Loading...
Minutes - Transportation - 3/13/2006CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Transportation Advisory Boazd DATE OF MEETING: Maz. 13, 2006 NAMEITELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Kaaren Davis, 303-4413229 NAMES OF MEMBERS, COUNCIL, STAFF AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS: TAB - Jim Rettew (chair), Bill Rcettker, , Lynn Guissinger, Myriah Conroy STAFF - Tracy Winfree, Mike Sweeney, Micki Kaplan, Louise Grauer, Andrea Robbins, Martha Roskowski, Joe Paulson, Tim Swope (Boulder County), Kaaren Davis, secretary Article I. WHAT TYPE OF MEETING [REGULAR] Article II. Agenda Item 1- Call to Order. The meetin was called to order at 6:00 .m. Agenda Item 2- MeeUng Minutes from Jan. 9, and Feb. 13, 2006. Motion: Motion to approve minutes from Jan 9. : Guissinger Motion seconded: Rcettker Vote: 3-0 in tavor. MoGon passes (Nordback and Conroy absent) Conroy arrived after vote. Motion to approve minutes from Feb. 13.: Roettker MoHon seconded: Guissinger Vote: 4-0 in favor. MoGon passes. (Norback absent) Agenda Item 3- General Public Participation. Peter Richards-470 university- NIST entrance opening tonighc Recommends TAB go down and see how bike and pedestrian interface works. He and BoulderBicycleCommuters think design is a disaster. 1,600 employees going in and out all the time. If design is bad, TAB will have to be proactive and change it. TAB Questions to Sfaff: Tab confirms with staff that design in ques[ion was heavily affected by Federal requirements. Design was one thought safest by traffic engineers. Public Partici ation was closed. Agenda Item 4- BrieGng from Boulder County stall regarding the Consortium of Cities Regional Transit Comatittee. Tim Swooe of Boulder Countv presented. The Boulder County Consortium of Cities Regional Transit Committee (CC/RTC) is made up of council members and mayors of all the towns/cities in Boulder County and Broomfield. The update specifically concerned the Transit Service Enhancement Plan purpose s[atement and goals. The purpose of the TSEP is to provide the CGRTC and RTD with a plan for an integrated package of transit services that links communities within Boulder and Broomfield Counties and improves regional transportation connections. Focus on improvements that serve unmet transi[ needs; provide a comprehensive range of mobility options; improve vansit awazeness; and reduce the reliance on single occupant vehicles. The Project Goals are: l) To build on the strengths of the existing transit infrastructure and services. 2) To identify new transit services to address gaps in the current system and respond to emerging Iravel pa[[erns. 3) To integrate the different types of transit services to maximize [he effectiveness of the overall plan and emphasize the need for coordination and partnerships among local jurisdictions. 4) To increase the awazeness of transit services throughout the communities [hrough education, mazketing, incentives and promo[ioa 5) To develop an Implementa[ion Plan that identifies the costs, benefits and po[ential funding mechanisms and complements the RTD FasTracks Plan. o Having three (3) public open houses this week. o Compiled lis[ of services and ra[ed [hem according [o the five goals. o Connection of communities and compatibility with existing routes a priority. o Three different scenazios developed for service enhancements if additional funding is acquired. 1. Scenario A: Improvement only of exis[ing services and routes. 2. Scenario B: A few additional services. High in 28'" St. Comdoc Call-n-Ride good for communi[ies east. Transportatian Advisary Baard Summary Minutes Mar. 13, 2006 Page 1 3. Scenario C: Mos[ comprehensive package of improvements. Both increase [o existing service levels and routes and addition of new services and routes. 4. Series of Broomfield services listed separately. TAB QuesGons TAB questions covered the following topics: • The TAB approved of the planning as it fits well with the regional improvements in the City of Boulder Master Plan. • The TAB inquired about funding sources for the presented scenazios, and whether the County would be helping [o finance [he existing service buy-ups that are currently funded by the City. County staff clarified that [here is curtently no funding source iden[ified and that there will likely be some substitution of County funds for City in existing buy-ups. The County is currently looking at count fundin o dons. Agenda Item 5- Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation regarding the Transit Village Area Plan revised goals and objectives and rail platform IocaGon. Micki Kaolan and Louise Grauer presen[ed [he topic. There aze a series of questions for TAB consideration: o Planning Board and the TVAP Working Group have recommended focusing first on the hub area. Do you agree with this? Do you agree that the transportation network plan should be developed for the entire area? New boundaries were explained. 160 acres compared ro 450 acres. Decrease hub size: 4-0 in support Network plan: Conroy moves: Guissinger seconds. Advise City Council to create finer grain in hub area and advance mul4modal corridors outside hub area. 4-0 in favor o Revised Goals & Objectives- New; create a cenval focus or heart for the area. Create a plan that will adapt to and be resilient. Do you have anything to add or delete from the revised list of goals and objectives? Do you recommend using the goals and objecdves to provide direction for developing the opaons? Motion- Rettew: Seconded: Roettker: Overall TAB agrees with the goals and objectives but would like to see some specific and measurable relation back to the TMP going forward. 4-0 in favor. o Vision Statements- Came from brainstorming from boazds and working group and public. What vision statements (either prioritized from the lis[ above or combinations of new ones) do you think should guide the development of options in the next phase of planning process? TAB feels the visions are not distinct enough to choose one over the others. If TAB had to choose they would say #2 (altemative energy and sustainability is the focus and that all other vision statements are components of that o Key Transportation Issues: new- More detaii. Do you want to add or delete anything from the lis[ of key issues related to transportation? Are these all the issues that should be addressed in the development of the options? Are there any issues on [he list for which you wish to give guidance at this time? The TAB thought that the key issues were good overall and on the right track. The TAB recommended that the Key Transportatiou Issues also deal wit6 such things as; how local transit will operate within the hub; how the BRT will coordinate with rail and bcal transit; and some speciCcs such as noise mitigation. o Rail Pla[form- What is TAB's recommendation on the rail platform loca[ion? 1. Approach A: Accept the information provided by RTD tha[ [he rail pla[form will be locatiod on the sVaight section of track and the Regional Bus/BRT sta[ion will be at the Transit Village site at 30'" and Peazl. 2. Approach B: Direct staff to advocate with RTD for a different outcome. Rail plaKorm location: Motion-Roettker, Seconded-Guissinger - TAB accepts RTD's posifion and therefore the proposed locadon of the rail plaKorm on the straight stretch. 4•0 in favor. Bus/BRT Station: Motion-Guissinger, Seconded: Conroy- Recommend keeping BusBRT staGon at the 30~' and Pead site. 2-2 (Roettker and Rettew opposed as Wey teel that more informa6on is needed to make the decision. Guissinger and Conroy in favor as they feel the reasons for location at 30~' and PeaA are adequate and proceeding directly with the project is beneficial). o Does TAB have any questions for comments abou[ the proposed process and the role of the working group? TAB is happy with the status quo. Transportation Advisory Board Summary Minutes Mar. 13, 2006 Page 2 TAB comments covered the following: • Hub Area : o The TAB felt that [he issue of beginning with the hub area was separate from that of the Network Plan. o The TAB was supportive of the idea of beginning with the smaller hub azea and allowing that area to guide development of the rest of the Transit Village azea. o The TAB was in agreement that the Network plan for the entire area was daunting in its size and that many assumptions would have to be made in dealing with it The TAB expressed concerns that the Plan might be missing important connections to the rest of the area and the ciry, especially connections to the north. Accordingly, the TAB recommended that the Network Plan deal with the "finer graid' in the HUB azea and with the lazger grain overall to ensure major connections but leave flexibility of the finer connections in dealing with potential land use changes. • Revised Goals and Obiectives: o The TAB felt that the wrrent goals and objectives aze moving in the right direction, but aze not very specific and would be hazd to quantify with regards to implementation and measurement of success. It was felt that the goals were perhaps not aggressive enough and should align closely with the goals and objectives of the Transportation Master Plan. Staff suggested that perhaps additional objec[ives could be established as part of the Connections Plan when it is developed. • Vision Statements: o The TAB felt that while vision statements 2, 3 and 7 stood out, that overall the vision statements while all good ideas, were perhaps roo homogeneous. It was felt that most of the vision statements seemed like pieces that would fit into lazger concepts. Perhaps the vision statements are not yet well enough developed and differeniiated. • Key Transportation Issues: o The TAB recommended [hat [he Key Transpor[a[ion Issues deal also wi[h such things as; how lceal transit will operate within the hub; how the BRT will coordinate with rail and Iceal transir, and some specifics such as noise mitigation. • Rail Platform: o Roettker. recommend sepaza[e issues in[o 1) Rail platform location and 2) Location of Bus/BRT station. o The TAB felt that the issue of the location of the Rail platform is deaz. Needs to be on the straight s[retch. Bus/BRT station is something that may need more public diswssion. o Some of the TAB members felt that there needed to be more public discussion and input on [he topic of the potential co-locadon of the Bus/BRT stadon with the rail platform. That now, in the shor[ run, would be [he time [o explore that option. o Other members of TAB felt that the project is advancing well and along a cleaz path and that to bypass RTD's recommendation of the 30'" and Pearl lceation for the BusBRT station would be to create unnecessary and non-beneficial delays to the project. o Staff clazified the position in support of the 30ih and Peazl site for the BusBRT station (non-co location). RTD is building the faciliry on a grant The longer the community delays, the more the grant will be eroded through increased construc[ion costs. If a new location were considered it would delay the project by several years in negotiation and acquisition of a new site, and would require a considerable investment in time and money. Further, the 30'" and Pearl site has been determined [o be [he bes[ location for the Bus/BRT station. Access to Pearl is cri[ical and func[ions much better from a traffic engineering perspec[ive. Access to Goose Creek is critical, as is proximity [o Ihe 29'" Stree[ mall area. Having a Federal grant to build (which RTD does for the 30`~ and Pearl location) is also critical [o implementa[ion. Staff consulted outside experts who also pinpointed the 30`~ and Peazl loca[ion as being optimal for the purpose. Not ro say that co-location is not an option, but there are very strong advantages to bus access to Pearl that likely outweigh any nominal advantages to co-location. • Working Group: o TAB is happy with the stams quo. Transportatiort Advisory Board Summary Minutes Mar. l3, 2006 Page 3 o Gary Myre- 3175 ll Street How do you make [he Transi[ Village and TOD work? That is a ques[ion Council did not ask but that TAB and Transportation can and should answer. Please ensure connections aze appropriately connected, logical. Recommendation to preserve connections between 32"" and 33`a would be valuable. Shift thinking more to North-South. o Sarah Michl- 501 Aurora: Here on behalf of the League of Women Voters, regazding station bcations for regional Vansit. Recommend putting ffain and bus stations in same locations. Putting both in the same place gives users more choices and to make quicker and more convenien[ transfers. Single sta[ion will also concentrate activity in one place. Businesses will have an incentive to lceate where station is. Encourages a more vibrant town center. Local buses will make only one stop and not two. Saves time and increases convenience. Single station can absorb long term changes without major resvucturing. League encourages safe and convenient development. o Sue Andersom 1135 Jay SC - Svongly encourage boundazy change to Valmont, 30'", Pearl and Foothills. What is done in this area will affect development in the rest of the azea. Also supports study of co-location of the bus and rail station. Will create central fceus and enhance economic vitality as per the stated goals of the project. One location is more convenient to transit users. Agenda Item 6~taff briefing and TAB input on Transpor[ation Demand Management (TDM) Master Plan and work plan. Martha Roskowski and Andrea Robbins presented the topic. Council directed that TDM portion of TMP be more fully developed. Explained that TDM deals with "Hardwaze" (Facilities) and "Software" (TDM-services and service levels) and fceuses on making the two aspects work [ogether. Defined what sorts of infrastrucmres are provided and how that relates to demand. Three azeas of focus. 1. General community (70% hansportation impact) 2. Regional community (20% transportation impact within our community) 3. Development review (10%o Vansportation impact within our community) Roskowski: We know what modes people aze using, now we are trying to find out why, so that we can motivate people to go out and use alt. modes. Have just hired a new mazketing firm to help out with this effort. -Ongoing regional efforts were oudined including a new regional van pool. New initiatives RTC, FLO, and US36EIS effort. -Staff Recommenda[ion: Using the BTV to po[entially demons[rate new ini[ia[ives including: Formation of a BID/GID; Support of shong parking management programs. Additional StafF recommendations- Improve TDM Toolkit, Explore additional incentives such as quicker and more predic[able development review prceess. - Potential TDM benefi[s were ouHined and include: Improved access to si[e and business; improved mobility for all modes; access to greater employee pool and improved employee retention and recruitment; increased pazking availability; ta~c benefits, cost savings to employers; and improved air and environmental quality. TAB Discussion TAB comments covered the following: No discussion. Roettker left at 9 .m Agenda Item 7-A. Matters from Staff • FasTracks Local Oo[imiza[ion (FLOI uodate. Mar[ha Roskowski presented an upda[e. Have asked workgroup members to give inpu[ on wha[ the two most important things to go to work on to be ready for FasTracks and what is [he mos[ significant hurdle to overcome for FasTracks? Asking the TAB for input on this topic. • Guissineer. Eco Pass funding should be neaz the top. • Transportation Metrics - Traffic in BouldervTraffic Counts and Level of Service Analysis. Ice Paulson and Mike Sweeney presented update. TMP gives context for monitoring the system using quantitative and performance (Vavel [ime studies, level of service analysis, etc.) metrics. 0 1989 TMP lacked good information on travel behavior and initiated efforts to fortify understanding. o Vehicle Count Metrics o Travel (entering/exiting city- data since 1993) o Arterial (Internal travel - data since 1983) Transponation Advisory Board Summary Minutes Mar. /3. 2006 Page 4 o Boulder Valley Travel Patterns- Travel Trends 265,000 vehicles daily enter/exit the city in 2005. Morning inbound and evening outbound, this tells us Boulder is an employment centec Traffic peaked in 2003. Traffic has been declining since. o Arterial Travel trends- Growing at about half the rate of traffic coming in. Tells us that the modal programs we are using aze working to decrease growth in traffic. Growth in Boulder is about Y< that of the rest of the regioa. o Bicycle Counts- Analysis and understanding are in infancy. There aze twelve count sta[ions and we have been collecting counts since 1998. Bike travel chazacteristics aze different from those of vehicles. Tuesday is the peak day for bike traveL July and August aze the peak months. December and February are the low months. Bike use and daytime temperature aze correlated. Bike travel appears to be declining over time. o Transit ridership showing significant growth over time. o Travel Time Study: 28'", Broadway, Valmont, Arapahce - data since 1986. During peak periods. How long to travel one end to the other. Actual time is 10.15 minutes. Travel times have been fairly consistent through the last 20 yeazs. o City Wide Level of Service Analysis: Performed at peak hours at all signalized intersections. This is a measurement of congestioa It measures peak hour delay experienced by all users at an intersection. Most intersections are level of service D or better during the peak hours. o Synthesis: Vehide traffic is increasing but at a slower rate than the rest of the regioa Bicycle travel is flat, need to work on some marketing and analysis ro investigate. Transit travel has undergone svong grow[h. Have been able to maintain the vehicle performance system. Lazgely through strategic timing strategies and shategic investments. Need to figure out some performance metrics to track for all modes. TAB Discussion: The TAB was extremely enthusiastic about the positive namre of these findings and thought they should be made more public as they demonstrate the effectiveness of Boulder's transportation efforts. • Reeional Studies Uodate. Tracy Winfree gave the presentation. US 36 MCC went to Washington to express the importance of the coali[ion staying together on US 36 and continuing to look for federal funding to help out the cocridoc The trip had some interesting findings. Need to get to preferred alternative by Nov. 2006 and in that alternative, phasing must be identified so separate phases can be funded sepazately. US36 EIS- CDOT developing plan ro invest the proceeds of Senate Bill One. 10%o will go to transit MCC working to have some of that go towards BRT. Federal agencies of Transit and Highway will be making a determination on the severing of the rail from the EIS within the next two weeks. No update on the Longmont Diagonal. The North Broadway CEAP will go to Council May 2nd. TMP amendment process going to Council on May 2nd as welL TAB blog- David Geaz advised that he come to TAB to talk about policy and legal implications of a blog. Typically does that in the reVeat format, he could come to a regulaz TAB meeting. Will schedule. April 4'~, Council mee[ing is dealing with TVAP if one of the TAB members would like ro go. • Other Matters: There were none. Agenda Item 7- B. Matters from the Board. • Guissineer: Budgeting concerns regarding N. Broadway. Wants to know more about budgeting process for individual projects. Is there some other way to make up cost overages? Something to consider for the future. • Rcettker. Agrees with Guissingec Millennium enaance looks very different now. Compliments for the fastest TAB recommendaUOn im lementa[ion he's ever seen. Agenda Item 8- Discussion on future schedule. Agenda Item 9 - Adjournment Motion: Motion to adiourn : Conroy Motion seconded: Guissineer The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. The meetin was ad'ourned at 9:55 .m. Date, Time, and I.ocation of Next Meeting: The nex[ regulaz meeting will [ake place on Monday, April 10, 2006, 6 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 1977 Broadwa , 2"" FI. Transponation Advisory Board Summary Minu[es Mar. /3, 2006 Page 5 Approved by: Transpor~Qtion Advisory Board Summ~ry M~~es Mar. 13, 2006 Page 6