The URL can be used to link to this page

4 - North 28th Street Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) i CITY OF BOULDER TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING DATE: February 11, 2002 SUBJECT: Staff briefing and TAB input on the Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) for the 28th Street Improvements - Pearl Street to Iris Avenue REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Ron Secrist, City Manager Chris Andersen, Deputy City Manager for Environmental Services Public Works Department Tracy Winfree, Acting Director of Public Works for Transportation Michael Gardner-Sweeney, Transportation Planning and Operations Coordinator Bob Whitson, Transportation Planner Stephany Westhusin, Transportation Project Manager BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: TAB review of the CEAP for the North 28th Street improvements FISCAL IMPACT: Transportation Fund Previously appropriated (2004 to 2007) $4,800,000 Federal Funds $ 397,000 Additional Funding needed $6,827,150 AGENDA ITEM!} Pagel r PURPOSE This memo summarizes staff's recommendation for improvements described in the 28th Street North Segment CEAP as reviewed by the public, Planning Board, Boulder Urban Renewal Authority (BURA), the Design Review Committee, a citizens review committee and Transportation staff and consultants. With TAB's approval of the CEAP, city funds would be des- ignated for use to transform North 28th Street into a multi-modal corridor with increased safety for all modes. BACKGROUND The city of Boulder Transportation Division initiated the 28th Street-2001: Central Corridor Planning Study (the 28th Street Project) on June 1, 1999, with the goal of implementing corridor- wide safety and aesthetic improvements. This CEAP request is for improvements in the North Segment of 28th Street, from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue. Possible funding for construction may be allotted from the city CIP and other possible funding sources or state, federal and RTD. The North Segment CEAP is the implementation of the second phase of one of the primary goals stated in the Transportation Master Plan to transform 28th Street from an auto-dominated road into a multi-modal corridor. The first phase was 28th Street's CEAP for the South Segment, from Baseline to Arapahoe, which was presented to TAB on May 8, 2000, and was unanimously rec- ommended for review by City Council. Council then unanimously approved the project on June 20, 2000, and on December 1, 2000, they reviewed the requested value engineering adjustments. Project Goals The goals for the 28th Street improvement project are to transform 28th Street into a multi- modal corridor by improving its function as a regional transit destination, improve traffic flow, increase bicyclist and pedestrian use and improve safety for all modes. The success of the project is based on coordination among these improvements as well as with other ongoing projects, jurisdictional organizations and the public. Construction Schedule Pending TAB approval of this CEAP and completion of the South Segment improvements (scheduled to begin in spring 2002), construction for the recommendations stated in this CEAP are anticipated to begin in 2004. The 28th Street Middle Segment planning process, from Arapahoe to Pearl, has yet to begin. Primary Project Funding Funding for the 28th Street project is anticipated to come from various sources. The majority of the funding will be provided by the city through the Transportation Capital Improvement Program (CIP). ISTEA federal money has been secured in 2003 for improvements at the Iris/28th Street intersection. Additional, potential funding sources include federal funding that will be applied for by the city through the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) process and Regional Transportation District (RTD) funding for the transit improvements. These additional funding sources could lower the overall project cost for the city. Between now and the anticipated construction start date in 2004, staff will pursue additional funding. AGENDA ITEM 4 Pave 2 Additional Project Funding In these interim years prior to city construction efforts, the city anticipates some redevelopment occurring throughout the study area. Redevelopments will be required to comply with the North 28th Street Transportation Network Plan, which was approved by Council on December 4, 2001. This CEAP is an Action Item listed in that document and is therefore ensured to be implemented. Property and easements will be acquired and portions of the plan may be constructed, reducing the city's overall cost. 28th Street North Segment Detailed Summary of Estimated Project Costs ITEM COST 1. Bus/Bike/Ri ht-Tumin Vehicle Lane & Left Turn Lanes $1,940,000 2. Multi-use Paths $370,000 3. Gateway at 28th & Iris $500,000 4. Landsca in $400,000 5. Pedestrian Lighting $760,000 6. Transit Super Stops (-1) $1,500,000 500 000 7. Transit Mid-block Pedestrian Crossings(3) $671,000 8. Signals, Signs and Pavement Markings $700,000 9. Land Acquisition in Rights of Way and Easements $1,680,000 10. Design and Project Administration $1,500,000 SUBTOTAL $10,021,000 15% Contingency $1.503.150 Inflation 500 000 TOTAL $12,024,150 ANALYSIS The safety improvements proposed for 28th Street are a direct result of community process. In the Pearl to Iris process that took place in 1996/97, staff proposed a continuous central median from Pearl to Iris to increase safety in the corridor. Because this proposal was met with resist- ance from the business community, and as a result staff re-evaluated and revised their proposal. The current proposal achieves similar levels of increased safety with limited medians placed at left-turn bays, intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings. Free left-turn lanes will be pre- served between new medians. These improvements and those listed in "Staff's Recommendations" have been well-received by the public and at jurisdictional reviews. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS Since the project's inception in 1999, continual review has been underway by the public, juris- dictional organizations and multiple city-department staffs. A citizen's Design Committee was formed which first reviewed 28th Street improvements from Baseline to Iris, then reviewed more detailed design proposals for the South Segment, and most recently reviewed improvements for the North Segment. Design Committee meetings were held on November 15, 2000, January 24, March 14 and June 13, 2001. Staff updated jurisdictional organizations at periodic meetings: BURA on February 21, TAB on April 9 and Planning Board on April 19, 2001. Input from these meetings was used to evaluate and refine the designs. Additionally, newsletters were sent to 5,100 addresses to update the public on the project's progress and to announce an open house held on February 22, 2001. AGENDA ITEM 4 Page 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS - IMPROVEMENTS TO THE 28TH STREET NORTH SEGMENT. FROM PEARL STREET TO IRIS AVENUE Sketches of improvements on 28th Street from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue are shown starting on page six of this memorandum. Continuous Improvements Along 28th Street from Pearl to Iris The improvements provide continuity of use for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling along 28th Street, and they provide visual continuity, improving the character of 28th Street for all users. Similar improvements will be constructed from Baseline to Arapahoe and are expected to be proposed for the segment from Arapahoe to Pearl. Continuous, corridor-wide improvements include: • A multi-use path on each side of 28th Street • A landscape buffer between the street and the multi-use path • A single row of street trees in each landscape buffer • Pedestrian lighting along each multi-use path Major Roadway Improvements • A bus/bike/right-turning traffic-only lane would run in each direction along 28th Street. It would serve as a transit and bike "queue jump" at intersections and would act as an acceleration/deceleration lane for vehicles turning right to/from 28th Street from/to intersections or driveways. This improvement would reduce conflict by separating the transit, bikes and right-turning traffic from through traffic. • Raised medians to protect all left-turn bays at each signalized intersection in the corridor to mitigate about one half of the driveway left-turn accidents, to provide a mid-street waiting area for pedestrians and to provide more efficient operation of the intersections. • Additional left-turn lanes at the intersections of 28th & Pearl, 28th & Valmont and 28th & Iris to reduce congestion. • Raised crossings at right-turn bypass islands to protect bicycle/pedestrian crossings and to mitigate rear-end, right-turn collisions. • Mid-block transit improvements with flashing beacons for pedestrian crossings would increase transit stops along 28th Street and provide safer routes for bikes and pedestri- ans across 28th Street. Minor Roadway Improvements • Driveway treatments at multi-use path crossings (colored concrete or striping/signing) to minimize conflict between cars using driveways and off-street bicycles or pedestrians. • Adjusted signal timing/phasing to address left-turn accident problems. • Regulatory signs to restrict left turns onto 28th Street from driveways that have a demonstrated safety issue. • Related improvements implemented through the 28th Street Transportation Network Plan upon redevelopment of properties include: connecting the roadway through the backs of properties fronting 28th Street, consolidating driveways with surrounding property's driveways and connecting adjacent parking lots along the corridor. These improvements are anticipated to reduce the number of cars using 28th Street and the AGENDA ITEM 4 Pave 4 number of turning cars conflicting with main, 28th Street traffic. It also reduces the probability of conflict between cars entering and exiting 28th Street and off-street bicycles and pedestrians. New Regional and Local Transit Service and Facilities • Service - Plans are under way for new local, high-frequency transit service crossing 28th Street at Valmont Road and along 28th Street and Jay Road (the ORBIT). • Facilities - A bus/bike/right-turning traffic-only lane will run from Pearl to Iris in both directions. (see first item above in Major Roadway Improvements) New mid- block transit improvements and transit "super stops" at intersections will better serve transit. A "super stop" is an enhanced transit stop that provides a comfortable place for people to be while transferring between local and regional transit lines. It serves as an urban plaza, provides parking for bikes, and offers transit and community information. Aesthetic Improvements Approximately $800,000 of the total project cost has been designated for aesthetic improvement use. In order to effectively allocate these funds, and the funds for improve- ments in the South and Middle Segment improvements, the Transportation Division, with a citizen advisory group, is currently creating a 28th Street Corridor Arts and Aesthetic Plan. The Plan will be a guideline for the intent, quality, selection process, and implementation requirements for the art work which will be installed in conjunction with 28th Street's transportation improvements. All art work will be either functional or will be an aesthetic improvement to the planned functional transportation improvements. With a citizen selection committee, art will be selected and located at areas such as mid-block crossings and transit stop waiting areas. The art work will include: seating, paving, walls, bollards, signage, and landmarks such as the gateway at Iris/28th Street. The Boulder Arts Commission is anticipated to guide the public involvement process that will determine the artist selection process. The Transportation Division will have authority in the process of selecting the artist and artwork and will lead the installation of the work. BOARD ACTION REQUESTED Transportation staff requests that the Transportation Advisory Board review and provide input on the proposed improvements for the project. ATTACHMENT City of Boulder Development Review Results and Comments AGENDA ITEM # Paee 5 Multi-Use Path Mid-block Pedestrian Crossing O ~ VF~Tli}y jPIRGS LNMINA'~ - - - - / L16h'7 Left Turn Lane a-wcF 7eer5 Bus/Bike/Right Turn Lan Qc 12,M LTr N(~. Y ran ~OV6r¢,n6~fi+;eReIr VRUt-r Transit Stop Y 1FI91-TqE "~15eAT1Nbart1 awEREp ~iKe STOrf~~. 'PesiNR~K Multi-Use ~ine Path b w R n Figure A: Typical Transit Stop at Mid-block Pedestrian Crossing Recommended Lane Configuration Two Bus/Bike/Right-Turn Lanes, Four Through Lanes, One Left Turn Lane and Two Multi-use Paths not to scale November 20, 2001 I R Aiw builxn9 :ac,. P„ xu.u I a v La a I a -g ncs,s yA 'w'19 v Fin-liy AU%ILIARY . .o Land n~oa Lexlan erW La ~e ..Lav AU%ILIARY L ParK.y _xa B.,xUry Pat S LANE FOR Av lane s:e LANE FOR P BIKER, RUSE] rwe BIKES, BUSES y iy AND RIGHT AND RIGNT nv. TURNS TURNS (BIKE LANE (BIKE LANE STRIPING STRIPING YET TD BE YET TO BE DETERMINED) DETERMINED) 1. Signalized Intersection Cross-Section o , z 0 x ~ I F e ,x r d 1 1 BuNiny 11-11 Parun9 Pv_v.,. Pei 9 2' I 1 v v Fla uv~ Ler U%ILIARY x r bui y i r.or,9 AU%ILUIRY - La A 1 xI Pai.n.; lr. cKS Pa:Au:. P- s Sx4 LAXE FOR L- LANE FOR + Lc G P..1: x _ n r BIKES. BUSES BIKES, BUSES AND RIGHT AND RIGHT nv TURNS TURNS )BIKE LANE )BIKE LANE STRIPING STRIPING YET TO BE yET TO BE Ti DETERYIHEDj DETERYINEDI >y 2. Mid-block Cross-Section Figure B: North 28th Street Recornended Cross Section 1 , b 3 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 Z ~ s 1~ 1 Multi-Use Path a (_Q Bus/Bike/Right r I I Turn Lane - ~ ,a746dddd741~d ~ pd6d ~ i dd5fldddd Y `]da' 9!~ Lua ;~d9dddd9d'J~ ~9119d0 U Multi-Use Path I U Raised Medians at LI left turn bays at Pearl St. Transit Mid-block Pedestrian signalized intersections Super Stop1 Crossing & Transit Stop Figure C: North 28th Street Conceptual Plan, Pearl to Goose Creek (Sheet I of 3) AGENDA I FEA/i a Paee Is Raised Medians at left turn bays at r----- signalizaed intersections ~i Bus/Bike/Right Multi-Use Path Turn Lane U q r I i or'" f 1 r ( Y MIJi3G 'u - tq LT~I r • ~f i A e .A J~ - - _J ~i U Valmont St. Transit Mid-Block Pedestrian Super Stop ~ Crossinp & Transit Stop Figure D: North 28th Street Conceptual Plan, Goose Creek to Glenwood Avenue (Sheet 2 of 3) AGNNDAIITNI4 Pave 1) Raised Medians at left turn bays at Iris St. Transit a signalized intersections- Super Stop I Multi-Use Path a a - - s - - - _ .4 Bus/Bike/Right } j X1\.1\ / a ~Turn Lane Mid-block Pedestrian ti Crossing & Transit Stop z 1 Figure E: North 28th Street Conceptual Plan, Glenwood Avenue to Iris Street (Sheet 3 of 3) AGENDA Il FNl d Page 10 CITY OF BOULDER / Department of Public Works/Transportation Division PO Box 791 1739 Broadway Broadway Boulder, Colorado 80306 (303) 441-3266 (303) 441-4271 FAX MEMO TO: Development Review FROM: Stephany Westhusin and Bob Whitson, Transportation Division DATE: January 30, 2002 RE: Transportation's Responses to DRC Review Results and Comments Below are responses to the DRC comments for the 2e Street North Segment (Pearl to Iris) CEAP. DRC comments are listed with the Transportation responses in bold. 1. REVIEW FINDINGS AND COMMENTS 1. Addressing Pg. 31, #3 Water - Stormwater quality is becoming an increasingly important issue with state and federal water quality agencies. The City Council Environmental Committee constantly talks in terms of Boulder being the best example. Other than an improvement in landscaping to decrease impervious ground, is there anything else? Sand traps, etc.? Donna Scott knows better than I what the options are. Also, if any ditches are touched, we need to attempt to negotiate an agreement with the ditch company or go to court. This is a lengthy process. Sue Ellen Harrison, Office of the City Attorney, 303-441-3020 • Transportation staff will work with water quality to pursue possible stormwater quality improvements for this project Staff will identity ditch Issues and work with the City Attorney Office's staff as necessary on these issues. 2. All street furniture and other walls, posts or raised items associated with transit stops need to be located a minimum of 18" outside of sidewalks according to city code. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493 • Comment noted. 3. On page 2 under the section titled "Minor Roadway Improvements" it states that adjusting signal timing or phasing to address left-turn accidents may be considered. Solutions involving left-turn phase timing would involve adding a protected left-tum phase (green arrow) or lengthening this phase if it is already in place. Either of these changes would degrade the progression along 28 Street and should be discussed with Joe Paulson. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493 • Comment noted. 4. On page 6 under "Purpose and Need" there is a discussion of poor levels of service at Pearl and Valmont. It is the experience of staff in the review of a traffic study at 28'" and Iris that this too has poor level of service including LOS F for some movements, particularly at the eastbound approach. Along with the access improvements for the new Safeway at 28'" and Iris, the eastbound left-tum lane will be lengthened, thereby providing some improvement to the LOS of this intersection by better separating eastbound left-turning and through traffic. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493 • Staff was aware of this improvement and it is shown on the proposed plan. 5. P&DS staff has expressed concern about the combined transit and right-turn lane: a) It is unclear how bikes and buses will operate together in the combined lane, both near transit stops and where buses encounter slower moving bicyclists. b) There is concern that the transit lane will be used as a passing lane by unauthorized vehicles during times of street congestion. C) The combined transit lanes and right turn lanes may result in a reduction of signalized intersection capacity where right-turning vehicles are not able to make right-turns on red due to blockage by buses located in the lane at the signals. d) Signage and striping may be confusing to motorists as to he purpose of the lane. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493 and Elizabeth Hanson, Planning, 303-441-3287 • A) Buses and bikes will operate together the some way that they operate on a roadway with both transit service and bicycle lanes. The higher speed vehicle will pass the lower speed vehicle whenever they encounter one another. The alternative being suggested is preferable to a regular travel lane with bus service and an outside bike lane because It removes the conflict of buses and through vehicles (when the bus is halt In a bike lane and half in a roadway lane). • B) The construction of mid-block crossings, with raised medians between the travel lanes and the bus/bike lane, a bus often stopped in that lane, and raised crosswalks across the bus/bike lane at the mid-block crossing areas, should make It undesirable for passenger cars to use this outside lane for any reason other than to make a right turn Into a driveway or at an intersection. Also, it will be Illegal to do what you are suggesting. • C) This should not be the case, since right turn bypass Islands are being provided which will be long enough to shatter one bus in the shared lane and still allow vehicles to turn right behind them (similar to the conditions at eastbound 28'" & Pearl and 28"' & Canyon, today). In the unlikely event that two buses are stacked up behind one another, then the right turn lane will be blocked. Transportation staff considers this to be a reasonable trade-off. • D) Restricted-use lanes are a common practice in the United States. Providing signage, which is clear to all users should clarify use. 6. Staff has concerns about the safety and effectiveness of the proposed mid-block pedestrian crossings. Many of the motorists travelling on 21P Street may be unfamiliar with these types of crossings and they may be unexpected on a major street. The mid-block crossings recently installed on Broadway may provide some comparison (although Broadway motorists tend to be more "regular" drivers" and Broadway traffic speeds may be lower). Have any studies been conducted on the Broadway crossings? Have there been any changes in the number of pedestrian-vehicular conflicts or vehicular accidents? Elizabeth Hanson, Planning, 303-441-3287 • Transportation staffs from the City of Boulder and the Colorado Department of Transportation are comfortable with the proposed pedestrian crossing treatments. Should these treatments be determined to work less efficiently or safely than we expect, then both groups will consider alternatives that they have previously discussed (like traffic signals). III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS 1. Properties along 28t' Street in the vicinity of this study that have been considered in recent pre- application meetings include: a) Target at 281^ and Pearl. The representatives of the owner have indicated willingness to work with the city on the transit super stop at this intersection. b) Maytag at Spruce and 28"'. The developer would like to have a scooter shop at this location. This project is would not fall under the discretionary review of staff and therefore there is limited opportunity to affect the development of this site since no increase in square footage or change in general use (retail) is proposed. It is recommended that project staff discuss possibilities for voluntary compliance with the property owner to develop the site in a manner that coordinates with the proposed 26P Street improvements. ' c) Gebhardt Motors at Glenwood and 281. This site currently has parking within the right-of-way and will need to be considered as to what area will be needed for the 28'" Street project. With any review, access closures may be required and the parking lot will be relocated outside of right-of- way. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493 Pre-application items noted. 2. Properties along 2e Street in the vicinity of this study that have been considered in recent building permit and discretionary reviews include: a) Centro Office Building, west side of 28" , south of Goose Creek. This site has been constructed with the 281' Street project considered for site design. b) Office on west side of 2e Street south of Glenwood. This site has been constructed with the 2e Street project considered for site design. c) Safeway at southwest corner of Iris and 28' Street. This site has located its parking lot outside of the impact are of the 28' Street project. The developer had agreed to construct an 8 foot wide sidewalk along 28'" Street. Stephany Westhusin has indicated that the city would cooperate financially with the developer to upscale this sidewalk to a 12 foot wide walk in an alignment consistent with the 28"' Street project plans. The cost to the city will be 1/3 of the in-place cost of the 12 foot wide sidewalk. Steve Durian, Public Works, 303-441-4493 Permits and reviews noted. 3. Staff encourages Public Works staff to review the 2e Street improvements plan with individual affected property owners as soon as possible after City Council approval. Early notffication and education of property owners makes the transition to building permit or land use review much smoother for owners who plan to redevelop their properties. Planning and Development Services staff will continue to notify property owners of the 28' Street plans as early as possible when an inquiry or development proposal is made. Elizabeth Hanson, Planning, 303-441-3287 Staff will attempt to contact property and business owners as early in the process as possible. 1 t Community and Environmental Assessment Process for The North Segment of 28th Street Improvements to 28th Street from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue November 20, 2001 ' CITY OF BOULDER ' Prepared by Caner=&mgess for the Transportation Division 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ' 1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................1-4 2. Description and Location ......................................................................................5 3. Background: Purpose and Need, Process and Associated Projects ............................6-10 4. Additional Community Input to Date ...............................................................1 I 5. Analysis and Staff Recommendations 12-27 6. Project Funding 28-29 ' 7. Staff Project Managers & Consultants .............................................................30 8. CEAP Checklist .......................................................................................31-36 ' 9. Appendices Contents List .37-38 Note: Appendices contents are not included in this document and are available upon request. Appendix A: Record of Community Involvement Appendix B: Inventory and Analysis Appendix C: Planning Framework Appendix D: North 28th Street Transportation Network Plan (TNP) Appendix E: Corridor Arts and Aesthetics Plan LIST OF FIGURES Figure A: North 28th Street Conceptual Plan, Pearl to Goose Creek Figure B: North 28th Street Conceptual Plan, Goose Creek to Glenwood Avenue Figure C: North 28th Street Conceptual Plan, Glenwood Avenue to Iris Avenue ' Figure D: Landscape Options Figure E: Recommended Lane Configuration: Bus/Bike/Right-turn-only Lanes Figure F: Eliminated Lane Configuration Option 1: On-street Bike Lanes Figure G: Eliminated Lane Configuration Option 2: Six Through Travel Lanes Figure Fl: New Transit Service and Facilities Map Figure L Typical Mid-block Pedestrian Crossing and Transit Stop Figure J: Perspective of Possible Mid-block Pedestrian Crossing and Transit Stop, Option 1 Figure K: Perspective of Possible Mid-block Pedestrian Crossing and Transit Stop, Option 2 ' Figure L: Iris/Diagonal Highway and 28th Street Gateway and Transit Super Stop t CEAP November 20, 2001 28th Street hnprovements from ' Peal Street to Iris Avenue 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background In July 1999, the Transportation Division began to implement one of the primary goals stated in the Transportation Master Prioritization: to transform major transportation corridors from auto- dominated roads into more efficient multi-modal corridors. The Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) for the south segment of 28th Street from Baseline to Arapahoe including the frontage road was approved in June 2000 and construction is anticipated to begin soon. Now, staff is submitting this CEAP request for Phase lI of the 28th Street project, the North Segment, from Pearl to Iris. ' The goals for the 28th Street improvement project were to transform 28th Street into a multi- modal corridor by improving its function as a regional transit destination, improving traffic flow, increasing its use by bicyclists and pedestrians and improving its safety for all modes. ' Because 28th Street, from Baseline Road to Iris Avenue, ranked number one on the list of 12 corridors in the Boulder area to be improved, this was the first corridor addressed by staff. In early 2002, staff will take this North Segment CEAP document to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) for their review and recommendation to City Council. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2004 upon completion of the South Segment improvements. The plan- ning process for the Middle Segment, from Arapahoe to Pearl, has yet to begin. ' Staff's Recommended Alternatives for 28th Street from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue Improvements are shown in plan view in Figures A, B, and C and in section view in Figure D. Continuous Improvements Along 28th Street from Pearl to Iris The improvements provide continuity of use for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling ' along 28th Street, and they provide visual continuity, improving the character of 28th Street for all users. Similar improvements will be constructed from Baseline to Arapahoe and are expected to be proposed for the segment from Arapahoe to Pearl. Continuous, corridor-wide improvements include: • A multi-use path on each side of 28th Street • A landscape buffer between the street and the multi-use path • A single row of street trees in each landscape buffer • Pedestrian lighting along each multi-use path CEAP - 1 - November 20, 2001 28th Street Improvements from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue 1 Major Roadway Improvements • A bus/bike/right-turning-traffic-only lane would run in each direction along 28th Street. It would serve as a transit and bike "queue jump" at intersections and would act as an acceleration/deceleration lane for vehicles turning right to/from 28th Street from/to intersections or driveways. This improvement would reduce conflict by separating the transit, bikes and right-turning traffic from through traffic. ' • Mid-block transit improvements with flashing beacons for pedestrian crossings to increase the number of transit stops along 28th Street and provide safe routes for bikes and pedestrians across 28th Street. • Raised medians to protect all left-turn bays at each signalized intersection in the corridor to mitigate about one half of the driveway left-tum accidents, to provide a mid-street waiting area for pedestrians and to provide more efficient operation of the ' intersections. • Additional left-turn lanes northbound and southbound at the intersections of 28th & Pearl, 28th & Valmont and 28th & Iris to reduce congestion. , • Raised crossings at right-turn bypass islands to protect bicycle/pedestrian crossings and to mitigate rear-end right-tum collisions. ' Minor Roadway Improvements • Driveway treatments (colored concrete or striping/signing) at multi-use path crossings to minimize conflict between cars using driveways and bicycles and pedestrians using the multi-use path. • Adjusted signal timing/phasing to address left-turn accident problems. ' • Regulatory signs to restrict left turns onto 28th Street from driveways that have a demonstrated safety issue. • Related improvements implemented through the 28th Street Transportation Network ' Plan upon redevelopment of properties include: connecting the roadway through the backs of properties fronting 28th Street, consolidating driveways with surrounding properties' driveways and connecting adjacent parking lots along the corridor. These ' improvements are anticipated to reduce the number of cars using 28th Street and the number of turning cars conflicting with main, 28th Street traffic. It also reduces ' the probability of conflict between cars entering/exiting 28th Street and multi-use path users. New Regional and Local Transit Services and Facilities ' • Service - In this area, plans are underway in 4-7 years for new local, high-frequency transit service crossing 28th Street at Valmont Road and along 28th Street and Jay Road ' (the ORBIT). • Facilities - A bus/bike/right-turning-traffic-only lane will run from Pearl to Iris in both ' directions. (see 1st & 2nd items above in Major Roadway Improvements) New mid- block transit improvements and transit super stops at intersections will better serve transit riders. A "super stop" is an enhanced transit stop that provides a comfortable , place for people to be while transferring between local and regional transit lines. It CEAP .2- November 20, 2001 28th Street Improvements from Peat Street to Iris Avenue serves as an urban plaza, provides parking for bikes, and offers transit and community information. Aesthetic Improvements An Arts and Aesthetics Plan for the 28th Street corridor has been initiated. The Plan will ' be a guideline for the Transportation Division to determine the intent, quality, selection process and implementation requirements for artists and their artwork. A basic premise of the Plan is to require that all art be incorporated into functional transportation ele- ments. Some functional elements that could incorporate art at mid-block crossing and transit stop waiting areas include: transit shelters, seating, paving, walls, bollards, sig- nage, and landmarks such as the gateway at Iris/28th Street. ' The Boulder Arts Commission is anticipated to assist in the public involvement that will determine the artist selection process. The Transportation Division will have authority in the process of selecting the artist and artwork and will lead the implementation process. The Corridor Arts and Aesthetics Plan is currently being written through a public 1 process with an Arts and Aesthetics Task Force. Project Funding Funding for the 28th Street project will come from various sources. The majority of the funding will be provided by the city through the Transportation Capital Improvement Program (CIP). ISTEA federal money has been secured in 2003 for improvements at the Iris/28th Street inter- section. Additional, potential funding sources include federal funding that will be applied for by the city through the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) process and Regional Transportation District (RTD) funding for ' the transit improvements. These additional funding sources will lower the overall project cost for the city. Between now and the anticipated construction start date in 2004, it is anticipated that more funds will be acquired. In these interim years prior to city construction efforts, the city anticipates some redevelopment throughout the study area. As redevelopment occurs, property and easements will be acquired and portions of the plan will be constructed, which will reduce the city's overall cost. CEAP - 3 - November 20, 2001 28th Street Improvements from ' Pearl Street to Iris Avenue 8th Street North Segment 1 Detailed Summary of Project Cost Estimate ITEM COST 1 1. BusBike/Ri ht-Turnip Vehicle Lane & Left Turn Lanes $1,940,000 1 2. Multi-use Path $370,000 3. Gateway at 28th & Iris $500,000 4. Landscaping $400,000 5. Pedestrian Lighting $760,000 6. Transit Super Stops 3 $1,500,000 1 7. Transit Mid-block Pedestrian Crossings(3) $671,000 8. Signals, Signs and Pavement Markings $700,000 9. Land Acquisition in Rights of Wa and Easements $1,680,000 10. Design and Project Administration $1500,000 1 SUBTOTAL $10,021,000 15% Contingency $1,50 . ' Inflation $500,000 TOTAL $12,024,150 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CEAP -4- November 20, 2001 1 28th Street Improvements from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue , 2. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ' The proposed improvements are located within Boulder's city limits, primarily within the public right of way (ROW) of 28th Street from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue (the "North Segment"). The transportation projects include hazard elimination and safety improvements for all modes, new regional and local transit service facilities, addition of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and aes- thetic improvements. This project was initiated as a direct response to one of the goals stated in the Transportation Master Prioritization: the highest priority street in and around Boulder to develop into a multi-modal corridor is Twenty- eighth Street. The proposed 28th Street improvements from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue were developed as part ' of a larger study called the 28th Street - 2001: Central Corridor Planning Study (28th Street- 2001). The larger project's improvement area includes 28th Street and its frontage road from Baseline Road to Iris Avenue. Boulder's Transportation Division initiated the study June 1, 1999 ' with the intent of grouping fifteen funded projects into one, comprehensive study. The goals of the implementation plan are to transform 28th Street into a multi-modal corridor, to provide continuity for 28th Street by implementing corridor-wide safety and aesthetic improvements, and to improve the corridor's function as a regional transit destination. Twenty-eighth Street is Boulder's geographically central transportation corridor used for both local and regional travel. Major destinations along the North Segment of 28th Street include automobile related services, restaurants, large and small businesses, the YMCA, Longmont, Lyons and points north of Boulder. Twenty-eighth Street's traffic volumes from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue are lower than volumes recorded for Baseline to Pearl, yet accident rates are signifi- cantly higher. The North Segment supports limited regional transit service from Longmont to ' Boulder, traveling on 28th Street between Iris Avenue and Canyon Boulevard. Local, high-fre- quency transit service is planned to cross 28th Street at Valmont and to run along 28th Street and Jay Road (ORBIT). CEAP - 5 - November 20, 2001 28th Street Improvements From ' Peerl Street to Iris Avcrmc 3. BACKGROUND ' 3.1. Purpose and Need , 28th Street-2001 incorporates goals and objectives from Boulder's existing policies and plans including the Transportation Master Plan, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, BURA's Design Guidelines and BURKS Transportation Connections Plan. Twenty-eighth Street-2001 ' also integrates the objectives of relevant jurisdictional organizations and the objectives of asso- ciated projects currently in progress throughout the corridor. Closely collaborating jurisdictional organizations included BURA, CDOT and RTD. ' The existing 28th Street travel lane configuration has a level of service rating F with long wait times at the Valmont Avenue and Pearl Street intersections. Local and regional transit along ' 28th Street is underdeveloped, accident rates are high, bicycle and pedestrian routes are discon- tinuous, and the corridor is perceived as an unattractive "strip" development, generally lacking multi-modal characteristics. Thus, 28th Street-2001's specific goals are: ' • To improve safety and efficiency for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians. • To improve traffic operations and business access. ' • To provide a multi-modal corridor that links regional transit service with local bus, bike and pedestrian routes along the 28th Street corridor. • To provide new local and regional transit routes along 28th Street connecting to Boulder's grid system of local routes and pedestrian/bike corridors. • To provide gateways to Boulder and an improved sense of place for 28th Street. • To enhance 28th Street's regional and citywide significance. ' 3.2. Process The Boulder Transportation Division organized a project team (Project Team) that included ' members of Boulder's Planning Department, BURA, the Division of Transportation, and consultants to provide project facilitation, community involvement coordination, transit planning, transportation engineering and urban design services. , The size of the implementation study has mandated that the process be broken down into manageable parts. First, corridor-wide issues were addressed, then, the 2.5 mile road was divid- ed into three segments for the implementation study. The study roughly followed the timeline shown below: ' • July 1999 to February 2000 - 28th Street, corridor-wide study and analysis. • November 1999 to March 2001 - 28th Street South Segment, from Baseline to Arapahoe, Conceptual Design Process, resulting in the CEAP submittal and approval. • Summer 2000 - 28th Street Design Charrette to review the overall concept for the proposed improvements from Baseline to Iris. • November 2000 to November 2001 - 28th Street North Segment, Pearl to Iris ' Conceptual Design Process • Start date for the Conceptual Design Process for 28th Street Middle Segment, from Arapahoe to Pearl, is anticipated to begin in 2002 1 CEAP - 6 - November 20, 2001 26th Street improvements from Peal Street to Iris Avenue , The Project Team organized the study into six steps. The first three steps were completed for the entire corridor. The final three steps are being done individually for each segment. Step 1: Design Committee Formation - See Appendix A The Committee is comprised of Boulder citizens, 28th Street users, property and business owners, adjacent residential neighbors and representatives from organizations having jurisdiction over 28th Street improvements. Their charge was to serve as an advisory committee for the 28th Street-2001 Project Team throughout the design ' process. The Project Team met periodically with the Committee to get their input on how the corridor could be improved and which alternatives the public preferred. Meetings allowed the Project Team to get feedback from the Committee in every ' stage of the project. Each Committee member was responsible for keeping his or her constituents informed, and they assisted the Project Team in presenting the final corridor implementation plan to TAB. Committee meetings were held in each phase in the ' process (see Appendix A for list of dates and meeting summaries). The general format of each meeting included a presentation by the 28th Street-2001 Project Team, a period for discussion and feedback from the Committee, and time allotted for comments from the general public. Step 2: Corridor Inventory and Analysis - See Appendix B The Inventory and Analysis task was completed as part of the 28th Street, corridor-wide analysis which occurred prior to the South Segment CEAP process. It consisted of ' assembling information on the corridor's existing conditions and on all projects initiated by the city of Boulder that are currently funded through the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). To do this, the Project Team consulted the Committee and ' the general public, worked with consultants, and did on-site studies of the area. Natural and cultural features, traffic/transit conditions, current and future land uses, and bike/pedestrian routes were studied during this step. Step 3: Planning Framework and Evaluation Criteria - See Appendix C Three maps were developed, again, during the corridor-wide phase of the 28th Street process, from Boulder's existing policies and plans to serve as guidance for the develop- ment of the design alternatives. The "28th Street Planning Framework" summarizes the goals and objectives of the TMP, the BURA Design Guidelines and Transportation Connections Plan, and CU's Campus Master Plan. The "Urban Design Framework" map describes the prime locations for gateways to the city and local landmarks. The ' "Transportation Planning Framework" map outlines the preferred transportation service for all modes and streets within the corridor study area, as defined by the IMP. CEAP - 7- November 20. 2001 28th Street Improvements from ' Pout Street to Iris Avenue 1 Step 4: Analysis and Staff Recommendations - See Section 5 1 The design alternatives were developed in several steps starting with corridor-wide issues and progressing to site-specific improvements. Safety, transit, bike/pedestrian facilities, and image and identity were first addressed for the entire corridor for Baseline , to Iris. The Committee evaluated the alternatives providing extensive feedback to the project team. 1 For the site-specific improvements, the street was divided into three geographic seg- ments: the South, Middle and North. First, site specific improvements were developed 1 for the South Segment, from Baseline to Arapahoe and on May 8, 2000, Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) unanimously recommended a CEAP for City Council considera- tion. On June 20, 2000 Council unanimously approved the project and on August 10, 1 2000 they favorably reviewed the requested value engineering adjustments. Now, this CEAP request is being submitted for the site specific improvements for the 1 second part of the project to undergo site-specific design, the North Segment, from Pearl to Iris. These alternatives and staff recommendations were based on composite findings 1 from the corridor-wide design alternatives and comprise this CEAP document. Step 5: Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) - See Section 8 1 for Checklist The CEAP document for North Segment improvements will be submitted for review and comment to the BURA and Planning Boards, the Development Review Committee, then 1 to TAB and City Council for review and request for approval. Step 6: Construction ' Construction of improvements in the North Segment from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue are anticipated to follow construction of 28th Street's South Segment, which is scheduled to be complete in 2004. North Segment improvements are expected to begin in 2005 and will take approximately 3 years. The Iris intersection improvements may occur sooner because the federal funding is available in 2003. 3.3. Associated Projects 1 The 28th Street-2001 Central Corridor Planning study has also coordinated efforts with the ' following ongoing projects located within the 28th Street corridor. 3.3.1. North 28th Street Transportation Network Plan (See Appendix D) 1 The North 28th Street Transportation Network Plan defines multi-modal, transportation systems needs in the area surrounding the 28th Street right-of-way, extending from just west of Folsom to just east of 30th, and from just south of Pearl to just north of Iris. The 1 Action Plan, a portion of the document to be updated annually by Transportation Staff, specifies Capital Improvements and Greeenways Projects that will implement the pro- grams and policies outlined in the document. Recommendations of the TNP will be ' incorporated into the updates of the city's Transportation Master Plan. The 28th Street project is one item on the TNP Action Plan. The TNP has been recommended for CEAP - 8 - November 20, 2001 28th Street Improvements from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue approval by TAB and is scheduled to be reviewed by City Council on December 14, 2001. 3.3.2. 28th Street Corridor Arts and Aesthetics Plan The Corridor Arts and Aesthetics planning process was initiated as a result of a need identified through the 28th Street - 2001 transportation planning process. Its goals are to provide guidelines for quality aesthetic treatments throughout the corridor, to contribute to the unification of the corridor's identity, and to involve the community through local ' artists and citizens whenever possible. The Corridor Plan is being written and is due for completion in early 2002. 3.3.3. 28th Street Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) for the South and Middle Segments. A CEAP for the South Segment, from Baseline to Arapahoe, was taken to Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) on May 8, 2000. It was unanimously recommended for City Council consideration. Council unanimously approved the project on June 20, 2000 and ' on August 10, 2000 they reviewed the requested value engineering adjustments. This CEAP request is for the second part of the 28th Street project, the North Segment, from Pearl to Iris. The start date for the CEAP for the Middle Segment, from Arapahoe to ' Pearl, is yet to be determined- 3.3.4. 28th Street Design Charrette ' In Summer 2000, three public meetings were held to broaden the public review process of the 28th Street, Baseline to Iris, transportation improvements project. The charrette yielded a confirmation that, though the corridor character changes dramatically, a uni- fied corridor is desirable, and that a study of the transportation network in the area would be useful. From the charrette came the multi-modal transportation system study, ' the North 28th Street Transportation Network Plan. 3.3.5. Goose Creek Channel Improvements- Phase III ' This project includes channel improvements and a new culvert for 28th Street providing a bicycle and pedestrian underpass and conveyance for a 100-year flood. 3.3.6. US 36 Major Investment Study (M[S) The US 36 MIS final report was issued to Regional Transportation District (RTD) in August 2001. It is an evaluation of the costs and effectiveness of transportation alterna- tives for the US 36 transportation corridor. The 28th Street-2001 Project Team has met with RTD in effort to understand the proposed alternatives for US 36 and to discuss potential locations for the northern terminus of regional US 36 transit service in Boulder. In July 2001, the 28th Street-2001 Project Team provided RTD with a recom- mendation for new regional transit service, programmatic elements, and a potential site for the transit terminus facility at 33rd and Pearl. This Boulder Transit Village proposal was then approved by City Council. CEAP - 9 - November 20, 2001 28th street Improvements from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue i 3.3.7. Public Service Company (PSCo) Power Line Undergrounding The undergrounding of electrical power lines from Mapleton to Iris will be completed after resolution of some contaminated material issues. The South Segment electrical , undergrounding will start in 2001. 3.3.8. Community Transit Pass ' The city of Boulder is incrementally expanding both the bus pass and neighborhood transit programs. CEAP - l0 - November 20, 2001 , 28th Street improvements from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue ~I ' 4. ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY INPUT TO DATE - See Appendix A An extensive community process has been underway since July 1999. All meetings and open ' houses are listed in the Table of Contents in Appendix A. Below is a description of all public outreach that has occurred since the South Segment CEAP was submitted. 4.1. Newsletters Newsletters were used to notify approximately 5100 adjacent property owners, residents and ' community members of the project's progress. (See Appendix A for list of dates and copies of newsletters). The distribution area for the newsletter and postcard was the corridor's study area: from Baseline Road to Iris Avenue, from Folsom Avenue to 30th Street, and to interested Boulder citizens and officials. 4.2. Survey Distribution and Results As part of the corridor-wide study for 28th Street, a user's survey was sent to 5100 addresses in the 28th Street corridor. The survey's purpose was to provide a convenient vehicle for the public to voice their opinions on the project. Over 200 surveys were returned, summarized, considered ' by the Project Team and presented to the Design Committee at the September 8, 1999 meeting. 4.3. Meetings with Boards of Directors Informational meetings for the North Segment CLAP were held with the BURA Board on February 21, 2001, with TAB on April 9, 2001, and with Planning Board on April 19, 2001. ' Memos with attachments are in the appendix. 4.4. Website ' To increase access to the project and provide up-to-date information, a Hotlink! On Boulder's public works web page was made for 28th Street-2001. Originally, the website announced upcoming meetings, posted meeting agendas and summaries, and displayed background and contact information for the project. Due to little public use of the website, it is currently main- tained only as a reference for project description and contacts. ' 4.5. Open House To keep the general public informed and to gain their input, two open house sessions were held ' on February 22nd, 2001. The design alternatives were presented and feedback from the public was incorporated with the Design Committee's review process. 4.6. Additional Citizen Response In addition to the structured citizen feedback acquired through the survey and at community meetings, the Project Team received many e-mails, letters, and memos from members of the ' Boulder community. The Project Team also held additional meetings with various community members, board representatives, and agencies such as PLAN Boulder, Chamber of Commerce, CDOT, RTD, BURA and CU. CEAP - I1 - November 20, 2001 28th Street Improvements from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue 5. ANALYSIS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS , Recommendations are shown in plan view in Figure A, B, and C and in section view in Figure E. 5.1. Continuous Improvements Along the Corridor ' These alternatives were presented to the Design Committee (the Committee) on November 6, ' 1999 to solicit their preferences and comments. Generally, the Committee and participating citizens preferred to have multi-use paths on both sides of 28th Street from Baseline Road to Iris Avenue. They had mixed preferences on whether or not to include on-street bike lanes but , were unanimous in wanting safe pedestrian and bicycle facilities throughout the corridor. Below are staff's recommended alternatives followed by a description and analysis of eliminat- ed alternatives. , The following improvements are proposed for 28th Street from Pearl to Iris. Similar improve- ments will be under construction from Baseline to Arapahoe, and are expected to be proposed ' for 28th Street from Arapahoe to Pearl. They provide a continuous thoroughfare for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling along 28th Street, as well as visual continuity, improving the character of 28th Street for all users. ' 5.1.1. Recommendation for Multi-use Path: A 12 foot wide multi-use path on each ' side of 28th Street. The multi-use path provides a continuous route along 28th Street for recreational cyclists as well as pedestrians and other pedestrian modes of transport. The preferred alternative was to provide bicycle facilities for both commuter and recre- ational cyclists. Eliminated Options: The existing condition is unacceptable because sidewalks are only , intermittently in place and are generally narrower than 12 feet. One less expensive option considered was to provide a continuous eight foot sidewalk on one or both sides of 28th Street. This option was met with objection from the Design Committee. The , Committee strongly favored an area where pedestrians could walk comfortably and bicycles could legally travel along 28th Street without being on the street. CEAP - 12 - November 20, 2001 28th Street Improvements from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue bNm a s~ v~ < g 0 c ~ m y BusiBilkefiRight v Turn Lene v i 1 xlSfxq\p 4i16 t tm. q ~ w ~ 111!1 14. 4~~ ywnw.+x+ y, - Mufti-Use Path Raised Medians at lft tum bays a[ _ Pearl St Transit e i9nalized intersectjons s Super Stop Mid-block Pedestrian Crossing & Transit Stop IN A z Figure A: North 28th Street Conceptual Plan, Pearl to Goose Creek (Sheet ! of 3) 0 9 0 O N O O v~+n ~a ETe „a ?e 0 e Raised Medians at I I I I ~ left turn bays at i..l lUl sgnalizaed intersection I°l I -El CS J r~ -BusBike/Righ[ MuIG-Use Path-:. 9 - 4 Turn Lane uuu ~ - r ~ I I a I'Al rf~~ Valmont St Transit I( r~--t-- Mid-Block Pedestrian n I 1 1 Si par Stop I Crossinr g & Transit Stop Figure B: North 28th Street Conceptual Plan, Goose Creek to Glenwood Avenue (Sheet 2 of 3) z a e N 0 N 0 0 o B u9 y' O N 9 a a a c Y 0 a _ Raised Medians at j~ left turn bays at ~ Iris SL Transit sig alined intersections J . Super Stop r Multi-u{se Path _ f lr t BudBikelRight Ali u~ ~ ' \ a ~ 4 Mid-block Pedestrian p Crossing & Transit Stop d c IJ x \ J Figure C: North 28th Street Conceptual Plan, Glenwood Avenue to Iris Street (Sheet 3 of 3) a 0 N C 5.1.2. Recommendation for Landscape: A "formal" tree arrangement with large ' deciduous trees limbed up to 8 feet, spaced 30 feet on center, and planted in a sin- gle row on each side of 28th Street within an 8 foot landscape buffer. This is the pre- ' ferred alternative of the Forestry Department and the Design Committee because of the emphasis on low water consumption and minimal maintenance. This offers continuity to the street and provides consistent visibility to businesses along the corridor. ' Eliminated Options: Concerns about this alternative came from some in the business community that planting trees would obstruct visibility to businesses and their signage. ' Clustered plantings were considered but because city standards require that trees planted closer together must be smaller, the clustering option required smaller, lower branching trees. As shown in Figure D, visibility from passing vehicles would be more likely to be , obstructed. Also, the chance that a sign would be obstructed for a sustained period of time (rather than for a moment by one tree) is greater. Smaller landscape buffer widths , would reduce right-of-way/easement costs in some locations but would violate city stan- dards. Planting no trees was not considered since adding trees to the corridor was strongly preferred by the public and is required by city code. Evergreen trees will not be , used due to city standards. x s y FORMAL PLANTING CLUSTER PLANTING Recommended Alternative ' DESCRIMION DESCRIM ION • T11,, vies, w fen un.chla} limbed up Io8 feel • Snall, incdium and WIN, tiers and shrubs, mixed. Vlnnted :n varyiu;t iota valn • Ool, p ,'Ni, alcsidr of >i%BI mol"e". , I:VALIINtION • Offrrvgreotert amonm of vo¢rtnfion wlol>malle.+t amount of obsln¢allon to EVALUATION I Intsintir rlgltage • Irrcgdarly spuced end nad vLgetation Iws nmtimal unpm't on Imfewhon Untfo h t t t Il htt'inrs%/ptopmly owl of th,, ottido , %riq t - to unifyolndol and it - ho: with lamiapc •Non-umtomt trranncnt to l omms,protrty owners vbtens lent hodwup tndmds for lout[ tlie,lui Clnirr tf¢li ditfirtdt to.chleve su,r ph,rou,snip ix onlYS'wide. • Confiyurafion ,.,B well snlltitt the S' planting ship Figure D: Landscape Options ' CEAP - 16- November 20, 2001 ' 28th Street Improvements from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue ' 5.1.3. Recommendation for Pedestrian Lighting: One row of standard pedestrian scale lighting to match fixtures previously selected for the South Segment improve- ments along each multi-use path, 60 feet on center. Eliminated Options: Current lighting along 28th Street is for vehicular traffic approxi- mately 100' on center and is visually non-existent to the pedestrian. Though decorative lighting was preferred by some, it proved to be cost prohibitive. 5.2. Major Roadway Improvements 5.2.1. Recommendation Lane Configuration: Two travel lanes and a busibike/right- ' turn-only lane northbound and southbound; bus/bike/right-turn only lane would be designated with pavement markings and signage. (See Figure E) In addition to the off-street bike facilities, the multi-use path, this option provides for on-street bike facilities. It separates buses, bikes and turning vehicles from through auto and truck traf- fic. Without increasing road capacity, it provides better efficiency for the through traffic ' and the best efficiency for buses, bikes and turning vehicles without increasing road capacity. In part, efficiency is achieved with the transit/bike "queue jumps" at intersec- tions. If it becomes desirable in the future, it is possible that the configuration can be re- striped to 6 all-purpose lanes. It is more safe and efficient for right-in and right-out turn- ing movements because the lane serves as an acceleration/deceleration lane. ' Staff addressed safety and usability concerns expressed by the public and determined that this option provided the best alternative for all modes. Concerns for safety due to conflicts among bikes, buses and right turning traffic would be mitigated with signage, ' striping and special pavement markings. Striping may be added to designate where the bike should travel within the lane. The street would be wider than the existing condi- tions and therefore, the right of way would be impacted. Eliminated Options: One option was to add two, 6.5 foot bike lanes to the outside of the existing travel lanes. (See Figure F) It provides half of a lane width for buses to pull over at standard transit stops, but does not provide enough space for cars to drive past them in the right travel lane. This option was the smallest corridor cross-section with the ' least ROW impact and cost. The primary drawback to this option was that it maintained the irregularly occurring acceleration/deceleration lanes, therefore not contributing to the reduction of chaos that is inevitable in an area with many curb cuts. It did not assist in ' improving efficiency for buses or in removing right-turning traffic from the through lanes. ' Another option (See Figure G) considered was to provide three northbound and South- bound through travel lanes. This option increases traffic capacity, which does not sup- port the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) requirement for "low priority" on increasing ' traffic capacity. This option is not as efficient for transit or right-turning vehicles as the recommended option. Without any on-street bike facilities, it is less versatile for bikes. CEAP - 17- November 20, 2001 28th Street Improvements from ' Pearl Street to Ids Avenue It could be re-striped to be two all-purpose lanes and a restricted lane in both directions ' in the future, if necessary. It requires wider intersections with more property impacts and wider crossing distances for pedestrians at intersections and mid-block crossings than ' the existing condition. o t CEAP - 18 - November 20, 2001 ' 28th Street Improvements from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue , ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! a Recominended=Lane Configuration _ a b Two BuVWke%RightTTurxi Lanes, Four Through Lanes, o a ne Iefl Turn Lane and Two lulu use Paths" y o •wo![n sc4Je D 9 Nnve[n6¢r 20, 2D 01 ~ 2. F O a tl~ias vatlmv Mien v p wYinLLPZ m V tii vii a~n Z ~vna e.~sv arem e.m..r 6n °am W9 i..piO XGXi.. * • ^°u ~I [9 Bae 9 Y• 8a iuNIGHT ~P TUE NS IE~TU NS oErtRtlliiiol oe.T T.rveol 1. Signalised Intersection Cross-Section 'f ~i 'U lT~ a ~ AYE: 1 wPE. ~ 4f(epMiNE41 O[iCM~W E41 N 2. Mid-block Cross-Section N G ~ Figure E: Recommended Lane Configuration: Bus/Bike/Right-turn only Lanes ~Na s > 1. SWoelhed k9maecOw Coas Secibn 3 Nub; Aaacaudlaft una LwUMdaameddendmfa< VdmmU280 kdanwa ima," world add 10 emthe 0 9 hrmxtim wid& a r3 0 7 R' (Igg3''pttp } pp i€ it M' a E3~le~ffl{j3d~' ¢3i~°f}a~ll~[(g¢1y~~3s~ t, i1- 9 m o r~ a o .waa T.. 113 M1 PdeMiel Peivafe Cmss SeWm wRM wbM the ciy of R..", s pobnLal pnvale RetlevebpmeM aMlnpaled ngMOf way and easement Redevelopment J. i l~ 7 7 [r - 9 `y ar o ~ f i` 5r ~i f ~ N ( L: J ~rvy 2. A66Wook Cosa Sec&w c t 9 ~ti.{~ of III " "~lld q awmv za..w r.ma r.m.v a av.•® ~ *v inwun. mw ws vw~r.. 1n.uvr.. vmaw resew ..x.>. 1" awv ~4 r.... sa.a asmv o e113ry PofenYal PdvMe Cross Se Wcnworn.ftd V dly of BoWtlefa Potent Pnvele RMevebpmeM aMlcldddddotof w z ay entl easement Redevelopment 0 a, kh) 0 Figure F: Eliminated Lane Configuration Option 1, On-street Bike Lanes ~y ~b 1. Signalized lntefsectlon Cross Sedlon m Wd Aw dbi b. b ltd¢alvudwtlim fa g Vabmf2fthlit ~.U.wMeSwaddadd 10@b Me m4oeatiao willk o I r Y B Ikli O c m I II To ee 122 It PolenOal Pnvale Cmss Seglon wWlp wlpnn tie my of Bwltler'a Potential Pnvete RMevelopment ania., en"ia of way witl eei RJevelopmenl i J A V 2. Mid-block Cross Section t h il;,~t 1~1 3~~Ufv~ i I!I I iititl8'. robe tarn Potential Private Cmss S...a w-vnlbm Ne ary of Boaters Potential Private Retleveloono nt e'ea'atetl ngM of .,and eai Retlaeabpmenl z s~ ,d~ S1J TRO GffA ES 286 °+~'+'a mm ~r/i~ . SYr 1'f+rmg/~ l~us. ~ .."gltJtlia».Lm~x~"Y~rdTva`.~lti-wePatlu 0 Figure C: Eliminated Lane Configuration Option 2, Six Through Travel Lanes 5.2. Major Roadway Improvements (continued) ' 5.2.3. Recommendations for Mid-block Pedestrian and Transit Improvements. (See , Figure I on page 24) In addition to transit super stops at signalized intersections, it was determined that regularly occurring transit stops along 28th Street were necessary. The three recommended locations are: between Iris and Glenwood, between Glenwood and Valmont and between Mapleton and Pearl. Pedestrian improvements at these locations would increase transit use and therefore increase 28th Street's usability by pedestrians. The transit facilities would offer opportunities for functional aesthetic enhancement , along 28th Street. While it was preferable to have an additional stop between Mapleton and Valmont, there was not enough space to provide the full width for bus pullouts. The Goose Creek t underpass will serve pedestrians wanting to cross 28th Street in this area, and the transit stops at Pearl and Mapleton will be the closest bus stops to the Goose Creek area. 5.2.4. Recommendation for Additional Left Turn Lanes: An additional left turn lane will be added at the following locations: ' • Northbound and Southbound at Pearl/28th Street • Northbound and Southbound at Valmont/28th Street • Northbound at 28th/Iris ' These new lanes improve traffic flow. Eliminated Option: Existing conditions have proven to elicit long wait times at signal- ized intersections, which increases accidents. 5.2.5. Recommendation for Crosswalks: Raised crossings at right-turn bypass islands. The raised crossings slow the speeds of turning traffic, giving drivers more time to see bicyclists and pedestrians crossing the crosswalks in the free right lanes. They are ' more comfortable crossings for pedestrians and bikes. They also mitigate rear-end, right- turn collisions. Eliminated Option: Free right-turn lanes without raised crossings allow vehicles to , maintain high speeds while turning, making it less safe for bikes and pedestrians and reducing safety for automobiles exiting the free right turn lane and reentering traffic. ' 5.2.6. Recommendation for Raised Medians: Raised medians protecting all left turn bays at each signalized intersection in the corridor. Raised medians mitigate about one half of the driveway left turn accidents, provides a mid-street waiting area for pedestrians and provides a more efficient operation of the intersections. In this design, ' very few driveways are obstructed by medians. Eliminated Option: To mitigate even more accidents, a median the entire length of 28th Street was considered. Due to strong concerns raised by business and property owners that restricting left-turning access into their properties would hurt business, this option was revised. ' CEAP - 22 - November 20, 2001 28th Street Improvements from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue t 5.2.7. Note: Related improvements to be implemented through the 28th Street Transportation Network Plan upon redevelopment of properties include: connecting ' roadways through the backs of properties fronting 28th Street, consolidating driveways with surrounding properties' driveways and connecting adjacent parking lots along the corridor. These improvements are anticipated to reduce the number of cars using 28th Street and the number of turning cars conflicting with main street 28th Street traffic. It also reduces the probability of conflict between these cars and off-street bicycles and ' pedestrians. 5.3. Minor Roadway Improvements 5.3.1. Recommendation for Driveway/Multi-use Path Intersections: Driveway treat- ments at multi-use path crossings would receive colored concrete or striping and ' signing. The altered driveway treatments would minimize conflict between people in cars using the numerous parking lots and off-street bicycles or pedestrians traveling along the multi-use path by signaling that there is a conflict area present. ' Eliminated Option; Existing conditions are unpredictable and unsafe. ' 5.3.2. Recommendation for Signal Timing and Phasing: Adjusted signal timing and/or phasing would address left-turn accident problems. ' Eliminated Option: Upon redevelopment, existing conditions will need to be fine-tuned to meet future needs of the corridor. 5.3.3. Recommendation for Signage: Regulatory signs to restrict left turns at any driveways. Signage would be placed at driveways that have a demonstrated safety issue ' with cars honing left out of their property. Eliminated Option: Existing conditions leave the driver the option to turn left out of driveways, even if it has proven to have a high rate of accidents. anW 4 YS 1 P3 6 Vel - a xc alm}r>yBi 1 e10.rr 1 - - T~: - Y wd _ ply Yh kt Jq Be P g FOR a 0 tC 0 r`°? 1~ObA o ~ i- 205, H O m S n ro = OUNO 1 7+ ' -:aver ®auno- F rs vve:•••"••••,_• °kuWn.piovWllsrnYnua'9oultla rmuir wvau+' Nr I akuW2yolwl Lyevabp• °&;mwwWOrca uWWi,a,wn mvanw Figure H.• New Transit Service =rv..w.rmM~n.e..,.n v>,,,n,W.mo & Major Facilities Map CEAP - 23 - November 20, 2001 ' 28th Street Improvements from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue 5.4. New Regional and Local Transit Service and Facilities (See Figure H) 5.4.1. Recommendation for New Transit Service: In the study area, plans are under- ' way within four to seven years, for additional local, high-frequency transit service to cross 28th Street at Valmont Road and to travel along 28th Street and Jay Road (the ' ORBIT). 5.4.2. Recommendation for Transit Facilities: A bus/bike/right-turning-traffic-only , lane will run from Pearl to Iris in both directions. New mid-block transit improvements and transit "super stops" at intersections will better serve the new transit lines (see first item in Major Roadway Improvements). A "super stop" is an enhanced transit stop that ' provides a comfortable place for people to be while transferring between local and regional transit lines, serves as an urban plaza, provides parking for bikes and offers transit and community information. Multi-Use Path Mid block Pedestrian Crossing ' ° vpccn4v~ SP~,TGs l N6r/r ~N'"1MMRC Lett Tom Lane ° ~'~acu w+eNrR~rRECS _ _ ' stAC~mees Bus/Bike/Right Tom Lan t2 t1 D-nSE Transit Stop '/eGiry,l COKRGtG ~WA✓K Multi-Use Path ' Figure I: Typical Mid-Block Crossing and Transit Stop Plan ' Transit super stops would be located at Iris, Valmont and Pearl. Three mid-block transit improvement areas would be between the major intersections of Iris and Glenwood, Glenwood and Valmont and Mapleton and Pearl. The existing Goose Creek underpass would serve as the pedestrian crossing between Mapleton & Valmont. All new transit facilities would accommodate local and regional buses and would be supplied with ' amenities to maximize their usefulness, efficiency, safety and comfort. CEAP -24- November 20, 2001 28th Street Improvements from ' Pearl Street to Iris Avenue 1 1 i rot A 1 Figure J.• Perspective of a Possible Mid-Black Crossing and Transit Stop, Option 1 1 i $2 i R"4. i ~ f 1 e Figure K: Perspective of a Possible Mid-Block Crossing and Transit Stop, Option 2 1 i CEAP - 25 - November 20. 2001 28th Street Improvements from i Pearl Street to Iris Avenue Structures and furnishings at each of these sites would include: shelter, benches, bike r parking, trash receptacles, newspaper dispensers, enhanced landscaping, pedestrian lighting, special paving and signage such as advanced transit schedule signs. Possibilities to incorporate art and aesthetics would be pursued for transit furnishings. Mid-block pedestrian crossings would also include these amenities plus pedestrian-acti- vated flashing beacons to alert vehicles of pedestrians wanting to cross in the designated ' crosswalks. 5.5. Recommended Aesthetic Improvements t On January 20, 2000 and February 10, 2000, the Design Committee and the public, in an Open ' Hours Session, reviewed two conceptual ideas for the image and identity for 28th Street: the Contemporary Theme and the Historical/Cultural theme. Aspects of each proposal were favored. Both themes proposed the following elements be added to 28th Street to improve the corridor's visual quality and help orient travelers: • Trees along street edges and in medians • Feature landscaping at intersections and interchanges ' • Pedestrian light fixtures • Murals and art integrated into pedestrian plazas • Textured and colored pavement in pedestrian refuge • Bicycle and pedestrian signage • Artistic elements integrated with transit stop facilities • Landmarks at gateways and major intersections , s r^ ~y 28th st'... mr?,r-_.~ Ste" 7 i ~i\ ' Xi, t stop. Figure L: Iris/Diagonal Highway and 28th Street Gateway and Transit Super Stop ' CEAP -26- November 20, 2001 28th Street Improvements from Pearl Street to Ids Avenue ' ' A Corridor Arts and Aesthetics Plan for the 28th Street corridor was initiated. The Plan is a guideline for the intent, quality, selection process, and implementation requirements for artists ' and their artwork for the public right of way along 28th Street. The Boulder Arts Commission is anticipated to assist in the public process to determine the artist selection process. The Transportation Division will have authority in the process of select- ing the artist and artwork, and they will lead the implementation process. The Corridor Arts and Aesthetics Plan is currently being written though a process with an Arts and Aesthetics Task Force and is anticipated to be reviewed by the Arts Commission in early 2002. CEAP - 27 - November 20, 2001 28th Street Improvements from Pearl Shect to Ins Avenue 6. PROJECT FUNDING , 6.1. Source of Funding ' Funding for the 28th Street project will come from various sources. The majority of the funding will be provided by the city through the Transportation Capital Improvement Program (CIP). ISTEA federal money has been secured in 2003 for improvements at the Iris/28th Street , intersection. Additional funding sources include federal funding that will be requested by the city through the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) process and Regional Transportation District (RTD) funding for ' transit improvements. These additional funding sources could make significant contributions to the overall project cost for the city. 6.2. Construction Schedule - A Result of Funds Availability ' Construction of the North Segment is planned to follow the 28th Street South Segment con- , struction that is scheduled for completion in 2004. Between now and the North Segment's con- struction start date, it is anticipated that federal and RTD funds will be acquired. In these interim years prior to city construction efforts, the city anticipates some redevelopment throughout the study area to implement project improvements. As development occurs, property and easements will be acquired and portions of the plan can be constructed, which will reduce ' the overall price of the project. The following tables provide the cost of the North Segment improvements broken down in two ' ways: by mode and in a detailed summary. The cost breakdown by mode is a rough estimate that attempts to provide a percentage of the project costs that are attributed to each mode of transportation. It provides no additional information over the detailed summary but simply , offers an alternate way to view the same information. CEAP - 28 - November 20, 2001 ' 28th Street Improvements from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue 8th Street North Segment Detailed Summary of Project Cost Estimate ITEM COST 1. Bus/Bike/Ri ht-Tumin Vehicle Lane & Left Turn Lanes $1,940,000 2. Multi-use Path $370,000 3. Gatewav at 28th & Iris $500,000 4. Landscaping $400,000 5. Pedestrian Lighting $760,000 6. Transit Super Stops 3 $1,500,000 7. Transit Mid-block Pedestrian Crossings(3) $671,000 8. Signals, Signs and Pavement Markings $700,000 9. Land Acquisition in Rights of Way and Easements $1,680,000 10. Design and Project Administration $1,500,000 SUBTOTAL S10,021,000 15% Contingency 1503 150 Inflation $500,000 TOTAL $12,024,150 North Segment Project Cost Estimate by Mode ITEM % OF TOTAL COST Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities ° S3-908 190 Transit Super Stops & Mid-block Crossings 43% $4,309,030 Street Improvements 18% $1,803,780 ' SUBTOTAL 100% 10 021000 15% Contingency $1,503,150 Inflation $500,000 TOTAL $12,024,150 ' CEAP 28th Sheet Improvements hotu _ 29 _ November 20, 2001 Pear I Street to Iris Avenue 7. STAFF PROJECT MANAGERS AND CONSULTANTS ' Bob Whitson, Transportation Planning Project Manager ' Stephany Westhusin, Transportation Design/Construction Project Manager Carter & Burgess, Inc. is providing support for the community involvement process, conceptual project design development, preparation of the CEAP document, and proposals for urban design. Transplan is providing transportation engineering support for the corridor and Washington Infrastructure Services, Inc. is providing civil engineering support. John Huyler of ' the Osprey Group is serving as project facilitator for public and Project Team meetings. CEAP - 30 - November 20, 2001 28th Street Improvements from Peat Street to Iris Avenue i ' 8. NORTH SEGMENT CEAP CHECKLIST PHYSICAL 1. Geology and Soils Will the project affect: A. Unique or locally important geological or physical features? No ' B. Unstable earth conditions such as landslides, erosion or subsidence? No C. Substantial change in topography? ' No 2. Special Land Features Will the project affect: A. Landfills or hazardous waste disposal area? ' B. Wetlands? No ' C. Shorelines? No D. Prime agricultural land? ' No E. Designated or purchased park or open space lands? No ' F. Riparian corridors? No G. Wildlife corridors or habitat? No H. Forest areas? ' No 3. Water ' Will the proposal affect: A. Absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Yes. Widening 28th Street and adding a multi-use path in some areas would ' increase the impervious ground now found in roadside ditches in the project area. Improvements to landscaped area between the street and the multi-use path on both sides of 28th Street would increase pervious ground and absorption rates for sidewalks and adjacent properties. The net result may be no change in rate or amount of surface runoff. B. Ground water quality or quantity through seepage or direct additions, withdrawals, ' through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, historically or currently on-site or an adjacent site? ' No CEAP - 3I - November 20, 200 L 28th Street Improvements from ' Pearl Street to Ins Avenue C. Alterations of established drainage channels or irrigation ditches? ' Yes, it is anticipated that in some locations, existing open ditches will be trans- formed to contain water in underground culverts. ' D. Sedimentation or siltation of a water body? Yes, minimal increase of turbidity to Goose Creek during construction, but filtration and erosion control practices would be used during construction. ' E. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? No F. Surface water quality? ' Yes, minimal increase of turbidity to Goose Creek during construction, but controlled through the use of erosion control and filtration measures. 4. Biota ' Will the proposal affect: , A. Trees or large shrubs? Yes. During construction, a minimal number of trees and other vegetation would be removed and replaced, if relocation is not feasible. Several new trees would ' be planted in single rows on both sides of 28th Street. B. Locally unique, rare, or endangered plant or animal species? No ' C. The quantity or diversity of any plant or animal species or their habitat area? No D. Travel routes used by animal species? , No 5. Climate and Air ' Will the proposal affect: A. Local or regional air quality? ' No. By adding two bus/bike/right-turn only lanes on 28th Street, increased traffic and its air pollution is not anticipated. New regional and local transit service on 28th Street will increase traffic efficiency, potentially improving local air , quality. B. Air movement, moisture, temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? ' No C. High winds? No ' SOCIAL 6. Services ' Will the project result in the need for additional: A. Educational facilities? , No CEAP - 32 - November 20, 2001 , 28th Sheet Improvements from Pearl Street to ins Avenue ' B. Commercial facilities? No C. Health care facilities/social services? No D. Sanitary sewer systems? ' No E. Water supply? No ' F. Storm water drainage? Yes, the addition of curb and gutter and new catch basins will improve storm water drainage, including areas currently experiencing street flooding during ' heavy rain storms. G. Police service? No ' H. Fire protection? No. Location of raised right-turn bypasses have been located with local fire ' department staff input. 1. Recreation or park facilities? No J. Streets? No K. Parking? Yes, parking spaces on some private properties will be impacted. When reduc- tion in parking has a significant adverse affect on a business, property business owners are consulted, and alternative, interim designs are completed. Upon rede- velopment, the CEAP approved design is anticipated to be implemented. L. Cultural facilities? No ' M. Low income housing? No N. Open space? No ' 7. Safety Will the project result in: A. The creation of any potential site hazards? (Including a risk of an explosion or the ' release of hazardous substances?) No CEAP -33- November 20, 2001 28th Street Improvements from ' Paul Street to Iris Avewe 8. Physiological well being? , Will the proposal affect: A. Exposure of people to noise? ' Yes. Noise from equipment during construction will increase but will only last for the period of construction. Yes. In some locations, a new lane on both sides of the street will bring traffic ' closer to businesses. More buses will be traveling on 28th Street. With more buses, comes more bus use and therefore potentially decreased automobile use. The net change in traffic noise is anticipated to be inaudible. ' B. Increased vibration? Yes, during construction some vibration would occur. C. Odors? ' No D. Light or glare? , Yes. New light fixtures would be added, increasing the amount of light in the corridor. All lighting will meet city code lighting requirements and limit glare and spillover light onto adjacent properties. The addition of trees and shrubs to , landscape strips and median areas will help screen vehicle headlight glare from 28th Street to adjacent properties. E. Health hazard? No F. Exposure of people to radon? No ' 9. Visual Quality Will the proposal affect: ' A. Scenic vistas or views open to the public? The Flatirons were identified as the principle scenic view from north 28th Street. See "C" below for potential effect. ' B. The aesthetics of a site open to public view? Yes, visual quality will be improved with the addition of transit stops, ' landscape art and aesthetic features. The Iris intersection will have added land- scaping aesthetic treatments and possibly art. Rows of trees will line 28th Street. Intersections and transit stops would be highlighted with unique aesthetic treat- , ments to mark the area's functional identity. The entire project area will be uni- fied functionally and visually, making it a more distinct place for visi- tors, businesses and residents. , C. View corridors from the site to unique geologic or physical features? Yes. Aesthetic treatments and trees in landscape strips and medians would enhance views from sidewalks and 28th Street to the Flatirons. In only a few ' locations, existing views to the Flatirons may be obstructed. 10. Cultural Resources t Will the proposal affect: A. A prehistoric or archaeological site? t CEAP -34- November 20, 2001 28th street Improvements from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue ' 11. Special Populations Will the proposal affect: ' A. Persons with disabilities? Yes. With approved pedestrian facilities (sidewalks and mid-block crossings) and new transit routes, people with disabilities would be able to move more safely ' along and across 28th Street. Providing wide and consistent sidewalks and new pedestrian crossings would increase maneuverability and safety. Well marked mid-block transit stops/pedestrian crossings and free right-turn islands would increase safety by making those areas where pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles intersect more visible. B. The aged? ' Yes. Same as above. C. Children? ' Yes. Same as above. D. Low income persons? Yes. Same as above. Also, there will be improved access from low to moderate income housing across 28th Street to grocery and discount household goods stores. ' 12. Energy and Natural Resources Will the project affect: A. The use of natural resources? ' Yes, new and recycled materials and fuel will be used in construction. B. The use of any non-renewable natural resources? Yes. The project will use new and recycled materials and fuel during ' construction. While transit uses fuel, it is anticipated that there could be an overall reduced use of fuel due to an increased ease of use of transit and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. ' C. The solar access of adjacent properties? Yes. Adding street trees would shade some parking lots, buildings and sidewalks, ' helping to cool surfaces and screen winds. D. The use of water? Yes, there would be a minimal increase of water use for landscaping. Landscaping will be designed with an emphasis in low water consumption. 13. Built Environment ' Is this proposal consistent with: A. Design standards for transportation corridors, including pedestrian and bicycle plans? Yes. It is consistent with the TMP, including the Transit Policy, Mobility and ' Bicycle System Plan, and the Bicycle Master Plan. It will promote and improve 28th Street as a multi-modal corridor. 1 CEAP -35 - November 20, 2001 28th Street Improvements from ' Pearl Street to Iris Avenue B. Urban design plans or design guidelines for particular areas of the city? , Yes. It is consistent with city landscape standards for 28th Street. 14. General ' Will the proposal result in a potential for undesirable cumulative impacts? A. What cumulative impacts will result from this project? ' The project would have an overall positive impact with improved, continuous sidewalks, increased bike facilities and better connections to new and improved transit routes and facilities. Additional trees, lighting, art, and aesthetic improve- ' ments would help identify 28th Street and landmark the north entrance to Boulder. Travel lane improvements would help make traffic flow more efficiently. New pedestrian crosswalks would increase safety for all modes of , transportation. B. Is this project referenced in any adopted or proposed Master Plan? Yes. The project is referenced in the following documents and processes: , • Boulder Valley Comprehensive Land Use Plan (current and proposed update) ' • Transportation Master Plan (TMP) • TMP Prioritization Process • Boulder Transit Policy Plan ' • Boulder Bicycle System Plan • Boulder Pedestrian Policy Plan • Boulder Air Quality Plan , • US 36 Major Investment Study (MIS) • Regional Transportation Task Force • RTD Transportation Development Plan , • DRCOG Regional Transportation Plan • 28th Street Transportation Network Plan C. What alternatives, if any, were considered for this project? ' Please see Section 5 in the body of the CEAP document. D. What similar projects have been constructed? ' 28th Street - South Segment improvements are similar and coordinated with the proposed multi-modal corridor improvements proposed for 28th Street - North Segment. Though some improvements to this corridor are unique, the Boulder ' Transportation Division has done many improvements containing elements similar to those proposed in this CEAP. CEAP -36- November 20, 2001 28th Street Improvements from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue ' ' 15. Resource Conservation A. Describe potential changes in water use on site, which may result from the project. ' 1. Describe irrigation and total daily water use. Choice of plant materials and irrigation would minimize the use of water while maximizing the improvements of the aesthetic conditions. ' 2. Describe plans for minimizing water use on the site. Planting design would be in accordance with Xeriscape principles and Boulder's landscape standards. Selected plants would be compatible with ' Colorado's regional climate and micro-climate conditions of 28th Street. B. Describe potential increases in energy use, which may result from the project. 1. Describe plans for minimizing energy use on the project. ' Luminaire types would be selected for lighting efficiency and low maintenance need to meet Boulder's lighting design standards. ' C. Describe the potential for excess waste generation resulting from the project. 1. Describe any plans for recycling and waste minimization (deconstruction, reuse, recycling, green points). The primary waste that would be generated would be pavement from demolition of streets and sidewalks. We will require that concrete and asphalt be recycled. Recycled concrete will be used as a road base. Trees and shrubs ' to be removed would be transplanted where feasible or mulched for reuse. CFAP - 37 - November 20, 2001 28th Street Improvements from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue Appendix A: Record of Community Involvement ' Note: All italicized items are available in the 28th Street-2000 CEAP document submitted to the Design Review Committee on March 6, 2000. ' Newsletters July 1999 ' October 1999 February 2000 March 2000 ' February 2001 June 2001 Design Committee Records Operating Agreements ' Task One: Design Committee Process - Summary List of Design Committee Members Memo on 28th Street Land Use Projections and Traffic Implications Pre-meeting Packets and Meeting Summaries July 14, 1999 September 8, 1999 ' November 6, 1999 January 20, 2000 February 10, 2000 ' November 15, 2000 January 24, 2001 ' March 14, 2001 June 13, 2001 ' Community Open Hours - Announcements, handout and summary September, 1999 January, 2000 ' February, 2000 User Survey and Summary of Results February 22, 2001 ' Correspondence with Jurisdictional Organizations BURA Memo, February 21, 2001 ' TAB Memo, April 9, 2001 Planning Board Memo, April 19, 2001 Press Release, February 12, 2001 Daily Camera "Thoughts for a Monday" editorial, July 7, 2001 ' CEAP - 38 - November 20, 2001 28th Street Improvements from Pcarl Street to Iris Avenue ' i Appendix B: Inventory and Analysis ' A Summary of the Major Features and Functions of 28th Street Maps Study Area ' Currently Funded Projects within the Study Area Existing Land Use Natural Features ' Existing Traffic Volumes Existing Sidewalks Sidewalk Sketches Existing Bus Routes Sensitive Noise Receptors Character Zones North 28th Street Turn Lane Length Evaluation Summary Preferred locations for transit stops along 28th Street North 28th Solutions - Pros and Cons ' Appendix C: Planning Framework Urban Design Planning Framework ' Planning Framework Transportation Planning Framework based on the TMP ' Appendix D: North 28th Street Transportation Network Plan (TNP) TNP Document, pending City Council approval ' Appendix E: Corridor Arts and Aesthetics Plan ' List of Arts Task Force Members Opportunities for Arts and Aesthetics Map Arts and Aesthetics Task Force Meeting Summaries June 14, 2001 July 19, 2001 ' August 29, 2001 September 5, 2001 CEAP - 39 - November 20, 2001 28th Street Improvements from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue Appendices for the Community and Environmental Assessment Process for The North Segment of 2e Street. Improvements to 28th Street from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue November 20, 2001 1 oo att OF BOULDER N% Prepared by Carhu-Surgess Appendix A: Record of Community Involvement Appendix B: Inventory and Analysis Appendix C: Planning Framework Appendix D: North 28 h Street Transportation Network Plan (TNP) Appendix E: 28`h Street Corridor Arts & Aesthetics Plan : Appendix A: Record of Community Involvement Note: All italicized items are available in the 28th Street-2000 CEAP document submitted to the Design Review Committee on March 6, 2000. • Newsletters July 1999 October 1999 February 2000 March 2000 February 2001 June 2001 • Design Committee Records Operating Agreements Task One: Design Committee Process - Summary List of Design Committee Members Memo on 28"i Street Land Use Projections and Traffic Implications Pre-meeting Packets and Meeting Summaries July 14, 1999 September 8, 1999 November 6, 1999 January 20, 2000 February 10, 2000 November 15, 2000 January 24, 2001 March 14, 2001 June 13, 2001 • Community Open Hours - Announcements, handout and summary September, 1999 January, 2000 February, 2000 User Survey and Summary of Results February 22, 2001 • Correspondence with Jurisdictional Organizations BURR Memo, February 21, 2001 TAB Memo, April 9, 2001 Planning Board Memo, April 19, 2001 • Press Release, February 12, 2001 • Daily Camera "Thoughts for a Monday" editorial, July 7, 2001 CEAP for Improvements to "8 Street November 20, 2001 from Pearl Street to iris Avenue u Infonnatioa Update for thest6 steet NEW, te~dral Cenidor wm.uy Sivdy P 6 6 Plaasisg - - - ~i - e Announcing... 28th Street - 2000! The city of Boulder Transportation Division is launching a year-long study to implement safety and aesthetic improvements on 28th Street. Why? Because traffic and transit operations have become inefficient and unsafe, making 28th Street a chore to navigate. It is difficult to walk across 28th Street and people generally avoid biking along the corridor. There is no civic architec- ture or streetscape that announces to visitors, "You have arrived in Boulder. " And, 28th Street has limited access to local and regional transit. Though the issues are plenty, the 28th Street - 2000 study recognizes the potential for high- quality improvements along the corridor. Its goals are to provide safe, efficient access for pedestrians, bikes, cars and transit so that people will be more eager to visit Boulder's geographic center. Twenty-eighth Street will become a thriving retail district and a recognizable urban destination. . N D~gJlHwy.- 11 Iris Ave. yi~ y 01 ~i O Valmont Pd. St. J CROSSROADS MALL 11 Canyon~lvd. N { Arapahoe Rd. z Survey.. 4 r'. Bo ulper 'GteeN F~ ~4 w4~ I 1/ ~Co/orado AVe o~ e: G's Baseline Rd. A Brief History of So... What is 28th Street -2000? 28th Street - 2000 28th Street - 2000's objective is to develop an Some of you may remember the 1997 Boulder Capital integrated study of the 2.5 mile stretch of 28th Street Improvements Project with the goal of making 28th from Iris Avenue south to Baseline Road. The project Street safer from Park Street to his Avenue. The project strives to work with other jurisdictional organizations, objectives included the addition of sidewalks, pedestrian to integrate their projects' goals and objectives and to crossings, and bicycle lanes as well as improving transit enhance Boulder's geographic center, making it a access. To identify safer and more inviting place to be. ways to achieve these objectives, the 28th Street - 2000 is bringing together Boulder process included citizens, agencies, businesses and property owners to s~.rmm• ~ meetings with develop solutions to make 28th Street a safe and a: properly and pleasant street for people to drive, walk and bicycle. business owners The decision making will include a step-by-step as well as public process to identify specific issues that affect 28th forums and Street, research opportunities for improvement, presentations to the Transportation Advisory Board identify possible impacts of these alternatives and (TAB). When another study to redevelop Crossroads finally select the best designs to implement Malt began, this project was put on hold, in order to see what sort of impact Crossroads Mall Redevelopment would have on the Pearl to Iris Project Today's 28th Street - 2000: Central Corridor Planning Six Steps to a Great 28th Street. Study will incorporate the Pearl to Iris Project in a comprehensive examination of the entire 28th Street • The first step is to form a DESIGN COMMIT corridor. people. Dedicated Boulder citizens wHl come o engineers and urban designers formulating I • INVENTORY & ANALYSIS will be conducts FOr°"oO^ Transportation Division, traffic engineers and and operational conditions. Inventory & Analysis • The FRAMEWORK PLAN transforms the an~ =x of 28th Street's improvements. Frdmeworlr wan a DESIGN ALTERNATIVES - Building on the Design • physical improvements plan will be the prod AlfemaSves projects underway and a cooperative effort • The COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ,rr each design With the CEAP document ASSSSSM~ Tmnsoortation Advisory Board the best constrrrcrion CONSTRUCTION begins! i ~ Other Projects: s scope, Status and Contacts 1 28th Street Utility Ondergrounding Project- burying power lines along 28th from Mapleton to his; - - construction to begin in the summer of 1999. Public j Service Information Line 303.938.2230 y ~ p { US. 36MIS- evaluating transportation improvement alternatives for U.S. 36; final study results to be released in the fall of 1999. Jennifer Heisler 303.820.4834 s Crossroads Mall Redevelopment- significantly 3Mr renovating mall, including an open-air retail area and r • : ,y movie theater; under city planning review. Elizabeth ~ Hanson 303.441.3270 t, m = Goose Creek ChannelimprovementProject - it providing flood mitigation and channel improvements; construction to begin in the fall of 1999 or spring 2000. Douglas Sullivan 303.441.3266 North Boulder Transmission Line - determining alignment, timing and possible burial of the transmission line; public design process underway. Mike Weil 303.441.4191 twill ensure that the corridor meets the needs of all , her to evaluate alternatives and advise transportation _ it an for street improvements. ` ° -u - entity what 28th Street is - and isn't. The city of Boulder gn consultants will spearhead this inventory of physical e i a vision that will provide structure for the physical forme e Ar°ieA/em • rk Plan, the vision will be actualized. The resulting Ct~ en 'inventory of existing conditions, analysis of other Corhs~ Ito lAArOVea o n thrO or vision for 28th Street ur a naFn~ ~ sh the ENT PROCESS (CEAP) will assess possible impacts of °essrytei~t~ d the ~s itcll Comittee, the community at large, an °n117erj ur Design m backed for implementation. r How to get in"Ived . Call, Write, Fax or Email oo to Webslte: Diane Yates Bob Whitson www.pubfimorks.cLboulder.co.us Urban Designer Senior Transportation and go to "Quick Links"! Carter and Burgess, Inc. Manner 216 Sixteenth Street Mall, Suite 1700 City of Boulder Denver, Colorado 80202 1739 Broadway phone: 303.820.4855 Boulder, Colorado 80302 fax 303.595.0833 Mailing Address: email: yatesdg0c-b.com RO. Box 791 =400 _ Boulder, Colorado 80306 phone: 303.441.4155 fax: 303.441.4271 - - - email: WhitsonB@ci.boulder.co.us First meofings coming op... • The Design Committee will meet for the fast time July 14th at 6 pm. All meetings are open to the public. • Watch for the announcement of our first Community Open House later this summer. '94noe to 606 'ON Nuued O0 'japlnoa QIVd ZOZ08 OD 'zanuaQ 3JV1SOd 'S'fl OOLI aWS IPW W4S 4191 9TZ PJePUM PapOSGJd ssa6en8=aa"°a 20 1 ME W-, Cerridsr Information Update for the 48th Street Central Corridor Plaaniay Stodp cwt study 28th Street - 2000 is moving right along! In This issue. . In the last three months much progress toward improving conditions along 28th Street has been made. With the public's input and the Design Committee's efforts, the corridor's goals are being defined and momentum is growing toward designing and building the solutions that will make 28th Design Committee Street a better place to be. The first Community Open House in September was a solid success! Boulderites came to talk about how they use 28th Street, point out trouble ` - - spots, and review 28th Street's CORRIDOR . f INVENTORY that displayed the existing condi- tions. A lot of feedback was received and citi- zens of all ages expressed what they would like to see along 28th Street The results to date of the Users Survey were posted, and many more surveys were submitted. Ifyou would Gke a Citizens study inventory maps for summary of the existing conditions information Inventory and Strew presented at the Open House, you mayrequest Framework an Inventory Memo from a Project Team member (please see back of newsletterfor contactinfonnaffon). It's cwt like we're Meanwhile, the Design Committee has had two meetings in which its stnrtirg with a a! members stated their hopes for and concerns about the 28th Street corri- dor. Members reviewed the CORRIDOR INVENTORY and began to think about a PLANNING FRAMEWORK, including a list of Evaluation Criteria that will guide the design process. The next step is to develop DESIGN designprocess ALTERNATIVES. Each safety and aesthetic deficiency in the corridor will receive site specific attention, getting several design alternatives that will be scrutinized for their abilities to satisfy the community's most important criteria. Please look inside at Where 28ih Street-2000 is in the Process. in ease you missed our first newsletter ...a little background. Whatrs~ Next 28th Street - 2000: Central Corridor Planning Study's s no no no no na nmem~r¢ Y'RZ no »o no rro objective is to develop an integrated transit, bike/ - - RO Iq Ra n0 na f1a n0 b na no rw no no yES! pedestrian, and motor vehicle implementation plan for g sa ^a no no na na na no the 2.5 mile stretch of 28th Street from Iris Avenue t na no no na na no no ii artosscaaas na no y~'ti? no no no south to Baseline Road. 28th Street - 2000 has no m na no no na no brought together Boulder citizens, agenai es, !v+wne.Ae.. businesses and property owners to identify specific Se k I ding o issues that affect 28th Street. With the design team, they will research opportunities for improvement, identify impacts of these alternatives, and finally, select the best designs to implement. ,s Results from the Community,. Open House on September 1 The community's most common concerns were: - Traffic congestion and dangerous conditions for biking and walking are unbearable. - Access to busi- nessesneeds to be maintained. Y FVrt. lh, f I - 28th Street is perceived as an unattractive strip mall that lacks any neighborhood feel - Many people : Citizens out aommem cards ards a. and would like to have members of the ProjectTeam discuss service similar to the CU's Transportation Plan with a Design SKIP along 28th St Commsfeemember. - Community parks, green spaces, trees and landscaping are in high demand- - Traffic operations need improvement Additionally, many specific recommendations for im- provements in the corridor have been,-3 received. Forin- ii stance, continuous sidewalks and bike ways with fewer curb cuts are de- sired. At Colorado Avenue, some would like to see a double left turn lane PropctTea n members record the added that would carnrnuniVs comments accommodate extra traffic during CU events. Some would like to see auxiliary lanes north of Pearl for right turns in and out of driveways. Others would like to divert through traffic to Foothills Parkway while reducing the speed limit at the south end of 28th Street Thanks for all your great comments! They have been distributed to members of the Design Committee and will be incorporated into the DESIGN ALTERNATIVE selection process. Please join us after the New Year at our next Community Open House. _ tt Where 28th Street-2000 is in - the Process With the DESIGN COMMITTEE formed and functioning, the * INVENTORY & ANALYSIS done, and the PLANNING f~ FRAMEWORK nearly complete, our next step is to develop the DESIGN ALTERNATIVES. The final phase of the PLANNING FRAMEWORK is for the Design Committee to rank the Evaluation Criteria List in order of importance to the community. This criteria will be used to determine which design altema- tives best satisfy the community's highest criteria. The DESIGN ALTERNATIVES step begins with looking at corridor-wide issues to improve safety, traffic operations and image. These will include decisions on number of travel lanes to provide and locations of on-street bike lanes or multi-purpose paths. The November 6 meeting will address these issues. em The second phase will focus on more site-specific design improvements such as intersection operations, turning ePLA1VI11I, movements, transit circulation, and bike/pedestrian ` crossings. Workshops will be held in November and Winter/Spring 2000. s The third phase will address corridor MEN N image and identity. With the best possible traffic operations plans in place, the Existing Policies character and identity of the 28th Street & Plans Community Voice corridor will become the focus. .may -Design committee A smaller Design Committee Task 8.6,tV Open House s • userssurvey Force will be formed to develop the -Your comments function, amenities, features, and possible locations of the Intermodal Transit Center. The Project Team for this segment of the project will be expanded to include the city's Planning ' 7R * x O * c M~ Q tKkE; and Housing Departments and other Public Works divisions beyond Boulder's Transportation Division. Planning w,- Framework This process's schedule runs parallel with the existing 28th Street - 2000 schedule and will conclude in f Spring 2000. Be on the lookout for more information Q p ~ coming your way! $'~f y ,;p=±k"~-lie- Now to yet involved Call, Write, Fax or E-mail: Go to Website: Diane Yates Bob Whitson www.publicworks.ci.bouldecco.us Urban Designer Senior Transportation and go to "Quick Links"! Carter and Burgess, lee. pioneer 216 Sixteenth Street Mall, Suite 1700 City of Boulder Denver, Colorado 80202 1739 Broadway phone: 303.820.4855 Boulder, Colorado 80302 fax 303.595.0833 MailingAddress e-mail: YatesDG@c-b.com P.O. Box 791 ~Ta o 0 0° - Boulder, Colorado 80306 phone: 303.441.4155 : _ ° _ _ _ • - fax: 303.441.4271 e-mail: WhitsonB@ci.bouldecco.us Next Meetings.. . • The Design Committee will hold their third meeting on Saturday, November 6th from 9am. to 3p.m_ at the YMCA. • The next Community Open House will be after the New Year. Look for a notice in the mail or visit our website! `%nos 1a tai 606 'oN 3luuad 00 `japing 01Vd Z0Z08 00 `lanuad 30VISOd 'S'fl OOLI agnS `PW WJ4S ER91 9IZ pJepueSpayJosaJd " , M I j . 3_ NEW, Information Update for the 28th Sheet Central Corridor Planwing Stady Conidw •pf"Ming r t [ F study 28fh Street - 2000 is taking shape! in This Issue. . Where we are is the process With two Community Open Hours Session and four Design Committee meetings behind us, we are moving right along in the design process. The November Image & Identify Design Committee meeting addressed corridor-wide safety, transit and traffic improvements (see article inside: Current Thoughts on the Design Alternatives). The January Design Committee meeting revealed the citizens' preferences for architectural and streetscape image and identity for 28th Street (see article inside: Theme and Identity take Form at RecentDesign Committee Meeting). A new Task Force formed from Design Committee members has met and is developing their recommendations for the program and possible sites for the Intermodal What will 281h Sireet say Transit Center (ITC) and for new transit service for 28th Street Regional Transit ahoutBoulder? District (RTD), University of Colorado (CU), and the city of Boulder are working together to develop the best proposal for the ITC (see insert: Intermodal Transit CenterandNew TransitSendce). The community's preferences for safety Design improvements, image, and the Intermodal Transit Center are providing direction Alternatives for the project team's refinement of 28th Street's corridor-wide improvements- / N Read on to find out more! 281k Street- 2000 Afissiom The three primary missions of the 28th Street - 2000 project for the next eight heinSF chosen months are as follows: 1. Produce an approved CEAPforsite- spedfic transportation safety and "rd°-~ "°~'"•h.w.«6.g w.:gn c...~» streetscape designs for the South Segment of28th Street by Aprit 30, 2000 Intermodal (Construction to begin FaU2000) iii^ yr, -i k) ~x +i Transit facility i 2 Program and provide possible locations for the Intermodal Transit Center and new transit service by April 30, 2000, to feed 3 into RTD's ongoing US 36Major InvestinentStudy r, gRegiancla CannecOn 3 Produce an approved CEAP for the a».. Miff., o....M. wddf• e•. W=J, r •g Middle andAbrth Segments of 28th Street e~g..•r.:d••= between MayandAugust3l, 2000 Xh"Y Image and Identify Take Form at Recent Design Committee Meeting The January 20th Design Committee meeting generated some great ideas for how to give 28th Street its own identity. Two design themes were presented that had been developed based on previous 1 F input from the Committee. The Historical and Cultural Theme presented a theme consistent with - a for&& W ad. d historic and natural materials now found in Boulder such as brick, rock, native landscapes, earth tones, and images of animals and-plants. The Contemporary Theme introduced modem materials and forms, conveying a more timeless style with materials such as metal, abstract art, bright colors, and large modem sculpture to landmark locations along the corridor. Pmgwt d6oftnal . w &a CON"Wperwy The Design Committee responded with praise for the ` characteristics that best symbolize Boulder: the Flatirons, large boulders, water, the brass rabbit on Pearl Street and CU's buffalo sculpture. While 28th Street has few features such as this now, the Design Committee would like to see these elements introduced in a bold way. r! 5 Bringing It Together in the CEAP s The next step is to integrate the results from the image and identity studies with the design alternatives which include traffic, bike and ` i pedestrian, and transit improvements. The study will progress to developing and evaluating site-specific design alternatives for each of the three segments in two phases. The South Segment (Baseline to Arapahoe) will be presented to the Transportation Advisory Board as part of the Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) this t t' coming April, and City Council will then have the opportunity to call it up for review. Both review sessions offer time for public continent. v,e.. The South Segment is slated for the first phase of implementation. In the next three months the Project Team, Design Committee, and other constituencies will evaluate the South Segment improvement options. In March, the results will be open for public review at an Open Hours Session, and at a Design Committee meeting (see back of newsletter for dates, times and locations). ~ R ~l rrA^ I` ^ "'h 61••waad i•1a+r•eN•s. Aw•ra MW Fr•w"e Remit FC2 x n f~ n Beginning in May, site-specific design alternatives ,j will be developed and analyzed for the two more _ z northern segments. These improvements may include y~yr ..gin r intersection and mid-block pedestrian crossings, options to control left turn movement new signalized intersections, regional bus stops, on-street bike lanes and incorporating image and identity elements into the design of all new improvements. Watch for announcements for upcoming Open Hours Sessions and Design Committee meetings. ` How to get iero/red Coil, Wrife, Fox or E-mail: Diane Yates Bob Whitson Urban Designer Senior Transportation Planner Carter and Burgess, Inc. City of Boulder 216 Sixteenth Street Mall, Suite 1700 1739 Broadway phone: 303.441.4155 Denver, Colorado 80202 Boulder, Colorado 80302 fax 303.441.4271 phone: 303.820.4555 MaOngAddress e-mail: WhitsonBUci.boulder.co.us fax: 303.595.0833 P.O. Box 791 e-mail: YatesDGQc-b.com Boulder, Colorado 80306 Next IMeefings... • 28th Street - 2000 Community Open Hours Session and Design Committee Meeting - Thursday, February 10, Municipal Building Lobby (Canyon & Broadway). Open Hours are from 4pm to 6:45pm. The Design Committee Meeting is from 7pm to 9pm. • Intermodal Transit Center Task Force Meeting - Wednesday, February 16 from 8am to loam in the Boulder Public Library Creekside Room (main floor) • 28th Street - 2000 Community Open Hours Session - Thursday, March 16 from - 4pm to Slam in the Municipal lobby (Canyon & Broadway) • 28th Street - 2000 Design Committee Meeting - Monday, March 20 from 5pm to 9pm at the YMCA (Mapleton & Canyon) 1.01noe 10 606 oN I'wJsd 00 `jappog alVd 3EJV1SOd "S'n ZOZ08 00 `zaeua(I pJepuM paposard OOLI allnS `lleW laagS cB9i 9IZ = 1 T Ya, IV' HE W-- is Information Ypdato for the 28th Stroot Conical CoecMec Planning Sivdy atilt ;;,°v~ r ~ i1 Preferred Alternatives are Under Reviewl In This Issue The first of our three missions is nearing completion. Part of the approval process for construction projects in the city of Boulder is preparation of a"Community and Environmental Assessment Process" (CEAP) document. This document presents the impacts that the preferred design alternatives would have on citizens and the environment. Presently The Alternatives reviewing the document are the Development Review Committee, (city Review Process staff), the 28th Street-2000 Design Committee, Boulder Urban Renewal Begins Authority (BURA) Board, and Boulder's Planning Board. Next, the CEAP document will be reviewed by the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), and they will make a recommendation to City Council. Council will have the opportunity to review the proposed improvements and approve the safety improvemerifs projects to be constructed from Baseline to Arapahoe. Look inside for the Transportation Division currently preferred improvements. Est ~ ~h Citizens review site- specific design ° alternatives a Image 3 ~..p3®3 i 3 6`u• and New z' Transit Facility 28fh Street - 2000 Missions Service Update The three primary missions of the 28th Street - 2000 project for the next year are as follows: ® 1. Produce an approved CEAP for site-specific transportation safety and I A: streetscape designs for the south segment of 28th Street by June 2000. (Construction to begin Winter 2000) connecting Regional & Local Tp..s;t 2. Program and identify possible locations for the Intermodal Transit Center and new transit service by May 2000, to feed into RTD's ongoing US 36 Major Investment Study 3. Produce an approved CEAP for the middle and north segments of 28th Street between May and Fa112000 Si1/DY4 ~ ~ {~I r~ e£ s /pi` h n r SPl r ~ ~ r r y f , x ~ 5 r s y v n ea r..7S r t ar4 r.,. ] M s zl~ 2 ~a 7 ~ t ~rv r rwl . s:- .~GL ~ 6 w r z a'~~ '°~3"~ .ii ii. it ~ ~ ~ ~ ~--IF { r' ~ ✓~k'~~. i' C intermodal Transit Facility ' and New Service Update The second mission of the 28th Street - 2000 Study is to evaluate possibilities for new and regional transit service facilities along the 28th Street corridor- A Design Committee Task Force (DCTF) made up of members from the 28th - 2000 Design Committee is working closely with RTD, CU, and BURR to evaluate the need for transit service, develop a transit operation plan, and identify facilities that would support new transit r ^ service. Their evaluations have led to an overriding ' , 11 it preference for a "Distributed Transit System" along 28th ~I Street from Williams Village to a terminus yet to be located. ~frontage road f In the last newsletter, we introduced two types of systems that could provide service to 28th Street the single Transit Center, in which one facility would serve as the major connection between all new and existing, local and regional service; and a Distributed Transit System with numerous connections to many routes by way of "Super Bus Stops". Its terminal stop would serve as the end of the line for regional routes, and may include parking and bus facilities. The Distributed Transit system offers convenient links to all modes of transportation, strengthens the city's grid transit system, and minimizes route reconfigurations. e N-' ed 28rhtSbrer Tramir orrice mm c e _by F b Y 3 New regional transit service on 28th street ` would connect to local cross,4own transit. c Several transit center/terminus point locations were also evaluated and narrowed to four possible sites: the r . # r' 1 vicinities of Iris Avenue and 28th Street, Arapahoe and a 28th Street, and along Pearl Street between 30th Street and the railroad hacks. These sites and facility options will continue to undergo detailed evaluation as part of the ongoing studies of transit needs in Boulder. r How to get involved Call, Write, Fax or E-mail: Diane Yates Bob Whitson Urban Designer Senior Transportation Planner Carter and Burgess, Inc. City of Boulder 216 Sixteenth Street Mall, Suite 1700 1739 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80202 Boulder, Colorado 80302 phone: 303.441.4155 fax 303.441.4271 phone: 303.820.4855 MagingAddress e-mail: WhitsonB@ci.boulder.co.us fax 303.595.0833 P.O. Box 791 e-mail: YatesDG@c-b.com Boulder, Colorado 80306 Next Meetings... • BURA Board Meeting - Wednesday, March 15 at 7pm, call BURR offices for location 303-441-3276 • 28th Street - 2000 Community Open Hours Session - Thursday, March 16, from 4pm to 8pm in the Municipal Building Lobby (Canyon & Broadway) • 28th Street - 2000 Design Committee Meeting - Monday, March 20, from 5pm to 9pm at the YMCA (Mapleton & 28th) • Intermodal Transit Center: Design Committee Task Force Meeting - Wednesday, April 5; from 8am to loam, call Transportation Division for location 303-441-3266 J i' "Ping ;o > 606 'ON 1lau9d 00 tiapluo8 G1Vd 3JViSOd'S"fl ZOZ08OO `canuaQ piepuelS pauosaid DOLT almS `pel„I;aa% 9191 91Z =GrU08.J0jA03 I VO "0, to ge ,s F an f; C=I Vo " "yk~ . $ the North 28th '~ctiirzPro~~ts, ~u,>fh seg fxomar1Fr s B seline to` 't - R ay s~' e.: t tl (1 n , ~h Street lgtJ Norffi SSfh Sfreet'§ - Nortft 2fr'~'ifreef's! 'MA M sy1 nnuitees form transporMfNon Network ommsrn t eind ter,"" rtn`fm r M jih~ sign Refineme P..IammWRgProaess Asses>ineut Process - Forn erly cafled the 28th Street ol_unteers from the cotxrrnu~j ~ " esi °Infrastrocture Plan,, the nd th Str ~ - t l?gn At the November1S, 2000 meeting,: k eeave edtogeth&A6 Tmnspottation. Neiwork:Plan (TNL?{ MI ~ was initiated as'a result of the Design tfie new Design Committee 15egan sYdff in leve ©prrjg and eve M deas to rmprovelhe;North c lesf gh or 28th Charrette in the su[nmer of 2000 fine genera Segment ng i ~a g th t e Oil of 2$th Street Their MOW Std Baseline to Ara hoe goal:of the TNP is to develop a nnilIP F Pa on strectlbrelp~destnanttransit is ttanspoitationplan based on a two committees will' modal smaller street !l3rotremerts vas enhanced uvtFi . ievr igns in two focus , gnd,in the rea boursd ,deal for aestEiehc >Fnprovements Af` ou Aest{e}~cs and by Frolsom 30th; Pead and Ins their second meeting on fanuarrj 24 a tc+aktlir~rr~ Members froirx the 28th Street Design , 2fXk1, three ~Ereet_crtiss; sections and Commsttee volunteered to forma micl bkrcfc crassmg options were eval' Hated, as were aesthetic characterstres constructi on ant, TNP Task Force which advises :stiff egm this fa[Eor a norehemr of tewaY streetsca Pe throughout the TRIP process The lion s~cn} rte a Task `Force has met twice smce itsand transit steps esf£iusu# at Cf?K inception in December 2000 and it' tivisian of Tfle nerd Desige~ Camrrtittee meeting: E ti- scheduled to, meet again uF March t in March s expected toad dress safety' 303 44132Ea6 PFea 'no at ' this nieeting' " the ' u wifl further esign opti4 for the1South s P wit}uathe 28th Street corri and s refine TNP policies and plans for new went are not antirapated to throughout the TNP study area from esnted at tt~e upcoming 0 street cannectians, projected land Pearl W Jn% s and Folsom to 30th For, otise uses; and the proposed:transit routes.dh more miomiation, please contact Fox more intorrnation, please contact Diane 1'abes,or Bob Whitson.' , °-T Bob Whitson at 303.441.3266_ g Complete contact information is on the-back of this bulletin. i Contact us to get involved... 28lfn D R A F T Midblock Crossings Diane Yates 1/24/01 P, ilgl Urban Designer Carter & Burgess, Inc. F TransR SbAto IMI 216 Sixteenth Street Mall, Suite 1700 Denver, Colorado 80202 • Pod d l w.v . axe Rrnm 28th STREET phone: 303.820.4855 R . -SpYesa T fax: 720.359.3090 E-mail: YatesD(3@c-b.com Bob Whitson n w.rowr Senior TransportaSon Planner N City of Boulder ~ yam, r' in 1739 Broadway Boulder, Colorado 80302 a % { s Mailing Address: a I" ; P.O. Box 791 Boulder, Colorado 80306 phone: 303.441.3266 fax: 303.441.4271 E-mail: WhitsonB@ci.boulder.co.us ~ r5: T 606 'oN }Itwad OC 'japinog aldd 3Jt11SOd 's'n PJ8PUBIS pa}iosaJd ssa6m8.aa 28th NEW1 ONEF ~ rNr ~r si sr.av Infor mation Update for the 28th Street Central Corridor Planning Study JUNE 2001 NORTH YEGMENT - PEARL TO 1211 FINNL REVIEW PROCESS REGINS! At the next Design Committee meeting on June 13, 2001, The March 14, 2001 Design Committee meeting yielded the project team will ask the Design Committee to review the overwhelming support for recommendations for safety design that will be taken to the Planning Board, the solutions and multimodal facilities along 28th Street from Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and finally, the City Pearl to Iris. The recommended cross section is to maintain Council for review and approval under the 28th Street the existing two through travel lanes in each direction, adding Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP). a bus/bike through lane in each direction the length of the If you are interested, please join us at this meeting! segment. Added left turn lanes along 28th Street at the intersections of Pearl, Valmont, Glenwood and Iris will TRNNSPORTATION NETWORK PLANNING improve traffic flow along the entire corridor, and new transit OOMENT service and facilities will increase pedestrianibicycle access along 28th Street. At the March 7, 2001 Transportation Network Planning D R A F T (TNP) Task Force meeting, the committee fine tuned the Midblock Crossings Fourth Draft of the TNP map which showed city staff's recommended transportation connections. Staff has complet- Tnn.,Si.,. dnoo r s ; ed a Fifth Draft of the TNP map and will be presenting it to R sstl c °^s in V the committee at its upcoming meeting on June 12, 2001. n~I~e •snalh, 28th STREET • ee^me, - >L.;L.. r,l..G.f , rosalete rossxe •Rtl b Dhiir, Yy. DUlOON4 R11L ILLiEIINRTrv! DUIGONILL W.RlA LLiIMNnT1V! • 5Fe Ra kv _ Cenl Mtlinn ANN ~~t+t.L~ - iI% \ 1 Spire or Trees y s~° It, 1 rnDetail from part of the 5th Draft of the TNP (Dashed lines represent possible vehicular & # ' s V r f 1 bike/pedestrian connections) To accompany the map, a transportation implementation Pedestrians and bicycles wanting to travel the length 28th planning document is being written. It will provide policies Sheet will be able to do so on a multiuse path on either r side of the street. Raised crossings at right-tum bypasses at signal- and programs that will support the goals of increasing ized intersections will make their passage safer and easier. mobility in the study area (between Folsom and 30th from Mid-block bus stops will be enhanced with distinct safety Pearl to Iris). One section of this plan, Transportation Demand Management, identifies programs that reduce features that will serve a dual function. They will increase safety for pedestrians and they will improve the overall vehicle trips for employees. An ordinance will be proposed to character of 28th Street. The project team is working with the the City Council that provides a long-term solution to increas- Boulder Arts Commission and a Citizen's Advisory Task Force ing the mobility and safety for all modes of transportation in on a plan for the entire corridor to identify and unify the the study area. locations and type of public art. IOUTN VFGMFNT - RHVELWE TO 9209HO,£ DE116N PROCESS UNDERWRVI to CU Main Campus The final design for 28th Street from Baseline to Arapahoe is t taking shape. Staff is working with adjacent property owners on design issues that affect them; a Bike/Ped(fransit Citizen Bike Parking Multl-use Pay, 0 Task Force has met twice to comment on the transportation ° circulation and an Aesthetic Committee Task Force will meet A with staff in June to start determining appropriate types and locations of art as well as to review the landscaping. The V4 1 agency approval process is anticipated to lead to construction bIla eginning this fall. Please contact Stephany Westhusin,- . 303.441.3266, for more information. Bus passenger !m Underpass Entrance Waiting Area ~28th Street Preliminary Design Concept for Regional Bus Super Stop at College Ave. Underpass (West Side) HAMMING AIEETWGI TNP Meeting - June 12, The Panera Restaurant (Atrium), 7:30am to 9:30am Design Committee Meeting - June 13, The Panera Restaurant (Atrium), &00pm to 9:00pm Aesthetic Task Force Meeting - June 14, Library (2nd Floor Conference Room), 8:00am TAB Meeting - July 9, City Council Chambers, 6:00pm tp8ZM00(0id/sug4/sydap /sMiomolgnd/sn•oo-iaplnoq,p,mmm :alrsgaM -y sn•oriaplnoq?p@guos4!gM :Iiew-3 TLZVI"'EO£:- RJ'99Z£"Ttrb"SO£:auogd 90E08 opetoloo 'raPlrtog T6L %08 'Od rtuut uo4+ ueiy roruaS 'uOs*qM q08 u1oJ,q-a@0Gsa:igA :Gew-3 060£'64E'0ZL :Xe.J '9S8V0Z8'£0£ :auogd ZOZ08 opemlo'D '.WAUaCl DOLT a7!nS'ipW PaAS 3tuaaws 9TZ .oul `ssaBing 2g aaueo lau6isdp uegrn `sale/, aueIG -03AIOAN 139 Ol ill 1]Y1M0) 606 'ON 3lwyad 00 'iapInog Oltld 3EJtl1SOd 's'n PJePuelS PayosaJd nefunqu isi, DD 28te Street - 2000 eel rte? s~~ sa$' TO: Design Committee Members FROM: Project Team Members DATE: September 27, 1999 RE: Draft Operating Agreements • During the course of its work, Design Committee members will engage constructively with each other and the Project Team with the goal of contributing to the design of improvements in the 28" Street Corridor. The Committee will do this by responding during Committee meetings and between meetings to material and suggestions generated for them by the Project Team. Upon the project's completion, the Project Team expects to produce plans that can be rapidly approved by City Council in the form of Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) documents. • Members of the Design Committee have been assembled to bring to the table opinions and perspectives from the Boulder community and several key jurisdictions involved with 28`h Street. It will be the committee's responsibility to present the final corridor implementation plan to the Transportation Advisory Board and City Council with the Project Team. Each member is expected to keep her/his constituents informed of the ongoing progress of the project. ' Design Committee meetings will begin promptly on time and are expected to adjourn by the time specified on the agenda. Committee members are expected to arrive on time and stay through the entire meeting. • The facilitator (John Huyler) will call on people to speak during the meetings. Only one person will speak at a time. Committee members will avoid side conversations that might be disruptive. • The Project Team will distribute material at least five days in advance of the meetings. Committee members are expected to read the material beforehand and come prepared to work together and contribute to the discussions. • Since the Design Committee has a great amount of work to do in relatively few meetings, Committee contact with Project Team members by phone or E-mail between meetings is especially encouraged. Also, in the interest of working together productively, please avoid repeating yourself or others during meetings. ° Members of the public are both invited and encouraged to attend all Design Committee meetings. Time will be set aside on each agenda for the Committee to hear the perspectives of non-Committee members who are present at the meeting. n MEMORANDUM - Tht CN/tJ0! ju F E F 28th Street - 2000: Central Corridor Planning Study SWdy TO: Bob Whitson FROM: Diane Yates RE: Task One: Design Committee Process - Summary DATE: August 30, 1999 COPIES: 28th Street - 2000 Project Team PROCESS FOR DESIGN COMMITTEE REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES Introduction In the first three months of 28th Street - 2000, we have successfully launched the community involvement process and put into place the tools needed to communicate with the public. Now input from Boulder citizens has begun to flow in. It is time to finalize the methods we will use to develop alternatives and select the designs for the fourteen transit, traffic, pedestrian / bike and image / identity projects that will be reviewed by the Design Committee and the Boulder community at- large. The project goal is for one corridor-wide implementation plan to be approved by the Transportation Advisory Board and City Council. This memo recommends a process of organizing design alternatives by corridor land use character zones and by major design elements. The alternatives will be analyzed with Project Evaluation Criteria used to compare and score the design options. This process was developed with the goal of completing the design evaluation and selection process by the planned approval date for the Community Environmental and Assessment Process (CEAP) in late spring 2000. Community Involvement Tools Now in Place The five community involvement tools now in place include: I 1). User Survey. This non-scientific survey was distributed with the first project newsletter and the project web-site. 2). Community Open Houses (3) will be organized to inform Boulder citizens of project milestones and major developments and to collect community comments. 3). Design Committee will act as the community `voice' to advise the Project Team on design alternatives and community preferences. 4). Project Web-site is designed to describe all project milestones and major developments, and post the agendas, schedules and summaries of all meetings. 5). Project Newsletter. The first of five issues was distributed to over 5000 addresses within the project study area, interested Boulder citizens, Design Committee members, interested agencies and elected and appointed City officials. Like the open houses and web-site, the 28th Street - 2000 Corridor Planning Study 1 August 30, 1999 newsletters will provide updates on the projects milestones and upcoming meetings and events. These five tools meet the following project goals and objectives for community involvements: • Find out how the Boulder community views 28th Street in its present condition. • Involve the Boulder community in generating ideas for improvements and evaluating alternatives. • Maintain open communication between the Project Team, the City and the community. • Develop a corridor-wide plan with `raving fans' supporting its approval by TAB and City Council. Project Team and Design Committee Responsibilities Project Team • Provide alternatives for the Design Committee to respond with preferences. • Present alternatives in simple, easy-to-understand formats, but in sufficient detail to make informed recommendations. • Develop and utilize Evaluation Criteria to identify the preferred alternative for 28th Street improvements. • Build a trusting relationship with the Design Committee and Boulder Community. • Work within five Design Committee meetings and deadlines set for the CEAP approval process. Design Committee: • Be the `Voice' for the Boulder community and 28th Street jurisdictional organizations. • Provide advise and state preferences for design alternatives. Recommended Process for Design Committee Review of Alternatives Based on Project Team discussion in August, it was decided the review of improvement design alternatives will be organized into three workshops based on major corridor-wide design elements and land use character zones. The corridor-wide elements include: • Corridor Image and Identity • Intemodal Transit Center The land use character zones include 28th Street between: • Baseline and Arapahoe • Arapahoe and Pearl • Pearl to Iris Projects Organized by Corridor-wide Elements The h termodal Transit Center and Corridor Image and Identity are major design elements that effect the full length of the corridor. They will require individual workshops to discuss and evaluate the design alternatives for each elements. The Corridor Image and Identity workshop will examine different themes for 28th Street image and design options for the 28th Street wayfmding system coordinated with the city-wide systems for 28th Street - 2000 Corridor Planning Study 2 August 30, 1999 Boulder and the University of Colorado. Because of the many issues related to the Intermodal Transit Center, the design and community involvement process will be made separate from the 28th Street process. The Intermodal Transit Center will not be included with the three 28th Street Design Committee workshops but will be reviewed in a separate but parallel process with a smaller subcommittee of the 28th Street Design Committee. The process will include close coordination with the Regional Transportation District, the Planning Department and other City staff. Issues include the Center's program, alternatives for site location and the site design. A process similar to what was used to select and design the light rail transit stations along the Southeast Corridor is suggested. Alternatives will focus on improving transit service for Boulder for the near future. The site selection and design process for the Intermodal Transit Center may result in recommendations for the US 36 Major Investment Study (MIS) but will not focus on the US 36 MIS alternatives since the results of this study will not be ' implemented for more than 15 years. The Intermodal Transit Center process will begin in October 1999 and end in spring 2000 with the Center's program, location and site design approved by the Transportation Advisory Board and City Council. Project Organized by Land Use Character Zones The design alternatives for the pedestrian, bicycle and traffic safety improvements projects will be organized by the three land use character zones. The following zones respond to the specific policies and master plans of the adjacent land uses that effect 28th Street's operation and function: • 28th Street from Baseline to Arapahoe is strongly influenced by the University of Colorado and the adjacent residential and commercial business along the 28th Street Frontage Road that support the University. • 28th Street from Arapahoe to Pearl falls within the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) and will be guided by the plans and policies developed by BVRC. • 28th Street from Pearl to Iris will have a unique set of design alternatives to address the zone's left turn movements into numerous business driveways and improving bicycle travel along the corridor. Recommended Schedule I The following schedule for Design Committee Workshops, Community Open Houses, the Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) and City Council approval is recommended to meet the deadline for an approved CEAP for projects to be constructed in 2000. . The design and community involvement process for the Intermodal Transit Center are under development and will be defined in the upcoming months. This schedule includes both past and future meetings: July 14 Design Committee Meeting #1: Launch the Design Committee and define community preferences. September 1 Community Open House: Introduce 28th Street - 2000 and collect citizen comments and ideas. 28th Street - 2000 Corridor Planning Study 3 August 30, 1999 September 8 Design Committee Meeting #2: Review and collect comments on the corridor existing conditions, User Survey responses, corridor-wide Evaluation Criteria for design alternatives and the proposed Planning Framework. October Design Committee Meeting #3, Saturday, half-day meeting: Establish specific Evaluation Criteria for the design alternatives to be presented at each workshop. Review and collect comments on the improvement alternatives for Baseline to Arapahoe, Arapahoe to Pearl and Pearl to Iris. November 10 or 17 Intermodal Transit Center - Task Force Committee Meeting #1: Review and comment on proposed program for the Center. January # Design Committee Meeting #4: ' Review and collect comments on alternatives to improve 28th Street's Image and Identity. Intermodal Transit Center -Task Force Committee Meeting #2: Review and comment on location alternatives for the Center. February* Design Committee Meeting #5: Wrap up. Review final design alternatives (as presented in Meeting #2 and #3). TAB Meeting - Informal Gathering with Design Committee Share design alternatives with Transportation Advisory Board and have informal discussions with Design Committee members. Community Open House: Present a summary of the 28th Street improvement alternatives with results from the Design Committee's review. Collect citizen comments and ideas. Intermodal Transit Center -Task Force Committee Meeting #3: Review and comment on site design alternatives for the Center. March* CEAP Review by Design Review Committee (DRC): 28th Street - 2000 Corridor Improvement Plan and Intermodal Transit Center April* Community Open House: Present 28th Street Corridor Improvement Plan and a summary of the design alternatives for the Intermodal Transit Center with comments from the Citizens Advisory Committee. Collect citizen comments and ideas. Presentations to TAB and City Council 28th Street - 2000 Corridor Improvement Plan and Intermodal Transit Center by the Project Team and Design Committee. 28th Street - 2000 Corridor Planning Study 4 August 30, 1999 28th 28 Street - 2001 t'' /n Design Committee List of Members 7' a Property Owners Lain Adams Crossroads George Karakehian Coyote Car Wash Steve Miller Puddle Car Wash John Schwartz Diagonal Plaza Phil Shull Business Advocate Steve Tebo Tebo Development' Neighborhood Repiesentatives Wayne Adams Goss-Grove Lynn Dettloff Winding Trail Tom Dettloff Winding Trail Jean Robbins Iris Hollow Jerry Wyss Martin Acres 281Street Users Dave Allured Bolder Bicycle Commuters Topher Downham Disability Task Force Gary Horton 28 Street User Sherry Richards Regional Motorists Jared Seidenberg 28 Street User Patricia Taylor 28 Street User Jurisdictional Organizations Jeff Becker RTD David Cook CU Dave Davis CDOT Mark Gosselin CDOT Dick McLean RTD Richard Rost RTD Susan Connelly BURA 1 Alt. l~{.r TO: Design Committee x FROM: Project Team DATE: December 16, 1999 a- -i" RE: Memo on 28th Street Land Use Projections and sf-d' Traffic Implications Introduction This memorandum was prepared by Boulder Planning Department and Transportation Division staff in response to questions raised at our last 28th Street -2000 Design Committee workshop. The questions addressed potential future land use changes along 28th Street and how they could effect vehicle, transit, bicycle and pedestrian traffic on 28th Street. This memo describes two scenarios currently under study for the major update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The scenarios portray what Boulder Valley traffic would be like in 2020 with a full build-out under the current Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, compared to what traffic would be like with proposed options for changes to the current plan. The effects to 28th Street are also addressed in the memo. If you have any questions on this memo, please call Jean Hagen (Planning: 303-441-4907), Bill Cowem (Transportation: 303-441-3266) or Diane Yates (Carter & Burgess: 303-820-4855). '&@ Street - 2000 1 i2116199 Cenn'ai Con idor P(mwieg.5ruch LAND USE PROJECTIONS AND TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS 28th Street -2000: Central Corridor Planning Study December 15, 1999 The Year 2000 Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is focussing on the following key themes: • Identifying opportunities to increase the amount and diversity of housing affordable to low, moderate, and middle income households; and • Enhancing the character and function of the City's commercial areas. Several options aimed at addressing these issues are being considered as part of the update. An extensive Options Assessment was prepared to study the pertinent benefits and impacts of the various options. Factors studies in the assessment include the following: community character, environment, transportation, housing, economy, and facilities and services. Transportation Analysis Two versions of the 2020 traffic model were prepared for the Comprehensive Plan Update Options Assessment. The first, "Current Policy," is based on current comprehensive plan policies and provides a baseline forecast to 2020. The second, "BVCP Options", combines all of the options under consideration to provide an estimate of how traffic would be different in 2020 if all options were implemented. The only difference between the two versions of the model are changes in the number of dwelling units and the number of jobs in Boulder. Data for dwelling units and jobs is distributed among "traffic zones" in Boulder Valley, allowing for detailed location analysis. Awellin Units in Boulder Valle 2020) Subcommunity Current Policy BVCP Options Options difference Central Boulder 137520 13,585 +65 Crossroads 3,870 5,318 +1,448 CU 1,890 1,908 +18 East Boulder 1,220 1,535 +315 Gunbarrel 4,910 5,183 +273 North Boulder 6,140 6,140 0 Palo Park 1,540 1,746 +206 South Boulder 7,860 8,207 +347 Southeast Boulder 9,800 10,050 +250 TOTAL 50,750 53,672 2,922 th Street - ?000 2 12116199 ' Corral Co, Pido, Planning3tutlr Employment in Boulder Valle (2020) Subcommunity Current Policy BVCP Options Options difference Central Boulder 26,050 25,973 -77 Crossroads 17,490 17,807 +315 CU 16,140 16,140 0 r East Boulder 28,230 27,769 -461 Gunbarrel 20,510 20,362 -148 North Boulder 5,190 5,190 0 ' Palo Park 1,690 1,690 0 South Boulder 7,680 7,701 +21 Southeast Boulder 8,020 7,644 -376 TOTAL 131,000 130,276 -724 The model takes into account the localized traffic generation potential of land use changes at each site as well as the multiple effects of housing units shifting into Boulder from somewhere outside Boulder Valley. The data reflects the fact that many of the jobs associated with households added in Boulder are already in the Boulder Valley, as has been the case for many years. Today, 78% of workers in Boulder households work in Boulder (1999 Boulder Citizen Survey). Thus, the commute trips and certain other mid-day trips would already be occurring in Boulder Valley. Implications to Traffic in the Boulder Valley The biggest difference between the number of vehicle trips in the Valley under current Policy and under the BVCP Options will be forjobs added or subtracted. The net change in vehicle trips for jobs added or subtracted by the BVCP options will be about 2.8 daily vehicle trips perjob (about 1.4 commute trips and bout 1.4 other trips per day). The net increase in vehicle trips for households added by the BVCP options is estimated to be about 1.4 daily vehicle trips per household per day. This reflects the fact that the work-related trips and their associated discretionary trips (e-g, lunch-time errands) are already here. The net increase corresponds roughly to the number of additional vehicle trips per household per day that are not ' made from the work place. Cain Street - 2000 3 12116199 Central Corridor Planing Surclr 1 1 Key Conclusion The biggest impact to traffic in Boulder will be from growth in the region and the addition of future jobs. Because the options make some improvements to the jobs/housing imbalance by increasing projected housing and decreasing projected jobs, the implementation of all the options would have immeasurably small impacts on traffic valley-wide compared to the current policy and trends. However, there would be some impact on certain streets through and around the specific sites included in the options, since trips could be shifted from somewhere else in the local system to streets near the sites. However, even these impacts are minor. By the year 2020, the model indicates that daily vehicular activity in Boulder Valley (2020) would increase from current projections as shown below: 2020 Statistic Current Policy BVCP Options % Difference Vehicle Miles of 2,932,000 2,925,000 -0.02% ' Travel (VMT) Average Daily 570,000 572,000 +0.02% Traffic (ADT) I Average Vehicle Trip 5.0 miles 5.0 miles 0% Length Average Vehicle Trip 11.4 minutes 11.4 minutes 0% Length Average Vehicle 26.6 mph 26.6 mph 0% Travel Speed implications to Traffic on 28th Street Existing traffic levels show 28th Street to be at Level of Service F. Future projections show 28th Street to remain at level of F service. Even if 28th Street from Pearl to Iris was widened from 4 to 6 lanes, the improvement of traffic operations would be only a 4% increase corridor-wide. Future projections for Average Daily Traffic are based on the current Transportation Master Plan policy to maintain traffic levels at 1994 levels by directing traffic improvements toward shifting people out of single occupant vehicles to alternative modes of travel. From the table shown below, one can see the projected average daily traffic is lower than existing 1998 traffic volumes. This difference indicates both a current increase in traffic on 28th Street from the 1994 traffic volumes ' and a future anticipated shift in travel mode when transit facilities in the corridor become available. It also amplifies the need for 28th Street 2000 to focus on improvements for bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities and encourage use of alternate modes. 28th Serer - 2000 4 12/16/99 Central Corridor Planing SaidY t Existing and Forecasted Avera e Dail Traffic (ADT) on 28th Street Existing Current BVCP Changes Traffic Policy 1 Levels (1998) 28th & Colorado 46,130 40,600 40,400 28th & Sundown 35,500 35,600 28th between Canyon and 33,500 32,800 Arapahoe 28th & Pearl 41,310 36,200 35,600 28th & Mapleton 35,700 35,200 1 28th between Glenwood and 35,100 34,900 Valmont 1 28th north of Glenwood 26,700 26,300 28th north of Iris 28,020 23,800 24,400 The Comprehensive Plan study shows the addition of housing to have immeasurable effects on Valley-wide traffic, as well as on 28th Street. In general, the shifting of a small percentage of daily 1 person trips at any new or expanded residential site to other modes could compensate for any traffic increases associated with increases in dwelling units. Housing located near local and regional transit and improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities may actually decrease the number of commute and mid-day trips taken by residents. This goal will be considered as a part of the programming, site selection and site design investigation for the Intermodal Transit Center to begin this month. 1'097111 I GIN ANAGEK 1RRFNrl'OMCNCOKONIPOIS "I'D 1 78th ,Sneer - 2000 - i 12;16199 Central Corridor Planning Snack i i ;2It MEMORANDUM TO: North 28th Street Design Committee C~ # FROM: Project Team DATE: November 6, 2000 ' 0 f llaensy 1 ~dy RE: Information for North 28h Street Design Committee Meeting #I Greetings! Welcome to both "old-timers" and "new-comers" to the North 28th Street Design Committee. We are gratified that so many of you want to continue on the Committee as we turn ' our attention to 28 h's Northern Segment, from Pearl to Iris, aka. "Service City". We look forward to a fun and productive process beginning with this meeting! ' This mailing constitutes the "homework material" in advance of our meeting on November 15th Attached, please find: North Segment Kick-of • The agenda for the meeting, noting that the meeting time is 6:00 pm - 9:00 pm (buffet available at 5:45pm) ' • The Draft Operating Agreements for the North Segment Design Committee that we will ask you to adopt • The Design Committee membership list ' • The process and schedule for the 28'h Street Central Corridor Planning Study, with specifics for the North Segment • The initial 28`s Street cross section for "Service City" that resulted from the 28"' Street ' Design Charrette Transportation Network Plan (TNP) Kick-off • A fact sheet introducing the Transportation Network Planning Process ' All of this material is 3-hole punched for those of you who want to use binders. New-comers who prefer binders to file folders can pick them up at the November 15°i meeting. Additional information and maps (not of the "homework" nature) will also be available on the 15th. If you have any questions in advance, please contact Bob Whitson of the Boulder Transportation Division at 303-441-3266; Diane Yates of Carter-Burgess at 303-820-4855; or John Huyler, the ' project facilitator, at 303-444-4777. We look forward to seeing each of you on: ' Wednesday, November 15, 2000 The YMCA at 28th and Mapleton ' 6:00pm to 9:00pm ' .-f fia E`" ' DRAFT AGENDA Northern 28th Street Design Committee Meeting #1 c•nt.•i Wednesday, November 15, 2000 c•..;a•r o , F s~.ar ~ YMCA - 2850 Mapleton - 6:OOP.M. to 9:00 P.M. Major goals for the Meeting: • Provide up-to-date information and closure on the Community and ' Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) for the 28`8 Street Southern Segment (Baseline to Arapahoe) ' • Provide background information and initiate the process for the Northern Segment (Pearl to Iris) ' • Begin work on the Northern Segment CEAP and Transportation Network Plan (TNP) 5:45 pm Buffet dinner available ' 6:05 pm Convene • Welcome and brief introductions • Introduce new Design Committee (DC) members • Agenda review and agreement • Opportunity for public comment from non-DC members ' 6:25 pm Closure on the Southern Segment CEAP • Thanks to the Design Committee ' • Direction provided by City Council • Ongoing process of Value Engineering • Anticipated schedule for final design and construction 6:55 pm Initiate Design Process for 28"' Street's Northern Segment • Review and adoption of Operating Agreements by Design Committee ' • Overview of the Northern Segment • Introduction of Transportation Network planning process ' 7:30 pm Break into Working Groups • Discussion to focus on: 1. Ideas produced by the Design Charrette t 2. `What's broke' in the north and what's most urgently in need of fixing 3. Begin planning for a future Transportation Network • Working groups to report on discussions ' • Opportunity for public comment 8:50 pm Next Steps ' • Set dates for the next Design Committee meetings • Establish sign up procedure for Transportation Network Plan (TNP)Task Force • Critique of Meeting ' 9:00 pm Adjourn ~R North 28`" Street Design Committee V Operating Agreements ; (11/15100 Review Draft) j„ ® C R Pf ..in9 Sftdr ' X The Design Committee's role is to contribute to the development of design improvements in the North Segment of 28s' Street. To achieve this, Committee members will engage ' constructively with each other and the Project Team during and between meetings. The Committee will act as a sounding board and generator of ideas for the Project Team. It is ' not expected that Committee members will reach consensus on recommendations but, rather, that the Project Team will utilize its input to produce a design proposal and a CEAP that will be approved by City Council. ' X Members of the Design Committee have been assembled to bring to the table opinions and perspectives from the Boulder community and several key jurisdictions involved with north 28'' Street. Each member is expected to keep her/his organization informed of the ongoing progress of the project. X Design Committee meetings will begin promptly on time and are expected to adjourn by the time specified on the agenda. Committee members are expected to arrive on time and stay through the entire meeting. ' X The facilitator (John Huyler) will call on people to speak during the meetings. Only one person will speak at a time. Committee members will avoid side conversations that might be disruptive. ' X The Project Team will distribute material at least five days in advance of the meetings. Committee members are expected to read the material beforehand and come prepared to work together and contribute to the discussions. ' X As the Design Committee has a great amount of work to do in relatively few meetings, Committee contact with Project Team members by phone or email between meetings is ' especially encouraged. Also, in the interest of working together productively, please avoid repeating yourself or others during meetings. ' X Because of the short time line for the project's work and its desire to build and maintain open channels of communication, the Project Team may schedule additional meetings with constituencies on an as-needed basis. The use of a concurrent task force is anticipated to assist in the formulation of a plan for a future transportation network in the area. ' X Members of the public are both invited and encouraged to attend all Design Committee meetings. Time will be set aside near the beginning and later on in each agenda for the Committee to hear the perspectives of non-Committee members who have attended the meeting. 124 Bit 65ft Vitt! lift lift sit ion lift 114 454 6.51t Bit 12@ Multi -use Planting Bike m Travel Lane Travel Lane Median Left Turn Travel Lane Travel Lana m Bike planting Multi use "Notes: A second left Path SP Lane Lane' Lane Slap Path turn lane is under 11ft nn 33 us St.p/Righl ans Slap/Righ consideration for Turn Lane Turn Lane Valmont/28th It6raecabn cross seellon - 122 ff wide* intersection which would add 10 ft to the intersection width. The cross section widths do not include the outermost row of trees. u _ it 12 it Bit 6.6H 4.5 lift 1111 1611 lilt lilt V4,511 6.5ft 64 124 Multi-use Planting Bike m Travel Lane Travel Lane Landscape metlian Travel Lane Travel LanBlke planting Multi.use Path 514P Lane r Len. 5 p Palh `riped left turn lane 4 ft bit median with left turn lane us Slap/Righ ip/Righ Tum Lane Turn Lane Mid- 089 section -122 N Ndde Service City (Pearl to Iris) Four Through Lanes, Two Left Turn Lanes, Possible Center Median and Two Multi-use Paths pa DesignrCharrette NOT TO SCALE .a....,.rr 6122100 rrr ~111lr~ET ~o ~RAI.wwR/cLL~LA~('s~ ~ ~ ~ r ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ 2816 St. South Segment CEAP 2816 St. South Segment CEAP, Phase Two 1. Developed concept-level design 2. DC and community reviewed 1. Value Engineering (in process) 3. BURA I Planning Board reviewed 2. Final Design 4. City staff DRC reviewed 3. Construction (2001 to 2003) 5. TAB and Council reviewed CEAP and approved 281h St. North Segment CEAP 28th Street 1. Integrate ideas from Design Charrette 2. Develop concept-level design alternatives i. Formed Design Committee 3. DC and community review 2. Inventory and Analysis 4. City staff DRC review 3. Developed Planning Framework 5. TAB review and approval 4. Developed plan for New Transit 6. Council has option to call-up CEAP Routes and Facilities 281h St. North Segment 281M1 St. Destgn Charrette Transportation Network Plan Middle and North Segments 1. Form DC Task Force 2. Inventory and Analysis 1. Integrated land use, economics and 3. Develop 'Ideal'and 'Conslrained'transportation transportation issues. systems 2. Developed Ideas for realistic design 4. DC and community review improvements to Implement by 5. Planning Board review and approval 2020: 2816 St. Middle Segment 1. BURA Market Analysis 2. Integrate Design Charretle ideas 3. Develop Area Plan through Interactive community design process 4.: Planning Board review and approval MAY 2000 SPRING/SUMMER 1000 /'ALL 2000 SUMMER / PALLIWINTER 2001 i MEETING SUMMARY 28th Street-North Segment - Design Committee Meeting #1 C~l Wednesday, November 15, 2000; 6:00 to 9:00 P.M. at the ' y F < E . " YMCA (Mapleton and 28`h Street) a s~.+r ATTENDANCE ' Design Committee (DC) members: Jeff Dunning, Jared Seidenberg, Topher Downham, David Cook, ' Jerry Wyss, Jean Robbins, Sherry Richards, George Karakehian, Steve Miller, Gary Horton, Dave Allured, John Schwartz, Lain Adams, Tom Dettloff, Dick McLean, Lynn Dettloff, Pat Taylor, Robert Law, Mark Gosselin, Stephen Tebo, Wayne Adams Staff & Consultants - Boulder Transportation Division; Bob Whitson, Stephany Westhusin, Boulder Planning Department; Jean Garza, Ruth Mc Heyser, Facilitator; John Huyler, Transplan; Bill Fox, Carter & Burgess; Diane Yates, Christine Dianni, Gina Dezzutti Public: Jessica Kirkpatrick, Steven Wallace SUMMARY i Convene John Huyler started the meeting with introductions and awarded each past Design Committee (DC) member with a small obelisk of appreciation. George Karakehian was presented with a prairie dog. Public Comment ' Bob Law provided information on an added bikeway along US36 as part of the US36 Major Investment Study (MIS). Steve Wallace asked that the improvements in the South Segment Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) be reviewed with property owners. Staff ' assured him property owner review was part of the process. CLOSURE ON THE 28TH STREET SOUTHERN SEGMENT CEAP Bob Whitson gave an update on the South Segment CEAP beginning with TAB's unanimous recommendation for review and the subsequent, unanimous approval by the City Council in June 2000. A show of hands revealed that about one third of the DC members participated in the 28 h Street Design Charrette, held last summer, where the design for the South Segment was confirmed. Since then, City i Council asked staff to reduce the overall cost of the project through value engineering. The 28th Street Design Committee reviewed a draft of the Value Engineering memo to be sent to TAB and City Council. Feedback on South Segment Value Engineering The DC had been pleased with the original design, thus there was some concern regarding the impact of the value engineering on the integrity of the project and some strong feelings that adjustments were i not made proportionately in all categories. The specific improvements that individual Committee members felt most compromised the design included the elimination of pedestrian light fixtures, a r 1 downscaling of the landscaping and art at the southern gateway into Boulder (primarily at the Baseline Interchange) and the elimination of the widening of the northbound bridge over Boulder Creek. Bob Whitson explained that conduit is being installed for pedestrian lighting and that grants would be ' acquired for future light installation. Anticipated Construction Schedule of the South Segment ' Stephany Westhusin explained that construction is expected to begin in Spring 2001 following the Public Service's power line undergrounding and completion of final design. Construction will take 3 ' Spring/Summer construction seasons. Volunteers were recruited for South Segment design `review' process. ' INITIATE DESIGN PROCESS FOR 28Tn STREET'S NORTHERN SEGMENT Review of Operating Agreements (see attached) - Approved ' Introduction to Transportation Network Planning (TNP) Process Bob Whitson explained that the TNP process is a joint effort between the Transportation Division and the Planning Department to develop a plan that improves the pedestrian, bike, transit and street network in the area around North 28th Street. The plan will improve traffic operations and east/west, , multi-modal connections, which are anticipated to encourage private re-development. The plan will also provide new tools that may help solve access and safety problems on 28th Street. ' Jean Gatza explained that the TNP will inform the process to update Boulder's Comprehensive Plan 28a' Street's Middle Segment (from Arapahoe to Pearl). Area Plan scheduled to start next summer. ' Volunteers were recruited for the TNP Task Force. BREAK INTO WORKING GROUPS ' The Design Committee and the public were then divided randomly into three working groups and asked to discuss three topics related to the North Segment. Issues, suggestions and comments from all three working groups follow: 1. How can the proposed improvements along 28th Street's North Segment... ' Meet Boulder's goal for increased transit facilities? • Improve the bus stops (super stops) at Valmont, Pearl and Iris ' • Place pedestrian crossings next to bus stops • Consider bus pull outs because they improve and benefit traffic flow , Help reduce traffic congestion and improve safety for all modes? • Add right turn lane to reduce traffic congestion • Address left turn problems (and safety issues) • Access issues are key to the businesses , • Make operational improvements at Ins/28`h and Valmont/28' intersections 2 ' 1 • Consider a'no action' option. There are smaller businesses with many access points, and it works • It is important to recognize the strong possibility that what we do here may change the businesses • A frontage road was suggested, similar to that in Fort Collins. It appears there is not room for both a frontage road and bike paths • Lighting is needed on the multi-use path ' It was doubted that many of the improvements mentioned would enhance economic vitality • K-Mart (soon to be Safeway) should coordinate the new 28 h cross-section with its redevelopment • Construction would cause decrease in business • Raised medians would decrease business • Visibility of signs is important ' Improve visual quality of North 2e Street? • Add landscaping • Locate landscaping to maintain views to traffic • The proposed cross section shows improvement to visual quality • Consider a different form of landscaping since trees can block views to signs • Support was shown for combining curb cuts at entrances into businesses • Parking lots should be connected on private property Strengthen Boulder's bicycle and pedestrian system? ' • If there are medians, mid-block crossings could have bollards (like at 2Wh and Pearl, or in Cherry Creek Shopping Area) to provide added buffer for pedestrian traffic • The left turn out of Albertson's is a problem. Add a signal at this point adjacent to the bus stop 1 near Iris where people cross, mid-block • General maintenance is desirable, it was suggested that property owners share the responsibility • On and off street bike ways were discussed at length • Some felt the on-street bike lanes combined with the multi-use path serves both types of cyclists • Others felt that bikers don't belong on 28a' Street and that a multi-use path is better • To increase safety for bikes on multi-use path at intersections or driveways, add colored pavement or raise the crossing • It was also suggested that on-street bike lanes may make more sense on Folsom than 28 h Street • It was suggested that either an on-street bike lane or a multi-use path on both sides is good, but both is dangerous, since drivers watching for passing bikes would not be likely to look for bikes both on the path and on the street • Someone noted that 28a' Street is used regularly by bikes, so let's make it safe for them with both options. Also, strengthen east/west routes, across 28th Street to Folsom and 30'" which would be used for the north/south bike routes ' • Near the outside of property lines, trees are important to the design and are required of the property owners. How much property does it take in front of properties and how does that affect parking? Does this take access and parking from properties? 2. The advantages and disadvantages of the ideas generated at the Design Charrette. • The ideas strengthen 30"' and Folsom as bikeways and the proposed east/west bike connections • DC members agree with need for TNP • DC members support Design Charrette ideas for mid-block crossings 3 • Consider grade separated crossings (underpasses) • Protected median refuges at mid-block crossings are desirable, no flashing lights 3. Consideration of a new Transportation Network for 281h Street's North Segment and its study area. Missed Goals? Yes... ' • Promote efficient land use in transportation network • Improve access to businesses and viability (add choices) General comments on TNP... , • 28(' Street improvements shall serve whole community • Get statistics on local access (sidestreet) needs. Determine importance of alternate routes for cars. • Include more property owners on TNP Task Force • It's exciting to think of how great things could be in the future • Include interconnect parking lots • Improve pedestrian access throughout • Divide up large city blocks with more streets or connections , • Minimize bike/ped/auto conflicts with better street lighting • Consider colored pavement for multi-use path at curb cuts • Advantages linking site circulation to adjacent properties is that it keeps traffic off of 28' Street • Improve (overpasses) at Arapahoe/47t' and Baseline/47th to encourage through traffic to use 470' • 28`h Street should serve shoppers more than homeowners • With mixed use, it will force us to accommodate everything ' Suggestions for the TNP process: Designing a small scale street grid pattern, like that discussed at the Design Charrette, (break up the ' large city blocks) was discussed. The character of the small streets will enhance access to current and future land uses. We should plan additional roads that we know we'll need for 20 plus years into the , future. Ped/bike improvements should be incorporated. Interconnected parking would contribute to improved access for businesses and citizens wanting to get around for general purposes. Traffic, access, and property ownership statistics are needed to evaluate the benefit and need for , alternate, through traffic routes for cars. Questions were raised: What if we double the land use? What does this do to traffic? Given the population density, what kind of businesses do we need compared to , existing businesses? Comments included: • The TNP area maybe more effective at accommodating bikes and peds than 28t' Street • Access between parking lots does not seem feasible and only works in a few cases. , • Opposition to the auxiliary lane up 28th Street. Perhaps the solution is Folsom/28t' through bikes, multi-use path for bus use on 28th Street. • It is exciting - to move people in the area to improve access to small businesses , 4 ' NEXT STEPS • Transportation Network Task Force Meeting Wed. Dec. 6 7:30-9:30am West Boulder Senior Center • Next DC Meeting Wed. Jan. 24`s 6-9pm ' CRITIQUE OF MEETING ' Pros Cons • Public comment at beginning and end • 3 topics was a lot to cover - • Attendance • Consider having another meeting • Bob's Speech • Need better food MEETING MATERIALS Pre-Meeting Mailing included: • Agenda • 28 h Street Design Committee Operating Agreements • DC Member List ' • 28th Street Process Schedule • Service City Cross Section • TNP Fact Sheet Handouts at the meeting: • Draft memo to TAB/Council re: 28"' Street-2000 from Baseline Road to Arapahoe Avenue Transportation Project Value Engineering Results • Draft memo to CU Staff on Results of Value Engineering for 28a' Street improvements to CU's main ' campus underpass • Questions to Consider (for working groups) i ' 5 MEMORANDUM TO: North 28`h Street Design Committee FROM: Project Team DATE: January 16, 2001 RE: Information for North 28"' Street Design Committee Meeting #2 M ..kv sWr ' Happy New Year! We hope your holidays were cheery and we look forward to getting together again in a couple of weeks. ' The last Design Committee meeting was a solid success. We had a big tumout and a lot of good input on the South Segment, the North Segment "Service City" from Pearl to Iris on 20, Street and the Transportation Network Plan (TNP). The upcoming meeting, Wednesday, January 24, 2001 from 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM, will focus on developing design alternatives for the North Segment "Service City", and will provide an update to the TNP and the South Segment. Enclosures: You may have noticed that this mailing does not have the usual bulk of "homework" material. Instead, we look forward to unfurling initial design concepts at the meeting, then working with you to expound on them. Attached, please find the agenda for the upcoming meeting, the list of Near-Term Improvements for 28'" Street and the First Draft of the Transportation Network Map (TNP). This map is the product of the initial TNP meeting and is currently being refined. The Second Draft will appear at the meeting. Open Hours Session: We hope you will be able to attend one of the Open Hours sessions scheduled for February 22, 2001, from I I AM to 2 PM, and from 4 PM to 7 PM. The location is yet to be announced. We plan to advertise these Open Hours sessions widely and focus on both the North Segment's 28 h Street corridor and the development of the TNP. Proposed, Near-Term Improvements: Based on direction from City Council, a list of improvements to the North Segment of 28's Street was prepared for implementation within the next year (see attachment). Many of these improvements have been completed or are in process. South Segment Value Engineering Update: TAB and City Council have reviewed the revisions made to the original budget in a December 2000 Council meeting. After some clarification, Council confirmed their approval of the changes made. If you have any questions before the meeting, please contact Bob Whitson of the Boulder Transportation Division at 303-441-3266; Diane Yates of Carter-Burgess at 303-820-4855; or John Huyler, the project facilitator, at 303-444-4777. We look forward to seeing each of you at the next Design Committee meeting on: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 At the YMCA at 28`h and Mapleton 6:00pm to 9:00pm (Buffet available at 5:45pm) i i i i yMqch DRAFT AGENDA Northern 28th Street Design Committee IR Meeting #2 Wednesday, January 24, 2001 Ceni&r ' c a o Manning YMCA - 2850 Mapleton away 6:OOP.M. to 9:00 P.M. 1 Major goals for the Meeting: • Understand and discuss the evolution to-date of the Transportation Network Plan (TNP). Provide feedback to the Task Force and Project Team. • Present options for aesthetic improvements, transit facilities and street cross sections for Northern 28d` Street. Design Committee discussion and feedback to Project Team. • Provide update on evolution of near-term improvements to Northern 28th Street. 5:45 pm Buffet dinner available ' 6:05 pm Convene • Agenda review and agreement • Opportunity for public comment from non-DC members 6:15 pm Transportation Network Plan • Presentation of the Second Draft of TNP • Questions, answers and facilitated discussion in full group format • Opportunity for public comment from non-DC members 7:00 pm Northern 28s' Street • Update on the Near-term improvements to 28th Street • Presentation by Carter & Burgess • Short Q & A period in full group format • Break into small working groups • Reconvene and reports back from working groups • Opportunity for public comment from non-DC members • Brief facilitated discussion and feedback from Project Team 8:35 pm Update on Schedule for the Southern Segment and Planning for the 33rd and Pearl Multimodal Center 8:50 pm Closure and Next Steps • Set date for the next Design Committee meeting • Announcements • Critique of Meeting 9:00 pm Adjourn i 1 1 Northern 28th Street Design Committee Meeting #2 - Jan 24, 2001 DISCUSSION TOPICS FOR SMALL WORKING GROUPS On display tonight are street cross sections, plans and sketches that show possible ways to improve traffic and transit operations, bicycle and pedestrian access along and across 28th Street, and ways to enhance 28th Streets image. We have grouped these ideas into three stations under the following topics: 1. Traffic Improvement Alternatives for the use and number of travel lanes. 2. Ideas for Bus Transit Stops and Mid-block Pedestrian Crossings 3. Ideas for Street Aesthetics i Please visit each of the three stations and provide your comments on the ideas portrayed. There are many ways to convey your comments: 1 • Talk with Project Team members • Write on the roadway plans ' • Record ideas on the large index cards or yellow sticky notes 0 Fill-out this questionnaire. Northern 2e Street Design committee - Meeting #2 page 2 Wednesday, January 24, 2001 1.) Traffic Improvement Alternatives - number & use of travel lanes ■ Three of the alternatives evolved from comments gathered during past Design ■ Committee meetings held in 1999 and 2000, plus comments from the 1281' Street Design Charrette held in the summer of 2000. Explain what you like and dislike about the four alternatives for 281h Streets cross section. 1 a.) Alternative A - 4 travel lanes, auxiliary lanes for buses, bikes and right turning autos, plus two multi-use paths 1 b.) Alternative B - 4 travel lanes, striped bike lanes shared with buses and right turning autos, plus two mufti-use paths 1 c.) Alternative C - 6 travel lanes and two multi-use paths, but no on-street bike lanes 1 d.) Altemative D - 4 travel lanes and two on-street bike lanes with two multi-use paths. Northern 2e Street Design Committee - Meeting #2 page 4 Wednesday, January 24, 2001 Mid-block Pedestrian Crossings: As part of improving connections across 28th Street, mid-block crossings have been included to connect both sides of the transit 'super stops' and connect to new pedestrian and bicycle routes proposed in the Transportation Network Plan. Comment of the following ideas for mid-block crossings. ' 2a). Basic Crossing - would include striped crosswalk and pedestrian refuge area in the center of the street. 1 2b.) Basic Crossing with Clustered Trees -would all the elements of the basic crossing with a clustered arrangement of street trees, not a uniform and consistent spacing or trees along the street. r 2c.). Enhanced Crossing - would include all the elements of the basic crossing stop plus two additional pedestrian refuge areas between the travel and auxiliary lanes (cross-section alternatives A or B), spires and/or trees in the center median and pedestrian lighting. Other ideas for mid-block crossings? Northern 28"' Street Design Committee - Meeting #2 page 3 Wednesday, January 24, 2001 i 2). Ideas for Bus Transit Stops and Mid-block Pedestrian Crossings ■ Bus Transit Super Stops: , New local high-frequency bus service along 28'" Street will be coupled with existing bus regional service to Longmont and Gunbarrel. Local and regional buses will provide connections at transit 'super stops' located at the 28"' Street intersections with Pearl, Valmont and Iris / Diagonal Highway. The sketches titled Mid-block Crossings and Streetscaoes and Intersections show two types of bus stops at two different locations. Please comment on the amenities and bus stop layout proposed in each sketch. Comment on the three ideas for Transit Stops. 2a.) Basic Transit Stop - would include a simple bench, shelter and bus sign set on a platform of decorative paving. 2b.) Basic Transit Stop with Clustered Street Trees - would include a simple bench, shaker and bus sign set on a platform of decorative paving, plus trees clustered at only the bus stop. i 1 2c.) Enhanced Transit Stop - would include all the elements of the basic transit stop plus bike racks, pedestrian lights, and shelter incorporating art or sculpture. Other ideas for Transit Stops? Northern 2e Street Design Committee - Meeting #2 page 5 Wednesday, January 24, 2001 3). Ideas for Street Aesthetics 2e Street and Diagonal Gateway: Three ideas for landscaping and/or art will build upon the Design Committee's stated preference for natural plant and building materials that reflect Boulder's character. They would serve to landmark the intersection as the Northeastern Entrance to the city and the 21P Street Corridor. Which of the three ideas for Boulder's Northeast Gateway do you prefer? Why? 3a.) As Sculptural Gateway - incorporating a central work of art or sculpture into the landscape design of the intersection corners. 3b.) Landscape as Sculptural Gateway - arrange trees, shrubs and landscaping materials into a monumental and attractive 'green' sculpture. 3c.) As Landscaped Gateway - arrange trees, shrubs, rocks, and small sculpture and landscape materials into a design that reflects Boulder's mountain park habitats. Northern 28" Street Design Committee • Meeting #2 page 6 Wednesday, January 24, 2001 Streetscapes and Intersections: These sketches and plan display many different ways to unity the image of 2e Street, both at the intersections and along the street 3d.) Comment on these ideas make 28th Street more inviting to pedestrians and bicyclists. Improvements located between the curb and sidewalk: Street trees ( arranged in clusters) Street trees (along full length of block) Low growing shrubs Sidewalk level planting strip, or Raised planter wall (along length or street or in special areas) Pedestrian scale lighting Others? 3e.) For aesthetic improvements located outside the street right-of-way, is it desirable to standardize the design for landscaping and signs?. 3f.) Comment on the ideas for improvements behind the sidewalk... (These improvements would be implemented as the property is redeveloped) Second row of street trees Low growing shrubs Others? 3g.) Comment on the ideas for improvements behind the sidewalk at Valmont Intersection. (These improvements would be implemented as the property is redeveloped) Flagstone sculpture at intersection corners Pedestrian plazas with trees and seating areas Others? Northern 2e Street Design Committee - Meeting #2 page 7 Wednesday, January 24, 2001 3h) Sign System: A distinctive foundation and kiosk design for business signs and pedestrian scale directories would unify the comdor's image and make finding businesses and destinations easier. Two ideas for the business sign foundations and an intersection directory are presented. What do you like and dislike about the proposed sign designs? Why? i Other ideas for a sign system? Near-Term Improvements on 28th Street January 24, 2001 Design Committee Meeting #2 r ❑ Repair fence next to drainage ditch (Done) ❑ Add pedestrian crossing treatment on 28th Street south of Iris ❑ Construct missing links of sidewalk and repair broken sidewalk ❑ 28`h and Mapleton signal timing: adjust to make easier for pedestrians to cross 28th Street ❑ Install pedestrian crossing at 28`h/Spruce - lower median ❑ Complete the 29th Street bicycle corridor (requires a large amount of work) ❑ Construct a raised crossing at the northeast comer of 28'h & Valmont ❑ Build missing sidewalk on the east side of 28th Street south of Glenwood ❑ Improve drainage on the south side of the northeast comer of 28"' & Glenwood ❑ Improve bike lanes on the southeast comer of 28`h & Valmont I landscape A.h107O379\Noah Segment CFAPVa gclMp DC 1-24-01U ,team imprvmts 1-24.dw a _ MEETING SUMMARY 28th Street-North Segment - Design Committee Meeting #2 Wednesday, January 24, 2001; 6:00 to 9:00 P.M. at the YMCA (Mapleton and 28`h Street) ATTENDANCE Design Committee (DC) members: Topher Downham, David Cook, Jerry Wyss, Jean Robbins, Sherry Richards, George Karakehian, Steve Miller, Dave Allured, John Schwartz, Tom Dettloff, Lynn Dettloff, Pat Taylor, Stephen Tebo, Wayne Adams Staff & Consultants -Boulder Transportation Division: Bob Whitson, Stephany Westhusin; Boulder Planning Department: Jean Gatza, Michelle Allen; Facilitator: John Huyler; Transplan: Bill Fox; Carter & Burgess: Diane Yates, Christine Dianni. Public: Kurt Johnson, Premena PRELIMINARIES Convene John Huyler started the meeting with overview of the meeting goals and agenda. Public Comment Kurt Johnson (member of the TNP Task Force) presented the Boulder Bicycle Commuters (BBC) preferred street cross-section which is different from the three alternatives presented by city staff. BBC prefers two automobile and bus travel lanes with a striped on-street bike lane and multi-use path in each direction. Kurt stated the advantages of this cross-section include less right-of-way and easement purchases and less conflicts between on-street bicyclists and buses and right-turning vehicles. Premena stated support for BBC's alternative. UPDATE TO THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK (TNP) PROCESS Bill Fox (Transplan) and George Karakehian (member of the TNP Task Force) gave a brief presentation on the second draft of the Transportation Network Plan (TNP). Bill described the process used to develop the plan and handed out a copy of the second draft map showing the new proposed street and bicycle / pedestrian connections. Bill presented projected increases to traffic calculated based on the current update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Lane Use Plan (Comp Plan). Projected increases in employment and housing may increase the average daily traffic on all major arterial in the study area. 1 North Segment Summary of Project Team's and Design Committee's Advisory Direction January 30, 2001 Business si na a out, too man problems Pedestrian Signage Include at mid-block crossings transit stops and at Goose Creek Lighting OK C&B to prepare list of options for off shelf fixtures Art C&B to develop list of art elements, methods of integration and examples of applications Paving OK J:\landscape_arch\070379\north segment ceap\manage\mtgs\71-24-01\Summary of DC preferences.xls i• ~ i5 mom ■o im no maim moo mesa i r AMMYM i i Y First Draft extsriw RAO AW s b&%W4 of the ?u+"eD V05 (r °"'-ST1P~sT8 "E XISTIsi Transportation E O oscD Network Plan ? `wvo ~ o ~enrs Task Force Meeting, December 6, 2000 oG"ly O,ST1jjlr T#RO,c. 3%jrAI*L &OWCO AT-69ADE X-JAW UNDER i~A55 TRANS v ten, ~ t^ r - i L E I ! c [ F v_ j ' t \ r ' ~Tr' tl Y A~d7 i C S 4 6 SA el Y,L. A 1 r Y 1 ~ pp rj f ~ ® L Li O r rr ~ PLANN Zstn /E . 28th Street and Diagonal Gateway Planning 77 i 4 7 ~ V As Sculptural Gateway Nor ToScALE N g t ~ Sculpture • Central Art Piece • Landscape • Natural Materials l f S T R E E T Midblock Crossings LLMra( N.M., ,Study i Basic Transit Stop to Include: Y.: * Bench k *Shefter *Bike Racks •Decorative Paving *Pedestrian Refuge in - Center Median with Spires or Trees I i I ter' t Nor To Scue N r r 28th S T R E 9 T Midblock Crossings t Transit Stop to Include r c, • Raised Crossing • Shelter z • Benches - - = _ • Pedestrian Lighting • Bike Racks -r • Decorative Paving • Pedestrian Refuge in Center Median with 11 -a*l Spires or Trees - v i' NOT To SCALE if } V -.u 28th T A E Ei Streetscapes and Intersections Local //w[eMraf x Carridar 'Th `f _}I~S PIGtHHAg Regional 1 = upperstop _ Su ersto~~ Regional v ~ Local-d Nor To SCALE f ~ r ;Local i cmoce ~ V Vv, t br'. ;1 V `l 28th 8 T 0. E C T y1~R Sign System x .~'2 ' Gcrridar Pfa..eng i:F"SS!n~wt'?i arc. SsYdy n/ NOT TO SCALE 28th Street and Diagonal Gateway a ~S e €E g F & ~t., Y Y ' -li 2~EE T . E e`R Streetscapes and Intersections Certhai Z CSrridor p d A ` P7asning ~ J"-~ ST, 1-4 E ~ ----90148,~e I%YV sTRaF-T TlDmes -~T~PiGAL~ li3i'@QSEGTIgV TMFNr r ice. STAVC-T L.16fi7W 6 2w R~sut"aro r ~t MD, 1,16Hr5' ~uilp YIYHpi~ rlY ' P ~aI -DwtE. t~O - .'X s'[~ST tRE€S -RA BKFFOW, wa~L r r E Midblock Crossings Ptaaning i 1 r _ r L~ -1 r rBr. i s i Central ' Corridor 0 0 Planning Study MEMORANDUM TO: Northern 28th Street Design Committee Members FROM: 28th Street Project Team DATE: March 7, 2001 RE: Agenda & Materials for March 14 Design Committee Meeting Greetings? Attached please find the draft agenda and other materials for the meeting on Wednesday, March 14. As usual, the meeting will be held: between 6:00 pm and 9:00 pm at the YMCA at 2850 Mapleton Also as usual, dinner will be available at 5:45, so come early for the choicest pickin's. The major focus of the meeting will be safety, to understand and compare the various tools that could be used to improve safety along the corridor and the tradeoffs involved with their selection. Please preview the enclosed materials and if you have any questions before the meeting, please call any of us on the Project Team. Note that a second mailing will be sent to you in a day or two with up-to- date information on the cross sections. We look forward to seeing each of you and to another productive session on the 14th. Please RSVP by Monday, 3/12/0 1, to Christine Dianni at Carter & Burgess, Phone 303.820.4872, Fax 720.359.3090, Email diannicmc-b.comb.com. Enclosures: 1. Agenda 2. Safety Improvement Summary 3. Land Use and Planning Meeting Summary 4. North 28th Street Traffic Safety Treatment Evaluation Matrix 5. Existing/Proposed Property Access Pattern 6. Transportation Network Planning Map DRAFTAGENDA Northern 281i Street Design Committee Meeting #3 tf I ."id Wednesday, March 14, 2001 e S'„dr YMCA - 2850 Mapleton 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM Major goals for the Meeting: • Safety: Understand and discuss safety tools and the tradeoffs involved in their selection • Receive updates on various ongoing activities • Review and contribute to the CEAP Support Document comparing the implications of the various cross sections under consideration 5:45 pm Buffet Dinner Available 6:00 pm Convene • Agenda review and agreement • Opportunity forpublic comment from non-DC members 6:10 pm Updates on Recent Meetings • BURA (John) • Open Houses (Stephany) • Land Use, Employment and Housing Projections (Jerry) 6:20 pm Commercial Growth Management Project (Ruth) 6:30 pm Update on Transportation Network Plan (Bill F) 6:40 pm CEAP Support Document (Christine) 6:45 pm Safety: Introduction followed by Facilitated Discussion (Bill and Bill) 7:55 pm Opportunity for public comment from non-DC members 8:05 pm Break 8:15 pm Comments on the Safety Plan 8:45 pm Closure and Next Steps, especially re: April 9 Study Session with TAB 8:55 pm Critique of Meeting 9:00 pm Adjourn Post-meeting opportunity to complete "homework assignment" on CEAP Support Document r Safety Improvements Summary for 28th Street North Segment (Pearl to Iris) Safety Design Committee # 3 March 7, 2001 1. BACKGROUND In the section of 281h Street between Pearl Street and Iris Avenue, 724 accidents were reported between January 1994 and June 1999 (66 months total). Over 180 people were injured in these accidents. Most of these accidents occurred at the congested intersections throughout the corridor. The second highest group of accidents involved vehicles entering or exiting driveways in the corridor. These two groups of accidents represent the majority of accidents in the corridor. Tables A and B detail the numbers and types of accidents that occurred during this time period, for both intersection accidents and mid-block accidents respectively. Table A: Intersection Related Accidents Accident Types (Intersection Related) Number of Accidents Rear-end Collisions 417 Left-turn versus Thru Collisions 92 Broadside Collisions 29 Car/Bike Collisions 18 Car/Transit Collisions 0 Car/Pedestrian Collisions 8 TOTAL 564 Table B: Mid-block Related Accidents Accident Types (Mid-block Related) Number of Accidents Rear-end Collisions 20 Left-turn versus Thru Collisions 45 Side-swipe Collisions 29 Car/Bike Collisions 3 Car/Transit Collisions 0 Car/Pedestrian Collisions I Bike/Ped I TOTAL 99 r The remaining accidents (61 total) involved miscellaneous accident types, including vehicles backing up, hitting poles or other fixed objects, etc. As a result of these different accident trends, staff is proposing a number of different reactive safety measures and future safety measures which would target these accident types and seek to mitigate future accidents in the corridor. In addition to the existing accident trends present in the corridor, there are a number of new potential conflicts being created by the increase of people using alternative modes of transportation. While the number of accidents involving bicycles, pedestrians and transit have all been relatively low in the past, the City's project intends to encourage a significant increase in these modes throughout the corridor. As a result, a number of pro-active safety measures are necessary and are being included in the proposed project. 2. INTERSECTION-RELATED, REACTIVE TREATMENTS FOR ACCIDENT TRENDS As you can see, there were more than five times as many accidents at the intersections than there were mid-block. This is generally to be expected because accidents occur at points of conflict and the greatest amount of conflict occurs at the intersection of two streets. Generally, the more congested the intersection, the more accidents that will occur. The majority of these intersection accidents were rear-end collisions and this trend is consistent throughout the City. Typically, these accidents occur because of level of congestion at the busy intersections, and drivers that are either not paying attention or becoming frustrated or both. Left turn and broadside accidents can potentially be mitigated through changes in signal timing or phasing. The addition of additional left turn lanes, more time for left turn movements, more amber/yellow time and/or the exclusion of permissive phasing with a Red Arrow, can all be used to help mitigate these accident trends. Other intersection related accident trends are also difficult to mitigate. Right turning rear end collisions (such as the significant problem at westbound Valmont and 281h Street) can potentially be mitigated with the addition of an acceleration lane and/or the construction of raised crossings in the right turn islands. These improvements can also help mitigate accidents between bicycles or pedestrians and cars. It is anticipated that the staff recommendation will include a number of these reactive intersection improvements to attempt to mitigate these trends. Specifically, additional turn lanes are proposed at the intersections of 281h & Iris, 281h & Valmont and 281h & Pearl., However, even with these improvements the amount of accident reduction for some of these trends is likely to be small. 3. MID-BLOCK, REACTIVE TREATMENTS FOR ACCIDENT TRENDS Some of the trends associated with mid-block accidents involve vehicles turning in and out of driveways. The most common type of accident involves vehicles making a left turn in or out of a driveway in the corridor. In this project, the City is proposing to construct medians only at the intersections, to protect the left turn bays. By taking this approach, full access to most driveways in the corridor can be maintained while mitigating a large number of mid-block accidents. It is anticipated that over half of these types of accidents would be mitigated with this limited median treatment. Other accident trends involve vehicles turning right into or out of driveways. These accidents are usually rear-end or sideswipe accidents. One potential mitigation technique for this type of accident trend is to consolidate driveways and connect parking lots throughout the corridor. The fewer driveways along the corridor, the fewer number of conflict points and the easier for drivers to anticipate when traffic is going to turn into a driveway. It is anticipated that a small portion of these types of accident can be mitigated with this approach. The auxiliary lanes (transit, bike and turning traffic only) shown in two of the roadway configuration alternatives being considered, also act as a mitigation measure for certain accident trends. The lane acts as an acceleration lane at intersections and driveways, limiting the exposure of vehicles turning right onto 28th Street. The lane also allows vehicles turning left into driveways to shelter in this area and allow bicycles and pedestrians on the sidewalk or multi-use path to pass safely in front of them. 2 Particularly busy driveways may have or develop accident trends despite these improvements. In these cases, staff will evaluate each driveway on a case by case basis and, if necessary, post a regulatory "No Left Turn" sign at a driveway that has a documented accident problem. Typically, staff would be looking for 3 or more accidents involving vehicles turning left out of a driveway, in any two years, to consider this type of restriction. 4. PRO-ACTIVE TREATMENTS FOR 28TH STREET As previously mentioned, a number of changes being proposed to the corridor can result in a higher probability of conflict involving people using alternative transportation. As a result, certain pro-active measure are being proposed in the project. The pedestrian refuge islands being proposed will allow pedestrians to cross the very busy 28th Street corridor, by breaking up the journey into three distinct parts. This will allow pedestrians crossing 28th Street to refuge in these areas and concentrate on finding gaps in traffic in only one direction only. It is anticipated that signing, striping and other special pedestrian crossing treatments will also be used to encourage vehicles to Yield to pedestrians crossing the corridor in these locations. The multi-use path proposed on both sides of 28th Street will help prevent conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists on the corridor. In addition, special driveway treatments (colored concrete or special striping) at path crossings, will discourage conflict between bicyclists or pedestrians and cars turning into or out of the driveways. The proposed auxiliary lane also acts as a "Fro-active" treatment by separating the transit, bicyclists and right turning traffic from the higher speed and volume main street traffic. This creates less probability of conflict between variable speed vehicles in the same space. 5. SUMMARY To address a number of existing safety issues and future conditions within the 2811, Street corridor, the staff recommendation should include a number of safety improvements. These are summarized below: • Additional left turn lanes at the intersections of 281h & Pearl, 28th & Valmont and 281h & Iris. • Adjusted signal timing/phasing to address left turn accident problems. • Raised crossings at right turn bypass islands to protect bicycle/pedestrian crossings and to mitigate rear-end right turn collisions. Raised medians protecting all left turn bays at each signalized intersection in the corridor. These medians mitigate about one half of the driveway left turn accidents and also provide a more efficient operation of the intersections. Construction of a multi-use path on both sides of 281h Street to minimize conflict between off-street bicycles and pedestrians. Driveway treatments at multi-use path crossings (colored concrete or striping/ signing) to minimize conflict between cars using driveways and off-street bicycles or pedestrians. • During redevelopment of properties, the consolidation of driveways with surrounding properties and the connection of parking lots along the 28th Street corridor. These improvements reduce the number of cars using 281h Street driveways and the probability of conflict between these cars and off-street bicycles and pedestrians, as well as turning cars conflicting with main street 2811, Street traffic (rear-end and side swipe accidents). • Regulatory signs to create turn restrictions at any driveway that has a demonstrated safety issue with cars turning left out of their property. A demonstrated problem will be considered 3 or more accidents in any two-year period. r During redevelopment of properties, the construction of a roadway connection through the backs of properties fronting 28th Street. In addition, two of the four roadway configuration alternatives propose an auxiliary lane (transit, bike and turning traffic only). This lane would act as a transit and bike "queue jump" at intersections and would act as an acceleration lane for vehicles turning right onto 28th Street from intersections or driveways. This improvement would help reduce congestion at the intersections, as well as separating the transit, bikes and turning traffic from the faster moving through traffic. It would help reduce right turn rear-end collisions and provide some refuge area for vehicles turning left into driveways. 6. CONCLUSION Staff believes that the combination of these improvements will likely reduce accident trends in the future. If these improvements were in place during the 66 months studied, there would likely have been between 100 and 200 fewer accidents in the corridor. t 4 NORTH 28TH STREET TRAFFIC SAFETY TREATMENT EVALUATION MATRIX • MUCH BETTER ♦ SOMEWHAT BETTER Accidents8 T AndLoc lion O NOCHANGE Rear-Ends Left Turns Sideswipes Broadsides Car/Bike Car/Bus Car/Ped Bike/Pod © WORSE Intersection MM-Block Intersection Mid-131ock Mid-Block Intersection At Driveway On-Street Intersection Intersection Mid-Block rWarsemi~onn Mid-Block Mid-Block Total 88 Monty Aecklenl Tolel 417 20 92 45 29 29 2 1 18 0 0 1 1 663 Proactive safety Treatments Muhi-Use Path on Both Skies O O O O © O Driveway Treatments al Path Crossing9 O MW-bkrck Pedestrian Crossings O O O O O Better/ Safer Pedestian Areas at Transit Slops O O O O • Bus Oueue Jump Lanes at Signals • O O O O O O O O • O O O Reactive Safe Treatments Auxllliary Laws for Buses, Bikes & Right Turns • • O ♦ ♦ O • • O ♦ • ♦ • O Medians at Signalized Intersections ♦ O O ♦ ♦ O _ O O O O O O O O Double Left Turns at Valnwnt and his ♦ ♦ ♦ O O O O O O O O O O Consolidate Driveways Where Possible O ♦ O ♦ ♦ O • O O O O O • O Connect Parking Lots Where Possible O ♦ O ♦ ♦ O ♦ ♦ O O ♦ O ♦ O Turn Restrictlons at Driveways O O O ♦ O O O _ O O O O O 'O O Median In-fill to Control Left Turn Accidents O ♦ O • ♦ O ♦ O - O O O O ♦ O Future Satet Treatments Transponeeon Nelanrk Plan Improvements_ Parallel Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities O O O O O O • • O O O • • O - Com)aaons Through Backs of Propenies O ♦ O ♦ ♦ O • ♦ O O O O • O - Pedestrian Connections Along Building From O O O O O O O O O - O O • N L-J~ i lr I I 00 L r z N G c, co x ~O w w l< N d J L F ac°~ 1 ( ~F---- a-Q co co U) C cu C 0 i 7 w O J w O-i L) a) - Q > O N U) U > ~ a> O II ~ooy °p~ra JL co N ©N.~ r ~N a cn O m X a CT w co I IJ ~ C O _ - LL OM Ol C y ~ I a c Lo j IE EXISTING / PROPOSED PROPERTY ACCESS PATTERN 17 EXISTING PROPOSED PROPERTY ACCESS PAT ~Ansaca 9sSOC/9JE5. /nc Consulting Engineers Scole 1"=200' Date 3/6/01 Drown by RAC Job # 96111 Figure @S N* s . Fn~• r : 1 ~FW ,tv b-y, -rg+i" 'rgba.m ^=s cf A {r~anrsw. 3. a,. a a * L g{-q _ e 3~°A d 1 ^ d }a 'R 'la vi- Rs 3 a .f* 5' .~hA f off. »u f A foP iQ ..I for, M 41 -5-a RAN Z ter. (G >sh ~m .t"• 3{f~'y~g S. '~-wE ~~"'-'"'M•4 k i, `•'r= i r. t ~ ~r-:~&r m S' ".cYS r 4° ' 3 L Pxf f S-~ ~i-. 3 { z 'Y to VOW, v Yr ~ f i ~r v ~ ~ 1w n^ r KEY 3 S" ; v4II~ s 1 w ~.1. bxt.... 1~ vw e- mr a PaLh.y W U, Tmnsil Route 'I ? emits 4~✓r,`~`r~r" ram fk _ Pad crov§ng ~Rm tSummary of 281h Street Design Committee Sub-Committee on Land Use and Planning Meeting February 26, 2001 Ce I;dkr E Skewing SfwJr Attending: Dave Cook, Christine Dianni, Bill Fox, Jean Gatza, John Huyler, Kurt Johnson, George Karakehian, Ruth McHeyser, Steve Tebo, Bob Whitson, Jerry Wyss Background: At the previous full committee meeting, staff presented job and traffic growth estimates based on planning staffs' projections of growth along the 281h Street corridor. At that meeting, Steve Tebo (citizen committee member) questioned the staff growth projections based on his personal knowledge of the actual growth potential along the corridor. He felt that the projections were too high, by perhaps a factor of three. It is important to have accurate projections because transportation and land use decisions will be based on those projections. Purpose of the Meeting: The ad hoc subcommittee meeting was called to attempt to resolve the differences between staffs' growth analysis and Steve Tebo's estimates. After introductions and ground rules by John Huyler, Ruth McHeyser, Planner, City of Boulder, reviewed the present Boulder Valley Comp Plan and the history of the 5 year update, currently in process. As part of the 5 year update, Council had directed staff and the Planning Board to especially consider two items: 1) the need for additional affordable housing opportunities, and 2) opportunities for mixed-use development-a way to both revitalize commercial centers and improve the city's jobs/housing imbalance. She pointed out that over the last 18 months, the planning department along with the Planning Board, have had an extensive public process on the Comp Plan. As part of the process, an analysis of potential job and housing growth in Boulder under current policy and trends was performed, and the impacts of this were evaluated. What the analysis showed was that by far the biggest impacts of the current policy and trends were the amount of potential commercial/ job growth. The estimate is for approximately 45,000 new potential jobs being created in Boulder by the year 2020. Ms. McHeyser then gave us detailed information on how this estimate was arrived at. Two assumptions were used: 1) 75% of commercial properties would be built out to a projected FAR (floor area ratio). 2) The projected FAR build out of the 75% of the properties would vary by zoning around town but, for our purposes, be close to an average of 0.6. This is not the maximum allowed under current zoning, but based on recently approved projects. Under current zoning, the RB-E zone establishes a maximum FAR of 2, however, it's unlikely that it could be achieved, so a lower FAR was assumed. These two assumptions were then the basis for the estimates along the 28th Street corridor. Ms. McHeyser said that both of these assumptions were realistic. She noted that they were not the worst case which could conceivable be 100% build out with much higher FARs. She also noted that not every property would contribute to the projected new jobs since many parcels were already at the 0.6 FAR of the second assumption or a greater FAR. r i 281h Street Land Use Planning Meeting, Summary Page 2 Mr. Tebo then suggested that these estimates did not take into account the political reality of achieving approval in Boulder on a redevelopment project. As an example, he used a current redevelopment plan that he is pursing, saying that the city recommendation would only allow a 0.41 FAR on his property. Ms. McHeyser said that she had reviewed the specific case and found that the city proposal was about a 0.6 FAR, right on the average. To resolve the difference, Ms. McHeyser retrieved her notes on the matter and Mr. Tebo called back to his office to get more accurate data. Ms. McHeyser's notes showed a FAR of 0.556 which exactly agreed with Mr. Tebo's data from his office. In the analysis of the 28th Street corridor, planning staff used a "broad brush" average value for each quarter square mile block to arrive at estimates. Mr_ Tebo suggested that actual details for each property be used on each block. He offered to work with staff to fill in information parcel by parcel. He met with staff after the meeting to accomplish this. The other question regarding the estimates is what effect the growth projection will have on the 28% Street redevelopment project. Traffic projections are based on the jobs growth estimates. It was agreed that it would be useful to have traffic estimates run under three scenarios: Planning staff's projected 4500 new jobs in the corridor, Mr. Tebo's projection of 1500 and a middle number. New traffic projections, whether derived from actual new model runs or simply scaling down of current numbers, should be available in an upcoming meeting. Finally, it was pointed out and agreed by all present that the transportation redevelopment plan would probably remain the same regardless if whether the staffs' growth projections were too high or not. Since the corridor is already heavily congested, it is important to proceed even if the projected job growth is at the low end. In regards to other city planning issues, the city is about to spend one year examining the city wide growth rate in commercial jobs, with the mandate to control that growth so that the jobs/residence ratio can be improved. The manner of commercial job growth control will depend on how large the growth projection is. It is very important that the projections be as accurate as possible. Mr. Tebo and George Karakehian were asked if they would be willing to participate in that process, to start sometime this spring. They both agreed. [Summary by Jerry Wyss - these notes are based on my correct (or incorrect) interpretation of the meeting and were not reviewed by the ad hoc subcommittee.] DRAFT' MEETING SUMMARY 28th Street-North Segment Design Committee Meeting #3 a••i..~ Wednesday, March 14, 2001; 6:00 to 9:00 P.M. Plsnsng YMCA (Mapleton and 28th Street) F[ `p"d'9 4tiw„ p p sa.y ATTENDANCE Design Committee (DO members.• Topher Downham, David Cook, Jerry Wyss, Jean Robbins, Sherry Richards, Steve Miller, Dave Allured, Tom Dettloff, Lynn Dettloff, Pat Taylor, Gary Horton, Dick McLean, Mark Gosselin, Lain Adams Staff& Cansultants•Boulder Transportation Division: Bill Cowern, Stephany Westhusin; Facilitator: John Huyler; Transplan: Bill Fox; Carter & Burgess: Diane Yates, Christine Dianni, Reghan Swenson. Publie: Premena, Bob Law, and Landon Hilliard PRELIMINARIES Convene John Huyler started the meeting with an overview of the meeting goals and approval of the agenda. He stated that the main discussion topic of this meeting is SAFETY. Public Comment Premena: He feels that the bike and pedestrian lanes should be made straight instead of curved and that texture and/or color should be added where bikes and pedestrians cross with cars. He would also like no U-turns at intersections at peak hours because it causes awkwardness for bikes and pedestrians because cars tend to swing wide and travel in the bike lane. He also wants the pedestrian crossing signal, when button is pushed, to come on before the green light. Bob Law: Believes that the most important aspect of this process is the collaboration among the public, Design Committee and staff. UPDATES BURR: John updated the committee on a recent BURA meeting saying that the Board seems pleased with this process and encouraged the TNP team to `keep up the good work.' Open Houses: Stephany Westhusin said that the 2/22/01 Open Houses at the Municipal Bldg. had a great turnout with 90 people signing in and another 20-30 that didn't sign in. Dave Allured (281h St. User) added that his preference voiced at the Open House Session was to design the multi-use path to allow bikes to travel straight through pedestrian refuges at intersections. r Land Use, Employment & Housing Projections.-Jerry Wyss gave an update on the recent 1 meeting among DC members, the Planning Department and Transportation Division staff to discuss the traffic projections made from redevelopment & current zoning potential. One question brought up was `what type of effects would the traffic estimates have on 28th Street! The subcommittee found that the projections should not have a big effect; improvements will be made to 2811, Street even if there is little growth. Another question raised (that is also at the root of the comprehensive plan update), was about the imbalance of commercial businesses to residences. A big concern was that the city would stop growth in an effort to improve the balance. Planning expects to launch a project to development scenarios and review them with citizens, including members of the DC. Transportation Network Plan (TNP) • The 41h draft of TNP plan (handout) is undergoing revision from the Open House hours session and the recent TNP Task Force Meeting. • Preparation of the policies and procedures for the TNP are underway, including short and long-term improvements and transportation demand management strategies. CEAP SUPPORT DOCUMENT Christine asked for the DC to review, comment on, and return this document to Project Team within two weeks. The document provides an objective summary of the implications for each mode of transportation in each of the four remaining cross-sections. It will be included in the CEAP document as a record of the various alternatives for improvements. SAFETY IMPROVMENTS • See Safety Improvements Summary handout. • Bill C. summarized the accident trends between Pearl Street and Iris Avenue, between January 1994 and June 1999. He then gave a more detailed summation of the different types of intersection and mid-block accidents, including why they generally occur and what sorts of improvements could be used to decrease their frequency. He discussed specific mitigation for both intersection and mid-block conditions, including signal timing, raised crossings at right turn bypass islands, medians at intersection and the use of an auxiliary lane as an acceleration/deceleration lane. • Comments on Intersection Improvements 1. Steve Miller asked about additional left turn lanes. Staff recommends additional left turn lanes or longer left turn lanes for the 28th Street intersections at Iris, northbound and eastbound, at Valmont, northbound and southbound and at Pearl, southbound and, in the next phase of planning, northbound. 2. City staff believes installing raised medians at signalized intersections is the best solution to improve safety while only minimally restricting access to businesses. 3. Tom Dettloff (Neighborhood rep) endorsed the mid-block crossings with 3 pedestrian refuges because it is easier and safer for crossing pedestrians. 4. Jerry Wyss suggested that the city research the reduction of accidents where raised crossings at right turn by-passes have been implemented. _Z_ • Comments on Mid-Block Improvements: 1. Steve Miller thought raised medians in the middle of the street, at mid-block crossings, would prevent people from traveling in the center free left turn lane for long lengths. It would also generally slow traffic along 28th Street. 2. Premena asked about an outside lane used as an acceleration /deceleration lane. Bill Cowern described a proposed speed table (or raised crossing) at the mid-block crossings only in the auxiliary lanes that would deter cars from using the auxiliary lanes as through lanes. 3. The most complicated safety issue is the left turns from driveways. Bill C. explained that these will be monitored and that if there are too many accidents (3 accidents in 2 years), left turn restrictions will be added, prohibiting left turning movements from some or all driveways. Statistics have not yet shown these accidents to be in excess of those standards. 4. Steve Miller (Puddle Car Wash owner) believes that `Right Turn Only' signs would not deter business. The Puddle Car Wash has offered to test this idea by posting a `No Right Turn' sign at the Puddle's exit driveway. He also thinks that the proposed segmented medians provide a safer way to turn left into driveways. 5. Gary asked about the location of mid-block improvements and how they will affect the access to businesses' driveways. Bill answered that this is under staff study. 6. Pat Taylor supports mid-block improvements but expressed concern that Boulder drivers do not stop for pedestrians and bikes at crosswalks. She believes that the pedestrian refuge is a good idea since it makes it easier for pedestrians to cross 2 lanes at a time instead of 4 lanes all at once. She thinks it is imperative to let drivers know there are crosswalks (push button, flashing beacons, etc.) 7. Steve asked if mid-block improvements should be moved to where future east-west connections are planned in the TNP. Bill C. said that it is best to first locate them where there are bus stops and current crossing activities. • Comments on connecting parking lots and back alley access: 1. Gary Horton asked if the Planning Dept. wants to encourage redevelopment and move buildings to the back of sidewalks. Bill C. answered that the North Segment is designated as the "service corridor" and would try to support the current site form. 2. Jerry Wyss reiterated the point that so many businesses are worried about customers parking in their lots and then going to other businesses. He feels that retail business owners should get past this issue and realize that all shops can thrive with connected parking lots. (i.e. McGuckins - all small shops that share that parking lot thrive) • General Comments on pro-active improvements for 2eh Street. 1. Gary Horton said visibility to pedestrian/bike crossings is important. Bill C. said the city would suggest to CDOT to add flashing beacons. 2. Lynn Detloff described the current use of colored pavement for bike paths in Australia and Portland, Oregon. She explained that it is very effective in letting traffic know that there are bikes traveling on the street. Christine passed around photos of these examples. 3. Dave Allured feels it is very inconvenient for bicyclists to have to jump up onto the multi-use path to bypass a stopped bus. He suggests allowing for 6 more feet to the left of the auxiliary lane to allow bikes to pass stopped buses on the left. -3- ROUNDROBIN OF COMMENTS FROM DC MEMBERS Sherry Richards- is pleased with all that is coming together; no specific comments. Dave Cook.' Thinks we are making progress and is pleased with mid-block crossings and partial raised medians; this looks like a good compromise. Dave Allured.- A good thorough approach to safety; has 2 suggestions (1) lower speed limit (currently signed for 35 mph), (2) redesign intersection corner radius within right turn bypass - Dave believes the current design caters to cars and disadvantages bikes/pedestrians. He would like the city to provide statistics to show decrease of accidents with raised crossings. Steve Miller.-As a whole, the plan is pretty good. Believes the auxiliary lane is important; if it does not happen, then acceleration/deceleration lanes still need to exist. Mark Gosselin: Speaking as an individual and not for CDOT- he believes this to be an excellent plan. There are many short-term benefits with flexibility for the future. The only CDOT question is `will it address future L.O.S.'? Also responded to the speed limit question: speed limits are based on the openness of the road. Mid-block crossings will slow traffic as well. as other visual clues. CDOT sets the speed limits on state/federal highways. Bill C. said it makes more sense to ask CDOT to re-evaluate the speed limit after improvements are constructed, otherwise, if anything, they would likely raise the limit based on current street conditions. Lynn Dettloff- Flashing pedestrian light is a good idea, but is it really a possibility for a CDOT highway? Lighting is needed at every bus stop for security. Maintain the opportunity to install continuous raised center medians. Bill C. responded saying that it will be 16' wide and has that opportunity. Are we planning landscape to keep visibility in the corridor? Tom Dettloff questions the need for a 12' width for multi-use path. Lynn questions 11' width of auxiliary lane. Bill C. responds that the auxiliary lane is set at 11' on purpose to make sure that there is no opportunity to pass within the lane. Lynn would prefer people to stop and wait behind stopped buses. Signage and education on the auxiliary lanes are necessary to let bikes and autos know not to pass to the left of stopped buses. Sherry.- Are colored bike lanes possible? Bill C.: Yes, at conflict areas but consider the long- term cost of painting lanes and maintenance. It is even possible for CDOT highways? Bill F. responded, "Possibly." There are no current national standard for color on bike lanes, but there is a movement to establish them. Topherpownham: He is impressed from the perspective of a wheel chair user; specifically with the mid-block improvements and the raised right-turn bypasses. The plan eliminates steep curb cuts, greatly increasing safety and benefiting people in wheelchairs. Lain Adams: Will the improvements change the level of service? Bill C.: Yes, to some degree with double lefts, but otherwise, no major improvement. The corridor will most like stay at overall level of service F. He likes the raised medians for left turns and likes the idea of linking parking lots at time of redevelopment. Also, as a recreational biker, he likes the idea of colored bike lanes. He would personally feel safer riding on 280h Street with them. -4- ,Jerry Wyss: Good job by staff to resolve conflicting issues. It is a good compromise for business access and safety improvements. He supports raised medians at signalized intersections and believes it will improve the LOS. ' Pat Taylor.- She is impressed with the flexibility of the medians. The issue of bikes going through bus stops and passing buses needs to be addressed. We need to keep the I Z' wide path as this width is well utilized in other parts of Boulder. Dick McLean: He likes the auxiliary lanes but is concerned about the conflict between buses and right turning traffic at street intersections such as 281h Street and Bluff. Bill C.: they will try to locate downstream from intersections. Dick expressed concern for buses overtaking bikes. Jerry said he observed that this is rarely a problem. PUBLIC COMMENT Landon Hilliard- Applauds DC commitment in trying to `get it right' and suggests to keep in mind Boulder's high `Quality of Life'. We want to invite people to walk, bike and ride the bus. We need to make it easier to enjoy these other modes of transportation. Premena: Design it as a promenade. Add more mid-block crossings (2 instead of 1 per block). Bob Law: Questions mid-block improvements; cites a website to post ideas/comments on 281h Street. (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/planboulder) CRITIQUE OF MEETING • Good exchange of ideas and comments due to smaller agenda and smaller attendance. • Add one page list of Project Team names and DC names to agenda for every meeting. • Send emails with graphics in PDF format only along with mailing the information. • Once staff has made recommendations for TAB review, please explain reasons behind the decisions made. Bill encouraged DC members to call or email him or staff with questions/comments. MEETING MATERIALS I • Draft agenda • Safety Improvements Summary • Summary on Sub-Committee on Land Use and Planning Meeting, 2/26/01 • Traffic Safety Evaluation Matrix • Existing /Proposed Property Access Pattern • 41h Draft Transportation Network Plan J:\_1Andwape Arch\070379\North Segment CEAP\manage\mtgs\DC3-14-01\DC 3-14-01 meetin,%amme .doe -5- S T R E E T DRAFT f~ ~'j►~ CEAP Support Document: Analysis of North 28th ~f Street Cross-Section Options by Mode of Travel ~meeea8®ir Study March 14, 2001 NOTE TO DESIGN COMMITTEE MEMBERS: This document incorporates input from the Design Committee, the public at open houses, staff, and consultants. Please verify that it is an accurate objective summary OVERALL STATUS RATING SYSTEM comparing the implications of the four possible cross sections, relative to the existing conditions. Please review, vastly Improved Safety and/or revise, and return it to the Design Committee Over Existing Conditions V Meeting or within two weeks to Christine Dianni at Carter & Burgess, 216 Sixteenth St. Mall #1700, Denver, CO 80202, V V Phone 303.820.4872, Fax 720.359.3090, Email diannicm@c-b.com. Q No Change in Safety n _ - - - - From Existing Conditions NO CHANGE More Dangerous Than Existing Conditions 28th CEAF Support Document: Analysis of North 28th Street Cross-Section Options by Mode of Travel NOTE TO DESIGN COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Please review, and/or revise, and return to Design Committee Meeting or within two weeks to Christine Dianni at Carter & Burgess, 216 Sixteenth St. Mail #1700, Denver, CO 80202, Fax 720.359.3090. EXISTING CONDITIONS: FOUR TI'IROUGH LANES Four Through Lanes a Free Left Turn Wife and Two sidewalks OVERALL MODE STATUS 1UPLi(JATIONS Motor Vehicles Mid- Existing There is the possibility of conflict among buses, bikes and right turning traffic, block Right - Turning Condition Traffic Motor Vehicles- Through Existing -Transit, Bikes and turning traffic share lane with main street travel lane, and there is potential for conflict. Traffic Condition -There are unprotected bike/pedestrian crossing areas across main street traffic. Transit Existing -Buses travel and stop in the outside gavel lane. Condition -There is the possibility of conflict among buses, bikes and right turning traffic. Pedestrians Existing -Crossings at signalized intersections and mid-block/transit crossings are unprotected. Condition -Sidewalks are variable width, often very narrow, and sometimes non-existent. Off-Sleet Bikes Existing -It is not legal for bikes to ride on sidewalks in Boulder, so off-sheet bikes traveling north and south along 28th Street Condition must travel through parking lots. On-Street Bikes Existing -Bikes share a lane with high speed main sheet traffic in full 11 foot lane. It is illegal for them to ride on the 8' Condition sidewalks. -Bike/pedestrian crossing areas across main street traffic and unprotected and signalized crossings are infrequent. Businesses Existing -ROW is as it is today. Condition Design Committee Meeting #3 1 March H, 2001 28th LEAP Support Document: Analysis of North 28th Street 6 T R E E T Cross-Section Options by Mode of Travel cD..IdD. NOTE TO DESIGN COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Please review, and/or revise, and return to Design Committee Meeting or within two Planning SNdy weeks to Christine Dianni at Carter & Burgess, 216 Sixteenth St. Mall #1700, Denver, CO 80202, Fax 720.359.3090. OVERALL MOO' STATUS 1MFJy1CAT-,,10NS Motor Vehicles Mid- block Right-Turning Traffic All implications for this alternative are the same as Motor Vehicles-'17irough in the Auxiliary Lane: Bike Lane Not Striped 'T'r'affic alternative with the exception of On-Street Bikes. Transit Pedestrians Off-Street Bikes On-Street Bikes Since bikes share the outside lane with turning traffic and transit, there is not the weaving issue at intersections. Businesses Design Committee Meeting 93 t March la, 2001 1. Signalized intersection Cross Section Note: A second loft tan lane is under conWdemkon for VelmmVl&h intersection which would add 10 ft to the o (I int wwon widdL I Ail i K* • U„eLy SEC+aII n,L'.y Accru n*rq a Pla.,ryiAS" IRIYED T. L.vr x.lla wv~ lrl ism Tn.HLanr: - ANE FOR lane SialPED~n"^My a a, an.q Ave.. .~..q Sn''~as O.+L~q 5•T ai. ERY u LA.1 i 1.R 5n I F NF. ED R allS'S T RUSES AND RIDNL TURNS RlOlif TURNS To be 1 22 n POtenlr21 Pale Cross Seclion width wdhin the o,ty of Boulder's Polenlial Private Retlevelopmenl anhopaled nghl of way and easement Redevelopment 2. V10-block Cross section d e~I11YYl SiX+.,6 aan rp emf,l P.r..g G ^ Sn~nSERILiPEO lfineila•.! , riln L^, Un a. iln ..ilnr v SeU1PE0 Sianfry 6 an.g evra. anM S.M.:.vl Oubry IART krni.Mn %I,L1LnRT ~a •'n m ~'AIIF inR - ^ LANE FDR f!• at. ttn IIIXE A. nIXES, u:~ um eon RUIUin rUNNS RION- I UNXS To be 122g Polenlial Pfivale Cross Section width w.lhin the cd of B-Ider s Roedeved-elloppmmele Retlevelopmenl anticipaled nghl of way and easement Rent IAR se/vIco ~~//ttyy ((Peed to tn8) f~l U II,S L 1°Z p Y LI Z /ce l a C 28th Slte~tNollh Segment CEAP l +t^ommtttee Meeting A Four Through Lanes, Two Auulw' y~Lams with Bike-lime Striping, P d.~ lD la a Left Turn Lane and Two Multi-use Paths co,.rwRo.n o ~o.i.ir! 28th LEAP Support Document: Analysis of North 28th Street E Cross-Section Options by Mode of Travel NOTE TO DESIGN COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Please review, and/or revise, and return to Design Committee Meeting or within two weeks to Christine Dianni at Carter & Bur8essf 216 Sixteenth St. Mall #1 700f Denver> CO 80202> Fax 720.359.3090. . ,f Planning Study SIX THROUGH LANES Six Thtb>N,.h..Lanes a_heftTurn L re,and'1 v6114U1ti.-Use Pa S_ OVERALL. MODF, S"TATUS IMPLICATIONS Motor Vehicles Mid- NO CHANGE -There will remain the possibility of conflict among buses, bikes and right turning traffic. block Right - Turning Traffic Motor Vehicles- Through Transit, bikes and turning traffic remain in main street travel lane. Traffic -Better intersection and corridor-wide level of service (LOS) than current conditions resulting in substantial congestion relief. Transit NO CHANGE -Transit, bikes, turning traffic and through traffic all share outside lane. -Remaining conflict of bus stopping in travel lane, then needing to merge back into traffic. ^c11 fans -At signalized intersections, the protected pedestrian crossing distance is longer than current conditions. Q -Mid-block pedestrian refuge islands allow safer, protected crossings. -Transit, bikes, turning traffic, and through traffic all share outside lanes. -Multi-use path provides wide, separated facility for off-street bikes and pedestrians. Off-Street Bikes -Multi-use path provides wide, separated facility for off-street bikes and pedestrians. 4 Allows bikes to legally ride on sidewalk in a space wide enough to coexist with pedestrians. Unprotected bike/ pedestrian crossing area of main street traffic remains the same or is better than today. -Since right-turning and through traffic conflict in outside lane, higher probability of conflict between right-turning traffic and off-street bikes. On-Street Bikes NO CHANGE -Transit, bikes, turning traffic and through traffic all share outside lane. -Bikes and turning traffic will have to weave across each others' paths at the intersections. Businesses Wider cross-section may require additional ROW and higher project cost. -Higher probability to encroach into existing parking lots or business areas. Pcsi,~ll ConlRntlcc Mecill #3 2 March 14, 2001 1. Signalised Intemeodon Goss Section Note: A second left t® lane is under caoaidetahioo to V ratfut l&h intersection which would add 10 R to the iffienfoWon width ~ un nn un un B.n Ia, nn nn en un e..e a r c r, ro o ^+ro ~..n, .r.n, . ~.en Lr:wT .n L. u,.ni u.. n..rv un.,r r.a;ro • T., r o se..,e e:e.o 54M 5'm 2l, r To be 12211 Potential Pnvale % Cross Section width wilhm the city of Boulder's Polenllal Private Redevelopment anbc,paled right of way and easement Redevelopment 2. M/d,6lock Cross Section - - - i3 1 •-0, t - M(Mi" I}n M Ill B- p n.- r..pry •..e, nnti.e V e I4rfry rw ,.el Lei. wU.. IeMM .,rri Lire 1.rli tin. n n,n•., .r r,rb.q •.mn r.hro ede...s B..Idry To be 122 II Polenlial P-le Cross Secl.on width wthin the cdy of Boulder s Potential Pivate Redevelopment anlcipaled nghl of way and easement Redevelopment oa c+~ ~p SIX THR O UGH LANES z~eai Sheer Nola SSero ~r 1eetrf cEnP / Sir T kmufh Law, IIlerob 14 !:=mrMae NestingJ~ Multi-use Paths ~..a..a~ a Left Tian Lae mf" In ' 28th CEAF Support Document: Analysis of North 28th Street R E EI~ Cross-Section Options by Mode of Travel Eenir~+ NOTE TO DESIGN COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Please review, and/or revise, and return to Design Committee Meeting or within two weeks to Christine Dianni at Carter & Burggessf 216 Sixteenth St. Mall #1700! Denverf CO 90202! Fax 720.359.3090. y. l . ,7 . Vlnnuin9 study OVERALL, WK STATUS IM-PUCATIONS Motor Vehicles Mid- -Transit, on-street bikes and right-turning traffic will encounter fewer conflicts with through traffic since the outside block Right-Turning 4 4 lane will be designated for transit, onstreet bikes and right-turning traffic; through traffic will be prohibited froth the Traffic outside lane. Motor Vehicles- Through -Safer and more efficient to have transit, bikes and turning traffic out of main street travel lanes. Traffic V stop/ pedestrian crossing treatments. Transit Auxiliary lane allows transit to avoid having to merge back into main street traffic and call queue jump at intersections. PedestriarTC -Since turning traffic and through traffic are not sharing the outside lane, there is less probability for conflict between bikes and pedestrians. At signalized intersections, the protected pedestrian crossing distance is longer than current conditions. Multi-use path provides wide, separated facility for off-street bikes and pedestrians. -Mid-block pedestrian crossing distance is longer but this is mitigated by the protected refuge of the Transit stop/ pedestrian crossing treatment. Off-Street Bikes -Since turning traffic and through traffic are not sharing the outside lane, there is less probability for conflict between bikes and pedestrians, Q At signalized intersections, the protected pedestrian crossing distance is longer than current conditions. -Mid-block pedestrian refuge islands allow safer, protected crossings. Transit, bikes, turning traffic, and through traffic all share outside lanes. -Multi-use path provides wide, separated facility for off-sheet bikes and pedestrians. On-Street Bikes -Transit, on-street bikes and right-turning traffic will encounter fewer conflicts whith through traffic since the outside lane will be designated for transit, onstreet bikes and right-turning traffic; through traffic will be prohibited from the V outside lane. Since bikes share the outside lane with turning traffic and transit, there is not the weaving issue at intersections. Businesses Wider cross-section may require additional ROW and higher project cost. Higher probability to encroach into existing parking lots or business areas. Design Committee Meeling #:i 3 March 14, 2001 1. Signalized intersection Cross Section Nobo: A aaoond left tin law is under ooneideration for Velmantl2&h tnremect ion wMch would add 10 R to rho r-1 1 61 :l\ _ ..n rrn N ID! nn u, a1 i]a Pw! 4uu P.,urp Saes a:+rMp auUro !dw•.a 4uu P. ry U:l, IAUlILIaRT ln.~l. nl• v! LM 1.,n niLV• I~NL.n. AUMLIARY _'i, P.- r A P.h uu !m„! IAMl rOa !I .na 911tu!{Feu!!! !ry Par ; eiNeo,wulcs •xo aronr e:~ 061KE jrNiG erne ulMe 1R~PM 1 lIR,PINaI To be t 22 II Polenlial Private Cross Section width w,lh,n the city of Boulder's Polenlial Private Redevelopment anticipated nghl of way and esement Redevelopment 2. 111id-block Cross Section I iz r y: ,!n en r,n yen en ,!n evnro se..r n n a.,.... r. .v ~{y v.w~r, sm ~0 uwE ~ori n..du du .,:..u. ..n ,«L.. iu~iiow v~o ,r go r. :ro r. ,q sm.r e,. ro Ku9 aAhORpMia ,rw~^til a. •en~e 1, a~U!' luaNa lro E~^ IupR](he erRE tan! uRE SlRlP,ual sn,P,MGI To be 122 g Potential Pnvale Cross Seclion width wilh,n the city of Boulder's Redevelopment Private Redevelopment anticipated right of way and easement opmenl '%M~ ch)f ae,tto lte, AUXILL MYan striped mfrtee Meetl~a Four Tlurwgh L=a, 71vo Audltary Lanes, Mw C A a Left Tian Late and Tito Wd-sue Paths oe~„ 28th CEAF Support Document: Analysis of North 28th Street 6 T a E e T * Cross-Section Options by Mode of Travel COA-! NOTE TO DESIGN COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Please review, and/or revise, and return to Design Committee Meeting or within two A°"rd" weeks to Christine Dianni at Carter & Burgess, 216 Sixteenth St. Mall #1700, Denver, CO 80202, Fax 720.359.3090. ' smdv ON-STREET BIKU LANES lour Throu h Lanes Two Bike Lanes a f eft 'T'urn Lane and Two Multi-Use Paths OVERALL MODE STA'T'US IMPLICATIONS Motor Vehicles Mid- -Transit and turning traffic would continue to conflict with main street traffic; it would still encroach into on-street block Right-Turning bicycle space when stopping or turning in/out of driveways. Traffic -Existing acceleration and deceleration lane section in the corridor would be removed which would cause lnainstreet traffic, turning traffic and transit to lose efficiency and become more congested than current conditions. Motor Vehicles- Through The corridor would lose efficiency and be more congested than currently for mainstreet traffic, transit and turning Traffic traffic. Transit -Transit and turning traffic would continue to conflict with main street traffic; it would still encroach into on-street bicycle space when stopping or turning in/out of driveways. Ivl -Existing acceleration and deceleration lane section in the corridor would be removed which would cause mainstrcct traffic, turning traffic and transit to lose efficiency and become more congested than current conditions. Pedestrians -Mid-block pedestrian crossings are shorter than current conditions in sonic areas and longer in others. 4 -Multi-use path provides wide, separated facility for off-street bikes and pedestrians which allows bikes to legally ride on sidewalk in a space wide enough to coexist with pedestrians. -At signalized intersections, the protected pedestrian crossing distance is longer than current conditions (but not as large an increase as other three alternatives). Off-Street Bikes ^ Multi-use path provides wide, separated facility for off-street bikes and pedestrians which allows bikes to legally tide v on sidewalk in a space wide enough to coexist with pedestrians. On Street Bikes -On-street bicycles do not shale their lane with through transit and traffic slowing to make right turns. Conflict is the Q 4 same with buses at stops and as cars turn right into driveways. -Striped bike lane will increase drivers' awareness of on-street bicyclists. -Bikes and right-turning traffic will have to weave across each others' paths at the intersection. Businesses Wider cross-section may require additional ROW and higher project cost. -Higher probability of encroaching into existing parking lots or business areas (but not as large an increase as the other three alternatives). J:\_lanclscape Arch\070379\North Segment CEAr\nlanage\mtgs\Design Alternatives\Pros and Cons Design Conuuittee Meelmg 03 5 March 14, 2001 1. Signalized Intersection Cross Section Note: A seoond left ten lace is under eomidaation for ValmmuN28th intemection witich would add 10 ft to the imaeeetionwidth. f~ R T r- ~i M ■ ue e+ e,± + n in m +ss en ~r. .r rolu Nee o..+u. ~L. .v. ..aL l~ihFn n..e i ro wm... a.,nro sa..w ew a so s.sm° i ~ ~S E To he 11311 % Cross Section vndlh within the city of Boulder's Polenhal Private Polenlial Private Redevelopment anlippaletl right of way and easement Redevelopment 2. Mld-block Cross Section t e•nrq sin.... o •n .a... o....., 5Y5 s°„ep es. +L ..a, L.•vT L.. es F a. S~ .n eiwsn•.., eN, « snE°s" ¢r LAW.. 3A To be 113 a Polenlial Pr'rvale Cross Sechon widlh vnlhin the oily of Boulders % Polenlial Private Redevelopment anhcipaled nghl of way and easement Redevelopment ~„to frfa) ON-STREET BIDE LANES SUN Do* f r ►rttas Bear a to Faw 7Tmvrgk I.ma, Tivo Bribe Lmfes, y¢ a Left Timt Laxe and Vw Mukl-um Patb Greetings? Attached please find the suggested agenda and other materials for the meeting on Wednesday, June 13. As usual, dinner will be available at 5:45 and the meeting will begin ' promptly at 6:00 PM. PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE OF LOCATION TO: the Atrium in the Panera Restaurant ' on the Mall at 1207 Pearl Street between 6:00 PM and 9:00 PM Your comments are very important at this stage? The focus of the meeting is to get your feedback on the design and cost proposed for the safety, multi-modal and aesthetic improvements for 28th Street from Pearl to Iris. After this meeting, we will reflect your comments in staff's proposal for the Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) and then present it to TAB in July and for subsequent review by other boards in upcoming months. Goals for the June 13111 Design Committee meeting: Understand the "TNP Approach" and corresponding schedule • Receive update on the TNP details Understand and comment in detail on Project Team recommendations for the CEAP • Provide opportunities for public comment ' Preview the enclosed materials and if you have any questions before the meeting, feel free to call any of us on the Project Team. We will provide you with initial cost information at the ' meeting. We look forward to seeing each of you and to having another productive session on the 13th Please RSVP by Monday, 6111 /01, to Reghan Swenson at Carter & Burgess, Phone ' 720.359.3039, Fax 720.359.3090, Email swensonrpLa)c-b.com. FYI: The Transportation Network Plan (TNP) has received a lot of support in recent months and ' will be submitted for adoption on an accelerated schedule. The TNP document has grown from only a transportation connections map to a transportation planning document that expounds on the intent of the physical map by including policies and programs. For example, Transportation Demand Management is a programmatic way to help reduce single occupancy automobile trips in the, study area. The role of the TNP relative to the CEAP will be further explained at the meeting. ' Attachments: 1. Agenda ' 2. Staff's 1s' Cut at Recommended Alternatives 3. Summary of Transportation Network Plan 4. Transportation Network Planning Map SUGGESTED AGENDA ' Northern 28`h Street Design Committee Meeting #4 u nao. 6 s sr' Wednesday, June 13, 2001 Panera Restaurant- 1207 Pearl 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM Major goals for the Meeting: • Understand the "TNP Approach" and corresponding schedule ■ Understand and comment in detail on Project Team recommendations for the CE.AP ■ Receive update on TNP details • Provide opportunities for public comment 5:45 pm Dinner Available ' 6:00 pm Convene • Agenda review and agreement • Opportunity for public comment from non-DC members ' 6:10 pm The TNP Approach and Corresponding Schedule: Overview and Discussion ' TNP details 6:40 pm Traffic and Safety Enhancements 7:25 pm Celebrating Multimodality (systematic discussion) (Note: a break and opportunity for comment from non-DC members will take ' place during this section.) ■ Transit Superstops and Mid-block Improvements ■ Overall streetscape, including trees and pedestrian lighting ' ■ Arts opportunities in the corridor 8:05 pm Initial Cost Estimate: Review and Discussion 8:35 pm Opportunity for public comment from non-DC members 8:45 pm Closure and Next Steps 8:55 pm Critique of Meeting ' 9:00 pm Adjourn 1 DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY 28th Street-North Segment Design Committee Meeting #4 r Wednesday, June 13, 2001; 6:00 to 9:00 P.M. The Panera Restaurant ATTENDANCE Design Commiftee (DC) members.- Wayne Adams, Dave Davis, Dick McLean, Mark Gosselin, ' Topher Downham, Sherry Richards, Pat Taylor, Dave Allured, Kurt Johnson, Jerry Wyss, George Karakehian, Tom Dettloff, Lynn Dettloff, Phil Shull, Steve Tebo Staff& Consultants.' Boulder Transportation Division: Bill Cowern, Micki Kaplan, Stephany ' Westhusin, Bob Whitson; Facilitator.•John Huyler; Transplan: Bill Fox; Carter &Burgess: Christine Dianni, Reghan Swenson. Pcrblic: Bob Law, Manford Schwartz ' PRELIMINARIES CONVENE John Huyler started the meeting with an overview of the meeting goals and approval of the agenda. MAJOR GOALS ' • Understand the "TNP Approach" and corresponding schedule • Understand and comment in detail on Project Team recommendations for the CEAP • Receive update on TNP details • Provide opportunities for public comment TNP APPROACH • TAB, BURR, and the Planning Board have reviewed the TNP Document and expressed ' positive comments. • The TNP is going to be the forerunner to the CEAP • The TNP document has many elements: the map (pedestrian/bike/vehicular/transit connections), policies and programs, and an action plan. One item in the action plan is to adopt the CEAP for the north section of 28th Street. • The 6th draft of the TNP map has been completed. • The TNP document has been expanded to support implementation of goals/objectives, policies, programs and design parameters. • The detailed action plan of tasks is to be implemented over the next 20 years. • Scaled back on TDM based on TNP task force input. • This approval of the TNP document does not automatically mean that all Action Items are approved. • Transportation Demand Management (TDM) section will be reduced to a line that references a citywide TDM. TRAFFIC SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS I . Street Cross Section - recommended alternative by city staff • Your travel lanes; two in each direction, with two Bus/Bike/Right turn only lanes, one in each direction. The bike lane is not striped separately within the lane. 1 • The bus/bike lane allows buses and bikes to be out of the main flow of traffic. The buses , and bikes will use queue jumps, which allows them to avoid congestion at the intersections. • Kurt Johnson asked how we deter other autos from entering this lane. Bill Cowern said that signage and striping would discourage this. This lane will cause a break or stop at the raised crossing therefore other autos will not want to enter this lane. (Keeping with the main flow of traffic without stops will be the ideal situation for through traffic and using these bus/bike lanes will be an inconvenience for them.) • Mid-block improvements benefit pedestrians by offering refuges so they do not have to cross all 6 lanes at once. There will also be pedestrian activated flashing lights to indicate that a pedestrian will be crossing. Buses will stop in the outside lane, which will discourage misuse of the lane. , • Kurt Johnson asked what bikes are supposed to do behind stopped buses. Bill C. said that they can wait behind the bus, move slowly around the bus on the left, or find a gap in the traffic and go around. • Jerry Wyss asked, `What are the legal implications of the following issues?' ➢ Will buses that don't need to stop be required to stay in the bus /bike lane, or may they travel in the through lane? ' ➢ What are the implications of through traffic using this lane? ➢ Can a cyclist take up the whole lane? ➢ The project team will research these issues. ' • Alternatives not chosen and why: ➢ Six through travel lanes: this alternative does not provide the opportunity for on-street bikes and there are wider crossing distances at mid-block crossings (pedestrians will ' have to cross 3 lanes of traffic to get to refuge and then cross 3 more). ➢ Four travel lanes with bike lanes: this offers no acceleration/deceleration lane and makes the corridor more congested and less efficient transit is in the through lane of ' traffic. ➢ Bus/Bike/Right turn only lane with striped bike lane: this is the same as the preferred alternative in that it allows for the bus/bike/right turn lane, but where bike lanes are striped, the availability of the bike lane is restricted to only that area. Bikes do not have the ability to use all parts of the lane, which makes it more difficult for bikes to maneuver around cars and buses. It also makes it less clear how buses and right ' turning traffic should safely maneuver when bikes are present. • Dave Allured believes that it is very important to have a designated bike lane and the only way to achieve this is by striping a separate area for bikes. ' • Jerry Wyss offers an example where striping is not used and the effect is improved efficiency. In Santa Barbara, CA, there are four lanes and no designated bike lane. The cyclist however has the entire right lane and can take up the whole lane. There is signage , to let the autos know that the bike has the ability to use the entire lane. He believes this is a great idea and makes it much safer for bicyclists. 2. Intersection Improvements: the # i priority is safety • Double left turn lanes are recommended at several intersections to improve efficiency at the intersection. These will manage the queue of traffic, improve level of service , (LOS), congestion, and minimize the number of accidents. • Tom Dettloff believes that southbound 28th/Iris is in need of a double left turn lane. Bill Fox says that this intersection is not on the list right now, but that they can certainly look at it. Tom also asks if it is an option to lengthen the left turn lane. Bill C. responds that yes, this is an option, but it would affect the next intersection by not allowing the movement of as many left turning vehicles as the double turn lane does. 2 ' 3. Raised pedestrian crossings are recommended at right turn bypasses and in the bus/bike/right turn only lanes in mid-block improvement areas. • By providing raised crossings, it is believed that more than half of the accidents in these locations will be eliminated. The crossings allow for the right balance between access control and traffic flow, which minimizes accidents, and makes the corridor more efficient. • The right turn bypass islands will bring traffic up and over the crossing and then back down again. This gives priority to the pedestrians/bikes and forces vehicles to slow down. This will also help reduce the amount of rear end accidents. Boulder is studying the effectiveness of raised crossings. ' 4. Decorative or colored pavement is recommended at select conflict points only. • These conflict points include intersections of multi-use paths and driveways, signalized intersection with right turn bypasses, and where bus/bike/right turn only lanes are in the mid-block improvement area. • Different colors of pavement may be used to alert traffic to the areas of conflict. • Bob Whitson reminds the Design Committee to look at the big picture and what has been accomplished to this point. This is a concept plan and the details can be addressed through design refinements. CELBRATING MULTI-MODALITY • Christine D. pointed out that with our design proposal, we are intentionally increasing conflict in the corridor by enhancing its use by all modes, and that in doing so, we are achieving a major goal: making 281h Street a multi-modal corridor. In acknowledging these conflict points and drawing attention to them with aesthetic and landscape enhancements, we are celebrating the conflicts and therefore, celebrating multi-modality. • Another goal of the project is to reduce chaos throughout the entire corridor from Baseline to Iris. This is proposed to be achieved, among other ways, with pedestrian lighting along the multi-use paths on both sides and consistent streetscape including street trees, evenly spaced. ' • Artistic elements will be applied at points of conflict to help alert motorists/pedestrians/bicyclists to other modes using these areas. The Art Opportunities Map shows all the areas that can be landmarked with aesthetic elements. The art will be incorporated into the function of crossings and transit stops. This creates a visual identity throughout the corridor and will create distinct places with increased pedestrian activity. • 28th/Iris will become a major area of transit due to additions of new service. The hope is that this will make it a transit-friendly intersection. • Jerry Wyss asked if all three sections of the corridor will be coordinated. Bob W. responds that an Aesthetics Task Force will follow through to the Final Design phase and will ensure ' consistency throughout the corridor. • Dave Allured does not believe that landscape improvements are relevant to the overall improvement of the function of the multi-modal corridor. • Pat Taylor asked what maintenance will be done on the landscaping and who will be responsible for it. Bob W. said that the city will be responsible for the first year since it is covered under warranty and then the property owners will be responsible for the upkeep after the first year. Jerry Wyss agrees with Pat Taylor and would like an estimate of the recurring maintenance costs for property owners. INMAL COST ESTIMATE This cost estimate is summarized by mode as well as broken down in detail. The initial cost estimate for the north segment is slightly more expensive than for the south segment. There are a few main reasons for this: ➢ There are two multi-use paths in the north and only one in the south. ➢ Land acquisition is extensive in the north; there are many easements that need to be acquired. ➢ There are five new signals in the north and only one in the south. ' • Kurt Johnson asks why the pedestrian lighting cost is so high? Stephany W. responds that pedestrian lighting is expensive, and that the price includes fixtures, conduit, power, etc. • The question was asked regarding the ease of obtaining money from CDOT and RTD vs. other funding sources. Bob W. says that they will start with a base and then build from there. The City comes up with the money in different ways such as federal grants, DrCOG, ' etc. VALUE ENGINEERING Bob Whitson asks the Design Committee to give their opinions on prioritization of projects within the corridor. , • Kurt Johnson suggests that city staff stand by the cost estimate when presenting to City Council. Don't accept the City Council arbitrarily cutting out a percentage of the budget. Educate them about the project and show them that to do this right, we have to do it all. • Wayne Adams said staff sent the wrong message when the south segment project was reviewed by council. Staff should have explained that all costs were essential to a good, whole project, and cutting costs would reduce the integrity of the project. • Dave Allured: Do not spend excess time and money on unnecessary landscaping and artistic features. • Tom Dettloff: Make the 281h Street corridor the best and most aesthetically appealing street ' for the sake of everyone. Let's make a statement! CRITIQUE OF MEETING ' • Dave Allured and Bob Law appreciated allowing the public to participate in the discussion. They like the open format where everyone can speak their minds. , • George Karakehian is frustrated by the amount of time some members are allowed to speak on the same topic over and over again. There is too much domination of the whole discussion on these issues only. Suggests limiting participant's amount of time to speak on a specific issue. • The food was good, but the acoustics of the room were bad. CLOSURE & NEXT STEPS , 1. Staff will research the legal issues in question. 2. TNP document submittal to Transportation Advisory Board (7/9/01) 3. in late July or early August - Planning Board review of TNP and the CEAP. 4. City Council Meeting - September HANDOUTS 4 , 1. Staff's Ist cut at Recommended Alternatives for the North Segment of 28th Street, Pearl to Iris 2. Summary of Transportation Network Plan (exerpted and abridged from the Draft TNP document, currently under review by the TNP Task Force) 3. 6th draft of the TNP map 4. Draft Cost Estimate for 28th Street North Segment, Pearl to Iris JA-Lands ape Arch\070379\North Segment CEAP\manage\mtgs\DC 6-13-01\DC 6-13-01 meeting summary.do 1 S T R E E T Staffs V Cut at Recommended fives for the North Segment of 28 t ~frx~` rI to Iris Design CC ting 12001 ate.Owa 1~~48 2r~*x~2~e' I. STREET CROSS SECTION Recommended- Four travel lanes, two in each direction, with two Bus/Bike/Right turn only lanes, one in each direction. The bike lane is not striped. 8' landscape strip with I2', detached multi-use path, Bus/Bike/Right-turn lane will require signage and pavement markings. i Eliminated from the lastgroup of alternatives reviewed.- A. Four travel lanes with bike lanes B. Bus/Bike/Right turn only lane -bike lane striped C. Six through travel lanes 2. DOUBLE LEFT TURN LANES RECOMMENDED AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: A. 28th/Iris northbound B. 28th/Pearl northbound C. 281h/Pearl southbound D. 281h/Valmont northbound E. 28th/Valmont southbound 3. QUEUE JUMP LANES FOR BUSES RECOMMENDED (At signalized intersections with right turn bypasses, the queue jump lane optimizes traffic flow by allowing buses to proceed to the intersection while allowing right turning traffic to simultaneously turn right.) - At signalized right turn bypasses at Pearl, Mapleton, Glenwood, Valmont and Iris Supplemented with signage and striping - Signage, enforcement and raised features at transit stops will discourage inappropriate use of lane 4. RAISED CROSSINGS RECOMMENDED AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: A. At right turn bypasses, the raised area will be more extensive than previous right turn bypasses, in effort to reduce curves for bicycles on multi-use path B. At bus/bike/right turn only lanes in mid-block improvement area 5. SAFETY PAVEMENT TREATMENT RECOMMENDED AT SELECT CONFLICT POINTS ONLY: A. Intersections of multi-use path and driveways B. Signalized intersections with right turn bypasses C. Where bus/bike lane conflicts with mid-block crosswalk Eliminated from the last group ofalternattves re we wed Along entire length of bike lane 6. LANDSCAPING ALONG STREET LENGTH A. Formal - to match BVRC and the South Segment B. Clustered - trees would have variable spacing along landscaping strip 7. PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING One row at 60' on center, in landscape strip along multi-use path ):%_Tand ax nmh\070,971% Hh. g- <cnl Lr %maaax<%mt~\t 6-13-01 FPM-=cfinx prkel\.commcn&d filer five:s-i?aox 1 S. TRANSIT SERVICE AND FACILITIES RECOMMENDED A. Service: New local service on Valmont, new regional service to Longmont "the LAUNCH" and new local service along 2911, Street "the ORBIT" B. Super Stops at intersections at Iris, Valmont and Pearl. Facilities to include: - SHELTER Basic, with embellishments added in aesthetic budget - FURNISHINGS: benches, bike parking, trash cans, shelter, newspaper dispensers - LANDSCAPING: maintain visibility and provide plantings that set it apart from the street plantings - ARTISTIC ELEMENTS - SIGNAGE: including advanced transit schedule information - PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING - COVERED BIKE PARKING C. Mid-Block Improvements, one midway between Pearl and Goose Creek, Valmont to Glenwood, and Glenwood and Iris. Facilities to include: - BIKE ACCESS: no special access, lanes or ramps - SHELTER: Placemaking and memorable - FURNISHINGS: benches, bike storage, trash cans, shelter, newspaper dispensers - LANDSCAPING: maintain visibility and provide plantings that set it apart from street plantings - ARTISTIC ELEMENTS - SIGNAGE: including advanced transit schedule signs - PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING - PEDESTRIAN ACTIVATED, FLASHING BEACON , - RELATIONSHIP TO THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK PLAN: Mid-block crossings located to link to TNP connections and with consideration to access as called for in the TNP including driveway consolidation and parking lot linkages 9. 28m/IRIS GATEWAY WPIT-I TRANSIT STOP New composite design expected to include art and naturalistic landscape - provide entry feature at North Boulder - incorporate transit super stop elements i 1:\_landxcap MT\~OS]!)\NOrth Segm.nt iF~F`\mvraR\mlgs\IX'. 6-IM1-0f \Frt-mtttinA P~hN\recotnmcMed allcrnafvocx p-13.doc Summary of the North 28"' Street Transportation Network Plan 28th Street - 2001 North Segment Design Committee Meeting #4 June 13, 2001 Note: The following summary was excerpted and abridged from the Draft TNP document, currently under review by the TNP Task Force. The North 28 ° Street Transportation Network Plan addresses the transportation system needs in the area centered on the 28`s Street right-of -way and which extends from just west of Folsom to just east of 30t°, and from just south of Pearl to just north of his. The Plan defines the desired future transportation network in the area for all modes of travel and specifies transportation demand management (TDM) programs for the area that will encourage alternative travel mode use. The TNP will help land owners and developers plan for the connections needed in their area, and will aid Transportation staff in the development of Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs). Recommendations of the TNP will be incorporated into the updates of the Boulder Valley Transportation Master Plan. The TNP will be implemented through: - the adoption by City Council of the Plan and appropriate ordinances - construction of key components as part of Boulder's Capital Improvement Program, including but not ' limited to the improvements within the 28`" Street right-of-way as defined in the North 28s' Street Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) construction of key transportation components of the Greenways CIP within the area - dedication of right-of-way and construction of on-site improvements by property owners as appropriate when parcels develop or redevelop - implementation of TDM programs by the city of Boulder and by property and business owners ' Implementation of this Plan will: improve circulation for all modes of travel and help correct the disconnected and unorganized transportation system that has evolved in the area greatly enhance multi-modal mobility on 28 s Street develop a secondary street network and expand the system of bicycle and pedestrian facilities improve access to transit stops help organize and refine access to and between businesses to insure long term economic viability help reduce traffic accidents and improve safety provide for more efficient movement between residential and commercial areas define important missing connections and needed upgrades to existing connections reflect the anticipated impacts of future growth in the area define the rights-of-way that will be necessary as the area develops / redevelops ' - give the area an improved aesthetic through enhanced identity and significant opportunity for landscaping, trees, and public art The major components of the Transportation Network Plan Document include: Map Based Transportation Network Plan Transportation Demand Management Programs TNP Action Plan - North 28 ° Street Corridor CEAP Recommendations North 28th Street Area E . * Open House February 22, 2001 What's Here for You IIAMto2PM~and4PMto7PM Welcome to the North 28th Street Transportation Open House. The Boulder Transportation Division is working on two major transportation projects and needs your input! • The Transportation Network Planning Process (TNP) is developing it's fourth draft of the plan to strengthen the multi-modal nature of the area bounded on the east and west by Folsom and 301h, and on the north and south by Iris and Pearl. • The 28th Street North Segment Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) is refining its safety and aesthetic improvements in anticipation of taking the proposal to the Transportation Advisory Board for recommendation for approval this summer. What's Here for You: The Five Stations of the North 28th Street Area Projects: An open house is designed to allow participants to have one-on-one personal interaction with planners, 1. Welcome Table n-in Sheet • engineers, designers and other professionals involved • Handouts with this project. It allows all individuals interested in this project equal time to express their concerns • Comment Sheets and have questions answered. 2. 28th Street North Segment Community and Maps and drawings are displayed around the room Environmental Process (CEAP) that present information on where we are in the 3. 28~h Street North Segment Transportation Network process. Members of the project team are here to Planning Process (TNP) provide information and answer your questions. 4. Current Boulder Area Transit Programs Optional Ways to Participate: 1. At the Welcome table, please sign, 5. Comments Station and pick up copies of the subjects that • Comment Cards interest you. Comment sheets are also • Comments Box available. i 2. View the exhibits and displays More questions? Comments? around the room that provide Please contact either project manager: information about the proposed project. 3. Options for submitting written or Diane Yates Carter & Burgess, Inc. verbal comments: 216 16th Street Mall, Suite 1700 • Speak directly to the project Denver, Co 80202 team members who will record YatesDG@c-b.com your comments. Ph: 303.820.5240 • Fill out a comment sheet and put Fax: 720.359.3090 it in the Comments Box. Bob Whitson • Fill out a mailer or comment Transportation Division sheet and fax it or send it to the City of Boulder address on the back. F.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 WhitsonB@ci.boulder.co.us JAw.d-.pAnh\JT0379%CC,na,-..w~~m.,R~pb~.~oano., Ph: 303.441.3266 Fax: 303.441.4271 M M ! M M M M M M Mae M M M M M A VISIT US ON THE WEB: w ..ci.boulder.co,usrpublicworksldeptsnranslprojects/18th/ Np VISIT US ON THE WEB: w ..ci.boulder.co.uslpublicworks/depts/translprojects28thl Z+>f OR CONTACT., Bob Whitson of Boulder's Division of OR CONTACT.. Bob Whitson of Boulder's Division of yV Transportation 303.441.3268 Transportation 303.441.3266 ~ i i ..~.1 Jjrw , Cat J'a " y ~Qpt wr Oak alt,ptt~@ ,.t . mw, a G T}~ Q 1 ;Q V•l~ ll! 01, A 09 © W North 28th Street's Transportation i 0 North 28th Street's Transportation 0 Planning Network Plannin Process Network Process AA VISIT US ON THE WEB: www.ci.bouldecco.us/publicworks/depts/Iranslprojects281h1 VISIT US ON THE WEB: www.ci.bouldecco.uslpubhcworksldepls/transrprojects281h1 N OR CONTACT. Bob Whitson of Boulder's Division of OR CONTACT. Bob Whitson of Boulder's Division of y"/ F Transportation 303.441.3266 ~~~h Transportation 303.441.3266 awr~a l~ril4r Mrs S~rp,,e ; Aft'l et I OF~ Silk' 2 l~ s Yo Transportation 0 North 28th Street's • . Network Planning Process r , Carter.-Burgess Presorted U.S. POSTAGE Carter:-Burgess Presorted Standard U.S. POSTAGE AGE U.S. POSTAGE 216 Sixteenth Street Mall, Suite 1700 PAID 216 Sixteenth Street Mall, Suite 1700 PAID Denver, Colorado 80202 Boulder, GO Denver, Colorado 80202 Boulder, GO Permit No. 909 Permit No. 909 Gaming Gaming Attraction Attraction r r r Carters.-Burgess Presorted Standard Carterls-Bur gess Presorted Standard 216 Sixteenth Street Mall, Suite 1700 U.S. POSTAGE U.S. POSTAGE PAID 216 Sixteenth Street Mall, Suite 1700 PAID Denver, Colorado 80202 Boulder, GO Denver, Colorado 80202 Boulder, GO Permit No, 909 Permit No, 909 Coming Gaming Attraction Attraction 9d Wg OW ~ W '4 m W M r all M MWill M M M +1011 M w M r0 mil r M no M f i ~9 SMIy Project: 28th Street North Segment Transportation Improvement Project Purpose: Community Hours Sessions Date Held: February 22, 2001 Location: Municipal Building Lobby Attendees: Cindy Pieropan, Daryl Mercer, Susan Wilson, John M. Lee, Cristina McIntyre, Al Gunter, David Gehn, Liza Morzell, Judy Layman, Barbara Anuta, Brian Rogers, Julya Bridgewater, Marjorie Maagoe, Nick Hardy, Dick Brasher, Susan Cross, Patty Smith, Anne Meredith Hartman, Sonja Gilroy, Jim Haswell, Douglas Sutherland, Sara Michl, Cynthia Neil, Michael Ellis, Samuel Levis, Jurt Finley, Zdenica Smith, Anthony Perniciaro, Linda Rigby, Hy & Eleonore Solomon, Sue Ellen Harrison, Michael E. Murray, Connie Mansour, August Sirkin, Patricia Baker-Batsel, Barb Hadley, Olivia Briggs, Alison Richards, Micki Kaplan, Joe Perone, Mark Swanson, Alan Watkins, Walt Fricko, Peter Hilley, Jeff Dunning, Pat Heye, John Hanckel, Clenn Magee, Ann Gitches, Martha Gordge, Jan Ward, Janet Fulton, Chuck Goward, Lina Andes-Georges, Debbie Stringham, Rudy G. Garcia, Tim Borst, Mark Lau, Robert W. Law, David Leserman, Manfred Schwoch, Ted Crane, Donald Gunsch, Warren Smith, Vicki Naben, Tucker Brown, Karyn Krout, Peter Pollock, Barbara Long, Amy Tisdale, Ken Stevens, Lisa Morzel, Michael P. Kearney, Louise Grane, Alan OHashi, 1 Claire Brooker, Barry Erdman, Jerry Wyss, Bob Whisler, Stephen Schlachter, Julien Chastang, Angela Bevacqua, Lois LaCroix, Dave Allured, Anne S. Norwood, Kate Fotopoulos ' Copies: 28th Street - 2001 Project Team, Design Committee, TNP Task Force and Files Summary of Comments: The North Segment of 28th Street project open hours sessions were held at lunch and evening hours February 22nd, 2001. The sessions were advertised in the newspaper, and postacards and newsletters were mailed to 5,100 addresses in the study area. A copy of the postcard is attached. The meeting was conducted in an open house format with information arranged in three stations covering the topics of (I)North 28th Street Improvements, (2)Transit Programs and (3)North 28th Street area Transportation Network Plan (TNP). Project team members provided information and answered questions. Eighty-six people signed in on the sign-in sheets at the meeting. Following are comments from attendees: 1 PUBLIC COMMENT ON 28TH STREET - NORTH SEGMENT IMPROVEMENTS Street Cross-section Alternatives I . Auxiliary lane, no bike Lane striping Unsafe According to: ✓ Daily Camera, letters to editor, bicyclist hit at 11th crossing Campus Drive. ✓ Bob Law was almost hit by car running across 11th /Canyon crosswalk this week. ✓ Centers for people with disabilities. 2. Auxiliary lane with Bike Lane Striping ✓ Please include both on-street and off-street bike facilities on both sides of 281h Street. On-street facilities are necessary because without them, the City cannot claim to be supporting bicycling as Transportation. Both on-street and off-street are needed. I would oppose any alternatives, which do not include both of these. ✓ I support the utility lane alternative which has two auto travel lanes, plus one full-size "utility lane" to be shared between buses, bikes and right-turning cars. The utility lane must contain a striped and marked 7-foot wide internal bike lane - please discuss whether that striped bike lane should be on the right, next to curb, or left, next to m.v. lane. The lanes on Baseline and Folsom (north of Valmont) seem to work well. ✓ The bike lanes should be continuous through all intersections. ✓ Include bus pull-outs. ✓ Have continuous multi-use sidewalks on both sides. ✓ Make intersections straight - don't narrow the lane on other side of intersection, as was done on Pearl, going west across 30th, where Pearl narrows on west side. ✓ Please make sure that striping of all traffic lanes including bike lanes, and signing is done rigorously everywhere. Whenever one lane diverges from another, the striping should start immediately, so as not to leave doubts, for motorists, where the cyclist is and whether he/she belongs there. 3. On Street Bike Lanes ✓ Hard to see bikes - bike lane and multi-use path adds too many conflicts. It is dangerous. ✓ Four lanes with on street bike lane is the best to minimize conflicts with buses and accel/decel traffic. Cyclists try to swerve through traffic on a street like this and get squeezed out. This gives cyclists an unsafe feeling. Streetscapes and Intersections ✓ Bravo for transportation components. ✓ Guard to "slow down" traffic but also keep it moving. ✓ RTD, pedestrian and bike very important Mid-Block Crossing, Basic 2: ✓ Often drivers do not stop ✓ They slow traffic ✓ Example: Longmont Main Street ✓ Stopping for pedestrian crossing must be enforced. ✓ The sight line for pedestrians, bikes and motorists is important. ✓ Warning lights, etc need to be more visible. ✓ Educational enforcement is necessary- 2 ✓ They crossings would slow traffic and transit on 28th Street. ✓ Encourage transit by discouraging parking downtown; make it expensive. Future Transit Facilities Map: ✓ This is really exciting for parents of non-driving teens (or those who want to discourage car use!) Gateway, Landscape: ✓ Alignment of the right turn crosswalk needs to be straightened for bicyclist. ✓ One person likes the rocks better than landforms. ✓ Landforms will be rather brown six months out of the year. Gateway, Landscape as Sculpture: ✓ Pocket park with tables to eat at will keep the use of this area restricted to pedestrians. NORTH 28TH STREET - 3RD DRAFT OF THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK PLAN ✓ For Canyon transit up over crossroads to Intermodal Transit Center, loop through campus to downtown ✓ Rail must have grade separation ✓ Any tunnel (Goose Creek) under Foothills would be nice some day when we have money. ✓ Allow "mini-bus" to use greenway trail to encourage transit use - another totally disagrees! ✓ I like bike lane locations. ✓ I like the suggestion of "multi-model" paths. Increasing the importance of pedestrian ' and bicycle travel is to be applauded. I am a bit skeptical about making new streets (the red dotted lines). I see too many being proposed if such streets were installed then all travelers on 28th and 30th Streets are going to need to be educated of side-street mergers (traffic getting onto the roadway). Expect collisions; those two streets are speedways where drivers presently are not courteous to those cars pulling out of a shopping center driveway. Also, doesn't increased streets make for an increase in vehicle usage? Let us try to not encourage more car traffic where once there was none. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Transit ✓ I agree that this intersection is too busy to have pedestrian sidewalks right next to roadway buffer (Valmont). 1 ✓ Thanks for the buses! ✓ It would be nice to have a fast bus transit route from 28th Street or 30th Street to Valmont west to 9th, south to Canyon or Arapahoe, and east to 281h Street or 30th Street north to Valmont, etc. About a 30 minute interval (like the small HOP, SKIP, etc.). ✓ From transit perspective, the four-traffic lane plus continuous auxiliary lane for buses and bikes takes right turns out of the through traffic lanes, speeds up buses and eliminates rear end collision danger. ✓ Need three lanes in both directions. ' 3 ✓ A bold, big vision is needed. Get all traffic off 28th Street. The traffic can go to Folsom and 301h Street. Redirecting, over time the 28th Street, consider eliminating stress by adding trees and a creating a park-like atmosphere. People live, work and shop there; people come via regional transit to the area as destination shopping. Suggest that you transit the downtown Mall at the 291h Street area. This would be as bold in the 2000's as the Pearl Street Mall was in the 70's. ✓ Thanks for all your efforts! Please avoid three through lanes per direction of travel - have those in traffic watch the buses and bikes ride by. With the addition of regional bus service on 281h Street this may get more people out of cars. ✓ Extend BOUND to Table Mesa park-n-Ride. ✓ It would be nice if bus pullouts did not slow traffic. ✓ With proper signage, bike/bus/right turn lane will allow for great transit by those alternative methods. 2. Bike ✓ I support separating bike and pedestrian lanes from through traffic lanes. ✓ I was disappointed that staff and consultants give us the "same old, same old"; especially after all the remarks by Adam Krom and other citizens on Boulevard Designs, after citizens donated a copy of Great Streets to Transportation office library, after brining in world experts in transportation, and after Peter Newman's lectures. ✓ I could live with either a shared bus/bike (striped with painted islands for bikers protection) or the BBC non-shared on-street lane - slight preference for the latter. I find multi-use (ped/bike) paths fine until there are dogs and lots of people, then they are more hazardous than on-street biking. They are definitely slower when you wish to make good time on the bike. The street is faster, even when obeying all traffic laws. ✓ As a daily bicyclist, I feel unsafe riding my bike on on-street bike lanes. I much prefer the wide bike path/sidewalk that exists in front of Crossroads Mall on 28th Street, between Walnut and Arapahoe. I would not bike on such a busy street as 28th Street, even if there were a bike lane. I like the auxiliary lane, bike lane not striped model. ✓ Replace planting strip with separated bike lanes. Advantages:Same cross-section width and less bus/bike conflicts. ✓ 12 foot multi-use path should separate bikes from pedestrians. ✓ Auxiliary lanes - best choice with bike lanes. ✓ In the first mailing in the 28th Street project, Linda Diebert stated the concerns of bus companies that they will be sued if a bus collides with a bike, regardless of who is at fault. Has RTD officials responded? ✓ The relocating profiles of bikes and buses conflict - buses overtake most bicyclists, stopped buses block bicyclists. ✓ Bus drivers have hit bicyclists - e.g. last summer on Bike To Work Day, in Denver in front of bike stops. ✓ In a test on the US 36 overpass on Table Mesa, Bob Law was traveling in the bike lane and was avoided by 4 regional buses. ✓ It seems that the Design Committee, TAB, and City Council have not considered the references to Great Streets and Boulevards video, which Adam Krom and others had introduced. ✓ Likes the bike lane striped in the auxiliary lane, like how Baseline works, but don't like three through traffic lanes. ✓ There are still problems with bikes going across cars turning right, need to make sure the bike lane is striped clearly through this conflict area. 4 i ✓ If buses and bikes share a lane, as now on Baseline westbound, past Mohawk along the bus stop, how will you avoid the problems reported by bicyclists and bus drivers? ✓ Likes the idea of a marked bike lane in addition to the multi-use path. ✓ Auxiliary lanes cause more accidents between bikes and transit, whereas on-street bike lanes are better. ✓ Regarding the cross section options, my opinion is that bicyclists prefer to be completely separated from vehicles. I recommend promoting the multi-use lane as a main bike thoroughfare. ✓ There is a stretch of road near 28th Street and Valmont where I am very vulnerable as a bicyclist. There is a road where the bike lane is not demarcated. It would be nice if the bike lane could continue perhaps like this (281h Street and Valmont). 3. Pedestrian ✓ Intersections should have walk symbol when light is green without pushing button for multi-use path. ✓ Please make multi-use paths like creek path - like present 30th Street by Crossroads - only straighten out crossings. ✓ Look at pedestrian protection for crossing at intersection at the left turn. ✓ Boulder seems to have ± seven levels of pedestrian crossings; faded stripes, faded stripes with sign, signs and new stripes, raised crossings, etc. With this situation, the vehicle driver is left not knowing when to "really yield" when most drivers don't do so. The first consideration is what approach can work city-wide. If crossings are addressed this way, I think you stand a better change to actually have drivers respect the pedestrian crossings. ✓ If you build a multi-use path with trees lining both sides, will you attract more pedestrians and bikes than now along Crossroads? ✓ Multiple use lanes for bikes, skateboards and pedestrians are a bad idea. They are dangerous to pedestrians. 4. Traffic ✓ I don't believe 28th Street should be widened more than the present five-lanes. Widening roads increases traffic - look at any big city? (UK has stopped building motorways) - pedestrians need crossing points more frequently than traffic lights. ✓ How about restricting truck (delivery) traffic to certain hours along 28th Street, through traffic should take 47th. ✓ Divert traffic to Estes Park, or from there to Denver, etc. ✓ Access between side streets (especially between Valmont and Iris). ✓ Sign for northbound at 30th and Diagonal "turning traffic yield to pedestrians". ✓ Has the auxiliary lane been tried somewhere else? ✓ How about re-routing heavy truck traffic from 281h Street to make more pedestrian friendly. ✓ Concerning Highway 7, US 36 (now on 281h Street) and the truckers using 281h Street in 6-9 am hours (crowding the locals) get the State Highway people to route them on 41h (Foothills Highway) - Ha Hai I've already tried. ✓ On Iris1281h Street, businesses will be concerned about signage blockage, although apartments may like blockage for sound. ✓ Look at double lefts from southbound to eastbound at Iris and 281h Street. ✓ Six through lanes would only promote more cars, not bus and bikes. Multi-use path would help but auxiliary lanes are better. 5 ✓ 5. Landscape ✓ Love the upright junipers to line paths - separate from roads -like Broadway south of Balsam on the west side. They catch the dust/dint and filter air for me. ✓ Keep landscaping back from the corners so drivers turning right can see bicyclists going through on multi-use path. ✓ Super important that it be native (no watering after established) example Santa Fe - Ochre, grown, beige, pale greens are beautiful in fall and winter! Rock accents are good too. Mountain goat optional. Mid-height vegetation will not hide store signs. ✓ No Russian Olive trees - use native, low water plants. ✓ Need pocket parks along 28th Street. ✓ Like the Native plants and rocks particularly on the southeast corner. ✓ Like native design better - like places to hang out in. ✓ Put landscaping away from street. ✓ Landscaping and planting strips are desirable in areas where they can be appreciated and not trampled. Near high volume traffic areas, there are maintenance problems, waste water gets on the street while sprinklers are on and impede pedestrian access. , Getting from the bike lane to a sidewalk or multi use path, or to a store is hazardous when there are planting strips. Aesthetically colored and textured raised medians are better. Junipers and landscape river rock is dangerous, especially in wet or icy weather. I would eliminate or reduce the 8-foot planting strip in the 28f Street area where space and traffic volumes make them problematic. Instead, this space could be used for an on-street bike lane and a bus/auxiliary lane, side by side. One could still have 4 to 5 lanes of car traffic, without impeding the buses or bicyclists. The multi-use path could then be reduced to 8 or 10 feet, because more cyclists would be comfortable using the on-street lane. ✓ Please plant many trees around new bike path southwest of 28th and Valmont. Trees not only beautify but also mitigate sound. Reducing noise should be a high priority here as traffic will increase with the widening of 281h Street. 6. Gateway ✓ I don't like the curbside (attached) sidewalks - consider setting back walks to provide a buffer from traffic and safer pedestrian environment. Except at bus stops! I like the landscape as gateway. 7. General ✓ Have community drop off or services. Concentrate i.e.. - video drop, mail, vending machines. ✓ How will design incorporate the possible changes for land use under Crossroads Mall? ✓ Raised crossings with islands are good. J:\-Landscape Amh\070379\North Segment CEAr\manage\mtgs\open Hours Feb. 22\public commentsdoc 6 TO: Boulder Urban Renewal Authority FROM: Transportation Division: Joe Perrone, Mike Sweeney, Tracy Winfree and Bob Whitson DATE: February 21, 2001 SUBJECT: Update for 28 h Street Transportation Projects Purpose The purpose of this memo is to supplement the Transportation Division's update on the current status of the 28"' Street Transportation Projects. t Projects 1. North Segment Community and Environmental Process (LEAP) a. Near term improvements b. Design Committee reformed, then reviewed street cross sections, mid-block crossings, transit proposals and aesthetics for gateway, streetscape and signage c. Open House for North Segment CEAP and the Transportation Network Plan (TNP) scheduled for February 22, 2001 d. Next Design Committee meeting to address safety ' 2. North Segment Transportation Network Plan (TNP) a. Two meetings with the TNP Task Force have yielded three generations of the TNP Map b. While the TNP has been reporting to the Design Committee periodically, the next Design Committee meeting will more closely consider the TNP's effect on 28 h Street's safety concerns Attachments Future Transit Map Third Draft of the Transportation Network Planning Map Draft North Segment CEAP cross sections and sample sketches 28s' Street February 2001 Newsletter 'DEN I_FO PVOL I VOBS',_Lm Ad,07037910n ,.i&e a,eb.&2-2MI BURR. d.c 28th -Future Transit Corridors and Facilities-i I i i I New Local service on valmont ( - New ORBIT Service (5-7 yra ) ' vt!• would extend to Jay ~d a<en . < NOS e t N 6<aa~eY ~ Z ~s. ° eb^ <a a ~9 ~T,9~. B ~ Wsiu' < e 0~ o s l a. i~ ~O. _ i$!b'6u'S?luu 5.F ' _ . - 1Sf RPr tt a r Al 9 3 leJ. rn xl 20 O 5, HOP Y ;m Ut °rs'" `c E ro BOUND omb sa. BOUND t<qe~•A~ N it ^I °-°t" ~+O~,LC cc W > L•"'{tl. Now Regional o° W '•ry "[3 `Jro SEW'" Service to i Q¢oF cWR' '.N 1-:M t~~t [ i.ottgment DUI I'd £ eB f~f1fi (5.7 y,s.) q` wnl, a RI ?@< (9 000a01NARl W)}N A N ue tl cwgwe fk' >LRpINA IP YJ'III c^t't`- INVl6TM NY Mpy ' F PI%" 1 S Iv !Rp JON Y - - 1 rv5°MFH'I LI'1,0Y (f'' = Potential future regional terminus "super stop" FTC N-r I = Potential future regional "super stop" „~j • Existing/planned transit service coverage Now regional transit service • Now local (high frequency) transit service LsebruarY 1. 2001 3'" DRAT r 7MA1S~Cb T,dN ,t~~rt Pk 1'u6W ~ ~ FAe~teTY _ ~t~ #~OOA~sED 1cAc.~ Ej;;/ Rbnnwhy rdrry s Atniµn►u~o~- ' wt 4, 4N-S7JPi~!° slk6 ® ~irNliAAAC~~ 11:4r 0 4m smffr I&kv PATO) mowml O'w Ow T1t 1/S!T R011'~E 00- MI 7/WWIC S/6a M. y 'STD - J rQ : 00 _ r 4w 4040~ n ❑ i or f' ~ U dam, MG4 ❑ t fl ~ i ~~1. o Q I ~ S. ti V ~ ~a pC 7c oLJ ~ v a$°~o 0°~~~F r, d bpi ~r~o a , - T 4pp° PLANNING AREA 28th Cl Streetscapes and Intersections Local J, 1/24101 Cere:dee j - ,1 z ' { + Swar i! .t..• Regional L! A~< ~rY • ~ i^_ upers#op-~ Supers #o Regional Local-~ AIN Nor To SQALE ' f. Loca/ m l! v~'x it p~~. ~ ~u:; • ~ . _ yes/ i y' 28th R T Midblock Crossings 1f2 4 / co.aae. smar 1 Transit Stop to Includ . • Raised Crossing • Shelter _ • Benches _ ` tir • Pedestrian Lighting z 7, • Bike Racks - • Decorative Paving - r • Pedestrian Refuge in Center Median wRh _ Spires or Trees i . Nor To SCALE ki h ILM Ck e: o U1 i r• ,x b~ yr -a Ek TO: Transportation Advisory Board FROM: Transportation Division: Joe Perrone, Mike Sweeney, Tracy Winfree and Bob Whitson DATE: April 9, 2001 SUBJECT: Information Item: 28t` Street from Pearl to Iris, Transportation Projects Update Purpose This information item's purpose is to supplement staffs update to TAB on the current status of Transportation Projects on 28th Street from Pearl to his, in "the North Segment". Projects 1. North Segment Transportation Network Plan (TNP) a. Four meetings with the TNP Task Force have yielded a fifth, and potentially final, TNP Map b. The final TNP task force meeting will address the following: 1) TNP Implementation Plan a) TDM strategy b) Program and policies c) Ordinance 2) How the TNP ties into the 28a' Street CEAP for Pearl to Iris 2. North Segment Community and Environmental Process (CEAP) a. Near-tern Improvements b. Recent Design Committee meeting, March 14, 2001, and Open House on February 22, 2001 reviewed the following improvements c. Pearl to Iris CEAP Improvements 1) Roadway safety improvements 2) Cross section alternatives 3) Mid-block pedestrian and transit improvements with raised crossings at auxiliary lanes I 4) Raised pedestrian crossings at free right turns at intersections 5) Transit proposals 6) Streetscape - furnishings and landscape 7) Signage 8) Aesthetics d. Next Design Committee meeting - to review staff s recommendation to TAB and Council Attachments Fifth Draft Transportation Network Planning Map 28th Street Transportation Planning Document Outline Draft North Segment CEAP cross sections and sample sketches Safety Matrix Safety Memo Access Diagram Future Transit Map 1:\ Lwid¢ape Arcb~O]Oi]9\Comdor-widemawye'cort4i-9-01 TAB... me TO: Planning Board FROM: Transportation Division: Joe Perrone, Mike Sweeney, Tracy Winfree and Bob Whitson DATE: April 19, 2001 SUBJECT: 28th Street from Pearl to Iris, Transportation Projects Update Purpose This information item's purpose is to supplement staff's update on the current status of Transportation Projects on 28th Street from Pearl to Iris, known as the "North Segment". ' Projects 1. North Segment Transportation Network Plan (TNP) a. Four meetings with the TNP Task Force have yielded a fifth, and potentially final, TNP Map b. The final TNP task force meeting will address the following: 1) TNP Implementation Plan a) TDM strategy b) Program and policies c) Ordinance 2) How the TNP ties into the 281h Street CEAP for Pearl to Iris 2. North Segment Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) a. Near-term Improvements b. Recent Design Committee meeting, March 14, 2001, and Open House on February 22, 2001 reviewed the following improvements c. Pearl to Iris CEAP Improvements 1) Roadway safety improvements 2) Cross section alternatives 3) Mid-block pedestrian and transit improvements with raised crossings at auxiliary lanes 4) Raised pedestrian crossings at free right turns at intersections 5) Transit proposals 6) Streetscape - furnishings and landscape 7) Signage 8) Aesthetics d. Next Design Committee meeting - to review staffs recommendation to TAB and Council Attachments Fifth Draft Transportation Network Planning Map 281h Street Transportation Planning Document Outline Draft North Segment CEAP cross-sections and sample sketches Safety Memo Safety Matrix Access Diagram future Transit Map l:~_Iand capeMh%070319~Conidor-xide~ pe\com,4-9-01 TA mmodoc Racmlleure Aoss. W nb a 0:&TU _ . .b0:& ONE POSSIBLE DIAGONAL PLAZA ALTERNATIVE IRIS 9..M it I 5 I1 I A M PwiW Poeve Syel s __T.._~___ R.bWlae llgpmY , Plea Reamebp. # ~ 1 ~ tl 1 !1 1 GLlNlvoo PEDSIGR N Po Wpb tloapm M Gbmo.a ILLY E.aIWe EM 9FL~eWlp .bn KEY EMSTING PROPOSED FACILITT Roaft" wiN adexaka OnSlreet eke lanes ~.®^mm ORStnrot aeeRea PaN Transq Rout Tr Sp "l Pod CM "PYGrNe' Pea Croming T,MW Super Slap ~a/7 F/Rn 5TH DRAFT TRANSPORTATION NETWORK PLAN H5SOC/HTE5, If 7--. Consulting Engineers Scale 1 "=700' Date 4/5/01 Drawn b RAC Job # 96111 Figure North 281h Street Transportation Network Plan Documentation Outline 1 April 5, 2001 1. Summary of the North 28th Street Transportation Network Plan (TNP) 2. TNP Development and Approval Process 2.1 Coordination with the North 28th Street Corridor CEAP and Design Committee 2.2 The TNP Task Force 2.3 Approval Process with TAB, Planning Board and City Council 3. Goals and objectives of the TNP 3.1 Goals 3.2 Objectives 4. The Map Based Transportation Network Plan 5. Policies to Support tile TNP 5.1 Coordination with the North 28th Street CEAP and Improvements in the R.O.W. 5.2 Coordination of Access to 28th Street for Parcels with 28th Street Frontage 5.3 Connectivity within the TNP area 5.4 Connectivity to the City-wide Multi-Modal Transportation System 5.5 Flexibility of Connection Location Regarding Development or Redevelopment 5.6 Importance of the 27th and 29th Street Corridors 5.7 Integration with the Middle and Southern Segments of the 28th Street Corridor 5.8 Coordination with Boulder's Transportation MasterPlan 5.9 Coordination with Boulder's Greenways Program 5.10 Consistency with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan 6. Programs and Design Parameters to Support the TNP 6.1 Cross-sections 6.2 Right-Of-Way Dedication 6.3 Connecting Fronts of Buildings in the Commercial Areas Along 28th Street 6.4 Provision for Additional Connections When Residential Areas Redevelop 7. Transportation Demand Management Strategies 8. Implementation of the Transportation Network Plan 8.1 Ordinance to Support TNP Implementation 8.2 Incorporation into Transportation Master Plan Update 8.3 Near Term Projects by the City of Boulder 8.4 Longer Term Projects with Development or Redevelopment 8.5 Funding Note: Related documents to be prepared include a 2 page stand alone (with the map based plan) executive summary, and a set of implementation guidelines or examples geared for use by Planning and/or Development Review staff. \\DENI_F01\V0L7 MOBS\_landscape Arch\0 0399\T.a ,mtafi. Network Plan\mamSe\mtgs\TDA1 TNP 2-12-01\TNPouline.d. 28th ems. 28th Street and Diagonal Gateway cenPraf - Carrielee Pianring Slydy i LaOdsc pe Tre ` ent~ I (pending Property ~r-~~ part icipation) Art, s 5 8 Y b Y B ryk40C;,~ ~d As Sculptural Gateway Nor To SCALE N Sculpture 9~'~ ,7 • Central Art Piece • Landscape • Natural Materials SE,28th Street and Diagonal Gateway Len1m: Ccrrida. Planning ~}ady I i d ~ e e~ a t Llscape T (p ndin proteatm 9 Pity Owner / rtnpation) Landscape as Sculptural Gateway Q NOTTOSCALE N Landscape as Sculpture = :Walkways ~ Flowers t^ *Landfonn *Natural Landscape M 331 ti ~4j1"IrI!~ 28th E 1 ) - 28th Street and Diagonal Gateway LevAmf Lmrridnr PFanning SAmdy Landscape Tr rttent/~~ (pending.Property Mr participation) t ' _ r y r . .x >1 \ As Landscape Gateway Q°rr°$CA°E N ; Native Forms r i •Rock Native Plants Sculpture s T R E E% Midblock Crossings 53Udy In r-mm i Basic Transit Stop to Include: 9 Shelter • Benches _ e Bike Racks *Decorative Paving • Pedestrian Refuge in Center Median with Spires or Trees r -t U NOT To SCALE N I Basic 1 Y f a r Apr , ' ~ 6 T R E E! T - Midblock Crossings C. #r.I Corrioas Plaaneag y, Basic Transit Stop - - - to Include: • Shelter • Benches • Bike Racks *Decorative Paving *Pedestrian Refuge in s Y v \ Center Median with S ires or Trees • luster Street Trees only at Transit Stops *AJ, A4 Basic 2 Q Nor ro Sm.5 N ~s =1'~ AA s X41'. { y(~~ i ,i ~ arY~3 1 I f+K,PtG 28th S T R E E T Midblock Crossings Cen4>ci Cnssider Transit Stop to Include}- 5 =t- - 5 - • Raised Crossing ! 9d •Shelter - - ' • Benches • Pedestrian Lighting • Bike Racks • Decorative Paving • Pedestrian Refuge in ' Center Median with Spires or Trees Q NOT TO SCALE _ N q~ Ll~ Bi s C.. LYONS © i~ 4 LONGNptlT a ~ a ~s i 3 28th 1 5 i R E L T Streetscapes and Intersections Lour ~ [eaba! Cmnsdar .w.J11 ` P7annmg ~ _ - Simdg i ~ ' Regionaf~ ' ~ u~ersiop _ Su ers$a ' d"? Regional _ Local-~~'^-r ~ Not To SCALE Local N - .G9NOG~T`_ AW,4 7 p /~E 60 j 1t~ l kA Yl 1 1 \t~ri/ ~7 tky / d r x r~ ' i S T R E E T Sign System Caai.ol emrriaoe ?Pawning - ,-'1 Sixdp i iP fr :tr,_ F+~ WW:'. YL ..YL. C CAE Chi S r Nor TO SCALE i i i 1 NORTH 28TH STREET TRAFFIC SAFETY TREATMENT EVALUATION MATRIX • MUCH BETTER 0 SOMEWHAT SETTER Accld t NY Im And Lx O NO CHANGE Reer-Ends Left Turns Sideswipes Broadsides Car/Bike Car/Bus Car/Pod Blkamed ® WORSE Intersection Mid-Block Intersection Mid-Block Mid-Block Intersection At Ddveway ro Intersection Intersection Mid-Block Intersection Mld-Block Mid-Block Total 66 Month Accident Total 417 20 92 45 29 29 2 18 0 0 B 1 1 653 PmectlIM Sa&ty TraatmjIL& Muhl-Use Path on Both Sides O © O O O O O O O O O O DMeway Treabmnis at Path Crossings O O O O O O • O O O O • O Mkf•block Pedestrian Crossings O ® O O O O O O O O O • O Better/ Safer Pedestian Areas at Transit Stops O O O O O O O O O O O O • Bus Clow Jump Lama at Signals • O • O O &AEM Treatm "fit Auxlllkry Lame for Buses. Bikes 8 Right Toms • kAA O ~ O O O Metllene el Signalized Interaedlons O 4' O O O O O O O Double Len Turns al Valmont and Iris ♦ O O O O O O O O O O Consolidate Driveways Where Poselble O ♦ 1 O O O O Connect Parking Lots Where Possible O O A A A A O A O O Tuna Restrictions at Driveways O O O O O O MMlan In•Tih to Control Len Turn Accidents • Futu to Treatm t TiansportaAbn Network Plan Improvements • Parallel Bbycle and Pedestrian FaCkitles O O O - O O O • • • O O O O O • • O Connections Through Backe of Properties ♦ O 44411 O O Pedeabien Connections Along Building Fronts • O O • O I a Im am so an am as a_ 0. me ow am m m~ m am f snag ' Safety Improvements Summary for 281h Street North Segment (Pearl to Iris) Safety Design Committee # 3 March 7, 200I ~nl 1. BACKGROUND In the section of 281h Street between Pearl Street and Iris Avenue, 724 accidents were reported between January 1994 and June 1999 (66 months total). Over 180 people were injured in these accidents. Most of these accidents occurred at the congested intersections throughout the corridor. The second highest group of accidents involved vehicles entering or exiting driveways in the corridor. These two groups of accidents represent the majority of accidents in the corridor. Tables A and B detail the numbers and types of accidents that occurred during this time period, for both intersection accidents and mid-block accidents respectively. Table A: Intersection Related Accidents Accident Types (Intersection Related) Number of Accidents Rear-end Collisions 417 Left-turn versus Thru Collisions 92 Broadside Collisions 29 Car/Bike Collisions 18 Car/Transit Collisions 0 Car/Pedestrian Collisions 8 TOTAL 564 Table B: Mid-block Related Accidents Accident Types (Intersection Related) Number of Accidents Rear-end Collisions 20 Left-turn versus Thru Collisions 45 Side-swipe Collisions 29 Car/Bike Collisions 3 Car/Transit Collisions 0 Car/Pedestrian Collisions 1 Bike/Ped 1 TOTAL 99 The remaining accidents (61 total) involved miscellaneous accident types, including vehicles backing up, hitting poles or other fixed objects, etc. As a result of these different accident trends, staff is proposing a number of different reactive safety measures and future safety measures which would target these accident types and seek to mitigate future accidents in the corridor- In addition to the existing accident trends present in the corridor, there are a number of new potential conflicts being created by the increase of people using alternative modes of 1 transportation. While the number of accidents involving bicycles, pedestrians and transit have all been relatively low in the past, the City's project intends to encourage a significant increase in these modes throughout the corridor. As a result, a number of pro-active safety measures are necessary and are being included in the proposed project. 2. INTERSECTION-RELATED, REACTIVE TREATMENTS FOR ACCIDENT TRENDS ' As you can see, there were more than five times as many accidents at the intersections than there were mid-block. This is generally to be expected because accidents occur at points of conflict and the greatest amount of conflict occurs at the intersection of two streets. Generally, the more congested the intersection, the more accidents that will occur. The majority of these intersection accidents were rear-end collisions and this trend is consistent throughout the City. Typically, these accidents occur because of level of congestion at the busy intersections, and drivers that are either not paying attention or becoming frustrated or both. Left turn and broadside accidents can potentially be mitigated through changes in signal timing or phasing. The addition of additional left turn lanes, more time for left turn movements, more amber/yellow time and/or the exclusion of permissive phasing with a Red Arrow, can all be used to help mitigate these accident trends. Other intersection related accident trends are also difficult to mitigate. Right turning rear end collisions (such as the significant problem at westbound Valmont and 28th Street) can potentially be mitigated with the addition of an acceleration lane and/or the construction of raised crossings in the right turn islands. These improvements can also help mitigate accidents between bicycles or pedestrians and cars. It is anticipated that the staff recommendation will include a number of these reactive intersection improvements to attempt to mitigate these trends. Specifically, additional turn lanes are proposed at the intersections of 281h & Iris, 28th & Valmont and 281h & Pearl. However, even with these improvements the amount of accident reduction for some of these trends is likely to be small. 3. MID-BLOCK, REACTIVE TREATMENTS FOR ACCIDENT TRENDS Some of the trends associated with mid-block accidents involve vehicles turning in and out of driveways. The most common type of accident involves vehicles making a left turn in or out of a driveway in the corridor. In this project, the City is proposing to construct medians only at the intersections, to protect the left turn bays. By taking this approach, full access to most driveways in the corridor can be maintained while mitigating a large number of mid-block accidents. It is anticipated that over half of these types of accidents would be mitigated with this limited median treatment. Other accident trends involve vehicles turning right into or out of driveways. These accidents are usually rear-end or sideswipe accidents. One potential mitigation technique for this type of accident trend is to consolidate driveways and connect parking lots throughout the corridor. The fewer driveways along the corridor, the fewer number of conflict points and the easier for drivers to anticipate when traffic is going to turn into a driveway. It is anticipated that a small portion of these types of accident can be mitigated with this approach. The auxiliary lanes (transit, bike and turning traffic only) shown in two of the roadway configuration alternatives being considered, also act as a mitigation measure for certain accident trends. The lane acts as an acceleration lane at intersections and driveways, limiting the exposure of vehicles turning right onto 281h Street. The lane also allows vehicles turning left into driveways to shelter in this area and allow bicycles and pedestrians on the sidewalk or multi-use path to pass safely in front of them. 2 Particularly busy driveways may have or develop accident trends despite these improvements. In these cases, staff will evaluate each driveway on a case by case basis and, if necessary, post a regulatory "No Left Turn" sign at a driveway that has a documented accident problem. Typically, staff would be looking for 3 or more accidents involving vehicles turning left out of a driveway, in any two years, to consider this type of restriction. 4. PRO-ACTIVE TREATMENTS FOR 28TH STREET As previously mentioned, a number of changes being proposed to the corridor can result in a higher probability of conflict involving people using alternative transportation. As a result, certain pro-active measure are being proposed in the project. The pedestrian refuge islands being proposed will allow pedestrians to cross the very busy 281h Street corridor, by breaking up the journey into three distinct parts. This will allow pedestrians crossing 28th Street to refuge in these areas and concentrate on finding gaps in traffic in only one direction only. It is anticipated that signing, striping and other special pedestrian crossing treatments will also be used to encourage vehicles to Yield to pedestrians crossing the corridor in these locations. The multi-use path proposed on both sides of 28th Street will help prevent conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists on the corridor. In addition, special driveway treatments (colored concrete or special striping) at path crossings, will discourage conflict between bicyclists or pedestrians and cars turning into or out of the driveways. The proposed auxiliary lane also acts as a "Pro-active" treatment by separating the transit, bicyclists and right turning traffic from the higher speed and volume main street traffic. This creates less probability of conflict between variable speed vehicles in the same space. 5. SUMMARY To address a number of existing safety issues and future conditions within the 28th Street corridor, the staff recommendation should include a number of safety improvements. These are summarized below: • Additional left turn lanes at the intersections of 281h & Pearl, 281h & Valmont and 281h & Iris. • Adjusted signal timing/phasing to address left turn accident problems. • Raised crossings at right turn bypass islands to protect bicycle/pedestrian crossings and to mitigate rear-end right turn collisions. Raised medians protecting all left turn bays at each signalized intersection in the corridor. These medians mitigate about one half of the driveway left turn accidents and also provide a more efficient operation of the intersections. • Construction of a multi-use path on both sides of 2811, Street to minimize conflict between off-street bicycles and pedestrians. • Driveway treatments at multi-use path crossings (colored concrete or striping/signing) to minimize conflict between cars using driveways and off-street bicycles or pedestrians. During redevelopment of properties, the consolidation of driveways with surrounding properties and the connection of parking lots along the 281h Street corridor. These improvements reduce the number of cars using 281h Street driveways and the probability of conflict between these cars and off-street bicycles and pedestrians, as well as turning cars conflicting with main street 28th Street traffic (rear-end and side swipe accidents). • Regulatory signs to create turn restrictions at any driveway that has a demonstrated safety issue with cars turning left out of their property. A demonstrated problem will be considered 3 or more accidents in any two-year period. 3 • During redevelopment of properties, the construction of a roadway connection through the backs of properties fronting 281h Street. In addition, two of the four roadway configuration alternatives propose an auxiliary lane (transit, bike and turning traffic only). This lane would act as a transit and bike "queue jump" at intersections and would act as an acceleration lane for vehicles turning right onto 28th Street from intersections or driveways. This improvement would help reduce congestion at the intersections, as well as separating the transit, bikes and turning traffic from the faster moving through traffic. It would help reduce right turn rear-end collisions and provide some refuge area for vehicles turning left into driveways. 6. CONCLUSION Staff believes that the combination of these improvements will likely reduce accident trends in the future. If these improvements were in place during the 66 months studied, there would likely have been between 100 and 200 fewer accidents in the corridor. 4 N L-J~ i L--J( e lr yL L co Z = Z N W O o ~ o W N U) N acs 1 r ---i - a -Q ' 00 > U) N _ =o w o m U) O J ° w Q F- U F- ur N Q ❑ O J a) Q N L Q > Q w co IL - - 04 ~ N N _N EL r N N U r cuN X L d a U W EL Q I J l , c LL m o/ LJI C i> C to ~ O N C ~ C maw nnsPCnn EXISTING PROPOSED PROPERTY ACCESS PATTERN HSSOC/ATE I/1C Consur6ngengineers Scc!e 1"=200' Date 3/6/01 Drcwr by RAC Job # 96111 Figure a8#h Future Transit Corridors and Facilities- New Local service on vaimont New OliielT Service (s-7°yra) to Jay Rd. r tsL 1wputd "Its" Q f 9m IWO 01,V, p~?! r _Bp~ `SRi Q S, a .p S g i~9 .p R7 - m m ~m ° 4 c u< Y try.. 2 S, m, l YCa BOUND Leo ~a Q. BOUh7p ' 0a[gse New Regional d' a $ r'i3 'a:9 Service. to Qd'o~,ac .o.P. iN 'ryill Ei9 .m° Lon9nfeot ( f y ) ti~~ oevno N I~n~ NI ~0°~ conaglM~~bIYM"£ 5='X Ys. ~Rq v9 ]0 k ooommunre w N 'tI'.. Mves;dgu,i~atVbl' I)_ Ili JS M.JOR INVESTIF,NT STUDY N-? = Potential future regional terminus "super stop' _j = Potential future regional "super slap- - Existing/planned transit service coverage = New regional transit service JIM = New local (high frequency) transit service February 1 2Doi Feb. 12, 2001 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Jane Nelson (303) 4414201 Jana Petersen (303) 441-3090 www.ci.boulder.co.us Open houses to address plans for 28" Street Two open houses to gather input from the public on redevelopment plans for the 28' Street area will be held on Thursday, Feb. 22, at the Municipal Building lobby, 1777 Broadway. The first open house is from I 1 a.m. to 2 p.m., and the second will be from 4 to 7 p.m. The public is invited to attend either session. The open house will focus on the proposals from two projects that involve redevelopment to 28' Street, the Transportation Network Plan and the 28' Street North Segment Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP). Bob Whitson, senior transit planner for the city of Boulder said, "We will be talking about significant changes to the 281" Street corridor that might affect land use along both sides of the street." Proposals for the Transportation Network Plan would increase the number of streets as well as bike and pedestrian access in north central Boulder. At the open house, maps for the Transportation Network Plan will display proposed street and bike-pedestrian connections in the 28" Street area. The city Planning Board is scheduled to review the Transportation Network Plan this summer. Proposals for the 28" Street North Segment CEAP will highlight safety and aesthetic improvements to the area, which will be reviewed by the Transportation Advisory Board and possibly City Council this summer. Whitson said, "The goal of the proposals is to improve all modes of travel - auto, bike, bus, and pedestrian - through the corridor." The Transportation Network Plan was initiated last summer at a design charrette, or workshop, that brought together the city's Planning Department and Transportation Division of the Public Works 1 Department with area professionals to brainstorm ideas for redevelopment around 28' Street that would reflect the goals set forth in the city's Transportation Master Plan. Refreshments will be served. For more information, call Bob Whitson at (303) 441-4155. Monday14Z2001 EDITORIAL • C GIVE IdGHTAn Tm PEOPLE WILL FMDTfMl OWN WAY.' . ESfABLLSHED1891 Cdleen Comm, Editor 6 publirba Barrie M. Ida an, Fdimr nfslx EdimrudAw- Soephm E. Millard, Sr. tm4dex .GeneralMeneger Clay Evans, Au dakEd,~r,, T6ad$e~o' Mauegegl d:tor ,p,Ed+mr-Smattus E D I T.0 R.I A L K: ]nk d. 3,11 F is; Dream a_l;ittle. dream for 28th Stet11 hWnel T T by hasn't somebody come trucks, buses;and cars More than up with the idea to bury 30,000 vehicles a day travel thro h 28th•Street, the busy, the 1-70 corridor, that num6er:is ex noisy, ugly highway that pected togrow 2.5 times by 2020. All passes by Kmart, Crossroads, and the of ]uch has the council understand- university before becoming U,S. 36 a ably wofa ed= One of its most impor- couple of bumps past Table Mesa and tent mmssion* after all, is to protect South Boulder Road. Wtuaily, a#ew the beauty, and serenity of the nation- dreamers have. The idea sounds sim• ally acglaiined ski resort. ply wonderful until someone does the The Associated Press reports that numbers and finds the cost of build- nearly a decade ago, a landscape ar- ing a 5-10-mile tunnel outof sight, so cliltecture student t forth the idea to speak. Iben there's-an organization called Boulder Tomorrow, whose of digging a tunnel for the highway. members wonderwh the That would do wonders for ending the y city is bud geting more to beautify Mh. Street noise and handling the air pollution from exhaust than to make it more accommodating el urmised, a on a the town to cars, but that s a topic for another counsel surmised, as well as open up day.) a key 10 mile stretch of land for devel The reason we bringup this pie=in- opment, a possibility that must have the sky fantasy is because of what the _ sent opportunists! hearts racing., town.council at the resoi tcommunity The cost? An estimated Rio( million of Vail is thinldn about Its members per mile, or about a billion •dollafs. believe that it might be worth the Now you know why the idea-of :tunnel- money to do a feasibility study on bur- ing 28th Street remains amere pipe ying a 10-mile stretch of Interstate 70 dream, so to speak. But, knowing ' that divides the skiing community and Boulder as we do, the dream will be floods it with the roaring sounds of dreamed for decades to come. Appendix B: Inventory and Analysis • A Summary of the Major Features and Functions of 28th Street • Maps Study Area Currently Funded Projects within the Study Area Existing Land Use Natural Features Existing Traffic Volumes Existing Sidewalks Sidewalk Sketches Existing Bus Routes Sensitive Noise Receptors Character Zones • North 28th Street Turn Lane Length Evaluation Summary • Preferred locations for transit stops along 28th Street • North 28th Solutions -Pros and Cons i 1 CEAP for Improvements to 28' Street November 20, 2001 from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue 6ardw ' 1 1 / ~m9 S1ih A Summary of the Major Features and Functions of the 28"" Street Introduction As a major north-south arterial within the city of Boulder (City), 28'h Street serves a wide range of travel patterns taking people to destinations throughout Boulder and beyond. The 28th Street - 2000 Users Survey and the 28th Street - 20M Design Committee Brainstorming Session recognize that the corridor is dominated by automobile congestion and alternative modes of travel are seemingly discouraged. 281h Street accommodates a variety of user groups including automobiles, transit vehicles, rocks, bicycles and pedestrians. The street lacks a clear wayfinding system for pedestrians and bikes and there is little continuity in landscaping. While traffic volumes, adjacent land uses and overall street character vary along 28a' Street, the general corrunercial character of the corridor retrains constant Land Uses 28 h Street is known as the major strip-commercial corridor for Boulder. Commercial businesses facing 28th Street include retail stores, shopping centers, restaurants, hotels and (to a lesser degree) offices and auto-related services. Approximately one third of the 28 ° Street corridor is within The Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC). Crossroads Mall is the largest shopping destination, surrounded by smaller shopping malls, banks, gas stations, and restaurants. Year to date, the BVRC has generated 25% of the total city sales and use tax revenue; Crossroads represents 20% of the BVRC's total (5% of the city's total). Auto-related retail stores dominate the northern segment of 28th Street. The University of Colorado (CU) is the principal public entity fronting both sides of 28th Street. CU's main campus fronts 28th Street to the west. Student and faculty housing (Williams Village) and the CU Research Park and East Campus is just a few blocks east of 28'h Street. The 28'h Street Frontage Road primarily supports hotels, restaurants, and a church in a prominent location across from the CU campus. Residential neighborhoods typically start within one-half block of 28th Street from Baseline Road to Boulder Creek and from Valmont Street to his Avenue. Low-density residential housing exists along the entire corridor. Single family housing is mixed with medium to high density housing near the CU campus. Special population types with the 28th Street study area include CU students in the southern section to senior living facilities in two locations along the corridor: 28th and College and Iris and 30th. There is one historic site, one fire station and two park/recreation sites located within the corridor study area. Natural Features Three creeks cross 28 h Street. From north to south, the creeks include Goose Creek, Boulder Creek and Skunk Creek. The primary designated wetland areas in the corridor are along Boulder Creek and along isolated ponds west of 28`h Street; one at the Baseline / 28th Street interchange and the second at the Colorado/ 28th Street intersection. Except where 28th Street crosses Boulder Creek and Goose Creek, ornamental landscape is the dominant type of vegetation in the corridor. Land Use Character Zones and Visual Quality 28 h Street is commonly described as a place with no identity. Nothing ties the street together or offers the feeling that one has arrived at a destination. The corridor lacks a positive, memorable character. To describe the visual quality of 28' Street, three Character Zones can be identified: 1. Baseline to Arapahoe - Driving north on 28th provides an excellent view of the Flatirons. 28th soon drops into town where one may see the sign for the University campus, but the exact locations of its three sub-campuses are unclear. Landscaping is rare. 2. Arapahoe to Pearl - This area is predominantly a shopping destination accessed by car. Parking lots are offered graciously to 28th Street and shopping destinations sit beyond the parking lots making it very uncomfortable to navigate the area without a car. 3. Pearl to Iris - This area is dedicated to retail shops specializing in automobile care or automobile access. The building spacing is less dense than to the south, and landscaping is inconsistent and infrequent. 286 Street - 2000: Page I August 30, 1999 Central Corridor Planning Study Transit Features Transit services paralleling and intersecting 28" Street include local, limited and regional bus routes. Local ' routes, offering transit connections within the City include both traditional RTD services and more specialized, higher frequency circulator services (HOP). One bus (#205) goes from downtown Boulder to the Gunbarrel area stopping at the Crossroads Mall facility to allow connections to other local routes. Several "limited" routes intersect 281° Street, ' providing service between Lafayette and downtown Boulder during the morning and afternoon commute periods. Regional bus service within the 28'" Street area is limited, with two routes (J, M) using portions of the corridor to travel between Longmont and Boulder. Several high-frequency local routes are planned in the area over the next few years, providing service similar to the SKIP route on Broadway. The JUMP will travel along Arapahoe Road, the LEAP along Pearl Street and the BOUND along 30" Street. These new routes will provide extremely convenient transit connections between the 28" Street corridor and other destinations within the City. However, local service along 28'" Street and regional service connections to other cities are limited. Existing Bike/Pedestrian Conditions Multiple property owners and a high number of curb cuts along 28`" Street contribute to the lack of contiguity for bikes and pedestrians. Sidewalks are between five and eight feet wide, some are detached from the street by a landscaped buffer; others are attached to the curb. From College Avenue to Baseline Road, there is no sidewalk at all along 28°i Street. The 28" Street Frontage Road has only intermittent sidewalks and "social paths" created by pedestrians walking through areas that were not constructed for pedestrians. There are three pedestrian / bicycle underpasses along 28a St. located at College, Aurora (entrances to CU campus) and at Boulder Creek. Three underpasses exist at the Baseline/US 36 interchange, allowing bikes and pedestrians to safely cross through this intersection. Though some effort has been made to increase connections among CU's three sub- campuses, there are current plans to improve signage, bike/pedestrian access, and landscape that identifies the various areas. A new multi-use underpass will be constructed in the next year where Goose Creek crosses under 28" Street. Existing Traffic Conditions 28" Street provides access to major destinations for local and regional travelers. Some destinations include the University of Colorado, the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) and other retail shopping centers. A much smaller number of people use 28`' Street as a thoroughfare to Lyons and Estes Park. While the southern portion of 28" Street gets more use than the northern portion, twice the number of accidents occur on the northern portion of 28" Street. A review of traffic volumes on 281' Street and major intersecting roadways allows for a few general conclusions about travel patterns. Traffic volumes on 28`" Street are as high as 46,130 vehicles per day in the southern third and 28.020 vehicles per day in the northern third. Since there are only about 11,000 vehicles per day on US 36 north of the City, it is assumed that the number of vehicles using 28th Street to pass through the City is quite small (probably fewer than 5,000 vehicles per day). Some east/west traffic within the City uses portions of 28'" Street and the majority of vehicles using 28'" Street appear to have an origin and/or a destination within the City. Traffic accidents in the corridor appear to be caused by the frustration and confusion associated with heavy congestion. There are a high number of rear-end collisions at the signalized intersections, with an exceptionally high number occurring where vehicles tum right from Valmont Road (westbound) onto 28th Street (northbound). Broadside collisions at the intersection of 28" & Glenwood have also occurred frequently. The highest number of accidents occur north of Pearl Street; that portion of 28t' Street that does not have a median. Conflicts in this area typically involve collisions with vehicles entering or exiting businesses adjacent to 28'" Street. Utilities Water and sanitary sewer lines are the principal underground utility lines following 28" Street. The water distribution system serves properties along 28'" Street with adequate pressure from small pipe. However, approximately 1 mile of pipe is 6-inch Cast Iron Pipe; the City has a policy to replace CIP on an ongoing basis. Larger water lines (12 to 20- inch pipe) cross 28d' Street at Valmont, Walnut and Baseline. Sanitary sewer lines follow the length of 28'" Street from Baseline to Pearl. There are no capacity problems in the sanitary sewer lines included in this project. Ditches owned by the Boulder & Whitrock Ditch Company cross 28'" Street at Valmont and between Walnut and Pearl. Ditch water is also carried under 28th Street at Boulder Creek. Detailed maps with inventory data are attached. i 1:199110(OIWCwrzu Tak - Llevmtmll'28~ wyd 281° Street - 2000: Page 2 August 30, 1999 Central Corridor Planning Study Longmont Diagonal Iris Ave. t ' Glenwood Dr y a, tg i I Valmont Rd t i ~~"y,-- 11 7 I f` + f w+ gay'. S ~ 4 i e., Arapahoe Ave City of 4oulder / I Colorado Ave Broadway 36 ' N`'Y t 1 t Baseline fill ;-_.f~ 'yes Study Area 300 0 300 600 Meters 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet M ,s ca Corkr+ll MPU E ms~ss, t :m Projects Within Study Area , 28th St./Iris Ave Intersection & ray ,,,..w.Ra North City Gateway , ® Pearl St. to Iris Ave. - Street and a Safety Improvements Goose Creek A4uld-use Path BOUND Transit Improvements ' LEAP Transit Improvments - ' 28th St. and Pearl St. Intersection Improvements Pearl St. Bikelane and Sidewalk s w - Improvements (Folsom to 30th) 28th St./Canyon Blvd. Intersection ' Pedestrian/Bike Improvements ' in Boulder Valley Regional Center Frontage Rd. Pedestrian and Bike Improvements (Arapahoe to Baseline) 4 za Boulder Creek Bridge Expansion Colorado Ave. Bikdane Improvements _ (Folsom to 28th) ■ Colorado Ave- and 28th St. Intersection Improvements ' M South City Entry and University Gateway 1, L sII ® Baseline Rd./28th St. Interchange Landscaping i s Intermodal Ceder i (location to be determined N LEGEND t.E Pedestrian/ 28th Bikeway ~ Transit soo o soo 100 - - ~ ~ Theme/ Fleet , Traffic , Identity IH-A yyz 'AA ~L• shy ' -AM ~ ~ * ~~\\2'~SA~^ S A4 19a}~•-''~e°4?!`r~"°+ i"A_ 7 ~ mil' Y. ao x ¢ /s VA i/ AA ~ r w _ t ON, lit s c- w, iN LL ILJMW~ Y j V M s~ 795 "Yw 28th Existing Legend mrks/ Re Land Uses SSeerrvi~ Building ~ - ///.n Recreation 200 0 200 400 600 Meters Residential Hotel .f y.+ 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Feel Commercial PublicIcampus FT 'q,,,,,,'~a F* ~SM1~`~r, 'ht'P'y~ `'E i~.. '~'~~yrif e :.~:,~.,°.'>ir+'.d: ~e]Y• Cwrlvr. BunJ°° V ty § If f~~ rz' t ~~f ♦~ir R` ~ ~N 4~~^F N ~ ~ v t. u • « ex t~ n ~ L b ...fir ~ Wi't` " k ,.N^ .Sl' fix, y .6 } A;M ' r , I+ltff LegMY d Natural 8treammict +yr ' 200 0 200 400 600 Meters w@WAb' Featur@S *W 1WYear Flood Plain 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet - s ar~° LakelReservoir 28020 E ' d i t 41310 9w> V iY ' X6.11 y? Fa' i Nsz 46130 ~ 3. 3s r. , i x x 8Lh i nofTrefNa r Existing Traffic 2W Volumes a W- ' 'rv 7mffc ~.m.mmrfur 1999 and p~midrAM'tl,'e 6tyoJBgd~ 1 ~x-c,3-Ra1x4► ors Caeb,r,6,^!R='+` 1 Ara h - s 5 Foot Detached 5 Foot Detached ""r 8Foot Detached "I 5 Foot Detached , l ! 5 Foot Detached i 5 Foot Detached 5 Foot Deta : i shed , 5 Foot Attached _ „ eve F, i 5 Foot Detached 1 f, 5 Foot Detached- 5 Foot Detached 1 8 Foot Detached 8 Foot Detached. 8 Foot Detached y ' 5 Foot Detached ~ x- ✓ ~ I , 8 Foot Detached 8 Foot Detached _nf r 5 Foot Detached " - 5 Foot Attached 8 Foot Detached 5 Foot Detached + 5 Foot Detached - 5 Foot Detached 1 5 Foot Attached No Sidewalks 5Foot Attached 8 Foot Detached ' S1 No Sidewalks 1 1 5 Foot Attached '-5 Foot Attached 1 ' d!~ -5 Foot Detached 8 Foot Detached i 5 Foot Attached No Sidewalks ' 5 Foot Attached No Sidewalks 5 Foot Detached Sidwalks (8 ft. detachted and 3 underpasses) 9 Foot Attached 1 allow full pedestrian movement at the US36/Bmline Rd. Interchange. Existing Legend 1 tf, Pedestrian Sidewalks ~M H Underpass ' 1 D shed si walk 5 to t wide y f ~ " +1 f/ ~ Y 4 i 1 Adz_ 6 . - AuschedKdR k 5to 8feet wide ~I .C!7 $evms~ .n YnerAd~r visor Typicai Sidewalk Conditions NOV - '2os EVE Iris Ave. toy, 1208' zos zos, - zo ~ 205) ;zos4zo8' zo r20~9) Gle woodDr. . 209 m V0J 208) ' - Ilmont 2~os' zoa; zoo; -M......; Bnd 209; - . ` FH ,,LP! L S I ~ P ~St 200 Lp zo F zos "206; zoos - P,' 205 m , 20 1 J FH zos ':Bnd 20 - zos; zos J S Ara hoe Ave, 206 S q, '77 a. t Jm 207 226, P .207 226:Jmg: 207 226'.Jmp7 rn\ , 207 Boulder Ereek J S F u r 0 20 ) -,227 ! f . 225 -203,204 i 'C.OlOrado Ave. T . CH G 8 « AB D € zos' a i . • `Baseli z25 Legend Leap, Bouts, Existing Local A/ Jump . Bus Regional /V mo a aoo ,mo r..a flop t m.a+ Limitetl N ' sw Routes Source: RTD Bus Route Map Skip Night hop .___...,...-n..... 09106!99 _ i ny r kt JC`. Pearl to Iris • Retail stores are auto-related. rv ` • Parking lots are dominant landscape feature. • There are no medians. • Sidewalks are missing. ~rr } wS 1i © Pearl to Arapahoe • Feels like central shopping area. • Good views of Flatirons. • Medians are landscaped • Landscaping exists sporadically ~.yn • Trees are beautiful in the fall. ~ Ira s qt © Arapahoe to Baseline 3r • Looking north- Great views to mountains ' and full length of 28th Street. •The University is present, but F how to get there is hard to Q determine. • Vegetation is overgrown at creek a r z and roadside landscape appears - neglected. 4 n *WV.. 311 CerimBu9ea--- a ■ 28th ■ ; Character Source '1, Onsile survey Zones July 1999 200 meters x"`^c L 700 0 700 1400 Feet TP-96111 28TH STREET LEFT TURN LANE STORAGE ANALYSIS 8/21/01 North 28th Street Turn Lane Length Evaluation Summary • Usin NCHRP 279 uidelines with an assumed 1 OOsec. AM or Noon Cycle and a 120 sec PM cycle LANE DESIRABLE LANE MINIMUM LANE INTERSECTION MOVEMENT # LANES LENGTH (FT.) PEAK VOL. LENGTH (FT.) LENGTH (FT.) SUMMARY Available much less than minimum Pearl SB Left 1 195 449(Noon) 650 480 desirable Mapleton NB Left 1 110 45 PM lent of room now OK SB Left 1 140 75 Noon lent of room now OK 2X170=340 Valmont NB Left 2 170 202 PM 350 260 OK 2X260=520 SB Left 2 260 360(Noon) 500 375 OK 160 nearly Glenwood equal to NB Left 1 160 136 PM 220 165 mimimum OK SB Left 1 135 92 AM 150 110 OK ZX225=450 less than 550 Iris/Diagonal NB Left 2 225 432 (PM) 725 550 minimum turnlanes.xls 17 M-03- 12 a a ❑ --m-- -0 LJ GLENWOOD do ~ ° d e ~ ~I s o © r~ c 9 o / ~pnOA it - ~ FPJ VALINONT o ' d ° es o G{ ' OA d~ ° orAm*ir srotV 40A;& 7-eP m OO d _ do a o ~ e oe cesi 61G~'L a o p o Q o~ Q 1 ova a ~ \°a ~°o~oo ~ ~ ooh ~ j, Q° Q ~ - ~ oe ~ o o f ° ° a a 1 ~ o I~ U J r~sraai 2/,z/v ~F" Table Zaplet: No. 28th - Problems to Solve Pro & Con discussion Page 1 of 4 lfM You are logged in as diannicm@i UYZAPL£TS MyZaplets I Inbox i Trash ll III Robert Whitson writes: No. 28th - Problems to Solve Pro & Con discussion For each Problem and solution let's develop a set of Pros and Cons ( 11127/00 8:49 AM MST/ VIEW all recipients) =AWTell-A-Friend about Zaplets! mom= Table NotficationsOff ' W = Sort Indicator. Select column heading to sort. /vl 1-38 of 38 .0 = Edit Row. Select pencil to modify data in a row. Rows per page: North 28th Solutions - Pros & Cons E Author Options._ l r Export Data... 1 ' Design Desi n edit # w Problem Solutions Pros Cons -0 1 1. Bicycle Bike lanes on-street Provides a separate space for Some bike users will still use facilities? and seperate; 6.5 foot on-street bike users; provides sidewalk; Limited space makes it width extra seperabou between peds difficult for can to drive around and vehicles; provides some stopped buses .Space for buses to use for pickup/dropoff, allows cars space to drive around stopped buses 2 Bike lanes in third More separation between buses More opportunity for conflict outside auxiliary lanes; and cars (more operational between buses, bikes and right shared with buses and efficiency for both); more turning cars; wider (more ROW right turns in/out; 11 separation between cars and impacts) foot width on-street bicycles 3 Multi-use paths both Provides space for off-street Does not provide space for on- sides bikes; less conflict between off- street bike users; Greater street bikes and pedestrians; opportunity for conflict between promotes access to bus stops off-street bikes and turning cars 4 - No on-street bike Less Cost, Less ROW impacts Provides no bicycle facilities on lanes, use Folsom & 28th Street; Greater conflict 30th between bikes and all other modes; Not all bike users will divert to ' Folsom or 30th -d' 5 2. Access to - Auxiliary lanes, right More safe and efficient for Does not address primary safety properties and in/out right-in and tight-out issue (left turns out of property); businesses? movements; greater roadway must share this space with buses efficiency; more opportunity to and on-street bikes spot bikes and peds on sidewalk/path I _19 6 - Create network of Provides more ways to Long-term changes which will take allevs and new streets access/egress properties; could many years to implement; will address primary safety issue change buildable area available for (lefts out); could decrease redevelopment congestion on 28th Street 7 - Link parking lots Provides more ways to Requires site design coordination http://zaplet.zaplet.coin/servlet/Z?m=2_QAIe7iliVIWG4pp56lipegI-D&folderid_zsr=0&1.. 12/11/2000 Table Zaplet: No. 28th - Problems to Solve Pro & Con discussion Paget of 4 access/egress properties; could between properties; could impact ' address primary safety issue parking and building layout of (lefts out); could decrease existing businesses; may wind up congestion on 28th Street being a long-term solution that take many years to implement , 8 3. Landscaping? - Street trees Follows the guidelines used in Mrght block views to business consistently evenly the Southern & Middle signage C lSwS IN 8.&ia try spaced locations Sections 1-490l+F4 MT [_o&KI Dgt. J0 9 - Cluster street trees May enhance direct views to Not a unified image of 28th St and plantings businesses corridor, no continuous buffer between street and sidewalk; may , not accomodate views to future redevelopments d 10 4. Transit - Coordinate bus stop Builds demand for transit; ' facilities and locations with Ped service? crossings 11 - New designs of Is an impmtant part of transit shelters and site marketing , furnishings 12 New local and regional New local high frequency Will take several years to create transit service service on 28th / Folsom ' "Orbit" will link north and south 28th St. .r~ 13 Auxillairy lane for Buses will have a'queue jump' Keeping non-transit autos out of , buses allowed to pass at intersections - more efficient auxiDary lane will require special through intersections service enforcement; will require wider intersection designs and more impact to properties 14 5. Gateway at - Landscaping Improves current image, On-going maintenance Iris and 28th? matches south segment 15 - Art / sculpture Creates a 'sense of place' and a landmark; 16 - Entry sign Announces arrival to Boulder 17 - Combination of see advantages shown above above 4 18 6. Pedestrian - Raised cross-walks in Vehicles slow as they pass over Could be emergency response crossing at right turn by-pass this area of conflict with issues with right turning vehicles; ' intersections islands pedestrians; Pedestrians and Cost can be greater to address off-street bikes stay at same drainage issues level 19 - Colored surface Distinguishes change in Not visible to motorists at night ' crossing area situation - identifies crossing area 20 - Scored surface Distinguishes change in Not visible to motorists at all; can crossing area situation - identifies crossing be confusing - motorists don't area know what scoring means 21 - Decorative pavers in Distinguishes change in Not visible to motorists at night crossing area situation - identifies crossing Can be expensive to install and area maintain 22 7. Pedestrian Pedestrian Traffic Protected pedestrian crossing is Expensive solution; Impacts to , Crossings - Mid- signals safest approach; Greatest efficiency of 28th Street, Difficulty block? understanding by motoring in getting CDOT approvals for pubic new traffic signals without justifications , 23 Provide crossing Accomodates current Unprotected crosswalks on busy http://zaplet.zaplet.corn/servlet/Z?m=2_QAIe7rliVIWG4pp56lipegLD&folderid_zsr=0&t... 12/11/2000 ' Table Zaplet: No. 28th - Problems to Solve Pro & Con discussion Page 3 of 4 between Glenwood pedestrian crossings, takes street; Vehicles unlikely to yield to and Iris- Two location advantage of existing median pedestrians in crosswalk between Glenwood / refuges ' Iris- (1) next to bus - stops at K-mart; or (2) further south -i 24 Other mid-block Could accomodate future Unprotected crosswalks on busy ' crossing Locations, (1) pedestrian crossing activity and street; Vehicles unlikely to yield to between Valmont / support future transit activity pedestrians in crosswalk; Little Glenwood; (2) between demand for these crossings Glenwood and currently Mapleton, (3) between Mapleton and Pearl 25 Surface Treatments Distinguishes change in Not visible to motorists at night; ' (see # 6) situation - identifies crossing Can be expensive to install and areas maintain 26 ln-pavement flashing Crosswalk is mote visible at Expensive solution; Relatively new lights with side street night Lights flash when technology so there is not complete flashing component pedestrians want to cross; understanding of what is expected (example: Greater compliance for 11th /Canyon) pedestrian rights -0 27 8. Character and - Plazas on comers No room in right-of-way for plazas A`sense of place at Valmont / 28th at Pearl / 28th and Valmont / 28th? .0 28 - Art or monuments No room in right-of-way for monuments at Valmont / 28th -0 29 9. Corridor - 4 all-purpose travel Provides on-street bike Some conflict between bilres and cross-section lanes, 2 auxiliary lanes facilities, separates buses and buses/turning traffic; may require (safety and (restricted for buses, turning traffic from through large lane use signs over lanes efficiency bikes and turning auto traffic; better efficiency and/or special enforcement impacts) traffic); 122-ft between for all autos and best efficiency curb faces for buses, bikes and turning traffic; Can be restriped to 6 all-purpose lanes in the future if necessary 30 30 - 6 all-purpose travel Greatest efficiency for through Does not provide any on-street Imes, 122-feet between traffic on 28th Street; Can be bike facilities (less safe for bikes); curb faces restriped to be 4 all-putpose not as efficient for transit or right lanes and 2 restricted lanes in turning cars; Does not support the future if necessary TNT requirement of "low priority" on capacity improvements; requires wider intersections with more property impacts (same as transit queue jump lanes) -0 31 - 4 all-purpose travel Smallest corridor cross-section Greater opportunity for conflict ' lanes with on-street - least ROW impacts and cost; between buses and autos in outside bike lanes (6.5) Provides on-street bicycle lane; Less opportunity for transit facilities; provides limited space queue jump lanes; least efficient for transit to stop and for alternative vehicles to pull around 32 - 6 all-purpose travel Provides on-street bicycle Greater opportunity for conflict lanes with on-street facilities; provides limited space between buses and autos in outside ' bike lanes (6.5~ for transit to stop and for lane; Less opportunity for transit vehicles to pull mound; queue jump lanes; Does not Provides more efficiency for support TMP requirement of "low http:/ /zaplet.zaplet-com/servlet/Z?m=2_QAIc7rIiVIWG4pp56lipegID&folderid_zsr=0&t... 12/11/2000 Table Zaplet: No. 28th - Problems to Solve Pro & Con discussion Page 4 of 4 ' through autos (best capacity priority" on capacity alternative) improvements; requires the widest intersections with more property impacts (even greater than transit queue jump lanes) 33 10. Wayfinding - pedestrian / bike Easy access to way-finding Greater maintenance requirements signage signage for bicycle users and on City's Sign Shop; Increases sign pedestrians pollution in corridor , 3Q 34 - City landmark provides directions to other directory signs City areas 35 - Art / sculpture creates sense fo place and landmarks places along 28th St. 36 11. lighting: Specific street light Matches what is proposed for Costs to change out some existing , fixture style and fixtures south and exists in middle fixtures with this style of fixture location segments 37 Pedestrian scale Adds visual continuity Much increased construction and lighting throughout corridor, Increased long-term (electric bill) costs; ' lighting of pedestrians facilities Brings up the issues of pedestrian and transit stops; Enhances scale lighting throughout the City pedestrian comfort of Boulder 38 Art / sculpture / creates a sense of arrival and , gateway features landmarks this northeast entry to Boulder 1-38 of 38 ' AAb ut I Ouicktour Tell-A-Friend I Feedback I Help I Policies Copyright p 1999-2000 Zaplet, Inc. A8 tights reserved. Patent pending. Use of Zapiets and the Zaplet web site constitutes acceptance of our Privacy Policv and Terms of Service. 1 i 1 1 i http://zaplet.zaplet.com/servlet/Z?m=2_QAIe7rliVIWG4pp56lipegID&foldelid_zs,=0&t.. 12/11/2000 , Appendix C: Planning Framework • Urban Design Planning Framework • Planning Framework ' • Transportation Planning Framework based on the TMP i 1 1 1 i 1 CEAP for Improvements to 211 ° Street November 20, 2001 from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue ° 0 0 ,0 00~@71A&T PXROM50 > 9 ° ° X000 Cot ~ Soo 0 Soo' laootr r~~`dHf - 1AaIn C4, MIA, 1 5, rill : ~ n 11~ 1 M'4 y t ~,tTiary . ,~awAiaR y QA7~Wi4y TEi~TlAR`l 51:G~oNbJUt OAM Why nru GAMA/Ay y /o troVI1 JWxfifon to ~+a~, &ATr-WA)e E~t>riuneG rTur~c~iar, ,b SH7. bssn.ds ~Ntl, Jaecflu+ e Cu Mrs., Pa,y u an6 sHrry. f} ST. MaN. 5{racf' GATEWAY LEGEND NOTE REGIONAL ENTRANCE TO BOULDER For US 36 travelers, the top of Davidson Mesa and Table Mesa / US 36 Interchange are the Includes streetscape elements, art endJandscaping. true south gateways to Balder. Conveys the aesthetic theme for 281D Street and landscape image for Boulder. So are Shanahan Ridge and the top of Davidson Mesa for HWY 93 travelers. Due to this projects boundaries and lark of funding for aesthetic improvements to these true gateways, ENTRANCE To KEY BOULDER DEMnmrrON this Planning Framework considers the Baseline / US 36 Interchange as the south gateway Includes signage for key destinations to Boulder. Includes streetscape elements and landscaping. c Rc9/crn/ Conveys the aesthetic theme for 28'" Street and landscape image for Boulder The wayfinding system for Boulder will coordinate with the University of Colorado's plans for a citywide wayhnding system to direct Campus visitors to CUs Main, East and South AnP5pulde,- ENTRANCE To BOULDER LANDMARKS OR JUNCTION WITH CROSS-TOWN ROUTE Campuses. O Includes signage for local landmarks andjunction l~aa! Includes streetscape elements, bridge architecture and landscaping. QrsH~ullot9 Conveys the aesthetic theme for 28'" Street and landscape image for Boulder. N~w,;n ,Psgio.u/ QaJe~ Fhul~ ~ ~u!!o~ URBAN DESIGN PLANNING FRAMEWORK Proposed Gateway locations based on their function for Aesthetic Improvements and 'Wayfinding System' tp, Baseline 28th Arapahoe & 28th Pearl & 28th iris 28th Junction to SH 7 Junction to Pearl St. Mall Re Tonal Gatewa Gateway to University of Colorado (CU) and g y from Longmont x . downtown boulder - Significant transit stop Significant transit stop - Add landscaping, signage and possibly artwork Add landscape, signage and architecture improve crossings, refuge islands, Improve crossings, refuge islands, - Improve refuge islands, si na e, si nallwalk timin si na a and signal/walk timing si na a and si nallwalk timin g _ g g g ) CU to add to campus signs 9 9 9 9, 9 g Can on & 28th Mapleton & Valmont & x w'° ' i; s Colorado & 28th - Gafeway to downtown Boulder - Entrance to CU Main Campus and and Crossroads Mall Glenwood at 28th :a • ~ < ~ ~~is~~ro~ Improve crossings, refuge islands, Research Park -Improve crossings, refuge islands, p CU to add entry signs and landscape signage and signal/walk timing signage, and signallwalk timing Improve pedestrian/bike crossing Colorado to become major transit, E bikelpedestrian and parkway corridor for CU S1 rt Folsom St. ~ Lit ARMIN 6 to k BCD 6 28th Street b, Frontage Roa oo A f c AV I IL U0 1e s CROSSROADS o g J n F o MALL o o E E ~o IN )h 30th°°--. St. I lb ~ JC* s ,CO ` ICU y PARK IQ Baseline to Arapahoe Arapahoe to Pearl Pearl to Iris -Add landscaping and trees to street edge/median -Add two mid-block crossings on 28th St., one on -Add bicycle facilities: options include (1) bike lanes, Legend - Potential regional bus transit route to new Intermodal Pearl and one on Arapahoe (2) multiuse path, or (3) shared outside travel lane Transit Center (location to be determined) -Add bicycle facilities: options include (1) bike lanes, -Add missing sidewalk ; Potential Transit "Hub" Site Boulder Creek Crossing. (2) multi-use path, or (3) shared outside travel lane - Correct uneven curb line - Potential regional bus transit route to Intemtodal - Add street treesllandscaping Boulder Creek Crossing Improvement -Add landscape and architecture to highlight creek Transit Station (location to be determined) - Underground power lines crossing -Consolidate multiple curb cuts -Mitigate high crash rates g Underpass - Widen to allow 3 southbound lanes from Colorado to Canyon - Enhance multi-use path with striping & signage Proposed Mid-Block Crossing - Improve pedestrian/bike bridge and access to -Add standard, detached sidewalk where substandard Greenway or attached 0®® ® Frontage Road as potential multi modal West Side: - Add street trees/landscaping where missing or transit corridor - Add multi-use trail and crosswalk at entrance to substandard Harvest House - Consider grade separated pedestrian crossing at - Improve vehicular entry to Harvest House and Walnut and 28th Not to Safeway Frontage Road: Plann Framework - Replace missing sidewalks - Potential multimodal transit corridor Based on the Traction Mast:~r in coordination with Boulder -Add landscaping/trees, signage Valley RegionalCa7terandColorado Unhasitypoliciesandplans. October 91999 Too 0 $DO lop* P U n c L__J\.JOO n a d s S D f D L $ z 7 9 Z S Z C v s 0 1 L 46 s . • _ fi _1 _ _ o for son 0 e~•.• CAKE -too o e q o • o o o iQ 06 Lim 4-0---- n n n n n• n a n.nb a o • p ( ~ (~.sssr-gas ~ o • { H • O e p o ; 1o fl`u- t o o O • • - _ 0 • 0 30' sr~aar q S poooo poao0oo 00000000®0oooo440D 0 Do0ooo000© ODOO~0000oOCf0~ D T~ O o~ODooQOOv ~-o ~ • 1 3 1 4-1 • 0 elk 0 ~ASr 0 • r 4kmP$6 Artc 0 • ILeAbWAY C4-AsstFle-Aryw4s jale-yepe- tAAArpoA-r--tsgfP/CA77o,U5 Mk~rl MooA~ ~aNVah. ` PArNUrAi.- ANrCAuL-- 1- PW►•t,~y 090 BrKE 77iar is rr YeNlu,~ F 3 0 MAJo~ ART~RIAIr ~ Sf-~NDAhy OO C Cowcrb~ 4 C oal,~ 6 -cutyrrRrr, 000 goa~ru~ vAu.rdy _ _ 6t~►J1tA~-PRQfoSED ~rotJAt, ~N7~R-eot~Nan,~t~5 TRA NSPOR TA TION PLANNING FRAMEWORK ® Proposed Corridor Classifications as defined in the Boulder Transportation Mastef Plan August 30, 1999 Appendix D: North 28th Street Transportation Network Plan (TNP) • TNP Document, pending City Council approval CEAP for Improvements to 28" Street November 20, 2001 1 from Pearl Street to his Avenue ' NORTH T TRANSPORTATION NETWORK PLAN 4 } CITY F BOULDER Transportation Division i- / ~ w / z I~ 4 z a# " ~r ~a~h 3 has Ian I , t u .z 1 ' I r a I ' . al~al acv al T..~-. tls- E ~I N aEI i € ;Vv i i[ t `'I II A t ~m1 r Ml? NIWI November 76, 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Summary of the North 28" Street Transportation Network Plan (TNP) 1 2.0 Goals and Objectives of the TNP 2 2.1 Goals ..........................................................2 2.2 Objectives .......................................................2 3.0 The Map Based Plan .....................................................3 4.0 Policies Needed to Support the TNP 4 4.1 Connectivity to the City-wide Multi-Modal Transportation System 4 4.2 Coordination of the TNP area improvements with the North 281h Street CEAP .................................................4 43 Flexibility of Connection Location Regarding Development or Redevelopment I ................................................................4 4.4 Coordination of Access to 28" Street for Parcels with 28`h Street Frontase 5 45 Right-Of-Way Dedication and Acquisition 5 4.6 Connecting Fronts of Buildings in the Commercial Areas Along 28`h Street 6 4.7 Provision for Additional Connections When Residential Areas Redevelop 6 4.8 Coordination with the Boulder Valley Transportation MasterPlan 6 I 4.9 Coordination with Boulder's Greenways Program 7 4.10 Consistency with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan 7 4.11 Consistency with the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) Transportation Connection Plan y..............................7 4.12 Development or Redevelopment Compliance with Boulder's City-wide Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program 7 5.0 TNP Design Parameters 8 5.1 Minimum Cross-Sections for Roadways, Sidewalks, Multi-use Pathways, and Bicycle Lanes .....................................................8 6.0 Implementation of the Transportation Network Plan 9 6.1 Ordinances to Support TNP Implementation 9 6-2 Development or Redevelopment Triggers for TNP Compliance 9 63 Near Term Projects by the City of Boulder 9 6.4 Longer Term Projects with Development or Redevelopment 9 ' 6.5 The North 28" Street TNP Action Plan 9 6.6 TNP Amendment Process ..........................................10 1 Attachments A. North 28`h Street Transportation Network Plan - ACTION PLAN B. TNP Development and Approval Process North 28' Street Transportation Network Plan Page i November t 6, 2001 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 North 28`h Street Transportation Planning Process 11 , Figure 2 North 28`" Street Transportation Network Plan 12 Figure') Superblock Key ..................................................13 Figure 4 Superblock 1 Detail 14 Figure 5 Superblock 2 Detail 15 Figure 6 Superblock 3 Detail 16 Figure 7 Superblock 4 Detail 17 Figure 8 Superblock 5 Detail 18 Figure 9 Superblock 6 Detail 19 Figure 10 Superblock 7 Detail 20 Figure I 1 Superblock 8 Detail 21 Figure 12 Existing / Proposed Property Access Pattern 22 Figure 13 Plan Amendment Process 23 ' North 2r Street Transportation Network Plan Page ii November 16, 2001 1.0 Summary of the North 28th Street Transportation Network Plan (TNP) The North 28" Street Transportation Network Plan addresses the transportation system needs for moving to and through the area centered on the 28" Street right-of -way and which ' extends from the west side of Folsom to the east side of 30'", and from the south side of Pearl to the north side of Iris. The North 28" Street Transportation Network Plan defines the desired future transportation network in the area for all modes of travel. The TNP will help land owners, developers, and the City plan for the connections needed in this area. Over time, the plan and the proposed improvements will be integrated into the Boulder Valley Transportation MasterPlan and the Transportation Capital Improvement Programs (CIP). The recommendations and requirements of the TNP will be implemented through new development, redevelopment, and through transportation projects undertaken by the City of Boulder. The TNP will be implemented through: • the adoption of appropriate ordinances • construction of capital improvements as part of Boulder's Capital Improvement Program, including but not limited to construction of the improvements within the '_8t" Street right-of-way that will be defined in the North 28' Street Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) construction ofcapital improvements associated with the City's Greenways Program dedication and acquisition of right-of-way • construction of on-site improvements by property owners as appropriate when parcels develop or redevelop. The major components of this Transportation Network Plan are illustrated on Figure 1 and include: - Map Based Transportation Network Plan, illustrated on Figure 2 including recommended multi-modal facilities and connections. Note that this is a right-of- way plan based on Section 9-33-14 of the 1981 Boulder Revised Code (BRC). - North 28`h Street Corridor CEAP Recommendations including 28" Street cross- section improvements, multi-modal facilities in the right-of-way, improvements to enhance safety. recommended access configuration, landscape improvements and ' public art opportunities (CEAP recommendations to befinali~ed late 2001- included by reference in this TNP Plan document and in the T.VVP Action Plan) - TNP Plan Document (this document) including goals, objectives, policies, plan - amendment procedures, standards and implementation guidance TNP Action Plan which is a `to do" list of steps necessary to implement this Transportation Network Plan (Attached to this document as Attachment A). Some action items are one time events, some have specific target dates attached. and some describe on-going activity needed. The TNP Action Plan will be updated periodically by Transportation Division Staff. North 28" Street Transportation Network Plan Page I November 16. 200 Attachment B is a summary of the TNP plan development and public review and adoption process. 2.0 Goals and Objectives of the TNP 2.1 Goals The goals listed below represent the ultimate targets for the TNP: • Improve access and mobility to, through, and within the North 28" Street area for all modes of travel by developing a multi-modal transportation grid. • Improve transportation safety for all modes and reduce traffic accidents. • Provide visual continuity within transportation corridors. • Reduce vehicular congestion on arterial roadways in the area and minimize the need for traffic already within the area to circulate on arterial roadways. • Provide a transportation network that improves the access to businesses in the area. • Provide a transportation network that supports and encourages land development and/or redevelopment that is consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. • Improve the identity (sense of place) and aesthetics in the area. 2.2 Objectives The objectives listed below are the capital improvements, programs, regulation changes, development review guidance, and planning activities that will be used to implement the goals of the TNP: y General Objectives: • Develop a map based plan for a multi-modal transportation network in the area that defines the needed transportation connections (roadways, paths, routes etc.) for pedestrian, bicycle, automobile, and transit travel. This map based plan is illustrated in Figure 2. • Develop regulations and ordinances specific to this TNP that can be used to evaluate and direct development applications. ' Objectives geared toward capital project construction by the Ciry (may also have application to development review): • Increase connectivity to the multi-modal improvements proposed in the 28" Street Right-Of-Way that are being developed as part of the North 28" Street CEAP recommendations. • Define short term improvements and connections from the TNP map for inclusion in the Transportation CIP. • Complete the 27" and 29" Street corridors between Pearl and Iris (Diagonal) for pedestrian and bicycle travel, and include automobile links where possible and appropriate. North 28'h Street Transportation Network Plan Page 2 November 16, 2001 I Objectives geared toward development review regulations: • Implement the map based plan in a way that insures the planned connections are made while maintaining as much flexibility for land development options as possible for property owners developing or redeveloping individual sites. • Where developing or redeveloping properties result in building fronts set back from the street, require the provision of pedestrian connections or removal of barriers to pedestrian travel between building fronts on adjacent properties . • Accommodate cross-site automobile access between parking lots where practical when properties develop or redevelop to minimize travel on 28" Street. • When parcels develop or redevelop, require that back door" automobile connections between commercial sites be provided where practical along the back of the property in the north-south direction along both sides of 28`h Street to enhance access and minimize the need for automobile turns to and from 28" Street. • Where practical, require driveways on developing or redeveloping parcels to be located at the edge of the property such that they can be shared with adjacent properties (either in the near term or when the adjacent parcel develops or redevelops). I 3.0 The Map Based Plan The Transportation Network Plan Map for the North 28th Street corridor (see Figure 2) illustrates the following existing and proposed transportation facilities: - roadways or automobile connections of one of the following types: primary roadways with sidewalks (local access roadway standard as a minimum) • secondary roadway (alley standard as a minimum) resulatory roadway connection (automobile connection but no formal right- - of-"ay) on-street bike lanes off-street bike / pedestrian pathways - grade separated path crossings transit routes - transit super stops (places where transit routes cross) - traffic signals mid-block pedestrian crossings Existing facilities are represented by solid lines and recommended future facilities are illustrated with dashed lines. The TNP area has been divided into 8 super blocks (see Figure 3) to allow a more detailed view of the recommended transportation connections. The super blocks are illustrated in Figures 4 - 11. which include written descriptions of the intended connections where appropriate. North 28`x' Street Transportation Network Plan Page 3 November 16, 2001 4.0 Policies Needed to Support the TNP This section includes the policies that support the implementation of the `NP. In some cases additional rational is provided for a topic after the policy statement to support its intent. 4.1 Connectivity to the City-wide Multi-Modal Transportation System Policy: The multi-modal transportation facilities illustrated on Figure 2 that connect from the TNP area to the surrounding transportation network should be prioritized, programmed and implemented by the City of Boulder as part of the Boulder Valley Transportation MasterPlan and CIP process. 4.2 Coordination of the TNP area improvements with the North 28' Street CEAP Policy: The development of the 28th Street Corridor improvements and the TNP area improvements shall be coordinated to facilitate safe and efficient multi- modal mobility within and around the area. ' 4.3 Flexibility of Connection Location Regarding Development or Redevelopment Policy: The multi-modal improvements illustrated on the NP map (Figure 2 and Figures 4 - 11) are intended to define the needed connectivity in that area. The alignments of these connections are specific to the area shown but are not intended to be precise. so long as the connection illustrated is created in a manner that facilitates efficient travel. The intent of the TNP is to maintain flexibility in the implementation of these connections so as to not hinder redevelopment potential of a parcel or parcels. The development or redevelopment proposals should illustrate that the intended connectivity is achieved. If the connection illustrated on the TNP map can not be made where shown, the alignment may be vaned as follows: development or redevelopment parcels that are 10 acres in size or less ' must achieve the connection within 50 feet on either side of the alignment illustrated on the TNP map. - development or redevelopment parcels that are more than 10 acres in size must achieve the connection within 100 feet on either side of the alignment illustrated on the TNP map. In the case of larger parcels or aggregations of parcels (15 acres or larger) such as the Diagonal Plaza area, it is the intent of the TNP to allow flexibility in the number and type of connections made across a site, so long as the proposed connectivity goals of the TNP are achieved. To reinforce this point, the TNP map on Figure 2 illustrates three different connectivity plans for the Diagonal Plaza North 28' Street Transportation Network Plan Page 4 November 16, 2001 t area which could be implemented without compromising the intent of the plan; subject to the Site Review Process. Changes in the proposed connections in development or redevelopment parcels that exceed the alignment limits described should be reviewed in the Plan Amendment Process as described in Section 6.6. 4.4 Coordination of Access to 28`h Street for Parcels with 28th Street Frontage I Policy: Coordination and sharing of driveways between adjacent parcels along 28" Street and consolidation of driveway access to 28" within a single parcel should be achieved as parcels redevelop along 28" Street. Driveways accessing 28" Street in a developing or redeveloping parcel should be located as close as possible to an edge of the property so as to be I shared with an adjacent property when the adjacent property develops or redevelops. If the adjacent property already has a driveway located at the common property line, a shared driveway should be created. A No more than one driveway should be provided onto any roadway frontage when a parcel develops or redevelops, except that two driveways could be ' considered to serve a parcel only if both of the two driveways are located on the edges of the parcel such that they serve (or can in the future serve) the adjacent parcels on either side as well. Consolidating driveway access onto 28" Street will enhance safety and operational efficiency in the 28ff' Street Corridor. Sharing drivewavs between adjacent parcels, coupled with the provision of secondary "back door " roadways at or near the rear ' property lines (as illustrated on Figures 2 and 4 - 11) can improve the access to a given parcel. Figure 12 illustrates this concept, comparing existing parcel access for a generic block of 28"' Street to an enhanced access pattern achieved through redevelopment and implementation of the TNP. 4.5 Right-Of-Way Dedication and Acquisition ' Policy: Necessary rights-of-way or easements for the transportation facility improvements identified on the TNP will be reserved. dedicated to, or acquired by the City as parcels apply for development or redevelopment as a condition of approval (except for the planned right-of-way expansion along 28" Street itself which is being addressed as part of the roadway reconstruction project addressed by the CEAP). The City of Boulder may North 28" Street Transportation Network Plan Page 5 November 16, 2001 need to acquire the necessary right-of-way or easement for projects to be constructed by the City. 4.6 Connecting Fronts of Buildings in the Commercial Areas Along 28`h Street Policy: Development or redevelopment of commercial properties along the 28`x' Street frontage should be designed to allow pedestrian travel between building fronts. Physical barriers such as walls, fences, hedges, berms, or significant grade changes between parcels will be discouraged in order to allow for pedestrian travel between buildings and thus avoid short vehicle trips between adjacent parking areas having to circulate on the arterial roadway system. If barriers can not be avoided, they shall have breaks where needed for pedestrian cross-access. At least one pedestrian link shall be provided to each abutting property (in addition to the public sidewalk) in areas where the building frontage is removed from the roadway right-of-way (such as where parking lots exist between the street and the building). These pedestrian connections between building fronts are illustrated conceptually on Figure 12. 4.7 Provision for Additional Connections When Residential Areas Redevelop Policy: The existing residential areas behind the commercial frontage on both sides of 28`x' Street are not anticipated to redevelop in the next 20 years. For this reason, few new roadway connections have been planned through existing residential areas. Most new connections through the residential areas are bicycle and pedestrian pathways, many of which already exist as informal trails or paths. If residential areas do redevelop in the next 20 years, it is possible that new roadway connections could be incorporated that will benefit the residents of the area. For this reason, fixture roadway connections through redeveloping residential areas are incorporated into the TNP as concepts but are not , specifically illustrated on the TNP map. The specific alignment and connectivity of these future roadway connections should be determined at the time of redevelopment to be consistent with the goals and objectives of this TNP, and spaced consistent with the grid of connections identified throughout the TvP area. 4.8 Coordination with the Boulder Valley Transportation MasterPlan Policy: The goals, objectives, and multi-modal connections identified in this TNP should be incorporated into future updates of the Transportation MasterPlan to facilitate their prioritization and implementation. North 28' Street Transportation Network Plan Page 6 November 16, 2001 4.9 Coordination with Boulder's Greenways Program Policy: Implementation of transportation connections in the tributary greenways within the TNP area (as illustrated on the TNP maps) should be aggressively pursued in concert with Boulder's Greenways MasterPlan and programmed into the City's CIP. 4.10 Consistency with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Policy: The transportation system anticipated by the TNP in the north 28`h Street Corridor is intended to be consistent with and facilitate the potential future 1 land uses in the area as envisioned in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). The TNP action items serve to implement BVCP transportation policies regarding multi-modal strategies and investments, accessibility, reduction of single occupancy auto trips, and transportation impacts. 4.11 Consistency with the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) Transportation Connection Plan Policy: The transportation system anticipated by the TNP in the north 28"' Street Corridor is intended to be consistent with and connect to the transportation connections at the north edge of the BVRC area as detailed in the BVRC Transportation Connection Plan. Multi-modal transportation facilities along and across Pearl Street should facilitate this connectivity. 4.12 Development or Redevelopment Compliance with Boulder's City-wide Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program Policy: The City of Boulder will develop a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM program) for implementation throughout the city. This TDM program will offer various transportation options to the single occupancy vehicle (SOV). It will give people the flexibility to find a transportation option that works for them - pan of the time or all of the time. The program will attempt to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips and the resulting congestion, pollution, increased parking and reduced open space. The city-wide TDM program, when finalized, will likely have application in the North 28`h Street TNP area and may be incorporated into the TNP. I North 28' Street Transportation Network Plan Page 7 November 16. 2001 5.0 TNP Design Parameters A 5.1 Minimum Cross-Sections for Roadways, Sidewalks, Multi-use Pathways, and Bicycle Lanes This section of the Plan defines minimum cross-sections for roadways, sidewalks, bikeways. and multi-use pathways on the TNP map. Collector and Arterial Roadwavs All collector, minor arterial, and principal arterial roadways within the TNP area (as defined on Boulder's Roadway Functional Classification Map in the Boulder Valley Transportation MasterPlan) are intended to have minimum City of Boulder cross- sections (including landscaping buffers and sidewalks) as defined in the City's Design and Construction Standards (DCS). Local Access Roadwavs The Map Based TNP includes three types of local access standards as follows: Primary Roadway - the major local access routes in the area - the minimum standard in nonresidential areas is the Base Street standard in the DCS - including sidewalks and landscaping - the minimum standard in residential areas is the Residential Street standard in the DCS - including sidewalks and landscaping. Secondary Roadways - typically connect the back side of properties which front on an arterial roadway - the minimum standard is the Alley standard in the DCS. Regulatory Roadway Connections - vehicular connections to and or through a parcel. that are required to be maintained as a condition of development approval. but no formal easement or right-of-way is required by the City. The property, owner may elect to provide a cross-section with elements in excess of these minimum requirements so long as the cross-section of a facility that connects between properties has consistency necessary for safe and efficient travel. ' Multi-use Pathwavs Off-street bike/pedestrian pathways illustrated on the TNP map shall have a minimum width of 10 feet and be paved in concrete. Pathways that are not within a roadway right-of-way should be placed in a pathway easement. On-Street Bicvcle Lanes Bike lanes shall be designed and installed consistent with the City's bike lane standards. North 28' Street Transportation Network Plan Page 8 November 16, 2001 6.0 Implementation of the Transportation Network Plan 6.1 Ordinances to Support TNP Implementation Implementation of the TNP will, in part, require the City to adopt necessary ordinances so that portions of the Plan may be implemented as development and redevelopment occurs. These ordinances will allow development to occur in a manner that is consistent with the connections illustrated on the TNP map. I 6.2 Development or Redevelopment Triggers for TNP Compliance The City should review and implement development and redevelopment thresholds to determine when compliance with the TNP will be required. Development or redevelopment thresholds that could be considered include: - building expansions (based on size of the expansion) a change of use - the addition of more dwelling units - any project that requires a Site Review 6.3 Near Term Projects by the City of Boulder t The future connections illustrated on the Plan in Figures 2 and 4 - 11 include a wide range of transportation system enhancements. Some of the connections may be implemented in the near term (1-3 years) by the City as pan of currently planned projects. Examples may include: connections to the Goose Creek Path project completed as part of the - t4oodwav project pathway" improvements in the Elmer's Two Mile Ditch corridor to be completed as part of the Greenways Program implementation - improvements in the 28" Street right-of-way as part of the 28'h Street 2001 Project CEAP implementation. Other projects, such as additional transit routes along Folsom. Glenwood, or Valmont. and transit super stops may be implemented overtime as part of Boulder's transit s}stem enhancement. 6.4 Longer Term Projects with Development or Redevelopment Some of the connections illustrated on Figures 2 and 4 - 11 can only be implemented with the development or redevelopment of one or more of the businesses parcels along the 28`h Street corridor. These connections are shown so that they will be included as part of a development or redevelopment proposal. 6.5 The North 28'" Street TNP Action Plan The Action Plan for the North 28`h Street TNP is a detailed listing of steps necessary to implement the TNP. The tasks are divided into groups as follows: North 28' Street Transportation Network Plan Page 9 November 16, 200 1 TNP Finalization and Adoption Network Component Implementation - City Initiative Network Component Implementation - Local Development Initiative TDM Component Implementation The Action Plan is included in this document as Attachment A. 6.6 TNP Amendment Process The North 28" Street Transportation Network Plan is intended to be specific enough and yet flexible enough to have application as is for the foreseeable future in this portion of Boulder. However, if the need arises, this section describes a two tiered approach to modify the TNP. Administrative Adjustments to the implementation of the TNP can be completed at the staff level after review and agreement by Planning, Transportation, and Development Review staffs as appropriate. For example, staff may authorize the administrative adjustment to the alignment of a connection illustrated on Figures 2 and 4 - 11 when the requested adjustment meets all of the following criteria: • the adjustment results in a lateral shift in alignment of less than 50 feet in properties that are 5 acres in size or less, or less than 100 feet in properties that are between 5 and 10 acres in size, or less than 150 feet in properties that are 10 acres or more in size • the adjustment has no adverse impacts on surrounding properties Another example of an administrative adjustment to the TNP is the periodic update of the TNP action Plan by Transportation staff. Plan Amendments represent modifications to the TNP document or modifications to the map based component of the plan that propose a change in connectivity that exceeds the alignment flexibility thresholds detailed above. Plan amendments require review and recommendation by the Transportation Advisory Board and a ' decision by the Planning Board, subject to City Council call-up. Figure 13 illustrates two possible plan amendment processes, depending on whether a Site Review Process is required. The approving authority will consider the following when reviewing a proposed Plan Amendment: • change of circumstance • physical hardship • practical hardship • equivalency North 28`x' Street Transportation Network Plan Page 10 November 16, 2001 " M AN M man 2W M M M M a IM M M M M M M TH` 81*111 iSTBEET TRANSPORTATION NETWORK PL N'OOMPO r - S a _ (dl{t : g si i t i is 11 TNP Implementation Plan Y Goals U$ E'( 4 Y~ r~ o Objectives 1~I1 i a4{ _ ' s s • POIICIeS ■ Programs a • Standards `I='. ■ Implementation Guidance i j ,1;3: - i pt;f ti ,lr§ WOW i North 28'" Street Corridor Transportati+hl Ier>~aand , 1~ IUlap ~3ased vol- LEAP Recommendations Management tlx#grm~ i ~r~, ~ifNtion 3 - i _Y' E ■ Cross-section ■ Typicall~rapphedtoll l r m a NOW rk Man ■ Multi-modal facilities development or re1~~a i Safety • City/-wlde pgracri btr,tlLY:€YS r i?' '4L~~ luf ►adal facilities _ • Landscape developrPtnt nrectiors • Public art ■ Potential`applioatro`;ite Access N. 28' Street 'NP .o - - {'^tiq(~S 1m.~.84"'i.i tv°v i .b3 § s ro ^avr s i i r i z ax. '!v 9 11'ittr;iahs, 13T5C( { P i E{Ii1 v5R a ~#i# i(:i IS l~ t I i a t ;L HU ~3 gy5 ~f a iyEi i t dG ' TNP Action Plan Steps to complete this package and 'lh _ 4 IN ir 1Y. , to move toward implementation 3 z• r _hH~iF fit? t~_t pia {E~it~16 tT~„;d!,Tra,-,.,3 1 tSif 9n(y „Ipjsanr~?Ea.it!k WOW Jl~ t 4{} tiI Ifil'L' 8'.`FU+ati I F# O (#F $ i`k~I+ - *'r t x t *P 1 Y- , ! itu d r } k t / _ i 5~ ~ ~ I Iy =~na a w'md -T►li~' sir dI# ~ I: i~ >t i a t i'§~ 4^+^i GLENWOO :«tS~ :tya ~t°-+ta i t t _ _ - II is ~„tlB ~lJl t F, r ~ i -vav ^ ~fr ~ I i `ail „ I ~ a 4 ,'fir e,y YON v~ ~ I{ 7 'a trss-"'-4 l ( ful i ~}lt `~tr~ I~ q i t t ~ ~tm' d F+ I y d was t qqII _ t ,_-r4-g3j# du t ~ n f ~tyl i tt u+ t7Lt t~}{1 #{i !2a`# t 4' I~IF 4°ii I4'b{j ~.+F _k J nik° :y~§ R ~ 7 pit ¢ tl3~~i « ~g i + yy Vic' 4 °I .h il. 'i~ b. #'a~i'i ,♦n dC; MlUi. ,y ( ;'ri i ( ~ ~li c~ x § S~ r } k;fi5~:^~ t yr. A4 P'41~. -EinSWm',~P- y' 'i i t =+h ""tt y C",'a' i. f trt° r. - 6tlME1 y t~ - s . a i( f .tea t ~ ts~ tw »r..~ i i ....fiGaapa y~t a dy i w'a'r%%_ i'ad'waYw.... I Oil ''4. i Cpl Pte, }t ii{ e E }lL.erv'fi 'tea-4{~ ~ tii_ i ~ } "`.:t~.or_y'~"'~'~•k; ~ i ~;~w,w I _ s~~,i.t:It~.~~~v rw. ; NORTH 28TH STREET TRANSPORTATION NETWORK PLAN ~ansPCan associarFS /~c conswuna enplrreere Scale 1"=700' Date 10/1/01 Drawn by RAC Job# 96111 Figure 2 12 t- ! 7 aP _ 4- I AI t t r e J 8 t fit""' S f t t ~ I 4 Y w»iTawwli ~~-?at ru iTM ~~r~r ~r € t,k7 uk^~ ~ y r z,.ara r ir.s ..+r-r r `1} c i° *s::G € - a( s 9 5 ~ Sy Y „(~C hi W~NPP 4 $ j - .ap y ~ ~ Ss r ~ r'v ' ;~~ii '„~`ra•°'.m' G,.k. } ~.L£lS+l61.E liT l; s ,y L r' ~ tl4t~ t:t a r -C x"+m rg' i. rG €'t- a "'?'caa I B a a T*w>}-,`~+,?„ I "it i fi c si .«-p. e A~ei kk ? S xA r t L e t S vex 4 ,.V" i J ..i } y~y.r+dh✓ +9 jll~ 'Ktii tt .a-~3'. sia4 "T s t 4'r r h r.Y., a iiia s+ r S t p stw a4t=^:,+ 4r I ~ O ~-.~t t~ a 'w''+.' 0 9 ~ I ~3 t e '°s5'.~6 4 t"e k:g ~-rk a t v"" ~ w+' A ,~--~~4r r tt t t x } Oar, r~,* fir,-.; t t Fi Est y a-z'1..'" i a~ 1,r'Cr+~ t , ?ate * r t r z r "v, -i' i 2t AM-€-.~.r t . ,a`ttl t s 1 (*~t ° v ate- -=`tH`t + '^'"c `t.'~ytn Zl .r r fi?i tp a +,_r ( a u .Ni s rr ,r'y .tit tt, t' 7-t- il- t'r S t - Y *„~!+vr€nw u"~" s t t i y S .w S~ i t t o P I S l 'tA It P y F Y s' k r e Ytr'a fit. a e-m-~'* kttttpo ">j dt s+ i a itt.-P t ~a ~ I a+ La `mot r -a mr - i tl: `t isPS r arFi ~ b ..y;zs' +'^„z. i-FS t tp-{ r~nCW&3;WtU? 'W600 -r~ 41 y i 'P ~,nr } r ~ 1. aP` t'il w~i NETWORK ?LAN t" s NORTH 28TH STREET TRANSPOR T ATlON SUPERBLOGK KEY 96th F-Gure 3 TAA(l5PLR/7 1011(0? Drawn by RAO Job # A55DC/r7rEin~~ Scale ?::=700' Date Conant~n3 F 13 t > 1{ ctu~ tug~uC~i, ~ '^rimrT}i4 "'I {ai' ~ 4. " :I t ~I i. a ~j is + _ I N " a -'R'v X£ ke~~v a_ a ~I a ~s T~ ' } a I{ i~i+~' ; i (i' ~ 4 Vi- - 7ilaA '-Rig t It. t51( i i • iL ~t ~ t 4 t ~ i 4 k~ ~ ({'k j~'"° III E I - iF I'.,{ ri II i ~~x{te`-7i I Ira ~ ~ } !}t ~ ~ ` i ~3 : I cI ~I} a ~ I r 1. (a~ i t [ n~~# JI ~ i~. n a}. "lip {t ~I Il hI ,,':-,&u mot- ~,t ~}jl ~~jitry}~f i x T. .j n+t m'a+ 11"t ".i i i T ~e rid 1• i se n ~ {I 'I { I Rt # { i k i t } ~ i~ { ( t ( } ~ Rte` iih li{t~ ik U II >#II' 'I ivt, _ii }i. •a»_ i{ ..,...,[al ,,,~~,,6 tllij',{ ITt ~,i,.t~ i, ~.,!Iy4G t9 iG NORTH 28TH STREET TRANSPORTATION NETWORK PLAN ~raansPCan SUPERBLOCK 1 DETAIL assonares/~~ eoneuMing engtneers Scale V" 200' Date 10/1/01 Drawn by RAC Job# 98111 Figure 4 14 i ~ + t ,H tp} ip} t- ((i al r t ~ ~ I ~ dy *lµ' (l ~ rI ~ e' -N 5i Its 7 t Y ~ X _s^- t~t t~A-Fy 9'p 3 'ik n; r *y tir .aat~:( i[ 1 fit( q~ WE tai ~ ~ r' #r ~ n *1t 71 I `fit 9~i l t(i`' tI ~ it t !~t f~= is t t l1 ~ ' J~tt I!fi;~ (;I7 Will i ii~>~w t s~°tt t 6,rx ltrt ~ l}}} ~ k'i k~I: ..s. tit r ~-aw t tt 23% I . a r ~ I 'llul{ i Ti t! i v ra 3' srrx I- v t; 9r 3 7. ij {-Pn fit dxl~- t,. ~G t > H( s +L y i t ~ MCI ttt tlti #i rig _ 'L; l t „gj t ~e a .r~fJ 9* ~Iil .i : Iixk~) ia]~ tip y(0e . B u X15 8 !F~ct iesaawrn. in a t 2l 3 }it ti i4 j7xk( ti} ttl ' '=i>'• ~1 I ~Et'3ilipiydaL},~9p+~'~yp0 t Igr r I'&Q ;pftC€' t k - r t fit i H ti r°'^ f k i,t,.G s (i t~a',e.- dI{ t tt r N t x t 'r ` I} t tntt a r }t a in MFG F I.l s I - t Its (IfG} t H ~t .r. s, Mr, t a.i^Y : lz..ti t~t t 4 I .d~1 g ~s w i w a, ~ y' I Oil ' NORTH 28TH STREET TRANSPORTATION NETWORK PLAN raansacPn SUPERBLOCK 2 DETAIL .9ssOc//7TES /nc ' Oonsfty Engtrteers Scale 1"=225' Date 10/1101 Drawn by RAC Job# 96111 Figure 5 J-5 t ~i2 4 dl 77 i t i i i k ii G { #4 tt ' 'IF u i 7 iIMMMU TI' _t d ' P ~I tN ~ t a rTI ci{t 4 II ie' 2 y~ tl u~ - - P M -t . i.i`.~va NORTH 28TH STREET TRANSPORTATION NETWORK PLAN raansPCAn SUPERBLOCK 3 DETAIL RSSOC/RTES, /nc co`reumnD E+ro~naers Scale 1=200' Date 1011!01 Drawn by RAC Job# 96111 Figure 6 16 a ~t R, s tt sP -!7 7i C~ .~3'~ + ;tti r _ t t`4' r,-.a , ,,f,~„` , re`s > is H"{ sP t firY,F {i + t 1 ta' 1 I # ~ r{ t i~ AI-ig x a t! l? +i ,ter{lt M t{t c`C : L t~ ~~t 3 f: 1Yi {t-.(. ' { ,i i ~ s r, take ' s a ~ 1 iIt , y{ AMIN -gi MM! Y q : t F fl L EI ~ I 'I+t , , , I 1, _ TL i~J~:i~ fiL i m r I AIIeyconA z a,' a4 , {l4ry" {r ~IH I Ii E be formahzWjn tea F i I,{I ,h ii ,w nearterm w.-hT at l p t ; 'iii ' dlsruption r { + a , busine552S { ra I q r L ' + „ ''i }ry ;WY- K,;q „gyp ak~+ Ii~it{kEWi4E"i°"r5'~.r~" 1 ANNE iKi a f~ : i - fa 1 i 41I,d i t{ :tn'",ia-„~f v~v pC{il t NORTH 28TH STREET TRANSPORTATION NETWORK PLAN Ansac 7n SUPERBLOCK 4 DETAIL /~7s50OATC~ Lac ' Cm Wfinq enptr m scale 1"=200' Date 1011,101 Drawn by RAC Job# 98111 Figure 7 17 k' f 1iIIh.. _ II s 4 . 4( t h Olt!! .i i. .i s4 k:. kt yh:yg itt # { RIR' mot, M _ i k<i~ I i S ~ ~ttu `~~j}'v-~{~ P m!u @~' p r ~,=I. ~ - i i?•i:~~;,i,}:Iis,~L6~Ii~ I: { # P ti I a e i i i~~ k't 4. ~~s§; i ~ti~`°.=' i.=:~. ,n•+a~{}y I~I~t 41d I 6 I'Ms r I~NC-n4{ t u1t i III#a k:* t 91 WN" ME- a htr. 1 i NORTH 28TH STREET TRANSPORTATION NETWORK PLAN ~an 'L R/ 7 s'75 SUPERBLOCK 5 DETAIL RSSOC/F7TE, 117C oa~t+ru~e PnWrreers Scale 1 "=200' Date 1011101 Drawn by RAC Job # 96111 Figure 8 18 f 1 A, ~ p t q~qf p~ pppp ~I YY r` a _ y i~,hf+ a 4-- r-ce,,i ilAf s* d rf fi F> a {4t,' 4 at ! 1 J " ta#" 5 - h (Iifs I4 "fill t ^ '+.>-m+~. { it tN" -.i a 6 {1 {aG II t€{'t:. ~LpC4y t{ ~ ~ } ~ ~ ►1 ~ i ~yY, ka u„a~i +~a(a i ay Ell m 4 1 1 AIMPMMMA w _^C k t a.-++raY -7 ~rr'{a ~u` a' - r x m {atr, i' ( r liiil+ i 1 1 { fi 'Ei tilili, 'HIM: ii E Eat 1: 51E iii (fi vim. t a+- ` I " -,St3p}`il { I n rs,i 7t ilg (i a II ~t a t ~y+ ( II ((~L {f y I ~ it to ; Ni, i i i' ~ hs I i a i 2nh { v-: d 6 ^ fit- m :tc~' 1 '-s+ Ii It -§-'t~ ~a E P C ° to } PIN ;El aI { a x t. rkI ou" fifif t IHi- f ( a to it f k gii if, f: Ell Gn it ..r ri 'rr: --nay;, Mill t, z'; i~3m"ii 1e ~~ippL fit t ^f 4p i ~ !I i E ''i{~i51 13 ( rc;,""t r }t ^ El tiAi ..ter { c a F t I { ' mll, aI ia~4' { 1 i 7( pia (t I pi ME' .;r~ P {,i :I IL rH t i a I{j~I t1 k{, ka t14 aia) ~i{ ~ r it tea i1L .~`4` n+1a) t i' f Rr ,i II th{a 1 { i.i~ti tk { f P } aIt it r 4 [ k ,mot are~i ~r i . al ' NORTH 28TH STREET TRANSPORTATION NETWORK PLAN rR9175PG917 SUPERBLOCK 6 DETAIL .95500RTE5, /nC ' CansufngEngli m Scale 1"=200' Date 1011101 Drawn by RAC Job# 96111 Figure 9 19 { ;N +k ' I :m r : a : t{ rv~+ 7 ~t 1 ''h M7 ~P k m' ~f=tti: it'A riff tl'~ k 4 15" Niy't~- I i Iiiu { ~ ,'`fit t i ~y ti + f I~iY~P~~n ~s in.. r•* i{i ~ i~Y it 1t:~ + ~{xt C y t~ i ~ bbfrbfr i.r_ 8 _ tY Y i II h P~ tk ~u+ t {c'w ~ ' i ~I'tFq ' P I~ NORTH 28TH STREET TRANSPORTATION NETWORK PLAN ~ansac1917 SUPERBLOCK 7 DETAIL H550C/RTES, /nc CongU(pn& En9irteem Scale 1'=210' Date 10/1/10 Drawn by RAC Job # 96111 Figure 10 ' 20 1 I 6R t{.,~ i ~ ~ Est ~u (t { i ~ ~ I ~ FFr. hit f`,r } r;+}'tt r~'i u rt tte 4""~firvi t ~I t~, III y;. -a t #~~n tTMt r ~ t ~ vt ~i j#{u#~ ~ ; I6~r tt .I : i v~?m4 ~ tam a,rk.t TI! I 1 t I: c ~1 I I "t ~ } ~IIII `CIF"} uI ~ I 1[I" T .~#t4 i~ ie ".t t Ivl~yw i r8' ! Hit{j :4t Ril a~ i,: 't-`t* I i.: i i >~«r t t . ~ vP^.- t .d tt tI+ av t' up q-, t ti z '6 , 1 1 iA n 3P`" Ian "a [ ~~u'I~ I a° v -"a(~ . 41 ~ I p;aF .>c6. ~ tt t -'.~:.{"^d+ I lcr^ : l ~ i t i xa♦ 3 { : -H~~ I {It F.~~ y A r~- ii phi t 0 i g.. i r} 'Fd#iJ a'i tt t u ti7 t u al : ~a . 7 II'. - 13, dl dt °`x j'"'44('ut (fit~p;) a h~- NORTH 28TH STREET TRANSPORTATION NETWORK PLAN rlRTES Inc SUPERBLOCK 8 DETAIL f1550C/fITES, /n C--tilling Engineers Scale 1 "=200' Dafe 10!1/01 Drawn by RAC Job # 86111 Figure 11 21 N -JL--J~ 1 g W ' @ co yg N CPJ S 31 a rl1 LU to LU W o ° ~ ro E LLI m 4 F ¢at N Q I co O 2 F Lb s c D llJ s l - s a - - - w _ LL (Du 3 0 -L - N N I Pn - - V Z O U z L z ~ I 0 O J x U-I - 0- 1 ' V f t,") IL NORTH 28TH STREET TRANSPORTATION NETWORK PLAN 0055' a, EXISTING 1 PROPOSED PROPERTY ACCESS PATTERN 9550C/HTE5, /nC Consulting Engineers Scale 1`=200' Date 5/31/01 Drawnby RAC Job# 96111 Figure 12 ' 22 1 North 2$T" Street Transportation 'Net'w d PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS'! , • lip`+r Ali mdments #o the North 281" Street TNP may be considered when time: regml does not meet the criteria for an Administrative Adjustmorti I4' UU, REQUESTED TIVP AMENDMENT i f R, if . Arnendment with or without Site Review Pr+ I :U mn - - - ~I G Presentation to Transportation Advisory Board tr ~ ~{f * TAB - recommendation to Planning Board dii iff ~Ijig =i kIi ' Presentation to Planning Board as part of Site Revieweitth+,,r i 1 l finning Board Decision , I € ■ City Council pp IIIiI t I lei -~.at,LLLLL Il iif 23 November 16. 2001 Attachment A ' NORTH 28TH STREET TRANSPORTATION NETWORK PLAN ' ACTION PLAN STEPS FOR FINALIZATION, ADOPTION, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK PLAN (TNP) ' TNP Finalization and Adoption , Project Team review of TNP document Project Team June 5, 2001 Task Force review of TNP document TNP Task Force Task Force Meeting 44 ' June t2. 2001 Review NP format with 28' Street Design Committee Design Committee Design Committee Meeting ' Project Team June 13. 2001 TAB review of TNP document TAB T.AB Mee,in_z Julv 9. 2001 Staff ' Planning Board review of TNP document Planning Board Planning Board Meeting Staff Aueust 2. 2001 Complete 21d round of Staff reviews of TNP documents Transportation August - October 2001 ' Development Review Planning Attornevs Project Team ' DRC Update TNP document based on comments from Project Team November. 2001 Task Force. Design Committee. TAB. Planning Board and Staff Develop Ordinances to support TNP implementation if Attorneys September - November, 2001 ' needed Planning Development Review Transportation Complete the North 28d Street LEAP - Finalize Project Team Summer. Fa11 2001, Winter 2001-2 recommendations and documentation. including Design Committee transportation, landscape, and public an improvements in the 28" Street R.O.W. ' Complete 28" Street Corridor Public Art MasterPlan Project Team Fall, Winter 2001. Spring 2002 Local Artists MasterPlan consultant , Citv Council review and adoption of TNP City Council Approval anticipated - December 4. 2001 Incorporate TNP recommendations into the city-wide Transportation As part of Transportation MasterPlan ' Transportation MasterPlan Update update 2001/2002 Page I of 3 ~i 1 November 16. 2001 Network Component Implementation - City Initiative ' Complete pedestrian improvements along 28" Street from Transportation Completed Valmont to Iris Install traffic Siena] at 28" / Glenwood Transportation Completed ' Install traffic Signal at Pearl; 26" Transportation Completed Construct enhanced at-grade pedestrian crossing on 2e Transportation Fall/Winter. 2001/2002 south of Iris to connect the Diagonal Plaza and the new Safeway site, and to link bus stops Construct raised pedestrian crossing and enhanced right Transportation Fall/Winter, 2001/2002 ' turn lane at the northeast comer of ;-V Valmont Complete shoo term pedestrian improvements within the Transportation Fall/Winter 2001/2002 28'" Street R.O.W. between Valmont and Pearl ' Complete undergrounding of overhead utilities along 28`" Public Service Co. Pending resolution of PSCo issues Street - Complete pedestrian ! bike connemon to Goose Creek path - Transportation Fall.Mmer. 2001/2002 in the 29" Street alignment between Mapleton and Bluff Otilities Identirn needed pedestrian and bic}cle facilities to access Transportation SummerTall. 2001 the multi-modal canter (rail access) on Pearl Street Identif} distinct projects within the TNP area that will be Transportation Fall/Winter 2001/2002 implemented by the City regardless of site specific ' development or redevelopment. Prioritize City transportation projects within the TNP area Transportation Spring 2002 and prepare cost estimates Incorporate prioritized projects into the ongoing city-wide Transportation Spring 2002. and ongoing budget and C1P process Coordinate transportation project implementation with the Transportation On-going implementation of Greenways projects within the NP area Greenways (example, path and underpass improvements in the Elmers 2-mile ditch corridor) ' Implement the recommendations of me North 2e Street Transportation As Federal funds become available, begin CE.AP with 28°; Iris improvements in 2003. and additional Federal funding in 2004 - 0007 Implement transit route additions (Orbit etc.) that will serve Transportation the North 28" Street and NP area RTD Coordinate transit stop improvements and possible Transportation In concert with redevelopment of the relocation adjacent to the Safeway site (possibly to include RTD Kmart i Safeway site enhanced mid-block pedestrian crossing of 28" Street between transit stops) ' Page 2 of 3 November 16, 2001 Network Component ' Implementation - Local ' Development Initiative All applications for development or redevelopment Development Review On-going, with development / ' reviewed for compliance with the TNP Transportation redevelopment Standard review meeting for each application between Development Review On-going, with development/ Development Review and Transportation Staff Transportation redevelopment , identification of possible City projects to support, enhance. Transportation On-going. with development i or make viable the developer initiated TNP improvement Development Review redevelopment TDM Component Implementation ' TDM Program Development -complete city-wide TDM Planning. Transportation On-going ' program Identify potential for TDM Program implementation in Planning. Transportation Pending completion of City-wide TDM , the North 28" Street TNP area with a focus on new program and development applications development or redevelopment projects 1 1 Page 3 of 3 ' ' Attachment B ' Development and Review of the North 28' Street Transportation Network Plan TNP Development and Approval Process ' Coordination with the North 28" Street Corridor CEAP and Design Committee ' The development of the TNP was linked closely with the North 28" Street Corridor Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) for the North 28" Street corridor. In fact. the TNP Task Force included a number of members of the 281" Street 2001 ' Design Committee (DC). The work of the TNP Task Force and the evolving map based plan was shared with the Design Committee at all of the DC meetings, and the members who served on both the Design Committee and the Task Force were able to report directly to the Design Committee. The TNP also received input at the public open houses held for the Forth 28" Street planning process. ' The evolving TNP focused on a broad area that encompassed the N. 28`" Street corridor and served as a helpful context for refining the design of the 28t' Street corridor itself. The TNP aided the Design Committee when locating pedestrian crossings, addressing access issues, evaluating safety concerns, defining future transit access issues, etc. Similarly, the work of the Design Committee in the 28`"Street right-of-way helped shape and refine the TNP which includes the 28" Street as its primary, north-south spine. The TNP Task Force ' The TNP Task Force was created at the beginning of the TNP development process, and was modeled after the successful work of the Transit Task Force that helped shape the transit component of the southern segment of 28" Street. Design Committee members were asked at an early meeting for the North 28" Street project if they would be willing to serve on the Task Force. Members of the staff and consulting team were asked to participate as ' appropriate. The Task Force of business owners, property owners, residents, Boulder Bicycle Commuters representative, consultants and staff totaled over 20 members. The Task Force met a total of 4 times during the development of the plan ' Staff Review The TNP has undergone a series of staff reviews including Development Review (staff and DRC review). Transportation. Planning and Legai staffs with a focus on developing a plan that can be implemented. ' Approval Process with TAB, Planning Board and City Council ' The approval process for the TNP included formal review by the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). Planning Board, and City Council (scheduled for December 4, 2001). Staff also provided the TAB, Planning Board, and BliRA Board with a number of informational i North 28' Street Transportation Network Plan ' November 16.200[ updates at regularly scheduled meetings during the TNP development process. Staff also t presented the draft TNP to the Boulder Chamber of Commerce on August 23, 2001. On July 9, 2001, the TAB unanimously voted to approve a motion recommending ' to the City Council the adoption of the North 28" Street TNP, subject to five minor modifications that have since been incorporated into this draft. ' On August 2,200 1, the Planning Board also unanimously voted to approve a motion recommending to the City Council the adoption of the North 28" Street TNP, subject ' to the inclusion of appropriate criteria and procedures to amend the plan if necessary. Amendment criteria and procedures have since been developed and included in this current draft. ' The Transportation Network Plan was adopted by City Council on .North 28th Street Transportation Network Plan , November 16, 2001 Appendix E: 28`h Street Corridor Arts & Aesthetics Plan • List of Arts Task Force Members • Opportunities for Arts and Aesthetics Map ' • Arts and Aesthetics Task Force Meeting Summaries June 14, 2001 July 19, 2001 August 29, 2001 September 5, 2001 CEAP for Improvements to 21' street November 20, 2001 ' from Pearl Street to Iris Avenue 28th Arts & Aesthetics Task Force Tema". 28th Street - South Segment 1 Name Affiliation Jim Bail CU Lynn Dettloff Winding Trail ' Erika Doss CU Art Dept. To her Downham Disability Task Force Donna Gartenmann Arts Commission Liasion Gary Horton 28th St. User John Hu ler Osprey Group Ann Moss Arts Commissioner Alison Richards 28th Street User Sher Richards . Area Business person Chris Ricciardiello Carter & Burgess ' Karen Ripley City of Boulder Public Libra Andrea Robbins City of Boulder Richard Rost RTD Patricia Taylor 28th St. User Malia Thompson & Daniel Spencer Artists Ste han Westhusin Ci of Boulder Transportation Div. 1 Bob Whitson Ci of Boulder Transportation Div. Diane Yates Carter & Burgess i 1 1 r28# ~ ~ - 28th Street Arts & Aesthetics Master Plan . , Fall 2001 ' OVERVIEW: The Arts and Aesthetics Master Plan will provide a framework for the selection and design of art for safety and multi-modal improvements planned for 28 h Street. The Arts and Aesthetics ' Master Plan document will serve to guide city staff and the Boulder community in the design and selection of public art for the right-of-ways on 281h Street. Community involvement is the master plan will include a citizen-based Task Force to help guide the details and choice for the plan and community review of the plan at an Open House and presentation to the Arts Commission. The Task Force includes original members from the 28'h Street Design Committee, City of Boulder Transportation staff, City Consultant's Carter & Burgess, Inc., an Arts Commission member and ' a group of artists interested in public art. The Task Force will assist staff in developing the framework to guide the design and select the art for 28`h Street. 1 WHERE: 28'h Street multi-modal improvement project begins at Baseline Road and ends at Iris Street. WHEN: August 2001 to December 2001 PROCESS: The process will be divided into various tasks: 1. Identify opportunities for arts and aesthetics Carter & Burgess will bring together current visual resources and the future street and multi- modal improvements in order to identify the potential locations for art and aesthetic treatments. These study maps will be presented to the Arts Task Force for review. 2. Visioning Workshop with Arts and Aesthetics Task Force This will be a half-day workshop for the Task Force and city staff to develop the vision, goals and key principles of the Arts and Aesthetics Master Plan. 1 3. Prepare draft of Arts and Aesthetics Master Plan The vision, goals and concepts generated at the Visioning Workshop will be used to prepare the first draft of the Master Plan. This Master Plan will include the goals and visions, the overall theme of 281h Street, alternatives for art and aesthetic treatments, artist solicitation and selection process, implementation process and the Master Plan map. 4. Present draft Arts and Aesthetics Master Plan to Task Force At the final meeting of the Task Force, concepts and maps, and guidelines and procedures for the Master Plan will be presented to the members of the Task Force. The Task Force will respond to the decisions made from the Visioning Workshop and add ideas and methods to the implementation plan. 5. Community Open House ' This open house will provide the opportunity for the Boulder Community to learn about the proposed Master Plan and talk with Task Force members, city staff and their consultants ' about the plan. 6. Finalize Arts Master Plan , The Master Plan will be finalized based on the comments received from the city staff, the Task Force and the Boulder Community at the Open House. 7. Boulder Arts Commission Meeting The final Master Plan will be presented to the Arts Commission for review and approval. PRODUCT: The final product will be an Arts and Aesthetics Master Plan document designed to guide the selection and implementation of public art and aesthetic treatments as part of future 28th Street , transit and street improvements. PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: , Donna Gartenmann, Arts Commission 303-441-4113 J.\}andscape Arch\070379Wns Master Planknana96Mmttngs\9-5-01 Visioning Workshop\9-5-01 RAMP fact shm.doc 28th S T R E E T 28th Street Corridor Arts and Aesthetics Master Plan y Corridor Planning - Study c 9 Folsom a y' o o • c o c • + 0. 0 7.C D% OL -6 3: Universityct Colorado a p , a a • s 0 Y • at Boulder (CU) i a 4 < 4c a a o Crossroads Mall ;ta Q - e ti1,2 i co G 0 30th St:. South Segment Middle Segment North Segment Status: Final Design f-~ Planning may begin Currently in Scheduled for 2002-2003 in 2002 Final Planning Phase $877,000 Budgeted Budget to be determined For Arts and Aesthetics Construction Anticipated in 2004.2006 Gateway Bridge or Underpass Transit Stops or Mid-Block Study Area Pedestrian Crossings Large landscape areas provide space -Artwork could be visible from 28th Artwork could be integral to passenger waiting -Art could be experienced as a sequence of for large works of art. Street as well as from under the amenities or as free-standing elements. events while traveling on 28th Street -US 361 Baseline interchange- bridge or underpass entrances. -Artwork should be visible from a distance and -Art could be made visible to motorists, artwork could be visible from US 36 enjoyed from close viewing by transit users pedestrians and/or bicyclists. overpass, Baseline Rd. or sidewalks. Artwork could be integral to street elements Not to Stale Artwork could be free-standing or such as sidewalks, walls, pedestian signs, /idlift integral to overpass, retaining walls, lighting or landscaping, etc. landform or street elements. -Artwork could be free -standing in larger kilff) -Iris / 28th Street - art would be visible public spaces or plazas from the intersection. Artwork could N be free-standing or integral to street or bus stop elements. Opportunities for Arts and Aesthetics August 2001 1 1 DRAFT 28th Street South Segment Arts Task Force Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 ATTENDEES Committee Members: Topher Downham, Lynn Dettloff, Alison Richards, Sherry ' Richards, Pat Taylor; City of Boulder: Stephany Westhusin, Bob Whitson, Andrea Robbins; Boulder Arts Commission: Donna Gartenmann; CU. James Bailey, Erika Doss; Artists: Malia Thompson, David J. Spencer; Boulder Public Library: Karen Ripley; Carter & Burgess: Christine Dianni, Chris Ricciardiello AGENDA 1 i. Introductions and welcome 2. Agenda review 3. The Task Force 4. Project Update 5. Public Art Slide Presentation 6. Identify potential public art sites at the College underpass 1 7. Budget 8. Review Call for Entries Draft 9. Extent of the Invitation io. Field Trip to College underpass site THE TASK FORCE 1 i. Composition of the Task Force - The committee comprises what staff believes is a good cross-section of citizens, people knowledgeable about art, people who use the area and a representative of the significant adjacent land use - CU. In the next month, other interested people are invited to join the committee. Note that people on this south segment Art/Landscape Task Force are not eligible to submit work for consideration to be built in the south segment. 2. The purpose of the Task Force is to work with the 28th Street Project Team on the following: A. Landscape Design for 28th Street South Segment - 25% of what the Task Force will be reviewing B. Art Opportunities Plan - 75% of Task A 1 • Determine site-specific criteria for artists to follow • Write a call for entries 1 • Determine distribution of call for entries • Select artists who will provide work 1 PROJECT UPDATE • The next meeting should be soon, due to the immediacy of the upcoming reviews by RTD and CU Board of Regents. Because the construction documents are to be completed by the end of July, contractors and artists will be expected to work ' together onsite, as needed, to complete the best product possible. • The west side of the College underpass is scheduled to be constructed in approximately r year. PUBLIC ART SLIDE PRESENTATION • Erika Doss presented a range of American public art that could inform 28th Street's public art process. Generally, she stated that successful projects were those that included an extensive public process, regardless of the resulting design. She encouraged variety. • Some successful pieces are purely individual conceptions of the artists, some incorporated creations by citizens. The best ones offer education, intrigue, respite, or interaction for the public. The most likely public pieces to be maintained are those that benefit the public in these ways or that are incorporated into the function of the public space. In other words ...the public likes them. ' IDENTIFY POTENTIAL PUBLIC ART SITES AT THE COLLEGE UNDERPASS , • A blank palette of the east side underpass with only the most basic functions was presented. ' • The committee will be determining where exactly the opportunities exist, and how calls for entry will define these opportunities. BUDGET ' • The budget for the arts for the east side of College underpass is $50,000 to $60,000. , CALL FOR ENTRIES DRAFT' • Criteria will be determined for the artists submitting proposals. , • Resource available to the artists include consultants and Transportation Division staff. EXTENT OF THE INVITATION i • We may want to have the call for entries be only Colorado artists due to limited funds. NEXT MEETING: Thursday, July i9, 2ooi at 7:30am ' J:LLands pe Arch\o7o379\South Segment FftW Design\manage\mtgs\A1ts Task Force\6-1401 meeting summaryhm ' 1 1 DRAFT Meeting Summary l~ 28th Street South Segment Arts Task Force Committee Meeting #2 July 19, 2001 ATTENDEES Committee Members: Topher Downham, Alison Richards, Sherry Richards, Pat Taylor; ' City of Boulder: Stephany Westhusin, Bob Whitson, Andrea Robbins; BoulderArts Commission: Donna Gartermann; CU: JimBaily; Artists: Malia Thompson, Daniel J. Spencer, Cha Cha, Jessica Adams, Anne Shutan, David Norrie; Boulder Public Library: Karen Ripley; Carter & Burgess: Diane Yates, Chris Ricciardiello AGENDA ' i. Introductions and welcome 2. Agenda review 3. Identify potential public art sites at the College underpass 4. Review Call for Entries Draft 5. Extent of Invitation 6. Landscape Review ' 7. Set date of next meeting IDENTIFY POTENTIAL PUBLIC ART SITES AT THE COLLEGE UNDERPASS ■ Chris Ricciardiello presented two perspectives of the east entrance to the college underpass, with areas highlighted to describe opportunities for art or aesthetic treatments (see attachment). The underpass entrance has changed to improve the access across the entrance plaza. Stairs were replaced with sloped plaza; grades vary between o and 5%. Art opportunities include lighting, seating, vertical surfaces such as walls or `way finding' elements, plantings, plaza pavement and pedestrian railing. ■ Bob Whitson and Diane Yates described the use and function of the Colorado/281h Street intersection as an entry to the CU main campus. The intersection also functions as a transit `super stop' providing connections between local and regional bus routes. They emphasized the need to provide visible connections and guiding elements between the 5 different places where buses will stop. One of the criteria for art would be to coordinate with the west transit stop and the character of CU's main campus. • Malia Thompson suggested introducing shade and enhancing the sight lines from the underpass. ■ Jim Baily - concerned about graffiti, consider including art and/or rough stone to discourage graffiti. Jim likes the vertical elements and railing as art, would like to know more about the vehicle barrier. Jim is concerned about bicyclists moving fast ' in and out of the underpass. Something is needed to slow down bicyclists and enhance sight lines between cars and peds and bikes. 1 • Alison Richards - create an identifiable image for the transit stops, design elements ' that will encourage use by bicyclists, add pavement to indicate where bikes can pass through. , • Jessica Adams - the east side transit stop should be integral to all of the intersection, is concerned abut the plan for art along the length of 28th Street. ' • Karen Ripley - identify art possibilities and allow the artist to chose how to incorporate art. She asked if the funds for functional elements can be made available ' for art. ■ Pat Taylor - supports Jessica's comment on preparing the art design for the full , Colorado and 28th Street intersection, suggests incorporating symbols to help identify areas. ■ Sherry Richards - try to have continuity along the corridor. She thought the Task Force would function as the body that will help develop guidelines for art. Bob and Donna confirmed that thought. ■ Topher Downham - be clear about the functions of art, to specify the ADA requirements and is pleased with the 4 to 5% grades achieved at the east underpass entrance. ■ David Norrie - art can fit into any of these products and can be functional. ■ Daniel Spencer - incorporate design into all elements, develop standards for the full 28th Street corridor, allow for artists of all levels and experience to participate. ' REVIEW CALL FOR ENTRIES DRAFT • Describe the functional elements that art can be added with the additional budget ' available to enhance them. • Bob Whitson introduced the idea of hiring one artist to coordinate all art in the 1 corridor. All thought an art coordinator is not needed for this first project. • Sherry Richards asked what is the realistic budget for art and the east side College Ave underpass - $40,000. • Jim Baily - incorporating art into numerous elements may spread the pot too thin. • The artist should have the flexibility to influence the other functional design , elements. • Alison Richards - call should say the artist's themes might be used in other areas of 281h Street for continuity. • Possible Art Selection Criteria: ➢ Reflect character of CU main campus and west side transit stop ➢ Be visible from 281h Street and frontage road , ➢ Balance between form and function ➢ Guide the flow of circulation between spaces , 2 ➢ Have the option of being functional or non-functional. • Jessica Adams asked if the 28th Street corridor master plan includes a budget for showcase art pieces. • Call for Entries should state that out of state artist will provide their own travel expenses. • The master plan budget is open to grant application and RTD funds. • The Task Force will help with the Arts and Aesthetics Master Plan. ' EXTENT OF INVITATION Extend the invitation to Native American artists, sister cities and Boulder historical society. LANDSCAPE REVIEW Jim Baily comments on the location of deciduous trees on the slopes and evergreens next to Boulder Creek DATE OF NEXT MEETING Wednesday, August 29, 2001 at 7:3o am at the Municipal Building Lobby JA-Landscape Arch\o7o379\south segment Final Design\manage\mtgs\Arts Task Force\7-t9-oi meeting sumn=y.doc i 1 3 ' Draft Meeting Summary 28th Street South Segment Arts and Aesthetics Task Force Committee Meeting #3 August 29, 2001; 7:3o am to 9:oo am, Boulder Municipal Bldg. sr.y AGENDA ' 1. Introductions and welcome - John Huyler's role as meeting facilitator - Agenda review 2. Review and approve draft Operating Agreements for Task Force 3. Update on Artist Informational Meeting and site visit 4. Next Steps - Preview materials for Arts and Aesthetics Master Plan workshop scheduled for September 5, 2001 5. Critique of meeting 1. Introductions and Welcome: Erika Doss, Topher Downham, Lynn Detloff, Jane Dalrymple Hollo, Alison Richards, Sherry Richards, Pat Taylor, Daniel J. Spencer, Malia Thompson Boulder Arts Commission: Anne Moss - commissioner, Donna Gartenmann - city staff University of Colorado - Boulder campus planner: Jim Baily Boulder Public Library: Karen Ripley City of Boulder Transportation Division: Stephany Westhusin, Bob Whitson, Andrea Robbins Carter & Burgess: Diane Yates, Chris Ricciardiello Osprey Group John Huyler Visitors: David Norrie, Tim Duffy John Huyler's role as meeting facilitator: John introduced himself as the meeting facilitator for the Arts and Aesthetics Master Plan meetings. It will be John's role to help run the meetings in a focused and efficient way and to make sure everyone has a voice in the discussions. Agenda review: John reviewed the items on today's meeting agenda and asked if there were additional items to discuss. 2. Review and approve draft task Force Operating Agreements: John reviewed the Task Force Operating Agreements in depth and explained the two- fold mission for the Arts and Aesthetics Task Force: to select artists for 28th Street; and to help develop the 28th Street Arts and Aesthetics Master Plan. Bob explained that the artist selection process will be lengthy because 28th Street will be reconstructed over the next 5 or more years. There was no opposition to the proposed Operation Agreements. All members said they would like to be involved in both the master plan and artist selection process and do not want to break up the Task Force into sub-committees. r 1 3. Update on Artist Informational Meeting and site visit Donna Gartenmann reported on the information meeting held last Monday, August 27 ' in the Boulder Public Library auditorium. Only 9 artists attended this mandatory meeting and site visit, out of the 130 Call for Entries mailed to artists in Colorado and posted on the Colorado Arts Council News. September 17 is the deadline to submit ' slides of prior work and resumes for consideration for this project. This Task Force will select the finalists to request submittal of their ideas for art at the east entrance to the College Avenue underpass. If the Task Force deems there are no suitable entries, the ' process may be re-advertised. Donna received calls from a few artists saying they could not attend this meeting but were interested in submitting an entry. For example, one artist is a professor at CU and August 27 was the first day of her class. Donna recommended dropping the mandatory requirement for the meeting to allow more participation in the selection process. ' Comments from the Task Force members were in support of Donna's recommendation. Concerns were expressed that the request for only slides and a resume would preclude artists without public art experience from entering their work and ideas. One member suggested holding a seminar and creating a brochure on the 28th Street art project to educate artists on Boulder's public art process. A few members asked for the first response to include a description of their artwork idea in the Boulder context. Action Items a Donna to revise application form to add a request for the artist's general statement of art ideas in the Boulder context. 0 An advertisement for the project `call for Entries' will be placed in the Daily Camera. • Donna to send application form to all that attended the 8/27 meeting and the artists that called but could not attend. 4. Next Steps - Arts and Aesthetics Master Plan The first Arts and Aesthetics Master Plan (AAMP) meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, Sept 5, from 6:oo to 9:oo PM. Carter & Burgess handed out a packet of information to the Task Force in preparation for this evening workshop. Diane Yates explained the purpose of this first meeting - should there be a theme for art on 28th Street, and if so what should it be? She explained the process and schedule for the next three months to develop the AAMP. The items included in this packet are listed below. One member asked why other corridors do not have art master plans. Bob and Donna explained that 28th Street is Boulder's first Arts and Aesthetics Master Planning process and it was planned in response to comments and requests from the citizens advisory 28th Street Design Committee. Art was made to be a part of the plan to make 28th Street more appealing to pedestrians and transform 28th Street into a multi-modal corridor. Task Force members contributed ideas to consider for next Wednesday's workshop. ' One member asked what is the city's bird or plant. Another member asked Carter & 2 ' Burgess to retrieve some of the images and information presented at an early 28th Street Design Committee meeting. 5. Critique of meeting Task Force members liked to sit at tables, rather than in a circle, they liked the chairs ' and the invitation and would like to consider a different room for future meetings. Members would like to have meeting summaries, invitations and agendas delivered by email, but large graphic files would be delivered by `snail mail.' HANDOUTS • Draft Task Force Operating Agreements • Artist Selection Process and Schedule for 28th Street So. Segment Phase i • Information Packet for Arts and Aesthetics Master Plan Workshop: - Letter to Task Force ' - Arts and Aesthetics Master Plan Fact Sheet - Master Plan Process and Schedule - Illustrative Plan and Sketches of improvements planned or proposed for 281h Street South and North Segments, plus a map of existing conditions for the Middle Segment DATE OF NEXT MEETING • Arts and Aesthetics Master Plan - Visioning Workshop Wednesday, September 5, 2001 6:oo to 9:00 PM at the West Senior Center, corner of Arapahoe and 9th Street r ' J:\_Iandscape Amh\070379\South Segment Final Design\manage\mtgs\Arts Task Force\8-29-or meeting summary.doc 3 DRAFT Meeting Summary 28th Street Corridor Arts and Aesthetics Master Plan Visioning Workshop September 5, 2001; 6:oo pm to 9:oo pm, West Senior Center C H.a t Meeting Purpose: ➢ To introduce the Arts and Aesthetics Master Planning process ' ➢ To generate ideas and Visions for 28th Street's public art. Workshop agenda: 1. Opening Remarks and Introductions 2. Presentation Goals for tonight's workshop - Explanation of Master Plan process ' 3. Developing the Vision for 28h Street's Art Small Group Brainstorming - Presentations from small groups - Ideas recorded on Snow Cards 4. Next Steps 5. Critique of meeting i. Opening Remarks and Introductions As meeting facilitator, John Huyler explained the evening would begin with an orientation from Diane Yates on the 28th Street projects, then we would break into smaller groups for the majority of the meeting to discuss the Arts and Aesthetics. Master Plan. Following the small group discussions, the Task Force and visitors would reconvene and discuss each group's ideas. The group would set future meeting dates and critique tonight's meeting before adjourning. 2. Presentation - Master Plan Process and Goals City staff explained that this is the first time the city of Boulder's Transportation Division has attempted to develop a master plan for public art as part of a transportation improvement project. The Project Team said `we are breaking new ground and are open to the Task Force's ideas to make this plan successful.' Diane Yates gave a brief overview of the steps proposed for the master plan process. They include: 1. Compiling information on 28th Street's existing conditions, cultural resources and planned improvements to share with the Task Force (August - Sept). II. Meet with the Task Force to develop ideas, goals, themes and/or visions for public art (Sept 5). III. Develop ways to implement the plan through an Action Plan for Public Art (Sept - Nov). IV. Present Master Plan concepts to the Task Force and the Boulder community through an Open House in November, and the Boulder Arts Commission in December. Maps and photos displayed on the wall duplicated most of the information distributed to the Task Force at the Sept 29 meeting (see list of handouts and presentation graphics). The Arts and Aesthetics Task Force consists of representatives from the Boulder arts community and 28'' Street users and business/property owners. The master planning process should also reach out to all Boulder citizens for input and ideas. Carter & Burgess asked for suggestions on 28" Street Arts and Aesthetics Master Plan page 1 Visioning Workshop - Sept S, 2001 how to involve the Boulder community in developing the master plan. The Task Force gave the following suggestions: ➢ Create an on-line forum to review the draft plan and collect comments. ➢ Announce meetings in the paper. ➢ Educate the public about the process through newspaper articles and other publications, as the master plan is in-process. ➢ Make the open house `an event' or `festival'. Combine master plan exhibits with other Boulder arts activities and display. 3. Developing the Vision for 28th Street's Art , The Project Team provided some fundamental questions to get the group thinking about what the vision should be for 28th Street: ' ➢ What could 28th Street become? What is its message? How can art give 28th Street a sense of place? ➢ 28th Street provides regional access as well as local access. 28th Street is an entry to Boulder. Visitors to Boulder entering on 28th St. have no orientation to the CU Campus, downtown and the Pearl Street mall and other Boulder landmarks. How can art direct them, or provide a more beautiful entrance to Boulder? ➢ Staff described an analogy described by the CU Design Review Board. We first need to establish a distinct "symphony" for 28th Street, then decide if it clashes or compliments the "symphonies" of CU and Boulder. Small Group Brainstorming The following ideas were presented by the three small discussion groups: Ideas common to more than one group: ➢ Let a sense of place, resources and quality of life be a keystone in thinking about art on 281h Street. ➢ Dislike the word "theme" (alternatives mentioned were: image/goal) ' ➢ Don't want to see just one theme for the entire length of 28th St. ➢ Bring the water "up", recognize the significant waterways under 28th St. ➢ Provide an educational element for local school children to visit. ➢ Bring the community onto 28th St. ➢ Aesthetics could be incorporated into functional elements (examples included: railings and street signage) ➢ Individual art pieces shouldn't clash with each other ➢ Artwork should be represented at various scales to provide art for the various speeds at which its users will view the art (art for people at pedestrian speeds vs. art for people at vehicular speeds) Group l: led by Chris Ricciardiello & Bob Whitson. Task Force members and visitors included Jessica Adams, Alison Richards, Daniel Spencer, and Pat Taylor. ➢ Places along the corridor can be community gathering places. Apply the sense of community found at farmers' market to the design of bus stops or other potential community gathering spaces ➢ Proposals setup some boundaries, or jumping off points to get the artists going ➢ Provide layers of artwork (artworks of varying significance and scale) 2e Street Arts and Aesthetics Master Plan page 2 Visioning Workshop - Sept 5, 2001 ➢ Make use of what's there (i.e. areas where people already congregate, like "the Beach") ➢ Use native and indigenous materials to provide a sense of timelessness rather than materials that will become dated ➢ Allow some artwork to have landmark quality ' ➢ Work can be cycled in and out at varying intervals ➢ Artwork can be very effective when integrated into functional elements of the street ➢ Educational pieces for all groups can add appeal Group 2: led by Diane Yates & Stephany Westhusin. Task Force members and visitors included Lynn Dettloff, Sherry Richards, Chris Brown, and Jane Dalrymple-Hollo. ➢ Let water be our approach for the corridor art. Betsy Damon's project was presented 1 as an example of a useful approach to water issues. ➢ Make 28th Street set the precedent for streets all across the U.S. - set a national standard for streets ➢ Provide for and/or combine gardens and bus-stops where people can sit and congregate ➢ Use art to "frame" view corridors (i.e. a sculptural piece, rather than it being the main focus, could accentuate a view) ➢ Use boulders as a medium for sculpting ➢ Make 281h St. like Pearl Street was when it was first built ➢ Create artwork(s) which receive national recognition ➢ Recognize the importance of the prairie butting up against Boulder (perhaps use prairie grasses in the design) ➢ Surprise, intrigue and delight 28th St. users ➢ Provide a background packet within the proposal for artists (topics included could be: history, culture, natural character) ➢ Incorporate the history of 28th St. using aerials imposed onto tiles Group :i: led by Christine Dianni & Donna Gartenmann. Task Force members and visitors included Karen Ripley, Sherry Richards, Ann Moss, and David Norrie. ➢ Incorporate revolving / changeable art ➢ Leave the proposal very open for the artists...artistic freedom ➢ Just do it / keep process moving ➢ Artists could collaborate either in groups chosen by the artists themselves, or by the selection committee. This could encourage and push artists further. ➢ What are the evaluation criteria? ➢ Soften the parking areas along 28th Street's edge ➢ Solicit the advice of a marketing professional to get public feedback and advertise to the public. ➢ Possibly leave out the word "art" to attract multiple users, not just other artists Group Comments on all Ideas recorded on Snow Cards ➢ Create intrigue and surprise (hidden things) ➢ Educational aesthetics ➢ Artistic freedom ➢ Natural materials - good! ➢ Rotating is good ➢ Who maintains rotating art? ➢ Trust the process ➢ Frames around natural features are exciting 28' Street Arts and Aesthetics Master Plm: page 3 Visioning Workshop - Sept 5.200! i ➢ Provide history and define real constraints ➢ Create a mission statement (a goal) - good ➢ Guidance - not prescription ➢ Create continuing opportunities ➢ A different experience out of car ➢ Let the people lead ' ➢ Collaboration pushes artists' abilities ➢ Potential for selection committee to unite artists in collaboration ➢ Vagueness is nerve-racking for artists ➢ Less freedom, more guidance 4. Next Steps Carter & Burgess and city staff will develop a draft Arts and Aesthetics Master Plan to be reviewed by the Task Force Dates of Future Meetings , • Arts and Aesthetics Artist Selection Meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2001 7:30 to 9:0o am in the first floor meeting room of the Boulder Public Library • Arts and Aesthetics Master Plan Thursday, October 18, 2001 6:oo to 9:oo pm at the West Senior Center, corner of Arapahoe and 9a' Street 5. Critique of meeting Task Force members liked meeting in small groups and then getting together in a larger group to review their discussions. Members appreciated the energy that was in the room while planning. The background information was helpful to prepare for the meeting. Members thought the room was too cold and that hot tea and coffee should be provided. Attendance: Lynn Detioff, Alison Richards, Sherry Richards, Pat Taylor, Daniel J. Spencer, Malia Thompson. Boulder Public Library: Karen Ripley. City of Boulder Transportation Division: Stephany Westhusin, Bob Whitson. Boulder Arts Commission: Anne Moss - commissioner, Donna Gartenmann - city staff. Carter & Burgess: Diane Yates, Chris Ricciardiello, Christine Dianni, Betsy Roggenburk. Osprey Group (facilitator): John Huyler. Visitors: David Norrie, Jane Dalrymple-Hollo, Jessica Adams, Chris Brown. Attachments: Keepers of the Waters printout of Living Water Garden by Betsy Damon (handed out by Jane Dalrymple-Hollo) IIDFN~Fa1VOIJI✓OBSLLandsmpeArchla70"W M=s Pk.l..geVkdi~P19-5-at Yssi-imi MAOW195-03--W-9--m-o^i.doc r 2e SireetArts and Aesthetics Master Plan page 4 Visioning Workshop - Sept 5, 2001