Loading...
2 - Minutes, January 9, 2006CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Transportation Advisory Board DATE OF MEETING: Jan. 9, 2006 NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Kaaren Davis, 303-4413229 NAMES OF MEMBERS, COUNCIL, STAFF AND INVITED GOESTS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS: TAB - Jim Ret[ew (chair), Bill Roettker, Krista Nordback, Lynn Guissinger STAFF - Tracy Winfree, Mike Sweeney, Joe Paulson, Noreen Walsh, Rod Rindal, Micki Kaplan, Randall Rutsch, Marni Ratzel, Kaaren Davis, secretary WHAT TYPE OF MEETING [REGULAR] Agenda Item 1- Call to Order. The meetin was called to order at 6:00 .m. Agenda Item 2- Meeting Minutes from Aug. 8, 2005. The minutes from Dec. 12, 2005 were approved. Motion: Motion to approve as written. Nordback Motion seconded: Roettker Vote: 4-0 in favor ( Conroy absent). Motion Passes Agenda Item 3- General Public Participation. • Premena, P.O.Box ] 038- Please consider change to "No OutleP' signs [o be less auto oriented. They should indicate when there is an oudet for bike or pedestrian traffic. Wondering what priorities of transit village are, concerned about growth numbers. • Nolan Rosall, 616 14`~ SL- 1) Invited TAB members to participate in Downtown Access Study- will update current trends, build-out data, employee Vansportation use etc. Some info will be available by February. 2) DMC thinks [hat EcoPass is important but RTD has increased the cos[ so much that Downtown cannot continue to pay the full cost. Need to stabilize progam and find a system for cost shazing beyond the DMC. 3) Want the first meeting by the end of Ianuary. 4) Possible pazking policy changes and timing rela[ive to 29`~ Street opening. • Molly Win[er, 475 Poplar- DMC, bringing (above) issues to TAB at[ention. TAB Questions to Staff: Nordback: Do we have a policy re: No OuHet Signs? Do we have a list of potential bcations? Raael replied, providing update on "way finding signs". Issue complicated. If sidewalk is not on our bike system, we do not sign it as such. Cannot afford to replace all at once. Can do gradually as signage lifespan is up. Sweeney: Will work on how to get information to sign crews to get ]ceations out. Rettew: Put on a fumre agenda, an item dealing with Retreat big and small items. Public Partici ation was closed. Agenda Item 4- Staff briefling and TAB input on the Broadway (Iris Avenue to Norwood Avenue) bike lane project Community Emironmental Assessment Process (CEAP). Noreen Walsh and Rod Rindal presented. Purpose is to increase travel safery in North Broadway comdor by addressing need for bike lanes between Iris and Norwood. Area sees heavy bicycle use during peak hours. Did bicycle compatibility study, area is curzently level service D. Wi[h project will apgrade to B or C which is considered very good. Ins[all 6.S wide bike lanes on each side (Preferred City standard) including pan and curb. In order to make improvement, street must be widened as much as 8 feet in some sections. Curb will be relocated. Trying to minimize impacts on adjacent propeRies and motorists. Projec[ will address problem of sidewalks too narrow for multi-use traf6c. The utiliry line wiil be undergrounded as part of the project TAB Questions TAB questions covered [he following topics: • Guissinaer: What happens in various alternatives with multi-use paths? Walsh: Multi-use path on E side of Broadway will continue [o exist. North section, it has not been determined whether lane will be dedicated/striped or widened shazed use. Have space ro do either, so question dces not need to be answered in CEAP Transportation Advisory Board Summary Minutes Jan. 9, 2006 Page / • Guissineer: Why shazed use better? Ra[zel: Significan[ downward slope. Dodt wan[ folks jockeying for space when bikes are constrained by small bike lane. o Comment: Reducing to one lane southbound is concerning. Would create higher risk by constricting high volume of motor traffic. Ratzel/ Sweeney: Compatibility study done, Impacts on vehicles is only a few more seconds prior to signal. A[ signal, maintain two lanes so will not change vehicular level of service. Vehicular traffic will no[ be significanHy impacted. Will be width for both a single vehicle lane and a dedicated bike lane. Have same physical space, jus[ deciding on merits of sviping -vs- shared lane. o West Widening (Alt B) has note "exceeds project budget." Walsh: cost goes up because option requires construction of a retaining wall. o Alt 2-5 all line up for impact. o Have summary of specific public comments in support of and agains[ in February packe[? Walsh: Yes. Details will be provided. • Roettker: o Transit stop enhancements. Can you provide details? Stop between Kalmia and Linden, folks trying to cross sveet have a long way to go to get to a designa[ed crossing area. o More detailed breakdown of cost differences between options. o In CIP, Broadway reconstruction Pine to Iris scheduled. Will that project mesh well wi[h this one? Any impact a[ all? Rindal: Should be no impact. No conflict between projects. o For sou[hbound cyclists on Broadway. Do we have adequa[e signage to direct cyclists abou[ where to go once they hit Iris Avenue? Walsh: noted, will deal with it. o Construction impacts will be dealt with in Feb. Packet? Walsh: yes o Reducing southbound to one lane: Do we have future vaffic projections that justify reduction to one lane? Walsh: Yes, have tha[ info in packet. o Is possible to eliminate gutter pan seam in bike lane? Walsh: will address. o Mi6gation for landscaping & utilities impacts? . Rettew: o Where aze the 8 feet coming from on both sides? Are we encroaching? Walsh/RindaL Option 2(South side) oudines right-of-way line. Reloca[ing wrb 3 feet on both sides. N. of Kalmia on west side, there will be encroachments. Most places [here is plenty of right-of-way.Do we actually know impacts if we claim our actual righ[-of-way? Walsh/Rindal: In most cases, improvements will be in [he exis[ing right-of-way. There may be a couple of properties where sidewalk easement will be required. o How much Federal funding? Walsh: $600,000 o Conswction impacts? Walsh/Rindal: Should begin in summer. Will get more information for Feb. TAB Meeting o Safer when caz and bike not stacked up? Ratzel: Function of width of bike lane and preferences of cyclists. Proficient cyclists are comfortable taking lane and having vehicle behind. Looking at data from other communi[ies which have made similaz choices. o Is it even safer to NOT have a bike lane on southbound side? To keep status quo. Sweeney: will be addressed in discussion. o Accident rates? Walsh: Most accidents are from vehicles turning in in[ersections. o Additional cost of retaining wall? RindaL• $600,000 -$800,000. o Number of trees taken out? Walsh: Have numbers and values. o Fumre traffic projections available tonight? Walsh: Have info but not available tonight. o Does Lynn need to recuse herself? Guissinger. No, not within range. • Guissin¢er: Does not like the idea of going down to one southbound vehicle lane. Security in dedicated bike lane. Should we consider a"no ac[iod' alternative split in half? Walsh: Can look at that. • Nordback: Prefer Alterna[ive A. No retaining wall. o Further sou[h on Broadway, 13`" Street azea is unsigned and very circuitous. Many cyclis[s will choose [o con[inue straight tlvough. Can we make a be[ter connec[ion which will encourage cyclists to use it? • Rettew: Should be part of [his project to make sure connec[ions are logical. • Roettker: Any schools in azea? If so school kids as users should be carefully considered in choosing op[ion of dedicated lane or shared. Staff: yes, Foothills and Centennial. • Guissineer. Like shared ]ane option. • Rettew: No options have two lanes southbound and a shared lane? Walsh: No option currently. TranspoKation Advisory Board Summary Minutes Jan. 9, 2006 Page 2 Public Participation There was none. • Nordback: Boulder Bicycle Commuter representatives had to leave for a meeting, but probably wan[ed to speak in support of the project. Prefer the shazed use option. Public participation was closed. Agenda Item 5- Staff briefing and TAB discussion regarding traffic signal warrants and city procedures for the installation of traffic control devices. Joe Paulson and Mike Gardner-Sweenev presented the topic. Discussion of prceess city uses for traffic signals installation. Packet details 1) cucren[ method, 2) options to modify process, 3) Staff recomendation to improve process and communication. TAB Discussion TAB comments covered the following: • Nordback: Support staff rewmmendation to keep role the same and enhance communica[ion. Post on website? Sweeney: Yes, including a wa[ch and alert lis[ to inform TAB of projec[ sta[us. o Want to inform public more, even if they cannot participate in process. Gives public a"buy-id'. Can we send things out ro people within a certain radius? Sweeney: Not wrrently part of staff process. Covered in alternatives analysis. • Roettker. Signal at NIST was unique si[ua[ion. There was no real way for people [o be informed or have part in process. Sweeney: MANA (Martin Acres Neighborhood Association) was informed, but no other no[ification was done. o Posting signs prior to action may be a good and cost-effective way to inform public. o Happy wi[h staff recommendation. • Guissineec Support staff recommended Option 2. Informing TAB & putting up sign is great idea. • Rettew: Asked for details of how TAB would be informed. Sweeney: explained how watch list and alert lis[ would work. o How would public voice their concerns? Only through call in number on notification signs? Sweeney: Public input takes the form of an alterna[ives analysis, and as part or lazger projects with CEAPs, etc. Paulson: Generally [he public perception of need for signals exceeds [hat of [he traffic engineers. Public wants more, so when signals actually go in, it meets public perceptions and so there do not tend to be large numbers of phone calls in protest. o Looking for happy balance to give public a voice in a process [ha[ is really administrative. o Of the 26 traffic signals installed in the last 13 years, how many had no public process? Sweeney: About half went through an alternatives analysis or developmen[ review, both of which have a public process component. o Happy ro go wi[h staff recommenda[ion, but would like [o con[inue to look for low cost ways to reach out to the public. Sweeney: There was a transi[ion from Council-based decision to current City-manager-based method where decisions aze based on national standazds. Need [o avoid conflict between perception of having pablic process and actual functioning by administra[ive standazds. • Roettker. We aze on the right track with improving public process and yet not going too faz. Agenda Item 6-A. Matters from Staff • FasTracks Local Optimization (FI.O) upda[e. Walsh presented update. Handed out summary of T-REX projec[ touc Purpose was [o find ou[ what has and has no[ worked well there so that we can learn lessons as FLO proceeds. Inclusion in EIS impoRant Memorandums of understanding conVibu[ed [o be[ter funding. It will be up to local governments to deal with connec[ions planning. First mee[ing for work program will be in Februazy. • In response to Roettker's questions, RTD will be involved. No plans to include CDOT at this poin[, but may be a good thing to include Ihem in [he fu[ure. • In response to Roettker's questions Re; Mayors coalition. Coalition has been a very effective vehicle for getting community concerns and wants addressed in development of plan. • FI.O Work ro am will focus on im rovements in facilities and ro rams needed within Boulder. TranspoRation Advisory Board Summary Minutes Jan. 9. 2006 Page 3 Reeional smdies update. Tracy Winfree gave presentation. • Discussed release of draft EIS scheduled for May/June 2006 • Comp Plan Trails map will be coming ou[ next meeting, changes result from o[her public processes such as TMP, Open Space Plan,. IF TAB members have ques[ions please contac[ Mami Ra[zel or Jean Gatza. • Downtown Transportation Access Study is getting started. Asking for two TAB members to participa[e. Nordback, Guissinger and Roettker tentatively agree to participate. Perhaps one will function as an alternate. • Key Issues Book has several items on Vansportation issues - Please review. Update on Transit Villace Area Plan (TVAPI. Micki Kaplan, Randall Rutsch and Ruth McHeyser gave the presentation. Purpose is to update TAB on recent course corrections, clazify some pieces of the regional transit context, and to get input on how to improve the materials. TVAP schedule has been extended. February public hearings are cancelled and will be rescheduled. Had put out some preliminary land use and [ransportation concep[s. Council felt more time needed to be spent developing those options and related materials. Recommended work with the working group to do this. In process of scheduling the first working group meeting. • Transportation Con[ext Timeline: • Nordback: It is not clearly visible on screen, handou[ would be helpful. o Wha[ is going to happen in the in[erim between when [he station is built and the BRT and rail service begin? Winfree: In about 18 months RTD will begin a Phase 1 BRT service, which affects the phase 1 development of the RTD-owned site. • FasTracks Regional Transporta[ion Network: • No comments, excep[ needing better overview description of the map. • Regional Aceess Diagram: • No Comments • Travel Time Savings: • Nordback: Baz Graph would be nice and might illusVate better. • Roettker. Baz graph would be a very effective way to show differences in travel [imes. • Guissineer: Commenr. Would be good to define what BRT is and how it differs from Regional bus and how they serve needs respec[ively. • Current and Fu[ure Regional and Local Transi[ Rou[es: • Roettker. Do we have data on where inbound commuters want ro get to once they come into Boulder? Rutsch: We do have much of that data, available through several different sources. We should find more de[ail as the projec[ develops. • Access Hierarchy: • No Comments • S[a[ion Platform Scenarios 1-3 • What exactly aze these illustrations attempting to show? • Roettker: Have ro design the local service to serve Iceal needs. Sweeney: Station must serve both the local residen[ and [he non-resident ]ceal worker. o People might think that the bus will serve only the bus station and will not also serve the rail station or the Transit Village sta[ion. Staff: Local bus will service both. Rcettker thinks it is important to make i[ cleaz [hat local bus serves rail and regional bus with a combination of service within the sites and on arterials. Whi[e Paper from RTD providing background on RTD policies for no platform on a wrved track. Plus, in this situation, it is preferred to have more space between regional busBRT and train: • No Comments • Other Matters • NextBus Upda[e. Cris Jones presen[ed information showing an increase in numbers of people accessing [he NexBus website. Still have telecommunica[ions issues. 11 signs have problems with cell network and aze not working. Should be fixed within the next couple of months. Information is pulled every two minutes through the orbital technology, so can only see busses every two minutes. Proiect is in the works [o improve this. HOP and Buff Bus have much better prediction times than Transponation Advisory Board Summary Minutes Jan. 9. 2006 Page 4 the res[ of the RTD system. Next year, have a$200,000 gran[ which requires matching. We are a[temp[ing [o find creative ways to use [hose funds in partnership with CU. Perhaps new transponders will count towazds local matching. • Rettew: This technology works in Australia. Why does it not work as well here? Jones: RTD technology is old and obsolete, that is the main problem. o SuggesC use Channel 8 as another means [o access informa[ion. Jones: Channel8 fel[ that the information as displayed was no[ easy [o understand. Ongoing communication with Channel8 will be had to continue to Vy to use them as a way to access the NextBus sys[em. • Rcettker: Is NextBus giving us some compensation for [he lack oF effec[iveness in their sys[em? Jones: Yes. Agenda Item 6- B. Matters from the Board. • Nordback: Tour scheduled for November 2005 has not happened and needs to be re-scheduled. o TAB is supposed [o be tracking the modal information for the Transpor[ation Master Plan (TMP), should be. Winfree: Rutsch is working on a Metrics Report or Annual Report on progress toward TMP goals. TAB will be receiving information about this project in 2006. • Rettew: Civic Forum "State of Boulder County° shows number of vehicle miles in Boulder down in 2005. Agenda Item 7 - Adjournment Motion: Motion to adiourn :Krista Nordback Motion seconded: Lvnn GuissinQer 1'he vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. The meetinQ was adiourned at Date, Time, and Location of Ne1ct Meeting: The next regulaz meeting will take place on Monday, February 13, 2005, 6 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 1777 Approved by: Date: Transportation Advisory Board Summnry Minutes Jan. 9, 2006 Page 5