HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2013-03-21* Revised
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the
agenda was prepared.
STUDY SESSION
TOWN BOARD
Thursday, March 21, 2013
5:30 p.m.
Board Room
170 MacGregor Ave.
AGENDA
5:30 p.m. Federal Lands Access Program Grant
Discussion.
7:30 p.m. Meeting Adjourn.
+Federal Lands Access ProgramFederal Lands Access ProgramEstes Park Grant OpportunitiesMarch 19, 2013
+Tonight’s Topicsog s opcsFederal Lands Access Program (FLAP)Traffic and parking problems and goalsPotential Estes Park FLAP projectsYourinputandprioritizationYour input and prioritization
+Federal Lands Access Program ede a a ds ccess og a (FLAP)FLAP was created through signing of MAP‐21Goal of the FLAP is to improve transportation facilities that provideaccesstofederallandsprovide access to federal lands5 –7 year program of transportation projects with approximately $56 million for ColoradoFLAP supplements state and local resources –CDOT has verbally committed to partner with Estes Park and provide matchingfundsmatching fundsPreference is given to projects which provide access to Federal high‐use recreational sites or Federal economic generators
ESTES PARK#S CTO ST TO COO OESTES PARK& Traffic Congestion“Traffic was terrible, probably wouldn’t have gone downtown at all without the shuttle bus”#1 SUMMER VACATION DESTINATION IN COLORADOGATEWAY TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARKGATEWAY TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK, HOSTING MORE THAN 4 MILLION VISITORS A YEARSatisfaction Trends with Local Marketing District indicate parking received the lowest satisfaction rating throughout the studyVOTED THE BEST PLACE IN THE NATION TO VACATION WITH CHILDRENsatisfaction rating throughout the study“Traffic flow on major streets and parking availability rated much below national average”THE POPULATION INCREASES 5-FOLD “In the summertime, I avoided downtown because of the parking problems and traffic.”WITH SUMMER-ONLY RESIDENTS Quotes taken from Estes Park Summer Visitor Survey, Dec. 2006, RRC Associates, Inc.; The National Citizen Survey 2011; and LMD’s Estes Park 2010 Visitors Study
+Other Recent InputOe ece puCitizen’s surveysPublic opinion
UPPER FRONT RANGE 2035 REGIONALTRANSPORTATION PLANTRANSPORTATION PLANReleased in January, 2008, this study identified the corridor US 34 Big Thompson from the west entrance of Loveland through Estes Park as “high” priority. Current Volume to Capacity Ratio of .85 (considered the lower limit of severe congestion in URBAN areas). BY 2035, THE V/C WILL WELL EXCEED .85 ON ALL ROUTES TO AND THROUGH ESTES PARK.
Level of Service (LOS) at the downtown intersectionsintersectionsLOS = F, 90 days2035LOS = F, 30 days2001
Town of Estes Park 2012 GoalsEncourage Use of Transit and Measure EffectivenessEnhance Visitor ExperienceContinue partnership with RMNP/CDOT to seek solutionsEvaluate/Improve Public Transportation ServicesReduce CongestionImprove Transportation
+Relevant Studiesee a Sudes9Transit Service throughout Town and to RMNP9Transit Real‐time Information Systemy9Intercept ParkingStanley ParkVisitor Center9BikeandPedestrianFacilitiesOngoing9Bike and Pedestrian Facilities ‐Ongoing Road Network Enhancements
+FLAP Evaluation Criteria aua o C e aProjects should: Support the economic vitalityIncrease the safety of the transportation systemIncrease the security of the transportation systemIncrease the accessibility and mobility of people and freightProtect and enhance the environment Enhance the integration and connectivity of systemPromote efficient system management and operationEmphasize the preservation of the existing transportation systemppgpy
+Potential FLAP Project o e a ojec OpportunitiesDowntown Parking StructureOne‐way CoupletTwo‐way US 36 on Riverside AlignmentRiversideTrailRiverside Trail
+Parking Structure Option
+Downtown Parking Utilizationoo ag Uao
+ParkingagStructure Option
+Parking Structure Optionag Sucue Opo
+Parking Structure Optionag Sucue OpoSummary of AnalysesDisplacements:Businesses:13businessesin4parcelsBusinesses:13 businesses in 4 parcelsResidences: 0Public Parking: 93 spacesCostsCostsNEPA Application: $0.5MConstruction: $10.8MROW: $3.3MTotal: $14.6MPublic Parking (net) 350 to 510 new spaces
+Parking Structure Optionag Sucue OpoDi ifjtli tithDiscussion of project alignment with Town and stakeholder goals
+One‐way Couplet Option
+One-way Couplet OptionOneway Couplet Option
+One-way Couplet OptionOeay Coupe Op o
+One-Way Couplet OptionOeay Coupe Op oSummary of AnalysesDisplacements:Businesses:1to3(1additionalpartial)Businesses:1 to 3 (1 additional partial)Residences: 0 to 1 (no partials)Public Parking: 5 to 39 (net)CostsCostsNEPA Application: $500,000Construction: $11,000,000ROW: $250,000 to $1,600,000Total: $11,750,000 to $13,100,000
+One-way Couplet OptionOeay Coupe Op oDi ifjtli tithDiscussion of project alignment with Town and stakeholder goals
+Two‐way Road Option
+Two-way Roadway Optionoay oad ay Op o
+Option 2 –Two-Way RoadwayOp o oay oad aySummary of AnalysesDisplacements:Businesses:5(2additionalpartials)Businesses:5 (2 additional partials)Residences: 17 (no partials) Public Parking: 28 to 62 (net)CostsCostsNEPA Application: $ 500,000Construction: $13,700,000ROW: $ 5,300,000Total: $19,500,000
+Downtown CongestionDowntown Congestion
+Potential Traffic Growthoe a a c GoUp to 40% increase in peak period traffic capacityThis increase accommodates RMNPs ultimate available resource capacity
+Two-way Road Optionoay oad Op oDi ifjtli tithDiscussion of project alignment with Town and stakeholder goals
+Big Thompson Trail Option
+Big Thompson Trail Option –West gp pSectionFigure of west 1/3 of alignment
+Big Thompson Trail Option –Middle gp pSectionFigure of middle 1/3 of alignment
+Big Thompson Trail Option –East gp pSectionFigure of east 1/3 of alignment
+Big Thompson Trail Cross Sectionsg o pso a C oss Sec o s
+Big Thompson Trail Optiong o pso a Op oSummary of AnalysesAdditional Easements Needed: 13CostsCostsNEPA Application: $ 500,000Construction: $6,400,000Ease e ts$500 000Easements:$ 500,000Total: $7,400,000
+Big Thompson Trail Optiong o pso a Op oDi ifjtli tithDiscussion of project alignment with Town and stakeholder goals
+Economic Analysesco o c a ysesEasing congestion and increasing access may stimulate further economic developmentBenefits would be community‐wide, not just adjacent parcels.EP retail district relies more heavily on foot traffic than pass‐by traffictraffic. 1‐way and 2‐way roadway options will provide nearly identical benefits. Unlikely that new traffic patterns will substantially create “winners and losers” in the commercial core
+Your input andou pu a dprioritization