The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Transportation Advisory Board 2019-12-18Carlie Bangs, Town Board Trustee Liaison Greg Muhonen, Estes Park Public Works Staff Liaison Transportation Advisory Board Agenda December 18th, 2019 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) Scott Moulton (03/31/22) Belle Morris (03/31/20) Gordon Slack (03/31/21) Tom Street (03/31/22) Linda Hanick (03/31/22) Janice Crow (3/31/21) 12:00 – 12:05 Public Comment 12:05 – 12:20 Appreciation Lunch 12:20 – 12:25 Approval of November Meeting Minutes 12:25 – 12:35 US 34 and Macgregor RAB 12:35 – 12:50 Town Site Development Standards 12:50 – 1:05 Project Updates - Seasonal Paid Parking Implementation - 2020 Shuttle Program Update 1:05 – 1:20 Project Updates 1:20 – 1:35 Project Updates 1:35 – 1:50 Bicycling on the Riverwalk 1:50 – 2:00 Other Business Adjourn Chair Belle Morris CDOT Region IV/ PW Director Greg Muhonen Community Development Director Randy Hunt Parking & Transit Manager Vanessa Solesbee Public Works Director Greg Muhonen Engineering Manager David Hook Tom Street 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, November 20th, 2019 Minutes of a regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Room 202 of Town Hall on the 20th day of November, 2019. Present: Belle Morris Gordon Slack Stan Black Tom Street Ron Wilcocks Scott Moulton Janice Crow Ann Finley Linda Hanick Also Present: Trustee Carlie Bangs, Town Board Liaison Vanessa Solesbee, Parking & Transit Manager David Hook, Engineering Manager Elias Wilson, Public Works Admin. Assistant Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Admin. Assistant Greg Muhonen, Public Work Director Larry Haas, Region IV Traffic Engineer Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public Comment. Chair Morris welcomed Larry Haas from CDOT Region 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Member Street moved to approve the minutes and Member Moulton seconded. All were in favor. CDOT Question/Answer (Larry Haas, CDOT Region IV Traffic Engineer) Chair Morris commented that in the last meeting we discussed questions for Larry Haas CDOT Region 4 Traffic Engineer and those questions are included in today’s packet. Haas works closely with the Estes Park Public Works Department to help keep traffic flowing safely through the town. Director Muhonen asked Haas what the first project he worked on was and Haas replied that he worked with then Public Works Director Greg Seivers to put traffic signals and the pedestrian crossing in at Manford and a signal at the intersection of Macgregor and 34 Hwy. Muhonen stated that Haas has seen more projects happen in Estes Park than anyone in the room. Chair Morris began going through the list of questions. The first questions was “what are you looking for when motorists and cyclists blend together, on segments of the roadway, which influence your decisions for the installation of bicycle facilities?” Haas replied that CDOT is looking at the number of bicycles using the area and the number of incidents between bicycles and vehicles that have occurred. He commented that the signs on the road are a good start. Director Muhonen stated that there are no definite counts on bike traffic. Haas shared that unfortunately CDOT often operates as a reactive agency and that the agency often has to see the data before it is able to distribute funds . Typically a cost benefit ratio is considered before a project is done or not. Member Moulton compared this to the chicken or the egg scenario and stated that people make decisions on where to ride based on the existing infrastructure so if the infrastructure doesn’t exist, the numbers of Transportation Advisory Board – November 20th, 2019 – Page 2 riders that CDOT is looking for will not exist. Engineer Haas replied that the resources and financial resources of CDOT are limited. Chair Morris questioned if there are any other warrants. Haas said that CDOT would li ke to add pedestrian and bicycle facilities where they can like on the 7 Hwy project but there isn’t always space to do so. Director Muhonen presented the Lily Lake area of 7 Hwy as an example and commented that there would be a enormous cost associated wi th adding facilities to that stretch of road. Member Slack asked where the areas are that Haas serves. Haas shared that he works in 13 different counties from Boulder to Kit Carson and that this means he works in both the mountain areas and the plains from oilfield traffic to farming traffic. Director Muhonen commented that it is helpful to know that Haas serves so many areas so that when we question why CDOT isn’t fixing a certain issue we realize the scope of their work. Chair Morris shared that in 2019 the Estes Park Town Board unanimously passed a Complete Streets Policy and now the Public Works Department is responsible for investigating what it will take to add sidewalks and other amenities to streets in Estes Park. Morris questioned what it would cost to calm traffic on 7 Hwy. She also stated that there is a lot going on in that area with the fairgrounds, students walking to school, families, and businesses being located all along that stretch. Haas replied that there is currently a speed monitor device that alerts drivers to the speed reduction. Haas said that the largest number of speed violators are the locals. He stated that crosswalks require a balance because when a crosswalk stops all traffic for one person to cross it slightly disrupts the flo w but if there are several crosswalks put into the same area traffic stops flowing. Haas stated that it is better to congregate pedestrians to a specific intersection to cross. Chair Morris stated that there is a need for a crosswalk across 7 Hwy from 3rd street and that the Transportation Advisory Board requests that one be installed. Haas questioned if the kids are not getting across or if anyone has been hit. Chair Morris shared that the Transportation Advisory Board recently did a bike tour around town and on 7 Hwy they witnessed traffic fly through the area when pedestrians were trying to cross. Morris stated that there isn’t much warning for drivers. Haas commented that there are signs and pavement markings say that there will be a crosswalk. Director Muhonen asked Haas is a pedestrian refuge is an option. Haas replied that a pedestrian refuge would have to be ADA compliant and it would depend on the amount of space available. He also shared that electricity would have to be run to the pedestrian refuge in order to add a push button and additional signs. Haas said that other things to consider would be if people would run into the island and if it would get in the way of snow plowing. Muhonen questioned if there would be funding available. Haas said that this would likely fall into Safe Routes to School and that it would be based on how many children are crossing the road and the level of interaction they have with traffic. Haas shared that there is a chance that the funding of this project could fall entirely to the Town of Estes Park. Black questioned if a pedestrian refuge would be the first solution that Haas would go to. Haas replied that he may first attempt another approach such as a rumble strip or making the flashing beacons brighter rather than building completely new infrastructure. Director Muhonen commented about the role of enforcement. Haas stated that he is positive the EP police is aware of the situation and that enforcement must play a part in addressing the issue. Haas suggested that the Transportation Advisory Board talk to the Chief and Captain to see if they might be able to do a blitz in the area and then work on education. Chair Morris shared that with an increase in the number of businesses in the area and the community center traffic has increased. Haas replied that it is unlikely that it would require the addition of a traffic signal. He stated that perhaps a paid crossing guard , who understands their duty to save lives, should be stationed in the area. Member Crow asked what options would be available to pay crossing guards. Trustee Liason Bangs shared how easy it is to miss the flashing lights and that she has caught herself entering a school zone with flashing lights and has a delayed reaction to the fact that she needs to slow down. Member Slack commented that he believes crossing guards sound like a very cost effective and impactful solution to the issue. Director Muhonen shared that the use of crossing guards would fall under the schools authority. Haas commented that if a crossing guard is determined to be the best solution that Estes Park is welcome to go ahead with it. Member Crow commented that a crossing guard position would be a great job for retired individuals looking for a job. Manager Hook he would be able to start the conversation Transportation Advisory Board – November 20th, 2019 – Page 3 about crossing guards. Hook stated that sidewalk improvements possibly increase the use of the facilities and that this could be a motivator to start a crossing guard program. Member Hanick commented that she likes the crossing guard i dea. She also brought up an idea about 3D paintings which look raised that are placed in the center of lanes to encourage traffic to slow down. Hanick stated that this is a cheaper approach that would have a calming aspect. Haas shared that these types of paintings would have to be a community effort. He commented that the paintings may get your attention but CDOT would prefer not to have these paintings on CDOT roads because there are no funds available for maintenance. The town must be aware of what they will occur. Haas warned that putting paintings on the street can be distracting leading to other issues. Slack questioned if Haas had ever seen these paintings used in the area he serves. Haas had not. Member Moulton suggested that the board move on to other items. Chair Morris shifted the conversation towards the 34 Hwy Corridor. She shared with Haas that the Transportation Advisory Board is interested in having a traffic study performed. Morris shared that there is concern about a jaywalking issue from the Visitor Center to the Stanley Shopping Center area to the north. Morris asked how open Haas and CDOT would be to helping perform such a study. Haas replied that it might be possible and suggested that the Transportation Advisory Board work with Director Muhonen who will communicate with CDOT about what the needs of the study will be. Haas suggested that perhaps the implementation of something such as a split rail fence could be used to steer pedestrian traffic towards the crosswalks. Member Hanick commented that it is only a matter of time until someone get hit in that area. Haas shared that CDOT can work with Director Muhonen on performing a traffic study. Muhonen confirmed that a study can be done. Member Slack requested that the traffic study be performed during the busy season. Haas shared that when someone dies on one of his roadways he is the first person to ask what could have been done to prevent the death. Chair Morris shifted the conversation to talk about special events and festivals in Estes Park. Morris asked Haas’ about his view on blocking state highways for events. Haas replied that as long as Estes Park Police Department closes the road and a route is established to get around it there is no issue. Member Black asked about a lengthy event that takes place Saturday and Sunday. Member Slack suggested that traffic could be divert up 4th street to event center parking lot and visitors to the event could be shuttled in. Slack mentioned that Elk Fest was packed with cars on the shoulders of all roads and traffic to the National Park was backed up to Mall S treet. Haas said that these are all options as long as the Estes Park Police Department executes the traffic plan. Member Hanick said that the expectation is that FLAP will help reduce these issues. Chair Morris stated that turning left out of the parking structure is starting to become an issue. She asked if the traffic signal timing could provide a break to allow those exiting to get out easily. Director Muhonen shared that the traffic study indicated that the parking structure intersection would need to be address in the coming years. Member Street commented that if it is already becoming an issue would it impede people from using the structure. Member Slack suggested that an occasional police officer directing traffic in that area would be a good option. Member Wilcocks shared that t here is no signage which alerts drivers to the available interceptor lane. He suggested that the addition of these signs could alert drives that there is a safe option to turn left. Chair Morris transitioned the conversation to Scott Avenue. Haas stated that he did not understand the question about Scott Avenue. The question was as king about traffic calming at Scott Avenue and 7 Hwy. Muhonen stated that the area is currently viewed as rural and that perhaps it should now be considered urban which would warrant a speed reduction. Director Muhonen shared that there is a group lobbying on the language of speed warrants. Hass commented that people do not like speed and that if you set a speed at 35 you end up setting a false speed limit. Muhonen stated that it is human behavior that will keep people traveling at a faster speed. Haas said that what will need to happen is the ingress and the egress will need to be looked, a determination will need to be made if the area is residential and an accident history deta iling the types of crashes will need to be considered. Haas stated that the Police Department would be well aware of this Transportation Advisory Board – November 20th, 2019 – Page 4 information. Member Slack asked if there is a sign which warns drivers of cross traffic. Haas replied that there is not a sign. Slack commented that this issue is something that will need to be watched over time. Haas commented that if Estes Park wants a change for the peak season it must be okay with it for the off season as well. Chair Morris asked what the steps would be to implement restrictions on large trucks and RVS traveling on Elkhorn Ave downtown. She suggested the implementation of a delivery time where trucks are allowed to drop off goods to the businesses. Morris questioned if this is something that CDOT would want to be involved in. Haas replied that this is something CDOT would absolutely be involved with and informed the board that a proposal would need to be submitted. He stated that once approved and sign installation is complete it would become and education and enforc ement issue. He shared that a change such as this will require buy-in from the businesses who will need to be ensured that they will get their deliveries. Haas commented that FLAP will likely serve the needs of visitors driving an RV. Director Muhonen shared that signs for a specific route could be put up but most people will trust their phone’s directions rather than the sign. Haas commented that most people use the sign to confirm what they are being told by their phone. Chair Morris thanked Haas for attending the meeting and answering the questions of the Transportation Advisory Board. Haas shared that he will be retiring at the end of January and that it has been a pleasure working with the town for the past 30 years. Member Slack asked a final question about the rutting on 36 Hwy and what the overlay plan is and Haas directed Slack to contact Ed Gentry who is responsible for overlay. Haas did share that he is aware of a 10 year paving plan. Haas said if there are any further questions to please field them through Director Muhonen. He enjoys working with the Estes Park community and expects that CDOT will happily continue to work with Estes Park. PROJECT UPDATES (V. Solesbee – Parking & Transit Manager) Parking Manager Solesbee shared that the Town Board passed paid parking for 2020. She thanked the Transportation Advisory Board for their input. Solesbee shared that the Town Board and Estes Park Community have high expectations. She is working on how to staff and budget. Solesbee shared that an RFP was written and distributed. She stated that she has spent a significant amount of time talking to programs about their experience. Solesbee assured the Transportation Advisory Board that she would keep them informed. She also shared that the goal is to hire local staff while working with a professional company to ensure that paid parking will be well executed. Solesbee stated that defining the permit program will be an important part of the process. Solesbee is open to the Transportation Advisory Board’s involvement in the process. She stated that it will be important to have the involvement of business owners end employees to gather information about the need for parking permits and parking spaces. Defining the permit options will be very important for the downtown area. Taking care of our locals is a top priority. She shared that conversations are being had about what the implementation of pay by phone, pay by text, kiosks or ambassador staff would look like for the town. Solesbee want to be intentional about where people get directed to park and having increased advertising the shuttle. The performance metrics will be adapted for next year to ensure that paid parking is creating the type of change that we want to see. Solesbee will ask for the input of Transportation Advisory Board on this subject at a later meeting . Member Street asked if there is an issue with funding. Solesbee shared that she is working to set up the fund with the financial officer. Director Muhonen stated that he does not anticipate a funding issue going forward. The Town Board understands that a supplement to the budget will be brought to them. Solesbee commented that if a heavily mobile option is introduced it would be in the budgeted unlike a kiosk based program that would require a significant capital investment. Member Hanick commented that the parking garage signs which indicate the height of the ceiling do not match. Director Muhonen shared that the ground level spaces have and 8ft clearance and everything above that has a 7ft clearance. Transit Transportation Advisory Board – November 20th, 2019 – Page 5 Solesbee shared that transit will be directly connected to the implementation of seasonal paid parking and that it will be a challenge because there is not more money available next year. Solesbee is taking a data driven approach to route planning for next year and closely looking at which routes were performing and underperforming. Cellphone location data is being used to better understand where people are going. Solesbee is working to reintroduce the express route. She shared that grant compliance will require the trolley to provide on demand service within ¾ of a mile of the route. Solesbee hopes to bring routes recommendations to get advised on to the December meeting and have the routes settled on by January. Overall there was a 6.8% decrease in ridership and ridership has been decreasing for the past six years. Black asked Solesbee for ridership numbers from 2016. Solesbee shared that there were approximately 101,000 riders in 2016.Member Hanick shared that one year the trolley ridership was down because the trolley engine was having issues. Member Black commented that there is an obvious downward trend. Solesbee said that she is unsure of why the downward trend exists. Member Finley que stioned why people would sit in a shuttle in traffic rather than their own car. Member Crow shared that ridership in the National Park has increased. Member Slack suggested that the motels where the shuttle stops have increased advertisement. Member Crow suggested table topers. Member Street asked if the downtown ridership decreased. Solesbee stated that all routes saw a decrease and said that a non-scientific guess would be that increased traffic caused a decrease in ridership. Member Hanick commented that it would be important to have Visit Estes Park’s help with advertisement. Solesbee shared that Visit Estes Park has been very responsive and helpful. Slack commented that parking and shuttle are dependent on one another. Project Updates (Public Works Director Greg Muhonen) Director Muhonen shared that there is a neighborhood meeting from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. for the Third Street neighborhood regarding traffic calming. There are 6 conceptual designs being presented to the residents. He commented that the roadwork will begin in 2021. Member Slack questioned how this project came into the forefront. Muhonen stated that during the Fourth Street Project and large number of complaints and comments were made to the Town Board and Public Works Department conce rning a need for traffic calming. Manager Hook shared that the utility work that is being done this winter and next spring will make this a prime time to look at making repairs to the road. Slack questioned if the neighborhood is still interested in change. Muhonen stated that the purpose of the neighborhood meeting is to gauge the interest of the residents. Director Muhonen shared that the Town of Estes Park did not receive the Build Grant which was intended for Phase II of the Loop Project. This raises questions about stormwater and drainage management. Member Slack asked if there is any hope of receiving the grant in the future. Muhonen stated that the plan is to have a post application discussion and go for the Build Grant next year. PROJECT UPDATES (D. Hook – Engineering Manager) US 36 & Community Drive Roundabout: Manager Hook shared that there is an environmental meeting with CDOT on November 21st, 2019. The Brodie Avenue Project is going through final closing. Hook stated that the Wayfinding project is starting up again. He shared that the Steamer intersection traffic signal is being designed. Member Slack asked if it will be synchronized with the light at 34 Hwy. Hook confirmed. Hook shared that the Stanley Hotel is preparing to put in a film center. Elkhorn lodge is in the process of developing ideas and is under contract. The prospective new owner is working through the purchase process. US 34 and Macgregor: Director Muhonen shared that the final design for the roundabout is being completed and will be put out for bid. It should be completed by May. OTHER BUSINESS Transportation Advisory Board – November 20th, 2019 – Page 6 With no other business to discuss, Chair Morri s adjourned the meeting at 2:03 p.m. Recording Secretary Elias Wilson, Public Works Department SA PP ROW PP SA 4RB SA SA SAN (QL"D") 12" DIP (QL"D") S A N ( Q L " D " ) EDGE LINE 4" WHITE EDGE LINE 4" WHITE CENTER LINE 4" DBL YELLOW CENTER LINE 4" DBL YELLOW SYMBOL MARKING PAVEMENT SYMBOL MARKING PAVEMENT R=38.04' Numbers Structure No Revisions: Revised: Void:Sheet Subset: Detailer: Designer: Sheet NumberSubset Sheets: Init.CommentsDate: Sheet Revisions 11/19/2019Print Date: Horiz. Scale:1:40 21874DES_SigningStriping01.dgn Vert. Scale: As Noted Project No./Code File Name: K L A S 5 9 0 1 1 1 : 1 6 : 4 1 A M S : \ T r a n p r o j \ 1 0 0 0 5 8 1 3 6 U S 3 4 & M a c G r e g o r I n t e r s e c t i o n \ 2 1 8 7 4 \ D e s ig n \ D r a w in g s \ 2 1 8 7 4 D E S _ S ig n in g S t r ip in g 0 1 . d g n Unit Information Unit Leader Initials Phone: (303) 221-7275 Fax: (303) 221-7276 Denver, CO 80237 7604 Technology Way, Suite 400 As Constructed 21874 of FSA 0341-097 Phone:970-350-2148 Fax:970-350-2198 Colorado Department of Transportation Region 4 10601 W. 10th St. Greeley, CO 80634 KMK KEY MAP Cnd: FairDepth: NoneErosion: NoneFlow: Intermittent Cnd: FairDepth: NoneErosion: NoneFlow: Intermittent Cnd: FairDepth: NoneErosion: NoneFlow: Plugged Cnd: FairDepth: Less than 0.5 ftErosion: NoneFlow: Plugged Cnd: FairDepth: NoneErosion: NoneFlow: Intermittent Cnd: FairDepth: NoneErosion: NoneFlow: Intermittent 1 0 0 + 0 0 1 0 1 + 0 0 1 0 2 + 0 0 1 0 3 + 0 0 1 0 4 + 0 0 1 5 J.Withee US-34 & MACGREGOR AVE M A T C H L I N E S T A 1 0 4 + 5 0 40'0'20'80' US 34 SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANS SignStripe REMAIN W2-1 W16-8 R1-1 D1-2 R2-1 (40) M1-4 REMAIN REMAIN M3-4 W11-2 W16-9p REMAIN D10-2 (62) 1 3 ' 1 2 ' REMAIN REMAIN 2a 2b 3a 3b J.Withee 1 15 W13-1 (15) STRIPING MATCH EXISTING Lt. 13.25' 101+52.77 STRIPING MATCH EXISTING Lt. 0.00' 101+38.91' STRIPING MATCH EXISTING Rt. 10.67' 101+47.68 STRIPING MATCH EXISTING Rt. 22.68' 101+52.41 Rt. 18.00' 103+15.88 Rt. 27.41' 103+40.76 X SIGN NUMBER REMOVE RESET REMOVE AND SIGNING LEGEND W3-2W2-6 36 35 99+07 AT APROX. STA. R2-1 (35) 77 PP PP SA ROW PP SA SA SA PP SA ROW ROWPP SA N 69077.67E 41050.65EL 7568.80N 69077.67E 41050.65EL 7568.80 PEDESTRIAN POLE PINPIN SA SA SA T E L E ( Q L " D " ) TELE (QL"D") 8 " D IP (Q L "D " ) HP- GA S ( Q L" D")FI B E R ( Q L" D") E L E C ( Q L" D") E L E C ( Q L " D " ) CABLE (QL"D") TELE (QL"D") 8 " D I P ( Q L " D " ) 12" DIP (QL"D") S A N ( Q L " D " ) HP-GAS (QL"D") (QL"D") 12" DIP (QL"D") 8" SAN PVC 8" PVC 8" PVC 6" V C P 8" PVC ( Q L" D") 6" S A N V C P (QL"C")24" CMP F I B E R ( Q L " D " ) SA (QL "D " ) 6 " SAN VCP CENTER LINE 4" DBL YELLOW CENTER LINE 4" DBL YELLOW CENTER LINE 4" DBL YELLOW CENTER LINE 4" DBL YELLOW CENTER LINE 4" DBL YELLOW CENTER LINE 4" DBL YELLOW CROSSWALK 1'x10' CROSSWALK 1'x10' BUTTON. SEE SHEET 84 SIGNAL WITH PUSH CROSSING TRAFFIC RRFB PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK 1'x10' CROSSWALK 1'x10' CENTER LINE 4" DBL YELLOW CENTER LINE 4" DBL YELLOW EDGE LINE 4" WHITE SEE SHEET 84 WITH PUSH BUTTON. SIGNAL (TWO-SIDED) CROSSING TRAFFIC RRFB PEDESTRIAN MARKING PAVEMENT ARROW MARKING PAVEMENT ARROW MARKING PAVEMENT ARROW MARKING PAVEMENT ARROW (1' FROM CURB) EDGE LINE 4" YELLOW (TYP.) DOTTED LINE 8" WHITE 4" WHITE EDGE LINE AT BCR BEGIN WHITE EDGE LINE END YELLOW EDGE LINE (TYP.) (24"x36") MARKINGS WHITE YIELD AT BCR BEGIN WHITE EDGE LINE END YELLOW EDGE LINE MARKINGS WITH ROUNDABOUT PAVEMENT EXTEND LINES TO INTERSECT 4" YELLOW EDGE LINE MARKINGS WITH ROUNDABOUT PAVEMENT EXTEND LINES TO INTERSECT 4" YELLOW EDGE LINE DETAIL A SEE BUTTON. SEE SHEET 84 SIGNAL WITH PUSH CROSSING TRAFFIC RESET RRFB PEDESTRIAN BUTTON. SEE SHEET 84 SIGNAL WITH PUSH CROSSING TRAFFIC RESET RRFB PEDESTRIAN SEE SHEET 84 REPLACE SIGNS WITH W16-7 WITH PUSH BUTTON. SIGNAL (TWO-SIDED) CROSSING TRAFFIC PEDESTRIAN RRFB SHEET 84 SIGNS WITH W16-7 SEE PUSH BUTTON. REPLACE TRAFFIC SIGNAL WITH PEDESTRIAN CROSSING RELOCATE RRFB Numbers Structure No Revisions: Revised: Void:Sheet Subset: Detailer: Designer: Sheet NumberSubset Sheets: Init.CommentsDate: Sheet Revisions 11/19/2019Print Date: Horiz. Scale:1:40 21874DES_SigningStriping02.dgn Vert. Scale: As Noted Project No./Code File Name: K L A S 5 9 0 1 1 1 : 1 6 : 4 3 A M S : \ T r a n p r o j \ 1 0 0 0 5 8 1 3 6 U S 3 4 & M a c G r e g o r I n t e r s e c t i o n \ 2 1 8 7 4 \ D e s ig n \ D r a w in g s \ 2 1 8 7 4 D E S _ S ig n in g S t r ip in g 0 2 . d g n Unit Information Unit Leader Initials Phone: (303) 221-7275 Fax: (303) 221-7276 Denver, CO 80237 7604 Technology Way, Suite 400 As Constructed 21874 of FSA 0341-097 Phone:970-350-2148 Fax:970-350-2198 Colorado Department of Transportation Region 4 10601 W. 10th St. Greeley, CO 80634 KMK KEY MAP Cnd: GoodDepth: Less than 0.5 ftErosion: NoneFlow: Intermittent Cnd: GoodDepth: Less than 0.5 ftErosion: NoneFlow: Intermittent Cnd: FairDepth: UnknownErosion: UnknownFlow: Unknown Cnd: GoodDepth: NoneErosion: NoneFlow: Intermittent Cnd: GoodDepth: NoneErosion: NoneFlow: Intermittent Cnd: FairDepth: NoneErosion: NoneFlow: Intermittent Cnd: FairDepth: NoneErosion: NoneFlow: Intermittent Cnd: GoodDepth: NoneErosion: NoneFlow: Intermittent 1 0 5 + 0 0 1 0 6 + 0 0 1 0 7 + 0 0 1 0 8 + 0 0 1 0 9 + 0 0 203+00 204+00 205+00 2 5 J.Withee US-34 & MACGREGOR AVE M A T C H L I N E S T A 1 0 4 + 5 0 M A T C H L I N E S T A 1 0 9 + 0 0 MATCH LINE STA 202+50 MATCH LINE STA 205+75 40'0'20'80' US 34 US 34 M A C G R E G O R A V E SignStripe SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANS REMAIN R4-7 R4-7 R4-7 R1-2 R1-2 R1-2 R1-2 R6-4 M3-2 M1-4 R2-1 (35) R1-2 R5-1 R1-1 R1-2 R5-1 R2-1 (30) REMAIN D1-2 34 D9-2 M6-1L REMAIN 1 2 ' 4a 4b 5a 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 23 24 25a 25b REMAIN 1 2 ' 12'12' M A C G R E G O R A V E 1 2 ' 1 3 ' 11' 11' J.Withee DETAIL A 26 Avenue MacGregor Avenue MacGregor 22 8 Lt. 0.00' 205+53.17 Lt. 2.17' 205+07.58 Rt. 3.73' 205+07.45 Lt. 7.89' 107+71.42 Rt. 1.09' 107+71.92 Lt. 12.00' 105+04.52 Lt. 0.00' 105+21.98 Rt. 8.16' 105+21.58 Lt. 6.93' 203+16.26 Rt. 0.00' 203+16.71 X SIGN NUMBER REMOVE RESET REMOVE AND SIGNING LEGEND (TYP.) 2' SPECIAL SPECIAL MacGregor Ave Wonderview Ave5b 5c R1-1 SPECIAL SPECIAL MacGregor Ave Wonderview Ave 20a 20b 20c W11-2 W16-7pL 28a 28b W11-2 W16-7pL 27b 27a M3-2 34 M1-4 M6-2 M6-2 M1-4 34 M3-4 BLOCKING RRFB MOUNT WITHOUT R4-7 37a 37b 37c 38a 38b 38c SPECIAL SPECIAL 78 SA PP PP N 69227.77E 41698.03EL 7572.91N 69227.77E 41698.03EL 7572.91 BRACE POST SA CABLE (QL"D") 12" DIP (QL"D") HP-GAS (QL"D") HP-GAS (QL"D") ELEC (QL"D") ELEC (QL"D") 12" DIP (QL"D") CENTER LINE 4" DBL YELLOW CENTER LINE 4" DBL YELLOW SYMBOL MARKING PAVEMENT SYMBOL MARKING PAVEMENT EDGE LINE 4" WHITE Numbers Structure No Revisions: Revised: Void:Sheet Subset: Detailer: Designer: Sheet NumberSubset Sheets: Init.CommentsDate: Sheet Revisions 11/19/2019Print Date: Horiz. Scale:1:40 21874DES_SigningStriping03.dgn Vert. Scale: As Noted Project No./Code File Name: K L A S 5 9 0 1 1 1 : 1 6 : 4 5 A M S : \ T r a n p r o j \ 1 0 0 0 5 8 1 3 6 U S 3 4 & M a c G r e g o r I n t e r s e c t i o n \ 2 1 8 7 4 \ D e s ig n \ D r a w in g s \ 2 1 8 7 4 D E S _ S ig n in g S t r ip in g 0 3 . d g n Unit Information Unit Leader Initials Phone: (303) 221-7275 Fax: (303) 221-7276 Denver, CO 80237 7604 Technology Way, Suite 400 As Constructed 21874 of FSA 0341-097 Phone:970-350-2148 Fax:970-350-2198 Colorado Department of Transportation Region 4 10601 W. 10th St. Greeley, CO 80634 KMK KEY MAP Cnd: GoodDepth: NoneErosion: NoneFlow: Intermittent Cnd: GoodDepth: NoneErosion: NoneFlow: Intermittent Cnd: GoodDepth: NoneErosion: NoneFlow: Intermittent Cnd: GoodDepth: NoneErosion: NoneFlow: Intermittent 1 0 9 + 0 0 1 1 0 + 0 0 1 1 1 + 0 0 1 1 2 + 0 0 3 5 J.Withee US-34 & MACGREGOR AVE M A T C H L I N E S T A 1 0 9 + 0 0 40'0'20'80' US 34 SignStripe SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANS R2-1 (35) REMAIN REMAIN D1-2 W2-1 R2-1 (40)W2-6 MAC GREGOR AVE SPECIAL D9-8 D9-9 M6-9 REMAIN W11-2 W16-9p R3-9b REMAIN 29a 29b 30a 30b 1 2 ' 1 2 ' 15 W13-1 (15) 35 R2-1 (35) 31a 31b J.Withee Lt. 19.10' 109+69.57 STRIPING MATCH EXISTING Lt. 23.62' 111+10.05 STRIPING MATCH EXISTING Lt. 11.69' 111+10.46 STRIPING MATCH EXISTING Rt. 0.12' 111+10.41 X SIGN NUMBER REMOVE RESET REMOVE AND SIGNING LEGEND 32a 32b 32c W3-2 39 79 N 68841.16 E 41163.98 EL 7567.14 N 68841.16 E 41163.98 EL 7567.14 FIBER (QL"D") ELEC (QL"D") HP-GAS (QL"D") TELE (QL"D") CENTER LINE 4" DBL YELLOWSYMBOL MARKING PAVEMENT Numbers Structure No Revisions: Revised: Void:Sheet Subset: Detailer: Designer: Sheet NumberSubset Sheets: Init.CommentsDate: Sheet Revisions 11/19/2019Print Date: Horiz. Scale:1:40 21874DES_SigningStriping04.dgn Vert. Scale: As Noted Project No./Code File Name: K L A S 5 9 0 1 1 1 : 1 6 : 4 7 A M S : \ T r a n p r o j \ 1 0 0 0 5 8 1 3 6 U S 3 4 & M a c G r e g o r I n t e r s e c t i o n \ 2 1 8 7 4 \ D e s ig n \ D r a w in g s \ 2 1 8 7 4 D E S _ S ig n in g S t r ip in g 0 4 . d g n Unit Information Unit Leader Initials Phone: (303) 221-7275 Fax: (303) 221-7276 Denver, CO 80237 7604 Technology Way, Suite 400 As Constructed 21874 of FSA 0341-097 Phone:970-350-2148 Fax:970-350-2198 Colorado Department of Transportation Region 4 10601 W. 10th St. Greeley, CO 80634 KMK KEY MAP 2 0 0 + 0 0 2 0 1 + 0 0 2 0 2 + 0 0 4 5 J.Withee US-34 & MACGREGOR AVE M A T C H L I N E S T A 2 0 2 + 5 0 40'0'20'80' MACGREGOR AVE SignStripe SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANS W2-6 J.Withee 33a 33b 15 W13-1 (15) STRIPING MATCH EXISTING Rt. 0.28' 202+04.45 X SIGN NUMBER REMOVE RESET REMOVE AND SIGNING LEGEND W3-2 40 80 SA PP N 69277.14 E 40938.31 EL 7577.97 N 69277.14 E 40938.31 EL 7577.98 PINPIN 8" DIP (QL"D") SAN (QL"D") HP-GAS (QL"D")FIBER (QL"D") ELEC (QL"D") SYMBOL MARKING PAVEMENT SYMBOL MARKING PAVEMENT Numbers Structure No Revisions: Revised: Void:Sheet Subset: Detailer: Designer: Sheet NumberSubset Sheets: Init.CommentsDate: Sheet Revisions 11/19/2019Print Date: Horiz. Scale:1:40 21874DES_SigningStriping05.dgn Vert. Scale: As Noted Project No./Code File Name: K L A S 5 9 0 1 1 1 : 1 6 : 4 8 A M S : \ T r a n p r o j \ 1 0 0 0 5 8 1 3 6 U S 3 4 & M a c G r e g o r I n t e r s e c t i o n \ 2 1 8 7 4 \ D e s ig n \ D r a w in g s \ 2 1 8 7 4 D E S _ S ig n in g S t r ip in g 0 5 . d g n Unit Information Unit Leader Initials Phone: (303) 221-7275 Fax: (303) 221-7276 Denver, CO 80237 7604 Technology Way, Suite 400 As Constructed 21874 of FSA 0341-097 Phone:970-350-2148 Fax:970-350-2198 Colorado Department of Transportation Region 4 10601 W. 10th St. Greeley, CO 80634 KMK KEY MAP 2 0 6 + 0 0 2 0 7 + 0 0 5 5 J.Withee US-34 & MACGREGOR AVE 40'0'20'80' M A T C H L I N E S T A 2 0 5 + 7 5 MACGREGOR AVE SignStripe SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANS W2-6 W3-1a J.Withee 34a 34b 35 15 W13-1 (15) X SIGN NUMBER REMOVE RESET REMOVE AND SIGNING LEGEND W3-2 41 81 Numbers Structure No Revisions: Revised: Void:Sheet Subset: Detailer: Designer: Sheet NumberSubset Sheets: Init.CommentsDate: Sheet Revisions 11/19/2019Print Date: Horiz. Scale:1:40 21874DES_Detour Plan.dgn Vert. Scale: As Noted Project No./Code File Name: K L A S 5 9 0 1 1 1 : 1 6 : 3 5 A M S : \ T r a n p r o j \ 1 0 0 0 5 8 1 3 6 U S 3 4 & M a c G r e g o r I n t e r s e c t i o n \ 2 1 8 7 4 \ D e s ig n \ D r a w in g s \ 2 1 8 7 4 D E S _ D e t o u r P la n . d g n Unit Information Unit Leader Initials Phone: (303) 221-7275 Fax: (303) 221-7276 Denver, CO 80237 7604 Technology Way, Suite 400 As Constructed 21874 of FSA 0341-097 Phone:970-350-2148 Fax:970-350-2198 Colorado Department of Transportation Region 4 10601 W. 10th St. Greeley, CO 80634 KMK 1 1 J.Withee US-34 & MACGREGOR AVE J.Withee Detour 34 34 7 TO G R A N D LA K E TO LOVELAND 36 T O LYON S Estes Park M A C G R E G O R A V E B I G H O R N D R 34ELK H O RN A VE NOTES DETOUR PLAN BIG HORN DR LEGEND ‚ mile0'„ mile WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS MAY HAVE INTERMITTENT ACCESS. TO THROUGH TRAFFIC FROM MARCH 1ST TO JUNE 30TH. RESIDENCES THE INTERSECTION OF US-34 & MACGREGOR AVE WILL BE CLOSED1. DESIGNATED DETOUR ROUTE PORTABLE MESSAGE SIGN ROUNDABOUT LOCATION US-34 & MACGREGOR AVE 73 Shuttle Committee – Staff Report Service Season: 2019 2019 – Key Service Dates Estes Transit served twelve (12) special events and 79 days of regular summer service in 2019. Ridership increased for those events/time frames highlighted in green, remained about the same for items in yellow and decreased for items in red. • Winter Festival: January 19-20 • Wine & Chocolate Festival: February 9 • Whiskey Warm Up, March 2 • Wool Market, June 8-9 • Daily Summer Service, June 22 – September 8 (June, July, August & September) • July 4th Fireworks (post event service), July 4 • Rooftop Rodeo Parade, July 9 • Scot Fest Parade, September 6-8 • Fine Arts & Crafts, September 14-15 • Autumn Gold, September 21-22 • Elk Fest, September 28-29 • Rocky Mountain Craft Spirits Fest, October 26 • Catch the Glow Parade, November 29 (upcoming) 2019 – Quick Ridership Statistics • Daily summer service ridership decreased 5.9% when compared to 2018. Blue Gold Brown Silver Red Scot Fest All 2019 Totals 15543 11659 14190 8110 22881 1813 74,196 -5.9% Daily Avg. 20.9%15.7%19.1%10.9%30.8%939.19 2019 % of Total • Overall ridership also decreased 6.3% when compared to 2018 (includes both special events and daily summer service) • Beyond 2016, which seems to be a bit of an outlier, ridership has seen a downward trend since 2014. Summer + Charter Riders Year Summer Specials Total Inc/Dec % 2012 58,853 1,563 60,416 2013 89,637 883 90,520 49.8% 2014 87,200 2,883 90,083 -0.5% 2015 84,255 4,033 88,288 -2.0% 2016 96,264 5,362 101,626 15.1% 2017 82,759 1,807 84,566 -16.8% 2018 78,862 3,234 82,096 -2.9% 2019 74,196 2,760 76,956 -6.3% • Cost per rider in 2019 was $5.23, an increase of 18.8% over 2018. 2019 – Rider Feedback Rider outreach was conducted in August and September in the following ways: • Online feedback form • Interviews on all five routes • Interview on the Scot Fest Express • Farmer’s Market booth (July, August and September) • Email and phone log kept by P&T Manager A total of 87 people provide feedback during the bus interviews and via the online feedback form. Eight people and/or businesses called or emailed about the YMCA/Brown Route service discontinuation. The P&T Manager also met with the YMCA to talk about the impact that the Brown route service change had on their staff and guests. Of all the feedback forms that were completed, only one individual (out of 87!!) gave Estes Transit less than a 5 out of 5 (1=Poor and 5=Excellent); one person gave a 4 (Very Good) rating. Specific comments from this summer’s outreach effort included: • Very clean! • Friendly, knowledgeable drivers • The only thing that could improve my experience is guaranteeing that I could see an Elk! • This shuttle is a life-saver! • Please offer year-round service for locals. • Service is excellent! Year O&M Ridership $ Per Rider 2012 268,317.00$ 60,416 4.44$ 2013#358,102.00$ 90,520 3.96$ 2014 352,264.00$ 90,083 3.91$ 2015*394,431.00$ 88,288 4.47$ 2016^360,866.00$ 101,626 3.55$ 2017•^354,048.84$ 84,566 4.19$ 2018^361,454.00$ 82,096 4.40$ 2019^402,816.00$ 76,956 5.23$ # Note: added the Gold Route to services • Note: added the Green Route to services Town of Estes Park Free Shuttles * Note: includes about $18,000 in trolley repairs; the Town's trolley lost it's engine early in the ^ Note: includes expenses and revenue season, severely impacting ridership. • Advertise more…especially that the service is free. • Offer more routes that serve locals. • Service has always been good. • This is just what we needed. • Serve drinks and ice cream! • Keep doing what you’re doing! • More buses. • Serve free drinks! • Please bring back the Brown Route – we were so disappointed to arrive this year and find out that it was gone. • Thank you for solving my shuttle issue; the solution is working perfectly! (local rider) • Disappointed about the discontinuation of the Brown Route. • Very unhappy about the discontinuation of the Brown Route service to the YMCA. This is a big inconvenience for guests and will detract from business - both for the YMCA and for the Town. Additionally, during the extensive outreach that was done for parking this summer, increased shuttle service ranked extremely high as a priority for both locals and visitors. 2019 Sponsors We had 21 sponsors in 2019 who gave a record $17,975. We also had a new in-kind sponsor who donated this Public Service Announcement, which we can use for future promotion of Estes Transit. Electric Trolley Vehicle / Grant Updates • First Electric Trolley (5339-b grant) o In the final production process! o Anticipated delivery in December or January o Charging station should be delivered next week o Plan to do a ribbon-cutting / celebration for the maiden voyage o The new trolley will serve the Red Route (Elkhorn Express) o Existing trolley will be participating in the Catch the Glow parade next week; her final ride! • Second Electric Trolley o CDOT grant agreement was approved by the Town Board in June o Currently we are doing an open solicitation for responsive bidders o If we do not receive any new vendor interest, we can proceed with ordering the second trolley from our existing vendor (the quick option) o If we do receive new vendor interest, we will have to do an open RFP process (the longer option) o This second trolley would serve the Green “Express” Route 2020 Route Planning The Town Board has indicated a strong desire to both increase ridership of Estes Transit and increase the use of the perimeter parking facilities (parking structure and Events Complex park-n-ride). Traffic counts along Hwy 34 and Hwy 36 are increasing, Rocky Mountain National Park visitation and the Town’s Visitor Center counts are all continuing to increase. Congestion, especially during special events, is reaching such intense levels that we risk a truly deteriorating experience for both guest and locals. Estes Transit has an important role to play in reducing congestion and encouraging perimeter parking. Since we do not have additional funds to expand our service offerings in 2020, we need to be creative in identifying where Estes Transit routes will serve in 2020. • Factors to be considered in 2020 route planning (group brainstorm) o New / returning service offering and requests (see below in blue) o Underperforming routes, dates and times (ridership data) o Local needs (population heat maps) o Visitor needs (cell phone heat maps and lodging location overlay) o Rider/community input o Visitor counts o Hotel/lodging guest behavior and feedback o Traffic congestion o Type of visitor (e.g., day trip vs. longer stay) o Impact of changing/adjusting routes every year o Visibility of stop locations o Marketing/promotion (information about when, where and how to ride) o What else? New / Returning Service Offerings & Requests • Introduction of Deviated Fixed Route service • Green “Express” Route • Extension of September service • Bustang to Estes pilot • Reinstatement of Brown Route service to the YMCA Respectfully submitted, Vanessa Solesbee Parking & Transit Manager Town of Estes Park, Public Works Dept. 970-577-3957 vsolesbee@estes.org estes.org/shuttles Bicycling Down Riverwalk Isn’t it ironic that we expect 30 pound bicycles to share the road with 5000 pound vehicles but these same bicycles can’t share a path with pedestrians? We are perfectly fine with taking the risk of bicycles sharing the road with giant vehicles but we won’t accept the minimal risk of bicycles sharing a walking path. One goal of the Town of Estes Park and the TAB is to provide full multi modal connectivity throughout the Estes Valley. A key part of this connectivity is a safe way for bicycles to be able to go through downtown to connect with Moraine Avenue and beyond. Part of the build grant, which has been denied, would have provided a path from the Parking Structure to Moraine Avenue. There is no current projection as to when this path or alternative paths will be provided and if and when we would get sufficient funding. Paid parking has been approved. One of its objectives is to encourage people to get out of their cars at the periphery, including the visitor’s center and the parking structure. While people can take their bikes from that area and other areas to reach the Eastern end of town, one has to get off one’s bike to proceed or go down Elkhorn. Although Elkhorn currently has sharrows, it is likely that most users would find that approach too dangerous. Others simply ignore or are unaware of the no biking sign on the Riverwalk and use it to get to Moraine and beyond. Biking on The Riverwalk is currently prohibited as it is considered incompatible with pedestrian usage. It is an appropriate candidate to introduce bicycle usage because it is usually less congested than portions of the bike trail around Lake Estes including the area extending from the bridge over the Big T to the visitor’s center. The path from the VC to the dismount area before Kind Coffee is also often very congested. Providing connectivity from the dismount area through Moraine and to the West end of town would increase bicycle usage and go a long way to making Estes Park a true multi use community. Estes Park does not allow riding a bike on a sidewalk. However, the Riverwalk is not a sidewalk. (i) Sidewalk means the public pedestrian walkway commonly less than 8’ wide, generally parallel to and situated within the adjacent public street right of way, and maintained by the adjacent private property owners. However, paragraph 9.18.060 of the code specifically prohibits bicycles on the Riverwalk from the east portion of the pedestrian tunnel to the West boundary of tregent park. One of the reasons that bikes are often prohibited from riding on sidewalks is because of exposure to cars entering or exiting curb cuts and cross streets. This reason does not apply to the Riverwalk because the only point of conflict during the length of the Riverwalk is at Moraine. The primary concern relevant to biking on the Riverwalk is the possible conflict between bike riders and walkers. While there is always a possibility of a conflict whenever two modes are sharing the same space, the chances of a conflict during the winter season is minimal. In addition, even in high season, there is a minimal chance of a conflict before most shops open which is 10:00 am. I think it would be feasible to permit bike usage during the entire year but it might make sense to start a pilot program from November through April to get people used to using this area. The more it is used, the better the behavior would be with respect to possible conflicts between bike riders and pedestrians. In an email exchange with the Director of the Estes Valley recreation district, he told me there has only been one serious incident since he joined the district in 2015. This involved a person with mental and physical disabilities riding an adaptive bicycle who hit a pedestrian. In his view, the number of pedestrians having negative experiences is minimal and they have received a lot of positive feedback with respect to bicycle etiquette and courtesy. Bicycles slow down when necessary in order to avoid a problem. Given the high volume of pedestrians and bicycle users around the lake, the safety record seems impressive. While it is true that a buffered bike lane down Elkhorn or a path apart from Elkhorn would be preferable, do we really want to wait for that to get bike connectivity through downtown? While any time one combines two or more modes in the same path, there is always a risk, I think the risk is less than if one were to choose down Elkhorn despite the sharrows. Further, most potential bike users will never go down Elkhorn given the level of auto and truck traffic. If this pilot program is successful, we should extend it to at least part of the high season in order to observe serious conflicts, if any. The advantage of this program is that it may provide another mode for people who have chosen to park at the visitor’s center, parking structure, or even the events center. This would also provide a way for employees to ride to and from their jobs downtown. Some will say we should oppose any approach that poses a risk. But that was not a concern when we put sharrows on Elkhorn. We tolerate much greater risks everyday just getting into our automobiles.