Loading...
4 - Recommendation on the proposed Prioritized List of Missing Sidewalk Links Missing Sidewalk Links Prioritization, Page 1 C I T Y OF B O U L D E R TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: May 10, 2004 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and Board consideration of a recommendation on the proposed Prioritized List of Missing Sidewalk Links 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 March 8, 2004 and July 14, 2003 Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) meetings. The Board is being requested to provide a recommendation on the Prioritized List of Missing Sidewalk Links. 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: Projects provide 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 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 potential criteria and a prioritization method for installation of identified missing sidewalk links. A public meeting was held on March 11, Missing Sidewalk Links Prioritization, Page 2 2003 and 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 was support from the property owners of the block face where the sidewalk will be constructed. Another important item of consideration was environmental impacts of the proposed sidewalk. At the July 14, 2003 TAB 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 than any other criterion and other criteria receiving approximately equal weighting. At the March 8, 2004 TAB meeting, the Board provided feedback on the draft prioritized listing of missing sidewalk links. The Board preferred an equal weighting of the Utility and Vehicular Traffic Conditions criteria when prioritizing the list of missing sidewalk links. Staff has prepared the attached prioritized lists which incorporate this feedback and other suggestions made by the Board. Next Steps: Once the Board has made a recommendation on the prioritized lists, staff will have design plans and a refined cost estimate completed 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 3 List of Missing Sidewalk Link projects Currently part of a 2004-2008 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Project Street Name Street Segment Baseline Road from 27th Way to US 36, south side Colorado Ave 28th and 30th Streets, south side Linden Ave Broadway to city limit, north and south sides Violet Ave Broadway and 28th, north and south sides Missing Sidewalk Links Prioritization, Page 9 Definition of Criteria and Description of Scoring 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 – 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. Missing Sidewalk Links Prioritization, Page 10 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 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 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 Request – 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.