5 - Recommendation on the Whittier Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program (NTMP)
CITY OF BOULDER
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
(MEETING DATE: October 28, 2002)
Agenda Item Preparation Date: October 16, 2002
SUBJECT:
Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on the Whittier
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program (NTMP) process.
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
Iim Hughes, Deputy Police Chief
Tom Wickman, Commander of Police Traffic Unit
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approximately $200,000, not including landsca in costs.
PURPOSE:
This memorandum provides background information for the Transportation Advisory Board's
(TAB) review and recommendation to City Council on the proposed traffic mitigation plan for
the Whittier Neighborhood Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP).
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
considered 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
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
Oct 2002 Whittier memo.doc AGENDA ITEM # Page 1
traffic-calming 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), the NTMP policy requires that staff obtain TAB's recommendation and City Council's
direction regarding whether to consider delay-inducing traffic-calming devices during the design
phase of the project. TAB recommended and City Council directed that delay-inducing traffic-
calming 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 traffic-calming devices
in the proposed neighborhood mitigation plan.
After City Council gave direction regarding the use of delay-inducing traffic-calming 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 Q on the
NTMP Web site. 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
traffic-calming devices. During this meeting, staff obtained the community's 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 with the Police, Fire and Public Works departments, the
information gathered was used to develop a more refined traffic mitigation proposal for the
Whittier neighborhood. Additional consideration was given to potential parking loss due to
physical mitigation. With this plan the Whittier neighborhood will see a reduction of 27 parking
spaces. 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.
To announce the meetings, staff used a mailing list of approximately 1,000 addresses, consisting
of the homeowners and the residents of the neighborhood. Attachment H provides a map of the
neighborhoods showing the mailing area. Additionally, the meeting information was posted on
Oct 2002 Whittier memo.doc AGENDA ITEM # Page 2
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.
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.
As mandated by the NTMP guidelines, the next step in the public process was to poll the
Whittier neighborhood. The NTMP guidelines require a neighborhood polling for those living
with in 400 feet of a proposed delay-inducing traffic-calming device. The NTMP developed a
polling form, which was approved by the City Attorney. A mailing list was developed to send
polling forms to owners and residents within the 400 feet of the proposed traffic mitigation
device. The polling form was sent along with a map of the area indicating which device they
were voting on and a letter explaining the polling process. See Attachment I (Polling Packet).
The polling was conducted in September/October 2002 for the Whittier neighborhood.
Attachment J demonstrates that all delay-inducing traffic-calming devices meet the criteria of
the polling process except the following:
• Traffic Circle on Spruce Avenue and 16d' Street
• Traffic Circle on Spruce Avenue and 23`d Street
NTMP guidelines state "If the neighborhood poll does not indicate 60 percent or more support
for the engineering proposal, the device will not be installed and the neighborhood will have to
wait three years before reapplying for an engineering proposal. The street will continue to
receive the education and enforcement tools."
As a result of the neighborhood polling, the traffic-calming devices that did not meet the polling
criteria were removed from the proposal and Staff has revised the proposal, see Attachment K.
If the two traffic circles are not constructed, the financial impact will decease by $21,000,
and the parking impact will be reduced by 12 spaces, therefore the neighborhood will only lose
15 spaces instead of 27 spaces.
Additionally, to comply with NTMP guidelines a Community Environmental Assessment
Process (CLAP) was written, see Attachment L. The Design Review Committee (DRC) has
provided a courtesy review, and a full review will be available when this issue goes before City
Council.
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 M.
Furthermore, the use of education options, such as neighborhood signage, radar speed
monitoring trailers, a permanent speed-display, substantial community involvement to try to
Oct 2002 Whittier memo.doc AGENDA ITEM # Page 3
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.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
The Transportation Advisory Board is requested to make a recommendation to council on the
proposed Whittier neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program Plan CEAP. TAB' s
recommendation shall be forwarded to the City Council for their approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Previous neighborhood Public Process
B- NTMP Process Chart
C- NTMP Toolkit
D- Straw Proposals
E- 2"d Public Meeting Public Input
F- Staff Proposal Pre-Polling
G- Final Public Meeting Public Input
H- Mailing Area Map
I- Polling packet
J- Neighborhood polling results
K- Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Proposal
L- CEAP
M- Traffic Statistics
Oct 2002 Whittier memo.doc AGENDA ITEM # Page 4
ATTACHMENT A
WHITTIER
NEIGHBORHOOD BACKGROUND
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/17ei 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/F.dgewood 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.
ti k~ r~~i 'h r iw ay t a #t: "d llif ~t:F f`a.
traffic concern.
If t
d: r a
' Nei~hborpoo
- ~+~1' L I.) r!~'~ArJ.o-i2 `f..~•FPa'•5~4i afk~ ~ , ~r ~y j ,
The NTMP s ds you a
"Neighbor to Neighbor
Education Kit."
Educatlon/Petition/Dat Collection Phase n
Circulate petition for participation in the NTMP, due in April each year.
- Concurrent application of educational tools 85th percentile speed 5 mph over speed limit
(yard signs, speed monitoring trailers, Continue education efforts for another
neighborhood speed watch, neighborhood speed pledge). _ 3 months.
Speed data collected. Remonitor traffic speeds. ~
(timeframe - 3 months) z
Decision Point
Decision Point "Revisit Problem - No Problem"
"Problem No Problem' 85th percentile speed > 5 mph over speed limit
85th percentile speed > 5 mph over speed limit NO Yes - initiate education and enforcement phase.
Yes - transition to Education/Enforcement phase. No - continue educational efforts.
No - continue educational efforts.
-YE NO
Education/Enforc nentPhase
Continued application of educational tools. 85th percentile speed mph over speed limit
-Application of enforcement tools Continue education efforts.
(photo radar and traditional officer speed-enforcement).
Additional speed data collected.
(timeframe - 6 months)
Decision Point
'Eligibility for engineering treatments' 85th percentile speed 5 mph over speed limit
85th percentile speed > 5 mph over speed limit NO Continue education and enforcement efforts.
Yes - continue education and enforcement and Remonitor traffic speeds as pay i cf next annual
include project in engineering ranking phase. process.
No - continue educational and enforcement efforts.
Y
Engineering Treatment Ranking Phase All other projects continue education and
- Neighborhood Needs Assessment Priority Checklist used to rank eligible projects. enforcement efforts.
The two top priority projects - begin development of engineering treatment proposal. rojects reranked annually.
All other projects - continue educational and enforcement efforts.
Atli Other Projects.
wn Top Priority P ofacts (or more as staff anti rescit
)
` --L-- -
Non-CERR Streets within 6-m ute Response Time Zone CERR Streets and Non-CERR Streets outride 6-minute Response Time Zone
Process Summary Process Summary
CEAP typically will not be requiied. Project streets evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Neighborhood public involvement process leading to project proposal. TAB provides recommendation to City Council on the use of delay-inducing devices.
- Both delay-inducing and nondelay-inducing devices available. CEAP may be required.
Neighborhood ballot (residents and property owners) on proposal is final decision. - Neighborhood public involvement process leading to project proposal.
(timeframe - 6 months) Neighborhood ballot (residents and property owners) determine whether CEAP proceeds to City Council
(timeframe - 6 months)
Final Decision Point Decision Point
"Project Implementation' NO "Are Delay-inducing Devices Available?'
-Neighborhood ballot (residents and property owners)' - TAB recommendation to City Council.
>=60% support - install improvements. - No - initiate non-delay design process.
<60% support - don't. Yes - initiate full design process.
Y
NO YES
Non-delay Inducing esig~ n Process Delay-Inducing D sfgni Process
Process Summary Process Summa
Neighborhood public involvement process Neighborhood public involvement process leading to
Project not i lemented. Project Impl menled. leading to project proposal. project proposal.
Neighborhood can reapply to the (timeframe - 3 months)
NTMP in 3 Years. -Neighborhood ballot (residents and -Both delay-inducing &nondelay-inducing devices
continue education and homeowners) on proposal is decision-making available,
enforcement efforts. process. - CEAP required for delay-inducing devices.
Neighborhood ballot (residents and property owners)
on proposal determines whether proposal and
associated CEAP proceeds.
Neighborhood Ballot Area -
' Properties on or adjacent to the primary street proposed for an engineering treatment
within 400 feet of either side of the proposed device and within t block on the side street Decision Point
for intersection treatments (ex. traffic circles). For a cul-de-sac, the neighborhood ballot NO "Continue Project Consideration?"
area expands to include all properties from the treatment to the end of the cul-de-sac. Neighborhood ballot (residents and property owners)
Neighborhood Ballot Voting Structure - >=60% support - continue project consideration.'
One vote per dwelling unit and one vote per property owner. <60% support - don't.
- Project not implemented.
Neighborhood can reapply to the YE
NTMP in 3 Years.
continue education and "4- -
enforcement efforts.
Final Decision Point
NO "Final Project Consideration"
TAB/City Council Consideration of Project CEAP
- With nondelay designs, step is eliminated.
Project Reassessment. Y
(After 3 years.) Project Evaluation. Project Imps mented.
>=60%. support to remove - (After 1 year.) (timeframe - 3 months)
- d~-- -
Device is removed.
Boulder's Stage III Mitigation
.._.Traffic Calming Toolbox
f
1) Curvilinear street
s
2) Entrance Barrier
3) Entry Median
4) lane Eliminating Choker
5) Median
6) Neckdown
7) Permanent Photo Radar
8) Permanent Speed Monitoring Display
9) Raised Crosswalk
10) Raised Intersection
11) Realigned Intersection
12) Restricted Movement Barrier
13) Speed Hump
14) STOP Sign'";"
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.
THE CURVILINEAR ALIGNMENT REQUIRES ADDITIONAL
MANEUVERING AND REDUCES DRIVERS' LINE-OF-SIGHT.
\
APPLICATION: 944
• 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:
r~ • 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:
• 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. _•t ,
BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX
ENTRANCE BARRIER 0
(Also known as: SEMI-DIVERTER
DESCRIPTION:
PHYSICAL BARRIER THAT RESTRICTS TURNS INTO A
SIDE STREET. CREATES A ONE-WAY SEGMENT AT THE I
INTERSECTION WHILE MAINTAINING TWO-WAY TRAFFIC
FOR THE REST OF THE BLOCK.
I A
APPLICATION: t_p
• Local streets where cut-through traffic is a concern _ _ - - - - -
• Local streets where vehicles from nearby facility circulate 01
looking for parking in the neighborhood
I~
I
Effectiveness: I
I
• Can reduce neighborhood intrusion by non-local vehicles
Other Advantages:
• Restricts movements into a street while maintaining full access and movement within the street block for residents
• Reduces cut-through traffic
• More self enforcing and aesthetically pleasing than turn restriction signing
Delay to Emergency Vehicles:
'=a " s • 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
rENTRY MEDIAN own as: ENTRY ISLAND or NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTIFICATION ISLAND
DESCRIPTION: j
A RAISED ISLAND IN THE CENTER OFA TWO-WAY STREET `
ADJACENT TO AN INTERSECTION, TYPICALLY AT THE
PERIMETER OFA NEIGHBORHOOD.
APPLICATION: Fermi
• Placed in a roadway to define the entry to a residential area 2attm
and/or to narrow each direction of travel and interrupt sight 1?
distance along the center of the roadway
Effectiveness:
• Vehicles slow down as they pass through the narrowed section
Other Advantages:
• Notifies motorists of change in roadway character
• Opportunity for landscaping and/or monumentation for aesthetic
improvements
• May discourage cut-through traffic
DelaV to Emergency Vehicles:
• 1 to 2 seconds
Other Disadvantages:
►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
(Also known as: PINCH POINT)
DESCRIPTION:
SEGMENTS OF ROADWAY NARROWING (SIMILAR TO
NECKDOWNS) WHERE THE CURBS ARE EXTENDED
TOWARDS THE CENTER OF THE ROADWAY. WITH A LANE- C710 0
ELIMINATING CHOKER, THE ROADWAY IS LIMITED TO ONE
LANE OF TRAVEL FOR BOTH DIRECTIONS OF TRAFFIC °
CA
O 00 o nc
WHERE THE NARROWING OCCURS, AND OPPOSING'
ra
VEHICLES MUST TAKE TURNS.
APPLICATION:
• Streets where speed control is desired and on-street parking is
highly utilized
• Can be used to narrow roadway and shorten pedestrian
crossings
Effectiveness:
• Speed reduction is obtained through creating a horizontal curve for drivers to negotiate, in addition to drivers having to yield
right of way to any other vehicles that have approached the choker first in the oncoming direction
Other Advantages:
• Opportunity for landscaping
• Considerably shortens the crossing distance for pedestrians
• Breaks up drivers' line of sight
Delay to Emergency Vehicles:
• Minimal delay for fire trucks, unless there is oncoming traffic which has not cleared the choker
Other Disadvantages:
• Creates storm drainage issues where curb and gutter exist
• May create hazard for bicyclists
Variations:
• Mid-block lane-eliminating choker can be used in conjunction with pedestrian crossing treatments
Special Considerations:
• Cannot be used on roadways with bicycle lanes as opposing vehicle traffic may attempt to pass
each other in the choker using the added width of the bicycle lanes.
Cost:
• Slightly higher than neckdowns
BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX
MEDIAN
DESCRIPTION:
RAISED ISLAND IN THE CENTER OF THE ROADWAY WITH
ONE-WAY TRAFFIC ON EACH SIDE. THE LENGTH OF THE
MEDIAN CAN VARY FROM 50' TO FULL BLOCK.
APPLICATION:
• Used on wide streets to narrow each direction of travel and
to interrupt sight distances down the center of the roadway
Effectiveness:
j
• Narrowed travel lanes provide "friction" and can slow vehicle speeds
Other Advantages:
• Changes the character of the roadway to a place where slower speeds
are appropriate
• Significant opportunity for landscaping and visual enhancement of the
't 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
'14
NECKDOWN
(Also known as: CURB EXTENSION
DESCRIPTION:
SEGMENTS OF ROADWAY NARROWING WHERE ROADWAY EDGES OR
CURBS ARE EXTENDED TOWARD THE CENTER OF THE ROADWAY.
VEHICLES SLOW AS THEY PASS THROUGH THE NARROWED SECTION.
asp-----
APPLICATION:
• Typically used ad/scent to intersections where parking is restricted
• 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
r4
Other Advantages:
• Pedestrian visibility increased and crossing distance reduced
• Can "reclaim" pavement for pedestrian and streetscape amenities or landscaping
• Breaks up drivers' line-of-sight
Delay to Emergency Vehicles:
• Less than 2 seconds
I~ Other Disadvantages:
T~-~ • Creates drainage issues where curb and gutter exist
g • 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 II
Special Considerations:
• Curb extensions should not extend into bicycle lanes where present
r~
Cost:
$25,000 and up depending on landscaping, pavement treatments and storm
drainage considerations (need for new inlets)
BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX
PERMANENT PHOTO RADAR
SPEED ENFORCEMENT
DESCRIPTION:
A PERMANENTLY MOUNTED RADAR TRIGGERED CAMERA TO
DOCUMENT VEHICLES AND MOTORISTS WHO ARE EXCEEDING
THE SPEED LIMIT AND SYSTEM TO ISSUE SPEEDING TICKETS
TO VIOLATORS (OR VEHICLE OWNERS).
APPLICATION:
• Streets with speeding problems
Effectiveness:
• Familiar motorists tend to obey speed limit in the known area of enforcement
Other Advantages:
• Speed enforcement with minimal staffing
DelaV to EmergencV 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
y
PERMANENT SPEED MONITORING
DISPLAY
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 eff ectiveness on familiar motorists
• Display may detract from neighborhood character
Special Considerations:
• Vandalism may be an issue
Cost:
$ -per installation
BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX
~A
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 CEO
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
Delay to Emergency Vehicles:
ti • 4 to 6 seconds per raised crossing
Other Disadvantages:
• May damage emergency response vehicles it 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 i
• With median island and curb extensions i
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
RAISED INTERSECTION
DESCRIPTION: i
A RAISED SECTION OF ROADWAY AT AN INTERSECTION WHERE THE
i
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
11
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
Delay to Emerciency 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 III MITIGATION TOOLBOX
,
REALIGNED INTERSECTION r/<`e
DESCRIPTION:
REALIGNS "T" INTERSECTION TO MAKE THE "THROUGH
MOVEMENT" A TURNING MOVEMENT.
I
4 I
APPLICATION:
• Streets where it is desired to redirect traffic to another facility ffia
• Streets where slowing traffic as it enters the neighborhood Is
R
desired
1~4 L
Effectiveness:
• Significant speed reduction on the former "through" street
Other Advantages:
• Provides landscaping opportunities
• Discourages traffic from continuing through a neighborhood
• Slows traffic as it enters a neighborhood
• Breaks up sight-lines on straight streets
Delay to 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 111 MITIGATION TOOLBOX
RESTRICTED MOVEMENT BARRIER
DESCRIPTION: , II
BARRIER ISLANDS THAT PREVENT CERTAIN MOVEMENTS
AT
AT AN NIN NTERSECTION.
APPLICATION:
\J
• Streets where reducing cut-through traffic is desired
Effectiveness: q~
• Can limit traffic on residential streets ~r
Other Advantages:
• Redirects traffic to main street
• Increases opportunity for landscaping in the roadway
Delay to Emergency Vehicies:
• 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
~C
SPEED HUMP "s e
DESCRIPTION:
SPEED HUMPS ARE AREAS OF PAVEMENT RAISED A
MAXIMUM OF 4 INCHES IN HEIGHT OVER A LENGTH OF 12
FEET. THEY WORK BY FORCING MOTORISTS TO SLOW
DOWN TO COMFORTABLY PASSOVER THEM. THEYARE ~c
MARKED WITH SIGNS AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS. ' v' ~rTD
.o ,
APPLICATION:
• Local or collector streets where speed control is desired
• Local or collector streets where cut-through traffic is to be
discouraged
Effectiveness:
• 2-8 mph reduction in average speed
Other Advantages:
• Self Enforcing
• Requires minimum maintenance; pavement markings must be maintained
• Minimal impact on snow removal
Delay to Emergency Vehicles:
• 3 to 6 seconds per hump
Other Disadvantages:
• May damage emergency response vehicles if not
carefully designed
• May increase traffic noise in vicinity of hump
Special Considerations:
• Should not be used on critical emergency response routes
• Needs to be used in series or in conjunction with other traffic calming devices to control speeds
• Longer designs can minimize impact on long wheelbase vehicles
Cost:
Approximately $1,000
BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX
r P 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
t • May discourage cut-through traffic
Delay to Emergency Vehicles:
• 1 to 12 seconds depending on traffic volume and congestion
Other Disadvantages:
• May create compliance problems where motorists do not acknowledge the need to stop
• Safety issues for pedestrians when compliance is poor
• Mid-block speeds may increase as motorists try to make up for lost time
• Noise and air pollution increased
• Unwarranted stop signs not supported by traffic engineers
• May increase traffic accident frequency
Variations:
• Can be installed as an all-way stop application
Special Considerations:
• Should not be used on critical emergency response routes
• New stop locations may require additional sanding during winter months
Cost:
$500 to install per intersection (includes stop bars on pavement)
• Cost may increase if enforcement is required
BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX
TRAFFIC CIRCLE
DESCRIPTION:
TRAFFIC CIRCLES ARE RAISED CIRCULAR MEDIANS IN AN
INTERSECTION WITH COUNTERCLOCKWISE TRAFFIC FLOW.
VEHICLES MUST CHANGE THEIR TRAVEL PATH TO MANEUVER
AROUND THE CIRCLE AND ARE TYPICALLY CONTROLLED BY 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 ® p•
r Other Advantages:
• Provides increased access to street from side street
h. • Breaks up sight-lines on straight streets
15 •Opportunity for landscaping in the intersection
DelaV 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
g • On streets with bicycle facilities, bikes must merge with traffic
j,. 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
Attachment D
Below is the written version of the straw proposals that were created for 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 20m
Ped Signal with Red Speed: Pine between 22nd and 23`d
Speed Hump: Mapleton (2) between 21s` and 22nd and between 24`h and Folsom
All-Way Stop: Spruce and 201h
Raised Crosswalk with
Median and Curb Extensions: Spruce (4) 2 on 21t (both sides) and
2 on 23`d (both sides)
Median Entry Island and Permanent Speed Display: Pine and 24`n
CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE 2
Traffic Circles: Bluff (3) at the intersection of 20`h, 22, and 24`h
Mapleton (5) at the intersection of 151n, 17`n, 19"n, 21s` and 23`d
Pine (3) at the intersection of 19`n 21s and 23 d
Spruce (4) at the intersection of 16`n, 18`n, 21", 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 20`n and 21", between 22"d and 23`d and East of
24th
Mapleton (2) between 21" and 22"d and between 24"' and Folsom
Spruce (2) between 16`h and 17`h and between 18 and 19`h
Traffic Circle: Ma~leton (2) at the intersection of 20`n and at the intersection of
23`
Pine (2) at the intersection of 22"d and at the intersection of 24th
Attachment D
Partial Median: Pine between 18`h and 19"'
Crosswalk with Ped Refuge and Curb Extensions: Pine at 21 S`
Full Block Medians: Spruce (4) on 2100, 2200, 2300, 2400 Block
NOTE: The alternative removes existing raised crosswalks on Spruce.
tif,'. -.-_.F^
"{~~r,
: E x'.~':y'k
V
e:
rha nnirt t, -'e ~Kj.1.. sy",.,. - .t- 'I d' •iN' a=`~~' _g~^' ,,,..+P4 f. ..'X~.:~ g,.,_.,,..'.,~y,.'R.. f.
,'r..
_ i I c{. :m I k-'I =i t 1'~r i+~:..`n ~9~ ~1~ ~~R.~ ~ ~ :m 1~• ~ ~4+,d. ~d '4'r:y~r g"r;~~r
_':r^..
,u~i.,~,{Y ~~5.',cR''~r,.?t'--~ _ '~.~1
_ u i ti !T i,,, PAW 11L R
t r i
b.....?s M.;; I .r.,- '.l a'~`.',: ..N r, ~,^Fr r"3".` ' I.. a>~ ,fir'. ,.r
I= UH
,ln
IF c ° r 'ur, i ry 'r L f 9 t;'{ 'Ij y £ ' I, '.I .aJ r„ r • " -~'h.
gU.. AY t.~ r i+'. n-. j'"' ss~ rr & ,
7-
IN w ALPE AVE
.4 T a 4 ALPINEA E
F . > =~:-=z~ s> g :.m, n-~.. , , '°r ,.-s. aa~. r. ~~~~ry,.. IY94'~ .k ro*~` .r •r - ra, ,Y
,i 1--' Y r _ . r f l~ ~ ~ la i;:;;'~~~ =S G.. I "~^f. n?p •y.,~~ t,~ ka,rrt.,~.~ I:.t S~'t,~
' :',,,ir~ Q ~ 13 ~1 , . y~, >~.th "S~ r ~ ~ Py 4: d , "~d•°" ay,~'. , I ' ✓ ~r~` ,i1 f
~ ~L
v.
R, ~
3 :r t. f k e' t b t w, . r,:i S e"Fg v Z`e
rlp 'I 0 zu =:a
r
r e__ ~-.:~pP3f"'y it%_~.~Ne `y ,i•i:.~1,~ }P 1 jkN+. ~~'~t D I'11.1: „'•1
' „ . ^r . ~ N e - ..W.,.r._....- Y jr ~~+~;",TS` _•F; tr , 5<. . JF 1 ,k- ri? k Y 4
? -.,max., t _-.,.•"rd.. v C," ',,,e':
i ' - 9•.' .rx!: ,rg,~, ,r'' Y,:. ,r»".,, n, ~~P rt'''1 P ~ N • r rr t~ ' =:.i
N: `;'5t ;.x 'IY,"~~ H i. yiT 't 1,. r,/ fr 1,: '1' •-Irl :
j`
L-t ~ n5~..... rte:'.. . ,.;8 C■ - ~r '✓!1 > ,~Y, f .nit 1~ 1+,l~y~'~w'1 ,.~.-C `I ';I 5, r ;?s~~
w-.
r
r q
Y•
w } 1 0
S
:
`a!,d i :ms' Stab. y1 g , r'"t.. _ S . ~ ~ r . 6.~' • s~ YT;,v,./-'
r •tR rA `..~.a t - Yi p 1': I~ 1. Y
i p1 u., ~ ~ ~ r.:. r -a.. ~ 4. i r ,1 .r . ❑ RY y'J,t ~ rv ~ ~ .
P, x
.:~,`e ~3 _,.rn, 'vn ~ _ ~ r ~,n ,r.. r~ ~ ~ t,tk~ IY:, N~~ t 'r, ~ ~ i. ~~'t o v:~p. ~ r, t - , °.d r' ' .
*.e; rl'.,, i,: ~ ••:A''~ ~`lt t N.,~: ~Irr'C ~ tii'' ' 3,r .*'l- qr' t : Jr; ..t .t
. •
; 1 1; y,-l. ."2• ~►'^-.i. ~wn•t'.~.`..~ w „''~,.f-°. CII % P 1 :1 a la ,:4 ~t+ ~ 1
~.,,>;e ~d ~ki ~ 4. ~ - gg- r ~ w~~r 'r - Br~~~ ~ ~a ~ t ,~,:e •-0r w`ee`'! , ~~~1 ql
_~l .r n~rl ~~r ~xr f ."V}~r' k:~ ~✓~tf"p i '.~R 'a.i• } t~"; a~ ~ ~ i•~ - i~ r
rr' III''.:"` t , 'r~' ,ice'" ~1r q ' rr.. 1 (4 0 - ur:a tpp, r1~A~ .'r'+r 4Q k, , 1 '
''F t;. 5', tr",19 .(y,~ r.✓ .®S, _ lrf~~•n ~J ~W h1~1,1 t 1~~~ qp ~I r„(:fl,
d._. HHH~,'t l,~''~' tr, rr ~~f ~ ~1~, i' r,S' 1~ :,,wr'^ ~,~a :I a ~ r,~.>S-1 "V ~ g'-.'~ 2t, ~,Q':.' p='
y C. e t
.,r
^
~ ~'1 ~ "b ,.r ~,r~rrr t ~ ri•' ~ 1' ~,5 - ~,o-S~ ,til>~ 5 s>- 1 ~
co tt • ~4 n t n l 1r , fir' Y e " ' ~ ` L r, r' f ~ ~it` ~ , pdLDE Kp15£H
.r..'.5 b'.rµ ur.d jy ~.y, tL,t "uy=% INES., L.{: ,1 FROG.
~ r
y~'F{". • A r-•,- . r a t n, ~ y c, r'. a1; ~ a '1 >,o ~ r , p 1 ~ , ,.r ' -'1 jtr r.
hY .S~S ~ r. t P✓<...- vr~Y ' r .-.ry~~$+; ra-',!s t5 ,a~Y i ~ l 'aDt ~ ~ o .t ~ 1 'fir p r r~~~~~
~
,
4
_k" - -1~• wr i,, tkr,:r e +'"_.'.tr' ' 1P'<, r -oY.jf 1 J ~,r+.,. -
.'a :'a Ym4 , ~~lr'~ 'r~'. -:'.i !'W.° ~'`i~ ,J' ~ .I~ y i :'•r '~`~'k,~" , "'~'.7a., f>. r
14,
n
Ilk
y 'i" 0 ..;h. ,0 „~,s^'' j,1r. I. V , ~ '1 `S•( R 4A.~~ i ,'4 I T"~ r:~~ '1 :u^:/
1
t {tw _ ~;'iy~,,..C^t r~ l / o . i _ SSA:, 11 `.'*~',,j 'C . Y ~E': ~~,1 5, ,r
,
I +r - l'; v17 'i. ,.r',. R ~~i ~t !iT c,.' , Slk ,~i 5S s
6 'C~`l~ .r,,e {,1~'.- ~ ~ f ,:,a+ ~s.P '-t' N1,~. - ^a. ~'f a, .,r '~S -v; f<.~:y
S. 1 C 1 1 °~1 ! "j„1 i^"' y. ®s ° 1 Z 1 pu. M - rr a
k Y
r I,t ,•r I f.f,, f, ` y t~. 0._ t + Y~,., C 1 .F' r m.d
0 po ,'r - _r S•~1. - 4 ~ x ly, •.ra-r {{.,S~o /
=.wA -rrca a~ `.t~ i :ii 1~; . 4a.•t M' 'L a~,.. ✓ c,'
•j: 'rr~:~: i~r r'• -5 `:tl.?k "a~:, ".r. r 0- 4~, t / .G ,m J ~ ,f`- r.:f~ ar
Ik i -
h_ ~,.ra•: t ~ Y ,5s ' - ~ Tf•. k' S. 1`^ ki h _'val_ '~S ~ 5. Rw.,
-Ij
P i°t d l; Ali BOULDER AN 17EROCKDF7EH
j,FI
r z o N
a, ,,tm k, 0 'r~.a'- F,: °:d r/~ :
1. Mo"tr ' d' s~,C w,P-',. r• r • ~ 2 : ra~ ~,a, a: Q.. ;1 ~ ".t.-~ I~.:~ r .f 4i' I r ~,?5-, a n. :.n -q' y"r'
r .tten i,..,aTi I i..i°^," r , I, I
d N. „cpc,. '•'r ' v',..r fl.1' ',I s 'a5'i g I.
r"`.'
:
L. ~ 1C 1 r ,j ~ ~,r.; • t l _I f`,7~-;I I t @. ~ fj"'~'~ C II I I t ~ y
' 1~;, CB'`i 9 :..,~-J. .v I` F: r• ,I a. •a, -5."'' II.. Po \,.:F'r„•~'.• a., -0+'- r' ~ it d?4
--fir e.,, :I I ~ 4~ 'l~~~...~ :~~k,~~_ 7. 1-
1L + W II I p~
m f.
BALSAM,AVE a y _
1 r ixt s ( S .:''r., .r.....: rt 't't f"~...f .1 ,a n'af ;l ^ h~t' w'` ~N~. ~•-J A~:
M ~~p• ~ 1 I P
i(em ':,d'r vn 't;', .;,«s fry 3~~i~i:-:, 'b~=~ -I ..r~,~i~~ r~, 4 'r' c, .:.,R°,"Xm,~ 'Yr• ~k,1p, L,:.„; ib 'i` vrr•r'`~(
'S F' -
r+ _ nnf - ,t'. ~ ,}{n~~~ ~',4 sl. d .1 r(.`". ,.:1"k' ,a. ~ ~ r~/ ~ i`°'uF^'A ~ ~~;6:M 1~ ~v,.,,,,,r
yT., '
4a _ I",~"•- rnl ~ ~'3, ' 1F ~~I _ ~ „.;9; 1„ ~ 'k:~, f ~ i.. ':,~x'411~`~r. m. ,•I ^:i"~ .l"',.
~ Y +'Nr°' ~?r - •W \ pt .x 1 y~P,~, y~~l r~ J. Vr
r~,, v:, r: v !~,,I.i i`-. ~~r~ ~ ,~1,~~j ~ .N~s ~~3~ ,a!;` 1'ww•
i ~ - c+ Iw rl. .fie .n sd~ `~_r- '~~i, ~.•'1-. r!~:r~,y~, ''.:;¢~.•',2~1 . i r
y y4
1, F R. , -.F+. I y.. fi~,,ly' `N atc.titl- 1^) F"'~~~1 .ti t e,'`.r 4A"+~• '.ril~
6 ~ a. ~G„ , ~„y, . , y , { ~ , I § ~-n.; • ;,4'` `1 ~ • YIj ~ ra;.A w~ . d` k. ~ :
,TIL R„ t I ° fi..y~i-s 'Im.s.•~.I ~t.Vll~ "I {''~',;yS•.~' +1 .;f.Mf ~~I .:'„a
i;: •n,~:r.•..• a~n•."~ y_'c..:~' ~ '.J "u:. : i I~,i ''~r.l 's.►.o 1~4,* %tie 1~~+~?•, 3 ~ ~"'n• h~r":
1. ,4:,.1 _re fif • >+p..p,• ;~.1 _ r e,
-7.., r r ~i.. t
P
i' i ~,f + z • r. nn >r " P 5 ~ ~ r} ~.a- ~,P "'L• ;r~., . f. ~ 's .,a~'. f t' ~ , t: }e~ s lr~,,,.. :
:.r ~i' ' '~i' d & w y,
a~ fi s
ALPINE A E~ a, u ALPINE E
x ,x».r z-.....m •v".e ~p~-F. .,.I 7_ ,rr, %#x' - ~.i. :.c~•;A- tC'd Es'~.
I ~hr,<.~,. ,,a.,,~ y n .aY~t~"''= , ~ a. ,,rr°•F7d.~i~4 r : ~ ir!d. r ~r~61:u t a'1 't.' i _r, f Yf 3„ ,Z
nriWy+'
i`'~°?#
.1. ~ J ~'x.. . h '~f^; , r" sd w ;k:. 1'r-~" ~ `~,l
uE ~ ,1 a - ~ ~ . ` 'ck - L.., rd, ~ - q,~ 1,
1 , ,1
WIV':L
f Q 1 nt lh{ w. 1 i 1~., , c .t _ b. :y:.c:.+- _ -•-Y4r'.C - - - _ 1 :cty _ .:'y.: l !,.3!'j" 1
...1ry , - y~y .F~' ~,y,~;; A~..~4 ~ ~m ~t~ _ S• ~
f ! lu ~nl p,;rk a, ;M^'~°`t " '~'i x Ju,~"'I ~vtp .,.n,._ 1. - ~ rv C. e ~J^~'~ O.~t
19 K I ~ r i. ° ~ n u. r ,A y { •-c~ a r 1~ ; s, I r 1„- )
. rn r '^p ¢1 _ 1 ~ t.. W ~ . ~ - ti ~ 1,.+,._ ~ - '.I^, . ,~a..~• qe„ i; d., ;Wrey err, I . _ k'~...re~s
, ,r~~~ F` ~ n v :F"" i
Ir n r r1 ;:.rt. d"-r ~~..."t!"~ ,'tt 'L.,iit.•„fir{".: ;+1e. .T., ~n/ 'c. r~.. C ~~x \ :.r~ ~',V rW. b' i 0'. e;i~
3r+,~~~ ~ j
1.n q1R~ ' I'~_r✓,I i~~~ ta~'•1 k .C v~ti~ .tg, t: ..t1:~ !t, ~„k I. rdr'i A a L
i ~ - . id!-. ~ ~ ~o .~'~r1 .=1 s.'A , ,-y. „c ..m l }~7n ~.dR'+• I" MP E'
c
r 11 r
- s - N e - ,.e - i:-~}t:;,'~. x~!"' ! ~ •N ~ e ~~dn ~im°": i~ ',,I ~ , ~r,~ .a,,.
i
ti + + .~..,:nPr;:.~ 4e •"y ~ p ial~ ;{~,"yam- ar,e;VR•, .,Y r .,~$r' Yb4Y _ 'I' r.i ~+C
rnrr[G':r: y'.: F-
ySeSt+`_.~II ,L- 3,e, a::,. ~ ti, F`+~.. ~:,.,.x~, / ~3''`~ W`;r ~rgT`p~ •,,;~a. "~~d~ r ~~,~Iq ,~`.I+,:; s..• ~ ,,,'a;:
T.... •,F~.. ~ Y'. :_k ,M'~,. C":. f~r~."t"... y- F:. F • L.~-/~. f,~TSy '~pl a s;t r ~$~r. ' d.l~ Y; ~'";,y.,
Ki. 1 1 'I .4,i v, ~ J• 'Ca ii ~ .-1 l y, S^r r 1' {~r~~., ~ .at.,':r i~t
~•-40
i7l - r'S 6_ t" ~ sr
1 r ~ ~ ~ r yet, ~ h,",.1~ r.,d r rri ~ ~ , ~ p •
.
"i ~1 . ~ I P ~ ti::~' ~ v .3' ~ e ~ F ®~F ~ VII•. .n,.... ~ r. /v:, I , r{,,
t~•' t 'rds. f"1 :t ^rM 'r: e. ~ur~1 F 'Y-, 1 ,rf~ > ~ Fr 1 R"1 r rl !
_ ,F~,eR.: rI - - ,q, .r~„!:*pa, .✓j '.,'y P` a, . ~{~n - f". ~v + 'd` 'A~I'ai ~lr ?ra .'tv - s.~~ ;1 s.
A '
m . n ~,r Of ele, _ • r:-, , '.,i .d`8ga. i,, y,~';x , < wy•
Ti 0*
~'A `q!W"~• _ r r$ .+At ~ ''l"; { Y' ~ off` .„r k';y ~ 1~:~ ate' U.F ~,t ('1~ ~~"il
_ .aa~ r,o{ r;r~ k{r~ ~ ~~R d r .I~ ~ ~ I" r^~ J. d ~r~~ ~,1`~:,r ~~4
~ , ~ ~ , ~ ~T'; ~ ~ - . ,,fir ~ , >P' ~ ~ ~ti ~ -®,I ~ ,
v r
a ~ 7 1 r a ~ ..j ,
•a ~ .,,F s 4. lel+~ ~ma ~r v '.t~ t a:.r>`, q ~1`+~' ~ y.~ r•'A+" ~ 1 :,~;y~~ ~ 1 41
I
p ;iii 1' ~J ;,.t,• , nll~ y.~r~~~,~" - a~ i~ I" - ? " e ~ P X !@°~~ y~Wi~. -'•4`' ;k l 1 L, r ° ~ e
y~3•., 1,-.~'.~ 117 - ~ ~,.w, v~ _ ' 4 ,l e'I`.:~ xxe` e N; li 1! x PNp
t . r~11P 'r F P .
r .~M , n r fi : ; :.x' _r ~ , " ~ + f ,r ;e:~ e• ! 11 p1.pER pISpN
" ~k- .e. I, +e a ! -r,3 - fad^.1 ~ _ t " t~ % .r-%!~e d •":~7,jpR +.i -
_ •:Y~ n't;~ - +r r ~ ,3~" - d» y''`n-:'r~ ~ 4 '~i F<'"-~ n,~ :;v ~ .r•?IW - Q .~F i I .
f-
~1~1 iI Per w-r {ivy ~ r r f J
r'
:t.r a 5 ,I" d .c e ,Sse xr. `r ..'y' ~ xv:.~ 4 „ t~ y. , C• I
r
v
1
,
t
%
t,ag/ p M',' C 1 51 rto / N
,
I r^l-..,.' S r - +.1o- + - a !~1 .V / ; ~a 1 ~ ; ' :r•''C" w:. ~.r"~ i0 . _
1..r-r1:`t ~ s' .q 1` ~je W,•'_,}o r'~rt.~`fi ~W i!.. V ;i~.. I r
~ +"W~<. ~ -i~".. - s " .s::' 9®.~.~ f 1 ,~r1 a IV ' ~,~s ,I' i;~
' l l R IN' V j". • . a4r~~~ h 1 'rR 1^"~ ,:~w°",'~' :n r ,1.
,J:.Nv!`~., d i .0 ~ no' +,y ~ ✓r:. t^ r. ."A '+c '.a''R.~" ~I' W I~ :~V
L-t, I :f 4 , , ( ,P'ox.9"! r I _ 1 t'" '.1Y ry ~ < 9~9 - h'~a v,v# ~f
-51 a reran , k+ °P,~~ Jy~. >J. l' ?f Yi F 1 l' S ~ I~-__
*!F ~ it Y1, ~"A, S~. ' 1 ,
"t ''d'r ".nl. a+ lira •e 0 ~ } e ~F.;. .r.~a ryY,- I
y
~ . - j r~ t'-~ f I. , ~c N r ~w 'i.r '~:FC'"""_ ..~i~~ ;r,~ [ ~~,r, r 4,,
r<.< ; , ~ y' - ~ ~j G "col ~ ~ ~k• . ~ ,r". ~ ~u°` .
i ~ @..Da ~ y ~ ~ - ~ S! ~1 , ' _ _ _rt~.~ir°".^.n i ~ 1 e~,.- r -.fir..:.. ,--1 sl ~ - .r _-`viol
r
^
~'r Qao6l r YsW', i~ w. ITEROCKITC
1, ~ ° .~.,(1• ~ . ~ ~ I_ ~ ~ ~I 1 UI i". + ~ ~ 7, L[IER"AN ' ~a vAm ~ ~t~°' -~`i ~
" ~ i 1., .Y Y`s"~JO~~• 1 ` ~ i r-. •s E,. ::VC ~ ~ , 4.'®,y r
to 2~ ~ ,
;
1
g(.: _ F r -o•- +~a'-,' f a^r- p. i.. ~i'r~"•.:~,i {_I +ea_,,;- Y„ -+~J*..""^ _ __yarr
4f gyp. ~.d ~ _ .'~+r3 ~+k ,}I .•(g~ r: ~ .h.. ~'\§sF 131 ~'w a il- 'v(' ~Y', s 'C
,
>r
r B L r 7 V I
BALSAM•AVE -
n
d e- - a=,,, s p'v. (:'&~o-` F a1p~ '^a ^2 ~'y.~.° .,k3 p " sue, p
. ,r r :w as. }j >d.:. .ym ✓ c ¢Xmv~' ~A,1A~~ 9 _ `j ~.I
I ~Li r:i, '.~7 i; " ' 1,'r y,',".. ~x 019 - .c I l' ~jt "FS} p. 1
ns ~ n nd r t r I ~,•e .L r I ~ rr:t;; f 'i.. \ •'Yk~''~r ]:..r-'s..~
. 'I n...,.~ 'ar .y o~ x ,,f r ,"1:'. •`F'~:!%'1'~, a,~' , fir'; "CP.'P ~S
m•'. '
:I ,t,::, ' '•i . t ',spa ay, ~ I ~ _ . ~~d . tS pa~'•;..,, ~ . , ~ ~ r
. ~S } I , ~ w"'. ,;;aa .I,'~ ~-K` ` II 7?; _.`.,SU ,.,~I r" j. ':;•f; y +N~r " ~I.'r . ~ Aa' M
.
l; ! I7 _ t ^T r
' t. ~ . '•kr . 3nc~-- ~ d nr~. ! .raw: I~ ~ , r_ ~ J'~n,"~.:r. { W.~aM.r"'° i ~P`~[` t-C t }I i ~ r`
.r„ ,
• ~ TI R
_~;el':. g „'¢•.-1 1C4.-w:,, ?•x ae i - ai~ Q. La_~
~ ~i M t_: - ....J-•. , a^ s:.,. --s, ~ P y! .J °+,i~".. .f r ~ r r~,. ,'R{R i . 'fi.~g1G"_ \ %9 I-,I
ira. ~i.,,, rt tPQ ► 'lf r'. tt; .1 d"Tk' :...'"i y,~i: _ .1 A' n b
1 Td•• . " \r f";~(m,}~ .~`°,a, :fr",,'s ,t ' h=: g ' t +
T. ^'r i' ar , e , 'F- tl !6 A - 5 w;i; ;I Y• ( n , @r ' `,'„.x > - e,~ _ i ~59r.
. Ik3.'- Ai~~ ~Yr;:. ,l•~'t.. fc Y.%.++RRt '„f .1 f, :rP 1 `F I
ALPINEAE sra':~
ALPINE_AVE.2
r Q ~Yr,' i. t x I' IN `h ~„t ;a:a qe qe5._._,....±, ~ ~ Ty: C° a •p+F'. - ~ ':~'.A.
r !,r b' 4; r~,,y~ '-.~r<,x: S 1 :'k 'a.,-~ r~,, I'
Ll ~ ~ T ~ r,~l}i~ ~ K a.. w .u` •w.l AY q: ,,,j,~ ,"n~••y ~ I ~cl rnt'µ,~ , I IM ;
p:r/'° ri
..y - - r .i' Al
s
^ ?I , •..kC r•w:T,:,~ [ `.-_t 'r° _r t x 1 ,,,r9 vtl 1. f", ''1`t d,.
t1 ~1.
:..':M~7'. , x- N',~•~+. Mfi" ! 1
,+r; . Y W n=/t _ f ~ ,r,Cl i) ~:.t J9`'P` 1 tk:.' / ,yI 1 ,~•P
n ~I1 i~1 Y ~!s<,, ~'r.-',: r ~ . y ~ ~ ~ '4 .1,-• ~ { „ ~ EST
.r
Via{;,' r 1, ~„.r; ~i-~~^ 1'N ,rr f~~~Y~.,'~~~ `1,..; 1- f~~,`~.:'1 ~r at•I
^3 15 ~
, p ~Y.. :ry;'. y r+xv-„ r» ;1"? ,,f. ` , ~ , 'r .,r, ~ { ~ 1.. , I ~ y. ~ ~ 4 c ~ ~ P ' } ,T~IS~
i ,:u„ 'n' ~t .i~ r:'~~` .d'^;' ~ ~ :r;, ;'I~~ p `*I, '~1 '1 * •-s,:r : 't F ~.1k+Y p;
r
: ;q"'~I ~ ! y. ~ _ ~ _ ~..1`::' , ~ 1~ ~r;:-+,,, 1~~,~ -~+;F 1, 1~'( :y I r'a {
,r.-
r y• 'ia=. r.:.. ° d` r ..+'„p .n p C!`, ~F" /~'-c4• 1 C - i
f'
^ S
!p".S~s.+® ,s~ -lr'+k S, 4 "3 T
~t R~:111. tl~ ~ 'retie' ,t.:Y 1 t F L; ~ .f_ . ~ f t 2. PI ~ K ~~~~i 1 •'r-"%~ ~ ~`1~
1 1 1~ Y
f 1
C c^t r v : ~ . - ~ o F ` 3 { yt ?ri. _ ~j'~ r 1[3-,.~ , _ 4~j f SC ~ ® ~ 1 ,'jt"~~ ' t
w
~c 'a,Kr ',I H., :i a'+` >,k''- ~ y~aM,~l.: ~,a4. dr.,:r N br .%~/0 '.t•? .l~e Jtr`_ 1~"~ N
C „ t; ~:qs~ - L. _ . - ~ ,r: ~ • :~d °,e' ~:i.-% -ar r ` 4~ w.. ~r,,,.-, Z tl-, . c (t' k I}} ~
_.tl ~ } x . ,mss ~
i a
(tl n,.., ~ =':t• ~,~Fl. ~ _;i.~'~ d t s ~s=,:;~' :t , y' r: M,~, , ~ 1 ~ ~ s
8 _,1 d~ ~~,.R y'e~N{^', .wag~':~.•, o. .,i~: d'~ 0 ~ ,-!t; ti,1 'I,c,
1 t I S(ir
Q e~~..-~ : 1'~ G) " Y''.:.Y,' `~°ai -r. °Nr-. mr° r~l~-'I G i - /_.f ~ •
e 13
1,. - a` ~ _ i .,r i ti•'.,ray rd~® n~ :i;` i.r °5~1. PY~'~'.;P gip; ~ ~j~ /l B, l ul.;r
r ..it 1 1 p„u rl. y ::'e", , 'L '':r ✓ ,I r .C 1 Y( v, o
1~,^i?;, ;.d' '1 : ,a•` ,1 'ts ~ L. y} 4-' l ,S/•._ s:, 1 y~ 3 a
~ t v r li'u ' „i - 'r i ..+yr C `4rr rr~ SY ^ } ULU KOIt •
Y tN
r 1 r
•
` a y , I, 1i13~ t ~ g• ~ ~ r , ,y~ ,ry. t : ~ " ~ ^ a ~ ~ t sj` _ } ~ •.1 „W ~ I' -
c S p: 1 i `'1 c ill
• tlH ,l :-.r:-. A"t e~., ,"i'`y,N ,1'_- v^,y.,~". ,~.:t ~'q b '1~ - - ,J " ~ n 1. .1 ,,r
a.,. y'k ka.,.. j~,. ( i'~,:, .I
3"iir
'^e s~---.1. ^I - Z1"~ ~ s: u. tl n pi's ~ "r" r t!"~ r p •~..i V :tC"l sl ~ ~ . , •,t, r~ ` k, 4. 2
I ,
~'i.'...§~~r ` ° i ~ 'L~' ^a' r1 0. n o - per" _ t
k ~ti }1, ~ ,~~'r~ ~ a'ft', t. . ~ ~ f »''.r w jd",~~ r S _ V $ , ' r ~ t . ~ r ~ 1~-a, te, /
,_'•P: f .x ,~I VI .,!1:.- ~ ~ ~ r: ,•ri' 1, M~'.t +'r' i vf' ( t0
m -
1 TQ ' u- 2^ar; r, T- - _ rr".t,- 'a'},r'( , - .;;E°•, ',i }1~
li'r5
I v~ gPB 1~9 ,4.. r \ 1 rc S
F f""*~ : s 4 L 111 % ' 4, g &
r
^ i
ru 1rn, en' '/sM r' ' ~ S.- .,i s :`i. r1 ~ P}
tY~F~,~,,' 1 i;i' 0 I.• '.dm i.. dA~ v t e ~ it4M~ -~~I,iI-_
F iYS -'~,0 ~ a ni'~^. p;~,. .L. ~4,.~ Ir r.'';" `~1~ r- ~ r`"' ; ! S-.. »0 ~~.i F.Yp 'i ' 'L°e-
f
, ~ "gyp
JI 4 t 1 + ~
' .'q~ cQi ~ ,:¢t s'•, .t 0" ~ r t ~Lr..r~~ `+M G:^'w'"' r
at . (".1 .~T nti mi - 'A" ~ ~ ^ i• e ^ ~ ILA-.; ~ m 9r'~ f ~ _
1. + Fes:::. -\"I ~ - ~ +:•.v ' 00 r'
5 I 9,yy;y r s9 ~7 ! P
\ r 1
r..
r.3 y 6 '"4. y 6H . r
w Lj od TEROCK RtT V _q.,,
ulx- t` s,~`:''-~''. ,0_ q;" r,l, L'.. - 1, 91 "p uy ip ,i. ;t• IY 'I., •l iv':..a.i: I•~ al
lap, 'o
ul rmp ,r',,' ~^t- ~ 1 , ) ~r`,Y,°.""P.. S~ 1p ~.a¢~' ~ '..r I d ox r:',~, I~, t 41;' I' , 6'ii I: r:
n ~ r :3 old- t~ -,1 t°t` }~~n,. ~I~ r ~ ~
tzll
y yy 1
,
,
1 '.<rk, ~1'. I y' a4 r ~ ~ ` 'I~r Ir- <9t" R J_I A~f _ ~.i
ATTACHMENT E
Whittier Neighborhood Input
2ml Meeting
Information gathered from:
Whittier NTMP March 18, 2002 Meeting
Emails
Phone conversations
Individual meetings
Full block median
Pros:
• 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, I 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.
• 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' isn't a circle at 19`h and 23`d
overkill?
• What ifjust have one on 22nd?
• 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 the.
• 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 corner cutting? ex. South side of 171h & Pine
• will we lose present corner landscaping if have comer cutting?
• Confusion as to right of way, how stops-yields and who has right of way.
• Mapleton and 23`d 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.
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
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 itnmediate 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. Le., 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 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
Additional Issues and Information
• One group ranked Spruce tools: I 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 n1 & 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 23rd 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 corner-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 24th very hard for peds/bikes to cross
• The ped. path at Greenleaf Park does not line up with the crossing at 24" which leads to mid-block
crossing
• Spruce medians should come out of CIP
• Bluff's diverter should come out of another budget
• TWO CITIZENS EMAILED WERE OPPOSED TO ANY MITIGATION
• TWO CITIZENS EMAILED SUPPORTED ANY AND ALL MITIGATION
QUESTIONS:
• 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 borne 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 2&-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'" and Pine-add a neckdown to deal with traffic bailing off of Pine onto 24" to avoid the
backup at the light at Pine and Folsom
• Raised crosswalk at 21st and Pine (but a con would be reduced emergency response time)
• Pine and 24'"--corner 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'" and Folsom
• Speed humps on Mapleton between 21" and 22nd
• Traffic circle at 22" or 23`d to keep a pattern of mitigation on Pine
• Place an all-way stop at Bluff and 23rd
ATTACHMENT F
Whittier NH Traffic Mitigation Proposal - Cost Estimates and other Information
Mitigation Device Location ;Parking Loss? CERR? Emergencv Impact on CERR Cost Estimate
Traffic Circle with Neckdowns 20th & Bluff 3 spaces Yes Yes (2-4 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 $ 2,000.00
Traffic Circle (no neckdowns) Mapleton & 23rd 6 spaces 1 $ 9,000.00
Median with Ped Refuge and Neckdowns Pine & 21st 4 spaces Yes Maybe (1-2 seconds) $ 34,000.00
H Traffic Circle with Neckdowns Pine & 23rd 6 spaces Yes Yes (2-4 seconds) $ 30,000.00
REMOVE Raised Crossing _ 1500 block of Spruce 6 gamed $ 4,000.00
Q) 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
Two Ped Refuges with Neckdowns Spruce & 21 st $ 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 F
n -
rDEV,CE HIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL.
W
LOCATIONS ARE a PPROXIMATE peed Hump
l a..
„ edHump
- E"
% S r
BALSAMA
Traffic Circle
„ R
a exs6g s Traffic Circle
7F577 1i -
"Cill 0"
m___ Speed Hump
Speed Hump
a
nNg
Existi >t~»
^
f ^
' Exishnq
4 w
L
s
02 0
Speed Hump Refuge C rb
/r
Traffic Circle with \ Ex ansions
Curb Extensions) I r - j 1 i!i
,
t a Existing
ro
S eed Hump
Traffic Circle with
Existig Curb Extensions
o
Consider operational
' City is considenng im rovemenis
Traffic Circle with change in traffic control , _ O I . PEA 5t
i Curb Extensions
~T P1NE
xu
C
s
...ra.. PEP~gT
Remove Existing
Raised Crosswalks -
~DE sta v Traffic Circle with
wiMedians on Spruce
Curb Extensions
C
ire
,
oo , o ,A
Curb Extenskm
Traffic Circle with with Pod Re"
t, j Median Median an
Curb Extensions
BOULDER ~
n
Traffic Circle with _
i ,r,;. , Amm.~ e
t,
Curb Extensions l _
WHITTIER NEIGHBORHOOD
r1A NSConc eptual Traffic Calming Plan 1
ESHi Scal
e Date 10/15/02 Drawn by RAC Job# ABOULD0213 Figure
ATTACHMENT G
Whittier Final Public Meeting Input
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
Feels visual effect good, cohesive design element.
Bluff & 23 a 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 16`s & 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
rage o
Teresa Spears - Spruce Street traffic mitigation proposals
From: "Chris Malik" <cmihalik@att.net>
To: <spearst@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 09/04/2002 6:12 PM
Subject: Spruce Street traffic mitigation proposals
Hi Theresa,
This email is to voice my concerns about the proposed traffic mitigation
devices on Spruce Street, particularly the proposed traffic circle at 16th
and Spruce.
I do not want ANY traffic circles ANYWHERE. I think they're extremely
dangerous and create more problems than they solve. I also think they're a
lawsuit waiting to happen and am surprised that the City of Boulder has not
been sued because of them. (I guess no one's been killed or seriously
injured... yet.)
I live in the 1500 block of Spruce Street. I used to drive down Pine Street
all of the time. Since the traffic circles have been constructed, I feel
it's too dangerous to drive on Pine Street. I've just had too many close
calls. I avoid Pine Street as much as I possibly can.
My alternate route is to drive down Spruce Street to 17th, 17th over to
Pearl, and from there it's pretty easy to get to most parts of town (Boulder
Turnpike, Crossroads, 28th Street, King Soopers, etc.)
Construction of a traffic circle at 16th and Spruce would take away this
alternate route. If I still wanted to avoid all traffic circles, I'd have
to do something ridiculous like head West on Spruce to 14th, 14th to Walnut,
Walnut to 15th, 15th to Pearl. I would end up driving 8 blocks (through 4
traffic lights and 2 stop signs) to get to a spot that's 3 blocks from my
home.
The traffic circles have been tolerable because they've been avoidable.
I've always thought they were stupid and dangerous. I wasn't too concerned
because I could always just avoid those parts of town with traffic circles.
It looks like that will no longer be the case. Traffic circles are coming
to my neighborhood whether I want them or not.
What's particularly galling is the traffic circles are supposed to be for my
benefit! I DO NOT WANT ANY TRAFFIC CIRCLES IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD! I want to
do everything I possibly can to make sure that no traffic circles are built
near my home!
Thank you for your time.
I
Chris Mihalik
~i
i
ule://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00009.HTM 10/16/200'
.-'age o::
cmihalik@att.net
1529 Spruce St. #5
303-449-2866
i
71e://C:IWINDOWSITEMPIGW) 00009.HTM 10/16/200:
.,'age O..
Teresa Spears - forward from Mary Rogers re Traffic mitigation at 23rd and Bluff
From: 'Whittier Neighborhood Association' <whittierneighborhood@hotmail.com>
To: <spearst@ci. boulder, co. us>
Date: 08/27/2002 11:01 AM
Subject: forward from Mary Rogers re Traffic mitigation at 23rd and Bluff
Hello Teresa: Here is a message that bounced back to me because I had an
incorrect address for you... my fault. Anyway, here is the message.
Hi Tereasa: here is a message from Mary Rogers that she asked for us to
forward...
Crystal
From: Mary Rogers <mcolletterogers@yahoo.com>
To: Whittier Neighborhood Association <whittierneighborhood@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Monday July 8th meeting-Cancelled to attend TAB meeting
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 09:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
Dear Vicki and Crystal, thanks as always for taking the time to be proactive
for our neighborhood. I have one concern about the traffic circle at 23rd
and Mapleton. Although I like it from a safety standpoint, I think it could
be a problem in the winter because you need to get a running start to make
it up the hill. A circle would slow your momentum too much and make it
impossible to make it up. Could you possibly forward this concern to the
TAB, since I don't know the address?
I was also wondering why the speed signal would be taken out at 20th and
Pine. I don't think it works that well myself, but it seems like a noble
effort.
Thanks again, Mary Rogers
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http-.//photos. msn.com/support/worldwide.as[)x
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW)00009.HTM 10/16/200'
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 <lan.williamson@sun.com>, "Kimberly M. Hult" <Hult@hbcboulder.com>, "'pasnau@colorado.edu'" <pasnau@colorado.edu>,
"IUneau717@aoI.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
1> > 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> >
> I still have some concerns, and I hope, again, that it is not too late to
> > raise them:
File://C:\WfNDOWS\T'EMP\GW}00008.HTM 10/16/200"
> > 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. Hutt
> > 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\T$MP\GW 00008.HTM 10/16/200'
;rage o::
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>,
"robingribbon@attbi.com'" <robingribbon@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
i> 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.
ile://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00008.HTM 10/16/200
age L O
> 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
e
k
't
4
t
i
I
rile://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW 00008.HTM 10/16/200`
Teresa Spears - RE: The Proposals for Whittier
From: "Kimberly M. Hult" <Hult@hbcboulder.com>
To: 'Teresa Spears' <SpearsT@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 06/15/2002 4:33 PM
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>,
`ian.wilhamson@sunacom" <ian.williamson@sun.com>, "robingribbon@attbi.com" <robingribbon@attbi.com>
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
(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, CC 80302
(303) 441-7403 / (800) 303-6514, x403 / Fax (303) 442-6593
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW 00008.HTM 10/16/200"
.rage o::
Teresa Spears - Speed bumps on Mapleton
From: Amy Howard <ahoward@indra.com>
To: "Teresa Spears" <SpearsT@ci.boulder.co.us>, Bill Cowern <CowernB@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 09/12/2002 9:28 AM
Subject: Speed bumps on Mapleton
Hi to you both.
As we move into the polling phase of the traffic mitigation project I
wanted to understand how the current speed bumps on Mapleton will fit
into the process.
My understanding was that the effectiveness of these were to be included
in any polling information and that within the project there was a great
possibility of fixing these bumps to be more effective.
Also, the speed between 20th and the first bump continues to be a danger
to the 9 children that live within in these two blocks - a solution for
which I have yet to see.
If you have a moment, please let me know how the current bumps will be
addressed.
Thanks for all your work on this.
Amy Howard
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW 00009.HTM 10/16/200-
Teresa Spears - Whittier Trafrfic Plan
From: "Bill Ervin or Sue Rigdon" <dvphoto@gwestnet>
To: <spearst@ci.bouldecco.us>
Date: 10/16/2002 3:40 PM
Subject: Whittier Trafrfic Plan
Teresa Spears:
ere are some serious reservations my wife and I have about the proposed Whittier NTMP. We are both careful drivers who obey the speed limits, and we recognize th=
eed for some traffic mitigation in the area. However, we feel that the plan as proposed goes much farther, and is more expensive, than it needs to be.
From our observations driving in this part of town the main problem area for speeding seems to be Spruce and Pine St. We also noticed that nearly every resident who
signed a recent letter urging acceptance of the plan lives on these two streets. Our first objection, then, is that the plan would put in way to many mitigation devices on
other streets in the neighborhood where they are not particularly needed. Let's keep the focus on Spruce and Pine.
Let's take 23rd Street as an example. The shortest route for nearly everyone living upon Panorama hill to go almost anywhere in town is to comedown this street -yet
he plan proposes no less than three traffic circles on the four block stretch of 23rd between Bluff and Spruce. No matter how one feels about traffic circles, this is pure
overkill. Personally, we feel that circles are actually more dangerous than nothing or than any other kind of mitigation device, because drivers do not know how to use
em properly. So not only is this too many circles on 23rd, but they would make driving on the street more dangerous than it currently is. Specifically, you need to i
member that the hill down 23rd from Panorama hill is quite steep it is one of the few non-major arteries currently plowed by the city for this reason. Having a circle
at Mapleton is asking for trouble in snowy or icy conditions, and at all times would cause unnecessary wear on brakes as drivers came down the hill ( the stop signs her
are on the cross streets, not 23rd, for good reasons!) Please get rid of this circle.
At prior NTMP meetings we and others pointed out that the accident rate at Mapleton and 23rd is very high, because drivers on Mapleton ignore the stop signs, and we
assume that this is an attempt to address the problem. However, a traffic circle will only make the problem worse by adding confusion, and I guarantee you that drivers
on Mapleton will assume they have the right of way (they already do so, despite the stop signs!). What is needed here is either a "two way stop" sign added below the
d stop sign, or a speed bumps on Mapleton just before the stop signs, as well as clearly painted lines and "STOP" on the pavement.
We also do not understand why the other two traffic circles on 23rd (Pine and Spruce) are even necessary. There are already stop signs at both intersections, and we hav
(never observed any problems at either junction in 15 years of regular use (I would guess well over 10,000 times collectively). If the purpose is to slow down traffic on
(Pine and Spruce, then they could be located at a less frequently-used cross street, such as 22nd or 24th. Again, the use of 23rd as the primary route off Panorama hill
means far more possibilities for accidents at the traffic circles there than on a different cross street.
We have similar concerns about the traffic circle proposed at 20th and Bluff. We use this intersection frequently, and have never observed even a near accident
Remember that there is a speed-sensitive signal on 20th and Pine, and 4-way stops at both Alpine and Balsam. Do we really need to force people to stop, or negotiate
obstacles at four out of five blocks between Pine and Balsam along 20th? Another example of overkill in an area where it is already nearly impossible for drivers to
speed..
Finally, we question the need for the two traffic circles proposed for Spruce at 19th and 16th. There are already two raised crossings on the street in that stretch -
wouldn't one circle suffice? Our understanding is that circles are much more expensive than other devices, so shouldn't we be judicious with their use? What about one
at either 16th or 19th, and one at 24th?
We believe in traffic mitigation, and appreciate all the efforts certain neighbors have made so far. But we are sorry to say that we will vigorously oppose the proposed
lan unless it is substantially modified. You should focus on Spruce and Pine and leave the rest alone, especially 23rd street. In summary, here is what would need to bra
hanged for us to support the plan:
1. Eliminate all traffic circles from 23rd St.
--The circles on 23rd at Pine and Spruce could be moved to 24th to slow traffic down near Folsom.
The existing stop signs at Mapleton (and Wulf, for that matter) and 23rd should be enhanced by some combination of " two-way stop" notices, speed
umps and painted pavement.
. Eliminate the circle at 20th and Bluff (already have three devices on 20th within 5 blocks).
3. Wherever possible, use something other than traffic circles, such as 4-way stops or speed bumps. Traffic circles are expensive, confusing to many drivers,
d dangerous. Use them sparingly, not indiscriminately.
Thank you for your efforts on this NTMP.
William Ervin
usan Rigdon
380 Panorama Ave.
oulder
isle://C:IWINDOWSITEMPIGW}00008.HTM 10/16/200
ATTACHMENT H
ET-11-H
A
P 0 m
L
LP N
N
I I I I ILLJ
00, MB
ANYON R
i i i I ~ F-ET71 F--TTT F7=
ATTACHMENTI
CITY OF BOULDER -
Department of Public Works/Transportation Division
/ 440h.
PO Box 791 ~J A 141739 Broadway
Boulder, Colorado 80306 ~y
(303) 411-3266
(303) 441-4271 FAX
September 4, 2002
Dear Whittier Neighborhood resident or property owner:
The city of Boulder's Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program (NTMP) has been working with
the Whittier Neighborhood to develop a final traffic mitigation plan for your neighborhood. (A
map showing the proposed plan is on the reverse side of this letter.)
The next step in the NTMP process is to conduct a neighborhood poll to find out whether there is
support for the traffic mitigation plan. Residents and nonresident property owners that live on or
near a street proposed for traffic mitigation device are receiving a polling form for that proposed
traffic mitigation device. One polling form has been sent to each dwelling unit and one to the
property owner.
Your polling form is attached. This indicates the device you will be making a decision
regarding. Please fill the polling form out and mail it back in the enclosed envelope by Sept. 23,
2002. The form must be postmarked by Sept. 23 in order to be counted, and a signature
on the polling form is required for it to be valid. Not returning the polling form does not count
as a vote for or against the proposed mitigation device.
The results of this neighborhood poll will be forwarded to the Transportation Advisory Board
(TAB) in October as they consider recommendations on the final traffic mitigation plan. TAB's
recommendation will then be given to City Council for consideration. If Council approves the
plan, construction will begin shortly thereafter.
If you have any questions concerning the neighborhood poll, please call me at 303-441-3266. If
you would like more information on the NTMP, please go to our Web site at
www.ci.boulder.co.us/Rwplan. Thank you for participating in this neighborhood poll.
Sincerely,
Teresa Spears
NTMP Liaison
Traffic MiATigatTACHMENToriI Devices
Whittier Neighborhood
~1 ~iy rt ~~~1
71
L
1-+ rt 1 2 ~ ti
Y1
-SIC ~'1~ 1 'r l-` 1 , ` ~1 1 y 11
1 • V~
VM
1-EAsting Speed Hump
KEY 2-E)dsting Speed Hump
3-E)dsting Speed Hump
4--Proposed Traffic Circle
5-Proposed Speed Hump
B-Proposed Speed Hump
7-Proposed Speed Hump
8-Proposed Traffic Circle
10-Proposed Traffic Circle
11-Proposed Traffic Circle
13--Proposed Traffic Circle
14-Proposed Traffic Circle
Legend N ATTACHMENT A
Traffic Mitigaton Device W E Scale in Feet
Property Parcel 500 ° 500 '°°o
S All distances are approximate. ~
a
ryv..~o, wsu.ve
li~yq 6 ~MI~M1RnC BaN•an
ATTACHMENT I
NEIGHBORHOOD POLL
Whittier Neighborhood
Traffic Mitigation Project
Should the existing speed hump on Mapleton Avenue located between 14`h Street
and 15`h Street (Number 1 on enclosed map) remain as part of the Whittier
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Plan and forwarded to City Council for approval?
YES NO
Sign: Date
Due to security reasons, a signature is required for the polling piece to be valid.
Please print your name and address:
Please indicate if you are the:
Resident and Owner of the Property
Resident/Tenant at the Property
Owner of the property (but do not reside there)
NOTE:
• In order to have your vote counted you must have this post marked
by the United States Postal Service by September 23, 2002
• This form has to be returned in order for your vote to count.
• Only the forms that are returned will be counted.
Whittier Delay-Inducing Traffic Mitigation Device Voting Results - Revised
Mitigation Device * Vote Crosstabulation Vote % Voter Support
Mitigation Device Yes No Total Support 60%
Existing Speed Hump, on Mapleton between 14th and 15th St 18 3 21 86% Passes
Existing Speed Hump, on Mapleton between 16th and 17th St 23 9 32 72% Passes
Existing Speed Hump, on Ma Teton between 18th and 19th St 45 7 52 87% Passes
Proposed Traffic Circle, at Bluff and 20th St 37 6 43 86% Passes
Proposed Speed Hump, on Bluff between 21 st and 22nd St 31 8 39 79% Passes
Proposed Speed Hump, on Ma leton between 21st and 22nd St 29 11 40 73% Passes
Proposed Speed Hump, on Bluff between 24th and 25th St 31 3 34 91% Passes
Proposed Traffic Circle, at Mapleton and 23rd St 33 11 44 75% Passes
Proposed Traffic Circle, at Pine and 23rd St 22 6 28 79% Passes
Proposed Traffic Circle, at Spruce and 23rd St 41 44 85 48% No
Proposed Traffic Circle, at Spruce and 18th St 32 18 50 64% Passes
Proposed Traffic Circle, at Spruce and 16th St 16 18 34 47%1 1 No
Total 358 144 502
Vote Results 102802 10/28/2002
ATTACHMENT K .~or-\-~ a c~) C°~'
~~e ~in 1 w fi
THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL.
r
DEVICE LOCATIONS ARE speed Hu
APPROXIMATE.-'°
` - r =aab Speed Hump o 0
susnMn Traffic Circle w r
tC'" r`r Sar " East g i °S r Traffic Circle -
Oif+ '4: ` 'Fg Speed Hump _
° t r Speed Hum t.
" ~PINKAVF
N VE Existing
t s
gg
S . o o? .
. t,. • 2• „ _N ( . .a r i Median w/Pad
. E Seed Hum ",a~= Ren,gescurb
_ Traffic Circle with " ice' Exta"sions
Curb Extensions ( / R r `
r
1
. Seed Hum -
Traffic Circle with
Curb Extensions
r
a
Consider operabonal
sid im rovements
" - - City is conenng
Traffic Circle with change in traffic control Pte, 5i;
Curb Extensions , e sY - eod~D Kptc"
I
w rte/ r //l
P
r
w
%
LL
ve Existing
Raised Crosswalks -
cE w/Medians on Spruce _
r
" h
,
7 t. ' - VdP C EXte; Curb Extensions ca'ti
_ aed Retuga ~
° Circle with
~ 'N 51 affi
M i
nsions r ;
ULDER AN
4 uev&~-.
BO r'
r
"
-
-7777 E
C771 F
WHITTIER NEIGHBORHOOD
TRANSPLAN Conceptual Traffic Calming Plan 2
ASSOCIATES, INC.
mmbtr of the SEH gmp Scale Date 10/15102 Drawn by RAC Job# ABOULD0213 Figure
ATTACHMENT L
CITY OF BOULDER
COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
COVER SHEET
1. Description and location of the project:
The Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program (NTMP) proposes a traffic mitigation plan
for the Whittier neighborhood, which includes the area encompassed by Spruce Street,
Bluff Avenue, 13d' Street and Folsom Avenue. This plan includes the use of delay-
inducing and nondelay-inducing traffic-calming devices to reduce speeding in the
Whittier neighborhood.
2. Background, purpose and need for the project:
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 Balsam Avenue. These traffic circles were approved using the
current NTMP guidelines adopted in 2000. As such, these traffic circles are not being
considered as part of the proposed plan.
The current guidelines provide a flow chart detailing the process by which a neighborhood enters
the NTMP, and the order in which different mitigation methods and process steps are taken.
This flow chart is provided as Attachment B. The guidelines placed more emphasis on public
involvement and provided several check-in-points with TAB and City Council.
In 2001, the Transportation staff was tasked to work with the Whittier neighborhood to create a
traffic mitigation plan. Since Pine Street, 20' Street, 13' Street, and 17a' Street are a Critical
Emergency Response Route (CERR), the NTMP policy required that staff obtain TAB's
recommendation and City Council's direction regarding whether to consider delay-inducing
traffic-calming devices during the design phase of the project. TAB recommended and City
Council directed that delay-inducing traffic-calming devices could be considered when designing
traffic mitigation plans for the Whittier neighborhood.
Even though physical mitigation has been placed on Pine Street, speed studies show that speeds
outside of the traffic circles are basically the same as they were prior to the traffic circles being
placed on Pine Street. Before and after speed statistics for streets in the Whittier neighborhood
area can be found in Attachment C.
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 the
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.
3. Description of project alternatives and summary of major issues:
The major issues when developing a preferred traffic mitigation proposal for the Whittier
neighborhood included, Emergency Services response time and access, financial impact, and
overall neighborhood approval.
Below are the straw proposals created for the Whittier neighborhood. Staff used these proposals
to begin a conversation with the community regarding traffic mitigation in the Whittier
neighborhood. Attachment D provides these proposals in map form
Alternative 1
Add Photo Red/Speed (Disable Speed Sensors): Pine and 20th
Ped Signal with Red Speed: Pine between 22„d and 23rd
Speed Hump: Mapleton (2) between 21st 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 21st (both
sides) and 2 on 23rd (both sides)
Median Entry Island and Permanent Speed Display: Pine and 24th
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 23rd
Pine (3) at the intersection of 19th, 21st, and 23rd
Spruce (4) at the intersection of 16th, 18th, 21st, and 23rd
NOTE: This alternative removes existing devices on Mapleton Avenue (Speed Humps) and
Spruce Street (Raised Crosswalks).
Alternative 3
Turn Restriction Island: Bluff and Folsom
Speed Humps: Bluff (3) between 20th and 21 st, between 22.d and 23rd, and East of 24th
Mapleton Avenue (2) between 21st and 22.d and between 24th and Folsom
Spruce Street (2) between 16th and 17th and between 18 and 19th
2
Traffic Circle: Mapleton Avenue (2) at the intersection of 20th and at the intersection of
23,d
Pine Street (2) at the intersection of 22nd and at the intersection of 24th
Partial Median: Pine Street between 18th and 19th
Crosswalk with Ped Refuge and Curb Extensions: Pine at 21st
Full Block Medians: Spruce (4) on 2100, 2200, 2300, 2400 Block
NOTE: The alternative removes existing raised crosswalks on Spruce Street.
Alternative 4. Pre-polling staff proposal
Speed Hump: Bluff between 21 st and 22nd
Bluff east of 24th
Mapleton between 21st and 22nd
Traffic circle: Bluff and 20th
Mapleton and 23rd
Pine and 23`d
Spruce and 16'h
Spruce and 18'h
Spruce and 23rd
Median with pedestrian refuge: Pine at 21 st (west side of intersection)
Spruce @ 21st (west side of intersection)
Spruce @ 21st (east side of intersection)
Remove existing raised crosswalks on Spruce
Whittier neighborhood polling did not support this alternative; therefore, staff does not support
this alternative.
Alternative 5. Do nothing. This alternative does not meet the Whittier neighborhood's
goal for reducing speeding in their area. It is clearly the least expensive option. Staff is not
supportive of this option.
As shown the five alternatives did not meet the criteria required, balancing the need for speed
reduction and emergency access. Additionally, Alternative 2 &3 would exceed the NTMP's
financial limitations.
Preferred project alternative: the following:
• Traffic circle on Bluff @ 20th
• Speed hump on Bluff between 21st and 22nd
• Speed hump on Bluff between cast of 24th
3
• Speed hump on Mapleton between 21st and 22nd
• Traffic circle on Mapleton @ 23rd
• Median with pedestrian refuge on Pine at 21 st (west side of intersection)
• Traffic circle on Pine @ 23rd
• Traffic circle on Spruce @ 18th
• Median with pedestrian refuge on Spruce @ 21st (west side of intersection)
• Median with pedestrian refuge on Spruce @ 21st (east side of intersection)
• Remove existing raised crosswalks on Spruce
4. Public input to date:
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 they wanted to consider delay-inducing traffic-
calming devices in their neighborhood proposed mitigation plan.
After City Council gave direction regarding the use of delay-inducing traffic-calming devices in
proposed traffic mitigation plans for the Whittier Neighborhood and before the second meeting,
staff provided citizens with information on traffic mitigation devices by posting a tool kit (shown
in Attachment C) on the NTMP Web site. This tool kit outlined traffic mitigation options
including: cost, effectiveness, and the amount of delay associated with the mitigation device, if
applicable. The tool kit provided information needed to participate in a discussion regarding the
pros and cons of traffic mitigation devices. If citizens did not have access to the Web site, the
information was made available at the NTMP office or through postal mailing.
For the second meeting, staff developed three "straw proposals." As shown in Attachment D,
the proposals consisted of three options that ranged from extensive use of delay-inducing traffic-
calming devices to minimal use of delay-inducing traffic-calming 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.
The final meeting was designed to gather input from the citizens on the refined proposal. As
seen in Attachment G, the majority of participants supported the proposal with a few changes.
To announce the meetings, staff used a mailing list of approximately 1,000 addresses, which
consisted of the owners and the residents of the neighborhood. Attachment H provides a map of
the neighborhoods showing the mailing area. Additionally, the meeting information was posted
on the Web site; there was a public announcement in the Daily Camera; and The Center for
People with Disabilities, Pride Mark Ambulance Services and Special Transit were notified by e-
mail.
Staff created several additional opportunities for individuals to get information and give input
regarding the traffic mitigation in the Whittier neighborhood. Such opportunities existed through
the NTMP Web site, e-mail, phone calls, mailing, and by coming to the NTMP office.
In accordance with the NTMP guidelines, the next step in the public process was to poll the
Whittier neighborhood. The NTMP guidelines require a neighborhood polling for those living
4
with in 400 feet of a proposed delay-inducing traffic-calming device. The NTMP developed a
polling form, which was approved by the City Attorney. A mailing list was developed to send
polling form to owners and residents within the 400 feet. The polling form was sent along with a
map of the area indicating which device they were voting on and a letter explaining the polling
process, see Attachment I. provides the results of that poll. The polling was conducted in
September/October 2002 for the Whittier neighborhood.
5. Staff project manager:
Teresa Spears, NTMP Liaison, City of Boulder Transportation Division (303) 441-3266
6. Other consultants or relevant contacts:
Bill Cowem, Transportation Operations Engineer, City of Boulder transportation Division (303)
441-4054
Bill Fox, Fox Higgins Transportation Group, Consultant
Steve Stolz, Deputy Fire Chief, City of Boulder Fire Department (303) 441-3355
Tom Wickman, Commander of Police Traffic Unit, City of Boulder Police Department (303)
441-3369
Goals Assessment:
1. Using the BVCP, describe the primary city goals that the project will help to
achieve:
General
Community Design
Facilities and Service
Environment
Economy
Transportation
Housing
Social Concerns and Human services
General - The Whittier traffic mitigation plan will improve quality of life for the residents in the
neighborhood. Additionally, it will increase travel safety for individuals walking, biking, and
driving on mitigated streets. The NTMP by design gives the citizens an opportunity to have a
voice in what is implemented or not implemented in their neighborhood, thereby promoting the
sense of community in the city of Boulder.
Transportation - The Whittier traffic mitigation plan will produce lasting, positive impacts. The
primary benefit will be the improved safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as reducing
vehicular speeds in the area.
2. What are the trade-offs in terms of city policies and goals?
The implementation of the Balsam/Edgewood traffic mitigation plan will result in an increased
response time for emergency response vehicles.
5
3. Is this project referenced in a master plan? If so, what is the context in terms of
goals, objectives, larger system plans, etc? If not, why not?
The Transportation Master plan specifically states that the NTMP is important in helping
transportation achieve its overall goals. This proposal will promote safe driving on the
neighborhood streets, with a smooth flow of traffic, thereby increasing livability of the area.
4. How will the project exceed city, state, or federal standards and regulations?
Impact Assessment
1. Using the attached checklist, identify the potential impacts of the proposed project or (if
applicable) the project alternatives.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Previous Whittier Neighborhood Process
B. NTMP Process Chart
C. Traffic Statistics
D. Straw Proposals
E. NTMP Toolkit
F. 2nd Public Meeting Public Input
G. Final Public Meeting Public Input
H. Mailing Area Map
6
ATTACHMENT L
CITY OF BOULDER
Planning and Development Services Center
n~ 1739 Broadway, Third floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, Colorado 80306-0791
phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • email building-services@ci.boulder.co.us
www.ci.boulder.co.us/buildingservices
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 16, 2002
TO: Bill Cowern, Traffic Operations Engineer (Transportation)
FROM: Steve Durian, Transportation Engineer (P&DS)
SUBJECT: Whittier & Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhoods Traffic Mitigation Project (NTMP)
CC: Bev Johnson, Long Range Planning
Jenny Coley, Planning & Development Services
Jeff Arthur, Planning & Development Services
The following comments were formulated by Planning & Development Review staff from the
review of the NTMP project proposed for the Whittier & Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhoods:
1. Drainage along streets with speed humps and curb extensions must be maintained with 0.5%
minimum along curbs. It is understood that this will be achieved with the design of these
entities, however details of how this will be achieved were not included in the review material.
2. Where there are curb extensions used in the design of traffic circles and pedestrian refuges,
on-street parking should be restricted by the curb extensions to at least 20 feet of the
crosswalks associated with these entities. This will eliminate the need for no-parking signing
and resulting sign clutter.
3. Guidelines for right-of-way landscaping should be applied to this project. These guidelines
are currently being developed by Noreen Walsh, City of Boulder Transportation Planner. It is
understood that these guidelines were considered as part of the design effort for this project,
however the materials reviewed did not have specific information about landscaping.
Furthermore:
• If trees are proposed, those trees to be planted in the right-of-way or in public utility
easements shall be located at least 10 feet away from existing or future utilities
including utility mains and services.
• Design of landscaping to be used near crosswalks should consider approaching
vehicles to clearly see pedestrians both in the crosswalk and waiting at the curb.
• Fire hydrants shall have a 10-foot radius of clearance to adjacent obstacles (fences,
walls, shrubs, trees, etc.).
4. Proposed speed humps, traffic circles, pedestrian refuges and curb extensions must not
impede access to water valves, sanitary sewer manholes, and storm sewer manholes. All
valves and manholes need to be easily accessible for maintenance.
If you have any questions or need to coordinate with Planning & Development Services staff
regarding these comments, please contact me at 303-441-4493.
ATTACHMENT L
Community and Environmental Assessment Process Checklist
Project title: Whittier Neighborhood Taffic Mitigation Plan a
r
m
E
M
r N
Q d d
p > >
L
d L L
d M
L
a
A. Natural Areas _
1. Disturbance to species, communities, habitat, ecosystems? 0 0 0
B. Riparian Areas/Floodplains
1. Encroachment upon the 100-year, conveyance or high hazard flood zones? 0 0 0
2. Disturbance to or fragmentation of a riparian corridor? 0 0 0
C. Wetlands
1. Disturbance to or loss of a wetland on site? 0 0 0
D. Geology and Soils
1.a. Impacts to unique geologic or physical features? 0 0 0
b. Geologic development constraints? 0 0 0
c. Substantial changes in topography? 0 0 0
E. Water Quality
1. Impacts to groundwater or stormwater quality? 0 0 0
2. Discharges to the stormwater or sanitary sewer system? 0 0 0
3. Potential impacts to streams, ditches, or other water bodies? o 0 0
4. Groundwater contamination on site? 0 0 0
F. Air Quality
1. Impacts to air quality? 0 0 0
G. Resource Conservation
1. Changes in water use? 0 0 0
2. Increases in energy use? 0 0 0
3. Generation of excess waste? 0 0 0
H. Cultural/Historic Resources
1.a. Impacts to a prehistoric or archaeological site? 0 0 0
b. Impacts to a building or structure over fifty years of age? 0 0 0
c. Impacts to a historic feature of the site? 0 0 0
d. Impacts to significant agricultural land? 0 0 0
I. Visual Quality
1.a. Effects on scenic vistas or public views? 0 0 0
X = Applicable
Page 1 0 = Not Applicable
Community and Environmental Assessment Process Checklist
b. Effects on the aesthetics of a site open to public view? 0 0 0
c. Effects on views to unique geologic or physical features? o 0 0
J. Safety
1. Health hazards, odors, or radon? 0 0 0
2. Site hazards? 0 0 0
K. Physiological Well-being
1. Exposure to excessive noise? 0 0 0
2. Excessive light or glare? 0 0 0
3. Increase in vibrations? 0 0 0
L. Services
1. Additional need for: 0 0 0
a. health care/social services? 0 0 0
b. sanitary sewer services? 0 0 0
c. police services? 0 0 0
d. fire protection? 0 0 0
e. recreation or parks facilities? 0 0 0
f. libraries? 0 0 0
g. transportation improvements/traffic mitigation? 0 0 0
h. parking? 0 0 0
i. affordable housing? 0 0 0
j. open space/urban open land? 0 0 0
k. power or energy use? 0 0 0
1. telecommunications? 0 0 0
M. Special Populations
1. Effects on:
a. persons with disabilities? 0 0 0
b. senior population? 0 0 0
c. children? 0 0 0
d. restricted income persons? NO 0 0
X = Applicable
Page 2 0 = Not Applicable
ATTACHMENT M
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 85''
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 I 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 ra h 25 mph - 8 m h
Balsam Avenue 38 mph 28 mph - 10 mph
The results show that the final design traffic circle was effective at reducing travel speeds between the traffic
circles. Based on these 85 ° percentile speed results, these two roadway sections would not qualify to be in the
NTMP, based on the "problem/no problem" threshold, adopted in the new NTMP guidelines (5 mph or less
above the speed limit of 25 mph).
Emergency vehicle travel delay: The primary measurement of this factor was the study of emergency
response delay, taken during staged runs of Fire engines through the traffic circles. Tests were performed on a
single traffic circle and upon the series of two traffic circles. Both tests were necessary to establish how much
additional delay may occur when a series of traffic circles is used in place of a single device. It should be
noted that the determination of emergency response delay, from traffic circle experiments is difficult for a
number of reasons. There are several factors that influence the emergency response delay, including the
following;
• The approach and departure speeds which emergency response vehicles can obtain.
• The severity of the traffic circle design.
• The spacing of the traffic circles and the ability of emergency response vehicles to get back to cruising
speed between devices.
• The traffic conditions encountered on any traffic circle run (side street traffic, pedestrians, etc...).
• The aggressiveness of the emergency response vehicle driver.
As a result, the delay encountered on different runs through the demonstrations varied depending on these
conditions. Table 2 details the emergency response findings for the final design traffic circles. These values
represent the findings specific to these locations. Caution should be used when estimating delay at other
potential traffic circle locations, in which the conditions vary.
Table 2: Emergency Response Delay Summary
Street / Device I Delay through Final Traffic
Circle Design
Pine Street 3 to 4 seconds
Balsam Avenue 2 to 3 seconds
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: Bic cle/Pedestrian Impacts
Pine (slotted circle demonstration Value Incident Rate
Total number of pedestrian crossings 93
Cars failing to yield to estrian 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 field 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.
Table 4: Compliance with side street vehicle ri ht-of-wa
Cars on main street failing to yi
Street / Device Side street volume 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 in some level of diversion of traffic to adjacent streets. However, there was some concern that the
raised element of these traffic circle demonstrations may result in more diversion than the prior demonstrations.
Traffic volumes for a 24 hour period, were collected on Balsam Avenue, Alpine Avenue, Mapleton Avenue,
Spruce Avenue, Elder Avenue, Pine Street and Cedar Avenue. Table 5 details the difference in traffic volume
on these streets, before and after the construction of the final design traffic circles on Pine Street and Balsam
Avenue.
Table 5: Nei hborhood 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 v 6950 v pd -1710 d -19.7 Percent
Balsam 11400 10910 v pd 8200 v pd -2710 v pd -24.8 Percent
Adjacent Street
Mapleton / 1700 1420 v pd 1340 v -80 d -5.6 Percent
Spruce / 1700 3040 vpd 3260 v +220 v +7.2 Percent
Al ine / 1400 2610 v pd 2940 v pd +330 vlLd +12.6 Percent
Cedar / 1400 560 v 590 v d +30 v +5.3 Percent
Elder / 1400 1520 v pd 1390 v pd +130 v pd +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.
19 October, 2002
Bear NTMP Liaison, Transportation Advisory Board and City Council
Members,
We the undersigned wish to confirm our support of the proposed traffic
mitigation plan (dated 4 September, 2002) for the Whittier Neighborhood,
with particular support of the proposed traffic circle at 23rd St. and Mapleton
Avenue.
Sincerely,
Name Printed Signature Address
Se -AA
(Yl Eai>C. -j
_Eal:z _u( --------=)i,)`-l`'{-.,.,y,
3t_; <Li~L tdL'znc 2
Rya J_ Ma~s~.±SJ, 1--mot-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - v~~~.r
Si t S-_MarsL~al -udzi I'G ~t!!<, Lw_I 1 zz5_~-(V e)0!-4V? Ave .
- 231rt /1nr~~/cfrYtC.
-LLB - C~ -------23_2,
-
j--------
-