CMAQ funds. Johnson: could we get a list of the CMAQ projects for our next meeting? Phillips: Yes. Harmony Road. We have officially taken over ownership of Harmony Road from I-25 to College Avenue. We put a check in the bank for $13.7M to cover maintenance costs. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board August 17, 2005 Page 12 of 12 Don Bachman has been hired as the City Engineer. His former position of Policy & Budget Manager probably would be going away as a result of the budget process. Jackson: Special meeting. If you will recall, we are going to have a meeting on September 14 to talk about budget issues. It will be here in this room at 6 p.m. There was some question as to whether this should be a finance sub- committee meeting or a special meeting of the entire board. In the end, Thomas made a motion to call a special meeting on September 14 to consider the budget situation of the City of Fort Collins. There was a second and the motion carried unanimously. Next Agenda (Sept 21): • City Budget Update • Council Policy Agenda • Airport Master Plan Retreat Date: November 5 is the preferred date. The Board would like to dedicate '/2 day, tentatively from 8:30 a.m. —1 p.m. Staff will check to see if the Fire Station on SH 1 is available. 9. OTHER BUSINESS None 10. ADJOURN Chair Thordarson adjourned the meeting at 9:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Cass, Executive Admin Assistant City of Fort Collins — Transportation Services