Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 05/01/1996TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 1, 1996 City Council Liaison: Will Smith Staff Liaison: Tom Frazier Commission Chairman: Colin Gerety The meeting of the Transportation Board began at 5:50 p.m. in the Ben Delatour Meeting Room, 201 Peterson, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chairman Colin Gerety, Tim Johnson, Paul Perlmutter, Alan Beatty, Sara Frazier, Elizabeth Hudetz, Ray Moe, and Donn Hopkins. Staff members present included Tom Frazier, Ron Phillips, Meg Corwin, Bill Robinett, and Dick Schaffer. Moved by Mr. Perlmutter, seconded by Mr. Johnson: To approve the April 17th minutes with the following corrections: Mr. Perlmutter should be added to the list of attendees. Page 4, Mr. Highfield should be changed to Ms. Highfield. Page 8, should read, The downtown North Fort Collins area has a great deal of pedestrian traffic but is not a great pedestrian area." Page 7, "GUISE" should be changed to "GIS." Page 7, middle of the page, "dismay" should be changed to "display." Page 9, second to the last paragraph, should be changed to 'The Board members contacted the Council." Motion passed unanimously. Comments were solicited from Board members concerning the previous meeting. Ms. Frazier stated she felt an interesting dialog had occurred concerning the previous City Council meeting regarding the Street Maintenance Fee. She feels this dialog should be continued, perhaps through updates. She felt very enthusiastic about the Street Maintenance Fee after the dialog was held. Mr. Johnson noted that he was very encouraged by the initiation of the pedestrian plan. He is glad to see the plan beginning. Mr. Frazier introduced: Dawn Gable, a citizen involved in efforts being made to develop an alternate trucking route; Bill Robinett, Program Coordinator; and Meg Corwin, the new TDM coordinator. Transportation Board Minutes May 1, 1996 Page 2 Public comment was solicited. Ms. Gable and Mr. Glaser, of Glaser and Associates, who arrived later in the meeting, addressed the Board concerning their efforts in attempting to have a new truck bypass plan developed. A petition is being circulated to obtain citizen signatures for this proposed project. The proposed route will turn at the Colorado Lien and travel 11.5 miles to 1-25. The proposed route has been looked at by some experts and is believed to be a feasible route. The proposed route does not follow any existing roads, and a new road will have to be developed. Senator Campbell's office was contacted in an effort to determine if Federal funds would be available for assisting with costs, and the answer received back was that Federal funds would be available. Ms. Gable also noted that an old railroad bed exists in the area, and perhaps the new road could follow the old bed. Ms. Gable showed the Board the benefits sheet that has been developed concerning the project. She noted that one negative comment was received that the businesses in the northern area did not necessarily want a bypass due to a fear that people from Cheyenne or Laramie might literally bypass their businesses. Ms. Gable stated that any proposed plan that is developed needs to be in the planning stage before monies can be applied for. She added that Berthoud and Greeley both obtained sizable amounts of money for capital improvement projects which were in the planning stage. Mr. Perlmutter said from his understanding of the community, extremely strong support exists for having a bypass. Therefore, the true issue has traditionally been obtaining funding for the project. It was also noted that when Berthoud and Greeley received their sizable sums of money, that money had suddenly become available and was unexpected. Greeley and Berthoud had plans that were significantly advanced at that time, and Fort Collins had no projects developed. Mr. Perlmutter questioned how much of the 11.5-mile distance would be charted through private land. Ms. Gable replied that a study would need to be done on that and noted that when flying over the proposed area, not too many housing projects were seen. Mr. Perlmutter stated that he believes strong support for the projects exists from the Board, and he questioned what the next step in the process should be. Mr. Gerety stated that he recalled the history of the bypass issue being that when Fort Collins Transportation Board Minutes May 1, 1996 Page 3 decides what they would like to pursue, the State, MPO, et cetera, will then decide what steps they will take. He also noted that any plans lately have been in areas outside of the city limits and, therefore, out of City jurisdiction. Mr. Frazier stated that the North Front Range Council has taken the position that until the matter is identified as a local issue by the City of Fort Collins, Council, and the Larimer County Commissioners, they were not going to address the issue. He added that the petitions would probably be most effectively served by giving them to the City Council and to the Commissioners in an effort to generate letters of support to the North Front Range Council from the City Council and Commissioners. He also said that this particular proposed design layout is in the upper front range, and therefore, coordination would have to exist between the North Front Range Council and the Upper Front Range. Mr. Phillips stated the City Council adopted a plan last October that was examining ways to implement programs that will have some level of mitigation effect on trucks on Highway 14 and Jefferson Street. The last priority of that plan is that alternate routes will be looked into if these efforts do not have the desired results. Staff has in the proposed North Front Range MPO work plan for consideration for next budget year, an update of the alignment studies that have been done in the past, not just to look at the Owl Creek alignment but to look at the alternatives in an effort to determine which route is the most appropriate. Once that work is completed, then the updated work can be taken to the MPO Regional Council, priority processing for funding can begin. Mr. Phillips noted that many ifs exists in this process. However, the issue is being addressed, and the process is being worked on in the appropriate manner. Mr. Glaser stated that his past experience has been that any logical routes for the bypass become unmanageable and impossible due to development that occurs in its path. His main concern, therefore, is that a route is established. He knows that at least for now, no money is available for implementation, but once a consensus is reached on the bypass route, that information can be given to the development community, real estate community, and the citizens in an effort in diminish future opposition to the construction of the bypass. Mr. Frazier addressed the Board concerning the Triangle Project. The Board received a handout concerning the project. Mr. Frazier noted that what came out of the round -table discussion from '94 and '95 was a recommended action plan. As Transportation Board Minutes May 1, 1996 Page 4 a result of the action plan, a subcommittee was developed to examine ways to encourage truckers to use the 1-25/1-80 corridor through the Truck Management Program. The Triangle Project is an important part of the Truck Management Program. The project is attempting to set up an automated port along 1-25 in order to make it more conducive for the truckers to utilize that port without having to stop to increase efficiency. Also, some travel studies and travel advisories are being undertaken, and help will be given to truckers on some fleet management issues. The next planned subcommittee will be implemented for marketing strategies. This committee will be writing articles for insertion into the trucking news letters, encouraging the industry to use the 1-25/1-80 corridor. Also, a trip will be made to speak with Rand McNally in an attempt to get them to change their routing suggestions for the truckers. Mr. Frazier added that many items are being utilized to encourage the 1-25/1-80 corridor access, but there are also many items that have been done already that do not send that message, and those are all challenges which may or may not be overcome. Mr. Gerety questioned the speed limit increase on U.S. 287 as being a possible encouragement to truckers. Mr. Glaser replied that 287 has had many improvements over time, and the highway patrol representative has indicated that very few accidents are now had on 287. Therefore, when assessment of what the speed limit on 287 is made, chances are good its speed limit will also be raised. He also noted that the trucking routes are bid on distance not time. In response to questioning, Mr. Frazier said that the Western Highway Institute estimated an additional annual cost of $250,000 to use the 1-25/1-80 corridor according to a 1994 report. Therefore, cost differential is going to be a significant item. Mr. Phillips noted that the Highway 14/287 Corridor Plan scope of work has been expanded to examine pedestrian safety measures, so there may be a possibility of some safety measures that may have some traffic honing results. Mr. Phillips also noted that the highest priorities in the North Front Range Region that the MPO has Transportation Board Minutes May 1, 1996 Page 5 set are the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) projects, not the Roadway Management Projects. Concerning allocation of monies to fund a new bypass project, Mr. Phillips stated that the issues are very complex, and money is available, but the obstacles which will be encountered are extensive. Nonetheless, Staff has this interest in mind and is pushing to find a solution. Ms. Gable questioned whether the City and County was willing to encounter those obstacles. Mr. Phillips replied that the process would be initiated, and a determination would be made. Mr. Beatty asked, if the 11.5 mile route was implemented, how much mileage would that save in the 17 extra miles encountered from the 1-25/1-80 corridor. Mr. Glaser was unsure of that distance difference but noted that the 287/14 route is still going to be the shortest distance. Mr. Beatty stated that the trucking industry may still opt for the shorter route regardless of any bypasses built. Mr. Glaser added that he would find out what the distance difference would be. Mr. Robinett addressed the Board concerning the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). The Board received a handout regarding the plan. Mr. Robinett noted that a Regional Transportation Plan was adopted several years ago by the North Front Range Council. From this plan a prioritization project was undertaken, and a 20- year plan of the projects that would fit in the amount of money and the forecast was developed. The next step became the creation of a TIP, which is a three- to five- year range of proposed developments. When the regional plan was developed two years ago, a TIP was adopted which covered through the period of 1997. Staff is now in the process of adopting a new TIP which will extend out for a period of two years further. This TIP actually extends out further in time than two years, but in Mr. Robinett's opinion, those projects are more speculative than a reality. In the process of creating the new TIP, Staff contacted the Technical Advisory Committee, and they have since submitted proposed projects back to Staff. The Technical Advisory Committee will, hopefully, make any recommendations to Council in June. Transportation Board Minutes May 1, 1996 Page 6 The TIP is broken into categories of Federal funding and how it is available. Several pots of Federal funds are available. These pots were outlined in the Board's handout. Mr. Robinett noted that Staff hopes to revisit the Regional Transportation Plan in the summer or fall to ascertain whether projects need to be reprioritized, whether significant changes should be made in how the money should be spent, et cetera. Mr. Johnson questioned where the source of the funding was coming from. Mr. Robinett replied that all funding was coming from ISTEA. He added that the different transportation facilities or activities are eligible for different pots of money. All of those pots are Federal money, but they generally require a local match. In response to questioning, Mr. Robinett stated that the local match comes from the gas tax by and large. Mr. Robinett also pointed out that ISTEA was authorized in 1991 for six years. Therefore, Congress will have to reauthorize the funds next year. There may be substantial changes in the pots of money and the amounts of money. Mr. Robinett noted that the Technical Advisory Committee will have a recommendation in May or June, and then the Front Range Council will, hopefully, give approval in June or July. Mr. Robinett said that the last page of the handout given to the Board contained projects that were put in the draft that weren't in the RTP. The projects on the first page were part of the RTP. Staff is seeking input from the City boards on whether they are on the right track and whether certain projects are a higher priority than at the time of development of the plan. In response to questioning, Mr. Robinett stated that the items on the last page of the handout would have to go through some type of public participation process and meet air quality standards before they would be considered for additional TIP consideration. Mr. Robinett pointed out that at the top of the handout on enhancements, the amount of enhancement money that is available in '98 and '99 is noted, and Transportation Board Minutes May 1, 1996 Page 7 obviously, more projects exist than money available. Therefore, anything beyond 197 is not necessarily funded. Mr. Moe asked if the Fort Collins' projects were ready to go and questioned if they looked competitive, et cetera. Mr. Frazier stated that most of the projects proposed have already had a significant amount of work completed on them and are already in pretty good condition. Mr. Gerety noted that he believes this to be a pretty good list. Ms. Hudetz stated that she felt the East Harmony Shoulder Improvement was an extremely important project due to safety reasons. Moved by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Moe: To send a letter to Council noting that the Board feels an urgency to initiate the 287 bypass analysis for truck traffic, and the Board also feels the East Harmony Road Shoulder Improvement is a high priority safety issue. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Phillips suggested that a copy of that letter should also be sent to the County and to the North Front Range Regional Planning Council. Mr. Frazier addressed the Board concerning the City budget. The Board received the memo that went to Council on the budget issues. Mr. Frazier wanted to ensure the Board that the 1997 priority project for transportation services listed are all being included in the 1997 budget. Mr. Frazier noted that the determination has been made that the funds for completing the Railroad Relocation Project are insufficient. Mr. Phillips stated that enough money exists now to do Phase 2 of the project, and that phase will hopefully be completed this year. Staff met with everyone involved in the project last week, and the estimated cost to complete the entire project has gone up by about $1.8 million. The biggest reason for this increase is Union Pacific had originally estimated their cost based on actual construction costs only, and they had left out their labor additive, which is now over 200 percent on top of the materials costs. Mr. Phillips stated that negotiations are now underway to split that additional cost three ways between the City and the two railroads involved, and that cost will then be mitigated by any Federal or State money received. Staff is asking now for a consideration of $530,000 in the'97 budget for Phase 3. Transportation Board Minutes May 1, 1996 Page 8 Mr. Frazier noted another project, the 1-25 and Harmony Road Interchange. CDOT, basically, is designing an interchange called a Transportation Transfer Center. CDOT's portion of the design construction consists essentially of asphalt, drainage, and minimum landscaping. The Harmony Corridor Plan contains designs to handle parking, incoming transit, and a station for the bike trail going east and connecting with the bike trail going to Greeley. The design firm that will be handling the construction of the project will include all the amenities which Staff feels are necessary to make this a true usable center. Mr. Frazier added that a local municipality would also have to be paid for the increase construction cost. Staff estimates this project will cost in excess of $1 million, but the project will be an item for the 1997 budget. Mr. Gerety noted that the project as it's being planned to be built is not the one which was approved in the priority process. He questioned if it should be re- evaluated through the priority process before construction begins. Mr. Frazier replied that more research needs to be done, but the project is significant due to its connection to the bikeway plan along Harmony. In response to questioning, Mr. Frazier said that considerations are being made to move the interchange to the north so the roads can be realigned. The park -and -ride is proposed to be either in the northwest quadrant or the southeast quadrant. The road, therefore, will probably go right through the middle of the two. Mr. Frazier noted a couple of important dates: August 23rd, the City Manager will make its recommendation to Council. A recommendation from the Board to the City Manager, therefore, would probably take place in June. September 10th, 24th, and 28th will be Council's work sessions in which the recommendation from the City Manager will be examined. Mr. Frazier stated that by the first week of June, Staff will have prioritized all the projects listed and will submit the list of the projects which will be allotted for in the '97 budget and a list of those projects which have insufficient funds. In response to questioning, Mr. Phillips gave the Board an update on what has taken place concerning the TMF. He stated that a great deal of attention is being given toward finding a way to fund transportation maintenance through existing resources. Some cuts will take place in the existing programs in the City, but Mr. Phillips believes those amounts will be minimal. The budget office does, however, Transportation Board Minutes May 1, 1996 Page 9 anticipate fairly significant number changes in discretionary one-time budget monies and discretionary ongoing budget monies. Mr. Phillips added that perhaps monies could be used over a three- to five-year time frame to phase in funding total maintenance needs. He also noted that there is going to be many demands and requests for money in the budget process, and Staff will be diligent to obtain funding for the maintenance needs. In response to questioning, Mr. Phillips stated that the quarter cent extension for payment management will almost certainly be a part of the ballot language presented to the voters next week. Mr. Phillips noted that at this point he would not necessarily recommend action by the Board. However, Staff will keep the Board informed as to when the right time is to take action in speaking up. Mr. Phillips explained that he needed to leave the Board meeting to attend a meeting of another board but wanted to note that Dolores Highfield had called to remind him and the Board that there had been discussion of possibly doing a tour of the Timberline Road Extension proposed alignments. Mr. Phillips noted that that trip was scheduled for June 19th, and it would have to be moved up because Council has decided to consider the issue on June 11th. Mr. Schaffer addressed the Board with regard to the parking plan update. He noted that he would be talking about CSU and the CSU neighborhoods this evening and would address the downtown parking at the next Board meeting. Mr. Schaffer showed the Board maps of CSU and the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Schaffer noted that three parking studies have been done for CSU, the neighborhoods, and downtown. An advisory committee was formed for the CSU study. In determining the demands for parking, the committee found out that they were lacking approximately 1,700 to 1,800 parking spaces on campus. This lack results in parking taking place in the surrounding neighborhoods. The Board received an outline of this information. An analysis was developed, and the determination was made that funds were not available to meet this need for parking on campus. Therefore, efforts are being aimed at working with the Transit to locate a Transit center on campus and make the center of campus a very pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment. Transportation Board Minutes May 1, 1996 Page 10 Mr. Hopkins stated that the growth expected for this year and projected for next year has been less than anticipated. However, it is still believed that the five-year plan that has been developed should be followed. Mr. Hopkins noted that it is not the desire to create a parking panacea by building all the lacking spaces at one time. He believes this will simply encourage people to drive their cars rather than utilizing alternate modes of transportation. In addition he noted that building all the spaces at one time would be too costly. He said that if building all the spaces over the next two years would quadruple the cost of parking fees, which would drive more people to park in the surrounding neighborhoods to avoid the high -parking fee costs. Mr. Schaffer stated that a request is underway now to the Board of Agriculture to increase some of the parking fees and permit fees on campus for next year. Mr. Hopkins added that that request will go to the president for his approval to increase the fees by about $10 for the parking permits and by about $5 for the average overall fine. That increase would create enough revenue for next year's plan to add approximately 200 spaces. Mr. Hopkins, by way of example, stated that one parking lot on a flat piece of level ground that is attached to another parking lot is be considered for construction at this time. The cost per space to develop that lot is approximately $1,400. He added that if construction were to go up or down in levels, that cost can be multiplied by approximately seven to eight times. Mr. Gerety stated that he had worked with a corporation in town to try to determine a cost per parking space for initial construction, lighting, maintenance, and periodic reconstruction as needed, and through the amortization of the loan, that cost per space was approximately $50. Mr. Frazier stated he would like to see how those figures were developed. Mr. Gerety said, unfortunately, he was not at liberty to divulge that information. Mr. Hopkins stated that parking has always been self -funded, and a bond issue has never had to be floated in order to build parking. Mr. Hopkins noted that in comparison fees on other campuses in the area, CSU is the lowest major campus in the region. He also added that he is not sure he would agree with the consultant's estimate of a lack of 1,700 to 1,800 spaces. Mr. Schaffer said that the other study that was done was concerning the impacts of CSU students and staff on the surrounding neighborhoods. The recommendations that have resulted are, first, that it is necessary to ensure all spaces are being utilized correctly. Many of the spaces have not been painted in some time, and Transportation Board Minutes May 1, 1996 Page 11 restriping of the spaces increases spaces of possibly up to 1.4 times. The association of the neighborhoods recommendation was that the City pursue a residential parking permit program. However, different neighborhoods contain different ordinances to meet certain standards. Therefore, the City would have to do a considerable amount of research, obtain public comment, and meet the particular ordinances of the neighborhoods to implement this program. This program would, therefore, take some time to implement. With regard to enforcement, the Staff must still further consider the cost in the budget for enforcement. It would be important to ensure that some money could be recovered from the cost of enforcement. Mr. Frazier stated that whatever is done with the residential permit program, it needs to be applied uniformly, and it needs to extend far enough out to discourage individuals from parking and walking. The intent is not to push the parking problem into further outspread areas. Mr. Perlmutter stated that he wished to express his thought about the parking problem. He does not like the idea of a permit program and feels it is oppressive in some ways. He perceives this as a university problem and not a City problem. He does not want to pay City funds for a university problem. He believes the consultant's figure of 1,700 to 1,800 lacking spaces is the number that must be worked with. He noted that the university has a plan to grow almost double in size over a long-range period of time and believes that the current plan of 200 additional spaces in the next year is not adequate. He would like to see something more aggressive from the university in terms of addressing the problem rather than the City attempting to take on the responsibility. Mr. Hopkins stated that he could bring the five-year plan in for the Board to look over if they would like that information. Mr. Gerety stated that city parking is generally free in most places that he knows of, and he noted that he has never been to a university town that did not have a parking problem around the university. He believes that the problem is something that needs to be examined. Mr. Frazier added that the university is an important part of the community, and the City needs to work together with the university to solve the problem. Transportation Board Minutes May 1, 1996 Page 12 Mr. Johnson asked if the permits would be given to the residents as a function of living in the neighborhood. Mr. Frazier stated that different methods could be utilized, but residents will receive a permit. Mr. Beatty questioned whether freshmen were allowed to have cars and noted that in the past, that many state colleges prohibited freshmen from bringing cars to the campus. Mr. Hopkins replied that freshmen are allowed cars. There are only a few private schools that he knows of that can prohibit freshmen from having cars. He added that since CSU is a public institution, it would be difficult to prohibit cars. Mr. Frazier addressed the Board concerning the update of the Master Transportation Plan. The only item included in the update was on the environmental relationships and transportation planning. This document has been reviewed thoroughly by the Natural Resources Staff, and the update received by the Board was the result of their meetings. Mr. Johnson noted that on the first page under the principal environmental relationships, perhaps lighting could be placed under aesthetic values. Mr. Gerety stated that he felt the document was missing the causal relationships between the various transportation components and would like to see that added. Mr. Frazier stated that Staff was attempting to develop something like that. Mr. Johnson noted that the Board had requested information from him concerning the potential for change in funding for the trails. He stated that at least for this year, the issue has been dropped, so there will be no change or diversion of the funds. Mr. Gerety gave the Board copies of the paper he had discussed previously concerning the project in Berthoud that questioned, When you build a new highway, what happens to traffic? Ms. Frazier stated that she had to leave the information meeting on the City Plan early and had heard that videotapes of the meeting were available. Mr. Frazier stated that the video is being shown on Channel 27, but he could get copies of the videotape if any Board member would like to see it. 0 • Transportation Board Minutes May 1, 1996 Page 13 Ms. Frazier noted that she felt the truck issue was touched on briefly this evening and questioned if the Board would receive further information on the subject. Mr. Frazier replied that that will be a regular report because it will be an ongoing project. In regard to the next agenda, Mr. Frazier noted the following: The street design standard presentation to Council may be moved to June 18th or July 2nd. If such happens, that item will more than likely be moved to the Board's June 15th meeting. The Timberline item will possibly be moved to May 15th. Further discussion was held concerning the Timberline project. It was believed that that item will consume most of the Board's meeting when it takes place. Mr. Frazier suggested that on the 15th, the Board could travel out to the site and conduct the majority, if not all, of the meeting at the site. He added that he would check with Staff on the possibility of that. Mr. Johnson moved adjournment. With no objections, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.