The URL can be used to link to this page

4 - Consideration of a recommendation on the South Broadway Safety Project C I T Y O F B O U L D E R TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: March 8, 2004 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation on the South Broadway (SH-93) Safety Improvements Project PRESENTERS: Bill Cowern, Transportation Operations Engineer Mike Sweeney, Transportation Operations and Planning Coordinator EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this memorandum is to present materials to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) on the city’s efforts to determine an appropriate set of improvements on South Broadway at two intersections that have documented accident problems. The city of Boulder has received $250,000 of Federal - Hazard Elimination Program (HEP) funding from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to address documented accident problems at the intersections of South Broadway and Darley Avenue, and South Broadway and Grinnell Avenue. Specifically, accidents result from vehicles turning left from Darley Avenue or Grinnell Avenue and being hit by vehicles on South Broadway. Attachment A A detailed summary of the accident history is provided as . The summary includes information on the time of day that the accidents are occurring, the general age of the person found responsible for the accident and whether these persons were local to South Boulder or from an external area. City staff considered several alternatives, including combinations of traffic signals, medians to restrict movements and left-turn acceleration lanes. These treatments were combined and considered as a variety of alternatives. Based on key criteria including effectiveness, cost, impact on the surrounding community and acceptance by CDOT, a short-list of six alternatives was generated. These alternatives were: 1.Do Nothing (Status Quo) 2.Medians at both intersections 3.Traffic signal at Grinnell and median at Darley 4.Traffic signal at Darley and median at Grinnell 5.Left-turn acceleration lanes at both locations 6.Traffic signals at both locations AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE_______ 1 A comparison of the six alternatives and their impacts on the goals of this project are Attachment B shown in . A summation of our findings regarding the use of left-turn acceleration lanes as a safety mitigation device is also included in the attachment. Additional treatments, including permanent speed displays and a larger speed limit sign when entering the City of Boulder, are being recommended to slow traffic on South Broadway. These treatments are being recommended with any alternative considered. A review of these six alternatives showed that there were two alternatives that would not address the safety impacts at the two intersections. There was also one alternative that would greatly exceed the fiscal constraints of the HEP funding budget and would not be acceptable to CDOT. These alternatives were removed from further consideration. These remaining three alternatives were: 1)Construct median treatments to restrict left turns from both Grinnell Avenue and Darley Avenue onto South Broadway. 2)Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of South Broadway and Grinnell Avenue, and construct a median treatment to restrict left turns from Darley Avenue onto South Broadway. 3)Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of South Broadway and Darley Avenue, and construct a median treatment to restrict left turns from Grinnell Avenue onto South Broadway. Staff then considered the various pros and cons of the remaining three alternatives. A Attachment C summary of the pros and cons of each of these alternatives is provided in . Staff conducted a public hearing with the TAB on January 12th, 2004. At this hearing, staff recommended Alternative Two above. Members of the TAB identified four additional alternatives and/or considerations and asked that staff consider these and return for a second public hearing at a later date. These alternatives and/or considerations were: 1.Could the accident problems at these two intersections be mitigated by speed reduction in the South Broadway corridor? Is it possible to achieve such speed reduction? 2.Could the accident problems at these two intersections be mitigated by a change in the way we handle signal timing at the Hanover Avenue and Greenbriar Avenue traffic signals? Could gaps be created through signal timing or could traffic be encouraged to use the signalized locations by a change in traffic signal phasing or timing? 3.Rather than restricting movements with median treatments, could movements be restricted on a time-of-day basis only? Could photo enforcement be used to ensure compliance with this time-of-day restriction? Would a time-of-day restriction adequately address the accident problem? 4.Could the accident problem at these two intersections be adequately addressed through changes that the school district could make to the operation of their two schools? How much of the accident problem is related to the school traffic? Some of the problem? The entire problem? AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE_______ 2 City staff considered each of these new alternatives and/or considerations. A summary is Attachment D provided as . Staff found that in all cases, these alternatives and/or considerations would not adequately address the accident problem and/or that they were not feasible to implement. Based on this assessment, staff recommends that the three original alternatives remain the only viable alternatives for addressing the accident problems. Additional information regarding left turn acceleration lanes will be presented at the TAB meeting but at this time, it does not appear to be a viable alternative. Fiscal Impacts: The city has been granted $250,000 of federal HEP funding to design and construct improvements which solve the safety issues at these two intersections. These funds do not require any match from the city of Boulder. It is anticipated that any improvements resulting from this process can be designed and constructed using only these federal funds. A relatively small amount of city funding (less than $5,000) will need to be spent on CDOT administrative charges. A new traffic signal costs approximately $6,000 per year to maintain. CDOT pays the city of Boulder $3,000 per year for each traffic signal on the state highway system. Staff time has been required to conduct the public process and analyses, and additional staff time will be needed to take the project through the CDOT review and approval process. It is anticipated that the additional work will fall within the parameters of staff’s normal work plan. To date, approximately $15,000 has been spent on consulting services relating to this project. Other Impacts: There are several potential impacts associated with making improvements to these two intersections. 1)The primary purpose of these improvements is to eliminate the correctable accident problem at these two intersections. Selecting an inappropriate alternative may not address this fundamental goal of the project. 2)Additional traffic signals in the South Broadway corridor will degrade the signal progression in the corridor. 3)Traffic signals and medians which restrict turning movements will result in traffic diversion on surrounding residential streets. This traffic diversion could impact the quality of life in the neighborhood. 4)There is a fire station near the intersection of South Broadway and Darley Avenue. Improvements at this location directly impact the emergency response capability of this station. 5)Concern has been expressed by homeowners near potential traffic signal locations that a traffic signal would degrade their quality of life and negatively impact their property values (especially near the Grinnell intersection). AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE_______ 3 6)Improvements at these two intersections affect (positively or negatively) access for residents, visitors and parents/students for two area schools to the South Broadway corridor. 7)Some roadways in this area are critical emergency response routes and are limited in terms of what future mitigation could be used if traffic speeding issues arise as a result of these improvements. Other Board and Commission feedback: Staff conducted a public hearing with the TAB on January 12, 2004. The TAB provided staff with feedback on the project and requested that staff look at several other alternatives and/or considerations (which have been addressed in this memo). No formal action was taken by the TAB at that meeting. Public feedback: As part of the initial public process, city staff held three public meetings in the vicinity of the project area. Staff from the Transportation Division, the Fire Department, the Police Department, the Boulder Valley School District and the Colorado Department of Transportation was involved in the public process. Staff sought to maximize the possibility for public input by sending a direct mailing to 1,194 citizens living near these two intersections and notifying them of the upcoming meetings. Direct contact was made to New Vista High School, Fairview High School, Bear Creek Elementary School, Creekside Elementary School and Southern Hills Middle School to give information regarding the project and request they provide meeting information in their respective newsletters. Additionally, a Web site about the project, with pertinent background information was created at the start of the process and updated throughout the public process. The purpose of the first public meeting was to talk about the safety problem with the community, describe federal funding available and provide an initial opportunity for citizen input. During the first meeting, several options to address the safety concerns were generated by staff and the meeting participants. At the second public meeting, staff responded to questions asked at the first meeting and presented a summary of the pros and cons of each option previously identified. Because there were a larger number of treatments and locations to consider, staff generated an informal polling document which the public used to provide input on which alternative(s) Attachment E they supported. A copy of this polling document is provided as . The results of this informal poll were then summarized and used by city staff to further refine the viable options for this project. A summation of the informal poll is provided as Attachment F . This includes the results of the poll and information from e-mails by interested citizens. At the third public meeting staff reviewed the public involvement thus far (for members of the community that had not been present at prior meetings) and then discussed the AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE_______ 4 process staff used to shorten the list of alternatives to two and then decided upon one as a staff recommendation. On Monday, December 8, 2003, staff received a petition from residents living along Grinnell Avenue and adjacent streets. The petition expressed a lack of support for the staff recommendation and instead offered support for an alternative utilizing a median to restrict movements at both intersections. The petition was forwarded to TAB. During the January, 2004 TAB meeting the TAB members also heard from citizens who had signed the petition. TAB requested that staff consider several different alternatives /considerations in further detail. Staff held an additional public meeting on February 19, 2004. This meeting was announced by direct mailing using an expanded mailing list of 2,013 citizens. Staff personally contacted the principals of both Fairview High School and Southern Hills Middle School and the Boulder Valley School District’s Transportation Coordinator to obtain input from the school community. During the February public meeting, staff presented a review of new alternatives /considerations. Citizens that attended the meeting were given the opportunity to give input using an informal straw polling. Attachment G Copies of e-mails and petitions from interested citizens are provided in . A compilation of this input, including the e-mail correspondence, petitions and the straw Attachment H poll vote at the recent public meeting is provided as . It is clear that the community has a substantial interest in the outcome of this project. However, the public input does not demonstrate clear support for any specific alternative. Staff Recommendation: Attachment I Staff decision making criteria are summarized in . The staff Alternative 1 recommendation is – the construction of medians which restrict left-turn access to South Broadway at both intersections. In regard to the emergency response issue, the median at the Darley Avenue intersection would allow emergency response vehicles to still make this critical movement. Flashing red beacons with signs saying “Emergency Signal – Stop when Flashing Red” would be gate-posted for both directions on South Broadway. These devices would flash when the Fire Department departs from their station, toward South Broadway. In addition, staff is recommending the placement of one permanent speed display device in each direction on South Broadway to attempt to slow traffic in this corridor. Staff recognizes that this alternative has the least amount of support in the neighborhood, and would not be the preferred recommendation of the Boulder Valley School district. However, after four public meetings staff has not been able to see any consensus develop amongst the neighborhood and at this point has petitions from different neighborhood groups which are in opposition to one another. This alternative does the most to eliminate the accident problem at these two locations, without adding rear-end collisions to the corridor from a new traffic signal. This alternative spreads the traffic diversion AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE_______ 5 impacts broadly across the surrounding neighborhood, rather than focusing it on one or two streets such as Grinnell Avenue or Darley Avenue. The roadways which are expected to see traffic diversion are roadways which are not “critical emergency response routes” (CERR) and can be evaluated for future speed mitigation, if needed. Staff also recognizes that the two other alternatives are viable and depending upon how the project goals and considerations are prioritized could be the preferred alternative. Alternative 2 results in the least amount of disruption to the way in which people access South Broadway today (the least amount of overall traffic diversion) with traffic focused Alternative 3 on Grinnell Avenue.is the one alternative that does not have a neighborhood petition in opposition to its adoption. This alternative also does the most to improve emergency response for the Fire Department. All three alternatives will eliminate the accident problem at these intersections and are Alternative 1Alternative 2 technically sound. While staff is recommending , or Alternative 3 are supportable as well. Regardless of which alternative is selected, staff recommends monitoring the traffic impacts of these improvements in the surrounding neighborhood and plans to conduct an “after” study, 6 to 12 months after the completion of the improvements. Staff would forward the results of this study along with any additional staff recommendations for mitigation or additional improvements to TAB for consideration. Analysis: Additional information concerning traffic volumes, turning movements and travel speeds Attachment J on streets within the study area is provided as . This information has been updated since the last TAB meeting to include information requested by TAB. Additional information concerning the possible diversion of traffic on surrounding neighborhood streets, by either of the two traffic signal alternatives is provided as Attachment K . This attachment has also been updated since the last TAB meeting. Staff is providing information on intersection level of service and possible queue length impacts at the two intersections. Concern has been expressed that the intersections of Grinnell and/or Darley with South Broadway would have greater queue impacts in front of residential homes as a result of a traffic signal at these locations and increased traffic which comes with the traffic signal. The analyses suggest that while the intersections will have more traffic, this traffic will be processed in a more efficient manner and the result will be approximately the same amount of vehicle queue as there is currently at the South Broadway and Grinnell Avenue intersection, and an increased queue at the South Broadway and Darley Avenue intersection, but not enough of an increase to reach any of Attachment L the surrounding residential properties. These results are shown in . AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE_______ 6 Attachments: Attachment A – Summary of Accident Information Attachment B – Alternatives Goal Matrix Attachment C – Pros and Cons of three alternatives Attachment D – Analyses/conclusions for TAB alternatives/considerations Attachment E – Copy of public input request form nd Attachment F – Summary of 2 meeting Public Input Attachment G – Citizen Petitions and e-mails Attachment H – Compilation of public input Attachment I – Evaluation criteria Attachment J – Existing Traffic Data Diagram Attachment K – Potential Traffic Diversion Diagram Attachment L – Level of Service and Queue analyses AGENDA ITEM #________PAGE_______ 7 Attachment A – Summary of Accident Information South Broadway (SH-93) Safety Improvements Broadway Unsignalized Intersection Traffic Accident History 1997 through 2002 - ( Updated February 16, 2004) Darley / Grinnell / Chambers / Accident Categorization BroadwayBroadwayBroadway Total accidents in 6 years 30426 Accidents / year 5.07.01.0 Injury accidents in 6 years 10162 Accidents involving eastbound left turns out onto 17312 Broadway Percent of total accidents correctable by traffic signal or 57% 74% 66% median Correctable accidents per year 2.85.20.7 Percent of total accidents where high speed on 0% 2% 0% Broadway was noted Of the high school age driver caused accidents, percent 100% 92% 100% occurring during months when high school in session Of the high school age driver caused accidents during 50% 83% 100% school months, percent occurring during high school access times Driver At Fault By Age and Place of Residence Total accidents caused by a high school age driver 7% 37% 17% Local residence*3.5% 8% 0% Non-local residence3.5% 29% 17% Total accidents caused by adult drivers 76% 63% 83% Local residence38% 23% 67% Non-local residence38% 40% 16% “Left Turn Out” accidents caused by high school age 6% 44% 34% drivers Local residence6% 11% 0% Non-local residence0% 33% 33% “Left Turn Out” accidents caused by adult drivers 94% 56% 66% Local residence53% 23% 33% Non-local residence41% 33% 33% * Local residence defined as living south of Table Mesa Drive and west of Broadway “Correctable” Traffic Accidents By Time Of Day Darley / Grinnell / Chambers / BroadwayBroadwayBroadway 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 1 4 1 11:30 AM to 1:00 PM 3 2 0 2:30 PM to 4:00 PM 1 10 1 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM 5 2 0 All other time periods 7 13 2 Total “Correctable” Accidents 17 31 4 Broadway Intersection Accident Comparison Accident Rate BroadwayTrafficTotal Accidents Injury Accidents (Per Million Entering IntersectionControlPer Year Per Year Vehicles) Hanover Signal 7.7 1.8 0.94 Darley Stop Sign 5.0 1.7 0.62 Grinnell Stop Sign 7.0 2.7 0.87 Greenbriar Signal 2.7 0.5 0.34 Chambers Stop Sign 1.0 0.3 0.13 Attachment B2 – Left turn Acceleration Lane evalution Early in the public process, left turn acceleration lanes were proposed as a solution to the accident problem at these two intersections. Left turn acceleration lanes consist of a designated space in between the two directions of flow on the highway, which allows a vehicle to cross the roadway one half at a time (focusing on only one direction of conflicting traffic at a time) and then accelerate and merge with the traffic in the same direction they are going. Staff considered this alternative but did not conclude that this treatment would adequately address the safety issue for the following reasons. 1.The space to refuge between the southbound and northbound traffic exists today. Visual observations have confirmed that people use this space as a refuge already. Despite the presence of this space, accidents have continued to occur at both intersections. 2.The vast majority of accidents involve left turning vehicles conflicting with southbound traffic on South Broadway. This means they are being hit before they reach the striped center area. Unless one makes the assumption that the accidents are occurring because of distraction from northbound traffic that one would not have to consider with a left turn acceleration lane, then it is unclear how a left turn acceleration lane would mitigate accidents which are occurring prior to vehicles being able to reach the lane. 3.One example of an accident which would not be mitigated by a left turn acceleration lane is the situation where one southbound vehicle is turning right at the intersection and this same vehicle shields the view of a second southbound vehicle in the southbound direction from the view of the side street vehicle. The side street vehicle assumes they have a gap, because the vehicle coming towards them is turning right and they do not see the second vehicle coming towards them. It should be noted that the information in the accident reports does not validate or invalidate this type of accident as occurring. 4.The treatment requires that a left-turning vehicle enter a left-turn acceleration lanes placed between two raised islands. Maneuvering between these two obstructions is a complex movement requiring care. Because of this vehicles turning left will do so at a slower speed. This characteristic will potential exacerbate the identified primary accident type of left-turning vehicles colliding with southbound Broadway traffic. City staff has discussed this alternative with traffic engineering consultants and with traffic engineering professionals at the Colorado Department of Transportation. To date, no one in this industry has been able to cite any evidence that this alternative would mitigate this particular accident problem. The professional opinion of all such individuals is that they believe it would adequately address the issue. But all agree that is based on professional opinion and not on any data (since no such data has been able to be found). th At the February 19 public meeting, staff agreed to expand its research on this matter, to include professionals outside of the State of Colorado. We will do so and brief the TAB on our findings th at the March 8 TAB meeting. South Broadway Safety Improvements Alternative Pro and Con Evaluation Alternative One: Construct median treatments to restrict left turns from both Grinnell Avenue and Darley Avenue onto South Broadway. Why should this be the recommended alternative? 1.Will solve the right angle collision safety issues at these two intersections. 2.Will not create additional rear-end collisions at either of these two intersections. 3.It is the preferred alternative of the Colorado Department of Transportation. 4.Has little impact on the flow of traffic on South Broadway. 5.Alternative costs the least amount of federal funding to implement with a cost of approximately $20,000 for design/approval and $115,000 to construct. 6.Alternative costs the least amount of City funding to maintain on a yearly basis. 7.Does provide some improvement to the Fire Department’s access to South Broadway from Darley Avenue (with gate-posted flashing beacons). 8.Creates the least amount of quality of life impacts to residents living near the two intersections. 9.While diverting traffic onto several roadways, the alternative should divert most of the traffic onto roadways which are not Critical Emergency Response Routes. This means options for physical mitigation to control speed and volume impacts are a future possibility on these roadways. Why should this not be the recommended alternative? 1.Will divert all left turn traffic from these two intersections to other intersections. 2.May result in diversion of traffic to the South Broadway & Chambers intersection and cause the same type of right angle collisions that are being mitigated at the other two intersections. 3.Results in traffic diversion which impacts the highest number of streets in the neighborhood. 4.Alternative limits the greatest amount of neighborhood access to South Broadway. 5.Requires an unusual design of the median at Darley Avenue to accommodate the Fire Department’s need for access to South Broadway. 6.Very little community support shown in public process for this alternative South Broadway Safety Improvements Alternative Pro and Con Evaluation Alternative Two: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of South Broadway and Grinnell Avenue, and construct a median treatment to restrict left turns from Darley Avenue onto South Broadway. Why should this be the recommended alternative? 1.Will solve the right angle collision safety issues at these two intersections. 2.The Colorado Department of Transportation will support this alternative. 3.Has little impact on the flow of traffic on South Broadway, but likely more than Alternative One. 4.Does provide some improvement to the Fire Department’s access to South Broadway from Darley Avenue (with gate-posted flashing beacons). 5.Will best serve the existing traffic demand for access to South Broadway and create the least amount of diverted traffic in the neighborhood. 6.The few roadways which will have diverted traffic are not Critical Emergency Response Routes. This means options for physical mitigation to control speed and volume impacts are a future possibility on these roadways. 7.The principals of the two schools in the area and BVSD Transportation staff support this alternative as working best for their schools. 8.This alternative has the least chance of causing diversion of traffic to the Chambers Avenue and South Broadway intersection that could result in the same types of accidents that are being mitigated at the other two intersections. Why should this not be the recommended alternative? 1.May increase rear end collisions in corridor with new signal at Grinnell Avenue. 2.Will divert left turning traffic from Darley Avenue, north on Toedtli Drive to Hanover Avenue. 3.New traffic signal will increase traffic on Grinnell Avenue (anticipated increase of 250 to 350 vehicles per day). 4.Alternative costs the most amount of federal funding to implement with a cost of approximately $30,000 for design/approval and $220,000 to construct. 5.Alternative will result in approximately $3,000 per year of increased signal maintenance costs for the City of Boulder. 6.Alternative may create quality of life issues for residents living on Grinnell Avenue near South Broadway intersection (near new traffic signal). 7.Requires an unusual design of the median at Darley Avenue to accommodate the Fire Department’s need for access to South Broadway. 8.Some support shown for this alternative but some strong opposition (no consensus). South Broadway Safety Improvements Alternative Pro and Con Evaluation Alternative Three: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of South Broadway and Darley Avenue, and construct a median treatment to restrict left turns from Grinnell Avenue onto South Broadway. Why should this be the recommended alternative? 1.Will solve the right angle collision safety issues at these two intersections. 2.The Colorado Department of Transportation will support this alternative. 3.Alternative provides the greatest amount of improvement to the Fire Department’s access to South Broadway from Darley Avenue (with a traffic signal). 4.Maintains some access to South Broadway for the neighborhood. 5.Commercial land use near Darley Avenue and South Broadway intersection means fewer homes in direct proximity to a new traffic signal. 6.Does not require an unusual design for the median at Darley Avenue and South Broadway. The alternative with the most conventional solutions. 7.Does not divert traffic to the South Broadway and Hanover intersection (which has a high accident rate even for a signalized intersection). Why should this not be the recommended alternative? 1.May increase rear end collisions in corridor with new signal at Darley Avenue. 2.Will divert left turning traffic from Grinnell Avenue, north on Toedtli Drive to new signal at Darley Avenue. 3.New traffic signal will significantly increase traffic on Darley Avenue (anticipated increase of between 850 and 1100 vehicles per day). 4.Alternative costs more than Alternative One with a cost of approximately $25,000 for design/approval and $195,000 to construct. 5.Alternative will result in approximately $3,000 per year of increased signal maintenance costs for the City of Boulder. 6.Alternative causes the most amount of impact to the flow of traffic on South Broadway. 7.Alternative may create quality of life issues for a small number of residents living on Darley Avenue near South Broadway intersection (near new traffic signal). Substantially fewer than Alternative Two. 8.The alternative causes a substantial diversion of traffic onto Darley Avenue. Darley Avenue is a Critical Emergency Response Route and already has a substantial speeding problem. This means options for physical mitigation to control speed and volume impacts are NOT a future possibility on this roadway. 9.May result in diversion of traffic to the South Broadway & Chambers intersection and cause the same type of right angle collisions that are being mitigated at the other two intersections. 10. The most support shown for this alternative but some strong opposition (no consensus). Attachment D – TAB generated alternatives to the S.Broadway safety issues and related improvements th At the January 12 TAB meeting, the board asked staff to consider several alternatives which were generated by members of TAB. Staff has reviewed and considered these alternatives. Specifically, staff has considered their feasibility, efficacy and related costs. The purpose of this document is to provide this evaluation to the TAB. Alternative T1: Traffic signal timing changes: In summary, this alternative suggests that a change in the existing traffic signal timing relationships on Broadway may create more gaps in traffic, and as a result, reduce the number of accidents at these intersections in the future. The existing signal timing plans are designed to coordinate the operation of adjacent signals to provide the most opportunities for non-stop traffic flow in both directions on Broadway. The timing plans for the signals at Broadway & Hanover and at Broadway & Greenbriar could be revised to turn red at the same time, thereby creating the maximum number of two-way gaps in traffic at Darley and at Grinnell. While such a re-timing would be likely to create some additional gaps in traffic on Broadway, staff would not expect gap availability to significantly improve at either Darley or Grinnell, due to the distance between the signals, the discharge of traffic onto Broadway from Hanover and Greenbriar during the red signal for Broadway, and the variable nature of actuated signal operation. While the benefits of signal re-timing for gaps would likely be small, the impacts would be large: analysis of the corridor progression impacts on Broadway determined that the gap-creating timing would create more impacts to Broadway operation than a new traffic signal at either Grinnell or Darley. For these reasons, the CDOT would not approve this alternative, and staff does not recommend it. For similar reasons, staff has not carried forward the alternative of speed-sensitive signal operation as a means of speed reduction and safety improvement on South Broadway. Speed-sensitive operation has tenuous speed-reduction benefits, and requires releasing a signal from corridor coordination, again creating more impacts on Broadway than the installation of an additional signal. Recommendation Based on the tenuous speed reduction and/or gap creation benefits and the significant impacts associated with retiming traffic signals in this manner and based on the fact that the CDOT would not support this manner of signal operation on their highway, this is not considered a viable strategy to address the South Broadway accident problem. Alternative T2: Mitigating speeding traffic on S.Broadway: In summary, this alternative suggests that efforts can be taken to slow traffic on S.Broadway and that reduced travel speeds will then reduce the number of accidents at these intersections in the future. Background The speed limit through this section of S.Broadway is 40 mph. There are approximately 24,000 vehicles per day on this section of roadway. Spot speed studies taken during the morning school arrival and afternoon school departure peak periods show that the th average speed is 42 mph and the 85 percentile speed is 46 mph. A vehicle was observed going as fast as 54 mph in the morning and 57 mph in the afternoon. Logistical Considerations To consider this option, one needs first to consider how one would attempt to slow traffic on S.Broadway. One option would be through enforcement. Another option would be through engineering or educational solutions. Staff has worked with the Police Department to determine whether enhanced enforcement would be possible in this location. Unfortunately speeding traffic concerns exist throughout the City of Boulder and the resources to manage speeding from an enforcement perspective will always be much less than what is needed to use enforcement to solve the problem. Additional traffic enforcement on this roadway would come ONLY at the expense of abandoning traffic enforcement on one or more other roadways. In the event that additional enforcement was deployed on S.Broadway, it could never be at a level that could lower speeds on S.Broadway on a consistent basis. Legal Considerations State enabling legislation for photo enforcement has placed restrictions on the use of camera technology to enforce traffic laws. Using photo enforcement to control speeds on this corridor is not currently a legal option. Efficacy If enforcement cannot mitigate the speeds in the corridor, then are there any engineering or educational tools that would be effective? The City of Boulder has been doing neighborhood traffic mitigation for more than a decade. In that time we have learned much about which tools are and are not effective at slowing traffic. Most educational tools have not shown themselves to be effective at slowing traffic. More speed limit signs or larger speed limit signs, or entry features at the City limits are not devices that our experience has shown to have a noticeable effect on speeding traffic. What has had some effect is the presence of permanent electronic speed displays which provide the th driver with feedback on their speed. Such devices have been able to reduce the 85 Permanent electronic speed displays are proposed as percentile speed by 1 to 2 mph. a feature of ANY alternative for this project. If these hurdles could be overcome and it was possible to achieve a reduction in speed on this corridor, then the next obvious question would be whether this would in turn result in the mitigation of the accident problem at these two intersections? In other words, are these accidents occurring ONLY because vehicles are speeding and if the speeding were to be removed would the accident problem disappear? Our staff, along with our consultant traffic engineer and the engineering staff from the Colorado Department of Transportation have considered this question. We have reviewed the accident statistics to learn whether they clearly recognize speed as the factor causing these accidents. They do not. In fact, in “MOST/ALL” cases, the speed of the vehicles involved in a collision is not known and not documented on these accident reports. Recommendation Based on the logistical, legal and efficacy considerations, speed reduction in the South Broadway corridor is not considered a viable strategy to address the South Broadway accident problem. Alternative T3: Time of day restrictions and Photo Enforcement As part of the Transportation Advisory Board consideration of strategies to mitigate the existing accident safety experience related to left-turning vehicles not adequately yielding to southbound Broadway traffic, the suggestion was made to use photo enforcement to restrict the unsafe movement. The thought was to only have the left-turn restriction in place during times when the accidents are occurring, to minimize the impacts to neighborhood circulation. A review of the times that accidents are occurring (provided in Attachment A of this document), suggest that there is not a small span of time where these movements could be restricted and still remove the safety issues from these intersections. For example, one could restrict the movements for the hours pertaining to school pickup and dropoff, but this would not reduce even half of the accidents at these two locations. Logistical Considerations To have a viable violation the camera must provide adequate evidence to demonstrate that the violation has occurred. In the case of the left-turn restriction this will require evidence that a vehicle northbound on Grinnell Avenue proceeded against the restriction to northbound on South Broadway. Because of the sequence of events, this will require a photo of all vehicles northbound on Grinnell Avenue whether they turn northbound or southbound to establish that they entered South Broadway from Grinnell. This photo would be supplemented by a photo of the vehicles violating the restriction turning left and proceeding northbound on South Broadway. The combination of these two photos would provide adequate evidence that a violation has occurred and eliminate the possibility that the vehicle originated elsewhere. Under our current contract all of our violation images are captured through traditional “wet-film” technology. Taking a picture of all vehicles northbound on Grinnell Avenue would be cost prohibitive. An option would be to use digital camera technology to only process images of “verified” violations. This could be accomplished by two “paired” static images or through a streamed image. Acquisition of this technology would require either negotiation with the current vendor or a competitive bidding process. Legal Considerations State enabling legislation for photo enforcement has placed restrictions on the use of camera technology to enforce traffic laws. The most substantive elements of this legislation is that a traffic violation enforced through photo technology is a monetary, no point violation ($40 speeding, $75 red-light, $80 school zone). The most recent legislation (House Bill 02-1400) places additional restrictions on the use of photo enforcement that directly impact the legality of using a camera to enforce a turn restriction. Previous legislation exempted the enforcement of compliance to a traffic control device (not speeding) from the more erroneous requirements, such as placement of a sign warning motorist in advance of any enforcement. House Bill 02-1400 modified requirements of the previous legislation while replacing the term of “traffic control device” with “traffic control signal.” This change in terminology coupled with the additional provision exempting only red-light enforcement from the requirement that a city employee be present during the operation of the equipment make it infeasible to use photo enforcement for anything but mobile (vehicle-based) speed enforcement and fixed red-light enforcement. The specific provision is provided below. 42-4-110.5. Automated vehicle identification systems. (2)(f)(I) The state, a county, a city and county, or a municipality shall not issue a penalty assessment notice or summons for a violation detected using an automated vehicle identification system unless, at the time the violation is alleged to have occurred, an officer or employee of the state, the county, the city and county, or the municipality is present during the operation of the automated vehicle identification device; except that this subparagraph (I) shall not apply to an automated vehicle identification system designed to detect violations for disobedience to a traffic control signal. Deployment of an unmanned turn-restriction camera will require state legislation modifying this requirement. Cost The city currently uses a combination of city owned infrastructure and contract services to provide photo enforcement. A camera to enforce a time-of-day left-turn restriction would require a similar infrastructure to the red-light cameras that are deployed on six traffic signal approaches in the city. A summary of one-time and ongoing expenses associated with deploying the camera are provided below. Anticipated Photo Enforcement Cost Associated with a Time-of-day Left-turn Restriction One-Ongoing Item time (Annual) Installation of the camera housing and supporting detection infrastructure (1998 $31,000 pricing) Camera Lease ($28,200) and Field Service ($4,600) $33,000 Violation Processing ($6.67 per violation image)(*nominal if you can address (nominal*) evidence issues) Revenue ($75 per violation) (nominal) Traffic Signal Cost Comparison Traffic Signal installation $150,000 Traffic Signal Maintenance ($6,000 - $3,000(CDOT reimbursement)) $3,000 Efficacy One of the considerations in determining the viability of a particular strategy is to evaluate its efficacy. One of the limitations of enforcement actions such as a left-turn camera is that it is only partially effective as a deterrent. For traffic violations, the deterrent effects are a function of the level of the fine and other associated penalties such as revocation of driving privileges, raised insurance rates and ultimately incarceration. As stated above the state of Colorado has limited the fine for violations enforced through photo enforcement to a monetary only fine of in this case $75. The city has no direct experience with a turn restriction camera and no other source of information was identified. The city does have experience with the efficacy of a camera to enforce red-light running violations. In short, red-light cameras have been effective in reducing but not eliminating violations and associated accidents. An evaluation of the first three years of red-light enforcement, violations were reduced 36% from 69 to 44 daily violations and red-light accidents were reduced 57% from 11.3 to 4.9 annually for the four initially deployed red-light cameras. In conclusion, the red-light cameras have shown good deterrent effect but a portion of drivers still continue to violate the law. Recommendation Based on the logistical, legal, cost and efficacy considerations a camera enforcing a time of day restriction is not considered a viable strategy to address the South Broadway accident problem. Alternative T4: Can something be done by the school district to mitigate this safety issue? In reviewing the accident statistics at both the Grinnell and Darley intersections, the following statistics are of interest concerning the number of “correctable” accidents (the type we are trying to eliminate with this project) and the impact of school traffic. Approximately one third of these accidents at the Grinnell Avenue intersection o and none of the same accidents at the Darley Avenue intersection can be directly attributed to high school students, not living in the neighborhood already. Approximately one third of these accidents at the Grinnell Avenue intersection o and 40 percent of these accidents at the Darley Avenue intersection can be attributed to adults living outside of the neighborhood. A good portion of these are probably parents picking up and dropping off students at the two schools. Since at least one third of the accidents at South Broadway and Grinnell Avenue and over half of the accidents at South Broadway and Darley Avenue can be attributed to drivers not associated with the schools, it would not be possible for the school district to take any course of action which would eliminate this accident problem. If they were able to reduce or remove their traffic influence on the neighborhood, they could certainly reduce the impact at these two locations. The question remains as to how that would be done. In speaking with the principals at the two schools, the alternative transportation coordinator for the BVSD, the transportation coordinator for the school district and the head of their facilities group, the general consensus is that everyone at the school district understands that their schools generate traffic and cause related traffic impacts. They believe they are doing everything they reasonably can be doing to mitigate these impacts, through encouraging the use of alternative transportation (which many high school and middle school students use), encouraging carpooling and staggering start times. They believe that they do not possess the capability to control the mode in which students arrive at their school, so encouragement is the only reasonable tool available to them. Regardless of whether this is the case or not, it is true that any significant changes to the school related traffic in this area would occur only after considerable public process between the city and the school district and it changes in school traffic would be unlikely to occur in the near future. Recommendation Based on the limited amount of school-related traffic and the long-term nature of this type of change in school traffic, relying on these strategies is not considered a viable strategy to address the South Broadway accident problem. ATTACHMENT F Public input on the South Broadway Safety Project Below is informal polling information gathered from the community using the possible solution’s form, emails and phone calls. 15 support Traffic Signal on Grinnell 17 support a median allowing only emergency left turns out of Darley 11 supported a median restricting left turns out of Grinnell 10 supported Traffic Signal on Darley 5 supported Traffic Signals at either intersection 8 Did not support restricting left turn access 7 supported the “do nothing” option 3 supported restricting left turns on both Grinnell and Darley 2 supported traffic signals at both intersections 2 supported left turn acceleration lanes at both intersection 1 supported a traffic circle on Broadway 1 supported 4-way stop on Broadway ATTACHMENT G4 th Emails received from January 12 until February 24th Ms. Spears, I live at 4365 Grinnell Ave. in Table Mesa. I wasn't able to attend Monday's meeting, but I want to express my dismay with the idea of putting a traffic light at Grinnell Ave. and S. Broadway. At the October meeting the City did an excellent job of communicating the dangerous nature of the Grinnell and Broadway intersection; I am persuaded that a no-left-turn median restricting left turns from Grinnell is a good idea. However, I believe a traffic light will exacerbate a bad traffic situation and oppose it (and support the median) for that reason. If a traffic light is necessary it seems to make far more sense to put it at Darley, where the fire station may benefit from it and there are not adjacent homes, rather than at a residential corner which is already suffering from too much traffic. Sincerely, Glenn Murray www.mines.edu/~gmurray I am unable to make the meeting tonight due to a different meeting, but as a resident of Table Mesa, I wanted to pass along an observation. Darley and Toetlili (sp?) is also a dangerous intersection. In the year and a half I have lived in this neighborhood, I've had a scare here at least three seperate times, caused by a driver on Toetili believing that the intersection is a 4-way stop, i.e. that Darley traffic also has a stop, which it does not. I believe this is at least partially because the pedestrian signs on Darley seem to me to be closer to the intersection than usual (maybe because of posted speeds on this street) and the Toedtili traffic can only see the backs of the signs, which at the top resemble a stop sign. I don't know if this is just a coincidence of my own experience, or if this is a real problem but thought I'd bring it to your attention. Thanks for your efforts on behalf of us all, Elizabeth Wrenn My comment is about article in paper today about this intersection & Darley/Broadway intersection. Why not put in medians preventing left turns onto N. bound Broadway from both Darley and Grinnell rather than a light a Grinnell. Traffic can be directed to existing lights at Greenbriar and Hanover. Also can be routed on Gillaspie to Table Mesa. I realize this will increase traffic at 3 already busy locations, but may be better than a light on Grinnell resulting in increased traffic on the very short block w of Broadway. Perhaps traffic signals at the Gillaspie/Darley & Gillaspie/Broadway intersections would help. Another concern: would the proposed median on Broadway at Darley interfere with emergency vehicles turning onto Broadway from the Darley fire station? Richard Geertz 4661 Huey Circle Teresa, I just received a letter about the Feb 19 public meeting regarding the S Broadway Safety Improvement Project. I won't be able to attend, but do have some thoughts. For your information, I live on Berea Drive and commute to the University by bicycle most days; my wife commutes daily to Boulder by car and usually enters Broadway by turning left from Darley. I generally do the same when using the car. 1) If a Broadway median prevents Darley to Broadway left turns, there will be an increase of cars crossing Darley northbound on Toedtli in order to use the Hanover/Broadway light. Will this increase broadside accidents at the Darley/Toedtli intersection, thus mitigating safety benefits on Broadway? Ditto line-of-thinking on Grinnell. 2) Since the majority of traffic exceeds the speed limit on S Broadway, would increased speed limit enforcement there reduce the accident rate at the intersections in question? (I would like to see increased enforcement on S Broadway regardless, if for nothing more than noise reduction-- it's like a freeway.) Here's my two-bit recommendation: Put the light on Grinnell (since it has more traffic and more accidents--seemingly due to High School traffic) but time the lights between Grinnell and Hanover to create an entrance zone timeframe onto Broadway from Darley using the accelerating lane concept. Keep the Darley left-turn option open for a year or two evaluation period--see if the accident rate changes. Barry Northrop PO Box 3158 Boulder, CO 80307 Hello, As I will not be able to attend the 2/19 public meeting, I would like to reiterate my initial support for the median to restrict movements at the intersections of Darley/Grinnell and South Broadway. I feel like the light at Hanover is sufficiently connected to Darley and Grinnell for drivers to opt for this entry into South Broadway. Thanks again. Fawzia Ahmad -- Fawzia Ahmad, Ph.D. Instructor, French and Italian/Women's Studies UCB 238/UCB 246 University of Colorado, Boulder Unfortunately, I cannot attend the February 19th meeting, but I wanted to provide you with my comments because I feel the staff recommendation for South Broadway is the best solution. To be honest, I am surprised that residents living in the Grinnell area do not support the recommendation to install a traffic light at Grinnell and Broadway. A median at that intersection will not alleviate the traffic problems; in fact, it might make it even more dangerous. I believe it would force more traffic into an already busy residential neighborhood. As it is, I worry about the safety for pedestrians in the area because there are so many cars speeding along to Fairview, the Rec Center or the park. During peak traffic times it is difficult to make a left turn from Grinnell onto Broadway because of the heavy traffic going both north and south on Broadway. The intersection is also very busy before and after school because many parents pick up and drop off their children. I've seen as many as five or six cars stacked up trying to turn south onto Broadway during those times. Add inexperienced high school drivers to the mix and it makes for a very dangerous intersection. A traffic light at Grinnell and Broadway is the only safe solution, in my opinion. I suspect the petitioners don't want a traffic light because they believe it will take more time to get through the intersection. However, safety and the certainty of knowing the light will allow drivers to safely navigate the intersection make the traffic light solution the best one in my opinion. It would be preferable to install the light now, before a serious accident happens, than to be reactive and put one in after someone has been hurt or killed. Sincerely, Barbara Koelzer 3795 Emerson Avenue Teresa and Transportation Advisory Board, As a resident on Ludlow, I have daily experience with the South Broadway traffic. From the accident profile, it appears that many of the accidents at Grinnell are due to drivers taking chances when they take a left turn across or into traffic. The long cycle of the light at Greenbriar was cited as an possible issue, probably coupled with northbound drivers on Broadway who are driving significantly above the speed limit (hence the frequent police radar stationed on Ludlow). One partial solution is to install a speed sensitive traffic light at the intersection of Greenbriar and Broadway for northbound traffic. If the approaching car is significantly above the 40 mph speed limit, then the light in that direction should turn red. This will reduce the speeds of cars arriving into Boulder, and more frequently stop the flow of northbound traffic. This will use an existing traffic light more efficiently. I am emailing this to you because I will be unable to attend the meeting on Feb 19. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jerry Smith 4635 Ludlow St. Boulder, CO 80305 303-494-3375 Hi Teresa, My husband and I live at 1360 Toedtli Dr., near the corner of Toedtli and Greenbriar. We've received the latest update about the safety improvements project and would like to enter our comments and concerns, since we will be unable to attend the February 19th meeting. The information on the website indicates that those residents in our neighborhood who have asked that a traffic signal not be placed at the Grinnell/Broadway intersection (with median barriers to be used instead) are concerned about "unreasonable impacts to the Grinnell corridor." As a resident who lives one block from this intersection, I can sympathize with their concerns; however, my husband and I believe that the overall benefit to the entire neighborhood would be best served by having at traffic light at one of the two at-issue intersections, whether that be at Grinnell or at Darley. I've turned left from Grinnell many times, and I can verify firsthand the difficulties posed by that intersection. If median barriers are put in to prevent traffic from turning left onto Broadway from both Grinnell and Darley, the residents of our neighborhood (not just the people on Grinnell) will have two options if they want to go north on Broadway: 1) Take Toedtli south to Greenbriar, turn left across traffic, and use the light to make a left turn onto Broadway; or 2) Take Toedtli north through the neighborhood until intersecting with Hanover and use the light at Hanover to make a left on Broadway. Our main concern is not that both of the options would increase traffic on Toedtli (though I must say that we already have problems with people coming onto Toedtli off Greenbriar at speeds far in excess of the 25 mph speed limit). Our primary concern is the hazards of turning left from Toedtli onto Greenbriar. At certain times of the day, this intersection is very tricky when one is making a left turn--it's not simply a matter of looking left and right, but of navigating fast-moving traffic coming off Broadway, and of dealing with a build-up of cars in the east-bound Greenbriar lanes that make it impossible to have anywhere to go once you've gotten across the west-bound lanes. Difficult to articulate, especially in writing, but if you know the intersection, you'll know exactly what I mean. Basically, if there isn't a traffic light at one of those two intersections--Grinnell or Darley--then we, and everyone else in our neighborhood, are very trapped when it comes to heading into Boulder. It seems like putting in median barriers at both intersections just trades one hazard for another. I very much appreciate the efforts that you and your colleagues are putting into making our neighborhood safer--and my husband and I really hope that these efforts will result in a traffic light at one of those two intersections. I would appreciate any feedback or further information you might be able to give me. Thank you for your time and attention, Kay Campbell 303.499.0116 Hello, Thank you for your efforts to improve the safety along south Broadway. I live near the corner of Broadway and Grinnell, and I am anxious to see the intersection improved. I was disappointed to read that there was a petition that objected to a stoplight at Broadway and Grinnell. I thought a stoplight would be an excellent improvement, and I hope it still is a possibility. I am particularly concerned with the traffic on Grinnell. Grinnell is very difficult to cross (which I do regularly to go to the bus stop, park, and elementary school). Cars turn off Broadway with a lot of speed and at irregular intervals, so crossing Grinnell at Toedtli is a challenge (especially with kids). All of the traffic along Grinnell is local - either people travelling to their homes or to schools/parks/rec center. Any diversions would force the traffic on to other side streets. But a stoplight would at least regulate and slow down the traffic on Grinnell, and maybe even make it possible to cross Grinnell safely at Broadway in order to get to the bus stop. I regret that I will not be able to attend the meeting on Feb 19th, but I hope you will consider my opinion in developing a safety plan. Thanks again for your time, Sincerely, Andy Neuman 4375 Butler Circle 720-304-9959 Bill-- Thank you for taking the time this afternoon to talk with me about the proposed stoplight at Grinnell and South Broadway. I am scheduled for surgery on February 17th, so I will be unable to attend the public discussion on the 19th. As you suggested, I'm using email to express my support for the stoplight and my serious reservations about the median requested by the neighborhood petition. First let me give you some background. I have lived at the corner of Toedtli Drive and Albion Road since 1981, and have communicated my safety concerns to the City about that intersection on several occasions. Because I am an avid gardener, I spend lots of time outside, and have ample opportunity to observe the vehicle and pedestrian interactions. The volume of traffic using Toedtli has been increasing significantly, as has the traffic volume on the bike/pedestrian path. Parents ferrying children to and from Southern Hills Middle School, and Fairview High students are the bulk of the vehicle traffic. Students and bicycle commuters outnumber pedestrians on the path at peak traffic times. There are mini-rush hours at the beginning of school, lunch time, and end of school. The 3-way intersection of Toedtli and Albion has stop signs all around, and is crossed by a major bike/pedestrian path. Far too many of the north-bound travelers on Toedtli run the stop sign. It's been a problem as long as I've lived here, so I kept track one day a couple of years ago. I was horrified to discover that 40% of the cars traveling north failed even to slow down, let alone stop at the intersection over the 4-hour period I recorded. Granted, the configuration of the intersection makes it difficult for northbound drivers to see the stop sign, but there are plenty of drivers who blatantly ignore what they know is there. I personally have witnessed two grade-school aged bicyclists actually hit cars in the intersection. Thankfully for all involved, it wasn't the automobile that hit the bicyclists. If I've seen two collisions myself, how many others and how many more near- misses have happened at this intersection? If a median is installed at the Grinnell-South Broadway intersection, most of the drivers who now turn northbound onto Broadway are going to travel northbound on Toedtli to get to the stop light at the Hanover-Broadway intersection. There just aren't any other credible options: the configuration of the Toedtli-Greenbriar intersection precludes its use as a conduit to northbound Broadway, and it's completely counterintuitive to ask drivers to travel south in order to go north on Broadway. I am seriously concerned that an increase in traffic on Toedtli will lead to tragedy at the already busy corner where I live. Toedtli was simply not designed to handle the increased volume. The geometry of the bike path/street crossing could be changed only with great difficulty and expense. I understand my neighbors' concerns about more traffic on Grinnell, but Grinnell is already very heavily traveled by Southern Hills parents. I personally experience that volume of traffic every day on my way to and from work. Installing a traffic light at the Grinnell-South Broadway intersection is the shortest and most efficient path to move the traffic out of the neighborhood and to avoid vehicle conflicts with travelers on the bike/pedestrian path. Please express my concerns about the median to the Transportation Advisory Board, and pass on my support for the stop light at Grinnell and South Broadway. Holly Tulin, P.E. Manager, Training Integration Kaiser-Hill Company LLC Rocky Flats Closure Project We work in Denver on Thursdays and will not get back in time to attend your meeting February 19th, but we want you to know we all support the TAB recommendation. We have gone to the web site and looked at the proposals and think the TAB did select the best alternative. We totally disagree with the proposal by a few citizens on Grinnell. It would not help to make the area safer -THE PURPOSE OF THE FUNDS, in fact we believe making S. Broadway into a divided road would encourage even greater speeding; wheras A light even though just interupting traffic would tend to slow it down closer to the actual 40 mph speed limit. Any change prohibiting left turns on to Broadway from both Darley and Grinnell is unlikely to decrease the volume of traffic on Grinnell, since it is the more direct of the two routes to Knox, and using Ludlow instead involves more dangerous turns for drivers. Also prohobiting left turns to Broadway from both streets will simply frustrate drivers, sending them all the way down Toedtli or Gillaspie and increasing safety problems for even more neighborhood streets. The last thing needed on icy days is more traffic trying to go down the hill on Toedtli between Grinnell and Albion which stays extremely slick for days after any storm. A traffic light at Broadway and Grinnell is the most logical solution to the problem and all three of the adult drivers living at 1285 Toedtli Dr. fully support the TAB recommendation. Jack Martindale, Mildred Martindale, Sylvia Martindale. Dear Ms. Spear: First, I would like to thank the City or Traansportation Dept. for jobs well done on Broadway, downtown and Table Mesa. Seriously, I think those two projects turned out great and were worth the hassle and cost in my opinion. However, I would like to go on record with the powers to be against any changes to South Broadway. I have lived on Greenbriar since 1978. I have NEVER seen an accident or close call and NEVER had the slightest problem at Broadway and Greenbriar, Grinnell or Darley. The neighborhood has not grown since 1978. No new houses. No new traffic. This proposed fix is not needed. In fact my perception of these intersections is that they are relatively safe because they do not cross Broadway and the center space on Broadway is a PERFECT safe haven for anybodies slight mis-judgment. 26 years of driving on these various streets and now, all of a sudden there is a safety problem? No, there isn't. You, the city, obviously should give the $250,000 back to the Federal government for something more important or use the money in Boulder on some other, more important road safety problem like correcting the guaranteed death trap pedestrian crossings of Broadway at CU. That is horrible. Shame on you. South Broadway is a non-problem. Forget it. It feels like government "in our face." Please back- off. When there are so many real problems in Boulder and this world it is wrong to be looking for some trumped up problem to fix. I am 100% opposed to the traffic lights and medians. They both will cause problems for someone or other in our neighborhood and aren't needed. Everyone has their viewpoint, but I think the restricted turn medians are the worst idea. The best idea is a free flowing grid of roads like we have. I live on Greenbriar with it's few negatives and do NOT complaint because I know it was a collector road the day we bought the house. Please do nothing. Please go away. Thank you for the opportunity to pass-on the facts. Bill Zmistowski, Jr. 3990 Greenbriar Blvd. Boulder, CO 80305 303.494.6158 Dear Staff: I am writing about the proposal to construct a traffic signal at S. Bdwy and Grinnell Ave, and/or to construct a median at that site to prevent left turns onto Broadway. I am absolutely opposed to building median to block access to Broadway. This is a huge residential area and drivers need a way to flow smoothly onto Broadway northbound. I live off Greenbriar Blvd. in South Boulder. Ordinarily I must access my home by using the intersection at Greenbriar Blvd. and Broadway. The light at that intersection is egregiously long! The traffic needing to turn left from Greenbriar onto Broadway often sits for two full minutes, and then has to wait even longer if a pedestrian approaches and needs to cross Broadway. The crosswalk light comes on ahead of vehicular traffic green lights. Drivers are desperate to avoid that intersection because of this. Therefore, they understandably go up to Grinnell, Darley, or even down to Chambers to access Broadway. I have seen no evidence of safety problems involving left turns from Grinnell, Darley, or Chambers onto Broadway. If there IS any evidence, would you please let me know by return email, or provide it to all residents in this area? If the problem is people living on Toedtli complaining about traffic, I think that could be alleviated by my suggestion as follows: It seems to me the first step the city should take is to make the light at S. Broadway and Greenbriar turn green more frequently and last longer for cars needing to turn left onto Broadway. This would be a no-cost option that would allow the city to gather data on safety impacts for a 3- to 6-month period. The city would need to inform residents that this step is being taken so they are willing to use that intersection again. If providing more frequent and long-enough green lights at Greenbriar (and probably also at Hanover) does not reduce the alleged safety problems, then the city could consider other means. But evidence and information should be supplied to residents on the before- and after-impacts on traffic safety in this area. Also, since I am writing about traffic, I have noticed that, when going southbound from Baseline on 28th Street, I often find traffic backed up almost the entire way from Colorado to Baseline. Something is wrong with the timing of the traffic light at 28th and Colorado that causes this to happen, because the back-up does not occur north of Colorado. Sincerely, Barbara Farhar Resident of Boulder since 1956! One hazard that we did not see mentioned in your analysis is related to southbound travel on Broadway at Darley. Some people use the right (third) lane on Broadway as a passing lane, and travel at high rates of speed, potentially hitting anyone turning onto Broadway from Darley. Anyone on Darley turning on Broadway tends to assume that those in the right lane are traveling slowly to turn right on Darley, but the scofflaws pass on the right, potentially colliding with anyone on Darley turning onto Broadway. Depending on the design of the median at the intersection of Broadway and Darley, we would hope that the median would contain a barrier to stop this abuse of the right lane on south Broadway. The proposal of a light at Grinnell, and eliminating left turns onto Broadway from Darley, seems reasonable to us. As daily users of the Darley/Broadway intersection, we agree that it is a dangerous intersection, especially at busy times of the day. If you have any questions, you may call us at 303 499-2871. Richard Ferguson Marianne Haffey 1150 Albion Rd Hi Teresa: I was at the meeting several months ago, and I reviewed the proposed project and I would like to see the staff recommendation carried out. I live in the immediate neighborhood, at 4351 Butler Circle. Thank you, MP Donahue 4351 Butler Circle Boulder CO 80305 303.494.0200 Dear Teresa, I am unable to attend the meeting on Feb. 19. However, I do have strong opinions on what should be done. The staff recommendations at the Jan. 12 TAB meeting were very sound and should be implemented. My husband and I both agree that this needs to happen sooner rather than later as it is heart-breaking to watch so many accidents occuring at the S. Broadway and Grinnell intersection. Please act on this soon. Thank you for taking this on. I disagree with the petition. Sincerely, Barbara Lawrence Hello, Teresa--thank you for providing opportunity to email you input/opinions regarding safety improvements on South Broadway. My husband and I received the recent letter from the City because we live in the neighborhood (1235 Berea Dr); however, it's unlikely we'll be able to come to the public meeting this Thurs. night (2/19). I'm making an assumption here that the vast majority of traffic exiting from both Darley and Grinnell onto Broadway is heading north rather than south--we've lived out here almost a year, and I can count on one hand the number of times we've turned south on Broadway versus heading north towards town. Therefore, I feel that restricting left-turning, northbound traffic would be unfair, frustrating, and wouldn't meet the demand for traffic pattern, as well as causing more density and potential conflict at the intersections with traffic lights (Greenbriar, Hanover, and Table Mesa Dr) which in effect just diverts rather than resolves the problem. Nor do I see the need for additional traffic lights, because they would further impede the (majority) through-traffic along Broadway. Boulder has way too many lights already. May I suggest a middle-ground scenario which should still allow for left turns out from Darley and Grinnell yet increase the safety, without impeding Broadway traffic: How about a raised or divided with speed bumps or small concrete barriers (not just painted) median area that would allow a few cars to cross the southbound lanes of Broadway and "wait" in the median area to then enter the northbound Broadway lanes when they can safely do so? Instead of an "acceleration lane" this median would serve more as a waiting area. It of course would have to be large enough for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles as well as commercial trucks, to maneuver into and out of quickly and safely as cars. Even if small physical barriers aren't feasible, a painted, designated median area would be quite a help. There are many such areas along 28th and 30th Streets, and don't they work fairly well? Thank you for sharing and considering this opinion along with the rest of the input City staff and TAB receives. Sincerely, Wendy Fuchs Hi Teresa, Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Grinnell and Darley/Broadway intersections. I own the house at 4410 Ludlow St, a couple of blocks from these intersections. I would be very much opposed to left turn preventing medians at these intersections because this would result in a large increase of traffic flowing down Ludlow St, and at the intersection of GreenBriar and Broadway. This would damage my property value, and enjoyment of the neighborhood. I am neutral to mildly opposed to new traffic lights as they will increase the stop go on Broadway, increase engine noise, and slow my trip into downtown Boulder. Really, it's not usually much of a wait to get onto Broadway from Darley or Grinell, and if people want a light they can already go down to Hanover or GreenBriar. A very useful improvement that these funds could be put towards would be to reopen the pedestrian/bike tunnel under Table Mesa just north of King Soopers. This would be a huge improvement to all of our lives and make the neighborhood much safe for all of our children and young people who like to bike around town. If you have a minute, can you acknowledge the reciept of this note? I appreciate the opportunity to comment. Ken Beitel 4410 Ludlow St Boulder, CO 80304 Ph: (303) 781-0539 Theresa, Thank you for the opportunity to give public comment on this issue. I live at 1160 Fairfield and would like to give you my input regarding the traffic issues at Darley and Grinnell onto Broadway. First, I believe, looking at the accident statistics on your website and from my frightening experiences driving south on Broadway, that left turns heading northbound onto Broadway should either be completely restricted by median or patrolled with a stoplight. I have seen broadside close calls with bikers and car traffic alike at these intersections. Second, I use Darley often to reach Broadway heading south and also turn left onto Darley heading westbound daily. The only problem I have had with the left turn onto Darley is from the impatience of the drivers trying to go northbound onto Broadway. I feel it is unsafe to go northbound at either Grinnell or Darley soI head towards Table Mesa Drive which really does not add any time or inconvenience to my travel. I am in favor of alternative 3 at Grinnell and Broadway in combination with alternative 3 or 2 (second choice) for Darley and Broadway. If a stoplight is put in place, I believe Darley would be the more appropriate location because the road is wider and there are businesses versus homes at the intersection. I would assume Grinnell homeowners would not appreciate stoplight traffic sitting in front of their homes. It would also help the fire trucks gain better access to Broadway. Thanks again for the opportunity. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Amy Gryniewski 720-530-9480 Teresa, I'm sorry that I wasn't able to attend the neighborhood meeting at New Vista tonight. I did want to let you know, however, that I am concerned about the possible increased traffic that a light could bring to Grinnell and much prefer the median which would eliminate left turns on to Broadway. This is indeed a very dangerous intersection and I'm thankful that something is going to be done. We'd appreciate any updated information you could send me either via email or regular mail. Thank you, Katy Carpenter Katy and Jim Carpenter 4381 Butler Circle Boulder, CO 80305 Dear Theresa - Thank you for providing the detailed data and information reagrding the traffic issues facing my neighborhood. I am the homeowner and resident at 4480 Grinnell. I want to express my support for a median that would limit left turns from Grinnell onto Broadway. I vehemently oppose a traffic signal on Grinnell as our small street already experiences nearly 2500 cars per day, compared to Darley's 1500 cars. We need to do something ( I propose a median) to mitigate traffic on Grinnell, not increase it as a signal would do. The increased traffic that would come with a traffic signal would make our street an increasingly dangerous place for families and young children. Simple pleasures like talking with neighbors and playing ball or walking the dog would be seriously impacted. Additionally, quality of life would be severely impacted for residents of grinnell immediately west of Broadway with a signal there. Grinnell is immediately residential when you turn on to it, with families and children, pets, etc.. Darley because of its commercial nature in its first few hundred feet west of Broadway is much better suited to having a signal there. Thanks you very much for considering the concerns of residents who would be most impacted. Sincerely, Andrew Mirrington 303 817 7569 Traffic managers: After justifying my position on your plans for this intersection, I have a solid plan to significantly improve the current situation with less serious side effects. Please see the final section. I have serious reservations about your proposed plan to put a median barrier at Darley and Broadway. I use this intersection daily to make left turns onto northbound Broadway because it is far more convenient than any other path. However there are other issues. 1. Safety of this intersection: at least one of the very few fatalities at this intersection in recent years had nothing to do with left turns. How many other problems are unrelated to left turns? Firemen at the Darley station, who would respond to all accidents with injury there, were amazed to hear that this is a dangerous intersection. 2. A barrier at Darley seriously compromises response from the Darley street Fire Station to points north via Broadway and anywhere east of Broadway. As a former fireman with some appreciation for the emergency response system, I think this is a serious issue. Has your approach been discussed with to the Fire Chief and the Station Chief? Individual firemen don't seem to be aware of this plan. 3. All the traffic now using Darley will have to use Table Mesa or Hanover to get North. Besides the inconvenience and extra driving and stopping, Table Mesa Drive is already very crowded at times. Hanover is most inconvenient, and I seriously doubt that the residents of Toedtli will appreciate the extra traffic, especially when it is not necessary. 4. Lights at Darley and Grinnell will seriously affect the heavy rush-hour traffic on South Broadway, unless the lights are carefully synchronized, something which Boulder has not been very good at up to now. If the existing lights WERE properly synchronized as I suggest below, the dubious problems at Darley and Grinnell would be ameliorated. 5. I believe a simulation would show increased automotive air pollution as a result of the increased mileage that the barrier at Darley would cause. 6. Let's look carefully at the problem with left turns at Darley. Because of Broadway traffic in both directions, one must wait a few seconds at Darley to turn North. Since there are two un-synchronized streams of traffic. people are sometimes tempted to rush to get across both traffic streams. This is a problem if we must relieve motorists of their responsibility to drive carefully. There is a way to fix the Darley intersection with a far more benign procedure than blocking off the median. HERE IS THE GOOD NEWS! Currently there is a wide 'island' (made by paint stripes) at Darley, effectively devoted to the left turn lane for northbound Broadway. The North side of this 'island' (north of Darley) could be separated from the southbound traffic lanes, and the space on the other side could be used to make a holding and acceleration lane for northbound turners, making it less dicey to get into the northbound traffic stream. An island in the center of the intersection would force left turners into this lane, protecting them from northbound traffic. Please see the attached crude drawing of the arrangement. I think Grinnell is a similar situation. In both cases, the critical enabling factor is the fact there is no traffic across Broadway eastbound, so it is acceptable to divert all left turn traffic into the proposed buffer lane. Thanks for your consideration. Sorry I missed the public meeting. Gary Boucher 1180 Edinboro Drive Boulder, CO 80305 303 494-4051 Dear Ms. Spears, I was unable to attend the meetings about potential options to improve the safety at the two intersections on S. Broadway. I am writing to express my concerns about the option of adding a light at Grinnell. My primary concern is also safety. A close second to that is providing and keeping a sense of community. This neighborhood has several young children and we are very concerned for their safety and well-being. The additional traffic likely to be channeled to our street is a major problem for us. We support the proposal for a light at Darley and a designated acceleration lane for the left turn onto Broadway from Grinnell, if that is a possibility. If the acceleration lane is not a possibility, please consider the speed indication lights and some speed enforcement, as opposed to a light at Grinnell. We already put up with speeders and heavy traffic on Grinnell. Please do not encourage additional traffic and consider the likelihood that traffic will back up on Grinnell to beyond the S. Hills and Fairview turn and cause gridlock in our neighborhood. Why not a one lane drop-off that comes from the east side of S. Hills with an intersection at Broadway that is designed for the Fairview and S. Hill traffic and minimizes the need for so much traffic to come through a neighborhood? It is too bad the neighborhood schools concept has gone by the wayside, as this transportation issue is only one of many caused by the trend to megasize everything! Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Judy Bruch 4415 Grinnell Ave. Here is another vote and some thoughts regarding the Darley/Grinnell/Broadway project. Thank you for your consideration, Lynne Sperry PLEASE….DO NOT CLOSE OFF DARLEY OR GRINNELL These two streets need to remain open to Broadway so there is access in and out of the neighborhood. Closing either street and thus forcing all of the cars to one exit, creates a SERIOUS traffic and safety concern within the neighborhood. PLEASE….CONSIDER A signal light at Darley and leaving Grinnell open at Broadway (with clearer lane markings and added indicators on Broadway regarding speed, turns) A light at Darley accommodates the Fire Station, businesses, pedestrians and cyclists in addition to motorists. A light at Darley helps create a “gap” on Broadway for left hand turns from Grinnell. A light at Darley does not cause an undue overload of traffic and backed up conditions on Darley. A light at Grinnell definitely causes an undue overload of traffic and backed up conditions on Grinnell (plus Toedtli and Ludlow). Grinnell already has more traffic than Darley (per the presentation, 2400 vs 1700 cars per day), plus it has a curve and is narrower. Leaving Grinnell open eases and balances the traffic within the neighborhood. Leaving Grinnell open does not force all traffic to Darley. PLEASE… Broadway traffic flow will be “degraded” with a signal light…there is no avoiding that. Broadway should be slower…it is not a “highway” until it is south of Chambers. The amount of Broadway flow degradation is not more important than the quality of an entire neighborhood. Forcing all traffic to one street is unsafe. Share the load between streets while increasing the safety. If drivers were less impatient and thoughtless, the accident rate would drop and the well being of everyone would increase.But, that is wishful thinking… Taresa, I wanted to check to see that you had gotten my petition from the residents of Edinboro Drive, between Darley and Yale. I sent it about two weeks ago, with signatures representing 10 of the 11 houses that face the street on that block. The attached letter was my cover letter. If you have not received it, please send me a new copy of the petition form, and I'll get the signatures again. A second issue I wanted to communicate to you about is my own input regarding the south boulder project. I recognize the potential to save people's lives by adjusting the interesections of broadway and grinnel and broadway and darley, and I see that almost any strategy will affect the surrounding streets, changing patterns. Several of the staff recommendations include relative merits of being able to use engineering solutions to mitigate the impacts of the secondary impact of the changes at broadway to other neighborhoods. For example, the sign at darley is not as good an idea because it would be harder to engineer later solutions on darley because of the fire station. I'm afraid the delay before any mitigation would take place, and the likelihood that no city money would be around to fund such mitigation, makes the advantage of later engineering fixes an empty promise. I suggest that regardless of the solution, the neighborhoods impacted by the changes at broadway receive preferencial treatment for the potential mitigation measures (engineering and non-engineering). I fear that our little block, which already deserves attention because of speed and volume problems, would be much worse off after the changes at broadway (I doubt the analysts numbers reflect the true volume on the street these days, or the volume that will shift to it.) Money from federal and other sources not spent on the changes at broadway should be targeted to the communities affected by these changes, and the cue for neighborhoods should not be used to delay interventions in the affected communities. I'm betting that after the lights and medians go in at Broadway, you will then get a request to study the problem, eventually you will study it, and then the streets with really bad problems will go to the end of a 7-year line for mitigation, and the chances of engineering solutions will depend on available funds whenever the streets get to the front of the cue. I'm suggesting that part of the mitigation plan for broadway must include the steps to mitigate deleterious impact in the surrounding neighborhood. Please call me to confirm your receipt of the original petition, Thanks for all your work. I'm sure it isn't an easy job, Alex Medler -- Alex Medler 1070 Edinboro Drive Boulder, CO 80305 303-554-5882 Facts presented at the February 19 public meeting reveal that 37% of the accidents occurring at Grinnell/Broadway are caused by high school age drivers. Without this ingredient, the accident rate would be considerably reduced. I am highly concerned that the driving habits of this relatively small age-span are threatening to greatly degrade the quality of life/property/safety for those of us who live on Grinnell. A traffic light at Grinnell and Broadway may be favored by staff, but is strongly opposed by many in this neighborhood. Opposition has been presented in writing, by petition, in e-mails, telephone calls, and consistent participation at public meetings. The school principals and their transportation staff are supporting this option, without suggesting viable ways the students themselves could avoid causing collisions and traffic problems. And, without regard to the preferences of many of their homeowner neighbors. Grinnell is a short, curving street that already is impacted by heavy (and sometimes speeding) traffic. A stoplight would draw even more cars to this street and make deep inroads into the safety, value and flavor of our neighborhood. Further, there is no rationale for a light at this T-section relative to pedestrians because of the steep embankment on the east side of Broadway which discourages crossings at this location. The backup of increasing numbers of cars on Grinnell and Broadway because of a light would clog the intersection of Grinnell and Toedtli, impeding turns north or south on the latter, and also create a noise/pollution problem particularly for those residents living immediately at the convergence of these arteries. Conversely, a light at Darley would be beneficial for the Fire Department, and have less homeowner impact because the first block is used commercially. There has been little representation from the Darley neighborhood, which would seem to indicate that those residents may feel they have less vested interests than those on Grinnell. PLEASE DO NOT INSTALL A LIGHT AT GRINNELL AND BROADWAY. There are less drastic options/suggested alternatives on the table which would accomplish the desired results, without jeopardizing the well being, safety and property values of the very concerned residents on Grinnell. Linda Feather 34 Year Resident at 4435 Grinnell Avenue ATTACHMENT H Public Input from January 12, 2003 to Present Alternatives Informal Emails Petitions Straw Poll at meeting Do Nothing 12 1 Do Something Else 14 4 Do Acceleration Lanes 13 Medians on Both Grinnell and 5 2 20 addresses* Darley Signal on Grinnell and Median on 13 11 28 addresses Darley Signal on Darley and Median on 22 8 39 addresses** Grinnell * Many people who signed this petition, later signed one of the petition outlined below. ** One petition with 21 addresses supported a traffic signal at the Darley Avenue intersection and a turn restricting median treatment at the Grinnell Avenue intersection. One petition with 18 addresses supported a traffic signal at the Darley Avenue intersection and a special median protected acceleration lane or a turn restricting median at the Grinnell Avenue intersection. South Broadway Safety Improvements City Staff “Decision Making Criteria” To Select a Staff Recommendation Does the alternative solve the safety issues at these two o intersections? [REQUIRED] Will the Colorado Department of Transportation support o the alternative? [REQUIRED] Does the improvement fit within the fiscal constraints of the Federal o Hazard Elimination Program Budget? How does the alternative impact the flow of traffic and the ability to o provide signal progression on the South Broadway corridor? What possible traffic diversion will result from the alternative? What o roadways are likely to be impacted by the diverted traffic? How much diverted traffic on each roadway? If diverted traffic results in significant impacts to a roadway (such as o increased speeding traffic) what is the City’s capability to mitigate those impacts? Is the roadway a Critical Emergency Response Route or not? How does the alternative improve the Fire Department access from o Darley Avenue to the South Broadway corridor? How does the alternative impact the quality of life of residents living o near the two intersections? What level of community support is there for the o alternative?