Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 11/16/1994Draft minutes to be approved by the Board at the December 21, 1994 meeting. TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1994 5:48 - 7:45 FOR REFERENCE: Chair Colin Gerety 546-0460 Vice Chair Paul Valentine 493-0100 Council Liaison Will Smith 223-0425 Staff Liaison Rick Ensdorff 221-6608 Board Secretary Cindy Scott 221-6608 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Egeland, Sara Frazier, Colin Gerety, Dolores Highfield, Paul Perlmutter and Paul Valentine. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Alan Beatty, Elizabeth Hudetz, and Dave Lemesany. STAFF/COUNCIL PRESENT: Rick Ensdorff and Cindy Scott. Chair Gerety called the meeting to order at 5:48 p.m. AGENDA: A. ACTION ITEMS 1. Approval of Minutes 2. Paratransit B. PUBLIC COMMENT C. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Congestion Management Plan 2. 1995 Transportation Board Work Plan 3. One-way Study 4. Managed Growth Strategies 5. Meeting Summary/Next Agenda 6. Board Member's Comments 7. Other Business A.1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion, a second and a unanimous vote to approve the October 19, 1994 Transportation Board meeting minutes as presented. A.2. PARATRANSIT SERVICES Daggett stated that he and Board Member Highfield sat on a committee that went over proposals for road operations for paratransit services by the direction of City Council to lower the cost. Two service providers were interviewed: Shamrock Taxi and Care -A -Van Inc. Highfield explained that she represented the Transportation Board on the committee and each committee member was given a rating sheet to rate different areas of the proposals. She brought them in the event that anyone is interested in reviewing them. The providers were asked to bid on three different categories. After the interviews, the committee rated them and Shamrock Taxi came in ahead of Care -A -Van. Daggett stated that before the interviews were conducted, the committee took a look at different scenarios that they could decide upon such as: Care -A -Van was fairly adamant about "It's all or nothing." They either wanted all of the service or none at all including the ambulatory. In the financial analysis, Care -A -Van was last in terms of cost because theirs was the highest. They were also not the top -rated firm by the committee in general. Today, Daggett announced to Shamrock that they received two of the three pieces and that the City will self -operate the first piece and Care -A -Van has likewise been notified that they did not receive the bid. Daggett stated that he believes there will be an appeal from Care -A -Van. Daggett said that he would like to get a sense from the Board on how they feel about this decision. Most board members responded with affirmative gestures that this decision was the right one and Frazier stated verbally that it was. B. PUBLIC COMMENT None. C.I. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN Ensdorff presented a slide show to the Board. He explained that the gray book is Chapters 1-7 and the pink book is Chapter 8 of the Plan. Eventually, there will be a chapter 9 which will be the public process documented in the package and it will include a "listening log" - all the comments that have been documented from all the different groups that this plan has been presented to and the discussion by the citizen's group, staff, and consultant on the citizen input and what, if any, changes that need to be made to chapter 8. It is the group's intention to have the plan go to Council at their first meeting in February at this point. The public process is going to go through the next three months. Ensdorff introduced Ray Moe, a member of the citizen's group. Ensdorff then went over the many groups that have heard the presentation so far and added that there is a video still in production that will be available and may be shown on channel 27. Another document will be created called "Report to the Community" that will be a summary (4-6 pages). This will be included in a Sunday edition of the Coloradoan to increase public awareness. The presentation will also be on two cable television programs: Cross Currents and Perspective. He said that if anyone on the Transportation Board knows of any other groups that would like to see the presentation, please let him know and they can be added to the list. Ensdorff added that the Board does not have to take action tonight after all. Council feels more comfortable in giving the CMP group plenty of time for public process. Egeland asked what the general reaction has been so far. Ensdorff stated that it depends on the audience. He said that the comments he will make about what the reaction has been should not be construed as a generalization of the groups, because each one is different. At the Board of Realtors presentation, there were 150 people and only five questions before they had to move on to other issues. Some questions were pragmatic and one person felt that the 30% growth rate in vehicle miles traveled over population is due to people coming here from Wyoming and Nebraska. The C-4 and Citizen Planners group was a lot more aware of the situation and were more activist in nature as one would expect. The County Commissioners support the concept but are not convinced it's going to work. Ensdorff then presented the slide show. Egeland stated that on the citizen's slide, we're saying, "Yes, we want to change behavior, but really what it's saying there is drive no more than you do now and as an average citizen, I can do that." Maybe that slide needs to be changed to be a little more aggressive. He mentioned a concern about polarization once people understand what it means to them. Valentine stated that if every citizen would reduce their vehicle miles/trips by 10%, then most people can understand that. Ensdorff agreed and stated that we are not asking people to abandon their cars, it is a matter of making different choices and thinking about the environment. Valentine said that they are not going to become polarized until they realize how it is going to affect them. If you don't build a street (Timberline) it is going to affect some people, there is going to be a polarization and people will come out either for or against that decision. With this plan, there is nothing here that says it is going to affect me. Egeland stated that he disagrees somewhat. Some of the information in the plan gets into more detail and obviously the slide show can't do all that. Gerety stated that if people aren't getting upset about the slide show, it is because they don't understand what's being said. It is a conceptual thing. It doesn't really say how it will affect people's lives directly. We talk about activity centers, what does an activity center look like? What does our community look like? When you talk about the notion of activity centers, what you are really saying is if you own a piece of property on Timberline and you have intentions to put apartments there, or a mini shopping center, the City may tell you no, you can't do that. That is an impact. If the guy who owns the property across the street from you wants to put up an apartment house, you may not like it, but the City may say, yes, that is a good use of that land because it is close to an activity center and we will promote this. The facts and the figures are all laid out, but how does it affect my life? Why do I need to drive less, what is my neighborhood going to look like, how is it going to change the investments that I have made in land? Ensdorff stated that the group is doing two things to help that. There will be picture slides of what can be conceived as activity centers and some slides that show urban design techniques that would present a different street scape or environmental scape to show what it would look like. The second part of that is where we are with this process. At this time we are not asking people to vote on activity centers, that is going to be done in the update to the Comprehensive Plan. This will be an important part of the Comprehensive Plan's public process. The reality of the decision we are asking Council to make in February is to say we support the concept of activity centers and urban design and we think that should be pursued in greater detail in the Comprehensive Plan update. In the area of TDM and transportation system monitoring, we're asking them to basically support a program that is already funded by the North Front Range Council and one that they have already expressed interest in. Ensdorff went over pages 77-78 with the Board, explaining what each item means. He then went over page 68. The first premise in the goals and objectives is that there needs to be a balance between the supply and demand in the transportation system. The group has attempted to come up with a way to describe and set some criteria that identifies when money should be spent on supply. The items on page 68 are what the group is going to propose to Council for their support and approval. Perlmutter asked if the Council adopts the recommendations, how does it affect the budget? Ensdorff replied that it will officialize the in -flow of MPO money into some City programs. It won't necessarily take money right away from one part of the City budget and move it to another. We have the opportunity to put a new funding source into transportation demand management and the monitoring system. Ensdorff reiterated that the Board does not need to take action tonight. The Board can take their time to look it over, add comments and the committee will take all the public input and figure out what refinements they need to incorporate before the final version goes to Council in February. Perhaps at the next meeting, the Board could review a copy of the listening log. Ray Moe stated that he would like to compliment the committee in coming together to a consensus. In the beginning, the group had a hard time agreeing on things and they have come a long way. One of the Commissioner's (at a presentation) commented that this is a practical plan and Moe agrees with that. One of the practical aspects is the land use factor. It is a logical step in a successful plan. He stated that finance is an issue and there is a lot of work yet to be done in that area, but it can be done. Egeland stated that the word he used earlier, polarity, was perhaps not the right one to use. He said his concern was grounded in that going after 150 people at the Board of Realtors meeting and there wasn't any more comment than what Rick said, is something that we need to look at. Say that we are going through a public comment process right now, but I don't know how much real "meat" we are going to get out of that right now and whether it's more of a "well, we're doing it" type of thing. Valentine stated that he is a firm believer that the key to this whole thing is going to be promotion, selling and education like we are doing right now. Highfield agreed and said that this is all ground work, this is the first step. Frazier said that this should be presented to the kids. Ensdorff replied that the school board doesn't have time for a presentation, but he is optimistic that the Superintendent will give them some time during a staff meeting in the next couple of months. The board thanked Mr. Moe for coming tonight and expressed appreciation for the CMP committee's hard work. C.2. 1995 TRANSPORTATION BOARD WORK PLAN Chair Gerety stated that he would like to arrange some time to meet with board members in small groups on a Saturday to go over the work plan. Everyone arranged a time with Chair Gerety and he will call those who are not present tonight. C.3. ONE-WAY STUDY Ensdorff stated that he does not have the scope of services yet, but he will get one done. It may be about $4,000 worth of work and the timing may be March 1995. He met with the consultant recently and used the meeting minutes to set the parameters of what is expected and will have more information to bring to the next meeting. C.4. MANAGED GROWTH STRATEGIES This item is to be deferred until another time. Ensdorff stated that this group can send comments however they want to the Chamber. The City is going to send a response back next week. The Board agreed to discuss this under Other Business next time. C.S. MEETING SUMMARY/NEXT MEETING AGENDA Ensdorff stated that he has been asked to place two items on the agenda: - Briefing on the North College Plan - Briefing on the Fort Collins/Loveland Corridor Project; and as discussed tonight: - 1995 Transportation Work Plan - Managed Growth Strategies (Other Business) - One-way Study C.6. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Frazier stated that she is going to get started on the voucher program as soon as the new person comes on board at Transfort. Frazier requested a synopsis of all the groups and projects going on for reference. Egeland stated that he would like to cut down on his involvement with the North College Project. Members of the group were told that this is a good time in the project to drop out if they desired (or stay on as they wish). He is considering dropping out at this point. Chair Gerety said that this could be discussed further when meeting about the work plan. Valentine stated that he has been watching the light rail situation in Denver and has been encouraged because they are having to bring back some of the buses as the rail system is loaded. Valentine commented that the Bikeway Focus Group is moving on and they hope to have the results of the survey that was sent out weeks ago real soon. There have been some computer glitches that caused the delay. C.7. OTHER BUSINESS Ensdorff stated that the Colorado Department of Transportation is starting on a process to do a rail feasibility study for the entire state. There is an assigned person in their transportation planning department to work on it. This is good news but he does feel that they are off on some strange directions as to what they think a rail feasibility study would be. They need to be reined in and need help in getting focused on the issues that make sense. In 1995, there should be a start on rail feasibility. He stated that we need to define what role rail will play in the transportation system and CDOT has already identified some corridors, so we need to understand what is needed to make it efficient and we need to work together on these issues. Chair Gerety asked if anyone has looked at making Prospect/College and Prospect/Shields the same as Remington - center turn lane, one through lane, bike lane and parking (between Lemay and Shields). Ensdorff stated that his initial thought is that traffic loads are so much higher there. Gerety feels that traffic may shift out if capacity is reduced. He asked staff to look into the effects of changing it as described. Gerety reminded everyone that transportation affects us, sometimes tragically and closer than we'd like. There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 7:40 p.m. 6 ,�• � — Cindy LAScott, Secretary M