Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 02/21/2007MEETING MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD February 21, 2007 5:45 p.m. City of Fort Collins Municipal Building 215 N. Mason Street — Community Room CHAIR: VICE CHAIR: STAFF LIAISON: ADMIN SUPPORT: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT James Clausen Sara Frazier Neil Grigg Jeannette Hallock-Solomon Bill Jenkins Rick Price Ed Robert Garry Steen Gary Thomas CITY STAFF Eric Bracke Mike Herzig Mark Jackson Dean Khngner Cynthia Langren Clark Mapes Ken Waido 1. 2. FOR REFERENCE: Gary Thomas Jeannette Hallock-Solomon Mark Jackson Cynthia Langren 482-7125 416-1239 416-2029 224-6058 ABSENT Don Edmondson Kevin Westhuis OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Terry Rodrigue Bob Almirall Aaron Cook CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Thomas at 6 p.m. AGENDA REVIEW Items 7a and 7b will be reversed. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 Transportation Board February 21, 2007 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Aaron Cook. My comments tonight are about the Mason Street Corridor. I know that the City has done a study. The point I have tonight is that while the study was great, I don't think that it looked at the right three options. It looked at Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), light rail and an elevated bus way. The option it didn't look at, which I think is very viable, is street cars. I say this because light rail is not a street car. There are inherent differences that make street cars cheaper and sometimes more efficient and I think Mason is one of those cases. For example, light rail has two overhead wires, but a trolley pull only requires one wire because it can deal with the bowing of the line a lot better. So that's just one cost -saving example. In the study, it said among the at -grade options that bus could be upgraded to BRT and then upgraded to street cars, then to diesel, and then to light rail. So the study does recognize the difference between rail options, but when it goes in depth of the light rail option, the problem of course is money and the City wants to get the most for the buck, but I think the City overlooked one other source of money and that is potential development along the route. The study didn't look at potential development. The advantage of the buses are that their routes can be changed and reflect the growth of a city, but the disadvantage is the routes can be changed. For example, what happened to routes like #10, 12 and 13 which no longer exist? Their routes got changed. So people developing along a bus route have no long-term commitment from a city to run buses along that corridor. But if rail were put in that has a lot stronger commitment from a city to developers, hence the developers will want to build more along that corridor. One example of a city smaller than Fort Collins that put in a street car recently is Kenosha, Wisconsin. Its population is about 90,000, They've had over $150M in direct development on the route of their new street car line. The cost of the line was about $2-$3M per mile. It was a single track, but even if you double it from $2- $3M/mile to $4-$6M/mile, that's still less than the $13M/mile that the current BRT is planned for along Mason. That cost saving alone is worth looking into possibly having a street car line rather than light rail or BRT. Another example of a city that had development along their street car line is Tampa Bay, Florida. Their population is 326,000 or so. They've had over a billion dollars in direct development along their line and Portland, Oregon, which has about half a million people, has had about $2.2 billion in direct development along the new street car line. The last point I have to make is that a mass transit system is only good if masses will take the transit along the system and quite frankly, and I know it sounds silly to some, but people who won't take a bus, will take a street car. For example, in Portland, their mass transit ridership, since they built the line in 2001, has increased 87% on the mass transit system. In conclusion, that's my case to present and I encourage you to take a second look at street cars and recognize that there is a difference between light rail, BRT and street cars. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board February 21, 2007 Page 3 Jackson stated that he would like Cook to talk with Kathleen Bracke, the Mason project manager to discuss his ideas and give her an opportunity to share with him more details of the study. The board thanked Cook for coming and sharing his thoughts with them. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (January 2007) There was a motion and a second to approve the January 2007Transportation Board meeting minutes as presented. DISCUSSION: Grigg noted that he had given Langren an incorrect name as a guest. "Matt Eberly" should be changed to "Ryan Pooler". Thomas stated that on the bottom of page 9, the word "demand" should be changed to "request". With those revisions, the motion carried by a unanimous vote, 9 — 0. 5. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT None. 6. ACTION ITEMS a. ELECTION OF OFFICERS — Board Gary Thomas was nominated and elected Chair by a unanimous vote, 9-0. Jeannette Halloclr Solomon was nominated and elected Vice -Chair by a unanimous vote, 9-0. b. NORTH COLLEGE CORRIDOR PLAN — C. Mapes Waido stated that the proposed update to the North College Corridor Plan (NCCP) was developed with extensive public input. The primary elements of the plan include an updated Vision, Goals, Policies, Framework Plan map and recommended actions with possible funding sources. The primary objective of this plan is to adapt City Plan principles to fit specific circumstances of the corridor. If adopted, the updated plan will remain an element of City Plan. Waido briefed the Board on the transportation related updates to the Plan via a PowerPoint presentation. Discussion: Price: Clark, I know that Darin has convened a meeting that I think you were a part of, to ask about the possibility of exploring a site for a velodrome in this area. Did you find a site? APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board February 21, 2007 Page 4 Mapes: Not in this area. They have a site they re interested in, but it doesn't show up on this Plan. They looked at Legacy Park, but that didn't work out. Frazier'• You talked about the truck traffic on North College, saying that it would basically remain the same. It happens now, but what happens when the trucks make a left hand turn onto Jefferson from N. College and with it going to be a two-lane road for a couple of blocks, it seems it will be a traffic jam in there. Jackson: The lynchpin if you will, that makes the two-lane suggestion on the link of Riverside/Jefferson between N. College and Mountain avenue work, is the intersection design of a roundabout there. You gain additional capacity so that you can move traffic through in such a way that you don't end up with the queues that you're describing. If we were to go to a two-lane configuration with a standard signalized intersection in that location, exactly what you described would happen. Frazier- I understand that part, but it's farther down the road. I'm talking about College going onto Jefferson. Jackson: But the roundabout will help so that you don't have those queues. Frazier So even though it's farther on down, it will help the College/Jefferson situation? Jackson: Yes. Frazier". It's making that left hand turn that gets so backed up now, I don't see how it will help. I understand that once they get to the roundabout, it will help, but I don't see getting to the roundabout — that's the congestion I'm referring to. Bracket For traffic heading southbound on College, turning left onto Jefferson; that congestion will still be there. The signal acts as the cork and there is a lack of storage too. One of the solutions to that that we were evaluating was to make it into a double left turn, but we thought that was a really bad idea in the end. So unfortunately, it will remain a problem. Robert When they're redoing some portions of access to/from N. College, Vine is eventually going to be coming into N. College at a different intersection. I know it's #66 on the Master Street Plan and $350M down the road, but will you be planning that intersection as part of the work that's going to be going on in the next five years? Mapes: I hope so. That BOB project is in the control of Engineering. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board February 21, 2007 Page 5 Jackson: What Clark is eluding to is that staff is looking at ways to accelerate the N. College project on the BOB schedule by trading out some things that may not be coming down the pike as early as we thought it would. Engineering is utilizing some Street Oversizing dollar savings in collaboration with a Storm water and Waste water project. They're doing some preliminary engineering on the new Vine corridor beginning this spring or summer. What we're trying to do is get some preliminary engineering completed to get out front of some of the development pressures that are already occurring there that will help those folks and save them a lot of money in the long run and act also as stimuli for that corridor. Robert: So you're planning engineering wise to have access available on N. College. Waido: Yes and it's already becoming an issue. Old Town north dedicated some ROW to it, Greeley water line is considering using that corridor too, and we've had some development projects come in just east of College that we're trying to work with in recognition of the new Vine. It's on the map and it's going to be there some day. Robert. My point is, I think it would be cost effective to plan engineering and infrastructure and all the things you need to before they get Vine built 6, 10, 12 years from now and then have to tear it all up. You need the ROW and all that, which it sounds precisely like you're doing. Thank you. My other question has to do with Redwood. It only needs about 600-700' of linkage to provide for traffic which is a limited north/south movement in that whole plan. If you get that link you've got a second north/south corridor that you don't have today. I'm just hoping that it can get plugged into the Plan somehow. Mapes: I think that when the new Vine is engineered and thought about as far as getting from College to Redwood, I think that will raise the question. Robert. It would be nice to have a one-liner here in the Plan, something to that effect. It's a key linkage. Mapes-- Yes, that would be good. Jenkins: On page 55 of the plan, it talks about new Vine and it says: "The realignment bisects this area, and the major traffic facility will affect the land use pattern — likely leading to With the new Vine Drive alignment, it is anticipated that through -traffic using US 287 to reach I-25 (i.e., large trucks) will see this updated connection as a viable option to reach I-25 and avoid the more congested areas of downtown." Isn't that a bit controversial considering the last few months? I guess I'm asking if that will be a problem. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board February 21, 2007 Page 6 Jackson There's a lot of history with this area. Anytime you're going to add a four -lane arterial, that's the type of facility we encourage truck traffic to use as opposed to local or residential roadways. Will it pull off some? Likely, but what we're finding is that many of the trucks actually have business somewhere along that corridor, so I don't know that it will necessarily pull off as many as some people believe. Will it be controversial? Yes. Anything that adds traffic near any neighborhood is controversial, but especially this because there's 30 years of history behind it. We'd much rather have the trucks using that type of a facility rather than cut-thrus and such. Hallock-Solomon On page 18, Used Car Sales and other Vehicle -Related Uses, I like the idea of clean it up, but keep it funky, but I just wanted to make sure that you don't try to clean it up too much. I'm just trying to figure out what the public response to it was. Mapes-' That is exactly what a lot of people say. There's nothing in the Plan that suggests we're going to take any actions to limit the number of vehicle related uses. Robert Would you comment on the sociological impact or diversity or lack of in that area? Is it addressed anywhere? Mapes: In the uses and activities, I've had some requests to say something about how the area will include Hispanic oriented businesses. As far as the architectural style, there's a lot of interest in this area being unique. Those are the only two things I can think of in the plan. I think the demographics will remain. Price moved to recommend to City Council the adoption of this updated North College Corridor Plan as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. There was a second by Grigg. Discussion Jenkins: I want to know what the consequences are if I say I approve of this even though I have some reservations about some of the content. Thomas We're an appointed board that makes recommendations. We're not the final decider on anything. I personally feel that if anyone doesn't want to support something, that's fine. Jenkins Where I'm coming from is I think this is a great idea, but the thing about Vine and trucks that kind of bothers me is that ten years from now, say we've got all these trucks rolling through and there's controversy with the people living there. I don't want to be part of that. Jackson: Staff really hasn't added anything new that wasn't already on the books from 2000 and 2004 efforts. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board February 21, 2007 Page 7 Price: I would like observe that the Vine issue is addressed in the Master Street Plan and has been discussed up and down everywhere. This is just almost a footnote that's calling attention to that fact, I believe. It's not proposing a new realignment of Vine or anything; it's just calling attention to this discussion that's ongoing elsewhere about that. I don't think the Plan itself addresses that at all. Chair Thomas called the question and the motion carried unanimously, 9 — 0. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. ROUNDABOUT DISCUSSION — E. Bracke Chair Thomas opened the discussion by giving a brief background of the topic and why it's on the agenda tonight. It seems that there is a lot of negative publicity surrounding roundabouts lately and the board would like to get a refresher from Bracke on the topic. Chair Thomas distributed a handout to the board that he got from the FHA web site. He felt it was enlightening to go out at the national level and find essentially the same things as we hear at the local level. The floor was then turned over to Bracke. There was a PowerPoint presentation that included the following highlights: ➢ Roundabout History ➢ Roundabout vs. Traffic Circle ➢ Roundabouts in Colorado ➢ Roundabout Advantages - Slower vehicle speeds in intersection - Safer than other forms of traffic control - Reduced delay during peak hours - Lower maintenance cost - Greatly improved operations during off-peak ➢ Accident Statistics ➢ Roundabout Disadvantages - Right -of -Way - Construction Impacts Public Opinion Costs ➢ Fort Collins Roundabouts - City Council Resolution 2001-120 said to analyze both roundabout and traditional intersection and Council makes the decision ➢ Important to Remember - Roundabouts are not the best solution in every situation - Single lane roundabouts are significantly safer than traffic signals - Multi -lane roundabouts are slightly safer than traffic signals but have less injury accidents and less delay - Multi -lane roundabouts can be very intimidating (albeit safe) for bikes, pedestrians, motorcyclists, and trucks APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 Transportation Board February 21, 2007 US drivers successfully drive roundabouts everyday Young drivers are less intimidated than older drivers The board talked about various misconceptions or reasons why the average person is confused when entering a roundabout. They discussed reasons such as not understanding who has the right-of-way, that roundabouts favor the aggressive driver, the difference between merging and yielding, bike safety within a roundabout and many more that were all discussed with Bracke. Chair Thomas stated that traditionally this board has supported roundabouts after hearing staffs presentation on why it would work. He asked if there was anyone on the Board tonight who would like to take a different position on roundabouts and the general concept. There was none. Chair Thomas then asked what position the board would like to take, given the publicity going on now. Should the Board continue what they're doing, do a pass up to the Council stating that they're just reaffirming their position, or consider going to the public. He added that the Board's mission with the Council might need some further clarification before doing that, but at least that would be an option that to consider. Discussion: Grigg I think there's only one viable option, which is to take them one at a time. We could take a proactive position and say that the Transportation Board thinks you ought to have an open mind about these things. Clausen Could you write a Soapbox on behalf of the board? Hallock-Solomon I don't know that we're allowed to do that. I remember Kurt Kastein specifically came to us and said do NOT go to the Soapbox on controversial issues without checking with Council. Price: On the contrary, I would argue the opposite. We haven't seen Kurt in this group since we worked on our Work Plan and I responded exactly to his attempt to censor what we do and he hasn't been here since. I would like to take a look at our Work Plan because I recall that we agreed to take on educational outreach such as Soapboxes and the only discussion point there was, was that this board not express any policy issues contrary to Council. Robert' I think the public would appreciate knowing that a board like this does study each proposed roundabout. Just let them know that and I think that it would be helpful for the public to know that on this board there is a truck driver, a bicyclist and general citizens. Thomas We need to talk about whether it's okay for us to write something to the public or not without prior Council approval. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board February 21, 2007 Page 9 Price: I'd like to call a point of order on that and take a look at our Work Plan because I believe that we have an explicit Work Plan that says we will take outreach to the public. Thomas I'd be willing to talk to Kurt or someone between now and the next meeting to find out how they would feel about us doing this and get some feedback. Is the Board okay with my doing that? Hallock-Solomon made a motion to table this discussion until after the Harmony Road presentation. There was a second by Clausen. The motion carried by a unanimous vote, 9 - 0. b. WEST HARMONY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS — D. Klingner Jackson introduced the topic by stating that this particular issue has spurred a lot of discussion lately. There are two important things with regard to this project. Kastein will be holding an open meeting in his district and transportation will be the main topic. Secondly there will be a Council Work Session on the 27th where this topic is second on the agenda. Staff will be asking Council to review the pros and cons of the alternatives for the Harmony/Shields intersection and give staff some further direction. Jackson introduced project manager Dean Klingner from Engineering. Klingner gave a PowerPoint presentation that included the following highlights: ❖ Project need due to high accident rate, long delays, and many areas lacking 4-travel lanes, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks ❖ Project funding: Building on Basics (BOB) '/ -cent sales tax, Federal Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) funds, and Street Oversizing (development) fees Design specifics for minor intersections: Mason, Larkbunting, Hinsdale, Starflower, and Westbury at Harmony and Wakerobin/Shields. ❖ Harmony/Shields Intersection: Existing conditions 38,000 vehicles per day and 2.3 accidents/million vehicles, future conditions (2026) predict 50,000 vehicles per day ❖ Multi -lane modern roundabout versus traditional intersection compared in terms of safety and cost and timing (is the community ready for it?) ❖ Plans for outreach/education to the community Discussion: Frazier Could you have a sign for drivers going thru the roundabout to give ROW to sight -impaired people or something? I think we need to do something on that. Klingner There will be the standard roundabout signs such as Yield to Pedestrians with an arrow right where they're standing, It's the Law to Yield signs, etc. However, I do hear the comment often that there are too many signs in a roundabout. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board February 21, 2007 Page 10 Bracket There are some ideas out there. One is a flashing system for a pedestrian signal and something audible for sight impaired people. Price: If this roundabout is going to cost you $900,000 less than a traditional intersection, I suggest you point out to council that if they took $100,000 of that savings and allocated it per the Master Transportation Plan to pay the salary of a Bicycle Outreach Coordinator, they could achieve a lot of ground. Hallock-Solomon I think that this is a lot of change all at once for people. Jackson That's not lost on staff. Thomas- I talked with Tim the other night and his comment was that we might want to pick our battles. Yes, there are lots of compelling reasons to do roundabouts of any kind, but given the political/social environment with this particular one, is this one where you don't take advantage of those advantages? Price: That surprises me to hear Tim say that. The way I see it, we've got 10% of the folks out there who are writing letters because they don't like this and the paper will gravitate to that and all of a sudden you've got a minority who've got an opinion and it makes great news and it sells papers and we shouldn't be building policy on that minority. I hope Council moves forward with a roundabout quite honestly. Steen Why would we shelve something that has that much benefit to it just because of a few people who haven't been educated on this topic? Thomas -'A $900,000 savings is huge. Hallock-Solomon I think that's something that the public needs to be aware of. That's almost 1 million in savings! Jackson That's why staff didn't feel they couldn't just make a unilateral decision on this. We realize that this may not be the right time for a roundabout of this magnitude, but on the other hand, the differential not only in cost but in a long-term level of service perspective; it was significant enough that we needed to take it and have it discussed at a policy level. Thomas: This is not an action item tonight and we can bring up the item we tabled earlier and see if we want to communicate to City Council before their meeting next week an opinion. There was a motion by Price that the Transportation Board recommends to City Council that they continue to consider all the positive benefits of installing a roundabout at the intersection ofHarmony and Shields — in Particular, the benefits of longterm reduction in serious accidents; the reduction in delay ofmotorists, the lower cost, and the environmental APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board February 21, 2007 Page 11 impacts ofreduced delay. There was a second by Steen. The motion passed 8 to 1. The member opposed noted that he did so because he did not have enough experience with roundabouts to make that strong of a statement in support. Chair Thomas stated that he senses the Board would like a direct communication to Council with a letter. Priced moved that the board take this particular action item, draft and send a letter to Council prior to their Work Session. There was a second by Frazier and the motion carried unanimously, 9-0. Chair Thomas suggested that with regard to public outreach, that the members do some research on what the Board's Work Plan says and raise that again next month. The Board needs to find out if they're allowed to submit Soapbox articles and whether or not the article needs Council approval first. The Board agreed that this needs to be done so everyone knows for future reference. 8. REPORTS a. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Price: List of Grants. Transportation staff sent us a list. We have a couple of projects that made it on the short list of grants from CDOT. One of them is a cooperative collaborative project for Safe Routes to School that involves the Transportation department, Bicycle Colorado and it involves BikeFortColhns.org. Frazier.' Legacy Parkway. In the paper today, the editorial talked about how we need to sell the Mason Corridor to the public. I think the Legacy Parkway is a wonderful way to sell it. It's a great way for people to have input by getting their ideas heard. Kathleen Bracke showed us a great slide presentation of Eugene, Oregon and what they have done. Robert-' UniverCity. I'm on a subcommittee different from Sara's and it's gratifying to know that transportation is a connector on this whole project. Everything we discuss goes back to transportation and how does it fit into the corridor? We keep hearing over and over that we need transportation; we need multi -modal transportation so it's always in front of us. Thomas-' Dial -A -Ride. As you know, there are ongoing committees looking at what happens after Dial -A -Ride shrinks its service back. They've met 2-3 times as a large group and now it's divided into several subcommittees. I'm on the Resource sub -committee looking at what resources there might be out there to try and pick up what DAR isn't covering. There will probably be a survey of anyone in town who might have paratransit equipment such as retirement centers and such. I'll keep you posted on all that. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 Transportation Board February 21, 2007 b. STAFF REPORTS The Board requested that Jackson send out a summary of what he was going to report on tonight due to the lateness of the hour. Jackson will email that out to the board in the next couple of days. 9. OTHER BUSINESS None. 10. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 9:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cynthia L. Langren Executive Administrative Assistant