Report to CTAB April 3, 2007

Date:April 3, 2007

To:Citizens’ Transportation Advisory Board

Re: Report on TISC Activities

By: Bob Hartwig, Chairperson, Trucking Issues Subcommittee

TISC continues to meet and struggle with options for improving the flow of commercial traffic on our streets and roadways. The Subcommittee met at its regular meeting on March 20and also in a special work session on March 27.

Objectives: Try to come up with a truck route system which is clear, concise, communicable and enforceable.

Fundamental principles:

a.)Trucks are now permitted to make pick-ups and/or deliveries on any street as long as they take the shortest, most direct route from an authorized truck route to their destination, and return via the same.

b.)Chaining of deliveries (i.e., going to another delivery), is permitted as long as the driver has a delivery slip, job ticket, or log showing proof of another delivery

Progress to date: Outcome from a meeting with CSPD officers and city staff, on March 6:

The zone concept would be confusing and difficult to enforce
Likewise, a special permit system for identifying local delivery vehicles would be difficult to define without a cumbersome, bureaucratic process, requiring added staff, expensive and the imposition of a fee.

There are some who would like a zone system, with defined zonal perimeters, for allowing any truck to traverse a specific area, with or without a Local Delivery Route crossing a zone.

A memo addressing network options was prepared for the March 20 TISC meeting. Maps of three options were prepared and discussed.

Option A. Existing Truck Route System with recommendations prior to Local Delivery Route System.

Option B. Two Tier Route Network: Major or Full Use Truck Route with the addition of a Local Delivery Route System

Option C. Two Tier Route Network: Major or Full Use Truck Route with the addition of a Local Delivery Route System; and re-designating some Full-Use Truck Routes as Local Delivery Routes.

We can briefly describe and summarize the options (see attached description of options, dated March 20, 2007). To date the TISC has not taken a position on a preferred option.

The size of local delivery vehicles is currently thought of as either straight trucks or articulated trucks with no more than a 48 ft trailer.

Notes of the March 20, 2007 meeting are attached.

Other trucking issues:

1.)Change the GVWR from 10,000 to 15,000. Discussed, but there doesn’t appear to have much support, in light of defining a local delivery route system and local delivery vehicles.

2.) Enforcement: with businesses purchasing newer vehicles, out of service vehicles have become a lesser problem.

- Speeding and accidents also have lessened, especially with companies and their insurance carriers, monitoring driver’s licenses and safety records.

- Any new system, such as the Local Delivery Route System, will require both an education program and subsequent enforcement.

3.) Noise/Engine Brakes: The City Engineering Dept. is working on a noise study and proposals to monitor and enforce noise ordinances.

4.)Parking: On-street truck parking remains an issue as there are inadequate places for OTR drivers to park their rigs when off-duty. Only Baptist Rd., Pinon, and Flying J, (@mm128), are available. Limon has worked with private developers to build a new, large site close to I-70 for trucks. Many OTR drivers would like a close-in location so spouses wouldn’t have to drive long distances to pick them up often at the wee hours of the morning.

Next items:

The TISC will attempt to arrive at a preferred option at its next scheduled meeting, April 17, and also a schedule for conducting public meetings within the next several weeks.

With CTAB’s approval, TISC will pursue those activities.

Attachments

Description of options, dated March 20, 2007

Notes of the March 20, 2007 TISC meeting

TRUCKING ISSUES SUBCOMMITTEE: Options and Other Issues

March 20, 2007

Truck Route Network Options

One important outcome of a March 6 meeting with CSPD commercial vehicle enforcement officers was that the officers preferred specific local delivery routes over zones, which they felt would be confusing and difficult to enforce. Based on this input, three options have been developed for TISC’s consideration.

Option A:

Recommendations as they stood before TISC started discussing local delivery routes. This is retaining all previous routes (except the short T-Gap Road section west of Powers) and adding several new routes.

Option B:

Two-tier truck route network: Full-Use Truck Routes (or whatever name chosen) and Local Delivery Routes. All previous routes are retained as Full-Use Routes, some new Full-Use Routes are added and several new Local Delivery Routes are added.

Option C:

Two-tier truck route network: Full-Use Truck Routes and Local Delivery Routes. Most previous truck routes are retained as Full-Use Routes, some previous truck routes are re-designated as Local Delivery Routes. Some new Full-Use Routes are added and several new Local Delivery Routes are added.

The key difference between Options B and C are the reclassification of some of the previous routes as Local Delivery Routes.

Other Considerations:

Current local delivery route proposal is to restrict to trucks with 48-foot trailers or smaller.

Limit Local Delivery Route availability to certain hours each day? If so, to what hours? CSPD suggested 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Other Trucking Issues for TISC Recommendations

Change to Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
Enforcement

Ensure appropriate trucks are using local delivery routes
Mechanisms to enforce/encourage reduced speed

Noise / Engine Brakes
Truck Parking

TISC Meeting Notes

Date:March 23, 2007

By:Gaye Smith, Transportation Planning Analyst

Subject:March 20, 2007 Trucking Issues Subcommittee Meeting Notes

The meeting was held in the 4th Floor Conference Room (401 Large), CityAdministrationBuilding,
30 S. Nevada Avenue, and began at 3:02 p.m.

In Attendance

CTAB:Bob Hartwig, Chairperson

At Large Members: Scott Arnold, Vice-Chairperson; Glenn Frank

Trucking Industry Members: Rich O’Connell, Mike Smith, Rick Wright

City Staff: Craig Blewitt, Transportation Planning Manager
Gary Herbst, Traffic Technician
Dave Krauth, Principal Traffic Engineer
Gaye Smith, Transportation Planning Analyst

Others:Walter Lawson, citizen
David Munger, Old North End Neighborhood (ONEN)
John O’Donnell, Surface Transportation Advisory Coalition (STAC)

Absent TISC members:Larry Bagley;Gene Bray; Mark Cunningham, City Planning Commission, andDon Schley

Citizen Comment

None

County Truck Route Coordination Subcommittee (TRCS)

Janet Stephens, El Paso County Department of Transportation, was unable to attend the meeting, but Gaye Smith provided Subcommittee members with a copy of the minutes of the February 27 TRCS meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for March 27, and the Subcommittee agreed to hold quarterly meetings after its April 23 meeting.

Work Session

Local Delivery Route Options

Bob said that he, Rich O’Connell and City staff met with Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Officers Robert Strauss and Chris McCleary of the Colorado Springs Police Department, and discussed many of the trucking issues TISC is reviewing to get CSPD input. TISC has been attempting to create a definition of delivery zones that would be easily explainable, understood and enforceable. The zone concept was proposed as part of the agreed recommendations of the Nevada Corridor Work Group. The police officers expressed a preference for specific local delivery routes to be created, rather than zones, so Bob worked with staff to create three options for the Subcommittee to consider:

Option A:

Option B:

Option C:

Craig had drawn the route options on maps, noting that the key difference between Options B and C were the reclassification of some of the previous routes as Local Delivery Routes.

Subcommittee members reviewed the Nevada Corridor Work Group’s agreed recommendations to see how the local delivery route concept could be applied across the City, rather than being specific to Nevada Avenue. One concern was Para IV, which had originally stated that 18-wheel trucks would be excluded from Nevada Avenue from Cimarron Street north to Fillmore Street. TISC had amended the statement to include a clarification, “with the exception of destination deliveries.” Paragraph II (b) limited trucks on the proposed local delivery route to those with 48-foot trailers or smaller, another amendment made by TISC. To mitigate confusion and possible discrepancies between the two restrictions, the following restatement of Para IV was proposed and agreed upon by TISC members:

“With the exception of destination deliveries, 18-wheel trucks with trailers exceeding 48 feet will be excluded from the segments of Nevada Avenue…”

Dave Munger noted that the zone concept was important to the Nevada Corridor agreement. Dave Krauth explained that this was a serious enforcement issue with CSPD, and Craig said that it was important that it is easy to identify whether a truck belongs on the system or not. Dave Munger said that he felt the Downtown Partnership and ColoradoCollege in particular would not like the removal of the zoning concept, as the intent was to remove extraneous travel in the area.

Dave Krauth explained that the way the zone concept was defined, as an area bordered by existing truck routes, the area from Cimarron to Fillmore would be one large zone anyway, because removal of North Nevada from the truck route system necessitated the removal of Uintah Street, which would be a useless spur on the truck route network. John O’Donnell commented that the local delivery route would limit the size of trucks on Nevada Avenue and consequently reduce truck traffic, especially Transit Mix travel.

Ways to reduce truck traffic on local delivery routes without using the zoning concept were suggested and discussed:

Establish a permitting system – This would limit the number of trucks using the local delivery route to those that would accrue enough benefit to pay for a permit. Some form of identification would be provided that would make it easy to ascertain if a truck was allowed on the local delivery route.
Reduce the size of trucks allowed – If TISC withdraws the zoning concept from its recommendation, further reducing the size of trucks allowed on local delivery routes could have a similar effect as zoning in reducing truck traffic and would be easier to enforce. Additionally, it would be more agreeable to residents in neighborhoods that currently are not on truck routes but might be on a local delivery route.

Dave Munger suggested that TISC should present its proposed recommendations before the Council of Neighbors and Organizations (CONO) before getting public input, as this may need the buy in of other neighborhood groups.

Gross Vehicle Weight Rating

Members of the landscaping industry had asked that TISC consider raising the gross vehicle weight rating of commercial vehicles that must adhere to the truck route system. The current GVWR is 10,000 pounds, which is lighter than many private vehicles on roadways. The requested change would be 15,000 pounds. Scott Arnold noted that El PasoCounty was using a 26,001 weight limit, which is the same weight as the CDL (commercial driver’s license) requirement. After discussion, Bob Hartwig said that he would entertain a motion to change the 10,000 pound GVWR, but no motion was made.

Scott had to leave the meeting shortly after 5:00 p.m. Gaye cautioned that this meant the Subcommittee no longer had a quorum; therefore, by its parent board’s Rules of Procedure, TISC should not further discuss business or take any formal action. Subcommittee members decided to reconvene the following week.

Next Meeting Schedule

The next meeting of the Trucking Issues Subcommittee will be a special work session, to be held on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. at the CityAdministrationBuilding, 30 S. Nevada Avenue, Conference Room 401 Large.

The meeting adjourned at 5:04 p.m.