The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 01/08/1997E • CITY OF FORT COLLINS TRANSPORTATION BOARD Meeting Minutes January 8, 1997 Paul Valentine, Chair Paul Perlmutter, Vice Chair Will Smith, City Council Liaison The meeting of the Transportation Board began at 5:50 p.m. at the Senior Center, 300 South Shields Street, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board Members present included: Paul Valentine, Paul Perlmutter, Mark Egeland, Sara Frazier, Steve Hanna, Donn Hopkins, Tim Johnson, Kathleen Kilkelly, and Ray Moe. Staff Members present included: Susanne Edminster, Tom Frazier, and Ron Phillips. Will Smith, City Council Liaison, was present. Approval of Minutes: The minutes were approved with no changes. Council Liaison Reports: Mr. Smith stated that there was no resolution to items on the Capital Improvement Program at the January 7, 1997 Council meeting. There will be a work session next Tuesday, January 14, 1997. A resolution was presented and postponed for adoption by Council that would have given direction to prepare ballot language on specific projects in the Capital Improvements Program. The other part of the resolution would be a tax term of six or eight years. • Mr. Valentine inquired as to the possibility of ballot language of a three-quarter cent for a list of projects and leaving to future Councils to determine when and how much is spent on a project. Mr. Smith indicated that is a possibility, but that most people want to know what they are getting and how much it will cost them. Mr. Perlmutter was under the impression that Council had decided to make it an eight -year proposal and wanted to know if they had reconsidered. Mr. Smith noted a suggestion at the work session in early December to go to an eight -year program to create a higher level of revenues. Ms. Kilkelly stated that she understands the attraction for a visionary project, but has some concerns and would like to see an effective transit system. Discussion was held about the different projects and the private support for these projects, such as a performing arts center and another ice rink for EPIC. Further discussion was held regarding the O&M costs associated with these new projects and if the community realizes those costs. Staff has worked very hard to try to phase projects in. Discussion was held as to how many projects on the list could actually be phased in. Streets cannot be phased in. Mr. Phillips indicated that they have had a team working on the transit development plan. Council's permission will be asked to go to the voters for a new revenue source for transit. Mr. Perlmutter inquired as to County -wide support for a transit system. Mr. Phillips indicated it should start with the City and then Loveland and perhaps an intergovernmental agreement. He also indicated that County -wide is difficult because of lack of support in the outlying communities. Ms. Edminster stated it would be best for the transit development plan to be on this ballot before the Justice Center comes back. Discussion was held regarding how the ballot would be best packaged for the upcoming election regarding all • proposed projects. The April election will be a very long ballot because of charter language changes. ti Projects will be finalized Tuesday, January 14, 1997, accompanied by initial discussion of what the ballot language should look like. On February 4th, Council will adopt the language by ordinance and prepare it for the April election. There will be a gag rule for City staff and elected officials. A committee is forming, comprised of interested citizens who will talk to various groups about the projects. Mr. Valentine, Mr. Egeland, and Mr. Perlmutter expressed interest in the group. Mr. Frazier distributed a copy of last year's annual report. Mr. Valentine stated that he had prepared a draft of an annual report. A presentation was given regarding the Timberline Road Extension by Mark Sears, Gary Diede, and Darren Atteberry. Mr. Atteberry discussed the coordination and ongoing planning efforts that have been and will be taking place with respect to the Timberline project. Mr. Atteberry further noted the committees that have given input to this project and asked the Transportation Board not for a formal recommendation, but for any comments they would like to give. Mr. Atteberry explained that in terms of outreach, Will Smith started the process on this issue. There was an out -of -the -box session for members of the community who presented good ideas on how to make Timberline a better project. Public open houses, and Staff has talked to various committees in their planning efforts. The City recently acquired the Suits property as a natural resource area. The Timberline extension is a significant piece of the City plan. There is a northeast activity center in the City plan; the Timberline extension is a major route to that center. Mr. Diede described the Timberline project and the enhancements to the Transportation Board. He also noted items of concern to be addressed, but which also require capital; but the project can still be built in the $7.5 million range. Some changes in the project since June, 1996: Bridge increase in length from 270' to 360 ; increased width for a bike lane and three northbound travel lanes, which increased cost $400,000; north of Lincoln Avenue, ground water and unstable material, which increased cost $250,000; airport runway needs to be extended 400' on north end, which increased cost $130,000. Issues identified that are addressed in the base project: Preserve view corridors to the west; preserve wildlife corridor along Poudre River; maintain a positive bike trail experience along the river; mitigate the roadway noise; allow recreational use of the river for kayaks, rafts, and canoes; mitigate the impacts of the bridge; mitigate the wetlands; and preserve River Bend Ponds flooding/not flooding. Base project addresses issues as follows: Bridge and roadway are located 200' north of the River Bend Ponds; roadway moves quickly away from both bike paths and Ponds to southwest of bridge; river channel is reclaimed and re -landscaped under bridge, but leaving significant existing landscaping for wildlife; bike path is separated from the wildlife corridor; bridge is lengthened to preserve wildlife corridor; bike path has 8-9' head clearance under bridge; bike path high enough to avoid frequent flooding; future bridge can be separated to allow more light and landscaping under bridge and avoids "tunnel" effect for bike path; short concrete wall on bridge, asphalt road surface and elimination of joints on bridge to reduce noise; use gentle roadway slopes as vehicles approach the bridge to reduce acceleration/deceleration noise; 100 year storm can pass under bridge; kayaking, • rafting and canoeing can safely pass under bridge; bridge has a low profile, special texturing, special coloring, clean lines, and special railings to help blend into the surroundings; wetlands will be relocated to the Dry Creek Channel; and future choice of flooding or not flooding of River Bend Ponds is preserved. Some concerns were voiced and discussion was held regarding using concrete versus asphalt and the cost and maintenance of each. Mr. Diede stated that concrete is normally less maintenance cost overall. Intersections, arterials and collectors and interstates are good possibilities for concrete. Base Project Scope includes: Engineering Studies and Impact Analysis, cost $160,000; design, cost $580,000; ROW, cost $800,000; street improvements, cost $3,100,000; bridge with enhancements, cost $1,400,000; river channel construction, cost $450,000; river channel landscaping, cost $180,000; wetland mitigation, cost $35,000; runway extension, cost $130,000; art in public places, cost $68,000; construction management, cost $364,000. Total projected cost, $7,267,000. Budget $7,577,000. Enhancements and costs associated with each were discussed. Proposed enhancements are as follows: Mulberry intersection, two additional lanes, cost $185,000; concrete versus asphalt pavement, except at bridge, cost $272,000; asphalt sidewalk, 7' on west side, cost $160,000; street lighting, cost $77,000; landscaped parkway, cost $199,000; landscaped median, cost $282,000; additional noise mitigation, cost unknown. Total cost for proposed enhancements $1,175,000. • In response to Mr. Valentine's question, it was confirmed that there will be access from the trail to Timberline. Mr. Egeland had concern about the trail and flooding and snow removal. The project contingency is at 4%, or $310.000. The City would like the contingency to be at 10% at $750,000. Staff is looking for ways to save money. Mr. Hopkins stated he is impressed how the City has tried to meet every possible group's needs, but stated concern about the cost of this project. Mr. Atteberry stated that they were directed by Council in June to come forward with a proposal with a project that fit within the $7.5 million. Council will decide on enhancements and funding. Mr. Hopkins noted that it would be nice to have this kind of transportation corridor more places in the community. Mr. Valentine inquired as to the amount of sales tax being raised by Choices '95. Mr. Atteberry stated it looks like there will be excess Choices '95 funds, but that they are not looking at the Choices '95 funds to fund the enhancements. The following items were further discussed: The landscaping plan and ongoing work with the Natural Resources group. • Safety issues and the process the City uses for deicing bridges. • Art in public places and what exactly that would entail. • The availability of Federal funding for this project. Federal money is very difficult to get due to the many districts applying for funding. • The retaining of the traffic signal at Summitview. $350,000 budgeted for removal of that signal can now be used towards the project. 0 • A noise survey and the results of that survey. Mr. Egeland indicated that he would rather see available funds used to extend the life cycle of the road over lowering the noise level. • Concerns regarding not using expansion joints on the bridge. Mr. Sears expressed that not using expansion joints will eliminate a lot of problems. • The bridge railing. Mr. Sears stated it will be like the North College bridge. It is expected that the first road will be built in July; the bridge will be built in the fall. It will take about a year to build the whole project. T-Note Updates: Ms. Edminster explained what has been done to implement the parking plan, such as the new parking fees and the overtime fines for parking. Safety concerns in the parking garage still need to be addressed. Some ideas are to make it a full security parking garage with a guard and gate. Some people want the City to be more aggressive in the CSU neighborhood regarding parking. Some downtown merchants are buying parking permits for their employees. More discussion was held concerning CIP and the six -year versus eight -year proposal. Further discussion was held on the projects that are being proposed, such as the land for the new library, the new Northside Center, and the land performing arts center. Street Oversizing: Mr. Phillips stated that the needs have been identified and they are working on the legal aspects of how those needs can be met. On February 5th, a presentation will be made to the Transportation Board. The issue will be presented to Council March 11. Overland Trail Update: The committee is in the process of finalizing the information and recommendations. It will go before Council March 4th. The model shows that it is a necessary connection. Status on Road Projects: Mr. Phillips indicated that the College/Drake Intersection is virtually complete. Landscaping will be finished next spring. Drake Road from Dunbar to Taft Hill intersection is virtually complete. It is still two-lane traffic bypassing the bridge. It is hoped the bridge will be open for two-lane traffic by March 1st. The project will be complete in July. Mr. Egeland reported about the transportation fair at H-P. It was well -attended. The SmartTrips people were there and promoting the idea of SmartTrips. Fort Collins/Loveland Transit: Mr. Phillips indicated that Monday, January 13, 1997, the pilot project with the University employees and Transfort will begin. They will be promoting the facility and staff to get bus service at the plaza. Some discussion was held regarding the University Mass Transit Committee working with SmartTrips and Transfort to see if there could be shuttle connections with small vans, particularly to the foothills campus. • 0 • Mr. Valentine stated he had a call from the Natural Resources Board, and they are putting together a special study committee to look at pollution and alternate fuels. Andy Trenka will be on that committee. Staff Reports: Ms. Edminster invited everyone to the Growth Management Committee tomorrow at 4:00 in the CIC room. Mr. Phillips informed the board about the passenger rail issue. Doug Rames has come up with $150,000 to match the City's $150,000, which allows proceeding to the first phase of the project, feasibility and alternative analysis. Total project costs will be around $2 million. CDOT will attempt to raise the remaining funds to complete this project. The next meeting will be held February 5th, 1997. The meeting adjourned 8:40 p.m. • is • BRIEFING MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation Board Thru: Ron Phillips, Director of Transportation Gary Diede, TOPS Director FROM: Matt Baker, SID Coordinator DATE: January 28, 1997 The City of Fort Collins Street Oversizing Program has been a successful implementation of an impact fee program over the last ten years. Funded by fees charged at building permit issuance, this program has been able to provide arterial and collector infrastructure to serve new development in a timely and efficient manner. The primary focus of the Street Oversizing Program has been streets, with bike lanes and sidewalks viewed as amenities. The Street Oversizing Program will continue to work toward improving the arterial street network to move traffic safely and efficiently. However, as traffic volumes continue to build, increasing roadway capacity reaches a point of diminishing returns. Alternative modes such as transit, walking and bicycling can be a key element in reducing congestion and improving air quality in our city. Staff would like to suggest a newer vision of the Street Oversizing Program goal: For new development to pay for growth related impacts on transportation facilities. Transportation facilities would include streets, bike lanes, pedestrian ways and transit. Expanding from the Street Oversizing Program to include other elements of the Transportation network brings the program more in -line with other transportation and • land use policies/goals that Fort Collins is striving towards. These goals are being articulated in the City Plan, as well as the recently adopted Congestion Management Plan, Bicycle Plan, Pedestrian Plan, and the new street standards. HAO VERSIZEORIEFING. MEM MEMORANDUM January 29, 1997 Page 2 Existing Street Oversizing Program The Street Oversizing Program collects impact fees from new development to fund the capital construction of arterial and collector streets needed to serve new developments. Over 25% of the entire City arterial and collector street network has been improved through the Street Oversizing Program. Many new projects are currently being planned for construction over the next few years. Although Street Oversizing projects have included bike lanes and sidewalks, there is one area of transportation facilities impacted by growth that is not currently addressed. Transit stops and the addition of routes to serve new developments are costs that are not being captured. The City is in the process of defining level of service standards for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Although new development cannot be required to correct existing deficiencies in the bike/pedestrian system, increased levels of service will benefit both existing and future residents of the city. Street Oversizing is an Impact Fee Staff recommends that the Street Oversizing Program be modified to address multi - modal transportation facilities, while still maintaining its primary objective of providing transportation infrastructure in newly developing areas. Impact fees are one-time payments that fund the expansion of public facilities needed to accommodate new growth. The intent is for new development to pay for its "proportional share" of the capital costs of additional infrastructure capacity. Impact fees cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies in public facilities. Impact fees cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies in public facilities. Impact fees cannot be used to fund operating costs. There are elements of impact fee programs that are required by legislation: • Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Joint Transportation Funding Program Adopted; • Credit for taxes and improvements; • Rough proportionality to benefit; • Plan to correct existing deficiencies; • Trigger in development process - Development approval - Building permit • Separation of impact fee funds from other city revenue; and • Time limit and refund provisions. HAOVERSIZEI BRIEFING.MEM • MEMORANDUM January 29, 1997 Page 3 Staff beleives most, if not all of these requirements are currently being met. There are elements of the current Street Oversizing Program that should remain. Each development would still be obligated to construct the local access portion of streets within or abutting the development property. This local access portion is defined as a travel lane equivalent to the residential local street standard. There still is a portion of cost for transportation facilities that is not attributable to the impacts of new development. This city -at -large portion would still need to be funded by a yearly appropriation from General/Revenue in the amount of $450,000 to $500,000 per year. Modifications to the Street Oversizing Program include a recalculation of costs based on trip generation factors. Using this methodology allows non-residential land uses to be charged an impact fee based on each 1,000 square foot of building. This seems a • more equitable way to base impact fees than the current per acre rate. Included in the impact fees are Capital Transit costs; bike/pedestrian level of service improvements and traffic mitigation costs. • Credit provisions will be instituted which credit developers for improvements they construct which are included in the impact fee calculation. These modifications and the impact fee calculations are detailed in the Street Oversizing Impact Fee Study, attached. Staff requests that the Transportation Board review these modifications and provide staff with input: The modifications to the Street Oversizing Program are in accordance with the goals and objectives of the Transportation Board; Modifications to the Street Oversizing Program address multi -modal transportation issues, hence the Street Oversizing fee should be changed to the Transportation Impact fee; and Additional steps necessary to implement these modifications. HAOVERSIZEI BRIEFING. MEM Street Oversizing Impact Fee City Of Fort Collins T Engineering January 29,1997 • Street Oversizing Impact Fee Study City of Fort Collins Transportation January 29, 1997 Purpose of this Study The City of Fort Collins policy is to require new development to pay for growth -related impacts on public facilities. The Street Oversizing Impact fee was enacted in 1979, with revisions in 1988 and 1996. Additional impact fees for Fire, Police, Library, General Government and Community parks were adopted in 1996. Recent changes in City Land use regulations and Transportation Plans have raised issues in the current Street Oversizing Program. that need to be addressed. The purpose of this study is to recommend ways to bring the Street Oversizing Program more in line with these new regulations and capture the actual costs of growth. Impact fees are one-time payments that fund the development or expansion of public facilities needed to accommodate new development. The intent is for • new development to pay for its "proportionate share" of the capital costs of additional infrastructure capacity. Impact fees may not be used to correct existing deficiencies in public facilities. Impact fees can not be used to fund operating costs. Impact fees can be imposed without a vote of the people but are subject to the legal standards of proportionality. The Street Oversizing Program has been a successful implementation of an impact fee program in Fort Collins. Since it's implementation in 1979, over 23 miles of the Arterial and Collector street network in Fort Collins have been improved through the program, having a value of $39.5 million. The Street Oversizing Program is a viable funding option to improve street infrastructure with development. In order to balance the City's funding policy for new growth and the goals regarding affordable housing, the City Council may grant Street Oversizing impact fee rebates for residential development designated for low and low - moderate income residents. The ordinances necessary for affordable housing rebates were adopted in 1996. L Street Oversizing Impact Fee Study City of Fort Collins Transportation January 29, 1997 General Methodology The impacts of growth on public facilities can be calculated using different methodologies. Staff has evaluated and selected the appropriate methodology for transportation infrastructure that acknowledges the functional transportation capacity created by multi -modal improvements (e.g. bike paths and transit) needed to serve new development. Specific costs have been identified using local data and current dollars. Demand indicators for transportation are based on trip generation. Residential and nonresidential proportionate share factors have been developed and are used to allocate costs by type of development. The basic approach used to calculate the transportation impact fee is the need based method. This method is suited to completing the construction of the street infrastructure in the City. There are over 120 miles of arterial and collector street improvements needed to complete the City's transportation network within the Urban Growth Area Boundary. These improvements will be needed to serve new growth. Transit and Pedestrian/Bikeway transportation facilities are anticipating changes in Level of Service (LOS) standards and/or costs. For these components of the Transportation impact fee, a plan -based method is used. This method uses data from approved plans to project costs. A general requirement that is common to all development fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits. There are two distinct types of credits that should be considered when implementing development impact fees. First, a revenue credit should be determined to avoid potential double payment situations arising from the payment of a one-time development fee and then subsequent payments of other revenues that may also fund growth related capital improvements (e.g. sales taxes). The need based methodology separates impact improvements and capital improvements for basic street improvements. Staff has evaluated revenue credits for transit and Bike/Pedestrian facilities. The second type of credit is a site specific credit for system improvements that have been included in development fee calculations. Specific policies related to site -specific credits will need to be addressed, however, the general concept is that developers may be eligible for site -specific credits only if they provide system improvements that have been included in the City's Transportation Impact Fee calculations. Project improvements normally required as part of Ft. Collins development approval process are not eligible for credits against the impact fee. 0 • Transportation Methodology Chart Residential Nomesidemia! Development Development Trip Ends Trip Ends per per Household Thousand Square Feet divided by 1,000 multiplied by multiplied by Trip Adjustment Trip Adjustment Facmr Facmr, multiplied by Cost per Unit multiplied by Cost per Unit of Trip Capacity of Trip Capaxdty Cost of Transportation Projects Cost of Transportation Projects Needed Due to Increased Travel Needed Due to Increased Travel • divided by the Projected increase in Vehicle Trips divided by the Projected Increase in Vehicle Trips plus plus Cost of Enhanced LOS Project Cost of Enhanced LOS Projects divided by divided by Total Vehicle Trips (existing plus new) Total Vehicle Trips (existing plus new) 0 Street Oversizing Impact Fee Study City of Fort Collins Transportation January 29, 1997 Transportation Impact fee The general approach used to calculate the Transportation Impact fee includes a needs based approach and a plan based approach. The latter is necessary to include transit capital and bikelpedestrian facilities that are anticipating changes in LOS. Staff recommends that the name of the Street Oversizing Fee be changed to the Transportation Impact Fee to acknowledge its recommended broader use for multi -modal transportation improvements. The cost to complete the Arterial and Collector street network (including Bike lanes and pedestrian ways) to build out in the Urban Growth Area has been estimated by an analysis of the adopted Master Street Plan. Included in these infrastructure costs are bus bays and shelters, commuter bicycle lanes, sidewalks and ADA ramps, and other improvements that increase the modal capability of the street into a transportation corridor. The level of improvement is based on the new Street Standards adopted in 1996. Increasing the functional capacity of existing improved streets can be viewed as correcting existing deficiencies in public facilities and not an impact of development. These improvements are traditionally funded in Fort Collins by Sales Taxes. Although some portion of increased capacity can be linked to growth, separating these types of projects deceases the need for revenue credits and simplifies the calculation. The Northern Front Range Regional Transportation Plan (North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council, 1995, hereinafter referred to as the NFRRTP) forecasts travel behavior for the tri-City area. The Fort Collins Congestion Management Plan and other Studies are based on the NFRRTP. A major assumption is that single occupancy vehicle trips decline from 74% to 64% of all trips by the year 2015. This results in projected increases for all other modes of travel. The increase in transit capital costs to provide increased facilities for growth related service until 2015 is $3,186,750. This includes bus purchases for new routes and increased service levels, transit centers, and capital construction for fleet maintenance. The cost of transportation projects was divided between projects needed due to • Street Oversizing Impact Fee Study City of Fort Collins Transportation January 29, 1997 increased development travel and those projects that represent an enhanced LOS benefitting both existing and future development. Street construction, bike lanes, pedestrian facilities and grade separations have been classified as improvements needed to accommodate increased growth. Transit Capital, street scape, neighborhood traffic mitigation represent an enhanced LOS. According to background data from the NFRRTP, Fort Collins is expected to experience an increase of 398,592 trips from 1995 to 2015. A major premise of the NFRRTP is the projection that approximately 75% of the increase in trips is due to growth in Fort Collins, with the remaining 25% of the trip increase due to travel behavior change. The total cost of improvements needed to accommodate growth ($193,572,500) is divided by the projected increase in trips to yield an average cost of $298.21 per unit of trip capacity. Trip generation rates used to derive the transportation impact fee for various development types are listed in the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule. The trip rates shown are from the latest edition of the manual titled Tri12 • Generation_ published by the Institute of transportation Engineers (ITE). The published rates are trip ends, that indicate the number of vehicles entering and exiting from a particular land use. Therefor, to avoid double counting one trip at both the origin and destination points, trip adjustment factors are added to the calculation. For residential development, the recommended trip adjustment factor includes all in -bound, or attraction trips, plus a small percentage of out- bound, or production trips. The percentage increase for out -bound trips was added to account for fort Collins residents who work outside the City and thus impact the transportation system on both out -bound and in -bound work trips. The residential trip adjustment was derived by.multiplying the percentage of production trips (50%) times the percentage of home -based work trips (15%) times the percentage of employed residents who go to work outside of Fort Collins (14%). A trip adjustment factor of 50% has been used for the Industrial and office/Institution categories. However, commercial properties, such as shopping centers, often attract a number of "pass -by" trips whereby a motorist stops at a retail site on their way to some other primary destination. As documented by the ITE, a lower trip adjustment factor of 32% for commercial development is appropriate to account for pass by trips. • Under the recommended impact fee methodology, the City will need to adopt a capital improvements plan and a transit and bike/pedestrian improvements plan Street Oversizing Impact Fee Study City of Fort Collins Transportation January 29, 1997 which reflects not only the projected expenditures of the Transportation Impact fee revenues, but also the City's share of revenues for the existing residents and employees who are projected to travel more over the next 20 years. To accomplish this, the City should itemize various capital improvement categories which will utilize the Transportation Impact Fee revenue and the increased revenue from the General Fund. List of Attachments: 1. Projection of Growth Related Transportation Costs and Calculation of Cost Per Trip Capacity 2. Transportation Impact Fee Schedule 3. NFRRTP Trip Data (1990) 4. NFRRTP Trip Data (2015) 5. NFRRTP Vehicle Trip and Modal Shift Projections 6. Comparison of Existing Street Oversizing Fees vs. Proposed Traffic Impact Fee • 0 Projection of Growth Related Transportation Costs Transportation Impact Fee Allocation of Transportation Costs Transportation Projects Projected for Growth Street Construction Bicycle Lanes Off Street Bikelanes Pedestrian Facilities Grade Separations Transit NFRRTP Trip Increase Subtotal Cost per Unit Trip Capacity Transit LOS Bike/Pedestrian LOS Neighborhood traffic mitigation Credit for Sales Tax Net Cost of LOS Projects Total Projected Vehicle Trips Average Cost/Unit of Trip Capacity Local Access Buildout Developer Travel Impact Total Responsibility Behavior Fee it59,474,495 $62,195,053 $24,319,880 $72,959,581 $14,866,516 $5,719,941 $2,236,644 $8,709,931 $4,000,000 $1,000,000 $3,000,000 $12.431.489 $9,945,191 $821,574 $1,864,723 $2,000,000 $500,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $250,000 $750,000 $193,572,500 $77,860,185 $28,928.079 $86,784,2 66 398592 99648 298944 Total Cost per Unit of Trip Capacity $7,186,750 $14,400,000 $1,400.000 ($13,300,000) $9.686,750 1224972 $8 $290 $298 Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Trip Adjustment Factors Residential 0.511 Comm/Shop Ctr 0.32 All Other Non Residential 0.5 Cost Per Unit Of Trip Capacity $298.21 Average Weekday Transportation Vehicle Trips Impact Fee Rate Residential Pe►Housina Unit SF Detached 10.06 $1,533.00 per D.0 MF and all Other Housing 6.59 $1,004.22 per D.0 Hotel/Motel 8.7 $1,325.75 per Room Apartment 6.12 $932.60 per D.0 Retirement Community 3.3 $502.87 per D.0 Congregate Care Facility 2.15 $327.63 per D.0 Non Residential Per 1.0W Sa.Ft. Manufacturing 3.85 $0.57 Per Sq. Ft. Warehousing 4.88 $0.73 Per Sq. Ft. Light Industrial 6.97 $1.04 Per Sq. Ft. Mini -Warehouse 2.61 $0.39 Per Sq. Ft. Business Park 14.37 $2.14 Per Sq. Ft. General Office 200K GFA 11.54 $1.72 Per Sq. Ft. 50K GFA 16.31 $2.43 Per Sq. Ft. 10K GFA 24.39 $3.64 Per Sq. Ft. Recreational 3.64 /ac $542.74 Per Acre City Park 3.66 /ac $545.73 Per Acre Golf Course 8.33 /ac $1,242.05 Per Acre Comm/Shopping Center Per Sq. Ft. 1000K GLA 32.09 $3.06 Per Sq. Ft. 500K GLA 38.65 $3.69 Per Sq. Ft. 200K GLA 54.50 $5.20 Per Sq. Ft. 50K GLA 91.65 $8.75 Per Sq. Ft. Movie Theater 77.79 $7.42 Per Sq. Ft. Fitness/Racquet Club 15.94 $1.52 Per Sq. Ft. Elementary School 1.03 /studen $153.58 Per Student Church/Synagogue 7.699 $1.15 Per Sq. Ft. Day Care 67 $6.39 Per Sq. Ft. Library 45.5 $6.78 Per Sq. Ft. Hospital 16.69 $2.49 Per Sq. Ft. Nursing Home 2.597 /bed $387.23 Per Bed Medical Clinic 23.79 $3.55 Per Sq. Ft. Government Office 68.93 $6.58 Per Sq. Ft. Post Office 86.78 $8.28 Per Sq. Ft. Building Materials/Lumber 30.56 $2.92 Per Sq. Ft. Specialty Retail 40.68 $3.88 Per Sq. Ft. • Discount Store Nursery(Garden Center) Sit Down Restaurant Fast Food Restaurant w/ Driveup Car Sales Service Station Car Wash Supermarket Convenience Market Furniture Store Bank Drive -In Bank Insurance Building • U1 71.16 $6.79 Per Sq. Ft. 36.17 $3.45 Per Sq. Ft. 200.895 $19.17 Per Sq. Ft. 632.13 $60.32 Per Sq. Ft. 47.52 $4.53 Per Sq. Ft. 133 /pump $12,691.83 Per Pump 108 /stall $10,306.15, Per Stall 125.5 $11.98 Per Sq. Ft. 887.06 $84.65 Per Sq. Ft. 4.35 $0.42 Per Sq. Ft. 189.95 $18.13 Per Sq. Ft. 291.11 $27.78 Per Sq. Ft. 11.45 $1.09 Per Sq. Ft. NFRT & AQPC Regional Transportation Plan TABLE 3.6 Trips Per Trip Purpose by Sub -Area (1990) PRODUCTIONS TRIP PURPOSE Total Sub -Area Home Based Home Based Non -Home 1990 Work Non -Work Based 1990 1990 1990 Fort Collins 110,381 374,996 224,786 710,163 Greeley 62,254 212,471 134,899 409,624 Loveland 32,179 108,817 72,904 213,900 SUBTOTAL 204,814 696,284 432,589 1,333,687 Other 89,650 303,406 134,388 527,444 TOTAL 1 294,464 1 999,690 566,977 1 1,861,131 ATTRACTIONS TRIP PURPOSE Total Sub -Area Home Based Home Based Non -Home 1990 Work Non -Work Based 1990 1990 1990 Fort Collins 116,564 422,627 224,786 763,977 Greeley 69,765 224,718 134,899 429,382 Loveland 44,530 136,027 72,904 253,461 SUBTOTAL 230,859 783,372 432,589 1,446,820 Other 63,605 216,318 134,389 414,311 TOTAL 294,464 999,690 566,977 1,861,J31 HNTB Page 3-15 CURRENT TRAVEL DEMAND n u • NFRT & AQPC Regional Transportation Plan TABLE 4.3 Trips Per Trip Purpose by Sub -Area (2015) \J PRODUCTIONS TRIP PURPOSE Total Sub -Area Home Based Home Based Non -Home 2015 Work Non -Work Based 2015 2015 2015 Fort Collins 189,064 634,864 401,044 1,224,972 Greeley 112,217 377,903 228,272 718,392 Loveland 58,934 198,263 132,058 389,255 SUBTOTAL 360,215 1,211,030 761,374 2,332,619 Other 164,710 502,504 220,382 887,596 TOTAL 524,925 1,713,534 1 981,756 3,220,215 ATTRACTIONS TRIP PURPOSE Total Sub -Area Home Based Home Based Non -Home 2015 Work Non -Work Based 2015 2015 2015 Fort Collins 218,763 708,821 401,044 1,328,628 Greeley 119,804 366,586 228,272 714,662 Loveland 81,525 272,677 132,058 486,260 SUBTOTAL 430,092 1,348,084 761,374 2,529,550 Other 104,833 365,450 220,382 690,665 TOTAL 524,925 1,713,534 981,756 3,220,215 • HNTB Page 4-8 FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND NFRT & AQPC Regional Transportation Plan Figure 5.1 v rc ni V PURPOSE By §V*A 1!N MOY[ WN MOY[ WW MIM41M1M[ TOTAL 1OM! Y•fp t M!M[ W[O M1Om 1 • •N a t 712 TAL • S !M am" tbN MOMAYOMI W lot a1{ e INt {T 1N IN eY tY.7f! !11 to N >0 \r 1 IN bl 77 00M M TOTAL t N • u10r t 14fI 1 \ t 7{ `•7 7 W4 2 400 2015VM IIAM A FWAMTOOM•11Ye1e11 NAM MOM W O IqM Wm 1101L110Y TOTAL lrile f M! f7e.60 Noa mm f77Y1 lw. aM[N MGM iN fl m214 Y 1 fIN 7 GMSt r7m MR! N aM t tY M MOM 6 tfb OtR. MODAL eruT t• Ct Ia MO fell YO weT 1 QNN!I 7tls41�salfaf1Yat1ll 7la•f.�.at7flf1tl1LLl1 VrrI.'MIAL ZlA•sYrJ�mf{Mf• af•\lflftw 1laafa}.pelt1t{a<L .fluA \1 � le1 .ON7a7 i \ eN 7N f t1f tfb bl HNTB Page 5-2 VISION PLAN i Comparison of Street Oversizing Fees and Proposed Transportation Impact Fees Current SO Proposed Fees TIF Single Family Residential Multi Family Residential $554 $1,004 Recreation Center $35,458 $85,410 Medical Office $4,168 $11,398 Warehouse $16,798 . $25,326 Mixed Retail/Office $95,186 $197,828 Stand Alone Retail Outlet $232,340 $497,548 • Grocery Store $84,195 $222,656 Convenience Store $19,531 $55,379 Fast Food Restaurant $15.425 S28.588 U-I J Administration January 28, 1997 Services MEMORANDUM TO: City Council Transportation Board THROUGH: John Fischbach, City Manager FROM: Ron Phillips, Transportation Directo • RE: Up to Speed, Colorado Transportation Network, and Summary... Findings of the Colorado Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation Attached are two brief documents for your information and for distribution to anyone you feel might be interested: Up to Speed, issued by the Colorado Transportation Network. 2. Summary... Findings of the Colorado Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation. The Colorado Transportation Network (CTN) is the group which has organized to try to put some combination of transportation funding increases on a statewide ballot initiative in November, 1997. CTN has summarized the findings of the Blue Ribbon Panel and is holding public meetings around the state to try to get an indication of what the voters may support. The first of these meetings was the conference sponsored by the Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance and the Greeley Weld Chamber of Commerce at the Fort Collins/Loveland Airport last October. 210 E. Olive • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6608 • Fax (970) 221-6239 BLUE RIBBON PANEL MAPS ` . tion as a number one prionty The Panel was asked to create a trans TITANS PO RTAT I O N NEEDS portation v>swn for the future unsolve3, tUe sl,ottfau could next time you sit in rush hour mental, consumer and busirress • Leave 75 perb of the states. 3 AYt-..., a -, Y• Jy , . y . N x traffic or mistakenly discover a /groups, and was cleated in response roads in poor condition cress than 10 pothole, think about what it takes totoFthe yearlong "Surat �Gr' owtr�" ini; y �m ago, more ti�az► 80go were in . r �rrect the`l. 048ti tiahve, which rdentrfied trarporta F � or fair aandrtraaJ, r 4 rik'�-"'; aPPOm .k'� +'4„�.�". ;�' � `; ;."�z � tAN' ,,..,. ,Pro zees and busmess� ers ted • ]fliminateun ve "byatrov Roy Roma did, just COLORADO TRENDS: 1987 1995 merds in road shOm- duruig r►early six months of mvest� w�� fiR� '� r f , y °. aer8; P28t arS, IlOise ..uey. .F q'i..,�,� _ y f'F'CT X, £SSl k�� x �... �._f5 •+f A.-? ._•C � .'. gatian into Colorado's_ transportation -Te barrierstraffic coordi- next20 Yeats coonR. ;. (coroRml dOM=) nation and bicycle thetltarrceaiei: Thar conclusion: Colorado will x: PashorE atlist $8billiaa%=of 25% • L ead to a loss of its $27 billion funding needs at thefede1'al transpo��Another $5 billion short taxfunding due to our fall will occur at the local levelinability to meet air k,ThRibbon Panel onliarstzxt3' antr% iortation included 21 epreserta- ' " Greatly increase fives of local goveniment, environ- tox,.x 10% 20% Sax traffic congestion and 5 ear &S On abbe, Fa". M6 commute time QUESTIONS GUIDE PANELDS :STUDY a: what fundingmech"t7s can and should be used? " The Panel examined 15 .• h ve questions guided thePariel enues m address those needs? Ili flushing out the needs.priori— l ., r. . - funding sources and determined ties and revenues for CoIarado's A: The Panel recommended that no single source will suffice dedicating a portion of the state's Recommended is a combination of transportation future ` expected revenue s Ius to trans , Tu'P � revenue sources including: A: What are the transportation nation It also .1 recommended etded that g 8� needs and ties statewide? . surplus funds, RTD tax, vehicle reg- Pr'i� _ new transportation funding sources istration fees, motor vehicle tax, fuel - ` ; A. Colorado's transportation be flexible to -meet a.variety of tax and index motor fuel tax x� infrastrudure consists of some transportation needs. a4 " A: What type of actions should 80AW miles of public roads, 8 000 be used (i.e., legislation, referetr ;'d - @. How should Colorado biIdges, 32 public transit agendes, clam, dtizen's initiative) and within . 65 airports, 3,000 miles of rail lines achieve the level of funding races what timetable? and hundreds of miles of on -and �P over the long term? ' A: In addition to action by the off street hiicycle and' pedestrian A. The governor; state legisla governor and lxgislature, if the . ' routes The system is being out ` tors; business leaders and public heeds cannot be met through exist tripped by growing demands and interest groups mustbandtogether ing revenues, the Panel recommends ..,, harsh weather conditions " to make revenues available and that a ballotinihative beconsideied n & What can and should the convin a the blic that are yak x *s - ` 9pu K; they for November 1997 to approve rev 1 1_L.� J_ .L _ 4 w�' _ `S:�i..•+Si'.Y�N. :S.Fh 1��1C .: hP'S n- . e%t ir'. . •1..t` �: +i —^' 'x , *. i r » y lxi; , '�'fPtl, .�•. ��x �., '� t ,. re �n"`A nIQ+ *^ '§i `*yi �„'�,'is - 2n+ cr.Y' .rit„ " ,:'tF .r� • _,y �wS 0 77 `ii^"¢S{s » l� {"Ri" 6 'F FY T ^R F iJ ti�L .ITS I'�+L 4i♦.` 1 �y`6 • •-•�: A Vn ♦I '<.#`f�� i"Y"` �Wt � 5 F �q by �,;,, y I r• L` `�i��%g s ^�f �yr x � f,� ;r� n, ae k i .. .., a `'"{F, ,E,Y +� 4 'Ai' f.`✓r !JL"r t ;r J;,'a'" u ' ,v, s y ill truly �. teen's capacity and reduce pollut .revenue wion PUBLIC'$UPPORT °TIES.TAXxaddress'their probl 0 Transpoitationfunding iscorn , MONEY ; TO � ACCO U NTAB I L ITY r, . Transit is a critical plea to the public, but people element in people's believe more funding -will be Focus groups conducted in April, view of how to increase the sYs regwred. to improve mobility. 1996 showed that voters will be . Transportation user fees and willingapprove tax and fee - ROAD .CONDITIONS . . to 1987 1995 graduated taxes, along with a por increases if they are mfodbo rmeaut rlion of the state budget surplus, the issues, involvedinmeanie' �r`� gfil toox, "` received the most public support discussion about solutions, and are 4Ea ,: 18% < :: 42% . AVS • A package of additional trans- v shown theca will beaccountability , £ 32x pollution investment between $8 tic `..,:ti. for fundm °.� ' �g Thefollowing"'mndu-"' sox sions were drawn ' 4M billion and $13 billion over the next , 25% 20 ears was supported. s _ , Y �.. , • Transportation issues are' 0% css< • Accountability will bean salient to the public, but low trust 1987 1"s 4 essential element in a successful in government demands that voters roor sood be given a sense that additional -�� r �, 7 , s `- cim I l orn l • '..Appropriation of General Fund vehides brought into the state LEGISLATURE KEY TO surplus transfers; and registered. \ 4 _ URITICAL VOLLARS •.'-creation of local Colorado's government chap future of trans ♦„ .1 - , . :- lenge `grant fund; portaiion network will begreat Regional and ly impacted by the State Legisla- Lure. The Panel made a number of local transports legislative recommendations, ' tion taxing inducting: authority; ' • Expansion of\toll authorization Preservatcon of , that allows excession revenue S .. w -to be used throughout the .. portetwn revenue ZO YEARS: NEEDS vs. REVENUE MONS 40 . 35 M Revenues 30 ® Nefted 25 20 Needs ■ Is .,.. `h^a 10 5 ° . I °'State - §fate `L'6col Local ' �•. System Revenue System Revenues Needs �...;Needs' p"'.aoeanvmtws 1- _ T.._ r''.x'�JYi'F�i:'♦'3"aLi'k YII�.:SiTrv�l`a. ♦�i3ci61uY]TI:t. a UP TOP FYI EED Transportation Funding Package' Begins to Take Shape A' the CTN public process moves Among the issues still to be deter- forward, a ptOp°eal is taking shape mined: Ensuring some of the revenues that would oonsiat of a $6 billion fend- ` will be flexible (for multi -modal solu- ing package as a "first step" toward tions); ensuring fair state and local « addressing the $13 billion shortfall in shares; securing a percentage of the transportation needs identified by the state surplus from year to year, and lnm= CovernoA Blue Ribbon Panel. voter tolerance for various tax and fee Transportation Draft Proposal $6 Billion in Revenues $6 Billion In Expendituns Surplus $1.5 Won $2.5 bilion Voters CDOT Ht1TF $1 bplton $1 billion RTD $12 Milan Local The package includes using state budget surplus dollars ($1.5 billion), current highway user trust funds ($1 billion), sales taxes in the Denver metro area for RTD ($1 billion), and user fee increases ($2.5 billion). These funds would finance 28 statewide priority projects identified by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), as well as local priority pro- jects, such as RTD's "Guide the Ride" project and other communities' needs. State MS bnllon increases. The level of taxes and fees people will support correlates to the amount of benefit they will receive fiom the increases. Other issues impacting their decision include assurances that: ./ Other sources of funds have been tapped (surplus, etc.); ,/ Project selection process is scientific and has public input; ,/ The most efficient methods will be used to build the projects. Transportation Wins Elsewhere in Country T he news for transportation funding Seattle metropolitan area, where voters •1 in some areas around the country passed a $3.9 billion transit plan just has been good, and could be a harbin- one year after rejecting a $6.7 billion ger for Colorado. package. The 10-year project involves Thmsportation funding was given a 25 miles of light mil, 81 miles of com- green light in the last election in the muter mil and improved bus service. It costs families about $125 per year in sales tax and vehicle -license fees. In North Caroline, a $950 million highway construction bond referendum. passed by more than 60 percent. Its focus only on highways brought opposition fmm the environmental community who argued for mass transit funds,' including light rail. aamea , m •e0- 10P911 M W)l- tewe0'rsujw lr 114 WAMOD am aw- sBwdg opLq00'UM OARS- mus0 'oW pa- ' bm oRL tctece6 W&- :91e4M N1A p� tienued` - 8t V L 'Wd kw�ed a 4 r a e q 9= .a�tsod s.n� zit >faoetlaK uotlttlaodf eley >Ong t,, Public Meetings Drive Home Urgency of CDOT's 28 Priority Transportation Needs. Projects Colorado Transportation After numerous community meet- Metro Derayr The Network is mobilizing meetings ings and discussions with government, I-25 (Erom US 36 to State Hwy. 270) around the state to gather public opin- business and environmental leaders, I-225 and Parker Road ion on ways to solve Colorado's critical public opinion continues to affirm that I-76 and 120th transportation needs. CTN's mission is the staWs transportation needs can no I-70 and I-25 Mousetrap to define a transportation funding longer go unaddressed, that more US 285 package for consideration in 1997 by needs to be spent to upgrade and Santa Corridor Santa improve the system, either the Legislature ';' }cc P Y m' as Southeast Corridor or the voters. One Chance t0 Say and that our quality of East Corridor Its efforts follow What you Want t0 pay." life is at stake. West Corridor the Governor's Blue Support is strong Other Front Rance Ribbon Panel and .Ninon 17 for use of the state I-25 (Hwy. 50 to Hwy. 47) Transportation's findings in'June 1996 surplus to fill part of the gap. If there Colorado Springs I-25 that funding for state and local trans-, must be additional funds, user taxes North I-25 (Owl Co. Rd to WY.) portation needs over the next 20 years and fees are preferred over general North I-25 (State Hwy. 7 to State Hwy. 66) will fall at least $13 billion short. sales or income tax increases. North US 287 Powers Blvd. Denver to Colo. Spgs. Corridor CTN Survey Results ': '*:' North I-25 Corridor lsrimsr/ . Denver Metro Castle Hods rim '.. Grand Eastern Plain. weld Business Chamber Junction too- " &t3i.._ t00% �9s tax �W East I-70 South US 287 US 34 Western loser- - - US 50 Wolf Creek Pass ., Berthoud Pass State Hwy. 550 State Hwy. 160 State Hwy. 82 I-70 West Corridor • • FYI • Mass Transit Committee Minutes January 6, 1997 Attending: Donn Hopkins, CSUPD; Karolyn McDonald, CPC ex-officio; Larry Page, CPC; Kay Rios, Parking Services; Meg Corwin, SMARTtrips; Jim Francis, Dept of Mgmt/Faculty Council; Chris Smithhisler, Campus Activities; Tara Jensen, Graduate Student Council; GayLene Rossiter, Transfort; David Lilly, Transfort; Brian Jones, Admin-Pro; Kelly Roberts, City of Fort Collins; Kathy Collier, SMARTtrips and Sylvia Cranmer, SMARTtrips. NOTE: Tom Kehler of Facilities Management will be representing Facilities at future meetings. Thanks to Tom Moss for his assistance to this committee the past two years! TRANSFORT & SHUTTLE UPDATE: The committee continues to work on the shuttle connecting the foothills campus with City Transfort. Members of the sub -committee did a test run with a 15-passenger van from the Transit Center out to the foothills via Route 3 (Overland Trail to the Equine Center, Rampart Road, LaPorte Avenue to ERC and Atmospheric Science). Time used one way was 15 minutes. Donn Hopkins is working with other university departments to determine if combining trips for services like library books and Central Receiving is possible. Meg Corwin is working on funding. MARKETING PLAN FOR PILOT PROJECT: Media release was sent out to campus constituents via e-mail January 6, 1997. Meg will check into the • possibility of linking up to the Web Site at City to obtain latest information on mass transportation for the City of Fort Collins. CSU ACNS is checking on a possible link to CSU Web Page for transportation information from FortNet. Transfort route schedule and maps are on FortNet. The Transit Campaign for CSU employees will be on campus the week of January 13-17, 1997. A bus connection between Fort Collins and Loveland will start this spring. Could peak interest for campus commuters. Kay Rios will add mass transportation material in the parking permit renewal mass mailing that occurs in June. SURVEY: An extensive survey will be conducted in late January to further develop the marketing plan. SMARTtrips will implement the marketing plan based on certain information obtained from the survey. Any extension of the time frame of the pilot program will be determined by David Lilly (Transfort) and Tom Frazier (City of Fort Collins) if it needs to extend beyond this spring semester. The group discussed possible mechanisms to get the information out about the pilot program. Suggestions were: • e-mail; CPC Minutes; Comment; Admin-Pro Meeting Agenda (February); Faculty Council (January); insert to Deans, Department Heads and Secretaries. Chris Smithhisler will check for list of editors of campus communique; statement add -in monthly pay stubs. Mass Transit Committee Minutes January 6, 1997 Page 2 Promotional ideas are being formulated for Alternate Transportation Week. Ideas for promotional gifts should be forwarded to Kay Rios at Parking Services. It was suggested that Donn request a letter of support from VP Bomotti and check on possible one-time funding for marketing material from the Division of Administrative Services. SMARTtrips has the assistance of an intern from the Marketing Department for the survey and will invite him to future meetings. Media Relations will be invited to send a representative also. Suggestion was made that the university consider initiating a City Resolution Proclamation declaring Colorado State University as a 'Bike Friendly Campus". Next meeting will be held Monday, February 3, 1997, 3:00 p.m. in the CSUPD Training Room. The committee will review the semester employee pilot kick-off. cc: Gerry Bomotti, Vice President for Administrative Services Ron Baker, Facilities Management Ron Phillips, City of Fort Collins Transportation Director John Daggett, City of Fort Collins Cindy Scott, City of Fort Collins Bill Liley, Human Resource Services Nancy Hurt, Facilities Management Planning Joe Urban, ASCSU President Cathy Clark, Administrative Services Tom Kehler, Facilities Kate Doyle, ASCSU Vice President Faye Dorwart, Resources for Disabled Students Attachment: December Ridership Stats Transfort Ridership Statistics • Month of December hS5 1996 fMC l9_y; InelDee CSU Student Rides _ 42,136 32,747 9,389 (29%) CSU Daily Average (Man -Sat = 25 days). 1,685 1,310 Days CSU in session 14 11 CSU Rides Year -to -Date 485,407 479,592 5,815 (1.2%) Youth Rides 29,455 28,994 -539 (-2%) Total Rides 97,973 90,419 7,554 (8%) Tot Daily Avg Rides (M-Sat) 1918 5,616 302 (8%) Total Ridership Days 25 ?5 Total Saturdays 4 5 Central Public Rides 55,837 57,672 Total Rides Year -to -Date 1,231,653 1,197.841 33,812 (3%) Ridershipby Route Dec 96 pS 95 1A 7,650 9,767 • 1B 7,612 9.103 1C 1,006 ----- 2 7,457 3,40.5 2/3 ---_---- 2,642 3 8,352 9.729 3T ------ 3.066 3tt -- - -- ---- 4 13,SS3 1.3,511 3 5,418 4,946 6 1,929 81701 7A 6,841. 6,003 7B 3,956 2.873 8 7,093 7,994 9 4,240 3,943 10 4,720 4.154 11 10,275 --•---- Southside Shuttle 1,791 1,564 Specials 71 12 *Bikes carried on buses in Dec 1996 = J,448 Year-to-date bikes on buses _ 13,368 •