Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Transportation Advisory Board 2017-3-15 Transportation Advisory Board Agenda March 15, 2017 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM Room 202 & 203 Estes Park Town Hall 170 MacGregor Ave Current Members: Stan Black (03/31/17) Kimberly Campbell (03/31/18) Ann Finley (03/31/17) Amy Hamrick (03/31/19) Belle Morris (03/31/17) Gregg Rounds (03/31/18) Gordon Slack (03/31/19) Tom Street (03/31/19) Ken Zornes (03/31/19) Public Comment Approval of February Meeting Minutes Shuttle Updates Traffic Control Devices Study Update Review / Provide Town Board Recommendation Non-Permanent Pavement Marking Policy Review Project Updates Project Updates TAB Initiatives Other Business Adjourn Chair, Kimberly Campbell Sandy Osterman Director, Greg Muhonen Director, Greg Muhonen Director, Greg Muhonen Manager, Kevin Ash Chair, Kimberly Campbell Chair, Kimberly Campbell The mission of the Town of Estes Park Transportation Advisory Board is to advise the Board of Trustees and the Public Works staff on Local and Regional Comprehensive Transportation Planning Policies; Maintenance, Operation and Expansion Programs; and Transportation Capital Projects. Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 15, 2017 Minutes of a regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Room 203 of Town Hall, in said Town of Estes Park on the 15th day of February, 2017. Present: Kimberly Campbell Tom Street Gordon Slack Belle Morris Stan Black Ann Finley Also Present: Bob Holcomb, Town Board Liaison Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director Kevin Ash, Engineering Manager Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Admin. Assistant Absent: Brian Wells, Shuttle Director Gregg Rounds Amy Hamrick Ken Zornes Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m. There were not enough members present at the onset of the meeting to establish a quorum. As a result, the January minutes will be reviewed and approved/changed at the March meeting. PROJECT UPDATES, Kevin Ash, Engineering Manager 2017 Street Improvement Program: An update was provided at the Town Board Study Session reflecting the identified upward trend of the Town’s pavement condition index (PCI). The update also showed the breadth of the projects undertaken to improve our street system score. MacGregor Avenue Improvements: The Public Works Department would continue working closely with the Utilities Department and the Sanitation District to coordinate work on this project. The Estes Valley Recreation and Parks Division trail design was still pending at the time of this meeting. The Town will complete the concrete trail from Wonderview Avenue to St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church. Transportation Advisory Board – February 15, 2017 – Page 2 The Field Inspection Review (FIR) has taken place to identify any concerns not captured in the 30% design. An additional easement will need to be acquired. Director Muhonen provided positive news that CDOT’s design for the intersection of Wonderview Avenue & MacGregor Avenue includes a round-about. Design of the intersection improvement will take place in 2019 and the actual build will take place in 2021. A sharrow road has not yet being considered for MacGregor Avenue since there is no specified bike lane. Additional research is expected for MacGregor as well as Dry Gulch Road. Digital Message Signs (DMS): A temporary sign had been placed at the first of three locations. The Public Works Department hopes for public comments from the community prior to permanent installation. Per Member Finley, the location of the temporary sign wouldn’t provide enough time to make the decision to get into the turn lane. Manager Ash stated there would be a potential move as the Town was still determining access to electricity for placement. Due to the high electric demand, the message signs are u nable to operate solely with solar energy. A meeting would be held on February 15th to determine where the primary computer which communicates with the signs will be located. The next location planned for temporary sign placement is Hwy 34 & Summit. It is anticipated that permanent installation will take place in June 2017. Fall River Trail: It was announced that $10 million will be available in GOCO grant dollar. The maximum amount allotted to the winning applicants is $2 million. There will be a meeting with the grant writer at the end of February and the Town will plan to submit an application. PROJECT UPDATES, Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director Fish Creek Public Infrastructure Project: Director Muhonen stated that the project is on- schedule and six of the nine box culverts are open for traffic. Future work to take place once weather improves. Transit Facility Parking Structure: Director Muhonen and Project Manager Ginny McFarland attended a tour of the Colorado Springs precast facility where the girders are being created. This portion of the project is on schedule. Transportation Advisory Board – February 15, 2017 – Page 3 The earthwork contractor hired for this project has gone bankrupt. The Town has contracted with Diamond Excavating for the needed work. This same excavation company was hired by the Town for work on the Community Center. Elkhorn Resurfacing: Member Slack inquired about CDOT’s progress on planning the resurfacing of Elkhorn Avenue. An Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandate states if there is major construction on any road, the responsible party must ensure all the ramps, curbs, etc. comply with ADA regulations which could result in significant expenses for the Town. Director Muhonen would like to propose the Town be responsible for the ADA mandates if CDOT will perform all the resurfacing work. TAB INITIATIVES Downtown Master Plan: Community Workshops would begin in later February with the first workshop focusing on the long-term vision. As the following workshops approach, there may be break-out sessions to address more specific pieces/topics. Chair Campbell strongly encourages TAB participation. Earlier in February, the parking meter vendor, IPS, came to meet with Director Muhonen, Chair Campbell and others. They were able to learn, from the wireless manufacturer, the different technologies, cost estimates ($500-$600 per individual parking spot meter including installation), and needed features (based on other users). The vendor preferred single meters to multi-space meters. If using multi-space meters, there are several additional factors the Town will need to consider. Chair Campbell will gather all information documented for board members showing the criteria/needs and will present this to other vendors. The TAB will need to determine the public process. Director Muhonen suggested the consultant’s deliverable should reflect all paid parking, ordinances, budget for hardware, etc. Heavy involvement would be needed from downtown property owners and public outreach will need done for the consultant to utilize. Downtown Estes Loop: Chair Campbell presented her idea for providing bike lanes on Elkhorn from US 34/US 36 to Bond Park. All space to be acquired would be on the north side of the street (majority town-owned). The idea would generate 8’ on each side of the Transportation Advisory Board – February 15, 2017 – Page 4 street. Chair Campbell wanted to present this idea and would like to reassess at a later date. OTHER BUSINESS With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 1:18 p.m. Estes Park, Colorado Feasibility Study to Enter into a Contract for Town Maintenance of CDOT Highway Traffic Control Devices February 18, 2017 Project Manager: Greg Muhonen, PE - Director of Public Works Study by: William A. Hange, Jr PE PTOE Hange Consulting – President The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility of the Town of Estes entering into a contract with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to maintain traffic control devices on state highways within the town limits. In order to develop options and recommendations, a survey of other North Front Range cities that working under state contract was conducted. The contracted work is maintaining signs, signals and markings. These cities are also located within CDOT Region IV. Working with Town’s Public Works Staff and GIS consultant, a review of the Town’s asset inventory system, maintenance practices, and capabilities related to traffic control devices has been completed. Field reviews and spot checking of existing devices on CDOT roadways has been conducted and used to develop an alternatives/decision matrix. Field review of CDOT assets to be maintained by contract has also been conducted. Devices included are; signs, signals, and markings. Included in the signal review portion are any electronic devices such as flashing warning signs, school zone flashers, rapid flashing beacons, and radar speed signs. Feasibility of taking over traffic control device maintenance on CDOT Highways in the Town of Estes Park Colorado is the question to be answered. There are several approaches and combinations of approaches that have been explored and rated. A recommended alternative has been selected from the decision matrix based upon parameters discussed and set with Director’s input/approval. Local Agency Survey Four cities with Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) maintenance contracts for signs, signals and markings maintenance contracts (Colorado Senate Bill 8) were surveyed. Basic details of the rates charged to CDOT were obtained for each city. All are located on the Front Range of Colorado, three of which are in CDOT Region IV. The cities surveyed were as follows: Ft. Collins, Greeley, Loveland and Pueblo. CDOT Intergovernmental maintenance contract agreements with local agencies have been executed for a 5 year terms for decades between Front Range cities in CDOT Region IV. Generally there are unit prices paid according to monthly rates with CDOT issuing checks once or twice per year. Payments are based on agreed upon rates per traffic signal for the signals section of the contract. Center line miles of CDOT roadway maintained pay local government agencies for signs and markings. Surveyed signal maintenance rates ranged from a low of $300 paid to Ft. Collins and Greeley, to a high of $400/signal/month in Loveland and Pueblo. Ft. Collins and Loveland have 48 CDOT signals each while Greeley has 53 that they maintain for CDOT. Other charges for signals add to the costs CDOT pays for maintenance. Additional items paid for by CDOT were given by staff in each location via telecom or in person to the author. One example of data gathered included the fact that Greeley got a one-time $65,000 consideration for maintaining and operating a traffic responsive signal control system used on US 34 Business. This was a one time charge for the life of the 5 year contract. Loveland and Pueblo get $25,000/year for replacement of equipment, as a portion of traffic signal preventative maintenance programs. Preventative maintenance programs for traffic signals are likened to changing oil in your car; it’s a way to save cost over long periods of time. Other benefits include longer time between failures which can improve customer satisfaction and save costlier repairs down the road. Maintenance contracts do not generally include large sign structures and traffic signal poles and mast arms damaged by traffic accidents or storms. An overview of the condition of existing inventory of signs, signals and markings is contained later in this report. CDOT traffic device maintenance contracts are written so that CDOT remains responsible for major maintenance items. Traffic signal poles, mast arms, and traffic signal cabinets, for example, are major maintenance items excluded from local agency maintenance responsibility. Signs and markings are paid for by the CDOT roadway centerline mile per month. Rates ranged from a low paid to Greeley of $255/mile to a high of $400/mile paid to Loveland and Pueblo. Striping and markings costs vary greatly depending upon the number of travel lanes, turn lanes, and other factors. Multi-lane arterial streets generally require more striping and signing and therefore more maintenance. Two lane rural state highways are on the lower end of costs when compared to 4 and 6 lane highways. Also location is a factor in cost to maintain. Estes Park may pay a premium due to location west of the Front Range and into the mountains. Older contracts with the City of Loveland have included maintenance funding for things such as retro- reflectometers for measuring a sign’s reflectivity. This is an instrument costing approximately $10,000. It is used to check retro and reflectivity on markings and signs. It is understood that The Town of Estes Park has one of these instruments in the Street Division. CDOT contracts usually require yearly performance measure reports. Spot check measurements of existing sign retro-reflectivity is required as part of the contract work. Maintenance of larger sign structures such as overhead signs may be submitted for exemption from local agency contract and maintenance responsibility left with CDOT for these signs and structures. A list of exempt signs was submitted by Loveland as part of that annual maintenance contract. Contract Maintenance of CDOT Highways – Initial Informational Overview Comments about street maintenance contracts with CDOT were requested during the office meeting in Estes on 1-27-17. Intergovernmental agreements for street maintenance on US and state of Colorado Highways are separate from the signs, signals and markings contract which is the subject of this study. Brief comments have been provided below. The 22.54 centerline miles containing 123.24 lane miles of US Highways in Loveland are maintained by the City of Loveland under an October 2017 agreement with CDOT. The City receives $110,916/year ($900/lane- mile/month) for minor maintenance on state highways. A Maintenance Management Information Manual referred to in the agreement is required to be followed by the local agency under this most recent contract. Maintenance Services to be performed by the Local Agency (City of Loveland) at state expense are outlined are as follows:  Removal of snow, iced and slush, sanding and salting.  Patching, making safe, repairing, spot stabilization  Painting of bridges, of other structures, and of highway appurtenances  Warning the State’s representative of and “dangerous” condition  Inspecting State Highway signing and regulatory devices weekly and notification to CDOT of those in need of repair  Weed and grass cutting, fence maintenance, cleaning roadways including storm sewer inlets and catch basins, ditches and repairing drainage structures excluding storm sewers.  Flexible and rigid pavement patching and minor repairs.  Crack sealing, base stabilization and repair  Fence, gate and cattle guard cleaning and repair  Single and multi-post sign installation, repair and maintenance  Delineator, reference post installation, maintenance and repair  Metal guard rail maintenance, installation and repair  Concrete guardrail maintenance and installation  Bridge structure painting  Current and future park-and-ride location Review of the potential for a Highway Maintenance Contract for street maintenance, snow plowing etc. revealed a potential fatal flaw. Snowplowing typically requires larger equipment than what the Town has on- hand. CDOT typically uses multiple tandem dump trucks with plows and spreaders. The Town has none of this equipment and a large capital investment plus additional staff would be required. Also, review of a 2016 local agency contract’s additional requirements throws up a red flag. Newly added contract elements such as concrete slab repairs, guardrail repairs, and other high cost responsibility items for the Town makes this contract suspect and less attractive than older contracts. More study, data gathering, and discussion would be needed, but initial review indicates to a high amount of concern to further pursuit of this highway maintenance contract. Town of Estes Assets Thank you to Justin Kearney, Streets Superintendent and Greg McEachern Street Division Manager for the time taken to discuss elements of this study. Telephone conversations on the afternoon of Monday, January 16, 2017 and Tuesday, January 24, 2017 were held with staff. Also an on-site meeting/discussion was held in Estes Park on January 27th. In regards to CDOT roadway inventory data, several people were contacted to see what inventories were available. Jill Schott was contacted and noted that there hasn’t been any traffic device inventory entered into the GIS database for any CDOT signs, signals or markings. This was confirmed by staff. She did provide data for the length of CDOT roadways inside the Town limits. These were used for computations in a spreadsheet to calculate potential cash flow from CDOT for signs and markings maintenance. This spreadsheet is included in the appendices. Discussions with Town Staff indicated desire to complete an on-street inventory Access to a GIS data collector is available. Other GIS data has been collected such as off-system culverts with a traffic control device inventory being a future priority given time constraints. Collecting field data is very time consuming. Many times local agencies need a special project funded. This normally requires additional resources including the following: part-time staff with vehicles (walking, bikes and scooters can also be used), and GIS data collection equipment. College interns and consulting staff may be used to complete a comprehensive inventory of the traffic control devices. Larry Haas, Region IV Traffic Operations Engineer was contacted in regards to on-street database information. It was noted that requests have been made inside CDOT, but to date efforts to get a GIS inventory have yet to be funded and completed in Region IV. Given the database research conducted, the author was left to review Google Map data for CDOT roadways were driven to estimate CDOT and city assets located within state highway right-of-ways and inside the Town’s boundaries. Field Reviews and Observations - Signing It is understood that the level of CDOT service in regards to signs and marking could be much higher. It was noted by Town street personnel that a high percentage of CDOT signs are in need of replacement due to retro- reflectivity concerns (night-time visibility). The Town estimate was that up to 60% of CDOT signs meet CDOT minimum retro-reflectivity standards. A nighttime observation survey and/or measurements of each sign to determine condition as per the MUTCD would be necessary. Spot testing of some sample signs and their reflectivity has been required as part of the standard CDOT contract, Other sign concerns noted in field observations and by staff include the condition, size and readability of overhead “metro” type street name signs located on traffic signal mast arms. Some of these signs were upgraded and replaced by CDOT at US 34/US 36 they remain non-standard and difficult to read. Day and/or night-time field reviews of signs on most of the CDOT roadways were conducted on Friday, January 29, 2017. A hand written inventory was conducted on Highways 7, 36 and the central and western parts of US 34. Most signs appeared to be in reasonably good condition with a few exceptions. Subsequent inventory data was gathered from Google Map without night-time observations on those sections of Highway. A sign count of signs on the system was conducted on Friday, January 27, 2017 and on Google Map. This count plus produced 1,036 signs. There were various support post systems including Telespar, round CDOT posts, CDOT break-away posts, wood posts and others. Some signs were mounted on street lights and power poles. If a maintenance contract is pursued for signs, management of these assets could be improved with an inventory. It is advised that a comprehensive sign inventory using a GPS driven database and photos of each be conducted and maintained current. It was understood from conversations with Jill that systems and software is in place now to facilitate a modern sign database. A new sign person could be assigned completing the sign inventory and keeping it up to date. Many times additional labor such as consultant and/or summer interns can help get the inventory in place. Once the data base is complete it is essential to keep it current or it becomes outdated and diminishes the tools effectiveness to help manage these important assets. The value of the CDOT signs and supports is estimated to be in the range of about $200,000. Management of these signs and their support posts is important for legal issues. Field Reviews and Observations-Striping Existing concerns were noted and field verified regarding the lack of consistency and frequency of CDOT crews striping the US and CDOT highways in Estes Park. Google Maps and field reviews show areas of missing centerline striping on some CDOT highways. One location of note was on US 36 near Lake Estes during Sept. 2015 (see photo). Estes Park Public Works personnel already maintain some street and avenue (street name) guide signs. These are the signs mounted on top of CDOT stop signs along CDOT highways. CDOT maintains stop sign/support posts located in CDOT right of way for intersecting streets. Staff reports that citizen concerns have been generated due to the need for timely repairs of knocked down or damaged signs. The need for two work crews, CDOT sign crew plus a Estes Park Street Division crew can also be concerning for citizens in regards to cost effectiveness and safety. Estes Park Public Works Street Division’s field crew workload was discussed with staff and reviewed. A working crew leader, plus 3 full-time field crew members and one seasonal worker are challenged to keep up with workload. One person is dedicated to pothole patching leaving three employees plus one seasonal worker to stripe parking lots and complete other duties in the summer. Long winter hours fighting storms also leaves little time for sign work. Added workload would most likely would require contractor support and/or additional staff to take on CDOT signing and other traffic control device maintenance. Other logistics need to be considered in additional to workloads and labor. Equipment, materials, material storage and contract management are key components in consideration. Limited covered storage may be available for keeping additional signs, posts, and related materials. No signs are manufactured by staff and there is no equipment to do so at this time. All signs are purchased from outside vendors and there is currently no specified sign maintenance truck. Management of potential contractors is another consideration. Kevin McEachern was contacted for input on this and the other items already discussed. The 2016 contract prices paid for striping by the Town were $32.50/gallon for yellow and white paint applied on Town roadways. In 2016, there were 671 gallons applied to Town roadways off-system as contracted with Colorado Barricade. The Town applies one coat of latex paint (water borne paint with reflective glass beads) each year to all streets not on CDOT roadways. Also, 7,800 feet of red curb for no parking zones was painted at a cost of $3,900. No over-the-road striping machine is owned, but parking lots stripers are owned and used by staff. High capital cost for a roadway paint striping machine ($250,000-$350,000) plus hiring a striping crew for this work quickly guides many local agencies to use contractors for long line striping. The Town of Estes Park has been no different than many others in this regard. The capital and operating costs are frequently just too much so contractors must be used. Discussions were held with local contractors in order to gain additional knowledge and budgetary pricing for typical contract maintenance items. There a premium (estimated to be 10-15% for striping) built in to the budgetary costs gathered from contractors due to the location of Estes Park. Since it is west of the more populated the Front Range area. Rates gathered are as follows:  Stop sign and post replacement $300-350 each  Thermoplastic material installed (crosswalks, arrows, etc.) $12-$15/sf.  Latex striping, 15 mils w/glass beads @6.5 lbs./gallon = $32.50/gallon installed (covers 290’@4”wide)  Epoxy striping = $70/gallon installed Durable long line striping was discussed with staff and concerns were raised for the longevity of any striping material applied due to the heavy amount of snow plowing activities on main highways. Steel plow blades are used on snow plows take a heavy toll on striping each winter and especially where high visibility paint is used. Staff has noted high concerns related to snow plow removal when high build paint is used. According to CDOT’s Regional Traffic Operations Engineer, CDOT is in the process of switching to use more high-build latex paint on its system. This change raises lots of concern for the Town about long line striping in Estes Park on CDOT highways. Another technical consideration is that CDOT has been using epoxy paint for long line striping. This poses a major concern for applying lower cost latex over it. There is a concern for the chemical reaction between the two materials which causes noticeable failures. New asphalt overlays (such as the overlay proposed by CDOT for Highway 7 in Estes Park), reconstructs, chip seals, etc. should request use of latex instead of epoxy to avoid the problem of the paints reaction and causing massive paint failures. Epoxy may need to be used by the Town’s contractor (future) until the conversion to latex is made on this and other CDOT projects. Major intersections such as US 34/US 36 have existing dotted line extensions to guide vehicles through intersections and into proper receiving lanes. These are just painted now but some agencies employ pre-formed thermoplastic and/or inlaid pre-formed thermoplastic. This method can be retrofitted or better yet installed with new paving. Extending the life of these lines to several years while staying reflective can be a goal achieved. It is noted here that CDOT maintenance contracts typically require performance measuring. An annual report is required that includes test records for spot checking of the level of retro-reflectivity of striped lines being maintained. This item could be completed by the striping contractor each year as part of a striping contract. Field Reviews and Observations-Traffic Signals There are seven (7) CDOT signalized intersections in Estes Park. They are generally older signal equipment and structures. Old 170E traffic signal controllers are in use and have some radio interconnection while using Wapiti Operating Software. Generally support for this controller’s software and firmware is difficult to obtain and considered one or two generations back and old technology. These controllers are 70’s technology that uses old 80’s CDOT specifications. The old controllers run on an obsolete Motorola 8088 computer chip. Recommendation here is that CDOT should replace these controllers as part of a new maintenance contract with the town of Estes. CDOT has recently accepted a bid for a new controller for a state-wide contract. These controllers are beginning to be installed by CDOT and are supplied by a Denver traffic product distributor. Advances Traffic Products has the state bid for them. The author has completed one initial overview/training session of this new product. Photos were taken of the inside of some of the signal cabinets in Estes Park (see appendices). CDOT is responsible for major signal maintenance outside of the maintenance contract with local entities. CDOT retains responsibility for maintenance of the following: signal controllers, cabinets, signal poles and mast arms. These items are outside of maintenance contracts with local agencies which include; periodic maintenance, emergency repairs from traffic accident knockdowns and storms, and performance reporting. CDOT inventoried all traffic signals in Region IV and prioritized them for replacements in order to prevent catastrophic failures due to structural fatigue or other factors. Signal replacement projects are now being paid for by Region IV. Local cities receiving benefit of this preventative maintenance program so far are Greeley, and Ft. Collins. Mast arms and signal poles in Estes are mostly old and need replacement as well. A portion of the CDOT signalized intersection inventory listing is contained in the appendices. CDOT Region IV should be contacted to inquire about complete traffic signal intersection rebuild/replacements under this CDOT Regional replacement program. Mary’s Lake Rd signalized intersection appears to be a candidate for CDOT funding for a rebuild under this program. This and any other signal equipment upgrades such as new signal cabinets with controllers can be a discussion point and an element of contract negotiations with CDOT. Generally, maintenance contracts between CDOT and other local agencies are common practice. Rebuild/upgrades of signalized intersections appear to be needed at 4 of 7 the locations now. However, the new traffic configuration construction is scheduled to be designed and built in 5 years. Some intersections will be rebuilt with that major project. School 25 MPH and Elk/Deer Crossing, Fire Station Warning Flashers are located on state highways and should also be included in the negotiations. Some of these locations can be gathered and paid for as one or two additional signals under the monthly unit price for traffic signal maintenance. There were 6 of these locations counted. Two are on Highway 7 north and southbound south of Highway 36. There were two deer crossing signs on US 34 eastbound west of town; east of the Fall River Visitor Center/Rocky Mountain National Park Entrance and westbound closer to town. Two flasher locations on US 36 westbound east of Highway sign there is flasher for a firestation warning sign. Two flasher locations are located on US 36 eastbound west of town; one for a curve and another for the by-pass route. Rapid Flashing Beacon Controlled Crosswalks are located both on US 36 near the old theatre and on Highway 7 south of US 36. These should also be considered in the contract and paid for as one signalized location. CDOT funding for preventative maintenance parts to rebuild these should also be part of the contract negotiations. Radar speed sign review. It is understood that the Town installed these radar speed signs several years ago or more. These signs can be effective tools particularly to the record number of tourists visiting Estes and Rocky Mountain National Park (4.2 million visitors recorded in 2016). Maintenance of these 4 devices would be retained and accounted for in contract negotiations. Locations are: US 34 Westbound just east of town, Hwy 7 northbound south of Hwy 36, one on Hwy 36 westbound approaching the Highway 7 intersection. 1470 Radio sign review. An “Urgent When Flashing 1470 Radio Sign” was observed near Mary’s Lake. It was solar powered and on Highway 7 northbound coming into town. Operations review. Costs for equipment and staff were discussed in a meeting. It was discussed that a new sign truck with utility body and some custom work would cost about $60,000. Subsequent conversation with a local sign contractor revealed possible lower cost unit closer to $40,000 when getting a special rate. Adding a sign person and truck would also require additional supervisory and administrative duties to existing staff. This could yield large benefits particularly to citizen responsiveness and safety. Some additional control could be obtained by taking over maintenance from CDOT. However, proposed changes to signs, signals and markings on CDOT roadways are typically discussed with, and at least reported to CDOT depending upon the scope of change. Changes to parking signs, improved standard street name signing on signal mast arms would normally just be reported to CDOT. Lane configuration changes, Speed limits setting and signing generally would remain CDOT’s responsibility. These details should be discussed and part of the agreement. Contract Alternative Evaluation Matrix Public Perception Safety Capital $ Operating $ Income Responsiveness Do Nothing ---- ---- +++ +++ --- --- Signs/Markings +++ +++ --- --- +++ +++ Signals +++ +++ 000 000 +++ +++ Signs/Mark/Signals +++ +++ --- 000 +++ +++ Factor Rating Key: +++ Favorable; --- Unfavorable; 000 Neutral Options above make the following assumptions:  Traffic signal work to be contracted.  Striping and markings work to be split by using a striping by contractor for long lines and thermoplastic (crosswalks, arrows, onlys) by contractor and/or existing staff.  Sign work by ½ time additional Town staff member plus an assigned a sign service truck with a post driver and tools. Sign worker could be a part-time employee or ½ to-3/4 portion of a full time Town worker. Note that larger sign repairs and installations will require 2 workers to complete. Options/Recommendations: Review of the options indicates the need to pursue a maintenance contract with CDOT. It is clear from the decision matrix that there are concerns in regards to Public Perception, Responsiveness, and Safety in all 3 areas, signs, signals and markings. Do nothing (status quo) is clearly an option that is out and not recommend at this point. Each scenario is discussed in more detail below: Do Nothing Alternative – This alternative is not recommended as previously discussed. Public concerns out- weigh staying with status quo. The only thing favoring picking this alternative is no capital costs. Safety is a big concern and there would be no CDOT income to help solve the concerns noted. Signs and Markings Alternative – A signs and markings contract should be investigated. This would allow the Town of Estes Park to improve responsiveness, safety, public perception, and pick up income from CDOT to accomplish these important goals. The drawbacks to this option are capital and maintenance costs to purchase and maintain a new sign truck. Also, hiring and management of a new sign person and additional contract administration for signs (already contract striping maintenance on the Town’s streets) would have some cost. While these factors are important considerations, they may be outweighed by significant gains in the following areas:  Improved public responsiveness due to reduced time to respond to needs  Improved CDOT income via maintenance contract for signs and markings  Additional maintenance vehicle that could serve additional purposes such as snow removal if fitted with a plow/sander  Reduced duplication of efforts since the Town gets public calls for sign knockdowns and already helps CDOT without receiving any compensation  Additional income Key CDOT negotiating points:  Some of the system components are in poor repair and therefore need more preventative maintance.  Estes Park’s location will require higher rates to hire contractors or maintain in-house.  Ask for funding for modernizing signal controllers and a system.  Three signals Downtown will be rebuilt with other funding for CDOT.  Check on having CDOT rebuild Mary’s Lake signal outside of the contract. Include communications, PTZ video camera, opticom emergency pre-emption system, and communications.  Can street maintenance Downtown now being performed be included in this one contract.  Flashers, RRFB’s, radars signs should constitute a couple of additional signal locations. This would total 9 signals instead of 7.