HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 04/17/1996�� X-"
•
•
u
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
April 17, 1996
City Council Liaison: Will Smith
Staff Liaison: Ron Phillips
Commission Chairman: Colin Gerety
The meeting of the Transportation Board began at 5:30 p.m. in the CIC Room,
300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Commission members present at the
meeting included Chairperson Colin Gerety, Mark Egeland, Sara Frazier, Dolores
Highfield, Don Hopkins, Elizabeth Hudetz, Ray Moe, and Paul Valentine. Staff
members present included Ron Phillips and Susanne Edminster.
Moved by Mr. Moe, seconded by Ms. Highfield: To approve the minutes of
March 20, 1996. Mr. Gerety expressed apology for the vociferousness expressed
at the last meeting. Motion approved unanimously.
Moved by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Valentine: To approve the minutes
of April 3, 1996. Items noted: The letter to Council had not been written. The
approved letter was not included in this packet and will be included in the next.
Motion approved unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Craig Hau spoke on the Timberline issue. He drives between properties that he
owns on Mulberry and Timberline. He also frequents EPIC. He related a
circumstance where traffic grows so heavy on Timberline and Prospect that
drivers choose to go to Summitview. Summitview is not engineered for the
numbers and speeds of cars that traverse that road, and unsafe conditions result.
Mr. Hau noted that both tax receipts and anticipated costs for Timberline exceed
the original budget plan. His understanding is that the funds exist to pay for the
Timberline expansion. In light of traffic congestion, the hospital's location, the fire
department and police station and the detention facility locations, he urged that
Timberline be extended as a matter of public service, provision of emergency
services, and public safety.
Mr. Phillips noted that a traffic signal is planned this summer for Prospect and
Summitview.
John Ferrie spoke on the Timberline issue. He stated that he lived in Fort Collins
before the Lemay bridge existed. He noted that existing traffic problems
smoothed out substantially once Lemay was extended to Mulberry. Mr. Ferrie
related an argument that a Timberline extension would increase traffic; given that
argument, it would be interesting to observe if removal of the Lemay bridge would
aid traffic flow.
Transportation Board Minutes
April 17, 1996
Page 2
Mr. Ferrie pointed out areas of development on a city map and wondered why an
area so close to downtown and the city center was being neglected for traffic
improvement. He stated that the number of people that would drive on the
improved Timberline would effectively be the number of people who vote
favorably for it. He noted that the number of people who would use the road
would far exceed numbers of people using other worthy City improvements, such
as the Senior Center.
Mr. Ferrie pointed out an industrial park and explained the traffic problems
generated by people having Lemay and Summitview as their only access
choices. Traffic tie-ups in that area are tremendous.
Mr. Ferrie noted an argument that building the Timberline extension supports
growth. He stated that there are other means of controlling growth; meanwhile,
the transportation concepts of smooth traffic flow, timely traffic movement, and
lessening of pollution and fuel consumption by reducing stop -and -go traffic
requires the construction of the Timberline extension.
In response to a question by the Board, Mr. Ferrie stated that he favors a straight
extension of Timberline to Mulberry to be the most logical and efficient to improve
traffic flow. Mr. Ferrie further outlined how future road improvements from
Wellington to the Fort Collins -Loveland Airport would improve traffic flow.
Mr. Gerety noted a study conducted by the University of California (Berkley)
showing that an increase in lane miles was met with a larger increase in traffic.
He noted traffic studies showing that Timberline would be congested within a
decade, even if a four -lane bridge were built. Mr. Ferrie questioned the converse,
that if existing bridges and lanes were closed, it would alleviate traffic congestion.
Mr. Gerety agreed that congestion would worsen but that the issue of congestion
needed to be treated in ways other than building more roads. Mr. Ferrie
questioned how a matter of traffic engineering was distorted to a growth issue.
Other Board comments were made that a Timberline extension would not cause
traffic in and of itself but also would not constitute a panacea for the city's traffic
congestion problems. Mr. Ferrie expressed a preference of regulation in favor of
smaller cars, conceding that such may not be practical. He also noted traffic
patterns and methods that are widespread in other countries that would not be
tolerated by the average American.
David Neenan spoke on the Timberline issue. He noted that he was until recently
an owner of property on Timberline and Prospect. He does not see that either
side of this issue is strictly right or wrong. He explained his views that the role of
business and education are to build worthwhile careers for people rather than
mere job creation. The role of the City is in the creation of public services, such
as safety, transportation, and basic utilities.
Transportation Board Minutes
April 17. 1996
Page 3
• Mr. Neenan noted with interest the Council discussion on raising money for
transportation and City needs in the future. He noted applications, city-wide and
county -wide, that all require increased funding. He spoke of a proposed purchase
of Western Mobile property, a proviso of which is the construction of Timberline,
and stated his belief that Timberline will be built regardless of immediate City
action on the issue.
Mr. Neenan expressed his view that vetoing the Timberline project will cause
deep damage to the community in the coming years. People felt they received a
promise from the City years ago. Council will probably recommend the S
connection as the connection placed on the ballot, although the T connection was
planned and budgeted.
Mr. Neenan stated that the Transportation Board is at a critical position in terfhs
of its recommendation. He noted that some people wished to place the issue on
the ballot for another referendum. Such an action would deepen division within
the community. Mr. Neenan advocated the Board to compile all information, get
the project going, and address everyone's concerns as much as possible. He
noted traffic problems in Boulder and the parallels that could be drawn with the
issues developing in Fort Collins.
Mr. Gerety urged all speakers to return for the Timberline discussion to be held
• on June 19.
Ms. Edminster reviewed the Board process schedule. The schedule is ambitious
and presents a challenge to the Transportation Department on many levels.
During the retreat, Board members indicated interest in different issues; Ms.
Edminster envisioned subcommittees composed of interested Board members to
promote resolution of those issues.
It was noted that three Board members' terms expire at the end of June; Mr.
Gerety, Ms. Hudetz, and Mr. Moe. Ms. Hudetz and Mr. Moe are reapplying; Mr.
Gerety, due to press of other commitments, is not reapplying.
The Board discussed the amount of commitment required for Board members to
conduct subcommittee meetings and work through the issues to be addressed.
Board members expressed concern that their efforts would be spread thin. Staff
stated that most of the work would be in the nature of homework, and that Board
members could scan the material and outline their concerns for staff research.
The subcommittee system is projected to be completed by August. An idea was
advanced that non -Board citizens help to staff the subcommittees. The
subcommittees' function would be to bring results of their discussion back to the
Board.
Mr. Phillips stated that the Council meeting on Timberline had been changed to
•the second July meeting. Ms. Edminster noted that the Council had doubt
whether it could keep that date as well.
Transportation
April 17, 1996
Page 4
Board Minutes
Ms. Edminster noted the following subcommittee assignments, based upon Board
members' expressions of interest at the retreat:
• Transportation demand managementlenhancement of multimodal campaign
and marketing: Ms. Frazier, Ms. Highfield, and Ms. Hudetz.
• Transit development plan: Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Moe.
• Pedestrian plan: Ms. Highfield and Mr. Moe.
• Master street plan: Mr. Beatty.
• Parking plan/civic center plan: Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Moe.
• Trucks on 287/Highway 14: Ms. Frazier and Mr. Johnson.
• Regional transportation plan: Ms. Frazier.
• City plan: Mr. Gerety, Mr. Moe, and Mr. Valentine.
• Levels of service for transportation: Mr. Gerety and Mr. Moe.
• Cost of services: Ms. Hudetz and Mr. Highfield (Ms. Hudetz declined).
• Statewide rail plan: Ms. Frazier and Mr. Hopkins.
• Capital improvement plan: Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Perlmutter.
• CSU activities: Mr. Hopkins.
• Harmony Road bike plan: Mr. Egeland and Mr. Perlmutter.
• Long-range financial plan: Mr. Gerety and Mr. Johnson.
• Bike plan: Mr. Egeland and Mr. Valentine.
• Land use policy plan: Mr. Gerety.
Questions were raised of a conflict between the goals of the new master street
plan and a new development featuring a thoroughfare and cul-de-sacs. It was
pointed out that until a new master plan is ensconced in the regulatory system,
existing rules still apply. Change is implemented by City Council action.
Presently, encouragement is being given to new developments to follow the
guidelines of the redesigned master plan.
Ms. Edminster expressed her appreciation to the Board for its support in the utility
fee issue. This issue is probably not dead, particularly when Council comes to
grips with the funding needed for the necessary City services. The Board noted
the hard work performed by staff and thanked it for its diligence. Board members
generally agreed that the issue is within reach of a successful conclusion but will
take continued efforts to be accomplished.
The following specific observations were made on the utility fee issue:
• Mr. Apt was strongly against the issue in the past and seems to have softened
his position somewhat.
• More detailed budgeting may be needed in order for the issue to pass.
• It is fair for businesses to bear a fair portion of transportation costs.
• Parking meters and boxes are examples of how funds are paid directly by the
user for transportation maintenance.
• Perhaps the entire transportation services area can be turned into a utility,
with bills sent to the designated users of the system.
• It may be worthwhile to present the entire picture of transportation, its costs,
and revenue sources rather than focusing on maintenance.
•
Transportation Board Minutes
April 17, 1996
Page 5
• • If the fee proposal went to the voters, it would probably not pass. Similarly, in
all likelihood, none of the November tax initiatives will pass, due to the
plethora of proposals.
• Voter approval may come when streets have deteriorated due to inability to
pay for maintenance.
• The reluctance of Council and the populace to implement the fee is tied into
the problems of ever-expanding services in all areas and the means to pay for
those services.
• When voters approve fees such as for museums but not for streets, it may
come from the feeling that basic services are provided for as a matter of
course.
• One reason streets are not presently a high priority is due to their generally
good condition. However, it is cheaper to maintain than to rebuild due to poor
maintenance.
• The City Attorney was a big help in the issue of whether the proposal
represented a fee or a tax.
Care -A -Van has money in reserve, although it is no longer providing services.
The money is not being used. They are also retaining possession of a number of
vans that were essentially purchased through Federal funding. It is unclear
whether the vans are being used. Care -A -Van is operating the SAINT program
and is not disbanding. The SAINT program is staffed by volunteer drivers who
• provide their own vehicles.
The Board received draft copies of elements of the Master Transportation Plan.
Level of service criteria has not changed substantially. Natural Resources and Air
Quality are also reviewing the plan in depth. Efforts are being taken to reduce the
natural conflicts that occur between transportation and environmental planners.
The Board discussed levels of service for bicycles. It was noted that using
bicycles in a multiuse setting should automatically reduce the level of service
grade. Some language and graphics in the draft could be simplified.
Board members discussed lighting standards and visibility/safety/privacy issues.
A preference was expressed for making the distinction of public versus private
area lighting. Mr. Phillips noted the lighting to be used on West Drake, where
crosswalks will have a different, more intimate lighting pattern than on the rest of
the street. Pavement and surface treatments will be different. Light and Power
has its own standards that are sometimes cumbersome to deal with.
The Pedestrian Plan was reviewed. The project team includes Ballofet and
Associates. The consultant team is headed by Ray Moe. The City staff team
includes Transportation, Planning, Engineering, Traffic, Police Department, and
the Neighborhood Resources Group. Members of the Transportation Board,
CSU, Poudre R-1, Senior Advisory, business representatives, developers,
• architects, and designers have also been involved. Meetings occur on the third
Thursday of each month at 5:30. In a recent field trip, team members walked
through the problem areas.
Transportation Board Minutes
April 17, 1996
Page 6
Mr. Moe stated that pedestrian traffic is the oldest form of transportation but the
least supported. He described the topics of areas in which to invest, the size of
the roads, bicycle connections, and problem areas for pedestrians.
Through use of a City map, Mr. Moe outlined the problem areas viewed by the
team, including: 1) A residential area, built in the'50s, south of Prospect and east
of College; 2) an urban area next to a County area; 3) Old Town area; 4) between
Old Town and the Lincoln Center; 5) Commercial area west of CSU and Shields;
6) a new residential area; 7) the break in Troutman Parkway; 8) a new office park;
9) the College Avenue corridor; 10) the north end of the College Avenue corridor.
Through the use of slides, Mr. Moe highlighted noticeable problems in various
subject areas: -
• Inadequacy of sidewalk on one side of the street.
• No sidewalks, forcing pedestrians to walk on the street. "Hollywood" curbs.
Makeshift changes in ramp configurations.
• In a newer area, the lack of sidewalks from the front porch to the street.
• In one County enclave, no sidewalk, curb, or gutter. Barriers to pedestrian
transit. Demeaning treatment of pedestrians.
• In Old Town, pedestrian areas have been made attractive. Lighting is more to
a human scale. Sidewalks cafes cater to the pedestrian. Crossing distances
are being minimized. At the edge of Old Town, the character changes;
Jefferson is difficult for pedestrians. Center parking provides a break in which
to cross the street.
• From Old Town to the Lincoln Center features separated sidewalks and trees,
all of which encourages pedestrian traffic. The streets, although wide, are
attractive.
• The west end of the campus features lessened areas for pedestrians. An area
of Elizabeth offers little to pedestrians.
• A new development on the south of town features rolled curb and gutter with
adjacent sidewalks. Sidewalks go to the driveways but not to the streets.
• Another area features a demarcation fence. Travel from one subdivision to the
adjacent one involves a two-mile drive.
• The break in Troutman was displayed.
• An office area in the area of the new Fort Collins High School was shown,
featuring a bus bench without easy access to the adjacent building.
• A crosswalk across a busy section of College was displayed.
• A crossing close to the College King Soopers was shown. The traffic signal
features a quickly -changing pedestrian light.
• Other areas of difficult pedestrian traffic were shown.
• A new pedestrian linkage at Horsetooth and College was shown.
• Areas for pedestrians on North College were shown. Pedestrian traffic is
difficult due to the lack of median and high traffic volume.
• Areas of inconsistent pedestrian access were shown.
Transportation Board Aputes •
April 17, 1996
Page 7
• Mr. Moe stated that there was very little pedestrian planning by the City. He noted
progress by the State of Florida and the City of Portland in promoting pedestrian
traffic. Around the country, there is no single typical pedestrian plan. Many plans
are combinations of bicycle and pedestrian plans.
Mr. Moe cited several impediments to improvement of pedestrian access:
1) Lack of funds. Approximately $400,000 is slated for pedestrian
improvements. The cost to build a sidewalk ramp is $1800; that is multiplied by
four for an intersection.
2) The laws support our automobile -dependent society. Other states and
cities are passing more pedestrian -friendly laws. Discussion was held on the
misconception that Colorado's laws are as pedestrian -friendly as California's':
3) There is a lack of continuity of level of service criteria for pedestrian
traffic. More consistency is needed in defining porosity, barriers, signalized
intersections, and street crossings.
Mr. Moe spoke of a facilities plan and serving the schools. He displayed a GUISE
map with overlays which portrayed area schools and their walking areas. School -
related organizations are instrumental in the development of safe pedestrian
• passages.
To discuss targeted areas for investment in infrastructure, Mr. Moe dismayed an
additional map showing pedestrian destinations points - Old Town, CSU, the
commercial corridor, shopping centers, and employment centers. He asked for
Board input in prioritizing projects. Having commercial centers on arterial streets
is bad planning for pedestrians; such an arrangement increases the conflict
between car and foot traffic.
Mr. Moe asked the Board to focus on good pedestrian connection. Connections
must be made so that pedestrian traffic can become a larger portion of the short
trips taken by people. The Old Town-CSU zone is important to make the best
connections possible for pedestrian traffic.
The North and South College Avenue corridors present real pedestrian planning
challenges. Solutions are not readily apparent, but they are areas that are
important to work on. Mr. Moe envisioned, as a start, pedestrian connections
coming to, and running up and down, the corridor area.
Mr. Moe asked the Board to consider transit ways. A balanced community in
transportation needs more than just buses. Ways are needed to get from the
locations of origin to the bus stops.
Mr. Moe asked the Board to consider the issues presented and formulate
• priorities for City investment.
Transportation Board Minutes
April 17, 1996
Page 8
Board discussion generated the following comments:
Different materials in walkways and raised walkways may be beneficial.
Some of the newer higher -density developments are not appropriate for
pedestrian corridors.
Single-family home developments may feature more recreational
pedestrian traffic than commuter pedestrian traffic.
In -fill areas make sense for infrastructure investment. This does not mean
that newer developments are hopeless, but that they reflect different use
patterns.
Such things as door -to -street sidewalk connections should be considered
for development standards.
The current development pattern of walled -off developments and isglated
large commercial centers is inappropriate for pedestrians.
Different development standards are needed to encourage pedestrian
traffic.
It is tragic that there is no choice but to use automobiles to travel from
some residential areas.
The problems of pedestrian traffic should be capped and new development
guidelines put into place.
If pedestrian access is made easier in high -profile places, public demand
will generate improvement in other areas.
Demands on such things as door -to -street sidewalks are pointless without
a good overall sidewalk system.
There are several pedestrian crossings over railroad tracks within CSU that
may serve as a model for other parts of the city.
In response to a question regarding level of service, Mr. Moe delineated three
variables: continuity, connectivity, and barriers. Pictures can be used to grade
areas within the city to address level-of=service issues. New developments should
be required to provide roadway improvement and transit linkages.
other Board discussion encompassed the following:
North College has a great deal of pedestrian traffic but is a good pedestrian
area. Therefore, traffic levels are not inhibitors to traffic flow but do require
different approaches.
Pedestrians are distance -sensitive. Target areas need to be close.
Pedestrians are straight-line sensitive. Barriers are a prime issue in
discouraging pedestrian traffic.
Hewlett-Packard is hopeless for pedestrian traffic, but increasing numbers
of bicycles are being used to travel there from increasingly closer developments.
The Harmony Road Bikeway project envisions separated sidewalks as
development occurs.
Future standards should exclude projects such as Hewlett-Packard, where
developments are surrounded by, essentially, private parks.
Transportation Board As •
April 17, 1996
Page 9
•Some of the commercial areas along College provide opportunities for
private -public partnerships, where commercial centers would benefit by improved
pedestrian traffic.
Years ago, Commerce City passed an ordinance requiring property owners
to improve the sidewalks bordering their homes. The City performed the work for
hose who did not comply and placed a lien on their property for the cost.
Perhaps a similar funding mechanism can be viewed for Fort Collins.
Owners of older homes surrounded hedcostspments and
of sidewalk
sidewalk standards will be unhappy � y are forced to bear
improvement.
A detailed analysis has not been done to determine areas of higher
pedestrian accident rates.
Lowering automobile speed limits will reduce pedestrian accidents.
Prospect, from Center Street to College, has major pedestrian problefis.
A foot path is used from Spring Creek Trail to Prospect that could bear
improvement; unfortunately, it encourages midblock crossing across Prospect.
Mountain bike tires have increased ruts in the spontaneous footpaths seen
around CSU.
Attention should be paid to the common -use footpaths as being natural
avenues of pedestrian traffic.
The pedestrian plan will be presented to Council in the June or July time frame, to
• tie in closely to the Master Transportation Plan and City Plan. The Board will be
kept informed of the progress of the plan.
In response to a comment by Ms. Highfield, The Board discussed the advantages
of walking the Timberline area before the June 19 meeting. The idea was
generally viewed favorably.
Mr. Egeland thanked Mr. Phillips for his presentation to a generally unfriendly
crowd at Hewlett-Packard regarding the transportation maintenance fee. Mr.
Hopkins thanked Ms. Edminster for her presentation at CSU and noted he
anxiety level at the University concerning the potential impact of the fee.
Mr. Perlmutter raised concerns, based on the previous night's Council meeting,
over how the Board and Council interact. Although Board members contacted the
Board, there was no mention of the Board's letter to Council and no special
treatment afforded in comments to Council. Mr. Gerety noted that he was asked
for comments at the end of staff presentation; Mr. Phillips stated that was the
standard practice. The Board also had interaction with Council at the work
session. Mr. Perlmutter reiterated his feeling that the status that the Board holds
as advisor or liaison to Council was not exemplified in the TMF debate.
Further discussion was held on whether the Board supports Transportation
Services rather than Council deliberations. Mr. Phillips stated that had the Board
• not approved of the TMF concept, the issue would have died early; that because
the Board strongly advocated the TMF, the TMF received a strong hearing; that
he funding need was unanimously endorsed; that projects do not always make
Transportation Board Minutes
April 17, 1996
Page 10
one successful pass through the system; and that continued work is needed to
achieve passage.
Other Board members spoke of the influence that staff and the Board had in
bringing the issue forward; Council's balancing public input and Board input; and
the need for the Board to be focused, particularly in work sessions..
Mr. Perlmutter opined that one of the problems with the TMF was the lack of a
specific budget. Other attendees noted that while Council voiced strong support
for transportation services, the funds are still lacking. Another option may be a
funding issue for the voters.
Mr. Phillips drew an analogy when Planning and Zoning was meeting frustration
with their decisions being overturned by Council. A letter from P&Z drew notice
from Council and generated discussion of relationships. Discussion was held over
the balance needed in such a letter to avoid being whiny or demanding.
Mr. Perlmutter voiced discontent over the public comments portion of the Council
meeting and the intimidation of the time constraints. Due to their advisory nature
to Council, Board members should have received greater consideration. A more
well-defined opportunity needs to exist to speak with Council in its sessions.
Board members noted that Council liaison had been absent for several meetings.
The liaison is strongly in favor of the TMF.
Mr. Gerety stated that input by Board members during a public comment session
is advantageous when it breaks up a string of negative comments. Council should
give consideration to any Board or Commission member who wishes to speak in
the public comment phase. Mr. Hopkins expressed enthusiasm about meeting
with Council in the work sessions.
Mr. Phillips noted that Gina Janett had made a motion to direct the City Manager
to find ways to fund the transportation maintenance items. The motion was
passed unanimously. The Transportation Department will evaluate how they can
rearrange its budget. He discussed potential ballot issues for increased funding.
Ms. Hudetz requested a study concerning revenue that could be generated by
parking meters or parking boxes. Comments were made that the issue will be
discussed in the parking plan. Funds generated from parking go to the
transportation fund. Businesses are generally resistant to parking meters. The
possibility of city-wide parking fees was discussed. The issue becomes complex
when discussing fees assessed to private parking areas.
Mr. Phillips shared his experiences at meeting that day of a Govemor's blue-
ribbon panel on State transportation funding. He distributed a sheet containing
the panel's guiding principles. He highlighted several of those principles:
No. 2, to realize the priorities in regional transportation planning processes.
Transportation Board Mint
April 17, 1996
Page 11
• No. 3, integrate all modes of transportation - air, rail, mass transit, bicycle,
pedestrian, and auto - into a single coordinated network.
No. 4, provide new and flexible revenue sources for transportion.
No. 6, provide as many local prerogative and transportation financing
options as possible. This would better enable local entities to adopt transportation
funding options.
Mr. Phillips stated that to have this group promote such positive principles is very
encouraging. A gasoline tax is contemplated by No. 6. Discussion was held on
the restrictions inherent in imposing any sort of gasoline tax.
Mr. Phillips referred to a document that reflected polling of six different Colorado
communities. The results shore up the wisdom of multimodal transportation
options and moving money from roads to develop other transportation choices.
The State Legislature reflects business interests and is not moved by such
declarations. The results of this polling may help to sway members of the
Legislature.
Items to be included on the next agenda: Budget issues; traffic and parking
updates; and transportation improvement program. Mr. Gerety requested that the
Board be updated on the possible shift of recreation money; Mr. Johnson agreed
to follow up.
The methodology of producing the minutes was discussed. A court reporting firm
has been engaged to produce the minutes on an indefinite basis.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
0