HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/10/2009 - TRANSPORTATION UPDATE, PART II: BUDGET CHALLENGES DATE : February 10 , 2009 WORK SESSION ITEM
STAFF : Jeff Scheick FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Mark Jackson
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Transportation Update, Part II : Budget Challenges, Basic Operations and Maintenance Needs .
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the second of three scheduled transportation-related conversations with City Council over
the course of 2008 and 2009 . The first discussion served as a broad overview of the City' s
Transportation services, celebrated successes and challenges in 2008 and previewed upcoming 2009
projects . Staff highlighted Federal and State transportation funding declines, and touched on how
these funding shortfalls are affecting Fort Collins .
The intent of this second presentation is to ( 1 ) further clarify how declining revenues and rising
expenses are impacting local transportation funds and reserves ; and (2) focus specifically on how
core Transportation Operations and Maintenance services currently operate within available
resources. The third discussion, scheduled for July 14, 2009, will focus on capital project needs and
available revenues, the scheduled update of the Transportation Master Plan, and a presentation of
various scenarios as to how additional funds could best be distributed for the community ' s
transportation related benefit.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1 . Does City Council concur with Transportation staff s prioritization of available resources?
2 . For the next Transportation work session, scheduled for July 14, 2009 , what other topics
beyond those scheduled does Council wish to address?
BACKGROUND
What are we hearing from the community?
The results of the 2008 Fort Collins Citizen Survey were released in mid-January. Citizens
responding to the survey gave very high marks to the ease of traveling by bicycle, the pedestrian
friendliness of Fort Collins, and overall street maintenance. Ease of driving, traffic congestion, and
ease of traveling by transit were rated below average . Respondents from around the community
supported seeking additional revenues rather than further reduce key core services, including
transportation. The economy and transportation were also the two highest needs identified for more
effort by respondents .
February 10 , 2009 Page 2
What Should Our Priority Be?
At a work session held on December 16, 20081 City Council asked staff how they would prioritize
expenditure of available Transportation revenues . Planning, Development and Transportation
Director Jeff Scheick noted that ultimate prioritization is City Council ' s purview, weighing the
importance of each service for the community good. Scheick added that staff generally supports
community safety and maintenance of existing investments and infrastructure as its highest
priorities. Expansion of facilities, infrastructure, programs, and services would then come next as
funding opportunities present themselves . Based on staff s previous recommendation, the focus of
this work session discussion is on basic operations and maintenance services and needs .
Transportation Funding : Operations and Maintenance versus Capital Projects
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) refers to the costs necessary to deliver services, and maintain
infrastructure, hardware, and bus rolling stock. The graphic below illustrates the difference between
operations, maintenance, and capital projects .
Transportation Funding
• Streets, Bikeways
• Intersections
• Bridges
• Medians
• Sidewalks
• Parking lots and structures
Capital • Transit Equipment
• Transfort Operations
• Parking Operations Street Pavement
• Street Sweeping Maintenance
• Pothole Patching Equipment
• Planning Maintenance
• Enforcement Vehicle
• Development Review Operations Maintenance • Maintenance
• Engineering Signal Controls,
signs and
pavement markings
February 10 , 2009 Page 3
The Transportation Funding Outlook for Fort Collins
Transportation-specific revenues have dropped steadily over the past three years . While many of
Fort Collins ' General Fund revenue sources are staying reasonably healthy as a result of Northern
Colorado ' s economic health compared to the rest of the country, the City' s Transportation revenue
sources are dramatically impacted by the national and state economic conditions . Motor fuel tax
revenues steadily declined since 2006 . With the high price of fuel in 2008 , and the subsequent
national economic crisis, people are driving less, cutting back on discretionary travel, and using
transit services more. Purchase of new automobiles slowed significantly. In Fort Collins, auto sales
have declined 12% in the past year and have declined 18% in Colorado as a whole. Nationally,
gasoline stations sales were down 35 . 5 % since December 2007 and motor vehicle and parts dealer
sales were down 22 .4% from last year. Approximately 9% of transportation revenues come from
fuel tax and 7% of revenues come from other auto related revenues .
At the same time, today' s newer automobiles are more fuel efficient than ever before . As a result,
the traditional automobile-related transportation revenue sources such as the motor fuel tax and
vehicle registration fees fell off drastically in 2008 . Adding even further to the challenge is the fact
that in 2007 , Larimer County declared that it will no longer provide approximately $ 1 . 1 million
dollars in Road and Bridge Levy funds to Fort Collins .
The result is that the forecast Transportation revenue levels are not as high as projected and are not
expected to meet appropriated 2008-2009 spending levels. Staff worked diligently to reduce costs
and backfill as much as possible with outside grant and program funds available from federal, state,
and regional sources . While successful in finding some outside funds, they are not sufficient or even
intended to cover the decline in traditional revenues sources . It is important to note that these grant
funds are usually designated for specific contracted projects or programs, and cannot be transferred
to operational and maintenance needs . As a result, Transportation has expended undesignated
reserves to fill this gap . Without additional revenues or continued spending of reserves designated
for other future needs, Transportation will be forced to look at significant cuts to core operational,
maintenance, and programmatic services in 2009 and beyond.
Addressing the Funding Shortfall
Transportation and Transfort staff are taking a hard look at current operations and making certain
they are getting the most out of the currently available resources . Staff continues to look for every
opportunity to bring in outside funds from private, federal, state, and regional grant and funding
program opportunities . In 2008 alone, Transportation and Transfort staff have been successful in
bringing in over $ 12 .2 million dollars in outside funds from grants, state and federal awards, and
Federal Transit Administration funding sources. These monies have been used for projects like the
Mason Corridor, West Harmony Improvements Project, and FC Bikes . (Note : there is another
$ 11 . 18 million dollars identified in the 2008 President ' s recommended budget for initial phase of
the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit project.) Many of these grants and outside awards fund
programs for alternative modes and other programs which were unable to be funded through
traditional general fund sources.
Much has been said lately about potential Federal Economic Stimulus Package funds .
Transportation and Transfort staff are working closely with Colorado Department of Transportation
staff in anticipation of federal stimulus funds being channeled through the State. Staff is, at the
February 10 , 2009 Page 4
same time, working to develop a prioritized list of "shovel ready" projects for subsequent stimulus
efforts, or if funds make it to the local level. Note : as stated above, while receiving the outside
funds is helpful to move forward specific projects and programs, it cannot cover the shortfall
of ongoing revenues meant for operations and maintenance.
Transportation and Transfort Operations and Maintenance Overview
Operations and Maintenance refer only to those services and programs that protect the City' s
investment in current infrastructure and transit services. As explained above, it does not focus on
new construction projects or deficiencies to the road and bus systems . O&M is taking care of what
we have . Budget constraints and cutbacks since 2005 have resulted in reduced levels of O&M
services being offered. Pavement Management, bridge repair and replacement, sidewalk repair and
improvements, street sweeping and neighborhood traffic calming have all been significantly scaled
back. Transportation and Transfort still provide many core services at acceptable levels, but are
faced with even further cuts as funding sources dwindle. The following pages describe in depth the
current situation of Transportation and Transfort operations and maintenance services and identified
needs .
Engineering Operations and Maintenance Challenges
• Street Pavement Maintenance
There have been many discussions in the past few years highlighting funding shortfalls for the Street
Pavement Maintenance Program. Following an independent audit in 2007 , it was determined that
a $4 million annual funding shortfall threatened the ability of the program to adequately maintain
Fort Collins ' investment in streets . That number has now grown to an estimated $ 5 .2 million annual
shortfall because of the increasing cost of materials used in the program.
The Street Pavement Program funds major maintenance for the 500+ miles of streets in the City. The
City ' s goal is to maintain the system with an average ` good ' or Level of Service (LOS) "B"
condition. If renovation of a road in "good" condition costs $ 1 , that same road in "poor" condition
will cost $4 to $ 5 to renovate .
100 —
85 Exc $ 1 M for
Good LOS B renovation here
70
Fair LOS C
55
40Poor LOS D $4 -5M for
Very Poor renovation
• here
0
5 YEARS 10 YEARS 15 YEARS 20 YEARS 25YEARS
A LOS `B" (good) condition is described as follows : This is a high level of service in which
pavements are in good condition. Few deficiencies are present; the roads are providing good ride
February 10 , 2009 Page 5
quality, low vehicle operating costs , and minor signs of deterioration with few safety-related issues .
Preventive and corrective maintenance activities can be used to keep the average network condition
maintained.
Fort Collins ' current pavement condition is at the Level of Service `B . " In order to keep the system
in this desired condition, a substantial infusion of money is needed by 2010 and beyond. The 1 /4
cent sales tax for Street Maintenance was renewed in 2005 and sunsets in 2015 . This tax currently
nets approximately $5 . 6 million per year. Without additional resources in 2010 and beyond, the
network condition will continue to decline below a Level of Service ` B . "
Average Pavement Condition Over Time
85
LOS B ( Target LOS )
_
0
0
U
= 70
y LEVEL OF
m SERVICE
( LOS)
CU
LOS A 85 - 100
LOSB 70 - 85
TARGET LOS LOSC 55 - 70 LOS C
LOS D 40 - 55
LOS F 0 - 40
55
2006 2007 2008
In 2008 , asphalt material prices increased over 30% between February and August. A slight
decrease of about 2% was seen in October. Unfortunately, asphalt prices did not follow the decrease
in fuel prices . The oil supply has and continues to be diverted from asphalt production to diesel fuel
production. This diversion limits the availability of asphalt, and keeps asphalt prices high. Because
of this, Council included an additional $ 1 .2 million in the 2009 budget for street pavement repairs .
Staff is currently evaluating the annual budget needs for 2010 and beyond as a result of the
fluctuating costs of asphalt and fuel. To keep pace with increasing costs and sustain the City ' s
pavement condition "good" and within Level of Service "B", street pavement maintenance will need
an additional $5 .2 million/year.
February 10 , 2009 Page 6
Street Pavement Maintenance
On-going Annual Shortfall $ 5 ,2001000
• Bridge Maintenance Needs
Fort Collins has 274 bridges of varying size throughout the community. Some are in relatively good
condition but many are aging and in dire need of repair or replacement. 34 bridges are currently
"deficient" ( 12 . 5 %) and 50 bridges will be past their design service life of 50 years by 2013 ( 18%) .
Two of these bridges have failed over the last five years (Mulberry at City Park and East Prospect
near I-25) .
Functionally obsolete bridges have unacceptable physical restrictions and do not have the ability to
deal with the traffic conditions . 50 of the 274 bridges will be older than their design service life of
50 years by 2013 . There are also 8 scour critical bridges . These bridges are at risk from the soil
around the footings washing away due to flood events . These at-risk bridges are not in need of
immediate closing, but they do require frequent and more detailed monitoring to avoid failure .
Previous efforts to develop and implement a systematic program for maintaining and replacing aging
bridges in Fort Collins have not been funded as part of the Budgeting for Outcomes process .
Currently, approximately $300,000 in General Fund dollars are available annually to pay for:
• Urgent and critical repair
• Emergency repairs
• Bridge inspections
• An average of one bridge replacement about every 8 years
It is estimated that $3 . 7 million annually is needed for bridge maintenance, including safety
improvement, repair, and replacing aging bridges . An additional investment of $3 .4 million per year
would allow us to replace the structurally deficient bridges over four years . While bridge problems
are often unseen and easy to overlook, the risks of failure are significant.
Bridge Maintenance
On-going Annual Shortfall (four year) $3 ,4001000
• Sidewalk Maintenance Needs
Funding for the Pedestrian Access Program ended in 2005 . The program incorporated a "50150"
cost share program to assist property owners in paying for necessary repairs, provided funding for
installation of pedestrian access ramps at intersections, repaired sidewalks damaged by city-owned
street trees, and constructed sidewalks in areas where none previously existed. The program also
partnered with the Street Pavement Maintenance program to repair sidewalks adjacent scheduled
street repairs, systematically eliminating all hazards in a concentrated area. If there had been funds
to continue the program, a comprehensive, city-wide survey was proposed to identify areas with
non-existent, inadequate, or hazardous sidewalks, and to make corrections to those areas on a
proactive basis .
February 10 , 2009 Page 7
Although maintenance of the sidewalk is technically the property owner' s responsibility, the City
is responsible for enforcement. The many miles of sidewalk in the city present a tremendous
liability to the organization. Once identified, the hazards must be immediately addressed in the form
of a temporary asphalt wedge or concrete grinding until permanent repairs can be arranged.
Administration of the program and these types of temporary repairs were previously funded under
the Pedestrian Access Program.
Recently, Council has heard concerns and requests to allow people in wheelchairs to use bike lanes .
This request is due in part due to the perceived deteriorating condition of sidewalks which provide
discomfort and safety risks for these users .
Historically, the Pedestrian Access budget has been approximately $400,000/year. Staff
recommends that this amount be considered in the upcoming BFO/Budget preparation process to
address immediate requests and to complete the condition survey so an accurate "roadmap" and cost
estimate of the city-wide needs can be established.
Sidewalk Maintenance
On-going Annual Shortfall $4001000
Traffic Operations and Maintenance Challenges
Traffic congestion is a major livability issue for Fort Collins citizens . Much of the congestion
experienced by users of any urban transportation system is due to a combination of traffic volumes
and intersection controls . Similarly, traffic signals are responsible for much of the excess fuel
consumption and vehicle emissions in urban areas . Traffic accidents are also a concern at signalized
intersections where many of the most severe crashes occur. The need for good traffic signal
operations cannot be overstated. City Traffic Operations staff is utilizing the existing operational
budget and funding sources to do work in four key areas related to traffic signals :
• Traffic Program Management
This is the foundation for successful traffic signal operations . Program management includes
developing an operational philosophy, setting goals, identifying issues, and overseeing
implementation. Program Management is funded out of our existing budget. No additional funding
is necessary at this time . Staffing levels are adequate .
• Traffic Monitoring and Data Collection
The City has an ongoing data collection and traffic monitoring program. Data is collected using
both portable traffic count equipment as well as permanent count stations that feed real time
information back to a Traffic Operations Center for traffic monitoring. Current staffing levels are
adequate for Traffic Monitoring and Data Collection. However, it would be beneficial to the
community to improve real time traffic monitoring capabilities . Enhanced capabilities would allow
the development of real time performance measures that could be used to document the effectiveness
of our transportation system. The City has a $220,000 Federal Grant through the Congestion
Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program to provide some of this improved functionality.
However, additional funding will be required to develop full coverage citywide . It is estimated that
February 10 , 2009 Page 8
approximately $ 500,000 will be required to provide real-time monitoring of traffic throughout the
City on all major arterial streets . At this time, there is no funding identified to provide this
additional service
• Traffic Signal Timing
A major reevaluation of the City ' s traffic signal timing is underway. Through the project, new
timing plans will be developed for all of the City ' s main arterial roadways . Emphasis is placed on
minimizing stops and consequently reducing vehicle emissions .
The project is scheduled for completion by the end of the year. Harmony east of College Avenue,
Timberline, and South Lemay will be the first streets to be retimed this spring. Over the summer,
new timing plans will be implemented on Taft Hill, East Mulberry, East Prospect and North Lemay.
In the fall, College and Shields will be retimed. In addition, connecting plans as appropriate will be
developed on other east-west roads, including the remainder of Prospect, Horsetooth, Drake,
Elizabeth, Laurel and West Mulberry. Throughout the project, as corridors are retimed, before and
after travel time runs will be conducted on each street to document the benefits of the project. Staff
will share the results of those evaluations with City Council as they are complete .
This timing project is funded using Federal CMAQ money. No additional funds are anticipated for
signal timing. Staffing levels are adequate to implement the new timing plans and then maintain and
update them as necessary.
• Signal Hardware
The City has made a significant investment in the traffic signal system in Fort Collins. The total
value of the signal system including signal poles, signal controllers, vehicle detectors, the signal
communication system, and the video monitoring system in the Traffic Operations Center is
estimated to be approximately $ 13 ,000,000.
Various funding sources were used for the initial installation of this system, including State and
Federal money. However, these funding sources do not provide money for the required ongoing
maintenance of the system and replacement of equipment that reaches its serviceable life . While
much of the signal maintenance required is covered under our current annual maintenance budget
of approximately $700,000 , there are ongoing operating and maintenance expenses that currently
have no funding. Those items include :
• Maintenance of the video display wall at the Traffic Operations Center
• Replacement of traffic signal controllers (boxes that relay signals to traffic lights)
• Replacement of closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras
• Communication system completion and repairs
• Vehicle detection system upgrades and repairs
• LED signal head replacements
It is estimated that it will require about another $200,000/year to maintain or replace this equipment
as necessary. This funding is vital for the continued operation of our existing system.
February 10 , 2009 Page 9
• Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation
One of the most common concerns expressed by citizens is about the impacts of traffic on the
quality of life in their neighborhoods. There are many streets in Fort Collins that serve dual roles;
they are required to carry some traffic while also serving as neighborhood streets for adjacent
residents. Needless to say, the two roles are in direct conflict.
The City offers various educational programs to raise awareness and thereby reduce speeding.
These programs are of limited effectiveness, though. Police enforcement can also be provided but
this is also limited because of other urgent demands on the Police Department' s resources .
The most effective approach to mitigating the impacts of vehicular traffic in residential areas is
through the use of physical traffic calming devices such as speed humps, medians, choke points,
aesthetic features, etc . There is no budget now for these types of devices . Multiple devices are often
necessary to reduce speeds along an entire route since the effects of the devices have a limited range.
It is not uncommon to see costs as high as $ 1 00,000/mile or more to mitigate traffic in residential
areas . Staff recommends a small to mid-size pool of funds ($ 100 ,00 to $200,000) to begin
addressing these problems .
• Pedestrian Crossing/School Safety Projects
2008 Citizen Survey respondents rated Fort Collins below the norm compared to other Front Range
Cities for ease of walking. One area of concern is the need for additional safe pedestrian/school
crossing locations . On arterial streets this generally means the need for some sort of protected
crossing with a pedestrian refuge median and/or pedestrian actuated flashing warning lights or a
traffic signal.
At this time there is no money budgeted to provide these types of crossings. The typical cost of such
a crossing averages around $75 ,000 . To meet the demand for such crossings funding for one or two
per year would likely be necessary
Traffic Operations
One Time Needs $ 500,000
Traffic Monitoring and Data Collection
Signal Hardware Maintenance
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation
Pedestrian/School Crossing Improvements
On-going Annual Shortfall
Signal Hardware Maintenance $200,000
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation $200,000
Pedestrian/School Crossing Improvements $ 150,000
February 10 , 2009 Page 10
Transfort Operating and Maintenance Needs
Transfort ' s annual operating budget is approximately $ 8 . 5 million, with approximately 23 % ($2
million) from federal grants . The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides a grant (Section
5307) under the Urbanized Area Formula Program to finance transit capital projects . Capital projects
include both facilities and equipment (buses) for use in transit. The same grant dollars are also
eligible (in urbanized areas under 200,000 in population) to finance some transit-related operating
costs .
Transit Operation and Maintenance Revenue
2008
Transit Fares and Ads,
S1 ,024 ,032 , 12 %
General Fund, Misc ., $ 163 ,000 , 2%
$ 51418 ,062 , 64 %
Federal $ $ ,
$ 117631990 , 21 %
Other Agencies,
$ 575500 , 1 %
Total = $ 8 , 426 , 584
Over the last 10 years, as local dollars became restricted and have failed to keep pace with expenses,
Transfort began using the entire grant to cover operating expenses to maintain service levels and
capital replacement was delayed. FTA has recognized certain operating expenses as capital,
including vehicle and building maintenance and 10% of the Americans with Disabilities paratransit
service costs . In addition, FTA approved a cost allocation formula that allows a percentage of
overhead to be "capitalized. "
Transfort staff is therefore able to legitimately use the entire annual Section 5307 capital grant to
cover operating expenses because the local dollars were insufficient to cover the existing service
levels . Bottom line, the federal dollars that are intended to cover vehicle replacement, facility
upgrades, and equipment replacement are instead being used to maintain vehicles and transit
facilities and other operating related expenses . Approximately $ 1 . 6 million of the FTA capital grant
is used annually to cover the operating shortfall.
February 10 , 2009 Page 11
• Transfort Fleet Replacement and Maintenance Facility Challenges
Transfort applies annually for FTA Section 5309 grant funding, which is an earmark for capital
expenses, buses, and bus facilities. Although Transfort applies for $ 5 million each year, (the
maximum request allowed through our state transit coalition) they receive approximately $ 500,000
- $ 600,000 annually.
FTA guidelines define the useful life of buses is as follows :
Large, heavy-duty transit buses (approximately 35 -40 feet, and articulated buses) : at least
12 years of service or an accumulation of at least 500,000 miles .
Medium-size, light-duty transit buses (paratransit vehicles) : 5 years or 150 , 000 miles .
Currently, 17 of Transfort ' s 30 heavy-duty buses are 12+ years old or exceed 500,000 miles .
Transfort is purchasing two buses with the Section 5309 funds, which are on order with a 2009
delivery date. The table below represents Transfort ' s heavy-duty bus replacement schedule and
annual funding shortfalls :
Transfort Heavy Duty Bus Replacement Schedule with No Service Growth
2008 2009 2010 2011 * 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total Active Fleet 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
(No Service Growth )
# of Buses that 12 17 18 16 10 9 8 13 12 12 11 10 21
Need Replacement
Buses Replaced 0 2 2 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
% of Fleet Past 40% 57% 60% 53% 33% 30% 27% 43% 40% 40% 37% 33% 70%
Useful
Life
Annual Funding $4 .52 $ 1 .98 $ 1 .25 $4.50 $- $- $- $- $- $0 .58 $- $- $8. 12
Needed (Millions)
Annual Funding $- $0.79 $0.83 $4.50 $0.46 $0.48 $0 .51 $0.53 $0.56 $0.58 $0.61 $0.64 $0.68
Available (Millions)
Cumulative
Fundi g $4.52 $5.71 $6. 13 $6. 13 $5.67 $5. 19 $4.68 $4. 15 $3.60 $3.60 $2.98 $2.34 $9.78
Shortfall (Mi
*6 BRT Vehicles purchased in 2008 dollars from FTA Small Starts Grant
Although Transfort has reduced the need for a full Dial-A-Ride (DAR) fleet (light-duty transit bus)
due to reduced service levels and outside contracting approximately, currently 11 of 13 DAR buses
are 5+ years and exceed 150 ,000 miles .
The need to replace buses that are past their useful life has a significant impact on annual
maintenance expenses. A new bus will on average cost nearly $20,000 less to maintain annually
compared to a bus past their useful life .
The 20% local match to replace nine vehicles is available through Building on Basics, but unless
Transfort can begin using the full federal grant $ 1 . 6-2 .0 million annually for vehicle and facility
February 10 , 2009 Page 12
needs, they are unable to maintain their capital needs . As stated earlier, these funds are currently
being used to help offset the shortfall in operations revenues. In 2009, Transfort has accumulated
a $ 5 . 7 million deficit in identified vehicle replacement needs .
Transfort has additional capital needs outside of fleet replacement, including an expansion of its
Fleet Maintenance Facility. The project includes final design and construction for the expansion of
the Transfort Maintenance Facility located on Portner Road. The expansion is necessary due to
existing physical constraints and future local and regional transit service expansion plans . The only
existing funds available to expand the Maintenance Facility are the Federal Grants outlined above,
that are currently being utilized for operating expenses and fleet replacement. Transfort is actively
pursuing additional grants to fund the critically needed expansion of the Maintenance Facility (est.
$ 12 million), but has been unsuccessful so far.
The operation of Transfort is strong with increasing ridership and efficiencies. The 2008 end of third
quarter ridership was 1 ,354,379 ; up 14 .4% over 2007 . Passengers per revenue hour are up 10% ; with
26 . 6 passengers per hour compared to 24. 1 in 2007
Transfort
One Time Needs
Maintenance Facility $ 12001000
Transfort Vehicle Replacement $ 517101000
On-going Annual Shortfall $ 196001000
• Expanded Transit Services
Additional Transfort services and programs could be provided if additional funds were available.
Future expansion in accordance with City Plan policies T-2 . 1 through T-2 . 3 will be discussed in
more depth during the update to the Transit Strategic Plan.
Streets Operation and Maintenance Needs
The City of Fort Collins Streets Department is responsible for minor street repair and maintenance
(potholes and crack seals), snow removal, street sweeping, alley and median maintenance . The need
to maintain and restore pavement and concrete is important in order to protect the public ' s
investment and ensure the traveling public is able to fully utilize the facility. Citizens expect smooth
roads, pedestrian walkways, and bike lanes . As mentioned earlier in the Street Pavement
Maintenance section, $ 1 spent proactively on preventative maintenance will cost $4-$5 more if such
maintenance is postponed.
• Key Program Need : Street Temporary Repairs (potholes and crack seal)
The Streets Department maintains over 1 ,779 lane miles in the street maintenance program.
Currently, there are 2000-2500 permanent patches and 5000-6000 temporary repairs made each year
to address potholes, depressions, severe localized cracking, and rutting. If corrected right away in
isolated areas, proper pavement maintenance can prevent further deterioration from spreading,
saving significant dollars in future road rehabilitation costs . An additional patch crew could better
February 10 , 2009 Page 13
and more completely address these pavement failures by replacing all of the temporary repairs with
deep-strength permanent patches. Cost for this program improvement would be an estimated
$230 ,000 per year.
• Key Program Need : Repair Broken Concrete Caused by Snow Removal Operations
Concrete damage to sidewalks and curbs as a result of snow removal operations and repairs are
necessary for many areas of the community. Most of these damaged areas occurred during the
2006-2007 winter season. It is estimated that currently there exists $ 160,000-200,000 worth of
concrete repairs necessary due to snow removal damage . There are not sufficient resources to make
these needed repairs . An additional $40,000 yearly is needed to keep up with repairs .
• Key Program Need : Perform Chip-Seal Operations in Alleys
The Streets Department currently maintains 240 alley blocks . Some of the alleys experience a high
volume of traffic from trash trucks and private vehicles . Adopting a chip-seal program in alleys ( 10
alleys each year) would improve dust control and further extend the life of an alley by seven years .
Cost to implement this program would be an additional $ 30,000 per year.
• Key Program Need : Increase Snow Plow Equipment to Maintain Service Levels
Within the last 10 years, Fort Collins has seen a 31 % increase in the number of designated snow
route miles to maintain. In order to maintain the level of service citizens expect, additional
equipment and personnel are needed to support snow removal operations . This is a necessary cost
to ensure safe roads for the traveling public . With more road miles to maintain and no additional
equipment, it takes plows longer to cover designated zones and snow removal is not as effective or
complete .
Snow Route Miles Total Snow Plow Miles per Plow
Trucks
1999 412 19 21
Current Conditions 540 20 27
With Additional 540 23 23 . 5
Resources
Cost to meet this need would be an additional $633 ,000 for three snow plow trucks, and an
additional $30,000 per year for maintenance and labor.
• Key Program Need : Handicap Ramp and Pedestrian Refuge Snow Plowing
Handicapped ramps and center island pedestrian refuge areas along main arterial streets are
frequently plowed over by City snow removal operations. Heavy mounds of snow that are piled on
sidewalks and ramps create unsafe obstacles for pedestrians and make it exceedingly difficult for
those with disabilities to traverse. The Streets Department' s current sidewalk snow removal
machines are not able to clear sidewalk ramps and key areas sufficiently. Over the last couple of
years Streets has been contacted frequently by citizens with disabilities who want this issue
February 10 , 2009 Page 14
addressed. The Streets Department needs to contract specialized snow removal equipment for these
key areas . Cost to make this improvement would be an additional $20 ,000 per year.
Streets
One Time Needs
Increase Snow Plow Equipment $6335000
On-going Annual Shortfall
Temporary Repairs (potholes and crack seal) $2301000
Chip Seal Operations in Alleys $309000
Snow Plow Increase O&M $301000
HC Ramp and Ped Refuge Snow Removal $20,000
Repair Broken Concrete $409000
Parking Services Operating and Maintenance Needs
The Parking Services Department manages on- and off-street public parking resources in downtown,
mid-town, and in the neighborhoods around downtown and the Colorado State University campus .
The downtown area includes 2 public parking structures, 7 public surface lots and 3 , 149 on-street
spaces . The primary purpose for Parking Services is to promote parking space turnover to support
and help sustain the economic vitality of downtown. Parking Services is also charged with
providing alternatives for long-term parkers (primarily downtown employees) through the sale of
surface lot permits and parking structure permits .
The Parking Services budget is approximately $ 1 . 8 million annually. Of that amount, about 89%
is revenue from fees and fines generated within Parking Services . The remainder comes from
transportation common revenues in the Transportation Fund. Currently, there are no unfunded needs
on the "operations" side of Parking Services (enforcement, permit sales, booth attendants, etc .) but
there are unfunded needs on the maintenance side . The maintenance budget for the Civic Center
Parking Structure is well funded through an agreement with Larimer County, but there is no
designated funding source for major maintenance of the Old Town Parking Structure or the
downtown surface lots managed by Parking Services . The annual shortfall in these two areas is
estimated to be $ 110,000 . Additionally, if new public parking resources are added in the future,
such as a new structure built in partnership with a downtown hotel, the operating budget would need
to be increased so that the department could manage the new facilities .
At some point in the future, it may be appropriate to have a discussion of ways to optimize the
management of public parking resources and generate new revenues so that the parking operations
and maintenance budgets can be 100% self-supporting.
Parking Services
On-going Annual Shortfall $ 1101000
February 10 , 2009 Page 15
ATTACHMENTS
1 , Work Session Follow-up : Transportation Update—Successes, Opportunities and Challenges
Ahead, December 16, 2008 .
2 , 2004 Transportation Master Plan Executive Summary.
3 . Transportation Board letter to City Council.
4, Summary Table of Identified Funding Needs for Transportation & Transfort Operations and
Maintenance .
5 . Powerpoint presentation.
ATTACHMENT 1
Planning, Development & Transportation
a,,,;, Executive
F&I �o l l i n s 281
O North 58offege Avenue
" Fort Collins.CO 80522.0580
\-- - -. 970.221.6601
970.416.2081 -fax
fcgov.com/01
ATTACHMENT 1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 3rd, 2009
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager, Community Services
FROM: Jeff Scheick, Planning, Development & Transportation Director
Mark Jackson, Transportation Group Director
RE: City Council follow Up to Questions Received at the December 16`h, 2008 Work
Session Discussion on Transportation
CThese are more in depth responses to questions posed by City Council during the initial
Transportation work session discussion held December 16`h, 2008. Some answers are
incorporated into the February 10`h work session Transportation discussion.
1. Provide information on additional operations and maintenance costs that would
accompany transportation and transit system growth.
From the Engineering Department perspective, additional operations and maintenance costs
attributed to growth are reflected in the pavement management funding needs. The Pavement
Management model incorporates growth of population and traffic in determining pavement
treatments. Costs associated with overall transit system growth will be discussed in the Transit
Strategic Plan Update item. Streets Department has identified the need.for three additional
snowploxs as a result of new lane miles added to snow routes in recent years. Total estimated
cost for the plows is $633,000 plus $30,000 annually for maintenance and crew labor.
C
Pagel of12
2. Provide cost estimates to repair or replace the eleven structural deficient bridges in
Fort Collins. (Load posted and other deficiencies)
Engineering developed the following cost breakdown for repair and/or replacement of bridges in
Fort Collins:
Structurally Deficient Bridges
Full
No. Location Nearest Cross Street Sufficiency Rating Year Built Replacement
(0-100) Estimated Cost
(2009)
1 W.Mountain Ave. N. Whitcomb St. 35.8 1960 $190,000
2 Canyon Ave. W.Mulberry St. 36.4 1950 $295,000
3 N. Whitcomb St. Laporte Ave. 19 1950 $1,900,000
4 E. Harmony Rd. Lady Moon Dr. 49.3 1968 $3,000,000
5 W.Myrtle St. S. Sherwood St. 37.9 1960 $300,000
6 W. Olive St. S. Loomis Ave. 36.5 1960 $350,000
7 W. Oak St. S. Whitcomb St. 55.2 1960 $90U00
8 S.Bryan Ave. W.Mulberry St. 45.2 1982 $1,100,000
9 S. Shields St. W.Drake Rd. 34.4 1935 $3,700,000
10 Riverside Ave. E. Prospect Rd. 78.5 1985 $2,400,000
11 Kinnison Dr. S.Taft Hill Rd. 49.2 1945 $600,000
Total $14,735,000
Scour Critical Bridges
Full
No. Location Nearest Cross Street Feature Intersected Year Built Replacement
Estimated Cost
(2009)
1 W.Elizabeth St. S Bryan Ave. Larirner Co.Canal No. 2 1960 $560,000
2 W.Horsetooth Rd. S. College Ave. Larimer Co.Canal No. 2 1983 $760,000
3 Lincoln Ave. Willow St. Cache La Poudre River 1977 $3,050,000
4 Linden St. Willow St. Cache La Poudre River 1984 $2,025,000
5 S. Lemay Ave. Southridge Greens Blvd. Fossil Creek 1985 $1,200,000
6 S. Lemay Ave. E.Trilby Rd. Fossil Creek Tributary 1986 $1,360,000
7 Morsman Dr. Rocky Mountain Way New Mercer Canal 1968 $425,000
8 N.Timberline Rd. E. Mulberry St. Cache La Poudre River 1998 *$500.000
Total $9,380,000
* Repair cost only O
2of12
3. Provide a more complete picture of forecast transportation revenue and shortfalls.
Provide percentage breakdown as well as actual dollar figures to these charts.
Note: This information will be updated and developed more fuUv this spring as part ofthe 2010-
2011 Budgeting for Outcomes process. This is a revision and update to the graphs presented on
December 16`A as requested by City Council
Transportation Revenues
2007
Highway Users Tax,
$3,586,059,9% Transit Revenue, Interest and Misc.,
f3,481,279,8% $1,664,530,4%
Work for others, \�
$5,464,148,13%
\ Road and Bridge Levy,
$1,458,764,3%
Street Maint Sales tax, Auto SpecBk Oxnership,
$5,798,943, 14% $1,407,919,3%
Parking Revenue,
1$1,356,373,3%
\_ dl.M�Ad otor ie Ch Ie
V
�� 'Reg., $413,079,1%
Street Oversizing and
Fees, $7,828,256, _--
19% FHWA-CMAQ,.
General Fund, $280,208,1%
ToW 2007 Actual $17\1,llion $9,137,763, 22%
Transportation Funding Sources, 2007
State,
$4,993,978, 13%
County,
$1,969,427, 5/0
Federal,
$2,921,283, 8%
Other(Interest),EE
$504,610, 1%
Towl 2007 AcowL $37 Million
C
3of12
4. Provide a context or timeline of when various recommended capital projects will be
needed.
Engineering and Transportation Planning have provided the following draft Capital
Improvement Project list updates (prioritized high priority project) based on the City's adopted
Transportation Master Plan (2004). Please note that the overall Transportation CIP list will be
reexamined and updated as part of the Transportation Master Plan update in 2009-2010.
Staff has already identified several other key projects that should be considered by the
community and Council for higher priority during the TMP update in 2009-10. Some example
additional projects include:
• Building the re-aligned Vine Drive f•om College Avenue east to Timberline Road as well
as
• Improvements to North College from Conifer north to SH 1 and
• Improvements throughout the Downtown River District along Willow, Linden, Jefferson,
and Lincoln streets.
The following tables provide further details on projects and when the projects will be needed.
4of12
Road Project Priority List
Project
Needed
Project Existing Development 1-5
No. Number Location From To Facility Type Description 2009 Cost Deficiency Component years
upgrade from 4L
to 6L Arterial
1 R47 B Harmony Lemay Timberline 6 lane arterial Standards $10,388,255 x x
intersection
2 R117 Shields Elizabeth improvements $4,776,209 x x
intersection
3 R127 Taft Hill Elizabeth improvements $4,776,209 x x
intersection
4 R22 College Prospect improvements $4,776,209 x x
intersection
5 R21 College Drake improvements $4,776,209 x x
upgrade from 21-
collector to 4L
arterial with
intersection
realingment and
RR grade
6 R71 Lemay Lincoln Conifer 4 lane arterial separation $27.463,203 x x x
intersection
7 R48 Harmony Mason improvements $2,388,105 x x
intersection
8 R156 Taft Hill Horsetooth improvements $3,582,157 x x
upgrade from 4L
Fossil to 6L Arterial
9 R11 C College Creek Harmony 6 lane arterial Standards $10,388,255 x x x
upgrade from 4L
to 6L Arterial
10 R47 D Harmony Ziegler 1-25 6 lane arterial Standards $12,752,479 x x x
intersection
11 R69 Lemay Drake improvements $4,776,209 x x
upgrade from 2L
Summit arterial to 4L
12 R104 B Prospect View 1-25 4 lane arterial arterial $4,776,209 x x x
5of12
intersection
13 R17 College Harmony improvements $4,776,209 x x
intersection raised median
14 R27 College Willox improvements north of Willox $3,582,157 x x x
upgrade to 4L
arterial
standards;
Partially funded
15 R12 A College Vine Conifer 4 lane arterial with BOB $9,552,418 x x x
upgrade to 6L
Arterial
16 R47 A Harmony College Lemay 6 lane arterial standards $10,388,255 x x
intersection
17 R68 Lemay Horsetooth improvements $3,582,157 x x
Overland 2 lane minor
18 R42 Elizabeth Trail Taft Hill arterial $3,985,150 x x x
intersection
19 R19 College Horsetooth improvements $4,776,209 x x
intersection
20 R23 College Mulberry improvements $4,776,209 x x
Total $141,038,472
6 of 12
C 2008 Bicycle Plan Hot List Projects
Total Costs include construction costs as well as planning/design/engineering and 15%contingency
Estimated
Tier 1 Projects Total
Horsetooth, College to Stover-Add bicycle lanes $803,125
Laurel, Howes to Remington -Add bicycle lanes $1,542,000
Citywide Priori -Actuation at signals $2,955,500
Mason Trail -Grade separation at Harmony $1,413,500
Mason Trail -Grade separation at Horsetooth $1,285,000
Mason Trail-Grade separation at Troutman/BNSF $1,542,000
Mason Trail - Prospect to Laurel $1,220,750
Mountain, Meldrum to Riverside shared lane re-striping $154,200
Poudre Trail—Access to Timnath under 1-25 $3,212,500
Laporte, Overland trail to College-Bicycle lanes $4,818,750
Total Tier 1 Costs $18,947,325
Tier 2 Projects
Off Street Trail, Parallel Overland Trail - Lions Park to Spring Canyon Park incl ROW $24,415,000
Poudre River Trail -Connection to ELC and Drake Road $5,782,500
Citywide Priori - Resurface asphalt trails with concrete $10,280,000
Shields, Laurel to Poudre River Trail $2,441,500
Prospect, Shields to Centre/Mason Trail -Add bicycle lanes $1,606,250
Mason Trail, Grade separation at Drake $1,542,000
Harmony, Cinquefoil to Strauss Cabin-Add bicycle lanes $963,750
Conifer, College to Lema - Resurface lanes $514,000
Riverside, Prospect to College -Add bicycle lanes $3,726,500
Total Tier 2 Costs $51,271,500
Total Tier 1 and Tier 2 $70,218,825
C
7 of12
Pedestrian Project List
source: 2004 Transportation Master Plan)
Estimated Total
2004 TMP cost est.
College Avenue/US287, Carpenter Road to Fossil Creek Parkway $1,050,000
Harmony Road, JFK to Boardwalk $100,000
College Avenue/US287, Vine to Hwy 1 $800,000
Linden, Jefferson to Vine Drive $400,000
College, Foothills Parkway to Monroe $150,000
Neighborhood connections to Mason trail $500,000
Cherry, Howes Street to College $75,000
Horsetooth, Taft to Shields $250,000
College, ramp improvements at Swallow and Harvard $50,000
Vine Drive, Linden to Lema $500,000
Lema , Lincoln to Vine $150,000
Alta Vista neighborhood sidewalks $1,200,000
LaPorte, Sunset to Taft Hill $200,000
Lincoln, Riverside to Lema $500,000
Vine Drive, Taft Hill to Lyons $300,000
Pedestrian underpass at Mulber /SH14 and Cooper slough $1.500.000
Harmony, College to Boardwalk $150,000
Pedestrian underpass at Timberline& Caribou $1,200,000
College, Harmony to Fossil Creek Parkway $500,000 J
Vine, College to Linden $250,000
JFK Parkway, Bockman to Horsetooth $75,000
Laurel, Stover to Endicott $75,000
Taft Hill, Fossil Creek trail access ram $250,000
Andersonville sidewalks $1,200,000
Vine, Lemay to Timberline $500,000
Sub-Total 'Top 25 Ped Projects" (2004 TMP) $11,925,000
(inflated at 3%per year, sub-total of'Top 15 Ped Projects is $14 million)
Manhattan, south of Horsetooth $100,000
Lemay Avenue, missing sidewalk along Parkwood neighborhood $120,000
Riverside, Mulberry to Mountain (missing sidewalks&street crossings) $230,000
Annual ped Ian/ADA ramps &crossing improvements $9,000,000
Pedestrian path connection under UPRR on Trilby Road $1,000,000
Shields & Plum intersection crossing $400,000
Lincoln, Jefferson to Willow $2,550,000
Linden, Jefferson to Willow $2,550,000
Jefferson/Riverside, College to Mulberry $1,500,000
Willow, College to Lincoln $2.550,000
Prospect & Heatherid a ped crossing $60,000
Prospect & Lynwood ped crossing $60,000
College & Mountain, replace crosswalks $200,000
Sub-Total Remaining Ped Projects $20,320,000
8of12
TOTAL— Pedestrian Capital Improvement Program List (TMP 2004) $32,245,000
(inflated at 3%per year, TOTAL - Pedestrian CIP List is $37 million)
5. Provide scenarios where additional transportation funding should be prioritized. Should it go
to safety, maintaining existing infrastructure, system expansion, etc.
Transportation staff and management recommend that f rst priority ofavailable transportation
revenues should be given to safety needs, then maintenance of existing infrastructure and
services, then system expansion as funding opportunities and availability emerge.
6. Can Staff provide a sense of development's share in needed or recommended transportation
projects?
Please note that in the above Roadway Capital Improvement Project list Staff has identified
those projects that will likely have a development component. Note that many if not all of these
improvements are not only for street improvements, but also for related bicycle and pedestrian
improvements as well.
7. Provide a timeline on the delivery of Building on Basics (BOB) projects.
C Building on Basics Project Update
(Status as of January 2009)
Projects Completed:
• Cultural Plan—Completed
Projects Currently Under Construction:
• Harmony Road, College to Seneca (including Intersection Improvements at
College/Harmony)-Anticipate construction completion by September2009
• Museum/Discovery Science Center Joint Facility—In Design
• Pedestrian Program—on-going funding being used as local matching funds for CMAQ &
Enhancement grants for completion of Mason trail.
2008-09 Budgeted
• North College Avenue--Design
• Lincoln Center Renovations—in design
• Intersection Improvements and Traffic Signals portion offunds allocated to
Harmony/College intersection, 2009-2010
• Park Upgrades—In design, construction 2009, various neighborhood and community
parks
• Bus Replacement—busses purchased in 2008
• Library Technology—on-going funding
• Police Computer Aided Dispatch System Replacement—ongoing funding
C_
9of12
• Bicvcle Program—ongoing funding being used as matching funds,for CMAQ and .11
Enhancement grants for Mason trail and grade-separated crossings at NRRC and at _J
Troutman.
• Pedestrian Program—on-going_funding being used for the City's Safe Routes to School
program as well as for matching funds for CMAQ and Enhancement grants for Linden
streetscape improvements as well as for Mason trail and grade-separated crossings.
(Note: the Pedestrian Program funds come from the BOB program. This program is not
the same as the Pedestrian Access Program mentioned in the Feb. 10 agenda item
summary. The Pedestrian Access Program was funded with general funds and was
discontinued after 2005)
2010 thru 2015 Tentative
• North College Avenue Improvements
• Senior Center Expansion
• Intersection Improvements and Traffic Signals
• Timberline Road
• Park Upgrades—additional,funding in future years
• Bus Replacement—additional funding in future years
• Library Technology—ongoing funding
• Police Computer Aided Dispatch Svstem Replacement—ongoing replacement funding
• Bicycle Program—ongoing funding (projects TBD via 2010-11 Budgeting for Outcomes
Process)
• Pedestrian Program —ongoing funding(projects TBD via 2010-11 Budgeting.for
Outcomes Process)
8. Provide charts showing deficiencies in all areas (e.g. bridges, roads, transit, etc.).
This information is incorporated into the February 10`h work session discussion.
9. Council directed Staff to present the Work Session materials to the Transportation
Board for their comments and reaction and bring back their feedback for the February
work session
Please see attachment to AIS. Staff presented materials to Transportation board on January 21s`,
and the Board drafted its comments for Council consideration.
10. Concern was raised over the aging transit fleet. Information was requested on the
actual age of the fleet and related costs to replace elements of the fleet as it reaches the
end of its service life
Per the Federal Transit Administration standards, the useful life of buses is as follows:
Large, heavy-dutv transit buses (approximately 35' 40" and articulated buses): at least 12 years
ofservice or an accumulation ofat least 500,000 miles.
Medium-size, light-duty transit buses (approximately 25- 35): 5 years or 150,000 miles.
In 2009, Transfort has 17 of 30 heavy duty buses that are +12 years old; or exceed 500,000
miles. Transfort is able to purchase one bus with the Section 5309 funds, which is on order with
10 of 12
a 2009 delivery date. The table below represents Transfort's heavy duty bus replacement
schedule and annual funding shortfalls.
Transfort Heavy Duty Bus Replacement Schedule with No Service Growth
2008 2009 1 2010 2011'1 2012 1 2013 ' 2014 1 1 2017 2018 1 20192020
Total Active Fleet No Service Growth) 30, 301-30. 30 30I 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
#of Buses That Need Replaced 12 17 _ 18 16 10~ 9 6 13 12 12 11 10 21
Buses Re laced 01 2 2' 6 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1
%of Fleet Past Useful Life 40% 57% 60% 53%. 33% 30% 27% 43% 40% 40%1 37% 33% 70%
Annual Funtlln Nestled Mllllora $4.52 $1.98 $1.25 $4.50 $ - 5 - $ - $ - $ - $0.58 $ - $ - $8.12
Annual FundingAvailable Millions $ - $0.79 $0.83 $4.50 $0.46 $0.48 $0:51 $0.53 $0.56 $0.58 $0.61 $0.64 $0.68
Cumulative Funding Shodfall Millions $4.52 $5.71 5$S 3 58.13 $5.67 $5.19 f4.68 $4.15. $3.60 $3.50 $2.98 f2.34 $9.78
•6 8RT VehlCles puMhMW in 20 dollars from FTA Small Stan Grant
Although Transfort has reduced the need for a full Dial A Ride fleet (light-duty transit bus) due
to reduced service levels and contracting approximately 50%of the service, there are 11 of 13
DAR buses that are +5 years and exceed 150,000 miles.
Note: The 20%local match required to replace 9 vehicles is available through Building on
Basics, but unless Transfort can begin using the full federal grant$1.6-2.0 million annually for
vehicle and facility needs, they are unable to maintain their capital needs.
11. Provide an update on the Railroad Quiet Zone Study by the Downtown Development
Authority.
Project Status: Downtown Development Authority and City staff from Transportation Planning
L and Engineering are moving forward with Phase 1 of the project. The DDA funded study area
includes the downtown area, including the River District, College Avenue, and along Mason
Street south to Mulberry (which is the southern limit to the DDA's district boundary). The
consultant contracts were signed in mid-January and work is now beginning. This project is
currently in the data collection stage and public outreach will begin later this spring.
The goal of the project is to identify possible opportunities for physical improvements for the
BNSF rail crossings downtown that would allow the BNSF train operators to not have to sound
their horn at each crossing. City and DDA staff will provide more detailed updates to the
community and Council this spring. As part of the 2010-2011 Budgeting for Outcomes process,
City staff will be seeking additional funding to extend the BNSF Quiet Zone Study south of
Mulberry Street to Trilby Road.
12. Provide an Executive Summary of the Transportation Master Plan.
Please see attached Executive Summary from the 2004 Transportation Master Plan. Please note
that the TMP is scheduled to be updated in 2009-2010 in conjunction with the City Plan Update.
13. Clarify what amount of recycled asphalt and concrete material is diverted from the
landfills.
City Policy & Project Manager Ann Turnquist provides the following response: How much
asphalt and concrete road materials are diverted from the waste stream? Is this included in
the City's calculation of diversion rates?
11 of 12
For the sake of having comparable data,for our waste diversion levels, we follow a methodology
established by the EPA that defines Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), or garbage. Excluded from
the definition is construction and demolition debris, within which concrete and asphalt are
classified. If the asphalt data were included in the diversion rate, it would move from the current
estimate of 24'% to 42% (see below.)
Data regarding the volume of these materials which are diverted is included in the "Fort Collins
Solid Waste 5-Year Strategic Plan: Strategies to Reach 50%Diversion from Landfill Disposal: "
• Benchmarking estimates show the City has achieved significant diversion progress:
Estimates show City-wide diversion of approximately 24%. On a per-capita basis, we find
generation (disposal and diversion combined) is approximately 1.60 tons per year for
residential waste;per-business generation is approximately 42 tons per business per year (or
L I tons per year per employee). Combining all waste generated and diverted within the City
(excluding asphalt), we f nd per capita generation in the City is about 1.22 tons per year, and
diversion is about 0.25 tons per year per person. These results are presented in Error! Not a
valid bookmark self-reference..
Table-1: Computation of Fort Collins Diversion Metrics (DRAFT—missing some recycled
tons) (Assume results are 24% diversion without asphalt, 42% with
Diversion Metric Excluding asphalt Including asphalt
Residential diversion percentage-% 20.3% NIA
Commercial diversion percentage-% 20.2% 63.6%
Total diversion percentage-% 20.3% 49.3%
Generation statistics Informational only)
Residential generation per household 1.60 TPY generation NIA
per year—Tons per Year TPY 0.32 TPY diversion
Commercial generation per business per 41.64 TPY generation 91.34 TPY generation
year—TPY 8.42 TPY diversion 58.12 TPY diversion
Commercial generation per employee 1.07 TPY generation
per year—TPY 0.22 TPY diversion
Per Capita Metrics (key metrics to track
Total 1.22 TPY generation 1.92 TPY generation
0.25 TPY diversion 0.94 TPY diversion
20.3% 49.3%
14. Consider using alternatives transportation impact measures other than Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT). Consider new measurements such as Energy Unit per Person per
Mile.
Transportation Staff will investigate and consider these new measures as part of the upcoming
Transportation Master Plan update, scheduled for 2009-2010.
12 of 12
• U 1113313
-tom
raw
Fort Collins
Transportation Master Plan 2004
k MIMI
&N -? ® AL
/!
E ,
J
Prepared for:
Citv of Fort Collins
Prepared by:
5500 Greenwood Plaza Blvd. - -
Greenwood Village,CO 80111
In cooperation with
LSA Associates
Coley/Forrest
IntermountaCorporateAff February 2004
Corporate Affairs
Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan 2004 February 2004
S.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S.1 INTRODUCTION
The Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan 2004 serves a variety of purposes. It is a vision
document that defines the long-term transportation system that Fort Collins needs in the future.
The plan also provides policy direction for how decisions regarding the implementation of the
transportation system should occur. It is also a framework document that serves as a
comprehensive reference guide regarding transportation issues in Fort Collins. Additionally, the
plan provides priorities for implementing projects to meet short-term deficiencies while working
towards the ultimate transportation system the City is trying to achieve. Finally, the plan
identifies transportation issues that need to be resolved as part of the next plan update or under
specific department work plans.
As in the 1997 plan, the Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan 2004 reaffirms the City's
commitment to providing a multi-modal transportation system. As the City continues to grow
and mature, it has witnessed continued increase in vehicle trips, impacting the existing street
network and causing severe congestion on many of the City's streets. Fort Collins remains
committed to providing a more balanced transportation system,providing citizens with
transportation choices to continue maintaining its high quality of life. This plan also provides
updates to the various modal plans that have been developed and also serves as a means to more
clearly define other transportation ideas like the concept of Enhanced Travel Corridors.
The plan provides the goals, principles, and policies that will be used to shape the transportation
system today and into the future. The plan provides a look at existing conditions, changes since
1997, and what the future may look like based on current practices. This plan also provides
recommendations for future work items that the City may want to pursue to enhance
transportation planning and implementation efforts.
This plan discusses issues facing the City in terms of limited funding, increased population
growth, and policies that may need to be addressed to ensure the success of the transportation
system. The plan incorporated the most recent demographic data and used the City's
comprehensive transportation demand model to test and evaluate alternatives. New
methodologies were created to develop prioritized capital improvement project needs by mode.
Existing and future financial issues were evaluated to provide a picture of how things look today
and how things may look if the City is unsuccessful in developing other funding means.
S.2 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
An important aspect of the TMP was an extensive public and agency outreach process that
included open house public meetings, one-on-one stakeholder meetings, the formation of a
Citizen Advisory Committee(CAC), small group meetings, and regular meetings with City
boards and commissions. Public forums including open houses and workshops were conducted
throughout the process to ensure all issues from the public were heard.
In addition to the meetings, individual outreach meeting were held with a variety of stakeholders
throughout the study. These meetings were held to develop a clearer understanding of the
S-1
�j
February 2004 Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan 2004
specific issues various interest groups had and to keep them informed about the progress of the
study. These meetings included several discussions and presentations with the Fort Collins
Chamber of Commerce Legislative Committee, the Fort Collins Kiwanis, and Citizen Planners.
In terms of agency coordination, numerous City departments and staff contributed significantly
to the development of this plan. Also, the City's Transportation Board worked as an ad-hoc
citizens cormnittee and discussed issues related to the project on a monthly basis as part of their
regular meetings.
S.3 GOALS, PRINCIPLES, AND POLICIES
In 1997, City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) developed a vision, goals,
principles, and policies for how transportation and land use planning should occur in the City of
Fort Collins. As part of developing these plans, the vision, goals, principles and policies were
revisited to see if they were still consistent and represent the future of the City. This process
started by defining characteristics for Fort Collins that define what the City should look like now
and in the future. These characteristics served as the basis for refining the vision, goals,
principles, and policies. Revisions to these items then helped shape the direction for changes in
other policy related issues.
In addition to the revisions to the goals, principles, and policies, several issues exist that the City
will need to address in the future. These relate to how the City wants to deal with issues related
to Adequate Public Facilities, continued growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), maximum
street and intersection geometry, constrained street corridors, law enforcement, and development J
of a transportation system performance measurement system. These issues are discussed in
general terms as part of this plan,recognizing that the City will need to consider these items on
more detail as implementation items resulting from this plan.
SA TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL
In order to develop an understanding of future needs for the transportation system in Fort
Collins, the City's comprehensive TransCAD transportation demand model was used. This
model uses land use,population, and employment data about Fort Collins and the region to
estimate trips, travel patterns, mode choices, and traffic volumes. This information is in turn
used to estimate street congestion, transit ridership, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), air quality
impacts, and other measures of transportation system performance. The most current version of
the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) air quality model (MOBILE6) was used in
cooperation with the model to evaluate air quality results for the various scenarios. To properly
consider travel between Fort Collins and nearby communities, the travel model covers an area
including Fort Collins, Loveland, Greeley, and smaller cities in the North Front Range region.
Considerable effort has been taken to ensure that the model conforms to industry standards and
uses methodology that is considered "Best Practice." During the federal funding application
process for the Mason Transportation Corridor, the Fort Collins model was scrutinized and
accepted by some of the country's top modeling experts. Separately, efforts were undertaken to
ensure consistency with a similar model used by the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning
Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan 2004 February 2004
Organization(NFRMPO). This stringent quality control process has ensured that the model is a
reliable, defensible tool.
The model served as a valuable tool to support the variety of analyses that were conducted
including:
• Testing the potential for modifying the Growth Management Area(GMA) boundary
• Evaluating the effects of building out of congestion
• Evaluating the benefits of modifications to the Master Street Plan (MSP)
• Testing the benefits of regional and interregional transit connections
• Evaluating the performance of the fiscally constrained capital improvement plan (CIP)
The model is a tool that was not available when the 1997 plan was developed. It provided strong
technical data to support the decision-making process.
S.5 MASTER STREET PLAN
The Master Street Plan (MSP) is a map-based representation of the City of Fort Collins' long-
range vision of its major street network. First implemented and adopted in 1981, the MSP is
C intended to reflect the functional class (the category of street, e.g. arterial, collector, etc.) of the
ultimate street network in the City of Fort Collins. The MSP also helps to guide the development
of the future street system for the City and its GMA. The MSP provides a reference for planning
and layout of existing and fixture development's key transportation and circulation connections.
Several amendments to the MSP are being proposed as part of this plan. Some of these proposed
changes reflect road network changes that have come about as part of plans approved since
1997's original City Plan and TMP. Some changes reflect "clean up" items that address slight
mapping errors or reflect changes in thought as to the feasibility of construction of particular
facility types. In response to concerns voiced recently by the Transportation Advisory Board and
members of City Council, the MSP map will suggest changing the way it portrays regional
roadways outside of the GMA boundary to more clearly reflect that the City of Fort Collins is
financially responsible only for those streets inside the GMA boundary. Finally, some of the
recommended changes to the MSP are a result of new travel forecast model analysis as part of
this update to the plan. Proposed changes to the MSP include:
• Correct mapping error on I-25 Frontage Road west of I-25 from Mulberry to Prospect.
• Change the way in which regional roadways outside of the Fort Collins GMA are
represented on the MSP.
• Change Laporte Avenue, Wood Street to Taft Hill Road, from a four-lane arterial to a
collector street.
C • Change Country Club Road, State Highway 1 to Larimer County Road 11, from a minor
arterial to a collector street.
1MSJ S-3
!_ATE
February 2004 Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan 2004
• Change McClelland Drive, Drake Road to Horsetooth Road, from a minor arterial to a
collector street.
• Convert the Mason and Howes Street one-way couplet back to two-way, minor arterial
streets.
• Change Carpenter Road (LCR-32), I-25 to College Avenue (US 285), from a four-lane
arterial to a six-lane arterial street.
• Amend MSP to reflect road network recommendations from adopted local and regional
plans. These improvements include:
■ Add a new collector street, from LCR-52 to Mulberry Road, to serve anticipated
development east of 1-25
■ Extend Carriage Parkway as a collector street south to Prospect Road
■ Upgrade Mulberry, Prospect, and Harmony Roads, from I-25 to LCR-5, from
minor arterial to four-lane arterial designation
■ Upgrade LCR-5, from Mulberry Road to LCR-30, from a collector street to a
four-lane arterial designation. Those portions of the LCR-5 Corridor outside of
the Fort Collins GMA will be represented in a different line-style and are shown
for regional context and consistency only.
S.6 ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDORS
Enhanced Travel Corridors (ETCs) were previously discussed and defined in City Plan as
uniquely designed corridors that are planned to incorporate high frequency transit, bicycling, and
walking as part of the corridor. As such they were meant to provide connections between major
activity centers like downtown, CSU, shopping destinations on College Avenue and Harmony.
In some corridors, ETCs may need to be incorporated with the street alignment depending upon
right-of-way opportunities and constraints.
Four ETCs have been defined as part of the City Plan Update and the Fort Collins
Transportation Master Plan 2004. These corridors include the Mason Transportation Corridor
(MTC), Harmony Road Corridor, North College/Conifer Street Corridor, and Timberline
Road/Power Trail Corridor. The Timberline Road/Power Trail is a new ETC that was identified
during the analysis completed for this plan. These four ETCs complete a loop through Fort
Collins connecting activity centers in and around Downtown, CSU, College Avenue, Harmony
Road and the Mountain Vista subarea.
S.7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The City of Fort Collins continues in its goal to be a steward to the environment. Both at the
government and community level, there is a great sensitivity to the footprint that Fort Collins
puts on its local environment. An overall goal is to maintain or improve environmental
conditions, while having an efficient multi-modal transportation system. Achieving this goal
will require a commitment to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of transportation
projects, development and use interdisciplinary teams from diverse City departments and
S4 SJ
Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan 2004 February 2004
advisory boards in transportation planning and project design, and consideration of
environmental relationships throughout the transportation planning process.
Another idea that is at the forefront of consideration for environmental resources is context-
sensitive design/solutions. Agencies like the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the
State Departments of Transportation are developing policies and procedures for integrating the
local surroundings into the design of transportation projects. The City should continue its policy
to first avoid, then minimize, then if necessary, mitigate any environmental impacts related to
transportation projects as one aspect of providing context sensitive solutions. Other
considerations include the community setting or character and a focus on public involvement in
the planning process in developing a solution that fits its surroundings.
S.8 MOBILITY AND ACCESS
One of the focus areas for the Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan 2004 is to illustrate how
all travel modes work together to form a seamless transportation system. As part of the plan
development, specific planning documents for each travel mode including transit, bicycle,
pedestrian, rail, and other transportation related facilities such as parking and the City's
Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) were reviewed and updated. This City's Smart
Trips Transportation Demand Management program was also reviewed for consistency with
other transportation efforts. These plan updates formed the basis for recommended policy
changes to the goals, principles and policies with regard to specific modes and the development
of a list of system deficiencies.
S.9 IMPLEMENTATION
A significant part of the TMP included the development and prioritization of capital
improvements for the various transportation modes, financial analyses, and the development of a
fiscally constrained capital improvement plan (CIP).
A list of transportation system deficiencies including street, bicycle, pedestrian, transit, rail
crossing, parking, and signal system facilities was developed to show improvements necessary to
achieve the vision set forth in the MSP, the Transfort Strategic Plan, and other projects listed in
the City's unfunded capital improvement plan (CIP). This list was also input into the City's
Geographical Information System (GIS) database to provide a visual representation of the overall
needs. Capital cost estimates were updated for each list by mode (operations and maintenance
costs were not included). A system was also developed to cross-reference projects between
modes to ensure that project costs were not double-counted.
In order to prioritize this needs list, a ranking methodology was developed for each mode that
used existing data sources including recent trend data, accident history, existing traffic
conditions, and the ability of the improvement project to provide needed linkages to the rest of
the transportation system. These criteria were used to evaluate the conditions of the current
facilities. Projects were then prioritized by mode based on the ranking criteria. The intent of the
prioritization process was to develop an objective system that uses available data to compose a
prioritized list of projects that represents immediate versus future needs. The goal was also to
i1QC� S-5
February 2004 Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan 2004
provide a system that leaves some flexibility for some subjectivity, while eliminating the
potential for the process to become a more political activity.
As a part of the CIP development process, a financial analysis was completed to forecast funding
levels through the year 2025 based on existing and anticipated revenue streams for capital
projects. Using this financial analysis, projects were then matched to available funding sources
to develop the fiscally constrained CIP list.
The results of the financial analysis clearly identify that the City needs to find a dedicated
funding source for transportation capital. There are currently approximately $1.1 billion in
necessary transportation capital improvements to build what is included in the Master Street Plan
and long-term transit plan.
S.10 FUTURE ACTION ITEMS
Several action items were identified during the development of the TMP. These items include
collaboration type efforts between City departments, actions that Council may need to resolve,
and new work elements that the City should consider as future work activities. These action
items include:
• Review of Adequate Public Facilities Issues
• Review use of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a City Plan trigger
• Establish maximum street and intersection geometries
• Develop design guidelines for constrained areas
• Communicate standard protocol for assessing whether roundabouts should be considered
as viable solution at a specific intersection
• Develop a transportation performance measurement system
• Develop a design manual for integrating land use, urban and design
• Re-evaluate Street Oversizing Program to fund grade-separated crossings
• Develop Corridor Master Plans for all remaining Enhanced Travel Corridors
• Update the Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Plan
• Create a framework to develop interdisciplinary teams to review projects
• Review current design processes for consistency with Context Sensitive Solution
principles
• Evaluate potential funding sources for transportation capital
• Refine prioritization process for developing capital improvement plans
These action items reflect that ideas and concepts that were developed throughout the
development of the TMP. Ideas for action items came from a variety pf sources including City
Council, Transportation Board, Transportation Services Area management and staff, Air Quality
Advisory Board, Natural Resource Advisory Board, and others. City staff should develop a ^l
priority list for these action items and begin including them in current and future work elements. J
S-6
Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan 2004 February 2004
�. Table of Contents
S.0 Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 1
S.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1
S.2 Public and Agency Involvement..................................................................................... 1
S.3 Goals, Principles, and Policies........................................................................................ 2
SATravel Demand Model..:.................................................................................................2
S.5 Master Street Plan........................................................................................................... 3
S.6 Enhanced Travel Corridors.............................................................................................4
S.7 Environmental considerations.........................................................................................4
S.8 Mobility and Access ....................................................................................................... 5
S.9 implementation ............................................................................................................... 5
S.10 Future Action Items ........................................................................................................ 6
C
C
S_7
ATTACHMENT3
FCIty Of Transportation Board
Collins Gary Thomas. Chair
ort
c �
ATTACHMENT
January 28, 2009
Mayor Hutchinson and Members of Council;
At your December 16, 2008 Council Study Session, the Transportation Board was asked to
review the overview given by the City Transportation Staff. The T-Board held that review on
January 2 1" and the results are provided here for your consideration.
The Transportation Board is pleased to see the attention that Council is giving to the whole area
of City Transportation at that review, plus two more scheduled study sessions. Staff did a very
comprehensive overview of the transportation system in the first session with the object of using
the subsequent sessions for more detailed discussions. In that same vein, our comments here are
more general and the T-Board hopes to continue to participate in the follow-on discussions when
more specific issues are addressed. We also look forward to the opportunity to participate in the
BFO budgeting process later this year.
CThe Transportation Board recommends further discussion in three general areas:
Nothing happens without appropriate funding. The total needs of our community's
transportation system of street maintenance,bridge repairs, transit service, pedestrian walkways,
bikeways and many long-delayed capital projects are simply not going to be met without
additional sustained funding. If we add up the needs outlined in Jeff Scheick's study session
presentation and just select some of the top capital and maintenance projects, we are looking at a
shortfall of over$190 million dollars during the next ten years. These are not wistful
"enhancements"but rather bread and butter needs that are not being met. For Fort Collins to
hold on to what it has, let alone grow and prosper, a dedicated funding stream needs to be created
to sustain a basic, safe, multi-modal transportation system.
Transportation safety is critical. Jeff Scheick wisely raised that subject several times in his
presentation. Hopefully the City is monitoring its problem bridges closely enough that they
could close one before it could fail. But already there are load restrictions in place with more to
come. With the river and all the various ditches and creeks that wind through Fort Collins there
are a surprising number of bridges on just about every road. It is easy to imagine the impact to
all forms of transportation if the City has to close a major artery. Not to forget the old adage, "If
we don't have the money to fix it, how will we pay to replace it?" There are other immediate
safety needs. Many raikoad crossings are in need of replacement or repair. In reviewing the
South College Plan (subject of a separate letter) the Transportation Board noted the perilous
situation for bus riders due to the lack of good stops along the road. In particular, one member
Cnoted that the disabled clients at Foothills Gateway are seen daily huddled on a dirt strip with no
protection from the elements. Other transit stops throughout the city have similar issues. No
- I -
6A of
Cdiscussion of safety is complete without the observation that the continuing decline in pavement
quality is not only a wear and tear cost to drivers, but also presents real safety issues to bicyclists.
Multi-modal is the long term direction. There is no question that private automobiles are an
important part of the community and we would be hard pressed to do without them, or the roads
they need. But in the longer term we must improve our investment in alternatives. The
Transportation Board has spent some time discussing the "chicken and egg" quandary: How to
fund transit and other alternatives without more users, vs. how to get more users without a better
system? One member reminded us that the dawn of the automobile era was ushered in by a
huge national commitment to building the interstate highway system. The infrastructure was
built(albeit for possible military use) and then the automobile use followed. An even earlier
example is noted of the pre-automobile "streetcar developments"where streetcar lines were laid
so that developers could then build housing subdivisions. From changing demographics, to the
growing cost of road construction, to climate issues, to water issues, to eventually fuel costs and
availability, any look at the future will recognize that a new paradigm of transportation must
emerge.
To continue progress towards a balanced multi-modal system, leadership must establish a
priority of funding that facilitates changes in how people and goods move about. A balanced
system requires attention to the capacity of all the alternatives. Byway of example of balance,
the Council may remember that the Transportation Board has called for inclusion of transit
funding in the solution to the I-25 / 392 interchange.
Like any other large vision, the Transportation Board members, and no doubt the community as
a whole, will have differing views of how to prioritize resources in pursuit of a better
transportation system. The T-Board looks forward to continuing the discussion with the Council.
As usual I would be happy to expand on these thoughts at your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
Gary D. Thomas
Chair
C.
- 2 -
ATTACHMENT 4
Summary of Transportation Services Funding Needs Shortfall, 2009
Current Identified
Program or Service Total Need Budget Shortfall
On-Going Funding Needs
Street Pavement Maintenance $ 15,400,000 $ 10,200,000 $ 5,200,000
Transfort Operating Costs $ 10,100,000 $ 8,500,000 $ 1,600,000
Bridge Maintenance $ 3,700,000 $ 300,000 $ 3,400,000 Per year/4 years
Temporary Repairs (potholes & crack seal) $ 1,212,000 $ 982,000 $ 230,000
Signal Hardware Maintenance $ 900,000 $ 700,000 $ 200,000
Sidewalk Maintenance $ 400,000 $ - $ 400,000
Parking Operations and Maintenance $ 238,387 $ 128,387 $ 110,000
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation $ 200,000 $ - $ 200,000
Pedestrian/School Crossing Improvements $ 150,000 $ - $ 150,000
Repair Broken Concrete $ 40,000 $ - $ 40,000 Per year/4 years
Chip-Seal Operations in Alleys $ 30,000 $ - $ 30,000
Handicap Ramp and Pedestrian Refuge Snow Plowing $ 20,000 $ - $ 20,000
Snow Plow Increase O&M $ 30,000 $ - $ 30,000
$ 32,420,387 $ 20,810,387 S (11,610,000)
One-time Funding Needs
Traffic Monitoring& Data Collection $ 500,000
Increase Snow Plow Equipment $ 633,000
Transfort Fleet Replacement* $ 790,000 $ 5,710,000 y
Transfort Maintenance Facility Improvements $ 12,000,000 y
n
($18,843,0(10)
*Federal Funds currently diverted to Operations �j
z
y
A
- it
qWW
,
TRANSPORTATION UPDATE 2 :
Focus on the Basics :
Budget , Operations & Maintenance
February 10 , 2009
Jeff Scheick
Planning , Development , & Transportation Director
Mark Jackson
Transportation Group Director
For
City of Collins
Overvi ew � "
• Discussion 1 ( Dec . 08 )
— Overview of Transportation ' s Importance
— Accomplishments & Challenges Ahead
• Discussion 2 ( Feb . 09)
— Revenue Challenges
— Priorities
— 0& M Needs in Depth
• Discussion 3 (July 14)
— Capital Project Needs & Funding Scenarios
— Transportation Master Plan Overview City of
Fort f
1
it
Objectives/ Presentation Outline
• What are we hearing from the Community?
Setting priorities in difficult economic times
Budget Challenges : Shrinking Revenues
• 0&M Needs and Service Shortfalls
- Engineering , Traffic, Transfort, Streets , Parking
"Y :oll
Questions for Council
• Does City Council concur with Transportation
Staff' s prioritization of available resources ?
• For the next Transportation work session
scheduled for summer of 2009 , what other topics
beyond those scheduled does the Council wish to
address ?
City of
ort Collins
2
ip'
What Are We Hearing From the
Community ?
Fort Collins Citizen Survey (2008) :
— High marks for ease of walking and cycling , street
maintenance
— Low marks for traffic congestion , ease of transit use
— Support for additional revenues rather than further cuts to
service
— Economy & Transportation the two highest needs identified
for more effort by respondents
City of
Fort Collins
6
Setting Priorities
In Difficult Economic Times , Hard Choices Must be Made :
Transportation & Transfort Staff Priorities :
— Safety of Community # 1 Priority
— Maintain Our Current Transportation Investment
— Maintain Our Service Levels as much as possible
— Expand System & Service as Opportunities Emerge
Focus on the Basics
City of
ort Collins
3
4
Transportation Funding Sources, 2007
State,
$4,993,978, 13%
County,
$119691427, 5%
Federal,
$2,921,283, 8%
Local, Other (interest),
$26,645,822, $504,610, 1%
73%
Total 2007 Actual: $37 Million
Fort Of
Nod
Budget Challenges : Shrinking Revenues
AUTO SALES GASOLINE SALES VEHICLE & PARTS
DEALER SALES
FORT COLLINS COLORADO
Fort Collins
4
Weer-
n.
Shrinking ransportation Revenues
Revenue from Transportation Taxes C Fees
7K $6. Oro
6 8K WINDS
6.6K 56.56123a
6 U $6.226.021
66.169.731
6,2K
6K
f6.1%459 $6246.652 59.966.661
S&069.504
5.8K
5.6K t3.i5B693
"Ir �wNd nu• Olin hlLsl . "aft 3wi.
5.4K .,:. . yn min oil .
,Mp n+ "Mr I.Cal " Lanav Alm nw nnwln n.nak
5.2K
SK Op �X r,� p7 pa py p0 p� p0 O°jo
Q�`�
—�— TOTAL of Four Taxes a Fees
City�olhns
Budget Challenges : Shrinking Revenues
As a result:
Transportation Revenues will not meet budgeted levels
Without additional revenues , core services will need to be cut
Staff working to find outside funds , but . . .
. Grants are capital project or program specific
. Not for 0& M
. Not a sustainable source
` VtColUns
kom 500110111
71M
L.Alt
Budget Challenges : Shrinking Revenues
Options :
• Further Cut Existing Levels of Service
• New Revenue Sources
• Use Reserve Funds Designated for Other Purposes
• Reassign Existing Revenues
City of
Fort o ins
f�
4. _
`^
Focus on the Basics :
Operations & Maintenance In Depth
• Currently Good Service Levels , but . . .
— Falling Behind in Key Areas
— Greater the Gap , The Higher the Cost
• Many cuts already made to services important to the
community
• Focus on Current Transportation & Transfort Operations and
Maintenance Situation
City of
ort Collins
6
SkJAX
Focus on the Basics :
Engineering O & M
• Street Pavement Maintenance
— Program Audit in 2007
— Additional $5 . 2 Million/year by 2010 needed to keep streets in
"Good " condition
— Level B maintenance saves money over long-term
City of
Fort`�`
Collins
•
Street Maintenance
x Good Roads Cost Less to Maintain
w
a 100
z
Z 860 Excellent LOS A $1 M for
0 Good LOS B renovation here
0 70
z Fair LOS C LOS = Level of Service
O
U
55
z Poor LOS D
2 40 $4.5M for
w ISM renovation
> P " ' here
a
a
0
5 YEARS 10 YEARS 15 YEARS 20 YEARS 25 YEARS
City of
�ort Collins
` 1
■
State of Fort Collins '
Infrastructure Bridge Maintenance
• 274 total bridges on the city street system
• 34 Bridges are currently "deficient" ( 12 . 5% )
• 50 bridges will be past their design service life of 50
years by 2013 ( 18% )
Bridge Maintenance Funding :
— Currently Revenue = $300 , 000 per year
— Needed = $3 , 700 , 000 per year
City of
Fort Collins
f�
•
1.
NNK[I MIN= OVA DR.
_ VINE OR Bridges
♦ URORTE AVE
MULB[RRY SI
R �
ORIRO RO
RORSYYOOYR RO
HARMONY RD
& s City of
. ort Collins
mYUY RD
8
IWO,
Sudden Feen-> jlure of Mulberry Bridge
.January 2003
/ i*Ff
t
11
City of
Fort Collins
Focus on the Basics :
Engineering O & M
• Sidewalk Maintenance Needs :
- " Pedestrian Access" Sidewalk Program Ended in 2005
• ID sidewalk needs throughout City
• Assist residents in making sidewalk repairs
• Filled in gaps in sidewalk system
- Current Budget = $ 0 per year
- Needed = $400 , 000 per year
City of
I& ort Collins
9
, r
Focuson -
Traffic Operations
SignalGrant Funded Programs Scheduled in 2009 :
• Program
Harmony • • •
HardwareSignal
Additional $200 , 000 per - • - •
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program
Could not be funded in 2005and 2007 131` 0
'r 11 111 ', 11 111 per - , r recommended
CitYf ollins
19
I
c
iMl �.,
City
7
rd '
• •rt Coltins
POT
Focus01
on - Basics :• i
Aging Bus Fleet
of • 1 Buses Exceed Useful Life
of Dial a Ride LD Buses Exceed Useful Life
Capital • being used for • :
Local Match fromBOB , •
Needs- O& M Shortfall $ 1 , 600 , 000 per year
Maintenance Facility
Future local & regional needs
Cityo
ort ollins
21
17 IV LPI
City of
J � 1�r+ w► - r �a
i
1 �
ort Coltins
� , I
- � Q
Focus on the Basics :
Streets Department O & M
Community Growth Increases 0&M Needs
Snow Removal :
— 31 % Increase in Snow Route Miles since 1999
— Need three additional snow plow trucks
— $633 , 000 for trucks + $30 , 000/yr for crew
Pot Holes & Crack Seal Repairs :
— Additional crew need : $230 , 000/yr
City of
F�tf�
Collins
no
9&7"&
City of
6jj7
ort Collins
12
�- f �f w �
rAj,
M
= � r R .. �.
CityO
ort ollins
25
MIN
Focus on
Streets Department •
Repair •
— Damage from snow plows to curb , gutter & sidewalks
— Many repairs needed from severe ' 06- ' 07 winter
— $40 , 000/yr needed for the next 4-5 years to address
problem
City of
ort Coltins
26
� i
� t
YW
• 1
Fort Collins
27
\ � t
Focuson Basics :
DepartmentStreets • •
Increased pedestrian mobilityand access
Snow removalon Ramps , pedestrian • • i
refuge islands
needed- New machines to clear these areas
City of
ort Collins
28
Focus on the Basics :
Parking Services O & M
• Currently 89 % of revenues needed generated by program
• Operations funded adequately , but Maintenance . . .
— Civic Center Parking Garage has Maintenance Agreement
w/ Larimer County and DDA
— Old Town Parking Garage & Surface Lots have no ongoing
maintenance funding source
— Annual Maintenance Shortfall = $ 110 , 000
City of
Fort Collins
Conclusion
• Transportation & Transfort Staff provide a high level of
service
• Community needs and growth raise expectations
• Traditional Transportation Revenues are declining
• Cannot maintain current LOS let alone expand
• Hard Choices must be made
City of
ort Collins
15
44
rNextSte- -pss
• Transportation Discussion #3 - July 14t"
- Introduce Transportation Master Plan Update
- Focus on Capital Project Needs
- Tie it all together
• What could be done with varying levels of
additional revenue ?
• Staff will present funding scenarios for
consideration
- These discussions are critical as we move into the
2010 -2011 Budget process
City of
Fort Collins
4._ 6
Setting Priorities
In Difficult Economic Times , Hard Choices Must be Made :
Transportation & Transfort Staff Priorities :
- Safety of Community # 1 Priority
- Maintain Our Investment
- Maintain Our Service Levels as much as possible
- Expand System & Service as Opportunities Emerge
Focus on the Basics
City of
ort Collins
16
Avg _
Questions for Council
• Does City Council have comment on
Transportation Staff's recommendation as to
prioritization of available resources ?
• For the next Transportation work session
scheduled for summer of 2009 , what subject(s )
does the Council wish to address ?
city of
Fort Collins
D
L
TRANSPORTATION UPDATE 2 :
Focus on the Basics :
Budget , Operations & Maintenance
February 10 , 2009
Jeff Scheick
Planning , Development, & Transportation Director
Mark Jackson
Transportation Group Director
City of
ort Collins
NNML�,
17