The URL can be used to link to this page

6A - Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program CITY OF BOULDER TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM (MEETING DATE: JULY S, 2002) A ends Item Preparation Date: June 26, 2002 SUBJECT: Staff briefing and TAB input regarding the proposed traffic mitigation plan for the Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood. REQUESTING DEPARTMENTS: Public Works Department Tracy Winfree, Director of Public Works for Transportation Mike Sweeney, Transportation Planning and Operations Coordinator Bill Cowern, Transportation Operations Engineer Teresa Spears, Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program Liaison Fire Department Larry Donner, Fire Chief Steve Stolz, Deputy Fire Chief Police Department Mark Beckner, Police Chief Jim Hughes, Deputy Police Chief Tom Wickman, Commander of Police Traffic Unit FISCAL IMPACT: A roximatel $112,500, not including landscaping costs. PURPOSE: This memorandum provides background information for the Transportation Advisory Board's (TAB) review and input regarding Staff's recommendation on the proposed traffic mitigation plan for the Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood. Formal TAB review and recommendation is scheduled for September 2002. BACKGROUND Since 1995, the Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood has taken part in a significant amount of process regarding traffic mitigation as shown in Attachment A. As part of this process, two permanent traffic circles were constructed on Balsam Avenue. These traffic circles were approved using the current NTMP guidelines adopted in 2000. As such, these traffic circles are not being reconsidered as part of the proposed plan. The current guidelines provide a flow chart detailing the process by which a neighborhood enters the NTMP, and the order in which different mitigation methods and process steps are taken. This flow chart is provided as Attachment B. The guidelines placed more emphasis on public involvement and provided several check-in-points with TAB and City Council. tab06262002balsam.doc AGENDA ITEM # Pace 1 One step in the process involves staff gathering input from the impacted neighborhood and providing TAB and City Council with a recommendation regarding whether delay-inducing devices should be considered in the proposed traffic mitigation plans for the neighborhood. In 2001, the Transportation staff was tasked to work with the Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood to create a traffic mitigation plan. Since Balsam Avenue is a Critical Emergency Response Route (CERR) street, the NTMP policy requires that staff obtain, TAB's recommendation and City Council's direction regarding whether to consider delay-inducing devices during the design phase of the project. TAB recommended and City Council directed that delay-inducing devices could be considered when designing traffic mitigation plans for the Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood. During 2001 and 2002, three public meetings were held with the Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood. The fast meeting was designed to create a public involvement process that met the needs of the citizens and to obtain citizen input on whether they wanted to consider delay- inducing devices on their neighborhood proposed mitigation plan. After City Council gave direction regarding the use of delay-inducing devices in proposed traffic mitigation plans for the Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood and before the second meeting staff provided citizens with information on traffic mitigation devices by posting a tool kit (shown in Attachment C) on the NTMP Web site. This tool kit outlined traffic mitigation options including; cost, effectiveness, and the amount of delay associated with the mitigation device, if applicable. The tool kit made available information needed to participate in a discussion regarding the pros and cons of traffic mitigation devices. If citizens did not have access to the Web site the information was made available at the NTMP office or through postal mailing. For the second meeting staff developed three "straw proposals." As shown in Attachment D, the proposals consisted of three options that ranged from extensive use of delay-inducing devices to minimal use of delay-inducing devices. During this meeting staff obtained the communities view regarding each proposal. Attachment E documents the public input that was recorded and placed on the Web site. Citizens were given an additional two weeks after the meeting to provide input regarding the proposals. During an internal staff meeting the information gathered was used to develop a more refined traffic mitigation proposal for the Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood. This proposal was developed to balance the goals of speed reduction and emergency response. Using a balanced compromised approach, staff generated one proposal as seen in Attachment F. The final meeting was designed to gather input from the citizens on the refined proposal. As seen in Attachment G, the majoritX of participants supported the proposal with a few changes. The traffic circle on Alpine and 17 was thought to be too costly and the money would be better spent on permanent photo radar on Edgewood Drive west of 2151 Street. Therefore, a permanent speed display will be put on Alpine and 17a' and staff is looking into the feasibility of permanent photo radar on Edgewood Drive. If it is not feasible, permanent speed displays will be placed at the same location. tab06262002balsam.doc AGENDA ITEM # Page 2 To announce the meetings, staff used a mailing list of approximately 1,000 addresses, which consisted of the owners and the residents of the neighborhood. Attachment H provides a map of the neighborhoods showing the mailing area. Additionally, the meeting information was posted on the Web site; there was a public announcement in the Daily Camera; and The Center for People with Disabilities, Pridemark Ambulance Services and Special Transit were notified by e- mail. Staff created several additional opportunities for individuals to get information and give input regarding the traffic mitigation in the Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood. Such opportunities existed through the NTMP Web site, e-mail, phone calls, mailing, and by coming to the NTMP office. ANALYSIS: Even though some physical mitigation has been placed on Balsam Avenue, speed studies show that speeds outside of the traffic circles are basically the same as they were prior to the traffic circles being placed on Balsam Avenue. Before and after speed statistics for streets in the Whittier Neighborhood area can also be found in Attachment I. The use of education options, such as neighborhood signage, radar speed monitoring trailers, a permanent speed-display, substantial community involvement to try to minimize speeding in their area, and enforcement efforts have not been successful in reducing the amount of speeding traffic. In summary, there is still a speeding problem in the Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood that needs to be addressed. This proposal would substantially reduce the speeding problem. When developing this proposal, the NTMP policy was followed while staff and the community worked closely together to create a balanced compromise in this proposal. NEXT STEPS: Staff is currently conducting the neighborhood poll required by the NTMP policy to gauge support for the proposed engineering treatments. The polling information will be available to TAB prior to your formal consideration of the proposal. Formal TAB review and recommendation to City Council is scheduled for September 2002. ATTACHMENTS: A- Previous Public Process B- NTMP Process Chart C- NTMP Toolkit D- Straw Proposals E- 2"d Public Meeting Public Input F- Staff Proposal G- Final Public Meeting Public Input H- Mailing Area Map I- Traffic Statistics tab06262002balsam.doc AGENDA ITEM # Page 3 ATTACHMENT A Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood Several streets in the Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood applied to the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program (NTMP) in 1995. Balsam Avenue and Edgewood Drive were the second highest ranked neighborhood streets in the program. Staff began to work with this neighborhood to explore possible speed mitigation solutions for Balsam Avenue and Edgewood Drive, as well as surrounding neighborhood streets such as, Cedar Avenue, Alpine Avenue, Elder Avenue, North Street, and Floral Drive. Trial traffic circles were installed on Balsam Avenue/14`h Street and Balsam Avenue/151h Street in August 1995. The original demonstration consisted of 25-foot diameter traffic circles constructed of plastic bumper-blocks. The traffic circles were evaluated in terms of effectiveness in reducing speeding traffic, emergency vehicle delay and other traffic impacts. Two raised crossings were also installed as demonstrations on Edgewood Drive later that fall. These treatments were subsequently removed due to flood plain impacts. Speed humps were also installed, as part of the NTMP efforts, on North Street and on Floral Drive, within this neighborhood area. In November 1999, the City Council directed staff to redesign the traffic circles at Balsam Avenue/14`h Street and Balsam Avenue/15"' Street and test designs that provided a better balance between neighborhood traffic mitigation and emergency response needs. The revised demonstration design was 16 feet in diameter delineated by 2-foot high concrete risers. The perimeter of the traffic circles were outlined with a 2-foot wide pavement marking, giving the appearance of a 20-foot diameter traffic circle. A study of these traffic circles showed that there was still a considerable traffic mitigation benefit, but a significantly reduced impact on emergency response delays. Staff began a process with the surrounding neighborhood that helped determine the final traffic circle design. The proposed final design was a circle 16 feet in diameter and 9 inches high. A second tier was to be constructed inside the first and would be 12 feet in diameter and with the flagstone cap is 24 inches high. A red patterned concrete area, 2 feet in diameter, was placed around the traffic circles, to make them look larger than they actually were. In July 2000, the residents and property owners within 400 feet of each device were polled (in accordance with the new NTMP policy) and there was greater than 60 percent support for both traffic circles on Balsam Avenue. The final design traffic circles were installed in January 2001. traffic concern. I Cal 111 a 'am.? am' The NTMP s ds you a "Neighbor to Neighbor Education Kit." D r,- Education/Petitlon/Dat Collection Phase W n Circulate petition for participation In the NTMP, due in April each year. 3 - Concurrent application of educational tools 85th percentile speed 5 mph over speed Itmit 3 (yard signs, speed monitoring trailers, Continue education efforts for another neighborhood speed watch, neighborhood speed pledge). - 3 months. - Speed data collected. Remonilor traffic speeds. (limeframe • 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 Educadon/Enforc 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 - Remonilor traffic speeds as pc, i of next annual include project in engineering ranking phase. process. No - continue educational and enforcement efforts. Y Engineering Treatment Ranking Phase All other projects contirwe 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. rojeCis reranked annually. All other projects - continue educational and enforcement efforts. now. / All Other Projects. Non-CERR Streets within 6-m ute Response Time Zone CERR Streets and Non•CERR Streets out ide 6-minute Response Time Zone Process Summary Process Summary - CEAP typically will not be requiied. Project streets evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Neighborhood public involvernpnfprocess leading to project proposal. - 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. (timeframe - 6 months) Neighborhood ballot (residents and properly owners) determine whether CEAP proceeds to City Council (lime/rams - 5 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-dolay Inducing eslgn Process Delay-Inducing D sign Process L Process Summary Process Summary Project not i lemented. Project Impl mented. - Neighborhood public involvement process Neighborhood public involvement process leading to leading to project proposal. project proposal. Neighborhood can reapply to the (timeframe - 3 months) . Neighborhood ballot (residents and -Both delay-inducing 8 nondelay-inducing devices NTMP in 3 Years. homeowners) on proposal is decision-making available. continue education and enforcement efforts process. ICEAP 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 feel 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 "Continue Project Consideration?" area expands to include all properties from the treatment to the end of the cul-de-sac. NO Neighborhood ballot (residents and property owners) Neiahborhood Ballot Volino Structure - - >=60% support - continue project consideration.' ' One vote per dwelling unit and one vole per property owner. <60% support - don't. - Project not implemented. Neighborhood can reapply to the Y NTMP in 3 Years. continue education and 'f- - enforcement efforts. Final 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 nienled. >=60% support to remove - (After 1 year.) (timeframe - 3 months) Device is removed. = ATTc4mj~~&r C - 4 0161, f Boulder's Stage III Mitigation ~4N\ Traffic Calming Toolbox 1) Curvilinear Street IS 2) Entrance Barrier 3) Entry Median 4) Lane Eliminating Choker 5) Median 6) Neckdown 7) Permanent Photo Radar 8) Permanent Speed Monitoring Display 9) Raised Crosswalk 10) Raised Intersection 11) Realigned Intersection.: 12) Restricted Movement Barrier 13) Speed Hump i Cry 1 t 14) STOP Sign u,. 15) Traffic Circle NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MITIGATION PROGRAM CURVILINEAR STREET (Also known as: CHICANE or DEVIATION DESCRIPTION: A CURVED STREET ALIGNMENT CAN BE DESIGNED INTO NEW DEVELOPMENTS OR RETROFITTED IN EXISTING RIGHTS-OF-WAY. k THE CURVILINEAR ALIGNMENT REQUIRES ADDITIONAL MANEUVERING AND REDUCES DRIVERS' LINE-OF-SIGHT. APPLICATION: • Any street where speed control is desired and adequate initial width exists • Any ny street where reduced line-of-sight is desired Effectiveness: • Slows traffic by introducing a curved path to traverse Other Advantages: • Little to no impact on snow removal • Aesthetically pleasing • Provides landscaping opportunities • Changes the character of the roadway to a slower environment Delay to EmerclencV Vehicles: r ro • Minimal on short segments with low traffic volume • May increase with length and traffic volume Other Disadvantages: • Expensive • May have little or no impact on cut-through traffic • Needs to be combined with narrowing or other traffic calming tools to have significant impact on speeds • May require additional R.O.W. to be effective • Motorists may cross the centerline to drive a straighter path Special Considerations: 'r • Cannot be used where right-of-way is limited • May require removal of on-street parking Cost: • High - $30,000 and up depending on length, drainage, landscaping, R.O.W. etc. ill- BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX ENTRANCE BARRIER (Also known as: SEMI-DIVERTER DESCRIPTION: PHYSICAL BARRIER THAT RESTRICTS TURNS INTO A SIDE STREET. CREATES A ONE-WAY SEGMENT AT THE INTERSECTION WHILE MAINTAINING TWO-WAY TRAFFIC L I FOR THE REST OF THE BLOCK. i I p APPLICATION: • Local streets where cut-through traffic is a concern _ _ _ _ _ _ - • Local streets where vehicles from nearby facility circulate looking for parking in the neighborhood I~ I Effectiveness; I I • Can reduce neighborhood intrusion by non-local vehicles Other Advantages: • Restricts movements into a street while maintaining full access and movement within the street block for residents • Reduces cut-through traffic • More self enforcing and aesthetically pleasing than turn restriction signing f,,l 11 N Delay to Emergency Vehicles: ~aw~,. t,l'~ ~ q„ • Minimal as long as no vehicles block the one way segment Other Disadvantages: • May redirect traffic to other local streets • May increase trip length for some drivers • In effect at all times; even if cut-through or parking problem exists only at certain times of day Variations: • May be used on diagonal comers at an intersection to further control neighborhood access Special Considerations: • Should not be used on critical emergency routes • Use only on local streets • Has little or no effect on speeds for local vehicles • Consider how residents will gain access to street • May effect on-street storm drainage Cost: • $15,000 or more depending on landscaping, irrigation needs, storm drainage, etc. BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX ENTRY MEDIAN (Also known as: ENTRY ISLAND or NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTIFICATION ISLAND DESCRIPTION: A RAISED ISLAND IN THE CENTER OF A TWO-WAY STREET ADJACENT TO AN INTERSECTION, TYPICALLY AT THE l PERIMETER OFA NEIGHBORHOOD. APPLICATION: • Placed in a roadway to define the entry to a residential area and/or to narrow each direction of travel and interrupt sight distance along the center of the roadway Effectiveness: • Vehicles slow down as they pass through the narrowed section Other Advantages: • Notifies motorists of change in roadway character • Opportunity for landscaping and/or monumentation for aesthetic improvements • May discourage cut-through traffic Delay to Emergency Vehicles: • 1 to 2 seconds Other Disadvantages: tf • Need for maintenance (and irrigation) • May necessitate removal of on-street parking Variations: • Can incorporate neighborhood identification signing and monumentation Special Considerations: • Care should be taken not to restrict pedestrian visibility at adjacent crosswalk Cost: • $10,000 to $20,000 depending on landscape type, intensity, irrigation needs, etc. BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX LANE ELIMINATING CHOKER (Also known as: PINCH POINT) DESCRIPTION: SEGMENTS OF ROADWAY NARROWING (SIMILAR TO NECKDOWNS) WHERE THE CURBS ARE EXTENDED TOWARDS THE CENTER OF THE ROADWAY. WITH A LANE- O O ELIMINATING CHOKER, THE ROADWAY IS LIMITED TO ONE LANE OF TRAVEL FOR BOTH DIRECTIONS OF TRAFFIC - ° oo , e WHERE THE NARROWING OCCURS, AND OPPOSING ono o0o_ VEHICLES MUST TAKE TURNS. O APPLICATION: • Streets where speed control is desired and on-street parking is highly utilized • Can be used to narrow roadway and shorten pedestrian crossings Effectiveness: • Speed reduction is obtained through creating a horizontal curve for drivers to negotiate, in addition to drivers having to yield right of way to any other vehicles that have approached the choker first in the oncoming direction Other Advantages: • Opportunity for landscaping • Considerably shortens the crossing distance for pedestrians • Breaks up drivers' line of sight Delay to Emergency Vehicles- - Minimal delay for fire trucks, unless there is oncoming traffic which has not cleared the choker Other Disadvantages: • Creates storm drainage issues where curb and gutter exist • May create hazard for bicyclists Variations: • Mid-block lane-eliminating choker can be used in conjunction with pedestrian crossing treatments Special Considerations: • Cannot be used on roadways with bicycle lanes as opposing vehicle traffic may attempt to pass each other in the choker using the added width of the bicycle lanes. Cost: • Slightly higher than neckdowns BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX rMEIAN DESCRIPTION: RAISED ISLAND IN THE CENTER OF THE ROADWAY WITH ONE-WAY TRAFFIC ON EACH SIDE. THE LENGTH OF THE MEDIAN CAN VARY FROM 50' TO FULL BLOCK. APPLICATION: • Used on wide streets to narrow each direction of travel and to interrupt sight distances down the center of the roadway Effectiveness: • Narrowed travel lanes provide "friction" and can slow vehicle speeds Other Advantages: • Changes the character of the roadway to a place where slower speeds are appropriate • Significant opportunity for landscaping and visual enhancement of the neighborhood • Can utilize space which otherwise would be "unused" pavement • Can be used to control traffic access to adjacent properties if desired Delay to Emergency Vehicles: • 1 to 2 seconds or more depending on length of median, narrowness, parking etc. Other Disadvantages: • Long medians may impact emergency access potential and reduce staging area • May interrupt driveway access and result in U-turns • May require removal of parking Variations: • Medians of various lengths can be constructed • Can be constructed mid-block only to allow all turning movements at intersection • Can be extended through intersections to preclude left turning access, or side street through movement if desired Special Considerations: • Vegetation should be carefully designed not to obscure visibility between motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians at intersection and r pedestrian crossing areas • Maintain 12 foot wide lane minimum on each side Cost: • $25,000 for short (50'+/-) landscaped median • Cost increases with length, landscaping, etc. BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX NECKDOWN (Also known as: CURB EXTENSION - low DESCRIPTION: SEGMENTS OF ROADWAY NARROWING WHERE ROADWAY EDGES OR CURBS ARE EXTENDED TOWARD THE CENTER OF THE ROADWAY. VEHICLES SLOW AS THEY PASS THROUGH THE NARROWED SECTION. APPLICATION: • Typically used adjacent to Intersections where parking is restricted r-W pq • Can be used to narrow roadway and shorten pedestrian crossings • Can be used mid-block Effectiveness: • Slows traffic by changing the character of a wide street to a narrow street Other Advantages: • Pedestrian visibility increased and crossing distance reduced • Can "reclaim" pavement for pedestrian and streetscape amenities or landscaping • Breaks up drivers' line-of-sight Delay to Emergency Vehicles: • Less than 2 seconds i~ Other Disadvantages: • Creates drainage issues where curb and gutter exist A • May create hazard for bicyclists • May result in the loss of on-street parking Variations: • Mid-block neckdowns often used in conjunction with pedestrian crossing treatments • Can be designed with a curb chase to maintain existing flowline Special Considerations: • Curb extensions should not extend into bicycle lanes where present s Cost: $25,000 and up depending on landscaping, pavement treatments and storm drainage considerations (need for new inlets) BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX PERMANENT PHOTO RADAR SPEED ENFORCEMENT DESCRIPTION: A PERMANENTLY MOUNTED RADAR TRIGGERED CAMERA TO DOCUMENT VEHICLES AND MOTORISTS WHO ARE EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT AND SYSTEM TO ISSUE SPEEDING TICKETS TO VIOLATORS (OR VEHICLE OWNERS). APPLICATION: • Streets with speeding problems Effectiveness: • Familiar motorists tend to obey speed limit in the known area of enforcement Other Advantages: • Speed enforcement with minimal staffing DelaV to Emergency Vehicles: • None Other Disadvantages: • Public perceptions related to invasion of privacy • Vehicle owner may receive the ticket when they were not driving • May not influence unfamiliar motorists Special Considerations: • Vandalism may be an issue • May assess fines without points against drivers license • Will likely need to be deployed with other devices in series to extend the area of influence • Would need to be coordinated with variable speed limit in school zones if used near schools Cost: • $ _to implement system BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX PERMANENT SPEED MONITORING , DISPLAY r, s- DESCRIPTION: PERMANENTLY MOUNTED RADAR DISPLAY THAT INFORMS DRIVERS OF THEIR SPEED. APPLICATION: • Any street where speeding is a problem Effectiveness: • Will cause responsible drivers to slow down in the vicinity • Will cause unfamiliar drivers to slow down in the vicinity Other Advantages: • Educational tool • Same drivers may assume it is linked to photo radar Delay to Emergency Vehicles: • None Other Disadvantages: • Some motorists may speed up to try to register a high speed • Not self enforcing • Ongoing maintenance needed • May loose effectiveness on familiar motorists • Display may detract from neighborhood character Special Considerations: • Vandalism may be an issue Cost: $ per installation BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX RAISED CROSSWALK (Also known as: RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING - r DESCRIPTION: FLAT-TOPPED SPEED TABLE BUILT AS A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING. COMMONLY INCLUDES A MEDIAN REFUGE ISLAND, OR CURB C~ EXTENSIONS, OR BOTH TO SHORTEN CROSSING AND IMPROVE SAFETY. - - APPLICATION: Elm • Local or collector streets where speed control and pedestrian crossing designation are desired 3 • Local or collector streets where cut-through traffic is to be discouraged Effectiveness: • 2 to 8 mph reduction in average speed (similar to speed hump) Other Advantages: • Increases pedestrian visibility in the crosswalk • Clearly designates the crosswalks • Opportunity for landscaping in median • Requires minimum maintenance; pavement markings must be maintained • Minimal impact on snow removal Delay to Emergency Vehicles: * " • 4 to 6 seconds per raised crossing Y Other Disadvantaqes: • May damage emergency response vehicles if not carefully designed • May increase traffic noise in vicinity of crosswalk • May create drainage issues where raised crossing extends from curb to curb Variations: • Specialty pavement treatments • With median refuge island • With curb extensions • With median island and curb extensions Special Considerations: • Appropriate near schools and recreation facilities • Should not be used on critical emergency response routes • Needs to be used in conjunction with other traffic calming devices to control speeds • If a new crosswalk location, may reduce available on-street parking Cost: $10,000 to $40,000 depending on median, curb extensions, pavement type, and irrigation needs imp BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX RAISED INTERSECTION "-"""e DESCRIPTION: A RAISED SECTION OF ROADWAY AT AN INTERSECTION WHERE THE i PAVEMENT IS ELEVATED TO BE FLUSH WITH THE TOP OF THE i CURBING AND THE APPROACHES ARE RAMPED LIKE SPEED HUMPS. APPLICATION: • Roadways where speed reduction or discouragement of cut-through traffic is desired i i Effectiveness: • 2 to 8 mph reduction in average speed (similar to speed bump) Other Advantages: • Opportunity for attractive pavement treatments • Improved pedestrian safety at intersection DelaV to Emergency Vehicles: • 4 to 6 seconds per intersection Other Disadvantages: • Requires storm drainage modifications -7777- ' • May require bollards to define the corners of the intersections • Expensive - =xasrnNR Special Considerations: • Special signing required Cost: $40,000 to 75,000 depending on size of intersection, materials used, storm drainage requirements, etc. BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX REALIGNED INTERSECTION P DESCRIPTION: REALIGNS "T" iNTERSECTION TO MAKE THE "THROUGH MOVEMENT" A TURNING MOVEMENT. i i APPLICATION: E0__ • Streets where it is desired to redirect traffic to another facility • Streets where slowing traffic as it enters the neighborhood is desired Effectiveness: • Significant speed reduction on the former "through" street Other Advantages: • Provides landscaping opportunities • Discourages traffic from continuing through a neighborhood • Slows traffic as it enters a neighborhood • Breaks up sight-lines on straight streets Delay to EnnergencV Vehicles: • Requires emergency vehicles to slow and negotiate a turn that didn't previously exist Other Disadvantages: • May redirect traffic to another local street • Speeds may increase on the former "side" street Variations: • Stop sign control on one leg • Stop sign control on all three legs • Neckdowns in the intersection Special Considerations: • Storm drainage • Potential for redirecting traffic to adjacent local streets Cost: • $50,000 or more depending on landscaping, irrigation needs, storm drainage BOULDER NTMP- STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX RESTRICTED MOVEMENT BARRIER DESCRIPTION: BARRIER ISLANDS THAT PREVENT CERTAIN MOVEMENTS II AT AN INTERSECTION. APPLICATION: • Streets where reducing cut-through traffic is desired Effectiveness: • Can limit traffic on residential streets Other Advantages: • Redirects traffic to main street • Increases opportunity for landscaping in the roadway Delay to Emergency Vehicles: • Can create significant delay for some travel paths through the intersection Other Disadvantages: • May increase trip length for some drivers • May cause traffic to shift to another neighborhood street • Some vehicles disregard and drive around Variations: • Medians on main street that allow left and right turns in but restrict left turns out or straight across movement from side street Special Considerations: • Should not be used on critical emergency response routes • Has little or no affect on speeds for through vehicles Cost: $30,000+ depending on irrigation and landscaping BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX SPEED HUMP DESCRIPTION: SPEED HUMPS ARE AREAS OF PAVEMENT RAISED A MAXIMUM OF 4 INCHES IN HEIGHT OVER A LENGTH OF 12 FEET. THEY WORK BY FORCING MOTORISTS TO SLOW DOWN TO COMFORTABLY PASSOVER THEM. THEYARE o MARKED WITH SIGNS AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS. Qa:W v APPLICATION: •Loca! or collector streets where speed control is desired • Local or collector streets where cut-through traffic is to be discouraged Effectiveness: • 2-8 mph reduction in average speed Other Advantages: • Self Enforcing • Requires minimum maintenance; pavement markings must be maintained • Minimal impact on snow removal Delay to Emergency Vehicles: • 3 to 6 seconds per hump Other Disadvantages: • May damage emergency response vehicles if not carefully designed • May increase traffic noise in vicinity of hump Special Considerations: • Should not be used on critical emergency response routes • Needs to be used in series or in conjunction with other traffic calming devices to control speeds • Longer designs can minimize impact on long wheelbase vehicles Cost: Approximately $1,000 BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX STOP SIGN DESCRIPTION: STOP SIGNS AT INTERSECTION TO INDICATE WHICH APPROACHES ARE TO STOP. USED TO ASSIGN RIGHT-OF-WAY. • Non-arterial street intersections APPLICATION: 410 • Staggered or alternating pattern at intersections in a low volume residential street grid • Not recommended as a speed mitigation device { f( Effectiveness: • Slow traffic in vicinity of intersection Other Advantages: • Require through traffic to stop at an intersection • Increase opportunities for pedestrians to cross the roadway [ • May discourage cut-through traffic Delay to Emergency Vehicles: • 1 to 12 seconds depending on traffic volume and congestion Other Disadvantages: • May create compliance problems where motorists do not acknowledge the need to stop • Safety issues for pedestrians when compliance is poor • Mid-block speeds may increase as motorists try to make up for lost time • Noise and air pollution increased • Unwarranted stop signs not supported by traffic engineers • May increase traffic accident frequency Variations: • Can be installed as an all-way stop application Special Considerations: • Should not be used on critical emergency response routes • New stop locations may require additional sanding during winter months Cost: $500 to install per intersection (includes stop bars on pavement) • Cost may increase if enforcement is required BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX TRAFFIC CIRCLE DESCRIPTION: TRAFFIC CIRCLES ARE RAISED CIRCULAR MEDIANS IN AN ~ INTERSECTION WITH COUNTERCLOCKWISE TRAFFIC FLOW. VEHICLES MUST CHANGE THEIR TRAVEL PATH TO MANEUVER AROUND THE CIRCLE AND ARE TYPICALLY CONTROLLED BY "YIELD ON ENTRY" ON ALL APPROACHES. ® APPLICATION: • Streets where speed control is desired 17- 1 • Intersections where improved side street access is desired • 2 to 13 mph reduction in average automobile speed one block from the circle • Vehicles slowed to 15 or 20 mph through the circle Other Advantages: • Provides increased access to street from side street L • Breaks up sight-lines on straight streets 5 -Opportunity for landscaping in the intersection Delay to Emergency Vehicles: • 2 to 10 seconds per circle depending on the design Other Disadvantages: • Definition of right-of-way is contrary to the "yield to the vehicle on the right" rule • Relatively expensive if curb extensions are required - - F; • May impede left turns by large vehicles • On streets with bicycle facilities, bikes must merge with traffic around circle Variations: • With or without neckdowns on the corners 4. • With or without diverter islands • Different sizes and dimensions affect magnitude of speed reduction ` • Island with barrier curb and gutter face or tapered/mountable face Special Considerations: • Need to be used in series or in conjunction with other traffic calming devices • Should not be used on critical emergency response routes • May require extensive signing • Maintenance concerns associated with plowing, sweeping and asphalt maintenance around circle • Minimum 2V clearance is required around circle • May require educational campaign and learning period Cost: • $10,000 to $40,000 BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX wwe-..~ i:lrt r'~yj- '~a d" a ±wtl :~~a~ ~ .~,t: ~ i ~ il' f' i J f" ~ .-~If 2 (Fe• 'ia~:~ fi' ~ 'x ~ .~..f'i~'_i ~ '_r ~..~.L'i ~ 1 r 'a ~~•-~•4l 4 .~'rA1. ~.A'~. . ,r~ ~,~,!`M• ---F r '.•,y,~ ~I , c1' '1r ,,~r.-'^ ¢i +N'~T,^ ~.~l~.~ -1 ' Ci Ye` F. ~j. -i*dv~ b f_ yam.; u-~~ .-..C 6•'~:~L I'+r~~ t,/"~ ~ ,kl~ ~9 N~+ :r ,7 ~~'N~ ..J-.~ ~ , -fig1!.K rho 'F.. ~J 6~ - T.' k A._ 1 b~ a n~ ~ e r n " : y._- 1 _ r".•a + ' ~ .X p ~ °_-__~-`J a!•~ ~'~r I ? ~ ~I ..1~'r. ~I ~1~: ~ I ~.t. "J tl~ .q:}('. IT i {._y. '4a ~Y 7 .,'T ~~5~.. ~~i4 x. j• ~ s{ i~~ ~j..~ 1 i7 'JI-'x ~'V t 7 ~Y~!~ r ~ ° J y: _ ~ ~ V~, i ~ /M ~r_~.: , _ _ L~ • l{I\~ ~ ~t •~ta r J"i'"`g Ira !r~'% 'r ,~m.~ ~f~f-.er.. r f. ;/`tt~`'A•f-Yr_~.-(t f` F i. 1 ?.T-6 Lr 71~~'- ~4._ 'I y~. I f»r~~,~_r t ~',J-`. ~_"~.9,r ~G~ I.~. ~e-'•. /~7r Ye +l. `"Jn`1`\.~i'; r~ 'S~.' -4 _ o..` "~,f~a .r, ~'r-f " :a•' ,fir-" •F, , I I~ ' r3a .t. . ~ y j.. 'l."' :f•1~ r ~ ^•~c~ PI._I d r f; 4.. - •A°. ~^T ~1i1"~ `---4.!!-~ ' •:Ik''; a hf'.y 'af.'~ ~,j +^rr-/~~•/ If W;./- fi •r _r "c sg-1'r .1'1" ri 'r 'Y ~:f vl`o'... 7vt, r » M f..• ..r:,,. s_~~-i~:~ k _---p /D .l i sue.::.-. Yl ,r ..fir, j, d~ i~ ~ ',r-yt"T d-_ ,~r-+- r"' R.-"' ^.`:'";r :l, c n}i r'?• k "'"19 c_ f l iA. ~y -'i?~~.: ~ f-+f i`,1: . f i i ~-'~S' j d ryLn. I~ ;,A 4~ ~ ~w R,.~~' ~ 1 I arm ! J~. "1 I r'P"^-.. r'A ~ 4 \~~v~ rx .x~ ~ ~it .~~1 .v i_f [J. 1 1~ 4 .y A y'. I~~~..•... ,.y~_ r•~}Ik b., l IJ' x.11 r r n ~-S1" / /~fi~r, ~ ~'tl F~ M»Jr _,1 .Ji F '7, a t ► T X ' a_ = '~`F--4~ 1 yy.,,''~: ' - - ,..,7". - 1.1_lf i 7 W J _.,r .w v .f a lk w 'l.,l I T f Wi :5Y -i yI~r.,f.4 ~rxf ~i ~.f cS' 'hw,.r~$Y ~ r__. _ _ Y.' ~~CI"''}~" !s "Y, ~ i n i h 4 /'i;/4 P 4 A n r P C '''kt f i !''1. 1 tir . y. T i J x+2...~.4k~ M. x. a -Jf- I b P. f n w .Ip °"',z ' p c Q 4 \~y' 1..~ ..•u y' HE U LI } Tu ~1K.~ .,yrt., ~ ~~xr J•' „if ~.."r 4 1 ~.n^ ~ G~!,;r c ; Q r' N • 4_ 3:u..g ylk i -v '-@Y,~.~ R, r •_d f-- y„r e I` s} 1`q, . rI'r .+P_ ArA S~ u 1 1 - ? f+c' 1 s ..r f( r'x tiJ - y r. f ,II,U; _ x,yr J•a- w r" ' ` _ x 7 2 f i '1R1..~ 1 i~ i; r~ J°A ~.,c L Lt4 r ~.I_ - I I ~r 9 '^`r 4`r T.. ri r ' U Y { t~~ i_ X14 ,I ~ ~ .''rei' .r`fi~'1` ~'T "y' 3.9 ~ ,~e~l ~ I tiF. A, I7~J1 'Y _ k ~ t 1 i- 9 '41,.. DI l_ r'. '+Mt~' „a rj '1' "y' c...~r .a ~ , : e : L vf'rAP ~I 19°°'° 1 r- I ~ I ~ ~ p 1 ✓ ^ ~ I i 0.4 - IJ 1 _ 4- t y ••].~R 4`*'.. T*r y~^' c d) ~r ~ i Ir ~"I r~ < f`~5 hw IA.ti p` . - . ~ ~i ur f. I,w ~ 4 ~ ,r"Tv.:° ~ f r P•.~,ir,~. .^r„+~;~ ~ : r.eT I C-`1 d:;'~:- 1 y AI_F' -~n •,a.~.%:: it ~ _ _ n e~v rx f~ r^,.=,~ t. a.~ `~.i~;r.r 'r YL~,~/-'" r;~„'~ .y r._M 1'. rPa~ 1 • 1,: i i y. y~ ~ _ -~.»d t ss ,!1. P E ~~`~nya '7n~ .aG`. _ "1-i =.-t: i "S,r'i i __rp f li s.~_.~_~~~.tt za i X111 e.1 - C'i ~,l'~ ' I- _ ~t 1 Md.r. Y"p ti "g i_AA..r f, f._ Nom. i i♦ 'I BALSAM AV _ ~ 1G " ..I_ ; iw,Yl _ r. x>•' - - ~ ®AL 1i d• • ' C ' f •.erj^' Wit. _ ¢ ' yr I.rL i?Y? .l +V•'"'~`. °~i #rux$ ^ L~„' ! ~i. e: r x~ % + _.:.4 r 1 r 1 i + r' ej or it _ - ~ i4' 4 r-jp i w, s ,,~5 + 3?: ~1 .,~r l ri J~' JY` N. d~~'. r..bR , tfr Pf--• ~ r-~ r 'J ~ ~Ft,' rl~u.wwmw .-ice Y Y w i!fra..... TILE-RSY7~h .-1' _ - 1~ S ~k. i~ r• 1i d7.1 '~s k111 *r ! 'I x Y rn ~c .nl r _ b ..n'w.' l j t~~ t1` •^m__-"R y 1 'k J a -a t ~~yy~F6+AR L~V' .fi r 1,.,1„( l .?Y, r, - sir 1 vrt r-- o r , zi:`~c p. Ps P~f•1...~~taj+w 1 ` r _ S1.tt__.f ALi Ni Y,r ALPINE io { u~Y.P.~.L~.-...1. Kb 1 v" : r-!'.: r,(f,•T fib: r. ''i,+aS -L'~*~ ! J -..~!'w?y F - ^4°`' w.-~ _~f~ "''T all ~r x•^1'1) kcal- '.?s`Iwr~}i..l~°,y~., t r'_ ti F_ ~.-~a~ s _ a!-.•_ Yo.• cT r l:r r, _ iti »tj!A~ r~~;, :h 1 .?."s f!4,~ r y~ o-ar V l ""•~4 _ 1r-! _ I. 1 y ,1 ~t'3 F 1 =4`' $ Oil I ~I~ ':q-- ~qyJ ~C,• H 4 e"? t i a.. ) i-I f'-. 11-1-' fill , ~v~~~I1 ~i~i I:{. " 1 pp .>r~ - _'t~.wd~,- ~uc; .1'. ~ 1 y ~.r• s Y'y~'"~-=~r r,}>^`r ~~~a,~~ 1 ,..1 p1177---%, J~ .~..?rhs :rf' ~ f ~ Hj. ' r.'~ •(c ,.r r ~ 'f i' r 1 1~,0 ~ y I t.M \ _~~A~~° rpb,,u ~ , r ,r ~ • I. 'YIS-. - ;1 nl r`~" f 1 ~ 1 ~9LUS" ~j~ `r~ ' Itt\ r'~'I`a~ i^ E.Y•'r ~ Y. tF" _ ':1 ' ~~l-V { 1 ` - _ t rny°j .r_. /Js.'~ .";'r `•S'1,'t (t rlf I tri~ y 2 01t "7. ~t ~ ~ _ fd"'..~'2 ~,...r > .Pr p ~ ~ ~'~r~ ~p~' t' ~ .ter 2 C: -sa_r~' S, d d '.ir1 ~ n~.~" ~ ~t'I~~~ ? •AV ~U~ ~I~~ .ice .-4~ :.r.. - ;1 y:, 1..1^ ~-r-I~.-'~_ ~.-...!pKti 'v~C', \ --i!~" , i .rv ...:2~-: .C.~ de_..___.._~... ~~~C-~~.~ _.~._-'~..-.tT-_'"`__~...-..iSs..._1.L.'=_r~•_1... ~~i s__~.>~e.-..r_,~-.__-~-"~.E`c...:-AS ~~~__,t_. c~:.l taa=~ __a.~.. ~m _ ~ ! ~~~~rvv .•,r~ pp ~r 'S - G~(L~E 00 Ofi~ _ 'T K 1! tl ~ x ~ d .,,-,x. ~•tl.9e.1+Ae r..z ~.}.L~ e, r . } Z 1 - - ~ ~ .i~ Ir ,I + Z. .G x , ~ ~'..E A'.ti4,.r µs;+ro 4+~r ~wh ~r K S al.::. Ty° _...7 ~ ~~i _.~xJ.~.L _:,,~.~r .j•~1~. L``-~~+t .4 ~ it III ~ f., ~ ~ ~I (,=F 'I"•_ ~ r-rrw"'~r ~1 ,-u _ y~tiL II~1 ~ ~d~- ray t'~•`. i II t, " ~ E, ~,w} r • f',. R'r""r Iw ~ S F: 'r' _ t~~ 1 rr ~ r 7 l I f y ~ ~ 1 t 'I. t j G -;r► fe TS: b7"'. . I f,tr"+ T+te`1 + k v ~ .IG FE _ - r. J f 3-r i r b `~!'^i• a ~ v ~~,r~~l ,ape Y;~;~ f ~,~,j~~-,~.. ~,.~/.;r .1 IG'~`i y"b'`.~~..a h•"~~p, ~"F. ~eC K.~~ xl~l Fl I~, ~~~~'7 t'6'~; ~y~'~ j~nJ_ ~ 'Ei, ~ °4K"'!, _ ~ ,fir. /`t! ~ ,r"P~, _ r ~ ~1 T'F4.ly°'" • ~ ~ ra .p.' ~~'a' " d' ~ ",R~`i', +~'_c~j.+ ~~g ~ ia'~",~ m~ ^r~l ~ 4:,r ~?~?~>%t:./ d"`,'pa i r ~ _;'Sj!'~., y~- k;A?S.rs a -v{-~ -1 ~ ~ r f : +t r +a, F/~~~~`~.(~, /i I Q J a. 1 d. ' i ,Yr"M. t~ti. 'r:. _ .Y dl~ 'tip t xi• 'br r E.n~ r) hJl i- ,A'4 ..1 /~r'~ t r-' y y ^ - R~ ~ ..p. :.:Y • ~ ~ v ~ r~ F Cif i_ . . 4a, ~ ~ ~~</w... a ~i fin' 4s .-p~~ ' t ~ ! V .~s,w'~",.:T..~ rl ~+y~~ x ~i~® `'~V"RW?~~ G '.t ` IF r,~ y,~`~ e ~ i... > t f`~-; _ ~ ~ E ~ r i` oLL '~~Oa ~•E. , i -R,.1C~ ri'~ ~ P .:.bJ.' ~;jlr~. ~~yx ~~I ~~y.;a- u,.;,r". ;t'f~ ~'.r`!!:~ f~'v!'• c :c~`,`~'~; fvf,•'; ~-,~s, i r a ,r y T` U ~ Y~. f~ 'I "P.. A ,c - I -k ~ , 1 I R r Mr ' • ~ :~r "4 ~ tk,l f~'' r ,fr r~~ ;~-?:rte,- n .may, i.r~ ~y, p f^,. 1 as" t 'r R r.,r, , r. ~ e~ ~ r a ~ x ~ f a ' ~.r 1•r 7 ~ ~ Y"'~-~~~ . ~ ~ l'+j .4~,i~-. ~ ~j~' ~ L,~ f_ ;Ly .(mow 1..~~ ~ t _"I f 1 r•-kr~ ~ ~ ~~p Ytt ~..M 1., '4 ~ ~,PS ra' } ~ a,Yl F-.,i ~ - _ n+~_ x ~ }~q~ rtT _r- 4 LLB gL'.~ cx 1 ~ u ~ ~ I • _i,f ~ rP } u~ -~-Q N F v AM r.:..',.+.'. HE L~ 'I-'~.,.''lit Z~ r. ~7r= r" `i ~~.~;-r. Y dd~ 1` ~ni- ~(~~~'>Sq IF, L ~ r~ k ~'~~p 'a v.~!lr.~.-~ 'I•-a',R -1 `s " '!r'~ 'r.....v ''`r°~k'~' ~ Iltrr R.f~ f ~'?p'.~ t ~.sf'~f ~1 -:~-vx' r•~•~~I~i~.~ A I r P'+'{i• 4 , k , t_'M:i17T + IY 1 Y -1! 4 'J'4 •Ir. j - `•f~ h co ' "Y_rV 1-1~ F"Y. F p v,° - ~ I v, ~Jf' ~Y F+.~. ,e ~..✓..~i , R 1•• ~ ,s e,~. H.B ~1~'~ d1T Y. li I~I~ Q 1 ~ 1 f tIa'Vlf:_ ♦W ~ ~f i ~-..r e '!'~t;.r„P -;1Ft Ry~i' '~5;,~'t '.:ins ® , ~F4 ~ i „ • F _ IY^I ~ - -h.;. ( kW'' ,L ~ +T"•~~5~ i e! rd "S ~~'9 ~r pj- r4 ,v( "M"~'`u~ i.✓ t - r_. f!~. r it + .1 1 ` hia ~ ~M • ~ f + m ~ -t• ib;:'i 'All ,r.1."}.L iyt,p!j'..; "T r.-: 1 R 4LF-:i ' +f ` •~s'I 6 I.'l!' . ~+:lv`h ` _a' _ c~ P• '?f . a+►~,J~ ~.y;r,, ~_~i.. i. ♦ j~. fir.,"' ~ ~ f ~ to ~q: ,y i'.',.i,~gt,~~~~'v ~ tr ~.-,..•~1 'Y 9;• ~e} 14 q1{ r ..1 _ Y y...~-r • a r f . r~;r ~ ~ J~~-. \ t~ ~ .9 EV-R~ ifi~i c AZ "~r'.sts'~ ~ - ~ ^ OFF- lc n,•~~-i>- ® r - - - ~ 4'~If~.1 .e,.AL~EY / .:4. f ~ J'-ly p.i'lwl~~ a~h_ T y ..,f W) 17, r W Tyr .R v x ^„F' r V w••• R~ r. :f-'' Y-' iPr. 1^° f.`.•i ~`'f r r'J/ r. ¢Y+ r 1. - r y. _p •t~M e•.YV -t,.pa~imo~u~1~~~ i 4 1t0' : `i ~ ~ ~1 I : - e~ -y ~ W t y v. Y_•i4F ! r ~f ~ r'~1~ " t; s ~ F ,t;' ~ ~ fis,v~. ~'"s , S c ~1'°..W"."` x.73 , - a ' '~e~e: ~ F f'° fl • _ •.rwuri.`__ r•9 h. t.3 ""n k .t. - _ , RM"- l r R_ t. -1 •--'i i N 4-1•'^ a :p rr -.r..~ 1 wrt, W ' rl € 4 t..,M. i - s t ~ i f} ,.,c • -"'R•." • • ry P"✓. Ff.:+ t ll - ~ r - t z r ' P•,:,l; N~ V t ' a.y i l~ _ - 11 r ~k,i P r^ '1' IS'+ rel ~ ~ of .e dy,, VY f ~4 r 2~.. 'W 'Af`. t~:~ci- p:.~i~ f? r°„s~`~#,~.^°i:~o ~'4:~r`' ..~..d° %1"'."s~r~} -...,1CI ~ ~~r°r c4;'~ 1 .r•-.', wy~~ 't ' h.x ' 4 ^ N + {~1 ~,+n -.:tP 23t*:. ~ s` _ ~ .w l' ~ ~ ~ r' Z` a" \ y~ - ~ • .`+ry .s y~....• ~ I ~1 .y, _ Sj , ~ii~ ~ _.n✓. ~_y.., h'..~ , gn"}F f'.11 9'Ft. .l. ' - , s „ 4l1< C ~ a d ` x ~'t{y~-y. ~~6~/',Y/~fjj ~~yX~^a ~ ~ ~e_ t _ ra + M~. ~..7• ~ Lf r. t a IS ';~o..I c kI•+''1.~ y. ~ GC r 1. ham: _-M6B-OH ,rkl e "r r1~~k..~ h, 'cY6' 1;~5 p ~V+Ur Rl• •,p fr ~F~ i .+s ~b n'`.~.C_ fit .12` J r,;~ i;' ) Y 1' f~_~~ ~TTt'T • _ 1 T~ ~r f4 J~b \ ■,Fr"•~,CV + r "_-+..-E-~ 'r~-,~- JVm".~ !J 'i 7 r f'~ R aJ 's p\~" a.~'° -n'`~'+I! m 1• rt ' ~~;4 1" 141 . (/J 2~~-., r •;f~+ 1"'' n ~„b, ~.Rtf ~t ,m~-} t. ~~•..a.,< o'ff'y, x&'"..r f, - 0. 81b fFr 4`~4 t x. V q 1: n,. «t 3t 4¢ r L r'. a F ..~r`'\z\r. Attachment D Balsam/Edgwood NH Traffic Mitigation Proposal - Cost Estimates and other Information M ation Device Location Parkin Loss? CERR? Emer enc Im act on CERR Cost Estimate Speed Hump Elder between Washington & Jefferson $ 2,000.00 Speed Hump Elder east of of 15th Street $ 2,000.00 Speed Hump Cedar west of Ellison $ 2,000.00 Speed Hum Cedar between 16th & 17th $ 2,000.00 Remove STOP signs Cedar at 15th Street intersection $ 500.00 EntryIsland and Ped Refuge Alpine east of 13th Street 3 spaces es Maybe (1-2 seconds) $ 9,000.00 Pedestrian Refuge Island Alpine east of 14th Street 4 spaces yes Maybe (1-2 seconds) $ 7,000.00 Permanent Speed Display (WB)_ Alpine & 17th Street 1 spaces es None $ 8,000.00 Permanent Speed Display (EB) $ 8,000.00 Permanent Speed Display (WB) Balsam & 17th Street _ yes None $ 8,000.00 Permanent Speed Display (EB) Balsam & 17th Street 1 space es None $ 8,000.00 with Curb Extension $ 2,000.00 EXISTING Permanent Speed Display (NB) 19th Street between Elder and Cedar es None EXISTING! Permanent Speed Display (SB) 19th Street between Elder and Cedar 1 space es None $ 8,000.00 with Curb Extension $ 2,000.00 Permanent Speed Display WB Ed ewood west of 21 st Street es None $ 8,000.00 Permanent Speed Display (EB) Ed ewood west of 21st Street 1 space es None $ 14,000.00 with Curb Extension and Flood Mitigation Permanent Speed Display WB) Ed ewood east of Nichol es None $ _ 8,000.00 Permanent Speed Display EB Ed ewood east of Nichol 1 space es None $ 14,000.00 with Curb Extension and Flood Miti ation Net Parkin Loss= 12 spaces $ 112,500.00 Attachment D Below is the written version of the straw proposals that were created for the Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood. These Proposals are not options; they are just a place to begin a conversation regarding traffic mitigation in the Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood. CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE 1 Photo Red/Speed on Green: 19th and Floral Ped Signal with Photo Red and Speed: Edgewood between Nicholl and Nicholl Permanent Speed Display: 19`h (2) South of Elder facing north and North of Cedar facing south Balsam (2) and 17th facing East and West Alpine (2) between 15`' and 17`h facing east and between 1400 block facing west Edgewood (4) at 21" facing east and west, at Loraine Ct. facing east, and between 23`a and 24`h facing east CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE 2 Traffic Circles: Elder (2) on 17`h and 19th Cedar (2) on 17th and 19`h Balsam (1) on 17th Alpine (1) on 17th Edgewood (3) at 215`, Nicholl and 20' Partial Median: Elder (1) between 14th and 15`h Alpine (1) between 14th 15th CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE 3 Speed humps: Elder (3) between Jefferson and Washington, between 14`' and 15th, and at 17th Cedar (2) East of 14`h and West of 17`h Partial Median: Alpine (3) West of 141h, West of 151h, and West of 171h 191h (3) South of Evergreen, North of Cedar, and between Evergreen and cedar Edgewood (6) between 19`h and 20th, between 21 and Nicholl, 2 between Nicholl and Loraine Ct., West of Loraine Ct, and between 23' and 24`h Traffic Circle: Balsam and 17" Attachment E Information gathered from: Balsam/Edgewood NTMP March 19, 2002 Meeting Emails Phone conversations Individual meetings Stop Signal on Edgewood Pros: • Zip Cons: • Excessive stop/start of vehicles causes noise problems for homes close to the signal • Causes increased pollution Permanent Speed Displays Pros: • Generally considered good effect • Speed control on Edgewood should be for both directions. • Wide Supported for use on 19`x' Cons: • Not as effective late at night, ignored or sometimes used by young people as a race challenge Photo Red/Speed on Green Pros: • Permanent radar is better than mobile because then drivers would know it is always active rather than random. • Wherever photo radar is placed, it should be very clear to drivers with signs, etc. Cons: • Zip Traffic Circles Pros: Attachment E • Best where traffic volume is balanced • One individual felt if mitigation (traffic circles) was consistent throughout neighborhood their effectiveness would increase Cons: • Negatives are bike safety, pedestrian safety, emergency response times • Traffic does not slow enough and the ones on Balsam are considered dangerous and too noisy • Would like to see speeds down to 15 mph at circles • Want more signs, lights, street painting, etc. to warn drivers? • Could there be increased fines for speeding through circles, such as double fines? • Seems to be a safety concern when a side street and through street intersect at a circle and especially at T circles • A particular concern is that car lights go into residential windows when they are making turns around circles or other curving sections (many homes are close to major roads) • There is a need to increase education regarding the use of traffic circles • Many are concerned if too many are on the same street then slowing emergency response vehicles could be a serious issue • Supported for use on 19`h although not encouraged neighborhoods feel it is over kill Medians Pros: • Zip Cons: • Do not like full block medians • Concerned with traffic flow close to homes - don't push cars away from the center but perhaps push them away from the road edges, but concerned with pushing cars and bikes together • 19`h street residents do not like-safety concerns--backing out of driveway, etc. Speed Humps, Raised Crosswalks, Raised Pedestrian Crossing • 12 households on Elder would like some type of speed hump/raised crossing- they prefer raised ped crossing--a safe place for their children to cross and an effective too] to mitigate speeding in their neighborhood. Attachment E Related Issues: • Treat the whole area in a uniform way - spread out the devices rather than just concentrated on 1 or 2 streets. General concern is that overdoing controls on Balsam & Edgewood may divert higher speed traffic to Alpine/Cedar. • Lower speed limit on 19`h to 25 miles per hour • Install deer crossing signs • Have a dialogue with RTD to see if smaller quieter buses could be used on 19th • There is a general concern with large trucks on Alpine, Balsam, Edgewood. • On street parking is not very important. • Bike and pedestrian safety is very important. There is a lot of bike and pedestrian traffic on Edgewood. • The curve at the eastern end of Edgewood is a major problem. • Anything on Edgewood must consider flood zone issues With the small % average over the speed limit, maybe nothing further is needed there Others think drivers must be slowed and photo radar and/or speed displays are better option than construction on Edgewood Page 1 of 1 Teresa Spears - NTMP Balsam From: "John Hoffman" cjohnrhoffman@earthlink.net> To: aspearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 03/08/2002 3:24 PM Subject: NTMP Balsam Teresa, I got your flyer today in the mail. I live at 2840 19th St. and am pleased with the present mitigation devices that are in place and see no need for new ones. I've been at this address for 27 years now. What really helps keep speed down, I think, is the flashing yellow light on Edgewood that lets you know your speed and what the speed limit is. You see it while going west on Edgewood just past Valmont. This is my input. I won't be attending the meetings. Thanks, John Hoffman file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW)00008.HTM 06/27/2002 Page 1 of 2 Teresa Spears - Balsam/Englewood Traffic Mitigation Plan From: Mary and Dick Ham <rgham@attbi.com> To: <spearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 03/08/2002 5:06 PM Subject: Balsam/Englewood Traffic Mitigation Plan Dear Ms. Spears, I recieved the announcement of the Balsam/Englewood Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Plan meetings in the mail today (March 8). I am concerned that the proposed meetings are being held at Mapleton Elementary School, rather than at a location closer to the neighborhood that will be affected by the plan, such as Washington or Columbine Elementary, or Casey Junior High or Salberg Park. Also, I was disappointed to discover that only 11 days before the first meeting is scheduled, there is still nothing on the pwplan website about the plan. It would be nice to have a chance to think carefully about the proposals and formulate intelligent comments and questions prior to the meeting. I am a strong supporter of traffic mitigation, but I still feel strongly that the current Balsam traffic circles were not properly placed. With a traffic light at Broadway, a four-way stop at 13th, a traffic circle at 14th, and another at 15th, any measure of speed taken between Broadway and 15th shows excellent mitigation. However, in the space between the four-way stop at 19th and the circle at 15th, there is still speeding, particularly westbound. My personal experience is that it takes major concentration not to be going too fast westbound at 17th. Accelerating from the stop sign at 19th, the first block to 18th is a steeper hill than the next few blocks. When one steps on the gas hard enough to achieve a decent acceleration away from the stop sign, the reduction in the amount of hill upon passing 18th makes a driver feel that acceleration has been reduced more than it actually has. The street is wide and designed for a faster speed. It feels comfortable, even to a conservative 70 year old driver, to be driving faster than the posted speed limit by the time 17th street is reached. In my opinion, the most effective control would be a flashing radar speed indicator, comparable to the one further east on Edgewood. I find it to be highly effective in preventing me from over-accelerating after I come around the curves to the east of the sign. Alternatively, if there are to be other devices, such as circles, they should be spaced out two or three blocks apart. As I said above, the two circles at 14th and 15th, particularly in conjunction with the four-way stop at 13th, are an overkill for that segment of Balsam. Also, if the goal is really to maintain a steady flow of traffic at 25 miles per hour, devices that demand slowing to 15 mph are not an effective means file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW IW008.HTM 06/27/2002 Page 2 of 2 of attaining that goal. No one is going to remain at 15 mph after passing one of those devices. As they accelerate, they are very likely to continue far past 25 mph. A series of gentle S-curves in midblock that are comfortable at 25 mph, but not at higher speeds might be more effective than the circles at the intersections. I also continue to view the circles as hazardous to drivers entering Balsam from the cross streets. A circle works best when both of the intersecting streets have about the same amount of traffic. However, despite all of the posted signs, Balsam is a thoroughfare and both 14th and 15th are side streets. The circles are not large enough in diameter so that it is realistic to yield to traffic already IN the circle. If there is to be a yield, it must be to the car that is closest to entering the circle. Most drivers on Balsam view it as the major street. Drivers entering from 14th or 15th tend to yield right-of-way. If a driver on Balsam actually yields, the drivers on 14th or 15th tend to be hesitant enough to enter so that the traffic on Balsam must essentially come to a stop. I live two blocks north of Balsam. Because of the uncertainty about who will yield, I nearly always avoid entering Balsam from 14th or 15th. The net result is that I drive on Cedar, either west to 13th or east to 19th in most cases, This has the undesired effect of pushing additional traffic onto the parallel streets. For a variety of reasons, I did not get involved in the last round of planning early enough to be heard effectively. I hope to make myself heard earlier this time before the plans are too close to finalized. I appreciate the fact that you are sending notices to people who live a bit further from the project. I hope that you will soon be able to post the alternative plans on the web site. Richard G. Ham 2920 Jefferson Street rgham@attbi.com file://C:\WINDOW S\TEMP\GW) 00008.HTM 06/27/2002 Page 1 of 1 Teresa Spears -19 th st. traffic mitigation, since i cant be at the meeting mar. 19 From: "Paul Archer" <archereagle@hotmail.com> To: <spearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 03/13/2002 3:26 PM Subject: 19 th st. traffic mitigation, since i cant be at the meeting mar. 19 I would like to voice my opinion since I will be out of town for the first meeting, that the traffic on 19th street between Balsam and his must be slowed down! Many children live in the area and many many more walk from Columbine Elementary home, crossing 19th street. I know there are school zone hours, but the kids are around all the time on school days, and how do school zones help on the 190 non school days per year!!!!!????? There are more non school days than school days if you count them up. 175 full school days, 190 days of weekends, holidays and school breaks. Also, their is a park heavily frequented by people of all ages, especially children, at Evergreen and 19th. There are a tremendous amount of elderly in the neighborhood! It is very precarious for them. The street is a major bike thoroughfare. Slower traffic makes sense for them as well. Lastly, I absolutely hate the noise of the speeders as they take advantage of one of Boulder's rare 8 block atretches without a stop sign or light. the light at Fern St. doesn;t count because it only turns when someone is waiting to cross. People are on average shooting through there faster than Folsom or 28th Streets - every other car goes between 40 and 45 on that street! your statistics may show an average of 35, but that is dragged down by the school zone times of 20 mph and the rare motorist doing 30 or under. I strongly urge their to be a 3 - way stop sign put at Fern instead of the light. This is right in the middle of the speed zone between Dellwood and Iris, because of the hill between Balsam and Cedar, people don't usually get their speed up until Dellwood. This stop sign would not impede emergency equipment, and because the volume is so much less than on Balsam, there would not be traffic backed up at the signs, except for the car at the sign and maybe one behind that car waiting. I've lived onn 19th for 3 years and know the situation intimately! The placement of a stop sign here would encourage people to keep their speed at 25-ish. Also, I propose changing the speed limit there 25 mph, for it is a residential neighborhood with so many children, elderly, and bikers like I mentioned above. Please read my letter at the meeting! Tahnk you very much for your time. Feel free to contact me for any reason. 303 447-0449. Sincerely, Paul Archer MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00008.HTM 06/27/2002 08/27/2002 18:13 FAX 901 RICK DYS4N A7TOPn[Y AT LAW i FAR TRANSMISSION COVER TO: / la~ccL ~$)?ctf'S 303 ~fS~/- ~a/-7 FROM: RICK DYSON FAX #(303) 449-2656 DATE: 3 2 Z7/o 2 - RE: ~-~-•Q_ [`-"'z-v7-ems %f`f~.i'~o ~ Pages Sent: 3 (Including this cover sheet) ~ DISSEMINATION OF THE INFORNIAI'ION HEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED This message is intended only for the ise of the individual to which it is addressed and contains information that is confidential and pr vileged as a communication between attorney and client. Please notify the sender at (303) 449- l ; 73 if the reader is not the intended recipient of this message and return the message by mail. 3ofu0XIAMW WU ]Ul W,UnW00L0AA000QW4 (909140-7713 09/27/2002 13:15 FAX f~j09 . . Pap 2 Sincerely, NAMES SIGNATURE ADDRESS 2. ~a►~~s~~ c 3eeo ~s g 3 L~rn ~a~ ~GC. .30 S a`ti~7 4 , 14 8.0 ~kd vJt 5. Ames Lecf nsk; ?ear K?.aa akA. U ~ 1;sa: 8. P, NJL. /yEG t:P ~w~*r 9 l~)1 A£~ Anl Z ©~ia¢Ic12. ' r ~ son y $e c~as N,~7o~1 10 / e Ae ~,~,G3sro/sS,~ 11. A<< CGS FUr .5-rF- I is/ o F400 Ave OSM1.1 "Lm 12. ~ o1~a J1~p.euL ~Stc f1de~ ~'r-''~ 13. 14. 16. 16. 17. 18. 19. I 03/27/2002 13:16 FAX 902 Page 1 . From: Rick Dyson <dckQvdynamic..oom> To: Rick Dyson <6c @vdynamlc.com> Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2002 2:17 PM Subject: Re: Elder Traffic Mitigation Ms. Theresa Spears Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program City of Boulder s ea ci.boulder.com Dear Ms. Spears: We live on Elder Avenue in Boulder, CO. Wd understand that the City of Boulder has approved some form of traffic mitigation device(s) on Elder and is looking for our opinions as to which mitigation we would like. We understand that because Elder is not considered a Critical Emergency Response Route, our options are fairly unlimited. However we do understand that the budget for these mitigation de iices is limited and we wish to take this into account. The majority of traffic in our neighborh hod is from cars using Elder Ave as a through street between 19th and Brc adway. These cars often speed, creating an unsafe situation on our streets. It is our desire to create a safe neighborhood, allowing residents to easily use the street with cars, bikes or on foot while discouraging non-resident cars from using our Street as a fast access to Broadway. We prefer two types of mitigation devices that would work well on our street: speed humps and raised crosswalks or raised pedestrian crossings. Three of these should suffice if strategically placed. We prefer raised crossings a3 it provides a safe place for children to cross but we would be satisfied with speed humps if cost is an issue. Page I of I Teresa Spears - NTMP Balsam From: "John Hoffman" ~johnrhoffman@earthlink. net> To: <spearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 03/08/2002 3:24 PM Subject: NTMP Balsam Teresa, I got your flyer today in the mail. I live at 2840 19th St. and am pleased with the present mitigation devices that are in place and see no need for new ones. I've been at this address for 27 years now. What really helps keep speed down, I think, is the flashing yellow light on Edgewood that lets you know your speed and what the speed limit is. You see it while going west on Edgewood just past Valmont. This is my input. I won't be attending the meetings. Thanks, John Hoffman file://C:\W INDOWS\TEMP\GW) 00008.HTM 03/18/2002 Page 1 of I Teresa Spears - Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Plan From: "Mike White" <michaeljwhite3@attbi.com> To: <spearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 03/31/2002 11:49 AM Subject: Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Plan Hello I received a mailing for the 3/19 meeting but was unable to attend. I've looked over the website but have not found info specific to this neighborhood - are there any materials describing the planning area and mitigation options being considered? If there and not any materials I can review before the 4/2 deadline for comments, please put me down in support of most anything that slows traffic down in our neighborhood. Thanks, Mike White 3005 14TH ST Boulder, CO 80304 file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00008.HTM 04/03/2002 Page I of 2 Teresa Spears - Traffic Mitigation Conceptual Alternatives for 19th Street From: "Jennifer Schwarz" <jss_esk@ecentral.com> To: <spearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 04/03/2002 10:14 AM Subject: Traffic Mitigation Conceptual Alternatives for 19th Ms. Spears, Thank you for sending the three conceptual alternatives to us via the U.S. mail. We have had a chance to review them, but have not had an opportunity to get input from any other neighbors. As you requested some feedback this week, all we can provide is our own. So here it is: Conceptual Alternative 1: Permananent speed display. We believe this already exists on 19th Street. Conceptual Alternative 2: The traffic circle alternative is acceptable to us. However, we feel the City of Boulder should make an effort to directly contact the residents who would be directly affected by the traffic circles. It appears that several driveways line up with the cross streets (Cedar and Elder) and these residents would be impacted. We would also remind the City of Boulder that 19th Street is a bus route and bike path and there may be concern that traffic circles would be dangerous especially for bikes. ` - Conceptual Alternative 3: The partial median alternative is unacceptable to us. We believe the partial medians will not slow traffic and will make it more dangerous for residents to pull out of their driveways because it will obstruct their views. Partial medians will also make the street essentially one way for some residents. We do have some suggestions for other alternatives that might be considered. We would propose reducing the speed limit to 25 miles per hour and installing permanent speed monitoring displays. We also propose establishing some dialogue with RTD to see if smaller quieter buses could be added to their fleet for use on 19th Street. Finally, the section of 19th Street under consideration is a deer crossing (between Cedar and Elder). We have had several deer hit by vehicles. We propose that the traffic mitigation program work with the appropriate City of Boulder department to post Deer Crossing signs above or below the speed monitoring displays. file:HC:\W INDOWS\TEMP\GW) 00008.HTM 04/04/2002 Page 2 of 2 1 hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free to contacts us. Thanks, Jennifer Schwarz and Eric Keighin 2930 19th Street Boulder, CO 80304 303.415.0408 jss-esk@ecentral.com file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW }00008.HTM 04/04/2002 9 $ n F r ..e Y y. Existing _ Existi E)d w l Y S Hum} S Hum --F~` E~asti s Speed Hump Speed Hump Traffic Circle v . ; u 6dsbng S ed Hum Permanent' {t~ - Speed a 25 Permanent • a~ r Display Speed a ExisMg I Display 30 Permanent T Speed r Display LL ' . 1 ~ I rzn_inm S Hum ,r . I . S Hum y e Q I~ ] Traffic Circle 1 u Feasibility of permanent photo - - _ ' ° ' - radar is being considered as an „ i .y*yw I N . ~ ~f - alternative to speed tee: ~ pennanent dis la along Ed ewood. ° . , , Remove all-way stop in ~ , conjunction w/speed _ m hum ate` ~P „ tt n c: Permanent , m 25 Permanent Speed ti . EntryIsland Median w/Ped Speed Display F R e splay s+reeo rglq el~ N AVE A a t NEM /d. I / 25 Permanent . JUNE 2002 DRAFT. THIS PLAN IS Speed CONCEPTUAL. DEVICE wrc~x Display LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. r CMLMLL - S ed Hum S ed Hum S d Hum e zf- BALSAM / EDGEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD S" Conceptual Traffic Calming Plan TRANSPWC- ASSOCIATES, b~ofrtuScale 1*=600' Date 6/28/02 Drawn by RAC Job# ABOULD0213.00 Figure Attachment G Balsam/Edgewood Traffic Mitigation Proposal Input May 21, 2002 - Plan looks great - 19th St. looks good; concern about Alpine traffic circle. Perhaps a lot of money for little effect. Could be overkill, since there are not a lot of houses there. (At this point the Alpine Traffic Circle has been removed from the proposal) - Like to see slowing on 19th, not sure if display is effective. Maybe signal or traffic circle. - Table or humps might be better on 19th for slowing. - Reduction of speed limit may also help. Speed displays may not help much. - Question about average speed study - actual speeds seem faster and house vibrates. - Traffic concern over volume and size of trucks. - Speed sensitive signal as an option. - "Fines doubled" signs. - Don't need three speed humps on Elder. - 80% support speed humps? - What are police doing on Friday and Saturday nights? Cost-effective to go after kids? Requires 50 to 100 officers to deter. - Dummy police cars as a deterrent? - 19th is an issue, also an emergency route. - Need something on Alpine. - 23rd and Edgewood - possible to put in a crosswalk? Pedestrian signal, flashing light east of intersection on 23rd 1 Page 1 of 1 Teresa Spears - Balsam/Edgewood straw vote From: Marie Zuzack To: Spears, Teresa Date: 05/09/2002 12:31 PM Subject: Balsam/Edgewood straw vote Hi Teresa, I received your packet yesterday and have had a chance to look it over. I would vote for Alternative 1. 1 see that my reasons for preferring #1 and disliking #2 and #3 reflected in the comments of some others: - My house is at the corner of Elder & 17th. I am opposed to traffic circles and speed bumps/raised crossings because cars slowing/braking and re-accelerating going around or over these devices creates a lot of extra noise for those houses/ yards close by. I have walked by circles and bumps elsewhere in town: That additional braking and re-accelerating noise is real. I also am concerned about the additional air pollution this causes in the area near the circle or bump. - Also, with a traffic circle at 17th/Elder, there would be headlights shining into my windows at night. Right now, when cars turn from Elder onto 17th, their headlights shine into my living room and bedroom windows (even with shades down). Fortunately it's not a lot of cars. I'm concerned with a circle at 17th/Elder that would become a lot of headlights. - As a frequent pedestrian and bicyclist, I find that traffic circles make crossing an intersection: - difficult because its not clear if the cars will or even should stop or slow for you the pedestrian/bicyclist; - dangerous-feeling because they push you into the car flow area just as drivers are pre- occupied with navigating around the obstacle; and - somewhat awkward to bike around. I do support photo radar and speed displays to control traffic speeds. They're effective on me! And I think they're fair. I see a con listed for speed displays is that they're not as effective late at night. I would think speeding cars should be less of a concern late at night - presumably people are asleep. Other traffic-slowing measures that I like are landscaped medians and narrowing the road with landscape strips along the curb. People instinctively drive more slowly on a narrower road. This method avoids the noise, pollution and headlight problems that circles and bumpstraised crossings cause. It does feel a little tighter for bicyclists sharing the road with cars, but at least it doesn't create an obstacle course for bicyclists and pedestrians, as circles and bumps do. Also, landscape medians and strips are attractive. I do realize they may be more expensive to maintain. Teresa, thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment. Please keep me on your mailing list. Marie file:HC:\WINDOWS\TEM P\GW}00008.HTM 06/27/2002 Page 1 of 1 Teresa Spears - Easy Fix for Traffic mitigation From: Ian Williamson <ian.williamson@sun.com> To: <spearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 06/17/2002 10:25 AM Subject: Easy Fix for Traffic mitigation One quick fix that can help ease the traffic in the Whittier neighborhood is the traffic light at Pine and Folsom. This light remains "red' for Pine traffic a long time. Can we shorten the light cycle to ease the flow? Thank you -Ian Williamson file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW) 00008.HTM 06/27/2002 Attachment H G GLE ARLA D L i , PG z, D DR LENWOOD D 6 R ODETA , NWOO E_ N 0 Co., I F- Ck: Iw `te- IV r- _ C09 00, ul 1J"fltl 0 LAC-' ER AV ~,~~I EL E A I El F_C~ aP"E.~Tkkip W d i EDA ~I d I , F' i i I / 2 N EH BALSAMAV~" j PANORAMA AV ii tLL ~T(LER RD _ _ _LNEAV - AL IN 1_1 t i ~J!IESA - -i - _ - --N - - - N . r. y~ • ~ ~ PORTLAND L N N 1 y~ SZ _ LOA ~j -A1 1 1 \ ~ - - _r - ~ ~ ~I - 1 y~~ I _i 1, -1r -11 v" 1• I J N`•1~- ^I II 1 M I,r'`^' 2 a -A _ 1 r~ i~l I~~ Attachment I PINE STREET / BALSAM AVENUE TRAFFIC CIRCLE DEMONSTRATIONS Evaluation Results In the results shown below, a comparative evaluation is being made between conditions with and without the final design traffic circles in the vicinity of the mitigation. Where no new information is available, there is comparative information concerning one or more of the demonstrations that were present prior to the final design and construction of the traffic circles. The following factors were evaluated to determine the effectiveness and external impacts of the final design traffic circles on both Balsam Avenue and Pine Street: Speed Reduction: The primary speed measurement used to evaluate speeding in a corridor, is the 85th Percentile speed. Speed data was collected, over a 24-hour period, between the two traffic circles on both streets. The purpose of this data collection is to measure the reduction in speed, between two devices. It is already an established fact that prior to and following a series of traffic mitigation devices, travel speeds increase back to levels observed prior to mitigation. Table 1 details the change in 85th Percentile speed on both Pine and Balsam, in the sections of corridor between the traffic circles. Table 1: Speed Reduction Summary treet / Device Be ore Mitigation Afrer Final Design Speed Present Traffic Circles installed Reduction Pine Street 33 mph 25 mph - 8 mph Balsam Avenue 38 mph 28 mph -10 mph The results show that the final design traffic circle was effective at reducing travel speeds between the traffic circles. Based on these 85th percentile speed results, these two roadway sections would not qualify to be in the NTMP, based on the "problem/no problem" threshold, adopted in the new NTMP guidelines (5 mph or less above the speed limit of 25 mph). Emergency vehicle travel delay: The primary measurement of this factor was the study of emergency response delay, taken during staged runs of Fire engines through the traffic circles. Tests were performed on a single traffic circle and upon the series of two traffic circles. Both tests were necessary to establish how much additional delay may occur when a series of traffic circles is used in place of a single device. It should be noted that the determination of emergency response delay, from traffic circle experiments is difficult for a number of reasons. There are several factors that influence the emergency response delay, including the following; • The approach and departure speeds which emergency response vehicles can obtain. • The severity of the traffic circle design. • The spacing of the traffic circles and the ability of emergency response vehicles to get back to cruising speed between devices. • The traffic conditions encountered on any traffic circle run (side street traffic, pedestrians, etc...). • The aggressiveness of the emergency response vehicle driver. As a result, the delay encountered on different runs through the demonstrations varied depending on these conditions. Table 2 details the emergency response findings for the final design traffic circles. These values represent the findings specific to these locations. Caution should be used when estimating delay at other potential traffic circle locations, in which the conditions vary. Table 2: Emergency Response Delay Summary Street / Device I Delay through Final Traffic Circle Design Pine Street 3 to 4 seconds alsam Avenue 2 to 3 seconds Attachment I Table 4: Compliance with side street vehicle right-of-way Cars on main street failing to Street I Device Side street volume yield to cars on side street Incident Rate Pine (slotted circle) demo 460 20 Balsam (smaller circle) demo 81 3 This data suggests that the vast majority of side street traffic either entered the traffic circle without interacting with a main street vehicle, or received the appropriate, legal behavior from main street traffic. Diversion: It has been well documented that the traffic circles on both Pine Street and Balsam Avenue have resulted in some level of diversion of traffic to adjacent streets. However, there was some concern that the raised element of these traffic circle demonstrations may result in more diversion than the prior demonstrations. Traffic volumes for a 24 hour period, were collected on Balsam Avenue, Alpine Avenue, Mapleton Avenue, Spruce Avenue, Elder Avenue, Pine Street and Cedar Avenue. Table 5 details the difference in traffic volume on these streets, before and after the construction of the final design traffic circles on Pine Street and Balsam Avenue. Table 5: Neighborhood street traffic volumes Prior to Traffic Circles After Final Design Traffic Volume Street / Block on Pine/Balsam Traffic Circles Difference Percent Difference Main Street Pine / 1600 8660 vpd 6950 vpd -1710 vpd -19.7 Percent Balsam / 1400 10910 vpd 8200 vpd -2710 vpd -24.8 Percent Adjacent Street Mapleton / 1700 1420 vpd 1340 vpd -80 vpd -5.6 Percent Spruce/ 1700 3040 vpd 3260 vpd +220 vpd +7.2 Percent Alpine / 1400 2610 vpd 2940 v d +330 vpd +12.6 Percent Cedar / 1400 560 vpd 590 vpd +30 vpd +53 Percent Elder / 1400 1520 vp 1390 vpd +130 vpd +8.5 Percent This data shows that there has been some diversion to adjacent neighborhood streets in both the Balsam/Edgewood and Whittier neighborhoods. However, most of the traffic diverted from Pine Street and Balsam Avenue does not appear to have been diverted to these neighborhood streets. In addition, bicycle count data taken on Pine Street prior to the any of the traffic circles demonstrations has been compared to 2000 data and this evaluation suggests that the amount of bicycle traffic on Pine Street has been reduced by approximately 25 percent. Accident trends: Staff has historically reviewed accident statistics before and after the placement of each of the traffic circle demonstrations. The results remain consistent. During the first year of the first traffic circle demonstration, there was a high accident rate at one intersection on Pine Street, with few accidents at the other three intersections. In subsequent years of demonstration and in the past few months with the final design traffic circles, the accident rates at all four intersections have remained quite low. There has been one accident involving a pedestrian being hit by an automobile and one accident involving a pedestrian being hit by a bicyclist (both accidents on Pine Street). The remaining accidents have primarily involved a motor vehicle striking the traffic circle, or more rarely, striking a parked car near the intersection. Attachment I It should also be noted that the delay per traffic circle may increase when more traffic circles are added to the series. The spacing between traffic circles is the primary factor influencing whether there is additional delay between devices. In prior testing, it was observed that the delay through a series of traffic circles was greater (per circle) than the delay through only one traffic circle. However, in the most recent testing of the final design traffic circles, this trend was not apparent. There was not a significant difference between the delay per circle when testing a Aeries of circles versus only one circle. The results in both of these tables suggest the following conclusions: • The delays for both street sections are less than the delay found in prior demonstrations on these streets. • The delays for the traffic circles on Balsam Avenue are less than the delays on Pine Street. Something about the roadway characteristics allows the Fire Trucks to pass through the traffic circles on Balsam Avenue at a higher speed. Bicycle/Pedestrian Impacts: These impacts were observed by videotaping the intersections during several time periods and days. Note that the results in Table 3 detail the bicycle and pedestrian impacts associated with the prior traffic circle demonstrations. Staff has not yet been able to update this information for the final design traffic circles. Also, note that the total time period discussed is taken from 4 separate 2 hour observations. Table 3: Bicycle/Pedestrian Impacts Pine (slotted circle demonstration) Value Incident Rate Total number of pedestrian crossings 93 Cars failing to yield to pedestrians 9 9.7% Total number of bikes through circle 147 Conflict between bikes and cars 2 1.4% Balsam (smaller circle demonstration) Total number of pedestrian crossings 19 Cars failing to yield to pedestrians 4 21.0% Total number o bikes through circle 111 Conflict between bikes and cars 0 0.0% Conflicts between bikes and cars are defined as one or both parties had to take evasive action to avoid an accident. It is important to note that the incident rate percentages compare the number of conflicts to the total number of pedestrian crossings or bicycle trips through the circle. They represent the percentage of pedestrians or bicycles that had an incident versus the total number of pedestrian or bicycle movements. This data suggests that the vast majority of both bicycles and pedestrians either traveled through the traffic circle without interacting with a vehicle or received the appropriate, legal behavior from the vehicle when they sought to cross. Side Street vehicle compliance: Using the same videotape, staff observed trends in main street vehicles yielding to side street traffic which arrives first. Again, these results are taken from the prior traffic circle demonstrations and are not associated with the final traffic circle design. Table 4 details these findings.