Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 01/18/2006MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD Regular Meeting 200 W. Mountain, Suite A January 18, 2006 For Reference: Nate Donovan, NRAB Chair - 472-1599 Ben Manvel, Council Liaison - 217-1932 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Alan Apt (left at 8:47), Glen Colton, Nathan Donovan (arrived 6:07), Gerald Hart, Linda Knowlton, Rob Petterson, Ryan Staychock, Clint Skutchan, Joann Thomas Board Members Absent None Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: John Stokes, John Armstrong, Susie Gordon, Tamara Courtney Guests CDOT: Steve Olson, Gina MacAfee, Alan Brown, Kim Podobnik, Robin Stoneman, Alan Brown The meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m. Minutes The minutes of the December 07, 2005 were unanimously approved without any changes/additions/corrections. New Business A late addition to this agenda will be the future Committee Meeting schedule and the determination of the future of subcommittees (i.e. Solid Waste Committee). Alan Apt was introduced as the newest NRAB member. Public Comment There were no public comments at this meeting. Agenda review • Knowlton: Why is the I-25 Corridor project on our agenda? At the last meeting I asked the question regarding the East Prospect Road alignment. Whether in the future things like that will go to this board or the new board [Land Conservation Stewardship Board]. John's answer was that it would go to the new board. It seems to Natural Resources Advisory Board January 18, 2006 Page 2 of 21 me that the 392 question is very much the same as that. I guess since we are on the record now, John should explain why we are looking at this? • Stokes: I thought since it came to this board previously that it would be good to maintain that continuity. I didn't think that there was any strong reason to shift it to the new board. I am glad to do that if that is what you prefer. Because the new board is just launching, I thought that they have a lot to learn for a while, and it would be better to leave this project here. I am game for doing whatever you think is the right thing to do. My preference was to bring this back to this board and let this board continue to weigh in as it is something you are already engaged in. We might get a meeting or two and then go ahead and take it to the other board and at least let them know that this project is happening. I do plan that projects like this in the future would probably go to the Land Board. • Donovan: Just due to the impact to adjacent natural areas, not necessarily that it is a road project? • Stokes: Because it has a direct impact on the Natural Area. • Knowlton: OK. Nate you can take it from here, we are at Agenda Review. • Donovan: My thought on that is that it is a period of transition as well. CDOT 1-25 EIS A power point presentation was presented by the Colorado Department of Transportation Team in order to discuss how to meet the long term travel needs of the Denver metropolitan area and the rapidly growing population centers along the 1-25 corridor, north to the Fort Collins -Wellington area. The plan is to work on safety improvement, mobility, fixing aging infrastructure, and offer modal alternatives. All alternatives include widening the lanes on 1-25 to accommodate 2030 demand. Graphs were shown to indicate barriers versus buffers, transit alternatives, and riders versus cost per user. • Knowlton: How many alternatives are you at right now? • MacAfee: That is part of your packet. This generally describes the alternative development and analysis process that we are going through. We started out with a large number of alternatives and have been narrowing those down. We will develop those alternatives in a greater amount of detail and we will get more and more of what we call "criteria". Some of those are what we call "environmental impacts," that help us to narrow down that list of alternatives. • Donovan: Can you explain how the limited access will work in terms of the current configuration? • MacAfee: It would be new lanes built off to the side. You would still have your general purpose lanes, and in addition to those you would have lanes that you could only access at certain locations • Donovan: You mean outside the interchanges? • MacAfee: Yes. The interchanges you have now would stay the same. You would just have roads built aside. • Donovan: Has this been done very much elsewhere? Natural Resources Advisory Board January 18, 2006 Page 3 of 21 • MacAfee: There are probably 10 different geographic areas where you are able to find that this has been done. I have driven on the one in Detroit. It can be a bit of a problem if you are unfamiliar. It must be well signed. • Apt: So you have the Frontage Road along these lanes? • MacAfee: We haven't really figured out whether the frontage road can stay. That is just one option we have looked at. Actually, we won't get too hung up on that one, because we are not recommending that one go forward. Another idea is managed lanes. Lanes to add additional capacity, that are for special use: carpooling and special toll waived fees. • Apt: What percentage of traffic is through traffic, moving between Wyoming versus local traffic? • MacAfee: I don't have the answer to that. We did find that a large percentage is local. There are people and trucks driving all the way through, especially during the week. A large percentage are people driving to Longmont or Fort Collins or to Greeley. • Hart: Have you looked at non -highway alternatives? • MacAfee: We did find, when we looked at these different highway alternatives and analyzed those, that I-25 is necessary. What we did was add different kinds of transit to this to see if there was anyway to reduce that but we really do need to widen 1-25. The alternatives that are advancing all include that particular element. This shows [referring to power point presentation] the different congestion you would get with no action and did nothing, and if you widened to six lanes, or eight lanes. • Hart: Are those independent of the transit situation? If we put in a light rail will that change the eight lane addition? • MacAfee: The rider projections that have been done show that we need this regardless of what transit does. We tested different types of rail, we tested different buses, and still need to widen I-25. • Hart: I understand that, what I am asking is something a little different. If you put in transit in addition to this how does it change? • MacAfee: It does not change it at all. • Hart: That was the answer I was looking for. I'm not very happy with that answer, but that was the question I was asking. • MacAfee: Yes. It does not. • Petterson: What about non-structural alternatives? Have you looked at those? Such as enforcing no trucks in the left hand lane, enforcing law about keep right except to pass. That kind of thing. • MacAfee: The alternatives that we are recommending to the advance end of the draft EIS will include different congestion management measures. Those will all fit into everything from providing real time transportation information, to notification of accidents in case people want to get off to use different routes, different signage per enforcement types of recommendations. Those are part of the EIS. • Hart: Why does the State decide to shut down the entire highway for 2 or 3 hours because of one accident? They have to do some accident investigation, but can't they speed that process up? Natural Resources Advisory Board January 18, 2006 Page 4 of 21 • Olson: That is just the way it is. It is not actually part of this process. Why they have to shut it down is strictly a law thing. It frustrates us. • Colton: To go back a couple of slides, there is one thing that I would like to talk about that that I don't quite understand. The daily vehicle hours in travel, let's talk about that- six lanes, no action... • McAfee: Vehicle hours of travel is another way to measure congestion. What we did was look at the entries study area and calculated getting into a car. How many hours would you actually be in that car? Basically what this shows is that it is the same between a six lane and an eight lane facility. The reason for this is that if you build an eight lane facility people are willing to drive longer to get onto a facility that is less congested. It actually results in more vehicle miles of travel. • Colton: The daily vehicle hours of travel is only 3% higher with no accident than it is between six lane or eight lane commuter travel. That is insignificant. • McAfee: Remember this is looking at roads all over the study area. If you just look at I-25, which is the focus of our EIS, you would see a large difference. This looks at 287 and Bus-34 and all of the east west streets and the north south streets. • Petterson: Then adding transit alternatives, rail or bus, doesn't don't change the colors on that thing. It is interesting because according to this, the commuter rail/bus thing seemed to take it down to half. • MacAfee: There is a difference if you look at the map, a difference in colors there. • Petterson: So what you are saying is, the differences are if you looked at the top graph, and you still have the sheets that said with commuter rail and commuter bus... You graphed the same thing but you didn't graph in commuter rail and commuter bus in the transit. • MacAfee: Exactly. • Colton: Since we are looking 25 years down the road here, is there a technology component included in this? Are we including time charging of vehicle miles, versus length of time travel, and cleaner air or are we only assuming today's technology? • MacAfee: We are pretty much assuming today's technology at this point. We certainly will address different ways you can manage travel, and that is certainly one of those. But for an EIS you are required to go with a proven technology, you can't make a leap into the future and assume that something is going to be in place. We really don't know. Thirty years ago we would have thought we would make incredible advances. This graph shows why we are not recommending limited access lanes. It doesn't provide any greater level of service, but it costs a lot more. At this point we are not recommending that element be advanced. This shows the difference in some of the managed lane alternatives and which ones would best relieve the congestion. You can see that the HOV lanes would have the most remaining congestion, then full lanes, then HOT lanes. • Petterson: The assumption is that the HOV will remain higher traffic because people will not car pool. • Olson: No the assumption is that people will use the HOT lanes to relieve congestion. • Petterson: I understand that as far as the assumption is that the HOV will still have so much congestion because not so many people will carpool, right? Those are the only Natural Resources Advisory Board January 18, 2006 Page 5 of 21 cars that would be allowed in those lanes, so the assumption, I guess I am asking, is that those lanes will be relatively empty. The other lanes will still be congested because people aren't using carpooling. • MacAfee: Right. • Staychock: That last one [slide] and the other one shows PM south -bound. Is that been proven to be the highest congestion time? • In general we have all of these numbers, all of these different things that we analyze. We tried to pick things that showed a discernable difference. This particular graph showed how we would make the decision. It showed that southbound would have more miles. • Staychock: In other words, it shows the greatest differential, this would be the greatest extremity of difference that your numbers show then? • Olson: As far as one particular set of data showing that we could make a decision on, this showed that. • Thomas: So probably in the PM north -bound there wasn't that much difference. • Podobnik: There were about 55 different criteria that we evaluated as alternatives, based on what we presented to you tonight. Those are the ones that really stand out. There was no way we could present to you all 55 them to you. • Skutchan: For your purposes, you obviously factor in that that extremity here is the moderation. Has that has been taken into account? • MacAfee: Oh sure. • Skutchan: I assume this is also what you are going to put in your public presentation? I think that it is useful to make it clear as to the distinction of why you choose that. There may be an assumption that this is the norm. • MacAfee: Just so you know, when we go to the public meeting we will have all of the numbers. So if people really want to get into one particular area, they can. • Skutchan: I understand that, it is just if you are going to be throwing up graphs, it is very important that you demonstrate that, as it can effect you greatly. All of that is a component. You have to be fair about the presentation across the board. • Olson: In this particular graph we are trying to show how to manage the lanes compared to each other and what we provide for general purpose. • Apt: Are you saying the Lexus lanes will be the least congested? • Olson: Right. That is based on the assumption that you will want to get into a HOT lane. You aren't going to pay for a facility that you are not going to get something out of. • Donovan: As a concept, how far off do you think that is? How far off are the HOT lanes? • MacAfee: It is not far off at all. They are planning to implement that within the next year- to change the current HOV lanes to HOT. • Donovan: But we need both... • MacAfee: Well, it is both. Each will continue to drive free and then they will just sell the excess capacity. • Colton: Are you going to be showing some sensitivity around different gasoline prices over time? Natural Resources Advisory Board January 18, 2006 Page 6 of 21 • MacAfee: We actually have that. It is not in this power point, but I have some handouts that explain a little bit of how gasoline is factored in. We will have those at the public meeting. So this [power point slide] describes the difference between a buffer separated managed lane and a barrier separated lane. The buffer is cheaper but harder to enforce. Does everybody know what I mean by those terms? I don't know if you guys are familiar with the facilities in the Denver area. If you are going from Boulder to Denver, the first part of that is buffer separated. In fact, people use it as a passing lane. As you get closer to Denver it becomes barrier separated, where you basically have a concrete barrier, where once you are in there you have to stay. They each have their own advantages and disadvantages and this just summarizes what those are. • Colton: Just driving down to Denver it seems like there are two or three new interchanges going in. But I thought Interstates were for high speed travel. All of these interchanges are being allowed, and once they are allowed there is a mall showing up every mile. It seems that we are sowing the seeds of our own destruction by somewhat allowing all of these interchanges to go in. Therefore allowing all these malls to go up there and people only driving a mile or two as opposed to using it for long tern. Can we not change some policies or are we going to do, what I would call, terrible land use planning? • MacAfee: We are grappling with kind of the trade-off between mobility and accessibility. The local jurisdictions as they grow, and probably developers, want accessibility. You are exactly right, if you add too many interchanges then your mobility decreases. We are working very closely with CDOT and the Federal Highway Administration. They do have different policies they have set for different segments of the interstate, whether it is rural or urban, I am not sure of all of the terms. There definitely are concerns, that if you add too many interchanges it will decrease the overall mobility to travel. • Olson: Just to add on to that: if there are new interchanges going in, they do fall in the 1601 process. Part of that 1601 process is to determine the impact to that throughway to the interstate system. • MacAfee: 1601 is a state required process that is required by CDOT any time there is a new interchange or an interchange modification. • Donovan: So this is an analysis process. • MacAfee: Yes, this is an analysis process. It also includes some environmental work too. • Colton: It seems like we are taking the burden off of local developers and communities to have their own transportation system for local transportation as opposed to using interstate, which is not supposed to be a good thing to do. • MacAfee: One of the things we are doing is working really closely with a technical advisory committee and a regional coordination committee. That is one of the issues we have been talking about, with the technical advisory committee and also the elected officials recently, is what we can assume with a background road network. It shouldn't be CDOT's responsibility to solve all of the transportation problems in this area. We really need to look to some responsibility from the locals to build in that program as well. Now on the transit side, we looked at a whole bunch of transit Natural Resources Advisory Board January 18, 2006 Page 7 of 21 alternatives. Everything from high speed rail to light rail- a lot of different transit alternatives. In level 3 we narrowed it down to three basic ones; commuter bus- it would not be that dissimilar to Greyhound; bus rapid transit- a bit higher level of bus service, a lot of time the bus rapid transit is on a separate guide -way so it doesn't get bogged down by congestion; commuter rail is the rail alternative. Those are the three basic transits. From a ridership perspective the number of daily riders commuter rail attracts the most, bus rapid transit is in the middle, and commuter bus the least. The light rail had higher capita costs and operating costs, so even thought it has more riders it cost more per rider. • Colton: How sensitive to the gas prices is the number of riders? And sensitive to congestions, because presumably this is easy to drive down the highway. Less people are going to get on this, but if it looks like a parking a lot more people are going to choose something that allows them to go past the parking lot. There is a feedback in this right? If you build eight lanes then no wonder no one is going to use this because it is a parking lot. • MacAfee: The real issue with the light rail transit part of this is when you look at people's trip patterns they are dispersed. Rail transit works best when everybody is concentrated in one area, like downtown Denver with over a hundred thousand people in a very small geographic area. The situation in the North 1-25 area is that people live and work all over the place. The number of people who come from the North to downtown Denver is very small. That makes it very challenging to serve by rail transit. You're right in that if everything is congested all over the system, it does make transit more attractive, but the real challenge is that people's places of employment are all over the place. • Skutchan: Why is it then that you see such a large response? Is it a response from people who would like to use the commuter rail or people who would actually use it? • MacAfee: You mean why is it higher? It is because in general people like to use rail. • Skutchan: Is this more of an opinion survey rather than "would you use it" or is a combination? • MacAfee: The rail bias is pretty much built into most metropolitan areas, including Denver. You get more even if you have a bus service at exactly the same time, people are still more likely to ride rail. That is what you are seeing here. • Podobnik: The numbers you are looking at are looking at the difference of two thousand riders or thirty-three hundred riders. Percentage wise, the difference is greater on this slide than it is in real life. • Staychock: I can't accept that commuter rail is more attractive than bus service on the north part of 1-25 because they work in different areas. A bus can turn off, change routes, can change according to ridership, where as when you put a rail in you are stuck with the rail. • MacAfee: We built into these assumptions a bus feeder system, so they will disperse around. The bus rapid transit, commuter bus and commuter route, all have that basic bus system that helps to disperse people around the area. • Skutchan: Is that based off of the municipalities taking care of that- that they are already current? Natural Resources Advisory Board January 18, 2006 Page 8 of 21 • MacAfee: At this point we have not attempted to say "you have to do this" and "you have to do that" except for the background road work we have talked about that. • Skutchan: Were does the bus service seem to come from then? • MacAfee: Right now it is built into the project costs. We assume that project will buy the busses and paid to operate that- including the feeders. • Podobnik: Another thing to keep in mind, and this is always a little difficult, is that our study is related to travel along I-25. When you start to talk about travel between communities, and between the circle of northern Colorado, our study is really not about that. It is about moving traffic and making things more efficient along I-25. • MacAfee: Let me say that at the same time, there is no northern operator for the north I-25 study area. There are different transit operators within each city, but there is nobody that operates transit service for that whole area. We are beginning discussions with the North Front Range MPO and other front range agencies about looking into the future and how could you operate something like this? They're looking into a possible regional transit authority and other mechanisms. There are various ways to construct and pay for this transit. • Apt: I thought you said that the secondary roads, such as 287, are included in the study. • MacAfee: They are in our study area, but what she was saying is that the purpose and need of our project is to improve travel along I-25. • Podobnik: For example, we looked at improvements along USA-5 but only in terms of how they improved the travel along 1-25. ' • Apt: The other question I had was, when you show a lane with a six lane or eight lane option, what do you base that on? Every place I have been whether it is six, eight, ten or twelve lanes, two or three years later there is severe congestion- Santa Monica, Atlanta or any city within the United States. How can your standards say it is going to be different if you build six/eights lanes to reduce congestion? What is that based upon? • MacAfee: We are getting a snapshot in time to look at the year 2030 and based upon our best transportation models using future land use projection as well as travel projections that come from that picture land use. It is our best analysis of the situation will be in 2030. It is not a science, it is an art. Some of the policy makers are struggling with the issues you just verbalized. • Apt: If you don't have a working relationship, and if you don't have all the models- is it included in all that? That every town may have their own interchange, every town may have their own promenade mall? • Olson: We are using the best information available from the communities that they provided into the models. That is the best information that we have to use. I don't want you to think that CDOT's goal is not to place an interchange every mile or three miles along the interstate. There are new interchanges going in the north metro area. Those have gone through a process that we think will not impact traffic. • Hart: What ADTs [average daily traffic] are we talking about for 2030? One hundred twenty percent versus...? So we are basically talking about...? • MacAfee: Doubling. Yeah. Natural Resources Advisory Board January 18, 2006 Page 9 of 21 • Hart: Or tripling. It is supposed to triple. • MacAfee: Yeah. • Podobnik: May I share a little of this? I will just read- "several unexpected natural disasters resulted in noticeably increased gasoline prices. In a recent sounding of U.S. transit systems finds increases of transit ridership ranging from eight to seventeen percent compared to last year." What they really find is that when gas prices increase is that people change the way their behavior is in their cars. Such as they buy more energy efficient cars or they may combine trips instead of whenever they leave to do something. It has more effect on that behavior than it does on the number of people who actually get on transit. • Petterson: If they are combining trips there may be less trips on the road. The other thing we are talking about is three dollars here, and we are talking about 2030. I don't know what projects you are using for gas prices, but my crystal ball says it will be dam expensive. One because A) the amount of oil is going to plateau, and B) plenty of opportunities for natural and political disasters that will drive the price up. What do you use to project the inflation model or a spike thing in there or what? • MacAfee: It is built into the model. • Podobnik: Twenty-five percent. • Petterson: Twenty-five percent for 2030? • Knowlton: That isn't even inflation. • Podobnik: No, that is not correct. Sorry, I don't have that information. • MacAfee: One of the ways you can help us tonight, is we will be advancing a commuter rail alignment into the draft in order to analyze it. We are looking at these two different alignments, one that is on I-25 that would connect in to one of the fast tracks ends and the other one is what we are calling the west alignment that is basically along the Burlington -Northern Railroad right -away and would connect in to the fast tracks commuter rail line that comes up through Longmont. • Donovan: There is not much difference in the natural area in terms of west alignment? • MacAfee:No, the differences are here [indicate slide]. • Petterson: I appreciate that these commuter rail alternatives are in the picture, but does your study show that there is no decrease in congestion, no increased benefit for the amount of costs for the commuter railroad? It might get to Phase Three, but you aren't going to get much further. The politicians aren't going to put up the money if there is no appreciable benefit to it. • MacAfee: That is why we are looking at bus improvements as well. We are not only going to do commuter rail. This summarizes some of the differences between the Central and West alignment. They have the same number of riders. Commuter Rail West is closer to major calculation of employment and population centers. Travel time is little bit shorter on Central Alignment. Because it has a higher commuter route rail, West has a lower cost. Primarily because it is shorter. That is using existing right of way railroad- using existing track. • Donovan: What is the likelihood that the light rail will be allowed right-of-way? Natural Resources Advisory Board January 18, 2006 Page 10 of 21 • MacAfee: This is commuter rail, not light rail, that is FRA Compliant. They have said pretty clearly in the Denver Metro area that they will allow a FRA compliant vehicle on their right-of-way adjacent to their freight. There are different types of vehicles that are compatible with rail. You can have a traditional locomotive or a diesel multiple unit which is a cross between a light rail and locomotive. There are several options that fit in that general commuter rail type of options. From an environmental perspective, we did find that the commuter rail west had more effect on residential areas, but it provided more of a benefit for low income and minority populations. One of the requirements of our process is that we understand the impacts/benefits this will have on low income and minority populations. It had less of an impact to parks sites, but slightly more potential impact for endangered/protected species, habitats, and archeological sites. This is all potential at this point, we are screening these alternatives. We haven't gotten down to a full detailed environmental analysis yet. We are close to recommending. • Staychock: We would really appreciate an impact study. • MacAfee: These are comments we heard from our advisory committee. It gets to the point you were making Alan, that you can' t really build your way out of congestion. We have to come up with a balance. We want to look beyond 2030 to make sure any system we came up with could be expanded. Assuming some sort of local roadwork would be in place so I-25 wouldn't have to carry so much of a percentage of as it does now. Looking at the managed lane part of this that we stay as flexible as we can considering future funding. Western alignment was that it did provide direct access to the community and would cost less. The Central alignment was consistent with the previous study that was done, the Transportation Feasibility Study, that recommended a commuter rail alignment along I-25. • Apt: Most of the travel is not from Denver so the idea of the western community wouldn't make much sense. • MacAfee: Most of it is what you said, but depending where you put it you attract users. If you put it on the West you attract those going to Longmont or Boulder, you put it on the Central and draw from both sides of the study area. • Skutchan: What type of response on that Central alignment did you get on the 1-25? Especially knowing that Greeley is pushing for an 85 connection, I know City Council is discussing that. Do they think it is their corridor? • MacAfee: Yes, I think a lot of people in Greeley believe that. Our preliminary recommendation does include commuter bus service along 85. It would attract fairly healthy ridership. This alternative would include commuter rail along the western alignment widening only to six lanes. • Gerald: The six lanes would include some sort of transit, presumably bus on 1-25? • MacAfee: Nothing along I-25. • Podobnik: Our purpose and need include some sort of transit to address that part of our purpose. • Donovan: How is CDOT land use implemented? • MacAfee: The most that CDOT can do is to present the information in a manner that in which the people who are responsible for making land use policies can see, or do Natural Resources Advisory Board January 18, 2006 Page 11 of 21 nothing. This is the impact in 2030 and these are some of the impacts. We can show around the country what would happen if you were to put in a land use policy that trends to control growth, or encourage denser land use around transit stations. We will be working with the land use planners and elected officials to give them this information, but then it is up to them if they want to adopt policies that support this type of transportation. • Staychock: If this package is chosen, and the Western alignment is the rail: CDOT says we have a rail to put in and we are developing six lanes on I-25 and there is a train on the right-of-way, but there are local communities that then say they don't want the commuter. How are the communities of the state guaranteed that if this is the package, that the road will be expanded and the rail is definitely going to be in. What will be the ramifications for the politicians saying they don't want to do this? • MacAfee: From a land use perspective? • Staychock: From an implementation state- that this is the alternative that is chosen. • MacAfee: The need for process requires a funding and implementation plan. The federal agencies won't sign the final document unless they know that it can be funded. A key consideration with this is who will operate the transit system and how is the funding going to come about. We are also encouraging the local officials to start work, such as on T-Rex and the US-36 corridor. And that at a certain point in the EIS process they got together to say we are going to work to make sure this gets implemented. They formed coalitions and went to Washington with the money. A lot does depend on the local officials stepping forward and look for funding. • Podobnik: Part of why we have these committees that we work with, one is a technical committee and the other is made up of elected officials, is because we meet with them on almost a monthly basis so they understand what it is we are looking at and what it is that we will be composing. And we also have the full public involvement process, which is exactly what tonight is. We want you to be involved from the ground floor up so we don't get the rod and suddenly be told "hey wait nobody told us this was going to happen." One of the things that was somewhat surprising to us when we first proposed the western alignment, we knew the impact that would have on communities, yet the support from those communities were vocal in the support. That influenced how we looked at that alignment. We are attempting to avoid exactly what you are talking about. • Staychock: I think it would be a tragedy if the six lanes were put through and that the rail fell through. It would really be a disservice to the people. • MacAfee: Put pressure on your local officials to make sure that doesn't happen. That is why we want everyone to be involved and have public input. We did get some question about whether it made sense for a commuter rail along the west or put another one along I-25? Please let them know if you want to put in opinions on that particular question. • Staychock: I have a general question pertaining to the right of way along I-25 that exists right now. Is the right-of-way there for the expansion of lanes for all of these alternatives? 0 MacAfee: There will be additional right-of-way that we will need. Natural Resources Advisory Board January 18, 2006 Page 12 of 21 • Olson: We will need to widen on both sides from four lanes to six lanes. • MacAfee: We will need additional right of way for interchange improvements and bus routes and commuters will include stations and drop off sites will require right- of-way. • Staychock: For clarification, do you purchase the right-of-way with eminent domain? How does that effect local planning for local buffers we have already set-up? • Olson: This will help planning. Once we know what is needed to set back, it will help identify what is needed. • MacAfee: As far as right-of-way it is a standard acquisition process where it goes through a fair market value analysis. • Colton: I have quite a bit of planning experience, and I think you have been given an impossible job or maybe the wrong goal. This goal of using hodgepodge bad land use where communities are planning and then figure out how to make travel between these bad land use scenarios possible, following what Johnstown and Loveland did and looking at all of those interchanges going in with their shopping centers, each individual community is thinking "I can bring in new sales tax revenue by doing this but I don't have to be responsible for any of the problems associated with this interchange." Given the goal that you have, those communities that practice land use planning are penalized in this whole process. We need to find a way to make this less worse than it would be otherwise given that all of these people are sprawling out to the interchange and relying on the interstate to handle their local transportation needs. I think that is what needs to go to some of these local officials: we should not be going forward with some of these alternatives until communities practice better land use. We should not be just helping to promote sprawling land use because they think they can get a little more sales tax while avoiding cost of improvements. • MacAfee: It is a conundrum that CDOT is in, because CDOT cannot tell a local agency how to make their land use decisions. The connection between the two is obvious, so it is a real challenge. • Knowlton: Just a word of caution while doing this public improvement process/data collection process; be leery of what the public says it wants versus what they will support. I have watched two transportation taxes in Fort Collins get voted down. Even though public polls said they would support them. The first attempt at a regional transportation authority also went down in flames, and now it is back and they are claiming the same levels of support. Public will say that commuter rail sounds great but when it comes down to voting/putting money for it, will not support it. • Podobnik: In Fort Collins in particular we have seen a trend where voters don't want bus, but they would support rail- I want transit, but I want it to be rail. • Staychock: If you have the opportunity to put in a couple more slides, to explicitly discuss the feedback mechanisms, such as prices and what if congestion goes up what happens to ridership on the rails. Some of those assumptions basically effect the conclusion you reach. • Donovan: Last point? • Skutchan: Was there any modeling to discuss the Super slab? It is probably off the table now, but I know it was looking realistic over the last eight months. Natural Resources Advisory Board January 18, 2006 Page 13 of 21 • MacAfee: It was discussed early on. • Skutchan: Was it taken out of the equation? • MacAfee: Yes, it didn't relieve congestion tragic on I-25 at all. Very little of it would be willing to go quite a way east and back and around. • Skutchan: CDOT did that overall toll road feasibility study around the state and ruled that out. Did they transfer the numbers onto the Super Slab? • MacAfee: They did look at tolling around I-25 and it was one of the ones that made it pretty close in the recommendations. We are looking at all of the assumptions. • Donovan: Thank you. I think it would be appropriate if we let this settle a bit before we talk about whether we want to take any action. Knowlton: What action would we take? • Donovan: Whether we want to make a recommendation to Council about the process or not. I don't see that there is anything. SH-392 EOS, CDOT The SH-392 environmental overview study covers a corridor preservation analysis. There is no money set aside or timeframe for construction- only a planning session. If there were federal money further rigorous studies would need to be conducted — during the next 30 years. We are in the 10,000 vehicle range and in the future they will be projected to either double or triple in traffic. Much of this traffic on 392 is due to people wanting to shop or work in Fort Collins. Residential impacts in Windsor a crossing of the Poudre have environmental effects. Location of interchanges on I-25 will restrict the flow of traffic on the southern location. East/west movement was judged to be not as good as paths that are farther to the east. Quantitative screening looks at other options such as not making any changes at all; Alternative "A" would widen to 4 lanes, Alternative "C" goes west of Duck Lake, Alternative "E" goes far south to avoid wetlands. These are conservative estimates that are probably grossly overstated as far as environmental impacts. Conservation easements may be effected in both "C" and "E" alternatives where several groups want to reclaim the existing roadway and create an unimpeded wildlife corridor. Next step is to get input from partners agencies and also get input from public input and make recommendation and prepare a EOS report in Spring of 2006 and work with local planning departments to use EOS to set aside right of way. Staychock: Is there going to be any movement on the bridge. Brown: That is a question for the I-25 folks. Brown: They are looking at improvements for the interchange. Some will require more work and other will require total reconfigurations, and some will only need capacity improvements. 392 will probably stay a diamond configuration as it is now. It is my understanding it will be expanded to the approved separation between intersections. Right now there is less then one hundred feet between symbols and current design criteria states you need six hundred and fifty feet between intersections. I suspect they will look at something like that for one of their alternatives. Natural Resources Advisory Board January 18, 2006 Page 14 of 21 • Donovan: Before you get started, are you looking to us to make recommendations to City Council concerning your alternatives? • Brown: We just want to provide information to you before the Windsor Town hall meeting and hear your comments and incorporate them. We hope to work with City Staff, get their recommendations over the next month or so, and we may ask to come back in the February time frame with staff recommendations/input and then ask you to take some action/recommendation at that point in time. We are scheduled for a work session in late March. It would be good to have your recommendation before we go to Council. Windsor is in the corridor as we are involving Greeley. We are capturing Fort Collins crowd with advertisements in the Coloradoan. • Donovan: That makes me someshat more comfortable. I was concerned that we would be trying to digest this information and make a recommendation. There is the other question: since this board has been involved do we continue or does it go to Land Conservation Stewardship Board or both? • Stokes: It is up to the Board. • Brown: I am going to stay to answer any questions. • Colton: Your other slide shows the amount of traffic on College, but the existing one doesn't say. Do you know what that number is? • Brown: That is a good point. I do not know off hand. • Colton: Southeast Fort Collins is going to be ruled out in three to four years. We will probably have maximum traffic there twenty or thirty years from now. So I am wondering, it more convenient for us to put this route through here now, to go up to Timberline as opposed to going up to Harmony as it is already going to be a wider road because of what Timnath is doing? The more you make these things convenient for people, the more they will want to buy a house twenty miles away as opposed to living in the community they actually work in. • Brown: Harmony Road as you already pointed out is identified as being widened on the Master Speed plan to six lanes. There is still a need out on 392 to handle the demand that will be placed on it by the development that will be occurring. • Petterson: What is the feedback mechanism? When does the congestion on the road lead people to make different choices about where they are going to live? How hard is it to put that feedback into here in terms of ratcheting down the growth of traffic? • Brown: If your question is transit related, then I think this corridor is a long way from being able to support that. • Petterson: I am getting at if it is going to take me twenty minutes to get across 392 to get to HP, maybe I will just buy a house close to HP. Maybe there is a cost differential that is worth it to me, and therefore I am not one of these thirty -thousand people on 392. So the question is, how much of the aggravation factor is included into the projections? • Brown: The travel demand model we use to predict volumes in the future takes that in account. It is based on current around driver behavior and tolerances. Until driver behavior changes... • Petterson: If we make the situation bad enough, then the behavior is going to change faster than if you make it easy. Otherwise they are going to say "I can just keep doing Natural Resources Advisory Board January 18, 2006 Page 15 of 21 what I have always been doing." If there is a public policy decision to say you want public behavior to change, then you might get different decisions. • Donovan: Those questions are the fundamental foundations of transportation. • Skutchan: There are some of us who only have a job opportunity that forces us to drive to Greeley, but we love living where we are at. You don't factor in that in either. That is existential to what they are here doing in my opinion. They are here to do their job and we are here to give them feedback. • Hart: If you have been doing these for twenty-five/thirty years then you realize that the past is not an indicator of future results. This happens in heavy growth areas and these things tend to work themselves out. People may move to English Ranch if they want to live in that neighborhood, but other people who can't afford to live in Fort Collins will live in Windsor and will tolerate that because they can't afford to live there or there is not enough land. There are any number of factors, consideration of congestion or cost is not that much of a factor in terms of total salary. Things don't change very rapidly- it takes a long, long time. The only thing we can do is go with these projections and recognize that some factors may or may not be achieved. That is my experience in twenty-five years. • Brown: [Indicating slide] "A" stays on existing alignment with widening, "C" goes just south of Duck Lake and "E" goes to the south with the intent to miss the wetlands and leave open space as undisturbed as possible. At this level of analysis, this is with a broad brush. The next level would have a greater level of detail. • Donovan: Section "417" is? • Brown: Section 4F is basically Park's land. • Donovan: What areas are we looking at? • Brown: Fossil Creek and Horsetooth Reservoir. • Staychock: A road will need to be there. • Brown: There is some opportunity to pursue transportation possibilities on those properties if there is interest on all the parties involved to do that. I will also point out that the South Fort Collins Sanitation District, which owns the property, has extreme objections to those. They came back and said that "C" was their preference, as opposed to "A", and that "E" definitely bisects their property. There is probably no way to do land application and "E" cuts it almost in half. It not only takes land out of production it also spits it so it makes it more difficult to land application on both sides. They have an extreme objection to "E". • Skutchan: Knowing you had taken some of those other alternatives out of the equation, is there something through these difficulties you are demonstrating that kept this in as a viable alternative? It sounds like that is a fairly large bump in the road there. Why is it still dependant enough to move forward with it? • Brown: As far as environmental effects, "E" has the smallest effects other than conservation easements. There is an interest on a lot of folks parts. As example the Division of Wildlife was out recently and they thought there was more opportunity to move the road from Duck Lake the more habitat we can create for wildlife. • Skutchan: That was my follow-up question: Did they demonstrate/vocalize that there would be a particular gain that they would be able to show? Natural Resources Advisory Board January 18, 2006 Page 16 of 21 • Brown: I am not sure that I can speak to the magnitude of their preference for it, but yes, said that "E" would be preferable to "A" or "C". This type of study is all about finding a balance that everyone can live with. Obviously if there was an interest in "C" or "E" the South Fort Collins Sanitation District folks needs would have to be considered as well. • Colton: Question on "E": How does that work for people to get back over to Timberline? • Brown: It would just be relocated. • Colton: On the traffic analysis you were showing, you are showing the traffic doubling east to west. How would that take it to "AABB" to a level of "F"? It seems there is a decent amount of traffic, but it seems to me you could easily double the number of cars- unless it has something to do with those intersection capacities. Second question: If there is going to be a lot of traffic coming over from Windsor through Timberline, we are gong to have to widen Timberline through sensitive natural areas where we have even higher levels of concern. Did you look at that? • Brown: This is a question to our modeler. I am not sure what Timberline is in the model. I want to say a four lane, but I don't know for sure. That would indicate that they already see a need to widen Timberline. • Donovan: I think they built that culvert to handle four. • Colton: Is it more of the intersection capacity. People say that traffic goes on unimpeded. There are very few roads going off from Carpenter, west of I-25 or to Timberline. • Brown: Intersections do contribute to it. It isn't just intersections, it is density of traffic. The level of service is calculated based on travel lanes on the section or roads, not just on intersections. What that means is a lot more traffic using that facility, speeds decrease and density gets greater. One of the other things here is right-of-way. Obviously "A" has the least necessary right-of-way as we are just taking existing road with a sliver on the side. "C" has less because it is a shorter alignment. "E" has much more because it is much longer. • Stokes: On "A" is that additional right of way? • Brown: No. • Skutchan: Is that within that actual area or is that... • Apt: That is the entire distance all the way from 287 to County Road 13. The only differences are right around Duck Lake. • Brown: The last criteria to look at are the socio-economic effects and what will that do specifically to the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. Right -of way has to do with purchasing property and in some cases displacing residents and businesses. Also what does this do to an operation when they are reliant on getting rid of the sludge that comes from treated water? What happens if that goes away? "A" has less impact from a socio-economic impacts, "C" has less because it minimizes the effect on their property, and as we covered before "E" cuts it right in half. • Donovan: That is socio-economic effects on that district's operations not necessarily broader then just them right? Natural Resources Advisory Board January 18, 2006 Page 17 of 21 • Stokes: That is the only development there. The sanitation district is the only economic unit there. • Donovan: I understand that. I was thinking of the socio-economic impacts on people and entities other than development in that corridor. • Brown: Certainly access points can be given to both sides of the road. The question is can they maintain their operations with a road going right down the middle of it? Will it take too much right-of-way out of production? Yes, we can provide access, but does that work for them or not? What we have heard from them was not just no, but really no. This is early on in the planning process and we are telling it as we see it. • Skutchan: Do you see a breaking point on that "E" option through the course of the study where you see things kind of lining up where you would eliminate that or do you see enough moderation on the side that this is something that will stay during the entirety of the process? • Brown: We look at these alternatives and if there is a consensus to support this, then that has a lot of merit. If there are multiple agencies that will support a certain alternative and can talk with other agencies with different viewpoint and work out a solution that is beneficial- that will be the opportunity. The City and the County might support either "E" or "C". That is what we are trying to find out- what are the City's preferences? It will probably be up to the City or the County to take up the initiative to pursue an alternative like a "C" or "E." • Skutchan: Do you see all three making it through this process? • Brown: Probably not. The whole goal of the study is to identify where the roadways should be and what we should do so we can identify the right-of-way necessary. For that reason, we need to identify one alternative. • Apt: Where is this in terms of priorities for CDOT? • Brown: It is not currently funded. It is not on the Northbound Range twenty-year plan. As a result it needs to be placed on the twenty-year and then go through the planning process to get high enough on the priority list. • Hart: As a result of this study, you put this to bed and eventually money comes through. Are you are going to then do an environmental impact statement? What alternatives are you going to consider? No build? No roads? If you eliminate the other alternatives won't that be a little premature? • Brown: The whole idea behind this environmental overview was to look at the same considerations that have been studied so we would come to the same conclusions. Now whether we would be able to justify the third alternative with no action is still to be seen. The belief is that at the very least all of the study that has been done to date could be used as input to that process could streamline that process and reduce the cost of that process. Not knowing when that might occur, the idea is to take the best guess with a crystal ball and set aside some right-of-way when we have a chance, so we aren't faced with buying developed land. The next steps are that we are soliciting all other department agencies. We will refine our recommendations to be presented at next week's Windsor Town hall. After we receive input, we will make a recommendation on the final alternative and then prepare a report for the spring of this year. It will document this whole process, then identify what the recommended Natural Resources Advisory Board January 18, 2006 Page 18 of 21 alternative is and set -aside right-of-way that is needed. That template can be used by the planning agencies on the corridor to set aside right-of-way and what to plan for their province. We are also embarking upon an access control plan. The preliminary steps have been done, and it is being kicked -off at next week's meeting. That is where we are currently at. Robin Stoneman was here earlier. Contact her with any questions or go to our website. • Staychock: I am one of those people who takes Overland south and cut over to 392 to get to I-25 and that allows me to save 10-15 minutes of driving time. What surprised me was that in the level of service, it stated "minimal or no vehicle delay" but then outlines in "A" existing conditions where there are stoplights, stop signs, and signal intersections. It took me a while to understand that. On the drive I know there are delays there. The real environmental tragedy is car air pollution especially at the lights there. My idea of a good corridor would be to hop on Carpenter at College and have no stop signs at I-25. Whether it be through roundabouts or overpass, whatever it is where a car goes straight/directly to I-25. Those are just my thoughts. • Brown: Thanks for your comments. There are going to be signalized intersections everywhere. When you do an air quality analysis, it takes that into consideration, you would still have the service level of alternative "A". When you do the air quality analysis, you will be sure that there isn't so much congestion or delay that it throws it out of conformity. Yes, some conditions you have so much congestion that it presents problems, but the idea of trying to improve the level of service on alternative "A" is to reduce congestion and improve air quality. • Staychock: The reason I bring it up is to get back to what Rob said, "why don't people just go up to Harmony". The reason I don't is that I get stopped by lights and it doesn't make any sense to me. Water will go the path of least resistance- that is why I take 392. Get me from point A to point B. • Brown: The purpose of the primary access goal control plan is to make sure we have access that are adequately spaced.. That is the other consideration. The access control plan will help that some, and when we talked about the 1-25 improvements it will spread those intersections out. • Donovan: Thank you. • Brown: I will leave newsletters for everyone to look at. Update on Resource Recovery Farm At the last presentation we are wrapping up the conclusion process that the Recovery Farm is not feasible. It looks like any use will require capital improvements to the southwest frontage road of 175, 000 dollars for curbing gutter and resurfacing for approximately 600 feet- this doesn't include striping or placing in afire -lane. A lease could not be afforded in which it would be $40, 000 for a year for 40,000 square feet for half of that building. We are still collaborating under the auspices of the Strategic Plan and the 2006-07 budget. We are evaluating a lease for the short term. Resource is open and accepting donations and are close to filling up. They have fine tuned their operations to find a downtown store front as they recognized early the need to find more visibility in the community. They are going to target the old armory and high end architectural objects as possibilities. We are working to have a deconstruction workshop included. We Natural Resources Advisory Board January 18, 2006 Page 19 of 21 are working with Building and Zoning on adding deconstruction into the review process. (the permit counters have some information and we are looking to expand to the web site). • Donovan: I asked that this be put on the agenda for how this will effect the 5 year plan regionally for solid waste diversion and how it will impact things that are happening regionally. We can also talk about contingency plans. • Skutchan: What is the reality of thinking strategically in order to turn something around in a reasonable amount of time? • Skutchan: You see future visions, but in the mean time you have this facility that is not being used. Are you getting to a point where you need to start to think about it. • Stokes: We've been thinking about that. We cant make improvements because we're not allowed to spend money on improvements, but we cant rent the facility because we don't have improvements. Catch 22. There are a number of ways to deal with this. It could be we sell that property. We set design criteria and sell it. Or, we create some other entity that can generate revenues out side the natural areas program. Or we could do a RFP and get developers to come in. As long as we're in this position where we're constrained by the law, we're going to have to overcome that. Clearly something is going to have to give. • Skutchan: we need to pull it all together, We should maintain the vision. It may be better done by private. I was excited by the strategic plan, it incorporated so many different aspects. • Stokes: The 5-Year plan may have an ancillary impacts. One thing is that yard waste recycling/composting be part of the services offered to the people of Fort Collins. Maybe we need a transfer station. Maybe the transfer station would be located at the Resource Recovery Farm. All of these things kind of tie in. • Staychock: Was it a council action? • Stokes: We didn't have plans to buy that property. Council directed natural areas to buy it. • Stokes: Council wanted the open space quality of that property conserved, that's why they wanted us to buy it. But there are large structures already on the property that must be used. • Armstrong: We're getting to the scoping process. We need to revisit how to achieve that vision. • Skutchan: What will be selected from the strategic plan? • Gordon: We are not certain yet. It isn't so much as part of the strategic plan as an opportunity. The other part of the Resource Recovery Farm is that it is budgeted in our 2006 budget. • Colton: What criteria are they using to know why the $175,000 is necessary? Is it due to the amount of traffic? • Armstrong: We did address this at a higher level. The code was being interpreted properly in that it requires a higher level. • Stokes: The City is very obstinate about collecting the City fees. We don't feel there is much wiggle room. • Stokes: It isn't insurmountable, we just need time to be creative. Natural Resources Advisory Board January 18, 2006 Page 20 of 21 • Armstrong: It just takes a little time to be creative. Future NRAB Meeting Schedule • Stokes: We had decided to meet on the third Wed of the month. One of the members of the LCSB has an insurmountable conflict and we're wondering if we could flip- flop, and the NRAB meet on the 1 't Wed of the month. • Donovan: I was trying to keep it flexible. I guess we're going with the flow. • Stokes: The Clerk needs to post. I could put you back to back. • Staychock: I've gone through hassle to put this on the calendar. What makes that person more important than us. • Donovan: I was trying to keep us flexible. • Colton: I have another non-profit I'm on. Don't know if I can reschedule. • Stokes: The other option is to move the Land Board to the 2°d Wednesday of the month. I'm trying to avoid that. We can do that. • Stokes: Doesn't sound like there's a lot of enthusiasm for switching. • Knowlton: I can do either one. • Donovan: I have a preference for the P. • Stokes: We'll leave next months meeting on the P and have a separate conversation with the Land Board. • Stokes: Two agenda items for the future. Have Lucinda Smith come in and talk about her work on the Sustainable Action Plan for the City. We're making nice progress. The other item I wanted to suggest is Cameron Gloss and/or Brian Woodruff come in and talk about Green Building. There are initiatives in the BFO that are now taking off. Try to get them for the 15`". • Donovan: Does it make sense to wait till March to talk about future agenda items. • Staychock: Can we have the City Attorney come in and help us set some guidelines, look at the bylaws? • Stokes: Any environmental issues come under the prevue of this board. • Donovan: There won't be a quorum on the 3'd Wednesday of the month. • Staychock: In February we need to figure out our role. • Skutchan: Hate to get too far along before we figure out our direction. • Stokes: Should send everyone a packet that includes our BFO offers. • Staychock: How about the whole City? • Stokes: Go on line if you need that. I can cull out the Natural Resources offers. • Staychock: If Utilities has offers that have environmental issues we would be looking at those? • Stokes: Well, maybe, they have boards too. • Donovan: Should we try to set the March Wed now. Maybe we should go to the 4d' Wed for March. • Staychock: With one meeting a month, I think we just need to stick with the schedule. • Stokes: I'll send an email letting you know about the Land Board • Staychock: I think it would be wise for this discussion to have an outside facilitator, for February meeting. We should cover the bylaws of what this board should cover. Natural Resources Advisory Board January 18, 2006 Page 21 of 21 2005 Annual Report Nate Donovan said he will get this mailed out by the end of the month. New Business Solid Waste Committee: Jerry Hart, Rob Petterson and Joann Thomas. The Budget Committee will meet on an ad -hoc basis. Further discussion regarding committees will be held at future meetings. Meeting adjourned 9:16 PM Submitted by Tamara Courtney Administrative Secretary I Approved by the Board 12006