Loading...
5A - 17th Street Bicycle Lan ProjectCITYOFBOULDER TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD NON-AGENDA IT~M MEETING DAT~: August 11, 2003 G~NDA TITLE: 17th Street Bicycle Lane Project Marni Ratzel, Bicycle and Pedestrian Planner Bill Cowern, Transportation Operations Engineer Teresa Spears, Public Process EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The 17'h Street corridor, between Arapahoe Avenue and Canyon Boulevard is scheduled fot resurfacmg m 2004. In an effort to be fiscally responsible, staff is evaluahng other transportation projects that would occur in the pro~ect area and coordmahng these improvements with the overlay One proposed project is the placement of bicycle lanes on 17~h Street. The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and Bicycle System Plan recognize 17th Street as an imporCan~ bicycle connection between the University area and the downtown. AddiCionally, the Goss/Grove neighborhood and Hillside residents requested lhat transportation staff consider improvements along 17th Street to mitigate the negative impacts of traffic, and better accommodate pedestrian and bieycle movements through theii neighborhoods. City staff sseks to formulate a recommendahon which considers the varied mterests of all stakeholders and creates a balanced approach to best serve the Boulder communiry TAB mput is sought to reach agreement on the pieferred combmation of improvements for the corridor so that a schedule of improvements may be outlmed and prioritized. If specific improvements are not mcluded m this project, staff must consider whether to remove them from the TMP or fiom other project lists. It is proposed that a public hearmg be convened at the October 2003 TAB meetmg to consider a recommendation by staff Street mamtenance fundmg is allocated for the overlay effort planned for this wrridor No other capital fundmg is earmarked for this pro~ect. The costs associated with signing and striping bicycle lanes, constructing pedestrian crossing treatments, buildmg traffic mrtigation and widening mtersections or roadways, as needed> would be appropriated from smaller designated funds (such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities and NTMP fundmg). Current budget constramts have reduced each of these budgets and will mfluence the riming of implementation of any improvements in this pro~ect area, other than the overlay effort which is already funded. Page 1 Fiscal Im acts Other Im acts • Potential loss of ineter revenue totalmg • Intersection widening at Canyon Boulevard approximaYely $6,700 annually and Arapahoe Avenue wIll result m the loss • Potential loss of NPP commuter of sidewalk detachment. parkmg revenue totalmg up to $1,200 • Removal of on-street parkmg would result annually m the loss of as many as 41 spaces, which • Signal hardware upgrade mclude (25) unrestricted, (1) 2-hour (9) • Intersection widening NPP / commuter pertmt spaces and (6) • Bike lane signs and markings metered 2-hour spaces • Pedestrian Crossmg Treatment • Negative impact to working relationship enhancements between staff and surrounding community • Safety devices • Staff time as related to balancing among • StafP dme other pro~ects OTHER BOARD AND COMMISSION rEEDBACK: The Downtown Management Commission (DMC) Board appomted a representative to participate in the public process and represent the board and downtown busmess interests. The board is scheduled to convene a public hearmg m September 2003 to consider staff's recommendation on a preferred design for the 17th Street corridor. ConversaYions with the DMC Board to date have suggested that they are concerned wiYh the removal of any on-street parkmg along the corridor, and any element of the proposal Yhat might result m a loss of revenue for the ciYy of Boulder. PUBLIC FEEDBACK SCaff convened five public meetmgs to educate, mform and gather mput and evaluate ophons from the commuruCy. Meetmg dates follow. • Oct 29, 2002 • Jan 30, 2003 • April 2, 2003 • Apri130, 2003 • July 8, 2003 Citizens had additronal access to get and give mformation via the telephone, postal mail, e-mail and city of Boulder Web site. As demonstrated by Attachment A, community input received expresses sigmficant concern for several elements of this pro~ect. With the exception of the Boulder Bicycle Commuters, a general consensus voiced is an opposition to removing on-street parkmg to strip bicycle lanes along the corridor. Specific concerns raised by stakeholder representatives follow. Goss/Grove neighborhood leaders have expressed their neighborhood's lack of support for bicycle lanes on 17~h Strcet Issues identified to date are: • Neighbors feel that staff is unconcerned wrth the impact of a bike lane on their neighborhood. • Staff is not considermg the neighborhood's non-support of the mstallation of bike lanes Page 2 • Safety concerns • Hardships due to loss of parking • Loss of trees or the feel of the neighborhood • Increased speed of traffic from bicycle lanes Members of the Hillside neighborhood, the Goss/Grove neighborhood group, and admmistrators from the Boulder High School have expressed concern about the speed and volume of Craffic on 17°i Slreet. While they generally support traffic mitigation, they are concerned that not enough mingatron would occut. There has been much discussion about the need for a balance between delay-mducmg traffic mrtigation and emergency response. However, this continues to be a source of concern for several stakeholder groups Members of the bicycle commumty have expressed support for bicycle lanes on 17~n Street. They have also expressed support for the neighborhood's concerns. Attachment B details a statement from the Boulder Bicycle Commuters m support of bicycle lanes. Members of the busmess community m the downtown area have expressed a lack of support for any change m parkmg along 17`~' Street, and especially any change m the downtown area north of Canyon Boulevard. Concerns have included impacts on their customers and employees from a parkmg supply and location perspective and concerns about addrtional construction impacts durmg these difficult fiscal times. In order to address the concerns far the potential loss of inetered parkmg along 17`h Street between Walnut and Pearl sueets, a meetmg was convened on July 8, 2003 to receive mput from Downtown busmess and property-owner mterests. The DMC board also was represented at the meeYmg Staff presenYed a proposal to exchange some on-street parking lost along 17th Street wrth increased on-street parkmg along Walnut Street DMC and downtown business mterests did not express suppart far advancmg this proposal. The consensus opmion expressed was that installing angle parking along Walnut Street would compromise bicychst safety for those who seek to continue using this segment of Walnut Street. Addihonally, it was stated that the value of exishng on- streeY parkmg along 17th Street between Paarl and VJalnut streets exceeds the potential benefit of adding addihonal parkmg along Yhe segment of Walnut Street. BACKGROUND In October 2002, staff mitiated a public process to receive public input on potential improvements to the 17~h Street corridor, between University Avenue and Pine Street. The process has sought to identrfy opporturuties as well as address issues and concerns raised by commuruty mterests. Several meetmgs have been held to discuss what elements should be included into a preferred design. . Traffic calmmg measures in the Hillside and Goss/Grove neighborhoods, associated with the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program (NTMP) • Improvements to address documented Safety concerns • Pedestrian crossing enhancements • On-street bike lanes Page 3 There has been support for the placement of tiaffic mitigation and pedestrian crossmg treatments wrthm the pro~ect area Many crt~zens have also expressed a desire for additional treatments beyond what staff would be proposing. Neighbors ltving nearby and their leadership groups, the Boulder High School administration, parents of students attendmg Boulder High School, busmess owners and the business commumty leaders have all expressed concern for the potential impacts of bicycle lanes in this coiridor. Members of the bike commumty have supported the mstallation of bike lanes; however, they do not support the mtersection improvements necessary to provide these bicycle lanes at the 17`~' Street & Arapahoe Avenus and 17`~' Sheet & Canyon Boulevard mteisechons The TMP recommends that bicycle lanes be striped from the Boulder Creek Path to Canyon Boulevard with intersectron improvements at Arapahoe Avenue and Canyon Boulevard. Accordmg to the plan, the corridor would be designated as a bike route north of Canyon Boulevard. Consideration is being grven to bicycle lanes further north than Canyon Boulevard because, extendmg the installation of bicycle lanes from Atpens to Pme Streets would connect the University Hill, CU-Boulder, Boulder High School, Goss Grove, East Pearl Street commercial corridor, and Whittier communit~es. It also would complete a link in the bicycle network by providmg a north-south corridor that will connect to the east-west bicycle lanes on Wa1nuY Street and the Boulder Creek gieenway path. ~XISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Attachment C, details existing condition vehicle volume and turning movement, parkmg occupancy rates and average speed data along 17th Street by block between Unrversity Avenue and Pme Street. A survey demonstratmg exishng travel patterns mdicates that pedestrian activity peaks in the early evening when as many as 86 pedestrians cross 17th Street at the intersection with Marme Street. Addrtionally, 20 to 50 percent of bicychsts travehng along 17th Street south of Arapahoe Avenue nde on the sidewalk, which raises the potential for conflict between bicyclists and pedestrians Vehicle volume by block segment follows. e ment ehicles/da Bikes/ eak hrs* arine to Ara ahoe 12,500 v d 249 ra ahoe to Can on 6,000 v d 136 an on to Walnut 4,000 v d No Data WalnuC to Pearl 4,000 v d 47 Pearl to S ruce 2,500 v d 26 S ruce Co Pine 1,500 v d 12 *Aggregate of ~m/noon/mtd-afrarnoon/pm peak hour volumes Page 4 Currently, 17th Street accommodates one travel lane and one parking lane m each direchon except at Yhe intersections of 17`h Street & Arapahoe Avenue and 17`h Street & Canyon Boulevard Parkmg is prohibited and a through/right-turn and a left-turn lane exist m each direction ANALYSIS OF DESIGN OPTION CONSIDERATIONS 17°i Street, north of Uruversity Avenue (in Che Hillside neighborhood), meets Yhe speeding crtteria of the NTMP. Therefoie traffic mitigaCion is planned for this section of roadway A documented accident problem, mvolvmg vehicles crashmg mto a guardrail on the curve at this location, also is planned to be addressed through this mitigation A raised crossmg trealment at 17`h SYreet and University Avenue mstalled m con~unction with a median treatment ~ast south of the 17`~' Street and Hillside Road mtersection is under consideraCion at this time One proposal, suggested by stakeholders, was to make some portion of 17`h Sueet one- way southbound. It was thought that this would address both speed and volume concerns, as well as addressing the existing safety issue (involving northbound vehicles). Staff mvesYigated this proposal but could not support rt based on a series of impacts includmg displaced trafflc, operarional issues at several key mtersections, and degraded emergency response. Additional mformarion detailing the evaluation of this design option is mcluded m Attachment D. The potential installation of bicycle lanes in the corridor has been a focal pomt and guiding force of the public process and has accelerated the considerarion of several transportation improvement requests in the project area. The section of 17`h Street m the Goss/Grove neighborhood (Arapahoe to Canyon) did not meet the speeding criteria of the NTMP and, therefore, would not normally qualify for mitigahon through the program. However, if bicycle lanes were installed on this section of 17th Street, the roadway would be wider and this may mcrease vehicle speeds Therefore, trafPic mitigation is bemg considered m this section. If it is decided thaY bicycle lanes will not be installed along this saction of 17th Street, the traffic mitigation would not be constructed. Likewise, a pedestrian crossing treatment is planned for the 17`h Street and Giove Street intersechon. This improvement is planned for construction as part of a larger pro~ect, involvmg bicycle lanes Without the synergistic ePfect of the corndor bike lane project Yhe pedestrian crossing treatment would not be constructed m 2004 but would be prioritized against other requests and implemented at a future undetermined date. There is a documented accident problem, mvolvtng vehicles travelmg the wrong way down the one-way sect~on of Grove Street, which staff plans to address at the intersection of 17~h and Grove stieets. Staff intends to address this safety concern as soon as fundmg is avaIlable, regardless of the outcome of the 17`h Street Project. Staff has evaluated design options to provide bicycle lanes on 17th Street between Yhe Boulder Creek Path and Pme Street With the exception of the block between Pearl and Spruce streets, 17th Street is not wide enough to stripe bicycle lanes withm the current curb to curb dimension and mamtam the parkmg and travel lanes which currently exist Further geometric consttamts, coupled with a sigmficantly lower traffic volume and the change m land-use designatrons to strictly residential support the premise that 17`h Street between Spruce and Pine streets be designated a bicycle route. The roadway width along Page 5 this segment is too nazrow to accommodate bicycle lanes even if on-street parkmg is removed. Roadway widening would be required to install bicycle lanes along this segment. Thus, staff will not be pursuing or evaluating any opuons tnvolvmg bicycle lanes on this segment of 17~~' StreeY Design options to stripe bicycle lanes along 17`h Street include the followmg considerations: . Widen the roadway verses remove on-street parking • Northern terminus of bike lanes. Canyon, Walnut or Spruce . Geometric configuration of mtersection approaches of Arapahoe and Canyon . Parkmg Mitigation Options for segment between Walnut - Pearl streets A matrix of potential design options detailed by their impacts and benefits is detailed on pages 6- 9. Appendix E details additional mformation of these design options. Page 6 Evaluation Matrix: Widen the Street or Remove On-Street Parking With the exception of the block between Peazl and Spruce streets, 17`~ Street cunently is not wide enough to stripe bicycle lanes. The two pnmary ways of gaming the necessary width to install on-street bicycle lanes is to 1) widen the roadway or 2) remove pazking from one side of the street. The benefits and cost of these two opuons aze compazed below: Method of Gaining Necessary Width to Implement Bike Lanes Widening the Roadway Removing Parking Benefits • Allows all of the on-street pazking to be mamtamed for the length of the bike lane project 1 • Prevents loss of ineter and commuter pemut revenue (esUmated loss: $8,000 per year) • Eliminates the need to widen the roadway -- except on the approaches to Arapahoe and Canyon where left turn lanes exist Ttus saves approumately $550,000. • Allows e~sting trees, shrubs, and landscaping to be maintained Z • Maintams eusting sidewalk detachment widths 2 • L.ess potenhal for conflict between bicyclists and pazked cazs maneuvers Impacts • Requires removal of some of the trees and shrubs that currently exist between the sidewalk and the curb • Moves the roadway closer to the homes and businesses m the comdor • Reduces sidewalk detachment widths • Increased cost (estimated cost: $550,000) • More potenhal for conflict between bicychsts and pazked cazs • Requires removal of on-street pazking 25 unrestncted spaces 1 2-hour space 9 2-hour NPP/commuter spaces 6 2-hour meter parking spaces 41 Total spaces Results in loss of ineter and commuter permit revenue (esumated loss $8,000 per yeaz). ' Some pazlang loss may be requued on the approaches to Arapahoe Ave and Canyon Blvd where left turn lanes e~st and addihonal widening may be required to extend the bike lanes to the mtersechon Addrtional pazkmg loss may occur where pedestnan crossmg treatments aze planned. 2 Except where mtersechon approach widenmg is necessary at Arapahoe and Canyon. Page 7 Evaluation Matrix: Northern Terminus of Bicycle Lanes In considenng the mstallahon of bike lanes on 17~' Street, staff seeks mput on how faz north to extend the lanes. The bike lanes couid be extended as farther north as Spruce Street to increase the area of the commumty served and the connechons to east-west bicycle facihhes The benefits and impacts of the potentral northern end pomts are compared below: Northern Extent of Bike Lanes Canyon Boulevard Walnut Street Spruce Street Bene~ts • Connects to east-west University Avenue on- street bicycle lanes and Boulder Creek Path • Lmks CU, Boulder High, and the Goss/Grove neighborhood. All of the benefits of extending to Canyon plus. • Connects to east-west bike lanes on Walnut • Lmks the Whittrer South neighborhood and the south end of the Downtown azea All of the benefits of extending to Walnut pIus: • Provides connechon to the Peazl Street retaiUcommercial corridor and the Wluttier neighborhood • The block between Pearl and Spruce does not requue widenzng or loss of parking Impacts • Requues removal of on-street pazking 20 unrestricted spaces 9 2-hour NPP/commuter spaces GROSS total= 29 spaces All of the impacts of extending to Spruce plus • Requires removal of 6 addihonal on-street parkuig spaces (5) unrestricted and (1) 2- hour space. GROSS Total = 35 spaces All of the impacts of extendmg to Spruce plus • Requires removal of an additional (6) 2- hour metered pazkmg spaces on east side between Walnut and Pearl. GROSS total= 41 spaces Page 8 Evaluation Matrix: Intersection Approaches of Arapahoe and Canyon The intersection approaches of Arapahoe and Canyon aze not wide enough to accommodate the exishng geometric configurauon and stnpe bicycle lanes. Staff has considered design options to drop the bicycle lanes, remove general purpose travellanes, or widen the roadway at these intersection approaches. Northern Extent of Bike Lanes Remove General Purpose Lanes Drop Bicycle Lanes Intersection widening Intersection widening with Shortened Left Turn Bays Benefts • Bicycle lanes dehneated tlu~ough mtersections • No roadway widening required • No impact to exisUng landscapmg. • No roadway widemng requued • No impact to exishng landscaping. • Bicycle lanes delmeated tt~rough mtersections • Maintazns exishng vehiculaz operafing level of service • Bicycle lanes deluieated through intersections • Minumzes removal of sidewalk detachment and trees • Mamtains existing vehicular operaung level of service throughout most of the day. Impacts • Results m unacceptable vehicular level of service (LOS) and queue lengths. • It is expected that velucular traffic will overtake the bicycle lane to avoid increased congesuon • Raises concern for bicycle safety • Bicycle lanes will ternunate well m advance of mtersection and be picked up on the far side of the intersection • Bicychsts would be requued to merge with traffic. • Raised concern for bicycle safet,y • Sidewalk detachment and some trees will be impacted. • HighesY cost (estimated cost: $350,000) • Some sidewalk detachment and trees will be impacted. • Compromises vehicular operahons efficiency. • Likely will result m increased delay and congesuon durmg peak travel penods. • High cost (somewhat less than $350,000) Page 9 Evaluation Matrix: Parking Mitigation Options for segment between Walnut - Pearl streets Installing bike lanes between Walnut and Peazl Streets would requue the removal of six metered parkmg spaces and a pro~ect revenue loss of approximately $6,700. Staff has assessed an ophon to exchange some on-street parkuig lost along 17th Street with increased on-street parkmg along Walnut Street. The plan proposes to remove the e~shng westbound bicycle lane on Walnut Street between 15th and 17~ streets and replace pazallel parking along the north curb with angle pazkmg. Another opUOn would be to widen the roadway of 17`~ Street between Walnut and Peazl streets. Strategy Relocate Parking Roadway Widening Benefit Increases on-street parkmg along Walnut Street by 17 spaces. This would result m a net gain of 5 total parkuig spaces m the square block ! between 15th, Canyon, 17th and Peazl streets • I,ess potenhal for conflict between bicychsts and pazked cars on 17~' Street Maintains 12 on-street pazkuig spaces along the east side of 17~' Street. • Preserves the westbound bike lane along Walnut Street between 15~' and 17th streets. • Requues the removal of the westbound bike lane along Walnut Street between 17~' and 15~' Streets. • Conversion to angle parkmg ruses concern for the safety of bicychsts seeking to continue westbound Walnut Street west of 17~' Street • A shift in locauon of~azking. Remove 12 pazkmg spaces on 17 Sffeet, even though 17 spaces are gained on Walnut. • Estimated cost to widen is $SOK per block. • Requues removal of some of the trees and shrubs that currently e~st between the sidewalk and the curb • Moves the roadway closer to the homes and businesses m the corridor • Reduces sidewalk detachment widths • More potent~al for conflict between bicychsts and pazked cazs on 17~' Street Page 10 CASE STUDY COMPARISONS In thc past 10 years the city of Boulder has made gieat strides m the effort to diversify transpoitation options particularly in the promotion of bicyclmg. Several bike lane pro~ects have required the removal of on-street parkmg or vehicular traffic lanes A matrix comparing transportatron data and potential ~mpacts of the 17'~' Street corridor and previously completed projects is outhned in Appendix I'. Many of these projects were met with some opposrtion based on the proposed removal of these automobile facihties. The approval of each project requited unique approaches to address lhe concerns of cihzens. Attachment G details a description of these case study comparisons. Pro~ects that at one hme received strong opposition have now become integral parts oP not only the crty's tiansportation system but also its character. Attachments: Attachment A. Summary of Public Input MeeCmgs AYtachment B: Boulder Bicyele Commuters SYatement Attachment C• Existmg Conditions Attachment D• One Way Proposal Analysis Attachment E: Description of Design Option Analysis AttachmenY F: Cast Study Comparison MaYrix Attachment G: Description of Case Study Comparison Pro~eCts cc Downtown Management Commission Board Page I1 ATTACHM~NT A: SUMMARY OF PUI3LIC INPUT MC~TING5 To view .pdf documents of pubhc meetmg minutes, visit. www.boulctertransportation.ncl, Click on Construction Projccts, then 17~h SCreet and select the followmg hotlinks: • 7uly S Meetinq Minutes • Anril 30 Meetina Minutes (pdfl • pnril 2 Meetina Minutes (pd~ . October 29. 2002 (pdf~ • Ouestions and Answers Page 12 ATTACHMENT A Hillside/Goss Grove Traffic Mitigation Meeting October 29, 2002 Issues/Concerna - No parking on 17tn - Where would widening take place? - People on Hillside can't get on road - Exiting from W. on 17t", concerned about hurtling cyclists, skateboarders, and pedestrians - Also an issue on E. on Hillside; want speed limit sign at 15 mph - Police said they couldn't help with enforcement of cycling speeding - Speeding cyclist on Creek Path endangers dog under bridge - lack of signage for speed limit - Heavy bus and car traffic - Widening road may increase traffic - Accidents underreported on 17th Street curve - Concerns with student traffic - need for police support - Where would students park? Goss/Grove and Hillside - Goss/Grove: Insufficient parking for apartments; pressure from businesses - CU and high school students take up street parking in trafficked areas - Concern about removing trees - People unwilling to give up trees, detached sidewalks - What about making 17th one-way SB? - Neighbor goals to reduce, slow traffic and make it safer and more pleasant - One-way = less crashes - Bike lane and one-way traffic as an option - No bike lane on 17th - Make 17th Street like Lombard St. in San Francisco; chicane - Pedestrian crossing on lower 17tn - If a bike lane, ~ncrease enforcement and get them off sidewalk - Why not Broadway as a traffic option? - Need to place medians; mechanisms to keep slower traffic and neighborhood environment - Bike lane = bike traffic 1 `~a~P A 1 - Bigger, wider streets lead to safety concerns, step off curb into street - Safety for kids crossing 17th Street; pedestrian rich area needs protection - Don't want a bicycle lane - No cars in city center except for accessibility issues, allow bikes - Need to break flow; slow cyclists, create barrier - Make bike lane aesthetically pleasing - Make it a windy bike lane - Community doesn't get any benefit or requests honored - No mitigation after dog harmed - Lane can be curved - Enforce speed limit - Design slows down cyclists - Who decides rerouting of buses? - Pedestrian refuge between 17th and University could be reproduced at other loaations CONSENSUS IN FAVOR OF CONSIDERING DELAY-INDUCING TRAFFIC MITIGATION DEVICES IN THEIR PROPPOSED TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN 2 ~a~e ~ 2- ATTACHMENT A Hillside/Goss Grove Traf£ic Mitigation Meeting October 29, 2002 Issues/Concerns No parking on 17th - Where would widening take place? - People on Hillside can't get on road - Exiting from W. on 17th, concerned about hurtling cyclists, skateboarders, and pedestrians - Also an issue on E. on Hillside; want speed limit sign at 15 mph - Police said they couldn't help with enforcement of cycling speeding - Speeding cyclist on Creek Path endangers dog under bridge - lack of signage for speed limit - Heavy bus and car traffic - Widening road may increase traffic - Accidents underreported on 17th Street curve - Concerns with student traffic - need for police support - Where would students park? Goss/Grove and Hillside - Goss/Grove: Insufficient parking for apartments; pressure from businesses - CU and high school students take up street parking in trafficked areas - Concern about removing trees - People unwilling to give up trees, detached sidewalks - What about making 17th one-way SB? - Neighbor goals to reduce, slow traffic and make it safer and more pleasant - One-way = less crashes - Bike lane and one-way traffic as an option - No bike lane on 17th - Make 17th Street like Lombard St. in San Francisco; chicane - Pedestrian crossing on lower 17th - If a bike lane, xncrease enforcement and get them off sidewalk - Why not Broadway as a traffic option? - Need to pLace medians; mechanisms to keep slower traffic and neighborhood environment - Bike lane = bike traffic 1 I>~9e /~ 3 - Bigger, wider streets lead to safety concerns, step off curb into street - Safety for kids crossing 17th Street; pedestrian rich area needs protection - Don't want a bicycle lane - No cars in city center except for accessibility issues, allow bikes - Need to break flow; slow cyclists, create barrier - Make bike lane aesthetically pleasing - Make it a windy bike lane - Community doesn't get any benefit or requests honored - No mitigation after dog harmed - Lane can be curved - Enforce speed limit - Design slows down cyclists - Who decides rerouting of buses? - Pedestrian refuge between 17th and University could be reproduced at other locations CONSENSUS IN FAVOR OF CONSIDERING DELAY^INDUCING TRAFFIC MITIGATION DEVICES IN THEIR PROPPOSED TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN 2 ~Qy~ A ~1 ATTACHMENT A 17`h Street Bike Lane Project Open House 4/2/03 17~'' Street Bike Lane - Public Comments =(There is) no demonstrated need to extend proposed bike lane from Walnut to Pine Street. -Questions the removal of NPP commuter permits on West and East ends. -I support the BBC provisions for 17th Street bike lane ... Yes Pleasel (see attached handout/position statement from Boulder Bicycle Commuters) -Do not suaport bike lane from Athens to Pine Street. Most bikers do not bike that entire distance. No proven stats to show that bikers will even cross Canyonl l l -We are strongly opposed to bike lane as proposed especially between Canyon and Arapahoe with extensions to Walnut and Marine because: 1) Removes too many parking spaces in an area where they are at a premium - 18 spaces between Canyon ft Arapahoe 2) Puts - encourages - bicyclists to use one of the heaviest traffic side streets in Boulder 3) Alternate routes, e.g., 19th Street make more sense. -Keep curbs; Keep trees; -~Make 17th Street One Wav F. *Pedestrians and Bicyclists are paying a price for the advantage of the cars. -Need to look at the "Big" picture-no need to spend tax dollars on a nonessential ro raml!! -No justification for a bike lane from Canyon to Pine Street. Need more bike counts. The numbers do not add up. -As a tong time resident and bicyclist in Boulder, I see no justification for a bike lane designation along 17`h, especially at the expense of resident parking (I live on the Hill, by the way). Traffic Miti~ation is the key (speed bumps, etc.). Also try "no left turn" from either north or south 17th during rush hours at Arapahoe. I have used 13th Street north quite a bit and have never had a problem getting though as long as everybody is respectful. A) For BVSD school buses, please allow sufficient space to enter and exit off- street bus lane of Boulder High. ~ayQ ~~ B) School buses also need to make left turn (southbound on 17th) to Athens Street. C) Drop off/pick up zone on west side of 17th is necessary for Boulder High motorists. -Do not recommend single bike lane on uphill side of hill (University changing to 17th area). Yes, bikes will be going faster downhill, but children ft older cyclists witl still ride slow, and his situation regardless of biker speed will require a bike to merge into vehicle traffic, probably unexpectedly. (i.e., stripe a bike lane downhill). -Need to look at other options that haven't been explored - especially ones that will not be nearly as costlyl!! Such as: 1. Make 17th one way from Arapahoe North up the hill. 2. Save on huge expenses of removing trees, widening roads and other major improvementsl -Transportation staff needs to really, really listen to residents regarding options - the TMP is not set in stone. It is bv the people and for the oeoplel -Please don't ~xpand roadway at intersections. Maybe bikes can merge with travel lane at intersections. Keep the big trees! -Question: What is the feasibility of removing left turn lanes? -Question: What is the feasibility of making intersections (like 17th and Arapahoe) NO LEFT TURN~ -Answer (from Bill Fox): One impact will be increased traffic congestion. -The safety issue (the value of human life) is the highest priority. Therefore, make 17th street a one-way street for cars traveling uphill, and a two-way street for bikes. Balance the cost with meter revenue and bud~et issues. -Option: No bike lanes down 17t" Street -Option: No bike lanes. Keep trees and parking. -Boulder Bike Commuters has issued a two-page position statement, which was distributed at the open house meeting. -Note that there are un-represented contingencies, namely: high school students who commute to Boulder High; also, University students. ('Q~~ A ~ -If you build make lanes, traffic increases. Consider one-way, which encourages biking. -Adding a bike lane on 17th encourages increased use of bikes and an increased safety problem on an already taxed road. It will also encourage more accidents. Also look at the reality v. the view on paper. -Examine other streets for bike lane priority. -Make 17th one-way, because the bike lane stripe will be obliterated by cars, buses, CU buses, and big vehicles that cut on the inside of the curve. -If you remove the left-turn lane North on 17~h and Arapahoe, you will have a tremendous increase in traffic jams! -Note that the one-way or the two-way issue can be independent of bike lanes. -Boulder Bike Commuters does not take a position on one-way v. two-way issue. -Make 17th one-way uphill, and eliminate the left-turn lane for southbound cars, as it is less used. -Eliminate the island on the southwest corner of 17th and Arapahoe. -Keep the trees. -Parked cars are an effective sound barrier for residents. -Design the center of town to exclude all cars. Park on the perimeter and come in by troliey (with medical necessity exceptions). Compare other countries where this is done, e.g., Italy, Nethertands, Europe. Traffic Mitistat9on - Public Comments -Treat it like the street it has become - safety. -Desire for one way up the hill. -Southbound bikes turning left into Norlin at risk -Uphill cyclists use sidewalk -Can the speed limit be reduced on the curve -Can mirror be tightened so it doesn't move Pa~c l~ T' •One way section would make 17th more bikeable •Create a matrix which defines traffic mitigation, pros and cons -Ped signal C~ 17th and University -Move the speed indicators closer to Hillside streets -other side of crossing -on the Bridge -Install a raised crosswalk at 17th and Grove with an extension. -Vote for raised platform on 1']kh above the slope, which brings attention to bikes and peds. -Speed indicators are not effective; a"beefier" solution (e.g., a physical option) is needed. -Passive crossing at the ditch is a possibility. -Center islands have a negative impact on parking. -It is necessary to address 17`h Street between Arapahoe and Canyon, where motorists speed, topping 50 mphl (~aye i~~ ATTACHMENT A 17th Street Bicycle Lane Project Public Meeting Apri130, 2003 1. The background of the Bilte Lane Project: A brief overview of the project and response to concerns for reducing the available on- street parking in the vicnuty of Boulder High School follow. A primaiy objective of the 17~' Street transportation improvement project is to enhance safety and provide options that increase mobility for all users of Boulder's transportation system. The corridor currently attracts a sigmficant number of bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists. A survey demonstrating existing travel patterns indicates that between 20 and 50 percent of bicyclists ride on the sidewallc, which raises the potential for conflict between bicyclists and pedestrians. Striping bicycle lanes will delineate a space and place for bicycle travel and raise awareness among all roadway users on where to expect bicyclists along the corridor. The proposal to install bicycle lanes along the 17v' Street corridor will connect the Universiry Hill, CU-Boulder, Boulder High School, Goss Grove, ~ast Pearl Street commercial corridor, and Whittier commusuties. It also will complete a link in the bicycle network by providing a north-south conidor that will connect to the east-west bicycle lanes on Walnut Street and the Boulder Creek greenway path. Much like any other transportation project, the discussion about whether or not to stripe bicycle lanes on 17`h Street involves an effort to balance interests of stalceholders, which often serve competing needs of a broad cross-section of people who live and/or travel in the area. In this case, it is necessary to assess the benefits and 'unpacts of the removal on- street parking with the need for improved for bicycle facilities identified in our long range plan, Go Boulder/city of Boulder is in parinership with the Boulder Valley School District to provide transportation opt~ons and increased access to Boulder High School. A Student Transportation Coordinatar (STC) is ~omtly employed by both entities to assist the entire school community of students, parents and teachers with achieving safe and practical choices to enhance mobility. Specific efforts of the STC include heightening awareness of transportation options available, expanding the distribution and use of transit passes for students, faculty and staff and initiating new programs to encourage increased use of walking, biking and transit transportation options available the BVSD community. Between 2002 and 2004, the city of Boulder has budgeted over $200,000 to subsidize the purchase of student passes. We also continue to expand our Community Transit Network (CTN) to enhance transit access far the Boulder community. Boulder High School is served by the NMP, a high frequency route that travels every 10 minutes during peak commute hours. It also is located along the Boulder Creek path, wYuch is the spine of the ~~9e A 9 city's Greenway system. This corridor spans east-west to the city limits and intersects bike facilities that provide access to points north and south. Striping bicycle lanes along 17`h Street will offer an additional corridor that directly serves the Boulder High School community. 2. Presentation of issues associated with the One-way Street concept: Issues: The most conservative (i.e. least impactful) scenario considered would result in diverting approatimately 7,000 vpd from NB 17th Street to NB Broadway and much of that tr~c back onto Arapahoe Avenue. LOS analysis shows that designating this section of 17th Street would result in significantly decreased levels of service and increased delays at both the Broadway & University intersection AND the Broadway & Arapahoe intersections. It would also exacerbate the existing substantial queue and congestion problem in front of Boulder High School on Arapahoe Avenue during student pickup and drop-off times Additional traffic congestion on Broadway and Arapahoe would result in traffie already using those roadways to seek alternative routes. This would likely result in increased traffic on 9th Street (mostly NB but both directions nnpacted). It is difficult to estimate how much additional traffic but several thousand additional vehicles is in the realtn of possibility. Additional congestion on Broadway, coupled with the one-way section on 17th Street would make it much more difficult for emergency response services. The added congesfion would add precious time to any emergency response run along the Broadway corridor. Furthermore, emergency response would not feel comfortable running the wrong way down a one-way street due to potential safety issues (head on collision potenrial) so they would lose access to NB 17th Street as an emergency response corridor. Benefits: There are some benefits that come from a one-way street approach. A solution to the safety issue at the guardrail, plus improved crossings at the intersections of 15th at University; 17th at University and 17th at Marine. However, we have already addressed the pedesirian crossing issue at two of those locations and plan to address the third through this project. And we have another solution for the safety issue at the guardrail. Public Comment: Compare 17th Street with 9th Street. 9th Street has only about 1/2 the traffic volume of 17th. 17th Street needs help: There is no other residential street in the city with this volume. Edgewood was raised as a possible example, but Edgewood has traffic mitigation. 3. Staff presentation of issues associated with eliminating left turns on 17th Street ~a~re l-~ )0 Issues: Elimination of the left turn lane results in inareased congestion. Also, there aze safety issues with cars bypassing left turning vehicles (to turn right or go through) and encroaching on the bike lane. Public Comments None after presentation. Comments from Dave Allured later. 4. Safety Issues--Pedestrian Crossings--Traffic Mitigation The planned mitigation/pedestrian crossing improvements: A Raised crossing would be placed at the existing pedestrian crossing location of 17th at University (in advance of guardrail accident problem). A Median section would be constructed just south of Hillside on 17th Street (near Guardrail accident problem). One pair of permanent speed displays would be placed on 17th Sireet between south of Hillside and Athens. The southern device (NB) would move closer to Hillside than it currently is The northern device (SB) we will have to work out where it is located. Probably stay closer to Athens to protect the area closer to the school as well as Hillside. One median refuge pedestrian crossing (with marked crosswalk and State Law Yield to Peds signing) would be placed at 17th & Marine, in front of Boulder High School. This will impact several pick-up/drop-off spaces in front of school on west side to build adequate tapers. One median refuge pedestrian arossing (with marked crosswalk and State Law Yield to Peds signing) would be placed on South side of 17th & Grove. This will impact several pazking spaces on west side of 17th to build adequate tapers. Public Comment: Q: Will there be pedestrian crossings at the bike paths, too? Current pedestrian activity crosses at the bike path and 17th, instead of using the underpass. A: No, the underpass is there to use as a safe crossing opportunity, Q: What are the cost estimates for the proposed safety, NTMP and ped crossing treatments7 A: Unknown but staff believes they aze less than $100K. Q: Bikes tend not to use the full lane, but use the sidewalk instead. A downhill bike lane is not addressed in the plan. A. Traffic Mitigation, if successful, should motivate more bikes to use the full lane. Stats: 26 out of 138 cyclists rode on the sidewalk going northbound. ~~e ~ I~ Q. This plan will help, but what about a future vision or plan? Not just merely increasing the traffic volume and noise level? Does the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) addresa this? Will it? Does the TMP address concerns or principals other than multi-modal? Marni discussed efforts to date to reduce traffic city-wide. She discussed historic trend of lower traffic growth than other front-rage cities. She noted that the city is providing traffic disincentives, e.g, charging for parking. One citizen noted that the gridlock couldn't be any worse, especially from 3-5 p.m. He suggested that a drastic plan or draconian measures are needed to alleviate traffic in the city and on 17th in particular. A representative from the DMC noted that the downtown administrators are trying to encourage traffic to the downtown area and would not support draconian measures. A representative from CU noted that the university is also trying to reduce iYs tr~c impacts. A dialogue was requested between the 17th Street Neighborhood and CU. 5. Bike Lane Facility Design: • Remove Parking vs. Widening • Spruce to Pine Bike Route • Northern Terminus of the Project Providing bike lanes without removing parking would involve widening the entire corridor and would cost approximately $1,000,000. Removing parking to install bicycle lanes would require widening only at the intersec6ons at 17th and Arapahoe and 17th and Canyon.. This option would cost approximately $250K--300K. Given the budget constraints, staff will not be recommending the high cost alternative. Comments from Dave AI-ured of the Boulder Bicycle Commuters (BBC): • Regarding the loss of the left turn lane, BBC is of the opinion that there is more room than indicated in the City's analysis in the intersection (addressing the concem that through traffic would impinge on a bike lane). Yes, there is a safety factor, but that is acceptable to cyclists. • Keep the curb lines the same, even within the intersections. • BBC requests that a thorough traffic analysis (at least as thorough as the one-way street alternative) be completed. 1~~9~ I~ I v Elimination of the left turn lane results in congestion. Xes, this is true, during peak hours, but elimination of the left turn lane wiil also result in a decrease in general traffic volume. Additional comments From the Transportation Division's point of view, due to the safety concerns of bike encroachment and the congestion impacts, Staff would not recommend removing left tixrn lanes to save space From Boulder High's pomt of view, the proposed plan is good to help with pedestrian crossing, but removal of parking spaces is not good, because kids commute and will be parking in the Goss/Grove neighborhood. Another opinion expressed that more kids are driving because there is more pazking and therefare if there is less parking there will be less driving. Boulder High questions this assumption. Northern terminus of the project: Regazding the northern terminus of the project, assuming there is a bike facility, the BBC would like to see a bike lane all the way to Pine Street at the expense of on street parking (with consideration of the tight block). [note: BBC withdrew this request after additional discussion among its membership. BBC now supports staff's recommendation to maintain a bike route designation between Spruce and Pine Streets). Another point of view recommends ending at Spruce or Walnut, not Pine, due to parking loss and fire access. This is based on low volume roadway that bikes can traverse without a bike lane. Long-term thiiiking would suggest building to Spruce or building as far as possible. Comments sent after the meeting: . There is a concern regarding loss of parking and drop-off area on 17"' Street South of Arapahoe. . The city of Boulder did not adequately notify the BHS community of parents and students about the public meetings and the fact that parking on 17`~' Street might be reduced. There is a concern that the decision to put bike lanes on 17th Street is a"done deal". ~~5c~ ~ 1 ~ ATTACHMENT A ISSUES, CONC~RNS AND QUESTIONS Project staff has provided answers to frequently asked questions heard from the public concerning the installarion of bike lanes on the 17th Street conidor. The Q& A seeks to address issues and concerns expressed by the public mcludmg: • Neighbors feel that staff is unconcerned with the impact of a bike lane on their neighborhood. • Staff is not considering the neighborhood's non-support of the mstallation of bike lanes • Safety concerns • Hardships due to loss of pazking • Loss of trees or the feel of the neighborhood • Increased speeding traffic Q In 200Q the neighborhood attended meetings regazdmg the installation of bike lanes on 17th Street and the project did not go through. This time I have attended every meeting and have continued not to support the installation of bike lanes on 17th Street. Why is staff continuing to move forward with a recommendation to install bicycle lanes7 A The Transportation Master Plan and Bicycle System P1an recognize 17Ch Street as an important bicycle connection between the University area and the downtown. Similar to other transportation project, the discussion about whether or not to stripe bicycle lanes on 17th Street involves an effort to balance interests of several different individuais, which often include competing needs of a broad cross-section of people who live and/or travel in the area. In this case, it is necessary to assess the benefits and impacts of the removal on-street parking with the need for improved for bicycle facilrties as idenrified m our long range plan. As this project moves forward, it will be reviewed by several pohcy maker groups, including the Downtown Management Commission, the Transportation Advisory Board and the City Council. Our staff will make sure that your correspondence is forwarded to each of these groups during that review process, so they have all information obtained regarding this project. City staff seeks to formulate a staff recommendation which considers the varied interests of all stakeholders and creates a balanced approach to best serve the Boulder community. Pohcy makers, such as the ones we have outlined above will have the opportunity to make their own recommendations. The City Council will consider these rewmmendations and decide on a course of achon. ~G~gc ~ l~ Q Are safety improvements planned to mitigate concerns for mcreased traffic speed caused by removing on-street parkmg to stripe bicycle lanas on 17th Street? A The proposed plan to install bicycle lanes has accelerated the Neighborhood'Fraffic Mitigation Program (NTMP) implementation of many transportation improvement pro~ects associated with the Goss Grove neighborhood. The Goss Grove neighborhood did not meet the speeding criteria of the NTMP. However, installation of bicycle lanes on 17th Street may increase vehicle speeds on the corridor. Therefore, NTMP and pedestrian crossing improvements have been mcorporated mto the project. If it is decided that bicycle lanes will not be mstalled along 17th Street, the NTMP and pedestrian crossmg improvements will not be constructed. Without the synergistic effect of the corridor bike lane project the NTMP and pedestrian crossing improvements will be prioritized against other mitigation and pedestrian requests and implemented at a future undetemuned date, Q How will the city mitigate the removal of on-street parking required to install bicycle lanes on 17th Street7 A Options to provide bicycle lanes on 17th Street could result in a loss of up to 41 on- street parking spaces. There are four primary stakeholder users affected by the potential parking loss: rimar Stakeholder arkin Im acts owntown Mana ement Comxnission 6 metered s aces ( Peazl to W'alnut) South Whittier Neighborhood 1 short-term (2 hour) parking space, 5 unre lated s aces (Walnut to Can on) oss Grove Neighborhood Neighborhood Pernut Parking spaces 8 unre ulated s aces (Can on to Ara ahoe) oulder High School / CU / general ubhc 12 unregulated Spaces (Arapahoe to Athens) otal 1 otential on-street arkin s aces removed In response to this potenrial loss, the City of Boulder has met with Boulder High School, (BHS), the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD), CU-Boulder (CU) and Downtown Management Commission (DMC) to discuss potential options to mifigate the parking and revenue loss which could result from bike lane installation. BVSD, BHS and CU also have discussed the feasibihty of additional parking nutigation strategies that would increase off-street parking supply dedicated to the needs of the BHS and CU communities. Potendal mitigation strategies are under review. The feasibihty and bene~ts of each will be presented for mput by advisory boards as part of their review and consideration of the preferred option recommended by staff. Q Will installing bike lanes require removal of trees or other aesthetic features of the neighborhood? A Striping on-street bicycle lanes will require roadway widemng at the intersections of Canyon and Arapahoe Avenue. Sidewalk detachment and some trees will be impacted. ~~5e ~15~ Q Why is the Transportahon Department pursuing this public process at a ume when the city is in a budget crisisT Is this a good use of the City's financial resources? Is there money to complete the proposed improvements associated with this project? A The public process to deternune planned improvements has been expedited in an effort to mcorporate a preferred design mto a street maintenance asphalt overlay planned for spring 2004. Current budget constraints may affect the timmg of implementation. Staff still seeks to reach agreement on the preferred combination of improvements for the corridor so that a schedule of improvements may be outlined and prioritized. It may be feasible to construct the improvements m conjunction with the overlay or phase the pro~ect to complete segments as funding allows. Q What are the next steps for the pro~ect? A Staff seeks to advance the project for review and considerat~on of a preferred design option by TAB and City Council. Cirizens will have the opportunity to provide input at each of the public meetings outlined below. A tentative schedule of upcoming meetings follows: 1. Staff briefing and Board input on a staff recommendation to complete transportation improvements along 17th street that include bicycle lanes, pedestrian crossing, Nl'MP treatments. • August 4, 2003: Downtown Management Commission • August 11, 2003: Transportation Advisory Board 2. Public Hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council to complete transportation improvements along 17th street that include bicycle lanes, pedestrian crossing, NTMP treatments. • September 8, 2003: Downtown Management Commission . October 13, 2003: Transportation Advisory Board 3. Crty Council - to be determined Q Who do I provide my mput to about the project? A Please direct written comments to Teresa Spears at NTMP, PO Box 791, Boulder, CO 80303 or by e-mazl at spearst@ci.boulder.co.us all comments wlll be considered for inclusion in the proposal for the 17th Street plan. ~a~e r~l t~ ATTACHMENT A 17th Street Bike Lane Project Downtown Parking Impacts July 8, 2003 Agenda Introductions Background on Project Citizens Concerns • Safety • Traftic • Parking • Aesthetics Plan Development Parking Impacts • Options to Mitigate Parking Impact Proposal: Installing bike lanes between Walnut and Pearl Streets would requ~re the removal of six metered parking spaces and a project revenue loss of approximately $6,700. A proposed option to remove bike lane on north Walnut and replace parallel parking on Walnut Street between 15 -17 Streets with angle parking to compensate for the loss of inetered parking on 17th Street. PropertyBusiness Owner's Input on Mitigation Plan Affordable parking that is a reasonable distance from employment (safety concems) Is trus a long range plan to get rid of cars all together7 Piece by piece What is the construction time frame7 Do nothing Angled pazking on Walnut would be unsafe for bicyclists There is no problem riding a bike on 17`h Street-we need parking more If you shift pazking spaces around you change the shopping dynamic This option is bad for businesses Are bikes safe the way things areT Should the bike lane terminate at Walnut7 Lack of employee parking will force the Post Office out of its present location Great enhancements come with the bike lanes NO MORE CONSTRUCTIONI More concerned with traffic South of Canyon -Is there a tradeoff7 F~a~,{{1~ ATTACHM~NT B: BOULDER BICYCL~ COMMUTER STAT~MENT SUPPORT 17TH STREET BIKE LANE PROJECT Apri12, 2003 Boulder Bicycle Commuters supports the 17th Street bike lane pro~ect between Athens and Pine streets. This statement was adopted unammously at our March 3 meetmg We urge the city of Boulder Yo proceed with this pro~ect, with the following provisions: ON-STREET BIKE LANES * Install on-street bike lanes on both sides of 17th Street Prom Athens to Pine streets. + Extend the southbound bike lane south past Athens, to connect with the uphill bike lane going up to Umversity Ave. * Given existing space constraints, we support the following configuration for 17th Street: - Two regular auto lravellanes, one each direction - Two on-street bike lanes, one each direction. - Automobile parkmg lane, one side only, only when space allows - Buffer strip between parkmg lane and bike lane, to protect cyclists from suddenly opened car doois - Exisring detached sidewalks. - Existmg verges, trees, and landscapmg. * Remove existing on-street auto parking on 17th Street, as needed, to obtain the space needed for the bike lanes. * Do not widen 17th Street anywhere for the purpose of keepmg parking while adding bike lanes. * Make the bike lanes stratght, direct, and unobstructed * Do not make any curves in bike lanes, as has been suggested. * Use a curb design that elimmates the seam between the bike lane and gutter pan. Also elimmate special breaks m the side slope of the bike lane that could present irregular surfaces Co cyclists * Please pave the curb-side bike lanes to full widCh with seamless asphalt, not concrete, all the way to the curb face. * Do not expand 17th Street at intersections. Eliminate automobile turn lanes as needed to provide space to msYall the bike lanes. * Pamt stripes on both sides of the parkmg lane buffer strip. + The buffer strip wIll also provide some room for snow plow drifts while mamtammg an open bike lane next to parkmg. LANE WIDTHS There are a variety of existmg curb-to-curb widths on this section oY 17th Slreet, between 36 and 50 feet. When bike lanes are mstalled, our pieferred lane widths and configurations are as follows. In order to make clear a complex request, we present this as a set of formulas - Bike lane next to curb: 6 feet with NO gutter seam. -(Standard is 5 feet plus 1-1/2 foot gutter pan.) - Bike lane next to parkmg lane: 5 feet (standard). - Auto travel lanes• 11 feet (standard). - Parkmg lane: 8 feet (standard). - Buffer strip: 3 feet. Page 13 ATTACHML'NT B: BOULDER BICYCLT COMMUTER STATEMENT - Total w~dth needed between curb faces: 44 feet. For available width from 44 to 42 feet, please reduce these dimensions as follows: - Reduce the curb-side bike lane and buffer strip widths by equal amounts as needed, down to 5 feet and 2 feeC respectively. For available width from 42 to 40 feet, m addition to above: - Reduce the buffer strip alone as needed, from 2 feet to none. Below 40 feet, we urge that parking lanes on both sides of the street be eliminated. In addition, please consider reducing auto travel lane width to 10 or 10-1/2 feet where necessary to fit the desired bike lanes plus one parkmg lane. TRAFFIC MITIGATION Provide traffic mrtigation measures as needed over time, to deal with automobile speedmg problems. We support and recommend these measures for 17th Street: - Complete stripmg of crosswalks across 17th Street, both sides of tbe mYersection, at every side street. - Official regulatory signs and centeiline bollards, "Stop For Pedest~ians In Ciosswalk". - Automaric speed sensor warning signs Raised crosswalks, if necessary Remove extra automobile turn lanes to deciease crossing distance and discourage excess automobile travel * Please do NOT mstall traffic mitigahon neckdowns that prottude mto bike lanes They are not appropriate for this pio~ect and would be hazardous to cychsts. ~ Reyuest Boulder Valley School District, the Umversity, and local busmesses and agencies to step up their programs to ask people to fmd alternatives to driving, and seek ~obs or homes close to each other to reduce the need for automobiles. Reasons to support 17th Street bike lanes: * Provide a high-quahty north-south bicycle connection that is presently lacking in this area. * Provide good bike access from cential and north Boulder to: - Boulder High School - University - Boulder Creek Palh - Um Hill commercial area * This project has been m the Transportalion Master Plan since at least 1996. * Improve pedestrtan environment and safety. Bike lanes will get more cychsts, especially faster ones, off the sidewalks. ~ Improve safety for cyclists Current condihons mix cyclisYs with auto t~affic, exposing them to opening cai doors due to on-streel parking. * This project will encourage MORE people to use bikes and leave their autos behind. * Bike lanes will help reduce the need foi the displaced parkmg spaces. Page 14 ATTACHMENT C: EXISTING CONDITIONS To view a.pdf document of existing condit~ons, visit: www.boulderi-antiportxtion.net, Construction Pro~ects, 17`h Street, Existmg CondiCions Or the following direct lmk http://www ci.boulder.co us/publicworks/depts/transportation/pdf_documents/17thexisting pdf Page IS _ W.. ~,._.~_4_ "., _"_ a _ _.~ "-' "r J "'~."`__ _ "' T'/ http://www.pdfmail.com ~~. ~ _a~ ~ s_a ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~E ~ e?- ~ ~ I ~'~~~ I I ~ I = " =~ , •_. ', ~~='" ~ \ ~ ~ -=~v.. ~_ ~. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,,..~ a.... ~ ~ ~ ~~ b ~ ~~ / ~~~ ~,~ ~ / / i ,~.. ~ r,.,,.-~ i~~ / / / ; `~ =.:;= ~.~`- -f ~~ : 'r ~ % `~i` .'°a; ~ j / ~ ~~~~ V '~ i , , ~~-~~.~F. -- ~ ~ ~ ~, ~~'~ ~ :~ ~ ~~;~~C - _ ' - Z ATTACHMENT C 17TH STREET TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT EXIST I NG CONDIT IONS porLaLion vroup ~ -~ -~ I~~~- i ~=_ _ ~ ~~. - a w..~: ;,~ ~ i; ;.,^.`> °"'>~~~» ~ w~- zt% ~ro'f~~;mn° ~ ~ia '~°m'° ~ ~\ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , . .~... ~ ~< ~,~ , ~ ~ ~- u ' ~ , ~ , ~~~ ::~ ~ ~ ~~ n...a. , I / 3~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~. - 1 ! _- i / ~ ATTACHMENT D: ON~ WAY PROPOSAL ANALYSIS In response to high traffic volumes and speeds on 17~~' Street and to the documented safety issue at the guardrail south of Hillside Road, members of the commumty suggested Yhat staff consider makmg 17~h Street one-way southbound. Staff evaluated the feasibility of making 17`~' Street one-way between Uruversity Avenue and Athens Street This was considered to be the leasY impactful scenario, as rt would sYill allow two-way access between Broadway and CU facihties on Umversity Avenue and it would shll allow two- way access between Arapahoe and properties noith of Athens (including Boulder High School). Impacts: Staff exammed traffic counts in this area, and this scenario would result m the diversion of approximately 7,000 vehicles per day This traffic is currently traveling NB on 17~~' Street m the aforementioned section. The most probably diversion route would be for this traffic to travel north on Broadway to the intersection of Arapahoe, where the ma~ority of the traffic would then travel east oP Arapahoe, back to 17"' Street. Level of Service (LOS) analyses were peiformed, assummg this diversion of traffic The analyses showed that designatmg Yhis section of 17~~' Street would result in significantly decreased levels of service and increased delays at both the Broadway & Umversity mCersection and the Broadway & Arapahoe intersecYion It would also exacerbate the existmg substantial queue and congeshon problem m front of Boulder High School on Arapahoe Avenue during student pickup and drop-off times Additional traffic congestion on Broadway and Arapahoe would result m traffic already usmg those roadways to seek alternative routes. This would likely iesult m increased traffic on 9th Street (mostly NB but both direclions impacted) IC is difficult to estimate how much additional traffic but several thousand additional vehicles is probable. Addit~onal congestion on Broadway, coupled with the one-way section on 17th Street would make it much mare difficult and increase delay for emergency response vehicles through this area. The added congestion would add hme to any emergency response run along the Broadway corridor. Furthermore, emergency response personnel would not feel comfortable running the wrong way down a one-way street due to potential safety issues (head on collision potential) so they would lose access to NB ] 7th Street as an emeigency response corridor. 17~~' Stieet is currently designated as an emergency iesponse route. Bene~ts: There are some benefits that come from this one-way street scenauo. It provides a viable solution to the safery issue aY Lhe guardrail IY also decreases the amount of traffic confficttng with pedestrians at crossing locations such as 15th & Umversity; 17th & Uruversity and 17th & Marine However, the City of Boulder has already provided adequate pedesCiian ciossmg treatments at two of those locations and plans to address the third (17~~' & Manne) through this pro~ect Mitigat~on to the speed, volume and safety issue is also bemg considered. Page 16 ATTACHMENT E: DESCRIPTION Or DESIGN OPTION ANALYSIS Widen the Roadway verses I2emove Parking The two primary ways of providing bicycle lanes along 17~h Street are to 1) widen the roadway or 2) remove parking from one side of the street. 4Vulen The Roadwav It is estimated that roadway widemng would cost approximately $550,000 (not includmg the costs to widen Lhe intersections which likely occur m either option). Widening 17`h Street would involve impacting the detached area between the street and the sidewalk. This would result in the types ot impacts which occur with atCaching sidewalk, such as impacting existing landscapmg and trees, movmg Yhe pedestrians closer Yo the ioadway, and allowmg plowed snow to be forced up onto the sidewalk area, malung it more difficult for homeowners to mamtain. These are sigruficant quahty of hfe issues for people hvmg and walking in the area. Remove narkinQ Staff assessed Che removal of on-street parkmg along the east side of 17th Sireet between Athens and Spruce streets. Removmg parkmg from the east stde of the street was the least impactful solution. Stripmg bicycle lanes along this segment would result in a loss of up to 41 on-street arkin s aces arkin Im acts 6 metered s aces ( Peatl to Walnut) 1 short-term (2 hour) paikmg space, 5 unre ulated s aces (Walnut to Can on) 9 Neighborhood Permit Pukmg spaces (4 are potential Commuter spaces) 8 unre ulated s aces (Can on to Ara ahoe) 12 unregulated spaces (Arapahoe to Athens) 1 otential on-street arkin s aces removed In response to this potential loss, the city of Boulder has met with Boulder High School, (BHS) admirustrahon, representatives of the Boulder Valley School D~strict (BVSD), representatives of CU-Boulder (CU) and members of the Downtown Management Commission (DMC) to discuss possible options to mitigate the parkmg and revenue loss which could result from bike lane installation. BVSD, BHS and CU also have discussed the feasibilily of addrtional pazkmg mitigation strategies that would increase off-streeY parking supply dedicated to the needs of the BHS and CU communities. Staff also has assessed an option to exchange some on-street parkmg lost along 17th Street with mcreased on-sYreet parkmg along Walnut SCreet. The option proposes to remove the existmg westbound bicycle lane on Walnut Street between 15th and 17Ch streets and replace parallel parkmg along the north curb with angle parkmg. This miYigation sYrategy would increase on-street parkmg along this two block segment of Wa1nuC Sireet by 17 spaces for a net gain of 5 parking spaces m the square block between Page 17 ATTACHMENT E: DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN OPTION ANALYSIS 15th, Canyon, 17~ and Pcarl streets. The parkmg replacement would mcrease the supply of short-term metered on-street parking However, theie has been very lrttle support for this option from members of the business communrty or from members of the bicycle commumty and staff is not pursumg this option further at this rime. Staff has not been able to conceive of any parkmg mitigation for the blocks between Canyon Boulevard and Walnut Avenue (other than widening the roadway). The parkmg m these blocks is highly utilized and the removal of these packing spaces would result m a drversion of this parkmg. It is hkely that the diversion would occur by vehicles parking deeper into the Goss/Grove and South Whittier neighborhood. While there has been observed capacrty on these mternal blocks, this would likely result m a decrease m white space in fi•ont of the homes of many residents. Pubhc mput has suggested that residents would consider this a sigruficant degradahon of their neighborhood quality Intersection approaches of 17~h Street / Arapahoe and 17~h Street / Canyon The mtersection approaches of 17`~' / Arapahoe and 17'h / Canyon are not wide enough to accommodate the existrng geometric configuration and stripe bicycle lanes. Staff has considered design options to drop the bicycle lanes, iemove left turn lanes or widen the roadway at these mtersection approaches. The only option Chat staff feels will not compiise bicycle safety nor an acceptable operation of the intersection (LOS, Delay and Queue) is widerung the roadway through the two intersections. Staff has examined the impacts of removmg general purpose travel lanes to accommodate bicycle facilities, but the impacts to vehicular level of service and queue lengths are too great for staff to support this approach. Such an opeiation also would likely result m vehtcles usmg the bicycle lane to avoid this congeshon, which would result m safety issues for cyclists Another option considered is to drop the bicycle lanes in advance of the above mtersections where widemng would need to occur and pick them back up on the far side of Che intersec6on. This opdon also has issues m that bicycles would need to merge wiCh vehicles as they travel through the mtersections. A compromise opCion may be to shorten left lurn bays to minimize landscaping impacts. The only operatronal impacts of this alternahve would be a shortemng of the left turn storage capacity and the subsequent possibility of queue impacts between left turnmg vehicles and other movements. However, the analyses performed suggest that the probability of this conflict is mmor and that this should not be a sigmficant operahonal concern. Intersection levels of seivice would not change Northern terminus of bike lanes In considering a recommendation for the mstallahon of bike lanes m this coriidor, one sigmficant discussion pomt raised is how far north to extend the lanes High traffic volumes between Umversity Avenue and Canyon Boulevard support the Transportation Master Plan's goal of bicycle lanes m this corridor. Such high traffic volumes hkely discourage on-street bicycle usage of this corridor. Page 18 ATTACHMENT E: DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN OPTION ANALYSIS Additional value would be added by extendmg bicycle lanes to Walnut, which is an east- wesY corridor sYriped wrth on-street bicycle lanes. However, traffic volumes aie a litile brt lower m this section and community mput suggests that this section could serve as a bicycie route. Additional value would be added by havmg the bicycle lanes extend to Spruce Street. A solid connechon would be made to the East Peul downtown area, and the facility would connecC to Spruce Sireet, a facilrty which also sees a lot of bicycle use. Parking mitigation options for segment between Walnut - Pearl streets Staff presented a proposal to exchange some on-street parkmg lost along 17th Street. In order to address the parkmg issue m the downtown busmess district staff evaluated a proposal to exchange some on-street parkmg losC along 17th Street wtth mareased on- street parking along Walnut Street The plan proposes to remove the existing westbound bicycle lane on Walnut Street between 15th and 17th streets and replace parallel parkmg along the north curb wrth angle parkmg Another option would be to widen the roadway of 17~h Street between Walnut and Pearl streets. Staff assumes that these spaces would be designated as short-term metered parkmg to serve the needs of downtown commercial mterests The parkmg replacement would mcrease the supply of short-term metered on- street parkmg. Page 19 ATTACHMENT F: CAST STUDY COMPARISON MATRIX The followmg matrix provides an analysis of traffic conditiops along transportation corridors that required the removal of auComobile facilities to have bike lanes msYalled. The information is used to calculate biker stress level along any given roadway~. The reported biker stress level detailed below utilized a methodology based on the curb lane width. Automobile/bicycle volume was not factored mto the calculahon. (i.e. coiridors with higher stress levels related to geometric conditions may have lower stress levels related to vehicle volumes) Stress levels related to vehicle iraffic volumes will be calculated for presentation at the August 2003 TAB meetmg. Lane widihs that mclude on-street parking have a higher threshold to deteimme biker sCress level (see attached). WITHOUT BIKE LANES Curb Lane Vehicles per Bikes in Biker Stress Corridor Segment Width** day peak hrs" Level 17th Street Marine to Arapahoe 17' 12,500 vpd 249 5 Arapahoe to Canyon 20' 6,000 vpd 136 3 Canyon to Walnut 20' 4,000 vpd NA 3 Walnut to Pearl 21 5 2,500 vpd 47 2 Pearl to Spruce 25 NA 26 1 Spruce to Pine 18' 1,500 vpd 12 4 13th Street Canyon to Spruce 26' 2,750 vpd 183 1 Pine to Portland NA 3,500 vpd 66 3 Baseline Broadway to 6th 17 5' 1,300 vpd 22 3 Moorhead Table Mesa to 27th Wav 19 75' 5 200 vpd 9 3 Table Mesa Broadway to Gillaspie"** 12 5' 25,000 vpd NA 2 Gillaspie to Lehigh`*" 12 5' NA NA 2 WITH BIKE LANES Curb Lane Vehicles per Bikes in Biker Stress Corridor Segment Width** day peak hrs* Level 17th Street Marine to Arapahoe*** 16 5' NA NA 1 Arapahoe to Canyon'*' 17' NA NA 1 Canyon to Walnut*`* 17' NA NA 1 Walnut to Pearl 21 5' NA NA 2 Pearl to Spruce 25' NA NA 1 Spruce to Pine*"* 15' NA NA 1 13th Street Canyon to Spruce NA 3,800 vpd 199 NA Pine to Portland 24 5' 1 700 vpd 171 1 Baseline Broadway to 6th*'" 15 5' 1 400 vpd 12 1 Table Mesa to 27th Moorhead Wav"'" 16 5' 4 300 vpd 4 1 Table Mesa Broadway to Gillaspie'** 17 5' 23,700 vpd 32 1 Gillaspie to Lehiqh*" 25' NA NA 1 • ...............f.....1......../...~d..p.......nn/mm~neLFnu rvnliimec "'CUrb lane Is the right-most travel lane on two-way streets "*' Does not have parking ' The methodology was taken from Che New York C~ry Bicycle Master Plan, May 1997 It closely follows a methodology developed by Alex Sorton, NorChwestern Unrvets~ry Traffic Insdtute, and Thomas Walsh, Wisconsm DOT See the atCached for a more detailed deseripGon Page 20 ATTACHM~NT F: CAST STUDY COMPARISON MATRIX C~ NYC 9icycie Meater Plan Appendix C: S#ress Level Methodology for Evaluating Biaycle-Compatible Roadways The followXng evalaakion eloaely foltows a methodology developed by Alex Sortdn, Notth- western University Traffio Institute, and Tho- mas Walsh, Wisconsin DCYI: Madison is one of ths counCry's madel bta~cle carnmunities, Their syaCem ranks the compatibility af exist- ing roadways based on the relative le~el of stress a cyclist encaunters on a~iven route. Ad- jastmeqts aan been made for cpnditions particu- ]ar ta New York City. The gctal is to esWblish a predicCable method Por evaluahng the sabjec- tive reacdans of bicyclists to different roadway coriditions. In addrtion, feasibilxty o£ imple- meptation of Ciass 2 bicycle lanes ea~ be de- terminecl along a specifiC route, subject to fur- tixer analysi5. Basehne data needad ta complete che evaluation includes volume, as measured by curb lane haurly traffic voXuma, vohicular speed,and curb lane width. Interpretation of Blcyc6ng Stress Levels Curb Lane Width* vs. Stress Level *Curh laria is the right-most travel lane on two- way skreets, and ihe left most travel lane on ane- way saeets. S[ress I.eygj Cerb ~ ane Width (wllhouC parking) i ~ 15' z ia~ a , iz 4 I l' ~urb Lana 1Vi (with parinn$) z z3' zz~ zo~ 19' s io' ~ ie' Streets With bus routes where frequency is greater th&n every 15 ittinutes, 2 feet should be added to all curb lane me~surements, Gurk Lane Traitic Volume~ va. &tress Level *Curb lane is the r~ghk-tnost travel lane ori two- way streets, and tY1e lefr most travel lane un on~- way streets. I i.ow (L) 7nexperienced / Baginner 2 T..ow-Matlerate (LM) Intemud~ate S Modetate (Tv~ Uuermediatc - ExpenenceA 4 Materate-Righ(MH) ~epenenced 5 Ii~gh (H) Expert Suess lavels are used to rake primary stress variables for proposed bicycle ront~s, assuming no ohanges ta exxsking roadway condilions. Primary Roadway Variables Affecting Stress Curb lane width: Field maasaremenk Curb lana traffic valume; Average Daily Traf- fic x Peak Hour factox J number pf Ianes or highest hourly curb lane volume in a 24 four geriod (Automatic Tra~ic Recorder count). S~$P L CVCI Vnlsme ]l~' ~,j]pfjgu l , <SQ Not appl{ca¢le W New 3Cark ' ~i~' 2 ~150 Lo~v 3 ' 1S1,3W Moderate-heavy 4 301-500 Heavy 5 >i00 Approaclungcapaoity Vehlale Speed vs. Stress Levei stl'C9R ~.BVPa ~(~"(~ 1 L15mph <25 mph 26-34 mph 35-44 mph ~45 mph ~~ Not applLcahle to New York City. Low Moderste EC'rgh Approachmg lughway apeed Page 21 ATTACHMENT G: D~SCRIPTION OP CASE STUDY COMPARISON PROJ~CTS Since rts inception in 1993, the Transportation Advisoiy Board (TAB) has played a crucial role in addressmg the concerns of cit~zens while furthermg the goals and objecrives of the city's Transportation Master Plan (TMP) TAB has often been required to make difficult decisions on controveisial transportation pro~ects, particularly in the azea of bike and pedestrian aansportation facilities. Some of the more controversial bike lane pro~ecCs constructed m the past 10 yeus mclude: • 13`~ Street Corcidor • Baseline Bicycle Climbmg Lane • Moorhead Bike Lane • Table Mesa Bike Climbmg Lane These pro~ecCS required the removal of automobile facilities and thereby, brought cidzen opposihon. After thoughYful balancmg of both the benefits and impacts of the proposed facilities, TAB members approved each of the projects. Despite their similar circumslances, unique factors conYributed to the ultimatc approval and construction of each of the facilities. An analysis of each facility is mstrumental m evaluatmg the benefits and impacts of future pro~ects with similar characterishcs. 13~' Street Corridor 13~h Street is one of Boulder's most important bicycle and pedestrian corridors. For many cyclists, it provides an alternative to ridmg on Broadway through the heart of Boulder. The corridor connects south Boulder to north Boulder through Central Park and the downtown areas, providing foot and bicycle access to important destinatrons including schools, medical centers, and retail ouflets. In May of 1992, staff presented a proposal to the City Council askmg approval of an mterim design for the 13~h Stteet bicycle/pedestrian coiridoi from Arapahoe Avenue to Pme Street as pail of the proposed Downtown Plan. Staff proposed a variety of alternatives for the corridor all of which requued removal of some on-street parlung. The pro~ect was met with sigruficant opposihon based on the required removal of on-street parkmg along 13~~' Street through downCown. Council ul6mately chose the alteinative proposed by the Downtown Manag~ement Commission (DMC) that proposed mamtaining the one-way south direchon on 13` SCreet along wiCh replacmg the west side diagonal parking with a contra-flow bike lane Despite the support of the DMC, several businesses along Pearl Street opposed the bike lane because of the loss of approximately 35 metered diagonal parking spaces between Walnut and Spruce. In February of 1996, staff brought a proposal to TAB recommending the completron of the 13~h Street bicycle lane from Pme to Portland The pro~ect required removal of approximately 60 parallel parking spaces. Once again, the project was met with citizen opposihon based on the loss of parking. A workgroup was formed to address these issues and hclp staff identiFy potential solutions Three meehngs were held with affecCed stakeholders, including representatives of area busmesses, schools, iesidents, and roadway users Issues identified included school access, the on-street Kaiser Permanente loadmg zone and handicap parkmg, and parkmg loss as a result of the pro~ect. Page 22 ATTACHMPNT G: DESCRIPTION OF CASF. STUDY COMPARISON PROJ~CTS The public process yieldcd several suggestions to help mingate the impacts of mstallmg bike lanes. Ideas included encouragmg busmesses to piovide Eco Passes for their employees and to promote the use of alternative modes. Ultimately, iC was the suggested inclusion of impact midgaCion efforts that helped TAB decide to approve the project. Today the corridor exists as an essential featuie of the downtown district. 13~h Street provides facilities tor a variety of transportation options while addmg character to the downtown dtstrict. The contra-flow lane from Canyon to Spruce was completed m the fall of 1993 The street throughout downtown is 45' in width curb to cuib. This space accommodates an 8' contra-flow bike lane, a 5.5' divider from traffic, an 18' one way lane of Craffic, and 13.5' of diagonal parkmg (Figure 1). Prior to construction of the contra-flow lane, the 13`~' Street corridor provided metered diagonal parkmg along the east and west side of the street and one lane of traffic between Canyon and Spruce Accordmg to a traffic count peiformed in May of 2001, today the corridor accommodates approximately 3,800 vehicles per day (vpd) and 199 bicycles aggregated durmg peak travel hours. Bike lanes were mstalled on 13'h SCreet from Pme to Portland m October of 1996. Tbis portion of 13~h Street is 40 feet curb to curb. This space accommodates two 5.5' bike lanes, 20' of two way traffic lanes, and 9' of parallel parkmg (Figure 2). Prior to mstallmg lhe bike lanes from Pme to Poitland, the corridor provided free parallel parking along the east and west side oP the street and lanes for lwo-way traffic. According to a traffic count peiformed in September of 2001, today the corrtdor accommodates approximately 1,700 vpd and 171 bicycles aggregated durmg peak travel hours Baseline (Broadway - 6en~ The construction of a bike lane on the north side of Basehne from Broadway to 6`" Street was proposed m July of 1993. Installation iequued the removal of on-streeY parkmg along the north side of Basehne includmg 50 spaces that were heavily used durmg special events aC Chautauqua The project was met with opposition primarily because of the required removal of parkmg near Chautauqua Crtizens felt that the removal of parking would make it difficult to fmd parking, particularly during special events. Overall, TAB Page 23 Figure 2: 13~h Street bike lanes at Pine Figure 2: 13°i Street contra-t7ow lane ATTACHMENT G: DESCRIPTION OF CASE STUDY COMPARISON PROJECTS members supported the pro~ect given that some measures were taken by staff to mingate the parking impacts during special events TAB agreed to approve the Basehne Bicycle Climbing Lane Pro~ecC with the following revisions: 1. A strong recommendation to the Chautauqua Board to encourage alternate mode use, such as a shuttle service to Chautauqua events; 2. Parking allowed on the north side of Baseline for Chautauqua special events only. The bicycle chmbmg lane was installed in August of 1993. The corridor is 35' wide throughout, accommodatmg a 5.5' westbound bike climbing lane and 29.5' for two way automobile traffic and parallel parking spaces along the souYh side of the street (Figure 3). Prior to the installaCion of the climbmg lane Yhe corridor provided parallel parking on both sides of the road. Accordmg to a traffic count performed m May of 2002, today the corridor accommodates 1,400 vpd and 12 bicycles aggregated durmg peak travel hours. Moorhead (Table Mesa - 27`h Way) The construchon of bike lanes on Moorhead was proposed m the fall of 1993. Installation required the removal of on-street parking along the enhre souYh side of Moorhead. Between fall of 1991 and summei of 1992 four public meetmgs were held to address concerns related to bike lanes on Moorhead. The stakeholders were unable to reach a consensus on this pro~ect durmg the meetmg process. A survey of iesidents was taken in July of 1992 to evaluaYe opposition and support oP Yhe project. Out of 45 responses, 15 were from residents that fronted or had side yards ad~acent to Moorhead Avenue, and 30 were from residents who lived m other parts of the neighborhood Of the 15 respondents that lived on or ad~acent to Moorhead, 12 opposed the pro~ect and 3 supported it. Of the other 30 respondents, 28 were m favor of the pro~ect and 2 opposed it. The TAB approved staff's proposal to stripe a bike lane on Mooihead Avenue between 27~h Way and Table Mesa Drive with the amendment that staff launch a follow-up Page 24 Figure 3: 13aseline bike climbing lane Figure 4: Moorhead bike lanes ATTACHMENT G: DESCRIPTION OF CAS~ STUDY COMPARISON PROJECTS parkmg education and Parkmg Demand Management program and review the impacts and findmgs of this follow-up with the Board prior to the street's planned overlay m spung of 1994. Bike lanes were mstalled in December oY 1993. Moorhead is 39.5' wide throughout, accommodating a 5.5' south bound bike lane, 22' of two way traffic, a 5' north bound bike lane and T of parallel parking (Figure 4). Priar to mstallation, Moorhead accommodated parallcl parking on the norlh and south side oP the street. Table Mesa (Broadway - Lehigh) The construction of a bicycle climbmg lane on Table Mesa from Broadway to L,ehigh was proposed to TAB in the winter of 1995. In order to accommodate a bike lane, existmg street widths required e~ther the removal of one lane of traffic or widemng of the road. The final proposal recommended the widerung of Table Mesa from Broadway to Gillaepie m order to aecommodate two lanes of west bound traffic and a bicycle climbing lane. From Gillaspie to Lehigh staff proposed that one lane of west bound traffic be converted mto a bicycle climbing lane. Prior to construction, the pro~ect had broad-based commuruty support. However, some residents who lived directly on the street and adjacent to the widening were opposed to it An open house was held on Dcc. 13, 1995 to present the pto~ect and answei questions regardmg the project. Residents who hved directly ad~acent to the proposed improvements were asked to participate m a neighborhood work group to contmue woiking to define pro~ect elements and identify other needs. It was this woiking group that helped develop the fmal proposal made to TAB. Despite sCrong opposrtion received from citizens that did not participate in the work group the board approved the pro~ect m May of 1996 based on a CEAP and mput from the commumty. During the hearmg a board member noted that there seemed to be strong opposition to staffl s recommendahon from people who were not on the workmg group. SCafF clarified that the first newsletter about the first pubhc meetmg was senY out to abouC 1,000 residents and about 15 people attended that meeting. Any citizens expressmg opposihon along with those impacted duectly by the project were mvited to participate m Page 25 Figure 5: Tablc Mesa Uicycle climbing Iane at Broadway. rigure 6: Table Mesa bicycle climbing lune ut Lehigh ATTACIIMENT G: DTSCRIYTION OF CAS~ STUDY COMPARISON PROJ~CTS Che workgroup Overall, it was felt that despite ihe remammg opposrtion, Che pro~ecYs benefits to bicychsts and pedestrians outweighed the impacts on automobile traffic. Today the lane provides an important bicycle connection m South Boulder. It allows for safe access to and from a varicty of busmesses, schools, neighborhoods, and the library, and provides connections with numerous existing bicycle facihties. The bike lanes were mstalled m 1997 with the overlay of Table Mesa. At Broadway, the west bound lane of Table Mesa is 29' curb to curb, accommodating a 6' climbing lane, and 23' of two lanes of west bound trafftc (Figure 5). From Gillaspie to L.ehigh the west bound lane of Table Mesa is 25' curb to curb, accommodatrng a 6' bike climbmg lane, a 5' divider zone, and a 14' smgle west bound traffic lane (Figure 6). Page 26