HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/28/2006 - NORTHERN COLORADO TRUCK MOBILITY STUDY PHASE II: DATE: February 28, 2006 WORK SESSION ITEM
STAFF: Mark Jackson FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Northern Colorado Truck Mobility Study Phase II: Non-Route Based Strategies.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Given negligible positive results of the one year test program, should Staff cease additional
Non-Route Based Strategies-related efforts?
2. The Transportation Board and Council For A True Bypass (citizen group sponsor of Ballot
Initiative 200) have each stated that, in order to move forward in a meaningful manner,
language contained within Ballot Initiative 200 must be amended or remanded by a public
vote. Should staff extend its scope to develop language options of a ballot measure for
Council's consideration and sponsorship?
BACKGROUND
Phase II of the Northern Colorado Truck Mobility Project: Non-Route Based Strategies is now
complete. Undertaken to fulfill mandates contained within Ballot Initiative 200(1999),this phase
included an assessment, development, implementation and analysis of potential non-route based
strategies(NRBS).These strategies were intended to encourage long-haul commercial trucks to use
the Interstate 25/80 corridor instead of the SH 14/US 287 route for non-stop travel between Laramie
and Fort Collins. Select marketing,education,and outreach strategies were implemented on a one-
year test basis. This project is funded by Building Community Choices 1/4 cent sales tax revenue
dedicated to pursuit of this issue.
In November 1999,Fort Collins voters requested attention to the heavy commercial truck traffic on
SH 14 and US 287 through the passage of Ballot Initiative 200. In response, the City initiated the
Northern Colorado Truck Mobility Study in 2000 to determine the most effective and feasible
methods to induce change in route choice by commercial trucks, particularly long-haul trucks
making through trips. Phase I of the study looked at both alternate truck routes and non-route based
strategies. Following the results of the first phase of this study(2001), Council concluded the most
feasible solutions available under the Ballot Initiative were Non-Route-Based Strategies (NRBS)
aimed at encouraging through-trip commercial truck traffic to use the Interstate System (I-25/I-80
Route.) In Phase 11 of the Northern Colorado Truck Mobility Study,the recommended NRBS were
screened, implemented, and evaluated.
Based on the results of the evaluation of NRBS implemented over the course of 2005, staff
recommends discontinuing further strategy implementation.
February 28, 2006 Page 2
STRATEGIES DEVELOPED
In Phase I, initial strategies were developed to encourage through truck traffic to use the Interstate
system (I-25 and I-80 route). NRBS were developed with comprehensive involvement from the
trucking industry and local stakeholders and included strategies such as marketing action plans and
other technological approaches.
STRATEGIES SELECTED FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
In Phase II,the Phase I NRBS were considered as options for encouraging through trip truck traffic
to use the I-25/1-80 Route. Of these, six marketing/education/outreach strategies were determined
to be most feasible and cost-effective for a one-year program.
The NRBS that were recommended for the one-year test program included:
• Brochures showing preferred through-trip routes for trucks
• Highway signs on I-25 and I-80
• Public relations targeted to trucking industry publications and media outlets
• Targeted radio advertising on Northern Colorado and Wyoming stations
• Presentations at driver safety meetings and targeted trucking industry events
• Project website targeted at trucking industry drivers, dispatch and management
These strategies were used together to advertise and educate the benefits of the Interstate Route to
truck drivers, dispatchers, operations managers, and other management personnel at trucking
companies nationwide.
The primary purpose of Phase II's evaluation plan was to provide decision-makers with a means to
judge the merit of the strategies,both individually and combined. The evaluation plan served as an
assessment tool to assist decision makers in the selection or rejection of strategies for continued
implementation.
IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
The recommended NRBS were implemented during a one-year period from January 2005 to January
2006. Following the implementation period,the NRBS were evaluated to determine if they met the
project goals. The intent of the evaluation plan was to provide a systematic means to assess the
effectiveness of each NRBS in encouraging truck traffic to use the I-25/1-80 Route instead of the
SH 14/US 287 Route.
The overall approach to the evaluation process for the NRBS was to first identify the goals and
objectives,and then determine the measurable parameters that validate the intended impact of each
of the strategies. Assessing the quantity and quality of through truck traffic that would be affected
by each NRBS was the focus of the evaluation plan in addition to the goals listed below:
• To Assess the Change in Truck Traffic Volume on the SH 14/US 287 Route
• To Assess the Impacts to Affected Highway Systems
• To Assess the Environmental Changes on the SH 14/US 287 Route
• To Assess the Impacts to Safety Along the Affected Corridors
February 28, 2006 Page 3
• To Assess the Economic Impacts to Corridor Business
• To Assess the Cost of Providing Ongoing Efforts to Sustain the Measured or
Anticipated Results
The evaluation included establishing baseline information prior to strategy implementation,
gathering another set of data approximately half-way through the one-year program, and
documenting data at the end of the program.
Traffic counts and in-person surveys were collected to evaluate how well the objectives and
questions posed in the evaluation were satisfied by the implemented NRBS.The data collected was
used to:
• Establish the changes in peak hour and daily truck traffic
• Determine how changes impacted congestion and safety along the SH 14/US 287 and
I-25/I-80 Routes
• Determine the impact on business revenues resulting from changes in truck traffic
• Determine changes in the perception of public safety as it related to truck traffic
If the individual strategies were found to be effective, an ongoing implementation plan would be
developed to outline their continued use. Strategies that were found to not be valuable would likely
be discontinued.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the negligible impact the implemented NRBS had on changing the route selection of truck
drivers and the perceived pedestrian safety along the SH 14/US 287 Route, continued
implementation of the NRBS is not recommended. While the program was successful in increasing
the awareness of the NRBS program and trucking issues with truck drivers, businesses, and
pedestrians, the negligible gains show that the strategies implemented had little effect and minimal
projected impacts on route selection and pedestrian safety along the SH 14/US 287 Corridor.
Continued implementation of the strategies is not recommended.
The evaluation of the six project goals established as part of the test plan matrix confirm this
finding:
• Negligible changes in truck traffic volume on the SH 14/US 287 Route
• Negligible changes to the highway system, including roadway and intersection
operations, roadway life cycle costs, and pedestrian safety.
• Negligible changes to noise levels and vehicle emissions.
• No perceived change in pedestrian safety or overall safety in relation to commercial
truck traffic.
• No change in business volume during the one-year program
February 28, 2006 Page 4
NEXT STEPS
Given the general results and conclusions from this Phase II: NRBS project, several options are
available to either conclude or carry forward efforts to address the issues:
• Continue NRBS program(no progress from where we are now)
• Explore alternate NRBS strategies (a step back)
• Revisit Alternate Routes (NEPA, voter approval required)
• Cease all efforts and return unused funds ($1.75 million estimated balance) to the
general budget(voter approval required)
The NRBS program could be continued with the hope that longer exposure and increased effort
(more billboards,more direct mailings,etc.)would improve the results over time. This option is not
recommended.
The selected NRBS strategies could be augmented by revisiting strategies that were previously
screened and eliminated. Adding additional NRBS to those previously tried may lead to greater
success. This option is not recommended.
Route-based strategies could be revisited. Given the inevitable need for funding from a federal
source and the myriad of issues associated with relocating a state highway, an environmental
analysis based on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) would be required. This step
would require some Fort Collins voter action due to the conflict between NEPA requirements,which
state that all reasonable alternatives be considered, and Ballot Initiative 200, which precludes the
City from looking at alternatives south of CR 58 (see attachment). Either the ballot initiative would
need to be amended or another agency would have to fund the project. Likely future project
stakeholders Larimer County and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) have each
stated they will not participate in any further analysis until such time as all potential routes,
including those currently prohibited by Ballot Initiative 200,can be considered. Remaining project
funds could either be used to help fund the NEPA analysis or defray future construction/right-of-
way costs.
After five years of analysis and tests with mixed results, Council could choose to cease any further
Truck Route—related activity or expenditure Any desire to reallocate the remaining funds for
purposes other than that specified in Ballot Initiative 200 will require voter approval. Project staff
estimates approximately$1.75 million dollars will remain in the project fund following completion
of Phase II.
OUTREACH
The project team has made presentations and project updates to several key stakeholders in
anticipation of this discussion with Council. Staff has met with the Colorado Motor Carriers
Association(CMCA),representatives of Council For A True Bypass,and the Transportation Board.
CMCA:
Staff presented CMCA executives with process,results,and recommended options. CMCA
has participated as a key stakeholder throughout the both Phase I and II of this project.
February 28, 2006 Page 5
Council For A True Bypass:
Staff met with group co-founder Dick Dunn to explain results and possible options to move
forward. Mr. Dunn supports a change of wording to Ballot Initiative 200 language that
would better allow for future NEPA analysis required to determine an ultimate alternate
route for SH 14 and asked staff to help design language for Council's sponsor of a ballot
item for the next scheduled election.
Transportation Board:
Staff presented analysis results and recommendations to the Transportation Board at their
February 15th meeting. The Board took action for Council consideration on two related
items:
1. Recommend that the staff cease all further NRBS efforts
2. Recommend that staff be asked to redirect the study and propose ballot language to
Council that would remand Ballot Initiative 200 and its funds to voters with
proposed alternative use of those funds for other identified transportation needs
within the City.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Powerpoint presentation slides
2. Preferred Through Trip Truck Route Brochure
3. Ballot Initiative 200
4. Final Report Executive Summary(02/06 Draft)
5. Council For a True Bypass Letter dated February 17, 2006
pi
Z
Z
rMIL
m CD
'A �
V,
CD z n
0
-n Z o
O% oQ
O 0 63
OU
03
C' O a
0 (D >4
_ 1
_ ^^ m
O CL
O (n
Or. 'MIL
�
�
N
O
o rncn
CD C
U) O
N Cl) ror
o' ,rt, _.
rIL
� �
lD =
to C.
m _
O �D ► C '►s' A� (D m
r'l, �, ,��, Z
o �
0
Owe z —
n CL o a
vs mo
m -i
/r cn p'
rD m
cn0
M�
m
F
m
!"r Wc
1�•
O
r
v � z
C
CU
r.r A A wed* z c�
�D roes Cfl S� �,.,.
c' p' F A� A � O O C 0 0 0
Owe
� rQ C C .J r� O m -,
(jQ O
A� 0 Cfl r'h CD rT A D c=i
oeeW
r.• O o C
r V� �. beeelO m
ir� r"• O �" r G) CO)
'T O 0. �' PD rO O e O i/ce.—� M•mac
�• \ii
aowe emlt�
ArMIL
vi tip ►� O A� ffl A ■ ■
�2. ►O-h '� rD
O vs
p � ri
mmeet
weeO
Mo. Owe OTJ
N �
� rep,
� o �
�c 0 ¢,
K f-t-
r''
o � z
m �
00
m -�
-i
O r' UC',
m
�
Co' � ~' a:
CD
CD CD ri �' � CO)
� n
~' c�
NOW 0
CD
• (A CCL
CD
C'
Mz
I•�• ►�.r V M�1 ^� m m
_ CD
0
CL
-10
rD SZ =W D
o0
CCO 0
~r rwL D�C
�• "mow
� U)`.
n �
� O
� � o
t! rD
O fD
rD
yr
_ CD
C
Cf)OEM
I•�dy O
Imo+• c ao
CD
m �cD v' O C7
D n
C / m7C
c) a
CL
,^ m
cn
�- �• w• '= "NowO O m a
p l 1
~
_ nwoo C)
�e ar�� c•
pd
00
rot-
n `'O �•
nk
im lw' ■
� z
• • • y~ D
ILa.�i► > �-►
m
00
"Now Zn
• � ! ~ Ofeet. D
rat, o
Owe
ve Mw* e vc
�H M
0 co
CD
d �
N OEW 0 C
C cc N
I p
o � �
Zo re+- 0 4
o r
`T o fD c
0
weem01
K' owe x
_ rn
� z
D �
• • • • • O m �
co
M•+ Mr o
z
Cl)
C r� A� O rD V1 rn (p 00
fu
� M� H rp o
�v � � � W =
WOW 0 co
0cr
m e
OEM
cn CL
c� a.
� N
a
�D
M` �
pt
� z
I-Itil;iQ4
Z �
D Moo C C
� a
= A. w O CD W
■ ■ D0
m �
eD
O a
�.
CD Dc
¢ � � "f1 CD
c w
�D tZ. c
m
O �Q
� to� rMIL
0
cn
rMIL
CD
!,pig
"Ogg
c y O
mCD
►�� ' n ° 0 n
CD
zo
C �
m p
n ■ ■ n �
0 o
D �:
V1• M c
loot ��
e
� x �
,..• ►�
,..r O
� Z
D
b too, m M M CD
� C rc � '�• 00
OEM OEWr A o
OW
o
l 1 �
m0E
Fn
CL
or.
�• vs � o' cD `� O
CIA
`C rMI'.
d
c
cD
K �
yI- z
A9 " O O �Q �► z c,
00
wee, 0
Put me, CL
C 0
*weW., • ■ > 0
~� 03
rMIL
� cr
O �+ m CO)
�.
CL
rqL
WWI
Ow,
omew
b*owe ¢.lot
l
�• C
CL
O
CD
rMIL
O �
�. CD
CL
r
Z' cn
r„♦
MEW
c
N • MOT M CD
D
Pet
AC
OCL
O
� � � Qr �p � �D � � �■ m �
CD .". ►.". U) pr
ar
h". CO) o0
fJQ --j Q
m cn
•e
o'
m c
WAIN
co
y ti
tD
h•
�r �f
ram" Falk
rML
O
(DD
�,• s2
�R
•
Ate) .
� Z
D �
O MA.Cl)
Op
=r
r o �
""I ~ m c
m .4
CD D �
c
- Rt m
m y
G) .
m =
C0 c.
nm
a
m
m
z
z
0
z
c
n
x
0
c
y, 00
m
m
k'
+r
wu MIA
• = o
Cl) w
i m C
N co
Ul
z o
0
—
Q \ p m
_ m
I.�N cn m
_ „ c OOrt o cr
d O D
m
ro: m a
(10
a 7
co
4 � �
i
C •! . Q
` Ru
_ d
$ m �
m �
g
W
CD t0
�1
O
IIi
Q.
A
` k
-
<
. -
^
! ! M E0z0 x c \ _
a ' ■
§ ! B � ; l � � � ® � ` - -
) ) 0 �2
! > § § | §
} ( � � , ' ` •
m ; ; -
►
e
[
■ � 2 ( ram /
tv
| ! E )7 ®
� ■ ��� ( # { E " � 2 �
(
I
E
. _
r�.a • sKdr«aa • ►•>+.w�aamiais .•ro,ra
W•se ae a Ne�s as Funs �
$$L6!3 8 L e
f ai� i
F . 3 $ a' Sadtia �i $ & $$ggqagqi°gg pphi @ sa�i. ag, H
—
fmPl
�ij..� LEPg e
$�L1( fiLiaEF �F$ a �g`a ' (jFg3gaeB'�
e
6 g gg t
�estt[t�� f:ateLiiEaf� €���&i�:� � iFktl¢
�air Pf.���iL�`att��;;��� � ►
�►LaL}� �1�l�!!BN esia .S
q
2
0
•n
n
c
5"
IP
• • • mn • • 'bq4
Z
O 0 < > m N �
m Co
G Z Q. n Zn
= 3
(�Q to —.
� a
O � � "n Q m
m -i
�. Cl)
O
m
CA
may. 09
cr
V� � O
Om
O m
COI)
L I � m � �' � �%C
O O
!rt
N
-, TI Q ..
O cn
rMIL nrMIL
cn (D �.
o = �
90 (D
0 O Cl) tND
Si)
�
Q. X
O
tU
CL
N R 4 x a
F
on
vmmm �9m O P3 m 0 ' om 00EMO � -
Nm a3 "m m �.7 'n v 33033nM.oz
�[^m N j O N 3 [ Nm m? T? A^V J R P 1 rT F ••
NJH < ON m � w m m md] dNNm3 N L��
CD o
_ nNO NHm2
n 0 0 M m
N 1� ] 3o
7-0 J T10m^ mm a
c
nm ■
—
_
0 '� 7 �mN Qmi o "
700aFm2'c °� �•.
Sm9 OJT aJNm ^ Do 0, ] �mV ®. n
J35 3. m a
m ] N[ ] O
m- a o .m = mCN (7 ro me»a..0r az_ 1 � iL
L m N m 0. N cm,
L
amv m �a C " m 0 oM z
as N S J w » N Co C m m J m y o v
0 N m w J 3
m T 0 0 n !� .p '� m
g$ dFi " mN 0 0 - -o M mC .m r n
m »O P a [ N ^
0.
gg 3mT i° Q p OS a gam—o° o
o m o< m o 1O '^_7m a
JQN na 2 » m m ?TN�pHmf�4,
n N m m
am� Sm N � m 0 wNL N6w ✓. vF
m m:• mm 2 ] m nnmm 12, d b .
t 03
S In A 3 m � 1
J mL3 ILI
5ryY�)� 5
N ] < — 1
3 > > 3
� z
d o
mg b �d O dCD
m
I�• 0
�• �� Gam. z Cl)
O !O C • O
♦y z o
o
CL
O C• cD N m
m .4
77
o
C I cn 0
� a
O m
cn
m c
rm@L
'n � z
m
CO
CL n ONO N v• ►� Z.
a
0 0 on
j� ` ■ ■ m pr
M�I \ o 0
m CA
O '~ O O 00 0
m a,
0
(*onto
r4-
.
mz
C
►mil. OEM. z C.)
G O O �. ,.r.601
�. 0 0
�• �Peel• � (a! CD r'D �A -1 o
f-91 WNW
J wwo
MeeM
o0
0
¢• ^* �Q UQ �' rD CD A a
� C
m O
c.
eel. rmlpL
r° � pot- �D
c C r
� MEOW
. ►�
fmIL
Ce
:z *We "C
0 i1v MR,
-0Z
= o
Dco
5
mco
M fir• Oc
W
— A
C•
C
m 2
Cl)' > n
V rt C i m co')
Fi
co CL
to � � �,, ►�! �.
� V
Zz
m CD
C °
a . . rMIL mo
m -i
o 0
�
� �
rp
►� Aa '�
fD fD
rD
n � �
rD
O �,
� Z
r c tD = o
D �
O n O O xmoll-
rm4L 00
cn o
C a
rNOL m/
♦ -�
V m =
m �
►�, O `� � C7
CL
woo cn
o "Wo O a
tz
¢r
eW
O �
�D �
4
� Z
c cC � = o
D
m o
^"
Co
rMO, 00
m
o0
�b �Q (f) c
n I"C
o C' _
OMEN � n
OWN C0 �
O
A�
_ rr CC_
PAR"4��i
z uIs
rAl � Z
(D CIOCD
rM~ 00
wooCD
` cn
<-� � no � o
cr
C CD n D
orD
cD M fD
�. IrD C
CD ONN+ i"'.
�2. m ►r:
*Now
rl-
fD
Prot -A
Z III'All
� z
� = a
D "
• • • C �. m r
0' m
C
CL
rot WOW�•
OEM.
ONMW
ORMW
K
� Z
� = o
M CD
rMIL00
00
owl A: r-r
1� m -1
• n CC' �r I••d c
01 �ACD
b CD
owe
� O
O
+c
rr
� z
b b b _
D
c
M CD
• 11 IrD
!!C^ z
II �D CD �D '� (a Zz a
C d
rook
cr
T� >cn
bA `V O 0
CL cc
H O n N "! �■ m�
CL O C
co)
~ O V� O ,
�D �
rD A
�• rD
rD N N
� O
O
K
� z
4
igilim
�■ 2D O
�• mCb
S
CD
° o
�, �• N orG
rF C �
CD vl c o.
63
D o
C cD o O 03
cr
cn
rp rD �" � ►� �• O � tmw �rot
� c
rot-
rMIL
o.
O
ow
p O
ROAD oQ Qa PREFERRED
Cr 0
LL
INFORMATION 0- 9
cn � p � O
wz
aC? oLU
D M a- TRUCK
w
Colorado Statewide m
Road Condition ROUTES
Hotline 303 -639 - 1111
www. dot . state . co . us
Colorado State Patrol THRU
970-224- 3027 TRUCK
Hazardous Material
TRAFFIC
Information
www. hazmatrans . state . co , us
Colorado Motor Carriers
Association LOCAL DELIVERIES
Trucking rules and regulations
303-433- 3375
www. cmca . com
Wyoming
Statewide Road Condition
Hotline 1 -888-WYO- ROAD
www. wyoroad . com a� N
� HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
c � ROUTES
O O O
For more information on � ° � � U i703
these truck routes , go to : u o
www . stayonthebigroad . com w 0 o o �
c o U) ZU
u 0HNIi
PREFERRED TRUCK RoUTES WHY
PREFERRED
AftLJO
Thru Truck Traffic
..: . . zar Mat rial • �
Preferred Thru Truck routes Designations
UTES ?
are designated for use by The Colorado State Patrol has
commercial vehicles that designated the Hazardous
have no origin or destination Material Route in northern Trucks and other commercial
within the City of Fort Collins Colorado as Interstate 25 only for vehicles are asked to follow
or surrounding area . These north/south travel and Interstate the guidelines set by the City
trucks are encouraged to use 80 in Wyoming for east/west of Fort Collins in order to
Interstate 25 and Interstate travel . accommodate necessary trips
80 as their preferred route in and around the city.
around Fort Collins . Using No other routes in or around Fort
Collins are designated as
the Interstate is 17 miles The objective of the preferred
longer, but will often save Hazardous Material Routes . truck route is to :
you time . • Avoid congestion in
Local Delivery Trucks
Fort Collins
Trucks and commercial • Provide efficient access to
vehicles with business in or commercial areas
near Fort Collins should • Minimize commercial
follow the preferred Local a;
,, vehicles in residential
Delivery roads to their local ' areas
destination . • Promote safety and
E
improvement of traffic
Noise ordinances are in
operations
place and enforced on State -
Highway 14 . r - • Keep noise and air
..;
pollution to a minimum
— Stay on the Big Road - - - - - - - - - - - - -
' PREFERRED •
THRU TRUCK ROUTE
FOR NORTHERN COLORADO
� 1
E
CT$ LARAMIE \
E
E
Y�BUFORD I CHEYENNE
LOCAL _ E _
_ TS .
TRUCK ROUTES
TS
FOR THE CITY OF ws fl c
olbrao
FORT COLLINS J
WELLINGTON ,
• 1
E
1
E
FORT COLLINS I 11
E
GREELEY
\\ LOVELAND 1
J
OLD US ?s)
`'1 Dusch •
Plant
= WILLDI IN � M'JDNi/JN VISiP D0.
W VIEW `\ E YiNE DR
W WRTEAW
�q 14 MULBERRY ST.
i
w alueEnHsT g
Wekc
H UCT ca
FO T COLLI S
i
DRAAE RD i 9a
W
N 1
HDPSEramN RD
Cotrado
W E _ __— 0
1
1 ,�D
HARMONY RD I �
D I
i1
LEGEND r
\i
- PREFERRED THRU TRUCK ROUTE
q
- PREFERRED LOCAL TRUCK ROUTES iHRDY RD s
•� �� - HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ROUTE
® - REST STOP
CR3?
® - WEIGH STATION
O - TRUCK STOP
• - COMMERCIAL AREAS
• ATTACHMENT 3
Ballot Initiative 200
The City of Fort Collins initiated the Northern Colorado Truck Mobility/SH-14 Relocation Study
to address the requirements of Ballot Initiative 200 that was passed in November 1999. The full
text of the ordinance is as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 142, 1999
OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING THE RELOCATION
OF COLORADO HIGHWAY 14 TRUCK ROUTE OUTSIDE THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS CURRENT URBAN GROWTH AREA AND
APPROVING CERTAIN MEASURES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
WHEREAS, for many years the City of Fort Collins (the"City")and City staff have
investigated the possibility of relocating the Colorado Highway 14 truck route(the"Truck
Route") from its current location that utilizes roadways in the City known as Mulberry, Riverside,
Jefferson, and College in such a manner so as to minimize the impact of the Truck Route on
businesses, neighborhoods and residents of Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, as a part of the"Building Community Choices" Capital Improvement
Program, in 1997 the City's electorate authorized capital expenditures of$3 million (the"Funds')
• to be used for the planning, design, right-of-way acquisition and/or other project costs associated
with road improvements for an alternate northeast Truck Route, and
WHEREAS, the City has expended a portion of the Funds in pursuit of an alternative
Truck Route and wishes to continue to use the remaining Funds to relocate the Truck Route so as
to avoid the adverse impacts associated with the Truck Route on business, neighborhoods, and
residents in the City's Urban Growth Area; and
WHEREAS, prior City Councils and the current City Council have previously rejected
relocating the Truck Route in the vicinity of East Vine Drive in the City due to the materially
adverse environmental health and social impacts on residents that a relocation in the vicinity of
East Vine Drive would necessarily cause; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to relocate the Truck Route outside the City's current UGA
and, until such location occurs, to encourage and cause truck traffic without local business to use
the U.S. Interstate Highway System; and
WHEREAS, a petition for initiative signed by registered elements of the City has been
filed with the City which requires, under Article X, Section 1(e) of the Charter,that the City
Council either adopt this Ordinance or submit it to the registered electors of the City as a special
election.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS:
• Section 1. That, working with appropriate Federal, State, and County governmental
entities, agencies, and department, the City and its staff shall pursue with all deliberate effort and
speed the relocation of the Truck Route to a location outside the City's current Urban Growth
Area,
Section 2. That until such time as the relocation of the Truck Route, described in Section
I occurs,the City shall encourage and cause by all reasonably available legal means all truck
traffic without local business in the City to use the existing U.S. Interstate Highway System,
including,without limitation, pursuit by the City of appropriate State and Federal legislation and
regulations that would cause all truck traffic without local business to remain on the U.S.
Interstate Highway System.
Section 3. That the City and its staff shall devise and diligently pursue the
implementation of a funding plan to cause the relocation of the Truck Route outside the City's
current Urban Growth Area to be funded by a combination of City,County, State,and/or Federal
funding sources.
Section 4. That the remaining Funds from the"Building Community Choices"Capital
Improvement Program shall be used in furtherance of the purposes set forth in Sections 1, 2, and
3 of this Ordinance.
Section 5. That relocating the Truck Route in the vicinity of East Vine Drive is
permanently abandoned and that locating a new or alternate Truck Route between the currently
existing Truck Route and two miles North of Douglas Road shall not be further considered by the
City.
Section 6. That all resolutions and ordinances of the City Council that are inconsistent
with the foregoing Sections 1, 2, 3,4, and 5 are hereby reversed and superseded in their entirety
by the provisions of this ordinance.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall be effective upon the earlier of(i)approval of this
Ordinance by the City Council in accordance with Article X Section 1(e) of the Charter or(ii)
upon certification of the election results that a majority of the registered electors voted in favor of
this Ordinance in accordance with Article X Section 6(a) of this Charter.
Northern Colorado Truck Mobility Study Executive Summary
Phase ll:Non-Route-Based Strategies
Attachment 4
•
S.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SA INTRODUCTION
Collinshave struggled with truck traffic along SH 14
The citizens of the City of Fort gg g , or
Mulberry Avenue, adjacent to Old Town Fort Collins for over 35 years. Many studies have been
conducted in an ongoing effort to provide a feasible alternative that would allow through truck
traffic to reach Laramie and/or Denver with minimal impact on Fort Collins and the community.
Through truck traffic includes those commercial trucks that do not have destinations or stops
along the SH 14/US 287 Route.
Phase I of this study, the Northern Colorado Truck Mobility/SH 14 Relocation Study, stemmed
from Ballot Initiative 200,passed by the Fort Collins voters in November 1999. This study
identified, evaluated, and recommended many Non-Route-Based tra ics (NABS). NRBS were
seen as the least objectionable method of getting through true sting SH 14/US 287
Route. These strategies were developed to encourage throu to use the I-25/1-80
Route without constructing a new roadway. Phase I was con ember 2001, with
recommendations that additional evaluations be directed at e Il of the Northern
Colorado Truck Mobility Study moves forward with these m ions and investigates
these strategies as possible techniques for implem Ci
• S.1.1 Study Intent and De riptiont
In moving forward with e ` so P II identified strategies that
encouraged through t e e fro e 4 ° S 287 Route to the I-25/I-80 Route
when traveling betwee C rad ie, Wyoming. An evaluation Plan was
developed, based on th ject s,� eas a impact of each of the strategies. The
project goals include:
• Encourage all n ca ou ck traffic to use Interstates 1-25 and I-80
• Minimize the i S '14/US 287 Route on Fort Collins area businesses,
neighborhoods, ents
• Determine the ity and potential sustainability of various NRBS
era
S.1.2 Study Process
Phase I identified, evaluated, and recommended many different NRBS. Phase II of the Northern
Colorado Truck Mobility/SH 14 Relocation Study refined the strategies that were recommended
in the first phase, evaluated each strategy in additional detail, and provided a recommendation
for implementation. Following the implementation of the NRBS, each strategy was then
evaluated to assess how well the goals and objectives of the project were met.
NRBS were evaluated based on extensive independent research and direct interaction and
cooperation with the trucking/shipping industry as well as representatives from local, county,
state, and Federal enforcement and regulatory agencies. The project team conducted two
• workshops, a focus group, and additional individual and group outreach to assist in developing
the marketing, regulatory/enforcement, and physical strategies.
Jam(' S-1
Executive Summary Northern Colorado Truck Mobility Study
Phase lk Non-Route-Based Strategies
S.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
To develop a clear understanding of the issues, some specific data collection efforts were
conducted including an existing condition assessment and traffic studies to determine the amount
of truck traffic on each route.
The existing conditions assessment was completed to identify the characteristics of the existing
truck route through the City of Fort Collins that extends along SH 14 and US 287 in addition to
the I-25/I-80 Route . The SH 14/US 287 Route and the I-25/1-80 Route were then compared
based on route profiles, mileage and travel times, road closures, accident rates, average daily
traffic, locations of weigh stations, speed limits, and weather.
One of the most important issues of this study was to clearly establish the number of through
trucks using the SH 14/US 287 Route or the I-251-80 Route. To addre this issue, traffic studies
were conducted. The intent of the studies were to determine the n of through truck trips on
the subject corridors prior to the NRBS being implemented a intended to update
analysis conducted for the 2001 Phase I effort. Through true ere fied as trucks that used
the SH 14/US 287 Route or the Interstate Route to access I- or 1-25 east of the City
of Fort Collins with no business stops along the way. Both surveys and vehicle
classification counts were conducted in order to identi n of s taking each route,
determine the average travel time for each route, he r of through truck
trips.
A summary of existing co of
Mileage
There is a 17 mile diff e b n rout o ows:
• SH 14/US 287 e - it
• I-25/1-80 Route Mi
Travel time
The associated travel ti ck traffic along each corridor was also collected from a license
plate survey performed ay of 2004. The license plate survey was performed from 7:00 A.M.
to 4:00 P.M. during a typical work week. The average travel times are noted below:
• SH 14/US 287 Route - I hour and 20 minutes
• Interstate Route - 1 hour and 30 minutes
Volume
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) includes:
• SH 14/US 287 Route- AADT volume along US 287 ranges from 14,058 (1,414 trucks)
in the City of Fort Collins to 3,385 (839 trucks)between Laramie and the
Colorado/Wyoming border.
• 1-25/I-80 Route - AADT volume on I-25 ranges from 19,210 (3,337 trucks) at the SH
14/1-25 interchange in Fort Collins. AADT volume along I-80 are 10,266 vehicles (5,369
trucks)traveling between Laramie and Cheyenne.
S-2
Northern Colorado Truck Mobility Study Executive Summary
Phase //: Non-Route-Based Strategies
Safety
Accident information through 2001 was analyzed. Table S.1 shows the annual average number
of accidents for the different routes. This data is primarily for the years 1999 through 2001,
unless otherwise noted.
Table SA
Annual Average Number of Accidents
Accident . •
Damage Only
Property
®®®
US 287' 220 110 4 334
Interstate: l25 147 81 231
_._._-- .-._._..-----
Interstate: 1_802
N/A N/A 138
(MP 325-335) L
1. The Wyoming portion of US 287 accident data is an average i od 1-1-90 through 10-31-
2001
2- The 1-80 accident data is an average of the time period 1-1 g 001
Considering that the I-25/I-80 has approximately fo es r traffic volumes than
• the SH 14/US 287 Route, the number of ac ' e n 14 28 cents a much higher
accident rate. -6
S.3 NRBS SCRE L A M NTATION
NRBS considerations ase c phy egulatory/enforcement, and marketing
strategies recommende' m P I e N ern Colorado Truck Mobility/SH 14
Relocation Study and a' ona o dations from project participants. The process for this
second phase of strateg I i ved a screening for unrealistic options and a
comparative screening. t
34
h
These combined scree p` ' rocesses allowed those strategies most highly regarded by the
trucking industry participants and the project team to be moved forward, while eliminating those
that were not realistic and therefore determined unfeasible for implementation.
Nineteen Non-Route Based Strategies (NRBS) were considered as options for encouraging truck
traffic to use the 1-25/I-80 Route. Of these, six marketing strategies were determined to be most
feasible and cost-effective for a one-year program. These six strategies were implemented
between January and December 2005.
The NRBS that were recommended and implemented during the one-year evaluation program
include:
• Brochures. The brochure would reach long-haul and regional drivers through
distribution at kiosks, weigh stations, truck stops, and information facilities as well as
• direct mail distribution.
S-1
Executive Summary Northern Colorado Truck Mobility Study
Phase It Non-Route-Based Strategies
• Billboards/Highway Signs. Billboards would target all drivers along the corridor and are
expected to affect route choice,primarily for long-haul drivers. A sample billboard
design can be found in Figure 5.1.
• Public relations. Public relations would be used to reach local and regional, and possibly
long haul, truck drivers and route planners. The public relations program would place
highly messaged content in trucking industry trade publications and local media as
appropriate.
• Radio advertising. Radio advertising on syndicated shows would reach long haul and
regional drivers, with an anticipated larger impact on long haul travelers.
• Presentations at safety meetings. Safety meeting presentations would be excellent
forums to reach regional drivers, route planners, and management.
• Project website.A website would reach regional drivers and provide them with
information about safety and weather conditions on the routes.
Figure SA
Highway Sign on 1-25 South of H
. :.., .. .
These strategies were used together to advertise the benefits of the Interstate Route to truck
drivers, dispatchers, operations managers, and other management personnel at trucking
companies nationwide.
SA EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTED STRATEGIES
Following the identification of the NRBS that would be implemented to encourage through truck
traffic to use the I-25/I-80 Route, an evaluation plan was developed to assess the implemented
strategies. The key purpose of the evaluation plan was to provide decision-makers with a tool to
answer basic questions that allow them to judge the merit of each strategy. Additionally, the plan
S-2 ■ �1 W
.vol Fmtlullin
Northern Colorado Truck Mobility Study Executive Summary
Phase M Non-Route-Based Strategies
• serves as an assessment tool to assist decision-makers in the selection or rejection of strategies
for continued implementation.
Data collection was required to conduct the evaluation, including traffic volumes,types of
vehicles, route choice, modeling of environmental factors like noise and emissions, surveys of
businesses and pedestrians, and interviews with local and State transportation officials. Data was
collected at the beginning of implementation, in the middle of the one-year program, and near
the end of the program to aid in assessing change.
The recommended non-route-based marketing strategies were implemented for one year.
Implementation of these strategies began in December 2004 and extended through 2005. The
evaluation plan provided a systematic means to assess the effectiveness of each NRBS in
encouraging truck traffic to use the I-25/I-80 Route instead of the SH I /US 287 Route.
SAA Evaluation Plan Goals and Objectives
The goals of the evaluation plan were developed based on to i s, insights from
planning experts, review of previous studies, and considerat Initiative 200 language.
The process of setting goals solidified expectations and pr guidance for subsequent
work elements, including the evaluation of the selec tr s e development of this
evaluation plan.
• Objectives narrow the focus goal d n o at can be measured and
quantified or qualified to ' ent s met. The ability of a strategy to
achieve the goals and o t e ev t In ide a relative comparison between
NRBS. Objectives wer elo o h g
's
i
These goals and object foe t ilities of NRBS to encourage through truck traffic to
use the I-25/1-80 Route th 1 287 Route and to increase the quality of life in the
downtown area as a re f ed ck traffic. The evaluation plan will assess the
implemented strategies 'the following goals:
• Goal A: To ass hange in truck traffic volume on the SH 14/US 287 Route
• Goal B: To ass the impacts to affected highway systems
• Goal C: To assess the environmental changes on the SH 14/US 287 Route
• Goal D: To assess the impacts to safety along the affected corridors
• Goal E: To assess the economic impacts to corridor business
• Goal F: To assess the cost of providing ongoing efforts to sustain the measured or
anticipated
S.4.2 Evaluation Plan Data Collection
Traffic counts and in-person surveys were collected to evaluate how well the objectives and
P Y J
questions posed in the evaluation were satisfied by the implemented NRBS. The data collected
was used assess the effectiveness of the various NRBS. If the individual strategies were found to
• be effective, an ongoing implementation plan would be developed to outline their continued use.
Strategies that were found to not be valuable would likely be discontinued.
S-3
ni FJIl Crlliu
Executive Summary Northern Colorado Truck Mobility Study
Phase Il:Non-Route-Based Strategies
S.4.3 Survey Results
An important tool used in evaluating the impact of the NRBS program was the use of in-person
surveys. Pedestrians, Fort Collins and Interstate business owners, and truck drivers, were
interviewed with different sets of questions to gather data for various purposes. Responses from
pedestrians and business owners were used to collect information about the public perception
regarding truck volume, impact on business, and pedestrian safety in relation to truck traffic.
Responses from the truck driver surveys were used to assess the impact of strategies individually
and collectively.
The pedestrian surveys were administered during the baseline, interim, and final rounds of data
collection at locations along the SH 14/US 287 Corridor,primarily within the central business
district of Fort Collins. Results show a trend toward greater acceptance, understanding, and
tolerance of trucking. Some major findings resulting from implemented�NRBS include:
• No change in perceived pedestrian safety
• No change in level of pedestrian activity in Fort Co
• Safety concerns shifted from primarily traffic volum at
tion of traffic
volume, speed limits, and bicyclists
• Small increase in tolerance of commercial trucks
The business owner surveys were administered d neand final rounds of
data collection at locations along both the S I an 5/ ridors. Some major
findings are noted below:
• No change in am es sto
• No change in t d mer
• No change in o 1 bu s
• Significant incr in ene
The truck driver surve re In during the baseline and final rounds of data
collection at truck stop I-2 orridor. Some key findings include:
• Safety and time ining factors in route selection
• Increased away f advertising/outreach
• No change in N S awareness
• No change in route selection
S.5 THROUGH TRUCK VOLUMES
The measure of the change in through truck volumes was one of the most important methods for
evaluating the success of the implemented strategies. The data collected through the license plate
survey during daylight hours showed relatively minor changes in the number through trucks
along each route between the baseline and final data collection periods.
As shown in Figure S.2, the majority of through trucks were using the 1-25/1-80 Route. There are
approximately 700 through trucks traveling the SH 14/US 287 Route on a daily basis. This
S-4
ca.oi sn conm=
Northern Colorado Truck Mobility Study Executive Summary
Phase ll: Non-Route-Based Strategies
• number was determined by converting actual 9-hour data to 24-hour volumes and adjusting for
the license plate survey sample size.
Figure S.2
Through Truck Trip Distribution
'-80 Through Trucks Total Trucks Observed
Base Final Base Final
LARAMIE ES 91 107 764 889
................
WB 145 144 868 1,062
CHEYENNE
i.
'.,:, tijmning
i
U$287Through Trucks Total Trucks Observed
• Base Final ease Final
NB 40 .............44_— _ _161__ 222
SB 44 56 186 272
1-25 Through Trucks ITotal Trucks Observed
Bas
License Plate Survey Data Base Final e Final
XX%/XX%=Base Thru Trip Percentage/ NB 131 151 1,132 1,469
Final Thru Trip Percentage SB 189 200 1,004 1,246
Baseline data-1217104
Final data-12/14/05
Data collected from lam to 4pm FL COLLINS
Data includes mid-and lull-size trucks
In comparing the 700 through trucks with the previous Phase I study which projected 600
through trucks traveling the SH 14/US 287 Route daily, the 24 hour through truck volumes are
relatively similar. The previous Phase I study showed approximately 820 total trucks traveling
the US 287 Route in comparison to approximately 1000 in the Phase II study. With the
approximate 18 percent increase in total trucks, from 2001 to 2005, the resulting 15 percent
increase in total through trucks is within reason.
S.6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the negligible impact that the implemented NRBS had on changing the route selection
of truck drivers and the perceived pedestrian safety along the SH 14/US 287 Route, continued
• implementation of the NRBS is not recommended. While the program was successful in
increasing the awareness of the NRBS program and trucking issues with truck drivers,
businesses, and pedestrians, the negligible gains show that the strategies implemented had little
S1 S-5
Executive Summary Northern Colorado Truck Mobility Study
Phase ll:Non-Route-Based Strategies
effect and minimal projected impacts on route selection and pedestrian safety along the
SH 14/US 287 Route. Continued implementation of the strategies is not recommended.
The evaluation of the six project goals established as part of the test plan matrix confirm this
finding.
• Negligible changes in truck traffic volume on the SH 14/US 287 Route
• Negligible changes to the highway system, including roadway and intersection
operations, roadway life cycle costs, and pedestrian safety.
• Negligible changes to noise levels and vehicle emissions.
• No perceived change in pedestrian safety or overall safety in relation to commercial truck
traffic.
• No change in business volume during the one-year program
S.6.1 Next Steps
Given the general results and conclusions from this Phase II: PS!, y ' t, several options are
available to either conclude or carry forward efforts to addre e ' hese options are
described in more detail below:
• Cease all efforts and return unused funds to the ge oter approval required)
• Continue NRBS program (no progress antici he a are now)
• Explore alternate NRBS (a step back req it 1 re and time)
• Revisit alternate routes (NEPA and p r ed)
Cease All Efforts an n u e 6eral Budget
After five years of anal ix s on Collins City Council could choose
to cease any further T ou la ctiv x enditure. Based on the relatively small
potential impact on thr tru min demand of Fort Collins residents, continued
implementation of NR no si t this time. Any desire to reallocate the remaining
funds for purposes oth t pe d in Ballot Initiative 200 will require voter approval to
remand the 1999 mand
Both CDOT and Larim my have stated before the Fort Collins City Council that they are
not interested in partici ting in any further analysis unless all potential alternatives can be
studied. Furthermore, if any type of NEPA analysis is required, the City of Fort Collins does not
have the resources available to fund an EIS.
Continue NRBS Program
The NRBS program could be continued with the hope that longer exposure and increased effort
(more billboards, more direct mailings and outreach, etc.) will improve the results over time.
This option is not recommended.
Explore Alternate NRBS
The selected NRBS strategies could be augmented by revisiting strategies that were previously
eliminated. Adding additional NRBS to those previously tried may lead to greater success, but
will require expenditure of additional resources and time. This option is not recommended.
S-6 W
cr..mr:u car,, ■
Northern Colorado Truck Mobility Study Executive Summary
Phase II:Non-Route-Based Strategies
• Revisit Alternate Routes
The initial route based strategies were considered and ultimately tabled by the Fort Collins City
Council in favor of non-route based strategies back in 2001. Since then several factors and
considerations that went into the original recommendation have changed, including local traffic
growth and the emergence of several other potentially pertinent studies. This, combined with the
minimal success of the NRBS, suggests that alternate routes could be revisited.
As discussed in Phase I of the Northern Colorado Truck Mobility/SH 14 Relocation Study, there
are some specific considerations that were included with the alternate route recommendations.
Given the likely need for funding with a Federal source and the issues with relocating a state
highway, an environmental analysis based on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is
required.
1
Under the NEPA analysis, all reasonable alternatives, in addition t ive alternatives
identified in the Phase I study, must be considered. These alt ]d likely include a no-
action alternative, improvements to the existing route, imp ro en d designation of an
alternate in-city truck route, and potential new routes south oundary requirements
of this study.
There is also an existing conflict between the Ian Iru 200 and the
requirements of NEPA that would need to be a t ity Collins. The NEPA
• requirements state that all reas blery e d yet of Initiative 200
language specifically prec reaps
C o king at any alternatives south of
CR 58. Given these iss in e Id ed to be amended or another
agency would have to e c
PW
•
S-7
mvn osm.
Executive Summary Northam Colorado Truck Mobility Study
Phase m Non-Route-Based Strar e
This page intentionally lenb� A
\ } � �
� \
MW
��r
�»
sa ms]
Northern Colorado Truck Mobility Study Executive Summary
Phase ll: Non-Route-Based Strategies
•
Table of Contents
S.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................S-1
S.1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................S-1
S.1.1 Study Intent and Description...................................................................S-1
S.1.2 Study Process ........................................................................................S-1
S.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS.............................................................................S-2
S.3 NRBS SCREENING ANALYSIS AND IMPLEMENTATION.........................S-1
SA EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTED STRATEGIES......................................S-2
S.4.1 Evaluation Plan Goals and Objectives....................................................S-3
S.4.2 Evaluation Plan Data Collection .............................................................S-3
S.4.3 Survey Results ....................................................... t..............................S-4
S.5 THROUGH TRUCK VOLUMES..................if
.... ................................S-4
S.6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIO ...........................S-5
S.6.1 Next Steps............................................. ...........................S-6
List of Fi ures
Figure S.1 Highway Sign on 1-25 South of R .. ...........................S-2
• Figure S.2 Through Truck T ' Distrib S 5
ist
Table S.1 Annual Av e N e Acc ts.........................................................S-1
•
ATTACHMENT
•
G. Richard Daunt Co-Chair of Council for A•true Bypass
1401- Lindenwood Drive, Fort Collins,Colorado 811524
Tel/Fax : 970.484.0974
Mark Jackson. ART
I.ranstwrtation Planning Manager
'_1? North Mason Surd. PO )_fox i80
Fort Collins. Co 904;22-11W) 1-chnran 17. 2006
Re liallol Initiative '_00.November 1999
Phase IT: Non Route-Hased Straleeics (KRRSt
1'cceative Sunman - I chfuan 2006
])car Mr. Jackson.
I appreciate (he time and ellirt %nu wok it, bring um up to date on the Pharr 11 Study that
is going to he presented o) file Cil% Council of the I'chruarc 28. 2006 N ork Study Session. I have
shared %our comment,and the draft tit the I XCcutivc Sunman tl•S) veidr Professor Dr. Maur%
Albertson_. Co-('hair Suede Anderson i>appawntic out ol'town. Dr. :Mherison ofdne CST .
Ci%iI iAwincenw, Ikparlmcnl hasconti»uall%. >)ncc 1998, assisted the lisp:us Council wish
I lit
lma% planning optinns, cast csi mating-and tick sune%s
• Our commons are as litlkms.
1. 1 he present City Council v%hich has on1% Nato Carr} over members front 1999 should
he briefed in the FS -Introduction'that liallot Inniafi%e 200 tiff 2001 came about because.since
1990. (he City Comrcil(s) ha%e mice t 1991 and 19991 Noted do%%n recommendations that Vine
Drive become a truck route. Neither time that the City Council voted on a truck route has the
relocation of State l lighway (Sit 14) been a I-actor since CDO I has not been a party to the
decision process, nor has there been a NEP;\ Stuck performed h% CDO1'. The Cili/ens Ibr a I rue
Bypass circulated a petition tin-a public cote in order to prc%eni any further disruption to the Inns
range planning fir the I lispanic Neighborhood on (his issue. ( DO I Dircclor font Norton has
publicly questioned the Vine Uric consideration h% the ON Council because"therc are federal
reculauons against such a highway location."(Norton%vas referring to file proposal location
through the historic I lispimic Neighborhood, aril the FFI WA F. 0. 12998 which prohibits
adcerwk alliectimg minority neighborhoods)
Copics of the wording in 111200- Sections I thru : should be made available do the
Council members Ibr their reference. along with subsequent City Council actions instructing the
City Manager to work with the t.arinter County Commissioners in order to cam out the mandate
of 131200_ It is our understanding that as of this date that in lieu ofannual meetings there have
been two meetings which -t.t tint. of file ('fly Manager simple reported on file progress of the "Non
Route Based Strategics-)as opposed to a lbrnnrl first step request by file City Council to the
•
Page.^ - Mark Jackson
County Commissioner....... to agree that a truck route is necessan........... We would also su first
that a copy ol'CDO l 's letter.dated March 13. 2002(mailed to Dunn with copies to Cif%
officials)he distributed to Council members in order to shots CDO'l's Position Ain the procedures
required for II NFPA Stuck process.
3. The F.S. and tlx: NIBS Repcxl should include an updated review by the Citt
Altornet Sleve Roy on the Language of 131200. It is important whether his lepal opinion as stated
at a uteeling March Id.2002 with the Mayor.CA\ ktanager. Steve Roy. Maury Albertson.and
Dick Dunn is the still same. 1 lis opinion as stated in a memo of that date ttas"that as lone as
CDO t' \cars responsible fir the study and no('iK funds were invukcd the\ (tile City Council
could probahh prKecd hilt i!the VITA Study should recommend Vine Drivc that ttttuld
probahh be(he end of the process.- An up to date opinion by the City Auorncy would he
helptid to the City ( ouncil ntcndters. to the County Commissioners.and the public. Considcring
the opinions expressed by the CDO f Director and planners at the CDO I Regional office- it
>cents unlike]\that 1•.ast Vine I)rixc:old the I lispanic neighborhoods would be the priority
>chcelion of a I EPA Study. I'lus, since(lie 1998 Balloffct Sludy. it district court dceimon on
hi_htcm and Clean ait tttadd probably preclude a Vine Drive truck route sincc otcr 1 urn
1iIAmIjcs .could he atlectcd by the truck and autonxdtilc rntis;ions, plus the cxcc,.ivr noi,c
pollution.
4. 'file CiK('ouncil should he made utcarc that the G:ue I livhw:n I ' Countn Ruad 58
teas nut evaluated in the final Ballotlet 1998 Sludy pr.scnied its the( ily Council and lit the
public. yet it teas a route that ntcf the guidelines ofIIkk'A H.O. 12898. came closest lu ntrciing
CDO I mileage requirements litr ttety routes.and ttas one of the most economical rallies
accnrdinL In Ur. Alhertson-s oust studies using ('I)()'I unit cost rstimatcs.
5. In the \RBS I-.xeculivc Santtncry tvc thought there were btu omissions: Onc, no
reference to the present increased truck fraffic through residential neighborhoods on Fast Vine
Drive. When there was a request due to the increased truck traffic by the neighborhood to Post
signs Willi weight limits, similar to the signs on West Vine Drive, the sign, were rentcwcd on
West Vine and nothing changed (tit Fast Vine. including no enfireentent: I tvo. the _1006 NRBS
L.S. report cilcs the Ateratge Annnal Daily -fraflic(AADT) hilt dues not ,ixe;I comparahlc
relerencc to the 5(Nxl vehicles(9(30 semi-trucks)per day through- traffic (no- stop in Port
Collins)noted in the 1998 traffic study and quoted in the Coloradoan Newspaper- We are a little
concentcd that the 2005 study used a 9- hour window of collecting data and and then converted
that infomndion to it 24-hour volume count. -I-his data varies considerahh liorn the actual 24-
hour survey completed in 1999.
6. Alter t'evietving the report's recommendations lir`Next Steps". we would add. under
"Revisit Alternate Routes". that the City('ouncil consider. "Formally approaching C1)01'
and the Larimer County Commissioners with the request that consideration be given to
relocating State Highway 14 as a vehicle hypass mule on the basis of a NF.PA Studv by
CDOT that will conform to the City of Fort Collins Ballot Initiative 2041,as passed by 65%
• Vage ; - Mark Jackson
of the voters in tile1999 city Election. If approval is obtained then the balance of the Iruck
route funds (approx.S1.7 million) be earmarked for acquiring right-of-way and planning."
there is certainly precedent al Rerlhoud and Lamar lily CDO I'to find fix preselectcd truck
b%pass routes- Actually. had the ('it% Council voled approval in 1999 Air the Vine Drive truck
route it would have been an action taken prior w the NITA Swdy and prior to any official
in%olverticnt by CDO'l in the process. It is certainly"reasonable"trader the NITA anal)sis
guidelines In request a truck b}pass route that is located outside of a designated Urban(irowth
Area. If this ell'on is lunrtally presented and furnially turned dot+n, it %%ould then scetn to fulfill
the intent of Ballot Inili:niye )00 and then he appropriate lur the City Council to explore the
other rec nurnendauions liar-'Next Steps" as presently outlined in the-'iaecutiye `ltllltlnar)
We have it prohlcnt wilh the final paragraph of tltc Executive Suntlllary in that it
presupposes that the citizen's %otc to keep truck bypass routes with all of its attendant pollution
and safel\ issues away Ifum population Centers as not being"rrasonahlc" - While the NI-TA
analysis requires-'reasonable adtematiyes' , it has never mtluired that all allcrnaliccs he studied.
If the 1999( i I v Council vote had reconuncnded Vine I)ri\c as the truck route(prior it a MTA
Stud)I.there is a stroll.! possihilil\ 111:11 the xl•1';\ Stud% would htnc li)tlnd that it was nol a
"rcasnnablc ahanativc.. bec:wsc it was in conllicl \\ilh 1 1 M A I AY 1189X as regard, minority
nciphhorhoods and in contlict %cilh the :dixemculionrd district court ruling on pollution. \\c \%ill
never kno%% unless the ('ir Council takes a positive altitude ill rotes to move this question
lort%ard as requested by the \triers in the 1999 election-
• \\"e hope these tunuuats and requcNls are helpful and %%ill rc%;ci\e your cuusidrraliun in
the final NBRS Report and the liseculi\c Sumner. It condones to he our hope that the City
Counols 1998 eyxeNsed concerns(Coloradoan Vewpaper)lix the need ofa truck bvp:nN ruule
that N%ould resolve public health and safety issues rinsed h% the vehicular through- traffic with
in the cite,can still he successfully implemented. We appreciate .\our in\ilation to sit in during
the Council's Work Session. It is our plan to accept and attend. II you have any questions about
dtc above. please call.
Rcspectl fly submitted.
s
G. Richard Dunn. Dr. Maur•Albertson- P.L.
Co-Chair Council lox a I rue llypass Colorado State l lni%ersih (Retired)
TO: 970-4X4-0974 'I el: 9711-491-461
•