6 - Proposed Year 2007-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) submittal process - Part IICITY OF BOULDER
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2005
SUBJECT:
Staff briefing and TAB input on the proposed Yeaz 2007-2012 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) submittal process - Part II
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Public Works Department
Tracy Winfree, Director of Public Works for Transportation
Mike Gazdner-Sweeney, TranspoRation Operations and Planning Coordinator
Randall Rutsch, Senior Transportation Planner
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Discussion and reaction to the proposed projects and strategy
This item provides the Transportation Advisory Boazd (TAB) with an initial set of project ideas
for potential submittal to the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) for the 2007-
2012 Transportation Improvements Program (TIP). Staff is following the process used by the
Board in preparing the last TIP to ensure adequate TAB involvement and participation. The
Board is asked to consider the initial list of projects for the city's submittals relative to the
objectives of complying with the policy direction of the Transportation Master Plan, funding
priority projects for the city within our budget constraints and of maximizing the chances for
receiving funding through the TIP process. The city expects to be limited to six project
submittals, not including transportation demand management (TDM) type projects, and staff
suggests advancing a subset of project ideas forward for additional study and evaluation once the
DRCOG criteria are available.
BACKGROUND:
Federal Transportation Funding and DRCOG
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), such as DRCOG, aze required to prepaze plans
and programs, including the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation
Improvements Program (TIP) that will create the intermodal transportation system called for in
ISTEA and TEA-21. The TIP is essenually the capital improvements program that implements
the RTP, the fiscally constrained, long-range transportation plan for the Denver metropolitan
region. All projects selected for the TIP must support the goals and policies included in the
Metro Vision 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. The TIP is prepared every two yeazs by the
AGENDA ITEM # VI Page 1
DRCOG in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the
Regional Transportation District (RTD).
DRCOG is prepazing to solicit project recommendations for the 2007-2012 TIP, with project
recommendations expected to be due the beginning of September 2005. All the projects
submitted in the region will be evaluated and ranked by criteria contained in the Policy on
Transportation Improvement Program Prepazation, which is currently being revised. The new
criteria aze expected to be adopted by the DRCOG Boazd in June 2005. A subset of these
projects will be funded in the adopted TIP through a competitive process, with the likelihood of a
project being funded depending on its score relative to the established cdteria and on the
available funds in a project category.
While the Policy on Transportation Improvement Program Preparation is not adopted by
DRCOG, many of the criteria in the draft criteria aze expected to remain similaz to what was used
in the last TIP and the project types are expected to remain the same. Changes have occurred in
the area of Enhancements (typically bicycle and pedestrian projects) where projects must be part
of an adopted plan, must be new facilities rather than upgrades to an existing facilities, and will
now allow projects addressing the crossing of roadways.
The city of Boulder expects to be able to submit six projects for consideration in the TIP, along
with additional TDM projects. Carry-over projects (projects funded in the third yeaz of the TIP)
aze considered committed and do not count towazds the city's limit of six submittals. Based on
previous experience, the application process will require significant staff time to collect the
information required for each project submitted.
Time Schedule
Based on DRCOG's draft schedule for this round of'I'IP funding, staff anticipates the following
schedule for developing the TIP:
July DRCOG TIP project solicitation
July TAB public heazing on the project list for submission
August City Council public hearing and approval of the project list for
submittals
Beginning of Sept. TIP project submittals due to DRCOG
Sept. - Nov. DRCOG project evalua6on and primary/secondary project
selection
Jan. 2006 DRCOG release of draft TIP
Feb. DRCOG committee reviews and public hearing
Mar. DRCOG Boazd action on 2007-2012 TIP.
ANALYSIS AND PROPOSAL
The previous TIP agenda item from Apri19, 2005 provided additional background on the TIP and
allowed the TAB to affirm the process for developing the city's TIP proposal. Following that
process, Transportation staff solicited project ideas from departments across the city and from
AGENDA ITEM # VI Page 2
other agencies. The projects contained in Attachment A, Potential Projects for the 2007-2012
TIP Submittal, aze the project ideas that have been suggested. The TAB established process of
selecting TIP submittals is based on establishing a policy-level emphasis, then evaluating
potenUal projects from a technical basis on how they aze likely to score and finally from a
strategic perspective of what is likely to get funded by DRCOG. Using this process, Ihe city has
been successful in receiving TIP funding.
Considerations for this TIP process include the following:
. The competition for TIP funds is likely to increase given the general financial pic[ure of the
state and local governments and the limited funds available. The amount likely available for
this TIP is similar or less than in recent TIPs.
. Given the recent budget conditions of the city, available funding from the TranspoRation
Fund for local match is very limited. In the proposed Capital Improvements Program $1.4
million has been identified for TIP match/FasTracks optimization efforts.
. Significant amounts of Congestion MiUgation and Air Quality (CMAQ) money, a federal
funding category that has funded local transit services in past TIPs are already obligated to
existing programs and pool funds. At this time, staff is unable to assess the amounts of
CMAQ funds that will be available.
. An application for new bus service would likely not be supported by RTD while the previous
TIP criteria awazds points for securing up to five yeazs of transit funding. The previous
criteria also give maximum points to ttansit service exceeding the new RTD service
standazds by 200 percent, which is an unreasonable and unattainable standazd.
• The city of Boulder has a good chance at funding bike and pedestrian projects through
enhancements, although the criteria have been changed.
. Staff believes we cannot afford to submit for another reconstruction project for the next
section of Broadway, although reconsWction has had a high priority for funding in the TIP
and Broadway is a priority for the city that will reduce long term maintenance cost.
. In the past, TDM proposals have not counted towazd the project limit although the proposed
criteria restricts TDM funding by limiting it to two yeazs and by requiring a 50 percent local
match for the second yeaz.
Based on these considerations, staff believes that three themes for project selection need to
supplement the established screening steps. These themes aze:
• A focus on FasTracks implementation and optimization;
• An emphasis on projects that have local match coming from outside the
Transportation Fund; and,
Advancing projects that aze in the Current Funding investment program of the 2003
TMP.
Considering these themes, staff has assembled and evaluated the initial list of projects contained
in the table of Attachment A. While a number of these projects need additional definition, an
initial assessment of the projects relative to these themes and their priority for the city suggests
that the shaded projects be evaluated further for potential TIP submission. As additional
evaluation of projects requires significant staff effoR, we suggest that staff continue to define and
AGENDA ITEM # VI Page 3
develop these projects, but drop from consideration those where major issues aze identified and
carry a limited number forward for complete development and scoring. In addition to these
projects, staff anticipates that the city will support applications from Boulder County for several
projects in the Diagonal corridor but these will have a limited to no financial commitment from
the city. And we would expect to submit several transportation demand management ('TDM)
projects. Current proposals include an expanded outreach and mazketing effort for the East
Boulder TMO, an integrated, branded and much expanded mazketing partnership between the
city and azea TMOs, a caz shaze effort, and downtown real time parking information system.
NEXT STEPS
Based on TAB's discussion and direction, staff will evaluate a list of potential projects relative
the final DRCOG criteria and bring a recommended list of project submissions to the TAB in
July.
BOARD ACTION REOUESTED:
The TAB is asked to review and comment on the suggested list of projects for additional
development and scoring. TAB members may also suggest additional projects for discussion. A
subset of these projects will be presented to the TAB in July for the TAB's recommendation to
City Council and likely submission to DRCOG.
Attachment A Potential Projects for the 2075-2012 TIP Submittal
AGENDA ITEM # VI Page 4
Attachment A
Potential Projects for the 2075-2012 TIP Submittal (Shaded rows are recommended for additional c~nsideration)
Project Name Cate~ory Project Description ' ?° Fatential Cost/~r~er Comment5
--
~ ~ ~ ~ Partners ~~~~ match
-
--- --
_
Clmer's Twoiilile BikelPed Phasc Two of the Elmer's Twomile project~ will ~ ~ ~ Cost F~tirnate Project is in the~ 28'~'~~Street multimodal corridor, I
(Phase Twa) ~ ~~ complcte a missing link connecting path nor~h of ~ ~ $3,500,000 provides connections to Boulder~Transit Village via
Valmont to ~ ~ ~ ~ Glenwood to the underpass under~Valmont, completing ~~ Match from Goose Creek and provides ~u~ outside match ~~ '~
Glenwood Path the path from north of Iris to Goose Creek. ~~~ GreenwayslFlood The projecC should score welL ~~ ~~ ~~'
Connection 50%
Undetpass at 28th BikelPed This underpatis connects two sections of the Match The projeet is not in the proposed budgetlCIP and is a
Street along Wonderland Creek Path, as well as provides flood Greenways/Flood loti~er priority for Green~uavslFlood.
Wonderland improvements. An underpass is scheduled to be 50%
Creek constructed this summer along Wonderland Creek at
the Diagonal. This project would provide connectivity
from west of 28th Street to south of the Dia~onal.
Secure bike BikelPed 20 secure bike parking locations with five to twenty- CU $120,000 Air quality bcncfits would he ditl~icult ~o e.stim<<~e and
parking at various five bike lockers each 30% local match support, which would affect tbe likely score oi'the
CU locations from CU of project.
$37,500
~ 30th Street BikelPed This is the only struct~~rally deficient bridge~in Boulder~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Project is in the 28'~ Street multimodal corridor and, ~
BridgeNnderpass city limits. Replacement structure to accommodate provides a direct connection between the Boulder
at Boulder ~ind ~ underpass~and tr~il improvements to link 29th Street ~~ ~ ~~ Transit Village and 29th Street. ~
Lefthancl Ditch Develo ment with Boulder Transit Villa e '
Table Mesa I3ikelPed Underpass to extend Bear Creek Trail under T~iblc Project contributes to the Table Mesa and Broadway
Underpass at Mesa (near Broadway) into the Table Mesa Shopping multimodal corridors but the crossing of Table Mesa
Bear Canyon Ctr. Continues the previous project and the Bear Creek can safely occur at the signalized intersection. The
Creek path. project would likely need signifieant local match to
score well.
Baseline Road ~ ~ BikelPed Undcrp~zss e,a~t of Broadway conneeting CU and the ~ $2,000,000 ~ Project would address existing demand, increase safety '
Underpass Basemar Shoppiilg Center ~ ~ ~~ ~~ and reduce pedestrian caused delay to future~BRT
seivice
Underpasses at Bike/Ped There has been many suggestions from the public for Difficult to implement and need to be part of the larger
Broadway & underpasses at Broadway & 17th118th, where we have plan for the CU front door and intermodal center.
17C1~I18th cd actuatcd flashinU beacons currently.
utau ua
~ Ch Bike/Pei~ ~~~>~ ~ ru~~tEC~ ~In€~~~ E~~~seline includina sidewalks
In~ ~ ~ Pro'ect nee~s si nific~~nt refinement but has histoi•ical
a ,
~
p
AGENDA ITEM # VI Page 5
Attachment ~
Wayfinding and Histori~ cleaning out l~mdscaping - opening visual corridors, aspects and could significantly improve tk~e pedestrian
~Pedestrian ~~ ~ including a new~entry~to Chautauqua Patk at Grant ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ environment at a~major aCtraction in the community.
Im rovements " Street, reorientation of arkin~ and enhanced sianaRe.
Four mile BikelPed Connect from the existing multiuse trail under the Potential project for submission by the County
Creek/Cotton- Diagonal Highway and railroad tracks to the
wood connection Cottonwoad Trail
CottonwoodlGun Bike/Ped Connect from the existing multiuse Cottonwood trail at Potential project for submission by the County
banel trail Jay Road north ro the Gunbarrel multiuse traiJ.
Skunk Creek to Bike/Ped Would complete the connection between the Skunk Project may be facilitated by redevelopment of the
US 36 Underpass Creek underpass and the US 36 Underpass through the affected parcels.
connection existing parkinq lots.
path~ ~~ cotnplete the multimodal path~beCween Colorada and ~~~ ~ with the local~match provided by CU. Project is in the
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ the Kittredge underp~~ss ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 28rh Street multimadal corridor and would increase
access to BRT service on Baseline and Broadwa
.
Broadway, Table Roadway Rebuild roadway in coneret~e. Add pedestrian and CDOT? ~9.7M1 Cost estimated based on proportion to similar projects.
Mesa to Regent, transit amenities. $ This section also receives heavy transit use.
Reconstruction Pro osal does not a ear to be affordable at this time
Bus Sheltcr Transit Replace ol~'crackerbox shelters' with some that are ~ RTD? ~~ $SOOKI ~ About 50 shelters~are the city's and have~maintenance ~`
Replacemeiit more asthetic and less $ consuming~ due to constant $250K ~~~ issues. ~~It will b~ difFicult to document benefits from
~~ ~~ glass replacement ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ the project but shelter mair~tenance will like(y become ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ the cit r's res onsibilit .~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Transit Efficiency Transit Study improvement5 needed to maintain transit travel RTD, $75K It is unlikely that other communities would financially
Study times on the existing CTN networks and implement Lafayette, support this study. Data collection is a basic need and
ilot monitorin~ effort Louisvillc? m~ be su orted b RTD FasTracks related efforts.
Arapahaoe ~ BikelPed Would add numerous missing links~in thebicycle and ~~~ ~ Project is in apriority multimodal cocridor,~would
~ Missin~ Links ~ pedestri~in systems along ~Arapahoe between Falsom s~ipport the~existing JUMP CTN~serviee ~~nd increase
~ ~ ~ and Boulder Creek. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ access to BRT scrvice~on 28`h Street. ~ ~ ~ ~~
.-. ,,.,.rh ,. ~ , ,. • „ ~ ,, • , ,• ._ .~_ m~nnv n_.:__~:,.• __:,._:._.....,1+:...,.a..i~~__:.~.._,.__i.......ia
AGENDA ITEM ~ VI Pa,e 6
Attachment A
Pi•oject Nam e (~ategory :. Project llescription Potential CosdQver Comments
' Pa~~t match
ner~
AGF,ND/t ITEM # VI Page 7