Loading...
4 - Recommendation on the 17th Street (University to Pine) Project C I T Y O F B O U L D E R DOWNTOWN MANAGEMENT COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: August 30, 2004 AGENDA TITLE: th Transportation Advisory Board Public Hearing on the 17 Street Transportation Project. PRESENTER/S: Tracy Winfree, Public Works Director – Transportation Mike Sweeney, Transportation Operations and Planning Coordinator Bill Cowern, Transportation Operations Engineer Marni Ratzel, Pedestrian and Bicycle Planner Teresa Spears, Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program Liaison EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: th The 17 Street corridor between Arapahoe Avenue and Canyon Boulevard is scheduled for resurfacing during the 2004 construction season. In an effort to be fiscally responsible, staff th identified other transportation projects planned for 17 Street in the project area and initiated an integrated planning and public involvement process to determine what of these planned improvements should be incorporated into the overlay. Planned improvements and other needs identified in the corridor include: bicycle and pedestrian enhancements; neighborhood traffic mitigation; corridor maintenance; and, traffic safety improvements. This agenda item describes the alternatives considered, potential impacts, supporting analysis, public feedback, board recommendations, and the staff recommendation for transportation improvements to the corridor. Staff is seeking a Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) recommendation on the preferred corridor improvements. FISCAL IMPACTS: Cost of the proposed improvements is $294,000 and lost revenue associated with the elimination of Neighborhood Permit Parking and the resulting loss of Commuter Permit Parking spaces Attachment could be as high as $6,250 per year. A more detailed cost breakdown is provided in A . All costs associated with the construction of the project will be covered through existing programmatic transportation capital maintenance, pedestrian/bike and neighborhood traffic mitigation sources and will not require any supplemental appropriation. 1 AGENDA ITEM #____4____PAGE________ OTHER IMPACTS: The primary impact of the recommended improvements is loss of on-street parking on the east thth side of 17 Street from Athens Street to Arapahoe Avenue and on the west side of 17 Street from Arapahoe Avenue to Walnut Street. Generally, parking will remain on the opposite side of the street with the exception of three spaces at the intersection with Marine Street and five spaces at the intersection with Grove Street (to install the median crossing treatments) and two spaces th on the east side of 17 Street, north of Canyon Boulevard, (to provide adequate tapers for the left-turn lane at the intersection). Impacted parkers include residents, Boulder High students and parents, and Goss-Grove Neighborhood Permit Parking (NPP) commuter permit holders. Of the existing 77 parking spaces and 7 pickup/drop-off spaces, 34 parking spaces and 4 pickup/drop- off spaces will remain. Removed on-street parking spaces identified by street block and user are Attachment B summarized in . During the day, the loss of parking south of Arapahoe Avenue will largely impact long-term parking for students at Boulder High School and the University of Colorado, who are parking on the street. The loss of 3 student pick-up/drop-off spaces adjacent to Boulder High School will negatively impact the student arrival and dismissal congestion. North of Arapahoe Avenue, the loss of parking will decrease the amount of short-term parking in the area (Neighborhood Permit Parking spaces being used as 2-hour parking spaces) and several long-term parking spaces, which are likely being used by either employees in the downtown area or Boulder High School students. It is anticipated that the loss of parking in these areas will relocate these parkers into the Goss-Grove neighborhood and the neighborhood south of Arapahoe and east of 17th Street. The relocation of parking further into the neighborhood may create or exacerbate existing quality of life issues for residents as a result of student and employee parking in the area. In the evenings, the spaces south of Arapahoe Avenue are infrequently used. The spaces north of Arapahoe are used by residents of the Goss-Grove neighborhood (parking in the NPP spaces) and residents outside of the Goss-Grove neighborhood (parking in the unregulated spaces). People may be parking on the street in the evenings in this area because of inadequate on-site parking for the number of residential units or current occupancy. However, staff has confirmed that all residences fronting on 17th Street in this area do have off-street parking. th The city has been petitioned to include the remainder of the block of 17 Street between Grove Street and Canyon Boulevard in the existing NPP zone. This area includes 5 properties with 30 units, which could generate up to 60 new NPP permits. The loss of on-street parking in this area would exacerbate the parking concerns of these properties and the city may be compelled to address this petition sooner than it would have otherwise. Public input expressed has highlighted the concern that city off-street parking standards are inadequate, citing that existing demand for parking by residents of multi-family dwellings far exceeds the supply. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK: As required by the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program Guidelines, consideration of the potential use of delay-inducing traffic mitigation as part of the proposed improvements was brought before the TAB in a public hearing at their Nov. 25, 2002 meeting. The TAB 2 AGENDA ITEM #____4____PAGE________ th recommended unanimously that delay-inducing devices could be considered for the 17 Street project. On July 12, 2004, city staff briefed the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) on the project. Several questions and requests for information were generated at the briefing and staff has Attachment C attempted to address these in the summation provided as . On Aug. 2, 2004, city staff presented the project to the Downtown Management Commission (DMC). Unfortunately, the lack of a quorum did not allow a formal recommendation to occur, however the two commissioners present were able to provide staff with their feedback to the project. The commissioners expressed concern about the loss of parking and the related impacts to both the downtown and the surrounding neighborhood as a result of that lost parking. They also expressed concern that a proposal including minimum bicycle lane standards adjacent to parking might be worse than doing nothing at all. The DMC public hearing has been rescheduled to the morning of Aug. 24, 2004. Staff will provide a summation of that meeting including the DMC’s recommendation at the Aug. 30, 2004 TAB meeting. On Aug. 11, 2004, city staff presented materials regarding this project to the Downtown Business Incorporated (DBI) Board. The board voted unanimously to oppose the creation of the th 17 Street bicycle lanes. The board also voted to request staff to consider the removal of the thth bicycle lane on the north side of Walnut Avenue between 15 Street and 17 Street, which would allow metered parking to be increased in these blocks. On Aug. 19, 2004, city staff will present materials regarding this project to the Business Improvement District (BID) Board. Staff will report on the comments and actions taken by the board at the Aug. 30, 2004 TAB meeting. Attachment D provides the boards and commissions review schedule and the minutes of the DBI meeting on Aug. 11, 2004. The minutes for the Aug. 19, 2004 BID meeting and the Aug. 24, 2004 DMC meeting will be provided by staff at the Aug. 30, 2004 TAB meeting. PUBLIC FEEDBACK: Staff convened five public meetings to involve, inform, gather input and evaluate options from the community on the following dates: Oct. 29, 2002; Jan. 30, 2003; April 2, 2003; April 30, 2003; and July 8, 2003. The community had additional access to get information and give input via the telephone, postal mail, e-mail and the city of Boulder Web site. Attachment E A summary of input provided through the public process is provided in . The public feedback was sought to identify opportunities as well as address issues and concerns raised by community interests. Community meetings were held to discuss what elements should be considered in the project. Potential project elements identified include: 3 AGENDA ITEM #____4____PAGE________ Traffic-calming measures in the Hillside and Goss/Grove neighborhoods, associated with the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program (NTMP); Improvements to address documented safety concerns; Pedestrian crossing enhancements; and, On-street bike lanes There has been support for the placement of traffic mitigation and pedestrian-crossing treatments within the project area. Many residents have also expressed a desire for additional treatments beyond the staff recommendation. Neighbors living nearby, the Boulder High School administration, parents of students attending Boulder High School, business owners and the business community leaders have expressed concern over the potential impacts of the proposed bicycle facility improvements to the corridor. The two primary concerns expressed are the loss of on-street parking and impacts associated with potential roadway widening at the intersections of Arapahoe and Canyon Boulevard. The Downtown Management Commission has expressed opposition to the loss of on-street parking for the placement of bicycle lanes. Members of the bike community (including the Boulder Bicycle Commuters) have expressed support for the installation of bike lanes. However, they do not support major intersection widening to provide bicycle lanes at the 17th Street/Arapahoe Avenue and 17th Street /Canyon Boulevard intersections. The Sierra Club has expressed support for the installation of bicycle lanes as well. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff sought to formulate a recommendation that incorporated the interests of all stakeholders and created a balanced approach that would best serve the Boulder community. Based on consideration of the benefits and impacts of the potential functional elements, staff recommends that the project: th Install on-street bicycle lanes on 17 Street between Athens Street and Walnut Street to provide a safe and connected bicycle network for cyclists in this area of the city. This will require the removal of approximately 38 on-street parking spaces; thth Construct pedestrian-crossing treatments at the 17 Street / Marine Street and 17 Street / Grove Street intersections to enhance pedestrian crossing safety and address existing speeding and the potential traffic speed impacts that removal of on-street parking and striping bicycle lanes may produce. The Grove Street crossing treatment will also narrow Grove Street to help reinforce the one-way street restriction. This will require the removal of approximately 5 NPP on-street parking spaces and 3 student pickup/drop-off spaces; th Install a raised pedestrian-crossing treatment at the University Avenue / 17 Street intersection and a median south of Hillside to address the identified safety problem with northbound vehicles traveling too fast around the curve and leaving the roadway; and, Install two new speed display signs and relocate two existing speed display signs to be placed at strategic locations to address existing speeding and the potential traffic speed impacts that removal of on-street parking and striping bicycle lanes may produce. By using the city’s minimum design standards for bike and vehicle lane width, the project will not require relocating curb/gutter except on a limited basis (20 feet on the southeast corner of the 4 AGENDA ITEM #____4____PAGE________ th Arapahoe Avenue/17 Street intersection). City minimum standards are based on local experience and meet or exceed national standards for the design and construction of transportation facilities. Minimum design standards provide safe facilities under constrained conditions where the impact to adjacent properties and cost considerations necessitate. Use of minimum standards will minimize negative impacts and project cost. The planting strip between the street and sidewalk will be maintained and removal of existing mature landscaping will not be required. Attachment F provides a summary of each treatment recommended in the corridor, with its benefits, impacts and costs, as well as drawings showing the location of each improvement and the expected loss of parking in the corridor. ANALYSIS: The process of assessing options has been sequenced in two steps: Step 1 - Macro level the need for and extent of improvement Step 2 - Micro level design/configuration of improvement The options were evaluated using the following criteria: Bicycling stress (street width, vehicle traffic volume, vehicle traffic speed) Bicycling activity Bicycle system continuity Impacts to on-street parking, streetscape plantings, and adjacent land use (commercial, residential, Boulder High School), and neighborhood circulation Opportunities for other corridor enhancements such as safety improvements, pedestrian crossings, and speed mitigation Cost Background on existing conditions and corridor maintenance/street resurfacing needs is provided Attachment G in. The assessment to determine the appropriate northern terminus for the improvement is provided Attachment H in. The assessment to determine the appropriate facility is provided in Attachment I . Replacement Parking Strategic on-street parking replacement is possible without impacting mature trees. The tradeoff is additional project cost and removal of the existing planting strip between the street curb and the sidewalk. As many as 21 of the 46 removed on-street parking spaces can be restored in this manner at a cost of approximately $115,000. A detailed discussion of replacement parking options, with drawings showing the location of these replacement parking spaces is provided in Attachment I . Alternative Alignment ththth The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) identifies both 17 Street and 19/20 Street as secondary corridors in the bicycle system network. These two secondary corridors are located 5 AGENDA ITEM #____4____PAGE________ th approximately 650 feet apart. As an alternative to improving the 17 Street bicycle facility, the thth only 19 /20 Street Corridor could be developed as the secondary north-south corridor in the Attachment I area. An evaluation of this alternative is provided in . In summary, based on existing use, the circuitous nature of the corridor and discontinuities in the corridor (pocket parks th and geographic barriers), staff does not recommend the 19/20th as a viable alternative in lieu of th an improved 17 Street corridor. An in-depth description of the proposed neighborhood traffic mitigation, safety and pedestrian Attachment J crossing improvements is provided in . MATRIX OF OPTIONS: The matrix of options available for consideration is outlined below: 1.Do Nothing – proceed with only the street maintenance activities. Modify the Transportation th Master Plan (TMP) to reflect the elimination of the 17 Street bike facility enhancements. th 2.Accept the staff recommended set of improvements for the 17 Street corridor th 3.Accept the staff recommended set of improvements for the 17 Street corridor with modifications in: a.The extent of the improvements (pedestrian-crossing treatments, safety, enhanced bike facility, and neighborhood traffic mitigation) b.The extent of parking removed. Attachments A - Project Cost Breakdown th B - 17 Street On-street Parking Impacts C - TAB Briefing – Questions and Answers th D - 17 Street Boards and Commissions Review Schedule E - Public Feedback Summary F - Staff Recommendation Summary and Drawings th G - 17 Street Existing Conditions and Corridor Maintenance Needs H - Northern Terminus Assessment I - Facility Alternative Assessment and Replacement Parking Option Drawings J - Proposed Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation, Safety and Pedestrian-crossing treatments 6 AGENDA ITEM #____4____PAGE________ Attachment A Project Cost Breakdown th 17 Street Corridor Project Costs Item Description: Cost Public Process and technical support $ 30,000 Street Overlay (overlay, ADA access ramps, restriping) $ 85,000 On-street bike lanes installation $ 45,000 th (Curb/gutter/signal modification southwest corner Arapahoe/17 Street intersection, striping and signage) thth Pedestrian-crossing treatments (17/Marine and 17/Grove) including $ 50,000 Grove Street neckdown th Raised pedestrian-crossing treatment at the University Avenue/17$ 60,000 Street intersection and median south of Hillside Four speed display signs placed at strategic locations $ 24,000 Total $294,000 Lost annual revenue from Neighborhood Permit Parking Program ($6,250) * th * The proposed bicycle lanes on 17 Street between Arapahoe and Canyon, as well as the th median proposed at 17 and Goss would result in the loss of 16 of the 20 NPP spaces on th 17 Street. The loss of these spaces would mean that the City could not issue the 8 Commuter Permit Parking permits for these block faces. In addition, it is anticipated that the relocation of displaced NPP parking further into the neighborhood will fill in the white space on nearby blocks and the City would no longer be able to issue as many as 12 additional Commuter Permit Parking permits (all within a one block radius). Each Commuter Permit Parking permits costs approximately $312 (revenue provided to the City). The loss of revenue associated with these Commuter Permit Parking permits would be approximately $6,250 each year. A- 1 Attachment B th 17 Street On-street Parking Impacts th 17 Street On-street Parking Impacts Spaces Removed Existing On- Neighborhood Two-hour Student streetSpaces Unregulated Permit Time Pickup- Street Segment Spaces Remaining ParkingParkingRestrictedDrop-off Total Athens to Arapahoe 28+7* 14 3 14+3* 14+4* Arapahoe to Canyon 36 5 16 21 15 Canyon to Walnut 13 8 8 5 Total 77+7* 27 16 3 43+3* 34+4* * - pickup/drop-off spaces at Boulder High Note: Five Neighborhood Permit Parking (NPP) spaces and three student pickup/drop-off spaces would be removed to construct the pedestrian-crossing treatments (medians) at Marine Street and Grove Street. The remaining 38 spaces would be removed as a result of the bike lanes. B- 1 Attachment C thth 17 Street Project – Comments and Questions from TAB (July 12 Briefing) th City staff briefed the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) regarding the 17 Street project at their July 12, 2004 meeting. The following is a list of questions and comments from the TAB along with the associated staff response. Question/Comment: Please provide clear maps and drawings that show the design of the roadway, the pedestrian crossings, speed mitigation and intersections. Also, provide drawings which show where parking is being removed and where parking can potentially be put back. Response: Staff has provided drawings in the packet which show existing conditions, proposed improvements, parking impacts, and potential replacement parking. Staff will use a large version of this map in our presentation on August 30, 2004. Question/Comment: What would be the tradeoff for spending $115,000 on replacement parking? What would we not accomplish? How many NPP parking spaces would return? What are the revenue implications? th Response: Funding for the majority of improvements associated with the 17 Street project would come from bicycle and pedestrian facilities enhancement funds. Currently $200,000 per year is allocated to this function. Spending $115,000 on parking replacement would represent approximately half of one year’s allocation. This would result in half of the bicycle and pedestrian improvements planned for 2005 being postponed until 2006 and so on into the future. Replacement parking would restore 21 parking spaces of which 6 spaces are NPP. There would be no direct revenue benefit to these spaces, but the 6 NPP spaces would help mitigate the loss of Commuter Permit Parking permits lost in the Goss/Grove neighborhood (by displacing fewer NPP parkers into curb space currently offered to commuter permit holders). This would represent a savings of approximately $1,000 to $2,000 per year for the DMC budget. Question/Comment: Please provide more information about public participation so TAB can better understand what concerns have been raised. : Appendix E compiles the public participation including a summary of Response concerns and positions taken by people involved in the public process and copies of e- mails and letter correspondence. Question/Comment: What traffic mitigation is being provided between Arapahoe and Canyon to slow traffic in this section of the corridor? Response: Staff from the Fire Department, Police Department and Public Works collaborated to recommend an appropriate combination of traffic mitigation in this corridor. The proposed mitigation recognizes the fact that there is some speeding present today, which may be exacerbated by a loss of parking and the striping of a bicycle lane C -1 th and that 17 Street is a Critical Emergency Response Route (CERR) where any delay- inducing mitigation would negatively impact emergency response. It was determined th that NO delay-inducing traffic mitigation should be proposed in the section of 17 Street between Arapahoe and Canyon. The mitigation proposed includes the median refuge th island at 17 & Grove; and a pair of permanent speed displays in the block between Grove and Canyon. Question/Comment: What are the code requirements for parking associated with the land th uses on 17 Street? Are properties meeting this code requirement? Response: Code requirements for parking vary depending on land use. For housing the required number of parking spaces is determined by a number of different factors including floor area and the number of bedrooms in the dwelling unit depending on the th zoning district. The zoning along 17 Street in the area with impacted parking is High Density Residential (HZ-E and HR-X) which requires one parking space for the first 500 square feet of a dwelling unit plus an additional space per additional 300 square feet up to a maximum of four parking spaces per unit. For commercial/office land uses they are based on square footage. The level of effort to accurately assess off-street parking compliance with the code and site specific development approvals would be substantial and costly. Factors including over occupancy would also influence the usability of this parking assessment. Based on resource constraints and these other considerations a detailed analysis was not performed. In lieu of this code compliance analysis, on-street parking conditions were reviewed late at night as an anecdotal approach to assess on-site parking availability in the corridor. The premise being that late night parking most likely represents residents parking on street due to either supply limitations on-site, convenience or both. Evening review reveals that the spaces south of Arapahoe Avenue are not used. Of the spaces between Arapahoe and Canyon approximately 67% are being used. And in the stretch between Canyon and Walnut approximately 46% are being used. Question/Comment: How late can a decision be made regarding this project which would still allow construction to occur this year? Response: Many of the improvements are intended to be constructed in advance of or th concurrently with the resurfacing of 17 Street. Should this matter go before the City th Council in September or October, it will already be too late to resurface 17 Street. At this point, staff is expecting that most of the recommended improvements, if approved, would be constructed in 2005.Staff believes that the safety improvements at the south th end of the project (17 & University) are the most critical for early construction (to avoid another winter in which people slip on the ice and crash into the guardrail) so staff would try to schedule the construction of those improvements as soon after the disposition of the th 17 Street project is known. C -2 Question/Comment: How do you propose to construct the bicycle lane to minimize the seam? What would it cost to pour a concrete bicycle lane so that the seam is at the edge of the lane? Response: The staff recommendation is to provide conventional bicycle lanes which include the gutter pan when the lane is adjacent to the curb. Care would be taken to improve the seam by replacing deteriorated and settled gutter. Staff considered options to remove this seam. The option to reconstruct the bicycle lane entirely of concrete, with the seam on the edge would require the removal of the existing pan and gutter as well as several feet of asphalt, and the placement of a new monolithic wide concrete gutter. The anticipated cost to provide this new section was considered prohibitive ($140,000). Another option would be to lay asphalt over the existing concrete pan so that the entire bicycle lane was asphalt. Unfortunately, this would result in the loss of much of the drainage capacity of the pan and within a short period of time, the concrete beneath the asphalt would cause there to be a crack at the joint anyway. In short, there does not seem to be a safe and cost effective solution to provide a seamless bicycle lane on a retrofit th project like 17 Street. Question/Comment: Are there drainage issues out there that are being fixed or exacerbated? Response: Staff is not aware of any existing drainage issues in the project boundaries. Staff does not believe any of the improvements being proposed will impact drainage th except for the raised crossing at 17 & University. An inlet to mitigate this impact is included in the design of this improvement. Question/Comment: Have we talked to the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) and Boulder High School (BHS) about their taking on the responsibility of replacing some parking on-site? Response: Early in the process, staff met with staff from the BVSD and BHS to discuss on-site parking alternatives. Staff identified several locations on the BHS site where parking lots could be placed that would not impact the flood zone area. Unfortunately, all of these locations were in existing field or green space adjacent to or in front of the school and the staff from BVSD and BHS could not support losing this field or green space to gain parking. The staff from the BVSD recognizes that a portion of the parking “stress” that exists in this area is a direct result of their inadequate on-site parking but they could still not support any of the potential changes. Because they recognize these th things, the BVSD has adopted a “neutral” stance on the 17 Street project. th Question/Comment: Please let people know about the August 30 TAB meeting. Response: A flyer providing notification of this meeting was sent to the entire mailing list thth of the 17 Street public process on Monday, August 16. Organizational and neighborhood leaders, as well as staff from the BVSD and BHS were notified about the entire public process (including all briefings and hearings) in June. C -3 Attachment D th 17 Street Boards and Commissions Review Schedule th 17 Street Boards and Commissions Review Schedule MeetingMeeting Date Available Dates nd TAB Briefing Monday, July 12, 6:00PM, Normally 2 Monday City Council Chambers st DMC Public Hearing and Monday, August 2, Normally 1 Monday Recommendation5:30PM, City Council Chambers nd DBI Briefing August 11, 7:30AM, Normally 2 Wednesday Wells Fargo 1242 Pearl St. rd BID Briefing August 19, 7:30AM, Normally 3 Thursday 1942 Broadway, Suite 301 (Southeast corner of Pearl Street Mall and Broadway) nd TAB Public Hearing and Monday, August 30, Normally 2 Monday Recommendation6:00PM, City Council Chambers strd City Council (If Necessary) September 21, 6:00PM, Normally 1 & 3 City Council Chambers Tuesday TAB – Transportation Advisory Board http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/cmo/boards/rosters/transportation.html Staff Liaison: Tracy Winfree, (303) 441-3200 Board Secretary: Robin Madel, (303) 441- 4073 DMC – Downtown Management Commission http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/cmo/boards/rosters/dmc.html Staff Liaison: Molly Winter, Executive Director, (303) 413-7300 Secretary: Donna Jobert, (303) 413-7300 BID – Downtown Boulder Business Improvement District http://www.boulderdowntown.com/ Jane Jenkins, Executive Director, (303)449-3774 DBI – Downtown Boulder Incorporated http://www.boulderdowntown.com/ C- 1 Attachment E Public Feedback Summary th 17 Street Project Public Feedback Summary Staff convened five public meetings to educate, inform, gather input and evaluate options from the community on the following dates: Oct. 29, 2002 Jan. 30, 2003 April 2, 2003 April 30, 2003 July 8, 2003 In addition, staff has made presentations concerning this project to the Transportation Advisory Board, the Downtown Management Commission, the Downtown Boulder Incorporated Board and the Boulder Improvement District Board. Citizens had additional access to get and give information via the telephone, postal mail, e-mail and city of Boulder Web site. Community input received expresses significant concern for several elements of the project. There was strong opposition to removing on- street parking to stripe bicycle lanes along the corridor by the impacted community. However, the bike lanes were supported by members of the general biking community, the Boulder Bicycle Commuters organization and the Indian Peaks Group of Sierra Club. Specific concerns raised by stakeholder representatives follow. Goss/Grove neighborhood leaders have expressed their neighborhood’s lack of support for bicycle lanes on 17th Street. The Goss/Grove neighborhood is in opposition to the following: The removal of trees and landscaping strip th The removal of resident’s parking spaces on 17 Street The projected increase in speed due to the removal of parking th The expenditure of funds for the remodeling of the intersections of 17 and th Canyon and 17 and Arapahoe Goss/Grove’s neighborhood goals are to preserve the character of the neighborhood and increase pedestrian safety. Members of the Hillside neighborhood, the Goss/Grove neighborhood group, and administrators from the Boulder High School have expressed concern about the speed and volume of traffic on 17th Street. While they generally support traffic mitigation, they are concerned that not enough mitigation will occur. There has been much discussion about the need for a balance between delay-inducing traffic mitigation and emergency response. This continues to be a source of concern for several stakeholder groups. E- 1 Members of the bicycle community have expressed support for bicycle lanes on 17th Street. They have also expressed support for the neighborhood’s concerns. The attached Boulder Bicycle Commuters (BBC) and Sierra Club position letters details their support of bicycle lanes. Parents of students at Boulder High School have expressed opposition to the removal of th parking along 17 Street. Concerns have included inadequate parking for their children attending the school and lack of parking for parent volunteers and school functions. Concern was also expressed for loss of already limited student pickup/drop-off space on th 17 Street. Members of the business community in the downtown area have expressed opposition to any change in parking along 17th Street, and especially any change in the downtown area north of Canyon Boulevard. Concerns have included impacts on their customers and employees from a parking supply and location perspective and concerns about additional construction impacts during these difficult fiscal times. In order to address concerns raised for the potential loss of metered parking along 17th Street between Walnut and Pearl streets, a meeting was convened on July 8, 2003 to receive input from Downtown business and property-owner interests. The DMC board appointed a representative to attend the meeting. Members of the bicycling community and the Goss/Grove neighborhood were also present. Staff presented a proposal to exchange some on-street parking lost along 17th Street with increased on-street parking along Walnut Street. DMC and downtown business interests did not express support for advancing this proposal. The consensus opinion expressed by meeting attendees was that installing angle parking along Walnut Street would compromise bicyclist safety for those who seek to continue using this segment of Walnut Street. Additionally, it was stated that the value of existing on-street parking along 17th Street between Pearl and Walnut streets exceeds the potential benefit of adding additional parking along the segment of Walnut Street. Summaries of the all public meetings are available at the following link: http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/publicworks/depts/transportation/projects/17thbikelane.html Copies of e-mail and written correspondence concerning this project are included in the following pages of this Attachment. E- 2 Boulder Bicycle Commuters SUPPORT 17TH STREET BIKE LANE PROJECT April 2, 2003 Boulder Bicycle Commuters supports the 17th Street bike lane project between Athens and Pine streets. This statement was adopted unanimously at our March 3 meeting. We urge the city of Boulder to proceed with this project, with the following provisions: ON-STREET BIKE LANES * Install on-street bike lanes on both sides of 17th Street from Athens to Pine streets. * Extend the southbound bike lane south past Athens, to connect with the uphill bike lane going up to University Ave. * Given existing space constraints, we support the following configuration for 17th Street: - Two regular auto travel lanes, one each direction. - Two on-street bike lanes, one each direction. - Automobile parking lane, one side only, only when space allows. - Buffer strip between parking lane and bike lane, to protect cyclists from suddenly opened car doors. - Existing detached sidewalks. - Existing verges, trees, and landscaping. * Remove existing on-street auto parking on 17th Street, as needed, to obtain the space needed for the bike lanes. * Do not widen 17th Street anywhere for the purpose of keeping parking while adding bike lanes. * Make the bike lanes straight, direct, and unobstructed. * Do not make any curves in bike lanes, as has been suggested. * Use a curb design that eliminates the seam between the bike lane and gutter pan. Also eliminate special breaks in the side slope of the bike lane that could present irregular surfaces to cyclists. * Please pave the curb-side bike lanes to full width with seamless asphalt, not concrete, all the way to the curb face. * Do not expand 17th Street at intersections. Eliminate automobile turn lanes as needed to provide space to install the bike lanes. * Paint stripes on both sides of the parking lane buffer strip. * The buffer strip will also provide some room for snow plow drifts while maintaining an open bike lane next to parking. LANE WIDTHS There are a variety of existing curb-to-curb widths on this section of 17th Street, between 36 and 50 feet. When bike lanes are installed, our preferred lane widths and configurations are as follows. In order to make clear a complex request, we present this as a set of formulas: - Bike lane next to curb: 6 feet with NO gutter seam. (Standard is 5 feet plus 1-1/2 foot gutter pan.) E- 3 - Bike lane next to parking lane: 5 feet (standard). - Auto travel lanes: 11 feet (standard). - Parking lane: 8 feet (standard). - Buffer strip: 3 feet. - Total width needed between curb faces: 44 feet. For available width from 44 to 42 feet, please reduce these dimensions as follows: - Reduce the curb-side bike lane and buffer strip widths by equal amounts as needed, down to 5 feet and 2 feet respectively. For available width from 42 to 40 feet, in addition to above: - Reduce the buffer strip alone as needed, from 2 feet to none. Below 40 feet, we urge that parking lanes on both sides of the street be eliminated. In addition, please consider reducing auto travel lane width to 10 or 10-1/2 feet where necessary to fit the desired bike lanes plus one parking lane. TRAFFIC MITIGATION * Provide traffic mitigation measures as needed over time, to deal with automobile speeding problems. We support and recommend these measures for 17th Street: - Complete striping of crosswalks across 17th Street, both sides of the intersection, at every side street. - Official regulatory signs and centerline bollards, "Stop For Pedestrians In Crosswalk". - Automatic speed sensor warning signs. - Raised crosswalks, if necessary. - Remove extra automobile turn lanes to decrease crossing distance and discourage excess automobile travel. * Please do NOT install traffic mitigation neckdowns that protrude into bike lanes. They are not appropriate for this project and would be hazardous to cyclists. * Request Boulder Valley School District, the University, and local businesses and agencies to step up their programs to ask people to find alternatives to driving, and seek jobs or homes close to each other to reduce the need for automobiles. Reasons to support 17th Street bike lanes: * Provide a high-quality north-south bicycle connection that is presently lacking in this area. * Provide good bike access from central and north Boulder to: - Boulder High School - University - Boulder Creek Path - Uni Hill commercial area * This project has been in the Transportation Master Plan since at least 1996. E- 4 * Improve pedestrian environment and safety. Bike lanes will get more cyclists, especially faster ones, off the sidewalks. * Improve safety for cyclists. Current conditions mix cyclists with auto traffic, exposing them to opening car doors due to on-street parking. * This project will encourage MORE people to use bikes and leave their autos behind. * Bike lanes will help reduce the need for the displaced parking spaces. E- 5 BBC Letter of Support, July 28, 2004 To: Downtown Management Commission To: Transportation Advisory Board To: City of Boulder Transportation Division Dear Board Members and Staff Members: Boulder Bicycle Commuters fully supports the addition of on-street bike lanes on 17th Street north of Athens Street, at the expense of on-street automobile parking when necessary. Ideally we would like to see the bike lanes extend as far north as Pine Street. I believe that you all have seen our full position statement in several past communications including attachment D in the July 12 2004 TAB packet. Following that statement in April 2003, and taking community concerns into account, BBC repeatedly discussed this project and made several policy adjustments. We communicated these to city staff verbally and through our spring 2004 newsletter. But I was remiss in not presenting these policy changes in letter form until now. Please consider this a supplement to our original position statement. Our four new requests are as follows: 1. It would be acceptable to BBC for the bike lanes to terminate at Spruce Street rather than Pine Street at this time, if necessary, due to much lower traffic volume in this northernmost residential block. (May 5, 2003) 2. We urge the city to NOT remove from the Transportation Master Plan,any section of bike lanes that will not be included in the current project. Removal was proposed last summer by city staff. (Sept. 2, 2003) 3. If the city finds it impossible to remove vehicle left turn lanes on 17th at Canyon and Arapahoe, then we request that the preservation of existing curb lines and landscaping have the highest priority, and that bike lanes be discontinued on approach. Cyclists should merge and share the automobile lanes through the intersections, as is now the case. (Jan. 5, 2004) 4. We recommend maintaining the 5 foot standard width for bike lanes in general. But a substandard width down to 4 feet may be acceptable where speed limits are 25 mph or less, such as 17th street, in order to complete bike lanes in constrained areas. (Jan. 5, 2004) Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, E- 6 Dave Allured, Spokesperson Boulder Bicycle Commuters 4231 Eaton Court Boulder, CO 80303 303-499-7466 E- 7 Sierra Club Endorsement of 17th Street Bike Lanes From: Jennifer Bray To: Cowern, Bill ; Sweeney, Michael; Winfree, Tracy Date: 8/26/2003 12:41:28 PM Subject: Council Email : Sierra Club Endorsement of 17th Street Bike Lanes >>> Sonya Guram <sguram@yahoo.com> 8/26/2003 10:22:52 AM >>> We would like to inform the TAB, City Council, and Transportation Staff that we encourage the implementation of bicycle lanes on 17th street. The Sierra Club, Indian Peaks Group, supports the TMP goal of, and completed decision process for, adding bike lanes to 17th street between Pine and Athens. We believe that the provision of bicycle facilities will encourage cycling, resulting in better air quality and a healthier community. We not only believe that commuter cycling supports a healthier ecology, but it also fosters a healthier local economy as bicycle commuters tend to shop locally. Connectivity and convenience are key to making cycling a viable option for the community. Therefore, we lend our support to the TMP plan for the 17th Street Corridor Bicycle Lane Project, and additionally encourage completing the southbound gap from Athens up to the existing path on University for connectivity and safety. Sonya Guram Chair, Sprawl & Transportation Committee Sierra Club - IPG E- 8 DOWNTOWN BOULDER, INC. BOARD MEETING WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2004 MINUTES WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS In attendance: Reg Gupton, Patrick Mercardante, Chuck Hunker, Phil Shull, Virginia Patterson, Ron Secrist, Ellen Cunningham, Eric Love, Maureen MacMackin, Tom Eldridge, Mary Street, Richard Foy, Nolan Rosall, Sean Maher, Paul Eklund, George Karakehian, Mike Sweeney, Bill Cowern, Michael Stumpf, Jane Jenkins, Sue Hempstead, Gerard Cote, Dave Adams. Jenkins called the meeting to order at 7:35am, a quorum was present. Jenkins introduced Michael Stumpf, new city Economic Development Coordinator, and Mike Sweeney and Bill Cowern, from the city Transportation Department. th 17 STREET BIKE LANE PROPOSAL th The 17 Street corridor, resurfacing between Arapahoe and Canyon has started. Planned improvements included in the project include: bicycle and pedestrian enhancements. This is a popular corridor for street, bicycle and pedestrian traffic. th A proposal for a 17 street bike lane would mitigate the removal of some street parking. An option for consideration is to replace 21 of the removed 46 parking spaces, in different sites, including the loss of 16 neighborhood commuter passes (11 to bike lanes and 5 to the median treatment). Staff is not recommending this option. The bike lane would be the minimum standard size, rather than the preferred size. Foy proposed that the city give up 25 spaces in the city parking lot to make up for the spaces lost in putting in the bike lane. Since the bike lane proposal impacts downtown, the neighborhood and Boulder High School, Rosall asked what the feedback was from the school and neighborhoods. Cowern said that the biking community has difficulty thth using 17 due to the close proximity to parked cars, and 17 is a more th direct route than the current bike lane on 13. The neighborhood is opposed to anything that will impact parking, the Boulder Valley School District is neutral, although Boulder High School parents are concerned, and the bicycle community and Sierra Club are in support. Gupton questioned it there had been any documentation as to the th number of accidents on 17, to support the proposal for a safety issue. Sweeney said that industry analysis has shown that bike stress level is dependant on how wide the bike space is compared to street, travel speed of cars, and number of cars using corridor. A specific study for the th 17 street corridor has not been done. The general consensus of the th ERDUGLVWKHUHLVQ¶WDQ\SURRIthat there is a need for a 17 street bike lane, nor would it be used. Jenkins stated that DMC is looking for a recommendation from the DBI Board. Karakehian stated that it appears a small minority (Boulder Bicycle Commuters) supports the proposal, while the majority is in opposition. Secrist added that by taking parking off the street, there is an increased risk of speeding, and he suggested moving the funding to transportation maintenance issues. th Patterson made a motion to oppose the creation of a 17 Street Bike Lane, seconded by Gupton. Hunker added that it would be very detrimental to tear up another street, as there already has been so much construction in the downtown area. Board approved motion unanimously. Karakehian made a motion to propose diagonal parking on Walnut thth between 15 & 17 Street, adding 12 spaces. Board voted 9 in support, 1 against and 4 abstentions. Attachment F Northern Terminus Assessment Bicycle Facility Enhancements The 2003 Boulder Valley Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is the city’s “blueprint” for transportation. A goal of the TMP is to develop a continuous bicycle system with access to major destinations/activity centers and to maintain the bicycle system to provide safe and convenient bicycle travel. The bicycle system is envisioned as a corridor network comprised of primary and secondary corridors. Primary corridors are generally defined by the street arterial system and are spaced approximately one per mile on an east-west and north-south grid. The secondary corridors generally rely on collector streets to provide bike routes and facilities on lower volume streets. Secondary corridors provide for more rideable distances between the primary corridors. The primary and secondary corridors in this part of the city are listed below. TMP Primary and Secondary Corridors Primary Corridors North-south East-west th Broadway/13 Street University/Colorado (across campus) Folsom Arapahoe/Canyon (includes Boulder Creek Path Walnut/Pearl Secondary Corridors North-south East-west th 17 Street Pine Street thth 19/20 Street A map of the city’s bicycle system is available at the following link: http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/publicworks/depts/transportation/master_plan_new/pdfs/bike_systems_map.pd f The development of the TMP Bicycle System Plan relied on extensive public input, comment and review from a wide range of people and interests. Representatives from bicycle organizations and from the community at large were invited to a series of roundtable discussions to develop the plan. th The corridor system plan included a conceptual-level facility recommendation. For 17 Street the concept is: bike lanes from University Avenue to Canyon Boulevard; and, a signed bike route from Canyon Boulevard to Pine Street F- 1 As a master plan, it is intended that the proposed corridor alignment and identified improvements represented are conceptual and subject to further study, community review, and refinement to resolve any issues surrounding each project. Bicycle Facility Alternatives Provision of an appropriate bicycle facility in the corridor is based on determining: facility type – off-street multi-use path, on-street bike lanes, or bike route (no dedicated facility); the limits of the improvement; and, preferred or minimum design standards. Bicycle Facility Limits The TMP proposes a complete bicycle network that allows convenient and safe bicycle travel throughout the Boulder Valley as a viable alternative to the automobile. The system is intended to provide for a diverse mix of users (young and old) and trip purposes (commuting, recreation, shopping, and students going to and from CU and the public (K- 12) schools). One of the challenges in creating this system is to determine the appropriate bicycle facility for the conditions. Considerations include the volume of existing and projected bicycle traffic, the volume and speed of the vehicle traffic, physical characteristics of the street, the width of the vehicle travel lanes, and on-street parking activity. An analytical methodology developed by Northwestern University, Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the city of Madison seeks to inform this question by ranking the cycling compatibility of existing roadways based on the relative level of stress a cyclist encounters on a given route. Bicycling Stress Levels Stress Level Cyclist Skill LevelInterpretation 1Very Low (VL) Inexperienced / Beginner – street is reasonably safe for all types of bicyclists (except children under 10). 2 Low (L) Casual – street can accommodate experienced and casual bicyclists, and/or may need altering* or compensating conditions** to fit youth bicyclists. 3 Moderate (M) Casual / Experienced – street can accommodate experienced bicyclist, and/or may need altering* or compensating conditions** to accommodate casual bicyclists. Not recommended for youth bicyclists. 4 High (H) Experienced – street may need altering* or compensating conditions** to accommodate experienced bicyclists. Not recommended for casual or youth bicyclist. 5 Very High (VH) Street may not be suitable for bicycle use. * - “Altering” means that street may be widened to include wide curb-lane, paved shoulder. F- 2 ** - “Compensating condition” can include street with wide curb-lanes, paved shoulder, bike-lanes. The bicycling stress level ranking can be used to determine user compatibility and identify the need for upgrading facilities (bike route wider curb lanes bike lanes). th Applied to 17 Street, the existing conditions yield the following results. th 17 Street Existing Bicycling Stress Level and Bicycling Use Speed 85%tile Bicycling Curb Lane Vehicles/Limit Speed StressBikes/ Segment width* day (mph) (mph) Levelday Athens to Arapahoe 20 12,800 25 31 3.7 540 Arapahoe to Canyon 20 6,000 25 29 3.3 260 Canyon to Walnut 20 5,700 25 26 2.9 260 Walnut to Pearl 21 4,700 25 25 2.4 220 Pearl to Spruce 25 2,300 25 24 1.4120 Spruce to Pine 17 1,300 25 24 2.4 60 Scale => 1= very low stress, 5 = very high stress * = curb lane is the right-most travel lane, -- = not collected This analysis yields that a range of skill is required to ride a bicycle in the corridor; ranging from low to moderate on the north end to moderate to high on the south end. The other significant observation is that the higher skill levels are required on the southern end of the corridor where bike use is the highest. Bicycling Stress Level and cycling use are excellent tools to determine appropriate bicycle facilities/system development and investment. From a cycling stress level, if we wished to provide adequate facilities for all users down to an inexperienced beginner, we would need to improve the cycling environment all the way from Athens Street to Pine Street. If we were comfortable saying that it was appropriate to only expect expert-level cyclists, no improvement would be required. From a use perspective, the higher level of existing cycling is focused in the southern end of the corridor reducing as you go north. Integrating these two considerations together; bicycling stress level and bike use indicate that improvements to existing facilities should be investigated from Athens Street north to Walnut Street or Pearl Street. In considering the installation of bike facility improvements on 17th Street, staff analyzed the benefits and impacts of the potential northern terminus. The products of this analysis are provided in the evaluation matrix provided below. Based on the identified benefits, impacts and financial cost, staff recommends that the bicycle facility improvements extend from Athens Street north to Walnut Street. The segment from Walnut north to Pine Street is recommended to be signed as a route. F- 3 Attachment G th 17 Street Existing Conditions and Corridor Maintenance Needs Existing Conditions A summary of existing conditions by block including on-street parking, vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic along 17th Street between University Avenue and Pine Street is provided below. th 17 Street Existing Conditions Speed 85%tile Vehicles/Limit Speed Bikes/ PedParking Segment Day (mph) (mph) day Crossing Spaces Athens to Arapahoe 12,800 25 31 540 319** 28+7* Arapahoe to Canyon 6,000 25 29 260 212** 36 Canyon to Walnut 5,700 25 26 260 -- 13 Walnut to Pearl 4,700 25 25 220 -- 16 Pearl to Spruce 2,300 25 24 120 -- 14 Spruce to Pine 1,300 25 24 60 -- 19 ** = 4 peak hour total, * = pickup/drop-off spaces, -- = not collected Vehicle volumes shown are either actual 24-hour counts or interpolated from peak-hour count data at the signalized intersections. Bicycle volumes shown have been interpolated from 3 to 6 hours of peak-period data collection in each corridor segment. Traffic data indicates that both vehicle and bicycle traffic is greatest in the southern blocks of the corridor. Pedestrian volumes are fairly high in this section, which is attributed to the adjacent land uses of Boulder High School and CU-Boulder. Traveling north, the amount of vehicle traffic, vehicle traffic speed, bicycle traffic and pedestrian activity all decrease in each block segment removed from the southern end. A review of existing travel patterns indicates that pedestrian activity is high in the morning and afternoon peaks, during student pickup and drop-off at Boulder High School and during the noon peak when students are going to lunch. At these times, there were approximately 100 pedestrians per hour observed crossing 17th Street at the Marine Street intersection. During the same time period, there were between 135 and 150 pedestrians observed walking on the sidewalk, and crossing Arapahoe Avenue at 17th Street. Approximately 30 percent of the bicyclists observed traveling along 17th Street south of Arapahoe Avenue were riding on the sidewalk, which raises the potential for conflict between bicyclists and pedestrians. Corridor Maintenance/Street Resurfacing th The stretch of 17 Street between University Avenue and Pine Street is classified as a collector street and carries approximately 13,000 vehicles per day on the southern end G- 1 and 1,300 vehicles per day on the northern end. The purpose of a collector street is to collect traffic from local streets and provide corridors for traffic circulation through and between commercial areas and residential neighborhoods. The city resurfaces streets to provide a safe road surface for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Streets are periodically patched and overlaid with new asphalt to maintain the street’s structural integrity and to provide a new driving wear surface. This preventative maintenance strategy eliminates the need for more costly total reconstruction. Typically, collector and arterial streets are overlaid on a 7 to 10 year th cycle. The pavement on 17 Street between Arapahoe Avenue and Canyon Boulevard is currently in fair to poor condition with significant surface deterioration and structural cracking. The street was last overlaid prior to 1991. An overlay is necessary to prevent further deterioration and provide a safe driving surface. In accordance with recent court rulings associated with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act, the overlay project will also incorporate installing and upgrading curb access ramps. This includes installing new ramps where they are missing and upgrading existing ramps to meet slope and tactile identification (truncated domes) requirements. G- 2 Attachment H Northern Terminus Assessment Bicycle Facility Enhancements The 2003 Boulder Valley Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is the city’s “blueprint” for transportation. A goal of the TMP is to develop a continuous bicycle system with access to major destinations/activity centers and to maintain the bicycle system to provide safe and convenient bicycle travel. The bicycle system is envisioned as a corridor network comprised of primary and secondary corridors. Primary corridors are generally defined by the street arterial system and are spaced approximately one per mile on an east-west and north-south grid. The secondary corridors generally rely on collector streets to provide bike routes and facilities on lower volume streets. Secondary corridors provide for more rideable distances between the primary corridors. The primary and secondary corridors in this part of the city are listed below. TMP Primary and Secondary Corridors Primary Corridors North-south East-west th Broadway/13 Street University/Colorado (across campus) Folsom Arapahoe/Canyon (includes Boulder Creek Path Walnut/Pearl Secondary Corridors North-south East-west th 17 Street Pine Street thth 19/20 Street A map of the city’s bicycle system is available at the following link: http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/publicworks/depts/transportation/master_plan_new/pdfs/bike_systems_map.pdf The development of the TMP Bicycle System Plan relied on extensive public input, comment and review from a wide range of people and interests. Representatives from bicycle organizations and from the community at large were invited to a series of roundtable discussions to develop the plan. th The corridor system plan included a conceptual-level facility recommendation. For 17 Street the concept is: bike lanes from University Avenue to Canyon Boulevard; and, a signed bike route from Canyon Boulevard to Pine Street As a master plan, it is intended that the proposed corridor alignment and identified improvements represented are conceptual and subject to further study, community review, and refinement to resolve any issues surrounding each project. H- 1 Bicycle Facility Alternatives Provision of an appropriate bicycle facility in the corridor is based on determining: facility type – off-street multi-use path, on-street bike lanes, or bike route (no dedicated facility); the limits of the improvement; and, preferred or minimum design standards. Bicycle Facility Limits The TMP proposes a complete bicycle network that allows convenient and safe bicycle travel throughout the Boulder Valley as a viable alternative to the automobile. The system is intended to provide for a diverse mix of users (young and old) and trip purposes (commuting, recreation, shopping, and students going to and from CU and the public (K- 12) schools). One of the challenges in creating this system is to determine the appropriate bicycle facility for the conditions. Considerations include the volume of existing and projected bicycle traffic, the volume and speed of the vehicle traffic, physical characteristics of the street, the width of the vehicle travel lanes, and on-street parking activity. An analytical methodology developed by Northwestern University, Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the city of Madison seeks to inform this question by ranking the cycling compatibility of existing roadways based on the relative level of stress a cyclist encounters on a given route. Bicycling Stress Levels Stress Level Cyclist Skill Level Interpretation 1Very Low (VL) Inexperienced / Beginner – street is reasonably safe for all types of bicyclists (except children under 10). 2 Low (L) Casual – street can accommodate experienced and casual bicyclists, and/or may need altering* or compensating conditions** to fit youth bicyclists. 3 Moderate (M) Casual / Experienced – street can accommodate experienced bicyclist, and/or may need altering* or compensating conditions** to accommodate casual bicyclists. Not recommended for youth bicyclists. 4 High (H) Experienced – street may need altering* or compensating conditions** to accommodate experienced bicyclists. Not recommended for casual or youth bicyclist. 5 Very High (VH) Street may not be suitable for bicycle use. * - “Altering” means that street may be widened to include wide curb-lane, paved shoulder. ** - “Compensating condition” can include street with wide curb-lanes, paved shoulder, bike-lanes. H- 2 The bicycling stress level ranking can be used to determine user compatibility and identify the need for upgrading facilities (bike route wider curb lanes bike lanes). th Applied to 17 Street, the existing conditions yield the following results. th 17 Street Existing Bicycling Stress Level and Bicycling Use Speed 85%tile Bicycling Curb Lane Vehicles/Limit Speed StressBikes/ (mph) (mph) Level Segment width* day day Athens to Arapahoe 20 12,800 25 31 3.7 540 Arapahoe to Canyon 20 6,000 25 29 3.3 260 Canyon to Walnut 20 5,700 25 26 2.9 260 Walnut to Pearl 21 4,700 25 25 2.4 220 Pearl to Spruce 25 2,300 25 24 1.4120 Spruce to Pine 17 1,300 25 24 2.4 60 Scale => 1= very low stress, 5 = very high stress * = curb lane is the right-most travel lane, -- = not collected This analysis yields that a range of skill is required to ride a bicycle in the corridor; ranging from low to moderate on the north end to moderate to high on the south end. The other significant observation is that the higher skill levels are required on the southern end of the corridor where bike use is the highest. Bicycling Stress Level and cycling use are excellent tools to determine appropriate bicycle facilities/system development and investment. From a cycling stress level, if we wished to provide adequate facilities for all users down to an inexperienced beginner, we would need to improve the cycling environment all the way from Athens Street to Pine Street. If we were comfortable saying that it was appropriate to only expect expert-level cyclists, no improvement would be required. From a use perspective, the higher level of existing cycling is focused in the southern end of the corridor reducing as you go north. Integrating these two considerations together; bicycling stress level and bike use indicate that improvements to existing facilities should be investigated from Athens Street north to Walnut Street or Pearl Street. In considering the installation of bike facility improvements on 17th Street, staff analyzed the benefits and impacts of the potential northern terminus. The products of this analysis are provided in the evaluation matrix provided below. Based on the identified benefits, impacts and financial cost, staff recommends that the bicycle facility improvements extend from Athens Street north to Walnut Street. The segment from Walnut north to Pine Street is recommended to be signed as a route. H- 3 Attachment J Proposed Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation, Safety and Pedestrian-Crossing Treatments th 17 Street Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation/Safety and Pedestrian-Crossing Treatments As a result of neighborhood input, several other transportation-related improvements have been evaluated and incorporated into the recommended improvements. Starting at the south end of the corridor and working north, these improvements are the following: 17th Street and University Avenue: There is a documented accident problem in the vicinity of the 17th Street and University Avenue intersection. The horizontal and vertical curvature of the street, high usage and inclement weather causes approximately 5 accidents per year, in which northbound vehicles either crash into the guardrail on the east side of the street, or rear-end collisions with vehicles in front of them. In addition to this accident problem, neighbors living in the Hillside Neighborhood have petitioned to have 17th Street included in the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program (NTMP). Speed data collected on this section of 17th Street shows that with a speed limit of 25 mph, the 85th percentile speed is 33 mph and 84 percent of the traffic is speeding. To mitigate both the accident problem and the speeding issues along this section of the corridor, staff is proposing to construct a raised crossing (flat-topped speed hump) at the pedestrian crosswalk at the 17th Street and University Avenue intersection. In addition, staff is proposing to construct a median, north of that crossing which will visually constrain the northbound traffic and help slow traffic in this section of the corridor. Speed Displays: Existing speed displays in this section of 17th Street will be relocated to account for the new traffic mitigation and to provide better protection of the area. 17th Street and Marine Street: Throughout the day, pedestrians cross 17th Street at the Marine Street intersection. Staff observations suggest that most of these pedestrians are Boulder High School students who have parked in the neighborhood to the east. During the three peak school periods (morning arrival, noon lunchtime and afternoon dismissal), there is between 90 and 120 pedestrians an hour crossing at this intersection. There is low compliance with vehicles yielding to these pedestrians. To enhance this crossing, staff is proposing to construct a median refuge island on the south side of the intersection and to sign it with our “State Law – Yield to Pedestrians” signage. The construction of the median will result in the loss of approximately 3 spaces used for short-term student pickup and drop-off on the west side of the street. The loss of these spaces has been included in the tables showing parking loss, earlier in the memorandum. It is anticipated that this median refuge will also have some traffic mitigation benefit, slowing traffic in the Boulder High School area. J- 1 17th Street and Grove Street: Several years ago, staff worked with the Goss-Grove neighborhood to solve an accident problem at the 17th Street and Grove Street intersection. The accident problem involves: vehicles driving the wrong way (eastbound) on Grove Street west of 17th Street (which is one-way westbound); and, th westbound vehicles on Grove Street east of 17 Street not seeing or stopping at the STOP sign. Both of these situations resulted in broadside collisions at the intersection. Temporary mitigation made of parking blocks to narrow the street are already present on one corner. Staff is proposing to construct concrete neck-downs on both Grove Street approaches to the intersection, to mitigate this accident problem. In addition to the safety issues at the intersection, concerns about pedestrian crossings in this area arose through the corridor public process.Many pedestrians cross 17th Street, mid-block between Arapahoe Avenue and Grove Street. Recent counts show that between 20 and 70 pedestrians per hour cross during the peak school hours. The TMP shows the intersection of 17th Street and Grove Street as being a future enhanced crossing location, to facilitate east-west pedestrian and bicycle traffic through the Goss-Grove neighborhood. The section of 17th Street between Arapahoe Avenue and Canyon Boulevard (which includes the th Grove Street intersection) has a speed limit of 25 mph and traffic is traveling at an 85percentile speed of 30 mph, with less than half of the traffic speeding. Residents in the Goss-Grove neighborhood have sought to have this section of 17th Street included in the NTMP. The conditions would not typically satisfy the minimum criteria for being included in the program. However, it is expected that the bicycle lanes proposed on this section of 17th Street may visually open up the street and the presence of these bicycle lanes will result in higher travel speeds. Based on these conclusions, staff is including traffic mitigation on this section of 17th Street. To enhance the crossing opportunity at the 17th Street and Grove Street intersection (and hopefully encourage mid-block crossings to cross at this location instead) and to provide speed mitigation in this section of 17th Street, staff is proposing to construct a median refuge on the south side of the intersection and to sign the crossing with our “State Law – Yield to Pedestrians” signage. The construction of the median will result in the loss of approximately five (5) parking spaces on the east side of 17th Street. These spaces are currently signed as “Neighborhood Permit Parking Spaces.” The loss of these spaces has been included in the tables showing parking loss, earlier in the memorandum. Speed Displays: In response to the concerns about increased speeding traffic, staff is also proposing to install two speed displays (one in each direction) on the section of 17th Street between Grove Street and Canyon Boulevard. J- 2