Project Meeting Minutes – 5^th Steering Committee Meeting

Date:               Friday, November 30, 2007

Time:                8:00 AM to 10:30 AM

Location:         Crossroads Building – Conference Room 100

In attendance: Keith Walzak, Jack Rogers, Beth Drum, Christina Rinderle, Bill Carver, Nicole Killian, Peter Schertz, Bob Kunkel, Rick Feeney, Watson Lunt, Jack Llewellyn, Bill (“Frownie”) Frownfelter, Katie Nelson

John Viner & Paul Wilbur – observers; Durango Herald staff present

Called to order at 8:00 am

Keith Walzak noted in response to the Durango Herald article on 11/29/07 to please note that the Design Team is not contracted to make the final decision on sidewalk improvements or drive the decision in favor of a specific alternative as indicated by Mr. Lunt.  This is a public process.

I.                  Project Objectives       

1. Improve Pedestrian Safety
2. Reduce Trip Hazards
3. Reduce Street Clutter
4. Preserve Improvements (ordinances)

Discussion regarding Fehr & Peers summary of accidents on Main Avenue:

There have been 27 crashes on Main Avenue & details can be reviewed in the Technical Memorandum See Project Web site at: www.Durangodowntown.com/sidewalks

John Viner: Are these crashes an acceptable tolerance and is this related to each alternative?

Watson: This doesn’t offer a comparison with other areas – is 27 crashes average, above average, or below average? 

Jack Rogers: College and Camino del Rio ranked highest in incidents (26);

9^th St and Camino ranked 2^nd (19 incidents); College and Main ranked 3^rd (also with 19 incidents); and 9^th and Main ranked 10^th

Viner: This is a thin number for which to make a decision; 27 incidents is not a large number

Keith Walzak provided a hand out that outlined all crashes within the City at various intersections since 2004 to address the question of comparison of accidents for downtown Main Avenue intersections and all other city intersections.  Of 32 intersections with any significant number of crashes, 4 of these intersections are located within the study area on Main Avenue. 

Keith: we need to focus on the project objectives and look at the public input.  The dots from the open house clearly show of the participants who engaged in the dot exercise - public opinion supported alternatives A & B – the opinion to not widen sidewalks and repair or replace sidewalks where needed.

Rick Feeney: How to we weigh the opinions of the open house with the opinions of the Vision Plan (the Vision Plan preferred alternative was the 3 lane option with bulb outs)

Viner: We need to look at this via Bayesian Statistics; weigh all the input (Durango Herald Poll, Open House, and the Visioning Process)

Keith: Let’s focus on the design considerations that the public listed as important: Parking downtown was overwhelmingly noted as an area of concern.  This suggests we should not be looking at any alternative that may take away parking on Main Avenue.  In addition, this information also speaks to wanting more amenities (bike racks, plaza areas, transit stops, etc.), but without widening the sidewalks, we need to consider options to reduce clutter. 

Peter Schertz & Bill Carver: Cyclists deserve privileges and should be accommodated. 

Keith: Public Transportation riders should also be rewarded and accommodated; as an example the transit stop at 9^th and Main and 8^th and Main would require additional space (perhaps a bulb-out feature) to help reduce clutter and create a more comfortable place for a transit stop patrons. 

Rick Feeney: Transit riders should have a place to wait with dignity; most stops along Main are nothing more than a pole with a “T” sign.

Keith: Let’s look at all the alternatives that address these concerns

Bill Frownie: I think the disparity in the Vision Plan versus the Public Open House input is that the Vision Plan is what everyone wants to see as a “vision”, but the reality is that this costs money and there is a construction timeframe to consider.  Perhaps if the public had more information about funding sources and the tight construction timeframe, more would have voted for a change.

Bill Carver: I think the construction timeframe is a major concern for business owners.

Jack Rogers: the Visioning was also a long process and maybe businesses didn’t have enough time to invest in this

Keith: And people may feel that is wasn’t necessary to voice opposition to a “vision,” but now that this is a real project, people are voicing objections

Viner: Is historical character an important issue in determining an alternative?

Carver: What timeframe do you consider “historic?”  I think the consensus is that every major redesign of Main Ave has been a good one:  Moving the highway off Main, adding street lights, adding street trees, ADA curb cuts in sidewalks…

Keith: We do need to get to a recommendation, and maybe this won’t happen today, but let’s look at the summary/ matrix from the steering committee which shows a split between B & E. 

Watson: Historic doesn’t mean going back in time; we need to weigh this into the consideration

Peter: I keep thinking about the uniqueness of our basement coal chutes and am surprised there hasn’t been a movement from HPB to preserve these

Watson: It would be valuable to preserve/ showcase these, but the costs to the City to do this are enormous, especially in conjunction with the sidewalk replacements. 

Keith: HPB is meeting on Wednesday.  Watson, how would HPB respond to our objectives today?

Watson: Repair and Clutter Removal are important, but the sentiment is “What’s broken?” as voiced by RM Bell.

Viner: The accident data shown to us is not enough to answer the question “Is pedestrian safety really a problem”?

Peter: Yes, and I think it’s more of a feeling of pedestrian safety

Viner: Let’s look at the alternatives that are counterproductive and eliminate them

Nicole: Perhaps we should pose the question, “What’s more important: pedestrian or vehicle traffic?”  We already have a level “B” service for vehicles and some would argue that downtown streets should operate at a much lower LOS to indicate congestion – which is a good thin in a downtown.

Carver: It seems like people want a conservative solution, “B” with some elements of “C”, a lower speed limit, bike parking, pedestrian feel of safety, semi truck loading access on at least one end of each block. 

Keith: All the input together points to B & C; Our design team looked at all options and displayed them like a “menu list” on the overall plan (See attached PDF of overall plan); 40’ of yellow loading zone may not be enough for semi truck loading – we may need to re-evaluate this – and look at the bulb-outs from a truck turning options, bulb-outs, & pedestrian options.  All these options are shown on this map.

• We also can look at all pedestrian signalized intersections coordination. 
• The beige color in the intersections represents an opportunity for special pavement material and / or color options
• Red indicates where new concrete is needed
• Blue indicates where concrete replacement is questionable
• Street tree replacement needs to be considered due to grade problems in certain areas
• Look at 2 kinds of bulb-outs (full and half) and any combination thereof, and look at each block on a case by case basis if we want to explore this route
• Again, this map is like a menu of options and we can pick and choose what works
• Gateway features (either an arch or a vertical element) perhaps in a bulb out at 13^th street.  This crosswalk at 13^th St doesn’t go anywhere (crosses to a parking lot), and there are opportunities to improve this area without taking away any parking and create a bulb-out/ transit stop

Nicole: Do we need bulb outs at signalized intersections? We may recommend that each intersection doesn’t need a bulb-out.

Viner: An all pedestrian cross at signalized intersections gives people more time to cross at non-signalized intersections due to the traffic delay. 

Keith: Remember: we are NOT in the design phase at this point; we are trying to select a recommendation and it seems like we are in the B & C range.  I think we need to focus our decision there. 

Bob Kunkel: Let’s look at turning in downtown.  Bulb-outs slow traffic; I recommend bulb-outs at the bookends of downtown only (13^th Street and the train area at 5^th Street), and a vertical element as the gateway feature.  My preference is B.  Bookends welcome people to downtown at obvious entry points.  Bulb-outs would be ok on the side-streets, but I think would be a hindrance to Main Avenue, and would severely impact its level of service to vehicles.  We can enhance pedestrian safety by lowering the speed limit, raise the crosswalks and change their color / material.

Watson: Let’s list the pros and cons of bulb-outs with everyone in the room

Bill Frownie: In Telluride, mock ups helped with public input and we did several of these before investing in the total construction time and costs. 

Nicole: Can we do this and test the bulb-out areas with bollards?

Peter: I think mock-ups are a good idea – it helps to take baby steps when we know that all other options are a comparatively big leap. 

Carver: Can delivery trucks just use signalized intersections, and simply avoid non-signalized intersections where there is a greater potential for bulb-outs?

Keith: There are many things we can look at in that regard, but those are design issues.  Today’s objective was to get to a preliminary recommendation that can go before HPB, DRB, and City Council Study Sessions.  It seems everyone agrees 13^th and 5^th would be great opportunities for bulb-outs.  What about the other intersections?  Perhaps also on 12^th to frame Buckley Park for special events? 

Let’s assess this by asking individual Steering Committee Members (note: Jack Llewllyn, Beth Drum and Jack Rogers all step out):

*NOTE: 4 and 5 above are options to evaluate and explore each intersection on a case by case basis, not just to simply recommend all intersections. 

In general, through an informed consensus and discussion process, the Project Steering Committee recommended the following (it should be noted that not all Members may have completely agreed, but they acknowledged they were informed as to the process and discussion that arrived at this recommendation):

To explore and evaluate a combination of design attributes blending those positive elements of both Alternative B & C.

To repair and replace sidewalk and curbs where needed and incorporate bulb-outs at select (to be determined) intersections along Main Avenue and side streets.

Bulb-out location options may include possible full or half bulb-outs or a combination of both as required.

Ultimately, the Steering Committee acknowledged that each intersection should probably be considered as a part of the Phase II Design Development process to be included in a technical evaluation for consideration of possible bulb-outs.  The group acknowledged that not all intersections may ultimately include bulb-outs but that Phase II Design Development should work to determine the final design concept incorporating bulb-outs at appropriate locations.

Peter: It seems a combination of alternatives B & C increasingly satisfies many of the public’s needs and comments from the Vision Plan and the public open house.  It would also be important to get the cycling community to weigh in on options for intersections.  Perhaps the raised crosswalks would not be a good idea; maybe they should be other elements like in-street surface lighting at crosswalks in downtown Pagosa Springs. 

II.              Next Steps

Keith: Going forward, we will be presenting all this information to the following:

Design Review Board (DRB) on (tentatively) December 10^th  

Historic Preservation Board (HPB) on December 19^th

City Council Study Session: TBD 

Next Meeting:

The next Steering Committee Meeting is TBD after the Holidays. This next meeting will be programmed as a part of the upcoming Phase II Design Development Phase. Steering Committee Members are welcome to attend and participate in the upcoming HPB, DRB and City Council Study Sessions as scheduled.