HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Transportation Advisory Board 2018-8-15Carlie Bangs, Town Board Trustee Liaison
Greg Muhonen, Estes Park Public Works Staff Liaison
Transportation Advisory Board Agenda
August 15, 2018
12:00 PM – 2:00 PM
Room 202 & 203
Estes Park Town Hall
170 MacGregor Ave
Current Members:
Stan Black (03/31/20)
Ron Wilcocks (03/31/21)
Ann Finley (03/31/20)
Amy Hamrick (03/31/19)
Belle Morris (03/31/20)
Gordon Slack (03/31/21)
Tom Street (03/31/19)
Linda Hanick (03/31/19)
Janice Crow (3/31/21)
Public Comment
Approval of July Meeting Minutes
Wayfinding – Downtown Plan
Projects & Downtown Parking Mgmt. Updates
Complete Streets Policy Draft
E-Bike Policy Review Update
Shuttle Updates
Other Business
Adjourn
Chair Belle Morris
Engineering Manager David Hook
Planner Brittany Hathaway
Public Works Director Greg Muhonen
Co-Chair Tom Street
Chair Belle Morris
Chair Belle Morris
Transit Program Manager Brian Wells
Chair Belle Morris
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, July 18, 2018
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 on the 18th
day of July, 2018.
Present: Tom Street
Belle Morris
Stan Black
Amy Hamrick
Janice Crow
Ron Wilcocks
Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
David Hook, Engineering Manager
Tom Carosello, Estes Valley Recreation & Parks District
John Hannon, Rocky Mountain National Park
Absent: Gordon Slack
Ann Finley
Linda Hanick
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
No public in attendance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A motion was made and seconded (Street/Crow) to approve the June meeting minutes
with a minor edit and all were in favor.
SHUTTLE UPDATE
The Town’s Transit Program Manager, Brian Wells provided shuttle updates to the TAB:
June passenger counts were 7,536 which is in line with last year’s counts
A grant application is being prepared for the FTA’s 5339b – capital funds grant.
Included was a request for 80/20 matching funds for another battery-electric trolley
(if the previous grant fails), an electric charging station (if the previous grant fails),
garage for storing/charging the current trolleys and a cutaway bus to re place a
leased vehicle. Results should be available early in 2019.
Transportation Advisory Board – July 19, 2018 – Page 2
Another grant application will be submitted later this summer for the replacement
funds grant, FTA 5339b, for either an electric cutaway shuttle or a hybrid, based
on research for the best solution.
The DoubleMap GPS tracking system is fully operational. Some work still needs
done to firm up connectivity.
E-BIKE POLICY REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION:
Member Hamrick researched e-bike policies/ordinances in other mountain communities.
She stated there are three classes of e-bikes and different communities allow different
classes on different trails. There was no “one size fits all” ordinance found in her research.
Hamrick found most information contained within newspaper articles reflecting that this
appeared to be a fairly new concept by most. Allowing some type of electronic pedal
assistance, especially with Estes Park topography, could p otentially encourage
individuals to commute to work or downtown via bicycle.
Member Slack stated he doesn’t feel e-bikes should be allowed on the Lake Estes Trail
or along the Riverwalk. Slack further stated the trail along Highway 7 is too narrow to
allow e-bikes.
Tom Carosello, Executive Director of Estes Valley Recreation & Parks District (EVRPD)
stated he attended a meeting last week covering this topic. The EVRPD determined it
most appropriate to place the responsibility with the rider. They determined that e-bikes
should be allowed where bikes are currently allowed. Carosello feels that the Lake Estes
trail is a fine place for an e-bike. The actual e-bike speeds are not that different from
regular bikes. Member Wilcocks agreed with Carosello’s assessment. Co-Chair Street
stated there is a small minority of e-bike riders that exceed 20 mph.
Street feels both Class I and II should be allowed. It is important to maintain trail
connectivity so allowing e-bikes on one portion and not another is not desirable. It is
important to trust people to use good judgement. Should a speed limit be imposed, is it
enforceable? Estes Park Police Captain Eric Rose knows law enforcement individuals in
both Breckenridge and Steamboat Springs that state there are no bicycle speed limit
signs posted and therefore, no enforcement. Chair Morris suggested installing trail
etiquette signs at entries to trails to guide individuals to appropriate trail use behavi ors.
Riders and pedestrians will often self-correct if they know what is expected of them when
sharing a multi-use trail.
Transportation Advisory Board – July 19, 2018 – Page 3
Chair Morris suggested widening the trail along Highway 7. Director Muhonen stated this
suggestion has been made for a future Capital Improvement Project. John Hannon with
RMNP stated the topic of e-bike usage in the Park has not been discussed.
Muhonen suggested that the TAB write a memo to Town staff containing their e-bike
recommendations. The TAB will determine their position on the topic come up with key
components the e-bike ordinance would contain. Member Hamrick suggested taking a
look at the Estes Valley Trails Master Plan prior to final determination on what
would/would not be allowed as some trails are restricted due to surface type. A majority
of the TAB feels both Class I & II should be allowed on all trails. The EVRPD will most
likely develop their own ordinance and it was suggested by Director Muhonen to work on
the ordinance collaboratively with other agencies, remembering the TAB can only
recommend activities for the Town’s trail system. Carosello stated that the EVRPD does
not allow “motorized” equipment on the trails unless necessary for mobility.
Co-Chair Street suggested further discussion on allowing Classes I and II while
prohibiting Class III. Member Hamrick stated that would complicate the rest of ordinance
due to differentiating between pedal–assist and a throttle. Hamrick and Member Black
feel it makes more sense to allow Class I only. Carosello reminded the group the difficulty
differentiating between the classes. There would be the ability, however to issue a citation
in the event of an incident should the disallowed e -bike classes be involved. A motion
was made and seconded (Wilcocks/Street) to allow Class I e-bikes only and all were in
favor.
Chair Morris would write a recommendation and send to Director Muhonen for review. It
will then be distributed to all members.
SHUTTLE FUNDING OPTIONS:
The Town Board has opted to postpone discussions of the establishment of a Rural
Transportation District. The Town Board is contemplating dropping shuttle stops outside
Town limits since those locations do not collect Town sales tax. Current f unding for the
shuttle program sustains existing levels of service. Member Black stated that expanding
the Town’s shuttle services has been a perpetual problem.
Muhonen stated that with the adoption of the Downtown Parking Management Plan
(DPMP) there is a revenue stream and that b y bringing parking and transit together in
one division it enables the revenues to be used for transit issues. If a revenue stream
doesn’t occur, it should continue to be put in front of the Town Board for consideration.
Transportation Advisory Board – July 19, 2018 – Page 4
Member Wilcocks stated that better definition of what the Shuttle Service’s mission is, is
critical to what is requested. Member Hamrick asked if there has been any thought if
serving the largest area possible is the best method since it has not been successful. If
year-round service is needed, is there a potential to shrink the core service area to allow
funding to spread throughout the year? Muhonen stated if this is a recommendation that
is made, there may be a potential for a service reallocation which would utilize the same
budget and change how it is spent on a tighter core.
John Hannon stated that the continual Town shuttle service time changes are killing the
perception of the shuttle system. Visitors are witnessing these changes and are often
disappointed to learn the service anticipated has been changed.
Member Black stated that a small amount of sales tax or additional property taxes are
needed and pointed out that this services is more helpful to visitors than residents.
Chair Morris would work to define mission statement and to the Town Board. Member
Wilcocks states that more discussion is needed to determine what is appropriate to
present to the Town Board. Member Black agreed and suggested this is something that
can be worked on over the several months. Muhonen stated that Town staff has a fair
amount of discretion and influence through Service Change Proposals used in the budget
process. This type of proposal can be used to reallocate the structure of the shuttle
program with the advice of a citizen advisory group. Should potentially extend this
conversation beyond the TAB and involve the community. Brian Wells would like direction
on whether the shuttle system should be geared more toward residents or visitors, stating
the visitors love it.
COMPLETE STREETS DRAFT POLICY:
Co-Chair Street shared with the group, a first draft of a Complete Streets policy. Street
used verbiage from policies implemented by Billings, MT but tailored it to Estes Park.
Street also utilized the recently adopted Downtown Plan (DP) findings for incorporation
into the policy. It is important, in this policy, to address the needs of all transportation
modes. Street established the policy to require an exception be granted in order to deviate
from the checklist.
Wilcocks would like to recommend underpasses be implemented wherever possible and
would send verbiage to this affect from the DP to Street. This policy would not be a
regulatory document, but a guiding document.
Transportation Advisory Board – July 19, 2018 – Page 5
OTHER BUSINESS
Chair Morris reported that Member Finley had conducted further research into the
potential university assistance with the Town’s wayfinding needs . The university is very
interested in assisting. The Town’s Community Development Department will continue
leading the effort in establishing wayfinding per the adopted DP and the Public Works
Department will implement.
With no other business to discuss, Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 2:02 p.m.
Restaurants
Shops
Performance Park
Bond Park
Rock Wall
Public Restrooms
Visitor Center
Riverwalk
Parking
Town Hall
RMNP
Downtown (as header)
George Hix Riverside Plaza
Police
Museum
Visitor Center
Fairgrounds +Event Center
Library
Post Office
Lake Estes
25Wayfi nding Masterplan 11.26.2014Grand Lake, Colorado
Landmark/Gateway Signage
1.3 Conceptual Designs
L1 L2 L3
L4 L5 L6
Landmark/Identification Sign Options
Portal/Gateway Sign Options
Timber Structure
Steel ConnectionsSteel Connections
Signage
StoStoStoStoStoStoStoStoStoStoStoStone ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne BasBasBasBasBasBasBasBasBasBasBasBasBasBasBaseeeee
TimTimTimTimTimTimTimTimTimTimTimTimTimberberberberberberberberberber St St St St St St St Strucrucrucrucrucrucrucrucrucrucrucrucrucructurturturturturturtureeeeeeeee
Town Seal- Weathering Steel
Hammer-beam Truss Brace
StoStoStoStoStoStoStoStoStoStoStone ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne BasBasBasBasBasBasBasBasBaseeee
L6- Breakaway Option
26 Grand Lake, Colorado Wayfi nding Masterplan11.26.2014
1.3 Conceptual Designs (cont.)
L7 L8
Other Landmark/Gateway Sign Concepts
The designs below were developed as part of the 2006
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and are provided in the Wayfinding
Masterplan as additional Landmark/Gateway signage options.
The Land Use Plan designated L7 as a potential “gateway
identification monuments for the central business district”. L8 was
presented as a “gateway identification monument for Hwy 34” (See
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Page 28 for more information)
Because of its size, L8 may not be the best solution for a Hwy 34
monument, but could be used as a lake-side monument or point
of interest near the lake. Both of the signs are influenced by local
archetypes and construction techniques. They are primarily wood
timber construction with a stone base. Both signs have a built-in
planter box that would require maintenance during the growing
seasons.
If L7 was used as a portal sign as shown on the location map, the
content of the sign could direct visitors to the next turn.
Landmark/Gateway Signage
27Wayfi nding Masterplan 11.26.2014Grand Lake, Colorado
1.3 Conceptual Designs (cont.)
Landmark/Gateway Signage
L9 - Pitkin Street Arch
The Pitkin Street Arch Concept is the town’s new portal
to the Grand Lake, the towns greatest natural asset. The arch is
intended to be part of a redesign of the current vehicular-oriented,
dead-end southern portion of Pitkin Street. Out of the desire
to create a better connection between the Town and the lake,
residents have expressed interest in a park or more pedestrian-
oriented space between the Lake, the existing pedestrian pathway
next to the Kauffman House Museum, and Grand Avenue.
This space, besides strengthening the connection to the lake,
could host special events or a small ice skating rink, all with an
elevated view of the lake as the backdrop framed by the arch.
This type of project would require further feasibility studies and
design that are outside of the scope of the Wayfinding Masterplan.
However, the arch concept should serve as a keystone element
in gaining support for transforming this underutilized space into a
town asset.
This design is an example of one such solution. Stone pillars
ground the arch and provide natural planting and sitting space.
A laminated beam forms the arch and is reminiscent of Rainbow
Bridge. Steel plate hangers and weathering steel cut-out letters or
text could state the name of the town, its slogan, or another phrase
appropriate for this gateway form. Clearance and height of arch are
subject to location and require further study and design.
Laminated Beam
Steel Connections
HunHunHunHunHunHunHunHunHunHunHunHunHunHunHung Sg Sg Sg Sg Sg Sg Sg Sg Signignignignignignignignignignignageageageageageageageageageageageageage
Town Seal
Stone Pillars
33Wayfi nding Masterplan 11.26.2014Grand Lake, Colorado
Directional Signage
2.3 Conceptual Designs
D1- Pedestrian Directional Sign D2- Vehicular Directional Sign D3- Town Off-Premise Sign
Wood End Detail
Message Placards
Steel Sign Base
Town Seal
RouRouRouRouRouRouRouRouRouRouRound nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd WooWooWooWooWooWooWooWooWooWooWooWooWood Td Td Td Td Td Td Td Td Td Td Td Td Timbimbimbimbimbimbimbimbimbimbimbimberererererererererererer
Half-Round Tube Steel 8” dia.
Optional Bench
Optional Planter
OptOptOptOptOptOptOptOptOptOptOptOptionionionionionionionionionionionionionionional al al al al al al al al al al al StrStrStrStrStrStrStrStrStrStrStrStrStrStreeteeteeteeteeteeteeteeteeteeteet Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Idententententententententententententententifiifiifiifiifiifiifiifiifiifiifiifierererererererer
Signage
Round Timber Sign Structure
Round Tube Steel Support
Steel Pipe 3” dia
Steel Cap
TOPS Signage
6” Square Timber
The placards on the The placards on the
Vehicular directional
signage is inspired
by cabin signage in by ig ge
Grand Lake.
39Wayfi nding Masterplan 11.26.2014Grand Lake, Colorado
Communicative Signage
3.3 Conceptual Designs
C1 C2
Road Labels with
Town Seal
Signage
4”x4” Wood Post
43Wayfi nding Masterplan 11.26.2014Grand Lake, Colorado
Maps
4.3 Conceptual Designs
M1-Small Scale Map M2- Trail Markers and Information M3- Large Scale Map
M4- CDT Boardwalk Brand
Steel Cap
Graphic Signage
Steel Sign Structure
4”x4” Wood Post
Steel Cap
Weathering Steel Sign
Structure
Graphic Signage
6”x6” Wood PostsSteel Cap
Graphic Signage
6”x6” Wood Posts
Note: Dimensions of these signs
can vary based on size and
proportions of map.
47Wayfi nding Masterplan 11.26.2014Grand Lake, Colorado
Interpretive Signage
5.3 Conceptual Designs
I1- Large Interpretive I2- Small Interpretive I3- Historical Markers, round post and mounted on boulder
The Historical Markers (I3) The HiHistoricicalal M Markekers ( (I3I3) )
are meant to resemble
USGS survey markers.
Boardwalk brands can also be educational. BoBoBoardwdwdwalalalk k k brbrbrandsdsds can alslslso bebebe edududucatititionalalal
Shown here is a wildlife track brand that could
display area wildlife tracks and provide a
connection to experiences and encourage use
of nearby trails.
Big Thompson River
NSAINTVRAIN AVE
B I G T H OM P S O N A V E
N SAINT VRAIN AVE
This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as to the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.
0 40 80Feet
1 in = 76 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development Wayfinding
Printed: 7/16/2018Created By: Brittany Hathaway
Last Revised 7/30/18 1
Black Can
y
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Blac
k
C
a
n
y
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Big Thompson River
E
W
O
N
D
E
R
VIE
W
A
V
E
B IG T H O M P S O N A V E
NSAINTVRAINAVE
E E L K H O R N A V E
UNITS
A-I
UNITS 1-11
12A 12B
UNITS
A-G
This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as to the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.
0 30 60Feet
1 in = 67 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development Wayfinding
Printed: 7/16/2018Created By: Brittany Hathaway
Last Revised 7/30/18 2
Big Thom
p
s
o
n
R
i
v
e
r
M
A
C
G
R
E
G
O
R
A
V
E
E E L K H O R N A V E
E
R
I
V
E
R
S
I
D
E
D
R
VIRGINIA DR
VI
R
G
I
N
I
A
D
R
P
A
R
K
L
N
P A R K LN
This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as to the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.
0 30 60Feet
1 in = 67 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development Wayfinding
Printed: 7/16/2018Created By: Brittany Hathaway
Last Revised 7/30/18 3
441
141
401
243
225
249
311
165
215
225
215
125
130
257
131
222
325
250
310
260
120
221245
255
223
251
130
246
242
363
255
520
377
373
451
335
170
220
220
205
141
147
149
148 146
144 140
131
133
135137
B
l
a
c
k
C
a
n
y
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
B O YD LN
EWONDERVIEWAVE
M
A
C
G
R
E
G
O
R
A
V
E
PAR
K
L
N
W W O N D E R V I E W AV E
E E L K H O R N A V E
VIRGINIA DR
WI
L
L
O
W
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
WILLOWSTONE CT
1
1
UNIT
21
6
3
5
2
This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as to the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.
0 70 140Feet
1 in = 134 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development Wayfinding
Printed: 7/30/2018Created By: Brittany Hathaway
Last Revised 7/30/18 4
Big
T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
R
i
v
e
r
Fall River
E E L K H O R N A V E
P
A
R
K
L
N
BI
G
H
O
R
N
D
R
E
R
I
V
E
R
S
I
DE
DR
ROCKWELL ST
WRIVERSIDEDR
W R
I
V
E
R
S
I
D
E
D
R
CL E AV E ST
W ELKHORN AVE
WIEST
D
R
MO
R
A
I
N
E
A
V
E
UNITS 4
& 10
UNITS
1 & 7
UNIT C
UNIT B
UNIT A
UNIT D
This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as to the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.
0 30 60Feet
1 in = 67 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development Wayfinding
Printed: 7/16/2018Created By: Brittany Hathaway
Last Revised 7/30/18 5
112124128132
156
342
240
250
257
245
276
270
264
274
405
409410
421
421
450
220
151161221241251
261
265
135
155
146
231142
251
138
136
283
150
154
220
231
254
256
275
236
170
160
120
124
255
253
249
251
243
231
221
201
189
255
285
215
181
191
136
240
130
160
200
251
271
281
286
292
335
260
250
246
238
232
355
385
395
345
335325
308
330
145
141
153
155
160
260
340
320
350
341
340
340
310
311
310
261
225
260
250
247
252
241
240
221
251
261
260
250
240
260
341
430
260
270
319
315
235 245
230
504
508
497
509
336
249
251
248 248
250
261
350
370
376
341
351
421
425
401 401
255
253
502
141
460
470
375
455
220
453
465
477
250
401440
200
150
136
225
215
Fall
R
i
v
e
r
Big Th
o
m
p
s
o
n
R
i
v
e
r
R I V E R S I D E D R
D
A
V
I
S
S
T
IVY S
T
M
O
C
C
A
S
I
N
S
T
ROCKWELL ST
M O R A I N E A V E
L O O K O U T S T
RIDGEVIEWLN
MO
U
N
T
A
I
N
V
I
E
W
L
N
PA
R
K
V
I
E
W
L
N
P I N E R I V E R L N
WIEST D R
WESTVIEW LN
M
O
C
C
A
S
I
N
C
I
R
C
L
E
D
R
P
R
O
S
P
E
C
T
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
D
R
W R
I
V
E
R
S
I
D
E
D
R
LO
T
T
S
T
W
R
I
V
E
R
S
I
D
E
D
R
C Y T E W O R T H R D
COURTNEY LN
COURTNEY
LN
CR
A
G
S
D
R
PROSPECT
V
ILLAGE
DR
UNIT 1
UNIT 5
UNIT 4
UNIT 6
This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as to the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.
0 90 180Feet
1 in = 177 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development Wayfinding
Printed: 7/30/2018Created By: Brittany Hathaway
Last Revised 7/30/18 6
Fall
R
i
v
e
r
Fall Ri
v
e
r
E ELKHOR N A V E
WI
E
S
T
D
R
R O C K W E L L S T
B
I
G
H
O
R
N
D
R
W ELKHORN AVE
WIEST D R
CLEAVE ST
MO
R
A
I
N
E
A
V
E
UNIT
2
UNITS
4 & 5
UNIT
3
UNIT
1
UNIT C
UNIT B
UNIT A
UNIT D
UNITS
A-G
2A-2I
This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as to the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.
0 30 60Feet
1 in = 67 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development Wayfinding
Printed: 7/16/2018Created By: Brittany Hathaway
Last Revised 7/30/18 7
103
115
117119121123129133235
230
322
238
106
112124128132
291
295
261
265
135
270
125
271 221 225
230 130140150170160
131
133
135
140
139143
157
155
220
159
213
215
220
217
180
160
170
170
150
120
216214
217
211
125
157
211
203205
211
223
207
144
148
204
208
120
209
341
157
338
191229 225221
217 215
209 213
201
323
431
113
141
431
134
216
136
101
221
221
223
175
Fall Rive
r
Fall River
BIG HORN DR
BO Y D LN
WI
E
S
T
D
R
MO
R
A
I
N
E
A
V
E
W ELKHORN AVE
CLEAVE ST
L
A
W
N
L
N
WIEST D R
S P R U C E D R
UNITS
4 & 5
UNIT C
UNIT B
UNIT A
UNIT D
UNIT L
UNIT JUNIT K
UNIT A1
UNITS
A-G
2A-2I
UNIT B1
This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as to the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.
0 50 100Feet
1 in = 104 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development Wayfinding
Printed: 7/30/2018Created By: Brittany Hathaway
Last Revised 7/30/18 8
July 2018 Parking
Data
Transportation Advisory Board, August 15, 2018
2005 Study vs. 2018 Study
2005 Study vs. 2018 Survey
2005 Parking Data -Town Hall
Lot
2005 Parking Data –All Lots
2005 Parking Data -Location
Snapshot
July 2018 Parking Data –Parking
Structure (sample size comparable to 2015)
June 2018 Parking Data
Parking Structure
July 2018 Parking Data
Parking Structure
August 2018 Parking Data
Parking Structure
What to do with the survey
data. . .
•Track and monitor busiest lots / streets
•Peak times of day
•Parking Structure statistics
•Count
•Weekend vs. weekday
•Time vs. Count
•Other