×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Fort Collins Strategic Trails Plan Draft for STAFF REVIEW

Please review and submit comments by 5pm, February 26, 2025.

A draft of the Strategic Trails Plan is now available for select STAFF REVIEW ONLY. Please do not share this link publicly.

Click the (+) (-) or double arrows in the bottom right of the document to zoom in, out, or view full page spreads.

As you review, please strive for comments that are specific and direct. You can write your own comments and respond to others' comments in the document viewer below. Please complete your review by EOD February 26th. 

*Note the size of this file has been reduced for online viewing, some images and graphics may appear pixelated.
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%
Drag
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close

Commenting is closed for this document.

in reply to Jill's comment

Taylor Feb 27 2025 at 1:29PM on page 84

nearly 19 miles in NE / Council District 1 alone
replies
in reply to Jill's comment

Taylor Feb 27 2025 at 1:23PM on page 78

correct. will be updated
replies
in reply to Cortney Geary's comment

Taylor Feb 27 2025 at 1:22PM on page 76

It would be great to have Nancy review and advise on this exhibit!
Information is pulled from web sources and a resource provided by DK. The National partnership started in 2005 and Fort Collins program started in 2006.
link
link
link
replies
in reply to Cortney Geary's comment

Taylor Feb 27 2025 at 1:14PM on page 69

yes the number represents the ranking
replies
in reply to Jill's comment

Taylor Feb 27 2025 at 1:13PM on page 68

this has been removed; prioritization being updated.
replies
in reply to Jill's comment

Taylor Feb 27 2025 at 1:12PM on page 66

City GIS data. This includes all minor trails maintained by the City including NAD and utilities.
replies
in reply to Jill's comment

Taylor Feb 27 2025 at 1:09PM on page 62

trail amenities not evaluated. prioritization criteria are listed on page 56. Will add a reference here.
replies
in reply to Cortney Geary's comment

Taylor Feb 27 2025 at 1:06PM on page 60

the GSCs are prioritized separately, see page. 68. but construction of the spurs and RR GSC should occur in tandem
replies
in reply to Cortney Geary's comment

Taylor Feb 27 2025 at 1:01PM on page 60

no, not prioritized
replies
in reply to Cortney Geary's comment

Taylor Feb 27 2025 at 1:00PM on page 60

yes, future Venus
replies
in reply to Cortney Geary's comment

Taylor Feb 27 2025 at 12:57PM on page 60

yes, that is the correct location
replies
in reply to Jill's comment

Taylor Feb 27 2025 at 12:52PM on page 58

These trails are all near-term/phase 1 or green on the map. will clarify in the intro.
replies
in reply to Cortney Geary's comment

Taylor Feb 27 2025 at 12:46PM on page 52

good to know! Where is an ideal at-grade trail crossing that can be featured here?
replies
in reply to Jill's comment

Taylor Feb 27 2025 at 12:45PM on page 52

a general discussion of trail amenities will be further developed on page 48
replies
in reply to Jill's comment

Taylor Feb 27 2025 at 12:44PM on page 38

I am not certain this data is available.
replies
in reply to kelly smith's comment

Taylor Feb 27 2025 at 12:41PM on page 41

this is a rough draft and map is being updated
replies
in reply to Cortney Geary's comment

Taylor Feb 27 2025 at 12:39PM on page 38

100% of schools have a paved trail within 3/4mile buffer of the school.
replies

Taylor Feb 27 2025 at 12:30PM on page 39

list all deficiencies that were documented
replies
in reply to Missy's comment

Taylor Feb 27 2025 at 12:29PM on page 27

pg. 39 will expand upon the specific list of deficiencies
replies
in reply to Missy's comment

Taylor Feb 27 2025 at 12:24PM on page 20

can remove this reference
replies
in reply to Rachel's comment

Taylor Feb 27 2025 at 12:24PM on page 18

yes
replies

Cortney Geary Feb 26 2025 at 5:31PM on page 31

Suggested Revision
consider a "by the numbers" summary of community engagement like on AMP p. 9 (p. 16 of pdf).
replies

Cortney Geary Feb 26 2025 at 5:28PM on page 22

Suggested Revision
Add a sentence explaining what the Vision Zero Plan is
replies

Cortney Geary Feb 26 2025 at 5:24PM on page 84

Comment
Good job creating a manageable number of metrics for the STP. We have way too many metrics to track in AMP, Vision Zero Plan, and 15-minute city study.
replies

Kelly Feb 26 2025 at 5:20PM on page 59

Technical Edit
The northern section of Arapaho Bend and eastern portion of Running Deer are not open to the public and are not planned to be based on sensitive natural resource values. This trail connection unfortunately has to be removed.
replies

Cortney Geary Feb 26 2025 at 5:19PM on page 77

Technical Edit
and middle
replies
in reply to Cortney Geary's comment

Cortney Geary Feb 26 2025 at 5:16PM on page 76

I think our program predates the national partnership so the framing of us having a program because we joined the partnership seems a little weird to me, but Nancy is the expert.
replies

Cortney Geary Feb 26 2025 at 5:04PM on page 76

Comment
It would be good to have Nancy look at this section.
replies

Cortney Geary Feb 26 2025 at 4:57PM on page 75

Technical Edit
July
replies

Cortney Geary Feb 26 2025 at 4:50PM on page 70

Question
How does this compare to the number of grade-separated crossings we've constructed in the last 10 - 15 years? Does this require identifying a new funding source (beyond CCIP renewal) and increasing staff capacity to deliver these projects?
replies
in reply to Cortney Geary's comment

Cortney Geary Feb 26 2025 at 4:48PM on page 70

Comment
If we assume we'll maintain the same ratio between on-street bike infrastructure and grade-separated crossings if CCIP is renewed, that would be ~$11 million for grade-separated crossings and ~$9 million for on-street bike infrastructure over the next 10 years.
replies

Cortney Geary Feb 26 2025 at 4:37PM on page 70

Technical Edit
This isn't a new funding source. This proposal combines and increases the funding available for on-street bike infrastructure and grade-separated crossings.
replies

Cortney Geary Feb 26 2025 at 4:33PM on page 69

Will the crossings be numbered in order of priority in the updated map?
replies

Cortney Geary Feb 26 2025 at 4:30PM on page 60

Question
Do these Power Trail spurs include the grade-separated crossings?
replies

Cortney Geary Feb 26 2025 at 4:21PM on page 68

Question
Is this grade separated crossing feasible? AMP recommendation is seek opportunities to widen path for a more bicycle-friendly geometry at trail crossing transition.
replies

Cortney Geary Feb 26 2025 at 4:08PM on page 60

Question
Are these listed in order of priority?
replies

Cortney Geary Feb 26 2025 at 4:07PM on page 60

Question
Fossil Creek Trail to Venus Ave?
replies

Cortney Geary Feb 26 2025 at 4:04PM on page 63

Suggested Revision
add legend
replies

Rachel Feb 26 2025 at 3:13PM on page 30

Suggested Revision
Maybe add " - Fort Collins Community Member" at the end of the quote to show that this is a quote taken from one of the maps?
replies

Rachel Feb 26 2025 at 3:04PM on page 18

Suggested Revision
Do we want to include natural areas in this list? Or maybe change to "parks/open spaces"?
replies

SiteAdmin Feb 26 2025 at 11:38AM on page 68

To be updated with revised GSC prioritization
replies

SiteAdmin Feb 26 2025 at 10:34AM on page 48

Add trail amenities section generally, existing and possible amenities. To ensure consistency throughout the system: the city should develop a trails amenity plan.
replies

SiteAdmin Feb 26 2025 at 10:31AM on page 48

link

Denver Trails Amenities plan
replies
in reply to Cortney Geary's comment

Missy Feb 26 2025 at 10:05AM on page 38

Technical Edit
Streets Department
replies

Missy Feb 26 2025 at 10:03AM on page 38

Suggested Revision
Combine these these two sentences:
"The City manages the majority of the paved trails, CSU manages trails located on university property, and many residential HOA's manage trails with their development."
replies

Missy Feb 26 2025 at 9:27AM on page 27

Question
What do we consider deficiencies? Just maintenance issues, like cracks, poor drainage etc.? Wondering if we should mention adding gravel sidepath where it's lacking as a specific item? Maybe it's mentioned later on in the plan.
replies
in reply to kelly smith's comment

Missy Feb 26 2025 at 9:11AM on page 22

Suggested Revision
Maybe add "working in coordination with NAD to conserve environmentally sensitive areas." ?
replies
in reply to Jill's comment

Missy Feb 26 2025 at 8:59AM on page 20

Question
Did we choose an Arizona report because they have a similar trail system? If so, maybe we explain?
replies

Cortney Geary Feb 25 2025 at 5:25PM on page 52

Suggested Revision
We've received some concerns about this at-grade crossing. Should it be added as a proposed at-grade crossing improvement? I can forward the emails with residents if that would be helpful. Should we include a photo of a model at-grade crossing that meets standards?
replies

Cortney Geary Feb 25 2025 at 5:20PM on page 59

Comment
If this is at Laporte/Impala, this is funded and should be constructed this year (RRFB)
replies
View all