Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 05/18/1994f - \ • • Draft Minutes to be approved by the Board at the June 15, 1994 meeting. TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 18, 1994 5:40-7:25 P.M. FOR REFERENCE: Chair -- Colin Gerety 229-2523 Vice Chair — David Lemesany 482-7854 Council Liaison -- Gina Janett 221-2557 Staff Liaison -- Rick Ensdorff 221-6608 Board Secretary -- Cindy Scott 221-6608 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Alan Beatty, Mark Egeland, Sara Frazier, Dolores Highfield, and Paul Valentine BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Colin Gerety, Elizabeth Hudetz, David Lemesany, and Sharone Mekelburg STAFF/COUNCIL PRESENT: Eric Bracke and Cindy Scott GUESTS PRESENT: Sandy Lemberg and Nancy York The meeting was called to order at 5:40 p.m. AGENDA: A. ACTION ITEMS 1. Approval of Minutes B. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Financially Constrained Regional Plan - Eric Bracke 2. Congestion Management Plan - Eric Bracke 3. Board Member Reports 4. Meeting Summary/Next Agenda 5. Other Business A.1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion, a second and a unanimous vote to approve the April 20, 1994 Transportation Board minutes as presented. B.I. FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN - ERIC BRACKE Bracke stated that at the last MPO meeting, the Council approved the Vision Plan. It contains all the roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and aviation type projects. That was an unconstrained version of the plan, put together as if there was unlimited funds. The Technical Advisory Committee has been working on a financially constrained version, trying to go through a fair process to select projects to get funding. He referred to a list of projects that was included in the packets. It lists projects ranked by score. He explained the scoring criteria. The direction form the North Front Range Council was to achieve a 1 % shift from Single Occupant Vehicles over the next 3 years, so the projects selected have to fit into the big picture in meeting that goal. Members had a few questions about the projects - what they entailed. Bracke went over each one and gave a little background on them. He further explained that what the TAC has done is planned for the next three years of a twenty year plan. He noted that page 4 is where the changes to the TIP start. He mentioned that regional rail is something that the Council is interested in pursuing. It will probably be a half a million dollar feasibility study and will begin October 1. The origin and destination study is critical. Mr. Lemberg asked about Jefferson Street. He stated that many projects are on the list that are not nearly as critical as Jefferson Street. According to Council, staff is supposed to be looking at improving the existing corridor and that an alternative should be looked at north of Douglas Road. Mr. Lemberg asked if this is being done. Bracke replied that that area is technically a part of the Upper Front Range Planning region. The Upper Front Range Planning region, in their Vision Plan, allocated $250,000 to evaluate Owl Canyon and when it came down to the fiscally constrained plan, that project didn't make it. Mr. Lemberg stated that most of the projects on the list are insignificant compared to Jefferson Street. He commented that the combination of regional, local and state governments that are addressing these issues and are ignoring Jefferson is an example of bad government. Bracke stated that the political reality is that this plan has got to be a plan for how federal -2- and state dollars are spent. Board Member Valentine commented that Mr. Lemberg is "preaching to the choir", because this group voted and recommended to Council that they adopt the Vine Street bypass to get the trucks off of Jefferson, and Council opted not to follow that recommendation. Mr. Lemberg suggested that a letter be written to Council asking them to look at NEATS once again. He also suggested that the Board draft a recommendation to Council to seriously consider doing something on Vine until they can do something better. Board Members Egeland and Valentine stated that a recommendation letter was written once already. Mr. Lemberg said that there is a different Council now. Egeland said that this is a short term solution to a long term problem and that Council didn't want a short term solution. Valentine agreed that something needs to be done, the City has said no, and the region that we're in is not the region that has the responsibility (the Upper Front Range does). Mr. Lemberg stated that this is really poor government, when one says they won't do anything because it is not their problem and the other one won't do anything about it either. Mr. Lemberg stated that you won't be able to get people to get out of their vehicles until there is a better bus system. Why not merge Transfort with RTD? People should be able to travel to Denver and Boulder by bus. He also stated that the roads should be allowed to deteriorate, do not allow more funds for improvements until more funds are set aside for buses first. Mr. Lemberg thanked the Board for their time and asked Bracke for a copy of the packet to be sent to his home. He informed the Board of a Citizen Planners meeting tomorrow night at 7 p.m. in the CIC. Bracke asked the Board if there was any comments he could take back with him on a fiscally constrained plan. Board Member Egeland stated that the statement that got a 5 on the weighting says: "to provide a balanced multi -modal transportation system to move people and goods quickly and efficiently 24 hours a day." He commented that this is a good statement and this is what we want, but it seems to be nebulous, then "to connect modal systems" which was given a weighting of 1 seems to be more of a concrete goal. He sees some things that seem to be at odds with that. Bracke explained the differences to Egeland's satisfaction. 6.2. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN Bracke stated that the plan was included in the packets. He stated that with the estimated growth, we still need capacity improvements. They estimated that there will be approximately $95 million worth of roadway improvements that will be necessary. This has been divided into public and private cost, because even though it is development related, there is public cost to that roadway. The developers will then be responsible to pay for all the local roads. The collector and arterials systems will be paid for by oversizing. -3- He went over the dollar amounts as listed in the Fort Collins Congestion Management Plan. He stated that there are a lot of numbers that probably won't mean much to anybody, but a significant amount of work has gone into this plan. Bracke then went over the objectives of the plan and explained the committee's process in reaching those objectives. He stated that one of the performance measures was inadvertently listed in the plan - the average density of approved commercial development. This has been removed from the plan in the succeeding draft. Egeland stated that he was hoping for better news. Valentine stated he was very interested in the travel diary/volunteer element of the plan. He felt that often, people will do what they think they are supposed to do when being monitored. Highfield suggested that it may be more helpful to pay the participants rather than asking them to volunteer. Egeland inquired about when this is scheduled for approval. Bracke stated that the approval will probably happen in stages. First there needs to be an approval of the findings with a significant Public process attached to it. They are hoping Council will accept the recommendation and take that out for public review. After the City Council approves it, it will need approval from the MPO. There was a brief discussion about how the City might imitate Amsterdam where the city provides bicycles for public use. They are kept in various places so you can ride from point A to point B and leave the bike at B for someone else to use. Valentine stated that there has been some talk in the City of Denver about buying the old cars in order to get them off the roads and clean up the air. Bracke stated that 30% of the older cars are responsible for 70% of the pollution. B.3. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Frazier stated that she attended the 4th Annual Regional Transportation Conference in Greeley. She circulated some information that she gathered and gave a brief synopsis of what each speaker talked about on the topics of alternative modes, DIA access , and factors affecting the commuting of workers. Valentine commented that the education factor is the key in alternate mode's success. Frazier stated that on September 8, there will be a DIA summit at Aims Community College. Egeland and Valentine reported that the Fort Collins Bikeway Focus Group is underway. The research is to be completed in September. Egeland stated that the North College Citizen's Advisory Committee will be looking at land use next Monday evening at 281 N. College at 4 p.m. They will not only -4- • • be talking about land use but better connections from downtown to the study are which is north of the Poudre. Some of the connections will be "bike only". There being no other reports or business, the meeting adjourned at 7:23 p.m. "- &W- Cindy L. 4tt, Board Secretary -5-