5 - Recommendation on the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) Traffic Connections Plan (TCP)
CITY OF BOULDER
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING DATE: July 8, 2002
SUBJECT:
Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on the Boulder Valley
Regional Center Transportation Connections Plan (BVRC TCP
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Public Works Department
Tracy Winfree, Director of Public Works for Transportation
Michael Gardner-Sweeney, Transportation Planning and Operations Coordinator
Bob Whitson, Transportation Planner
Ste hanWesthusin, Transportation Project Management Coordinator
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Consideration of a recommendation to City Council on the Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan VRC TCP).
FISCAL IMPACT:
Some of the Plan's recommended improvements will be implemented by developers as
properties redevelop while other improvements will be constructed by the city using city funds.
The BVRC TCP does not include cost estimates for any of the recommended improvements.
Rather, it is intended as a planning tool to be used to refine future updates to the Transportation
Master Plan, and to help planning and fiscal impacts identification for the Transportation Capital
Improvement Program.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this agenda item is to allow TAB to:
• Review the BVRC TCP,
• Hear a presentation from staff on the BVRC TCP's content and the process in which it
was developed,
• Hear public comment on the BVRC TCP, and
• Provide comments on the BVRC TCP
BACKGROUND:
The Boulder Valley Regional Center Transportation Connections Plan (BVRC TCP) is a map-
based multi-modal transportation plan that defines the desired future transportation system in the
BVRC and surrounding area. The study area includes the Future Boulder Transit Village site
northeast of 30`h and Pearl streets.
The BVRC TCP document is centered on a detailed map-based network plan and includes goals,
objectives, policies, design parameters, and implementation guidelines, including an Action Plan.
Draft - Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan 1
The detailed Action Plan attached to the BVRC TCP defines specific steps for implementation
and will be updated periodically by Transportation and BURA staff. This approach to planning
the future transportation system needs in the BVRC area is modeled after the North 28`h Street
Transportation Network Plan, approved by City Council on December 11, 2001. The BVRC TCP
incorporates recommended improvements made in the recent version of the BVRC
Transportation Connections Plan, dated December 1998.
DESCRIPTION OF COMPONENTS OF THE PLAN:
A COMPREHENSIVE MAP is included as Figure 1 for the entire area. It is supported by Figure 2
which provides a key to the superblock division and delineates the BVRC boundary. Figures 3
through 14 show a more detailed view of each "superblock" within the area. These maps detail the
existing and proposed transportation network facilities for the BVRC TCP area for all modes of
travel. Transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and roadway connections are all illustrated, as is the need for
future connections to the Future Boulder Transit Village. The map and/or the associated text in the
TCP document specify the intended flexibility when making the recommended connections.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES of the BVRC TCP are geared toward implementation and detail the
ultimate target of the Plan as well as the capital improvements, policies, regulation changes,
development review guidance and planning activities that will be necessary. The goals and objectives
are included on pages 2 and 3 of the BVRC TCP.
POLICIES to support the BVRC TCP are included in Section 4 of the document. These policies
specify the importance of making the recommended connections, detail the specific flexibility
intended when making a specific connection and require the coordination with other plans and
programs in Boulder, including the Boulder Valley Transportation Master Plan, the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan, the Crossroads Mall Redevelopment Framework and the Greenways Program
and Master Plan. (See pages 5 through 9)
DESIGN PARAMETERS TO SUPPORT THE BVRC TCP have been included in Section 5 of the
document (page 10). They address minimum transportation facility cross-sections and reference the
BVRC streetscape guidelines.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIONS PLAN is discussed in more
detail in Section 6 of the document (pages 11 through 13) with topics including development or
redevelopment triggers, near-terra projects the city is undertaking in the BVRC area, the Action Plan
(included with the document as Attachment A and containing a detailed "To Do" list to aid in Plan
implementation), and the Plan Amendment Process.
PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW PROCESS:
The development of the BVRC TCP originated with the BVRC Transportation Connections Plan
adopted by BURA board on March 19, 1997, with revisions adopted on December 9, 1998.
The current update to the BVRC TCP was reviewed as part of a larger, ongoing planning process,
the Arapahoe Transportation Network Plan (ATNP), by a Task Force created to review staff's
Draft - Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan 2
proposal for multi-modal improvements in the Arapahoe Avenue corridor. The ATNP Task
Force includes business owners, property owners, and residents of the area; a representative from
the Boulder Bicycle Commuters, CU, Boulder County, and CDOT; and Planning, BURR and
Transportation staff and consultants. The Task Force has 23 members, and is supported by a
project team consisting of consultants and city staff. Two Task Force meetings have been held to
date. At both of these meetings, the BVRC TCP map was reviewed and comments were taken
from the Task Force. .
In addition to the Task Force review of the map, the BVRC TCP was also the focal point of an
"open hours" session held in the lobby of the Municipal Building on April 2, 2002. The map was
posted and comment sheets were available for two weeks in the Municipal Building lobby and in
Crossroads Mall.
Staff provided informational updates to the Transportation Advisory Board on May 13, 2002 and
monthly to the BURA board for the six-month duration of the project. The document also
received numerous staff reviews by members of BURR, Planning Department, the City
Attorney's Office, Development Review and the Transportation Division. The formal review
process of the BVRC TCP includes the following steps:
• On June 19, 2002, BURA Board unanimously adopted and recommended that City
Council adopt the BVRC TCP.
• On July 8, 2002, staff to present the document to TAB for public hearing and
consideration of a recommendation to City Council on the Boulder Valley Regional
Center Transportation Connections Plan (BVRC TCP).
• On July 18, 2002, staff to present the document to Planning Board for public hearing and
consideration of a recommendation to City Council on the Boulder Valley Regional
Center Transportation Connections Plan (BVRC TCP).
• On July 23, 2002, staff to present the document to City Council for review and
consideration for adoption.
ANALYSIS:
TAB should consider these key, flexible improvements detailed in the BVRC TCP:
• Alternatives for transit, bike, pedestrian and vehicular connections between the major
development areas of the Future Boulder Transit Village and the Crossroads Mall site.
• A finer roadway, pedestrian and bicycle network through the Crossroads Mall site.
Specific alignments remain to be defined and are subject to negotiation with the
developer of the Crossroads site.
• Coordination with CU's east campus redevelopment provides additional roadway,
bike/pedestrian and transit access through the site, in accordance with the CU Master Plan
• Transit "Super Stops" along 28"' and 3o`h streets are placed in accordance to the South
28`" Street CEAP
• Options for the Arapahoe Avenue cross-section, to be considered upon corridor-wide
evaluation with the Arapahoe Transportation Network Plan study.
• Policies to support the plan:
o Redevelopment must connect to the surrounding transportation network.
Draft - Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan 3
o The actual location of each connection is flexible based on parcel size.
o Consolidation, coordination and sharing of driveways along arterial roadways
should be achieved upon redevelopment.
o Right-of-way dedication and acquisition shall occur as needed.
o A minimum of one pedestrian link (in addition to the public sidewalk) between
buildings should be provided.
o Coordination among other policies and plans shall occur.
BURA BOARD ADOPTION:
On June 19, 2002 BURA Board unanimously adopted and recommended for adoption to City
Council the BVRC TCP with the following revisions: add a grade separated pedestrian crossing
at 291h/Arapahoe, eliminate the mid-block crossing on 3e Street between Arapahoe and
CompUSA as well as the adjoining multi-use path to King Soopers. Provide a multi-use
connection to the north of King Soopers, just south of CompUSA, along the secondary vehicular
connection. Add a multi-use path along the east-west secondary vehicular connection south of the
Marriott.
One of the Board members noted that the diagonal multi-use paths in the southern portion of the
Crossroad Redevelopment Site are intended to be conceptual alignments only. Staff stated that
this is noted on a map in the document on Superblock 6 Detail, Figure 10, page 23. Another
board member stated that he does not support mid-block crossings on busy streets, such as 30`h,
as it is not safe and can impede traffic. He recommended that barriers be constructed to prevent
pedestrians from crossing in non-designated areas. Some members concurred that the cast-west
grade separated crossings at Wendy's and 32nd Street may be relatively easy to construct, but they
are not high priority. Perhaps the money to construct those underpasses could be diverted
elsewhere, such as to the potentially expensive grade separated crossing at 29`h and Arapahoe.
Finally, the board discussed the question of whether the City or the developer pays for each of
the connections. They requested that staff provide further detail to the Board regarding funding
mechanisms, past successes in funding similar projects, ways of ensuring equitability and the
possibility of utilizing a transportation impact fee.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
As noted above, the public process for the review of the BVRC TCP was linked to the public
process incorporated into the Arapahoe Transportation Network Plan. The public comments
received throughout the development and review of the BVRC TCP have been overwhelmingly
in favor of the BVRC TCP. The review comments from various departments and boards have
been extremely positive as well.
There are no unresolved issues related to the public comment received, and there is no pending
public review process except for that held in front of Planning Board, TAB and Council.
This BVRC TCP, once adopted by City Council, will have immediate utility by developers,
Development Review staff and by the staff and consultants who are in the process of updating the
Transportation Master Plan. The fiscal implications of this Plan to the city will be detailed and
Draft - Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan 4
refined as part of future updates to the Transportation Master Plan and the development of future
Capital Improvement Programs which may reflect the recommendations of the BVRC TCP.
This, and all Transportation Connections/Network Plans, shall serve as implementation tools for
the Transportation Master Plan. Transportation Division and BURR staffs will be charged with
periodic updates to the Action Plan component of the BVRC TCP as necessary.
TAB ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff is requesting a public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on
the Boulder Valley Regional Center Transportation Connections Plan (BVRC TCP).
ATTACHMENT:
Boulder Valley Regional Center Transportation Connections Plan, Updated June 25, 2002
Draft - Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan 5
r~ arty
a,
bi,
ow-
~ 4y'`Y~„ ' _ ~ ~ ~"A ,mot'` ~ ~ ~ • ~ 1 w sr ~ ' . ~ sa r ,
Ae-
> 1 }
40
s
~ • ,Y.ala' Lek ~ L y ..y,.,
A J ~ ® -rte'
:ter ~
r
uu..
slow
- p~
r }
nal C exit
alley RegIL plan
ions .on
O xis t`dtiQCn 0 f Bou1Dr f rupdated June 25, 2002
o Tr or
i
Draft
Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan
Anticipated Plan Review and Adoption Schedule
► June 19, 2002 Adopted by the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority
Board and Recommended for Adoption by City
Council
► July 8, 2002 Review by the Transportation Advisory Board
► July 11, 2002 Review by the Planning Board
► July 23, 2002 Review and Adoption by the City Council
Plan Development Acknowledgments
► The Arapahoe Transportation Network Plan
Task Force
► City of Boulder Transportation Division Staff
► City of Boulder Planning Department Staff
► BURA Staff
CITY DF BDULDEP ~f
► Consultants: The Osprey Group, Fox Higgins
Transportation Group and Carter & Burgess
>tie o.p.y eo.F
rox
Carter Burgess
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I` 1.0 Summary of this Boulder Valley Regional Center Transportation Connections Plan 1
2.0 Goals and Objectives of the BVRC TCP 2
2.1 Goals ..........................................................2
2.2 Objectives .......................................................2
3.0 The Map-Based Transportation Connections Plan 3
3.1 TCP Super Block Maps .............................................4
3.2 Transit in the BVRC Area 4
4.0 Policies Needed to Support the BVRC TCP 6
4.1 Connectivity to the City-wide Multi-Modal Transportation System 6
4.2 Flexibility of Connection Location Regarding Development or Redevelopment
................................................................6
4.3 Transportation Connections in the Crossroads Area 7
4.4 Coordination of Access to Arterial Roadways with Arterial Roadway Frontage
................................................................7
4.5 Right-Of-Way Dedication and Acquisition . . 8
4.6 Pedestrian Connections Between Buildings 8
4.7 Coordination with the Boulder Valley Transportation Master Plan 8
4.8 Coordination with Boulder's Greenways Program 8
4.9 Consistency with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan 9
I 4.10 Coordination of the TCP area improvements with the South 281h Street CEAP 9
4.11 Consistency and Coordination with the North 28`h Street Transportation Network
Plan ............................................................9
4.12 Incorporation of the BVRC TCP into the Arapahoe Transportation Network Plan
................................................................9
4.13 Development or Redevelopment Compliance with Boulder's City-wide
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program 9
5.0 TCP Design Parameters 10
5.1 Minimum Cross-Sections for Roadways, Sidewalks, Multi-use Pathways, and
Bicycle Lanes ....................................................10
6.0 Implementation of the BVRC Transportation Connections Plan 11
6.1 Ordinances to Support TCP Implementation 11
6.2 Development or Redevelopment Triggers for TCP Compliance 11
63 Near Term Projects by the City of Boulder 11
6.4 Projects that will be Implemented with Development or Redevelopment 12
6.5 The Boulder Valley Regional Center TCP Action Plan 12
6.6 Transportation Connections Plan Amendment Process 12
Draft - Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan Page!
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 BVRC Transportation Connections Plan Comprehensive Map 14
Figure 2 BVRC TCP Superblock Key 15
Figure 3 Superblock 1 Alternative 1 Detail 16
Figure 4 Superblock I Alternative 2 Detail 17
Figure 5 Superblock I Alternative 3 Detail 18
Figure 6 Superblock 2 Detail ...............................................19
Figure 7 Superblock 3 Detail 20
Figure 8 Superblock 4 Detail 21
Figure 9 Superblock 5 Detail 22
Figure 10 Superblock 6 Detail ...............................................23
Figure I 1 Superblock 7 Detail 24
Figure 12 Superblock 8 Detail ...............................................25
Figure 13 Superblock 9 Detail 26
Figure 14 Superblock 10 Detail 27
Figure 15 North 28" Street Superblock Map 28
Figure 16 Future Transit Map 29
Figure 17 Existing / Proposed Property Access Pattern 30
Figure 18 Plan Amendment Process 31
ATTACHMENTS
A. BVRC Transportation Connections Plan - ACTION PLAN
B. TCP Development and Approval Process
Draft - Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan Page ii
1.0 Summary of this Boulder Valley Regional Center Transportation Connections Plan
This Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) Transportation Connections Plan (TCP)
addresses the multi-modal transportation system needs for moving to and through the area
located between Folsom and the approximate 35' Street alignment, and from Boulder Creek
to the north side of Pearl Street. This TCP also extends north of Pearl Street to Mapleton
Avenue to include the Boulder Transit Village which is under development northeast of the
intersection of 301h/pearl. This TCP builds upon the original Transportation Connections
Plan for the Boulder Valley Regional Center which was adopted by the Boulder Urban
Renewal Authority in 1997 and revised in 1998.
The Boulder Valley Regional Center Transportation Connections Plan defines the desired
future transportation network in the area for all modes of travel. The TCP 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 Master Plan and the Transportation Capital Improvement Programs (CIP).
The recommendations and requirements of the TCP will be implemented through:
e the adoption of appropriate ordinances
construction of capital improvements as part of Boulder's Capital Improvement
Program (CIP), including but not limited to construction of the improvements within
the 28`h Street right-of-way identified in the 28`" Street South Segment Community
and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP)
• construction of capital improvements associated with the future Boulder Transit
• Village
dedication and acquisition of right-of-way
• construction of on-site improvements by property owners as appropriate when
parcels develop or redevelop, including but not limited to the redevelopment of the
Crossroads Mall area
• transportation system expansions and improvements in the CU Campus east of 30`h
Street and south of Arapahoe Avenue.
The major components of this BVRC Transportation Connections Plan include:
- Map Based Transportation Connections Plan, illustrated on Figure 1 including
recommended multi-modal facilities and connections. Note that this is a right-of-
way plan based on Section 9-3.3-14 of the 1981 Boulder Revised Code (BRC).
- South 28th Street Corridor CEAP Recommendations including 28`h 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
- BVRC TCP Document (this document) including goals, objectives, policies, plan
amendment procedures, standards and implementation guidance
Draft - Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan Page 1
BVRC TCP Action Plan which is a "to do" list of steps necessary to implement
this Transportation Connections Plan (in 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 TCP Action Plan will be updated
periodically by Transportation Division and BURA staff.
Attachment B is a summary of the BVRC TCP development and public review and adoption
process.
2.0 Goals and Objectives of the BVRC TCP
2.1 Goals The goals listed below represent the ultimate targets for the BVRC TCP:
• Improve access and mobility to, through, and within the BVRC area for all
modes of travel by developing a multi-modal transportation grid where
possible.
• 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 within the area to circulate on arterial roadways.
• Provide a transportation network that improves 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.
2.2 Objectives The objectives listed below are divided by categories relating to
general issues, capital improvements, programs, regulation changes, development
review guidance, and planning activities that will be used to implement the goals of
the TCP:
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 1.
• Develop regulations and ordinances specific to this TCP that can be used to
evaluate and direct development and redevelopment applications.
• Provide efficient multi-modal connections to the future Boulder Transit
Village to facilitate planned regional transit service and potential passenger
rail travel in the future.
• Evaluate the potential to locate a bicycle and pedestrian trail along the
railroad right-of-way where no efficient parallel trails or pathways exist
Draft - Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan Page 2
Objectives geared toward capital project construction by the City (may also have
application to development review):
• Define short-term improvements and connections from the TCP map for
inclusion in the Transportation CIP.
• Evaluate the potential for innovative transit improvements in the arterial
roadway rights-of-way, such as bus queue jump lanes, bus-bike-right turn
lanes, etc.
• Include the BVRC TCP recommendations in the Boulder Valley
Transportation Master Plan update as appropriate.
• Identify and complete missing sidewalk links in the area.
Objectives geared toward development review regulations:
• Implement the map-based plan in a way that ensures the planned connections
are made while maintaining as much flexibility for land development options
as possible for property owners developing or redeveloping individual sites.
• Require the provision of internal pedestrian connections or removal of
barriers to interior pedestrian travel between adjacent properties, in addition
to public sidewalks.
• Accommodate cross-site automobile access between parking lots where
practical when properties develop or redevelop to minimize travel on arterial
roadways.
• When parcels develop or redevelop, require that "back door" or "cross
site"automobile connections between commercial sites be provided where
practical, often along the back of the property along both sides of arterial
roadways to enhance access and minimize the need for automobile turns to
and from the arterials.
• 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).
3.0 The Map-Based Transportation Connections Plan
The Transportation Connections Plan Map for the BVRC area (see Figure 1) illustrates the
following existing and proposed transportation facilities:
roadways or automobile connections of one of the following types:
• primary roadways
secondary roadways
(Note that all roadways are assumed to have sidewalks on both sides unless
modified for a specific roadway segment as part of a site review process)
on-street bike lanes
off-street bike / pedestrian multi-use pathways
grade separated path crossings
Draft - Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan Page 3
- transit routes
- combination bus / bike / right-turn lanes
transit super stops (typically at places where transit routes cross)
- traffic signals
at-grade pedestrian crossings, either at an intersection or mid-block
Existing facilities are represented by solid lines and recommended future facilities are
illustrated with dashed lines. Existing facilities that are in need of upgrade are illustrated
with dotted lines.
The right-of-way for all future transportation facilities should be dedicated or reserved.
Existing transportation facilities that are not in the public right-of-way will need to have
their right-of-way dedicated or reserved at the time of redevelopment (see Section 4.5 of this
TCP).
3.1 TCP Super Block Maps
The TCP area has been divided into 10 super blocks (see Figure 2 for a superblock
key) to allow a more detailed view of the recommended transportation connections.
The super blocks are illustrated in Figures 3 - 14 (including alternatives for
Superblock 1), which include written descriptions of the intended connections where
appropriate.
The Target and Crossroads Mall areas (Superblocks 3 and 6), have an additional
shading on the Comprehensive Map (Figure 1) to illustrate that additional internal
vehicular connections (not specifically shown) are anticipated in these areas when
redevelopment occurs. The alignments of these internal vehicular connections have
not been determined in order to maximize the flexibility for redevelopment proposals
(see also Section 4.3).
It should be noted that the northern portion of the BVRC TCP map overlaps with the
southern portion of the North 28`h Street Transportation Network Plan in the area
bounded by Folsom, Mapleton, 30`h, and Pearl. It is the goal that the two Plans be
consistent in this area. Multi-modal connections illustrated on the TCP map that are
in addition to the connections in this area of the North 28`h Street TNP map should
be revised in the North 281h Street TNP when that TNP is updated by staff. A
detailed map of this overlapping area, and the currently recommended multi-modal
facilities is attached as Figure 15.
3.2 Transit in the BVRC Area
Transit is a critical component of the multi-modal transportation system in the
BVRC area, and all of the maps referenced above include corridors where transit
currently exists or new transit services are proposed. The attached Future Transit
Draft - Boulder Malley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan Page 4
Map (Figure 16) provides a more comprehensive look at transit facilities and
connections in the BVRC area and includes:
route specific information for existing and future transit on each roadway
corridor
a broader look at existing and future regional transit connections
distinction between local and local high-frequency transit routes
reference to a new high frequency circulator shuttle through the BVRC area.
Expanded regional transit to and through the BVRC area will include the DART
to/from Longmont in the Diagonal Highway / 28th Street / Canyon Blvd. corridor,
and new service to/from Denver in the US 36 / 28t° Street corridor.
Additional high frequency shuttle service will include the STAMPEDE connecting
CU's main campus with the east campus and the Arapahoe corridor, and the ORBIT
operating in the Folsom and 28' Street corridors. The proposed new circulator
shuttle connecting the various parts of the BVRC is shown with a conceptual
alignment that will allow users to access multiple destinations while leaving their
cars parked. This two-way circulator should have a frequency of less than 10
minutes if it is to be successful.
Figure 16 also illustrates an additional local transit route serving the Valmont
corridor. The transit routes serving the Arapahoe corridor are defined in the maps
discussed above. However, the actual roadway's functional utilization, its cross-
section, and right-of-way, will receive additional study to determine its most
' appropriate configuration to support all modes. One possibility that has been
discussed, and is scheduled for implementation in the North 28t° Street Corridor, is
the use of the outside lanes on a 6-lane roadway as bus-bike-right turning vehicle
lanes.
Transit superstops are recommended at most of the major intersections in the 28`h
Street and Arapahoe corridors where regional and local transit routes cross, and
adjacent to significant destinations such as CU or the Crossroads Mall area. The
Boulder Transit Village located northeast of 30th / Pearl will serve as a major bus
transit hub and may one day provide access to regional passenger rail service.
The resultant transit grid of local, regional, and high frequency shuttle services
illustrated on Figure 16 will be necessary to help Boulder meet its aggressive multi-
modal goals. And the grid of bicycle and pedestrian facilities illustrated throughout
this TCP will be critical to ensuring the transit system's success.
t Draft - Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan Page 5
r
4.0 Policies Needed to Support the BVRC TCP
This section includes the policies that support the implementation of the TCP. In some cases ,
additional rationale 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 1 that connect
from the TCP area to the surrounding transportation network should be
prioritized, programmed and implemented by the City of Boulder as part of
the Boulder Valley Transportation Master Plan and CIP process.
4.2 Flexibility of Connection Location Regarding Development or Redevelopment
Policy: The multi-modal improvements illustrated on the BVRC TCP map (Figure
I and Figures 3 - 14) 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 TCP is to
maintain flexibility in the implementation of these connections so as to not
hinder redevelopment potential of a parcel or parcels. Development or
redevelopment proposals should illustrate that the intended connectivity is
achieved. If the connection illustrated on the TCP map cannot be made
where shown, the alignment may be varied 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 TCP 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 TCP map.
In the case of larger parcels or aggregations of parcels (15 acres or
larger) such as the Boulder Transit Village, it is the intent of the TCP
to allow flexibility in the number and type of connections made
across a site, so long as the proposed connectivity goals of the TCP
are achieved. This connectivity goal can best be described as the
equivalent of the street / alley ( sidewalk grid found in traditional
downtown areas.
To reinforce this point, alternative connections in the northeast area
of the TCP map have been illustrated on Figures 3, 4, and 5 which
illustrate alternative connections in the Boulder Transit Village area
Draft - Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan Page 6
j that 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.
4.3 Transportation Connections in the Crossroads Area
Policy: The grid of multi-modal transportation connections within the Crossroads
area (bounded by Arapahoe, Pearl, 28" and 30' Streets) should be roughly
consistent with the grid illustrated in the Crossroads Mall Redevelopment
Framework in terms of the spacing, frequency and connectivity of the
transportation corridors. Figures 1, 7, and 10 illustrate the approximate
' number and alignment of most of the desired transportation facilities in the
Crossroads area. However, as noted on the Figures, additional secondary
' roadways and vehicular connections will be required within the Crossroads
area to provide an adequate level of connectivity to and through the site (as
per the Crossroads Mall Redevelopment Framework). These additional
roadways have not been illustrated so as to allow maximum flexibility during
redevelopment site planning, but their existence is required and specific
alignments should be determined as part of the site review process for the
Crossroads Mall area redevelopment.
4.4 Coordination of Access to Arterial Roadways with Arterial Roadway Frontage
Policy: Coordination and sharing of driveways between adjacent parcels along
arterial roadways and consolidation of driveway access to roadways within
a single parcel should be achieved as parcels redevelop along arterial
roadways in the BVRC area.
Driveways accessing arterial roadways in a developing or redeveloping
parcel should be located as close as possible to an edge of the property so as
to be 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 to serve both
parcels.
No more than one driveway should be provided onto any roadway frontage
when a parcel of 5 acres or less 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.
Draft - Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan Page 7
Consolidating driveway access onto arterial roadways will enhance safety and
operational efficiency in the BVRC area. Sharing driveways between adjacent
parcels, coupled with the provision ofsecondary "backdoor" roadways at or near ,
the rear property lines (as illustrated on Figures I and 3 - 14) can improve the
access to any given parcel. Figure 17 illustrates this concept, comparing existing
parcel access for a generic block of Arapahoe Avenue to an enhanced access pattern
achieved through redevelopment and implementation of the TCP.
4.5 Right-Of-Way Dedication and Acquisition
Policy: Necessary rights-of-way or easements for the transportation facility
improvements identified on the TCP map will be reserved, dedicated to, or
acquired by the City as a condition of approval for applicants applying for
development or redevelopment of a parcel. The City of Boulder may need
to acquire the necessary right-of-way or easement for projects to be
constructed by the City.
4.6 Pedestrian Connections Between Buildings
Policy: Development or redevelopment of commercial properties in the BVRC area
should be designed to allow pedestrian travel between buildings. Physical
barriers such as walls, fences, hedges, berms, or significant grade changes
between parcels will be discouraged in order to allow for convenient
pedestrian travel between buildings and thus avoid short vehicle trips
between adjacent parking areas and additional circulating traffic on the
arterial roadway system. If barriers can not be avoided, or cannot be
removed where they already exist, 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).
These pedestrian connections between building fronts are illustrated conceptually
on Figure 17.
4.7 Coordination with the Boulder Valley Transportation Master Plan
Policy: The goals, objectives, and multi-modal connections identified in this BVRC
TCP should be incorporated into future updates of the Transportation Master
Plan to facilitate their prioritization and implementation.
4.8 Coordination with Boulder's Greenways Program
Policy: Implementation of transportation connections in and connecting to the
tributary greenways within the TCP area (as illustrated on the TCP maps)
should be pursued in concert with Boulder's Greenways Master Plan and
programmed into the City's CIP.
Draft - Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan Page 8
i
4.9 Consistency with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
Policy: The transportation system anticipated by the TCP in the BVRC area is
intended to be consistent with and facilitate the potential future land uses in
the area as envisioned in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Platt (BVCP).
' The TCP action items serve to implement BVCP transportation policies
regarding multi-modal strategies and investments, accessibility, reduction of
single occupancy auto trips, and transportation impacts.
4.10 Coordination of the TCP area improvements with the South 28`h Street CEAP
Policy: The development of the 28"' Street South Segment Corridor improvements
and the TCP area improvements shall be coordinated to facilitate safe and
efficient multi-modal mobility within and around the area.
4.11 Consistency and Coordination with the North 28`h Street Transportation
Network Plan
Policy: The transportation system anticipated by the BVRC TCP is intended to be
consistent with and connect to the transportation system at the south end of
the North 28" Street corridor as detailed in the North 28" Street TNP and as
modified in this document. Multi-modal transportation facilities along and
across Pearl Street and to/from the Boulder Transit Village should facilitate
this connectivity.
4.12 Incorporation of the BVRC TCP into the Arapahoe Transportation Network
Plan
Policy: The Arapahoe Transportation Network Plan (currently scheduled for
completion in late 2002) addresses the multi-modal transportation needs for
an area along both sides of Arapahoe Avenue from Folsom Street to
Westview Drive on the eastern edge of Boulder. When complete, this TNP
will include the BVRC area at its western boundary. It is the intent of the
Arapahoe TNP that it include this BVRC TCP in its entirety and add a
broader more regional transportation focus in the entire Arapahoe corridor.
4.13 Development or Redevelopment Compliance with Boulder's City-wide
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program
Policy: The City of Boulder is in the process of developing a Transportation Demand
Management Program (TDM Program) for implementation throughout the
city. This TDM Program will offer various transportation alternatives to the
single occupancy vehicle (SOV). It will give people the flexibility to find a
transportation option that works for them - part of the time or all of the time.
The program will attempt to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips and the
Draft - Boulder Malley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan Page 9
resulting congestion, pollution, increased parking and reduced open space.
The city-wide TDM Program, when finalized, will have application in the ,
BVRC TCP area, and may be incorporated specifically into this TCP when
it is updated in the future. ,
5.0 TCP Design Parameters
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 TCP map.
Collector and Arterial Roadways
All collector, minor arterial, and principal arterial roadways within the TCP area (as
defined on Boulder's Roadway Functional Classification Map in the Boulder Valley
Transportation Master Plan) 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). In addition, the requirements of the
BVRC Streetscape Guidelines in the BVRC Design Guidelines shall apply as
appropriate.
Local Access Roadwavs
This map-based TCP 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. In addition, the requirements of the BVRC Streetscape
Guidelines in the BVRC Design Guidelines shall apply as appropriate.
Secondary Roadways or Vehicular Connections - typically providing access
to and through the larger parcels, cross-site access between parcels, or
connecting the back side of properties which front on an arterial roadway.
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. In addition, the requirements of the BVRC
Streetscape Guidelines in the BVRC Design Guidelines shall apply as
appropriate. Modifications to these minimum standards on Secondary
Roadways may be considered on a case by case basis during the site review
process.
Draft - Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan Page 10
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 format 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. The
property owner must follow the BVRC Streetscape Guidelines for sidewalk and
landscaping specifications as appropriate.
Multi-use Pathways
Off-street bike/pedestrian pathways illustrated on the TCP map shall have a
minimum width of 12 feet and be paved in concrete, unless it can be shown in the
site review process that a typical sidewalk cross-section is more appropriate in
selected areas. Pathways that are not within a roadway right-of-way should be
placed in a pathway easement.
' On-Street Bicycle Lanes
Bike lanes shall be designed and installed consistent with the City's bike lane
standards.
6.0 Implementation of the BVRC Transportation Connections Plan
6.1 Ordinances to Support TCP Implementation
Implementation of the TCP 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 TCP map.
6.2 Development or Redevelopment Triggers for TCP Compliance
The City should review and implement development and redevelopment thresholds
to determine when compliance with the TCP 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
The future connections illustrated on the Plan in Figures 1 and 3 - 14 include a wide
range of transportation system enhancements. Some of the connections may be
1 Draft - Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan Page 11
1
implemented in the near term (1-5 years) by the City as part of currently planned
projects. Examples may include:
- multi-use path connections to the Goose Creek Path
- improvements in the South 28 ° Street corridor as identified in the CEAP for
that project
- bus queue jump lanes at selected intersections
- the addition of bicycle lanes on 30' between Pearl and Arapahoe
- the addition of a multi-use path on the east side of 30`h between Arapahoe
and Goose Creek
- TDM Program implementation.
Other projects, such as additional transit routes, transit super stops, and development
of the Boulder Transit Village may be implemented over time as part of Boulder's
transit system enhancement.
6.4 Projects that will be Implemented with Development or Redevelopment
Many of the connections illustrated on Figuresl and 3 - 14 can only be implemented
with the development or redevelopment of one or more of the commercial parcels
in the BVRC area. These connections are shown so that they will be included as part
of a development or redevelopment proposal. Redevelopment of the Crossroads
Mall area will trigger the implementation of many of the multi-modal connections
shown for that area.
6.5 The Boulder Valley Regional Center TCP Action Plan
The Action Plan for the BVRC TCP is a detailed listing of steps necessary to
implement the TCP. The tasks are divided into groups as follows:
- TCP 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 Transportation Connections Plan Amendment Process
The BVRC TCP is intended to be specific and yet flexible enough to have
application for the foreseeable future in this portion of Boulder. However, if the
need arises, this section describes a two tiered approach to modify the TCP.
Administrative Adjustments to the implementation of the TCP can be completed
at the staff level after review and agreement by BURR, Planning, Transportation,
and Development Review staffs as appropriate. For example, staff may authorize the
Draft - Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan Page 12
administrative adjustment to the alignment of a connection illustrated on Figures 1
and 3 - 14 when the requested adjustment meets all of the following criteria:
• the adjustment results in a lateral shift in alignment of less than 100 feet in
properties that are 10 acres in size or less, 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 TCP is the periodic update
of the TCP action Plan by Transportation and BURA staff.
Plan Amendments represent modifications to the TCP 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 the
BURA Board, and a decision by the Planning Board, subject to City Council call-up.
Figure 18 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
Draft - Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan Page 13
A V-r
e
..Future i~
/ e YMCA l
/ e~~l N II~~ I Mapleton
Ballfield Boulder I
to CI
I
a Page
A orth 29th Street d
appro
ate, this
conne ~ ~ of plan. alternatives for or { See detail s for
• i' area -..r_
Yeet~ Whole
Y''e St I y Food Movie L~•d-~
1 i s•~
~ ~ ~ Theater I ~
e
race
00-0 1 a '
•f \ N\
?Target I~ Chrysler 1
Additional vehicular connections, I' i
to a lev
~~co
° sistent with the
Wend 's Crossroads all Redeve,lo Ip
V y Christy j - IQ„
~~A III Framewor.k, anticipate~l n this sports kA
i r J1 Sound 1`i highlighted r. nt area ;,.r
I I I Track Walnut G~rdens
reet
f' I PI I
Foley's I Cl
j ~ Dairy r II Parking :I
Il II Center !I Marshall Structure Market
I II :1
for the Plaza Square
McDonald's III 1
_Arts_ li ,1
I
_ I ~L
Burger Ding Sears 30th Street
j II I Market
>I I _ : II I C
Crossroads
orld Savipgs I' Mall
III r I, Justice
Center I County
Canyon Bouteva
I I I Building .
I
IMr Future IICompUSA 14TD
ty ~ developmen>f • MaI Itenance
Rp III I \ _ III I W
Hotel I I
The Village V - - Buffalo II i A I Soopers 1
Village=- II I I~~ I~ ~ I~I I II
_ J1- -
Grove Sreet I w ;III Bank I~ I III
I I ~I
i
r---
1111 1
oe Ave I1
tl~ - - Barrel - -Fire
ap House Station
r III
.
Scott Marine Strd~t I
11
Carpenter
1 • V~. I Park
Safeway I I I 11 \A
1
. . / tIL 41
it >v 1 ° ll
I Hotel m % C I p 11 University of Colorado ,
/ V~ I II Research Center lee
.
and East Campus
f I-~ W ll 1 I'
i- #--I, W P rdry Court ; I1~ l I I®~ d
III
tCCee'-
1
X11 _ - - ~
north
Boulder Valley Regional Center Boundary
Legend The following options will be further studied in context of the entire
Arapahoe corridor in the study area, from Folsom to Westview.
Existing Upgrade Proposed Facility 1. Existing roadway with multi-use paths on the north and south
sides of the street
® Grade Separated Pedestrian Crossing 2. Continuous, six travel lanes with bicycle lanes.
3. Option two, plus queue jumps at all or certain intersections.
C At Grade Pedestrian Crossing 4. Dedicated bus/bike/right-tum only lanes the entire corridor.
. - Primary Roadway
- Secondary Vehicular Connection
- ' Multi-Use Path (Conceptual Alignment)
On-Street Bike Facility Boulder Valley Regional Center
- Bus / Bike Lane Transportation Connections Plan
Transit Route (see Future Transit Map) June 25, 2002
Transit Super Stop Comprehensive Map
~l~) Gi.'Oi6Wl➢EF~
Figure 1 U
W 0 ~ Traffic Signal O TM n~
~D a Scale 1" = 580'
' ~ Carter-Burgess
s
qN. f -
O YMCA Future
et nA o Also see North BaiD" a¢ Boulder
O e
28th Street TNP. Vilage
C Uupdate, as See Figures 3-5 for o
v' eon appropriate, alteratives for this a ole yiuestreet that plain. in FFooods movie area c
Theater
S~eet
5pruce"`tr'" o to
to
p eaYI SOeet Target Chrysler 0
Wendy'a O
Christy
Sound Sports
2 Track Walnut Gardens
Street ,
Wa~ut ~
Dairy FoleY'a Parking i
Center Marshall Structure Market
for the Plaza Snare
Arts McDonald's
Bnrger King 30th street '
Sears Market
Crossroads
orhf Savings Mail
Justice
j Canyon Boulevard Center ? County
Building
~~rtwn~ Com USA
O Future O P ~ / RTD
~ Redevelopment Maintenance
Mardot Hotel -
King W
i~ The Village Buffalo Soopen a
Village
Grove StOet Bank
rD
tit; fD
Arapahoe Avenue
Barrel
se. iSJ Howe Fire
eamrei'
O_ Station
W
Scott Marine Street
~u~ CO~yI Carpenter ..i®swt®utlta•ii
R _ Park
~1 ! Safeway
d O lJ
° 8 00, 10
University of Colorado
Research Center
W and East Campus
Courdry Court
~ Bov1 t
north
Boulder Valley Boulder Valley Regional Center
Regional Center Transportation Connections Plan
Boundary June 25, 2002
Superblock Deliniation
See Figures 3 -15, Superblock Key and an~aa...ya
pages 15 - 28, for
detailed views of each BVRC Boundary, Figure 2
superblock.
o.
Not to Scale Cam.. ¢,,.9..
Page 15
ii
ji-
GOOD Ci
Mapleton Avenue Pursue pathways
along west edge of
railroad right-of-way !
lign - - - -
„proposed Future Alignment of all I
Mapleton road at Boulder roadway and cl
Ballfield Boulder Transit pathway f
Transit Villa
ge connections o°
/ Village through the transit
with village are flexible I r l
IJ
roadway ~I L _J
through
shopping -grade pedestrian II
center. °
crossing alternatives f l ep
being considered I I m
N Whole
Foods • • • •
•••j••••• Movie
•••0•i•••• • Theater
• Location of
t • . signalized
atlSttee ■ access to
're ■ Pearl Stream-
ma ~shA46the
Consider relocation f Pearl
upon 29th Street rn ■ Street is grade-
alignment ■
Along separated over
ditch railroad tracks
/ Ditch to
/ C be day -
lighted 7 Chrysler N
Target I C
Christy
Re-align 29th sport
and Walnut
intersection; this
- will necessitate Walnut Gardens
- - - - - - grade
rtL
corrections at Q
property I
boundaries. north
Legend
-Existing Upgrade _ Proposed Facility❑ ® C ede Sryaraled Yedeatrim t".-
A, Grade Pedestrian Crossing
00
Z . Primary Roadway
• • • • Secondary v n,ewar Conneotrna
Multi-Uw Path (Conceptual ALgnm®o Boulder Valley Regional Center
- _ _ °n-Street Bikekaei°'y Transportation Connections Plan
B. / Bike Lane
TranaA Route (.e Future Traaai, Map, p 29) June 25, 2002 D
i w Trarout Super stop Superblock 1 Detail IVAA
/'b~ T.a Sisal Alternative 1 - Figure 3
Scale I"= 250'
Page 16
a
c Alternative alignment /
sec of roadway
Mapleton Avenue reed connection to north of
Transit Village JJ
Align proposed
Future
road at Boulder " Boulder
Bapl d Transit Village Transit e
with roadway Village
through
shopping o
center ~I I
_ - ~ r III
~X Whole
Foods • . 001 0• \
0 Movie
.~~0So00 Theater
Alternative
u t~ 32nd Street
eartSO et 0 alignment
/ II Along
ditch
M~
Consider
j relocation upon Ditch to
rn 29th Street re- be day- w
alignment lighted Chrysler
I I a
Target
Christy
Sports
Walnut Gardens i
i north
Legend
_Existine Upgrade Proposed Facility
❑ ® C ads Separated Padmhvo Crossing
rO 1(c At Grade Pedestrian Crossing
. . . Primary Roadway
• . . . Secondary Veht-1. C.--t on
- - _ - _ - Multi-Use Ph (Conceptu.1A1,gn am O Boulder Valley Regional Center
GnstreetBkeFa dity Transportation Connections Plan
. . . T / Bike Lane
Transit Route (see Future Transit Map, p. 29) June 25, 2002 ~ W
yu TaaitSnperStop Superblock 1 Detail ~p
Ta~eSigna Alternative 2 - Figure 4
Scale 1" = 250'
Page 17
secree Alignment of all roadway
Mapleton Avenue and pathway connections
through the transit village '
\ II II ~ `
Align proposed are flexible
~ ~
road at Boulder Future
Mapleton Transit Village Boulder
Ballfield with roadway i Transit
through Village °a
shopping III
center
I
Alternative pedestrian
\ Foods pathways through the
i! Transit Village
it r r a ji Movie
a ! s Theater Re-aligned
extension of 32n
r Street to
accommodate the
t f- c'i~ ■ II possible Pearl v
eatlSttee ~y ■ Street overpass of
the railroad. /
Along
/ ditch
r
NOMINEE
Chrysler w
Target I ` p
Ditch to be be day-
lighted
, it.
\ p II
Christy =
' I I 11111 Sports I C
hh - Walnut Gardens
- - C _
N L \
i i north
Legend - _ _
Existing Upgrade _ Proposed - Facility-- -
❑ ® c ade Separa ed Pedeatnan crossing
U I c At Grade Pedestrian Crossing
. . . Primary Roadway
Secondary Vehicular Connection A
On- ueet Bike Multi-use Nth c~oecPta~ Alipment, Boulder Valley Regional Center
B ~`UC
.S/Bike L Pa dity Transportation Connections Plan
= us Bice t ane
TrueetReete(seeFume TransitMaP,P-29, June 25, 2002 D~
Transit Super Slop Superblock 1 Detail
~s
/0~ TraToSignal Alternative 3 - Figure 5 .
Scale F'= 250'
Page 18
SQr'eev,vv♦
vti
treet Make
YeaY~S v v
v
v secondary
v 'v 0000400
\ v connection 10
and add
sidewalks • ' Wendy's Upgrade k4
betwee
sidewalks Walnut and
along
Pearl Pearl
Sound
Street as ~ Track - ~
needed
%
a ■
~
Walnut Street I •
■
Oil
■
° II ■ ■
° I • Long-range
•
y ■ consideration ■
■ for an ■
■ enhanced, •
eke Dairy • mid-block ■
Center Marshall
■
II for the Plaza ■ pedestrian n McDonald's ■
■ crossing I ■
~ aaalll ■
Add sidewalks
Consolidate where missing ■ Burger
■
multiple curb l through the : j icing •
cuts along 28th Marshall Plaza •
Street with ■ onsolidate ■
redevelopment area : multiple curb •
where • cuts with 28th S=
edevelopment■
appropriate I ■ here ■
appropriate ■
II World ■
l Savings
II
anyon Boulevard
T7
14
n th
Legend
Existing Upgrade Proposed _F-ft _ Bike facilities along this
❑ ® Cade5eparatedPadestrianCmssing segment of Canyon to be
further evaluated
At Dada P<destrim Crosaivg
- - - Primary Roadway
. • - - - Se...dmy Veh,,idw Co.m ,fim
= Mew"use Pail, (Aa«pn,a Alignment) Boulder Valley Regional Center
on-Strew Bd<e r a d ry
B./Bik<Lan< Transportation Connections Plan
_ - 1t-ftRonW(-F-Tr-nMap, p-29) June 25, 2002
u nandsul-Strip Superblock 2 Detail I
Tme Signal Figure 6
Scale 1" = 250'
Page 19
Movie
I'nn''II I 1\111 • 1`1\ Theater
1\
II \1 •
000
Consider 1,1\ +
relocating to 11 t • ~~j
29th Street \ 1 Pearl street -
alignment Complete
-
and/or widen I
- - existing
' sidewalk
/ j The alignmen f these athwa
pathways
/ athwa s may depending y _
1
n redevelopm rt or aghted ay
c, expansion of th arget store ditch Chrysler
d Target I
~ R Extend 29th through11 11
Wendy's \ the area to connect
Consolidate multiple p' II between Pearl and
Araahoe north of correct Walnut
curb cuts with d ll Christy
redevelopment grade ~ sports
Walnut
I Gardens
Add I
■ sidewalks Re-align 29th and
along Walnut roadways, `
■ secondary transit routes and
■ vehicular I bikeway for more direct Add sidewalks
■ connection and consolidated along roadwayo
00 connections. Re-align
intersection correct Squaaret
■ grade difference. kv
Foley's Parking
Structure
McDonald s
■
■
or- /
Burger King ■ Sears
north
Legend Note: Additional vehicular
ExistineUpgrade-- Proposed-- Facility--____ connections aticipated in this
®
Grade Separated Padastrian Crossing highlighted redevelopment area
rte-' 1 / At Grade Pedestrian Crossing
- - - Primary Roadway
- nay - Secondary Vetu .1. Co-..
- - - MuW-U. Pad, (C ..ep-lA,igmnam( Boulder Valley Regional Center
Gn-Streke Nike Lane Facility
B. / Rik Transportation Connections Plan
_ Tranart Ruble (a. Future T-1 Map, p. 29) June 25, 2002
4ansdSup.,Slup Superblock 3 Detail o
• TraRcSignai Figure 7 QO p~
Scale l" = 250'
Page 20
000
ear ,
Movie
Theater ' -
■ i5l ~i
Pathway ■
underpass Alignment of new roadway
under 30th ■
o and intersection at Pearl
along tditch \~'oP may shift west if Pearl
crosses up and over the
new commuter rail line
Pathway underpass
under new roadway
■ ® extension
0
rA Chrysler W
tRp IIInIII N
eD I I ~ W'
christy Consolidate
sports multiple curb Pursue pathway
cuts along 30th Consolidate multiple along southwest
Street with curb cuts along 33rd edge of railroa
wahintG ens redevelopment Street with right-of-way
redevelopment
W
■
■ 1
Parking Market ■ ,
■
Structure Square ■
' 30th Street ■
1 V Market ■
I ■ north
Legend
Existine Upgrade.. Proposed Facility
❑ ® Cade Separated Pedestrian crowing
At Grade Pedestrian Crossing
• • • • • . . P,.,-y Roadway
• • • • • • • • • . . . Secondary V hi-1 r CnneGion
Mnlti-UsePh (ConceptualAGg-enq Boulder Valley Regional Center
- - - Bw / BiBikB~"F""" Transportation Connections Plan
~ Bus /ke Lane
Transit Route<sw Future Transit Map, p. 29) June, 25, 2002
9
Tra iS,,NrStep Superblock 4 Detail r
0 TrafreS,gna1 Figure 8 QO
Scale F'= 250'„
Page 21
c Burger
Oro
■ Cr
8 Bike II
facilities
along this
C L " segment of
Canyon to Add sidewalks
be further where missing world
evaluated through the '
Li Marshall Plaza
area
Canyon Boulevard
- ~a= - T
iii■■Ig€c~~."_ I
Consolidate multiple curb
along Arapahoe, Folsom acnud ts 28th I„
Street with redevelopment Future
Redevelopment
~I
in
rl ~ I I
YI
Marriot Hotel ■ F ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Remove
Add sidewalks barriers and
improve
The Village where missing to pedestrian and
tar,
Grove Street make continuous
>
between Canyon > > > > > > > ] 7171 -1 v hh,i ular~ ] 71 1
and Arapahoe 11 c t n~tions
Complete between the Bay
missing Buffalo Village
sidewalk and The Village
links along n
both sides ' ( I
of Folsom
Arapahoe Avenue
~z
A number of
east-west
multimodal „ I
facility options
are being
evaluated in II
the Arapahoe 10;
right-of-way II
(see Figure 1 r'
for options) ■ I Q
W, Safeway ■ ■
■ u ■ ' ■ north
U
Legend
Existing Upgrade Proposed Facility
❑ ® Grade Separated Pedestrian Crossing
1 r` At Dada Pedestrian Cm,,,g
. . . Primary Ruadway
. . . Secondary Vehtcular Co-..
- - - Multt-UsePath(Ceneep-IAhi-nt) Boulder Valley Regional Center
/ Lane Fa ility
Bw Transportation Connections Plan
Bus /Bike f,a ~C
Transit B ke Rmte (see Future T-a Map, p. 29) June 25, 2002 U
TransitSnperStnP Superblock 5 Detail o AN KA
• 0 'IWfk Signal Figure 9 O >s
Scale 1" = 250'
Page 22
■ Structure Square
■ Extend 29th I
'
McDonald's Street through
Crossroads
the area to Mall
connect
tw e1
earl and
Arapahoe ~A_Iignment of
Burger King secondary vehicle Sears Y
■ connections and
■ pathways can be
■ ■ flexible internal to the
■ site to accommodate
World Savings redevelopment I I
proposals as long as
connections are made
I~
to the endpoints I
shown in as efficient '
a manner as possible
Sol=
Canyon B v
a
):a I Extend
i, Canyon from \ compUSA
Future 28th to 30th
Redevelopment r - =
Streets in
approximate
alignment
shown
II
Buffalo I ~
Village \
Bank I II
~I
r
o Underpass \
I to be further
1 evaluated \ :1 ~l7II ,
Arapilhat Avenue
I House Q
Fire
Station
north
Legend A number of east-west
Existing i -Upgrade Proposed Facility multi-modal facility options
- - - are being evaluated in the
® Gra,eSepaetedPedeatranGrosamg Arapahoe right-of-way
_ (see Figure 1 for options)
~O I! _ At Grade Pedestrian Crowing
• • • • • • • . • . . . Prmary Roadway
• • • • - - - Secondary WhtcWar C m 0-
v = c v = _ _ _ _ _ _ - MWto-UsePath (ConcepmW Alig 1) Boulder Valley Regional Center
Gn-street 9ike Faci"" Transportation Connections Plan
m ~ z_ Hus /Bike Lane
> 'Franait Route (see F- Transit Map, p. 29) June 25, 2002
7 ~
Tanasnpersmp Superblock 6 Detail
~~eG~al Figure 10 QO.
Scale 1" = 250'
gym,.. au°„..
Page 23
■
■
Formalize
■ these
l~ -
30th Street secondary
Market automobile
connections
and add
*~P= mom! sidewalks
0 gas SEMI
I II
IF
Justice a
Formalize th Center County
automoile
onn ction Building
c
Isihere nd add
dewalksmissin
between 30th
and 33rd
Streets Add
CompUSA RTD I I Maintenance sidewalks
where
III
missing
w I II
King ~1
Soopers
kV
multiple curb cuts
along 30th,
Arapahoe and
33rd with
redevelopment
within this
uperblock
]SENSE s SOONER WINNER MISSION
TArapahoe Avenue -
Fire
Station = A
north
Legend _ A number of east-west
Existine _FJpgrade Proposed Facui multi-modal facility options
are being evaluated in the
❑ ® Gn&SepmtWNd.s -C--g Arapahoe right-of-way
(see Figure 1 for options)
/O 1 A, Grade Ped..- Crossing
c '
• . . . Prvnary Roadway
. . . Secondary Vah-[w Connection
_ _ _ - - - - - - Multi-Gae Path (Coooep=1 Alignment) Boulder Valley Regional Center
on-SZB.keF-lay Transportation Connections Plan
>s a_ B. / Bike Lane
' Transit Route (see FutureTransit M p, p. 29) June 25, 2002
a T-,11nPer11np Superblock 7 Detail o plb~
a A.
Taa<Signa Figure 11 QO
Scale 1" = 250'
Page 24
Marriot Hotel
Ir
The Village Buffalo
Village
---r`_j= `'r I 77777777777 777777777]
eet', Bank
xzA
M
1
Arapahoe Avenue
MI N ` I I' ' B
A number of I!I \~tj i,~ H
east-west 11
rr I
multi-modal n
facility options„, II
L
are being Add secondary
evaluated in 1'I roadways and I 4
the Arapahoe 1;.1 more direct
bl r
right-of-way wa
I - y
(see Figure 1I I Improve connec ions W-iffff
for options) pedestrian redevelopment of
connection to this area .
■ ■
ILL ~I I transit stop Safewa w ■
o w' - on Folsom ' ■
~ : AI tgl
I; III Improve
autombile Create direct ■ Re-configure
kMV al ' connectivity pedestrian „ w curb cut to
through this and bicycle ■ .21 improve n-s
area connection to Miueai,2n, oo w o ped/bike
r. Boulder H el I F crossing at
Widen and Creek Path Safeway and
formalize 12:1 o Millenium
pathway ';I a Hotel driveway
connection ~11
All ~l I I LSI Ii✓
I II Courdry Court
Bo~det Creek
II
I I 17
IL
I
Ntll I i
~ north
Legend
Existine Upgrade Proposed Eacili
® G ada sepa alea Pede o-ian croaamg
O I (M Grade Pedestrian Crossing
a a a a a a a a a Pr-.y Roadway
. . . Secondary Vehicular Connection
_ - _ _ _ _ _ McII,-Use Paw (Concept a] Alignment) Boulder Valley Regional Center
`M gtree' BI, 'ry
Bua/HikeL Lane Transportation Connections Plan Transit Route (ace Fume Transit Map, p- 29 June urge 25, 2002
~a 0' Transit Supcr Snip Superblock 8 Detail P
_EA
) Figure 12 ^
T..~csigna.
Scale I"= 250'
Page 25
IrMEN as rerf ~ - I \
/ A ' ment of pat ays can be
Buffalo / flexi le internal t he site to
Village accom date re vetopment
it
1:3 73 7 7 7 2 D, ~l n proposals s Ion s
I I connections ade to the
a Bank I I endpoints sho as efficient
a manner as pos e I I
/ Underpass
f I I I to be further
<< - Arapaho Avenue evaluated
I~ Barrel
I x°'s` N A number of
f Cr east-west Fire
Station
II ~ multi-modal
II~# facility options W
rl are being Marine Street
I n 4 evaluated in
_ III the Arapahoe
right-of-way soon
(see Figure 1 Carpenter
Safeway ' Add sidewalks for options) Park
where missing
n i
axis •••j•'~r' Improve
substandard
gr
pathway
cconnecions
Crossing
fit
v
~ ° I alignment
See consistent
ments rove- ' ~ with new
facilities on
identified in ra~ CU east of
28th Street F- 30th Street
South
U Segment
L courdry court
Ii I
wl Boulder Creek
north
Legend
Existing Upgrade Proposed I Facili
❑ ® Grade Separated Pndestrian Crossing
I
O I At Grad. Pedestrian Crossing
• • • • • • • • • ~ ~ ~ Primary Roadway
- - - Secondary V.h-lar Collection
Mults-U,, Parh (G-,pN lAhgnmeno Boulder Valley Regional Center
H.etBikeFacility
H,. Bike Lane Transportation Connections Plan
~ .~s /
Transit Route (,m Future Transit Map, p. 29) June 25, 2002
7 ~
a TraoitSnp.rStnp Superblock 9 Detail o P~`
lmRcSignal Figure 13 QO,
Scale 1" = 250'
Page 26
I a~
King
I Soopers II
I l I
~I
I II
II
~ ~ II
\ I Arapahoe A ue
~~A number of east-west
New roadway connection
Fire multi-modal facility between Marine and
Station options are being
evaluated in the Arapahoe to align with 33rd
Arapahoe right-of-way when area redevelops
(see note on Figure 1 for
tr Marine Street OptIOr1S
i i i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i Z = M i i =,M x - M E R M E M 17u i B 3 B 9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i pgrade and/or
complete sidewalks
University of Colorado along Marine Street
Research Center
and East Campus
~ New
connections
I' . per CU's
master plan
I
IL
Boulder CYeek
A
north
Legend
Ezisti_ Ooarade Proposed -F-11itK-
I
❑ ® Grade 5eparaled Pedestrian C'.rossing
0 I At Crade Pedestrtan Cmssing
_ _ - Prunary Read-y
. . . Secondary Vehn;ular ('-a-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Multt-UsePath(QnceptualArg-t) Boulder Valley Regional Center
Bike Fa illy
B. / ffike Lane Transportation Connections Plan
B. / Btk
Transa Route (see Future Transit Map, p. 29) June 11, 2002 11
04 I » Transit Super Stop Superblock 10 Detail
• n
,7amcSlguai Figure 14 P \M
0 Scale 1' = 250' O
Page 27
?aria i',~, I I ~ /
II; \ /
Widen
I' n~cn sau&ia existing 11
d pathwayi*~/
w
venue _ Add this i;
~Q~¢tonA ^ pathway to '
the North
28th Street Enhancements
Add these / TNP needed to existing rsf
on-street pedestrian
bic = _ = connections in s
to these argue. • 1
Street WholeFoods `i 0 •
28th • • •
egtceet dd this TNP I I I' •
pedestrian Include y • • ! ' ` Theater
connection sidewalks I, • • ♦
on Add sidewalks ♦
to t Street nection\~ - to this existing •
♦ (and update secondary
Complete TNP, also , : the North roadway
missing • 28th Street connectio
sidewalk r TNP)
se.9WomeSn r
nlCe get •P arl, Spruce • • /
sr o and 26th '
Streets
t ss
e¢ a • \ \ ♦ / \ Tart
Wendy's
Legend
Existing Upgrade Proposed Facility
_ \ Q
® orth
Grade Sepamted Pedestrian Crossing
(At Grade Pedestliao Crossing
- -
Primary Roadway
Secondary Vehicular Cntmecnon
_ _ _ _ - - - - ~ Multi-Use Path (Concep.W Alig--) Booer lley Regional Center
s On-Stteet
Bike LankeL-e FariLty
Bus i raMportation Connections Plan, June 25, 2002
B
Transit Route (see Future Transit Map, p- 29)
a ® Op
Transit Super Stop North 28th Street TNP Superblocks
Adjacent to the BVRC, Figure 15
'Traffic Signal .
t Not to Scale
-
00
s
F G+ Z l
~►m Folsom
A m x . ~-~/~~.I.....QSRIT .
Regent 70m1'' a p, w
40 Colorado p, < Ctl o .0 4 0
University
10 o o o a.
0a C Main a m01 NEW BVRC'h J
Z~ ? CIRcuLATeib 4 A d
Ai ROUTE
BOUND a rI
I 28th Street aRA,LT•
Aw to
Boulder 1/alley 9~/
° 7 Regional Center NEW BVRC IIE A/
Transportation WSC LLATOW- ,►1, ~'j
/
Connections 1 ROUTE ` `
Plan Area
Q t 1 / a 0%
=mama
4t041 30th Street. o
%Ulm LP_
Yom, tA; 1 Coordinate with
A. US 36 Major J:R
Ew BvRC 32nd Street 1 Investment Study { ~
2 rt : Colorado ATOR
K-
r I Universit ROUTE
r Y ` 33rd Street
Williams East foo I~_
Village I Hoq~
14p,
y 1
with
Coordinate /goa
d
US 36 Major
Legend
Future regional " Super Stop"
J
Future regional terminus: The Boulder Transit Village
existing proposed Bou r Va y Regional Center
• ► Local transit service Trai D nation Connections Plan
4Une 25, 2002
• • • ► Local, high-frequency transit service
Future Transit Map n
• • • Regional transit service Figure 16
Carter Burgess
Page 29
Back door
I I Vehicular
Access
117 w F7 nr'-w w w `
wwsw~ w w w
PROPOSED (PREFERRED) ACCESS PATTERN
' • 3 driveways on the arterial roadway, Arapahoe Ave Cross-site
• 1 I TOTAL driveways Pedestrian
• • 6 parcels with left-turn access to Arapahoe Access
• Cross-site pedestrian connections -
Note:
_<40- ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ The combination of
'r the consolidation of
M% t '%~r 1 00 1 00 *0 Cross-site driveways on the
■ ■ ■ ■ Vehicular arterial roadway and
Access
the addition of
vehicular and
• w w. ,..w.wwr w r w w«ra•ww wrrnw r r w w wwwww w
pedestrian "cross-
Arapahoe Avenue site" and "back
door" vehicular
nµ „ ~ . , . n ~ access will maintain
or improve multi-
modal access to all
EXISTING (UNDESIREABLE) ACCESS PATTERN
p a r c e l s while
• 8 driveways on the major arterial, Arapahoe Ave
• 10 TOTAL driveways improving traffic
• 3 parcels with left-turn access to Arapahoe safety along the
■ • No convenient cross-site pedestrian connections arterial roadway.
■ ■ ■ ■ ii r
A L. Boulder Valley Regional Center
w w w 0 IMMOM w =VANN w w w "MMM w in Transportation Connections Plan, June 25, 2002
Roth Existing/Proposed Property 104
Access Pattern , Figure 17
Scale 1" = 250'
0
Amendments to the BVRC Transportation Connections
Plan (TCP) may be considered when the requested change
does not meet the criteria for an Administrative Adjustment.
Request TCP Amendment, with
or without Site Review Process
Presentation to BURA Board
BURR makes recommendation to
Planning Board
Presentation to Transportation
Advisory Board
TAB makes recommendation to
Planning Board
Presentation to Planning
Board as part of
Site Review Hearing
Planning Board makes decision
City Council Call-Up
Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan
June 25, 2002
Plan Amendment Process 4
Figure 18 0
-1 k-
Page 31
traffic concern.
ISO
y;a
The NTMP s ds you a
"Neighbor to Neighbor
3.
Education Kit." D
Educatlonr'Petitlon/Dat Collection Phase n
Circulate petition for participation in the NTMP, due in April each year. 3
- Concurrent application of educational tools 85th percentile speeL speed limit CD
(yard signs, speed monitoring trailers, Continue educanother
neighborhood speed watch, neighborhood speed pledge). _ 3 W
- Speed data collected. Remoni.
(timetrame - 3 months)
Decision Point
Decision Point 'Revisit Problem - No Problem'
"Problem - No Problem' 85th percentile speed > 5 mph over speed limit
85th percentile speed > 5 mph over speed limit NO Yes - initiate education and enforcement phase.
Yes - transition to Education/Enforcement phase. No - continue educational efforts.
No - continue educational efforts.
YE NO
EducadoWEnforc nent Phase
Continued application of educational tools. 85th percentile speed mph over speed limit
-Application of enforcement tools Continue education efforts.
(photo radar and traditional officer speed-enforcement).
Additional speed data collected.
(timeframe - 6 months)
Decision Point
'Eligibility for engineering treatments' 85th percentile speed 5 mph over speed limit
85th percentile speed > 5 mph over speed limit NO Continue education and enforcement efforts.
Yes - continue education and enforcement and Remonitor traffic speeds as pa; ( 6f next annual
include project in engineering ranking phase. process.
No - continue educational and enforcement efforts.
Y a"
Engineering Treatment Ranking Phase All other projects contite education and
- Neighborhood Needs Assessment Priority Checklist used to rank eligible projects. enforcement efforts.
The two top priority projects - begin development of engineering treatment proposal. rojects reranked annually.
All other projects - continue educational and enforcement efforts. /
X11 Other Projects.
- - - - - - - - - - TT;~p Trip Priority ProJects (or more as staff and regnt
Non-CERR Streets within 6-m ute Response Time Zone CERR Streets and Non-CERR Streets outsde 6-minute Response Time Zone
Process Summary Process Suinmary
- CEAP typically will not be required. - Project streets evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Neighborhood public involvement process leading to project proposat. - TAB provides recommendation to City Council on the use of delay-inducing devices.
- Both delay-inducing and nondelay-inducing devices available. CEAP may be required.
Neighborhood ballot (residents and property owners) on proposal is final decision. - Neighborhood public involvement process leading to project proposal.
(timetrame - 6 months) Neighborhood ballot (residents and property owners) determine whether CEAP proceeds to City Council
(timetrame - 6 months)
Final Decision Point Decision Point
"Project Implementation' NO 'Are Delay-inducing Devices Available?'
-Neighborhood ballot (residents and property owners)' TAB recommendation to City Council.
>=60% support - install improvements. - No - initiate non-delay design process.
<60% support - don't. Yes - initiate full design process.
Y
NO YES - - - -
Non-delay Inducing esign Process Delay-Inducing D sign Process
Process Summary Process Summary
Project not i lemented Project Impl mented. Neighborhood public involvement process - Neighborhood public involvement process leading to
-Nei hborhood can rea l to the leading to project proposal. project proposal.
g pp y (timetrame - 3 months) - Neighborhood ballot (residents and -Both delay-inducing & nondelay-inducing devices
NTMP in 3 Years.
continue education and homeowners) on proposal is decision-making available.
-
enforcement efforts process. - CEAP required for delay-inducing devices.
.
Neighborhood ballot (residents and property owners)
on proposal determines whether proposal and
associated CEAP proceeds.
Neiahborhood Ballot Area -
Properties on or adjacent to the primary street proposed for an engineering treatment
within 400 feet of either side of the proposed device and within 1 block on the side street Decision Point
for intersection treatments (ex. traffic circles). For a cul-de-sac, the neighborhood ballot NO 'Continue Project Consideration?"
area expands to include all properties from the treatment to the end of the cul-de-sac. Neighborhood ballot (residents and property owners)
Neighborhood Ballot Votino Structure - - >=60% support - continue project consideration.'
' One vote per dwelling unit and one vole per property owner. <60% support - don't.
- Project Limplemented
.
Neighborhto the YE
NTMcontin
enforFinal Decision Point
NO "Final Project Consideration'
TAB/City Council Consideration of Project CEAP
- With nondelay designs, step is eliminated
Project Reassessment. Y _
(After 3 years.) Project Evaluation Project Impl mented.
>=60% support to remove - (Ahei 1 year) (limeframe - 3 months)
Device is removed.
i Attachment A
' BOULDER VALLEY REGIONAL CENTER
TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIONS PLAN
' ACTION PLAN
STEPS FOR FINALIZATION, ADOPTION, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIONS PLAN
(TCP)
TCP Finalization and Adoption
Project Team review of TCP document Project Team June, 2002
Staff (Planning, Legal, Transportation) review of TCP Staff June, 2002
1 document
BURA Board Review of TCP and recommendation to City BURA Board BURA Board Meeting
Council for adoption Staff June 19, 2002
TAB review of TCP document TAB TAB Meeting July 8, 2002
Staff
Planning Board review of TCP document Planning Board Planning Board Meeting
Staff July 11, 20021
Incorporate comments from BURA, TAB, Planning Board Project Team June, 2002
prior to City Council submittal
' City Council review and adoption of TCP City Council Adoption anticipated - July 23, 2002
Staff
' Coordination and Follow-Up With
Related Projects - City Initiative
Develop Ordinances to support TCP implementation if Attorneys July - September, 2002
needed Planning
Development Review
Transportation
' Coordinate TCP with the 28th Street Corridor Public Art Project Team Summer, Fall 2002
Master Plan Local Artists Master Plan
consultant
I Coordinate TCP with the City-wide TDM Plan Development Staff Summer, Fall 2002
Incorporate TCP recommendations into the city-wide Transportation Staff As part of Transportation Master Plan
Transportation Master Plan Update update 2002
I Pagel of 3
Incorporate the BVRC TCP into the Arapahoe ATNP Task Force Fall, 2002 ,
Transportation Network Plan Project Team
Coordinate with CU on the implementation of the Transportation As needed
STAMPEDE Shuttle, and on any modifications to the public in association with CU staff
R.O. W. as detailed in CU's Master Plan
Network Component '
Implementation - City Initiative
Continue to support redevelopment efforts in the Crossroads Various City Departments On-going '
area
Evaluate travel lane utilization in the Arapahoe R.O.W. Transportation Summer / Fall 2002
through the BVRC area to determine appropriate transit Arapahoe TNP Task Force ,
treatments
Finalize the recommendation for appropriate bicycle Transportation Summer 2002
facilities along 30" between Arapahoe and Pearl (bike lanes
anticipated) - coordinate with Master Plan update
Complete multi-use path on south side of Pearl east of Target Transportation In association with 30`" / Pearl project
Complete missing sidewalk links of Folsom and Spruce Transportation Coordinate with sidewalk improvement ,
program
Complete planned functional efficiency and transit Transportation 2002 through 2004
improvements in the 30" /Pearl intersection
Evaluate transit system priority treatments in the Transportation Completed, April 2002
3&/Arapahoe intersection
Implement transit system priority treatments in the Transportation ,
30` /Arapahoe intersection
Evaluate enhanced pedestrian crossing alternatives for Transportation Fall 2002 in association with the Arapahoe
challenging areas such as Arapahoe/28th, Arapahoe/29th, TNP
Arapahoe/30th etc.
Evaluate bicycle facility upgrade for Canyon between Transportation Fall 2002
Folsom and 28th
Pursue specific transit superstop conceptual designs and then Transportation
coordinate with redevelopment as appropriate
Pursue implementation of the Boulder Transit Village and Transportation On-going ,
the transportation connections linking the Transit Village
with the Crossroads area.
Identify distinct projects within the TCP area that will be Transportation Fall/Winter 2002 ,
implemented by the City regardless of site-specific
development or redevelopment.
Prioritize City transportation projects within the TCP area Transportation Winter 2002/2003 ,
and prepare cost estimates - coordinate with Master Plan
update
Incorporate prioritized projects into the ongoing city-wide Transportation Spring 2003, and ongoing
budget and CIP process
Coordinate transportation project implementation with the Transportation On-going
implementation of Greenways projects within the TCP area Greenways '
(example, path extensions to Goose Creek)
Implement the recommendations of the South 28" Street Transportation Beginning in 2002, and as Fed. funds
CEAP available ,
Page 2 of 3
Implement the recommendations of the North 28" Street Transportation As Federal funds become available, begin
CEAP with 28'h / Iris improvements in 2003, and
additional Federal funding in 2004 - 2007
Implement transit route additions (Orbit etc.) that will serve Transportation As prioritized and funded.
the BVRC area RTD,
' Coordinate transit stop improvements and possible Transportation In concert with redevelopment of the
relocations adjacent to the Crossroads site with RTD Crossroads site
redevelopment
Evaluate the utility of a BVRC circulator shuttle BURA
Transportation
Network Component
Implementation - Local
Development Initiative
' All applications for development or redevelopment reviewed Development Review On-going, with development /
for compliance with the TCP 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 /
or make viable the developer initiated TCP improvement Development Review redevelopment
' Insure that redevelopment proposals address: Transportation On-going, with development /
consolidate multiple curb cuts Development Review redevelopment
= remove travel barriers to pedestrians and autos
add pedestrian connectivity
improves bicycle parking facilities
' TDM Component Implementation
TDM Program Development -complete city-wide TDM Planning, Transportation On-going
program
Identify potential for TIM Program implementation in Planning, Transportation Pending completion of City-wide TDM
the BVRC TCP area with a focus on new development or program and development applications
redevelopment projects
' Page 3 of 3
Attachment B
' Development, Review and Approval of the Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan
' Coordination with the Arapahoe Transportation Network Plan Development
' The development of the BVRC TCP began as the first phase in the development of a
Transportation Network Plan (TNP) for the Arapahoe corridor that extends from Folsom on
' the west to Boulder's eastern city limits. The BVRC area forms the western third of this
Arapahoe multi-modal corridor. The BVRC TCP (intended as an eventual subset of the
Arapahoe TNP) was completed ahead of the rest of the Arapahoe TNP due to the near term
potential for redevelopment in the Crossroads Mall area.
The Arapahoe TNP Task Force
' The Arapahoe TNP Task Force was created at the beginning of the TNP development
process, and was modeled after the successful work of the North 28`h Street TNP Task Force
that helped shape the North 28t° Street TNP (adopted by the Boulder City Council on
December 4, 2001). The Task Force of business owners, property owners, residents,
representatives from the Boulder Bicycle Commuters, Boulder County staff, CDoT. and CU
staff, consultants and City staff totaled over 25 members. At their first meeting in February,
2002, Task Force members focused on the BVRC Transportation Connections Plan map.
Staff incorporated the Task Force's comments into the TCP map and the Task Force
reviewed the results at their second meeting in April, 2002.
Staff and Public Review
The BVRC TCP has undergone a series of staff reviews by members of Transportation,
Planning and Legal staffs with a focus on developing a plan that can be implemented. The
TCP also received input at a public open house held in April, 2002.
Approval Process with TAB, Planning Board, BURA Board and City Council
The approval process for the TCP included formal review by the Transportation Advisory
Board (TAB), Planning Board, the BURA Board, and City Council. Staff also provided the
TAB and BURA Boards with a number of informational updates at regularly scheduled
meetings during the TCP development process.
On June 19, 2002, the BURA Board
On July 8, 2002, the TAB
On July It, 2002, the Planning Board
' The BVRC Transportation Connections Plan was adopted by City Council on
Draft - Boulder Valley Regional Center
Transportation Connections Plan