Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 02/17/2021 TRANSPORTATION BOARD – BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE JOINT MEETING TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR February 17, 2021, 6:00 p.m. Virtual Meeting Via Zoom 2/17/2021 – MINUTES Page 1  FOR REFERENCE: Chair: Indy Hart Vice Chair: Council Liaison: Nathalie Rachline Susan Gutowsky Staff Liaison: Aaron Iverson/Tracey Lipfert 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Hart called the meeting to order at 6:06 PM. 2. ROLL CALL TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Indy Hart, Chair Nathalie Rachline, Vice Chair Jerry Gavaldon York Kevin Borchert Matt Liberati Cari Brown Rob Owens Diego Lopez BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Aaron Buckley, Chair Jerry Gavaldon, Vice Chair Jordan Williams Katherine Chu Dave Dixon Kevin Krause Whitney Allison Ed Peyronnin Jason Miller Mike Webber CITY STAFF PRESENT: PUBLIC PRESENT: Cortney Geary TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 2/17/2021 – MINUTES Page 2  3. AGENDA REVIEW Iverson stated there were no changes to the published agenda. 4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Cortney Geary newly hired Active Modes Manager, introduced herself and stated she is looking forward to joining the team. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – JANUARY 2021 York made a motion, seconded by Gavaldon, to approve the January 2021 minutes as presented. The motion was adopted unanimously. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 7. NEW BUSINESS a. BAC Chair Election – Aaron Buckley and BAC Members Chair Buckley stated Jordan Williams has expressed interest in the Chair position. Williams stated he works for Natural Resources for the County and is a long-time bike commuter. He stated he looks forward to possibly serving as Chair. Chair Buckley made a motion, seconded by Gavaldon, to nominate Williams as Chair. Yeas: Gavaldon, Williams, Chu, Dixon, Krause, Allison, Peyronnin, Webber, and Buckley. Nays: none. Abstain: Miller. THE MOTION CARRIED. b. Approval of BAC Minutes – January 2021 Gavaldon made a motion, seconded by Williams, to approve the January 2021 minutes as presented. Yeas: Gavaldon, Williams, Chu, Dixon, Krause, Allison, Peyronnin, Miller, Webber, and Buckley. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. c. Bike Fort Collins Intersection Projects – Dave Dixon Dave Dixon, Bike Fort Collins, stated the intent of the organization’s Intersection Facility Focus initiative is to maintain a fluid list of intersections and road facilities that represent opportunities for improving the bicycling experience for citizens. He stated the three intersections he will be discussing are: Magnolia Street,Canyon Avenue and Sherwood Street, Elizabeth Street and College Avenue, and the intersection of the Poudre Trail and Linden Street. Regarding the Magnolia Street,Canyon Avenue and Sherwood Street intersection, TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 2/17/2021 – MINUTES Page 3  Dixon stated there is a high potential for confusion among motorists and other users relative to stop sign adherence and given the large size of the intersection. He noted the bike lane on Magnolia is wide and buffered up to this point and this intersection compromises the bike facility. He also noted the site distance at the intersection is difficult. He showed videos illustrating issues with the intersection. Chair Hart stated a roundabout would serve this intersection well. Gavaldon agreed the intersection is problematic and agreed a roundabout could be a good solution. Borchert asked if there are accident statistics for the intersection. Dixon replied he does not have that information but agreed it would be helpful to have. Iverson stated staff will pull data on that. Rachline suggested a short-term option could be a stop light or signage indicating cyclists should be prioritized. Williams asked if most cyclists are going east/west on Magnolia or making other movements. Dixon replied most are going east/west on Magnolia. Williams expressed support for a roundabout in the future but suggested green striping along Magnolia to catch the attention of motorists. Chair Hart stated there was support for a roundabout in the comments and an interim solution including islands was suggested. Peyronnin commented on pedestrian issues at the intersection, particularly given the nearby Lincoln Center. He agreed a roundabout would be a good long-term solution but stated something should be done in the short-term as well. York agreed a roundabout would be a good solution. He asked if there has been some consideration of making Canyon solely a human-powered transportation corridor. Iverson replied that idea was mentioned in the Downtown Plan, but it hasn’t been taken any farther. Brown agreed a roundabout is a good long-term solution and suggested larger signage and green striping could be helpful. Owens agreed with the short-term solutions of signage and perhaps striping. He also stated the intersection of Whitcomb, Canyon, and Mulberry is quite dangerous as well. Gavaldon noted the intersection is crowned due to the location of an underground ditch. He suggested contacting Traffic Operations to determine whether they may have an interim suggestion. Dixon went on to discuss the Elizabeth and College intersection. He stated the crossing going eastward is quite cumbersome for cyclists as the proper motion TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 2/17/2021 – MINUTES Page 4  involves going east across College then south across Elizabeth to get into the bike lane and many cyclists end up crossing diagonally or making other unpredictable motions. He showed videos illustrating issues with the intersection. He suggested creating a barn’s dance type crossing and retiming the signal to allow for a legitimate diagonal crossing to occur. He also suggested creating a separate crosswalk on the south side of the intersection. Chair Hart asked if cyclists are technically to dismount and walk across intersections and on sidewalks. York replied cyclists are allowed to ride on sidewalks and crosswalks as long as they are moving at a walking-type pace. Chair Hart agreed a diagonal crosswalk or crosswalk on the south side would be the simplest solutions. York suggested a grade-separated crossing could also be a solution. Rachline stated painting and signage could be helpful in the short term. Brown and Chu agreed with Dixon’s suggestion of a barn’s dance type crossing. Gavaldon stated the traffic light seems to be on a short cycle to hurry movement across College. Owens noted there is a bike lane on University Avenue going straight to College; however, cyclists cannot cross there due to the median. He asked if there is any information as to whether cyclists frequently must back track upon realizing they cannot cross there. Brown noted there is a sidewalk that parallels College between University and Elizabeth. Chair Buckley stated this intersection needs a more formal transportation study from the campus perspective. He stated the main concern from the City’s traffic perspective related to a second crosswalk is that another phase in the signal would be required and therefore increase delays on College. He stated even more time might be needed for a barn’s dance type crossing. Liberati stated the timing of through-put on College would not likely be dramatically affected as the Prospect intersection is nearby. York noted all the lights on College are timed to control traffic flow and are heavily monitored. He also noted the diagonal sidewalk on campus was only put in within the last 15 or 20 years with the apparent goal of funneling human-powered transportation to this intersection. Peyronnin suggested a short-term fix could be eliminating right turns on red to help increase the safety of the intersection. Regarding the Poudre Trail and Linden Street intersection, Dixon stated feedback has shown it is not clear to cyclists they need to travel either southwest or northeast TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 2/17/2021 – MINUTES Page 5  to meet back up with the trail, despite the signage posted in both directions on the Poudre Trail. Additionally, vehicular traffic tends to exceed speed limits in this area making it difficult for cyclists to cross. Dixon showed photos of the area and a video illustrating issues with the intersection. He stated solution ideas include road markings and/or trail markings to make it clear to users where the trail goes. Additionally, those markings could serve as a traffic calming device for vehicles traveling on Linden Street. Dixon also stated table crosswalks at both crossings could also be installed to serve as speed mitigation. He also commented on the possibility of placing bollards along the bike lanes on each route across the bridge and on eliminating a crossing by creating a contra-flow bike lane on one side of the bridge. He stated an ideal solution, though likely cost prohibitive, would be a grade- separated crossing. Brown stated she prefers the first two options and Chair Hart stated he prefers the third option. Williams commented on prior discussions around a grade separation under Linden and trail realignment. Iverson replied he has reached out to Parks Planning and will provide information to the Board when he hears back. Williams suggested a short-term solution of signage with a yellow caution light warning motorists of a crossing cyclist or pedestrian. Borchert noted this issue was discussed as being part of phase 2 of the whitewater park; however, he acknowledged that may change given the status of the budget. Liberati asked who has the right-of-way. Chair Hart replied the trail signage indicates cross traffic does not stop; therefore, those traveling on Linden would have the right- of-way. Liberati suggested the installation of a stop sign on the trail. York stated having both trail directions on one side of the road or the other would benefit trail users; however, it may not be appropriate for commuter cyclists. Chair Hart agreed and stated he would like to see a wide trail for users so there is no temptation to use one or the other. York stated he would prefer a grade-separated crossing at this location so as to be consistent with the other crossings on the Poudre Trail. Borchert commented on difficulties with sharp right turns over the bumps on the curb cut. Liberati asked Dixon about his next steps. Dixon replied he will communicate with FC Moves staff to follow up on possible short-term solutions for intersections. TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 2/17/2021 – MINUTES Page 6  d. Common Issues – Areas to Work Together in 2021 – Open Discussion  T-Board and BAC Structure Overview – Aaron Buckley Iverson stated the structure of Boards and Commissions is outlined in the Municipal Code and the Bicycle Advisory Committee is a sub-committee of the Transportation Board. He noted there is no indication of the Chair structure of the BAC in the Code, but the current process seems to be working appropriately. Additionally, the Code allows for both entities to write bylaws; however, none currently exist for either. Krause asked if there is any information as to how the budgetary structure exists with regard to transportation overall, particularly bicycling and multi-modal transportation, relating to Boards and their priorities. Iverson replied there is no budgetary structure related to Boards per se; however, there is a transportation fund that contains various entities and there are specific funds spent just on certain modes. Chair Hart commented on the Budgeting for Outcomes process and key outcome areas, one of which is transportation and mobility. He noted the allocation of funds is not something the Board really addresses.  Topic Ideas (Vision Zero Plan, Update of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans, E-bike Program, etc.) Chair Buckley discussed items he envisions work on in 2021, including the Vision Zero Plan which is to completely eliminate traffic fatalities by improving the safety of the transportation system. He also commented on the need for updates to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans, which are ultimately going to be incorporated into one active modes plan. Additionally, he noted E-bikes will likely be part of the new bike share program and stated some work around fostering more frequent bicycle riding and E-bike riding should be considered. Krause commented on goals that have not been met related bike commuting and a certain percentage of the population living within ¼ mile of a low-stress network. He asked about the accountability and alignment for those goals from an overall transportation perspective. Chair Hart agreed accountability is important and discussing these goals in this type of format is a way to begin those conversations. Liberati stated it should be within the purview of the Board to go to Council on a regular basis to discuss goals. York commented on having plans and acting toward implementing them. Citing the Vision Zero Plan as an example, he asked how the Board can best provide input earlier in the process. Iverson replied staff will be coming before the Boards early and frequently. TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 2/17/2021 – MINUTES Page 7  Williams commented on moving forward with a more holistic active modes plan. York encouraged the inclusion of E-scooters and E-bikes in the active modes plan. Brown discussed the Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process. Krause asked if the BFO process is separate from the baseline budget. Chair Hart stated the BFO process is more about project ideas that should be prioritized. Brown commented on the categorization of budget offers into ongoing, enhancement, and others. Owens discussed other cities’ requirements for protected bike lanes and stated that could be a good inclusion in the Vision Zero Plan. Liberati stated members can go to Council as individuals. Chair Hart commented on the importance of working as a collective group. York noted the City has a complete streets standard. Chair Hart supported efforts at forming an active modes plan. Williams expressed support for having the bike share program return. He commented on the benefit of the program for people from out of town. Chair Hart stated he would like to have the bike share program be integrated into the trail system via maps and signage. Brown stated she would like to know more about why some of the pieces in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans are there. Gavaldon requested details about the bike share request for proposal. Iverson replied staff is negotiating with the selected vendor right now and an announcement should be forthcoming soon. He noted the program will include bikes, E-bikes and E-scooters. Additionally, he noted ridership data related to E- scooters is now available online. Liberati commended the process by which the Board was able to give comments on the request for proposal. Chair Hart commented on the Transportation Board and Bicycle Advisory Committee working together and communicating areas of mutual interest. Krause stated he would like to see staff return with data regarding costs of maintaining certain vehicle volumes in order to help justify decisions related to encouraging mode shifts. Brown agreed that type of presentation would be helpful. TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 2/17/2021 – MINUTES Page 8  Gavaldon suggested the possibility of taking an organized Transfort tour as a Board. York noted that may be difficult given the need to record a meeting. (**Secretary’s Note: The Bicycle Advisory Committee members were dismissed at this point in the meeting.) 8. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS York reported on the recent Planning and Zoning Board work session during which metro districts and the evaluation of their enhanced community benefits was discussed. He noted the Board could provide input on the topic either to Council or the Planning and Zoning Board. Additionally, he stated the Planning and Zoning Board also discussed affordable housing, a project related to setting standards for changes to various City plans, which he noted may be a good presentation for the Transportation Board, and the Civic Center Master Plan for downtown city blocks. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board asked him about E-scooter data. York reported on the People for Bikes newsletter’s announcement of the electric bicycle incentive kickstart for the environment program. Gavaldon asked when the Planning and Zoning Board would need input on metro districts. York commented the Board may need to go directly to Council with feedback at this point and stated he would have liked the Transportation Board to have been involved in the discussions earlier. Gavaldon stated he would like the Transportation Board to weigh in. Board members commented on the need for the Board to receive a presentation on metro districts. Gavaldon commented on the value of the joint meeting and stated he would like to see more presentations from Dave Dixon. Chair Hart noted Webber mentioned the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board received the metro district presentation last week. Borchert reported on virtual summits for the League of American Bicyclists and Bicycle Colorado. He suggested the Board may want to receive a report on insights from those summits. Brown reported on new crossing guards for schools which has alleviated safety concerns. Owens commented on riding Transfort and getting stuck as Apple Maps and Google Maps are not updated with the COVID bus schedule. Chair Hart noted there is a Transfort app that is more accurate. Liberati commended the 2020 Transportation Projects Fair and asked if there are plans for a 2021 event. Iverson replied there are tentative plans for an event perhaps in the fall or virtually earlier. TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 2/17/2021 – MINUTES Page 9  Rachline expressed frustration the metro district presentation did not go before the Transportation Board. She made a motion, seconded by Gavaldon, that Council postpone consideration of the metro district item until the Transportation Board has the opportunity to provide feedback. Rachline also noted the issue with traffic backing up at Raising Cane’s has not improved. York noted the current Council would like to make a decision on the metro district item prior to the election. Chair Hart stated he could not support the motion as stated, but would support a motion expressing concern the Transportation Board did not receive the presentation. Brown agreed with York and stated she would support a motion similar to what was recommended by Chair Hart. York noted there are still opportunities for members to make public comment at the Planning and Zoning Board and Council meetings. Gavaldon agreed he is disappointed the Board did not receive the metro district presentation and noted the Board has a new Council liaison. Rachline made a motion to amend her motion to express surprise the Transportation Board did not receive the presentation on metro districts prior to it going before Council for a final decision. Brown stated the Transportation Board should have had the ability to provide input particularly given access to public transportation has such a large impact on housing affordability. Gavaldon accepted the amendment. Chair Hart asked if he should also write a letter to Council or the liaison. Rachline replied the record in the minutes should be sufficient. Liberati asked if the Board has regular interactions with the Council liaison. Chair Hart replied it depends on the liaison and issues, but noted letters and communication through staff have worked well to this point. York requested a friendly amendment to the motion to say a ‘final presentation’ as the Transportation Board did receive a presentation on metro districts some time ago; however, it did not include the transportation point system. Chair Hart restated the motion to be as follows: the Transportation Board would like to express its surprise it was not included in the final presentation regarding metro district policy as access to public transportation has a large impact on housing affordability. Brown stated she recalls the original presentation being educational only; therefore, she requested a change to the motion to state ‘a presentation on proposed changes to metro TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 2/17/2021 – MINUTES Page 10  district policy.’ Rachline restated the motion to be as follows: the Transportation Board would like to express its concern it was not included in the presentation on proposed changes to the metro district policy as access to public transportation has a large impact on housing affordability. Gavaldon seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: York, Hart, Gavaldon, Borchert, Owens, Brown, Liberati, Rachline and Lopez. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Lopez stated his main goal is to lower the emissions of the transportation network and reported on three resources that could be leveraged to that end: the Low No Emission Vehicle Program, the U.S. Department of Transportation Rebuilding America infrastructure efforts, and Parks and Wildlife Service grants for trails. Chair Hart reported on lower air quality due to the current low pressure front going through the area. He noted it makes transportation choices quite obvious. 9. OTHER BUSINESS a. Bicycle Advisory Committee Report b. City Council 6-Month Calendar Review Iverson reported Council considered the Housing Strategic Plan last night and will be hearing a worksession presentation on the E-scooter update. In March, Council will be considering adoption of the metro district changes and Our Climate Future. c. Staff Liaison Report Iverson discussed the March agenda and noted any metro district presentation would be after Council’s consideration of the item. York suggested the Board should receive a presentation on street-like private drives. York stated he would like to receive a presentation on the Vine and Lemay overpass. Chair Hart thanked Chair Buckley for his assistance in getting the joint meeting organized. Gavaldon commended Chair Buckley on his work. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m. by unanimous consent.