Loading...
6 - Staff briefing and TAB input on the sidewalk missing links prioritization methodology Missing Sidewalk Links Prioritization, Page 1 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: Staff briefing and TAB input on the sidewalk missing links prioritization methodology. PRESENTER/S: Noreen Walsh, Transportation Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The list of identified missing sidewalk links has been categorized and prioritized based on input received at the July 14, 2003 Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) meeting. Staff is seeking Board feedback on the proposed prioritization so that it can be finalized. Based on TAB input staff will return for a public hearing and formal recommendation from the TAB at a subsequent meeting. Fiscal Impacts: Budgetary: Currently the Pedestrian Facilities Program in the Transportation Division’s Capital Improvement Program funds missing sidewalk links projects and pedestrian crossing projects. The current annual funding amount is $75,000. Staff is not looking to supplement this program fund at this time. Staff Time: Tasks and work efforts for the Missing Sidewalk Links program are part of the standard work plan. Other Impacts: Transportation: Improved access and mobility for pedestrians Community: Issues raised by adjacent property owners include: potential impacts to trees, shrubs, vegetation, irrigation systems and ditches; installation of curb and gutter; relocation of utilities, fences, and other features; and whether sidewalks will change the character of the area from rural to urban. Summary of Process and Proposed Prioritization: The purpose of the Missing Sidewalk Links Program is to construct missing segments of sidewalk within the city of Boulder’s pedestrian system. The Pedestrian Policy Plan of the Boulder Transportation Master Plan (TMP) calls for “eliminating breaks and discontinuities in Missing Sidewalk Links Prioritization, Page 2 the sidewalk system” and “ensuring adequate connections to public transit.” These objectives are intended to support the TMP’s goal of an integrated multi-modal transportation system. In 2003, Transportation staff began a public process to discuss the potential criteria and prioritization method for prioritizing construction of the identified missing sidewalk links. At the March 11, 2003 public meeting, participants were asked to suggest additional criteria to consider when prioritizing construction of the missing sidewalks. This meeting also provided citizens the opportunity to give input on how the criteria should be prioritized. In summary, participants believe the most important criteria when prioritizing the missing sidewalks link list is support from the property owners of the block face where the sidewalk will be constructed. Another important item of consideration is the environmental impacts. At the July 14, 2003 Transportation Advisory Board meeting, staff presented a proposed prioritization method. At this meeting, the Board recommended the staff’s proposal for categorizing and prioritizing the missing sidewalk links with safety weighted higher and the other criteria about the same weighting. A copy of the TAB meeting minutes are provided in Attachment A for reference. Following the Board recommendation at the July 14, 2003 TAB meeting, staff placed the missing sidewalk links into one of three categories: 1.Currently part of a 2004-2008 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Project 2.Small Missing Sidewalk Link project (Total project cost is estimated to be < $50,000) 3.Large Missing Sidewalk Link project (Total project cost is estimated to be > $50,000) **Please note that none of the currently identified missing sidewalk links were placed into the fourth category that was proposed at the July 14, 2003 TAB meeting. This category was titled “Sidewalk requests inconsistent with adopted area plans and/or annexation agreements.” Our research thus far has not identified any missing sidewalk links that have this characteristic. Staff did not remove any missing sidewalk links projects from the list. Category 1 missing sidewalk links will be constructed as part of a CIP project so these were not further prioritized, nor will they be constructed as part of the missing sidewalk links program. Information in the areas of safety, utility, vehicular traffic conditions, available right-of-way, public interest, and potential environmental impacts were collected for each missing sidewalk link. As recommended by the Transportation Advisory Board at its July 14, 2003 meeting, each list of missing sidewalk links was first prioritized using safety as the most important criterion. The most definitively measurable data that reflects safety issues are accident statistics. However, this criterion did not result in a prioritization since there were no high pedestrian accident streets where a missing sidewalk link was identified. The next criterion used to prioritize the missing sidewalk links was Utility. The Utility criterion is composed of information on pedestrian volumes, school routes, transit routes, nearby pedestrian activity centers, and viable alternative. A completed colored circle is an indication of a missing sidewalk project that has a great amount of utility and projects with this characteristic Missing Sidewalk Links Prioritization, Page 3 are at the top of the list. The remaining missing sidewalk links were prioritized in order of decreasing amounts of estimated “utility.” The Vehicular Traffic Conditions criterion was then used to further prioritize the missing sidewalk links. This criterion is composed of information on traffic volumes, speed, street classification and on-street parking density. A completely colored circle is an indication of a street that has adverse traffic conditions which impact the ability to walk on it and calls for the construction of a sidewalk. As you will see on the prioritized lists, this criterion was put in order within each measure of the Utility criteria. Scores were given to the criteria of In City Right-of-Way, Public Interest, and Potential Environmental Impacts for each missing sidewalk link, but these were not used to further prioritize the lists. This information, however, is helpful when looking at individual missing sidewalk link projects and assessing the issues and impacts. The scoring and definitions of the criteria are further explained in Attachment B. The draft prioritized lists follow this section of the memorandum. Alternative to proposed prioritization: In the process of collecting information and prioritizing the lists of missing sidewalk links, staff discussed and analyzed a slight alteration to the above prioritization. This method would weigh the Utility and Vehicular Traffic Conditions criterion equally, instead of the Utility criterion being the most important and the Vehicular Traffic Conditions criterion second most important. Staff offers this alternative because the Vehicular Traffic Conditions criterion also represent hazards for a pedestrian and might be able to demonstrate a potential safety issue. Safety was cited by the Transportation Advisory Board as the most important criteria. If this prioritization method was applied, the missing sidewalk links in the Small Projects List would stay about the same with a little reordering. Staff noticed that the missing sidewalk links in the Large Projects List would result in greater reordering but generally the projects at the top of the list would remain at the top. Next Steps: Following the feedback received by the Transportation Advisory Board, staff will finalize the Missing Sidewalk Links lists and return to the Board for a final recommendation on the prioritization methodology and prioritized lists. Staff will then begin to develop further design plans and refine cost estimate for the top 5 projects in each of the lists. In 2005, staff will begin constructing as many of the Small Missing Sidewalk Links projects as can be built with the funding available. Projects in the Large Missing Sidewalk Links list will be evaluated for potential inclusion during the annual Capital Improvements Program. Missing Sidewalk Links Prioritization, Page 10 Attachments: Attachment A – July 14, 2003 TAB meeting minutes Attachment B – Definition of Criteria and Description of Scoring Missing Sidewalk Links Prioritization, Page 11 CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Transportation Advisory Board DATE OF MEETING: July 14, 2003 NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Robin Madel, 303-441-4073 NAMES OF MEMBERS, COUNCIL, STAFF AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS –TAB:STAFF – John Tayer, Jim Rettew, Brant Liebmann, Krista Holland, Bill Roettker Tracy Winfree, Mike Sweeney, Noreen Walsh, Bill Cowern, Randall Rutsch, Robin Madel, secretary WHAT TYPE OF MEETING [REGULAR] Pre-dinner meeting with Debra Baskett from the U.S. 36 TMO Baskett discussed the status of the U.S. 36 MIS with respect to current plans for commuter rail and Bus Rapid Transit. Baskett also discussed the business Eco pass situation. Agenda Item 1 – Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m. Agenda Item 2 – Meeting Minutes from June 9, 2003. The minutes were approved as written. Brant Liebmann motioned to approve the minutes. Krista Holland seconded the motion. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. Bill Roettker did not vote because he was not a board member yet. Non-Agenda Item– Swearing in of new board member. Bill Roettker, the newest TAB member, was sworn in. Roettker replaces Jerry Wyss who resigned in June 2003. Agenda Item 3 – General Citizen Participation th David Miller, 902 9 St., Boulder , gave the staff some pictures of a car that crashed into his front lawn. He lives th at 9 and Aurora and is in favor of the NTMP program for his neighborhood. He said he understands budget constraints but there are no low hanging fruit to be found in the neighborhood. He wants the TAB to consider what can be done to address the problems in his neighborhood. th th Susie Balnt, 760 9 St., Boulder , spoke about the 9 St. NTMP. She said she is distressed to hear that the budget th was eliminated because 9 St. continues to be a problem and no one in the staff is willing to address what’s going on. The street wasn’t designed to be a major corridor and Chautauqua Park doesn’t help because the park personnel refuse to address the parking problems. The activities there aren’t incidental anymore, they are frequent. She said the city could use some creative parking solutions. th th Kris Miller, 902 9 St., Boulder , asked the TAB to reconsider their decision to cut funding from 9 St. or to reallocate money to the program. She said the neighbors have been looking at options for low hanging fruit and has heard from staff that there are none. There is no education and enforcement. A lot of traffic mitigation tools are driven by federal regulations for safety and not for quality of life. The NTMP program addresses quality of life issues but even that has been cut. The Phase I petition has already been completed. There is no budget for Phase II enforcement. She said she doesn’t know what education would consist of. She said she hasn’t seen the speed display trailer in the neighborhood in a while. TAB Discussion TAB discussion covered the neighborhood’s eligibility for the Neighborhood Parking Program, the speed display General Citizen Participation was closed. trailers and the accident rate since Broadway construction began. Missing Sidewalk Links Prioritization, Page 12 Agenda Item 4 - Public hearing and TAB consideration of a recommendation concerning the sidewalk missing link criteria and prioritization method. Noreen Walsh described the staff proposal. Some of the sidewalk projects are smaller and have a lower cost than others. Some of the projects are several blocks long and are being evaluated as stand alone projects with possible CIP funding. Once the categories are determined, the projects will be prioritized according to which ones will be completed first. Walsh said she hoped to work through how to prioritize the projects with the TAB then bring a list of prioritized projects to the TAB. The budget for the sidewalks missing links program is $75K which is down from $290K in last year’s budget. TAB Questions TAB questions covered clarifications of what the staff was asking of the TAB, the difference between the sidewalk links program and the sidewalk replacement program, the difference between the suggested categories in the staff proposal, issues around the presence or lack of property owner support, and the public process that the staff has completed so far. Citizen Participation Charlotte Sorenson, 603 Spruce St., Boulder , was there representing Walk Boulder and said she applauds the staff for supporting this program. Sorenson said that as a pedestrian she greatly appreciates the effort and the recognition of walking as a primary mode of transportation. She has been working with Landon Hilyard from the school district to set up a walk-to-school program. She said the population in Boulder is aging and they will do everything they can to help develop the missing sidewalk links program into a priority program. She said they will also do everything they can to keep bikes out of sidewalks. She hopes that there is a line item in the budget for pedestrians. Fred Luiszer, 2510 Taft Dr., #210, Boulder , attended the public meeting in March and said that there were probably only four of about 30 people at the meeting who were pro-sidewalks. He said he would like a sidewalk on his street and that safety should be the top priority. There are lots of college kids in his neighborhood. H e offered to generate some data if that would help. th Susan Balnt, 760 9 St., Boulder , said that sidewalks are wonderful but she feels the sidewalk links program should be fashioned like the NTMP and the city shouldn’ t cram it down people’s throats. She is trying to protect th what little privacy she has. There are places where sidewalks are appropriate. She said the animosity with the 9St. residents began because no-one asked the residents what they want. The effort should be positive and interactive with everyone working together. Julia Schwab, 1529 Lincoln Pl., Boulder , she said that she has the only house on the small block that faces the street. She said she and her neighbors don’t want a sidewalk and they want to save the city some money. She said that the area where the parking is presents an issue and the students walk through there in groups. Her house is six feet from the street. The neighbors have landscaping and there is no room for a sidewalk. She said on her block there is no room for emergency vehicles and traffic is always a concern. She thinks that sidewalks on her block are a joke and all three property owners on the block are in agreement. Mary Street, Boulder , lives on the south side of Mt. St. Gertrude’s Academy and there is a sidewalk on the north side of Lincoln. The only people she ever sees using the sidewalk are from the academy. Most people who walk through there use the street because the sidewalks are too narrow. Adding a new sidewalk is a waste of money. People from Chautauqua Park walk through the area and they use the streets. The south side of Baseline would be a great place to start to improve the area. Better parking there would help. On her street joggers, strollers and dog walkers all use the streets. She suggested widening the existing street. th Kris Miller, 902 9 St., Boulder , said that she thinks consistency with existing programs should be added to the list of criteria. Residents of her neighborhood started addressing sidewalk issues and as they went into the NTMP program they found out that they don’t qualify for that program because there isn’t enough pedestrian traffic. She said that they would like to use some pedestrian money for crosswalks. She said she would like this program to have the same criteria as the NTMP. She compared an area along Baseline that has the same distance as the area under th consideration along 9 St. The area along Baseline has 10 lights and pedestrian crossing and the same distance th along 9 St. has only two. Mike Shimmin, 1985 Kalmia, Boulder , said he doesn’t need or want sidewalks in his neighborhood. On his block there are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks. Sidewalks would diminish his property value because the property is unique. There are eight houses on his block, and four of the eight are violently opposed to sidewalks. He has lived in his house for 21 years and dozens of pedestrians go by every day. He has never been aware of any safety problems. He encouraged putting the desires of the adjacent residents first and the environmental impact second. TAB Discussion TAB discussion covered how the list was compiled, the specific criteria that the staff has considered, the process after the prioritization, the steps to be taken after the TAB meeting, whether or not the TAB members were interested in suggesting a weighting scheme, possible weighting schemes and prioritization of the criteria by importance to TAB members. Krista Holland motioned that the staff weight the priorities with safety-related priorities higher than other priorities. BillRkddhi Missing Sidewalk Links Prioritization, Page 13 Agenda Item 5 -Public hearing and TAB consideration of a recommendation to City Council concerning the Transportation Master Plan Update – Phase 3: Plan Development. Randall Rutsch presented the topic. He addressed two points that were raised during the study session with the city council. Rutsch gave a brief update on the work the staff is doing on the Web site and said that at the next meeting he would present a draft plan. TAB Questions Questions covered whether or not the staff has determined a “marquis” question for the update, using mobility as a measure instead of congestion and the use of goals versus measurements. Citizen Participation Kurt Johnson, 777 Dellwood Ave., Boulder , said that he would like to see a measure for CO added to the plan. 2 Rutsch said that CO modeling is based on DRCOG numbers. 2 TAB Discussion Discussion included the upcoming public participation process, the focus on regional areas and the need to devote additional resources to regional interests. John Tayer suggested that the current intergovernmental staff is too thin and the city should identify the need for additional resources in the Action Plan. Jim Rettew motioned to recommend approval of Phase 3: Plan Development. Krista Holland seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. John Tayer commended the staff on the great work they have done on this item so far. Agenda Item 6 – Staff briefing and TAB input on the preliminary 2005-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) project submittals. Randall Rutsch discussed the submittals. He said that the staff still does not have the solicitation, final criteria or timeline for the TIP. He discussed specific project recommendations based on last year’s criteria. Rutsch said that conceptually there are projects in the north, center and south sections of town. TAB Questions Questions covered adding NTMP to the projects list, TDM related items which are proposed on a different list, the proposed effective biker courses, the specifics of certain projects and enhanced pedestrian crossings. TAB Discussion Discussion included specific projects that the members would like to see added, such as bike lanes on Broadway, particular projects that the members like such as real time transit info and the need for specific projects such as the th underpass at Elmer’s Twomile Creek and 28 St, both of which have matching funding from the transportation department. Missing Sidewalk Links Prioritization, Page 14 Agenda Item 7 – Matters From Staff: Tracy Winfree described the award the city of Boulder received for crosswalk compliance and pedestrian crossing treatment implementation. Winfree said that there is reimbursement for a staff member to go to an associated conference and that the staff member will probably be Bill Cowern. Tracy Winfree gave a list of all the boards and commissions to the TAB members to assist in their outreach efforts. Winfree said that at the next meeting, links to various public entity calendars would be discussed. Tracy Winfree distributed a one-page summary of the guiding principles for the budget. Winfree discussed the budget cuts if additional cuts are necessary. Tracy Winfree updated the board on regional transportation issues. Winfree said that the Bus Rapid Transit component of the US 36 MIS has been nearly removed from consideration under the FastTracks proposal RTD has made. RTD and CDOT are close to signing a consultant contract for completion of the Environmental Impact Statement. Winfree went to the Boulder County Regional Transit Committee meeting. The committee wants a long- term vision for transit for Boulder County and is developing ideas for financing options. Winfree said that the neighborhood Ecopass program is in good shape but the business Ecopass program is on a roller coaster ride. RTD has suggested some service level changes for Boulder that could raise the price of passes by a significant amount. The stakeholder group is standing solidly behind the concept of no service level changes. Matters From the Board: The members requested having a follow-up to the board retreat at the August TAB meeting. Brant Liebmann asked if the HOP service route will stay the same as it is now once the Broadway bridge construction is completed. Winfree said that it would likely stay as it is now. Krista Holland said that the Greenways Advisory Committee toured the Elmer’s underpass project area. Holland said that the underpass and path will require a lot of work. Holland discussed the Greenways Master Plan prioritization and the possibility of the Greenways Program working with the Army Corps of Engineers on a portion of the Elmer’s project. thth Krista Holland discussed the 28-30 St. Plan. She said there have been two meetings where the message from the public is that people don’t want the new urbanism; they want parking in front of businesses. Holland said that Louise Grauer from the Planning Department would attend the August TAB meeting to discuss the plan and provide a fact sheet. Jim Rettew said he is concerned about the cost of the repaving project on Table Mesa. Winfree said the project includes installation of an asphalt overlay that will reduce noise levels by as much as 3 db, which is significant, using a product called Nova Chip. The noise levels on Table Mesa are higher now than they were before the project started and the city promised the residents that they would perform noise mitigation if that situation occurred. Nova Chip may require more maintenance but it could extend the life of the concrete and could be easier to scrape off and redo than concrete. Jim Rettew announced that he is forming a committee to run for city council. B ill Roettker said that the Jefferson Parkway proposal is gaining steam. CDOT is reviewing the Environmental Impact Statement and exploring financing options. Agenda Item 8 – Discussion of Future Meeting Agenda The July 14, 2003 meeting will include a public hearing on the 2003 TIP submittals. Agenda Item 9 – Adjournment Brant Liebmann motioned to adjourn the meeting. Bill Roettker seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m. Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting: August 11, 2003, 6:00 p.m. Transportation Advisory Board regular meeting, Municipal Building Council Chambers. Missing Sidewalk Links Prioritization, Page 15 Definition of Criteria and Description of Scoring Safety – Number of accidents involving pedestrians during the period of January 1, 1992 – December 31, 2001 in the area defined by that particular missing sidewalk link boundary. 2 or more pedestrian accidents in 2 years that was caused by lack of sidewalk – full score less than 2 pedestrian accidents in 2 years that was caused by lack of sidewalk – no score Utility– this criterion is composed of information on pedestrian volumes, school route, transit route, nearby pedestrian activity centers, and viable alternative Pedestrian Volume – # of pedestrians in a one-hour period “Low” – 0 to 18 pedestrians; no score “Medium” – 19 to 60 pedestrians; full score “High” – more than 60 pedestrians; full score School Route – roadway has a school on it, or is part of main school route. “True” – Yes; full score “False” – No; no score Transit Route – roadway has a transit route on it. “True” – Yes; full score “False” – No; no score Near a Pedestrian Generator – roadway is on or leads to a pedestrian activity center such as a store, office, park, church, etc. “True” – Yes; full score “False” – No; no score Viable Alternative – an adjacent facility is available “True” – when there is a sidewalk on the opposite side of the street, or when the pedestrian can safely walk within the traveled way of a rural residential street or access lane; No Score “False” – when there is no sidewalk on the opposite side of the street, or in the case that there is a sidewalk on the opposite side of the street but the crossing is difficult; Full Score Vehicular Traffic Conditions – This criterion is composed of information on traffic volumes, speed, street functional classification and on-street parking density. Vehicle Volume – Number of vehicles passing through in a one-hour period “Low” – 0 to 60 vehicles; No Score “Medium” – 61 - 180 vehicles; Full Score “High” – greater than 180 vehicles; Full Score Speed – Missing Sidewalk Links Prioritization, Page 16 Speed limit Observed conditions “Low” speed limit – 25 mph or less “Low” – vehicles driving at/below s.l. “Med” speed limit – 26 mph to 44 mph “Med” – some vehicles driving above s.l. “High” speed limit – 45 mph or greater “High” – many vehicles driving above s.l. Low/Low, Med/Low; No score Low/Med, Low/High, Med/Med, Low/High, Med/High, High/High – Full Score Functional Classification – description and function of street Local street – provides direct access to residential and commercial property; no score Collector street – collects traffic from local streets and provide corridors for traffic circulation through and between commercial areas and residential neighborhoods; full score Minor Arterial – provide direct service to commercials center(s) and to provide continuity and length for cross-town trips; full score Principal Arterial – provide direct service to major center(s) of activity and to provide continuity and length for cross-town trips; full score On Street Parking – whether it is allowed and the amount used by parking Yes – parking is allowed and 25% or greater of the street/curb space is occupied by parked cars; full score No – parking is not allowed on street, or Yes – parking is allowed and less than 25% is occupied by parked cars; no score In City ROW – public right-of-way available for sidewalk use “True” – Yes, public right-of-way is available; full score “False” – No, public right-of-way is not available; no score Public Interest – missing sidewalk link was identified by a potential user “True” – Yes; full score “False” – No; no score Environmental Impacts – the project would likely result in the need to remove mature landscaping (including trees); vegetation impacts due to change in storm water drainage (capacity and filtration/water quality impacts); requirement to replace and improve the vegetation to be removed; irrigation impacts; ditch right-of-way; installation of retaining wall required; installation of curb and gutter; relocation of utilities, fences, retaining walls, fire hydrant, landscaping, mailboxes, steps, etc.; and whether sidewalks will change the character of the area from rural to urban. “True” – Environmental impacts; no score. “False” – No environmental impacts; full score.