Loading...
2 - Minutes, February 13, 2006CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Transportation Advisory Board DATE OF MEETING: Feb. 13, 2006 NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Kaazen Davis, 303-441-3229 NAMES OF MEMBERS, COUNCIL, STAFF AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS: TAB - Jim Rettew (chair), Bill Roettker, Krista Nordback, Lynn Guissinger, Myriah Conroy STAFF - Tracy Winfree, Mike Sweeney, Noreen Walsh, Rod Rindal, Micki Kaplan, Randall Rutsch, Marni Ratzel, Jean Gatza, Bill Cowern, Mar[ha Roskowski, Kaaren Davis, secretazy Article I. WHAT TYPE OF MEETING [REGULAR] Article II. Agenda Item 1- Call to Order. The meetin was called to order at 6:03 .m. Agenda Item 2- Meeting Minutes from Jan. 9, 2006. Nordback: Page 3, public participation- please alter to say BBC probablv would have spoken in support. Motion: Motion hold approval. Nordback MoGon seconded: Roettker Vote: 5-0 in favor. Motion Passes Agenda Item 3- General Public Participation. • Premena, PO BOX ] 038- Signs (no-oudet) - Clearly, the city has the money and the manpower ro post signs. Many aze appearing where there is no outlet for motorists. Where there aze bike and pedesuian [hroughways please no[e such on same pole or sign. Please ask the Transportation Department to add this signage issue to the city practice. • KuR Nordback, 777 Dellwood Ave.-B VCP Trails map. Longmon[-Diagonal Vail has been deleted. The curren[ route is actually on the Diagonal and so is not safe if it is dazk or road condi[ions are bad. Please consider adding the Longmont-Diagonal trail back in[o [he plan. TAB Questions to Staff: Nordback: Is staff moving forward on signage issue? Winfree: Staff is moving forward and will provide the TAB with quarterly updates. Public Partici ation was closed. Agenda Item 4- Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation regarding the Broadway (Iris Avenue to Norwood Avenue) bike lane project Community Emironmental Assessment Process (CEAP). Noreen Walsh and Rod Rindal presented. S[aff requests the TAB consider a recommendation on CEAP. Project is broken into two segments: Iris to Linden and Linden to Norwood. There aze five options for each of the sections. Staff recommends altema[ives 5 and C. Staff feels these options meet the project goals and minimize poten[ial impacts ro adjacen[ propeRies and landscaping. These options also anticipate future traffic needs. TAB Questions TAB questions covered the following ropics: • Guissineer. Do we have a budget? Walsh: Each alterna[ive references cost and whether i[ fits within the project budget or whether it would require addition resources. (Pg. 5 of the TAB memo) o Can we get the easements tha[ alt. 5 requires? Rindal: Must go [Ivough CDOT process before negotiations for easemen[s can begin. o Did s[aff look at an option in [he southern section for widening on the east side (lower end) and [hen half and half on both sides? Rindal: Yes, but did not preface as a sepazate alternative. It was considered in the alternative approaches. o Might that option alleviate potential problems with easements? Walsh: AI[ernative 5 has minimal impacts on adjacent properties, which was the in[ent of that alternative. o Where are we on replacing landscape? Will tree replacement be comparably sized trees? Rindal: T icall use 2"cali er Vees as have ood success with survival rates with re lacement in [hat size. Transponation Advisory Board Summnry Minutes Feb. 13, 2006 Page 1 Walsh: Willing to work wi[h property owners on Vees. First year after replacemen[, the landscaping convactor will maintain trees, replace if needed. o How is speed management being deal[ with? Al4 C has one lane [hat transitions farther sou[h [o Ihe Iwo- lane southbound direction, is traffic slowing anticipa[ed? Cowern: Do no[ an[icipate traffic slowing. o How is speed limit in that area being addressed? Cowern: Do not know if 35 is op[imal speed limi[ as tha[ limit was set by the Sta[e until about a yeaz ago. One of the key fac[ors of speed limit evaluation is how fast people acmally travel. Reducing speed limit would not likely acmally reduce speed. o Alt C, Wha[ can be done to help with L,eft wrn from Norwood? Cowern: Acceleration lane cadt be put there as there is not adequate space. Alt. D allows turn into second southbound lane. Evaluated traffic patterns there. Volume at Norwood is quite low. Most that are making that movement are utilizing gaps in roadway and not utilizing the other lane. The perceived benefit of the left [urn function does not Vade off the actual missing link/safery issue on the bike facility connection. o What is wrrent bicyde usage? See item in packet. Bicycle usage is smaller than that of motor vehicle traffic, but will not increase if we do not improve this bicycle facility. o Alt SD has a cost which is more than $200,000 over budget, how will that be dealt with if [hat option is chosen? Walsh: Could not eliminate much within the project Rindal: Es[imate is good and does not contain fat. Would have to find funds from other projects. Winfree: Other projec[s would either no[ ge[ done or would get done on a slower time frame, such as 28'~ SVeet and other bike/ped connections. • Rettew: o Is it reasonable for property owners to assume that if they lose 5 trees they will get 5 back? Walsh: have a conceptual landscape plan for alternative 5. Tree replacement is similar and based on eventual ma~cimum size of trees. Trying to marimize number of Vees pu[ in. o Are the properties at Broadway and Kalmia being affected by widening? Rindal: No, proposed changes stay within current right-of-way. o Can we save half the trees? Rindal: Staff believes that the prediction for the namber of trees that will need to be removed is fairly accurate. o Al[ D. Meadow to Norwood. This is 3' of widening. That costs the extra amount? Rindal: Yes, would cost still more if widened the west side instead of the east. o Can you narrow [he multi-use path? Walsh: no. The path would no longer meet [he city's minimum standards. We have already gone as faz as using minimum rather than preferted standards on width. o Can a mul[i-use path be pu[ in on the west side? Walsh: No, would add further to cost. • Rcettker: Is this secUOn of Broadway still state highway and dces CDOT s[ill administer? Rindal: Is no longer a state highway, CDOT administers the federal grant funds, all Vaffic regulations aze city responsibility. o Did staff consider option of reducing the number of travel lanes on Broadway south of Linden Avenue to Iris Avenue? Cowern: Did consider bu[ did no[ recommend op[ioa Level of service at Broadway and Iris is already low with four lanes. Anything which made it harder [o process traffic would further decrease service level. o Lane widths- Proposing [o narrow some of the travel lanes. RindaL In some places and altematives, will allow Iess widening. Will maintain full sized (11") outside lane next to bikelane. o Will narzowing lanes slow people down? Cowern: Narrowing has no[ been observed to be an effec[ive traffic mitiga[ion tool. o Will narrowing interior lanes create a safety issue? Cowern: Is a concern when lanes become too narrow. Downtown Broadway project shows that lane narrowing can function safely. o Left mrn from Broadway to Linden- Will bike ]ane exacerbate the problem of cars not yielding to bicycles? Can we sign it? Cowern: Can sign it. Historically have not. o Did staff consider an exis[ing infrasWCture alternative? Walsh: Did consider, but does no[ work well for two directional traffic. o No signs cunently direct people to use of facility. Cowem: Canno[ expect people ro cross over [o stay on the mul[i use path. If they dod[ do so [hen ihat is the Status Quo. People will ei[her s[ay in traffic or will be on a narrow sidewalk and [hus in conflict with any pedestrians in the corcidor. Providing a bike lane is the better option for aIl modes. • Nordback: If don't have gutter pan seam, can we decrease amount of land required and reduce cos[? RindaL Used the standard configuration (with gutter pan seam), as there is an assumption that we will use the existing curb and gutter if not widening on a side. Transporlation Advisory Board Summary Minutes Feb. 13, 2006 Page 2 o BBC (Boulder Bicycle Commu[ers) has an interest in keeping the road as narrow as possible. Will tolerate narrower bike lanes. Can vees be saved this way? Rindal: Can't predict that cbsely. Will try to save uees if possible, but have made reasonable estimates. o Crossing at Norwood (ped)- E-mails say crossing is dangerous as drivers cannot see flashing lights. Any enhancements in [he works? Cowern: Have already added stronger flashers. Jus[ finished pedestrian crossing treatmen[ evaluation, which show that that intersec[ion is very safe and is safer than it was prior to Veatment. o Clarification on landscape replacement. The City will ins[all water irriga[ion systems for property owners to operate. o Had an e-mail. Hillside on W. Side of Broadway looks unstable. Is this so? RindaL• Is perhaps not as good as we would like, but see no signs of instability. o Pedestrian Crosswalk at Kalmia and Broadway, can one be ins[alled?: Cowern: Evaluated that request using new cri[eria which is easier to meeL This lceation does no[ come close ro meeting the threshold for requiring a pedes[rian Vea[ment. o How to mitigate speed on Broadway? Cowern: Broadway is a principal arterial roadway. It cannot be physically consvained (traffic circles, speed bumps, etc). Could consider whether to include permanent speed displays. Should not be a huge cos[ increase. May have some marginal effectiveness. • Conrov: How much will under-grounding cost? Rindal: SC is $400,000. Cost is included in project budget, no[ ou[ of under-grounding credits. o Cost of replacing trees and landscaping is not specified. Rindal: Cost of landscaping, replacement and irrigation system is included. o $1 Million City is conVibuting is from which years budget? Rindal: 2004 and 2005. Funds aze available. o What construction improvements are we making to hold contracrors more accountable for responsibility for closures, etc? Walsh: See pg. 8 of the memo. Rindal: New contract has restrictions requiring conVactors to provide for all modes. o What if they dodt? What penalties do we impose? Rindal: Can dock pay. Contractors will be working for Transportation direcdy. This should improve accountability. o What about measures in the contract to control cost inflation? Rindal: Contract does deal direcdy with this issue. o Wha[ is the law concerning a bicycle taking up a full lane on Broadway? S[aff should look it up. Conroy believes it is legal. Believes that sou[hbound traffic on Broadway will stay on Broadway. Encourages signing to indicate that bicyclists can take lanes. What is the plan to deal with this? Cowern: Currently, some cyclists s[ay on Broadway, some divert to 15'~ and 9~'. No[ sure wha[ this projec[ will do [o afFect this pattern. o How will we measure success with this project? Walsh: Bicyde traffic data coun[s will be taken. Cowern: Will continue coun[ing [raffic which will show trends. Winfree: Will monitor acciden[ statistics, bicycle counts, vehicle counts. o How will we encourage people to use the facilities? Winfree: Will be addressing marketing and ouheach in the Mazch mee[ing that will apply across the transporta[ion sys[em. o Where is [he signage plan? Walsh: Will put signage in as part of [his projec[. • Roettker: Not using Xcel under-grounding credits? Walsh: No. Under-grounding credits are being used for other projects. o Anything to mitigate congesuon during rush hour during construction? RindaL• Traffic is directional. Plans are sensitive to directional flow of [raffic for differen[ times of day and will limit closures accordingly. o Tree loss is stated in $$, how does tha[ equate to actual trees? RindaL• Tree cost is on the matrix and each al[ernative shows which trees must be removed. Value is based on loca[ion, species, health, etc. City and consultants made evalua[ions on value. o At Iris what are southbound options? Walsh: Firs[ page of CEAP shows a good map of existing facility connec[ions. PubGc Transportatian Advisory Baard Summary Minutes Feb. /3. 2006 Page 3 • Mike Hogan- 3570 Broadway- In favor of putting in a bike faciliry at Kalmia and Broadway, but strongly oppose widening to the east at Kalmia and Broadway. Option 5 looks good. • Mary Eberle- 1520 Cress Court- Agree with Hogan about not widening a[ Kalmia and Broadway. Also urge something conservative and vy signage first. Perhaps current infrastructure can work better by painting lane lines on multi-use path and expanding use of sidewalks to accommodate bikea If a lane is removed, this creates a problem for cyclists turning left • Kate Gardner- 1155 Juniperv Here to represent Walk Bouldec Any of the alternatives improve both walkability and bikeability of the area. Improves safety greatly. Walk Boulder did a transportation survey. CiteA current conditions as an impediment to kids walking and cycling to school in this azea. • Lorena Christman- 1190 Linden- In oppositioa Losing mamre trees and moves busses 6 feet closer to her proper[y. Does suppor[ a multi use path, but wants assurance tha[ there will be replacement of landscape. Concerned about greater noise due to tree loss. Consider reducing speeds on Broadway to compensate for noise and to increase safety. If road is widened, will encourage speeding. Signal at Broadway and Linden favors Broadway (is usually green), contributes to speeding. • Raymond Miles-3615 Broadway (Broadway and Kalmia) - Please preserve the trees in this area. Have worked with City in past to curve the sidewalk to preserve trees. City has been very cooperative in past. Urge minimization of environmental impact of this project on the azea. Preserve as much as possible. • Brian Smith- 1240 Norwood/Lois Abbot 1250 Norwood- Interested in bike lanes, but concerned about this plan as would lose southbound lane. Concerned about left turn from Norwood onto Broadway. Thanks for notification and open mindedness of TAB and staff. Support multi-use sidewalk, but not acceptable to reduce number of lanes at Norwood. Increases safety hazards of [urning lefr from Norwood. School Vaffic at peak hours increases danger. Have given TAB peti[ion which recommends alterna[ive D. Norwood and 19'", downhill bike lane merges with VafFic and that works well. • Premena- P.O. Box 1038- Is not a good idea to widen Broadway. Is a good idea to widen sighdines and decrease velocity of traffic in the area. 31ane swcture with deceleration and acceleration lanes might help problem and still allow lefr turn at Norwood. Dodt widen until Junipec Urge not removing any trees and for planting more. For bike lanes and marking multi use path as such. Should mazk mul[i use paths bo[h on paths and in vehiwlaz in[ersec[ions. • Alan Streeteo- 2830 Dover Dr. - In support. Sidewalk tha[ is currenUy multi use path has too many intersections (Driveways and streets) as is. This project should improve [hat situation. Prefer no-widening alternatives. Might be useful to consider a Ieft mrn lane. Reducing speed limit would help as well. • David Allured- 4231 Eaton Court- BBC (Boulder Bicycle Commuters): We are in favor of project provided i[ can be done within existing roadway (no widening). Personal statement: If Broadway from Iris North were reduced to one lane each way plus lefr mrn bays, tha[ would constrain auto traffic but not to an unreasonable extent, and then continuous bike lanes could be added without impacting people's property. Urge TAB to vote project back to drawing board to add that alternative and re-do public process. • Brenda Bennet- 3525 Broadway-Representing neighbors. Speed is a problem already. Widening will promote this problem rather than solving iL Widening is a bad idea. In support of previous speakers ideas. Public participation was closed. Motion: Nordback: Move to recommend Aternative 5 and Alternative C as per staff recommendation. Roettker. Seconds Vote: 3-2 Rettew and Guissinger opposed. Rettew wishes it noted that there is a unanimous consensus by the TAB in support of alternative 5. The differences in opinion showing in the vote regard support for Option C-vs-D respectively. Transportation Summary Minutes Feb. 13. 2006 Page 4 ~ Conroy left the meeting following the vote. I Agenda Item 5- Staff brieting and TAB input on proposed amendments to the BVCP trails map. Mazni Ratzel, Randal Rutsch and Jean Gatza presen[ed the topic. Changes [o the u'ails map are proposed during major updates. 2005-2006 would reflect OSMP Master Plan, 2003 Transportation Master Plan upda[e, Gunbarrel community cen[er plan and any CEAPs approved. Open Space boazd recommended (to Planning Board and City Council) removal of a conceptual trail along the Union Pacific Railway due to environmental concerns around the adjacen[ open space, until smdies have been done. Staff does no[ recommend removal at [his point. Many Vails advocates would like [o see it remain. TAB Discussion TAB comments covered the following: TAB is not cleaz about what processes were used to make [he decisions for change and what the impacts of the changes are, so dces not feel able to provide informed input with the information provided. TAB feels that more study is needed and more information needs to be ptovided, especially regazding the deletions. TAB further feels that the deletion of the Diagonal path is a mistake and is not in line with the 1'MP. • Rettew: Is this informational only or can the TAB affect the changes? Ga[za: Staff is looking for input and suggestions from boards so that input and recommendations can be forwazded to the deciding bodies. o Do not feel can make a recommendation at this time as have not had a chance to study the proposed changes and their effects on transportation issues. o Who on the staff reviewed modifications? Ratzel: Deletions were a joint effort of several staffers in reflection oF the TMP. o TAB dces not generally support removal of the Diagonal path. (present TAB members concur) o TAB dces not feel adequately informed about all of the deletions and so is not comfortable with most of the deletions. (present TAB members concur) o Dces not feel that all changes (large and small) have been seriously looked ai. Ratzel: a s[aff group spent much time looking at connections to create a network using items that had been through public process. Diagonal alteration reflects public inpu[ through Boulder County process. • Guissin¢er: Is this a technical change only? Planning process has been done? Ra[zel: Correct. Public process has been done. • Rcettker. Did TAB approve removal of the Lobo trail? • Nordback: Does not feel public prceess has been adequate. Feels that a very thorough process needs ro be done. Cuaently not comfortable with several of the deletions. o Opposes deletion of certain trails. RatuL Staff feels [ha[ there are adjacent connecdons that serve the needs of the areas. o Like the "bubbles" and glad staff fought to keep them in. o Last paragraph page 5, T'MP amendment process. Does this apply only to the Sombrero Marsh? Rauel: Dces apply only to Sombrero Marsh. Agenda Item 6-Sfaff briefing and TAB discussion on the Boulder Transit Village Area Plan Transportation Network Plan (BTV TNP). Micki Kaplan and Louise Grauer presented the topic. Last meeting, regional and local vansit was reviewed. TAB input has been incorpora[ed and will be going to Planning Boazd and Councii this month. There is new informational material which is being presented for inpuL This mee[ing, staff is seeking input on the `bisiod' for [he uea and that [he identified key topic azeas aze appropria[e? Louise Grauer presen[ed [he revised TAB schedule. Check-in ma[erials will be presented nex[ meeting (Mazch 13~'). Revised goals, key issues, etc. to be applied to [he land use and 7ansportation options. TAB Discussion TAB comments covered the following: • Roettker. Why is there no public input until December? Grauer. Process still needs to be developed for new public process. Much public input has already been taken in. o If we Vy ro be bold with the vision of the Transit Village, an options assessment might not reflect that. Kaplan: Having TDM be part of the process should allow for differentiation between options. Grauer. Opportuniry in more qualitative analysis that is planned may help address that issue. Transportation Advisory Board Summary Minutes Fe6. 13, 2006 Page 5 o Vision- Want to think big so that people looking back 50 years from now do so fondly. Caz free neighborhood. Keep impacts of population growth small. People who live and work in this area should think of alternate modes as a first choice for travel instead of cars. • Nordback: Vision-TransitVillage with central plaza and artistic gateway to welcome people to Boulder. All ped/bike. Paths to travel options and the rest of [he city. Night-[ime vibrancy and market place. Incorporate into part of roadway for elderly/disabled on scooters. • Rettew: Vision- Nigh[ Bazaaz. Good way to integrate Latino flavor into [he area Hub is seamless transportation centec Look is classic. Has vain station. Does not look like disposable buildings. Historic feel. Built to last. Actual neighborhood has a sec[ion that is all alternative modes, no cazs at aIL Vibrant all day long. Used for more than Vansit. Seamless network of Vails. People movers. Some form of heip for area connec[ions for disabled, elderly etc. o Key topics for future TAB meetings reviewed - Parking and TDM should be discussed together. Multimodal connections should be sepazated. . Guissineer: Vision- More urban. Green environment Lo[s of ooen soace. Taller. Denser, urban feel. Agenda Item 7-A. Matters from Staff Transoortation Annual Report Outline and diswssion. Rutsch presented the update. Would like to shorten the Annual Report and modify to a more interesting format. Provided an outline of prospective new form for report. Seeking TAB inpu[ on proposed new report. • Nordback: Like the idea of making it more accessible to the public and simple and easy to read. • Roettker. Like the idea. Would like to see some progress reports on TMP goals. Rutsch: Progress reports would fali into "report card" section. May not get updates on goals every year, but could give updates over time. Use the structure and look of the wrrent TMP as the foundation. • GuissinQer: Looks good. Seems like it could use a par[ [o deal wi[h the focus for the coming year or two yeazs. • Rettew: Need to track the marquee goals. Need to structure the report by the four key azeas of the TMP. FasTracks I,ocal Optimization (FLO) update. Roskowski presented update. Staff took a field trip to TREX in December. Very helpful for dds and dodts. Had first meeting last week. Got good input on where ro focus and on wha[ the imporfant issues are and what [he lis[ of to-do items may be. Nex[ meeting, will star[ to determine what will be taken care of through existing infrastructure, processes and plans, and what will need to be addressed that has no[ yet been. In May will bring TAB a lis[ of [hings to look at. • Roettker. Meeting was productive. Colorado Safe Routes to School erant upda[e. Marni Ratzel and Bill Cowern gave the presentatioa Grant will support pedestrian/bike ouveach and education as well as infrastructure in school vicinities. Staff is now looking at which schools need improvements. Would like ro apply for some facility fundiog for next year. • Ret[ew: Is this like a TTP process? Ratzel: Is differenL Is federal funding through reimbursement. Process is very different. • Roe[tker: DRCOG involved a[ all? Staff: No, funding and process is totally [hrough the Sta[e. • Nordback: Is Landon Hilliard drafting the applications for BVSD? Ratzel: Landon is drafting ideas. Maybe a Bike rodeo and other ideas for the program side. • Nordback: Working with schools to make sure they are on boazd with developments in facilities? Foothill and Flatirons have exis[ing programs and now get mini-gran[ funds. Working closely with schools. • Rettew: Compliments staff on taking a TAB retrea[ goal and both implementing and funding iL Will send a le[[er in support based on TAB's B VSD resolution. Motion Rettew: To continue past 10:00 PM. Seconded: Nordback Vote 4-0 (Conroy absent) • Reeional Studies Updace. Tracy Winfree gave the presentation. Updates on the 28'" sVeet project and public outreach. Drafr US 36 EIS is coming out in the summer. Early TIP results are looking good. Boulder County is under funded and thus received a boost in funding. • Roettker. Is there an opportunity ro get commuter rail accelerated? Winfree: Commuter rail is Transportation Advisory Board Summary Minutes Feb. 13, 2006 Page 6 funded by FasTracks. Issue may come up ro sever commuter rail from EIS. FTA will not sign an EIS for commuter rail if they are not imolved in the funding. IPs possible that rail could be accelerated. • Nordback: How are we doing getting detail into EIS? Winfree: We will have to address it when the EIS drafr comes out. • Other Matters: There were none. Agenda Item 7- B. Matters from the Board. • Retreat Follow-uo. Winfree presented. Retreat follow up form has been updated. Can become a regular part of packec Completed items have been undedined. • Roettker: Outreach to council, need to make sure council is better educated on TAB issues by TAB members. • Nordback: Greenways update on Habitat Maintenance funds. Greenways is doing a study this year to determine how funds are spent and whether they should be reallxated. • Nordback: Want to make sure the "To Do" list is updated regarding the construction detours. • Rcettker. First meeting of EcoPass Sustainability group update. Look at the Downtown employee survey. 64% alt. mode share. Agenda Item 8- Discussion on future schedule. Agenda Item 9 - AdjournmenL Motion: Motion to adiourn : Nordback Motion seconded: Guissineer The vote was 4-0 in tavor of the motion. The meetin was ad'ourned at 1030 .m. Date, Time, and Location of Neact Meeting: The next regulaz meeting will take place on Monday, Mazch 13, 2006, 6 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 1777 Broadwa , 2"a F7 Approved by: Transportation Advisory Board Summary Minutes Feb. 13, 2006 Page 7