HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Transportation Advisory Board 2021-3-17
Transportation Advisory Board Agenda
Current Members: Belle Morris (03/31/23)
March 17, 2021 Lawrence Gamble (03/31/23) Gordon Slack (03/31/21)
12:00 PM – 2:00 PM Ron Wilcocks (03/31/21) Tom Street (03/31/22)
Ann Finley (03/31/23) Linda Hanick (03/31/22)
VIRTUAL – Zoom Scott Moulton (03/31/22) Janice Crow (03/31/21)
The Transportation Advisory Board will participate in the meeting remotely due to the Declaration of
Emergency signed by Town Administrator Machalek on March 19, 2020 related to COVID-19 and provided
for with the adoption of Ordinance 04-20 on March 18, 2020
Options for the Public to Participate Remotely and Provide Public Input:
1. By Electronic Mail: Members of the public may provide public comment or comment on a specific
agenda item by sending an email to publicworks@estes.org. The email must be received by 5:00
p.m., Tuesday, March 16, 2021. All emails will be provided to the Transportation Advisory Board
and incorporated into the minutes.
2. By Telephone Message: Members of the public may provide public comment or comment on a
specific agenda item by calling (970) 577-3587. The calls must be received by 5:00 p.m., Tuesday,
March 16, 2021. All call-in information will be provided to the Transportation Advisory Board and
incorporated into the minutes.
3. No public attendance at this meeting.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DURING MEETING
Options for participation in the meeting will be available by call-in telephone option or online via Zoom
Webinar which will be moderated by the Transportation Advisory Board Chairperson.
CALL-IN (TELEPHONE OPTION):
Dial public participation phone number, Toll Free 833-548-0276
Enter the Meeting ID for the March 17, 2021 meeting 913 1736 3744 followed by the pound sign (#). The
meeting will be available beginning at 11:50 a.m. the day of the meeting. Please call into the meeting
prior to 12:00 p.m., if possible.
Request to Speak: For public comment, the Chairperson will ask attendees to indicate if they would like
to speak – phone participants will need to press *9 to “raise hand”. The Chairperson will be moderating
the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Transportation Advisory
Board. Once you are announced by phone please state your name and address for the record.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (ONLINE):
Individuals who wish to address the Board via virtual public participation can do so through Zoom
Webinar at https//zoom.us/w/91317363744 – Zoom Webinar ID: 913 1736 3744. Individuals
participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site, and not via the
website, due to the streaming delay and possible audio interference.
Start Time: The Zoom Webinar will be available beginning at 11:50 a.m. on the day of the meeting.
Participants wanting to ensure their equipment setup is working should join prior to the start of the meeting
at 12:00 p.m.
Request to Speak: For public comments, the Chairperson will ask attendees to click the “Raise Hand” button
to indicate you would like to speak at that time. The Chairperson will moderate the Zoom session to ensure
all participants have an opportunity to address the Transportation Advisory Board.
• You will experience a short delay prior to re-connecting with the ability to speak.
• State your name and address for the record.
In order to participate, you must:
• Have an internet-enabled smartphone, laptop or computer.
o Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio experience.
• Join the Zoom Webinar.
o The link can be found above.
• Click “Participate Virtually in the Transportation Advisory Board Meeting”.
• DO NOT watch/stream the meeting via the website at the same time due to delays and possible
feedback issues.
Documents to Share: If individuals wish to present a document to the Transportation Advisory Board,
material must be emailed by Tuesday March 16, 2021 by 12:00 p.m. to the Public Works Office at
publicworks@estes.org.
AGENDA NEXT PAGE
AGENDA
Transportation Advisory Board
Wednesday, March 17, 2021
12:00 p.m.
12:00 – 12:05 Public Comment Chair Belle Morris
12:05 – 12:10 Approval of February Minutes Chair Belle Morris
12:10 – 12:25 Parks Update – Big Thompson Rec Area Parks Supervisor Brian Berg
12:25 – 1:15 2021 Seasonal Shuttles Parking & Transit Mgr. Vanessa Solesbee
Combined with Shuttle Committee Mtg.
1:15 – 1:25 Sidewalk/Trail Inventory Task Force Update Chair Belle Morris
Public Works Director Greg Muhonen
1:25 – 1:35 Parking Updates Parking & Transit Mgr. Vanessa Solesbee
The Car Park GM, Matt Eisenberg
1:35 – 1:45 Engineering Updates Engineering Mgr. David Hook
1:45 – 1:55 Project /Administration Updates Public Works Director Greg Muhonen
1:55 – 2:00 Other Business
Adjourn
Carlie Bangs, Town Board Trustee Liaison
Greg Muhonen, Estes Park Public Works Staff Liaison
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 17, 2021
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held virtually on the
17th day of February 2021.
Committee: Belle Morris, Tom Street, Janice Crow, Ann Finley, Larry
Gamble, Linda Hanick, Scott Moulton, Gordon Slack, Ron
Wilcocks
Attending: Belle Morris, Tom Street, Janice Crow, Ann Finley, Larry
Gamble, Linda Hanick, Scott Moulton, Gordon Slack, Ron
Wilcocks, Trustee Carlie Bangs, Public Works Director Greg
Muhonen, Engineering Mgr. David Hook, Parking & Transit
Mgr. Vanessa Solesbee, The Car Park Gen. Mgr. Matt
Eisenberg, Rocky Mtn. Park John Hannon
Absent:
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No electronic submissions of public comment were received prior to the deadline and no
public was in attendance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made and seconded (Slack/Street) to approve the January meeting
minutes and all were in favor.
APPROVAL OF TAB DOCUMENTS (Chair, Belle Morris)
TAB Bylaws: A few modifications to the bylaws need discussed prior to both TAB and
Town Board approval can occur. Public Works will make the updates and have the
Town Attorney review prior to submittal to the Town Board for approval.
Director Muhonen informed the group that a situation recently occurred wherein it was
discovered that the various advisory boards are inconsistent within the individual
bylaws. The Town Clerk is actively working on a more standardized bylaw template.
Recommendations for change included expansion of the ‘Role’ section of the TAB;
replace, under ‘Members and Quorum’, the language referring to the “Estes Valley
Planning District” with “Estes Park School District R-3”.
A motion was made and seconded to approve recommended revisions to the TAB
Bylaws (Wilcocks/Hanick) and all were in favor.
Code of Conduct: No changes
Job Description: Replace language referring to the “Estes Valley Planning District” with
“Estes Park School District R-3”.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the recommended revision to the TAB
Job Description (Wilcocks/Finley) and all were in favor.
REVIEW 2021 TAB PRIORITY OUTCOMES (Chair, Belle Morris)
Chair Morris shared her screen showing the TAB Priority Matrix with each members’ top
four listed priorities. Belle will send out link for further review. Member Gamble
recommended a system that would calculate what the overall priority is for all of TAB.
Wilcocks discussed a method he is very familiar with and offered his assistance. He will
bring the item back to the March meeting but will make it availab le prior to that time.
Transportation Advisory Board – February 17, 2021 – Page 2
MULTIMODAL SIDEWALKS & NEEDS INVENTORY (Chair, Belle Morris)
Morris shared that a walking audit was performed last week along Graves Ave. The
audit got into technical details that are not needed until the actual work is performed.
The task force will refocus its efforts and plan to use Graves Ave. as a test run for how
these audits are performed beyond the 1-mile radius. Muhonen recommended the
deliverable from task force should consist of:
Part 1: Identify trail or sidewalk gaps within the current system. This could be
done with three maps: Areas needing improvement within 1) a 1-mile radius of
the school; 2) a 2-mile radius; and 3) beyond the 2-mile radius. Color-coded line
work could depict those of high-value, med value, and low value.
Part 2: Identify safety issues or deficiencies. The spreadsheet Member Moulton
initially worked on was a good start. An alternative would be to identify key safety
issues that are concerning to the TAB, and create columns with numeric scores
along with a column for notes. The initial walking audits concluded that the highly
detailed audit form puts the auditor in difficult position due to the detail.
Additionally, filling out paper forms is undesirable for processing. This type of
information needs to be processed electronically.
It will be found that there are more needs than there are funds. However, the data is
collected it will need to have a shelf-life. Within the existing Estes Valley Trails Master
Plan some gaps have been identified. Public Works is hoping to update the plan and
have a staff member working on this now. This deliverable may be incorporated into the
plan.
PROJECT UPDATES (Parking & Transit Mgr. Vanessa Solesbee)
Parking: The Electric Vehicle & Readiness Plan was adopted at the last Town Board
meeting. Manager Solesbee thanked the TAB for submitting a letter of support.
Solesbee has been in communication with the Colorado Clean Cities Coalition and the
current discussions dive into the implementation matrix. Solesbee asked if anyone
would like to volunteer to assist. Member Finley volunteered to be involved.
Solesbee has been working with the Town Attorney on modification of the Municipal
Code related to parking enforcement which will then be presented at a Town Board
Study Session. Revisions will provide options for unpaid parking citations. Solesbee
anticipate the ordinance for this change will be prepared and ready to return to the
Town Board in March. The language may also allow for motorcycle exemption from
standard enforcement if they park in a designated motorcycle parking space. Trustee
Liaison Bangs stated the Trustees have questions regarding that language that will be
brought up when presenting.
Solesbee stated that paid parking implementation efforts are in full swing. There was
early focus this year on communication and outreach, including frequent website
updates. She stated that another wave of updates will be coming in a week or so. All
updates to the website are being shared with the community via email and social media
simultaneously. Several meetings and forums with groups within town are planned.
The paid parking infrastructure and equipment installation is planned for May.
Employee permits may be shared, if needed, by multiple employees as long as only one
car is using it at a time.
Transit: Sponsorship opportunities are open, with those sponsoring in 2020 being
provided first option, then to new sponsors. Solesbee stated that she received
notification from CDOT – Rural Communities that Estes Park will be receiving additional
funds for transit. The funds total between $350K and $360K, with no local match, with
up to three years to spend the funds.
Additionally, notification has been received that, in accordance with the recently passed
Senate Bill 267, the Town has been granted over $1M requiring local match. These
Transportation Advisory Board – February 17, 2021 – Page 3
funds are for transit projects across the state. Solesbee is working to identify the local
match. These funds would potentially allow for a redesign of the Visitor Center parking
lot. The funds can be used for both current and future transportation needs.
Wilcocks asked if there had been any plans for adding any structures for those waiting
on the buses/shuttles. With a future potential for year-round transit service, winter would
be cold while waiting. Solesbee confirmed that she has pushed for transit stop
improvements to be one of the top three items to address with the funds.
Solesbee informed the TAB that she has been gathering feedback from several
individuals regarding the shuttle stop being located at the parking structure. Solesbee
was also notified by the Parks Division, of their plan to upgrade the area located near
the shuttle area with additional picnic shelters and a climbing boulder for all ages.
Taking all feedback and project information into account, it was determined the shuttle
stop would move back to the Visitor Center. Driving tests confirm that, even with the
addition of the Farmers Market, the shuttle stop would work at the Visitor Center.
Member Gamble recommended that, with the new traffic signal being installed on US
34, to wait and observe the traffic behavior before tackling the reconfiguration plans for
the parking lot. It will be required that shuttles/buses turn right onto US 34 when exiting
the Visitor Center. Muhonen stated that if the observation concludes it is vitally
important for buses to have the ability to turn left, he may approach the Estes Park
Sanitation District to propose a shared driveway to get the shuttles/buses to the new
traffic signal.
Morris expressed her disappointment with the determination to move the shuttle stop
back to the Visitor Center. She stated she is concerned about that being a negative
impact on the user experience, based on feedback she’d received from riders.
Member Crow likes idea of moving the service back to the Visitor Center lot, but it would
be much safer to remove some parking spaces. Solesbee confirmed this would be
taken into account prior to the start of the transit season.
Chair Morris requested the TAB invite the Parks Division to present the plan for the Big
Thompson Recreation Area and the climbing boulder at the March meeting.
PROJECT UPDATES (Engineering Mgr. David Hook)
Manager Hook provided project updates since the last meeting.
Parking Wayfinding: Bid documents for sign creation and installation are being finalized.
The Town will be soliciting bids this month with acceptance of a bid in March.
2021 STIP Program: As in prior years the 2021 Street Improvement Program
presentation will occur at the next Town Board Study Session. The overview will include
significant work planned for the Performance Park parking lot. Plans also include
completion of Cleave Street design, postponed from last year. Improvements are
planned to occur in 2022.
Graves Ave. Improvements: A Notice to Proceed for work on Graves Ave. was issued.
Data is already being collected by surveyors. Hook plans to share a detailed updated in
March with concept drawings being available for the April meeting.
PROJECT / ADMINISTRATION UPDATES (Public Works Director Greg Muhonen)
Muhonen updated the TAB that feedback provided to him on the Downtown Estes Loop
crosswalks has been provided to the design team, who is fine-tuning and will take the
feedback into account. The design team is also working on proving CLMRs showing no -
rise levels to the floodplain.
Muhonen stated the traffic signal planned at Steamer Pkwy. has until May 2021 to be
installed. All caissons have already been installed.
Transportation Advisory Board – February 17, 2021 – Page 4
OTHER BUSINESS (Chair, Belle Morris)
There being no further business, Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 1:48 p.m.
Megan Van Hoozer, Recording Secretary
500
B i g T h o m p s o n R i v e r
This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as tothe 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 10 20Feet
1 in = 25 ft±Town of Estes ParkPublic Works
Big Thompson Rec AreaPreliminary Site Plan
Printed: 3/5/2021
Legend
Bench
Boulder Over Concrete Pad
Concrete Sidewalk/Pad
Landscape Garden
Picnic Shelter
Picnic Table
Rock Steps
Safety Pad
1ft Contours
Streams
ROW
Transportation Advisory Board
March 17, 2021
2021 Service
Planning
2021 Service Planning
Annual Transit Planning
What goes
into annual
transit service
planning?
Staff
Considerations
Stakeholder
feedback
(internal and
external)
Big Picture
(What else is
going on?)
Annual Transit Planning
Staff Considerations:
•Operational –ease of bus ingress, egress, turning and cueing,
route timing/efficiency
•Safety & Accessibility –pedestrian/vehicle separation,
loading/unloading and accessibility
•Experience –for both drivers and passengers; are the shuttles
easy to find and access?; breaks for drivers; public restroom
and information access
•Context (Big Picture)–What other activities are happening
that could impact shuttle service (e.g., Farmers’ Market, Big
Thompson Recreation Area, Visitor Center open?); in 2021,
paid parking
•Outreach –feedback from staff,community, riders and drivers
•Budget –what can we afford?
Annual Transit Planning
•Community survey
o 146 responses
•Rider intercept surveys
o 28 completed
•Business card solicitation by drivers (for regular riders)
o 6 received
•Emails from community members
o 3 received
•Driver survey
o 8 completed
•Multiple meetings with other departments and divisions
o Events and Visitor Services, Parks, Streets, Facilities
o RMTM also participated (supervisor and manager)
•Multiple presentations to Shuttle Committee and TAB focused on 2021
o December 2020 (Shuttle Committee only)
o Jan (Joint), Feb (TAB only), March (Joint)
2021 Service Proposal
Late Spring/Early Summer Service Dates
•May 28 –June 30 (Daily): Red Route (Trolley) Only
Peak Summer Service Dates (Mon –Sun)
•July 1 –Sept. 12 (Daily) –Red, Blue, Brown, Gold and Silver
•July 3 –Sept. 12 (Sat & Sun ONLY) –Green/Express
Late Summer/Fall Service
•Sept. 13 –Oct. 17 (Daily): Red Route (Trolley) Only
Service Hours:
•Red, Gold, Blue, Silver and Brown: 9am to 9pm daily
•Green route: 11am to 5pm (Sat & Sun ONLY)
SB 267 Funding Opportunity
SB 267 Funding Opportunity
Timing
•Dec 2019:
o CDOT emailed requesting “public transit capital projects to add to our list of
Senate Bill 267 projects in the Upper Front Range TPR.Capital projects include
things like bus shelters, bus barns, bus stops, bus stations, and other bus
facilities. Operating projects and buses are not eligible for this funding.”
o Responses were requested within a week; PW staff created a quick list of projects
including a facility for the new trolleys, stop improvements, restrooms at the
Events Complex and a complete redesign of the VC parking lot.
•June 2020:
o CDOT emailed again to verify if projects on our list had been funded elsewhere.
o Our response was requested that same day.
•September 2020:
o CDOT emailed to congratulate the Town on our award of $1,029,000 for the
Visitor Center parking lot redesign project.
o Staff met with CDOT virtually to learn more and at the time,CDOT said there was
a 50%local match required.This did not seem feasible, so staff indicated to
CDOT that the 50% match would be too significant. CDOT asked if staff would put
a bit more thought into the project scopes for the VC lot, stop improvements and
restroom at Events Complex. Staff provided a very high-level scope on Oct 19.
SB 267 Funding Opportunity
Timing cont.
•Nov 2020:
o Met with CDOT staff to discuss SOW and options for getting to a place where
TOEP could accept the award (“the commissioners really want to fund an EP
project). The 50% local match was identified as the main sticking point.
•Dec 2020:
o CDOT confirmed they could do an 80/20 split instead of 50/50.
•Jan/Feb 2021:
o PW staff held several internal discussions to see where a 20% local match might
come from and to discuss the longer-term/big picture implications of investing
$1m into the VC as an enhanced transit hub.
•Feb 2021:
o Project mentioned briefly for the first time to TAB.
SB 267 Funding Opportunity
Possible Next Steps
•Proceed
•Confirm local match
•Define a more detailed scope of work
•Study Session with the Town Board
•Stakeholder outreach (internal and external)
•Work with CDOT on a funding agreement
o 2021:Design
o 2022: Construction
•Take funding agreement and more detailed project proposal
through usual TAB -> Town Board process
•Decline
•Notify CDOT that the Town would not like to move forward.
Slide Library
2021 Routes & Stops
2021 Service Planning
➢Red Route/Trolley (Elkhorn Avenue)
1.Parking Structure or Visitor Center
2.The Ore Cart Rock Shop
3.Tregent Park
4.West Park Center
5.Maxwell Inn
6.Cinnamon's (connection to Gold)
7.Mrs. Walsh’s Garden
8.The Grubsteak Restaurant
9.Moosely T’s
10.Thirty Below
11.Parking Structure or Visitor Center
Red Route (Elkhorn Ave.), PS
Red Route (Elkhorn Ave.), VC
2021 Service Planning
➢Gold Route (Fall River Rd.)
1.Parking Structure or Visitor Center
2.Stanley Hotel
3.The Historic Stanley Home
4.Timber Creek Chalets
5.McGregor Mountain Lodge
6.Rocky Mountain Gateway
7.Estes Park Condos
8.Aspen Winds on Fall River
9.Homestead Ln. on Fall River Rd.
10.Stonebrook Resort
11.Nicky’s Resort
12.Cinnamon's (connection to Red)
13.American Legion (eliminated with VC start)
14.Parking Structure or Visitor Center
Gold Route (Fall River Rd.), PS
Gold Route (Fall River Rd.), VC
2021 Service Planning
➢Silver Route (Hwy 7)
1.Parking Structure or Visitor Center
2.Bond Park @ Virginia Dr. (eliminated with VC start)
3.The Ridgeline Hotel
4.Estes Park Health
5.Dollar General
6.The Pines
7.Saddle & Surrey
8.Estes Valley Community Center
9.Solitude Cabins
10.Estes Park Events Center
11.Parking Structure or Visitor Center
Silver Route (Hwy 7), PS
Silver Route (Hwy 7), VC
2021 Service Planning
1.Parking Structure or Visitor Center
2.Estes Mountain Lodge
3.Best Western Silver Saddle
4.Quality Inn
5.Antonio’s Pizza
6.Lake Estes Marina
7.Estes Park KOA
8.Sombrero Stables/Mountain Coaster/Elkins Whisky
9.Good Samaritan
10.Talons Point & Falcon Ridge Apts.
11.Salud Family Health Center
12.Crossroads
13.Raven Ave. and Lone Pine Dr.
14.Lake Front Street at Ranch Meadow
15.Lower Stanley Village
16.American Legion (eliminated with VC start)
17.Parking Structure or Visitor Center
Blue Route (Big Thompson Ave.), PS
Blue Route (Big Thompson Ave.), VC
2021 Service Planning
1.Parking Structure or Visitor Center
2.E. Riverside and Rockwell St. (NW corner)
3.EP Brewery / Fun City
4.Manor RV
5.National Park Village (on Mary’s Lake Rd.)
6.Alpine Trail Ridge Inn
7.Elk Meadow Lodge and RV Resort
8.Aerial Tramway
9.E. Riverside and Rockwell St. (SE corner)
10.Thirty Below Leather
11.American Legion (eliminated with VC start)
12.Parking Structure or Visitor Center
Brown Route (E. Riverside/Spur 66), PS
Brown Route (E. Riverside/Spur 66), VC
2021 Service Planning
➢Green Route (Express)
1.Parking Structure or Visitor Center
2.Bond Park (@ Virginia Lane)
3.Events Complex Park n’ Ride
Visitor CenterParking Structure
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 15, 2021
Minutes of a scheduled meeting of the Sidewalk & Trail Needs Task Force of the Trans-
portation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting
held virtually on the 15th day of February, 2021
Task Force: Belle Morris, Ann Finley, Larry Gamble, Linda Hanick, Scott Moulton
Attending: Chair Belle Morris, Larry Gamble, Linda Hanick, Ann Finley, Public Works Di-
rector Greg Muhonen,
Absent: Scott Moulton
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 12:06 p.m.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The Task Force Meeting was advertised and a link to the virtual meeting was provided.
No members of the public participated in the meeting other than Blake Robertson.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made and seconded (Hanick/Morris) to approve the February 8 meeting
minutes and all were in favor.
NEW BUSINESS
The Task Force conducted a review of the Graves Avenue audit that was done on Feb-
ruary 11. Chair Morris announced the resignation of Christy DeLorme due to lack of
time availability. She appreciated her time working with the Task Force on SRTS and
multi-modal connectivity.
Chair Morris expressed her excitement that so many Task Force members participated
in the Graves Avenue audit. She thanked Director Muhonen for his participation and the
education he provided while conducting the audit.
Hanick pointed out that the Task Force must decide if future audits are going to include
both sides of a street. Even though there was some sidewalk running along the north
side of Graves Avenue, she believes the south side of the street is even more condu-
cive for a sidewalk. In her opinion, collecting data using the current checklist would be
tedious. She wondered if the tread plates for sight impaired users were going to be re-
placed since many of them are not oriented correctly.
Director Muhonen stated that Federal law does require that standards be met and the
town is looking to bring streets and sidewalks into compliance. However, it will likely
take decades to achieve.
Hanick went on to say that the field work was a valuable exercise to help the team to
understand what the surveys will entail. We have a better understanding about what
makes a safe sidewalk.
Chair Morris also thought the field exercise was important in order to see what is in-
volved in conducting an audit. She experienced it as, “A walk back in time,” to see how
things were constructed in the past. She appreciated the education the group received
on accessible ramps, connectivity, etc. Chair Morris was concerned about the extreme
details the current audit form asked of surveyors. The information captured would take
too long and likely not helpful for any higher level planning.
Gamble stated that the audit checklist has morphed since its inception, and he wanted
the focus to be on just what Public Works needs in order to prioritize future projects and
secure funding. He asked Director Muhonen to share what data Public Works needs
most.
Director Muhonen pointed out that the Task Force learned from each other during the
field exercise. After the Graves Avenue audit he and Chair Morris met to discuss a revi-
sion of the Audit and the Task Force product outcome. They took a step back for the
purpose of understanding what the goal of the pathway audit should be. Chair Morris
asked Director Muhonen to share with the Task Force their suggestions as well as his
final suggestions on how to proceed. Director Muhonen asked the Task Force to
harken back to a TAB discussion several months ago about a missing crosswalk at a
street intersection on West Elkhorn Avenue, and issues with driveway intersections with
the West Elkhorn Avenue sidewalk. From that initial discussion Moulton created a
spreadsheet in order to capture those deficiencies. From that point forward, each step
the Task Force has taken has helped to gain focus. He stated that in his opinion it is not
a good use of time for Task Force members to collect minutiae because it could be diffi-
cult to turn into useful information. He believes it would be better to simplify the data col-
lection and look at a “higher level.” The two broad categories he would like to see are:
1. Is there a safety issue?
2. Are there gaps in the pathway system?
The end product should not be so unwieldy, and the approach simplified. The design of
the audit form to be used in the field should be easily entered into a spreadsheet, or
captured directly in a spreadsheet on a handheld tablet. Once the data has been col-
lected, the needs can be prioritized and used to refine and update the Master Trails
Plan (which already contains a prioritized list). Detailed information would then be col-
lected on a project-by-project basis. Because cash flow will not keep up with all the
needs it could easily be 20+ years to address all the deficiencies. He also wanted the
data to be useful for future town staff to locate and use. He recommended that the data
collection proceed in three phases: 1-mile radius from the school campus, 2-mile radius,
and then the rest of the Estes Valley. Eventually the data would be used to put together
a composite map showing priorities as well as reside in a spreadsheet. The next step
would be to identify key routes to survey and then use the new audit spreadsheet to
conduct the audits. He went on to say that he doesn’t believe it is necessary to have a
pedestrian/bike route on every street. The distilled list of items to be assessed is:
1. Pathway continuous (Yes/No)
2. Width sufficient for pedestrians and bicycles (Yes/No)
3. Surface Condition (Good/Fair/Poor)
4. Driveway conflicts (Yes/No)
5. Missing crosswalks at street intersections (Yes/No)
These would be column headings in a spreadsheet, and each row in the spreadsheet
would be a street (or a street segment)
Note: The above list was generated after review and discussion among Task Force
members and Director Muhonen.
It was agreed that eventually a design team would look at correcting the deficiencies
and would collect more detailed information prior to design.
Ultimately the streets and their data would be further compared and ranked using the
“High, Medium, and Low” categories for pathway importance developed previously by
the Task Force (refer to the minutes from the February 8, 2021 Task Force meeting).
Everyone acknowledged that even with high rankings that does not mean that specific
streets or pathways will receive funding anytime soon.
At the last Task Force meeting members were asked to identify their “High, Medium,
and Low” streets and pathways by marking up the 1-mile radius map with the agreed
upon colors: Green = High, Yellow = Medium, Pink = Low.
Chair Morris shared her map, and discussion then ensued among the Task Force mem-
bers to further refine the routes on the map.
Hanick asked if the Fish Creek Trail and Lake Estes Trail should be included in the as-
sessment since they are maintained by the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District.
Director Muhonen responded that the Estes Valley should be assessed as a whole.
Chair Morris pointed out that Raven Avenue north of U.S. Highway 34 could also be in-
cluded in the assessment as “Yellow” route
Finley noted that there is a lot of pedestrian traffic in the vicinity of High Street and that
should also be assessed. Chair Morris agreed that there are safety issues in that neigh-
borhood. She also wondered if the audit should capture lighting deficiencies. It was
agreed that lighting information would not be captured at this time.
Gamble recommended that a simple spreadsheet could be loaded on a tablet which
could be used to capture data in the field. Some Task Force members own tablets that
could be used.
A summary of the Task Force’s efforts will be provided at the upcoming TAB meeting,
and the minutes of recent Task Force meetings will be included in the TAB packet.
Action Items
1. Muhonen to convey the audit spreadsheet questions and design to Scott Moulton
2. Moulton to finalize the spreadsheet so it can be presented at the February 22 Task
Force meeting
3. Morris to scan and send the hierarchy street map she marked up to the Task Force
members
Meeting adjourned at 1:14 p.m.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 22, 2021
Minutes of a scheduled meeting of the Sidewalk & Trail Needs Task Force of the Trans-
portation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting
held virtually on the 22nd day of February, 2021
Task Force: Belle Morris, Ann Finley, Larry Gamble, Linda Hanick, Scott Moulton
Attending: Chair Belle Morris, Larry Gamble, Scott Moulton, Public Works Director Greg
Muhonen,
Absent: Ann Finley, Linda Hanick
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The Task Force Meeting was advertised and a link to the virtual meeting was provided.
No members of the public participated in the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made and seconded (Morris/Moulton) to approve the February 15 meet-
ing minutes and all were in favor.
NEW BUSINESS
Director Muhonen shared his vision for the products to be produced from the efforts of
the Task Force.
1. The spreadsheet will be used to conduct an inventory of deficiencies present on exist-
ing multi-use pathways (which includes existing sidewalks and trails)
2. A DEFICIENCY map showing existing multi-use pathways (which includes existing
sidewalks and trails)
3. A GAPS map showing missing pathways (gaps in sidewalk or trail segments)
Initially these three products will be completed for the 1-mile radius from the school
campus. Eventually these three products will be completed for the entire Estes Valley.
The maps and the spreadsheet would be a supplement to the Master Trails Plan and
would be a 2021 update to the plan.
As agreed to at the February 15 Task Force meeting the colors on the maps would de-
fine the trail segment priority for both the DEFICIENCIES map and the GAPS map.
Green = High priority or importance
Yellow = Medium priority or importance
Pink = Low priority or importance
Moulton asked Director Muhonen how Public Works would plan for developing, operat-
ing, and maintaining trails. During the discussion that followed, Director Muhonen stated
that when the Town builds a sidewalk that does not necessarily mean that the Town
would assume ongoing maintenance. He believes the Town should maintain regionally
important pathways, which would typically be 8 - 10 feet wide. While the Town would
like to build the infrastructure, it must be fiscally responsible about future maintenance.
For this reason, the adjacent landowner may need to maintain secondary pathways
(yellow or pink on the map). Ultimately, a partnership is needed between the Town and
landowners, and who maintains a sidewalk or pathway must be clearly understood up
front.
Moulton pointed out that there should be a means to determine lifecycle cost of path-
ways.
Scott: need a mechanism to determine lifecycle cost.
Chair Morris envisions that green-colored pathways would provide connections to signif-
icant destinations, such as the school campus and downtown Estes Park. Pink-colored
pathways would be neighborhood streets.
Director Muhonen believes that the Master Trails Plan could identify who would main-
tain pathway segments, and there should be a public process to decide on code amend-
ments.
Chair Morris suggested that there may need to be a fourth color (blue) to indicate a
shared street. Such streets would not have a sidewalk, but the street surface would
need to be shared between vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. After some discussion it
was agreed that there should be signage to identify shared streets, and an icon placed
on the maps to identify shared street neighborhoods.
Muhonen suggested that neighborhood input would be important to determine what
neighborhoods want. Eventually there could be a public outreach component and an
online tool for residents to provide input to the Town on what they would like to have on
there street (a sidewalk, a shared street, etc.).
Moulton mentioned that there tends to be a culture in a community about how people
use streets and get around in their town. A large portion of the people in Estes Park are
not here year-‘round and they are not familiar with or consciously aware of how streets
in town are used. There is value in drawing attention to various users in neighborhoods.
For streets like Birch and Aspen it should be a neighborhood decision wether to have
on-street parking, curb and gutter, a sidewalk, or a shared street.
It was agreed that for green multimodal “regional” routes maintained by the Town, the
pathway width would be 8 - 10 feet. The Yellow routes would be a minimum of 5 feet
wide.
Moulton informed the attendees that a new walkway is planned on the west side of
Highway 7 adjacent the the Peakview development that is currently under construction.
The project is slated to be completed by July.
Chair Morris was interested in identifying roundabouts on the maps. Director Muhonen
indicated that would best reside in a multimodal transportation plan. He did recommend
that the Task Force should identify locations for enhanced pedestrian crossings on the
maps using an icon.
Chair Morris indicated that she could produce the DEFICIENCIES and the GAPS maps
using the Map My Run tool she used to generate the 1-mile radius map.
The Task Force agreed to hold two more meetings to 1) Reach consensus on the maps,
2) Finalize the spreadsheet inventory tool, and 3) Assign pathways to be inventoried to
Task Force members or other volunteers.
The maps and spreadsheet will be presented at the next TAB meeting and other TAB
members may wish to join the effort to conduct the inventory.
Moulton wondered if a public right-of-way existed that would connect 4th Street to Stan-
ley Avenue. Currently people can drive that route near the East Side Food Store. Direc-
tor Muhonen suggested looking at the Larimer County Assessor’s GIS maps to see if a
right-of-way exists.
Moulton asked Director Muhonen if the walkway along U.S. Highway 34 in front of Anto-
nio’s Pizza was going to be “reclaimed” for public use. Director Muhonen informed the
group that he had been in contact with the owner, Anthony, and informed him that the
pathway may be restriped (eliminating some parking) perhaps as early as May 2021.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:25 p.m.
Action Items
1. Morris to generate colored DEFICIENCY and GAP maps using Map My Run and will
distribute to Task Force members.
2. Task Force members are to review the maps and are to present suggested edits at
the March 1 meeting. Edits to include locations for shared streets and enhanced pe-
destrian street crossings.
3. Task Force members are to review the spreadsheet on the shared Google Docs site
and are to present suggested edits at the March 1 meeting.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 1, 2021
Minutes of a scheduled meeting of the Sidewalk & Trail Needs Task Force of the Trans-
portation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting
held virtually on the 1st day of March, 2021
Task Force: Belle Morris, Ann Finley, Larry Gamble, Linda Hanick, Scott Moulton
Attending: Chair Belle Morris, Larry Gamble, Linda Hanick, and Public Works Director
Greg Muhonen
Absent: Ann Finley, Scott Moulton
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The Task Force Meeting was advertised and a link to the virtual meeting was provided.
No members of the public participated in the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made and seconded (Morris/Gamble) to approve the February 22 meet-
ing minutes and all were in favor.
NEW BUSINESS
Director Muhonen described the proposed improvements to Third Street, North Court
and South Court in the Reclamation Neighborhood. The current sidewalks along these
streets are very narrow and the curb is mountable so vehicles parallel parked along the
street are often partially on the sidewalk. Current sidewalks are not pedestrian friendly.
The proposed improvements include one-way traffic on Third Street, and sidewalks on
both sides of all three streets. Director Muhonen requested input from the Task Force.
Director Muhonen suggested that at a higher level, criteria could be developed to deter-
mine where and what type of sidewalks are needed along streets. Criteria could include
thresholds for Average Daily Traffic, Peak Hour Volume, or traffic speed. Chair Morris
reminded the group that traffic volume is seasonal, and can include traffic from vacation
rentals in some neighborhoods. Hanick suggested that population (or number or density
of dwelling units) along a street should also be used as a criteria. For example multifam-
ily housing would make a difference in the number of pedestrians and vehicles.
Director Muhonen stated that the proposed sidewalks in the Reclamation Neighborhood
would be wider and would be protected by a vertical curb.
The Task Force recommended that there be sidewalks on both sides of Third Street and
a sidewalk on one side of North Court and South Court. Neighborhood input will be
needed to determine what sidewalks the neighborhood would like.
The Task Force also discussed First and Second Streets in the Reclamation Neighbor-
hood. First Street is more “Commercial” with the American Legion, MedX, and the Mt
Calvary Lutheran Church. There is connectivity to the traffic signal and pedestrian
crossing at the U.S. 36 and Highway 7 intersection. A sidewalk along First Street would
be essential. Chair Morris pointed out that the sidewalk along the south side of U.S. 36
from the Highway 7 intersection to Fourth Street is badly deteriorated. This will be cap-
tured on the “Deficiencies” map.
Chair Morris asked if the Fourth Street multiuse sidewalk should be replicated else-
where? She suggested that the Fourth Street design should become the standard
where warranted. Director Muhonen recommended that the TAB should identify high
priority multiuse routes that would use the Forth Street design. The high priority routes
and the standard design should be included in the Trails Master Plan update and ulti-
mately in the development code. The Town and developers would then adhere to the
design standard where it applies. Director Muhonen expressed an idea that progress on
sidewalk upgrades could happen if a sales tax initiative was leveraged with grant
money. Significant improvements could be justified if part of a larger connected system
of pathways. However there are numerous issues to surmount such as insufficient right-
of-way, difficulty with snow removal if sidewalks are too narrow to accommodate equip-
ment, etc.
The Task Force reviewed the map that Chair Morris developed to show pathway gaps.
The following changes to the “Gaps” map were identified:
1. Add a sidewalk on the south side of U.S. 36 to extend from Fourth Street to Commu-
nity Drive.
2. Remove the segment of Community Drive that is served by the sidewalk in the Mat-
thew Circle neighborhood.
3. Add a sidewalk on the north side of U.S. 34 to extend from Dry Gulch Road to
Steamer Drive. Remove the sidewalk along North Lake Avenue.
The Task Force also identified the following changes to the “Deficiencies” map
1. West side of Highway 7 from Dollar General north to the East Side Food Store - en-
sure sidewalk is clearly delineated for pedestrian safety.
2. Add the sidewalk in the Matthew Circle neighborhood
3. Add the sidewalk along the south side of U.S. 36 from the Highway 7 intersection to
Fourth Street
4. Add the connector sidewalk that utilizes the underpass on U.S. 34 from the Lake Es-
tes Trail to Dry Gulch Road.
The Task Force discussed whether pathways internal to public or private property
should be included on the Gaps or Deficiencies maps. An example is the promenade in
Stanley Park. It was decided that those pathways would not be shown on the maps.
Chair Morris’ Gaps map included crosswalk recommendations for a number of loca-
tions. It was agreed that crosswalks would only be considered if there was a sidewalk
on both sides of the street (i.e., the crosswalk would connect to sidewalks on both sides
of the street).
Director Muhonen informed the group that CDOT is working on designing an overlay of
U.S. 34 from the U.S. 36 intersection to Mall Road. He suggested that a request could
be made of CDOT to stripe the roadway for bike lanes. He will request a review of the
design. Chair Morris suggested that CDOT be invited to a future TAB meeting to share
information on pathways and roundabouts.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:10 p.m.
Action Items
1. Morris to update the Gaps map to reflect the changes captured during the meeting
2. Morris to develop the Deficiencies map and to capture the recommendations cap-
tured during the meeting
3. Gamble to update the audit spreadsheet on the shared Google drive to reflect his
proposed change regarding pathway gaps
4. Muhonen to contact CDOT regarding review of the U.S. 34 overlay design (striping
and signage)