Loading...
3 - Public Participation Handouts0~~1~~ ACKS 156~ematlway,5uiie72~.Darna~.W G72~'e pnoce3C3299E33~ Some oi the most recent and cornprehensive data on TOD sugges:s that people who five in residen:ially focused TOD are more likely to use trans~t ihan people who work m emplcyment iocused TOD. A 2004 statewide study commission hy the Califomia Departmert of 7ransportatior. and conducted by Hollie Lund and Rick Wiltson of Cal Pory Pomona, along with veteran transportation researcher Robert Cervero of University of California, Berkeley, found that about 26°h of TOD residents commute to work via transit, while on'ry ?8% of TOD workers d0 so. Exceptions to this :rend are crowded, transit-ridn' work locations, such as i~ downtown central cities, which attract very large numoers o` translt commuters. But the overall pattem is clear. people who evork ad~acent to transit stops will ride transit if it is fast and convenient and i~ dnving is an expensive hassle; but peop!e are more likely to changa tneir commuting habits .' they can walk to a 6us or rail stop from right outside their front coor. Since mdustna' and research uses do not tend to be transit suppertive due to thev low rztio of emoloyees per square fooi of space, gre~ter ernphasis on zecing ior employment growth in the retail, office and commerciai services sectors (without dislocaYir~ curront indus'nal uses that are acceptable to the commu~Ry), would also be expected to generete mcre ttansit ridership. However, RTD recogr,izes that the City ties to meet t`~e ~eeds of many stakeholders in the Arez Plar. and that lar.d uses shouid be acceotable :o the community. Transit Viltaae Infrzstructure RTD has concerns e6out how well the woonerf street design would mitigate pedes?rian and vehicie conflicts cor.sidering the amount of vehicular tra`Fic the rail and _6us staticns may be expected to generate. However, RTD also cautions against the creation of pedestrian-only paths that would drain humen activky from Transit Village -- streets, In his b~ok Great Streets, University of Caliiomia urhan design professor and tormer San Francisco City Plannino Director Allan Jacobs identifies the qualities :hat charecterize great szreets around the world: buildings of similar height, interestino facades, trees, windows that invite viewing, intersections, 6eginnings and endings, stopping places and space for leisurely walking. RTD recommends focusing on these urben design considerations to create a street thaY is both exciting for pedestrians and safe for vehicular traffic rather separating trensporta2ion hy mode, or by employing a European de=_ign model tha: might not fit American legal code and pz:tern= ot behavior. RTD endorses the goal of creating :ransit, auto bic~cle and pedestrian connections trom the Transit Village to near6y destinations. RTD's service deveiopment staff are committed to working with *he City to develop service plans to provide access to and from the Transit Village. Safe, convenient and attrective pedestrian access is crucial for increasing the share of riders who walk to the s:ation. However, RTD's infrastructure investmen:s in the Transit Villege area will be ~imited to direct elements ot the NW Rail project, which has a budget estahlished by the FasTracks plan, and to its share of construction cosu for the bus transfer fecility, which was awarded federal funding: RTD is not in a position to cantribute to funding for Iocal infrasVUCture OC~ 19 2006 05=04 ,J- -_ -: 3Q32952452 PfiGE.03 ~~Fy~7==ACKS ;59J Broadxay, auie700, Demc, CO BLZf2 pnane30.7299.599C October 19, 2006 Elise Jones, Chair 9ouider Gty Plannmc Board F.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306-0791 ,, Dear Ms. Jones: This letter is intended to provide the Boulder City Planning Board with RTD's perspective on the Transit Village Area Plan options. As you are aware, RTD is a major stakeholder in the Area Plan process, bcth as both the Iccal landowner of the site of the future bus fiacility Iwhich RTD purchased in partnership wRh the City;, and as the developer of the future rail station at the core of the Area Plan. In the spirit of civ;c partnership, RTD has also contributed staff time and financial resources to the Area Plan effort. RTD's comments are offered for your consideration in that same spirit. The influence area of TOD generally falls between a Y.- to %-mile radius (125-500 acres} from atransit =acility, depending on the quality of the surrounding pedestrian infrastructure and built environment. The 76D acres stud;ed in t_he Area Plan currently has 90 housing units and 2,710 jobs, of which 270 are in transit-supportive employmer,: sectors such as retail, office and commercial services. Based ocr current trends and zoning, the area is projected to have 490 housing units (an overall residential density of 3 units per acre for the study area) and '.,000 lobs in transit- supoortive sectors. TOD Best Practices and Research The Center for Transit Oriented Development, the nation's leading source of TOD research, has developed model TOD typologies to heVp communities gauge the appropriate level of development near transit facilities based on local context. CTOD's "urban neighborhood" typology most closely fits the Boulder Transit Village, based on its identification as an urban center in the Metro V;sion 2030 regional plan, along with the proposed land uses, housing types, regional connectivity, and transit modes and frequencies. CTOD recommends such an area have a minimum residential density of 20 units per acre in order to be transit supportive, but of course, RTD recognizes That the City has to meet the needs of many stakeholders in the Area Plan and that densities should be acceptable to the commuhity. nn t 9 2006 09 ~ 03 30:12992452 PAGE - :;~ - pFAS7~/ SACKS 15aC erw~ay, SU!l0'lCC, ~n^.vBl, ~O 87c02 done :C3299.E39C :mprovements outslde the scope of these projects, and the City of Bou:der's share of the 2.5% local match for NW Rail cannot be credited for improvements outside the sccpe of the rail project even if they would improve access. In closing, RTD recognizes that Planning Board has many (sometimes competing) community objectives to balance and reconcile in the Transit Village Area Plan. Our comments are intended to provide you with additienal ouidance about how the future land-use decisions you are making might impact the effectiveness of the transit investments we are making, and where synergies between the two might be achieved. Sincerely, ,~t~Q~~~ ill Sirois, Manager, Transit Oriented Development Cc: Chris Quinn, Planning Project Manager Nadine Lee, Engineering Project Manager Dave Shelley, Pulanager, Corridor Planning -- Jeff Dunning, Senior Service Planner _ Lir Rao, Assistant General Manager, Planning & Development nr'-taV~av~ 09=04 ._ .: .a aC'.. 3032992452 PRGE. 04 UCG ltf U^ Ui UJF' °~~__ ~~S[E~RA '~~ ' CLUB rnu4or:o coax Boulder Planning Board Attn: Michelle Allen c/o City of Boulder Planning and Development Services P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Fax~303-441-3241 18 October 2006 Dear Ms. Allen, The Sicrra Club's Sprawl and Transportation Connnittee is pleased to submit the attached comments regarding the Boulder Transit Village Area Plan. We strongly endorse the development of an environmentally sustainable, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly transit oriented development surrounding the commuter rail and bus rapid transit stations. Questions regazding our comments can he directed to the Sprawl and Transportation Committee Chatr, Eric Stonebraker at ericstonebraker(c~tmcsierraclub.org or 303-525- 1959. Regards, Eric Stonebraker, air Sprawl and Transportation Committee Rocky Mountain Chapter Indian Peaks Gruup Sprawl and Transportation Committee http://rockymtn.sierraclub.org/ip sectionSpra.htm 303-525-1959 r-~ Oct tEi Ob O1:Uop Sierra Club Indian Peaks Group Comments on Boulder Transit Village Area Plan October 2006 The Indian Peaks Group of the Sierra Club appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Transit Village Area Platt (TVAP) options, preferred land uses, and transportation connections developed during the summer of 2006. The arrival of RTD's FasTracks commuter rail and bus rapid transit in 2014 provides an exciting opportuntty for Boulder to develop a vibrant, leading edge, and envirotmentally sustainable neighborhood using principles of transit- and pedestrian-oriented development in the 160-acre planning area surrounding the rail platfottn and BRT station.-We strongly believe that, regazdless of the development option ultimately selected, enhanced green building and energy efficiency principles must be incorporated into the final plan- The TVAP offers the opportunity to implement design standards that require htgh-efficiency or even carbon-neutral development. Requinng LEEDS certification of transit village structures in not at all unreasonable, and addresses Boulder's commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. Additionally, aggressive travel demand management strategies with strong local pedestrian, bike, and transit connections must be utilized to take maximum advantage of the significant FasTracks investment. We should strive to develop the Boulder Transit Village as a regional, even national, example of how to guide development in a 21" century city - an economically viable and environmentally sustainable neighborhood beloved by the people who live, work, learn, and play in Boulder. Members of IPG's Sprawl and Transportation Committee attended various public meetings, participated in the community charrette, examined each of the foot options, met with City staff for two briefings and question-and-answer sessions, and looked to our guiding principles of good development as we deliberated the benefits and drawbacks of each option. IPG supports development that promotes diversity, encourages interaction and involvement, provides economic opportunity, and promotes transit and neigltborltood choices that enhance the health, safety; and well-being of its citizens We believe mixed use and traditional neighborhood development promote community and walkability, and we encourage density and compact design next to major transit centers. Generally we have a preference for Option 2 since it best supports the principles of good development and provides the best balance of housing and employment. We also believe some elements of other options could be incorporated into the final plan. • Preserve some iittportant service industrial activity, most appropriately in the southeast quadrant of the punning area south of Pearl Street, as in Option 1. • Maintain service commercial uses along Valmont Road between 3151 and 33'd Streets, as m Option 1. Other comments on elements of the TVAP: Medium density residential zoning may not he appropriate if we are to intensify use of the area to support neighborhood-serving retail and increased transit usage. ftestdenttal uses in the eastern portions of the area should be cazefully planned, or potentially eliminated, due to the proxiimty of Foothills Parkway. p.c .o ~o ,..:..~~ • The amount and intensity of mixed use, neighborhood-serving retail must be compatible with the amount and intensity of residential development. • "Junction Place" must be carefully designed if i[ is to combine pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and auto traffic. The possibility of restricting autos on the street should be preserved. We prefer a "through street" aligmnent rather than a `'circuitous street" alignment to maintain the efficiency of transit service and to preserve future transit options such as the Boulder Breeze streetcar. • The public square in front of the train depot must be car-free to create a lively, pedestrian-friendly public place. While the depot must accommodate people coming from north and west Boulder; passenger drop-off for the train platform could be from the east side of the tracks. - • A direct and efficient pedestrian connection between the train platform and BRT station should be included; for example, a multiuse path along the tracks south of the rail platform. • More emphasis should be placed on making Valmont Road, 30`h Street, and Pearl Street more pedestrian friendly, including more pedestrian crossings other than at traffic signals, and the addition of on-street parking. This will enhance connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods. • A roadway connection between Wilderness Place and Old Pearl would serve the goal of tncreasmg connectivity, but should be designed for pedestrians and bicycles first, with slow speed auto trawl secondary. 13`i' Street between Arapahoe and Spruce Streets in downtown Boulder offers an example of this type of street design. • Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections to the employment areas east of the planning area are inadequate. Stronger connections to downtown Boulder, including direct bicycle conncctrons, should be included. Mapleton Avenue could be designated an east-west route froth 30`h to downtown Boulder and appropriate bicycle facilities installed with little impact. The Transit Village implementation pla:. ,ould consider the feasibility of completing new bike-ped connections prior to the construction of the neighborhood. • Aggressive TDM strategies must be implemented to take maximum advantage of the FasTracks investment. EcoPasses should be available to all residents and workers in the Transit Village area. A parking district to manage parking throughout the area is required, including RTD parking. Parking and housing purchase must be decoupled, and parking minimums eliminated. City support oflocation-efficient mortgages should be pursued. • Designs standards for the area should be seriously considered to ensure high yualily development, but should not be so restrictive to result in a monolithic, "cookie-cutter" look throughout the area. Form codes could be used to guide the shape of the village as it grows. ~.~