Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 10/19/1994Draft Minutes to be approved by the Board at the November 16, 1994 meeting. TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1994 5:46 - 7:00 P.M. FOR REFERENCE: Chair — Colin Gerety 229-2523 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: Alan Beatty, Mark Egeland, Sara Frazier, Colin Gerety, Elizabeth Hudetz, David Lemesany, Paul Perlmutter and Paul Valentine. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Dolores Highfield STAFF/COUNCIL PRESENT: Rick Ensdorff and Cindy Scott. Chair Gerety called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. AGENDA: A. ACTION ITEMS 1. Approval of Minutes 2. Meeting Day/Time - Leave it or change it? B. PUBLIC COMMENT C. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Current One -Way Streets - Information 2. Congestion Management Plan - Update 3. Meeting Summary/Next Meeting Agenda 4. Other Business 1 A.I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion and a second to approve the meeting minutes of September 21, 1994 as presented. When opened for discussion, Chair Gerety stated that he would like a sentence added to the end of the 4th paragraph on page 4. "The success of activity centers is going to depend very heavily on the design criteria which is used to create them and on the economics of travel in the city," will be added. The Board unanimously voted to approve the September 21, 1994 Transportation Board minutes as amended. A.2. MEETING DAYTIME - LEAVE IT OR CHANGE IT? After a discussion, which included a suggestion that the meeting should begin either at 5:45 or as soon as there is a quorum, there was a motion to change the meeting time to 5:45 p.m. from 5:30 p.m. There was a second and the motion carried by a unanimous vote. This will be effective beginning November 16, 1994. B. PUBLIC COMMENT Jerry King - King's Auto Sales, 203 W. Mulberry, Fort Collins: Mr. King stated: My intention here tonight is to comment on the one-way streets. I don't know what good they do. I own a piece of property at Mason and Mulberry (King's Auto Sales) and we find a lot of negatives with it and can't think of any positives. I hear a lot of people say they don't use them because they are one-way streets and they are confusing. People are constantly going the wrong way on the one-way street there and then they turn around using my property to straighten themselves out. I think more traffic would use the streets if they were two-way, especially down on the south end of Mason where it narrows down and becomes two-way. It is very confusing and a lot of people make a left -turn off of Mulberry going on to Mason thinking that it is two-way there. We're not very happy about it. At the discretion of the Chair, the One -Way Streets agenda item was moved up to C.1. so Mr. King could stay for the discussion. C.I. CURRENT ONE-WAY STREETS - INFORMATION Ensdorff stated that he sent out background information in the packets as well as some current information. He stated that the best way to describe it, is that the project was meant to be much larger than just the one-way streets. There was a lot of discussion and anguish over the project in 1983-85 and it was finally implemented in October of 1985. Different parts of the project included: relocation of the switch yard from downtown; the building of Mason Street (Mason did not go from LaPorte north); an upgrade to the railroad tracks themselves (they were not in very good shape); and then the actual one-way couplet part of it. There were two parts to the one-way couplet: The part that is out there now and the part that did not get built. Phase II was to extend the one -ways from Cherry Street north and connect it back into College at the power plant so that there would be a continuous system at least on the north end. On the south end, the original concept was to have it one-way all the way to Laurel. The end product out there now is a product of political compromise, particularly 2 f from Myrtle south, because of an outcry from the owners of Lee's Cyclery and the Ram's Bookstore. Those business owners were very concerned about what impact it would have and Council asked the Transportation Department to come up with a different way of doing it from Myrtle south and what's out there now is that different way. The project of constructing the link where Howes and Mason is run together and tied into one intersection at the power plant with a signalized intersection was originally funded in the early through the mid 1980s. Then, the Council at that time decided it wasn't a high priority project so that money was used elsewhere and the funds are no longer available. The reason the one-way couplet came about in the first place was to relieve traffic on College Avenue. It has done that. It has allowed traffic to flow onto Mason to go northbound or south from the courthouse. Given the on -street parking on College Avenue, the concept was to find a way to improve the flow on College Avenue and the one-way system was an alternative for that traffic. In 1982 or 1983, a Downtown Traffic and Circulation Study found that 75% of all traffic coming into the downtown on College Avenue passed through and the concept was to get some of that pass -through traffic off of College. College Avenue has the highest accident rate of any state highway in the entire state because of the parking, and that contributed to the sense that the City needed to look at something else. Ensdorff stated that the double left-tums on Mulberry/College and Laurel/College are also a part of the project. They are meant to allow for the flow to go west onto those. Improvements were made to College Avenue to facilitate movement to the west side of College. Ensdorff said if it were to be changed back, there are issues of railroad safety on Mason Street with two-way traffic and also with what has been done on Howes Street at Canyon. Staff would have to think through what the volumes might be that would then re -locate back to College as pass -through traffic. He said his guess is that 75% of the traffic is not using Mason and Howes to pass through. Perlmutter asked if it was made into two-way streets again, would people go back to College, given that College is more crowded than ever? Wouldn't people who are using Howes and Mason now, still continue to use it even if it were changed, because College is so congested? Ensdorff stated that the expectation of converting through -trips from College has not been that successful without the other piece. If we didn't have one-way streets there right now, more congestion would be felt on those streets, it would create a different environment for pedestrians, and there are safety issues with the trains and the PUC. Ensdorff stated that one last point he would like to make is that there is still potential for the other phases of the one-way couplet to be built. There is not money for it right now, it is not part of any capital project plans, but that process will be starting again soon. Choices '95 projects are in theory coming to an end, but that last piece could still be built to achieve some of the flows that were originally expected. Valentine told the Board about the many close calls and minor fender benders he has witnessed or heard about from others. He feels that there are equally as many safety issues with the train as a one-way street as there would be with a two-way street. Ensdorff brought up safety issues that the City has thought of in changing it back: Mason ( would not have a capacity problem, but parking might have to be removed in order to have capacity; the railroad as we have it striped out now, would be striped as is whether it was one or two-way, but trying to make left-tums from way out there on the other side of the tracks, and still have through traffic, would necessitate removing parking or else you would have a left-tumer blocking the way. Ensdorff stated that in general terms, to change it back it would cost anywhere from $85,000 - $500,000. The reason it might cost so much is that the PUC has the authority to require, when a change is made to the way a roadway operates, safety improvements. At the time it was made into a one-way, the PUC raised the issue that if it goes back to two-way, then they might require the City to put up gates at every crossing to provide the highest level of safety. The PUC were willing to not put up gates because of the one-way system. What the actual cost would be is out of the Citys control because of this factor. It isn't known what the PUC would require. Chair Gerety stated that the plan for the north was a very logical and reasonable plan to get traffic off of College, but it wasn't followed through. He wonders if most of the benefits that we have done and continue to get doesn't have anything to do with one-way streets. It has to do with having two streets that people can go north/south without having too much interference from the railroad tracks. The plan was never implemented, so there are a number of things that can be done. It can be left the way it is, the plan could be implemented as it was originally intended to be and made into a real bypass of the downtown, or it could be switched back to two-way. When asked about the residents in the area, and their feeling about the one-way system, Ensdorff replied that the City has not received any comments one way or another for a long time. This is the first discussion at all in five years. Ensdorff proposed a next step: He thinks it is time to check what we've done: Were we successful in achieving our goals, is it worth changing it back? He noted that there are consultants that the Transportation Department has continuing service agreements with which would enable the department to do a work order so RFPs wouldn't have to be sent out. Maybe a consultant could do a more detailed analysis of the existing operation, number crunching, what kind of trips do people make through there, and if it were to be changed back, what would it mean. Egeland suggested that in addition, the consultant should look into the possibility of completing the system as originally planned. Ensdorff agreed and stated that it would be an advantage to do the study, because when the next Choices '95 type project comes along, it would be ready. Board Member Frazier asked that while this is being looked at again, if the possibility of using the tracks as commuter tracks could be included at this time. She would hate to see it done one way and then later on discover that it would be a good idea to get the train traffic going through there and not have any data collected. Look at it now, for the future. Ensdorff stated that it could be added to the list as a question of how would it impact some future potential commuter rail use of that line, but any more than that would mean an entirely different study. The Board agreed that it is time to re -look at this issue. It was discussed and agreed that after the study is complete, it will be brought back to the Board and they will then consider, with staffs guidance, how it fits into the budget and those similar issues. There was a motion and a second to have the City do a study of the effects of the one-way street system and College Avenue problems. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Mr. King commented that this was a good discussion and it was covered very well. C.2. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN City Council reviewed the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) draft a week ago at a work session. It was a very positive session, there was a lot of good discussion and feedback from Council and the general overall comment was that they are very excited about the work and the direction that it is going in. The next step is a yet to be determined public process over a yet to be determined length of time. The CMP group meets tonight following the Transportation Board meeting and this is what will be decided. The November Transportation Board meeting should be more of an official point in time where this group will be asked to make a recommendation to Council. It will probably take up most of the meeting. Staff will send a full packet of the CMP in time to sort through the information. It will be important to focus on this and provide a recommendation. Staff was initially wanting to have two months allotted to public process. The format has not been defined yet, but it will probably be a number of things such as direct mailings, open houses, and meeting with all service groups in town to get feedback. A video is also being developed for presentations. C.3. MEETING SUMMARY/NEXT MEETING AGENDA Board Member Frazier asked that "Board Comments" be added to the regular agenda. It was agreed that the CMP will take up most of the next meeting. Chair Gerety stated that it is time to summarize the Transportation Board's past year and what they want to get done for the next year. Valentine and Lemesany asked that the Board spend 10 minutes on the bike survey results if they are ready. CA. OTHER BUSINESS There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Cindy L. Scott, Secretary 5