The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 02/20/2008MEETING MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD February 20, 2008 6:00 p.m. Community Room 215 North Mason Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 FOR REFERENCE: Chair: Gary Thomas 482-7125 Vice Chair: Ed Robert 224-4864 Staff Liaison: Mark Jackson 416-2029 Administrative Support: Polly Bennett 224-6058 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: James Clausen Sara Frazier John Lund Kip McCauley Shane Miller Ed Robert Sid Simonson Garry Steen ABSENT: Gary Thomas Bill Jenkins Scott VanTatenhove Wade Troxell, Council Liaison 1. CALL TO ORDER CITY STAFF PRESENT: Mark Jackson, Interim Transportation Group Director/Staff Liaison Polly Bennett, Executive Administrative Assistant Jeff Scheick, PDT Director Helen Migchelbrink, City Engineer Mike Herzig, Capital Projects & Street Oversizing Manager OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Neil Grigg. Citizen and former Board Member Dale Adamy, Citizen and Air Quality Advisory Board Member The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Robert at 1800 hours. 2. AGENDA REVIEW The Agenda was approved. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (January 2008) Clausen moved to approve the January 2008 Transportation Board meeting minutes. There was a second by Simonson. The motion carried unanimously. 5. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT Wade Troxell, Council Liaison Mr. Troxell did not attend. Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board February 20, 2008 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Introductions Page 2 Jackson introduced Jeff Scheick, our new Planning, Development, and Transportation (PDT) Director. Mr. Scheick is a Transportation Junkie, having worked in Transportation for 20 years. He is a licensed Civil Engineer and the Northwest Regional Manager for the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) prior to joining the City of Fort Collins. As Director of the PDT Service Unit, he leads five major areas, including: Transportation, Long Range Planning, Development Review Center, Building & Neighborhood Services, and Transfort. Frazier: I would like to see an organization chart for the PDT, if possible. Jackson: Polly will get that for you. Side note: See draft PDT org chart, attached. Each Board Member was introduced to Jeff. b. Railroad Issues Study Group Mike Herzig, Neil Grigg Herzig presented an update to the Railroad Issues Study Group's findings. Participating agencies and railroads: Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Federal Railroad Administration Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), and Great Western Railroad (GWRR) The BNSF, UPRR (short line), GWRR (short line) all operate through Fort Collins. Over the years, many problems have arisen including blocked crossings, rough crossings, and hom noise. Two major events occurred in 2006: new FRA hom rules (heavy fines are imposed if the hom rules are not followed, including employment termination), and new UPRR track siding behind the Coloradoan building. Investigation with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) revealed that there is nothing the City can do about horn noise. UPRR was willing to help with the blocked crossing issue, and some alleviation occurred (i.e. some trains were diverted to Milliken). The problems still exist. Unfortunately, some agreements get sidelined due to staff turnover. The City Manager's Office created the Task Force to investigate the two most important issues, blocked crossings and horn noise. The group consisted of direct citizen appointments by the City Manager, City Staff, Chip Steiner from the DDA, Steve Main from Poudre Valley Hospital, and Neil Grigg as a representative from the Transportation Board. The group met eight times from September through December 2007. See slide show handout (attached) for more detail. Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board February 20, 2008 Page 3 Grigg: You can see that this is a complex, long-term issue. My recommendation, consistent with the Group, is to find a way to follow-up on the problem and have it get better, so we don't have it recur in 5 — 10 years. Looking to the future, we can go two ways: 1. Status quo; 2. Proactive. The proactive way involves someone to track this (aka staff, involves writing a job description). The job would provide studies, coordination, periodic reports, advice. Periodic reports would give a way to track this. A Board would review those reports. Jackson: Do we want to be the Board that these issues come to? Traditionally, this Board has heard issues dealing with roads, buses, bike, ped, TDM, and airport. Miller: My initial reaction is that, over the long run, any position will affect all other types of transportation in Fort Collins intimately. As such, it seems that the Transportation Board should be involved in looking at the railroad issue on an ongoing basis. If heavy rail were to be removed from the middle of town, the feasibility of light rail on the tracks exists. Frazier: There is the possibility of commuter rail to Denver, as well. Also, there are federal and local regulations... what about state? Herzig: There is a push for regional regulation. McCauley: I agree with Shane and Sara. If there is a Board devoted to the railroad issue, would more action take place? Clausen: In the two years I've been on the Board, we've heard from the railroads twice. It doesn't seem like there would be enough to keep a separate board going. I think we have enough experience on this Board to hear things. Jackson: Not having a staff position budgeted, there is probably not going to be someone to fly the flag immediately. It may make more sense once we have a staff person, to have a dedicated body tracking the policy and politics. The T-Board could, at that point, recommend the formation of a separate Board. Robert: We would want to have someone attend a separate Board initially. Frazier: This might be a way to work toward regional input. Steen: Does the MPO have any focus on the railroad? Jackson: They are looking for ways to have value-added to agencies. It might be worth pitching to them. Simonson: I came on board thinking railroad issues were part of what we do and was surprised that it isn't. Lund I also thought it was part of our responsibility. Jackson: In terms of next steps, staff needs to review recommendations and give input into what can be looked at differently (i.e. MPO involvement). CMO/Council is looking for our feedback. I'm glad to hear that the Board is willing to take this on. I think it belongs here in the near -term. You've done a good job dealing with projects with railroad involvement (i.e. Mason Corridor). We should probably send a message to Council with our recommendations. Robert: I recommend sending a "position paper" to Council telling them of our willingness to take on the railroad issue as a Board. Herzig: We are just beginning to formulate our comments as staff. Jackson: We are taking a look at the Group's recommendations and formulating a view of what the staff position will look like. It will have some specialization to it ... partly what Mike does, partly what Mark Radtke did. One key issue is that we have to be very careful in balancing what came out of the Group's study and the issue of buying right-of-way from the BNSF. It is an intricate and tenuous relationship. Lund: Who owns the right-of-way the tracks are in through town? Herzig: It is a City -owned street, with an easement granted to the railroad in perpetuity. Jackson: Be careful when thinking about the rail relocation. It is a long -shot at based. If they moved the main line off Mason, it would not eliminate rail traffic. There are 5 — 6 businesses that depend on the trains for delivery of products. Also, as far as commuter rail, for those of you who are new to the Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board February 20, 2008 Page 4 Board, there are two packages coming regarding transit. Package "A" deals with commuter rail using the BNSF line through town and then out to I-25. Package `B" is bus rapid transit down Harmony to I-25 and then to Denver. Robert: Are they distinct packages? Jackson: I think the bus rapid transit will show better. Lund: Is light rail different than commuter rail? Jackson: Yes, heavier machinery = commuter rail. There might be a stop here at the DTC, one at CSU, and one south of town. Trip characteristics of light rail are short trips, multiple stops. Lund: Aren't they considering bringing light rail into Longmont? Jackson: I think they are looking for commuter rail. Simonson: Any idea how much a staff position would cost the City? Jackson: If it came out of the existing budget, it would mean we would have to stop doing something else to fund it. If it is a new position, there are a number of things to consider (i.e. would it require an engineer? Part time? Full time?) If Council directs us to add it, we will have to stop doing something else to fund it. Miller: I am looking at the Final Group Report, Phase 1: moving trains out. How is the public benefit cost estimate calculated? Herzig: The estimates came from CDOT and their studies that are underway. Jackson: Have they issued a Phase 1 report? Grigg: They are formulating it. Jackson: Can you find a link on the web to the Phase I study and email it to Polly, please? Herzig: There is a website listed in Appendix F. Miller: The low side of the public benefit appears to be double what it costs to do it. Nine at -grade crossings is $90-billion. Herzig: If we got main line traffic out of town, many of the grade separated crossings wouldn't be necessary. Robert: I'm wondering about air quality concerns with some of the locomotives. Is there any leverage to deal with that? Grigg: The rationale is that if you take the train away, you would replace them with a lot more trucks. Miller: The Prairie Falcon Parkway Express has come up a few times... would it require eminent domain? Jackson: It would definitely be a consideration; however, eminent domain is a hot issue politically these days and may be redefined. Miller: Cost versus benefit of quiet zones. Is there quantitative analysis on residential areas along quiet zones? It seems that we might be able to get an idea from areas where it is implemented. Herzig: At this stage we don't know. It would have to be researched. We are encouraging close -in residential. It is a conflict. The study has more to do with hardware and signalization costs. Grigg: There might be a study for highway noise that could be pertinent. c. I-25 Corridor Update — Council Meeting Update — Mark Jackson, Interim Transportation Director Jackson: If you haven't seen it, and you're a Dork about Transportation stuff, I think it is one of the most cogent, clear, concise presentations that I've seen. It is worth viewing. Discussion from Council was interesting. A lot of people said they thought it went well and we made a lot of progress. I'm not sure we changed any minds. Council gave staff permission to bring forward three projects: 1) State Highway 392 Interchange; 2) Stoner's Harmony I-25 project; 3) northeast I-25/Prospect Rezoning Request. Councilman Roy won't support anything that doesn't include 10% dedicated for Transit. Lund: How do we see it ... can we get a cd? Bennett: You can view it online at the Channel 14 website. Robert: Can there be a promissory note stating there will be an obligation to future funding of transit? Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board February 20, 2008 Page 5 Jackson: I'm not sure how to get that across. I think that bus rapid transit will be the way of the future. Robert: Is there something we, as a Board, can do? Jackson: I think the responsibility belongs with development adjacent. Miller: Gentleman from CDOT, City Manager: availability of funding. CDOT said priority of doing the interchanges, but no money now. He says the Windsor interchange is 3 — 5 years out. CM says there is no money, none coming. Jackson: What you heard is a bit different. Bob Garcia, CDOT Region 4: the EIS process has to wrap up, and then it would be eligible (3 — 4 years out). What you heard from Darin is more realistic. We heard that CDOT anticipates a 30-45% reduction in funding to the State of Colorado. Scheick: That isn't only picking on Colorado... it is a national problem. Projected deficit in the gas fund by 2009... $4-billion. Congress has to pass a new package or all of the states will be facing a huge problem. Miller: When the 392/I-25 project came before us, there was a caveat that something else might be negotiated. Has there been any refinement? Is staff talking to major players? Jackson: It has been refined. They are looking at something with more emphasis on development. Windsor is ready to move forward whether Fort Collins participates or not. Miller: If we want to see how that has changed, can we do that at this point? Jackson: There may be information in the draft Agenda Item Summary coming out at the end of the month. If you don't see it there, call me and I will get you in contact with Pete Wray, one of the Planners involved. Transportation will take over the 1601 process along with Windsor's Engineering staff (a clearing process that saves the developers about a year of time). Miller: Is that predicated on the assumption that the parties will mitigate environmental problems? Jackson: they won't get approval from CDOT unless they address environmental problems. Miller: When we discussed the transit element as part of the capital project, I had discussions with people who have a background in transit. O&M expenses rather than up -front capital expenditures — is there a comparison? Scheick: 80% of the overall Transfort budget is for O&M. Miller: Is there a rough idea to capital investment that would be required for build -out? Jackson: It was spelled out in the 2003 Transfort Strategic Operating Plan, which is being updated. I would have to research it with Marlys. I would estimate $30,000 for the analysis, and $1million from the City as our contribution for the interchange. d. Proposed mandatory training for Boards & Commissions members — Mark Jackson Jackson: The training is mandatory and is more user-friendly now. Clausen: Record of compliance — do they have a record? Jackson: It may be an honor system. Miller: Is there a DVD available? Bennett: Call Karla Smith in the Clerk's office. Robert: Is there an abbreviated update version for those of us who took it a long time ago? Jackson: We will check with Karla. Jackson: There is a new Boards & Commission Process Manual on the Clerk's website. e. Transportation Master Plan Study Session —Mark Jackson The March meeting will entertain a primer on the Transportation Master Plan. Please peruse the Plan at your leisure. E March meeting date/joint meeting— Mark Jackson This is a BIG plan. There is a lot in here. If we do it in one sitting, it has to be kept at a 30,000 ft. level or we won't get through it. Too much? Too little? Feedback? I can tailor this to what you want. Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board February 20, 2008 Page 6 Lund: I would like a general overview at first, and then I would know what I want to visit in more detail. McCauley: Could we do a session on the 30,000 ft. level and then spend time throughout the year on more specific areas. Jackson: That is how we used this Board during the Plan's development. It works. Miller: Since you are updating the Transportation Master P1... nevermind. Jackson: We're updating the Transfort Strategic Operating Plan this year. Miller: I like the idea of a phased presentation. Jackson: I can give you the nickel tour in a two -to -three-hour time period. Robert: If we could have an expanded outline, we could make notes for comparison. Clausen: This is way more than I expected. If we go deeper, my eyes will gloss over. Jackson: I can plagiarize my 2003 presentation to some degree, with updates as possible. Robert Is this a special work session? Clausen: We considered a weekend session or a Wednesday night between regular meetings. Jackson: Gary also asked me to see if you would consider an early morning meeting on March 26 in conjunction with the MPO meeting at The Ranch. That meeting wraps up around Ipm and would be followed by a joint meeting of Fort Collins, Loveland, and Greeley's Transportation Boards. Senator Salazar and Governor Ritter are slated to participate. That would allow us a special meeting on March 12`h or March 19'h. Steen: Is that enough time for you to prepare, Mark? Jackson: I can start putting things together and let you know, but can probably do the nickel tour. Miller: Could we do it on March 19'h if we move our regular meeting to the 261h? Jackson: That would work. You could also devote the regular meeting on the 19th to the Transportation Master Plan. Side note: A poll of members revealed conflicts with the 26`". Jackson: We probably need to have Gary find out if the other Boards can do a joint meeting. It doesn't appear that more than 5 of us could make the 26'h. Robert: Why don't we keep our regular meeting on the 19'h and then attend the 26th if possible. General concensus: Agreed. The regular meeting will stand on the 19`h and be devoted to a Transportation Plan Study Session. g. T-Board Work Plan for the next quarter Meeting at a Transportation Department venue. Simonson: Airport? Transfort? Miller: I'd like to go look at the interchanges where changes are proposed. Jackson: I will see what is feasible and check into rules and regulations. Simonson: I would also like to see the plans for new bike paths. Jackson: The new bike maps are out. We'll see that you get one. Robert: Where does the City stand on funding recreational transportation projects versus general projects? Jackson: It is a matter of building safe infrastructure for all modes. Miller: I would think it depends on whether you view bikes as a recreational mode of transportation or a practical mode. ACTION ITEMS None. Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board February 20, 2008 8. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Page 7 Frazier: UniverCiry monthly meeting had a good presentation from Matt Robinault of the DBA about the alleyways in Old Town. I would like to have him come talk to us about their plans and/or have us go see the plans for the area. McCauley: None. Lund: None. Clausen: Zilch. Simonson: I like the idea of the UniverCiry tour, and would like to know more about the Mason Corridor funding. Miller: I went to the Ozone Management Presentation hosted by the MPO. They were discussing actions we are subject to for not hitting the Ozone requirements. Some of them have to do with Transportation. You can see them on their website. Frazier: I had a visitor who pointed out our black snow. Someone took him to where the snow is dumped and the snow is black. Jackson: Not to diminish what you're saying, some of it is debris that gets picked up during plowing. Steen: First draft of the Climate Task Force goes to the Council work session next Tuesday. Open house 7 — 9pm on the 27 h at the Senior Center. Robert None. 9. STAFF REPORTS Jackson: The Mason Corridor project keeps moving forward. I believe I told you last month that the FTA accepted us into project development. At this point they are actually recommending funding the project — it is in the President's recommended budget! It is proposed that we will receive $11.18 million in Small Starts funding for the project in fiscal year 2009. Senators Allard and Salazar are behind it and we are working to gain Musgrave's support as well. I am proud to give you the 2007 PDT/Transportation Group Annual Report. When you read it, you will see that we got a LOT done in 2007. Many thanks to Polly for heading up this project, and to Holli Keyser at Streets for doing the layout. 10. OTHER BUSINESS None. 11. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Polly BeRhett Executive Administrative Assistant RAILROAD ISSUES STUDY GROUP Final Report Introduction • Background —The Railroads — Problems with the railroads — Attempts to solve the problems — Formed the Railroad Issues Study Group 1 The Railroads • Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) • Union Pacific (UPRR) • Great Western (GWRR) 2 Problems • Common complaints — Horn noise from time to time — Blocked Crossings periodically — Rough Crossings Problems (cont.) • Two Major Events in 2006 — New FRA Horn Rules — New UPRR Track Siding 3 Problems (cont.) • Horn blasting complaints increase • Blocked Crossings of Lemay and Mulberry increased Attempts to Solve (cont.) 9 Attempts to Solve • Inquiries and Actions — Horn Noise - Study options — Blocked Crossings • Railroads • PUC and FRA — State Legislation Attempts to Solve • Horn Noise inquiries — Railroads — Required by FRA — Severe penalties — Quiet Zones feasible? 5 Attempts to Solve (cont.) • Blocked Crossing Railroad Actions — UPRR attempts to reduce impacts • `Blocked cars" in Cheyenne • Empty car exchange to Milliken Attempts to Solve (cont.) • Blocked Crossing Railroad Actions — GWRR avoids blocking Lemay noon to 1:00 — BNSF / GWRR agreement • Allow UPRR cars to North Yard 11 Attempts to Solve (cont.) • Colorado State Legislation — Senator Steve Johnson — Limit Blocked Crossings to 10 minutes — Senate Transportation Committee — Bill Failed Attempts to Solve (cont.) • Problems still exist — Horn Noise — Blocked crossing 7 Railroad Issues Study Group • Authorized in July, 2007 — Citizens member by application — Citizen members by direct appointment —Key staff members Railroad Issues Study Group • Charge of the Group — Develop facts — Report findings — Recommend actions N Citizen Members • Vicki Brown • Jeff Eckerle • Matt Fries • Jim Hickey • Sandy Tanner Citizen Members Direct Appointments • Neil Grigg, City Transportation Board • Steve Main, Poudre Valley Hospital • Chip Steiner, DDA �j City Staff Members • Mike Gavin, Emergency Operations • Mike Herzig, Engineering Department • Bob Poncelow, Poudre Fire Authority • Mark Radtke, Government Relations • Mike Trombley, Police Services Railroad Issues Study Group • Jeff Eckerle to present for the Group 10 Overview • Summary of work • Railroading 101 • Issues Identified by study group • Recommendations Summary of Work • Charge of the study group: — Eight meetings (September to December 2007) — Participating agencies and railroads 11 Summary of Work • Participating agencies and railroads — Colorado PUC — Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) — CDOT — Railroads: BNSF, UPRR & GWRR Railroading 101 • Terminology — Grade Separation — Quiet Zone — Switching moves — Hazardous materials — Railroad relocation 12 Railroading 101 • Regulation of railroads — Difficult to exert local control — Federal statutes and regulations cover most activities Identified Railroad Issues • Locomotive Horn Noise • Blocked At -Grade Crossings • Hazardous Materials Transport • Railroad Relocation • Grade Separated Crossings 13 Issue 1: Locomotive Horn Noise • Findings — Increased noise from locomotive horns — Regulations from Congress — Creation of a Quiet Zone — Typical cost of a Quiet Zone Issue 1: Locomotive Horn Noise • Findings (continued) —Approved by the PUC and FRA, not Railroads — Mason Street is both a challenge and opportunity 14 Issue 1: Locomotive Horn Noise • Recommendations — Conduct a Quiet Zone study — Educate the public — Inform congressional delegation of public concerns Issue 2: Blocked At -Grade Crossings • Findings — Blocked crossings along Riverside — Increased rail activity — Alternate locations — Blocked Crossings with no trains — No laws to regulate in Colorado 15 Issue 2: Blocked At -Grade Crossings • Recommendations — Partner with GWRR to relocate existing switching — Work with local rail customers — Dedicate City staff / Traffic Operations Issue 3: Hazardous Materials Transport • Findings — Federal regulations in place • Railroads required to accept hazardous materials — First responders in Fort Collins — Concerns `N Issue 3: Hazardous Materials Transport • Recommendations — Monitor hazardous materials — Enforce local regulations — Review emergency services preparation — Educate citizens Issue 4: Railroad Relocation • Findings — Ideally, rail traffic could be relocated • CDOT Front Range Rail Relocation Implementation Study • "Super Slab" - Private road/rail by-pass • Transfer BNSF to Union Pacific mainline through Greeley 17 Issue 4: Railroad Relocation • Findings (continued) — Local freight service remains an issue — Commuter rail potential Issue 4: Railroad Relocation • Recommendations — Designate City staff member to participate in CDOT Phase 2 rail relocation study — Pursue relocation possibilities with regional partners IF Issue 5: Grade Separated Crossings • Findings — Concern for blocked emergency vehicles — Grade separated crossings • City master plan • Riverside at Mulberry & Lemay not feasible — Typical cost Issue 5: Grade Separated Crossings • Recommendation — Overcome funding constraints • If Regional Transportation Authority revisited • Pursue federal funding 19