The URL can be used to link to this page

6 - Recommendation on the Balsam/Edgewood 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 Balsam/Edgewood 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 Lary Donner, Fire Chief Steve Stolz, Deputy Fire Chief Police Department Mark Beckner, Police Chief Jim Hughes, Deputy Police Chief Tom Wickman, Commander of Police Traffic Unit FISCAL IMPACT: Approximately $132,500 not including landscaping costs. The costs for permanent photo radar deployment are not known at this time. 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 Balsam/Fdgewood Neighborhood Community and Environmental Assess Process (CEAP). BACKGROUND Since 1995, the Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood has taken part in a significant amount of process regarding traffic mitigation as shown in Attachment A. As part of this process, two permanent traffic circles were constructed on Balsam Avenue. These traffic circles were approved using the current NTMP guidelines adopted in 2000. As such, these traffic circles are not being 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. Oct 2002 EdgewoodBalsam memo.doc AGENDA ITEM # Page 1 One step in the process involves staff gathering input from the impacted neighborhood and providing TAB and City Council with a recommendation regarding whether delay-inducing traffic calming devices should be considered in the proposed traffic mitigation plans for the neighborhood. In 2001, the Transportation staff was tasked to work with the Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood to create a traffic mitigation plan. Since Balsam Avenue is a Critical Emergency Response Route (CERR) street, the NTMP policy requires that staff obtain TAB's recommendation and City Council's direction regarding whether to consider delay-inducing traffic calming devices during the design phase of the project. TAB recommended and City Council directed that delay- inducing devices could be considered when designing traffic mitigation plans for the Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood. During 2001 and 2002, three public meetings were held with the Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood. The 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 on 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 Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood and before the second meeting, staff provided citizens with information on traffic mitigation devices by posting a tool kit (shown in Attachment C) on the NTMP Web site. This tool kit outlined traffic mitigation options including: cost, effectiveness, and the amount of delay associated with the mitigation device, if applicable. The tool kit made available information needed to participate in a discussion regarding the pros and cons of traffic mitigation devices. If citizens did not have access to the Web site, the information was made available at the NTMP office or through postal mailing. For the second meeting staff developed three "straw proposals" As shown in Attachment D, the proposals consisted of three options that ranged from extensive use of delay-inducing traffic calming devices to minimal use of delay-inducing devices. During this meeting, staff obtained the communities view regarding each proposal. Attachment E documents the public input that was recorded and placed on the Web site. Citizens were given an additional two weeks after the meeting to provide input regarding the proposals. During an internal staff meeting with staff from the Police, Fire and Public Works departments, the information gathered was used to develop a more refined traffic mitigation proposal for the Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood. This proposal was developed to balance the goals of speed reduction and emergency response. Additional consideration was given to floodplain issues because portions of both Alpine Avenue and Balsam Avenue are in the floodplain and physical mitigation in a floodplain, if constructed, is quite costly. Staff also looked into potential parking loss due to physical mitigation and recognized that their proposal would result in the loss of approximately I 1 parking spaces in the neighborhood, including 7 spaces in the 1300 and 1400 blocks of Alpine Avenue. Using a balanced, compromised approach, staff generated one proposal as seen in Attachment F. Oct 2002 EdgewoodBalsam memo.doc AGENDA ITEM # Page 2 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. The traffic circle on Alpine and 17`h was thought to be too costly, and the money would be better spent on permanent photo radar on Edgewood Drive west of 20 Street. Therefore, a permanent speed display was proposed on Alpine and 17th' and staff is looking into the feasibility of permanent photo radar on Edgewood Drive. If it is not feasible, permanent speed displays will be placed at the same location. 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 NTMP 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 Balsam/Edgewood 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 Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood. The NTMP guidelines require a neighborhood polling for those living within 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 consisted of homeowners and residents within 400 feet of the proposed 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 poll was conducted in September 2002 for the Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood. Attachment J demonstrates that all delay-inducing traffic-calming devices meet the criteria of the polling process except the following: ■ Speed Hump on Cedar between 14`h Street and Ellison Avenue ■ Speed Hump on Cedar Avenue between 16th & 17th Street. ■ Speed Hump (existing) on Floral ■ Speed Hump (existing) on Floral 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 taken out, and staff has revised the proposal to reflect the results of the polling process. See Attachment K. Oct 2002 EdgewoodBalsam memo.doc AGENDA ITEM # Page 3 Additionally, to comply with NTMP guidelines a Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) 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 Balsam Avenue, speed studies show that speeds outside of the traffic circles are the same as they were prior to the traffic circles being placed on Balsam Avenue. Before and after speed statistics for streets in the Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood area can be found in Attachment M. The use of education options, such as neighborhood signage, radar speed monitoring trailers, a permanent speed display, substantial community involvement to try to minimize speeding in their area, and enforcement efforts have not been successful in reducing the amount of speeding traffic. In summary, there is still a speeding problem in the Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood that needs to be addressed. This proposal would substantially reduce the speeding problem. When developing this proposal, the NTMP policy was followed, while staff and the community worked closely together to create a balanced compromise in this proposal. BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: The Transportation Advisory Board is requested to provide a recommendation to City Council on the proposed Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Plan CEAP. TAB'S recommendation will 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 EdgewoodBalsam memo.doc AGENDA ITEM # Page 4 ATTACHMENT A Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood Several streets in the Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood applied to the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program (NTMP) in 1995. Balsam Avenue and Edgewood Drive were the second highest ranked neighborhood streets in the program. Staff began to work with this neighborhood to explore possible speed mitigation solutions for Balsam Avenue and Edgewood Drive, as well as surrounding neighborhood streets such as, Cedar Avenue, Alpine Avenue, Elder Avenue, North Street, and Floral Drive. Trial traffic circles were installed on Balsam Avenue/14`h Street and Balsam Avenue/15`h Street in August 1995. The original demonstration consisted of 25-foot diameter traffic circles constructed of plastic bumper-blocks. The traffic circles were evaluated in terms of effectiveness in reducing speeding traffic, emergency vehicle delay and other traffic impacts. Two raised crossings were also installed as demonstrations on Edgewood Drive later that fall. These treatments were subsequently removed due to flood plain impacts. Speed humps were also installed, as part of the NTMP efforts, on North Street and on Floral Drive, within this neighborhood area. In November 1999, the City Council directed staff to redesign the traffic circles at Balsam Avenue/14`h Street and Balsam Avenue/15th Street and test designs that provided a better balance between neighborhood traffic mitigation and emergency response needs. The revised demonstration design was 16 feet in diameter delineated by 2-foot high concrete risers. The perimeter of the traffic circles were outlined with a 2-foot wide pavement marking, giving the appearance of a 20-foot diameter traffic circle. A study of these traffic circles showed that there was still a considerable traffic mitigation benefit, but a significantly reduced impact on emergency response delays. Staff began a process with the surrounding neighborhood that helped determine the final traffic circle design. The proposed final design was a circle 16 feet in diameter and 9 inches high. A second tier was to be constructed inside the first and would be 12 feet in diameter and with the flagstone cap is 24 inches high. A red patterned concrete area, 2 feet in diameter, was placed around the traffic circles, to make them look larger than they actually were. In July 2000, the residents and property owners within 400 feet of each device were polled (in accordance with the new NTMP policy) and there was greater than 60 percent support for both traffic circles on Balsam Avenue. The final design traffic circles were installed in January 2001. traffic concern. t +ts jr,..r .u Ott r'- „ The NTMP s ds you a ATTACHMENT B "Neighbor to Neighbor Education Education/Petition/Da( Collection Phase Circulate petition for participation in the NTMP, due in April each year. over speed limit - Concurrent application of educational tools 85th percentile speed 5 Ls. (yard signs, speed monitoring trailers, Continue education for another neighborhood speed watch, neighborhood speed pledge). - 3 mont- Speed data collected. Remonitor traeeds. (timeframe - 3 months) r 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. Y ~ NO Education/Enlorc nent Phase Continued application of educational tools. 85th percentile speed mph over speed limit -Application of enforcement tools Continue education efforts. (photo radar and traditional officer speed-enforcement). Additional speed data collected. (timeframe - 6 months) Decision Point 'Eligibility for engineering treatments' 85th percentile speed 5 mph over speed limit 85th percentile speed > 5 mph over speed limit NO Continue education and enforcement efforts. Yes - continue education and enforcement and Remonitor traffic speeds as pz i of next annual include project in engineering ranking phase. process. No - continue educational and enforcement efforts. Y Engineering Treatment Ranking Phase All other projects continues a 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. / Alll Other Projects. Top Priority Prolects (or more as staff and rec_QUrces all ) Non-CERR Streets within 6-m ute Response Time Zone CERR Streets and Non-CERR Streets de 6-minute Response Time Zone Process Summary . , Process Surnmarv - CEAP typically will not be required. - 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. LEAP 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. <66% support - don't. Yes - initiate full design process. Y NO YES Non-delay inducing esign Process Delay-Inducing D sign Process Process Summary Process Summa roject not i lemented. Project Impl mented. Neighborhood public involvement process Neighborhood public involvement process leading to P Neighborhood rect no can l reapply leading to project proposal. project proposal. to the (timeframe - 3 months) - Neighborhood ballot (residents and -Both delay-inducing & nondelay-inducing devices NTMP in 3 Years. homeowners) on proposal is decision-making available. continue education and process. - CEAP required for delay-inducing devices. enforcement efforts. -Neighborhood ballot (residents and property owners) on proposal determines whether proposal and associated CEAP proceeds. r 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. Lenforemt not imL ood caYE P in 3 ue edu~- - cenFinal Decision Point NO "Final Project Consideration" TAB/City Council Consideration of Project CEAP With nondelay designs, step is eliminated. Project Reassessment. Y (After 3 years.) Project Evaluation. Project Impl mented. >=60% support to remove - ,~(After t year.) (timeframe - 3 months) Device is removed. - A-ryr~c~(-M~titr c Boulder's Stage I11 Mitigation Traffic Calming Toolbox 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: - • Any street where speed control Is desired and adequate initial width exists • Any street where reduced line-of-sight is desired r-y Effectiveness: • Slows traffic by introducing a curved path to traverse Other Advantages: • Little to no impact on snow removal • Aesthetically pleasing • Provides landscaping opportunities • Changes the character of the roadway to a slower environment Delay to Emergency Vehicles: • Minimal on short segments with low traffic volume • May increase with length and traffic volume Other Disadvantages: • Expensive • May have little or no impact on cut-through traffic • Needs to be combined with narrowing or other traffic calming tools to have significant impact on speeds • May require additional R.O.W. to be effective • Motorists may cross the centerline to drive a straighter path Special Considerations: • Cannot be used where right-of-way is limited • May require removal of on-street parking Cost: • High - $30,000 and up depending on length, drainage, landscaping, R.O.W. etc. BOULDER NTMP- STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX 3 ENTRANCE BARRIER (Also known as: SEMI-DIVERTER DESCRIPTION: PHYSICAL BARRIER THAT RESTRICTS TURNS INTO A I SIDE STREET. CREATES A ONE-WAY SEGMENT AT THE INTERSECTION WHILE MAINTAINING TWO-WAY TRAFFIC FOR THE REST OF THE BLOCK. I I ~~pppAp ~T APPLICATION: • Local streets where cut-through traffic is a concern _ _ - - - - - • Local streets where vehicles from nearby facility circulate ( j CV looking for parking in the neighborhood I I I~ _Lj Effectiveness: 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: k • Minimal as long as no vehicles block the one way segment Other Disadvantages: • May redirect traffic to other local streets • May increase trip length for some drivers • In effect at all times; even If cut-through or parking problem exists only at certain times of day Variations: • May be used on diagonal comers at an intersection to further control neighborhood access Special Considerations: • Should not be used on critical emergency routes • Use only on local streets • Has little or no effect on speeds for local vehicles • Consider how residents will gain access to street • May effect on-street storm drainage Cost: $15,000 or more depending on landscaping, irrigation needs, storm drainage, etc. BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX ENTRY MEDIAN (Also known as: ENTRY ISLAND or NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTIFICATION ISLAN.: DESCRIPTION: f A RAISED ISLAND IN THE CENTER OF A TWO-WAY STREET ADJACENT TO AN INTERSECTION, TYPICALLY AT THE PERIMETER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD. APPLICATION: • Placed in a roadway to define the entry to a residential area 21t8~ and/or to narrow each direction of travel and Interrupt sight distance along the center of the roadway Effectiveness- * Vehicles slow down as they pass through the narrowed section Other Advantages: • Notifies motorists of change in roadway character • Opportunity for landscaping and/or monumentation for aesthetic improvements • May discourage cut-through traffic Delay to Emergency Vehicles: • 1 to 2 seconds Other Disadvantages: ~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 K (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- U O p ELIMINATING CHOKER, THEROADWAY IS LIMITED TOONE LANE OF TRAVEL FOR BOTH DIRECTIONS OF TRAFFIC WHERE THE NARROWING OCCURS, AND OPPOSING ono 000 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 stone 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 low DESCRIPTION:` RAISED ISLAND IN THE CENTER OF THE ROADWAY WITH ONE-WAY TRAFFIC ON EACH SIDE. THE LENGTH OF THE: l MEDIAN CAN VARY FROM 50' TO FULL BLOCK. APPLICATION: • Used on wide streets to narrow each direction of travel and to Interrupt sight distances down the center of the roadway Effectiveness: • Narrowed travel lanes provide "friction" and can slow vehicle speeds Other Advantages: • Changes the character of the roadway to a place where slower speeds are appropriate • Significant opportunity for landscaping and visual enhancement of the y 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 N desired Special Considerations: • Vegetation should be carefully designed not to obscure visibility between motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians at intersection and pedestrian crossing areas • Maintain 12 foot wide lane minimum on each side Cost: • $25,000 for short (50' landscaped median • Cost increases with length, landscaping, etc. BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX NECKDOWN (Also known as: CURB EXTENSION DESCRIPTION: SEGMENTS OF ROADWAY NARROWING WHERE ROADWAY EDGES OR CURBS ARE EXTENDED TOWARD THE CENTER OF THE ROADWAY. VEHICLES SLOW AS THEY PASS THROUGH THE NARROWED SECTION. asp----- APPLICATION: • Typically used adJacent to Intersections where parking Is restricted p • 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 it. 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 Other Disadvantages: • Creates drainage issues where curb and gutter exist n-d • May create hazard for bicyclists • May result in the loss of on-street parking Variations: • Mid-block neckdowns often used in conjunction with pedestrian crossing treatments • Can be designed with a curb chase to maintain existing flowline Special Considerations: • Curb extensions should not extend into bicycle lanes where present Cost: $25,000 and up depending on landscaping, pavement treatments and storm drainage considerations (need for new inlets) BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX 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 Delay to Emergency Vehicles: • None Other Disadvantages: • Public perceptions related to invasion of privacy • Vehicle owner may receive the ticket when they were not driving • May not influence unfamiliar motorists Special Considerations: • Vandalism may be an issue • May assess fines without points against drivers license • Will likely need to be deployed with other devices in series to extend the area of influence • Would need to be coordinated with variable speed limit in school zones if used near schools Cost: to implement system BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX MANENT SPEED MONITORING , rDISPLAY ~ DESCRIPTION: PERMANENTLY MOUNTED RADAR DISPLAY THAT INFORMS DRIVERS OF THEIR SPEED. APPLICATION: • Any street where speeding is a problem Effectiveness: • Will cause responsible drivers to slow down in the vicinity • Will cause unfamiliar drivers to slow down in the vicinity Other Advantages: • Educational tool • Same drivers may assume it is linked to photo radar Delay to Emergency Vehicles: • None Other Disadvantages: • Some motorists may speed up to try to register a high speed • Not self enforcing • Ongoing maintenance needed • May loose effectiveness on familiar motorists • Display may detract from neighborhood character Special Considerations: • Vandalism may be an issue Cost: • per installation BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX RED CROSSWALK (Al! so known as: RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING } DESCRIPTION: FLAT-TOPPED SPEED TABLE BUILT AS A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING. COMMONLY INCLUDES A MEDIAN REFUGE ISLAND, OR CURB G~ EXTENSIONS, OR BOTH TO SHORTEN CROSSING AND IMPROVE SAFETY. l~ 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 „j • Clearly designates the crosswalks • Opportunity for landscaping in median t.~ • Requires minimum maintenance; pavement markings must be maintained • Minimal impact on snow removal Delay to Emergency Vehicles: • 4 to 6 seconds per raised crossing Other Disadvantages: • May damage emergency response vehicles if not carefully designed • May increase traffic noise in vicinity of crosswalk • May create drainage issues where raised crossing extends from curb to curb Variations: • Specialty pavement treatments • With median refuge island ! • With curb extensions II With median island and curb extensions Special Considerations: • Appropriate near schools and recreation facilities • Should not be used on critical emergency response routes • Needs to be used in conjunction with other traffic calming devices to control speeds • If a new crosswalk location, may reduce available on-street parking Cost: $10,000 to $40,000 depending on median, curb extensions, pavement type, and irrigation needs BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX RAISED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION: 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: EMS) • Roadways where speed reduction or discouragement of 0-4 cut-through traffic is desired i i i i Effectiveness: • 2 to 8 mph reduction in average speed (similar to speed bump) Other Advantages: • Opportunity for attractive pavement treatments • Improved pedestrian safety at intersection Delay to Emergency Vehicles- - 4 to 6 seconds per intersection Other Disadvantages: • Requires storm drainage modifications ifs ItI! • May require bollards to define the comers of the intersections, r • Expensive IV ~~~~I li~~~ +ir 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 DESCRIPTION: REALIGNS "T"INTERSECTION TO MAKE THE "THROUGH MOVEMENT" A TURNING MOVEMENT. i APPLICATION: • Streets where It is desired to redirect traffic to another facility • Streets where slowing traffic as It enters the neighborhood is T desired Effectiveness: • Significant speed reduction on the former "through" street Other Advantages: • Provides landscaping opportunities • Discourages traffic from continuing through a neighborhood • Slows traffic as it enters a neighborhood • Breaks up sight-lines on straight streets Delay to EmergencV Vehicles: • Requires emergency vehicles to slow and negotiate a turn that didn't previously exist Other Disadvantages: • May redirect traffic to another local street • Speeds may increase on the former "side" street Variations: • Stop sign control on one leg • Stop sign control on all three legs • Neckdowns in the intersection .Special Considerations: • Storm drainage • Potential for redirecting traffic to adjacent local streets Cost: • $50,000 or more depending on landscaping, irrigation needs, storm drainage BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX RESTRICTED MOVEMENT BARRIER s DESCRIPTION: BARRIER ISLANDS THAT PREVENT CERTAIN MOVEMENTS I1 I AT AN INTERSECTION. APPLICATION: • Streets where reducing cut-through traffic is desired Effectiveness: • Can limit traffic on residential streets Other Advantages: • Redirects traffic to main street • Increases opportunity for landscaping in the roadway Delay to Emergency Vehicles: • Can create significant delay for some travel paths through the intersection Other Disadvantages: • May increase trip length for some drivers • May cause traffic to shift to another neighborhood street • Some vehicles disregard and drive around Variations: • Medians on main street that allow left and right turns in but restrict left turns out or straight across movement from side street Special Considerations: • Should not be used on critical emergency response routes • Has little or no affect on speeds for through vehicles Cost: $30,000+ depending on irrigation and landscaping BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX SPEED HUMP DESCRIPTION: SPEED HUMPS ARE AREAS OF PAVEMENT RAISED A MAXIMUM OF 4 INCHES IN HEIGHT OVER A LENGTH OF 12 FEET. THEY WORKBYFORCING MOTORISTS TO SLOW DOWN TO COMFORTABLY PASSOVER THEM. THEY ARE MARKED WITH SIGNS AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS. _ M ® O APPLICATION: • Local or collector streets where speed control is desired _ • Local or collector streets where cut-through traffic is to be []EZ 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 I' Delay to Emergency Vehicles: sFi • 3 to 6 seconds per hump Other Disadvantages: • May damage emergency response vehicles it not carefully designed • May increase traffic noise in vicinity of hump Special Considerations: • Should not be used on critical emergency response routes • Needs to be used in series or in conjunction with other traffic calming devices to control speeds • Longer designs can minimize impact on long wheelbase vehicles Cost: * Approximately $1,000 BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX STOP SIGN ' DESCRIPTION: STOP SIGNS AT INTERSECTION TO INDICATE WHICH APPROACHES ARE TO STOP. USED TO ASSIGN RIGHT-OF-WAY. 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 l l V Effectiveness: • Slow traffic in vicinity of intersection Other Advantages: • Require through traffic to stop at an intersection • Increase opportunities for pedestrians to cross the roadway ® • May discourage cut-through traffic Delay to Emergency Vehicles: • 1 to 12 seconds depending on traffic volume and congestion Other Disadvantages: • May create compliance problems where motorists do not acknowledge the need to stop • Safety issues for pedestrians when compliance is poor • Mid-block speeds may increase as motorists try to make up for lost time • Noise and air pollution increased • Unwarranted stop signs not supported by traffic engineers • May increase traffic accident frequency Variations: • Can be installed as an all-way stop application Special Considerations: • Should not be used on critical emergency response routes • New stop locations may require additional sanding during winter months Cost: $500 to install per intersection (includes stop bars on pavement) • Cost may increase it enforcement is required BOULDER NTMP - STAGE III MITIGATION TOOLBOX "101r TRAFFIC CIRCLE DESCRIPTION: I~ TRAFFIC CIRCLES ARE RAISED CIRCULAR MEDIANS IN AN i INTERSECTION WITH COUNTERCLOCKWISE TRAFFIC FLOW. VEHICLES MUST CHANGE THEIR TRAVEL PATH TO MANEUVER i AROUND THE CIRCLE AND ARE TYPICALLY CONTROLLED BY "YIELD ON ENTRY" ON ALL APPROACHES. 55 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 A • Vehicles slowed to 15 or 20 mph through the circle ^~•~•m0•a••W at Y K(MbN•• 17 Other Advantages: • Provides increased access to street from side street • Breaks up sight-lines on straight streets 15 -Opportunity for landscaping in the intersection Delay to EmergencV Vehicles: • 2 to 10 seconds per circle depending on the design Other Disadvantages: • Definition of right-of-way is contrary to the "yield to the vehicle on the right" rule • Relatively expensive if curb extensions are required • May impede left turns by large vehicles ri • On streets with bicycle facilities, bikes must merge with traffic around circle Variations: • With or without neckdowns on the comers • 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 Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood. These Proposals are not options; they are just a place to begin a conversation regarding traffic mitigation in the Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood. CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE 1 Photo Red/Speed on Green: 19th and Floral Ped Signal with Photo Red and Speed: Edgewood between Nicholl and Nicholl Permanent Speed Display: 19th (2) South of Elder facing north and North of Cedar facing south Balsam (2) and 17th facing East and West Alpine (2) between 15th and 17th facing east and between 1400 block facing west Edgewood (4) at 21st facing east and west, at Loraine Ct. facing east, and between 23rd and 24th facing east CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE 2 Traffic Circles: Elder (2) on 17th and 19th Cedar (2) on 17th and 19th Balsam (1) on 17th Alpine (1) on 17th Edgewood (3) at 21st, Nicholl and 24th Partial Median: Elder (1) between 14th and 15th Alpine (1) between 14th 15th CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE 3 Speed humps: Elder (3) between Jefferson and Washington, between 14th and 15th, and at 17th Cedar (2) East of 14th and West of 17th Partial Median: Alpine (3) West of 14th, West of 15th, and West of 17th 19th (3) South of Evergreen, North of Cedar, and between Evergreen and cedar Edgewood (6) between 19th and 20th, between 21 and Nichol], 2 between Nicholl and Loraine Ct., West of Loraine Ct, and between 23rd and 24th Traffic Circle: Balsam and l7th ~ '..c.Z_i `MI .~P d I:. Y - 1"~'d.. ir_'d✓.. _ !r 15,: r f~~ ~ -I I ~ V h d Rf ~ i . • T + _a-~-,N S---ii~ 'm m X... Y ~ °~I f, I _ a ,~e~ ~I--wl _ "e _SE n 4 '-~i 0 r' ~ Q ~ I : w ~ ` 1C Y p (N r - : ~ rG h :,rd., ~ ~ . ~r ':~i t'1{~ a I, v~ FERPL *'4A,o Y.' k F '~fit•~iOf ^'Gr~a ~.JS y _ ?t r j -7, f,. .I. ir~-. ,a , ~_•.x Ir-+L~.. _>~-y~^, :_r _.n~ ° t /!W `SAP i,: •p ~G~ I'l ~ r~i I I . ,,i... F / ,fit ar r`P _is. !e,, J ...A ~L 'm I~ f3[i a~ .I~ ~IzJ IL ! + II G'`L~a f..- Fa Gr+.r IF+` ti. R - IF 11 . I." ~T Z' T ~.,1~ .r~ ~ K • ; I rs "1 . I ~ I r' 'vctA a ~ uT<~ i I 0 J~ r ♦ r^`~ o ✓ 'y, a ~ r3 'y:' e.:ln, " ti-, . I xC:.4 IM- n. v:..~..C ~ n: Ai.Y ~ .d"(~ ~ /_i f✓, 'S^I 'a.~ t ~ ~r . v.. _ - Gwyn _ , ~--r ~ p ~ ' 9J",k.-•" -C . ~{ya •.d. wl ~ "D P ~ ~ O. i ~ • ~ ~ ~ j 1~7X-` l~ Iy'.. :I 't . h f'' 9 'k''~ ~,r- I ~4. y •e/`.y..,.. Y: sx'~h... I## ' V+ I~' VSd r'•: W w' .iL " I„3f~ I .Y f®-~ J. `~T` m - ' r t x.!'^ ~ I \~V~ i>"f'_ •i F Yr-, O -1p i., I 1 .,a 'i C{"'.,rp.'r. ."-'fr-.'~^„I. r+Okr~i h"®r'_1 .}`+r.®It `aYtil!;>. e. I:'$ II,-_-J u,rv~go i, F"S+1°`, '.~.rrI~I}'r • ~ t ,,.,~I ",AYU'^7+' 'i ~_tll., ~ ,+:ti _ _ r~G~jj ti•1K~ .s,.`'.r~ t.. ,'1>ai.~`.L--++'M'.'.~: m.; : Y ~ - r ptir. s. •,J . 1. 'F~....'; ~ n.. , _..:,.;r~ - a ~::I e ~ . dr F' ( _ A~"a1. T` r <f,y ~ I fi...q:~ I~ \'6 {rG" . F.~,,. + ; °.r1.7ty' xi rr.° 1.~ ~R' t re j F "'Lai r.T,' xtll Jfi,«$s I 1 Ir` n'Cfi ~~~~'Y:`,y;1p jgvrr A R.t'u♦ = I " OiS~ «S q ~I .r'+. I♦ , ~\~n+IR~,s II"r::~4.1 1.:./ ".(T,,. w/_.~'nY~' Vii: a C .f... , "4 ♦ r' „w' _ _ > u E ~.~It M-t-+h`r_,r I. 1 .'f..~1 ::4 r ju AA C ~ I~ +--~y HE L .-~A'-. Burk ~ µ i ~ II I'. it ~ ~ P r" r rF ' JM 11' x ~~r r ; 1 l: ,I 4T WIT-41 i T 6J° I +Yr r! 4 Y.' rn, V I e: :r' 1 ~ x, r r- ~ • a T°".I C-' r k'j,_ M ~ I ~ ~f, t^ ~ _ , ay_ 6r9..."--.51 Q 1 { ♦ fr ^:f r,. IL+I ~G/ F' R r~ ~l"2~ ~s r rb wf Er r 'l r( 7~S'f~ ~ _ w fir, f'.~^1`. rt~~~ , i. tttttt,,,,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,,...... _ '-r;`k F- RCI. ar'.' f€3-' - 'C`+',ts,~n~rt~ ~a(J'i/Q r;?;,y~`~ t s ` h. . n~~ w4 .1; ~~~~~~a il._ I~ F~~ ~r ~-.r:~ i~_"' ~uri I -mod ~R ~?d~ Ys~ .A~i41 'afiCr ~r4~~~.'~ ~ I~ \ r:1; ,T, i :--'ib~s'~'• h.l 1 c'-,t Fn 1a' fffffif..~ ovw, 7, 1 k L"'(P :L A_~''_ I ~'7".' a 1,a w+l„ r~ 'A,':~r'F~,~ •y P~ a• ,~u,{..~',ab ";..---'rt-.° } 'r, _ ,rte ;I _YC v(gL4-WhV, - 4' _ - 'M „~~2"~,•i}dYl i .'+I'.• p" • d Y"i v+ AJ. ♦ r"ts I•-"^r"-i F#:n~ jeft _pg~g~ g~ r ~f~...r+.. LI+. * i ter-, !'k' All, Iw:r~' S 1, . ~ ",.:a .:v. - fie: - r •,~7.'Prr p"-. • 4-:'~ 1~ .5`>•+,F~. I~p,le w'T- ~ ~u1•t~ ~:~.Y ,F I:. .P'lP~'. d+ .1,~ ~r V• + r., t.y'4' - ~I _ ' •i. ,wuuu.l:i mi_^s] r+, • - I14 R_Y f . ~'?~""La, 1r•~ ri k f., I. F, 72t ~ R NN- i1. b+~: r' p1 _.i P y~~r• 'yl`rm . k+ c;~ , ."•`m.- ~r'h- x: A} - ACS-vJ v +I - 3, o X kr - r AL, Fy,I -ALPINE •NEA_ _ P. X11 :b,i+'~:+' wp~lydi..,. G L:' c Ayft N'' Y'131` ..-:,.._._C, ..-rw.,F'~..': ,a}+wj.-.-t,~•P'-__1';~. I „i_~'I ,r'~9',.:,y~aaT ,w.-a'mraar *:i P4dw: i :G~1- 1.1 'V- ~F. ~Mf"+ 'i.H: '~rf4.fi. S}',f~. :I. ~.",sr ._::r .~41~'~.1. 7' yS r fir. yf-+' a ~+~C' ~ ~ fFf•' +.a`~" 4v'A'_" 0 q1. If~4; d!. :.~~,,,r ~ `^l~{tti~ ~.ti-*` a"":~ j ~..h 7- 'e~~q',4~ ~I' al~r,~ r F - t A"1. ~f e~.- ~W* yy-r^I'•I " i\ -~L ~r, ~'ii ~,w F ~ r ` ' I' : .:.V - R..` n` ,w•w.-,~, y'~ y:J .~t7'Y c \~'1g' ~r'~'~. .a - -a-r3d_-#fs%;! wt+y.:::r tt+ pSy~ 5i ~ A.~,. •r~€ I~ I~JI.r I r•11s ~~'f i F~~ ~((~..''f i `rA rtly-, ' 4 ~ ~ 'r ~'~`.uyF + 1.: _ {I + n ~ s. r~ ~ LFr,,, 4i . fii,o. , Fc \ u ~y 1. ~ aC•.m C ,I ~ : /-e:~'~' ~ ~y ~ .S. 'Fs~gi! s+, t ~ ~ ~v+ .^ti. ~ ' il'., i'1 Flu + k,.. ~~1 .ICI ~ 4^ ul -T`'Nf . e•^ r. ~ : S'`f ,r ~ . ✓'I i.. Y a ~ _7r . a N •r► 7 ~A"~`^~' 2 i'~TT. ~ ~ I .-•r.-":•. 1 ~ ~ /b. •.f-.. r ~r ~1~~. i~._ I, s_`~° ~.'f "}r ~ ~ I :..5~ ~ .-.,'.,`r}' ~.~[r'2'.+►+,~!'` S4+.^,. .i..~,t CI,rR. 8 1" r r ~~G`r~{~ ~"iv . ,fL ~1 .i. _ rrlc'~'. ~ v?•' at .yLl.f ±f,f" ~ ~h 1~, ^ r "'~Gf-c'« r - - ~•'l~~i' U" r r:aa i~.r .C1y~, ^•'!VI r•.1 j X. 1 11 , ra C r4 ~a ^•i7 SV._~ t.. •:±:G/~ -T-r-~i r,h :+a' 'f. Imo' ! 1 f I' T..~~1'~'/F~` /_ar. - - ~--t - .~~t.,~ 11~ 4 ltlt i7~,~QL -_w - - ,r-T : ~ Enftcsr a~rr !rR.+v: ..re', ppp~ppp Ly ~'~4"" +e^ riw:.! "I r i6 t `Lm°ASr " Cr ,,r ~ - - ~ .I r• Ir ^ P.,;" . •r .I ~-Ir p,Y'~i r °e 7 I~ d~l rr f k~op o ,%~S3yft d i ~ ~_.I~ f ~'7 t,4" _ x4 ~ _Jr~f -~Ii~ ~ (<<`~„ f~~l s a V.~ Aml t~`~ 3;''," 1<y-`r `..»'.I tl ._+1,9 iT= - I~I~~ III✓ ''Ir• 1 .I" I~~ r (1;~ °'r~ ~ F ylq ~ , f?'V J A ~„,~I ~ ~J-f v1~ ~P~~ ~ ~ 'I ~ ~i ♦ r ~ ~e (4 1 ' fr' ' I' - e _ _ C - 1 ftN PL t oH~ - '~rS'6,~, j. 7 t =-d f- I '^%rn m k } S• . . i t',i* : fyr'lr j~ s' J: ii rX:,:. J i~r r~r•/1~ t ~....~J`t o:' `ri!'~ a i~-l~~' I{{{ T~rr'. ~M, I r ~ Jfy rf -~.r~ •r rf ',.f- x I ~ ~ 4 •.f` 1`'- Y / ri lh A ;~:t/:4 4r``<., ~ I t,t~. ± ~ p rl C7 ~ ~ V 3~~P"-' ^V' " L'~I@;i: `n i~, ,`•4' r ~ .n ~ f, :!'''f` 9r i . ,y:,:: f,~'M ~':f(M _ rt.•:,, i. " ~ 3N'w4'r ~ ~ i IJ' Y ' I~ ~-~r _ F ',5+~~'r`~ J ,y ~ ".rl-k 1Y ` ,.,al E:. z f'-Y. _wc wn ''4® ''~~l!. t: 4 e' .~1u~''~r ~a .-xa~, ' •r~K-lr~ if. #~l' 1 Y _ I.~4 1. ~3:\,~ ~ .-k^,~'••... / k:.M' ftrAa-'rT ~ I~.. l+ 'r -t% ~i= +_'t _ s r ,art r-q~ r,- 1 ~ I f f f , 'J of ~ ~ / r i ifr k :`J s _ r° ? ~ eql',~ ti''Z~- ,R 'v •r~i rv' •~Fd p., !gq~f•, :V '~~-`^,t, i. N~,. ,r` »,j y p ''4,. __:.R_.. III Ili 4--t e+- ~"ft ,~-v- I ('il~•e,;,.4„i',~~ 54' \''Q r N ` .r f 1 f f" 65 A~' e . :a M~. I t -,Y ~'a'» ~ «k A~ `•-~.r`-~- °F ,.I ~~~i 6-, ~ •r-® I . 4'i€"" ®,I II~'zrs.~in~_e.N41 + ~..I'"F ~ ~'s* .r . f~rr i # .~I t Yt.x ; I~ , ~ LL I~r I t s Yn S" r x.~ JlaI r r ~sf t. ° ri d ' - r ` ,r r r i r l ~ O ~ »:'e ~ i- ~ ~ i r ♦ 1. t. L ,r'-r - y Fa J-F •'wi e8'• H.... 1`tj, ~ r_.~ r I! ur ~ ~IK+V-: I~t' i .a m 1 ~ r~i. F.:n' I _ f(s ~ s + ~ E~. ' ~i~ J r-e, ~ fi t~ .~~~I I,rM ~ ~ fi - f 9 ~ ~ J f I Il_t_.. - L ' _ 1AFµ ..n:. ♦ OErwODU 11 Ir c _J, HETND'~?L ry I' f I O M l \ fa. 1. ~v'„, -`~",r r. ,'-+r d /1 .r k'd✓~• ¢,j } at ~wJ~ co fR' u~ • _t. ~`".a• _ > - ~r _ IIr~~.,F. ~,A T..r I , I~I ~ ^'41 i` i,1~. v r ,J. Q ' ~t '!J r - i • 09,3.9 y'', r'` f« e. ~~f Y fI "Ii^.w hs ~i,II 4 a}r ,lr~ 4._ `"3 '~iF' \ ' ©1 t w"_ ~Pf_ ~~1 mil.` ~'ri f SE k~ II' III •I ,'J -_k:,., ____r '.z~...- ~L yam' l_ _ A., tan {_♦i \ \ R - EDGEYL c: C~. F+~=5~~.': K'+/~\ -,f u ~ L-~~ li I~ II dli. y~rAi'• '.E~-•~.yJS I a3~...t 1. Ta a-.i1. +kCS' 1 ~t 1 A ..w:r r'ef' f ' 1 rv •E!. r H.``7~ M F k•~'~♦^-Y° ,..1 y ~ ' f r ~„rn°'h.^I" 4 F J 'r, fr:~.., t~ • ~ ~ ^r . ~TF+ - e- 'r r • ' t ^ I < ~ I' I I h ~ I m sf' a'' !1a -i. .n 1 ~ f r f ~ 1 ~ `,I iL 41 1i 6- Iy['a _ _ e I'y _ t ! `p~^T~~~+.'+~, ~ ~ ~ t I . p ~ %E.(,;~ 1aR Y!-!t} 7~' atr ..9AFaA ~ - .~,.i r..> Iy♦, /lo - ' . ® = S BALSAM AYE _.~.'l .J n -E3AM DR_ •r I --AL dAVI9V Y}~ r ~ ~ c faL+. wA nE.}~_~'I~.l e t -I ~ ~~f ' ~r :I - aA9 -`I~ i r ~I -r` ` ,~„et i,('G✓ :I ~A s 1 1~ p f _ r"la~ ':fr'~ r r ~ ' . I: M ~ I t,.b ,.f ' f~"~5i.. ~ t . '~i~ r' r` . _e~ ' Jw.e.~',,' ~ ~ ~ ffffff- :u ~ ~ y . Ir ~ 21 f~,,4' P - , k a.iF s. r) y~, f ~R' 1,~ I '*AII1 PP ..I-1 'CC - $q, Vi F' 7 •w--_ _ ,.mow / --R .~Y',%I z 1 r t._. •'Y.WU!M , -.N. 1W Y.. _ , J :F"M I.NI x'f ' RaI R (i6'x' (K r . i 'tom 1r~'I +i- ~I.~r kr ! ~ r~';~ A . - \ ~ - ~A p-•♦rfrC Y ~7•~ •c ~''Pa ~qi y: I 1 L _ 1- III !A C~, ti SG .r E ALL WAY " 'ALPINEAVE ~~j ~ - •A ALPINE.A~ 77, 'w~`i. , , :i*!r~sJ~ ~ t' •°*>.2p ~.k~r f ~ N .~3~~y~y _~~r~ Y rDr~ t rte.. ~I y~1V ~f / ,/^Jpr ~ i r I .f^~ ~ y,l_ ,r ~ r-•br - Y-+ T ° ~ Jf s+ t ,~~~llfff v 1 ~'v" q ,I~i 'Y R •ifLL Y « i itx t 31J F l :.-t! r.. i - i e :it ,•t/ F,Yf• ~ai:..1k~ r..?. xj:~'.A t '"i 'G~'a✓' e l~ ~'I ' M.: ✓ ~a .s r fri• r r* b , h Lr ..a , j~ r w a •T••. ' o. _1 _ ~ c.'t' ~ r5' n ~ ; k' f -We F yy I III r ~ ~ ~ J ~ V... J ] J'• ~ . ,y , 4~~.iJ1 ! _.+r k/' Y ~ . 4.^. i f~ A^ _-'F°- _ _ ' t~ C,n. s i i r' G j i a Y ,a.rts.• trt 2~-+i'ra r,, t : % to~~ 'I_. -l t' ~ .-~'~~lr r'-~:. .-r 'r"'~ .w rc 1~'r''.- Y\ r ,.h ~ ~+pn. r• ra ti I. "A~JrI:.~, _ J"_~ f -.~""4'. yMI'' r`r'f f`,,• C~"'j, t t•,:Z"' `i+~ \ L1°pp11JJ Yt"", r'"i 1 I..' r ;i`I++! z , _~'~..s - r r,{p <wf j i,. c, i \t a . ~'K . . • , L trTr .r { L. sfi! . 'tA'^.C' .k.u` " =dam{, e!„~_ tr_ ,t4~,.- a1 ~ _ L. s1 1 - '•,\r SSS_.xal._ ATTACHMENT E Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood Input 2"d Meeting Pros: • Zip Cons: • Excessive stop/start of vehicles causes noise problems for homes close to the signal • Causes increased pollution Permanent Speed Displays Pros: • Generally considered good effect • Speed control on Edgewood should be for both directions. • Wide Supported for use on 19'" Cons: • Not as effective late at night, ignored or sometimes used by young people as a race challenge Photo Red/Speed on Green Pros: • Permanent radar is better than mobile because then drivers would know it is always active rather than random. • Wherever photo radar is placed, it should be very clear to drivers with signs, etc. Cons: • Zip Traffic Circles Pros: • Best where traffic volume is balanced • One individual felt if mitigation (traffic circles) was consistent throughout neighborhood their effectiveness would increase Cons: • Negatives are. bike safety, pedestrian safety, emergency response times • Traffic does not slow enough and the ones on Balsam are considered dangerous and too noisy • Would like to see speeds down to 15 mph at circles • Want more signs, lights, street painting, etc. to warn drivers? • Could there be increased fines for speeding through circles, such as double fines? • Seems to be a safety concern when a side street and through street intersect at a circle and especially at T circles • A particular concern is that car lights go into residential windows when they are making turns around circles or other curving sections (many homes are close to major roads) • There is a need to increase education regarding the use of traffic circles • Many are concerned if too many are on the same street then slowing emergency response vehicles could be a serious issue • Supported for use on 19ih although not encouraged neighborhoods feel it is over kill Medians Pros: • Zip Cons: • Do not like full block medians • Concerned with traffic flow close to homes - don't push cars away from the center but perhaps push them away from the road edges, but concerned with pushing cars and bikes together • 19'h street residents do not lace-safety concerns-backing out of driveway, etc. Speed Humps, Raised Crosswalks, Raised Pedestrian Crossing • 12 households on Elder would like some type of speed hump/raised crossing-they prefer raised ped crossing--a safe. place for their children to cross and an effective tool to mitigate speeding in their neighborhood. Related Issues: • Treat the whole area in a uniform way - spread out the devices rather than just concentrated on 1 or 2 streets. General concern is that overdoing controls on Balsam & Edgewood may divert higher speed traffic to Alpine/Cedar. • Lower speed limit on 19's to 25 miles per hour • Install deer crossing signs • Have a dialogue with RTD to see if smaller quieter buses could be used on 19th • There is a general concern with large trucks on Alpine, Balsam, Edgewood. • On street parking is not very important. • Bike and pedestrian safety is very important. There is a lot of bike and pedestrian traffic on Edgewood. • The curve at the eastern end of Edgewood is a major problem. • Anything on Edgewood must consider flood zone issues With the small % average over the speed limit, maybe nothing further is needed there Others think drivers must be slowed and photo radar and/or speed displays are better option than construction on Edgewood ATTACHMENTF Balsam/Edgwood NH Traffic Mitigation Proposal - Cost Estimates and other Information Mitigation Device Location Parking Loss? CERR? Emer ena Impact on CERR ,Cost Estimata Speed Hump Elder between Washington & Jefferson $ 2,000.00 Speed Hump Elder east of of 15th Street $ 2,000.00 - - Speed Hump Cedar west of Ellison - $ 2,000.00 Speed Hump Cedar between 16th & 17th $ 2,000.00 Remove STOP signs Cedar at 15th Street intersection $ 500.00 Entry Island and Ped Refuge AI ine east of 13th Street 3 spaces es Maybe (1-2 seconds) $ 9,000.00 Pedestrian Refuge Island Alpine east of 14th Street 4 spaces es Maybe (1-2 seconds) $ 7,000.00 Permanent Speed Display (WB) Alpine & 17th Street 1 spaces yes None $ 8,000.00 Permanent Speed Display (EB) $ 8,000.00 Permanent Speed Display (WB) Balsam & 1-7th Street es None i$ 8,000.00 ~ y~ Permanent Speed Display (EB) Balsam & 17th Street 1 space es None $ 8,000.00 with Curb Extension $ 2,000.00 EXISTING Permanent Speed Display (NB) 19th Street between Elder and Cedar I yes None EXISTING! Permanent Speed Display (SB) 19th Street between Elder and Cedar 1 s ace yes None $ 8,000.00 With Curb Extension $ 2,000.00 Permanent Speed Display (WB) Ed ewood west of 21 st Street es _ None $ 8,000.00 Permanent Speed Display (EB) Ed ewood west of 21st Street 1 space es None 14,000.00 with Curb Extension and Flood Mitigation Permanent Speed Display (WB) Edgewood east of Nichol yes None $ 8,000.00 Permanent Speed Display (EB) Edgewood east of Nichol 1 space _ yes None $ 14,000.00 with Curb Extension and Flood Mitigation Net Parking Loss = 12 spaces $ 112,500.00 ATTACHMENT F L LIr z I - x rf I l( e.,4x. E._.._'ny. 4* Existing - Exist •r , Ex --CEO Y _ Seed Hum a Seed um 71 w ~m S®peed Hump FERIJ Exisnn r Speed Hump Traffic Circle I- w _ Seed Hum " Existing 30 Permanent PFF" w ~ - 25 Speed Went / Y Permanent Display Peed ii~ I F am svFm Existing P y Dis la ; 30 Permanent r spew f 1 ~LL` Disay s~E EIII Seed Hum v x oo Speed Hum NE Traffic Circle t ' - " ' y, Feasibility of permanent photo radar is being considered as an alt - ernative to permanent speed TM;f ~ displays alon Ed . • s Remove all-way stop in IF conjunction w/speed hum BALSAM AVE- h"u"°' s 7 a ° v~~ 25 25 Permanent - _ ®k rnanent Speed Entry Island" , Median w/Ped Refu e F Speed Display -1 4n ` Display ran LP E VE A . _.,tN _777T,4 a a s . s~o l n Permanent THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL. - - ` - o speed DEVICE LOCATIONS ARE Display APPROXIMATE. O m ; -7LL van . tom- ~ s~EO i 7 Is I r P r ' - Seed Hum `'Seed Hum S eed Hum' BALSAM / EDGEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSPLAN Conceptual Traffic Calming Plan 1 ASSOCIATES, INC. a member of the SEH gmp Scale Date 10/15/02 Drawn by RAC Job# ABOULD0213.00 Figure ATTACHMENT G Balsam/Edgewood Final Meeting Input Balsam/Edgewood Traffic Mitigation Proposal Input May 21, 2002 - Plan looks great - 19th St. looks good; concern about Alpine traffic circle. Perhaps a lot of money for little effect. Could be overkill, since there are not a lot of houses there. (At this point the Alpine Traffic Circle has been removed from the proposal) - Like to see slowing on 19`h, not sure if display is effective. Maybe signal or traffic circle. - Table or humps might be better on 191h for slowing. - Reduction of speed limit may also help. Speed displays may not help much. - Question about average speed study - actual speeds seem faster and house vibrates. - Traffic concern over volume and size of trucks. - Speed sensitive signal as an option. - "Fines doubled" signs. - Don't need three speed humps on Elder. - 80% support speed humps? - What are police doing on Friday and Saturday nights? Cost-effective to go after kids? Requires 50 to 100 officers to deter. - Dummy police cars as a deterrent? - 19`h is an issue, also an emergency route. - Need something on Alpine. - 23r1 and Edgewood - possible to put in a crosswalk? Pedestrian signal, flashing light east of intersection on 23. r1 1 Teresa Spears - Re: Bluff/Folsom traffic mitigation From: Donald Machen <dmachen@att.net> To: "Bill Cowern' <cowern B@ci. boulder, co. us> Date: 08/31/2002 1:39 PM Subject: Re: Bluff/Folsom traffic mitigation CC: <jmachen@att.net>, <spearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Mr. Cowern, Thanks for the informative note and we appreciate the efforts being taken. We would hope, however, that a Bluff/Folsom connection modification similar to what was done for the Mapleton/Folsom connection to the east could be done as well. We feel that this is the only way to really calm the traffic entering Bluff. I hope we don't have to await an injury or worse before something is done. Thanks again for your help, Don Machen 2512 Bluff At 2:29 PM 0700 8/30/02, Bill Cowern wrote: >Content-Type: text/html >Content-Description: HTML > Don: The City has developed a traffic mitigation plan for the >Whittier NH, which includes traffic mitigation ( two speed humps ) on >Bluff Street. It is our expectation that any speeding traffic or >diverted traffic would be mitigated by these devices. I would also >expect that it would make Bluff Street a less tempting cut-through >street. The neighborhood meeting phase of that project is already >completed, but balloting for the project is underway. If you live within >400 feet of one of these devices, you should receive a ballot in the mail >which will ask you to either vote for or against the particular >mitigation device. Following the balloting, we shall be taking this >plan before our Transportation Advisory Board on the 2nd Monday evening >in October. Shortly thereafter, it will be reviewed by the City >Council. Those are the remaining public process elements of this >project. If you would like more info on the remaining process (or what >has occurred to date), you should contact Teresa Spears at 303-441-3266. > My initial evaluation of safety impacts did not reveal any issues at >Bluff & Folsom which would be mitigated by engineering or traffic control >changes. I do not anticipate any physical changes to the intersection >itself at this time. We are considering a reduced speed limit on Folsom >through that area (to match the 30 mph speed limit north and south of >there). This may help as well. If you have further input or >questions, please feel free to contact me directly. > Sincerely, Bill Cowern >Transportation Operations Engineer >City of Boulder >303-441-3266 >cowernb@ci.boulder.co.us file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW 00009.HTM 10/16/200'.' Donald Machen <dmachen@att.net> 08/30/02 04:05PM >Mr. Cowern: >We own the house at 2512 Bluff St. Our concerns are for child and overall >safety on Bluff St. My wife and I met with Teressa Spears regarding the >various traffic-mitigation projects ongoing in Boulder a couple of weeks >ago. She mentioned that the Bluff/Folsom intersection had been turned over >to you as a possible capital-improvements project. >We are quite concerned about the speed at which cars enter Bluff >from both >the north- and south-bound directions on Folsom, as well as the general >usage of Bluff as a high-speed through street. We urge you to find an >appropriate plan for slowing the traffic and/or making the use of Bluff >less attractive to drivers. >We would appreciate receiving notification of public meetings regarding the >traffic problem in and around Bluff/Folsom. >Thanks for your help, >Don and Judy Machen >2512 Bluff St. >Boulder rle://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW 00009.HTM 10/16/200' Teresa Spears - BalsamlEdgewood straw vote From: Marie Zuzack To: Spears, Teresa Date: 0510212002 1126 AM Subject: Balsam/Edgewood straw vote Hi Teresa, I received your packet yesterday and have had a chance to look it over. I would vote for Alternative 1. I see that my reasons for preferring #1 and disliking #2 and #3 reflected in the comments of some others: - My house is at the corner of Elder & 17th. I am opposed to traffic circles and speed bumps/raised crossings because cars slowing/braking and re-accelerating going around or over these devices creates a lot of extra noise for those houses/ yards close by. I have walked by circles and bumps elsewhere in town: That additional braking and re-accelerating noise is real. I also am concerned about the additional air pollution this causes in the area near the circle or bump. - Also, with a traffic circle at 17th/Elder, there would be headlights shining into my windows at night. Right now, when cars turn from Elder onto 17th, their headlights shine into my living room and bedroom windows (even with shades down). Fortunately it's not a lot of cars. I'm concerned with a circle at 17th/Elder that would become a lot of headlights. - As a frequent pedestrian and bicyclist, I find that traffic circles make crossing an intersection: - difficult because it's not clear if the cars will or even should stop or slow for you the pedestrian/bicyclist; - dangerous-feeling because they push you into the car flow area just as drivers are pre-occupied with navigating around the obstacle; and - somewhat awkward to bike around. I do support photo radar and speed displays to control traffic speeds. They're effective on me! And I think they're fair. I see a con listed for speed displays is that they're not as effective late at night. I would think speeding cars shoulc be less of a concern late at night - presumably people are asleep. Other traffic-slowing measures that I like are landscaped medians and narrowing the road with landscape strips along the curb. People instinctively drive more slowly on a narrower road. This method avoids the noise, pollution and headlight problems that circles and bumps/raised crossings cause. It does feel a little tighter for bicyclists sharing the road with cars, but at least it doesn't create an obstacle course for bicyclists and pedestrians, as circles and bumps do. Also, landscape medians and strips are attractive. I do realize they may be more expensive to maintain. Teresa, thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment. Please keep me on your mailing list. Marie file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW 00008.HTM 10/16/200" ,age o:, Teresa Spears - Traffic circle # 4 From: Jason Savela <jasonsavela@hotmail.com> To: <spearst@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 09/18/2002 1:12 PM , Subject: Traffic circle # 4 d Dear Sir or Madam: I am a homeowner at 1927 Bluff Street in Boulder. Our house is at the northwest corner of 20th and Bluff where you are considering putting a traffic circle. I request that you reject that position as it will increase noise on a noisy street. Twentieth is a main bus route and also a highly traveled artery between Pearl Street and North Boulder. As the name Bluff suggests, there is a hill just north of Bluff street. Currently, as busses or other large vehicles travel past my house, their engines make a lot of noise. I notice busses the most because sometimes they stop near the corner. If they were required to slow down because of a traffic circle, then every large vehicle will make lots of noise while climbing the hill. I am aware of traffic problems, but I think the noise problem must be considered also. If a traffic circle is necessary, then please do something to eliminate the noise of busses and other large vehicles in my otherwise quiet neighborhood. Sincerely, Jason and Amy Savela I i j ule://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW) 00009.HTM 10/16/2004 H V ATTACHMENT 14 ~i ~eru,nt AV[ P V G R L LEN 0 E O y F ETA E N W ~ A P O M A! L PN DR E6 F ~ 11L..111 s CITY OF BOULDER ATTACHMENT I Department of Public Works/Transportation Division / PO Box 791 4 1739 Broadway Boulder, Colorado 80306 (303) 441-3266 (303) 441-4271 FAX September 6, 2002 Dear Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood resident or property owner: The city of Boulder's Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program (NTMP) has been working with the Balsam/Edgewood 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/pwnlan. Thank you for participating in this neighborhood poll. Sincerely, Teresa pears NTMP Liaison - ATTACHMENTI Traffic Mitigation Devices Balsam/ Edge ood Neighborhood 1 14-- 1:] r 1Iy t F n tAV' _T 1 L - 1 ~ h I J r I .I I _ _ ' -t- TI_ I r- J CEDAR AV 'AM L! 'T Y ,-4 I - KEY 15-Proposed Speed Hump 16-Proposed Speed Hump 17-Proposed Speed Hump 18-Proposed Speed Hump 21-Existing Speed Hump 22-Existing Speed Hump 23-Existing Speed hump Legend ATTACHMENT A W - E Scale in Feet ~ Traffic Mitigaton Device Property Parcel 500 0 500 S All distances are approximate. ~ a r.m..eom e~o~ Am/Ye9 6 +L EavC ATTACHMENTI NEIGHBORHOOD POLL Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Project Should one speed hump on Elder Avenue located between Washington Street and Jefferson Street (Number 15 on enclosed map) be included in the Balsam/Edgewood 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. Balsam / Edgewood Delay-Inducing Traffic Mitigation Device Voting Results Revised Mitigation Device * Vote Crosstabulation Vote % Voter Support Mitigation Device Yes No Total Support 60% Proposed Speed Hump, on Elder between Washington and Jefferson 13 7 20 65% Passes Proposed Speed Hump, on Elder between 14th and 15th St 21 6 27 78% Passes Proposed Speed Hump, on Cedar between 14th and Ellison 10 11 21 48% No Proposed Speed Hump, on Cedar between 16th and 17th St 8 10 18 44% No Existing Speed Hump, on Floral Between 20th and Rep lier St 2 3 5 40% No Existing Speed Hump, on Floral between 21st and 22nd St (East) 2 4 6 33% No Existing Speed Hump, on Floral between 21 st and 22nd St (West) 5 1 6 83% Passes Total 61 42 103 Vote Results 102802 10/28/2002 ATTACHMENT K , ~ r r Y s 5 Exlsung CIN_ m_m ua Speed Hume * ~a Ews q a'- y Speed Hump Traffic CIfGB eedHum® E,ust1 Permanent ~ 61 en 4 1 - T, Speed 25 Permanent a t r ; ; " Display S Peed r ~sw g Display e , , _ 30 permanent 47 ~ t ~ Speed . Display z" y > ILL n. s w r Traffic Circle _ Feasibility being conse n _y - radar i beitlred photo as alternative to permanent speed displays along Ed ewood .e AVE p Till, - SPEED ,k 25 Permanent O o C7 r*" y„ ; ~ ~ . r, ,,,~„,y,~,~, ~ 25 Pernanen - S 00 ntry Island t Median w/Ped Speed Display Display - K , n svEEO V F L I.~ `f " , 25 THIS PLAN IS CONCEPT Permanent ~ A - ✓ _ ; ~ speed DEVICE LOCATIONS ARE U Display APPROXIMATE. m e. o IMF S Hum t Speed Humes r t Seed Hum` i BALSAM / EDGEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSPLAN Conceptual Traffic Calming Plan 2 ASSOCIATES, INC. a member of the SEH Wvup Scale Date 10/15/02 Drawn by RAC Job # ABOULD0213.00 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 Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood, which includes the area encompassed by Alpine Street, Elder Avenue, 13`h Street, and Folsom. This plan includes the use of delay-inducing and nondelay-inducing traffic-calming devices to reduce speeding in the Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood. 2. Background, purpose and need for the project: Since 1995, the Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood has taken part in a significant amount of process regarding traffic mitigation as shown in Attachment A. As part of this process, two permanent traffic circles were constructed on Balsam Avenue. These traffic circles were approved using the current NTMP guidelines adopted in 2000. As such, these traffic circles are not being 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 Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood to create a traffic mitigation plan. Since Balsam Avenue is a Critical Emergency Response Route (CERR) street, the NTMP policy required that staff obtain TAB's recommendation and City Council's direction regarding whether to consider delay-inducing devices during the design phase of the project. TAB recommended and City Council directed that delay-inducing devices could be considered when designing traffic mitigation plans for the Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood. Even though physical mitigation has been placed on Balsam Avenue, speed studies show that speeds outside of the traffic circles are basically the same as they were prior to the traffic circles being placed on Balsam Avenue. Before and after speed statistics for streets in the Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood area can also 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 their area, and enforcement efforts have not been successful in reducing the amount of speeding traffic. In summary, there is still a speeding problem in the Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood that needs to be addressed. This proposal would substantially reduce the speeding problem. 3. Description of project alternatives and summary of major issues: The major issues when developing a preferred traffic mitigation proposal for the Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood included, Emergency Services response time, and access, financial impact, and overall neighborhood approval. Below are the straw proposals that were created for the Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood. Staff used these proposals to begin a conversation with the community regarding traffic mitigation in the Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood. Attachment D provides these proposals in map form Alternative 1 Photo Red/Speed on Green: 19th and Floral Avenue Ped Signal with Photo Red and Speed: Edgewood between Nicholl and Nicholl Permanent Speed Display: 19th Street (2) South of Elder facing north and North of Cedar facing south Balsam (2) and 17th facing East and West Alpine (2) between 15th and 17th facing east and between 1400 block facing west Edgewood (4) at 21st facing east and west, at Loraine Ct. facing east, and between 23m and 24th facing east This alternative would not produce the speed reduction desired by the neighborhood. Staff does not support this alternative. Alternative 2 Traffic Circles: Elder (2) on 17th and 19th Cedar (2) on 17th and 19th Balsam (1) on 17th Alpine (1) on 17th Edgewood (3) at 21,t, Nicholl and 24~ Partial Median: Elder (1) between 14th and 15th Alpine (1) between 14th 15" This alternative did not reflect the desires of the neighborhood. Additionally, it did not meet the requirement of Emergency Services. Financially, the NTMP program could not support this amount of physical mitigation. Staff does not support this alternative Alternative 3. Speed humps: Elder (3) between Jefferson and Washington, between 14th andl 5th, and at 17th Cedar (2) East of 14th and West of 17 Partial Median: Alpine (3) West of 14th, West of 15th, and West of 17th 19th (3) South of Evergreen, North of Cedar, and between Evergreen and cedar Edgewood (6) between 19th and 20th, between 21 and Nicholl, 2 between Nicholl and Loraine Ct., West of Loraine Ct, and between 23rd and 24~ Traffic Circle: Balsam and 17th As with alternative 2, this alternative did not reflect the desires of the neighborhood. Additionally, it did not meet the requirement of Emergency Services. Financially, the NTMP program could not support this amount of physical mitigation. Staff does not support this alternative Alternative 4. Staff's pre-polling proposal: Speed hump: Cedar west of Ellison Cedar between 16th and 17th Raised speed table: Elder between Washington and Jefferson Elder just east of 151h Permanent speed display: 19th (2) between Elder and Cedar north and southbound Balsam (2) at 17th east and westbound Edgewood (2) just west of 21st east and westbound Edgewood just east of Nicholl east and westbound Entry island: Alpine just east of 13th Partial median/ped refuge: Alpine just east of 14th Traffic circle: Alpine @ 17th Note: May remove all-way stop at Cedar/15th in conjunction with installation of speed humps The neighborhood polling result did not support this option; therefore, staff can not support this option. Alternative 5. Do nothing. This alternative does not meet the Balsam/Edgewood 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 to balance the need for speed reduction, and emergency access, along with neighborhood support. Additionally, alternative 2 and 3 would exceed the NTMP's financial limitations. The preferred proposal does meet all the criteria. Preferred project alternative: • Speed Hump on Elder between Washington and Jefferson • Speed Hump on Elder just east of 15th • Permanent speed display (SB) on 19th between Elder and Cedar • Permanent speed display (NB) on 19th between Elder and Cedar • Entry island on Alpine just east of 13th • Partial median/ped refuge on Alpine just east of 14th • Traffic circle on Alpine @ 17th -Permanent speed display (EB) on Balsam at 17th • Permanent speed display (WB) on Balsam at 17th • Permanent speed display (EB) on Edgewood just west of 21st • Permanent speed display (WB) on Edgewood just west of 21st • Permanent speed display (EB) on Edgewood just east of Nicholl (E) • Permanent speed display (WB) on Edgewood just east of Nicholl (E) • Remove two of the three speed humps on Floral • Remove the one between 20a' and Repplier Street and the one closest to 21st Street between 21st & 22nd Street. 4. Public input to date During 2001 and 2002, three public meetings were held with the Balsam/Edgewood 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-claming devices on their neighborhood proposed mitigation plan. After City Council gave direction regarding the use of delay-inducing, traffic-claming devices in proposed traffic mitigation plans for the Balsam/Edgewood neighborhood and before the second meeting, staff provided citizens with information on traffic mitigation devices by posting a tool kit (shown in Attachment E) on the NTMP Web site. This tool kit outlined traffic mitigation options including: cost, effectiveness, and the amount of delay associated with the mitigation device, if applicable. The tool kit made available information needed to participate in a discussion regarding the pros and cons of traffic mitigation devices. If citizens did not have access to the Web site, the information was made available at the NTMP office or through postal mailing. For the second meeting, staff developed three "straw proposals." As shown in Attachment D, the proposals consisted of three options that ranged from extensive use of delay-inducing devices to minimal use of delay-inducing devices. During this meeting staff obtained the community's view regarding each proposal. Attachment F documents the public input that was recorded and placed on the Web site. Citizens were also 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. The traffic circle on Alpine and 17`h was thought to be too costly, and the money would be better spent on permanent photo radar on Edgewood Drive west of 21" Street. Therefore, a permanent speed display will be put on Alpine and 17`s' and staff is looking into the feasibility of permanent photo radar on Edgewood Drive. If it is not feasible, permanent speed displays will be placed at the same location. 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 Balsam/Edgewood 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 Balsam/Edgewood 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 obtained through the same process that the Planning Department uses for zoning issues. 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. The poll was conducted in September/October 2002 for the Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood. 5. Staff project manager: Teresa Spears, NTMP Liaison, City of Boulder Transportation Division (303) 441- 3266 6. Other consultants or relevant contacts: Bill Cowern, Transportation Operations Engineer, City of Boulder transportation Division (303) 441-4054 Bill Fox, Consultant, Fox Higgins Group 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 Balsam/Edgewood 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 Balsam/Edgewood 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 neighborhood. 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. 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 Balsam/Edgewood 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 1. Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood Polling results ATTACHMENT L CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services Center 001`t 1739 Broadway, Third floor P.O. Box 791, Boulder, Colorado 80306-0791 Liv 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, Traff ic 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 traff ic 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 Environmentai Assessment Process Checklist Project title: Balsam/Edgewood Neighborhood Taffic Mitigation Plan a) Y C d r N ¢ d v fl > > i m m L d E L d V L a ¢ ¢ A. Natural Areas 1. Disturbance to species, communities, habitat, ecosystems? 0 0 0 1110 B. Riparian Areas/Floodplains 1. Encroachment upon the 100-year, conveyance or high hazard flood zones? o_ 0 0 2. Disturbance to or fragmentation of a riparian corridor? 0 0 0 NOW C. Wetlands _ 1. Disturbance to or loss of a wetland on site? 0 0 0 Hug AIIWUIAMMME~- B, D. Geology and So_ils_ 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 ILI' 6- 108"11, _ i Egpggg UMNE, Nall E. Water Quality 1. Impacts to groundwater or stormwater quality? 0 0 0 2. Discharges to the stormwater or sanitary sewer system? o _ 0 0 3. Potential impacts to streams, ditches, or other water bodies? o o _ o_ 4. Groundwater contamination on site? o 0 0 1HR EMU =Ual~ F. Air Quality 1. Impacts to air quality? _ 0 0 0 1.711 ONE x G. Resource Conservation 1. Changes in water use? o _ o 0 2. Increases in energy use? 0 0 0 3. Generation of excess waste? 0 0 0 UN, m E, 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 pwg ~ .M12 'FP2~ 11 rnL I. Visual Quality 1.a. Effects on scenic vistas or public views? 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? 0 0 0 .nom` _gs- f1F,ai$`a yl»§ {iu(1?~Tlr tlaf 5; M~#E ~~1u hi:..t ;i#~ui$~ J. Safety 1. Health hazards, odors, or radon? 0 0 0 2. Site hazards? 0 0 0 ffi Mail K. Physiological Well-being 1. Exposure to excessive noise? o_ 0 0 2. Excessive light or glare? ` 0 0 0 3. Increase in vibrations? 0 0 0 ~RTM~ -N IBM= 'M M ~ NMI 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? o oo i. affordable housing? _ 0 0 0 j. open space/urban open land? 0 0 k. power or energy use? _ o -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? 0 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 1 details the change in 85th Percentile speed on both Pine and Balsam, in the sections of corridor between the traffic circles. Table 1: Speed Reduction Summa Street / Device I Before Mitigation After Final Design Speed Present Traffic Circles installed Reduction Pine Street 33 mph 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 85d' 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 delav: 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: Emer enc Res onse Delay Summary Street / Device 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. Bicvcle/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 Cars failing to 'eld to ans 9 9.7% Total number of bikes circle 147 Total number of edes2demonstration) cross n 93 Conflict between bikes 2 1.4% Balsam (smaller circle Total number of pLAestrian crossings 19 Cars failing to yield to pedestrians 4 21.0% Total number of bikes through circle 111 Conflict between bikes and cars 0 0.0% Conflicts between bikes and cars are defined as one or both parties had to take evasive action to avoid an accident. It is important to note that the incident rate percentages compare the number of conflicts to the total number of pedestrian crossings or bicycle trips through the circle. They represent the percentage of pedestrians or bicycles that had an incident versus the total number of pedestrian or bicycle movements. This data suggests that the vast majority of both bicycles and pedestrians either traveled through the traffic circle without interacting with a vehicle or received the appropriate, legal behavior from the vehicle when they sought to cross. Side Street vehicle compliance: Using the same videotape, staff observed trends in main street vehicles yielding to side street traffic which arrives first. Again, these results are taken from the prior traffic circle demonstrations and are not associated with the final traffic circle design. Table 4 details these findings. Table 4: Compliance with side street vehicle right-of-w, 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 borhood 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 pd 6950 v pd -1710 v pd -19.7 Percent Balsam / 1400 10910 v pd 8200 v pd -2710 v pd -24.8 Percent Adiacent Street Mapleton / 1700 1420 v pd 1340 v pd -80 v pd -5.6 Percent Spruce/ 1700 3040 v pd 3260 v +220 v d +7.2 Percent Alpine 11400 2610 v 2940 v pd +330 v pd +12.6 Percent Cedar/ 1400 560 v 590 v d +30 v pd +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.