Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 03/21/2001REGULAR MEETING MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD March 21, 2001 5:45 p.m. City of Fort Collins — City Hall West — CIC Room 300 LaPorte Avenue FOR REFERENCE: CHAIR: Christophe Ricord.............. 472-8769 VICE CHAIR: Dan Gould .......................482-1074 ADMIN SUPPORT: Cynthia Scott ................... 224-6058 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Gould Bruce Henderson Tim Johnson Tom Kramer Brad Miller Ray Moe Chris Ricord Brent Thordarson Heather Trantham Mary Warring CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Joe Frank Randy Hensley Mark Jackson Cam McNair Ron Phillips Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. P icofd ABSENT: Steve Yeldell GUESTS IN ATTENDANCE: R.A. Plummer Sally Craig Natalie Brown Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes March 21, 2001 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None Page 2 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion and a second to approve the February 21, 2001 regular meeting minutes of the Transportation Board as presented Discussion: Warring stated that the minutes were excellent and the level of detail was very much appreciated. Several other members agreed. Johnson had a couple of minor revisions: • Page 7, paragraph 2, second to the last sentence should read: "Johnson stated that if he understands this correctly, generally local communities aren't expanding the freeway at their own expense." • Page 7, second to last paragraph, first sentence, add "with so many lanes" to the end of the sentence. • Page 10, "The motion passed unanimously, 9 — 0" should be changed to "8 — 0" because Ray Moe abstained. The motion carried unanimously with the above stated amendments. 3. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT None 4. a) PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE GRADE SEPARATED DESIGN GUIDELINES This item has been postponed at Kathleen Reavis' request. She will present to the Board next month. b) I-25 REGIONAL CORRIDOR PLAN (Recommendation to Council Requested) Staff: M. Jackson & J. Frank Jackson thanked the board for the opportunity to come back to discuss the I-25 Corridor Plan. He stated the board made it very clear that there were issues and concerns that still needed to be addressed, specifically the transportation element of the Plan. Staff heard the concerns very clearly, took those suggestions to heart and made a lot of changes. Staff also conducted further analysis as requested. He stated that he would go over the issues, item by item, to ensure that all the board's concerns have been addressed. Moe stated that he would begin by addressing item #2 on the memo in the board's packets, which is Emphasize Alternative Modes of Travel. He said that alternative modes are important to the corridor and staff doesn't want to give the impression that arterials are the most important transportation element. The Plan seeks to incorporate and expand on several previous recommendations for alternative modes of travel in the corridor. There was some verbiage in the TAF Study to recommend and support regional transit. As the plan was reviewed, staff tried to look at the potential for Park `n Rides; they looked at the existing ones and how to provide a transit system that would provide connections to them or even perhaps a rail station. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes March 21, 2001 Page 3 He pointed out support transit service already in existence, such as the Loveland service to the outlet mall and looking at potential opportunities to take transit not just to HP, but to the transfer facility and other centers in the corridor. He stated that it is quite exciting when you look at the bike opportunities in the corridor. Bike trails along the Big Thompson River and a possible bike trail that would extend from the Mason Street Corridor along the tracks to the outlet malls in Loveland are just a couple. In the pedestrian design guidelines, there was a lot of discussion about the fabric of what a center is, the importance of a trip having a pedestrian component to it, connectivity, and the elimination of barriers as you look at developments. Moe asked if there were any questions on the alternative modes of travel section. Johnson: In thinking about different options, and assuming that this system would be in place, have you been able to look and see what kind of numbers of folks this might potentially carry? Moe: Under some of the major objectives and under the original City Plan, we tried to get a 10% capture on some of those routes. I think that's a challengable number and that will be what we try to strive for. We can talk about that more when we start talking about the roadways. Moe added that every one of these goals is important. Consistency in the region is especially critical. If we have pieces that are missing here or there, it won't work. As a vision for the region, all communities say yes, we embrace this plan and we're going support it and work toward it. So, as those improvements are made, they are consistent. The other thing is that it provides choice. You don't just have to get in a car to get places in the region; you can ride a bike or use transit, etc. Kramer: What is the timeframe of all this? I mean you are basically trying to preserve ROW in order to be able to do these things eventually, right? Moe stated that those issues would be discussed in more detail later. Gould: To me it seems unfortunate that originally the vision was portrayed as a master street plan for this I-25 corridor and it's kind of the "battle of corridors" on a different scale. I think it would have been advantageous, although I don't know how the other communities would see it, to have called these "travel" corridors, because it really isn't so much a master street plan. It's much more visionary. I'm curious as to what the level of thinking is of the participating entities in terms of will there be wording and the appearance of this kind of vision in the document, or will it just say "Master Street Plan." Phillips said that it varies across the board. Loveland and Fort Collins have very similar approaches to transportation and as far as Berthoud and Johnstown go, we're trying to bring them along. He said he would also like to reiterate from the last meeting, that this is not a master street plan per se. We were talking about the roadway system, so he characterized the plan for the roadway system as a master street plan as a way to relate what we do in Fort Collins to this area. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes March 21, 2001 Page 4 Phillips added that this is a transportation element or you can call it a "travel plan," but the bottom line is that it is a transportation plan for the I-25 corridor as it is identified in this planning area. He stated that he doesn't mean to emphasize street as only motor vehicles, because when we talk about streets in Fort Collins, we naturally include bikes and peds, which is exactly what is included here as well. Last time, we got focused on the roadway system and that's why we need to characterize it not as ways to relieve 1-25 necessarily, but this is a transportation system that is necessary to serve the development that is going to occur in this area. Jackson added that in partial answer to Gould's comment, big picture wise, he gets the sense that there is a genuine sense of excitement among the northern Colorado communities about the TAFS recommendations with commuter rail and such. Warring commented that if this were all that the I-25 corridor plan represented, then everybody would probably be enthusiastic about it. She said what is proposed here would be great for the future, but the parallel road system that is being proposed is a significant portion of the plan. You have them together as one plan and that is where it becomes very contentious. Moe said that he would discuss that topic next, but wanted to make sure he had the board's support on the alternative mode component before moving on. Moe then referred to #1 on the memo, Arterial Roadway System. He stated that the key is that they are not trying to build an infrastructure system to promote new development. What we tried to do was identify from different communities what developments they already have on their plans. With that information, improvements were identified. The second issue is that when staff first evaluated the system, it failed miserably. Even if you could get 10% on the alternative modes, there were still some major failures there. It wasn't just the freeway either. There were the roads leading up to the freeway. We have shown those graphics in the past. He stated that the existing transportation network would not support the growth that is now allowed by existing plans and zoning regulations, especially in areas between jurisdictions. Reliance upon the current east/west arterials, interchanges, and I-25 to service this planned growth will result in failure of these systems. The transportation element of the I-25 plan is meant to define a future network in enough detail to reserve right-of-way (ROW) for a multijurisdictional master street plan as the corridor develops. Moe stated that homes are going up very quickly throughout this region and preserving the ROW is forward thinking. Warring stated that it seems that the plan is trying to accommodate growth. She doesn't see how growth is going to necessitate a four -lane arterial from her experience living in an area where the arterial is proposed to be. She added that because impact or transportation fees are based on trip generation and there is a low density of housing, how could you possibly raise the revenues that would support that? She stated that it seems that if you are building a four or six -lane section of interstate, it is because you want to alleviate congestion on I-25 and she doesn't think that would he acceptable at all. Certainly not to the residents in the area and she said she doesn't think we should alleviate (state) interstate congestion on local roads. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes March 21, 2001 Page 5 Phillips stated that there might be a misunderstanding about the number of lanes, because the only six -lane proposals in this plan are Timberline from Harmony north, Harmony Road and SH-14 and US-34. Timberline is on the City of Fort Collins' Master Street Plan as a six -lane arterial. There is no part of Timberline, at this point, that is six lanes. He explained that it is on the Master Street Plan as a six -lane so that as development happens, we can obtain ROW for an eventual six -lane arterial, which our model shows is going to be necessary at some point in time. We are simply planning for the future. It doesn't mean it will be built in the next ten years or maybe even twenty years. Warring said that because of density and trip generation numbers, the growth would not accommodate the cost of building the road. Warring brought an excerpt from a study she found entitled, "Why are Roads So Congested?" It is an analysis from the Texas Transportation Institute, Data of Metropolitan Congestion. She read one of the statements from the excerpt, which said that newly available road space encourages additional car travel and specifically points out that a 10% increase in the size of a highway automatically generates a 5.5% increase in the amount of driving. Warring reiterated that building roads is not the answer to congestion. She said our population growth is growing at one rate and our congestion level is growing at quite another. Moe stated that the objective is to not create this parallel roadway system to address the long- term freeway growth. Johnson stated that in terms of the parallel roadway system, at the last meeting the board said there was a lack of options in looking at this. He said that he thinks the City started with this because they wanted to have a different kind of vision for the I-25 corridor. He added that there are possibilities for different visions here, which is what the board has asked for. The board wanted to look at the other options such as: doing nothing; perhaps widening I-25; looking at HOV lanes; or looking at alternative modes and asking whether doing some of those things can keep us from adding not necessarily the parallel road system, but limiting those north/south lanes to a minimum. Then the vision would be something like the easiest way to go from Harmony Road and the industrial parks down to Crossroads to the south would be to take that alternative mode. Why can't we have a vision, why can't we have an option that has a vision like that? I think that's what we're looking for. The implications of relieving the gridlock on I-25, and we heard this come up over and over again, comes down to our local capital and it is spread so thin today that we really don't see a way to finish off what we have on our plate now. Moe stated that in terms of land use options, one key thing that was looked at to avoid 119 was the bunch of development around the interchange. That is the classic example. Everything is kind of around that and the consulting team really looked hard at the land use design concept. Part of the vision was the development patterns and could we start looking at traditional design, centers type of concepts, and that doesn't occur at interchanges, it occurs along or adjacent to those. That was a vision and a lot of the open houses tried to explain that. He said that he supports trying to make the connections along those facilities such as CR 5 with as much alternative modes as possible. Speaking as a planner, if that did not yield that high of a success as one had hoped for in certain segments, I would feel bad about saying that we didn't preserve enough ROW in the corridor. I'm not trying to deal with the freeway here, just trying to make it from point A to point B. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes March 21. 2001 Page 6 Johnson stated that what he is not hearing is that the board might have other options to look at. He stated that was what he expected to see tonight. He felt that was a real critical item in what was discussed last time and that the board needs to have that before they can make a recommendation. Jackson said that he doesn't believe this is an either/or proposition. If you look at the design and location standards when talking about activity centers, that bunching of activity approximate to the interchange and such, that it is chock full of transit oriented development design. It's cutting edge planning and transportation planning principles that facilitate and make more efficient and attractive the use of alternative modes. That's why we came out of the gate tonight talking about the importance of alternative modes. They are not an afterthought. Frank stated that what he believes Johnson is asking for is some transportation alternatives and specifically he asked about six -lanes and the impact of that. Moe said that that issue is addressed under item #3 on the memo entitled Eanlore the Widening of I-25. He said that six -lanes were looked at, as well as eight -lanes. It allows travel along the freeway to operate faster and better, but it didn't take away the need to serve that local trip though. Also, the more you widen the freeway, especially to eight lanes, it jammed everything up trying to go to it. It would take major real estate to make that happen anyway. Johnson asked by using other modes and other options, can staff come with one or two other options? For instance, if you add that third lane on I-25, do an HOV, look at maximizing the alternative modes, you make the easiest way to get from Timberline and Harmony the rail component that we are going to put in - - that should be the focus. That could be an alternative vision that we have. Phillips stressed that an interstate is a completely different animal than an arterial. The interstate is a limited access facility, which means access is the bottleneck. Ingress and egress from that facility is where you run into problems and as Moe said, if you are going to go that way, then you get into interchanges that are humongous. Is that really an option? Staff is saying no. We need arterial streets just like you need in the city. Every so often you need an arterial street to carry traffic and bikes and transit and pedestrians. Warring said that she questions some of the predictions on ridership and a classic example is light rail in Denver. They did a lousy job predicting how much ridership that was going to have. She stated that she thinks right now there isn't the demand, but if you are sitting on the interstate and that bus goes by, eventually people are going to change their behavior patterns and ride them. Moe said that there is going to be an Environmental Impact Study done on I-25 that will look at some of those issues again. He said that his hope is that we could push hard for these alternative modes and to delay and perhaps not even build some of these facilities. He said he couldn't come to the board and tell you that this particular mix is going to solve those problems. He just can't do that with that with the tools he has. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes March 21, 2001 Page 7 Warring said that there is a lot of emphasis on keeping land use and transportation together and integrating them and I agree with that, but I think even more importantly, we have to talk about transportation planning. When you talk about approving the plan, you talk about a certain dollar amount attached to it and that becomes a figure to base future spending. I think we need to talk about how much that is and who is paying for it. Chair Ricord asked if there were comments from other board members before moving on to the finance piece. Trantham: I just want to say that I agree with what Mary and Tim are talking about and I think we are talking about a paradigm shift. Why aren't we taking into account studies like the one that Mary cited, that shows building roads does not decrease congestion instead of always looking at modeling. Modeling will show you exactly what you want it to show you. I've done enough modeling to know that. I don't always believe what it tells you. You can put whatever you want in and get whatever you want out. I think that we should be paying more attention to studies that have been done that document past behaviors. Why not build part of the transit first. You say there is a really strong transit component, but what that really means is we're going to build the road and provide nice wide bike lanes. Why don't you build the bike lanes and see if it makes people use them? See if you still need a road. That's the kind of paradigm shift that I'm hearing Tim and Mary talk about, but that's not really what's going to happen. I think for us to accomplish that would require a shift in philosophy now. I don't know if that can occur at this point in the project or not. Kramer: What they are asking for is to preserve the ROW, so whether you want to put a bike lane there or a road or transit or the rail system, you first have to preserve the ROW. If you don't, it will be lost to you forever. That is all that the board is really supposed to be looking at at this point. How it gets laid down are the logistics that get worked out later. Warring said that preserving the ROW for transit and rail is very different than preserving the ROW for the interstate or roadways. Phillips stated that the study Warring is making reference to is one that he pointed the board to 1-2 years ago at that web site. That study is dealing with issues like southeast Denver where you widen from six lanes of interstate to ten lanes of interstate to handle congestion that is already there. It is not talking about having four lane arterials that serve an urban area. I'm arguing here for an arterial street system that is necessary for our urban infrastructure. I believe in bicycling, in transit, and in pedestrianization as much as anybody, but you can't say we're going to replace an arterial street system for urban infrastructure with bikes and peds and transit. That is totally unrealistic. Trantham asked where has it ever been tried to pour all the money into some kind of transit or rail option without ever building a roadway there? Kramer said that it isn't realistic. The growth is going to happen and what they are doing is trying to plan ahead because growth is coming. Instead of ending up like Douglas County, who had to come crying back to the State saying look at all this we built and now we don't have the roads... Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes March 21. 2001 Page 8 Warring said that we talked about the road needs 30-40 years out, so staff is asking us to think about congestion such as what Denver experiences, and she doesn't want to see that level of congestion dealt with by building more or widening roads. The parallel roadway system just doesn't cut it for me. Thordarson commented that we're talking about 100,000 jobs out there and you can't even get there from here right now, even if you put buses and bikes out there, it isn't going to work. Phillips explained that we are trying this experiment in the City of Fort Collins. The Master Street Plan in Fort Collins used to show several six -lane arterials, that have now been scaled back to four lanes due to emphasis in the Transportation Master Plan and City Plan on going to transit and having a modal shift of 14% from SOVs to other modes of transportation. We had a vote two years ago in transit that went down. We have a lot of opposition to funding transit in Fort Collins. If we don't get transit funded in Fort Collins, we will have to revisit that Master Street Plan to possibly go back to six lanes on those arterials. I think there has been a tremendous amount of change in how we address things in Fort Collins. In this plan, we are talking about Timnath, Windsor, Loveland, Johnstown, Berthoud, Larimer County with three conservative commissioners, Weld County with five conservative commissioners and if we can't do it in Fort Collins, how are we going to have that kind of a shift in this region? I think that there has been remarkable progress made. It seems you're saying that we have got to reach this goal clear out here and therefore won't take this baby step. You want to take this giant step before the baby step. Chair Ricord said that the argument is that this isn't really a baby step. It is a question about alternatives. He added that there are still other topics to go over in the memo. He noted that #1-3 have been discussed. Moe said that he would like to summarize those three items by saying that sometimes we get caught up on the term "parallel." He said that he said it earlier on and shouldn't have. We're not designing intersections; think of it as just trying to identify a swath through the region. Gould. Is it assumed that as the need is identified, then the capacity will just be matched to that need? Moe confirmed. Miller: As we talked about last month, you're asking to preserve the ROW whether it is for transit or roads or whatever. Even though that is the first step along the way of building those roads, some may object to that first step because they see the big road coming in. It seems to me that the risk is too great not to preserve that ROW. The way I understand it is that the step you're asking for right now is simply preserving the ROW and what gets built, when, how wide and how big, how many lanes and all that is to be determined based on future needs. Moe said that is correct. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes March 21, 2001 Page 9 Jackson moved on to item #4 Induced Cut -through Traffic. Concern was expressed that an arterial street system necessary to serve development in the corridor might also attract interstate truck traffic and affect compliance with port of entry requirements. The proposed arterial road network is designed to serve local growth in the corridor area and would really not serve as much of an attraction to long -haul truck traffic due to its more urban nature. The issue of long -haul through truck traffic cutting through Fort Collins is currently being addressed by the Northern Colorado Truck Mobility/SH-14 Relocation Study. Jackson added that he would be addressing this in more detail as it is next on the board's agenda tonight. Staff is well aware of the concerns and is working cooperatively with the trucking industry, enforcement agencies and the Ports of Entry to devise workable solutions to this issue. Comments: Johnson stated that at the last meeting, there was a board member report about a one -day State check on Harmony and Timberline and 130 tickets were issued to violators. The issue we raised is that if we make nice alternatives for people to use instead of potential gridlock on the interstate, we will indeed induce through truck traffic on our local roads. We need to keep that issue up front and center. Warring stated that Vine Drive is a good example of that happening. The trend that is becoming even stronger is that they are getting off the interstate to head east on SH-14, making a Ieft and swinging onto the frontage road. It is not just occasionally anymore, they do it all the time. Cutting through, even though it's only a mile north of the highway, they'll do it, because there are a few less lights. Johnson stated that one other option in terms of making it less attractive again, is if you can keep these parallel systems down to two lanes, that makes it much less attractive in the future than if you have a nice four -lane option for them to get off the freeway. Moe pointed out that the problem with trucks using Harmony and Timberline is that they are using it to avoid the weigh station. It's not that they are using the alternate to avoid congestion on I-25. So, this is more of an enforcement issue. Frank suggested acknowledging that in the plan. Miller commented that it is clear that all these things are interrelated and we're not going to solve all these problems with this one plan that you have before us tonight. Again, you're really just asking for preserving some ROW and looking into the future. This isn't intended to make every decision of every intersection of every square foot of concrete. I think we have to keep it in perspective. #5, Request for Further Financial Analysis was a concern brought up by this board. Jackson stated that staff went back to the Policy Committee which is comprised of elected officials from each of the participating communities and asked them how they wanted staff to deal with this issue. Initially, they weren't prepared to develop a full scale, full-blown funding mechanism study as part of this project. He said that staff/consultant have prepared sketch -level planning cost estimates for the regional portion of the corridor. More in-depth costing work for the sub -area (Fort Collins) is being worked on. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes March 21, 2001 Page 10 Ken Waido, the City demographer, has been working on looking at what some of the approved land uses in our portion of the corridor are and what the applicable fees are that are being garnered from either Street Oversizing or County fees and the like, as well as how much of that will it pay for. It is a higher amount than what people are figuring. Comments: Chair Ricord: It seems premature to be talking about approving this huge plan when that information isn't finalized yet, not to mention that we haven't even seen it yet. I was going to ask why we haven't seen it in the context of this plan and you just answered my question. It's because it isn't done yet. Jackson responded that you can't come to a definitive answer with an overall regional corridor plan, you have to look at it within your community's land use. Warring: We are in our infancy when talking about impact fees, percentages and who pays. I have some charts that I will distribute. One is from the Regional Transportation Services and Funding Feasibility Study. I attended the MFO meeting this month and they talked about a potential Regional Transportation Authority, the structure of that and potential studies on that. (Warring then explained the meaning of the information handed out. She used the information to come up with some numbers and mentioned that there would be $375M worth of needs that we have to come up to fund.) That's what I mean by baby steps. I don't think for instance in the mid -range at 16%, that development pressure is paying its relevant share. Sixteen percent certainly isn't my estimation of what is an appropriate amount for development to be paying for road related infrastructure needs. This is really the piece where it breaks down. We're talking a lot about funding and we all know it is a tremendous problem. When you look at these projections for the next 20 years, we know that our fees have not been adequate in the past, they are not adequate now and when you look at these projections for the future, it seems that they are not adequate in the future either. That's where I really want to put the brakes on - - to add more needs to a budget that's already bloated?! We have billions in need. I know that these are all projections, this is a scenario and whether this changes or not, the point the consultant is at with this study, while not definite, is pretty far along. Miller asked what Warring thinks is the right answer. She replied that we need to talk about impact fees and private sector contributions that are higher. Johnson repeated his earlier statement - - before he can support anything like this, he wants other options. Phillips: We are mixing apples with oranges here. We're talking about local needs versus a very cursory study on funding for regional needs and for the TAF Study. To relate this study to these needs, I don't think is terribly applicable. First of all, I am opposed to an RTA funding these kinds of improvements, because in my opinion, local improvements need to be funded through development and local funding mechanisms. We're trying to put together a system that will relate so that our transit plans, our bicycle lanes and paths, our pedestrian ways and our streets will meet each other between jurisdictions. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes March 21. 2001 Page 11 We have said repeatedly, how each jurisdiction needs to take this overall vision, go back and talk about what they need to do with impact fees, what they need to do with development requirements, what is needed to begin (as it is needed) to implement this type of a system. He then pointed out that the RTA numbers are broad generalizations. Chair Ricord asked that each member speak to the item. Trantham: I support the acquisition of the ROW, but I think that a lot of this was created on the supposition that I-25 is going to fail in 20 years. Does it fail in less than 10 if we build another lane on I-25? I don't know. I think those are the kinds of options that maybe Tim was looking for that we don't see here. I guess I am not convinced that if we widened I-25 and maybe spent some of our money in taking care of some of the interchanges that I-25 couldn't be used as a regional facility, I don't know. All that I hear is that we plugged in the maximum traffic volume and it fails. That's not a lot of information for me. Gould: I guess I don't have any other questions per se, but my take is probably more simplistic than a lot of other people are thinking on this. In terms of what Heather talked about, I would welcome a paradigm shift so much - - how to avoid doing roadways for automobiles fast. The box that I live in is just too constrained because you can build bike lanes first, but I've seen the politics with that and I don't know how you'd do that if it were a recreational path. Could we do HOV roadways that exclude cars? To me, that's impossible to conceive of. It looks likely we're stuck with an evolutionary way of developing a street system that we conceive of in Fort Collins as multi -modal. To me, that's a really important part. The simple level that I am stuck at is that I have about 25-30 years of experience of interacting closely with different ethnic groups in Larimer and Weld counties. To me, there are people in authority interested in design standards that actually include the Fort Collins version of what a street section is (bike lanes, sidewalks, transit, etc.) and that's pretty amazing to me. That people would buy into that as an intergovernmental agreement! So, I guess I am really looking more at the vision part of this and as a beginning of a regional process. I would like to find a way for us to support this. I think the financial aspects are extremely complicated and will play out in microcosms of local politics that we really can't predict. I don't like the idea of supporting a parallel plan, but if it really does unfold as different segments of needed capacity that would be done as a minimum, the financial constraints will probably dictate. That's a little more palatable as being things that are considered important. However, for us not to support this because of what our hopes are, that we haven't even achieved exactly for Fort Collins, well, I will be supporting this. Henderson: I agree with a lot of what Gould stated very well. The ROW is important and I think we need to support that. The regional planning aspect of this is really good. It's a lot better than the alternative. If we can find a way to integrate alternative modes into the more detailed plans while supporting the overall plan on a higher level, I think we would be doing ourselves a service to do that. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes March 21, 2001 Page 12 Johnson: I think that we can support planning for multi -modal and we can support intergovernmental agreements that work together for the region, but that doesn't mean that we have to support this plan now. We can ask Council to ask the staff to come back to us with other options. We can say that this plan is too limited in terms of what it does and we need to see other options for lots of reasons which I've already stated. Warring: You've already heard a lot of my perspectives this evening, so I don't think I need to elaborate too much, but I am also concerned certainly about sprawl and I think that relates to the financing piece. If we keep continuing even remotely the same mode that we are now with respect to funding infrastructure, we will be paying for it and the growth will be coming. The numbers right now just don't bear out that growth is going to pay a significant share. I think it's a great goal for the future. F' apcin is a al 'ssue for e. ed n my own '( /�' tm a +0 personal ex erienc���xo�m�e�re� of �,� cYeis .d�p`�ftsse of the be t{-�anP aft RO or m ce, trulc°� ass may a curt n y underway, but it is already in the plan to be funded. It's an $85M plan that was submitted and it is in the top 25% of the road needs and to me, that speaks to the fact that once you say you have a plan, you submit it as a project and it gets in line for funding. That adds to our funding needs. I would love to see this as just alternate modes and I applaud the planning and setting up design standards although I am concerned, Joe, about the enforceability of them and I know that's a concern for you too. I agree with Tim, we could support parts of the plan, but not all of it. Kramer: I think as a transportation group, we basically have to take a look at it as a vision that's trying to get these other communities on board and keep the ability to have connectivity between these plans and design standards and preserving the ROW. It also gives some of these other communities a little different focus instead of just uncontrolled growth right up to the interstate. That's not going to help us at all either. Whether it gets built or not, I think you have to look at it at the least as trying to bring these other communities on board and preserve the ROW. I think we can support that. Miller: I would echo what Tom said. I think we have the opportunity to take the lead, being the biggest member of the crew up there, with the standards and preserving the ROW and so forth. I think that it is too easy for all of us to take very complex interrelated issues and then span them over 20-30 years, which makes them exponentially more complex. What we really need to do is focus on this step which is preserving the ROW and take the initiative to be the leaders among the communities in the overall plan. This will also help us be able to modify the plan as necessary with the subsequent decisions that are going to follow. I support that. Thordarson: I was wondering if you could elaborate just a little more on how the organization mechanism would work once the plan were adopted. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes March 21, 2001 Page 13 Frank: We have identified three alternatives as the next steps. One of them could be a formal structure; an MPO-like agency just for the I-25 corridor. Another option that we've looked at is a public/private venture and the third is to continue an informal process. Continue the Policy Committee and the Technical staff team, coming to the table to process information on the plan. Thordarson: In terms of the vision of the plan, I can certainly support that. I believe that preserving the ROW for a future roadway network as it's needed is valuable. The notion of what multi -modal aspects of the plan look like have been well considered. As long as we can keep all the jurisdictions wanting to play and be at the same place, I think this is a good opportunity for something good to happen. My only reservation is that I would like to see I-25 somehow getting some consideration as to what can happen that might help with the overall transportation component of the plan and not just decide it needs to be four lanes. If we can get all the players to buy into the land use component, there is a chance of some really good things to happen. Chair Ricord: What we're being asked to do tonight is to revisit the recommendation we made last month. In order to do that, we need a motion. Johnson: I move that we advise Council that we like the regional planning concepts that we have seen and we like the design standards for multi -modal, but I move that we also do not accept this recommendation and that we advise Council to have staff come back to us to bring other options that would include the use of I-25 to minimize the need for expanding these parallel road systems. There was a second by Trantham. DISCUSSION: • Thordarson: I sort of agree with the motion, maybe not entirely. I wonder if we could have a favorable motion with an additional request that some more be addressed in terms of I-25. • Johnson: I don't think that politically that works. I think we need to ask what we really want for, to have it up front and to have the discussion be continued so that if we have it a month from now or two months from now when other options are available, that tells the community that we didn't ask to shut this down. We asked in a serious way for it to be continued but with certain specific requests in mind. Phillips: We felt that that's what you asked last time and we felt that we did come back with those options tonight. I sat down and talked with you (Johnson) about this and you outlined four things that you felt needed to be addressed and we felt we did that. I don't know what options you want. Chair Ricord: Obviously there is a diverse opinion around the table. Phillips: Yes, that's obvious, but I think it is important to understand that there are not other options. We have discussed widening to six lanes and widening to eight lanes and discussed the problems involved in that. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes March 21, 2001 Page 14 • Chair Ricord: Apparently, it hasn't been discussed or answered to everyone's satisfaction that we haven't gotten to the point where there are no more options and that's where I think the discussion is currently. The question is whether or not there are other options. If so, what are they and whether or not they need to be fleshed out. I don't agree with you that there are no more options and therefore there is no other action for the board to take. • Phillips: I understand you don't agree with me, but I have to tell you that we have brought the options back and discussed them tonight for over 2 hours. • Chair Ricord: I am just saying that everyone is not on the same page as far as whether or not we have exhausted the options. • Miller: I think that we have a problem here in the sense that we're not all on the same page in terms of what it is we're trying to recommend and approve. I think there are a lot of implementation alternatives that are yet to come, but I think what we're being asked to do right now is approve the ROW and the alternative modes plan. I share Johnson's concerns about I-25 and making it a bigger part of things, but I think they have to take this a step at a time, so I support securing the ROW and the plan that we have. I recognize, as Thordarson said, that we would like I-25 to be a bigger player in the overall thing, but I think that needs to be addressed during the implementation of this vision and we should approve what has been laid before us now and move ahead. • Kramer: I can't support the motion. • Warring: I support the motion because I think that in approving the ROW and this piece of the plan, we are asking for more of the same. • Henderson: I am pretty much in favor with moving ahead with the ROW portion. I understand what you are asking for in the motion and am actually in favor of that, but I am not going to support the motion. I also feel that in the detailed planning for this, it will be at that time that we can ask for more alternatives and different options. • Gould: Did I miss the document? Is there a current document of the vision? • Moe: There is a transportation element of the plan that is basically these two maps that you see here. It shows the ROW preservation corridor. In addition, there are descriptions in the design standards about pedestrian network and the configurations, etc. • Frank: It is yet to be polished. • Gould: I guess I see that there are freeway issues and there are development issues and it seems that the freeway functionality is really not going to take care of development that is happening, no matter what form it is in, because there needs to be access to that development. If it is left to random processes or uncoordinated processes, then that kind of development will be a hazard to all the modes. I don't envision what is crucial about the different scenarios for the development of the interstate in terms of actually on the ground needs for mobility. It grieves me to not be able to find a paradigm - - roads need to be built first. It would be great if we weren't Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes March 21, 2001 Page 15 checkmated on that, but unfortunately, it seems that's the way the process is going to be. I would be opposed to diluting our support for the vision by setting out a side investigation of how that interstate is going to impact mobility within these already developed areas. Trantham: I am going to support the motion because I also believe there are other alternatives that we asked for at our last meeting and it seems like what we got is more of the same except that it's written up. I'm not satisfied that those alternatives have actually been explored. Chair Ricord: My sense about this is that it's the support of a regional plan. It's a massive task and a very laudable one to try to bring so many entities together, particularly when we all see what different pages they are on, largely dependent upon their planning skill and background and whatever visions they might have. I think it would be a very difficult task to actually have consensus among all the entities and I don't think we should kid ourselves that that would come easily or may even be possible. Chair Ricord then read some notes that he took during the discussion: 1. I think we need to revisit the sub -area plan. It's not real clear to me exactly what this plan buys us here in Fort Collins in terms of the kinds of reductions in traffic we would see on the local grid for one thing. 2. I think the question of growth paying its own way and to what extent is something that is going to continue to be a question in a lot of people's minds, especially with the kinds of explosive growth rates that we've seen in the last decade or so. The notion of the private sector paying anywhere from 12-25% of the costs of transportation infrastructure to me is heinous. I don't think that even when we get up towards the half way mark that Waning mentioned do we really see a proper nexus of the kind of impasse that growth causes and the kind of strains that it puts on the transportation infrastructure system. From the very beginning we've heard that growth was going to occur and we have to plan for it. I think that statement is half true. I think we have to plan for whatever growth does occur. That growth occurs is the central question. To what extent should growth occur on this kind of a plan or scheme, I think that a larger community of voters and tax payers really ought to have some say as far as how their tax dollars are used to fund a growth driven kind of transportation need. That is clearly not the case now. 3. Finally, when we talk about a 14% modal shift that we have as our own goal here in Fort Collins, I think we also have to ask how close does a plan like this get us locally to that. I think it is something that can be pondered. We don't have the answers before us. In fact, I don't think we have the vision before us. We have some vision, but we don't have a vision. But the kind of vision that I have is that while we Transportation Board Page 16 DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes March 21. 2001 potentially have the kinds of alternative transportation here, we also run the very real risk of the thing completely backfiring and what we'll have is a dedication of land up and down this corridor that is used entirely for road building. I don't see that there are any hard and fast guarantees that anybody is going to buy into any transit piece, any light rail piece or any bicycle component. I will be supporting Johnson's motion tonight. I think that what we need is a more cohesive plan and I think there are a lot of areas that need to be plugged in to the equation in order for me to be comfortable with any kind of a real vision. I will be supporting the motion. Chair Ricord called the question. The notion jailed 5 — 4, Moe abstained After several reiterations of exact motion wording were discussed, Gould made a motion that the Transportation Board supports the I-25 Regional Transportation Corridor Plan as presented There was a second by Kramer. Discussion: • Trantham: I don't disagree with what this motion says as it is stated, but I feel like by supporting it, that we're just sweeping any other options for really critically looking at expanding I-25 under the rug. Once this has been supported, I think that City staff will just run with that and not feel the need to look at anything else. It is easy to sit here and say we're going to explore that, but we asked them to do that before and they didn't present it in a way that I felt like it had really been explored. I guess I support what the motion says and I feel like it's too bad that we won't really ever get at what some of us feel is an important alternative to what has been presented three times now before this board. • Gould: I also don't feel good about making the motion because the possibility of adding roads goes against my grain, but at the same time, where areas are developed or are developing, there has to be that infrastructure. I also feel like independent of what happens on the interstate, if there ever is going to be good regional transit, if it is actually going to serve people in a decent way, then there's going to have to be infrastructure for transit. Therefore, this part is necessary. • Henderson: I will support it and basically echo what Gould said. It would be nice to visit the whole I-25 piece separately, but the transit mode pieces of this are very important. • Johnson: I won't be supporting this. It's too limited. • Warring: No comment. • Kramer: Pass. • Thordarson: I will support the motion and I think it would be good for us as a board to figure out if we revisit what's going on with the corridor. Make sure we're keeping close track and look for opportunities to provide input, particularly in the case of I-25. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes March 21. 2001 Page 17 Chair Ricord: We have two plans. One thing I am a little surprised about is that we didn't think about breaking those plans out. Support one plan and not the other plan for example. We're being presented with a package of two plans, but I don't see that there is any fault in breaking those plans out into their constituent parts and addressing those things separately. I won't be supporting this particular motion. The motion carried by a majority vote 6 — 3. Moe abstained Johnson: I would like to suggest a motion that we add to the last recommendation when we advise Council and that is: Fort Collins should assume no financial responsibility for relieving congestion on I-25. (When asked for the meaning, Johnson said state and federal money on dealing with congestion on I-25, not local money.) There was a second by Warring. Discussion: • Thordarson: I don't think I will be supporting the motion. As a board, that is something we just need to keep close tabs on. • Miller: I like the idea of what Johnson is saying, but it is a very broad brush and it makes me a little nervous that there might be something that we might regret a little later down the road. • Warring: The premise is, as a local community, we don't pick up the tab for state congestion. I think it is very simple and I definitely will be supporting it. • Henderson: I don't see any danger in supporting it. • Gould: The case right now is we don't have obligations for I-25 do we? My idea was that we were completely insulated. Phillips explained that it is basically true. • Trantham: I will be supporting Johnson's motion. I think that it makes a statement that even though we think that this is a nice idea, we also need to keep our eye on I-25 and if it needs to expand, it needs to expand and not through a parallel road system. • Chair Ricord: I will be supporting Johnson's motion as well. I think that the message to Council is that we can't be responsible for things that we didn't generate. The motion carried by a majority vote, 6 — 3. Moe abstained 5. a) TRUCK ROUTE UPDATE — Jackson Jackson agreed to a brief presentation due to time constraints. To recap, the board has been briefed as far as how we are approaching the project with the different phases, the different emphases, one on strategies that encourage through -truck travel to use the interstate system as opposed to using the SH-14/US-287 system. The goal is to identify a potential alternative route based on the ballot language, which is CR58 north to CR80 (Rawhide plant) and I-25 to the east. Jackson introduced R.A. Plummer, with PBS & J. Mr. Plummer is the project manager. Jackson commented that he is extremely pleased with the work of the consultant. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes March 21, 2001 Page 18 Mr. Plummer took the floor and explained the third stakeholder meeting was held last Thursday night. There are approximately 35 people on the committee including everyone from ranchers to business owners in town along Mulberry, different trucking interests, and Owl Canyon folks. It is a very diverse group. The purpose of that group is advisory. He stated that Trantham was a representative for the Board, but Thursday nights do not work for her. He asked if there is anyone else who would like to take her place. Jackson stated that Kramer was Trantham's back up person, and that it should be offered to him first. There was consensus that Kramer will be the primary representative on the stakeholder's committee and that Henderson will be the alternate. Jackson encouraged the board to look at the project web site for detailed information adding that it is a phenomenal site. The address is: www.shl4truckinizstudy.com Last month, the policy committee met for the first time. They are also an advisory group. There has been recent interaction with the Colorado Motor Carriers Association (CMCA). There was reluctance from the CMCA to even participate in the beginning. They wanted a letter from elected officials from the City. This was provided to them as well as a face to face meeting including the Mayor and City Manager. The CMCA is now on board and has been instrumental in providing information, insight, and recommendations in methodology for the origin & destination study. They set up a workshop at their offices in Denver and there were about 30+ people there. The Colorado State Patrol, large and small private carriers, people with Fort Collins' interests, people from Wyoming, and many more were there. It was a forum to talk about the issues and concerns and finding what their insights are in terms of dealing with the problems. The question is basically, what would it take for through truck trips to actually use the interstate system. Plummer said that they (staff/consultant team) pushed them (trucking industry) in terms of what it would take. It was an excellent forum. Both the North Forty and the Coloradoan newspapers have been really good about putting articles in or writing about meetings, etc. Plummer discussed the Origin & Destination (O & D) Study. The purpose was to define what is a through trip (a pure external to external trip that can be dealt with either by an alternate route within the parameters of the study area or encouragement of using the interstate system — I-25 and I-80.). The focus was on tracking vehicles in terms of where vehicles enter and exit the system. Plummer described the O & D Study process in detail and this information was also included in the board's packets. In terms of results, 20-25% of NW bound truck trips are through trips and 25-30% of the SE bound trips are through trips. The vehicle classification counts developed an overall picture of the traffic volumes along the corridor and also what percentage of the vehicles were trucks that could be considered as through trips. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes March 21. 2001 Page 19 The volumes along the corridor range from 23,000 average vehicles per day on SH- 14 near I-25 to 4,900 average vehicles per day along US 287 near Owl Canyon Road. The percentage of multiple axle vehicles (>3 axles) ranges from 5% of the total average daily traffic on SH-14 near I-25 to approximately 14% of the total average daily traffic on US-287 near Owl Canyon Road. While the immediate focus of this effort has been at the external points of the study area, further analysis will provide a clearer picture of where trucks are entering and exiting the SH-14 and US-287 corridor. A list of evaluation criteria were distributed and explained. The next time this topic comes to the board, Warring asked for a map that shows what the Wyoming road network looks like. Plummer stated that the next steps include another round of meetings of the Stakeholders Committee, the Policy Committee and a workshop with the trucking industry. There will also be updates to groups such as the Transportation Board. Process wise, the next steps will be finalizing criteria and going through the process of looking at things and how they relate to one another. Chair Ricord asked when the next update would be to this board. Jackson stated it would be about two months. In the meantime, Plummer and Jackson encouraged members to look at the web site for information. 6. a) BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Gould:Dial-A-Ride Experience. Due to recent health issues, reported that he used DAR and found it to be an excellent system. The driver's are really like the caregivers that he was exposed to all through the health care system. It was a good experience. b) STAFF REPORTS McNair: Cone Zones for 2001. Next month, this topic will be presented to the board. It will basically be a highlight of the major construction projects that are going to force road closures and have major traffic impacts for this season. A few upcoming closures were reported. Pavement Management Program Update. This will be on the May agenda. Neighborhood newsletters were distributed as examples of neighborhood outreach and has been a huge success. Neat Agenda (April 18) - Pedestrian & Bicycle Grade Separated Design Guidelines APPROVAL - 2001 Transportation Board Work Plan Review - Harmony & S. College Access Management Plan APPROVAL-K. Reavis - CIP Process — C. McNair and R. Hensley - Cone Zone Report for 2001 — C. McNair - N. College Improvement Project UPDATE — K. Reavis Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes March 21. 2001 7. OTHER BUSINESS There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 10 p.m. Cynthia L. Scott 1 JCJCd►(/ Executive Administrative Assistant Audio recording by Ron Phillips Page 20