Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 06/21/1995Draft minutes to be approved by the Transportation Board at their July 19, 1995 meeting. TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING MINUTES JUNE 21, 1995 FOR REFERENCE: Chair -- Colin Gerety (970)546-0460 Vice Chair -- Paul Valentine 493-0100 Council Liaison -- Will Smith 223-0425 Staff Liaison Tom Frazier 221-6608 Secretary Cindy Scott 221-6608 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Egeland, Sara Frazier, Colin Gerety, Elizabeth Hudetz, Ray Moe, and Paul Valentine. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Alan Beatty, Dolores Highfield, and Paul Perlmutter. STAFF/COUNCIL/GUESTS PRESENT: Eric Bracke, Susanne Edminster, Ron Phillips - Transportation Services staff Will Smith - Council Sandy Lemberg - Guest AGENDA: Call to Order Approval of Minutes A. PUBLIC COMMENT B. ACTION ITEMS C. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Transportation Services 1996 Budget Review 2. One-way Couplet Report 3. Transportation Board Organization 4. Board Member Reports 5. Staff Reports 6. Summary/Next Agenda 7. Other Business Chair Gerety called the meeting to order at approximately 5:45 p.m. There was a motion, a second and a unanimous vote to accept the May 17, 1995 Transportation Board meeting minutes as presented. A. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Sandy Lemberg: I have come about the report on the one -ways. I spoke with Cindy earlier, but I didn't have time to take any notes on what I wanted to say. Basically what it comes down to is, I feel like this report is totally conventional and conventional means not only does it work in Fort Collins, but it goes by conventions as in the past. It lists some statistics, but then it says things like, "generally one-way couplets have these characteristics and this is what can be expected and so on." One point that I would like to mention is that I did notice that this company is the same company that Rick Ensdorff has gone to work for and Rick Ensdorff is the one who put these in without consulting anybody as far as I know. I can also relay the fact that Rick tried to put in another pair of one-way couplets and some citizens got wind of it and at the public meetings everybody said no, absolutely not. So, I would point out that I believe that this kind of consulting conspiracy. I would be interested in knowing how much was paid to the consultant for this sort of work. I am not going to say that anything they have said statistically is incorrect, but their approach seems to be just like they talked about, that travel at certain intersections meets a certain warrant and a warrant I believe is established in Washington D.C. Does anybody know what a warrant is for a traffic light? Bracke responded that a warrant is criteria established over time by traffic engineers and is adopted into the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and it provides consistency of when a traffic signal goes in rather than putting in signals haphazardly. This is done through the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) which is a national organization. They are the ones that got together and wrote the MUTCD which has been adopted by the Federal Highways and virtually all the municipalities. Lemberg: I guess that's what I mean, it is a national thing, the guys that wrote these things never saw the intersection of Laurel and Howes. I think that what's owed to this community for their tax money is a system of traffic control that is suited for this community and I am really generally opposed to the one -ways. I think that what we need is engineers to go in and look at exactly what the situation is and use creative thinking individually. That's what I mean by conventional. A negative aspect is that you're not operating the bypass alternative with north/south routes. Also, we can't get off of College going north bound for example and this was in there at that time and nothings been done to promote that for traffic light timing. Those lights are not timed. As it says in here, Mulberry operates independently of the others and not only that but LaPorte, at Mason north bound, operates independently of the others, it always lags behind. Mountain and LaPorte possibly also, but I know Mountain is much longer than the other ones. If you make a turn onto one of the one -ways, you always miss the light. It could be lengthened. C Also, nobody's also studied a computer model. It seems to me that this study should have included a computer model of how they could be timed in both directions as I mentioned the last time. Also, there is the thing about capacity. There is no capacity on Howes. The street is virtually empty, there are no cars. There is a one-way section in Boulder where there is always heavy traffic. I really feel like this is just an engineer's dream that somebody thought it would be cool to have. At the last meeting it was said that there would be no survey done until this report was in and I have a problem with that because the survey then will be "pulled" by this report in some sense. I believe that the conclusions of the report have a tendency to pre -determine the survey questions and the other thing that was said at the last meeting was that there is no intention to survey the drivers. The drivers have to get from say the laundromat on Mason just north of Mulberry to Avagadro's Number. It's the motorists more -so than the businesses because if I want to eat at Avagadro's, I'm going to go there however long it takes or how much out of my way, but to me it's preposterous not to survey the motorists and you should have public meetings. Gerety said that this item will soon be discussed and that Mr. Lemberg is welcome to stay. B. ACTION ITEMS None CA. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES -1996 Budget Review Phillips introduced Susanne Edminster, Policy Analyst for Transportation Services. He referred to the "transportation wheel" that he discussed at the last meeting. The four areas that were brought together into Transportation Services are Engineering, Streets, Transfort and the Transportation Division. Those four departments are now in the process of being organized into two groups: Multi -modal Group (Tom Frazier) Transportation Planning Transportation Demand Management - Commuter Pool - Vanpool - Outreach programs - Upgraded marketing effort Transfort Ooerations and Projects Grouo (Gary Diede) Engineering, Design & Project Management Traffic Operations - Traffic Signalization - Signs & Pavement Markings (We hope to have a Traffic Engineer hired by 8/1.) He said that this is an approach to putting more emphasis on alternative modes of transportation and how staff will operate. Phillips said that a hand-out has been distributed which is the same information submitted to the Finance Department and the City Manager from the Transportation Service area - last page. These are amounts necessary in addition to what was given as a target budget. Each department is given a target budget which essentially is this year's amount plus a slight increase for 1996. The first part of the list contains 18 items that have been prioritized by importance. The others are items that staff would like to see get funded in the future if possible. Phillips said that it is important for the Board to understand what's being requested, where staff would like to go and how they plan to meet the goals and objectives of the service area. He explained what on -going and one-time budget funding is. He then went over the hand-out in more detail. Smith said that at some point in the future, the Board should see the whole budget picture. Phillips said that the bottom line is that Council felt transportation needs were not being met and it was difficult to achieve the energy necessary to take the next step in providing transportation services in the city of Fort Collins. Staff found that this was very true and in order to meet some of the basic needs for services provided, there isn't enough resources. It's not a case of not being able to save money, it's everybody working together more efficiently. He said that we're going to be able to meet the needs better, but we need more money. Phillips stated that what he is trying to sell, is his goal of Transportation Services being under dedicated sources of funding and out of the general fund in the next two to three years. Gerety asked the Board if there is any desire to take any action on this item at this point. There were a few questions/answers regarding traffic calming: what it is/techniques, etc. Phillips stated that in closing, the estimated amount of money available next year above the target budget is in the area of on -going funds and is approximately 9.1 million dollars for the city as a whole. We are asking for $2-2.5 million. The amount of one-time funding is in the area of $1.6 million, but this will be refined further. There are many decisions to be made. He stated that he just wanted to share what the Transportation Services area requested at this point in time and that more information will be brought to the next meeting regarding how the others need to be addressed and how it fits within the whole picture. C.2. ONE-WAY COUPLET - Report Bracke took the floor and stated that he wanted to clarify that Centennial Engineering did the report because there was a continuing contract with them, not because Rick Ensdorff works for them. Bracke said that Centennial looked at service issues, signal progression, capacity, and accident data. He said that he believes the conclusion is correct especially in terms of two items: 1) The signal progression works quite well; and 2) One of the critical points to remember is (Figure 5) that the one-way significantly reduces the number of potential conflict points. This means that there is a reduction in accidents as well. He stated that it would've been nice to have had accident data from the early 80's, but a good traffic counting system was not in place at that time, however the consultant did a good job of looking at 1991-1993. There is a significant amount of cost associated with turning the one -ways back. New signal controllers, striping and signing, and railroad gates. The consultant made a fairly good point in that it is not really functioning as a bypass and it is too short of a distance. Because of the decision that was made back in the mid 80's to not continue all the way to Laurel and stopping at Myrtle, it is a very difficult and confusing intersection. This is a part of why it is not being used as a bypass. Originally in the Master Street Plan, there is a post connection that would go north and to the east to make a connection that avoids all the intersections/RR at 287. This is definitely a missing link. Bracke also said that someday someone is going to collect data concerning business opportunities and whether or not that business is served better by being a one-way or a two-way street. Bracke commented that he has never heard any complaints from businesses on a one-way street. The Board informed Bracke that the owner of King's Auto Sales attended a board meeting and let them know of his complaints with the one-way couplet. Mr. Lemberg: They talk about putting in a left -turn lane on Laurel Street eastbound to Mason, but what you have at Laurel and Howes is a problem and I don't think that the City has ever acknowledged it. It seems as though they look at things that don't need to be changed and when there is a problem, they ignore it. I was impressed by what Ron said because it seems to me that the changes you're making are probably going to clear up this kind of thing. Something needs to be done about this intersection! When you're coming down south on Howes everybody sits and sits. The same thing happens at College and Willow where it turns into Cherry. Valentine said that he read the report with great interest. He still doesn't understand why we have the one -ways. Those two streets are both large enough and have low enough capacity to function as two-way streets according to the report. Are they safer? I don't know. He said that he was coming north on Mason the other day and someone tried to pull into King's Auto from the right hand lane and the party in the left hand lane clobbered them broadside. Valentine asked what function do one -ways serve, why should we have two short sections? If you can get beyond that and say, yeah they are good things, they do serve a function, then the suggested improvements would help things. Valentine also noted that one of the things that did not get addressed is the diagonal parking on the east side of Mason between Oak and Mountain. This was done due to political pressure but it prevents putting a bicycle lane there. Even if there were parallel parking there, it would be okay. Moe said that he was looking at the accident analysis/Table 2. It lists the top thirty intersections and 10 of them are in this corridor. He said he has a serious question about a simple diagram that just shows the conflicts and doesn't see any discussion in the report about looking at the accident records - what was the cause of the accidents? 5 He said that he would think that one would need to identify whether the accidents happen because people are confused or is it access or what? There is no information in this report that verifies what it is. He said that he is not necessarily opposed one-way or two-way, but is just commenting on the report and the adequacy of it. There does seem to be an accident problem especially given the small amount of traffic. Valentine pointed out that the intersections given are not the top ones in the city. The report shows four-way intersections with characteristics similar to downtown/heavy shopping traffic. Valentine further stated that he would like to see this go back to some type of a public input and find out what people think, what do the motorists think? Gerety asked if the $360,000 is worth it to change it back. Valentine replied negatively. Council Liaison Smith said to keep in mind that the City/County are looking at those three to four blocks and are discussing opportunities there. It would probably be useful to have this information on hand and it needs to be integrated into parts of those discussions. Bracke said that by changing it back, you will also increase the speed and you won't be able to progress the signals very well. He said that parking would have to be removed at the turn lanes and that the emissions/pollution will increase as part of that. Phillip said that this is an issue that you can argue both ways about and that he personally doesn't care, but there is a balance of access and mobility. The decision was made that took that balance toward mobility so that you can move through the corridor more easily. He said that the consultant tried to come up with straightforward information on accident data that could be more complete than it is, but then again, they weren't paid very much. We can pay for more data, but the information presented is not erroneous or presented in a skewed fashion. The data indicates that there aren't more accidents at these intersections than other ones. What it really comes down to is personal preference. Chair Gerety interjected that there are valid concerns here and that Mr. Lemberg's comments are that this is an incomplete traffic engineering report. It is a fine piece of information which is needed, but in this particular case, it is not the key piece of information that he would use in deciding which way to vote. He further stated that from the beginning of the whole issue, the Board talked about the other issues that are involved: the business issues, the feeling of the area, etc. all of these other things are not addressed in this report. It is a fine report for what it is, but nobody should take it as a complete report for why there should or should not be one-way streets. Egeland said that it is good to have that data, especially the cost data so that the board knows what they're dealing with. Moe suggested that the Board don't pursue anything more at this point. Wait and see what happens in the downtown city/county redevelopment planning. Frazier agreed with Moe as did Valentine. Mr. Lemberg suggested that there be: 1) A resolve to solicit citizen input as to desirability of changing it back; 2) Whether the people who want it changed back think it is worth the money; and 3) When the city/county complex gets more concrete, then go out to the public and ask what they want to do about it. Frazier noted that the option of completing the A couplet as originally planned shouldn't be forgotten. C.3. TRANSPORTATION BOARD ORGANIZATION Gerety stated that there is a lot going on in the city right now. He met recently with Phillips and Tom Frazier and found that some of those things are the Transit Development Plan; Pedestrian Plan; Transportation Demand Management Program; Downtown Parking Plan; Master Transportation Plan; Comprehensive Plan Update; and City Dialogue. In addition, the City's Transportation Department underwent a major re -organization and the question arose - are we organized appropriately and how do we want to fit into all these things? Phillips said that the Board has worked primarily with the Transportation Division over the last few years and that staff feels that there is a wider array of issues that the Board should be dealing with. He said that he would like to be bringing transit development kinds of issues to discuss and make recommendations on as the TDP gets more toward its completion. These would be a lot more meaningful things than advertising on buses or bus shelters that the Board has seen over the last few months. He further stated that he would like to see the Transportation Board be the advisory board for Transportation Services as a service area to Council in a total array of transportation issues. There has been some discussion of the possibility of increasing the members of the board from 9 to 11. This is extracted from what is being developed now for the Council Policy Agenda for 1995-1997. These are the major efforts that are on -going or will be on -going over the next two years in conjunction with Council Policy Agenda for land use, transportation and air quality. Gerety said that he would like to see this board become the catalyst for the Master Plan and wants the board to see a new graph every month of what the Plan is going to be so they can discuss the changes and additional information that comes in. He also said that we need to really function as a board which is developing, hands on, a Master Transportation Plan. Phillips agreed with Gerety and said that this is how it should be. Valentine said that he doesn't want to get bogged down and that perhaps there should be a sub -committee that can work on the Plan and report back to the others. Smith said that his concern is that there will be segments that spin off from this and nobody will be able to keep up on all the information from this one and that, etc. to be able to put those pieces together. He said that we are now in far better shape than we were a year ago to be able to do that, mostly because the city has re -organized itself relative to transportation issues, but there is also the role of the citizen board in looking at all these different parts, everyone has their own interest. Gerety asked the Board if this is a reasonable focus for the next year and for staff to provide the Board with all the components along with all the surrounding materials. Is this something that staff will be working on? Phillips responded affirmatively and stated that this is out of the City Plan context. He said we are working on fully integrating land use, transportation and air quality (LUTRAQ). There is currently a LUTRAQ staff team from Natural Resources, Planning, CPES, and Transportation. Gerety asked if the Board wants to go ahead and undertake this responsibility. Moe said yes. There was a general consensus from the other Board members. The next item for discussion is expansion of the Board. Smith explained that it is very important to get a representation from all different aspects and that everyone brings something special to the board. It was decided that it was very important to have representation/participation from CSU, so Donn Hopkins has been appointed to the Board replacing Alan Beatty. Smith asked if the board were larger in size, would a subgroup of that be willing to work with transit and serve in part as their citizen sounding board as opposed to sitting on a separate board. Another question to consider is would the Board be more efficient at 9 or 11 members? The board was originally formed because of an ad -hoc group of four chairs that were looking at a master transportation plan. That plan was formed at the same time the Transportation Board was formed. The plan wound up going one way and the -Board went in another for whatever reason and now with the re -organization, it has been brought back together. He said that it comes down to a question of the Board's opinion as to whether they think they're more effective at 9 or 11 members. Hudetz asked if the board was expanded, would that mean that Beatty would be back on? Smith said that it would be open to the public and interviews would be conducted. Valentine said that he is in favor of expanding to eleven. Moe said that it is just fine having nine dedicated people. Egeland said that he doesn't think that the board ever had any problems with the nine members it has and that increasing to eleven isn't going to make a difference one way or another. Hudetz said that if there were eleven, there would be more people to split up to cover more, but she doesn't have any strong feelings about it either way. Smith suggested that the Board bring this back to the next meeting. Start out as a motion and then vote on it. Gerety agreed and said that this would be an action item for next time and for everyone to give it some thought until then. CA. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Gerety said that he would like to have an action item for next time - the letter he drafted and distributed. C.5. STAFF REPORTS Phillips stated that the next 18 months are going to be exciting times in the City of Fort Collins. He said that we have the opportunity, as citizens of this community, to plan a tremendous future and there is so much going on in the area and he looks forward to working more closely with the board in that effort and is energized by the possibilities. Smith said that Police Services has something called photo radar and they want to know how to bring this to the public. It was suggested that the City's Neighborhood Coordinator get together with neighborhoods who would volunteer their neighborhood for a trial run. Cl • The registered owner of the vehicle would be sent a notice that the vehicle was detected speeding and would also ask what they think of the new system. C.6. SUMMARY/NEXT AGENDA Moe asked if there is any opportunity to get updates on the TDP and TDM? Phillips said that there will be and he will bring budget information to the next meeting as well. Valentine said that the earlier the board can get information, the better. Hudetz said that she is totally in agreement with Gerety on his letter - this will be discussed next time. Valentine noted that the board did not discuss the Free Fares for Youth (Transfort) - this will be on the next agenda. C.7. OTHER BUSINESS There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 8:00 p.m. 444 4. jcgt— Cindy l . colt, Secretary