Loading...
5 - Transportation Master Plan Update - Phase 1 CITY OF BOULDER TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: February 11, 2002 SUBJECT: Staff briefing and TAB input on the Transportation Master Plan Update - Phase 1: Plan Assessment and Policy Focus Direction REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Public Works Department Tracy Winfree, Acting Director of Public Works for Transportation Mike Gardner-Sweeney, Transportation Operations and Planning Coordinator Randall Rutsch, Transportation Planner BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion and reaction to the proposed assessment materials PURPOSE: Since the fall of 2001, staff has been working on the assessment phase of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Update, identified as Policy Direction and Scope on the project timeline. Working with the TMP Study Committee, the attached materials have been prepared to provide a high level assessment of progress under the existing plan and to identify the policy focus and work areas for the following phases of the Update. This item and the staff presentation will provide a detailed briefing of the assessment work to date to the TAB, in anticipation of asking the Board to make a recommendation to City Council on the results of this phase at your March meeting. BACKGROUND: On June 16, 2001, City Council approved a public process outline and TMP management structure reflecting the TAB's recommendations for the TMP Update. This process includes four-phases of work and the inclusion of a number of "Transportation in Boulder" outreach/education sessions with the public. A brief description of these phases follows: AGENDA ITEM 4 V Page 1 • Phase 1: Policy Direction and Scope Initiates public discussion of the TMP update by educating the committees and the public on the assessment of progress made under the existing TMP. This phase asks the questions "what is working" and "what do we need to go to work on?". The results of this discussion will be TAB and Council public hearings, and decisions to confirm, refine or change the broad policy direction of the TMP and define the work program for the Update. The scope of work and time line will also be refined to reflect the results of this phase. • Phase 2: Policy Refinement Identifies a limited number of new policy areas and areas in which adjustments are needed to take the TMP to the next step in developing a transportation system that supports the broad policy direction. This phase will consist of a series of focused discussions by the TMP Study Committee supported by white papers providing background and policy options for consideration. • Phase 3: Plan Development Develops the plan to the level of an investment program that is fiscally constrained and optimizes progress supporting the policy directions of the plan. This phase includes the transportation modeling needed to test the results of the policies and investments proposed. • Phase 4: Plan Adoption Prepares and presents an integrated plan through the intensive public outreach process needed to support adoption of the update. Based on the TAB recommendation, a series of "Transportation in Boulder" education/outreach sessions were held in the fall 2001 to educate Study Committee members and the public and provide background for the assessment work. In addition, the TMP, Study Committee has met three times between November and February. In these meetings the Study Committee: reviewed and discuss what they learned from the "Transportation in Boulder" sessions and the Transportation Annual Report of Progress; were presented an updated Transportation Report Card updating the fall 1999 study session to City Council; identified areas from these materials that confirmed or conflicted with their previous understandings of transportation in Boulder;identified additional information needs for the assessment process; reviewed and commented on the draft assessment materials included in this agenda item. DESCRIPTION OF THE ATTACHED MATERIALS: Three separate items have been developed to represent the high level assessment of how we are doing and what we need to go to work on. These item are attached to this memo and are: • Achievement of 1996 TMP Policies, Goals and Objectives (How Are We Doing?) - This is a one-page summary of the progress made on the key policies, goals and objectives in the 1996 Plan Update. On the front page a check mark evaluation is provided for each line, which is then supported by a brief statement on the opposite side. These statements are intended to be a bridge between the summary matrix and the material contained in the Transportation Annual Report and the Transportation Report AGENDA ITEM 9 V Page 2 Card. • Study Committee Information Needs by Policy Focus Area (What You Asked For and Where It Fits) - This chart shows how the information needs identified by the SC members correlate with the policy themes. These specific questions will be addressed the in the remaining phases of the Plan Update under the identified Policy Focus areas. • Macro-Level Assessment (What Should We Work On?) - This matrix answers the question of what do we plan to work on in this Plan Update? The first column presents observations on what has changed in Boulder and draws upon Study Committee's work at their second meeting. The second column presents conclusions related to those observations. The third column highlights areas of emphasis for this plan update. Five policy focus areas were identified as resulting from this work: funding, multi-modal corridors, regional travel, and TDM for the TMP Update, and the Jobs to Population Project. NEXT STEPS: A public forum on these materials is scheduled for Monday, February 25'n. Following the forum, at the March 11, 2002, TAB meeting, staff will bring the Board comments received on the proposed assessment through the forum and the public outreach. The Board will be asked at that time to make a recommendation to City Council on the assessment and proposed BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: The TAB is asked to discuss and provide their thoughts and reaction to the proposed assessment materials. Attachments: A- Achievement of 1996 TMP Policies, Goals and Objectives (How Are We Doing?) B- Study Committee Information Needs by Policy Area (What You Asked For and Where It Fits) C- Macro-Level Assessment (What Should We Work On?) AGENDA ITEM # V Page 3 Boulder Transportation Plan Update Macro-Level Assessment (What Should We Work On?) January 31, 2002 What Has/Has Not Happened Since TMP Policy Focus The 1996 TMP Update? What Should the TMP Update Jobs/ What Can We Conclude? Address? Population Mufti Modal Regional Project What Have We Heard/Observed? Funding TDM Corridors Travel Budget Deficit: The cost of the 1996 plan was Without the funding needed to implement the TMP, Provide an investment program that is fiscally estimated at $1.1 billion with only $700 million in funds mode shift and congestion objectives of the TMP can constrained as well as unconstrained. Explore what v available, resulting in a plan deficit of $400 million. not be achieved. additional funding sources and alternatives to sales tax A are available. Saes Ta : Sales tax makes up over half of the Paying for transportation facilities in a way totally Refresh TMP costs and revenues. Investigate and anticipated TMP revenues. Boulder sales tax revenue separated from their use will become increasingly propose new funding mechanisms that move toward a v A is impacted by increasing retail competition and the problematic and does not provide accurate price signals user-fee based funding system. economy from year to year. to auto users, > > Competition for Funds: The current federal funding Securing outside funding will continue to become more Develop additional funding capacity at the local level. allocation system makes jurisdictions compete with difficult and protective." a each other for a "limited pie" rather that collaborating X towards a common vision (see Regional Planning below). Federal and State Fund : Federal and State funds There Is no Federal or State bailout, but we can be Develop an investment prioritization process that are currently constrained. strategic in leveraging funds. leverages Boulders limited funds. Develooment Impacts: New developments pay fees Cumulative project transportation impacts will grow with The TMP should address new developments to off-set project impacts. These fees do not fully fund additional new developments under the current code. responsibility. Update the development fee structure y the project's total transportation impact. and rates and explore TDM requirements to limit X development impacts. Measuring Progress: Significant improvements have Implementation of TMP modal elements has been Examine the TMP with a systems approach, as to how been made in completing the pedestrian and bicycle great, but the plan has not achieved the projected the pieces fit to make the total. system, expanding high frequency transit service, and results partially because it has not used a maintaining our street system. While progress has > comprehensive enough systems approach. > > been made toward the TMP goals, intersections are X X X X X more congested, VMT has increased and Boulder has not fully achieved targeted reductions in SOV use. , What Has/Has Not Happened Since The 1996 TMP Update? TMP Policy Focus What Should the TMP Update Jobs/ What Can We Conclude? Address? Population What Have We Heard/Observed? Funding Multi Modal Regional TDM Project Corridors Travel RTD: Boulder's transit service is provided by RTD. Regional and local transit connections are key to our Operational improvements are needed to keep the The City has been successful in getting RTD to > success. Community Transit Network functioning at a high level implement new service, such as the Skip Jump, LEAP of service. and BOUND. Quality and character of service has not > X X X X X met the City's expectations. Continued Boulder staff commitment and concerted Continue to invest and expand the community transit effort is needed to achieve quality local and regional network and community pass participation with RTD and transit routes and operations expectations. neighboring communities. Employment Growth: Current employment is about The most significant growth in travel will occur in trips The TMP update must consider changes since the 1996 10,000 higher than estimated in the 1996 plan. The from outside the Boulder Valley and this segment of TMP, project future travel demands and address y 2020 employment is now expected to be 30,000 greater travel is the biggest challenge to achieving the regional travel. X X X than the 2020 plan predicted. objectives of the TMP Mixed Use: The city is encouraging the increase of > Growth in population and employment have exceeded > The TMP will need to mitigate traffic impacts from > mixed use development. levels anticipated by the 1996 Plan and requires additional jobs. X X reexamination in the TMP update. Housin : Housing demand and housing prices have A significant number future employees will likely travel The TMP should reflect anticipated city efforts to y significantly increased in Boulder. longer distances to find affordable housing. rovide additional affordable housing and mixed use X X Affordable Housing: The City is implementing it's The transportation impacts of affordable housing and Explore the trip making characteristics of mixed use and policy of providing more "affordable" housing > mixed use development is uncertain. > affordable housing and what they can contribute toward > X X X balancing jobs and population. Demoaraphics: Currently the TMP is demographically If we do not understand the existing and future Project the demographic makeup of Boulder residents blind (e.g., it doesn't consider aging or changing demographics of Boulder and those that travel into and employees that travel into Boulder. X X X employment characteristics of the population and Boulder, it is not possible to anticipate their workforce). > transportation needs and develop an effective TDM > > , program to serve future travel needs. Understand the relationship of housing costs and Boulder job incomes. Assess various jobs/housing scenarios. Geo ra ics: There are widely varying differences in Different areas in town have different transportation Determine what ingredients are necessary to promote y land use, urban design and fabric, visual interests and needs and opportunities and will be able to support and implement an effective TDM program. X X X amenities within the City. different levels of TDM effectiveness. > > Understand the importance of education, aesthetics, > urban design and quality of experience in the X X X transportation mode selection process. Enforcement: The city's current development approval Transportation Demand Management as implemented Assess the development review process and identify process lacks procedures to assure implementation and so far is long on wishful thinking and short on what follow up TDM monitoring should be required. compliance with TDM measures. management. X X X Implementation of TDM: Requiring TDM mitigation for > We cannot accomplish TDM goals by just focusing on > Identify ways to jump to the next level of citywide and > new developments has only a small effect on overall the marginal growth that results from new development. regional TDM programs to offset traffic growth. X X X X travel and its impacts. Boulder Transportation Plan Update Study Committee Information Needs by Policy Area (What You Asked For and Where It Fits) January 21, 2002 R TMP Policy Focus* Jobs/ Population Travel Regional TDM Project Vote Study Committee Needs Funding Corridors s Multi Modal 9 Flexibility of city-wide EcoPass x x x X X 8 Why do people not use alternative modes of transportation? X x X X 8 Demographic information and projections of the City - internal aging x x X of the population and need for services. 7 Role of the Count : leadership, funding (current and potential). X X 7 What can we do in the way of land use changes? X v 7 Demographic information on external regional travelers (job, income, x x x X distance, home location, renter/owner). Funding: Need both more information and more detail: What do if 6 shortfalls (scenarios)? Explain barriers to new non-City funding. Look X to examples in other states and countries. What's cheaper? Reprioritize. 4 What are the articular travel characteristics of extemal/intemal trips? X X 4 Impact/data on school travel (K-12). X 4 Noise data - from traffic. X x 3 Explore citizen motivations to use alternative modes. X X 3 Land use/build-out for eastern areas 'ob increase X 2 What pricing options could be used to influence mode choice? How do land use changes east of Boulder County influence 2 ,transportation in Boulder? X X 2 What is the next EcoPass promotion effort? X 2 Taxes - increase? Sales Tax? X 2 What is highest potential use of transit? X x 4h z What regional/Boulder County information is available similar to 2 Boulder Count Metrics? X x X x x 2 What employers have higher/lower Boulder resident employees (need x X distribution)? 2 How does teleworking lay in the Boulder TMP update? X X X 2 What is political climate on user fees and marketplace strategies and X head taxes? 2 Expected infrastructure improvements in City, at edge, regional 5-year X x x x plan. 2 CU travel behavior information - where do students live? X x 1 Crossroads: What to expect from the 800-pound Gorilla? X 1 Affordable Housing: What's coming on line? New funding x X mechanisms? What's the potential and what would be its impact? 1 Potential for Living Wage Ordinance X 1 What are the current parking ratio requirements? Are they x X x appropriate? 1 Expected federal/state revenues. X x 1 City policies concerning population and employment. X 1 How other cities handle/control parking. X X X 1 At what traffic level should you separate bikes and pedestrians. X Land-use/transportation: What's potential and what's needed (beyond x x x 1 "jobs/population balance")? X 1 EPA restrictions/local restrictions on diesel due to health impacts. 1 How culture change to safe and courteous travel? What benefit and x x X cost? X Primary Area of Focus X Secondary Area of Focus What Has/Has Not Happened Since The 1996 TMP Update? TMP Policy Focus What Should the TMP Update Jobs/ What Can We Conclude? Address? Population What Have We Heard/Observed? Funding Multi Modal Regional TDM Project Corridors Travels . Parking Policy: The City has not implemented We can't accomplish TDM goals by only managing Develop maximum parking standards and parking maximum parking requirements or parking pricing as demand through incentive strategies. Disincentive pricing. X X X identified in the TMP. strategies are also required. Land Use/Urban Design: Transit/Pedestrian Oriented Minimum conditions are necessary for an effective Develop clear guidelines on the key characteristics Design standards and guidelines have not been TDM program, including the importance of the bicycle needed for achieving an effective TDM program. developed or implemented. > system, pedestrian system, transit system, parking > > X X X X availability and cost, and housing locations and demand Regional Planning: There is no CDOT or RTD funded Boulder can't win this alone. Boulder needs regional Accelerate and advance regional partnership coalitions tans in lace to implement regional solutions, and community partners (i.e. CU Boulder and regional multi-modal connections. especially rail along US 36 and improvements to X X X X Arapahoe and the Diagonal. Plans such as Fastracks are being developed but are not funded. > > > Regional Growth: Regional growth has accelerated Boulder has become more of an employment center The TMP should reflect a regional strategy to develop and is adding travel into and out of Boulder and and is not an island unaffected by regional trends. coalitions to support funding for regional improvements. X X increasin con estion. Needed Resources: Significant resources and All multimodal corridors will require significant Review and confirm the Prioritization Project's investment will be required to implement the 28th investment. prioritization of corridors and improvements. X X X Street corridor plan and Transportation Network Plan. > > Inventory the identified multimodal corridors and > prepare a character and evaluation matrix of all corridors with proposed improvements that will support X X X the corridor improvements through development and redevelopment activities. * Legend X Primary Area of Focus X Secondary Area of Focus Policies Level of Achievement Little to None Moderate Major 1. Pedestrian Policies a. Review and development of revised sidewalk standards. ✓ b. Retrofit pedestrian facilities to ADA standards. ✓ c. Identify a short list of high priority missing finks and create a funding program . ✓ d. Improve pedestrian access to public transit. ✓ e. Ado warrants for pedestrian crossing treatments ✓ II. Bicycle Policies ✓ a. Develop a continuous bicycle system. b. Complete the corridor network ✓ c. Work with Boulder Count and DRCOG. ✓ d. Work with RTD, Boulder Count for bike lockers at transit centers ✓ e. Work with RTD to ensure bikes on buses. ✓ a. Incre ' tallim rove and increase NftWnsit. ✓ MM b. Secure funding for the HOP ✓ c. De uenc seni PA; d. Increase transit service in the US 36 corridor. ✓ e. ss r ra M m;`~ , ✓ IV. Demand Management Policies a. Implement parking strategies and pricing. b. Implement land use design standards. ✓ V. Roadway Infrastructure Policies a } sK ✓ a. Prioritize maintenance and TSM improvements. b. Maintain acceptable LOS to no more than 20% of Roadways. ✓ c. Prioritize roadway improvements to system preservation and travel safety, ✓ alternative mode functional efficiency, quality of life and functional capacity d. Prioritize functional efficiency and capacity on designated bike and transit ✓ routes. VI. 2020 Goals a. Develop an integrated, multimodal transportation system which emphasizes ✓ the role of the pedestrian mode as the primary mode of travel. b. A transportation system supportive of community goals. ✓ c. Provide sufficient, timely, and equitable financing mechanisms for ✓ transportation. d. Encourage public participation and regional coordination in transportation ✓ planning e. Establish a transportation system supportive of desired land use patterns ✓ and functional, attractive urban design. VII. 2020 Objectives a. No growth in long-term vehicle traffic ✓ b. Reduction in single occupant vehicle travel to 25% of trips ✓ c. Continuous reduction in mobile source emissions of air pollutants ✓ d. No more than 20% of roadways contested (LOS F ✓ Achievement of 1996 TMP Policies, Goals and Objectives (How Are We Doing?) Comments January 31, 2002 1. Pedestrian Policies I a Sidewalk standards have not been revised since the 1996 TMP I b The city has increased funding of the sidewalk program, resulting in an increase in the repair and retrofit of sidewalks with access ramps. Seven out of 29 sidewalk areas have been completed and over 3,400 access ramps installed. 1 c The city has conducted two public outreach efforts to identify and prioritize missing links and increased funding in this area. I d The sidewalk repair program has been focused on the high frequency trasit corrdiors and significant pedestrian access improvements were done prior to the JUMP/LEAP/BOUND implementation. However, this effort has not addressed all transit routes. le The city has experimented with a variety of pedestrian crossing treatments and established warrants for their use. Over 20 mid block crossings have been installed. II. a Policies II a The city has a significant bicycle system composed of 210 miles of facilities that is one of the best in the country. A number of difficult connections are in the current CIP and should be constructed in the near future. 11 b The city has an extensive bicycle system and has completed 72 of 340 bicycle projects identified in the TMP. However major gaps remain in the system, articular) in the BURA area. The city has been successful in securing bicycle project funding from DRCOG and has worked cooperatively with the County to 11 c develop bicycle facilities between the city and Gunbarrel, supported the County s transportation ballot proposal which will fund bike facilities on many regional corridors and supported the bike facility along US 36. However bicycle corridors between the city and surrounding communities are not yet complete or fully funded. II d More than 50 bicycle lockers have been added to transit centers in Boulder and the city is working with RTD to develop a bikestation at the downtown center. However, a waiting list remains for existing bike lockers. 11 a Bike racks are provided on all RTD buses in Boulder following a demonstration project initiated b the city. 111E Transit Policies The 1996 TMP called for increasing transit hours of service from XX to XXX by 2020. The city has successfully funded five high III a frequency services that have added XXX hours of service, putting us ahead of the proportional amount needed to meet the TM P service hours. III b The city has negotiated an agreement with RTD where RTD is paying for half of the HOP funding for a demonstration period, with the expectation that continued positive performance by the HOP will result in RTD continuing to fully fund the service. Ill C Five high frequency transit services are currently operating in Boulder, with two additional services in the final planning stages to start service this year. High frequency service will exist in at least portions of six of the ten muttimodal corridors identified in the TMP. III d Additional service has been added in the corridor by RTD as demand has grown. The city actively participated in developing the corridor consensus on long-term improvements in the corridor through the US 36 MIS process. Ill a The Eco Pass programs have continued to expand, with a total of 60,000 passes existing in the community. The student value pass has been tremendous) successful, with over 2,500 passes sold this school year. IV. Demand M ement Policies IV a These actions have not occurred, although the city is working on developing a general transportation allowance program for its downtown employees. IV b Policies supporting land use design standards supportive of all modes have been included in the Boulder Valley Coomprehensive Plan Update, but these have not been implemented in the code or the development review process. V. Roadway Infrastructure Policies The city has significantly increased funding for maintenance and operational improvements of the existing road system. Starting in V a 1997, $500,000 annually has been added to the road overlay budget and the city has made significant progress in moving toward life cycle maintenance practices. SOV mode share has decreased 3 % since 1990, while drive times along four major corridors have decreased or increased less than V b 2 % annually. However, the study of Levels of Service (LOS) at signalized intersections shows that 21 % have some movements that operate at LOS F in the P.M. peak hour. V c The city's transportation budget has been restructures since 1997 to reflect these priorities. Most recently as part of the Prioritization project, Council directed that $1 million annual be re-directed to alternative mode capacity. The Prioritization project resulted in transportation spending being directed to a prioritized list of the identified mulitmodal corridors V d with the intent that investments be made in all modes through these corridor improvements. 28th Street is the first priority corridor and planning is complete and construction underway on the south section, and planning is largely done on the north section. V e However recent progress has been made because of adoption of the North 28th Street Transportation Network Plan and the drafting of an Arts and Aesthetics Plan for the 28th Street Corridor which is currently in the final approval stages. VI. 2020 Goals While the city has constructed numerous projects adding capacity to the non automotive modes, many corridors have not been VI a developed in an integrated way. The community is increasing its understanding of all the factors needed to maximize the success of a muttimodal corridor and is including this understanding in it planning and construction projects such as 28th Street. V1 b The 1996 TMP firmly placed the transportation system under the umbrella of and in service of broader community goals and values. However, additional work is needed in the areas of TDM, land use and transportation connections, regional travel and finance. VI c The funding deficit identified in the 1996 TMP remains largely unaddressed as a major challenge to achieving the goals and objectives of the plan. The city has become more actively engaged in regional transportation planning with a focus on the US 36, Arapahoe and Diagonal VI d corridors. Improved notification techniques have increased public participation in the planning process, however, many citizens still do not have a clear understanding of city transportation policy direction and how this relates to individual projects. While the city is increasingly examining issues related to land use and transportation, these planning efforts are still somewhat V! a separated in that integrated transportation and land use plans do not exist for the identified multimodal corridors and policy changes have not been reflected in city codes and developmen review procedures. VII. 2020 4b ectives The city has been relatively successful in controlling the growth of vehicle traffic with the core of the city, but traffic into and out of the VII a city has increased significantly. The travel behavior changes of Boulder residents can no longer overcome the increased vehicle traffic entering and leaving the city. However, overall VMT in the Boulder Valley has increased at a much smaller rate than VMT for the region. VII b The SOV mode share dropped from 44% in 1990 to 41 % in 1994 and was 42% in 2000. While not maintaining the mode share shift needed to achieve the TMP objective, some mode shift gains have been maintained in the face of increased travel into the city. VII C The pollutant of historic concern, C02, has shown continuous reduction, largely as the result of technological improvements and through the control of increases in VMT. SOV mode share has decreased 3 % since 1990, while drive times along four major corridors have decreased or increased less than VII d 2 % annually. However, the study of Levels of Service (LOS) at signalized intersections shows that 21 % have some movements that operate at LOS F in the P.M. peak hour.