The URL can be used to link to this page

6A - Whittier Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program (NTMP) CITY OF BOULDER TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM (MEETING DATE: JULY S. 2002) Agenda Item Preparation Date: June 26 2002 SUBJECT: Staff briefing and TAB input regarding the proposed traffic mitigation plan for the Whittier 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 roxirnatel $200,000, not including landsca in costs. PURPOSE: This memorandum provides background information for the Transportation Advisory Board's (TAB) review and input regarding Staff's proposed traffic mitigation plan for the Whittier Neighborhood. Formal TAB review and recommendation is scheduled for September 2002. BACKGROUND Since 1995, the Whittier 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 Pine Street. 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 provided 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 place emphasis on public involvement and provide several check-in-points with TAB and City Council tab06262002Whittier.doc AGENDA ITEM # Page 1 One step in the process involves staff gathering input from the impacted neighborhood and providing the TAB and City Council with a recommendation regarding whether delay-inducing devices should be considered in the proposed traffic mitigation plans for the neighborhoods. In 2001, the Transportation staff was tasked to work with the Whittier neighborhood to create a neighborhood traffic mitigation plan. Since Pine Street 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 Whittier Neighborhood. During 2001 and 2002, three public meetings were held with the Whittier Neighborhood. The first meeting was designed to create a public involvement process that met the needs of the citizens and to obtain citizen input on whether to consider delay-inducing devices in the proposed neighborhood mitigation plan. After City Council gave direction regarding the use of delay-inducing devices in proposed traffic mitigation plans for the Whittier Neighborhood, staff provided citizens with information on traffic mitigation devices by posting a tool kit (shown in Attachment C) on the NTMP website. This tool kit outlined all traffic mitigation options including; cost, effectiveness, and the amount of delay associated with the mitigation device, if applicable. The tool kit provided the 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 options that ranged from extensive 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 Whittier Neighborhood. This proposal was developed balancing the goals of speed reduction and emergency response- Using a balanced compromised approach staff generated one proposal as seen on Attachment F. The final meeting was designed to gather input from the citizens on the refined proposal. As seen in Attachment G, there was overwhelming support for the proposal by the citizens attending the meeting. Additionally, Attachment A includes a-mails received after the meeting, indicating support for the proposal. To announce the meetings, staff used a mailing list of approximately 1,000 addresses, consisting of the home-owners and the residents of the neighborhood. Attachment I, 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. tab06262002Whittier.doc AGENDA ITEM # Page 2 Staff created several additional opportunities for individuals to get information and give input regarding the traffic mitigation in the Whittier Neighborhood. Such opportunities existed through the NTMP Web site, e-mail, phone calls, mailing, and by coming to the NTMP office. ANALYSIS: Even though physical mitigation has been placed on Pine Street, speed studies show that speeds beyond the two traffic circles are the same as they were prior to the traffic circles being placed. Before and after speed statistics for streets in the Whittier Neighborhood area can also be found in Attachment J. Furthermore, 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 Whittier 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 in the processes of conducting the neighborhood polls 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 - Public Process History B - NTMP Process Flow Chart C - NTMP Toolkit D - Straw Proposals E - 2"d Public Meeting Public Input F - Staff Proposal G - Final Public Meeting Public Input H - Final Public Meeting E-mail Input I - Mailing Area Map J - Traffic Statistics tab06262002Whittier.doc AGENDA ITEM Page 3 ATTACHMENT A Whittier Neighborhood In April 1995, a preliminary concept plan was developed for the Pine Street/Whittier Traffic Mitigation Project. The original demonstration consisted of 25-foot diameter traffic circles constructed of plastic bumper-blocks. These traffic circle demonstrations were installed in August 1995. In November 1999, the City Council directed staff to redesign the traffic circles at Pine/15`h Street and Pine/17'a Street and test designs that provided a better balance between neighborhood traffic mitigation and emergency response needs. In January 2000, the revised traffic circle designs were installed. The revised demonstration design was 28 feet in diameter. In the center of each of the traffic circles there was an 11.5-foot wide travel lane which allowed emergency response vehicles to drive through the circle as they proceeded east-west on Pine Street. On either side of the emergency travel lane there was a semicircle formed by 2-foot high concrete risers and pavement markings and striping. 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. For the final design staff and the Whittier neighborhood looked to a smaller diameter circle which was demonstrated to be successful in the Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood. 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 Pine Street. The final design traffic circles were installed in January 2001. - ATTAc4mf-~K1r C - j rBoulder's Stage III Mitigation ic Calming Toolbox 1) Curvilinear Street 15 2) Entrance Barrier 3) Entry median 4) Lane Eliminating Choker 5) Median 6) Neckdown 7) Permanent Photo Radar 1 Y 8) Permanent Speed Monitoring Display 9) Raised Crosswalk 10) Raised Intersection 11) Realigned Intersection 12) Restricted Movement Barrier 13) Speed Hump 14) STOP Sign's 1. 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. ~I THE CURVILINEAR ALIGNMENT REQUIRES ADDITIONAL MANEUVERING AND REDUCES DRIVERS' LINE-OF-SIGHT. APPLICATION: a~ • Any street where speed control is desired and adequate initial width exists • Any 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 Emergency Vehicles: • 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. BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX ENTRANCE BARRIER A (Also known as: SEMI-DIVERTER DESCRIPTION: PHYSICAL BARRIER THAT RESTRICTS TURNS INTO A SIDE STREET- CREATES A ONE-WAY SEGMENT AT THE I I~009 NTERSECTION WHILE MAINTAINING TWO-WAY TRAFFIC FOR THE REST OF THE BLOCK. APPLICATION: • Local streets where cut-through traffic is a concern _ _ - - - - - • Local streets where vehicles from nearby facility circulate 1:111 looking for parking in the neighborhood MID 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 Delay to Emergency Vehicles: • 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 corners 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 X/K (Also known as: ENTRY ISLAND or NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTIFICATION ISLAND DESCRIPTION: 1 A RAISED ISLAND IN THE CENTER OFA TWO-WAY STREET` fl ADJACENT TO AN INTERSECTION, TYPICALLY AT THE PERIMETER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD. APPLICATION: • Placed in a roadway to define the entry to a residential area PIDJID and/or to narrow each direction of travel and interrupt sight distance along the center of the roadway ,q 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 Disadvantaaes: ~t • 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 "AK (Also known as: PINCH POINT) h DESCRIPTION: SEGMENTS OF ROADWAY NARROWING (SIMILAR TO NECKDOWNS) WHERE THE CURBS ARE EXTENDED TOWARDS THE CENTER OF THE ROADWAY. WITH A LANE- O )CO ELIMINATING CHOKER, THE ROADWAY IS LIMITED TO ONE LANE OF TRAVEL FOR BOTH DIRECTIONS OF TRAFFIC WHERE THE NARROWING OCCURS AND OPPOSING • r1 o Oo zoo,, =Q VEHICLES MUST TAKE TURNS. O APPLICATION: 5T • 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 MEDIAN DESCRIPTION:' RAISED ISLAND IN THE CENTER OF THE ROADWAY WITH s ONE-WAY TRAFFIC ON EACH SIDE. THE LENGTH OF THE j , . 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 i, 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 q 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 q 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 DESCRIPTION: SEGMENTS OF ROADWAY NARROWING WHERE ROADWAY EDGES OR CURBS ARE EXTENDED TOWARD THE CENTER OF THE ROADWAY. ~P__J VEHICLES SLOW AS THEY PASS THROUGH THE NARROWED SECTION. APPLICATION: • Typically used adjacent to intersections where parking is restricted r-W • Can be used to narrow roadway and shorten pedestrian crossings • Can be used mid-block Effectiveness: • Slows traff ic by changing the character of a wide street to a narrow street ii 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 l 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 Cost: $25,000 and up depending on landscaping, pavement treatments and storm drainage considerations (need for new inlets) BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX rPERMANENT PHOTO RADAR ED 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 Delay 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 T MANENT SPEED MONITORING LAY 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 ~2ecial Considerations: • Vandalism may be an issue Cost: • $ per installation BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX RAISED CROSSWALK (Also known as: RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING DESCRIPTION: FLAT-TOPPED SPEED TABLE BUILT AS A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING. COMMONLY INCLUDES A MEDIAN REFUGE ISLAND, OR CURB EXTENSIONS, OR BOTH TO SHORTEN CROSSING AND IMPROVE SAFETY. APPLICATION: • Local or collector streets where speed control and pedestrian crossing designation are desired • 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 T Delay to Emergency Vehicles: ° ` • 4 to 6 seconds per raised crossing ti 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 BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX rm,RAIEED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION: , A RAISED SECTION OF ROADWAY AT AN INTERSECTION WHERE THE , PAVEMENT IS ELEVATED TO BE FLUSH WITH THE TOP OF THE CURBING AND THE APPROACHES ARE RAMPED LIKE SPEED HUMPS. APPLICATION: • Roadways where speed reduction or discouragement of cut-through traffic is desired , , 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 EmerplencV Vehicles, • 4 to 6 seconds per intersection Other Disadvantages: • Requires storm drainage modifications • May require bollards to define the corners of the intersections • Expensive 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 111 MITIGATION TOOLBOX REALIGNED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION: REALIGNS "T" INTERSECTION TO MAKE THE "THROUGH MOVEMENT" A TURNING MOVEMENT. i i APPLICATION: e • Streets where it is desired to redirect traffic to another facility O • Streets where slowing traffic as it enters the neighborhood is M desired L4 Effectiveness: • Significant speed reduction on the former "through" street V 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 Emergency 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 X/ K, DESCRIPTION: f 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. THEY ARE MARKED WITH SIGNS AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS. o " APPLICATION: • Local or collector streets where speed control is desired • Local or collector streets where cut-through traffic is to he 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 +K 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. APPLICATION: ' • • Non-arterial street intersections • Staggered or alternating pattern at intersections in a low volume residential street grid • Not recommended as a speed mitigation device 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 f • May discourage cut-through traffic - - - s. 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 traff ic 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 r CIRCLE DESCRIPTION: TRAFFIC CIRCLES ARE RAISED CIRCULAR MEDIANS IN AN i INTERSECTION WITH COUNTERCLOCKWISE TRAFFIC FLOW. VEHICLES MUST CHANGE THEIR TRAVEL PATH TO MANEUVER AROUND THE CIRCLE AND ARE TYPICALLY CONTROLLED BY O "YIELD ON ENTRY" ON ALL APPROACHES. APPLICATION: • Streets where speed control is desired • 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 v a °ii° MY••pp'p Other Advantages: • Provides increased access to street from side street • Breaks up sight-lines on straight streets X11 •Opportunity for landscaping in the intersection Delay to EmergencV 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 - - • 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 - • 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 20' clearance is required around circle • May require educational campaign and learning period Cost: • $10,000 to $40,000 BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX Whittier NH Traffic Miti ation Proposal - Cost Estimates and other Information Mitigation Device Location Parkins Loss? ;CERR? Emergency Impact on CERR Cost Estimate - - Traffic Circle with Neckdowns 20th,& Bluff 3 spaces Yes Yes 24 seconds) $ 21,000.00 Speed Hump 2100 block of Bluff $ 2,000.00 Speed Hump 2300 block of Bluff $ 2,000.00 Speed Hump 2100 block of Mapleton _i $ 2,000.00 Traffic Circle (no neckdowns) Mapleton & 23rd 6 spaces $ 9,000.00 Median with Ped Refuge and Neckdowns Pine & 21st 4 spaces Yes Maybe (1-2 seconds) $ 34,000.00 Traffic Circle with Neckdowns Pine & 23rd 6 spaces Yes Yes (2-4 seconds) $ 30,000.00 D 1 -o REMOVE Raised Crossing 500 block of Spruce 6 gained $ 4,000.00 REMOVE Raised Crossing 1700 block of Spruce 4 gained $ 4,000.00 Traffic Circle (no neckdowns) Spruce & 16th 6 spaces $ 9,000.00 - - - Q Traffic Circle (no neckdowns) Spruce & 18th 6 spaces - $ 9,000.00 i Two Ped Refuges with Neckdowns Spruce & 21st $ 44,000.00 - Traffic Circle (no neckdowns_)_ Spruce & 23rd 6 spaces $ _ 12,000.00 Additional Neckdowns $ 18,000.00 Net Parking Loss = 27 spaces $ 200,000.00 Attachment D Below is the written version of the straw proposals that were created ter the Whittier neighborhood. These Proposals are not options; they are just a place to begin a conversation regarding traffic mitigation in the Whittier neighborhood. CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE 1 Add Photo Red/Speed (Disable Speed Sensors): Pine and 20th Ped Signal with Red Speed: Pine between 22nd and 23`d Speed Hump: Mapleton (2) between 21" and 22°d and between 24th and Folsom All-Way Stop: Spruce and 20th Raised Crosswalk with Median and Curb Extensions: Spruce (4) 2 on 21s` (both sides) and 2 on 23`1 (both sides) Median Entry Island and Permanent Speed Display: Pine and 24th CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE 2 Traffic Circles: Bluff (3) at the intersection of 20th 22, and 24th Mapleton (5) at the intersection of 15th, 17th 19th 21st and 23`d Pine (3) at the intersection of 19th, 21st. and 23`d Spruce (4) at the intersection of 16th, 18th, 219', and 23`d NOTE: This alternative removes existing devices on Mapleton (Speed Humps) and Spruce (Raised Crosswalks). CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE 3 Turn Restriction Island: Bluff and Folsom Speed Humps: Bluff (3) between 20th and 21st, between 22nd and 23 d, and East of 24th Mapleton (2) between 21 st and 22nd and between 24th and Folsom Spruce (2) between 16th and 17th and between 18 and 19th Traffic Circle: Mapleton (2) at the intersection of 20th and at the intersection of 23` Pine (2) at the intersection of 22nd and at the intersection of 24th Attachment D Partial Median: Pine between 18`" and 19°' Crosswalk with Ped Refuge and Curb Extensions: Pine at 21" Full Block Medians: Spruce (4) on 2100, 2200, 2300, 2400 Block NOTE: The alternative removes existing raised crosswalks on Spruce. ~ 't,,.• , t;; ^ r- ~i a I . .i3 _ y ~ F;'~ ~ . {b 14'~~'°~p?~`~''i :,,e"• p r..~•,r.r l f ° r, a~~ _ S t t y t` rw s . P E t t r 4_ ~}?r;, ~1J~*' "n ~ `?5''•r..:c Q~•9,r _y~k `q~°y' ~1~ ~ { : - JIL r yy .r f 1 ~ ~ , ,~~,~+y _ >F RS ~1.. " J - _ - ~:i. t any a " ~Ci~' 'r .~rff f,rf, J:iC:c ~ -:i..- ~ '~i•i ~t~~ ti ^':d.~.s`_ )1 'l' .:•~'~rf`!"~4`., ~ h.rJ 1 ~ a~, n pII, h 9 w ALPINE AVE > a ALPINE A,~ i ~ r : - ~I :r-:«.~wK 4>r., ~ f.r I~~~ T.,r r t r iw *tiitV"t', 1~`/ f ,~,,{W } li ~ i . ~ ~ is _ iL ~t 1~...5 1 .,~M 1fC` +t~r ~S Y' ~'~'rNP[ _ • 1 ~ : ~f ~,,,1 h~ f . F'" :qir~~ a i r~ • ~ ~ i,- a~t.^ _;t; ''a, jT_ ''~I 3,5n .rL'~'~.. 1 ~,~.an n,. TJy '•(;K°.f~,. t. ~ -q. ,"y. t n i r rr ~?1 w4, ~r;.. t1. a ';,d _ _ '.'T,. ~r' .Y; _ n,I .:~f'.~ , 1~y~~ , 4 t~ ~-1 - : m t n t a'A, . N' ~ , , 1 t ~i~ +y'C .d ~ Mit:~., c'•k J , ~:a. 'S Y. ~t. i ~ n ,1(R{ ` 'li ~~~I, ti,, t kr~'t•i .r, a f'`'* , r v =~r p ~ .t .:~3;. " \ t~' 'i `I ' a _ P i:. , _ ~ ' ' r i " ~ ~ l:l ! ~ ~ 1 ti~x !6'r'~?,. ~ .,,p.. Y / 1 r^/~; , ~ li ~ ~ t!~ - e~',!f„~ trtt, r _ ! Ir k. ,c:~ ♦ r• :,rn,. 4 r!fi ri" ~~,rf•~ i t `;1 t r r. ~ >~J+r Df, G : r , f ci'i' M ~ . ' i' c . ! i~~ r ~ . ' it t , . o , ~ ~ :1• r .,P~ ~ . 'ItTts`~'~ t ~ a fir."' t t~~n•'~ 4,a, I 4 r • 'Ax ,.r C. I F 't F t Ya 1 yt a., W,' 'fnr~ .1as ,%,'rr!fl. s~,1', r` Jim I~,. y' M ~~.~"N i}" •Y` S R:. l 1.~,', 1,^ '.d I~~y,Ly 1'r'', _ _ ,r ~ ,9'~ ~r ,Y~~ - r•n ~ ~ -t~ ,r9 P~~r}~' Ip' a 9 . ; °I ~i r -.,.~T-- fn " w ~'-•y, [r a 1 r. ,M. ~,1'/}'^ r y„ Al ~ l t„ a trf+"' '.,ti 1 '~k .t~'~ ea ~~j~'-.:~ 1i ',I,,l r tRl~ rr.. 1 V .:~,(M; rfir YM ' . ~/7l' u"'F'a^~ FQ,tI t~ r ~ x: ~ 1 ~ylP:.:~ -1 ( i,,t "a ~t ~ 1 ~ ~ ~J~,'1 4a , _ f r ,1 t, .al, ✓ h,.!,~ Y'7)'' 1: {N 1. ~[-1 'i~'o dfw r. C° , L yy ' ''P*!^ ,n.J. r, .ss. ~rj ' G 1:..» ',,pFr ~ P,4 ~~r~ a ® ,,,1'~, ' 1 ~-„'fig, "'l ~ ~ . l •~G i r1 ~ I 4 i-,;- / ,Ir a :1 y N " ~ •p ~ R E:-0. , p p ; ti...%. ~ ,1 ~ ti'' ~ CC ~ V t e. t ~ -t . "F~:f L r f ,`~ct fi, i,i ~ i 9 ~ s ~ n 9•':~ ~ PS4s. r~ ~ ~,I l4 ~ _ ~ ' N~ ~ J ~ it ~9w'"' - w ':.'~i 1 1 ~ t t:t~ ~ 1 V ~'y -!e•'..,~,i~ ~ in,ir,, r.~t , ~ ~'..J , f'7 Ivy,: ri, 5 k':-' C'.a' h} ` .~1 11~~~ ';y' r [.tp (iS ~ t,d r+~"E t .ea;,.x41~ '~r f,'✓.~s~ r _ 7`~iir r J ~~~E1 ii~~~ } Z,~;' U~pE~WpffCN Via', r., .d ,l~,k~ ~ P.- ~ ~r,~'"'` +'P 't. ~k;w :r ~ rte` pINE,SY ~~J`C v ` ~ c _ ~,f SS~pCfK 'r `"s`~1~'1 ~ Ai"~ =•i~- ®r,', ' 1 ~ k ~yR•~~' ~ tF'l, ~y@ a i ff. :f;Ia!'S is -ice J~.1 p,_'''i- 51' "►•~rt ~y~ 'g`~'¢ i. 't.H rer ;ir I.'~ ~ - ~~,:.f r~~! to , 'a r.• ~ ' f sM7+;' n; ` q +a G 'r „A 1 1 _ .ice' r'.~ t: Yr f,9[ p;l y ~ ;I~~' ti • t~,+ ~ ~ ~ 6A"' _I ~ # zy` ~f rr 1.~~L'; 9 ,r , 1 i' '~1 - -.~i ~fyr,, .r-Yen 'p ~`I` 1~ J) t. t,,,.~ s• ~ r. - '~-f'f~ ~1 ~1~.. yr r „ 1 I,f _s r P.~ ; , t s,"• r F. a ~ j 9".'l i' ^ ~t ~ ' fl7 - " Ci'r lr. '~l ~.;l ~y ~,F yd..: :.e `4: ~r;~`'nr ~ f~r,r,r+°~ i 1' ,:1 1- ~r~ - ~ ~ it „i~ •I ~"`~a n .e~ li rP1~1r •"~~r,'', 1 r ~ .f l.n ,,,t,,, r 1 ti n - - 4 ~r~!' i ; ,f 1 1. • ' ~ 1 ,~'1 >r ~ n >~''Yf~'i` ~p 1 ~ 's, gr - ' " - ~ ~ E; + ~ d • a°: ~ I L ~ ~ t ~ 1 1 M': a ::Y~`.. tt v~ Lt'- ~ N~ 6 1 y" n :I~:~~g ~';l - ♦ ~ ~ .t r/.p - _ I _ ~ ` r. , - r !-`a f n - / ' ''p. rok ~~„t~. 1 l • j!, f ~ ~t~ / ~ f .,h i ~ r.:.u. aR ¢ tp'•~ ~ 6 ,~"t .1 - (11 ~ j '1., .rte ~..y~ ~ - i.i4ri ~ii,~ti4~i°.t I •t.lJk~ ,"b•y p ~ 1., ~ 2 ~~d':: ~3~ , ".9~--"-'-; P A9f,+ 7EROCK tTEH'~ •3 9: I~ ~RA a L JJ N OUL -i,B J,. r,.^, ';~,1 t. 1 ~.:r,[,~R'... 1 y, Y-•J l~ 1 r.pr•'^l 11. .v _w '1: ,FP rF e..r,~ t.~'r , iv'a!'a' y 'r n0°' rl ~ F"~`' y. t, '1~' , ~f.l •1'.'- r-. ` ~ ~ , -5 L ~ r J ( `~"'aP9kS f rfr r "1'!- c°:.I 1•~.0.~ ?t~, P' "l" Rr:~ 6 in .'ti' f cl'r r iY!:~ b ~•r~~,~`' ~u.V,~.,;lr, l..i _r Ir ti, a ' 4~' I r r r, r n,nrni~ : 'i 7, ' ~ ~ ~.~:w 1 .e': 1:. ~ ._ri. . `.JL ~ _ .-.._y.-„ ~ - r e.~~L<•ty \'l.-- ~ _ _ _ i-~-'I _ - J ~l - L I 12a:°, i Io._~ I~~,,,r^ ~,,~~,.-,'r,~~-I~I,~,. r.,. _~.,~r? - i ".~1, 'j',~ f.•°'. -~a,R, 'i.; - ;T~.: J.":::. ,-"~"'s,.e';'.rr',"'~- - _ - - _ - _ -,'t 1~ x i l.s.. _.,wa'~•~Y U33 ,~,,,1 .''gr•ap'r w, 1.' 1=+~,~:_M -•~i. •r.::r;y~°kk~-• .•►q~ a-'::%+ v. ^ yq~ _ Ex BALSAM AVE ; r1 f1F 1 u ~~r i ui 'r"T 1'1 r; l: ,^1 <4., Y ~~."i11 -+F. "1 L_r, b., r'l al (If• !i r ~J' r ni.: v, A.lt ..:y ~:f,s:r#ti ?C~'r. r / ° '!i` `r c gdtr E H~ 'a v, f'~ ¢~n'Y a I. P ~ r r!,. dd~ ~ S r ~ E~..v,. ' k ,1 .,t.. .I r~ 4" ' i ~ ,C-.'r7 ! - r'1-,. NI ',.d~ '4"~ ~ <P . ,"r•r ~ N~, - c 7 . ; ~n. _ 1 g, , ,1 _ .®.1^s ~ ~ '~.4~' mis rl~` ~ 9'1~'. I `~r17"`, ( r, r:•'r+";~+a•+:(~ f . p rr' J, r. 1 .y`l rro 1 Y fd ' 'rr 1~,~''.;r_"i...d h- rr Z;. n r'~,~„~,~,'~i,'~r,-?, /,`'k ~~e.t!, Y.,,~ .i' fr,~- ~.1; ~t . I. € w I a ,f 1 f ':ll a ' 1~, r`Ks' 1 a• ~,,egRR - J + N,;, " •'L....,.. j= „ }4. w,w... yet' .TI 7 ~J .W I~ "p~ u,ar 1•fi. 99 .F1~,.• 1 Al PINF DR C~r•~, '•:r ' R`'''r ~t 1 ~'R 'S w' *n G_ , I. n~' R. `ean" 1 t r+, rk.p a E ti. p'." Y« ! a ti~N;•p. r 1° 1} ~w?k;,c r4 ~e > ALPINE A E ALPINE ( 1 a P, r_h u I r F a, L y ~I 3 s. a. ~'y u..lxt~ _ YY C "nnl"~a`.,, s:• rl. .:^t z n~-csr- r t' l Y 4A:y 1 r ur lxa ~ 7-a,. ~ ,-~ym v~ h'...:. ti.F } s.'. ~ ~ .C• !:1 df ~4 P* 9 .~~ir;~. - c. y "S,-* a ~4 . ~..+o., ~..s._ _ f ~ Fj= ~~:•:h - - _ , 3g ! - ~f . _ :sI^ ~ ~ I .<•p . (.,~'i. 1`E ~~;~{,r u'I~ n,•nl va~.'9'.`~~ Ste'.~.:F : rl ;K: *,6r~-~! ; ~-~0 - •Waly,'. _m 'I + {~a.T., f "`~F'"'',t,e ' vaA~,'~' 11 -i• ,I,y;' 1,,. q ,+T..: "~.1J.~- 9 .;,Ff R it ,".F+.,... S.', f. `~:.~I m. ,.t ~('N1 4~ K ;1,. .nnIXIN r rl rN rr;1k31`I$y' I ~b ~ , li+i~r ru ~ H .1 h ;1 v I v'., ~j-iy,;,!..,, M~,i,:,.. n ti.. ~'q .~n ri nr .t'~'^' _ •t "'as~+N ~ S" r ~ F3 1'~jJ" w! I'+1: 'ts t r sF 4 P. 'Yr:.l r_: Y F '.r '7'dt', i. , lt_ - W r' _ ~ r.~+e 'T' ~:s<.dw",.a y11. gl' T ~ i-.'ew- ~ / r ,R .:~Yr,l~m:~ i- ..,:h, `f'{,,~,~'f•I y}~~% i'r~i ~ f ' i^ , p,~7a~r - _ ? .'I - aJIC ?'_.y1.7~ ,o•'•Y~~ 5..'-" n'~"< ~ F'"i ~ L~ .~rd a 1. rc M"• : 1: 'ah. ^~7,. ,r M`I .Y►~. M. e, c'.?tl, k . tl!'~: A~J"gP.x,`... .'~"A 5,., 1'. '';'+r _ fp 4r; I;,111T~II q P at're. y.~. is p,t '.r r:r~Ir3' Ir,' ~ r,~;;~ 6t 5 ~f('' ~ p • r. : K ~ .-N~ a~-:,.J _ ,!K '!iV ~•el: :i:- S . lr iR i`4;. ~r.. ri. I +q_. ,G f~` ',S' :S'" d..:: J ~.1 ` rP^, v ~ .y ~'I, [ n, r M air fIl '1 i ~ h~ •t - 9 ~.'"e<: .r~ + K`1a~A~ - ' ~ " . a *~~d " t t+:l! d7"~ e Cvf'I'r i .kw ~ ILL o 3• d ` ~k P y N 1 r ,,ttl f V r S r„ ! g.; ~i ;~.r i y:,,S N: iy: $ a, q,._~,~.y~ '.rr *a 1' '..x P, - ry ~'#,r~°F'N.r' I- V d~'?;c.}'~ •br• r, c ~:,fr, - If ~If? e,- i,R~:-. ;7.r a/::, .T - `'citip~ , s b'. !:b ° ~ l.r: - 1 , ".;@ r: ~s' , - i':' :,.r„,.•': i 0NA! a - - "7► `~L~µ,`". t7~ a y..., r 1 ' , ^~1 fir' ' _~v : S k ',:ys i a d -,t(•., G y is., ell , as 0 Il-, -.r 'i',' s~ sn•~^. ryel N„y. ,:r r 1 Nl~.r ,,w •t ~~r ~Fl '1, rF J _;il ~ f~,'4I ~(b® a.'-1<~t' :t~.t1Tl.. . 1 Q ..Pi ,~~/6' I fi. h,. r~.;.,,« r~'•.; 1 '~K' • ~ tY.' -s+•.y.' , n c' 1 F6 " ~ r IRj ~ s-.' ~.s~,1~'.. I r ; ~...,I,ns,'~~r~~.'r'` .1 _ J+„~,<, - v'~„' C pd.A`• rr" 1„ , al K.r~. ,l .x '~,r ' ,'1 , ]4.. a r ~ ~ : ~ i ~yaX ~ a rp `.P.. ' o ~ :jT{' ~ ~ w . n ~T R Y Y{:,,f r.. .-•i." u rC e" ~ ` 1 lr r" ."I .iy^~,~' ~ ~ i I, 4lli r?` ~ ° { f o P,- ' ~ r ~ 1 _ ~ gr.• J ~~S r, 'C 1 ~t.l~ r7 ~ ~ + ~ :.5.~ r e,, of r k~ r~•~-~~~ 1~~~ ~ s 1~ - r' Lr Q '.i~ r.M~';. lu r'o 'HI I--y g,`~~ ym~ o ~ y.Q I r.~T ~1 ;~c;>®'O. [ r. ~ rp ry"..f 1"k' 1 O.. - f :'1` tr. N ~ ,,Ir `,r 11('1 1. y i T' <i'.' V1 ~w ;I ~ •I , ~ t , ~j,~~ 1,1 I ~ F I,,I ~:l F q e I""`~1(-.: ',ion r~ 4 yam'! n~ ,fit .9"..ri'', ~ ",~,5:;}~-.^'~ 1 'fir 'yt j1 T`'~ ~l• •so- r. q14 - X' IAU- 9gTGN ~m OF 1 F . r { t :i a ERpGK I~lJJ R f ' -r. y~ ` v - 1 ~ Pr ~ + ~ L", - 5 ~ ~1 4,~. Y~- y T~ '~S 4 yr . -J se~_- : AM''+•y ~M.'a ~ n~':`w r' "a`4YS - 7 ' :.~`q d"`.'';?1, 'I " ~ c~ _ 11 1„.I 0' . ~ r ~~\C'+ 1 :e, "'t - e^ _ r' =p;~"-'' Q- ;+a' 'If ' 6,r;'4~'~ = ,s 1 + r z' t S , I' 1. - ~o r -.e s;x. wl. P^ ' ~ r.+ ~~'r s~ ~ 'ae.1r _,p„; r I,ai"~'"'0 Ac 'I1 - ri _y ~rh 1 s a. t-~ I C ,'s, - ~.ti.•,1~-! 0 .10 ^ 1 ^.J,-" -ir, - yCE $1~„ ,.'sr r L'~%'~ , r~ a IS•'~` ,q , Y,' ~J,,., rl:~ Id , 141, I.,1. ,rl~~`},/ ~,r 1~ _ n 'n •.d~ 4'~7 ~ d ~ AiE..+:C..' ~~yi :F~!~'~tf~ w. r ~ .n ~'..`.Y , l ~n~+'. %f•i _ ~ 1re .r~ v ~...1 q„ ,.I r'~.~ F d'G ~ h,9 C x'~:V, _ 1 . (S t •i•8.; ;,J~' ~ la t- - ~a9. 1 1 ~ A, :yt.._ 4.. ~y.. - 7 -v., 1 til:,ie`~ ~0'' IIL©ER'A ITEROCK afT6H d r ~1a' y~` _ . a 0 9 r v ACS AV% 1 rh,o 0 :'au,• i -~i'. U- h:. r1,} N,T., ;J'ra .~•4~ f°}': ~'?I:, • .~'I?`~r t ~F"~~T ! i''' I ~hr`--+r 1''Y~R :a,: r a ~ra,#4r~ r n r- 'r~R P or H r ~ . y.,,.. r 1, ( , p~""•'t` v-.; ` r ~I, un}i:::rV V'-'.,.da 41,:9 1e e a,e :i C., r\~'1'a,. `j.~ p'j~ C,. k,.r^I -S°r .r-a ~~'a`rp!y'.i6 r~, t-' r +r' r ' BA -SA AVE r. 4 y a 9 I r;' W r t, w v' 1 'rr~ ° 8:' Pall. N,' ''xro, •r R _ :1~ ~ ~v ~ ! K'• ro .1 m- i~r 1 r.tt °''F"`rli"'~'k ,`F"~,{~~.s~ "`;t~k~i^" ° c. s,;~•' i - ~ A ;:°,.4 ' ~ f- , ~ a ,y \ ra "A ",Or.,+' r +.r. , :a .r~:. ~ t ' ~ ` :;e: 'r', .yF ~ r p..: ~ ~y.Mb°.. ~'it °1 ~ + r~' ~.a 'a' f31°', 1,t 41,i•I - . ' • yam. ,I . .0 =~9?t-. ':.,g" r~:' ..P, .Ipagq.' ,71 'y. i, ,l Q~ ~'Ir 'a' ~►rm ~vl' i+~ya e,. r' fib. <•F, t ; 21, ry 1 1 ',tt4 !'i- Via. t,~_ zt ~p•. - 4►.3f... a,~,+S.,T%. s i .,"I',:'r,., 4.^~f~'~.1 .yW -^rtl~~i.. `'r , , : „ F• i • Y r ~"~g `n I:~ ' _ ..f. r` r,! _ n-'~ _ ~t 'r ~ ~ 'r ~ " a1r+~~w?u•` r,^',~ . v L. .,,r,r rrrv , .r r %e, ~'S _ r t"•1' i' t~ ' ~9~-~ •7 .act r..~ fi° f•,.. .r rl:., A. 7,~ t 4 C ~ ; e f,n r w -,0 ,ir , ~ r ~ r ti t I. e - AYp` ~s x + - -ALPINE VE ' ~ ~ i L as n ~ ~J~ r { r ~ yrt•' PINEAVS n: Y `I ? - _ ~ r' . 1 .;wl~ I ~...ry-, ~ ' "1 . r(°~. 4~'(r .r !~4~~ f - , a... ' . ~17W, r ,~!.r I:~ ~ i ~1 ~ ~ g~yy ~0 '`t~.. rte: ~S. r.~ _ f `n...r~ 1'/11' ! ly t~{• d q~ fie. y, 1 < 1, r., :6 ~ _ . ':f+,'i M + G:+' U/"` `a~:~_-._t "3a7k7' A ~.~P _ ;y°~, t 4 ~ `•'r: . ~.e7i~ ' r'e: z', rmnur ^ . r4 4.. n~:k 11P 9 A`s:'.'. Y-4_. 's,✓. is .'t~? I "'~rS,,Y" .D ,y, xt!" 6J k t- r. rl,a r'•" r..t`: l ;F, v T 4 tot a n1 , rlr I n' ' • - a. y~S. ,'t f`r. ~1r1 . "•,y, d - {l?" ® r ri rn Y- ~4 K~,d ~r'~:~•~3. _.n :.~~xr"'y"~ r'- ,~2, .~1: g~^ .'sia. .~"'L't' tt:, r~ti 1 ~ I `~C :.d E'~f!~~ ,.,y;'' V n nAI I'n i'I !`r~ d l A Y : t+ v f%' ,.'V .r~ ~,r~II . rf' t_r. ~fiE''1 t~-c y. a vr: s• s~~' a; _ : its iET~`,,• ~,.F 0 y rir~~~ 5'„s le'$ , is4.~.'~.r°:. f K • w~':~' , ~E.~ Ir i Y ' 1 " :-t.'}q N ,~py4 J' y i }r' hu!. xV~ r a~~ C : ;~'^.-_4..• ~ y~.i,' h ~ ~ i'. f'• 1. ,r '.A. _',I 4 : Ft. il. ro s rA •y ~I t.i1 ,.o- , , e' r:J:. ~,-µa. 9n~ t 1 g' - t T' - ({~j~ o t 9 `eryt K' i~ d ±-s wuL*; {.5 rr7!k C.• > ar°1 :rtl , I` r ~ lU ~ ~ sa 2;,! ::a,l~' ~ «.,Ip r + l " J ~ ~ , ft ~ CC • l $T Z1 r?,• },yN~' Ir F' ~1 i• 44 sr i °r .r 32:'J- a:,,~ F.lr nl 1° ~,p ~a~ I r } ~ ~ 1 1 am F..~' ~hi:!`• _:yj h av4. ~ C I i!;~ '-P~ f:' ~'i 51'. Ill, 1 ~~.n4~s t% F,~}' ° rn"o" ~ rv' >a ,M ~ I :'yin t , ~h~~~" ~,.®~1 th y, I '~"FV r►', e[~~1' ' ~ rroaf r~'1 ~t. r ~"°:i",' R~ %rf, r"kt %:°~g`r ~,:,4"~~F "F~~•.t'r(' -1 ~ T:,)i ,j^~ l&r ~ k aS'j'w~" ~ t t :a, orb ~rA" ~,r~ ~_~I `tt ~a •1,. f f I '"e 1 ~ I 17 ~~+tll ~ l ~ jA - ,r" 'w ;~w' ~.,r• - 1 y ~ x.'h 3 t°,I~:i F ~1~~~' 1 ~~~C ¢ r' i'.-„ - ` .;.r ~ ~ r , ~N,•4: ~°d ~.'sr:L I ~ • eta„~ M ' ~;•i;~~ ~ to Y-.V r ra / w f ~ K~?'t. . F. :rl '.8 ~ ti~~ ~ ~is.'tlt T ..1 p,,~ i~'. ' ~ M a ~ X,"', .1 ti _ •.9NV_ r~. .r ,`1 / r 'mot .,•8 ( ~ P ~,~r.f~s_ ~ I i ' h"' r, i~~r 1 1 y., s r t _ ' ~1 -s' ~ ,1 , ~ ^ 9S'.' ' e ~ ~ ys~ ' 1 { =.r'c ~ r 1 r~.~. ~ `r , ~ rh ® ~ 1` ti }~',,re~ .1 ~ ~ . i ll"~'' .r'i'd 4.: ~r_ ~ ~ ~ u r`,t•~ t~. ~ 1. i 1'~, r 7'..".J ~•,"t ►•.r^x• r rl i® ~ryi,p 1.r ..,~y„f ~~.~~I I„,~ 1 C'r:tl.~, ~Hr Ali ~ sr ` +,,~5^ ` a•p !r' , Via: " t: rd .t• r i 8~_~'' V,hNE .SY, 6~..- r a. f ~ 1 .c I.y /y `~~a s:r•` t~ n `D~R~}(Ql .,r~ "{r, ~ 4..:.,. p ~~F►t, a' yam'-'.° y., •:fi y~ I~,~.a„ tF,°E:. ~ ~ A:,- i - rsl,;:. il',.~~s ~F N' , f ~,5 ~ 4!. ' ~ -4~•,. .,1 t. 'y. f ~ 1 yl , ~ - 1• c Y! "l. n ~ ~ - x P, . h 1•-'~-` r ° F ,..'K'i, .5' _ 1,., ~ « Ate , ~ ~ • ~ lose. • • 1 ~ ~ _+r ~ 7 r 4 ~ y ~r , 4 `t ; 4 V V'M ~ ~ ! ~ ~ I: ry, 1 ~ t.. lf~: ~''!k.f , ~''j- ? t. } ,I 7: 0 p~,,,. _ h F ~ , I~ _'`,t,'/,. .8 ids r~,-. ~ .i _ '+x..f .r.:~ ~ _ r-~ i LgT p ~ .+'•,r t~ yi N u,`. ~ ® xa ! P.. F r y JO. „ +9"1 ! -J h" , y,,; 1. ' ~,tl e1 4 - S E- ,11: r1~ r t _ I. , I p r.e a., .a~ r. LL , s 1 ~ ,'k ~ ...1 - .yt 1'. .~d I V Np~ I" `t r ~®.F. t ° .A rl ,y ~e r.~ f "e .iu~'+a ~ t i ~ . E BTa ~ • 4 a y'a~r t' t„~" L'' l { ~ a r'{'" d , i''x~ll t{° t! PBUC w"Ic t . ~ ~ r:C . ~ ~ N P' i I it+ Y1: r ST y . 1 r ` _ }fY~. l i ~~F I' „rrNN •~n h A y.} q w'.+r~ t kti'O r ~ '1 1 t ~ « I r '1 .t ~ ~ f I ~r ,p°r..~ ~It 1 1 r'' 51 !t n,m Intl ~I~]•, ~,,,yy y n,we a: :y. n'; 1 ~ ~ "t ( ,~.1' '1 U~t w `~ti _ FFF"` 444 , - ~ , j ~~~,.4.. p, ,~'r t-` Yp I'd 11{* rkC.$ In 1 0~'. r ~ i "!fr r4?i,• , J vqd~-~~ ye..- 4 'I• ,y ~ N - dt ,i 8' gr 1 P,,. r'•+e~ uy 'Lr - - ~ - P' :r sfi innil ',e cF 't ~y az, Y 4- w 4 i.n 1 u' ULpER ITEROCK AFTCH h y 1 } ' ,.c rr'.~' 1? ~G "r 4: r r a ~ t M:,a!✓,,' 1 ~ 'r o~v~~ trt 1 f+' 'I'Ii~ S --may s :tz r'.,'r'r, ::i 11 ~5 4y a ,,,7 ~y-i _ ,r ~ i \ d r I`l, r"•~; d ~ ~ 6 .aan° J i~', fancy, J, .:1 'Y~. +a ,'F~•P7~,,. - ~ r a : r' r.i ;o a 4s: r v ,~tb, - r : ~ . iI•,a Attachment E Information gathered from: Whittier NTMP March 18, 2002 Meeting Emails Phone conversations Individual meetings Full block median Pros- a Zip Cons: • Considered very expensive • Not strongly endorsed - moderate reaction • Concerns are maintaining bike lanes and then not getting speed reduction • Don't want to spend entire budget on this - consider partial medians as compromise, perhaps smaller sections at beginning and end of block • Consider entry islands as alternative at east end of neighborhood • Could center area striping slow traffic without cost negatives? • Reduced entry/exit access from homes Traffic Circles Pros: • Positives are they seem to slow traffic, but, it speeds up after passing - so more traffic circles may be needed on same streets • A straw vote of 7 voting in one group - 3 leave as is, 3 add more circles, 1 remove existing • Another group favors circles over other devices on Spruce • Likely to get and keep attention, maybe become more capable of using circles • By having it all circles rather than a mix may assist drivers in getting it • Will decrease entry accidents • Will decrease severity of accidents • Circles advantage over mediums don't take away parking • Circles on Spruce yes. • Design is flexible to meet the needs and the specific geographic location, which may reduce emergency response issue. • Looks like we would reclaim parking on Spruce • Opportunity to create consistency and neighborhood identity. • Circles are more aesthetic then other devices • Assists peds. in getting across Pine and Spruce. Attachment E • High visual profile-easy to see • Easy for cyclists Cons: • 24th & Pine - traffic backs up past 24th from light at Pine & Folsom, so circle would probably not work there, consider curb extension at 24th & Pine instead • Negatives are bike safety, pedestrian safety, emergency response times • Mix vs. all circles may lessen drivers attention • No statistics that show they will increase safety for peds. • To many circles maybe overkill on Pine. If got a light on 20`h isn't a circle at 19`h and 23r overkill? • What if just have one on 22 dq • Politically may be difficult. • May create an emergency response problem. • What about BFD concerns and what role will they play in the design process? • Overall cost will be more than available in the budget • May reduce or eliminate opportunity to deal with other issues, how will we get other mitigation? • We need to deal with not only a reduction in speed, it's more than just traffic mitigation, need to look at what's right for bikes and peds. Also. • To many signs, need to reduce • How to create appropriate landscaping and how to maintain it? ■ Underground conduits for hoses ■ Neighborhood agreements re maintaining • Use landscaping that is low maintenance • Will we have loss of parking because of comer cutting? ex. South side of 1711, & Pine • will we lose present comer landscaping if have comer cutting? • Confusion as to right of way, how stops-yields and who has right of way. • Mapleton and 23d a 4 way stop maybe problem in winter due to hill. • Mapleton, is there enough space for appropriate engineering? • Design depends on location, which may impact effectiveness. • Could be bad for disable citizens-limited access-increased pain/discomfort Entry Island Pros: • Positive response • Consider at east end of Pine and Spruce, but better at 24th rather than at Folsom • Consider on west end of neighborhood as well Attachment E Cons: • Design problems with existing ones, and also maintenance and upkeep problems, including weeds. • If you do use these, get a designer to design them. If you do use one at 24 h and Pine put in a ped. Refuge. Left turn restriction from Bluff to Folsom Pros: • General agreement that is a dangerous left turn and restriction makes sense • No agreement that turns from Folsom to Bluff need restriction Cons: • Some think the problem is speed on Folsom is too high at this area • Concern that traffic in that part of neighborhood (NE) that wants to go North will have to go South to Pine to get on Folsom and add to that traffic Speed humps Pros: • A few individuals like them Cons: • Generally unfavorable reaction, both for effectiveness and for contributing no urban design benefit • Very noisy to immediate neighbors • Many drivers do not slow much • Some suggest the alternative of raised speed table, but others think they are worse Raised Crosswalks Pros: • Support for a proposal at 21 st and Pine • Also want one at 21 st at Spruce • Peds. Cross mid-block, where drivers can see them better (instead of looking only for traffic at intersections) • Two groups felt they were no pros to raised crosswalks • Close to Pearl Street Mall, there is no loss of parking for residents from these devices, since parking is always saturated anyway. I.e., the loss of 4 or so parking spots per block is insignificant where the parking spaces are constantly all full. • On Mapleton, replace speed humps with raised crosswalks (flatter and wider) • Create a variation on the raised crosswalk-same size as a raised crosswalk, but with a median in it and without the crosswalk on it. This would allow parking Attachment E spaces to be preserved on either side and the median would prohibit it from becoming an inadvertent crosswalk. Cons: • Decreased parking availability • Noisy • There is no landscaping • There ugly • They are not used by peds. • Peds. Crossing mid-block is too unpredictable • Safety hazard for peds. And for car doors opening • Problems with wheelchair access • Speed bump would be better than raised crosswalks in order to preserve parking-DO NOT REPLACE WITH TRAFFIC CIRCLES Photo/Red/Speed Radar: Pros: • Effective; it has many options (control speed, photo radar, speed activated red light); good location where proposed because few peds. • Would use it, therefore can serve primarily as traffic mitigation • Can promote smooth flow of traffic at the speed limit • Emergency Response will be faster at this light than at traffic circles Cons: • Photo radar would be better used at a high-volume intersection • Noise • Cost (40K to install) then continuing costs for photo enforcement Speed Displays Pros: • Friendly-cost effective Cons: • They give the neighborhood an "industrial" feel Attachment E Additional Issues and Information • One group ranked Spruce tools: 1 st preference traffic circles; 2nd speed humps; 3rd raised crosswalk (speed table) • North traffic on 20th speeds up after light at Pine - need something at 20th & Bluff • Need to control speed of traffic from 20th West on Mapleton Traffic entry from Spruce to Folsom (or through Folsom) a problem--consider timing signals at Pine & Pearl at Folsom to be coordinated to provide a traffic break at Spruce • 22 a & Bluff, can we do without circle given less traffic, need something but maybe not a circle. If not circles on Bluff then need only 12 new circles, which gets us closer to budget • Need to have strong urban design elements. • On some streets, such as Mapleton maybe can get most of the same effectiveness without circle every 2 blocks, maybe every 3. This will allow us to stay within budget. • A key is aesthetics, appropriate landscaping. We have a problem with stop sign running at 23'a and Bluff Confusing Intersection at 15`" and Spruce • Bluff and Folsom-traffic is turning from Folsom (both northbound and southbound) onto Bluff much too quickly. Cutting the comer-Perhaps a median • Consider other approaches from different countries-like raised bike lanes Dangerous intersection-hard to make left turn from Spruce onto Folsom • Think of aesthetics and do not mix too many different types of devices together. Since there are already traffic circles it would be better to have more of these than it would be to mix styles. • Pine at 23 d and 24"' very hard for peds/bikes to cross • The ped. path at Greenleaf Park does not line up with the crossing at 24`h which leads to mid-block crossing • Spruce medians should come out of CIP • Bluff's diverter should come out of another budget • Email stating they were opposed to any mitigation • Email stating they supported any and all mitigation Do not spend all the budget on Pine • Do not treat Mapleton, Spruce and Pine the same-they are different with different mitigation needs. • All mitigation increase pollution QUESTIONS: Attachment E • How will bikes be impacted? Do we know if autos are presently yielding? Are bikes going or will they go to streets without circles? • Can neighborhood supplement budget funding? If so what % and how? • Since this is a citywide problem, shouldn't the costs be home by the city as a whole not just a specific neighborhood? • 20TH & Spruce- why the stop sign, don't they create accidents? Do the safest thing for children here. It will probably assist peds. • What if use mid-block bulges instead, reduces cost, less conflicts btw. Auto, ped, bike. Although may take out some parking • Instead of using a full block median is a partial median at each end just as effective? New Ideas for Traffic Mitigation • Add a ped. Refuge at Spruce and Folsom • Mapleton and 20"'-add device so that traffic is not dumping to Mapleton to avoid lights and speed bumps • Place permanent speed display on Folsom (not in Whittier) and also lower the speed on Folsom • 24`h and Pine-add a neckdown to deal with traffic bailing off of Pine onto 24`h to avoid the backup at the light at Pine and Folsom • Raised crosswalk at 21" and Pine (but a con would be reduced emergency response time) • Pine and 20--comer extensions at the west portion of Pine would slow traffic. Also the painting of crosswalks at each corner to alert drivers that there are ped crossings • Re-strip Pine narrowing the width of the travel lanes • If the purpose is to slow traffic the ideal way is to make people go another route. A majority portion of Pine traffic turns right on Folsom. Don't give them a free right but make them wait for the light and they will find a new route. • Barriers, stop signs or lights should be judiciously introduced on Spruce between 20`h and Folsom • Speed humps on Mapleton between 21 ~ and 22"d • Traffic circle at 22"d or 23`d to keep a pattern of mitigation on Pine 0 Place an all-way stop at Bluff and 23rd Page 1 of 1 Teresa Spears - Traffic Mitigation Meeting From: "Al Bates" <bigal@profitplanninggroup.com> To: <spearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 03/11/2002 7:10 AM Subject: Traffic Mitigation Meeting Dear Ms. Spears: Thanks for the opportunity to provide input into the traffic mitigation effort in the Whittier neighborhood. I hope you will seriously consider the following: Twice a day I have to drive through the traffic circle at 15th and Pine. Twice a day I am taking my life into my own hands. Most people driving through on Pine do not even pretend to stop. Others stop and wait until distant cars appear from 15th. Occasionally an older couple will make a left turn in front of the traffic circle. A more effective more traffic mitigation approach could have been developed at a much lower if a four-way stop sign had been placed there. The argument that you can't place a four-way stop sign at an intersection with uneven traffic flows is clearly contradicted by the fact that a) if that is true, you shouldn't place circle in such a location and b) one has been used effectively at Casey Middle School for about three years. I realize full well that several members of the city council are romantically involved with traffic circles. Candidly, if I were you I would send this e-mail to the discard pile and pretend I never received it. I will hold no ill feelings against you if you do just that. At the same time, I am tired of having to risk my life so that we can all feel quaint. Al Bates bigal ,profimlanninggroup.com 303-444-6212 file-IIC-\UrlNINl'%E7Q\TFT4P\rrnan nnnn4 urrrrt • Page 1 of 1 Teresa Spears - NTMP and speed control on Mapleton From: 'Tyler Norris" <tyler@communityinitiatives.com> To: cspearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 03/11/2002 9:06 AM Subject: NTMP and speed control on Mapleton Hello Teresa, The traffic volume and speed on Mapleton Ave. between Folsom and Broadway seems to have increased significantly in recent years. Perhaps resulting in part from traffic mitigation strategies on parallel stretches of Spruce and Pine. My concern is speed. As a planner, I know better than to think that my potentially biased front porch assessment is fully accurate. That said, we live midway between three blocks w/o a stop sign. We, and many neighbors, have small kids playing on the sidewalks and learning to ride bikes so are particularly sensitive to car speed. The speed limit is often exceeded on our stretch of Mapleton as drivers hit the prime open space between stop signs, with no speed control devices to slow the flow. What is the plan (if any) for more stop signs or speed bumps on Mapleton Ave. east 20th? Can we "apply" for speed bumps - like the fortunate folks West of 20th on Mapleton possess? What is the process to start / advance such considerations? Thank you in advance for the favor of your reply, Tyler Norris Tyler Norris President Community Initiatives, LLC 2119 Mapleton Ave Boulder, CO 80304 USA 303-444-3366 www.communityinitiatives.com tyler@tylernorris.com file://C:\WINDOW S\TEMP\GW } 00008.HTM 06/27/2002 Page 1 of 2 Teresa Spears - RE: NTMP and speed control on Mapleton From: "Will Shafroth" <WShafroth@coct.org> To: <spearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 03/11/2002 9:28 AM Subject: RE: NTMP and speed control on Mapleton Teresa, Please add my voice to Tyler's. He has said it just right. We live at 2029 Mapleton and feel that the traffic is way too fast as it goes by our house. If there were a speed bump between 21st and 22nd, we wouldn't see nearly the speeds we do now. Let us know what we can do to get such a mitigation on our street. Will -----Original Message..--- From: Tyler Norris [mailto.tyler@communityinifiatives,.co..m-1 Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 9:07 AM To: Subject: NTMP and speed control on Mapleton Hello Teresa, The traffic volume and speed on Mapleton Ave. between Folsom and Broadway seems to have increased significantly in recent years. Perhaps resulting in part from traffic mitigation strategies on parallel stretches of Spruce and Pine. My concern is speed. As a planner, I know better than to think that my potentially biased front porch assessment is fully accurate. That said, we live midway between three blocks w/o a stop sign. We, and many neighbors, have small kids playing on the sidewalks and learning to ride flP- //f" •\~U1imn~UC~'rFnRU~r:~xri nnnne ure,r „ , Page 2 of 2 bikes so are particularly sensitive to car speed. The speed limit is often exceeded on our stretch of Mapleton as drivers hit the prime open space between stop signs, with no speed control devices to slow the flow. What is the plan (if any) for more stop signs or speed bumps on Mapleton Ave. east 20th? Can we "apply" for speed bumps - like the fortunate folks West of 20th on Mapleton possess? What is the process to start / advance such considerations? Thank you in advance for the favor of your reply, Tyler Norris Tyler Norris President Community Initiatives, LLC 2119 Mapleton Ave Boulder, CO 80304 USA 303.444.3366 www.communityinitiatives.com tyler@tylernorris.com f,1.•//r`•\iam rnnAxTV\ rUA rn~-Iin nnnno TTmX X - - - - - Page 1 of 2 Teresa Spears - NTMP and speed control on Mapleton From: "Tyler Norris" <tyler@communityinitiatives.com> To: <spearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 03/11/2002 9:06 AM Subject: NTMP and speed control on Mapleton Hello Teresa, The traffic volume and speed on Mapleton Ave. between Folsom and Broadway seems to have increased significantly in recent years. Perhaps resulting in part from traffic mitigation strategies on parallel stretches of Spruce and Pine. My concern is speed. As a planner, I know better than to think that my potentially biased front porch assessment is fully accurate. That said, we live midway between three blocks w/o a stop sign. We, and many neighbors, have small kids playing on the sidewalks and learning to ride bikes so are particularly sensitive to car speed. The speed limit is often exceeded on our stretch of Mapleton as drivers hit the prime open space between stop signs, with no speed control devices to slow the flow. What is the plan (if any) for more stop signs or speed bumps on Mapleton Ave. east 20th? Can we "apply" for speed bumps - like the fortunate folks West of 20th on Mapleton possess? What is the process to start / advance such considerations? Thank you in advance for the favor of your reply, Tyler Norris Tyler Norris President Community Initiatives, LLC 2119 Mapleton Ave Boulder, CO 80304 USA Ala•//f'•\tx7mmnxxrc\n'Gn,rn\r_xxnnnnnou•rr~ Page 2 of 2 303.444.3366 www.communityinitiatives.com tyler@tylernorris.com fiP•//(`•\xxmmnxx~c~r~xRn~r_mi nnnno u•rx,r _ _ _ _ _ Page I of 1 Teresa Spears - Whittier Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Meeting From: "VICKI NABER" <vnaber@msn.com> To: <spearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 03/13/2002 8:31 AM Subject: Whittier Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Meeting Dear Teresa, I will not be able to attend the meeting on the 18 of March due to a conflict with the Water Resources Advisory Board meeting. I live on Pine ST. between the traffic circles and can attest to their success in reducing speed on Pine. They also create a safer crossing for traffic trying to cross Pine north or south. We need to mitigate speed further down Pine at 22nd or 23rd. Another circle there would be appropriate and keep a pattern of mitigation on Pine. The mid-block raised humps on Spruce are counter productive. A much narrower median is necessary there to restore much needed parking, and mid block ped crossings are redundant. The humps are useful in slowing traffic. The experiment is now a eye-sore. Mapleton speed humps are necessary because the street is so narrow. The speed control signal at Pine is working. I feel this project should proceed very rapidly. Our neighborhood has already gone through a LENGTHY process and most obstacles have been eliminated due to an election. Thank you, Vicki Naber 1540 Pine Boulder 303-442-7594 fitn•7!(`•\\lT1TTTln\lIC`\TT: riD\(_T1 I I nnnno TT- A Page 1 of 2 Teresa Spears - RE: NTMP and speed control on Mapleton From: 'yler Norris" ctyler@communityinitiatives.comma To: "Teresa Spears" cSpearsT@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 03/15/2002 10:51 AM Subject: RE: NTMP and speed control on Mapleton Thank you Teresa for your response. Unfortunately I need to be in Atlanta at a meeting, so appreciate your willingness to reflect our input to the extent possible. As you know, it is explicitly shared by Will and Erica Shafroth (2029 Mapleton) and by others as well in the n'hood. I hope to make the subsequent meeting. We value your systemic look at the impacts of mitigation strategies in one street on other streets. Best, Tyler -----Original Message----- From: Teresa Spears [mailto:SpearsT@ci.boulder.co.us] Seat: Friday, March 15, 2002 9:48 AM To: Tyler Norris Cc: WShafroth@coctorg Subject: Re: NTMP and speed control on Mapleton Tyler: The mitigation plan for the Whittier Neighborhood includes the area that you were addressing. I would encourage you to attend the meeting on Monday, if at all possible. If you cannot, f will make sure your input is heard at the meeting. At this point we have created "straw' proposals. The intent of these proposals is to have a place to begin a conversation regarding mitigation. Everyone at the meeting will be given the opportunity to address what they like and do not like about each proposal. That information will then taken into account when seeking an engineering solution to speeding in your area. If I can be of further assistance please let me know. Teresa Spears -Fyler Norris' <tyler(Mcommunityinitiatives.com> 03/11/02 09:06AM Hello Teresa, The traffic volume and speed on Mapleton Ave. between Folsom and Broadway seems to have increased significantly in recent years. Perhaps resulting in part from traffic mitigation strategies on parallel stretches of Spruce and Pine. My concern is speed. As a planner, I know better than to think that my potentially biased front porch assessment is fully accurate. That said, we live midway between three blocks w/o a stop sign. We, and many neighbors, have small kids playing on the sidewalks and learning to ride bikes so are particularly sensitive to car speed. The speed limit is often exceeded on our stretch of Mapleton as drivers hit the prime open space between stop signs, with no speed control devices to slow the flaw. What is the plan (if any) for more stop signs or speed bumps on Mapleton Ave. east 20th? Can we'apply' for speed bumps - like the fortunate folks West of 20th on Mapleton possess? What is the process to start / advance such considerations? Thank you in advance for the favor of your reply, file://C:\WINDOW S\TEMP\GW) 00009.HTM 06/27/2002 Page 2 of 2 Tyler Norris Tyler Norris President Community Initiatives, LLC 2119 Mapleton Ave Boulder, CO 80304 USA 303-444-3366 www.communityinitiatives com tyl er@rtyl ernorri s. mm file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW }00009.HTM 06127/2002 Page 1 of 1 Teresa Spears - Whittier NTMP From: Sid Freudenstein <freudens@mscd.edu> To: <spearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 03/16/2002 10:36 AM Subject: Whittier NTMP I WILL NO BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE 3/18 MEETING. I OWN PROPERTY AT 2211 SPRUCE AND I SUPPORT ANY MITIGATION PLAN THAT WILL SLOW THE TRAFFIC ON SPRUCE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTERESTED. SID FREUDENSTEIN FlP•!!(`•\~AT7Tillll\Tlc\T~A AM r_'ltn nnnnn Tr XA - - - Page 1 of I Teresa Spears - Whittier Meeting last night From: Amy Howard Gahoward@indra.com> To: cspearst@cl.boulder.co.us> Date: 03/19/2002 12:53 PM Subject: Whittier Meeting last night Teresa, I wanted to let you know that you and others did a great job last night running the meeting. It was a pleasure to be involved in a process where people felt they were listened to, where we stuck to the agenda and finished on time. Thanks. Amy Howard file://C:\WIlVDOWS\TEM[P\GW}00009.HTM 06/27/2002 Page 1 of 1 Teresa Spears - NTMP Whittier From: "Maria Richmond" To: <spearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 03/19/2002 10:48 PM Subject: NTMP Whittier Hello Teresa, Firstly, the meeting last night was very good. The city staff and your non-city support did a great job. A lot of work went into it. Thanks. Secondly, I have a question. Are there actual numbers of accidents and severety of them for some of the intersections in the neighborhood? If there is, I would like to know the actual numbers. These are the intersections I have in mind: Pine and 15th Street Pine and 17th Street Pine and 20th Street Pine and Folsom Mapleton and 23rd Street Bluff and Folsom Alpine and 20th Balsam/Edgewood and 19th/20th Thank you, Maria Richmond Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00008.HTM 06/27/2002 Page 1 of 1 Teresa Spears - Pine Street From: Art Anderson <artander@indra.com> To: <spearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 03/19/2002 4:03 PM Subject: Pine Street Teresa, Just a few points for consideration: Pine street during noon and evening rush backs up past 24th Street When Pine Street backs up 24th Street becomes the fast (very fast) express route arround the light at Pine. .1 think the use of corner extensions as the west portion of Pine would slow traffic. Also the painting of cross walks at each corner to alert drivers that there are ped crossings. Also Pine street could be re-striped narrowing the width of the travel lanes. I believe if you went to 1011 foot lanes then traffic would slow. Paint a yellow medium in the center and then enforce staying in lane. The narrower lane will handle the ADT If the purpose is to slow traffic the ideal way is to make people go another route. A majority portion of Pine Street traffic turns right on Folsom. Don't give them a free right but make them wait for the light and they will find a new route. Art Anderson fi1P•//r•\WTNII(1WR\TFrav~r`xrinnnnQ uTra Page 1 of 1 Teresa Spears - Traffic in Whittier From: "John Koval" <jkoval@coburndev.com> To: <spearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 03/20/2002 12:27 AM Subject: Traffic in Whittier Thanks for hosting the meeting the other night. Generally, my feedback is that we want to see a well balanced program so that there are EFFECTIVE mitigation devices on all streets scattered through out the neighborhood. It appears that to avoid the Circles and other devices, people use Mapleton as a faster place to drive. We would like to see the introduction of more variety of devices on Mapleton (i.e..: add a circle or two coupled with a curve in the street). We also really like the gateway device to announce the neighborhood. Good luck with your progress and thanks for all of your hard work! John A. Koval - Resident 2245 16th Street Boulder, Colorado 80302 file- 11 AXARW )OUNNTFK/UPW-`xnnnnn4 uT-n,r - Page 1 of 1 Teresa Spears - Traffic Mitigation Mapleton Ave. in Boulder From: "Kimberly M. Hult" <Hult@hbcboulder.com> To: "'spearst@ci.boulder.co.us" <spearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 03/26/2002 12:35 PM Subject: Traffic Mitigation Mapleton Ave. in Boulder Hello Theresa. I was sorry to miss the Whittier meeting on Monday, March 18, 2002, although my neighbor Amy Howard has filled me in. I have been trying to access the proposed plans on the website so I can give you my feedback, but I have been unable to find them. Will you please send me the link? ( I have found the NTMP site, but not the "projects" page). Like Amy, I am extremely concerned about the traffic issues. One of the concerns I have, too, (at the risk of alienating some of my neighbors) is that in addressing proposals for the neighborhood-wide mitigation, we do not redirect all of the traffic on Pine Street to other Streets (like Mapleton). The main reason that my husband and I purchased a more expensive house on Mapleton Avenue and not Pine Street was that, particularly because we have small children, we were willing to scrape together more money to live on a street that was not a major thoroughfare, with a yellow line dividing it. My question now is whether there is an intent to redistribute traffic, or is the plan to mitigate existing traffic without changing the average daily trips on particular streets? That said, I appreciate your efforts to address speeding traffic throughout the neighborhood. I do not believe that the current speed bumps do nearly enough to slow speeding traffic, and I am very interested in reviewing your current proposals. Thanks, Theresa. Kimberly M. Hult Hutchinson Black and Cook, LLC 921 Walnut Street, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80302 (303) 441-7403 / (800) 303-6514, x403 / Fax (303) 442.6593 Hult@hbcboulder.com file://C:\VnNWWS\TEMP\GW}00009.HTM 06/27/2002 Page 1 of 1 Teresa Spears - Re: Whittier Traffic Mitigation From: Judith Aplon <japlon@abo.fi> To: Teresa Spears <SpearsT®ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 03/27/2002 4:10 AM Subject: Re: Whittier Traffic Mitigation CC: Whittier Neighborhood <whittierneighborhood@hotmail.com> Hi Teresa, Sorry I have not been able to get back to you sooner, but I have been both ill and out of town. Let me begin by providing some background information. I have been a home owner/resident at 2119 Spruce St. a2 since the house was built in autumn, 1977. Since that time, I have experienced a profoundly changed neighborhood: redevelopment, heavier traffic, more residences, greater use of the Spruce Street Pool and the Youth Center, servere lack of parking, and, ultimately, Spruce Street being transformed into a speedway between 20th and Folsom. I wish to address my concerns to the speedway aspect of Spruce between 20th and Folsom. The street is broad with no traffic barriers, signs, or lights on this stretch. As traffic slows on Pearl, and is slowed through mitigation on Pine, Spruce is obliged to carry more and more traffic. The combination of increased traffic, no barriers, signs, or lights with the pool used in summer is creating a disaster waiting to happen. I base my conclusion on the "near misses" I have witnessed, and the frequent sounds of motors roaring and brakes squealing. About ten years ago, I met with the overseeing agency for the Spruce Street Pool and convinced them that a stop sign was necessary at the Spruce Street side of the driveway. This has been somewhat effective in slowing the charge from the pool and youth center parking lot. It is tangentially related to the speed on Spruce Street. Since I have not seen plans for the new traffic mitigation, I would like to take this opportunity to recommend that barriers, stop signs, or lights be judiciously introduced on Spruce Street between 20th and Folsom. If this plan is under consideration, thank you. If not, I would appreciate a continuation of the dialog. Thank you, Judith Aplon file://CAYdNDOWS\T v1P\GW)00008.HTM 06/27/2002 Page 1 of I Teresa Spears - Traffic mitigation for Whittier From: "Lincoln Gup" <I-gup@hotmail.com> To: <spearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 03/28/2002 12:41 PM Subject: Traffic mitigation for Whittier Ms. Spears, I've been a resident of the Whittier area since 1988, and I've never felt that traffic speed compromised either the livability or the safety of my neighborhood; However, I can't say the same thing about the traffic mitigation devices. I believe the humps cause unnecessary choke-points for bicycle traffic and the "traffic circles" are extremely dangerous for everyone who uses them: pedestrians, children, drivers, and cyclists. The "traffic circles" are simply too darn confusing and too small. Please, I strongly urge you to leave my neighborhood as it is - quiet and smooth. Thank you, Lincoln Gup 2270 Spruce St. #B Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http-//wwwhotmail.com file//('\W1Nil(lxx7c~'rFxnv~r_xxnnnnnvr~•rnR Page 1 of 2 Teresa Spears - Fw: NTMP Whittier project From: "Warren Hultquist" <warren@ultraplayer.com> To: <spearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 04/01/2002 7:13 PM Subject: Fw: NTMP Whittier project Hello Ms Spears, Here is my feedback regarding the proposed NTMP projects for the Whittier neighborhood: 1) No to the 17 circle plan: The 17 circle plan was rejected years ago by the neighborhood and the fire department. The fire chief said "There's no way in hell we would support this" in the very first meeting where Bill Fox (then at Transplan) proposed the design. We can't afford this project, and more importantly, we stand to endanger far more people due to delayed emergency response than we could possible save by simply reducing average vehicle speeds. Two pedestrians were struck and injured at the Pine & 15th circle last year, whereas there were never ped/car injuries in that intersection prior to the installation of the circle. Literally, seconds do count in an emergency, and there are far more time critical emergencies in general than there are speed- related injuries/fatalities. 2) The unofficial neighborhood leadership (Specifically, John Spitzer) promised the Fire Fighters Union that the neighborhood organization would ask for no more than the existing 2 circles if the union did not endorse the Seconds Count initiative. If the 17 circle plan is implemented, the Seconds Count citizen group plans to redraft a narrower, less aggressive initiative to ban delay-inducing obstacles from Boulder's Critical Emergency Response Routes. We garnered 40% of the vote in the previous election, and a redraft will most certainly win if specific concerns about the initiative are addressed. 3) No longer necessary: Traffic volumes on Pine have dropped dramatically, making me wonder if the street even qualifies under the NTMP guidelines. The original data taken 5 years ago pegged the daily trips at 9500-10000 vehicles per day. A 30% drop is very significant. Did that traffic simply evaporate, or did it get pushed into another neighborhood? 4) Unfair: The existing NTMP systematically eliminates the voice of people most impacted by installation of delay-inducing traffic mitigation devices like circles and humps. Allowing only people within 400 feet of a device tog vote virtually guarantees the proliferation of devices in every block and intersection. If the NTMP is to be fair and effective, all interested parties must be included in the vote, which means inclusion of an emergency response "trip-shed" area. 5) Bad for Disabled citizens: Citizens with disabilities report extreme difficulties related to the traffic mitigation devices. Installing such a ubiquitous array of devices forces disabled citizens to suffer discomfort, pain, and limitations of access. 6) Dangerous: Confusion over right-of-way at the circles continues even 5 years after installation. Very few people traveling East-West on Pine yield to people traveling North-South at the cross streets where the circles exist. The high turnover of students and tourists only exacerbates this problem. 7) NTMP funding should be eliminated and funneled into the Fire/Police budgets simply as a matter of priority. We're substandard in terms of our emergency response times and police per capita. The NTMP is a counterproductive, divisive program that we can't afford in a city with dropping sales tax filP• //f •\\xITATT1n~xrC\'r'Cr rtn~ n~in nnnno rr•r~ ,r Page 2 of 2 revenue. Neighborhood is pitted against neighborhood, competing for ways to push traffic out of one are and into another. Wealthy neighborhoods can buy traffic off of their streets, forcing it to the streets of poor neighborhoods. 8) Traffic mitigation increases pollution due to irregular (stop/start & acceleration/decelleration) caused by the devices. Noise levels aree increased by the associated slowing/speeding up, bumps, humps, and jumps. Thanks, Warren Hultquist 1820 Mapleton Boulder, Colorado 80304 filP•//('•\\UT1~Til(1V17C\TFTRP\r:xx7innnna u•rnrt - . Pagel of 2 Teresa Spears - Re: Whittier Traffic Mitigation From: Judith Aplon <japlon@abo.fi> To: Teresa Spears <SpearsT@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 03/27/2002 4:10 AM Subject: Re: Whittier Traffic Mitigation CC: Whittier Neighborhood <whittierneighborhood@hotmail.com> Hi Teresa, Sorry I have not been able to get back to you sooner, but I have been both ill and out of town. Let me begin by providing some background information. I have been a home owner/resident at 2119 Spruce St. #2 since the house was built in autumn, 1977. Since that time, I have experienced a profoundly changed neighborhood: redevelopment, heavier traffic, more residences, greater use of the Spruce Street Pool and the Youth Center, servere lack of parking, and, ultimately, Spruce Street being transformed into a speedway between 20th and Folsom. I wish to address my concerns to the speedway aspect of Spruce between 20th and Folsom. The street is broad with no traffic barriers, signs, or lights on this stretch. As traffic slows on Pearl, and is slowed through mitigation on Pine, Spruce is obliged to carry more and more traffic. The combination of increased traffic, no barriers, signs, or lights with the pool used in summer is creating a disaster waiting to happen. I base my conclusion on the "near misses" I have witnessed, and the frequent sounds of motors roaring and brakes squealing. About ten years ago, I met with the overseeing agency for the Spruce Street Pool and convinced them that a stop sign was necessary at the Spruce Street side of the driveway. This has been somewhat effective in slowing the charge from the pool and youth center parking lot. It is tangentially related to the speed on Spruce Street. Since I have not seen plans for the new traffic mitigation, I would like > ..to take this o pportunity to recommend that barriers, stop signs, or file-//C'-\WTN OUIO,\TPAAv\n1xnnnnneu'rr,r Page 2 of 2 lights be judiciously introduced on Spruce Street between 20th and Folsom. If this plan is under consideration, thank you. If not, I would appreciate a continuation of the dialog. Thank you, Judith Ap{on filr.•!!f`..•\WiNT1C1WQ\TFTRP\~:xx)tnMn52 Wrra r~ Page 1 of 2 Teresa Spears - The Proposals for Whittier From: "Kimberly M. Hult" <Hult@hbcboulder.com> To: "'spearst@ci.boulder.co.us"' <spearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 04/04/2002 12:43 PM Subject: The Proposals for Whittier Hi Theresa. I finally got over to pick those up yesterday. I have some initial (and strong) reactions, and I hope I am not too late to comment. Of the three proposals, I strongly favor Proposal 1, with some changes. I have big concerns about Proposal 2, because the way I read the map, Pine , Spruce and Mapleton are treated identically. I think the streets are very different, and while I think additional circles make sense for Pine Street, I don't think they necessarily work for Mapleton (with more pedestrians/families and not a major thoroughfare). And I think that while circles throughout the neighborhood might be aesthetically nice and uniform, it would redistribute traffic off of the major thoroughfare (Pine) and onto the side streets. As a Mapleton Ave. resident (1837), 1 strongly prefer keeping the bumps (which I think have eroded somewhat and need to be reinforced), and adding additional bumps between 20th and Folsom. But I am also believe that Mapleton Ave. needs additional mitigation devices between 17th and 21st. I can tell you that there are a ton of families with little kids and active pedestrians/cyclists, between 17th and 21st. That, in my biased opinion, is where Mapleton is the most neighborhood-like, with people routinely out enjoying their yards, often with their families. While additional bumps beyond those proposed in Proposal 1 may not be feasible, I would like the NTMP to consider additional signs/photo radar/permanent speed display/medians, etc., the devices proposed for Pine in Proposal 3. I'm not sure why those devices should be limited to Pine (although I certainly think that they could play a role on Pine). Indeed, my biggest concern was that there was so much focus on Pine (and so much of the budget going into Pine), that there relatively less mitigation on the other streets, creating major spillover of traffic. 4 I- /1( AlSF TTII 11T\ TT.x STN Ian n.nAA. rTm• ~ - Page 2 of 2 Kimberly M. Hult Hutchinson Black and Cook, LLC 921 Walnut Street, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80302 (303) 441-7403 / (800) 303-6514, x403 / Fax (303) 442-6593 Hult@hbcboulder.com filu•//('•\\7J1TTOC'M TQN PUA 41)\(`_\1/l nnnno rr'rae - To: Teresa Spears, NTMP Coordinator From: Crystal Gray, Whittier Resident-1709 Spruce-303-449-9680 Date: April 2, 2002 Re: Comments on the Alternatives for the Whittier Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Thank you for the excellent job you and the Transportation staff and your consultants did at the Whittier Traffic Mitigation Meeting. You were all well organized and the process was well thought out. I truly thought that the high quality of input from the residents was a result of the way you and the rest of the team ran the meeting. There didn't seem to he the usual conflict that we have seen in the past even though there were many diverse views represented at the meeting. Here are some of my comments and those that I heard from others that I would like you to consider. Many of these comments were made at the meeting so I'm sure you have them recorded. There should be a consistent urban design theme throughout the neighborhood no matter what mitigation tools are picked. You should work with a landscape architect or urban architect in developing the final design and the landscape elements. All elements should be landscaped and provided with a drip system. If signs are used as neighborhood markers, please use design consultants. Traffic Circles seem to be the preferred alternative for the area from 15th to 20th on Spruce. Two locations were identified-18th and 16th. This was discussed by a number of us who live on Spruce in the area. I personally would like to keep the raised crossings with landscaping (modified somewhat to keep parking on the street) but those who live next to them feel they are too noisy and want to try the circles. I am willing to go along with my neighbors on this and support placing circles at 16th and 18th. We would like trees in them with landscaping and a drip system. We will adopt them if they have a drip system. The Traffic Circles seem to be one of the more popular treatments with the group. You should look at them for the area of Spruce from 22 d to Folsom. The mediums that were shown on the plan seem to be too expensive. The suggestion for the area at 21St and Spruce, that I feel was a good one made by a neighbor, was to put in a safe crossing refuge. This was suggested for the eastside of the intersection as well as the West Side of the intersection. This is used by school kids going to Spruce Pool as well as to school. This should be repeated on Pine at 21St 21st was an area that the neighborhood and Coburn Design proposed as a north south pedestrian connection. Maybe we can revive this plan. Some one has a copy in the Transportation Department. Please minimize signage at the circles or what ever treatment you use. The city has more signage at circles than other cities. You should contact Palo Alto, California since they use a minimum amount of signs. Please do not use the electronic speed signs (where it gives your speed) in front of houses. These are an ugly addition in the neighborhood. No one I have talked to likes them in front of houses. If you are going to use them please place them in areas by commercial buildings (the Human Services-Spruce Pool area) or by the Whittier School Playground. Some one suggested placing a safe refuge crossing at 24th and Pine. That seemed like a good idea. Neighbors suggested a circle at Pine and 22 a Do not put a traffic light at Spruce and Folsom. People on Mapleton seem to want speed platforms to replace the small speed bumps. Please contact Amy Howard and Kim Holt for details. There is a problem with people coming south on 20th and making a right (west) turn at Mapleton, a left on 19th and a right on Pine. This is done to avoid the light at Pine and 20`h. Please put a circle at Mapleton and 20th and some kind of deterrent (speed table) on 19t. I was surprised for the support for using circles. People liked the cost and effectiveness. Some people suggested concern for bicycles and the fact cars ignored the no passing signs. It was suggested you do more education. I understand that the City is placing a four way stop sign at Spruce and 20th. This seems like a good idea. There is a big problem at 15t' and Spruce with the `free right turn' for northbound cars turning from 15th to go east bound on Spruce. It is also a problem for pedestrians when cars, that are north bound on 15th, don't have to stop at 15a' and Spruce. This is a major pedestrian crossing and it has been a problem for years! People on 23`a have said that people ignore the stop sign at 23`a and Mapleton and this problem needs to be solved. It was suggested that traffic circle be place here. Thanks again for holding the meeting. 303 245 0204 P.07 may._2g-02 01:25P Kathleen Calongne FAX TO: Bill Cowers, Theresa Spears ! NTMP FROM: Kathleen Caiongne DATE: March 29, x002 PGS. 7, including cover .Mar"-29-02 01:23P Kathleen Calongne 303 245 0204 P.01 One. Portland's 14-foot hw* has received a treasure of One speed table the 22-Idol tabfa has become quite acceptance mtlonallXa It has the same parabolic shape popular. It is used In II of the 20 featured communitla. and same height as the I2-foot hump, but because of its and exclusively to 3 of them. Reasons for the popularity greater length In the direction of trmi. It produces a gen- of this profile are described in chapter 3. Having the same tler ride and 85th percentile speed approalmately 3 mph vertical rise a the 12-foot hump over almost twice the higher then the 12-fact hump (see figure 4.7). length, and having a net section upon which both front and rear wheels of a passenger car can momentarily test. the 22-foot speed able produces a gentler ride than ei- therspeed hump profile. It cannot be completely straddled by most vehicles of interest, such as single-unit trucks, which makes It less likely that they will bottom out (see figure 4.8).The 85th percentile speed of this ptofiie has been measured to range between 25 and 30 mph. In ef- fect, it tops off the top operating speeds without greatly affecting the average driver. There are two alternative designs for 22-foot speed tables. The original design, from Seminole County. is modeled after the 12-foot hump. Its 6-foot ramps are the FiPae1.S.IktMfetolM1LNpgia0aga12,fKlyatiMgrHYaq same parabolic shape as the rises of a l2-foot hump;a Mt Pae9le.pl.laweWa,Fq a w to sa as sec in to is in so ear tar-*- V law" a to w raw am to a• an fiatr tats air-- 470pdants a w AN tit to tae »s tea aaf am IN tar atr+--- rEpataaq r Rgw as 1 Z•taet spew Krp nofw. Smite: M Traffic Eogimaratg Ccunca Spmd Haag Tak Fact. CwMkw fa the Dnujn &,dApp&adm afSpew Hvmg-A R®mmnxbd Pinum.Imotw of Tampwimimt Enginma, %skngtwt, DC, 1997, p 13. _ b 2b is o fe{ io i' t- t• --1' t'~ r - r PARABOLIC gown Flyin41 t4 fedtSpaetlFlttmpRefik ¢ltYrM M4 Source: Bureau ofTrark Mamgmtcn.'TMc Mruat.' Rribm. OR. Dmcmbtr 1994. Ctrptcr 11. pia~tarl: higbamhrg att9Aaslhatk kara • 71 Mar`-29-02 01:23P Kathleen Calongne 303 245 0204 P.02 Traffic Calming: State of the Practice Report, 19990 ITE / FHWA a that seemed steep,ciscla that seemed tight. and so forth. A plrlcally derived 85th percentile speeds. Three vertical few scuff marks on ramps or lire marks on curbs may be measures (the 12-foot hump, the 14•foot hump. and the blamed on irresponsible driving. Many suggest that too 22-foot table) and two horizontal measures (traffic circles much deflection was designed Into slow points. Humps and roundabouts) have been so widely used In the United in Montgomery County, Ma are now limited to a 3- States that there Is documentation of the effectiveness of Inch height,subject to a tolerance of 1/81nch. Legislative particular geometric design dimenslorss. Intervention was prompted by the construction of humps. with a target height of 3.5 inches, sometimes ending up Speed Humps and Tables over 4 Inches high. Likewise, Ft. Lauderdale built some 4- The ratan common traffic calming measure in the United inch speed tables.They proved tiro severe for a collector States. and the only one for which ITE has developed a /s'~ street, producing approximately the same crossing speed recommended practice for its design and application. is t as a 12-root hump Ft.Lauderdale hassettled on 3.5 inches the 12-bar hump.' The 12-foot hump is parabolic In shape 49 f.7&1!I as the optimal height for a 22-foot table. and has an 85th percentile speed of 15 to 20 mph. Much effort is expended to replicate this precise profile (tee fig- ure 4.5). Exact hump dimensions for three ti fferem height; Geometric Design Diinmions are shown in figure 4.B.The 4-Inch height has fallen out or favor in the United States, being too harsh for most Using the approximate mathematical relationships derived appllcauors.The 3- and 3.5-Inch profiles are still In com- in this chapter, traffic managers an estimate proper de- mon use. sign dimensions for some traffic calming measures. Alter- Limitations of the 12-foot hump, discussed in chapter rtatlvey,they can make use ofgeometric designs withem- 3, have led to the development of other hump prof es. I frill Qlydgfl Beli..w,ea ~tH Winter Pot FL gradwdmilesch R Rpn4A.0tdawnindp alftistsa, 70• UdBe feltMng:sun NtM Praetls 303 245 0204 P.03 .t„1at=_29-02 01:24P Kathleen Calongne 4.0 Design and Cons-troction - Considerations 4.01 Dimensions and Cross-Sections 13 For use on typical residential streets the most widely used circular, parabolic speed n hump (ML profile, 3-inch, 3 112-inch or 4-inch maximum) is shown in Figure m 4.1. The 3-inch hump can be expected to cause speeds of 20 to 25 mph at the is z hump, with a 4-inch hump creating crossing speeds of 15 to 20 mph, It should be a,p w recognized that lower hump heights will generally result in greater variation of Tmjoib A hump crossing speeds. Humps should not exceed 4 inches in height, and where = significant percentages of trucks, buses, or other long wheel-base vehicles are c expected, an approximate 3-inch height is generally considered more acceptable. Some jurisdictions have found 2.5-inch heights to he effective in selected locations. i s Z 0 a n a'1 0 ON +IP iP SY }11 iN l)l ]A. J9l ..N`~~-TEp.q rlYOp O o iN ar 'M a +a+ y+ am 0 laa f++ 1i xn Ar lev.f-~~AS•SpMM„ry Z a aM CR it of 1M eaa e~ en an e# aN uv..-- SSpuCNUmp O I T Ij b m m a. p Y I C e N FIGURE 4.1 Sourer. Clement,l.P'Speed Humps and TheThmnand Oaks Esperimce" Oq afThouand Oaks. Thousand Oaks.CA. September 1982, An alternative flat-topped design that has been successfully tested in Australia is shown in Figure 4.2. In Seminole County, Florida, a similar flat-topped design has also been utilized successfully. "ibis design geometry consists of a segment of a cir- cle with an approximate radius of 72 feet followed by a 3-inch high, 10-foot long plateau with the same arc on the down stream end. Site specific roadway and traffic characteristics should be evaluated to determine if one of these designs, or an alter- nate, is appropriate for the traffic and roadway conditions at the installation loca- tion being considered. Regardless of the design selected, special care must be given during the humps construction to ensure the proper final shape and dimensions. Mar'-29-02 01-24P Kathleen Calongne 303 245 0204 P-04 Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps, ITE, 1993 L05 Use of the Recommended Practice This ITE Recommended Practice is to be used in conjunction with good engineer- ing practice. These guidelines do not constitute either final or complete design and evaluation criteria for speed humps, speed hump systems, or residential traffic management control programs. Local conditions must be evaluated for all speed hump installations. In addition, specific terrain, weather, traffic, or land use char- acteristics may require local modification of these guidelines. Other documents 7 such as the ITE Recommended Guidelines for Subdivision Streets: A Recommended Prac- n lice, Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, and other standard practice docu- o menus should be consulted as necessary. z m N T 0 A ti T D m _N n Z s z 0 a 0 a r i1 a y zZ O T N T m m O I c 3 e N P.05 Mar-29-02 01:24P Kathleen Calongne 303 245 0204 City Council, April 8, IM NTMP STUDY SESSION turn when entering a traffic circle because the vehicle must turn to the tight to maneuver through the traffic circle first. The Transportation Division is currently pursuing an Ordinance change which would make it legal for vehicles to turn left from a traffic circle without having to signal. This is consistent with the concept that a vehicle must yield to any other vehicle in the traffic circle regardless of the movement they are making. The high number of accidents at the Pine Street intersections suggest that traffic circles at intersections with high traffic volumes, reasonable side street volumes and complete lack of snow removal may be problematic. Some thought must go into the impact upon the City's stmt maintenance resources if many locations which are not currently plowed today would be added to their responsibilities if traffic circles were to be constructed at them in the future. 'traffic circles require vehicles to slgw below he gprrA limit to m?Reuver trough them. While this impact is relatively small (a reduction of five to 10 mph) compared to other devices (such as STOP signs), it is still an issue to be considered. The goal of the NTMP is to get traffic in neighborhoods to drive rho cpud limit nr rlncn in it On every street in the NTMP there are drivers who are already complying with this goal and driving no faster than the speed limit. Such drivers would suffer the same inconvenience as drivers who are currently speeding. THE MODIFIED DESIGN. OR "VOLCANO." TRAFFIC CIRCLE TEST: Design Obiective The original trial traff ic circles were built with six-inch high bumper blocks to simulate a standard curb-edge perimeter. This design forces all vehicles, including emergency response vehicles, to travel around the circle to pass through the intersection, thus reducing vehicle speed. The required "turning" maneuver results in an additional 7.5 to 10 second/circle delay for emergency vehicles. Staff proposed a "volcano," or conical-shaped traffic circle, featuring a low-profile, mountable edge, for further testing. The modified edge design would need to be shallow enough to allow emergency response vehicles to travel over the rim of the circle in a straighter path through the intersection. It was anticipated that this would result in less delay for these vehicles at each traffic circle. At the same time, the modified edge would have to be formidable enough to discourage other vehicles from traveling over the circle edge. Should this happen, it would defeat the overall objective of using a traffic circle to achieve speed mitigation. Initial Teat at the City Yards A test run with City emergency response vehicles and a "volcano" circle was conducted at the City Yards on October 14. 1996. The volcano circle design was based on a design used in Portland, OR. Staff constructed a full circle with a 4:1 slope and alternative edge heights of two and three inches (on each hemisphere). The altering edge depths were provided to determine which edge height had least impact on response vehicles, and which, if either, would be preferable to Fire Department personnel. Pending Fire Department approval. the second phase of the experiment would entail on-site construction of three volcano circles on Pine at the intersections of 19th, 22nd, and 24th Streets for sustained testing. -C12- Mar--29-02 01:25P Kathleen Calongne 303 245 0204 P•06 March 28, 2002 To: Bill Cowern & Theresa Spears / NTMP Re: Proposed mitigation of Whittier and Balsam Dear Bill and Theresa: Transportation states that "the goal of the NTMP is to get traffic in neighborhoods to drive the speed limit or close to it." (April 8, 1997 Study Session, see ENC) It was noted in the study session material that this is "a consideration" as traffic circles lower speeds at the devices below posted speed limits. As I mentioned at the Whittier meeting, March 18, a 12 ' 4 " high hump is designed to lower passenger vehicle speeds to 15 to 20 mph. This is supported by both the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) "Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Bumps," initially published in 1993 as well as the more recent "Traffic Calming: State of the Practice Report," (1999) prepared by the ITE on behalf of the FHWA. (See ENCS.) I believe ou umntentionall fated that the reason the 12' 4" hump is being used in Boulder is because th nal standard" for this design. There is only a "guideline" for this profile in the 1993 ITE document. The more recent, "Traffic Calming: State of the Practice" report (1999) states that the 4 inch height has "fallen out of favor in the United States, being too harsh for most applications." (See ENC) The "State of the Practice" report mentions many alternative designs that are experimentally being placed on streets in other cities, just as the 12' 4" device is also experimental. There is no official sanction for the use of traffic calming devices (State of the Practice, p. 13). It is a "local" decision. It therefore should not be implied that there is any sort of officially approved national standard for any device. Before the 2000 edition of the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) there was no mention of speed humps. In 2000, the devices were described as "geometric design features" sometimes installed at the decision of "local" governments. Only recommendations for signs, pavement markings and advisory speed plaques to warn drivers of the devices were added to the MUTCD in 2000. During a meeting I had with Assistant Fire Chiet Steve Stolz, in March of this year, he expressed that the design of the speed tables that are being installed on Boulder streets are as impacting, or more impacting than the 12' 4" humps you are installing, because of their height and short ramps. If the devices are to be installed, I would like to see an effort made on the part of Transportation to utilize designs that have been in use by other communities for long periods of time that meet the goals of the NTMP by allowing passengers somewhat comfortable passage at speeds of posted speed limits, are less damaging to vehicles and vehicle cargo and that are less impacting to emergency response. Sincerely, Kathleen Calongne 2431 23rd Street Boulder, CO 80304 ENCS 3 CC Mayor Will Toor and Boulder City Council Members Transportation Advisory Board Joseph De Rimes, Boulder City Attorney Steve Stolz, Assistant Fire Chief IU NE 2002 DRAFT. THIS PLAN IS ONC EPTUAL. DEVICE OCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE." Speed Hump a o : a w Y, - Speed Hump a 15 eKS~w~ ~ 71, R e * f q= , se E Trafficr CircleX r Traffic Circle - Hump } . S Hum Peed y r %i F -..-.may - I~oseng ~ }M1~u„~..,.; ~ ~ sign of - < t~ Q Reviei de a exis ing peed humps on Mapleton I Median wlPea S Hum .r, RAW & Curb _ Traffic Circle with E dansic ro Curb Extensions r ~ East, - S Hum ~ A~ Modify signal operations j wf ° / (remove speed sensitive) Traffic Circle With C Exeting 1 / Curb Extensions Q Consider operational / ' City is considering improvements - Traffic Circle with change in traffic control I~ Ip~ st Curb Extensions vwE si ' } t~ W Lac r c s ~J f N 'x' - - Remove Existing Raised Crosswalks ° - .r Traffic Circe with w/Medians on Spruce Curb Extensions a i --j ° I > J - Curb Extensions s T c ~ ,r m y 3 i` wusst ° Traffic Circle with with Pod Refuge Curb EXten510ns Median i Traffic Circle with . Curb Extensions e WHITTIER NEIGHBORHOOD r>za►NSrI AIV Conceptual Traffic Calming Plan ASSOCIATES, INC. ,m®t~~~,snt Scale 1"=600' Date 6/28/02 Drawn by RAC Job # ABOULD0213 Figure Attachment G Whittier Traffic Mitigation Meeting Proposal Input May 20, 2002 - Questions about landscaping financing in future; could reductions in construction costs go towards landscaping? Subject to budget constraints. - Modify signal operations. - 18th & Spruce: Leave it as a raised pedestrian crossing? North & South have stops signs, parking concerns in front of house. - Concern over net loss of parking spaces. - Look at Spruce about regaining parking spaces. - Neckdowns: Low shrubs and visibility, better enforcement of sightlines. - Bluff & 23rd: Speed hump proximity to stop sign East of 24th. - Speed humps vs. circles concerns re: CERR - Combine neighborhood signs with circles; had discussed with medians; landscaping - Based on Pine, where do cars go? Viable alternative route. GENERAL REACTIONS - Mapleton concern: Whip down Bluff, feels bumps haven't made a difference. Could be worse in end all along Mapleton regarding number of cards. Review design. - Bluff and 20th Southbound bus stop impact? - Speed humps: Mapleton & Bluff - In an emergency, go down Pine & Spruce. Pine is designated for an emergency. - Curb extensions? Function is to slow down cars and minimize pedestrian walking distance. 1 Attachment G Feels visual effect good, cohesive design element. Bluff & 23rd stop sign suggestion: In place of circle, sign on speed hump saying "two way stop." Winter concern of drivers sliding into circle, city has looked at grades. Accidents and altercations. Effects of stop signs. People like plan. Aesthetics/landscaping should be at forefront. Better parking enforcement wanted on Spruce between 16th & 18th Wants traffic circles with watering systems. It's up to citizens, possibility of neighborhood mini-grants. Drought resistant plants for landscaping. Traffic circle irrigation - city policy seems inconsistent. Are signs minimized? Striping of bike paths - get bikes in traffic prior to circle. Inconsistent parking signage. Some at every curb cut, some not. 2 Page 1 of 1 Teresa Spears -Whittier Traffic Mitigation From: <011inmaleya@aol.com> To: <spearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 05/14/2002 12:30 PM Subject: Whittier Traffic Mitigation Rumor has it th@ City will be revealing their plans for the Whittier neighborhood May 20th. Have they a plan for people running the stop signs on 23rd? What did you think of my suggestion for the speed bump just before the stop sign? I have another. Post small signs just below the STOP indicating the intersection to be a 2 way stop. I continue to experience near misses, often when someone stops, then proceeds into the intersection with me in plain sight, I'm sure because they assume I too have a stop sign. Carolyn Usher file://C:\VVMOWS\TEMP\GW}00008.HTM 06/27/2002 Page 1 of 2 Teresa Spears - Re: The Proposals for Whittier From: Amy Howard <ahoward@indra.com> To: "'Teresa Spears" <SpearsT@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 06/17/2002 9:41 AM Subject: Re: The Proposals for Whittier CC: Ian Williamson <ian.williamson@sun.com>, "Kimberly M. Hult" <Hult@hbcboulder.com>, 'pasnau@colorado.edu" <pasnau@colorado.edu>, "'juneau717@aol.com" <juneau717@aol.com>, "'robingribbon@attbi.com' <robingribbon@attbi.com> Hi Teresa, As you know from my comments at the Whittier meeting, I'm pleased with many of the proposed solutions for the traffic issues in the Whittier neighborhood. It's clear that you have listened to the participants. I am hopeful, however, that you are also hearing some of the concerns of the Mapleton neighborhood via these e.mails. I echo Kim's hopes that we will be included in some of the polling around the current devices. We see cars flying over these every day and we also see cars speeding up to and between them. The proposed devices on neighboring streets will make this potentially worse (If you build it they will find a way around it). Please let any of us know if there is more feedback you'd like from our street. Thanks for your help. Amy Howard and Scott Hunsaker 1844 Mapleton Ian Williamson wrote: > Thank you Kim for copying all of us. Teresa, my family agrees with Kim's points > (we're at 1735 Mapleton). I would also like to make one additional suggestion. > In fact, I would like to see this mitigation as priority over another bump. > > *The photo radar/ticketing system really works in my opinion. You may have more > statistical evidence of this through the city. If people receive tickets > especially those that I am certain are doubling the speed limit, the deterrence > will be profound. > Thank you > > Ian Williamson > "Kimberly M. Hult" wrote: > > > Hi Teresa. > > I'm sorry I missed the May meeting with the Whittier folks. I was out of > > town with my family. » > > I've seen the proposals that you have developed for the neighborhood. It is > > obvious to me, upon reviewing them, that you have worked very hard to > > incorporate a lot of feedback from many people. 1, for one, certainly > > appreciate your efforts to help address this issue. » file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW)00008.HTM 06/27/2002 Page 2 of 2 > > I still have some concerns, and I hope, again, that it is not too late to > > raise them: > > 1. 1 hope that people who live near existing mitigation devices, > > (i.e., the bumps on Mapleton), will have an opportunity to weigh in on the > > proposed plan and mitigation devices. In other words, I hope that the > > polling of the neighborhood will extend to us. » > > 2. 1 understand that there is some question as to whether the > > existing bumps on Mapleton will be improved or redesigned. They certainly > > could be made much more effective a lot of cars just fly over them now > > although I think that bumps are the right device for our part of Mapleton. > > I have heard that Don Mock has said that the existing bumps were previously > > installed incorrectly and that there is a plan to fix them. Is that > > correct?. » > > 3. 1 hope that there is further discussion about an additional > > mitigation device for the area between 19th and 20th on Mapleton > > (before/after the bump between 18th and 19th on Mapleton). As I believe > > Bill (I've forgotten his last name, but he joined us at the March meeting) > > has already found, the traffic really speeds up significantly in this area. > > My neighbors tell me that there is a similar problem on the other side of > > that bump, between 17th and 18th on Mapleton. As you know, there are a lot > > of families with small children, pedestrians and cyclists who live in our > > area, and we're pretty concerned that the mitigation plan adopted address > > this problem as well. > > Thanks again, Teresa, for your work on this. » > > Kim Hult » > > Kimberly M. Hult > > Hutchinson Black and Cook, LLC > > 921 Walnut Street, Suite 200 > > Boulder, CO 80302 > > (303) 441-7403 / (800) 303-6514, x403 / Fax (303) 442-6593 > > Hult@hbcboulder.com file://C:\WINDOWS\TENV\GW)00008.HTA4 06/27/2002 Page 1 of 2 Teresa Spears - Re: The Proposals for Whittier From: Ian Williamson <ian.williamson@sun.com> To: "Kimberly M. Hult" <Hult@hbcboulder.com>, "'Teresa Spears" <SpearsT@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 06/17/2002 9:23 AM Subject: Re: The Proposals for Whittier CC: "'ahoward@indra.com'" <ahoward@indra.com>, "'pasnau@colorado.edu'" <pasnau@colorado.edu>, "'juneau717@aol.com'" <juneau717@aol.com>, .rob ingribbon@attbi.com" crobingribbon@attbi.com> Thank you Kim for copying all of us. Teresa, my family agrees with Kim's points (we're at 1735 Mapleton). I would also like to make one additional suggestion. In fact, I would like to see this mitigation as priority over another bump. "The photo radar/ticketing system really works in my opinion. You may have more statistical evidence of this through the city. If people receive tickets - especially those that I am certain are doubling the speed limit, the deterrence will be profound. Thank you Ian Williamson "Kimberly M. Hult" wrote: > Hi Teresa. > > I'm sorry I missed the May meeting with the Whittier folks. I was out of > town with my family. > I've seen the proposals that you have developed for the neighborhood. It is > obvious to me, upon reviewing them, that you have worked very hard to > incorporate a lot of feedback from many people. I, for one, certainly > appreciate your efforts to help address this issue. > > I still have some concerns, and I hope, again, that it is not too late to > raise them: > > 1. 1 hope that people who live near existing mitigation devices, > (i.e., the bumps on Mapleton), will have an opportunity to weigh in on the > proposed plan and mitigation devices. In other words, I hope that the > polling of the neighborhood will extend to us. > 2. 1 understand that there is some question as to whether the > existing bumps on Mapleton will be improved or redesigned. They certainly > could be made much more effective a lot of cars just fly over them now > although I think that bumps are the right device for our part of Mapleton. > I have heard that Don Mock has said that the existing bumps were previously > installed incorrectly and that there is a plan to fix them. Is that > correct?. > 3. 1 hope that there is further discussion about an additional > mitigation device for the area between 19th and 20th on Mapleton file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW )00009.HTM 06/27/2002 Page 2 of 2 > (before/after the bump between 18th and 19th on Mapleton). As I believe > Bill (I've forgotten his last name, but he joined us at the March meeting) > has already found, the traffic really speeds up significantly in this area. > My neighbors tell me that there is a similar problem on the other side of > that bump, between 17th and 18th on Mapleton. As you know, there are a lot > of families with small children, pedestrians and cyclists who live in our > area, and we're pretty concerned that the mitigation plan adopted address > this problem as well. > > Thanks again, Teresa, for your work on this. > > Kim Hult > > Kimberly M. Hult > Hutchinson Black and Cook, LLC > 921 Walnut Street, Suite 200 > Boulder, CO 80302 > (303) 441-7403 / (800) 303-6514, x403 / Fax (303) 442-6593 > Hult@hbcboulder.com file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW )00009.HTM 06/27/2002 Page 2 of 2 Hutchinson Black and Cook, LLC 921 Walnut Street, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80302 (303) 441.7403 / (800) 303-6514, x403 / Fax (303) 442-6593 Hult@hbcboulder.com file://C:\WiNDOWS\TEMP\GW)00009JT M 06/27/2002 intacnmel, t, Ll w vi Attachment H z 1 _ ~I I( I W I V, F= i ti' f 00,' ! rn o W 04 F Cl) f ooOF, N 1 - ~ CEDAR AV - _ I ' i GE I FF BLU I I (n ~ I I J i BALSAM AV - w ir I I , I I I li :AV BALSAM I I I L. PANORAMA AV , I ~ I TYLER RD ALPINE AV - - ! r II;~I J I II. I 1 j 1 - _ - - - 1 ALPINE I~V OJA - ~i s ~:1 1 -ME DR ~4AA 1 1~~ o e 7:r- 1 I~ I, 1 . to S I I I ~NORTHSTI~ 1. - 1 SA I N l i Z E T ~1 f I ) ~ 1 Ita , 1 `1 W 4 E ~ - P • II I I ~ 1 Z~~~. , N 1~ I 1 d: L 1~1-s~ ~~-~I ~L~ P,ORTL~Np' I - ! ( A I~ N PRO _ WK 00A I . OtA, Mp, 1 1 1 w A lN ! 1 , ~1. U r ! 1t ( Z I I , AA_ 1_ 'I 1 1 S 1- ! 1 1 GE ~ 1~ I I I j 1 1( t U) 1! 1 L N r{ ~S I I I 1 ! CANYON BL'. CANYON BL ! I I 1 I~ I I I i. I ~ I I 1 ~i ~ I I I 1, ~ I ;A GC 1 1 S ~ I I I S ST I 2 1 ~ , i- 1 I ~ , 1-~ .GOBS ~STI - U) 1 d ~I t 1 - - i g I ~ I I ~I - l f GROV TI' 0 ~ I ES ~I VE!l~ O S I R T w I a Attachment 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 Street / Device Before Mitigation After Final Design Speed Present Traffic Circles installed Reduction Pine Street 33 mph 25 - 8 mph mh - 10 mph Balsam Avenue 38 mph 28 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 Delay through Final Traffic Circle Design Pine Street 3 to 4 seconds Balsam Avenue 2 to 3 seconds 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 series 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 of 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. Attachment I Table 4: Compliance with side street vehicle right-of-way Cars on main street failing to Street / Device Side street volume yield to cars on side street Incident Rate Pine (slotted circle) demo 460 20 4.3% Balsam (smaller circle) demo 81 3 3.7% 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 to 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 vp -2710 vpd -24.8 Percent Adjacent Street Mapleton / 1700 1420 vpd 1340 vpd -80 vpd -5.6 Percent Spruce 11700 3040 vpd 3260 vpd +220 vpd +7.2 Percent Alpine / 1400 2610 vpd 2940 vpd +330 vpd +12.6 Percent Cedar / 1400 560 vpd 590 v pd +30 vpd +5.3 Percent Elder / 1400 1520 vpd 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.