Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES TAB Task Force 2021-01-25 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 25, 2021 Minutes of a scheduled meeting of the Sidewalk & Trail Needs Task Force of the Trans- portation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held virtually on the 25th day of January, 2021 Task Force: Belle Morris, Ann Finley, Larry Gamble, Linda Hanick, Scott Moulton Attending: Belle Morris, Larry Gamble, Linda Hanick, Ann Finley, Greg Muhonen, Ryan Barr, Christy Crosser, David Hook, Christy DeLorme, and Blake Robertson Absent: Scott Moulton Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 12:02 p.m. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The Task Force Meeting was advertised and a link to the virtual meeting was provided. No members of the public participated in the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Gamble informed the group that future meeting dates included in the January 11 minutes had been updated to show scheduled Task Force meetings on January 25 and February 1. A motion was made and seconded (DeLorme/Robertson) to approve the January 11 meeting minutes as amended and all were in favor. NEW BUSINESS Chair Morris began the meeting by informing the group that there are two Task Force initiatives in progress. One is a survey for students and parents about impediments to walking or riding a bike to/from school. The second initiative is a boots-on-the-ground engineering audit of multi-use paths within a 1-mile radius of the school campus. Public Works Director Muhonen ask the group if there should be a third item on the agenda to determine TAB, the Task Force, and Town staff roles in Graves Avenue pro- ject. He indicated it would be ideal to clarify involvement and to look for efficiencies. Chair Morris informed the Task Force that she had talked to school representatives to- day (January 25), and they told her that the school had already completed a survey. She was unaware of this and requested that the Task Force be provided with the survey results and data. Director Muhonen pointed out that the survey referenced by the school district was for the Brodie Avenue project, not the upcoming Graves Avenue project. He reiterated that this is why it is so important that we know who is involved and what they are doing. Finley wanted to make sure that the survey the Task Force has been working on is not redundant. Following further discussion it was clarified that the school district distributed pre- and post-project surveys for the Brodie Avenue project as required by SRTS and using a standard SRTS web portal. The target audience was elementary and middle school parents and school staff. Approximately 600 survey invitations were sent out, and there were about 60 responses. Town staff will communicate with the Colorado SRTS contractor to determine if the Brodie Avenue surveys can be used for the Graves Avenue pre-project survey. This is particularly relevant since the post-project survey for Brodie Avenue was administered in November 2020, and teachers were included as part of that survey. The Task Force is also considering if additional survey questions would be useful in understanding impediments to walking or biking to school. Project Manager Hook shared some of the Brodie Avenue pre- and post-project survey data on screen. The pre-project survey was conducted July - December, 2017. The sur- vey report he shared was generated on October 24, 2017, and the SRTS grant applica- tion was submitted on November 1, 2017. A Student Travel Tally Report was completed in fall, 2010. Hook mentioned that there were 21 school staff responses to 3 questions, and 40 responses on behalf of middle school students, which resulted in good data to evaluate. Given the recently completed Brodie Avenue post-project survey Gamble suggested that the Task Force take a pause to evaluate the survey data before proceeding. The survey data could have some bearing on the engineering audit as well. Chair Morris recommended that the Task Force should take the time to understand the recent survey data, but continue to work on the multi-use path audit. She thought it would be beneficial to have “citizen eyes” on the survey results and to identify gaps that could help to design future surveys. Finley agreed with Morris’ assessment and requested that the survey results be sent to the TAB Task Force members. Director Muhonen mentioned that he did not realize that the most recent survey had been completed in December, but we should be thankful that we now have recent sur- vey results to use. Chair Morris indicated that she did hear back from some folks about the audit checklist, and she, too, had some feedback to offer. She asked if the audit would strictly focus on engineering aspects, or should it also look at human (experiential) dimensions? Director Muhonen’s guidance was to generate useful information that the Town and oth- ers can act on. Hanick agreed that experiential information would be useful. She pointed out that there are no definitive questions on crosswalks and what contributes to making them unsafe. For example, the crosswalk on East Elkhorn Avenue just east of Kind Coffee feels un- safe to her. There is no way to know if a car is going to stop if a pedestrian is at the crosswalk. Robertson pointed out that cars not stopping at crosswalks really requires a “time and motion” study, and is episodic in nature. He does have a pocket radar that could be used to measure traffic speed during an audit. He suggested that the auditors could identify potential safety and experiential issues that could be studied in more detail at a future time. Gamble agreed that auditors may not capture experiential issues during the short time they would have boots-on-the-ground. Chair Morris pointed out that SRTS has resources for conducting a walking audit, and it it is best to have several people involved in order to capture multiple observations, in- cluding experiences. She wanted to know what information should be collected to help drive decision making? Would experiential information be useful? Director Muhonen stated that it would be good to know why people feel unsafe, and what would make it safer. Chair Morris believes it would be good to know how people are traveling (pushing strollers, etc.) as well as understanding if travelers feel safe. Crosser pointed out that the walking audit will help Public Works come up with an SRTS plan, and once the plan is in place, the Town can apply for SRTS funding. DeLorme wanted to make sure that the Task Force isn’t duplicating survey work that has already been done. She supports the boots-on-the-ground survey and believe it will provide important information. Chair Morris ask the group if more experiential data should be collected? DeLorme raised a question about what would be done with such information? She wanted the Task Force to focus on data it can collect and to look at ways to make things better such as with lighting or signage. Chair Morris pointed out that just because a new sidewalk gets built does not mean people will use it. Especially if it isn’t inviting for people, which is more of an environ- mental or aesthetic condition, like landscaping, along the walkway. She would like our walkways to feel welcoming. Morris added that planting a tree or shrub along a path helps with aesthetics, but also can assist with wind barrier needs. Given our climate, wind can be a barrier to walking or biking to school or to downtown. Finley suggested that in the audit checklist we could merge that “hard” engineering with the “soft” experiential data collection. This could be done within the subcategories in the checklist. Robertson suggested using health and safety as metrics instead of experience. Experi- ential becomes more complex because what some may see as aesthetically pleasing could cause some users to feel unsafe. For example, a hedge running along a sidewalk. Director Muhonen believes that more open ended questions either in a survey or on the checklist could work. For example, “Does this feel safe? If not, why not?” Chair Morris reminded the group that the assessment should not just be for pedestrian users, but also for bikes and other modes of transportation. For this reason, it was sug- gested that the best term to use would be “multi-use path.” Barr recommended that the checklist should retain “Yes” and “No” responses, but should also include more open ended questions and responses. The checklist should identify specific problems, and specific problem locations should be noted. The checklist should include a component on drainage, and where there are large vertical drops along a multi-use path that could be made safer. He pointed out that the survey template that has been administered at the schools is a standard SRTS survey. The Task Force could identify gaps in the standard template. He recommended that the Task Force should look at the current survey results with an eye toward encouraging more walking and bik- ing participation in the future. Director Muhonen asked what the role of the Task Force should be on the Graves Ave- nue project. He pointed out that during the project there will be opportunities for TAB to comment. He wanted to know if TAB or the Task Force desired to provide additional in- put. Chair Morris stated that she would like to look at the Brodie Avenue survey results and then decide on the TAB or Task Force role in the Graves Avenue project. Director Muhonen stated that the contractor will be collecting topographic and other land surveying data. There could be a boots-on-the-ground pedestrian survey, and infor- mation gathered at that time could be shared with the contractor if desired. This should happen in February. Barr recommended that the Task Force should focus on development of an SRTS plan that would identify the next project that Public Works should pursue. Hook said that it would be desirable to have a list of deficiencies to pass along to the consultant for the Graves Avenue project. This needs to happen soon. Crosser shared a list of SRTS items that would be desirable to have the Task Force work on. This included education, encouragement, evaluation, etc. Roberson suggested that the Graves Avenue project would be a good first effort for the Task Force and would provide an idea of what can actually be accomplished. It would help to fine tune the process and procedures. It would also help the group to understand the difference between experiential data and health and safety data. Chair Morris agreed that it would be good to do a walk through of the Graves Avenue project and use the newly developed checklist. Those who agreed to participate are Morris, Gamble, Hanick, and Robertson Action Items 1. Crosser or Hook to share 2010, 2017, and 2020 survey results with Task Force members 2. Task Force members will review the survey results with an eye toward how the re- sults can be applied to the Graves Avenue project, the multi-use path audit, and fu- ture SRTS efforts. 3. Public Works will contact the Colorado SRTS contractor to determine if the post-pro- ject Brodie Avenue survey can also serve as the pre-project survey for the Graves Avenue project 4. Gamble will revise the audit checklist and will make it available before the next Task Force meeting on February 1 5. Morris will arrange for a boots-on-the-ground survey of the Graves Avenue project sometime in February. Meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m.