East Arapahoe (SH 7) Transportation Plan & AppendicesEAST ARAPAHOE (SH 7) TRANSPORTATION PLAN
SETTING THE VISION FOR 2040
March 2018
Acknowledgements
City Council
Suzanne Jones (Mayor)
Aaron Brockett
Bob Yates
Cindy Carlisle
Jill Adler Grano
Lisa Morzel
Mary Young
Mirabai Kuk Nagle
Sam Weaver
Matt Appelbaum (former)
Jan Burton (former)
Andrew Shoemaker (former)
TAB
Johnny Drozdek
Dom Nozzi
Tila Duhaime
Jennifer Nicoll
Bill Rigler
Andrea Bilich (former)
Daniel Stellar (former)
Anna Reid (former)
Zane Selvens (former)
Community Working Group
Kai Abelkis
Dave Baskett
Aaron Cook
David Cook
Johnny Drozdek
Guy Fromme
Aaron Johnson
Yvan Lehuerou
Sherry Olson
Aaron Pasterz
Elisabeth Patterson
Sue Prant
Anna Reid
Bill Roettker
Thomas Sanford
Jerry Shapins
Becca Weaver
City Staff
Management and Administration
Jane Brautigam - City Manager
Maureen Rait – Executive Director of Public Works
Transportation
Michael Gardner-Sweeney – Director of Public Works
for Transportation
Kathleen Bracke – GO Boulder Manager - AICP
Jean Sanson – Senior Transportation Planner - AICP
Bill Cowern – Principal Traffic Engineer - PE
Chris Hagelin – Senior Transportation Planner
Dave Kemp – Senior Transportation Planner
Amy Lewin – Senior Transportation Planner – PE, PTP
Randall Rutsch – Senior Transportation Planner – AICP,
MPA
Natalie Stiffler – Senior Transportation Planner - AICP
Ted Harberg – Analysis and Community Engagement
Oscar Saucedo-Andrade – Graphics and Community
Engagement
Planning, Housing, + Sustainability
Jim Robertson – Director of Planning, Housing +
Sustainability
Lesli Ellis – Comprehensive Planning Manager
Beth Chamberlin – Planner I
Communications
Ben Irwin – Deputy Director of Communications
Meghan Wilson – Communication Manager for Public
Works/Planning, Housing + Sustainability
Deanna Kamhi – Public Works/Planning, Housing +
Sustainability
Brady Delander – Newsletter and Neighborhood
Services
Boulder County Transportation
George Gerstle – Transportation Director
Mark Ambrosi – Long Range Transportation Planner
Consultant Support
Nelson\Nygaard
Tom Brennan
Oren Eshel
Corinna Kimball-Brown
Paul Leitman
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Bill Fox, P.E.
Cassie Slade, P.E.
Josh Mehlem, LEED AP
Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants
Charlie Alexander, P.E., AICP
Carly Sieff, AICP
Chris Brown
studioINSITE:
Jim Leggitt, FAIA
Catalyst Inc:
Barbara Lewis
OnSight Public Affairs:
Curtis Hubbard
ii | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
CONTENTS
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | iii
The East Arapahoe (SH 7) Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Introduction ................................................................................1
Corridor Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Character Districts ..........................................................................8
The Need for Investment ...................................................................10
Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Alternatives and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
What is the Long-Term Vision? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Vision Statement ...........................................................................19
Vision by Character District .................................................................22
Walking and Bicycling ......................................................................24
Streetscape, Land Use, and Urban Design ....................................................25
Motor Vehicles .............................................................................26
Transit ....................................................................................27
Conceptual Station and Mobility Hub Locations ...............................................28
Mobility Hubs ..............................................................................29
Access Management, Parking, and Transportation Demand Management .......................30
Advanced Mobility .........................................................................31
What are the Benefits? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
How will the Plan be Implemented? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
Implementation Approach ................................................................34
Planning and Design .......................................................................35
Pedestrian and Bicycle ....................................................................36
First and Final Mile and TDM ................................................................37
Transit and Vehicular .......................................................................38
Funding, Partnerships, and Coordination ....................................................39
Monitoring ...............................................................................40
End Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Appendix A: Existing Conditions Report
Appendix B: Purpose and Goals Report
Appendix C: Evaluation of Alternatives Report
Appendix D: Additional Vision Elements
Appendix E: Detailed Action Plan
A hallmark of any great city is that its streets are
designed with consideration for all people and
designed in support of community values. Mobility
is not a means in and of itself, but rather a function
that supports a vital, healthy, and sustainable
community. Today, East Arapahoe is a street with
design oriented largely for motor vehicles. The
vision for East Arapahoe is one where all users are
considered, accommodated, and celebrated. Simply
put, complete streets are streets for everyone.”
- East Arapahoe Transportation Plan Vision Statement
“
iv | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
THE EAST ARAPAHOE (SH 7) CORRIDOR
Introduction
The East Arapahoe Corridor is one of the city’s busiest regional
travel corridors. It is a 4.5-mile segment of Arapahoe Avenue
(State Highway 7) that connects downtown Boulder to 75th
Street and beyond to neighboring communities. Tens of
thousands of people move through the corridor every day. Many
call the area home, while even more are employed in the corridor
or pass through on their way to jobs throughout Boulder.
The travel needs for people working, living, and accessing
services within the East Arapahoe corridor are changing.
East Arapahoe is no longer seen as a “pass through” corridor
for in-commuters—it has, in fact, become one of Boulder’s
largest employment centers. From students traveling between
university campuses to employees wanting to grab lunch, people
are looking for safe and convenient ways to travel between
destinations along East Arapahoe and other areas of the city,
whether they are walking, biking, taking transit, ridesharing, or
driving. This Plan sets out a long-range vision that will be phased
over time, with safety, access, and mobility improvements that
can be phased incrementally to improve conditions for people
working and living in the corridor today and into the future.
This Plan also addresses increasing regional demand for travel
to and through the East Arapahoe corridor, as substantial
development is expected in communities east of Boulder.
Regional change impacts the local and regional economy; how
mobility needs associated with those changes are managed will
shape Boulder’s ability to meet its vision for a safe, equitable,
efficient, and climate-friendly transportation system.
The Twenty-Ninth Street Retail Center (top)
and Ball Aerospace and Engineering (bot-
tom) are two of the major destinations in the
East Arapahoe corridor.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | 1
To begin to address this challenge,
regional partners between Boulder and
Brighton have formed the SH 7 Coalition
to coordinate and advocate for creating
a regional multimodal corridor with high-
quality/high-frequency bus rapid transit
(BRT), a regional bikeway, pedestrian
improvements and first and final mile
supportive infrastructure and strategies.
East Arapahoe is a key segment of this
corridor and this Plan defines the city’s
commitment to advancing local multimodal
improvements in support of improved
regional access and mobility along the
length of SH 7.
Importantly, the Plan provides a great deal
of flexibility to adapt—both to future land
use changes within the corridor and to rapid
technological advances that have ushered
in an era of evolution in mobility options.
Plan Organization
The plan includes the following sections:
• The Existing and Future Conditions
section provides an overview of
the corridor and introduces the
five character districts that were
developed to help frame solutions,
and describes their existing
conditions and planned land use per
the BVCP.
• The Process section describes
the milestones, community
engagement, and overall planning
process. It presents the plan goals
and describes how alternatives
were evaluated to achieve the
community’s vision.
• The Vision section describes the
2040 vision for the corridor and its
key elements.
• The Benefits section highlights
expected outcomes for the corridor
and the city.
• The Implementation section
describes near-, mid- and long-
term steps, funding strategies,
partnerships and coordination, and
monitoring.
Ridehailing companies such as Uber and
Lyft are changing the dynamic of personal
mobility; autonomous vehicles and buses
bring potential for safety enhancements
and may allow transit to operate more
ubiquitously.
All these aspects add complexity to the
challenge of managing limited street and
public space.
Boulder’s Community values are strong
and clearly documented in the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), the
Boulder Transportation Master Plan (TMP),
the city’s Sustainability Framework and
Climate Commitment. The vision for the East
Arapahoe Corridor connects those values
with solutions for the corridor’s challenges.
The University of Colorado East Campus
Source: flickr user Kevin Baird .
Boulder Jewish Community Center
Source: www.rbbarchitects.com
2 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
To Downtown
Boulder TC
To
Brighton/
I-2575th St9th St30th St55th StPearl St
Folsom StPine St
Arapahoe Ave
17th StColorado Ave 63rd StWalnut St
Westview DrCherryvale Rd20th
S
t
University Ave 33rd StBaseline Rd
Valmont Rd
38th
48th St3628th StBro
a
d
w
a
y
Canyon Blvd
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
kw
y
S. Boulder Rd
7
ValmontReservoir
BaselineReservoir
Downtown Boulder Transit Center Twenty-Ninth Street Retail Center Boulder Community Health
University of Colorado Boulder ValleySchool District
NaropaUniversityFlatironBusiness Park
JewishCommunity CenterFlatironsGolf CourseBoulderHigh School
Table Mesa Station
Ball Aerospace& Engineering
Boulder Junction at Depot Square Transit Center
East Arapahoe Corridor
N
East Arapahoe Transportation Plan Study Area
The plan study area extends along Arapahoe Avenue between Folsom Street and 75th Street.
The East Arapahoe corridor is a segment of SH 7 that connects downtown Boulder on the
west and I-25/Brighton on the east.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | 3
Complete Streets
The Boulder Transportation Master Plan (TMP) identifies Arapahoe Avenue for complete street improvements and calls for a transportation
plan for the corridor. Complete streets accommodate all modes of transportation by planning, designing, and building facilities for
pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and vehicle drivers.
WHAT ARE COMPLETE STREETS?
Bicycle
Accommodations
Crossing Visibility Transit
Great streets are an important element of creating community,
and need to be shaped, comfortable, connected, safe and memorable.
-Victor Dover
Gathering Spaces
Parks, plazas and courtyards
create destinations along the
street. These become
opportunities for organized
events, space to celebrate
nature and culture.
Bicycle facilities
oer separation
from vehicular
trac for cyclist.
These can include
multi-use paths,
on-street buered
and protected bike
lanes. A complete
street will
accommodate a
wide range of ages
and abilities.
Ecien cy
Roadway design and
operations should
allow people to travel
reliably and
understand how to
safely and efficiently
move by bus or motor
vehicle.
Clearly marked
crossings create a
safe and comfortable
environment for
people crossing the
street by foot, bike
and wheelchair.
A complete street
considers every
passenger’s trip
from start to
nish. Transit stops
should provide
shelter, seating,
waynding and
transit information.
Walking
A complete
street should
provide a high
quality environment
where people
are safe walking and
have natural
features and great
destinations that
make people walk.
4 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
• Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT)
State Highway 7 Planning
and Environmental
Linkages (PEL) Study
(2014 and 2017) – The
2014 study identifies improvements on
SH 7 between 75th Street and US 85 in
Brighton, including a regional bikeway,
transit stations, transit queue jumps,
and a future managed lane or expanded
shoulder for BRT and high-occupancy
vehicles. The 2017 study identifies
improvements on SH 7 between
US 287 and 75th Street, including a
separated multi-use path; intersection
enhancements and shoulders in the
short-term; and either full width
shoulders or a center contra-flow lane
for transit, high-occupancy vehicles, and
potentially autonomous vehicles in the
long-term.
• Boulder County State Highway 7
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study (2016
- present) – Confirms regional BRT
feasibility and develops an operations
plan for the SH 7 corridor, which includes
the East Arapahoe study area.
Local Plans and Policies
• City of Boulder
Transportation Master
Plan (TMP) (2014)
– Identifies the East
Arapahoe corridor as a
priority for future bus
rapid transit (BRT).
• Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan
Update (2017) – Identifies
East Boulder and the
East Arapahoe corridor
for future employment
growth and mixed-use
development. A sub-area plan for the
55th & Arapahoe area is expected to be
initiated in 2019.
• University of Colorado (CU) East
Campus Master Plan (2013) –
Documents a partnership between the
University of Colorado (CU) and the
City of Boulder to advance important
sustainable transportation connections
in the east campus area.
• City of Boulder Climate Commitment
(2016) - Provides a vision for Boulder’s
future, sets goals and targets related to
emissions reduction and sustainability
and provides initial pathways to reaching
these goals.
• Boulder Access
Management and
Parking Strategy (AMPS)
(2014-2017) – Identifies
opportunities in the
East Arapahoe corridor
including exploring the
creation of access management and
parking districts and improving travel
options, e.g., through shared-use
mobility and satellite/edge parking.
Regional Plans
• Regional Transportation District
(RTD) Northwest Area Mobility Study
(NAMS) (2014) – Includes Arapahoe/
SH 7 between Boulder and Brighton as
a long-term priority arterial bus rapid
transit (BRT) route, with connections in
Lafayette and at I-25.
Policy Foundation
Local and regional plans identify the East Arapahoe corridor as a priority for multimodal transportation investments over the short- and
long-term. The corridor is critical to connecting a growing region to the many jobs, services, and educational and recreational opportunities
in Boulder. The East Arapahoe Transportation Plan builds upon previous planning efforts to craft a clear vision for the future of the corridor.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | 5
The Coalition seeks to advocate for a multimodal
corridor that includes high-quality/high-frequency
BRT and a regional bikeway accompanied by
local bus, bike & pedestrian connections, first
and last mile connections, and future innovative
transportation modes.”
- State Highway 7 Coalition Statement of Purpose
The East Arapahoe corridor is a vital segment of this
regional corridor connecting downtown Boulder to
I-25 and Brighton.
“
6 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
CORRIDOR CONDITIONS
Today, Arapahoe Avenue is a six-lane arterial through most of the study area. It is served
by frequent RTD JUMP bus service. People walking and bicycling enjoy a multi-use path for
much of the corridor, but both the path and the sidewalk have significant gaps, crossings
are at signalized intersections that may be far apart, and bicycle facilities are limited.
Because there are only a few continuous east-west and north-south roads in East Boulder,
there are limited alternative routes for many trips through and within the East Arapahoe
corridor. This underscores the importance of designing and managing the corridor so that it
works for all users. This includes ensuring efficient and reliable freight and goods movement
for businesses in the corridor.
JUMP bus service
and the multi-use
path on Arapahoe
Avenue.
For more
information
see Appendix
A: Existing
Conditions
Report
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | 7
Character Districts
The street features, design, interface with
private properties and types of land use
along East Arapahoe vary considerably
throughout the study area. With input
from stakeholders and public, the project
team developed five character districts to
help frame the discussion of existing travel
conditions, identify needs and opportunities,
and consider transportation solutions for
each unique section of the corridor. The
districts are distinguished by key land use
conditions (existing and planned per the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan), the
number of travel and turn lanes, types of
intersections and crossings, and the type,
extent and quality of pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit facilities.
A 29th Street District
Existing Conditions
Land Use:
• Higher density retail and mixed-use
• University of Colorado East Campus
Auto: 6 travel lanes + turn lanes
Bike/Ped: Multi-use path with small gaps
Transit: Queue jumps for buses at
selected intersections
BVCP Planned Land Use
• Mixed-use and infill development
• Expansion of CU East Campus
B Boulder Creek
Transition Zone
Existing Conditions
Land Use: Riparian wetland
Auto: 6 travel lanes + turn lanes
Bike/Ped: Multi-use path
Transit: Queue jumps at intersection
BVCP Planned Land Use
• Similar to existing
EAST ARAPAHOE CHARACTER DISTRICTS, EXISTING AND PLANNED CONDITIONS
Downtown
Transition
Zone
SH 7/Regional
Transition Zone
Routing to
downtown Boulder
A B C ED
75th St9th St30th St55th StPearl St
Folsom StPine St
Arapahoe Ave
17th StColorado Ave 63rd StWalnut St
Westview DrCherryvale Rd20th
S
t
33rd StBaseline Rd
Valmont Rd
38th
48th StF
oo
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
kwy28th StBroadway
Canyon Blvd
S. Boulder Rd
36
ValmontReservoir
BaselineReservoir
Downtown Boulder
Transit Center
7
East Arapahoe Corridor
8 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Downtown
Transition
Zone
SH 7/Regional
Transition Zone
Routing to
downtown Boulder
AB C ED
75th St9th St30th St55th StPearl St
Folsom StPine St
Arapahoe Ave
17th StColorado Ave 63rd StWalnut St
Westview DrCherryvale Rd20th
S
t
33rd StBaseline Rd
Valmont Rd
38th
48th StF
oo
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
kwy28th StBroadway
Canyon Blvd
S. Boulder Rd
36
ValmontReservoir
BaselineReservoir
Downtown Boulder
Transit Center
7
East Arapahoe Corridor
C Innovation & Health District
Existing Conditions
Land Use: Medium density institutional & light
industrial
Auto: 6 travel lanes + turn lanes
Bike/Ped: Multi-use path incomplete on south side
Transit: No special transit treatments at intersections
BVCP Planned Land Use
• Boulder Community Health expansion
• 55th and Arapahoe neighborhood center, with
local retail and other community businesses
• Housing infill and mixed-use development in light
industrial areas, where appropriate
D Industry & Education District
Existing Conditions
Land Use: Low-density office, light industrial, retail
Auto: 5 travel lanes + turn lanes
Bike/Ped:
• Multi-use path incomplete on both sides
• On street bike lanes
Transit: Transit lanes east of 63rd
BVCP Planned Land Use
• Housing infill and mixed-use development in
light industrial, where appropriate
• Very low to medium-density residential
E Gateway District
Existing Conditions
Land Use: Open space/farmland with
clusters of other land uses
Auto: 2 travel lanes + center turn lane
Bike/Ped:
• Multi-use path on north side only
• On-street bike lanes or wide shoulders
Transit: Queue jump for buses at 75th
Street
BVCP Planned Land Use
• Similar to existing
N
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | 9
CITY CENTER................due
LIBRARY..........................3min.
TRANSIT MAP
The Need for Investment
For more information see Appendix A: Existing Conditions Report
and Appendix B: Purpose and Goals Report.10 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
SAFETY AND COMFORT
• Vision Zero: Between 2012 and
2014, three intersections in the
corridor had over 100 collisions,
with most being rear-end
crashes.3
• Safety Challenges for Active
Transportation: Wide street
crossings, narrow sidewalks and a
lack of buffers make walking and
bicycling less attractive.
TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT
POTENTIAL
• Lack of Passenger Amenities: Of
57 JUMP stops in the study area,
only 44% have a bench, 26% have a
shelter, and 23% have bike parking.1
• Transit Travel Time is Not
Competitive: Eastbound transit
travel times are five minutes longer
during the evening commute than in
the morning, and are nearly twice as
long as auto travel times.2
GAPS IN THE PEDESTRIAN
AND BICYCLE NETWORK
• Incomplete Pedestrian and Bicycle
Network: Multiple locations in the
corridor lack a sidewalk or multi-use
path on one or both sides of the
street.
• Lack of North-South Crossings:
Signalized crossings are limited—
more than 1/4 mile apart in most of
the corridor.
• Neighborhood Access: Difficult for
residents to reach destinations
PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE
• Evolving land use and
technology: The plan should allow
flexibility to respond to change.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | 11
EMPLOYMENT
• Job Center: More than 35,500
jobs—roughly 40% of Boulder’s total
employment—are located within
a half-mile of the East Arapahoe
corridor.4
• Jobs and Commerce: Of the 2,200
development review applications in
the City of Boulder in 2015, nearly 25%
were within one-half mile of Arapahoe
Avenue.5 East Boulder has greater
potential for commercial development
than the rest of the city, while other
parts of the city are near capacity.6
REGIONAL ACCESS
• Increasing Vehicle Traffic: Traffic
volumes at the east end of the
corridor have nearly doubled in the
past 30 years.8
• Large Number of Commuters:
Approximately 47% of Boulder
workers commute from other places
in the region.9 The rate of single-
occupancy vehicle (SOV) work trips
for in-commuters is well above the
rate for residents—80% versus 47%.10
• Growing Regional Demand: Regional
forecasts estimate as much as a 20%
increase in travel demand over the
next twenty years.11
LIMITED TRAVEL OPTIONS
• Travel Options: Currently, only
25% of employees in the East
Arapahoe corridor have access
to an EcoPass; People with an
EcoPass are four to seven times
more likely to use transit than
those without a pass.6
• Bike Share Access: There are only
four BCycle stations along the
corridor and one eGo car share
location.
As members of the CWG, we feel that this was
a credible process that accounted for both a
technically rigorous analysis and extensive public
input.”
- Community Working Group Statement of Findings
“
12 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
PLANNING PROCESS
To seek input from a broad range of perspectives and representatives from across the
city and region, the City of Boulder reached out to the community through numerous
events and focus groups, met with the Transportation Advisory Board and the City
Council, and formed a Community Working Group (CWG) to provide input to the project
team throughout the duration of the planning process. The CWG helped the project team
establish plan goals and objectives, define character districts, review design alternatives and
evaluation criteria, and discuss implementation and phasing. The result is a plan that details
a comprehensive vision for the corridor and each of its character districts.
The next phases of the project will include finalizing corridor design and pursuing funding
and implementation strategies. This plan is the first step on the journey to accomplishing
the vision.
The Community
Working Group
discusses East
Arapahoe character
districts at their
October 2016
meeting.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | 13
Boulder Public Process Principles
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Public Input – November 2015 to February 2016
City of Boulder
City of Boulder|10
8.YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES ADVISORY BOARD
The project team met with the Youth Opportunities Advisory Board on April 7, 2017 to take the
students on a Walk Audit of the eastern portion of the East Arapahoe Corridor (between
Cherryvale and the BVSD Arapahoe campus). The students answered questions on a walk audit
questionnaire, and then offered their advice on the pros and cons of the various end-to-end
alternatives being considered for the corridor.Below are their responses.
Feedback from the Youth Opportunity Advisory Board
Alternative 1 –No Build
As a Pedestrian
Pros:
•Wide Sidewalks
Cons:
•No barriers
•No crosswalks
•No shade trees
As a Person on Bicycle
Pros:
•Multi-use Path
•No traffic on path
•Path is in good condition
Cons:
•Right next to vehicles
•Nothing to break weather
•Fast traffic
The public engagement
process included four open
house events (top) and a
meeting and walk audit of
the corridor with the Youth
Opportunities Advisory
Board (left).
14 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The public outreach and stakeholder
engagement process for the East Arapahoe
Transportation Plan was rooted in the core
principles & values of public engagement
identified by the Public Participation
Working Group (PPWG):
• The problem is clearly defined
• Public engagement is thoughtfully
planned
• All voices are encouraged & included
• Public contribution & civil participation
are fostered
• The process is trustworthy and
transparent
The plan was developed using a
comprehensive decision-making process
consistent with the nine-step decision-
making process recommended by the Public
Participation Working Group.
Plan purpose and goals
Developed draft purpose, goals,
objectives, and evaluation criteria
for the plan. Documented existing
and projected conditions.
May 2016
• Community Working
Group (CWG) is formed
• City Council meeting
Long list of corridor elements
Identified potential design and
management elements (based on
national and international best
practices, local and regional plans,
previous technical work, public and
stakeholder outreach, and input
from the CWG).
Oct
2016
CWG
June 2016
CWG
Narrowed list of corridor elements
Narrowed the long list of potential
design and management elements
to eliminate those that do not align
with the plan purpose and goals or
do not meet basic feasibility, cost, or
safety criteria.
Potential corridor designs
Developed alternatives
utilizing the narrowed list
of elements.
April 2016
Complete Streets
open house
Oct 2016
Complete Streets
open house
Feb 2017
• Boulder Chamber Policy
Roundtable
• Public open house
• Meetings with Community
Cycles and Better Boulder
March 2017
• TAB meeting
• Neighborhood meeting
• Growing Up Boulder
April 2017
Youth Opportunities
Advisory Board
May 2017
• Public open house
• TAB meeting June 2017
Boulder Chamber
Policy Roundtable
Individual & employer outreach meetings were held throughout 2016 and 2017
Aug
2017
CWG
Aug
2016
CWG
Sept 2017
• City Council meeting
• TAB meeting
Aug 2016
TAB
meeting
Nov 2016
• City Council meeting
• TAB meeting
March 2016
TAB meeting
IMPLEMENTATION
Character districts
Identified a set of
character districts and
potential design
elements based on the
unique characteristics
of different segments
of the corridor.
Character district vision
Developed a draft vision
statement for each character
district based on CWG input.
Preliminary alternatives
Developed a preliminary set
of design and management
alternatives and cross-section
illustrations for each character
district for CWG review.
Evaluation criteria and methods
Developed refined evaluation criteria
and methods to measure how well the
draft alternatives meet the plan goals
and objectives.
Evaluation of alternatives
Evaluated each of the
alternatives, by character
district.
Preferred vision
Conducted stakeholder
and public engagement
and synthesized the
evaluation results.
Dec
2016
CWG
March
2017
CWG
April
2017
CWG
Nov
2017
CWG
Feb
2018
CWG
Final
Plan
Implementation and phasing
Developed implementation
and phasing strategies.
2014
• RTD’s Northwest Area
Mobility Study identifies
East Arapahoe/SH7 as
a priority BRT corridor
• Boulder’s TMP Update
identifies need for East
Arapahoe Corridor Plan
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN PROCESS AND MILESTONES
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | 15
Goals
Plan goals and objectives were developed to
guide development of the plan in support of
Boulder’s TMP goals and policies. They are
based on analysis of existing and projected
conditions for the East Arapahoe corridor,
and City of Boulder plans and policies.
Goal 1. Complete Streets:
Provide Complete Streets in the
East Arapahoe corridor that
offer people a variety of safe
and reliable travel choices.
• Provide safe travel for all modes using
the East Arapahoe corridor, including
supporting the “Vision Zero” effort to
eliminate fatalities and serious injuries
from traffic collisions.
• Improve the ease of access and
comfort for people walking in the East
Arapahoe corridor, and ensure the vision
contributes to placemaking.
• Broaden the appeal of bicycling along
the East Arapahoe corridor to people of
all ages and bicycling abilities.
• Make transit a convenient and practical
travel option in the East Arapahoe
corridor.
• Move drivers efficiently through the East
Arapahoe corridor.
Goal 2. Local and Regional
Travel: Increase the number
of person trips the East
Arapahoe corridor can carry to
accommodate local transportation needs
and projected changes in surrounding
communities.
• Improve local travel options within the
East Arapahoe corridor for residents,
employees, and visitors.
• Improve regional travel options between
Boulder and communities to the east for
work and other regional trips.
Goal 3. Transportation Demand
Management (TDM): Promote
more efficient use of the
transportation system and offer
people travel options within the
East Arapahoe corridor.
• Improve first and final mile connections
to help people conveniently and safely
walk and bike to and from transit.
• Promote the use of multiple
transportation options in East Boulder
by residents and workers.
Goal 4. Funding: Deliver
cost-effective transportation
solutions for the East Arapahoe
corridor that can be phased
over time.
• Coordinate with public and private
entities, including adjacent land
owners, to implement cost-effective
transportation improvements.
Goal 5. Sustainability: Develop
transportation improvements in
the East Arapahoe corridor that
support Boulder’s Sustainability
Framework (desired outcomes
include a community that is Safe, Healthy
& Socially Thriving; Livable, Accessible &
Connected; Environmentally Sustainable;
Economically Vital; and provides Good
Governance).
• Reduce greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions
and air pollution from vehicle travel
within the East Arapahoe corridor.
• Improve travel options that promote
public health for residents and workers
along the East Arapahoe corridor.
• Provide access to affordable transit
and other travel options to low- and
moderate-income residents and workers
along the East Arapahoe corridor.
• Preserve and improve economic vitality
in the East Arapahoe corridor.
• Promote and improve water quality,
and reduce the urban heat island effect
through roadway and landscape design.
16 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
CITY CENTER................due
LIBRARY..........................3min.
TRANSIT MAP
ACCESSIBLE AND CONNECTED
AND COMMUNITY
Oers and encourages a variety of safe,
accessible, and sustainable mobility options
Supports strong regional multimodal
connections
Supports a balanced transportation system
that promotes 15-minute neighborhoods
ENVIRONMENTALLY
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY
Moves Boulder toward its carbon neutral goal
ECONOMICALLY VITAL
COMMUNITY
Invests in infrastructure and amenities
that attract, sustain and retain diverse
businesses, entrepreneurs and jobs
LIVABLE COMMUNITY
Provides safe and well-maintained infrastructure
Serves neighborhoods
GOOD GOVERNANCE AND
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Constructing and maintaining safe and
eective multimodal corridors requires
smart use of limited public funds
Ensures a community voice in the
planning process for people traveling via
all modes
HEALTHY AND SOCIALLY
THRIVING COMMUNITY
Improves access and comfort for people
using active and healthy travel options
Connects people to parks, schools and
health care
SAFE COMMUNITY
Increases safety for people using all
modes of transportation
East Arapahoe is one of several corridors where the City of Boulder is
planning for complete street improvements that will advance the community
goals and desired outcomes outlined in the Sustainability Framework.
Alternatives and Evaluation
To develop a long-term vision for East Arapahoe, a number
of complete street design and management alternatives
were developed by the project team; these alternatives
were shaped with input from the Community Working
Group, corridor stakeholders, TAB, City Council, and the
public through meetings and a series of outreach events.
The four conceptual alternatives developed illustrate a
range of potential complete street design options for East
Arapahoe:
• Alternative 1/No Build Alternative: no transportation
improvements are made.
• Alternative 2: maintains current roadway design and
makes a minimal investment in complete street features
such as completing gaps in the multi-use path, adding
more transit vehicles and enhancing stops.
• Alternatives 3 and 4: significant investment in complete
street features such as repurposing existing travel lanes
for exclusive bus rapid transit (BRT) lanes and adding
protected bicycle lanes and pedestrian treatments.
Alternative 3 calls for side-running BRT, while
Alternative 4 calls for center-running BRT.
To determine which elements of each alternative best
met City and plan goals, an evaluation framework was
developed. The evaluation addressed seven major aspects
of corridor design and operation. For each of the seven
categories, a series of measures was applied to each
character district to guide development of a corridor vision
that is customized to the unique segments of the corridor
and is aligned with Boulder’s community values. CA PIT A L C O S T S /IM PLEM E N T A T I O N
TRANSITVEHICULA
R
CAPITAL COSTS
/IMPLEMENTATI
ONSUSTAI
N
A
BILITY
SAFE T Y TRAVEL MODESHAREPEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLEEVALUATION FRAMEWORK
Based on the technical evaluation, it was determined that Alternative 3
best meets the plan goals and city’s TMP objectives. In comparison to
Alternatives 1, 2 and 4, Alternative 3 is expected to enhance safety for
all users, best maintain auto travel time while providing a transit travel
time that is competitive with the automobile, and increase access
and comfort for all people walking and bicycling. Alternative 3 is the
recommended complete street design option and basis for the long-
term vision described in the following pages.
18 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
WHAT IS THE LONG-TERM VISION?
Vision Statement
A hallmark of any great city is that its streets are designed with consideration for all people
and designed in support of community values. Mobility is not a means in and of itself, but
rather a function that supports a vital, healthy, and sustainable community. Today, East
Arapahoe is a street with design oriented largely for motor vehicles. The vision for East
Arapahoe is one where all users are considered, accommodated, and celebrated. Simply
put, complete streets are streets for everyone.
The vision for the East Arapahoe corridor is one where:
• Boulder residents of all ages and physical abilities can safely navigate multi-use paths,
public transit, protected bike lanes, and roadways as they make their way around the
community.
• Commuters travel to and through East Arapahoe using high-quality bus rapid transit,
shared transportation, a regional bikeway, and modes that limit impact on community
health and the environment.
• East Arapahoe is designed to minimize conflict points for people using all modes,
including driveways and intersections, and support the city’s Vision Zero goal of
eliminating serious injuries and fatalities resulting from traffic collisions.
• Future infill and redevelopment complete the vision streetscape design and transform
the street to create a place where people want to be, rather than simply pass through.
• Business and services have an attractive, customer-friendly streetscape in retail areas
and reliable access to move goods and freight to and through the corridor.
• People connect seamlessly to transit and shared transportation services using mobility
hubs, which provide access to other parts of the community and region.
• The corridor serves as a welcoming community destination and gateway to Boulder,
inviting residents, employees, and visitors.
• Boulder community values guide the corridor vision and implementation.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | 19
16-111 C.1.0 042217.jpg
NEW East Arapahoe Renderings 042217
EXISTING CONDITIONS (TYPICAL)A Vision for 2040
The long-term vision for East
Arapahoe describes the desired
future condition of the corridor by
the year 2040.
The vision is dynamic—recognizing
that change will come in phases—
and responsive to evolving
community planning, mobility
advancements, and how private
development shapes the corridor.
The following sections identify the
key vision elements, demonstrate
how the vision knits the character
districts together, and provide
detail about each key element.
20 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
2040 VISION The long-term vision for East
Arapahoe includes:
• Two general-purpose traffic
lanes are maintained in each
direction, except in a portion
of Character District D and in
District E, where the existing
condition will be retained.
• Regional BRT service connects
downtown Boulder to I-25 and
Brighton via State Highway 7.
BRT operates in business access
and transit (BAT) lanes. BAT
lanes also accomodate HOVs,
local buses, right-turning vehicles,
and new technologies such as
shared autonomous/connected
vehicles.
• Raised protected bike lanes,
with a multi-use path, except
in Character District E; the
protected bike lane may be set
back from or adjacent to the
street.
• Amenity zones enhance the
streetscape and public realm.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | 21
Vision by Character District
A 29th Street District – Folsom Street to Boulder Creek C Innovation and Health District – East of Foothills to East of 55th
Downtown Transition Zone
Within Boulder, the BRT route connects
the Downtown Boulder Transit Center
to Arapahoe Avenue using Canyon
Boulevard and Folsom Street.
The City of Boulder is conducting a
separate corridor study along Canyon
Boulevard as well as 30th Street and
Colorado Boulevard.
District B is a transition zone between Districts A and C. A separate
study will need to resolve the configuration of the Foothills Parkway
intersection to accommodate the East Arapahoe plan.
B Boulder Creek Transition Zone
Downtown
Transition
Zone
SH 7/Regional
Transition Zone
Routing to
downtown Boulder
A B C ED
75th St9th St30th St55th StPearl St
Folsom StPine St
Arapahoe Ave
17th StColorado Ave 63rd StWalnut St
Westview DrCherryvale Rd20th
S
t
33rd StBaseline Rd
Valmont Rd
38th
48th StFo
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
kwy28th StBroadway
Canyon Blvd
S. Boulder Rd
36
ValmontReservoir
BaselineReservoir
Downtown Boulder
Transit Center
7
East Arapahoe Corridor
In District A, Arapahoe Avenue is a pedestrian-oriented urban
boulevard serving a regional center and the expanding CU East
Campus. Sidewalks can be expanded to provide flexible space for
café seating and other uses. Transit stations are designed to provide
convenient connections to regional BRT and local transit service
along 28th and 30th Streets.
In District C, Arapahoe Avenue is pedestrian and bike accessible
and permeable, supporting a diverse mix of uses and services.
These include Boulder Community Health, Ball Aerospace, a
variety of small businesses, and residential neighborhoods to
the south. At 55th and Arapahoe, local transit and shared-use
mobility options connect the corridor to Flatiron Business Park
and a planned mix of uses. The 55th & Arapahoe Area Plan will
develop a more detailed integrated land use and transportation
vision for this area, including a planned mobility hub.
22 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Downtown
Transition
Zone
SH 7/Regional
Transition Zone
Routing to
downtown Boulder
ABC ED
75th St9th St30th St55th StPearl St
Folsom StPine St
Arapahoe Ave
17th StColorado Ave 63rd StWalnut St
Westview DrCherryvale Rd20th
S
t
33rd StBaseline Rd
Valmont Rd
38th
48th StFo
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
kwy28th StBroadway
Canyon Blvd
S. Boulder Rd
36
ValmontReservoir
BaselineReservoir
Downtown Boulder
Transit Center
7
East Arapahoe Corridor
D Industry and Education District – East of 55th to Westview E Gateway District – Westview Drive to 75th Street
District E maintains its rural character. It provides a gateway
to Boulder and highlights the corridor’s view features.
Arapahoe Avenue retains much of its original configuration
but extends the existing BAT lanes and enhances pedestrian
and bicycle facilities.
The existing multi-use path on the north side connects to
a planned regional bikeway along SH 7. On-street bicycle
facilities may be buffer- or barrier- protected.
District D transitions to open space and a less urban
character. Arapahoe Avenue provides complete facilities for
all users, and supports adaptive industrial uses including the
arts, and enhanced cultural and educational institutions.
Where existing traffic lanes transition from three to two
lanes per direction east of 55th Street, the next phase of
concept design will need to evaluate where the future
transition from two to one general purpose traffic lane per
direction should occur.
N
SH 7/Regional Transition Zone
East of 75th Street, high-quality/high-
frequency regional BRT service extends
east along SH 7 to I-25/Brighton.
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities along
Arapahoe connect to a regional bikeway
along SH 7.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | 23
• Two design options are feasible, and
will likely vary by character district. The
configuration will be refined in a later
design phase.
A narrow paved buffer separates the protected
bike lane from the roadway, and a wide amenity
zone with street trees is located between the
protected bike lane and the multi-use path.
A wide amenity zone with street trees separates
the protected bike lane from the roadway, and a
narrower amenity zone is located between the
protected bike lane and multi-use path.
Walking and Bicycling
DESIGN OPTION 1
DESIGN OPTION 2
Long-Term Vision
People walking and biking in the East
Arapahoe corridor have comfortable,
uninterrupted facilities. There are distinct,
context-appropriate facilities for people
biking at low speeds or with young
children—who may be more comfortable
on a multi-use path—and for faster cyclists
and bike commuters who may prefer using a
dedicated bicycle facility. Enhanced facilities
help the city realize it’s Vision Zero goal of
eliminating serious injuries and fatalities
resulting from traffic collisions.
Between Folsom Street and Westview
Drive (Character Districts A, B, C, and D),
raised protected bike lanes on both sides of
Arapahoe Avenue are separated from the
roadway by a buffer or amenity zone, and
a multi-use path provides space for both
bicyclists and pedestrians.
Between Westview Drive and 75th Street
(Character District E), street-level buffered
bike lanes on both sides of Arapahoe are
separated from motor vehicle traffic by a
striped buffer or vertical separation. The
multi-use path continues along the north
side of Arapahoe, separated from the
roadway by an amenity zone, while a new
sidewalk and amenity zone runs along the
south side of Arapahoe.
Elements
• Protected bike lanes are raised to curb
level to provide greater protection from
motor vehicle traffic, and are separated
from the roadway by either a narrow
paved buffer or a wider amenity zone.
• The multi-use path is separated from
the bike lane by an amenity zone. The
multi-use path clearly delineates space
between people bicycling and people
walking, e.g., using pavement markings.
• Additional mid-block pedestrian
crossings with context-appropriate
treatments (e.g., based on number
of lanes and traffic volumes) may
be considered based on Boulder’s
guidelines and Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) standards.
Diagonal Highway. Source: City of Boulder.
24 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Streetscape, Land Use, and Urban Design
Long-Term Vision
Streetscape, urban design, and land use in
the East Arapahoe corridor are integrated
seamlessly with the transportation elements
of the vision. Amenity zones buffer the
roadway for the length of the study area,
providing space for streetscape and design
elements such as landscaping, seating, and
lighting that improve the experience of
people walking and bicycling.
The corridor vision is consistent with
planned land use as detailed in the BVCP,
and provides flexibility to adapt to future
land use changes, for example by adding
transit service and enhancing first/final mile
connections. Future phases of planning,
particularly BRT station area and mobility
hub design, are coordinated with regional,
local, and area land use planning efforts.
By coordinating transportation planning
and investments with anticipated changes
in land use, improvements can support
community desires for high quality design
and placemaking in the East Arapahoe
corridor. A transportation system that is
accessible and comfortable and provides
convenient travel options will create value
by helping to make East Arapahoe a great
place – to work, live and visit.
Elements
• Amenity zones provide space for:
–Landscaping
–Bicycle parking
–Wayfinding signage
–Seating
–Pedestrian scale lighting
–Public art
–Trash receptacles
–Transit shelters and shade
• The next phase of planning advances
corridor design with continued
community and property owner input,
and includes a right-of-way plan that
helps guide development.
• Local and regional land use plans, such
as the Boulder Valley Comprehensive
Plan and the upcoming 55th & Arapahoe
Area Plan, incorporate the East
Arapahoe vision.
Amenity zones provide space for
streetscape features such as bike parking,
seating, landscaping, and pedestrian-scale
lighting.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | 25
vehicles. These lanes can be used for
emergency vehicle access, e.g., to
Boulder Community Health.
• Performance standards for managing
transit and/or high-occupancy vehicle
lanes will ensure that the curb lane
is used in a way that maximizes the
efficient and reliable movement of
people through the corridor, while
helping Boulder accommodate changing
travel demand through the East
Arapahoe corridor over the time horizon
of the plan.
• Narrowed travel lanes (10 feet, and 11
feet for curb-side lanes) communicate to
drivers that they need to be more careful
and enhance safety by slowing traffic
speeds consistent with posted limits.
Motor Vehicles
Long-Term Vision
Two through traffic lanes per direction
are maintained in Character Districts A
through C and one traffic lane per direction
is maintained in District E, with protected
left-turn lanes at intersections. The number
of existing lanes varies today in District D,
and the concept design for the corridor
will need to address where the number of
through lanes transitions from two to one in
District D.
The curbside business access and transit
(BAT) lane allows any vehicle to enter and
make right-turns or access businesses.
Emergency vehicles, HOVs, and new
technologies such as shared autonomous/
connected vehicles can also use this lane.
Reduced travel speeds, greater separation
between people driving and those on foot
and bike, and minimized conflict points
between all travelers will help the city realize
its Vision Zero goal of eliminating serious
injuries and fatalities resulting from traffic
collisions.
Elements
• BAT lanes can be managed to allow
general-purpose traffic at certain times
of day, or to allow high-occupancy
• Speed reduction enhances safety and
comfort for all roadway users. Changing
the posted speed limit, which is
currently 45 mph on much of Arapahoe
Avenue, would require approval by the
Colorado Department of Transportation
and should be accompanied by
implementation of all plan vision
elements to reduce actual travel speed
along the corridor.
• Coordinated traffic signal timing
improves traffic flow and minimizes
conflicts between different roadway
users.
Business access and transit lane on 28th
Street.
Posted speeds are 45 mph in much of the
corridor.
26 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
BRT Station in Kansas City
Transit
SIDE-RUNNING BRT - EXAMPLE CROSS-SECTION
Long-Term Vision
Regional BRT provides fast, reliable,
frequent service on Arapahoe using
curbside business access and transit (BAT)
lanes. The BAT lanes operate much as they
do today along north 28th Street, allowing
transit vehicles and right-turning vehicles
to use the curbside lanes. Stops are located
at key stations, with spacing of at least
a quarter-mile and preferably between a
third and a half-mile (or more). High-quality
stations (see amenities at right) provide
a comfortable and convenient passenger
experience. BRT stations and electric
transit vehicles have a unique brand that
distinguishes them from local JUMP buses,
which continue to serve existing stops in the
corridor.
Elements
• BAT lanes allow buses to run faster and
more reliably, while allowing all vehicles
to use the lanes to access businesses
or make right-turns at intersections.
These lanes could operate during
particular times of day, and could be
used by high-occupancy vehicles and
future transportation technologies like
shared-use autonomous vehicles as long
as transit operations are not impacted
(guided by performance standards).
• Transit signal priority (TSP) gives
preferential treatment to buses at traffic
signals, e.g., by extending a green signal
slightly until a bus passes through.
• Frequent transit service and longer
service span — up to every 5-10 minutes
during the day, and every 15 minutes
in the early mornings and evenings
(combined BRT and local buses).
• Branding distinguishes BRT vehicles,
stations, and marketing materials from
other transit services
• Electric transit vehicles have wide doors
and level, low-floor boarding to ease
passenger loading and reduce delay
• Transit stations will include:
–Shelters
–Seating
–Lighting
–Schedules
–Real-time arrival information
–Off-board fare payment
–Level boarding
–Bicycle parking
–Wayfinding signage
–Art
The exact location, size, and level of
amenities at each station may vary based
on land use, ridership, space constraints,
or other factors.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | 27
75th St30th St55th StValmont Rd
Folsom St47th StBaseline Rd
76th StPearl PkwyMo
o
r
h
e
a
d
A
v
Colorado Ave 63rd StWalnut St
Westview DrCherryvale RdIris Av
61st St33rd StBaseline Rd
Valmont Rd
48th St28th StArapahoe28th StreetFoo
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
kwy
Diagonal Hwy
Arapahoe
Diagonal Plaza
Boulder Community Health
University of Colorado(East Campus)
Univ. of Colorado(Main Campus)
Flatirons Golf Course
Arapahoe RidgeHigh School
JewishCommunityCenter Boulder ValleySchool District
NaropaUniversity
Gerald StazioSoftball Fields
Valmont Reservoir
Sombrero Marsh
63rd/65th38thCherryvale48th55th29thFolsom Valtec
0 0.50.25 0.75 1.0
Miles
East Arapahoe Corridor
Multi-use path or trail
Proposed Park & RideP
Existing JUMP Stop
P
BRT Station Location
Routing to downtown Boulder
Boulder County SH 7 Bus Rapid Transit study area extending east of I-25 to Brighton
Quarter-Mile Station Area
Future Northwest Rail Station
Mobility Hub Location
P
Conceptual Station and Mobility Hub Locations
Seven conceptual BRT station locations have been identified between Folsom and 75th
Streets. Local bus service would continue to serve other stops in the corridor. Several
mobility hub locations have also been identified. Station and mobility hub designs will be
refined during the concept design process.
N
28 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Mobility Hubs
Long-Term Vision
Mobility hubs facilitate transit connections
around BRT stations with infrastructure,
shared mobility services, and technology.
Mobility hubs include pedestrian and
bicycle improvements and other sustainable
modes (e.g., car or bike sharing) designed
to connect transit passengers to adjacent
neighborhoods and destinations. Amenities
support increased transit transfer activity
and placemaking features make transit
stations attractive and vibrant community
elements for the surrounding neighborhood.
Technology helps people navigate the
options and promotes shared-use mobility.
Mobility hub locations along the East
Arapahoe corridor include:
• 28th & Arapahoe
• CU East Campus
• Boulder Community Health
• 55th & Arapahoe
Elements
Mobility Hubs are context-sensitive solutions
that are adaptable to a variety of locations.
Each location requires a unique design.
Mobility hub elements include:
• Context-appropriate parking, consistent
with the city’s Access Management and
Parking Strategy “SUMP” principles—
shared, unbundled, managed, and paid.
• Accessible, universal design allows
people of all physical abilities easy
access to transit stops/stations and
connections.
• Shared mobility services—including bike
share stations, car share vehicles, and
loading space for other private or public
mobility services—enable access outside
of transit station walksheds.
• Loading zones for transportation
network company (TNC) or ridehailing
vehicles (e.g., Lyft and Uber), shuttles,
and autonomous “microtransit” or other
vehicles.
• Integrated mobility technology—
including kiosks, reader boards with
real-time information on transit and
other modes, and shared payment
interfaces—assists travelers with trip
planning and arranging shared rides, and
provides opportunities for other evolving
applications.
• Placemaking elements, such as public
art and public seating, active street
environments with a mix of land uses,
and strong land use anchors invite
social interaction and vibrant business
opportunity.
• Secure, covered bicycle parking is part
of the network of Bike and Ride stations
located throughout Boulder County
and provides access to the surrounding
bicycle transportation network.
• High-quality pedestrian infrastructure
within a one-mile walkshed.
A
B
E
F
C
D
G
H
B
C
D
E
A
F
G
H
Source: David Goltz
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | 29
Access Management, Parking, and Transportation Demand Management
Long-Term Vision
Boulder’s Access Management and
Parking Strategy (AMPS) (see callout at
right) promotes a balanced approach
to enhancing access. The vision for East
Arapahoe includes the following elements
to expand the travel options available within
the East Arapahoe corridor, in support of
the AMPS guiding principles and consistent
with the city’s Transportation Demand
Management Action Plan.
Elements
• The bicycle and pedestrian network
is fully connected within a half-mile
of transit stations to allow easy,
comfortable access to and from the
corridor and surrounding neighborhoods
and commercial centers.
• Partnerships with microtransit, shuttle
and/or electric bike services provide
connections to major institutions and
office parks, such as Flatiron Business
Park and the CU East Campus.
• A new park and ride at the future RTD
Northwest Rail Station, and/or other
locations, provides satellite/edge parking
that allows regional commuters from
cities to the east to park and use transit
or other mobility options for travel
within Boulder.
• EcoPasses are available to corridor
employees and residents through
expansion of the existing Business and
Neighborhood EcoPass programs, or a
community-wide EcoPass.
• Real-time ridesharing is available to
corridor employees and is incorporated
into mobile devices and mobility hub
information kiosks.
• Individualized marketing promotes
travel options to corridor employers and
residents in conjunction with the launch
of new bicycle facilities and transit
service enhancements.
• The Transportation Options Toolkit is
utilized by existing developments and
employers and integrated into the review
process for new development along the
East Arapahoe corridor.
• Access districts are in place, including
Arapahoe/55th Street, facilitating
coordination between employers. Access
Districts are developed with coordination
between the City and employers.
• Managed parking is in place within
new Access (Parking/TDM) districts,
in conjunction with enhanced
transportation options.
Boulder Access Management &
Parking Strategy (AMPS)
The city’s Guiding Principles for AMPS
are:
• Provide for All Transportation
Modes
• Customize Tools by Area
• Support a Diversity of People
• Seek Solutions with Co-Benefits
• Plan for the Present and Future
• Cultivate Partnerships
The strategy provides the following
tools for change:
District Management
On- and Off-Street Parking
Transportation Demand
Management
Technology and Innovation
Code Requirements
Parking Pricing
PHASE 1 (2014)
ORGANIZATION &
BASELINE ASSESSMENT
• Project initiation
• Creation of interdepartmental AMPS Steering Committee
• Background research and planning
• Development of Guiding Principles
• Identification of Focus Areas
• Best practices and peer/aspirational city research
PHASE 2 (2015)
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT & TARGETED
PROJECT WORK BY FOCUS AREA
• Multiple rounds of internal and external
stakeholder outreach
• Staff workshops
• Board/Commission presentations and meetings
• Project open houses
• City Council feedback and direction
• Online engagement opportunities
• Focus Area project work
(See pg. 30 for a complete list of accomplishments)
PHASE 3 (2016–2017+)
PROCESS DEFINITION &
MEASURING PROGRESS
• Documentation of AMPS Process and
Operational Path (See pg. 15)
• Identification of Performance Measures (See pg. 28)
• Presentation of AMPS Final Report to community
stakeholders and city leadership
• Development of online AMPS Resource Library
BEST PRACTICES SUMMARY
The first activity for the AMPS
Steering Committee was to
develop a visionary set of Guiding
Principles, define Key Focus
Areas, and conduct best practice
research .
FOCUS AREAS: Tools for Change
Using the Guiding Principles as a framework, the Steering Committee developed the
following six Focus Areas (Tools for Change) to organize the work done as part of
AMPS . 1DISTRICT MANAGEMENT: Address the enhancement and
evolution of existing access and parking districts, and the
consideration of new districts . Develop a toolkit of policies,
implementation strategies, and operational procedures to assist in the
creation of new districts .
2ON- AND OFF-STREET PARKING: Investigate potential
policy developments and changes regarding the use of
on-street public parking, such as parking for people with disabilities,
loading zones, time restrictions, car share parking, electric vehicle
(EV) parking, neighborhood permit parking, and the re-purposing
of parking spaces for bike parking or parklets . Include all surface
lots and parking garages that are city-owned and managed in the
off-street analysis .
3TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM): Explore
existing and new/future programs, policies, and incentives to
increase travel options and reduce single-occupant vehicle trips .
4TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION: Assess parking garage
access equipment and internal systems used for permitting
and reporting . Ensure systems are compatible and can “talk” to
one another to streamline processes and create efficiencies . Explore
customer-focused technology to make parking more convenient,
lessen unnecessary driving, promote mobility as a service (i .e .,
Transportation Network Companies [TNCs]), and provide integrated
access to multimodal options . Prepare for autonomous vehicles, in
both policy and physical infrastructure .
5CODE REQUIREMENTS: Explore needed updates to the land use
code for citywide parking requirements and identify longer-term
code changes to ensure responsiveness to changes in travel behavior,
such as increased bicycle and transit use .
6PARKING PRICING: Review and analyze the relationship of
parking pricing and enforcement fees through researching
comparable cities . Analyze options, including variable and
performance-based pricing and graduated fines . Refocus parking
management activities to emphasize proactive education, customer
service, and regulation to better serve the community .
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
AMPS Best Practices and
Peer City document
ACCESS MANAGEMENT & PARKING STRATEGY
9
PHASE 1 (2014)
ORGANIZATION &
BASELINE ASSESSMENT
• Project initiation
• Creation of interdepartmental AMPS Steering Committee
• Background research and planning
• Development of Guiding Principles
• Identification of Focus Areas
• Best practices and peer/aspirational city research
PHASE 2 (2015)
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT & TARGETED
PROJECT WORK BY FOCUS AREA
• Multiple rounds of internal and external
stakeholder outreach
• Staff workshops
• Board/Commission presentations and meetings
• Project open houses
• City Council feedback and direction
• Online engagement opportunities
• Focus Area project work
(See pg. 30 for a complete list of accomplishments)
PHASE 3 (2016–2017+)
PROCESS DEFINITION &
MEASURING PROGRESS
• Documentation of AMPS Process and
Operational Path (See pg. 15)
• Identification of Performance Measures (See pg. 28)
• Presentation of AMPS Final Report to community
stakeholders and city leadership
• Development of online AMPS Resource Library
BEST PRACTICES SUMMARY
The first activity for the AMPS
Steering Committee was to
develop a visionary set of Guiding
Principles, define Key Focus
Areas, and conduct best practice
research .
FOCUS AREAS: Tools for Change
Using the Guiding Principles as a framework, the Steering Committee developed the
following six Focus Areas (Tools for Change) to organize the work done as part of
AMPS . 1DISTRICT MANAGEMENT: Address the enhancement and
evolution of existing access and parking districts, and the
consideration of new districts . Develop a toolkit of policies,
implementation strategies, and operational procedures to assist in the
creation of new districts .
2ON- AND OFF-STREET PARKING: Investigate potential
policy developments and changes regarding the use of
on-street public parking, such as parking for people with disabilities,
loading zones, time restrictions, car share parking, electric vehicle
(EV) parking, neighborhood permit parking, and the re-purposing
of parking spaces for bike parking or parklets . Include all surface
lots and parking garages that are city-owned and managed in the
off-street analysis .
3TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM): Explore
existing and new/future programs, policies, and incentives to
increase travel options and reduce single-occupant vehicle trips .
4TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION: Assess parking garage
access equipment and internal systems used for permitting
and reporting . Ensure systems are compatible and can “talk” to
one another to streamline processes and create efficiencies . Explore
customer-focused technology to make parking more convenient,
lessen unnecessary driving, promote mobility as a service (i .e .,
Transportation Network Companies [TNCs]), and provide integrated
access to multimodal options . Prepare for autonomous vehicles, in
both policy and physical infrastructure .
5CODE REQUIREMENTS: Explore needed updates to the land use
code for citywide parking requirements and identify longer-term
code changes to ensure responsiveness to changes in travel behavior,
such as increased bicycle and transit use .
6PARKING PRICING: Review and analyze the relationship of
parking pricing and enforcement fees through researching
comparable cities . Analyze options, including variable and
performance-based pricing and graduated fines . Refocus parking
management activities to emphasize proactive education, customer
service, and regulation to better serve the community .
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
AMPS Best Practices and
Peer City document
ACCESS MANAGEMENT & PARKING STRATEGY
9
PHASE 1 (2014)
ORGANIZATION &
BASELINE ASSESSMENT
• Project initiation
• Creation of interdepartmental AMPS Steering Committee
• Background research and planning
• Development of Guiding Principles
• Identification of Focus Areas
• Best practices and peer/aspirational city research
PHASE 2 (2015)
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT & TARGETED
PROJECT WORK BY FOCUS AREA
• Multiple rounds of internal and external
stakeholder outreach
• Staff workshops
• Board/Commission presentations and meetings
• Project open houses
• City Council feedback and direction
• Online engagement opportunities
• Focus Area project work
(See pg. 30 for a complete list of accomplishments)
PHASE 3 (2016–2017+)
PROCESS DEFINITION &
MEASURING PROGRESS
• Documentation of AMPS Process and
Operational Path (See pg. 15)
• Identification of Performance Measures (See pg. 28)
• Presentation of AMPS Final Report to community
stakeholders and city leadership
• Development of online AMPS Resource Library
BEST PRACTICES SUMMARY
The first activity for the AMPS
Steering Committee was to
develop a visionary set of Guiding
Principles, define Key Focus
Areas, and conduct best practice
research .
FOCUS AREAS: Tools for Change
Using the Guiding Principles as a framework, the Steering Committee developed the
following six Focus Areas (Tools for Change) to organize the work done as part of
AMPS . 1DISTRICT MANAGEMENT: Address the enhancement and
evolution of existing access and parking districts, and the
consideration of new districts . Develop a toolkit of policies,
implementation strategies, and operational procedures to assist in the
creation of new districts .
2ON- AND OFF-STREET PARKING: Investigate potential
policy developments and changes regarding the use of
on-street public parking, such as parking for people with disabilities,
loading zones, time restrictions, car share parking, electric vehicle
(EV) parking, neighborhood permit parking, and the re-purposing
of parking spaces for bike parking or parklets . Include all surface
lots and parking garages that are city-owned and managed in the
off-street analysis .
3TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM): Explore
existing and new/future programs, policies, and incentives to
increase travel options and reduce single-occupant vehicle trips .
4TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION: Assess parking garage
access equipment and internal systems used for permitting
and reporting . Ensure systems are compatible and can “talk” to
one another to streamline processes and create efficiencies . Explore
customer-focused technology to make parking more convenient,
lessen unnecessary driving, promote mobility as a service (i .e .,
Transportation Network Companies [TNCs]), and provide integrated
access to multimodal options . Prepare for autonomous vehicles, in
both policy and physical infrastructure .
5CODE REQUIREMENTS: Explore needed updates to the land use
code for citywide parking requirements and identify longer-term
code changes to ensure responsiveness to changes in travel behavior,
such as increased bicycle and transit use .
6PARKING PRICING: Review and analyze the relationship of
parking pricing and enforcement fees through researching
comparable cities . Analyze options, including variable and
performance-based pricing and graduated fines . Refocus parking
management activities to emphasize proactive education, customer
service, and regulation to better serve the community .
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
AMPS Best Practices and
Peer City document
ACCESS MANAGEMENT & PARKING STRATEGY
9
PHASE 1 (2014)
ORGANIZATION &
BASELINE ASSESSMENT
• Project initiation
• Creation of interdepartmental AMPS Steering Committee
• Background research and planning
• Development of Guiding Principles
• Identification of Focus Areas
• Best practices and peer/aspirational city research
PHASE 2 (2015)
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT & TARGETED
PROJECT WORK BY FOCUS AREA
• Multiple rounds of internal and external
stakeholder outreach
• Staff workshops
• Board/Commission presentations and meetings
• Project open houses
• City Council feedback and direction
• Online engagement opportunities
• Focus Area project work
(See pg. 30 for a complete list of accomplishments)
PHASE 3 (2016–2017+)
PROCESS DEFINITION &
MEASURING PROGRESS
• Documentation of AMPS Process and
Operational Path (See pg. 15)
• Identification of Performance Measures (See pg. 28)
• Presentation of AMPS Final Report to community
stakeholders and city leadership
• Development of online AMPS Resource Library
BEST PRACTICES SUMMARY
The first activity for the AMPS
Steering Committee was to
develop a visionary set of Guiding
Principles, define Key Focus
Areas, and conduct best practice
research .
FOCUS AREAS: Tools for Change
Using the Guiding Principles as a framework, the Steering Committee developed the
following six Focus Areas (Tools for Change) to organize the work done as part of
AMPS . 1DISTRICT MANAGEMENT: Address the enhancement and
evolution of existing access and parking districts, and the
consideration of new districts . Develop a toolkit of policies,
implementation strategies, and operational procedures to assist in the
creation of new districts .
2ON- AND OFF-STREET PARKING: Investigate potential
policy developments and changes regarding the use of
on-street public parking, such as parking for people with disabilities,
loading zones, time restrictions, car share parking, electric vehicle
(EV) parking, neighborhood permit parking, and the re-purposing
of parking spaces for bike parking or parklets . Include all surface
lots and parking garages that are city-owned and managed in the
off-street analysis .
3TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM): Explore
existing and new/future programs, policies, and incentives to
increase travel options and reduce single-occupant vehicle trips .
4TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION: Assess parking garage
access equipment and internal systems used for permitting
and reporting . Ensure systems are compatible and can “talk” to
one another to streamline processes and create efficiencies . Explore
customer-focused technology to make parking more convenient,
lessen unnecessary driving, promote mobility as a service (i .e .,
Transportation Network Companies [TNCs]), and provide integrated
access to multimodal options . Prepare for autonomous vehicles, in
both policy and physical infrastructure .
5CODE REQUIREMENTS: Explore needed updates to the land use
code for citywide parking requirements and identify longer-term
code changes to ensure responsiveness to changes in travel behavior,
such as increased bicycle and transit use .
6PARKING PRICING: Review and analyze the relationship of
parking pricing and enforcement fees through researching
comparable cities . Analyze options, including variable and
performance-based pricing and graduated fines . Refocus parking
management activities to emphasize proactive education, customer
service, and regulation to better serve the community .
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
AMPS Best Practices and
Peer City document
ACCESS MANAGEMENT & PARKING STRATEGY
9
PHASE 1 (2014)
ORGANIZATION &
BASELINE ASSESSMENT
• Project initiation
• Creation of interdepartmental AMPS Steering Committee
• Background research and planning
• Development of Guiding Principles
• Identification of Focus Areas
• Best practices and peer/aspirational city research
PHASE 2 (2015)
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT & TARGETED
PROJECT WORK BY FOCUS AREA
• Multiple rounds of internal and external
stakeholder outreach
• Staff workshops
• Board/Commission presentations and meetings
• Project open houses
• City Council feedback and direction
• Online engagement opportunities
• Focus Area project work
(See pg. 30 for a complete list of accomplishments)
PHASE 3 (2016–2017+)
PROCESS DEFINITION &
MEASURING PROGRESS
• Documentation of AMPS Process and
Operational Path (See pg. 15)
• Identification of Performance Measures (See pg. 28)
• Presentation of AMPS Final Report to community
stakeholders and city leadership
• Development of online AMPS Resource Library
BEST PRACTICES SUMMARY
The first activity for the AMPS
Steering Committee was to
develop a visionary set of Guiding
Principles, define Key Focus
Areas, and conduct best practice
research .
FOCUS AREAS: Tools for Change
Using the Guiding Principles as a framework, the Steering Committee developed the
following six Focus Areas (Tools for Change) to organize the work done as part of
AMPS . 1DISTRICT MANAGEMENT: Address the enhancement and
evolution of existing access and parking districts, and the
consideration of new districts . Develop a toolkit of policies,
implementation strategies, and operational procedures to assist in the
creation of new districts .
2ON- AND OFF-STREET PARKING: Investigate potential
policy developments and changes regarding the use of
on-street public parking, such as parking for people with disabilities,
loading zones, time restrictions, car share parking, electric vehicle
(EV) parking, neighborhood permit parking, and the re-purposing
of parking spaces for bike parking or parklets . Include all surface
lots and parking garages that are city-owned and managed in the
off-street analysis .
3TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM): Explore
existing and new/future programs, policies, and incentives to
increase travel options and reduce single-occupant vehicle trips .
4TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION: Assess parking garage
access equipment and internal systems used for permitting
and reporting . Ensure systems are compatible and can “talk” to
one another to streamline processes and create efficiencies . Explore
customer-focused technology to make parking more convenient,
lessen unnecessary driving, promote mobility as a service (i .e .,
Transportation Network Companies [TNCs]), and provide integrated
access to multimodal options . Prepare for autonomous vehicles, in
both policy and physical infrastructure .
5CODE REQUIREMENTS: Explore needed updates to the land use
code for citywide parking requirements and identify longer-term
code changes to ensure responsiveness to changes in travel behavior,
such as increased bicycle and transit use .
6PARKING PRICING: Review and analyze the relationship of
parking pricing and enforcement fees through researching
comparable cities . Analyze options, including variable and
performance-based pricing and graduated fines . Refocus parking
management activities to emphasize proactive education, customer
service, and regulation to better serve the community .
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
district
management
codepricing
TOOLS FOR CHANGE
technology parking
$$$
travel
options
AMPS Best Practices and
Peer City document
ACCESS MANAGEMENT & PARKING STRATEGY
9
30 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Advanced Mobility
Long-Term Vision
The East Arapahoe corridor vision plan
and city policy prepare for the changes
in transportation that are likely to occur
over the life of the plan by working with
mobility service providers, integrating
new technology, and crafting policies
that anticipate the future challenges and
opportunities presented by advanced
mobility.
“Advanced” (or “Emerging”) mobility
refers to a range of new technology and
transportation options, including ridehailing
companies like Uber and Lyft, integrated
trip planning platforms, autonomous
vehicles, and privately-operated shuttles and
microtransit services, i.e., autonomous small
transit vehicles that can operate on flexible
routes and/or on-demand. Autonomous
transit may be among the first candidates
to utilize autonomous vehicle infrastructure
and technology. These new and emerging
technologies are important opportunities for
advancing the community’s sustainability
and climate goals.
Elements
Recommended actions include:
• Convert to a fleet of electric transit
vehicles
• Examine curbside practices (i.e., pickup
and dropoff) of ridehailing companies,
and:
–Designate safe pickup and dropoff
locations at or near popular
destinations such as Boulder
Community Health, CU campus, and
Flatiron Business Park (including and
in addition to Mobility Hub locations).
–Work with ridehailing companies
to ensure safe pick-up and dropoff
locations and identify designated
pickup/dropoff zones for them to
integrate into their platforms and
guide drivers.
• Identify potential for microtransit
connecting land uses to transit stations
along the East Arapahoe corridor.
• Promote technology that seamlessly
integrates mobility options.
• Incorporate smart kiosks with flexible
upgrade options at mobility hubs to
bridge the equity gap in access to
technology.
• Adopt policies that encourage shared
rather than single-passenger use of
autonomous vehicles.
• Monitor and adopt electric and
autonomous vehicle technologies
as they are sufficiently proven, such
as allowing shared-use autonomous
vehicles or microtransit to use the
transit/HOV lane and incorporating
these technologies into regular transit
service along the corridor.
Source: EasyMile/ Laura A. Oda
Autonomous shared-use vehicles and micro-
transit services may play a role in providing
first and final mile connections to transit ser-
vice on the East Arapahoe corridor.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | 31
WHAT ARE THE
BENEFITS?
The East Arapahoe Transportation
Plan provides a vision for multimodal
transportation and streetscape
improvements along the corridor. The
corridor’s overall look and feel and
functionality will be vastly improved
—streetscape enhancements will
make it safer and more comfortable
for people to bike and walk; transit
service enhancements will make it more
convenient and reliable for people to ride
transit; urban design features will work
hand in hand with mobility improvements
make Arapahoe a more appealing place
to travel and spend time.
BY 2040 . . .
All comparisons are between 2040 Vision implementation and the 2040 No-
Build Alternative, which assumes minimal improvements are made in the corridor.
Person carrying capacity of
the corridor increases, by
doubling the number of buses during
commute hours and providing more
dedicated space for
people walking
and biking, while
maintaining
current capacity
for people
driving.
There will be 14% fewer vehicle
miles traveled in the corridor
than if no improvements were made.
A trip along Arapahoe from US 287 to Boulder Community Health at 48th
and Arapahoe during the morning rush hour takes:
19 minutes on BRT service - 6 minutes less than with no improvements
17 minutes driving - the same as with no improvements
287
For more information see end notes
on p. 41 and Appendix C: Evaluation
of Alternatives Report.
32 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Transportation and urban design
improvements will enhance livability
and attract community-oriented
businesses to the corridor.
The safety and comfort of
people of all ages and abilities
biking and walking in the
corridor will be improved by a
raised protected bike lane and multi-
use path, helping the city move towards
its Vision Zero goal of eliminating
fatal and serious injury collisions.
More people walking, bicycling, and
taking electric buses will
prevent an increase in
Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emissions.
Bus rapid transit service will extend
from downtown Boulder to I-25
and Brighton, and operate at least
every 15 minutes between 6
am and 10 pm, and up to every 5
to 7 minutes during peak commute
times.
Driveway consolidation
and intersection and
crossing improvements
will help reduce
collisions for
drivers.
Trips made on foot increase
to 2% of total trips,
contributing to the citywide
target of 25% for residents.
Bicycle trips increase to 4%
of total trips, contributing
to the citywide target of 30%
for residents and 2% for non-
residents.
Transit trips increase to 11%
of total trips, meeting
the citywide target of
10% for residents and 12% for
non-residents.
East Arapahoe will see:
Based on estimates on Arapahoe
Avenue at 30th and 55th Streets.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | 33
HOW WILL THE PLAN BE IMPLEMENTED?
Implementation Approach
Setting the vision for the East Arapahoe corridor is the first step in a multi-year journey.
Implementing the vision and advancing regional mobility improvements along the length of SH 7
between downtown Boulder and I-25/Brighton will be a long-term project for the City of Boulder
and key local and regional partners. It will require the city and its partners to seek out and take
advantage of grants and other funding sources as opportunities become available to implement
elements of the vision.
There is also flexibility to achieve the vision incrementally through short to medium-term actions.
Some changes to the public realm may be coordinated with infill developments as property
owners construct or reconstruct pedestrian facilities and amenity zones. Making changes to the
location of the curbs in the longer term, where required, will require block-by-block and segment-
by-segment reconstruction, similar to the city’s multi-phased approach to improving 28th Street.
In conjunction with local improvements in the corridor, the city and regional partners will continue
to refine plans for a regional multimodal corridor that has broad support and integrates Boulder’s
vision for East Arapahoe with planned improvements along the full extent of SH 7 between
Boulder and Brighton.
Each implementation action described on the following pages is either categorized as ongoing or
is assigned a general timeframe:
• Short-term actions would occur between 2018 and 2022
• Mid-term actions would occur between 2023 and 2027
• Long-term actions would occur between 2028 and 2040
The actions on this list should not be considered absolutely sequential; more than one action can
be pursued simultaneously. Should viable opportunities or partners become available to pursue
or accelerate specific transportation improvements or features sooner than is indicated for that
specific implementation action, the city will pursue these prospects. The City of Boulder will be
proactive and creative in monitoring and pursuing funding opportunities to implement the vision
for the East Arapahoe corridor.
For more
information see
Appendix E:
Detailed Action
Plan
34 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Planning and Design
Area Element Action Time
Frame
Corridor
Design
Local Corridor
Design
• Advance corridor design and refine cost estimates. With 10-15%
corridor design concept:
–Design intersection configurations and traffic signal practices to
enhance safety
–Develop Right-of-Way Plan. Integrate right-of-way needs into
development review process
–Develop Access Management and Connections Plan to consoli-
date driveways and improve access points
–Conduct a study to resolve the configuration of the Foothills
Parkway intersection to accommodate the plan vision
Short-term
Regional Corridor
Design
• As part of SH 7 Coalition between Boulder and Brighton:
–Participate in a regional Environmental Assessment to advance
design and environmental clearance for a regional multimodal
corridor (BRT, regional bikeway, pedestrian improvements, first/
final mile strategies, etc.)
–Pursue local, regional, state, and federal funding for multimodal
improvements
Ongoing
Integrated
Land Use
Planning
Mobility Hubs/
Corridor-wide
• Refine station area design concepts in coordination with broader
land use planning Ongoing
Mobility Hubs/55th
& Arapahoe Area
Plan
• Prioritize and coordinate mobility hub planning with the 55th
and Arapahoe Area Plan, expected to be initiated in 2019 Short-term
Streetscape
• Develop a streetscape plan for the corridor, including arts and
aesthetics; a gateway element for the east end; signage to improve
wayfinding and safety; and pedestrian-scale lighting
Short-term
Policy
Guidance
Transportation
Master Plan
• Incorporate the East Arapahoe Transportation Plan into the
2018/19 TMP update and the TMP Capital Improvement Program Short-term
Plan
Monitoring Metrics/Monitoring • Establish and implement multimodal metrics and monitoring
program to regularly measure progress toward plan goals Ongoing
SHORT-TERM = 2018-2022
MID-TERM = 2020-2027
LONG-TERM = 2028-2040
The
Transportation
Report on Progress
Prepared by the City of Boulder
Transportation Division
March 2016
INTERSECTION DESIGN
REGIONAL SH 7 BUS RAPID TRANSIT/MULTIMODAL STUDY
STREETSCAPE
TMP
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | 35
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Area Element Action Time Frame
Pedestrian
Crosswalks • Develop pedestrian crossings where needed, consistent with
City of Boulder guidelines Ongoing
Americans with
Disabilities Act
(ADA)
• Upgrade existing intersections to be ADA compliant Ongoing
Pedestrian/
Bicycle
Multi-Use Path • Reconstruct multi-use paths and amenity zones, as needed,
to plan specifications Ongoing
Multi-Use Path • Complete missing multi-use path links with a goal to
create separate space between pedestrians and cyclists
Short-term and
ongoing
Ped/Bike
Underpass
• Coordinate with S. Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project to
implement new underpass (approximately 200 feet east of
55th Street)
Mid- to Long-
term
Bicycle
Interim
buffered bike
lanes
• Investigate options to enhance existing bike lanes using
striped buffers where feasible, e.g., east of 55th Street Short-term
Protected
bicycle lane • Implement protected bicycle lanes per the plan vision Mid- to Long-
term
SHORT-TERM = 2018-2022
MID-TERM = 2020-2027
LONG-TERM = 2028-2040
PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE CROSSINGS
MULTI-USE PATH DIAGONAL HIGHWAY
GAPS IN MULTI-USE PATHPEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE UNDERPASSRAISED PROTECTED BIKE LANE
36 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Area Element Action Time Frame
First and
Final Mile
First and Final
Mile/Bicycle
• Explore and expand bike share partnerships to activity centers and
employment concentrations in coordination with mobility hub planning Ongoing
First and Final
Mile/Pedestrian
& Bicycle
• Identify gaps in the connecting ped/bike network within 1-mile of
station areas and improve multi-use path connections Short-term
First and Final
Mile/Transit
• Explore transit partnerships to activity centers and employment
concentrations along the corridor, e.g. microtransit/shuttles, mobility
on demand, mobility as a service, fixed route transit
Ongoing
First and Final
Mile/Transit
• Coordinate East Arapahoe transit service with Boulder's Renewed
Vision for Transit fixed route network, including regional BRT
network connections
Ongoing
First and Final
Mile/Satellite
Parking
• Explore park-and-ride locations in conjunction with other regional
transit corridors
Short- to Mid-
term
TDM
Employer TDM
Programs
• Work with area employers to encourage use of parking
management and transportation options, e.g. ridesharing, transit,
vanpooling and other TDM programs like parking cash out, EcoPasses,
alternative work schedules, etc.
Ongoing
Neighborhood
TDM Programs
• Promote transit service and other travel options along the corridor
to area residents, including expansion of Neighborhood EcoPass
program. Work with multi-family residential properties to manage
and unbundle parking. Provide safe and convenient pedestrian
and bicycle access to transit.
Ongoing
District TDM
Programs
• Work with area property owners to explore the potential for new
access (parking/TDM) districts per AMPS action items Ongoing
First and Final Mile and TDM
BCYCLE BIKE SHARE
AUTONOMOUS MICROTRANSIT
BOULDER HOP COMMUNITY TRANSIT NETWORK ROUTE
PARK-AND-RIDEECOPASSSHORT-TERM = 2018-2022
MID-TERM = 2020-2027
LONG-TERM = 2028-2040
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | 37
Transit and Vehicular
Area Element Action Time Frame
Transit
BRT • Implement regional BRT service in cooperation with SH 7
Coalition partners, including phased service options
Mid- to
Long-term
Local Transit • Enhance existing transit service in the corridor through transit
priority, frequency and quality improvements Ongoing
West End
Routing &
Stations
• Refine west end terminus, alignment, and stations,
coordinated with other street and transit projects connecting
28th Street to Downtown Boulder
Short-term
Stations & Stop
Improvements
• Implement stop improvements and refine BRT station design
concepts to maximize passenger and pedestrian access, comfort
and safety
Ongoing
Transit/
Vehicular
BAT Lanes
• Implement transit priority measures for local and regional
transit, including BAT lanes for priority direction and time of day
in key segments, HOV 2 or 3+, emergency vehicles and evolving
technologies
Mid- to
Long-term
Communication
Technology
• Evaluate need for advanced communication technology to
support advanced mobility (bus priority, autonomous vehicles,
etc.)
Ongoing
Vehicular
Lane Striping • Where feasible, restripe lanes consistent with plan vision,
coordinated with potential future roadway repaving Ongoing
Signal Timing • Incorporate findings of future city-wide signal timing and
progression analysis, as appropriate Ongoing
Speed Limit
Evaluation
• Evaluate posted speeds with CDOT, coordinated with corridor
improvements, safety considerations, and community vision for
the corridor
Short- to
Mid-term
Lane
Configuration
• East of 55th Street, where existing traffic lanes transition from
three to two lanes per direction, evaluate where the future
transition from two traffic lanes to one traffic lane per
direction should occur
Short-term
SHORT-TERM = 2018-2022
MID-TERM = 2020-2027
LONG-TERM = 2028-2040
EXISTING LOCAL TRANSIT: JUMP
BRT STATION
BAT LANES: 28TH STREET
38 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Funding, Partnerships, and Coordination
Creative funding strategies utilizing a variety
of sources will be needed to implement
the East Arapahoe vision. Potential
sources include local, regional, state, and
federal sources as well as public-private
partnerships. These partnerships will be
critical to implementing the vision for the
East Arapahoe corridor. The city will actively
engage with the community and regional
partners including CDOT, Boulder County,
RTD, and neighboring jurisdictions. Roles for
key partners include:
• CDOT, which has jurisdiction over
SH 7 will be a key funding partner in
implementing the plan vision. For vision
elements that can be accomplished
within existing curb-to-curb dimensions,
CDOT roadway maintenance projects
may provide an opportunity to make
incremental improvements that enhance
safety and comfort for all users. CDOT
will also be a key partner in advancing
concept designs and securing funding
for improvements within the East
Arapahoe corridor and along SH 7 to the
east.
• RTD will be a critical funding partner
in enhancing transit service and capital
facilities in the corridor, including
improving the quality of service in the
corridor today, and in launching future
regional BRT service.
• SH 7 Coalition is a forum to coordinate
and advocate for a regional multimodal
corridor that includes high quality/high
frequency BRT and a regional bikeway
accompanied by local bus, bike and
pedestrian connections, first and final
mile connections, and future innovative
transportation modes. The Coalition is
comprised of representatives from the
cities of Boulder, Brighton, Lafayette,
and Thornton; the Town of Erie; Adams
County and Boulder County; and the
City and County of Broomfield. As an
active participant in the Coalition, the
City of Boulder will work collaboratively
with member jurisdictions and agencies
to secure funding for these corridor
improvements, which include the East
Arapahoe vision, through the DRCOG
Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP), the RTD Strategic Business Plan
(SBP), the CDOT Development Program,
and, when appropriate, by pursuing state
and federal grants.
• Private sector and institutional partners,
including the Chamber of Commerce,
Commuting Solutions, and Boulder
Transportation Connections, will work
with the city to develop programs and
policies that encourage use of travel
options and support other elements of
the vision, such as expanding EcoPass
distribution and participating in
programs that enable ride sharing and
supporting shuttle services.
• Private application developers can help
the city develop technology applications
to deliver real-time information and
shared mobility solutions.
• Ridehailing companies (such as Lyft and
Uber) and autonomous vehicle operators
can collaborate with the city to create
policies to effectively manage how their
vehicles utilize curb space and integrate
with potential managed lanes.
• Carshare and bikeshare providers (such
as BCycle and eGo CarShare) will also
be important in providing first and final
mile connections at stations and mobility
hubs.
• Private developers will help implement
the plan’s vision for the public realm as
infill and redevelopment occurs.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | 39
Monitoring
The City of Boulder will continually monitor
progress toward the plan vision and
goals. Specifically, the city will monitor
thresholds for implementing specific types
of improvements and evaluate the benefits
of implementing the vision, particularly as
they contribute to meeting the city’s TMP
objectives and Climate Commitment goals.
The city will:
• Continue to collect auto travel time data
annually and monitor trends over time.
• Continue to collect and evaluate safety
data to evaluate safety trends over time.
• Continue to monitor performance of the
RTD JUMP route to assess the impact of
congestion on transit performance, and
the justification for improvements that
ensure reliable transit travel time and
mitigate increases in operating costs (or
degradation in frequency) that would
result from the travel time impacts.
• Evaluate performance measures for
the curbside lane to identify when and
where it is appropriate to implement
BAT and/or HOV lanes.
• Engage in on-going community input
and feedback to ensure continuous
improvement of the project development
process
40 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
End Notes
NEED FOR INVESTMENT
1. Inventory of passenger amenities from
City of Boulder inventory, 2016.
2. Transit travel times based on the existing
JUMP Schedule, 2016; Auto travel times
from City of Boulder Traffic Count Data
and Drive Time Data, 2014.
3. The intersections of Arapahoe Avenue
with 28th Street, 30th Street, and Foothills
Parkway each had more than 100 total
collisions between 2012 and 2014. Source:
Collision data based on City of Boulder
analysis of Boulder Police Department
crash data, 2012-2014.
4. Existing employment data from US
Census Longitudinal Employer-Household
Dynamics (LEHD), 2015.
5. Based on analysis of open development
cases, 2016. Source: https://
bouldercolorado.gov/open-data/city-of-
boulder-open-development-review-cases/
6. Employment capacity from Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan, 2015-2040
Projections.
7. Based on EcoPass data as of May 2016
and employment from US Census LEHD,
2015, within 1/2 mile of the corridor
between Folsom Street and 75th Street.
8. Historical traffic based on City of Boulder
Traffic Count and Drive Time Data, 2014.
9. Non-residents hold 47% of the 100,148
jobs in Boulder. Source: Boulder
Community Profile, 2017. Based on 2016
estimate by City of Boulder Dept of
Planning , Housing, and Sustainability.
10. Based on the 2014 Boulder Valley
Employee Survey, Table 10, 47% of Boulder
residents drive alone to work, compared
to 80% of nonresidents.
11. Regional travel demand forecasts from
DRCOG, 2040.
BENEFITS
1. In 2040, vehicle miles of travel in the
corridor are projected to be 130,100 miles
with no improvements and 20% traffic
growth, and 111,300 miles with vision
implementation and 0% traffic growth.
For more information see Evaluation of
Alternatives Summary Report, Vehicle
Operations: VMT, p. 27.
2. Carrying capacity is estimated based on
modeled traffic volumes, transit capacity,
and projected bicycle and walking trips.
See Evaluation of Alternatives Summary
Report Attachment D: Mode Share for
more information.
3. Auto and transit travel times are based
on traffic modeling performed for this
plan, and east of 75th Street, on analysis
that was done for the SH 7 BRT Study.
For more information see Evaluation of
Alternatives Summary Report, Transit
Operations: Sample Travel Times, p. 34. .
4. Multiple studies have shown that reducing
the number of access points on urban and
suburban arterials reduces the number
of collisions. For more information see
the Evaluation of Alternatives Summary
Report, Safety, p. 51, and Attachment E:
Safety.
5. Mode share estimates are calculated
separately for each mode based on travel
demand modeling, ridership forecasts,
and increases in bike trips seen by other
communities after facility improvements.
See the Evaluation of Alternatives
Summary Report, Travel Mode Share, p.
46, and Attachment D: Mode Share for
more information.
6. Mode share targets are from the 2014
Transportation Master Plan.
7. In 2040, greenhouse gas emissions in the
corridor are projected to be 47.7 metric
tons with no improvements, and 40.8
metric tons with vision implementation.
Estimates are based on vehicle miles
traveled. For more information see the
Evaluation of Alternatives Summary
Report, Community Sustainability:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, p. 54, and
Attachment F: Sustainability.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | 41
EAST ARAPAHOE (SH 7) TRANSPORTATION PLAN
APPENDIX A: EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT
June 2016
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | i
Table of Contents
Page
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................1-1
Plan & Corridor Overview ................................................................................................................... 1-1
Related Plans and Studies ................................................................................................................... 1-2
Document Organization ........................................................................................................................ 1-5
2 Land Use and Demographics ...........................................................................................2-1
Land Use .................................................................................................................................................. 2-1
Population and Employment Density .................................................................................................. 2-1
Commute Patterns .................................................................................................................................. 2-6
Demographics ......................................................................................................................................... 2-9
3 Existing Modal Conditions ...............................................................................................3-1
Existing Street Description and Cross Sections ................................................................................. 3-1
Vehicles .................................................................................................................................................. 3-13
Pedestrians and Bicylists ..................................................................................................................... 3-19
Transit ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-30
Safety Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 3-43
Table of Figures
Page
Figure 1-1 East Arapahoe Corridor Overview ................................................................................... 1-1
Figure 1-2 City of Boulder TMP and RTD NAMS Priority BRT Corridors Serving Boulder ......... 1-3
Figure 2-1 Existing Land Use and Key Development Areas ............................................................ 2-3
Figure 2-2 Existing Population and Employment Density, 2013 ..................................................... 2-4
Figure 2-3 Projected Population and Employment Density, 2035 .................................................. 2-5
Figure 2-4 Home and Work Locations within Half-Mile and 1.5 Miles of the Corridor ............. 2-6
Figure 2-5 Home Locations Map ............................................................................................................ 2-7
Figure 2-6 Work Locations Map ............................................................................................................ 2-8
Figure 2-7 Demographic Summary, Half-Mile of East Arapahoe Corridor .................................. 2-9
Figure 2-8 Transit Use Propensity Index Map .................................................................................. 2-10
Figure 3-1 Cross Section Summary Table ............................................................................................ 3-2
Figure 3-2 Arapahoe Avenue, with Multi-Use Path ........................................................................... 3-2
Figure 3-3 Average Daily Traffic, Arapahoe Avenue, 2015 ........................................................ 3-13
Figure 3-4 Average Daily Traffic Volumes, Arapahoe Avenue, 2015 ........................................ 3-13
Figure 3-5 Traffic Count Locations and Signalized Intersections along Arapahoe
Avenue .................................................................................................................................. 3-14
Figure 3-6 Intersection Type ................................................................................................................. 3-15
Figure 3-7 Intersection Level of Service, Arapahoe Avenue, 2015.............................................. 3-16
Figure 3-8 Existing Vehicle Travel Times (Folsom Street to 65th Street) ..................................... 3-16
Figure 3-9 Driveway and Business Access, Total and Per-Mile ..................................................... 3-17
Figure 3-10 Existing Traffic Volumes and Level of Service, 2015 .................................................. 3-18
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | ii
Figure 3-11 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, Folsom Street to 55th Street (Top)
and Cherryvale Road to 75th Street (Bottom) ............................................................. 3-23
Figure 3-12 Existing and Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, Folsom Street to 55th
Street (Top) and Cherryvale Road to 75th Street (Bottom) ....................................... 3-24
Figure 3-13 B-Cycle Bicycling Sharing Stations .................................................................................. 3-25
Figure 3-14 Pedestrian Intersection Movements, Folsom Street to Foothills Parkway ................. 3-26
Figure 3-15 Pedestrian Intersection Movements, 48th Street to 65th Street ................................. 3-27
Figure 3-16 Bike Intersection Movements, Folsom Street to Foothills Parkway ............................ 3-28
Figure 3-17 Bike Intersection Movements Map, 48th Street to 65th Street .................................... 3-29
Figure 3-18 Existing Routes and Stops .................................................................................................. 3-32
Figure 3-19 CTN and Other RTD Route Frequencies ......................................................................... 3-33
Figure 3-20 CTN and Other RTD Route Span ..................................................................................... 3-34
Figure 3-21 RTD Fares (January 2016) ................................................................................................ 3-34
Figure 3-22 Average Weekday Ridership Chart (East Arapahoe Study Area) (January
2015 RTD data) .................................................................................................................. 3-35
Figure 3-23 Busiest JUMP Stops (January 2015)) .............................................................................. 3-36
Figure 3-24 JUMP Productivity and On-Board Load, January 2016 ............................................ 3-36
Figure 3-25 Weekday JUMP Productivity within Boulder, January 2016 .................................... 3-37
Figure 3-26 Average Daily Boardings, JUMP, January 2015 ........................................................ 3-38
Figure 3-27 Existing JUMP and Auto Travel Times (Folsom to 65th Street) .................................. 3-39
Figure 3-28 Scheduled and Actual JUMP Travel Times (January 2016) between Downtown
Boulder and 95th Street .................................................................................................... 3-40
Figure 3-29 JUMP Weekday On-Time Performance (January 2016), by Direction and Time
of Day ................................................................................................................................... 3-40
Figure 3-30 Coverage of Bus Stop Amenities ..................................................................................... 3-41
Figure 3-31 Bus Stop Score/Rank and Quality Ratings .................................................................... 3-42
Figure 3-32 Crash Summary by Mode, 2012-2014 ......................................................................... 3-43
Figure 3-33 Crash Summary by Crash Type, 2012-2014 ............................................................... 3-44
Figure 3-34 Crashes at Intersections by Type, 2012-2014 (Map) ................................................. 3-45
Figure 3-35 Crashes at Intersections by Type, 2012-2014 (Table) ............................................... 3-45
Figure 3-36 Crashes between Intersections, 2012-1014 (Map) ..................................................... 3-46
Figure 3-37 Crashes between Intersections by Type, 2012-2014 (Table) ................................... 3-46
Figure 3-38 Multi-use Path-Related Bicycle Crashes ......................................................................... 3-47
Figure 3-39 High Crash Intersections ..................................................................................................... 3-48
Figure 3-40 Arapahoe Ave & 28th St Crash Types ............................................................................ 3-49
Figure 3-41 Arapahoe Ave & 30th St Crash Types ........................................................................... 3-49
Figure 3-42 Arapahoe Ave and Foothills Pkwy Crash Types .......................................................... 3-49
Figure 3-43 Arapahoe Ave and 55th St Crash Types ....................................................................... 3-49
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
PLAN & CORRIDOR OVERVIEW
The East Arapahoe Transportation Plan is a long-range plan that will consider a number of potential
transportation improvements within the East Arapahoe corridor, including walking, biking, public
transportation, and vehicle travel. The study area for the plan, illustrated in Figure 1-1, is primarily
focused on a 4.5 mile segment of Arapahoe Avenue between Folsom Street and 75th Street.
Arapahoe Avenue is one of the city’s major access corridors serving both regional commuters living or
working outside Boulder and local trips by people who live and/or work along the corridor. The corridor
also serves growing residential areas and major employment centers and institutions including the
University of Colorado (CU) East Campus, Boulder Community Health, Ball Aerospace, Flatiron Business
Park, Naropa University, and Boulder Valley School District offices. Major north-south streets that
intersect with the study area include 28th Street, 30th Street, Foothills Parkway, 55th Street, Cherryvale
Road, and 63rd Street.
Figure 1-1 East Arapahoe Corridor Overview
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 1-2
RELATED PLANS AND STUDIES
The City of Boulder and other jurisdictions and agencies have developed a series of planning documents
related to the East Arapahoe Corridor. These plans include:
City of Boulder Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The Transit State of the System
Report, completed as part of the transit planning element of Boulder’s Transit Master Plan (TMP)
update in 2014, identified significant opportunities to improve access and connections to transit,
serve East Boulder and other transition areas such as the East Arapahoe corridor as they
redevelop, and serve the growing areas of Boulder Junction and CU East Campus. The TMP
identified the East Arapahoe corridor as one of the City of Boulder’s priority corridors for Bus
Rapid Transit (see Figure 1-2).
Northwest Area Mobility Study (NAMS). The Northwest Area Mobility Study, completed in
2014, created a prioritized list of mobility improvements for the Regional Transportation
District’s Northwest area. The project identified Arapahoe/SH 7 between Boulder and Brighton as
a candidate arterial BRT route. The identified corridor included a 17.9 mile corridor with 46% of
the route running in dedicated lanes and a 34-minute projected travel time from Boulder to
Lafayette. A key characteristic of the study was a connection to I-25, and implementation of the
SH 7 Planning and Environmental Linkage study. The City of Boulder and other Boulder County
communities have agreed on the results of the RTD Northwest Area Mobility Study and are
supporting efforts to fund the next steps of work toward implementing arterial BRT. The
corridors connecting to Boulder are the Diagonal (SH 119), Arapahoe Avenue (SH 7) and South
Boulder Road. The graphic in Figure 1-2 illustrates these corridors.
Boulder Access Management and Parking Strategy (AMPS). The City of Boulder is in the
process of developing an Access Management and Parking Strategy to guide creation of efficient
transportation networks within the city. AMPS includes edge parking along rapid transit corridors
focused on commuters and transit-oriented corridors, including the East Arapahoe corridor,
designed to emphasize transit oriented development (TOD) at a corridor scale. With increased
development within the East Arapahoe corridor, the plan calls for a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Access District approach combined with capital investments in multi-modal
facilities and service that could significantly improve long term sustainability and reduce the
impacts of new developments.
City of Boulder Sustainability Framework. The framework uses seven broad categories to
define community outcomes necessary to achieve Boulder’s vision of a great community. It states
that when the city implements the strategies outlined in the framework, then Boulder will have a
Safe, Healthy & Socially Thriving, Livable, Accessible & Connected, Environmentally Sustainable,
and Economically Vital Community and provide Good Governance.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 1-3
Figure 1-2 City of Boulder TMP and RTD NAMS Priority BRT Corridors Serving Boulder
Source: Boulder Transportation Master Plan
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 1-4
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is a joint plan
between the City of Boulder and Boulder County to inform and guide their shared responsibility
for planning and development in the Boulder Valley. The policies and core values in the plan
include using sustainability as a unifying framework to meet environmental, economic and social
goals; supporting evolution to a more sustainable urban form; environmental stewardship and
climate action; an all-mode transportation system to make getting around without a car easy and
accessible to everyone; and physical health and well-being.
Boulder County Transportation Master Plan. In 2011, the County spent nearly $1 million
to improve transit service and access to transit. In 2012, the County updated its Transportation
Master Plan with a focus on improving regional multimodal connections. Strategies specific to
improving transit include: Increase bike capacity at transit stops; Increase the bicycle capacity on
transit vehicles; Improve intersections; Collaborate with communities; Invest in new transit
service; Promote regional bus rapid transit; and Enhance bus stop facilities.
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) State Highway 7 Planning and
Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study. The Colorado Department of Transportation
completed the State Highway 7 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study in 2014. The study
identified improvements needed on SH 7 between US 287 and US 85 in Brighton, which is
approximately 20 miles from the eastern boundary of the East Arapahoe study area. The study
identified a recommended alternative for five segments between US 287 and US 85. Alternatives
included changes/expansion of the existing right of way to accommodate future demand, transit
lanes/queue jumps, shoulder bicycle lanes, and mixed use pedestrian paths.
Boulder County State Highway 7 Bus Rapid Transit Study. In summer 2016, Boulder
County is initiating the SH 7 BRT Transit Study intended to address current and future traffic
issues on SH 7 and develop a BRT system before build out of the area is complete. The study will
investigate recommendations from the CDOT PEL study, investigate BRT feasibility and develop
an operations plan for the corridor, and conduct a connectivity analysis to other RTD services.
The East Arapahoe corridor within the City of Boulder is the western segment of this study area.
University of Colorado (CU) East Campus Master Plan. The CU East Campus is bound by
30th Street and Foothills Parkway (east to west) and Arapahoe Avenue and Colorado Avenue
(north to south). The East Campus includes 197 acres of developable land, with the potential for
over 4 million square feet of new building space. The CU East Campus Connections Project is a
partnership between CU and the City of Boulder to identify mutually agreed upon projects to
“move the bar forward” on important sustainable transportation connections that will be needed
in the east campus area.
Envision East Arapahoe. Envision East Arapahoe originated as a long-term land use scenario
planning project intended to create a community-driven land use vision for the corridor. The
study analyzed three alternative future land use scenarios: Current Trends, District Focus, and
Housing Choices. Following community input, long-term land use planning decisions were placed
on hold in 2014 and the project was refocused on planning for multimodal transportation
improvements in the corridor.
East Arapahoe Transportation Connections Plan. The 2004 East Arapahoe
Transportation Network Plan addresses the multi-modal transportation system needs for moving
to and through the Arapahoe Avenue corridor between 35th Street and Boulder’s eastern city
limits. The plan defines the desired future transportation network in the area for all modes of
travel. The plan developed policies for connectivity to the larger Boulder transportation system,
coordination with City of Boulder departments, design parameters, and near-term project
implementation. This plan was not formally adopted by the City of Boulder.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 1-5
City of Boulder Sustainable Streets and Centers. The 2014 Sustainable Streets and
Centers study analyzed strategies for integrating sustainable transportation and land use tools for
developing a more sustainable street network. The study developed seven street typologies and
five functional overlays to drive form-based development. The study area included five Arapahoe
Avenue focus areas, and identified challenges and opportunities for focus areas to conform to
sustainable design. Arapahoe Avenue corridor segments assessed in the study included 28th-29th
Streets, 30th to 33rd Streets, Foothills Pkwy to 48th Street, 56th Streets to Old Tale Road, and
Cherryvale Road to 63rd Streets. Consistent challenges identified throughout the corridor included
difficulty in adapting it since it is a State Highway, adapting dominantly auto-oriented uses, and
conflicting community values in regards to the importance of industrial sites and vibrant streets.
DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
The remainder of this document is organized into the following sections:
Chapter 2: Land Use and Demographics. Describes current land use and demographic
characteristics of the corridor along with commute patterns and future projections for population
and employment growth.
Chapter 3: Existing Modal Conditions. Describes existing conditions for people driving,
walking, biking, and using transit along the corridor, as well as an overall analysis of safety issues.
The first section describes conditions for all modes in each segment of the corridor, while the
remaining sections provide additional detail on particular modes or topics.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 2-1
2 LAND USE AND DEMOGRAPHICS
This chapter provides an overview of land use, demographic characteristics, and commuting patterns
within the corridor, all of which significantly impact people’s transportation needs and choices.
LAND USE
This section summarizes the existing land uses along the East Arapahoe corridor. The interaction between
transportation and land use determines how people access destinations, the length of trip required, and
the directness of the route.
Figure 2-1 illustrates corridor land use designations. The northern section of the East Arapahoe corridor
contains major retail and light industrial uses. Primary destinations include the Twenty-Ninth Street
Retail Center, Boulder Community Health, Ball Aerospace, and Naropa University’s Nalanda Campus.
The southern section of Arapahoe Avenue features major institutions such as the University of Colorado
(CU) East Campus and Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) offices, along with generally low-density
residential areas. The corridor’s western end is highly developed with mixed-use commercial and
residential buildings; the intensity of land use decreases to the east of the corridor.
Chapter 3 provides a more detailed description of specific land uses in each segment of the corridor.
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT DENSITY
This section describes the existing and projected population and job densities in the East Arapahoe
corridor. Population and employment density is particularly relevant to the transportation network as the
location and clustering of people and jobs helps determine how and where people travel.
The East Arapahoe corridor has a high concentration of regionally-significant employers, including six of
the top ten employers in Boulder, such as Ball Aerospace and Boulder Community Health.2
Figure 2-2 shows the density of existing population and employment within the East Arapahoe corridor.
The north side of the corridor is primarily employment-oriented, with the exception of the area between
33rd Street and Foothills Parkway, which is more mixed use. Residential uses are concentrated in the
1 Population data from American Community Survey (ACS). Employment data from US Census Bureau Longitudinal Household-
Employer Dynamics (LEHD).
2 https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/2015-community-profile-update-1-201511190845.pdf
Key Highlights
The East Arapahoe corridor has a high concentration of regionally-significant employers,
including six of the top ten employers in Boulder. Employment in the corridor is generally
concentrated north of Arapahoe Avenue.
Approximately 13% of the city’s population lives within a half-mile of the corridor and about
40% of the city’s jobs are also within a half-mile of the corridor.1 The corridor’s population is
small relative to the number of jobs, meaning that most workers commute into the corridor.
There is a higher share of minority and low-income residents and a higher share of renter-
occupied households than the city overall. Although the residential population is small, it is
comprised of demographic groups that typically have a relatively high propensity to travel by
transit, walking, and biking.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 2-2
south side of the corridor between Foothills Parkway and 55th Street. East of 55th Street land use in the
corridor is a mix of commercial and institutional uses and low-density residential areas.
Figure 2-3 illustrates where population and employment densities in the corridor are projected to increase
by 2035 based on the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.3 The most significant changes in employment
density in the corridor are projected to occur west of Foothills Parkway and east of 55th Street. Population
density in the corridor is projected to intensify on the western end of the corridor, east of Foothills
Parkway including the parcels adjacent to the University of Colorado.
3 The projected land use information illustrated in Figure 2-3 reflects the current Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). The
City of Boulder and Boulder County are currently updating the BVCP (see https://bouldercolorado.gov/bvcp for more
information). This process began in summer of 2015 and is expected to be complete by the end of 2016. Transportation/GO
Boulder and Comprehensive Planning staff are continuing to work with the BVCP team to review and coordinate technical data,
and this data will be provided as an update at a future working group meeting.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 2-3
Figure 2-1 Existing Land Use and Key Development Areas
Source: City of Boulder Transportation Master Plan, State of the System Report 2014, Figure 3-9. Data from Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 2-4
Figure 2-2 Existing Population and Employment Density, 2013
Source: City of Boulder Transportation Master Plan, State of the System Report 2014, Figure 3-10. Data from City of Boulder Population and Employment Projections.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 2-5
Figure 2-3 Projected Population and Employment Density, 2035
Source: City of Boulder Transportation Master Plan, State of the System Report 2014, Figure 3-11. Data from City of Boulder Population and Employment Projections.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 2-6
COMMUTE PATTERNS
This section describes commute patterns within a half-mile and 1.5 mile radius of the study area. The
distance people live and/or work from the corridor affects their transportation needs, choices, and
potential demand for active transportation modes. For example, a half-mile is typically considered to be
walkable and 1.5 miles can easily be accomplished by a short bike ride. People who both live and work
along the corridor may be the most likely to take advantage of transit and active transportation options
along the corridor.
The analysis of commute patterns is based on data from the U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer
Household Dynamics (LEHD) for 2014. Figure 2-4 identifies commute patterns for people who live
and/or work within a half-mile or 1.5-mile radius of Arapahoe Avenue between Folsom Street and 75th
Street.
Half-Mile: Nearly 4,300 workers live within a half-mile of the corridor, compared to over
35,500 jobs. Only 1,100 people both live and work in the half-mile area; the remaining over
34,400 workers commute to the corridor from a half-mile or more away. Employment within a
half-mile comprises nearly 40% of jobs citywide.
1.5 Miles: Nearly 22,000 workers live within a broader 1.5-mile radius of the corridor, while
there are 72,600 jobs within the 1.5-mile area. Nearly 10,200 workers both live and work within
the 1.5-mile area. The remaining 62,400 workers commute from 1.5-miles or more away.
Maps of this data illustrate residential and work location patterns. Figure 2-5 displays the home locations
of people that work within 1.5 miles of the corridor, west of 75th Street. Figure 2-6 displays the
employment locations of people who reside within 1.5 miles of the corridor, west of 75th Street. These
locations include a large concentration of workers in downtown Boulder along Broadway both north and
south of downtown.
Figure 2-4 Home and Work Locations within Half-Mile and 1.5 Miles of the Corridor
Employment and Residence Status Half-Mile 1.5 Miles
Live within 0.5 or 1.5 Miles of Corridor 4,291 21,988
Work within 0.5 or 1.5 Miles of Corridor 35,519 72,656
Live and Work within 0.5 or 1.5 Miles of Corridor 1,115 10,267
Live within 0.5 or 1.5 Miles of Corridor but Work Outside 3,176 11,721
Work within 0.5 or 1.5 Miles of Corridor but Live Outside 34,404 62,389
Each dot in Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6 represents ten workers’ home or work locations; the individual
dots are randomly distributed within Census blocks.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 2-7
Figure 2-5 Home Locations Map
Source: US Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, 2015
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 2-8
Figure 2-6 Work Locations Map
Source: US Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, 2015
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 2-9
DEMOGRAPHICS
This section describes demographic characteristics of study area residents, compared to the City of
Boulder overall. This analysis can highlight the presence and general location of demographic groups that
are more likely to use transit, walk, and bike.
Figure 2-7 summarizes the demographic characteristics for study area residents compared to Boulder
overall. Key points include:
Approximately 13% of the city’s population lives within a half-mile of the corridor.
The median age of corridor residents (37) is higher than the City as a whole (28) and the average
household size is greater.
There is a higher share of minority and low-income residents and a higher share of renter-
occupied households; these demographic groups are more likely to travel by riding transit,
walking, and biking.
Figure 2-7 Demographic Summary, Half-Mile of East Arapahoe Corridor
Population Median
Age
Minority
Population
Poverty
(<150%)* Households Rent Own
Average
Household
Size
East Arapahoe 13,817 37 17% 35% 6,011 68% 32% 2.35
City of Boulder 102,002 28 12% 31% 44,029 49% 51% 2.18
Notes: * Earning at or below 150% of the federal poverty level.
Source: American Community Survey, 2010-2014 5-Year Average
Transit Use Propensity Index
The transit use propensity (TUP) index, illustrated in Figure 2-8, combines the strongest indicators of
transit demand. The TUP index is based on population and employment densities, low-income
households, persons with disabilities, seniors (age 65+), and rates of access to automobiles. In the East
Arapahoe corridor, TUP scores are highest in neighborhoods around the CU East Campus, and between
Foothills Parkway and 55th Street south of Arapahoe Avenue. Neighborhoods east of 55th Street and south
of Arapahoe Avenue also rate moderately high.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 2-10
Figure 2-8 Transit Use Propensity Index Map
Source: City of Boulder Transportation Master Plan, State of the System Report 2014, Figure 3-12. Data from Census 2010 and 2007-2011 ACS 5YR Estimates.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-1
3 EXISTING MODAL CONDITIONS
This chapter describes existing conditions for each travel mode that uses Arapahoe Avenue, and is
organized into the following sections:
Existing Street Cross-Sections. Describes existing street characteristics of Arapahoe Avenue
by segment, including facilities for each mode and key land uses.
Vehicles. Describes traffic volumes, signalized intersections, motor vehicle level of service, travel
time, and other information related to motor vehicle travel along the East Arapahoe corridor.
Pedestrian and Bicycle. Provides additional detail on existing and proposed facilities along
Arapahoe Avenue (e.g., multi-use paths and bike lanes) and pedestrian and bicycle activity in the
corridor.
Transit. Describes existing service, facilities, and transit ridership in the corridor.
Safety. Provides an analysis of safety in the corridor for all modes of travel.
EXISTING STREET DESCRIPTION AND CROSS SECTIONS
Arapahoe Avenue’s streetscape varies through the study area, from a five-lane street on the west end, to a
seven-lane street in the middle of the study area, and a three-lane street on the eastern end. Figure 3-1
summarizes the typical characteristics of different segments of Arapahoe Avenue for various modes. Lane
configurations, such as extra turn lanes approaching intersections, may vary slightly within each segment.
A more detailed discussion of each segment is provided below.
Figure 3-11 illustrates pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the corridor.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-2
Figure 3-1 Cross Section Summary Table
Segment # of General Purpose Lanes
Center Turn Lane Sidewalk or Multi-Use Path [1] Bike Lane Transit Lane
Folsom Street to 28th
Street 4 Median
Separated Both sides: multi-use path No No
28th Street to 30th Street 6 Median
Separated Both sides: multi-use path No No
30th Street to Foothills
Pkwy 6 Median
Separated
North side: multi-use path
South side: both sidewalk and multi-
use path incomplete
No No
Foothills Pkwy to 55th
Street 6 Median
Separated
North side: multi-use path
South side: sidewalk complete; multi-
use path incomplete
No No
55th Street to
Cherryvale Road 5 Median
Separated
North side: both sidewalk and multi-
use path incomplete
South side: sidewalk incomplete; no
multi-use path
Yes No
Cherryvale Road to 63rd
Street 5 Median
Separated
North side: multi-use path
South side: multi-use path Yes No
63rd Street to Westview
Drive 2 Continuous North side: multi-use path
South side: multi-use path Yes Yes
Westview Drive to 75th
Street 2 Continuous North side: multi-use path
South side: none
Wide
shoulders No
Notes: [1] Figure 3-11 illustrates the presence of pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the corridor.
Figure 3-2 Arapahoe Avenue, with Multi-Use Path
Source: City of Boulder
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-3
Folsom Street to 28th Street
The Folsom Street to 28th Street segment has four general-purpose travel lanes plus turn-lanes, with
predominantly retail land uses.
Category North South
Key Land Uses Village Shopping Center Arapahoe Village Shopping Center,
including Safeway
General-Purpose Travel Lanes Two general-purpose travel lanes in each direction with a single median-
separated center-turn lane throughout, and right-turn lanes.
The west side of the Arapahoe and 28th Street intersection has double left-turn
lanes
Intersections and Crossings Signalized intersections are 650 feet apart and have directional curb ramps and
continental crosswalk markings on all four legs. There are no marked
crosswalks provided between signalized intersections.
Pedestrian / Off-Street Bicycle
Facilities
12 foot wide multi-use paths on both sides of the roadway, separated from the
roadway with vegetation at some points.
On-Street Bicycle Facilities None
Dedicated Bus Lanes / Queue Jumps None
Typical Existing Cross-Section: Arapahoe Village Looking West
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-4
28th Street to 30th Street
This segment includes six general-purpose travel lanes plus turn-lanes, with predominantly retail land
uses. The multi-use path is buffered from the roadway by trees and vegetation and signals are relatively
close together (650 feet). As a result, this portion of Arapahoe Avenue provides a more comfortable
environment for pedestrians than nearby segments.
Category North South
Key Land Uses Twenty-Ninth Street Retail Center,
including Home Depot and other big-box
retail with parking fronting the street.
Parking lot has an internal pedestrian
path leading to the front door.
Scott Carpenter Park
General-Purpose Travel Lanes Three general-purpose lanes in each direction plus left-turn lanes, right-turn
lanes, and a 4-5 foot median.
The outside westbound through lane transitions to a westbound right-turn lane
west of 29th Street and terminates at 28th Street.
Intersections and Crossings Signalized intersections are 650 feet apart and have directional curb ramps
and continental crosswalk markings on all four legs. There are no marked
crosswalks provided between signalized intersections.
Pedestrian / Off-Street Bicycle
Facilities
12 foot wide multi use paths on both sides of the roadway, separated from the
roadway with vegetation at some points.
On-Street Bicycle Facilities None
Dedicated Bus Lanes / Queue Jumps Short, westbound bus-only segment just west of 29th Street
Westbound queue jump at 28th Street
Typical Existing Cross-Section: East of 29th Street Looking West
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-5
30th Street to Foothills Avenue
This portion of Arapahoe Avenue has six general-purpose lanes plus turn-lanes with a mix of retail,
medium-density residential, and employment/institutional land uses.
Category North South
Key Land Uses Mixed retail, employment, and
institutional uses:
Big box retail between 30th Street
and 33rd Street with parking lots
along Arapahoe
Peloton high-density mixed-use
residential
CU Center for Innovation
Small-scale retail businesses with
individual parking lots and limited
connections between each site.
University of Colorado East Campus
including buildings on both sides of
Marine Street
Wetlands
General-Purpose Travel Lanes Three travel lanes in both directions, with median-separated left-turn lanes at
intersections and mid-block. Channelized right turn lanes are present at all
intersections.
Intersections and Crossings Signalized intersections are approximately a thousand feet apart and no
marked crosswalks are provided between signalized intersections.
Signalized intersections have directional curb ramps and continental
crosswalk markings on all four legs, except for 33rd Street which is missing
curb ramps.
There is an undercrossing of Arapahoe for the Boulder Creek Path between
38th Street and Foothills Parkway.
Pedestrian / Off-Street Bicycle
Facilities
The multi-use path is continuous on the north-side
Between 30th Street and the Boulder Creek Path the south side pedestrian
facility is designated as a sidewalk; the sidewalk is as narrow as five feet, but
includes a landscaped buffer. There is a 500 foot section that lacks a
pedestrian facility of any type through parking lots east and west of 33rd Street.
On the south side there are no bike facilities between 30th Street and the
Boulder Creek Greenway (see above). There is a multi-use path between the
Boulder Creek Greenway and Foothills Parkway; west of this junction the path
diverges from Arapahoe.
On-Street Bicycle Facilities None
Dedicated Bus Lanes / Queue Jumps There are queue jumps in both directions at Foothills Parkway.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-6
Typical Existing Cross-Section: West of 38th Street Looking West
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-7
Foothills Parkway to 55th Street
East of Foothills Parkway, Arapahoe Avenue generally has six general-purpose travel lanes with a left-turn
lane. Land uses transition to generally lower-density uses.
Category North South
Key Land Uses Mixed institutional, employment, and
light industrial. Some buildings, such
as on the northwest corner of
Arapahoe and 55th, front the street
while others have parking frontages.
Boulder Community Health
Ball Aerospace (major employer)
Light industrial and office uses
east of Ball Aerospace, including
breweries, printing press, Rocky
Mountain Theater for Kids.
Office and hotel uses between
Foothills Pkwy, Boulder Creek, and
the railroad tracks
Primarily low-density, single-family
residential
Some medium or high density
residential, e.g., between Foothills
Parkway and Eisenhower Drive
Several one and two-story office
buildings are transitioning to medical
offices for the personnel using the
hospital facility
Isolated office (east of Foothills) and
auto-oriented retail/service (west of
55th)
General-Purpose Travel Lanes At Foothills Parkway, there are three westbound through travel lanes, a right-
turn lane, and three left-turn lanes. Eastbound, there are three travel lanes, a
right-turn lane, and two left-turn lanes. In both directions, the right-turn lanes
become bus queue jumps through the intersection. On the opposite side of
the intersection, the queue jump lane transitions to a merging lane for traffic
turning right onto Arapahoe.
East of Foothills, there are generally three lanes per direction with a median.
Median-separated left-turn lanes occur at intersections and mid-block.
Intersections and Crossings There is an undercrossing of Arapahoe east of Foothills Parkway.
Foothills Parkway and 48th Street are over 1600 feet (over 1/4 mile) apart.
Average intersection spacing between signalized intersections is over 850
feet between 48th Street and 55th Street. These intersections have directional
curb ramps and continental crosswalk markings on all four legs.
No marked crosswalks are provided between signalized intersections.
Signalized intersections have directional curb ramps and continental
crosswalk markings on all four legs, except for missing crosswalks on the
south leg of Conestoga Street.
Pedestrian / Off-Street Bicycle Facilities
The north side has a continuous 12 foot multi-use path.
Pedestrian access on the south side changes between a 12 foot multi-use
path and 5 foot sidewalk multiple times; there is no path or bike lane between
MacArthur Drive and 48th Street or between Eisenhower Drive and 55th Street.
There is not always a buffer between the sidewalk and the street. Businesses
typically do not have pedestrian paths to their front doors.
On-Street Bicycle Facilities None
Dedicated Bus Lanes / Queue Jumps There are queue jumps in both directions at Foothills Parkway.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-8
Typical Existing Cross-Section: Range Street Looking West
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-9
55th Street to Cherryvale Road
Arapahoe Avenue transitions to two eastbound travel lanes east of 55th Street, and has five to six total
general-purpose travel lanes between 55th Street and Cherryvale Road. The north side multi-use path
intersects the South Boulder Creek Greenway approximately 400 feet west of Cherryvale, where Arapahoe
Avenue crosses over South Boulder Creek. The Flatirons Golf Course is the dominant land use on the
south side.
Category North South
Key Land Uses Accessed from 55th Street, Flatiron
Business Park is north of the
railroad tracks
Office and light industrial uses south
of the railroad tracks, accessed from
Arapahoe
Retail/services and office uses between
55th and the golf course
Flatirons Municipal Golf Course
Very low density, single-family
residential along Old Tale Road
General-Purpose Travel Lanes Three travel lanes in each direction, transitioning to two eastbound lanes approx.
800 feet east of 55th.
Intersections and Crossings No marked crosswalks between the signalized intersections at 55th and
Cherryvale, nearly 0.7 miles apart. These intersections have directional curb
ramps and continental crosswalk markings on all four legs, except for missing
crosswalks on the south and west legs of Cherryvale.
Pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing of Arapahoe that connects the South Boulder
Creek Greenway to Old Tale Road (approx. 400 feet west of Cherryvale).
Pedestrian / Off-Street Bicycle
Facilities
On the north side, the multi-use path is continuous except for an approx. 650 foot
gap west of the South Boulder Creek Greenway undercrossing that connects the
path to Old Tale Road on the south side of Arapahoe.
On the south side, there is no sidewalk or multi-use path next to the Flatirons Golf
Course. The multi-use path resumes east of Cherryvale Road. There is a short
segment near Old Tale Road where there are no sidewalks or multi-use paths on
either side of the street.
On-Street Bicycle Facilities There are bike lanes on both sides of Arapahoe east of 55th
Transit Lanes or Queue Jumps None
Typical Existing Cross-Section: 55th Street Looking West
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-10
Cherryvale Road to 63rd Street
Arapahoe Avenue between Cherryvale Road and 63rd Street has a similar roadway configuration to the
55th – Cherryvale segment—five total general-purpose travel lanes with bike lanes in both directions. A
new Jewish Community Center is being constructed on the southeast corner of Cherryvale Road and
Arapahoe Avenue.
Category North South
Key Land Uses Auto dealerships, light industrial, and
service uses
North of railroad tracks along 63rd,
Boulder County Resource Center,
Western Disposal’s main facility,
Stazio Softball Fields, Via Mobility
West of 63rd, Naropa University
Nalanda Campus
Future Boulder Jewish Commons
east of Cherryvale
Open space / wetlands
Auto repair business
Mobile home park
General-Purpose Travel Lanes Three westbound and two eastbound general-purpose lanes.
Median-separated left-turn lanes at intersections and mid-block.
Intersections and Crossings No marked crosswalks between the signalized intersections at Cherryvale and
63rd, which are approximately 1,800 feet (1/3 mile) apart.
These intersections have directional curb ramps and continental crosswalk
markings on all four legs, except for missing crosswalks on the south and west
legs of Cherryvale.
Pedestrian / Off-Street Bicycle Facilities
There are multi-use paths on both sides of Arapahoe.
On-Street Bicycle Facilities There are 6.5-foot bike lanes in both directions.
Transit Lanes or Queue Jumps None
Typical Existing Cross-Section: West of 62nd Street looking West
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-11
63rd Street to Westview Drive
Between 63rd Street and Westview Drive, Arapahoe Avenue has two general purpose travel lanes with a
two-way center-turn lane and a transit lane in each direction. The Boulder Valley School District offices
and Arapahoe Ridge High School are major land uses.
Category North South
Key Land Uses Self-storage facilities and
retail/service businesses south of
the railroad tracks
Xcel Energy Valmont Power
Station north of railroad tracks
Self-storage facilities
Eco-Cycle and ReSource
Boulder Valley School District
(BVSD) Arapahoe Campus
Arapahoe Ridge Alternative
Technical High School
General-Purpose Travel Lanes One travel lane in each direction with a two-way center turn lane.
Intersections and Crossings Directional curb ramps and continental crosswalk markings on all four legs
of the signalized intersections at 63rd and 65th.
Approximately 1,600 foot spacing between 63rd and 65th
Pedestrian / Off-Street Bicycle Facilities Multi-use path on the north side; the south side sidewalk is narrower and
does not continue east of Westview Drive.
On-Street Bicycle Facilities On-street bike lanes on both sides.
Transit Lanes or Queue Jumps Transit-only lane in both directions between 63rd Street and approximately
Arapahoe Ridge High School.
Typical Existing Cross-Section: West of 65th Looking West
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-12
Westview Drive to 75th Street
Between Westview Drive and 75th Street, Arapahoe Avenue has three total lanes and is mostly bordered by
open space, with a cluster of light industrial businesses at Valtec Lane.
Category North South
Key Land Uses Open space between Westview
Drive and Valtec Lane
Light industrial at Valtec Lane
City on the Hill Church east of 75th
Open space between Westview Dr
and Valtec Lane
Convenience store and gas station
at 75th
General-Purpose Travel Lanes One travel lane in each direction and a two-way center turn lane.
Intersections and Crossings T-intersection of Westview Drive and Arapahoe only has a curb ramp on the
southwest corner; there are no marked crossings or connecting facilities on
the south side east of Westview. Westview Drive also lacks sidewalks.
Approx 1.2 mile spacing between 65th Street and 75th Street; there is no
marked crossing at the bus stops at Valtec Lane.
There is an above-grade double-track railroad overcrossing of Arapahoe east
of Valtec Lane.
Curb ramps and continental crosswalk markings at 75th Street except for a
missing curb ramp on the northeast corner.
Pedestrian / Off-Street Bicycle
Facilities
Multi-use path on the north side only, with a landscaped buffer west of Valtec
Lane; the south side has no pedestrian facility.
On-Street Bicycle Facilities Wide shoulders or striped bike lanes on both sides.
Transit Lanes or Queue Jumps None
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-13
VEHICLES
This section describes existing conditions for vehicles using Arapahoe Avenue in the study area. Arapahoe
Avenue is an important roadway for local motor vehicle trips within Boulder and is one of the primary
commuter corridors between Boulder and Lafayette, Erie, and I-25.
Average Daily Traffic
The map provided in Figure 3-5 shows the location of traffic counts along the corridor. Average Daily
Traffic (ADT) was recorded at the locations marked in blue on each end of the corridor (west of 23rd
Street and east of 75th Street).
In 2015, an average of approximately 19,000 vehicles per day (vpd) were counted at both traffic count
locations. In the vicinity of the intersection of Foothills Parkway and Arapahoe Avenue, one of the busiest
intersections in the city, Arapahoe Avenue carries approximately 32,000 vehicles per day. This busy
intersection was reconstructed in 2006 to address roadway design issues including safety and the addition
of a new multi-use path underpass. Traffic volumes at the west end of the corridor have remained fairly
stable (typically between 20,000 and 25,000 vpd) since the initial count in 1983, while volumes on the
east end have nearly doubled.
Figure 3-3 Average Daily Traffic, Arapahoe Avenue, 2015
West of Folsom East of 75th
First year of data 22,500 (1983) 10,500 (1982)
2015 Average Daily Traffic 19,500 19,000
Source: 2015 Boulder Arterial Count Program, and Boulder Valley Count Program.
Figure 3-4 provides current traffic volumes at several locations along Arapahoe Avenue. Additional details
on current traffic volumes are provided in Figure 3-10.
Figure 3-4 Average Daily Traffic Volumes, Arapahoe Avenue, 2015
Intersection Existing 2015
Arapahoe Avenue and W. of 28th Street 27,500
Arapahoe Avenue and E. of 30th Street 28,300
Arapahoe Avenue and E. of Foothills Parkway 31,300
Arapahoe Avenue and E. of 55th Street 26,200
Source: Travel Forecasts based on Regional Travel Demand Model, 2040
Key Highlights
Traffic volumes at the west end of the corridor have remained fairly stable over the past 30
years, while volumes on the east end have nearly doubled.
Travel time between Folsom Street and 65th Street ranges from 5.9 to 9.5 minutes eastbound
and from 6.8 to 8.4 minutes westbound during the morning and afternoon peak hours,
respectively. An “unimpeded” auto trip (with no traffic signals or other stops) would take 4.75
minutes to travel between Folsom and 65th Streets at the posted speed limits.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-14
Signalized and Non-Signalized Intersections
The corridor includes 16 signalized intersections and nine non-signalized intersections. Figure 3-5
illustrates the signalized intersections and Figure 3-6 provides a table of all intersections with public
streets along the Arapahoe Avenue in the study area, listed from west to east.
Figure 3-5 Traffic Count Locations and Signalized Intersections along Arapahoe Avenue
Source: 2015 Boulder Arterial Count Program, and Boulder Valley Count Program
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-15
Figure 3-6 Intersection Type
Cross Street Intersection Type Cross Street Intersection Type
Folsom Street Fully Signalized Intersection Range Street Non Signalized, Turns Allowed Both Ways
26th Street Fully Signalized Intersection Patton Drive Right Turn In, Right Turn Out
28th Street Fully Signalized Intersection Conestoga Street Fully Signalized Intersection
Culver Court Right Turn In, Right Turn Out 55th Street Fully Signalized Intersection
29th Street Fully Signalized Intersection 56th Street Right Turn In, Right Turn Out
30th Street Fully Signalized Intersection Old Tale Road Non Signalized, Turns Allowed Both Ways
33rd Street Fully Signalized Intersection Cherryvale Road Fully Signalized Intersection
38th Street Fully Signalized Intersection 62nd Street Non Signalized, Turns Allowed Both Ways
Foothills Parkway Fully Signalized Intersection 63rd Street Fully Signalized Intersection
Riverbend Drive Right Turn In, Right Turn Out 65th Street Fully Signalized Intersection
MacArthur Drive Non Signalized, Turns Allowed Both Ways Westview Drive Non Signalized, Turns Allowed Both Ways
48th Street Fully Signalized Intersection Valtec Lane Non Signalized, Turns Allowed Both Ways
Eisenhower Drive /
Commerce Street
Fully Signalized Intersection 75th Street Fully Signalized Intersection
Source: City of Boulder
Vehicle Turning Movement Counts
Vehicle turning movement counts are tracked at signalized intersections every three years during the
morning, midday, and afternoon peak hours (starting at 7:45 am, noon, and 4:45 pm, respectively). These
locations are indicated by green dots in Figure 3-5, and are one-day snapshots of every vehicle counted
over each one-hour period. Traffic volumes are typically highest on weekdays during the morning and
afternoon peak hours when employees are traveling to and from work. Figure 3-10 shows the morning
and afternoon peak hour vehicle counts at four of the busiest intersections in the corridor. Detailed counts
at all of the signalized intersections in the corridor are available on the City of Boulder’s website.4
Intersection Level of Service
Intersection level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of the quality of roadway operations at
signalized intersections. LOS measures the effect of increased peak hour traffic volumes on vehicle travel
time. LOS is calculated as the average time that vehicles are delayed at an intersection, and is reported as
A through F letter grades:
LOS A indicates very good operation (free flow) and equates to average delay of 10 seconds or
less per vehicle
LOS F indicates poor operation (congested traffic), with an average delay of 80 seconds or more
Figure 3-7 lists the existing LOS at the four busiest and most congested intersections in the corridor in the
morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) peak hours. The smaller intersections (with less side street traffic)
typically experience LOS in the A through C range.
4 Boulder Turning Movement Count Program.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-16
Figure 3-7 Intersection Level of Service, Arapahoe Avenue, 2015
Intersection Existing AM Peak Existing PM Peak
Arapahoe Avenue and 28th Street C D
Arapahoe Avenue and 30th Street C C
Arapahoe Avenue and Foothills Parkway C D
Arapahoe Avenue and 55th Street C C
Source: Travel Forecasts based on Regional Travel Demand Model, 2040
Travel Time
The City of Boulder monitors vehicle travel times in key arterial corridors, including Arapahoe Avenue.
Travel time on the Arapahoe Avenue corridor has held reasonably steady since 1987. Most recently
(2014), in the segment between Folsom Street and 65th Street the travel time averaged 6.3 minutes in the
morning peak hour and 8.8 minutes in the afternoon peak hour. If there were no impediments or stops on
Arapahoe Avenue (e.g., no traffic signals), an “unimpeded auto trip” would take 4.75 minutes to travel
between Folsom and 65th Streets at the posted speed limits. The relatively constant travel time indicates
that the City of Boulder’s transportation management policies and programs have been effective in
maintaining efficient vehicle travel, even as the city’s population and vehicle traffic has grown. Existing
travel times in the corridor between Folsom and 65th Streets vary depending on direction, and are shown
in Figure 3-8. Eastbound travel time ranges from 5.9 minutes during the morning peak hour to 9.5
minutes during the afternoon peak hour. Westbound travel time ranges from 6.8 minutes during the
morning peak hour to 8.4 minutes during the afternoon peak hour.
Figure 3-8 Existing Vehicle Travel Times (Folsom Street to 65th Street)
Source: City of Boulder
Driveways and Business Access
Between Folsom Street and Westview Drive on Arapahoe Avenue there are 86 driveway curb cuts. Over
3.6 miles, this averages to approximately 24 driveways per mile along the corridor, not including side
streets. Figure 3-9 compares the number of driveways and curb cuts for several segments of the corridor.
5.9
6.8
9.5
8.4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Eastbound WestboundTravel Time (minutes)AM Peak PM Peak
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-17
The highest number of curb cuts in the corridor is the segment from 55th Street to Westview Drive, with
38 driveways intersecting Arapahoe Avenue.
Figure 3-9 Driveway and Business Access, Total and Per-Mile
Source: City of Boulder Inventory
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Folsom - 30th 30th - Foothills Foothills - 55th 55th - Westview
Driveway Curb Cuts - Arapahoe Driveways Per Mile
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-18
Figure 3-10 Existing Traffic Volumes and Level of Service, 2015
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-19
PEDESTRIANS AND BICYLISTS
This section describes existing conditions for people walking and traveling by bicycle in the study area.
Walking is a part of every trip, including parking and walking to the front door of a business or walking
from home to a bus stop and from a bus stop to a final destination. Bicycling can be an efficient and
healthy way to complete a variety of short- to medium-length trips. Both walking and biking are common
travel modes in the City of Boulder. According to the 2012 Boulder Travel Diary, over 20% of all trips are
made by foot and almost 19% of all trips are made by bike.5
Pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the East Arapahoe corridor are part of a citywide network of on-
street and off-street facilities. Figure 3-11 illustrates the existing network of pedestrian and bicycle
facilities in the study area. Figure 3-12 illustrates existing and proposed facilities. Pedestrian and bicycle
facilities and travel are summarized below.
Summary of Pedestrian Facilities and Travel
Pedestrian facilities along the corridor include sidewalks and
multi-use paths. Multi-use paths are shared facilities with
sufficient width to accommodate people both walking and
bicycling. Figure 3-11 illustrates the existing pedestrian
facilities along the East Arapahoe corridor (either sidewalk or
multi-use path). These paths are part of a city-wide bicycle
and pedestrian network.
As described for each segment of the study area in the
Existing Modal Facilities section above, there are sections of
Arapahoe Avenue that lack continuous pedestrian facilities of
any type (sidewalks or multi-use paths). These gaps include:
On the north side near Old Tale Road, west of the
South Boulder Creek Greenway
On the south side east and west of 33rd Street, between 55th Street and Cherryvale Road, and east
of Westview Drive
5 National Research Center, Modal Shift in the Boulder Valley, 1990-2012
Key Highlights
There are key gaps in the sidewalk network along Arapahoe Avenue: north-side at Old Tale
Road and south-side at 33rd Street, between 55th Street and Cherryvale Road, and east of
Westview Drive.
There are neither bike lanes nor a multi-use path on the south side of Arapahoe Avenue
between 30th Street and the Boulder Creek Greenway, between MacArthur Drive and 48th
Street, and between Eisenhower Drive and 55th Street.
There are on-street bike lanes east of 55th Street, but the multi-use path has a north-side gap
at Old Tale Road and south-side gaps between 55th Street and Cherryvale Road, as well as
east of Westview Drive.
There are long distances between opportunities to cross Arapahoe Avenue at crosswalks or
undercrossing in some segments, and there are no marked crossings between signalized
intersections.
Sidewalk at 63rd Street.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-20
Figure 3-12 illustrates proposed pedestrian facilities that would help fill the above gaps in pedestrian
connectivity along the corridor.
Pedestrian Crossing Locations
There are sections of Arapahoe Avenue where there is a significant distance between marked crosswalks,
which are only at signalized intersections. Figure 3-11 illustrates marked crosswalk locations at signalized
intersections, and pedestrian undercrossings that are provided at key trail intersections including the
Boulder Creek Path (east of 38th Street), east of Foothills Parkway, and the South Boulder Creek Greenway
(at Old Tale Road).
Pedestrian Activity along Arapahoe
Figure 3-14 (Folsom Street to Foothills Parkway) and Figure 3-15 (48th Street to 65th Street) illustrate
pedestrian counts at intersections along the corridor in the morning and afternoon peak hours.6 These
diagrams indicate that:
The highest level of pedestrian activity was observed at the intersection of Folsom Street and
Arapahoe Avenue, next to the CU West Campus.
At 33rd and 38th Streets pedestrian volumes were highest on the north side of the street. This
could be due to the gap in sidewalk connectivity on the south side at 33rd Street.
At Foothills Parkway no pedestrians were counted crossing the intersection’s north leg and most
pedestrian crossings were on the south leg. This could be attributed to the pedestrian
undercrossing of Arapahoe Avenue on the east side of Foothills Parkway. The Boulder Creek
Greenway also runs north of Arapahoe Avenue and crosses under Foothills Parkway.
There were few pedestrians observed crossing Arapahoe Avenue or side streets east of Cherryvale
Road.
Summary of Bicycle Facilities and Travel
Bicycle facilities along the corridor include bicycle lanes and multi-use paths that are part of a city-wide
bicycle and pedestrian network. These facilities include:
On-street bicycle lanes between 55th Street and
63rd Street and wide shoulders east of 63rd Street.
Lanes are approximately 5 to 6.5 feet wide with no
buffer separating the facilities from vehicle travel
lanes.
Off-street, detached multi-use paths along one
or both sides of Arapahoe Avenue that are typically 10
to 12 feet wide, sufficiently wide to accommodate
people walking and bicycling. In some cases, there is a
buffer between the path and adjacent travel lanes.
As shown in Figure 3-11, the multi-use paths are not
continuous. Figure 3-12 illustrates proposed new or upgraded
multi-use path segments (dashed green lines or dashed black
lines, respectively) in the Boulder Transportation Master
6 Pedestrian counts were collected by the City of Boulder as a part of peak hour counts at all signalized intersections in the City of
Boulder. Data is collected approximately every three years on a rotational basis and includes three peak periods (AM, Noon and
PM peaks). The data for this study area was collected between April 2013 and October 2014.
North-side (westbound) multi-use path and bike lanes at
Cherryvale Road. The south-side lacks a continuous
multi-use path between Cherryvale Road and 55th Street
and there is a north-side gap west of the South Boulder
Creek Greenway.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-21
Plan. The north-side multi-use path is nearly continuous, except the gap west of the South Boulder Creek
Greenway (near Old Tale Road). The south-side multi-use path has several gaps, including where a
sidewalk is present but is not wide enough to accommodate both people walking and biking. In particular,
this includes between 30th Street and the Boulder Creek Path; there is no bike lane in this segment. There
is also no south-side path or bike lane between MacArthur Drive and 48th Street or between Eisenhower
Drive and 55th Street. There are on-street bike lanes east of 55th Street, but the multi-use path has a
north-side gap at Old Tale Road and south-side gaps between 55th Street and Cherryvale Road, as well as
east of Westview Drive. These gaps are also described for each segment of the study area in the Existing
Modal Facilities section above.
In addition, at intersections bicyclists using the multi-use path experience conflicts with auto traffic; there
are no specialized intersection treatments. There are also frequent driveways which present additional
conflict points.
Bicyclist Volumes along Arapahoe Avenue
Figure 3-16 and Figure 3-17 illustrate morning and afternoon peak-hour bicycle counts at intersections
along the corridor. The volume of bicycle traffic is highest 30th Street, both along and across Arapahoe
Avenue. There is also moderate bicyclist activity at Folsom Street, 38th Street, 48th Street (north-side
only), and Cherryvale Road (north-side only).
Connecting Bicycle Facilities and Bicyclist Volumes
Bicyclists can connect the on- and off-street bicycle facilities along Arapahoe Avenue with the overall
bicycle network to complete a variety of trips in Boulder.7 Key facilities parallel or connecting to the East
Arapahoe corridor include:
Boulder Creek Greenway: Generally east-west off-street facility running roughly parallel to
Arapahoe Avenue between Folsom Street and 48th Court. It is joined by the Skunk Creek Path just
before it crosses under Arapahoe Avenue east of 38th Street. In 2013, average daily counts of
bicyclists conducted by the City of Boulder on the Boulder Creek Path (at the Skunk Creek Path
intersection) ranged from 1,200 to 1,400 per day.
Folsom Street: bicycle lanes north and south of Arapahoe Avenue
28th Street: multi-use path
29th Street: bicycle lanes north of Arapahoe Avenue and multi-use path south of Arapahoe
Avenue
30th Street: bicycle lanes north and south of Arapahoe Avenue, and multi-use path north of
Arapahoe Avenue. There is
Foothills Parkway: multi-use path on east side
55th Street: bicycle lanes
South Boulder Creek Greenway: intersects Arapahoe Avenue from the north at Old Tale
Road.
63rd Street: bicycle lanes
7 Bicycle counts were collected by the City of Boulder as a part of peak hour counts at all signalized intersections in the City of
Boulder. Data is collected approximately every three years on a rotational basis and includes three peak periods (AM, Noon and
PM peaks). The data for this study area was collected between April 2013 and October 2014. The City of Boulder also conducts
bicycle counts on various key multi-use paths, including on the Boulder Creek Path in 2013.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-22
Bicycle Sharing
Boulder B-Cycle operates the bicycle sharing system in the City of Boulder. Customers can rent and return
a bike at any B-Cycle station. Figure 3-13 illustrates station locations along Arapahoe Avenue and near the
corridor, including between Folsom-28th Streets, at 38th Street, and at 48th Street.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-23
Figure 3-11 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, Folsom Street to 55th Street (Top) and Cherryvale Road to 75th Street (Bottom)
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-24
Figure 3-12 Existing and Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, Folsom Street to 55th Street (Top) and Cherryvale Road to 75th Street (Bottom)
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-25
Figure 3-13 B-Cycle Bicycling Sharing Stations
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-26
Figure 3-14 Pedestrian Intersection Movements, Folsom Street to Foothills Parkway
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-27
Figure 3-15 Pedestrian Intersection Movements, 48th Street to 65th Street
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-28
Figure 3-16 Bike Intersection Movements, Folsom Street to Foothills Parkway
Source: City of Boulder. Data from http://gisweb.ci.boulder.co.us/agswebsites/pds/pds_traffic/
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-29
Figure 3-17 Bike Intersection Movements Map, 48th Street to 65th Street
Source: City of Boulder. Data from http://gisweb.ci.boulder.co.us/agswebsites/pds/pds_traffic/
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-30
TRANSIT
This section describes existing transit services and facilities in the study area. Transit is an important
travel option for short local trips as well as longer-distance local and regional trips. According to the 2012
Boulder Travel Diary, approximately 5% of all trips and 10% of work trips in Boulder are made by public
transit.8
Transit Overview
The JUMP bus route serves the entire East Arapahoe corridor, though other transit lines provide service
on portions of the corridor. These services are shown in Figure 3-18.
Route Characteristics
The Regional Transportation District (RTD) operates most transit services within Boulder. RTD serves the
entire Denver region, operating transit service from Boulder to Denver International Airport (DIA)
including bus, light rail, and bus rapid transit (BRT). Among these services, Boulder’s Community Transit
Network (CTN) is a set of branded bus routes that specifically operate within Boulder, offering high-
frequency service and connecting residents to major destinations and regional routes. The CTN is
comprised of six high-frequency bus routes: BOUND, DASH, HOP, JUMP, SKIP and Stampede. The
Flatiron Flyer (FF), which opened in January 2016, is a BRT service that operates between Boulder and
Denver.
Route Descriptions
Figure 3-18 illustrates the bus routes that operate along or within the East Arapahoe Transportation Plan
Study area. The JUMP route operates for the entire length of the East Arapahoe corridor, traveling
between the Downtown Boulder Station and the city’s eastern limits. The JUMP is also a vital regional
route connecting Boulder to Lafayette and Erie. JUMP trips that travel outside of Boulder (east of 65th
Street) are known as the Long JUMP. Other bus routes that operate in the corridor include:
Routes FF4 and FF6: Provides regional connections between Boulder Junction at Depot
Square Station and Denver Union Station. Route FF4 operates along the East Arapahoe corridor
between 28th Street and 55th Street and serves the Flatiron Business Park along 55th Street. Route
FF6 crosses Arapahoe Avenue at 28th Street.
8 National Research Center, Modal Shift in the Boulder Valley, 1990-2012
Key Highlights
The JUMP Community Transit Network bus route operated by RTD provides frequent service
along Arapahoe Avenue (up to every 10 minutes on weekdays when CU is in session) over a
long span of service (19 hours on weekdays). It carries 2,400 riders per weekday.
Transit travel time between Folsom Street and 65th Street ranges from 11 to 16 minutes
eastbound and is 15 minutes westbound during the morning and afternoon peak hours,
respectively. Service generally runs close to schedules, but is least reliable in the westbound
direction in the afternoon peak period.
Over three-quarters of stops for the JUMP in Boulder have a concrete bus pad, although in
some cases the pad is not fully accessible to users with wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
Less than half of stops include a bench or other seating, and 26% contain a shelter.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-31
Route J: Offers regional connections between the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU), Niwot,
and Longmont.
The HOP: Operates a loop circulating between Pearl Street and the University of Colorado
campus via the Twenty-Ninth Street Retail Center.
The Stampede: Operates on a section of Arapahoe Avenue, and Marine Drive just south of
Arapahoe Avenue, between Foothills Parkway and 30th Street, and provides circulation between
the CU East Campus and CU Main Campus.
The BOUND: Offers north-south connections between Diagonal Plaza, the Twenty Ninth Street
Retail Center, CU East Campus and CU Main Campus, and Base-Mar Shopping Center via
Baseline Road and 30th Street, crossing Arapahoe Avenue at 30th Street.
Route 206: Connects several South Boulder neighborhoods to the Flatiron Business Park along
55th Street, Pearl Parkway, and Boulder Junction at Depot Square Station, where multiple transit
connections are available.
Route 208: Offers a connection between Downtown Boulder and the Flatiron Business Park via
Broadway, Iris, and Walnut. The route accesses Arapahoe Avenue for one block, at its 55th Street
terminus.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-32
Figure 3-18 Existing Routes and Stops
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-33
Frequency
Boulder’s Community Transit Network features service levels of 10 minutes or less during peak periods.
Service that operates every 15 minutes or better is generally considered to be sufficiently frequent that
most riders do not need to consult a schedule to plan their trips and simply show up at the bus stop.
Figure 3-19 shows existing weekday frequencies for all bus routes in the study area. The “short” JUMP
operates in the midday when the “long” JUMP does not operate to Erie, and maintains frequent JUMP
service in Boulder. The CTN frequencies are heavily dependent on CU’s academic schedule. Overall
service levels decrease when CU and BVSD are not in session during the summer months of May through
August.
Figure 3-19 CTN and Other RTD Route Frequencies
Route
Frequencies (minutes)
(CU Fall and Spring Semesters) CU Summer Session
Frequencies Peak Midday Weekend
JUMP (in Boulder) [1] 10 10 30 15 min. peak and midday from May-Aug
Short Jump None 30 None
Long Jump to Lafayette 30 30 60
Long Jump to Erie 30 None 60
HOP 7-10 7-10 7-10
Stampede 7-10 7-10 None 10 min. from May-Aug
BOUND 10 10 30 15 min. peak and midday from May-Aug
206 30 30 None No Change
208 30 30 60
FF4 10-15 None None No Change
FF6 3 trips None None No Change
J 60 None None No Change
Notes: [1] Boulder Transit Station to 63rd and either BVSD stop (turnaround for “short” JUMP) or Arapahoe & 65th stop (“long” JUMP). [2] Short
JUMP operates as far east as the BVSD –VoTech Center stop (near 65th)
Service Span (Operating Hours)
Figure 3-20 shows the service span for routes within the study area. Most of the services in the study area
start around 6:00 am and end between 5:30 pm and midnight. Most regional routes that operate in the
study area end service at 5:30 pm, while local routes operate later at night and enable use of transit for
jobs with later evening shifts (including many service sector jobs) and non-work trips including for
shopping, social, and entertainment purposes.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-34
Figure 3-20 CTN and Other RTD Route Span
Route
Weekday Service Span
(CU Fall and Spring
Semester)
CU Summer Session
Service Span
JUMP 4:54 AM - 11:43 PM No Change
Short Jump 8:52 AM – 3:17 PM No Change
Long Jump to Lafayette 4:58 AM – 11:43 PM No Change
Long Jump to Erie 6:22 AM – 8:57 AM &
2:52 PM – 10:12 PM
No Change
HOP 7:00 AM – 10:00 PM
Stampede 7:17 AM - 7:02 PM No Change
BOUND 5:30 AM - 12:05 AM No Change
206 6:24 AM - 7:50 PM No Change
208 6:13 AM – 7:15 PM
FF4 5:47 AM - 8:30 AM &
3:33 PM - 6:38PM
No Change
FF6 6:07 AM - 7:37 AM &
4:30 PM - 5:30 PM
No Change
J 5:40 AM - 8:40 AM &
3:10 PM - 5:30 PM
No Change
Fares
Figure 3-21 summarizes RTD fares for local and regional bus services. The JUMP requires a local fare,
while the Flatiron Flyer accepts a local fare for trips between Boulder and McCaslin Park & Ride but
requires a regional fare for trips further east. An EcoPass is an employer-sponsored pass that provides
employees with unlimited, free transit trips. Seventy-nine businesses in the study area (within a half-mile
of Arapahoe Avenue between Folsom and 75th Streets) participate in the Eco Pass program, providing
transit passes for 8,762 employees. The top five of these employers that offer EcoPasses are the Boulder
Valley School District, Boulder Community Health, Google, Rally Software Development, and Zayo
Group, comprising 6,576 employees. CU provides faculty and staff with an EcoPass and also makes a
student pass available. There are approximately 7,900 faculty and 30,000 students that use the EcoPass.
Eco Pass programs are also available at the neighborhood level. Within the study area, the Peloton,
Wellman Creek, Park East, and Rock Park participate in the EcoPass program, encompassing
approximately 425 housing units.
Figure 3-21 RTD Fares (January 2016)
Local Regional
One-Way Cash $2.60 $4.50
Senior Medicare, Student Discount Cash $1.30 $2.25
Eco Pass FREE FREE
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-35
System Ridership
Figure 3-22 displays average weekday ridership for all of the bus routes in the study area during January
2015. The JUMP is the only east-west route that provides mobility to most of the eastern area of Arapahoe
Avenue and beyond, to Lafayette and Erie. Daily ridership on the BOUND and Stampede CTN routes is
comparable to the JUMP.
Figure 3-22 Average Weekday Ridership Chart (East Arapahoe Study Area) (January 2015 RTD data)
Source: Regional Transportation District, January 2015
JUMP Ridership and Performance
JUMP Ridership Patterns
Figure 3-23 identifies the ten highest-ridership stops on the JUMP, which include the Downtown Boulder
Station and stops at 30th Street in both directions. Of these stops, only the Lafayette Park & Ride on the
east end of the route (fifth highest number of boardings) is located outside of Boulder.
Figure 3-26 illustrates JUMP ridership. Westbound boardings on the JUMP are concentrated at the
eastern end of the route, in Lafayette and Erie. Most passengers remain on the bus until Foothills
Parkway. West of this point, the number of passengers alighting becomes greater than the number of
passengers who board. For eastbound trips, most passengers board at the very start of the route between
the Downtown Boulder Station and 28th Street. The on-board load begins to drop after Foothills Parkway
when most of the ridership activity becomes alightings.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
JUMP HX (FF4)S (FF6)J BOUND HOP Stampede 206 208
Average Weekday Ridership
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-36
Figure 3-23 Busiest JUMP Stops (January 2015))
Rank Stop ID Stop Name Direction Boardings Alightings Total Ridership
1 33236 14th/Walnut Gate A Eastbound 503 0 503
2 12214 Arapahoe Ave/30th St Eastbound 127 113 240
3 12215 Arapahoe Ave/30th St Westbound 113 121 235
4 12200 Arapahoe Ave/Broadway Westbound 3 214 217
5 25903 Lafayette PnR Gate B Westbound 134 1 134
6 12222 Arapahoe Ave/55th St Westbound 94 33 127
7 12201 Arapahoe Ave/16th St Eastbound 121 4 124
8 19386 Arapahoe Ave/Folsom St Eastbound 76 43 119
9 12208 Arapahoe Ave/28th St Westbound 41 65 106
10 12221 Arapahoe Ave/55th St Eastbound 19 78 98
Source: Regional Transportation District, January 2015
Overall JUMP Productivity
Productivity measures how effectively transit performs, in terms of the number of passengers (boardings)
carried per vehicle revenue hour.9 In January 2016, RTD reported average daily boardings of 2,362 on
weekdays, 972 on Saturdays, and 691 on Sundays on the JUMP. Productivity ranged from 24.0 boardings
per revenue hour on weekdays, to 28.5 boardings per hour on Sundays (productivity is higher on Sundays
since less service is provided). The average maximum on-board load for JUMP vehicles was greatest on
weekdays—16 passengers. Figure 3-24 shows the productivity and on-board load for each of the service
days in January 2016.
Figure 3-24 JUMP Productivity and On-Board Load, January 2016
9 Number of passenger boardings divided by the total number of hours of service provided.
24.0
26.5 28.5
16 15
13
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Weekday Saturday Sunday
Boardings per Hour Average Maximum On-Board Load
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-37
JUMP Productivity in Boulder
However, if JUMP weekday ridership and service hours are broken down by segment, the portion within
Boulder (from the Downtown Boulder Station to the Vocational Technical Education Center) has a higher
weekday productivity of 32.1 boardings per revenue hour than the route overall. When broken down
further by time period, the afternoon peak period is the route’s most productive period, carrying 40.4
passengers per revenue hour.10
Figure 3-25 Weekday JUMP Productivity within Boulder, January 2016
Source: Based on Data from Regional Transportation District, January 2016
10 This data is based on ridership by stop from January 2015 and scheduled revenue hours from January 2016. Time periods
analyzed are the AM Peak, Midday, PM Peak and Other Times (which includes AM Early, PM Evening, PM Late and Other).
29.1 31.4
40.4
24.9
32.1
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
AM Peak Midday PM Peak Other TimesProductivity (Boardings per Revenue Hour)Boulder Productivity by Time Period Overall Boulder Productivity
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-38
Figure 3-26 Average Daily Boardings, JUMP, January 2015
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-39
Transit Travel Times and On-Time Performance
Folsom Street - 65th Street: Comparison of Transit and Auto Travel Times
Existing transit travel times along the East Arapahoe corridor between Folsom Street and 65th Street
range between 11 and 16 minutes during peak hours. Eastbound travel is quickest during the morning
peak (approximately 11 minutes) when buses travel in the reverse commute direction. However, during
the afternoon peak, eastbound travel times increase by five minutes. For westbound trips, travel times
remain at approximately 15 minutes during the morning and afternoon peak periods. Figure 3-27
compare transit travel times based on the JUMP schedule (including stops) and with travel time estimates
for autos.
Figure 3-27 Existing JUMP and Auto Travel Times (Folsom to 65th Street)
Source: Existing JUMP Schedule; Auto travel times from City of Boulder
Downtown Boulder Station – 95th Street: Comparison of Scheduled and Actual Transit
Travel Times
Comparing scheduled and actual JUMP travel times for a broader segment of the JUMP route, the
average daily scheduled transit travel time between the Downtown Boulder Station and 95th Street is
approximately 26 minutes for eastbound trips, and 31 minutes for westbound trips. In January 2016, the
actual average recorded travel times for the JUMP were 25 and 30 minutes, respectively, about 1.8 and
0.7 minutes less than the scheduled time for eastbound and westbound trips. This indicates that, on
average, actual JUMP travel times are consistent with schedules.
Peak travel times for this same segment are shown in Figure 3-28. The travel times show buses travel
more quickly through the corridor in both directions during the morning peak and during the afternoon
peak in the eastbound direction. Only westbound trips during the peak take longer than the scheduled
times (approximately 0.7 minutes longer).
11
15 16 15
5.9 6.8
9.5 8.4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
AM Peak Eastbound AM Peak Westbound PM Peak Eastbound PM Peak WestboundTravel Time (minutes)JUMP Auto
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-40
Figure 3-28 Scheduled and Actual JUMP Travel Times (January 2016) between Downtown Boulder and 95th Street
Source: Regional Transportation District
On-Time Performance
RTD classifies a bus as being on-time if it arrives at its stop between one minute early and five minutes
late. According to RTD, the JUMP’s on-time performance was approximately 87.4% in January 2016.
Eastbound trips averaged an on-time performance of 92.5%, while westbound trips had a lower on-time
performance of 83.1%. Figure 3-29 shows the on-time performance by direction and the time of day each
trip starts. On-time performance is highest during the morning peak and the midday period (6 AM to 3
PM). The lowest on-time performance for eastbound trips occurs during the afternoon peak (3 PM to 8
PM). Westbound trips have the lowest on-time performance during the evening (8 PM to the end of
service at 11 PM).
Figure 3-29 JUMP Weekday On-Time Performance (January 2016), by Direction and Time of Day
Source: Regional Transportation District
27.4 28.5 29.8 30.6
23.4
27.6 27.2
31.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
AM Peak Eastbound AM Peak Westbound PM Peak Eastbound PM Peak WestboundTravel Time (minutes)Scheduled Actual
97%
86%
95%
87%90%
78%
97%
77%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Eastbound Westbound
AM Peak Midday PM Peak Evening
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-41
Bus Stops
The City of Boulder maintains an inventory of the 57 bus stops along the JUMP route within Boulder.
Some stops have amenities such as shelters, benches, trash cans, and lighting, but many do not. Figure
3-30 provides an overview of the number and percent of stops that have seven different types of
amenities. The vast majority of stops have lighting and over three-quarters have a concrete bus pad,
although in some cases the pad is not fully accessible to users with wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
Less than half of stops include a bench or other seating, and 26% contain a shelter.
Figure 3-30 Coverage of Bus Stop Amenities
Amenity Number of Stops Percent of Stops
Concrete Curb 55 96%
Lighting 49 86%
Concrete Pad 44 77%
Bench 25 44%
Shelter 15 26%
Bike Rack 13 23%
Trash Can 12 21%
The City’s inventory includes an assessment of completeness and quality of amenities, illustrated in
Figure 3-31:
Score/Rank rates completeness of stop amenities, e.g., shelters, on a scale of 1 to 10.
Quality is a qualitative evaluation of stop condition and accessibility on a 1 to 5 scale.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-42
Figure 3-31 Bus Stop Score/Rank and Quality Ratings
0 2 4 6 8 10
14th & Walnut Gate A (NW)
15th St & Canyon Blvd (SE)
Arapahoe Ave & 16th St (E)
Arapahoe Ave & 19th St (E)
Arapahoe Ave & 21st St (E)
Arapahoe Ave & Folsom St (E)
Arapahoe Ave & 28th St (E)
Arapahoe Ave & 29th St (E)
Arapahoe Ave & 30th St (E)
Arapahoe Ave & 33rd St (E)
Arapahoe Ave & Marine St (E)
Arapahoe Ave & Foothills Pkwy Nearside (E)
Arapahoe Ave & Foothills Pkwy Farside (E)
Arapahoe Ave & MacArthur Dr (E)
Arapahoe Ave & 48th St (E)
Arapahoe Ave & Eisenhower Dr (E)
Arapahoe Ave & Conestoga St (E)
Arapahoe Ave & 55th St (E)
5700 Block Arapahoe Ave (E)
Arapahoe Ave & Old Tale Rd (E)
Arapahoe Ave & Cherryvale Rd (E)
Arapahoe Ave & 62nd St (E)
Arapahoe Ave & 63rd St (E)
6400 Block Arapahoe Rd (E)
Vo Tech Dr & Education Center Dr (E)
Vocational Technical Education Center (N)
Arapahoe Rd & Vo Tech Dr (E)
Arapahoe Rd & Vo Tech Dr (W)
Vo Tech Dr & Education Center Dr (W)
6400 Block Arapahoe Rd (W)
Arapahoe Ave & 63rd St (W)
Arapahoe Ave & Cherryvale Rd (W)
Arapahoe Ave & Old Tale Rd (W)
5700 Block Arapahoe Ave (W)
Conestoga St & Arapahoe Ave (N)
Arapahoe Ave & 55th St (W)
Arapahoe Ave & Conestoga St (W)
Arapahoe Ave & Commerce St (W)
Arapahoe Ave & 48th St (W)
Arapahoe Ave & MacArthur Dr (W)
Arapahoe Ave & Foothills Pkwy Nearside…
Arapahoe Ave & Foothills Pkwy Farside (W)
Arapahoe Ave & 38th St (W)
Arapahoe Ave & 33rd St (W)
Arapahoe Ave & 30th St (W)
Arapahoe Ave & 29th St (W)
Arapahoe Ave & 28th St (W)
Arapahoe Ave & 23rd St (W)
Arapahoe Ave & 21st St (W)
Arapahoe Ave & 19th St (W)
Arapahoe Ave & 17th St (W)
Arapahoe Ave & Broadway (SW)
Arapahoe Ave & 11th St (SW)
Arapahoe Ave & 9th St (SW)
9th & Arapahoe Ave (N)
Canyon Blvd & 9th St (E)
Canyon Blvd & 11th St (E)
Completeness of Amenities Score/Rank (1-10)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Quality of Stop Condition/Access (1-5)
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-43
SAFETY ANALYSIS
This section describes safety trends in the study area for all modes. Boulder’s Transportation Master Plan
goal is continuously improve safety for all modes of travel and strive toward zero serious injury and fatal
accidents. The City tracks total crashes, injury crashes and fatal crashes by mode to evaluate progress
toward this goal.
Crash Data Summary
Figure 3-32 summarizes crash data for Arapahoe Avenue within the study area between 2012 and 2014.
There were a total of 736 crashes during this period. The vast majority of crashes (89%) occurred at
intersections, including all eight of the pedestrian-involved crashes and 34 of the 40 the bicycle-involved
crashes.
Figure 3-32 Crash Summary by Mode, 2012-2014
Motor Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian Total
Intersection 616 34 8 658
Segment 72 6 0 78
Total 688 40 8 736
Source: City of Boulder
Key Highlights
The vast majority of the 736 crashes that occurred along Arapahoe Avenue between 2012 and
2014 (89%) occurred at intersections, including most crashes involving pedestrian and bicyclists.
Most crashes (90%) involved only motor vehicles and the majority of crashes (55%) were rear-
end collisions.
Approximately 70% of the crashes occurred at four intersections: 28th Street, 30th Street,
Foothills Pkwy, and 55th Street. These intersections also had the highest crash rates.
Arapahoe Avenue between 30th Street and 33rd Street experienced the highest number and
rate of crashes between intersections, accounting for both traffic volumes and distance.
The highest number of crashes involving bicyclists occurred at Arapahoe Avenue and 30th Street.
Thirteen of the crashes involving bicyclists (about 33%) involved conflicts between eastbound
bicycles on the north-side multi-use path and vehicles turning right onto Arapahoe Avenue from
driveways or side streets.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-44
Types of Crashes
Figure 3-33 provides a breakdown of all crashes. Over 400 of the crashes (55%) were rear-end collisions,
14% were approach turn crashes, and 9% were sideswipe-same direction crashes.
Figure 3-33 Crash Summary by Crash Type, 2012-2014
Geographic Distribution of Crashes
Figure 3-34 and Figure 3-35 identify the number of crashes at intersections along Arapahoe Avenue
between 2012 and 2014. Approximately 70% of crashes over the three-year period occurred at the
following four intersections: 28th Street, 30th Street, Foothills Pkwy, and 55th Street. These intersections
also had the highest crash rates after accounting for traffic volumes.
Figure 3-36 and Figure 3-37 identify crashes that occurred between intersections along Arapahoe Avenue
during the same time period. Arapahoe Avenue between 30th Street and 33rd Street experienced the
highest number of crashes and the highest crash rate, accounting for both traffic volumes and distance.
The roadway segments highlighted in orange in Figure 3-36 had a relatively high number of crashes and
crash rate.
Rear End, 406
Approach Turn,
102
Sideswipe-Same
Direction, 68
Bicycle, 40
33
23
13
8
Pedestrian, 8 4
4 3 1 7
16 Rear End
Approach Turn
Sideswipe-Same Direction
Bicycle
Fixed Object
Right Angle
Backing
Overtaking Turn
Pedestrian
Overturning
Wild Animal
Sideswipe-Opposite Direction
Head On
Other
UnknownSource: City of Boulder
Note: A more detailed discussion of trends at high-crash intersections is provided below
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-45
Figure 3-34 Crashes at Intersections by Type, 2012-2014 (Map)
Figure 3-35 Crashes at Intersections by Type, 2012-2014 (Table)
Intersection Motor Vehicle Pedestrian Bicycle Total
Arapahoe & 28th 171 4 175
Arapahoe & Culver
Arapahoe & 29th 18 2 20
Arapahoe & 30th 111 4 8 123
Arapahoe & 33rd 22 1 3 26
Arapahoe & 38th 14 1 15
Arapahoe & Foothills 150 1 3 154
Arapahoe & McArthur 6 6
Arapahoe & Riverbend 2 2
Arapahoe & 48th 25 2 27
Arapahoe & Commerce 3 1 4
Arapahoe & Range 2 2
Arapahoe & Patton 1 1
Arapahoe & Conestoga 13 1 4 18
Arapahoe & 55th 58 4 62
Arapahoe & 56th
Arapahoe & Old Tale
Arapahoe & Cherryvale 15 1 16
Arapahoe & 62nd
Arapahoe & 63rd 6 1 7
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-46
Figure 3-36 Crashes between Intersections, 2012-1014 (Map)
Figure 3-37 Crashes between Intersections by Type, 2012-2014 (Table)
Segment Motor Vehicle Pedestrian Bicycle Total
28th to 29th 5 5
29th to 30th 1 1
30th to 33rd 11 4 15
33rd to 38th/Marine 4 4
38th/Marine to Foothills 4 2 6
Foothills to MacArthur 3 3
MacArthur to 48th 5 5
48th to Commerce/Eisenhower 2 2
Commerce/Eisenhower to Range 1 1
Range to Patton 0 0
Patton to Conestoga 0 0
Conestoga to 55th 5 5
55th to Old Tale 20 20
Old Tale to Cherryvale 4 4
Cherryvale to 63rd 7 7
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-47
Crashes by Mode
Motor Vehicle
About 90% of crashes in the corridor between 2012 and 2014 involved motor vehicles only (not bicyclists
or pedestrians). The predominant type of vehicle crash in the corridor is rear-end, which comprised more
than half of the total. Approach turn and sideswipe crashes were the second and third most common type
of crash overall. The three highest crash intersections along Arapahoe Avenue (28th Street, 30th Street,
and Foothills Parkway) had more than 100 crashes each during the three year period.
Bicycle
There were 40 total bicycle-related crashes in the study area between 2012 and 2014. Figure 3-36 (above)
illustrates the location of the 34 bicycle-related crashes that occurred at intersections. The highest
number occurred at Arapahoe Avenue and 30th Street, which has on-street bike lanes, followed by the
intersections of Arapahoe Avenue at 28th Street, Conestoga Street, and 55th Street.
There were an additional six bicycle-related crashes between intersections along Arapahoe Avenue within
the study area. Five of these crashes were driveway-access related including four that occurred between
30th and 33rd Streets, a segment with closely spaced parking lot entrances on both sides of the street.
Thirteen of the bicycle-related crashes along the corridor (about 33%) involved conflicts between
eastbound bicycles on the north-side multi-use path and vehicles turning right onto Arapahoe Avenue
from side streets or driveways. Figure 3-38 summarizes crashes related to the multi-use path.
Figure 3-38 Multi-use Path-Related Bicycle Crashes
Location (West to East) # of Crashes
Arapahoe & 29th 1
Driveways between 30th and 33rd 4
Arapahoe & 33rd 3
Arapahoe & 48th 1
Arapahoe & Commerce 1
Arapahoe & Conestoga 2
Arapahoe & 55th 1
Pedestrian
Pedestrian-related crashes in the study area are relatively uncommon. There were eight total pedestrian-
involved crashes from 2012-2014, which occurred at five separate intersections (see Figure 3-36 above).
Half occurred at the intersection of Arapahoe Avenue and 30th Street. There was one crash each at the
intersections of Arapahoe Avenue and 33rd Street, Foothills Parkway, Conestoga Street, and 63rd Street.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-48
Detailed Evaluation of High Crash Intersections
The four intersections and the two segments with the highest total crashes between 2012 and 2014 all had
a predominant crash type of rear end, but the second most common crash type varied between locations,
as did the overall distribution of different crash types. Figure 3-39 summarizes the primary crash types at
these locations. Figure 3-40 to Figure 3-43 categorize the crash types at the four highest-crash
intersections.
Figure 3-39 High Crash Intersections
Intersection or Segment Total Collisions Trip Generators Primary Crash Types / Trends
Arapahoe Avenue and 28th Street 175 Twenty-Ninth Street
Retail Center
Rear end and sideswipe in same
direction; see Figure 3-40
Arapahoe Avenue and Foothills
Parkway
154 Rear end and sideswipe in same
direction; see Figure 3-41
Arapahoe Avenue and 30th Street
123 University of Colorado
East Campus
Rear and approach-turn. Highest
number of bicycle crashes. See
Figure 3-42.
Arapahoe Avenue and 55th Street 62 Flatirons Golf Course Rear end and approach-turn; see
Figure 3-43
Arapahoe, 55th Street to Old Tale
Road
20 Flatirons Golf Course Rear end, sideswipe and right
angle
Arapahoe, 30th Street to 33rd Street 15 University of Colorado
East Campus
Rear end, bicycle
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix A: Existing Conditions City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr and Peers | 3-49
Figure 3-40 Arapahoe Ave & 28th St Crash Types
Figure 3-41 Arapahoe Ave & 30th St Crash Types
Figure 3-42 Arapahoe Ave and Foothills Pkwy Crash
Types
Figure 3-43 Arapahoe Ave and 55th St Crash Types
Rear End,
124
Sideswipe-
Same
Direction,
17
Fixed
Object
, 11
Unknown,
7
Approach
Turn, 5 Bicycle, 4 Overtaking
Turn, 3 Other, 4
Rear End,
47
Approach
Turn, 45
Sideswipe-
Same
Direction, 9
Bicycle, 8
Fixed Object, 1
Right Angle, 1
Backing, 2 Overtaking
Turn, 1 Pedestrian, 4Other, 2 Unknown, 3
Rear End,
105
Sideswipe-
Same
Direction,
16
Right Angle,
7
Approach
Turn, 7
Fixed Object, 5
Unknown, 3
Bicycle-Vehicle, 3 Backing, 3 Other, 5
Rear End,
32
Approach
Turn, 12
Sideswipe-
Same
Direction, 6
Right
Angle, 4
Bicycle-
Vehicle, 4 Unknown, 2 Other, 2
2 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES: SUMMARY REPORT
EAST ARAPAHOE (SH 7) TRANSPORTATION PLAN
APPENDIX B: PURPOSE AND GOALS REPORT
December 2016
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | i
Table of Contents
Page
1 Purpose of the Plan ............................................................................................................ 1
2 Document Organiziation and Study Area Overview .......................................................... 2
3 Summary of Plan Goals & Objectives................................................................................. 3
4 Description of Plan Goals & Objectives .............................................................................. 5
Table of Figures
Page
Figure 1 East Arapahoe Transportation Plan Study Area ................................................................ 2
Figure 2 Crashes at Intersections along Arapahoe Avenue, 2012-2014 ..................................... 6
Figure 3 Sidewalk Abruptly Ends by Flatirons Golf Course ............................................................. 7
Figure 4 Vehicles Close to Sidewalk, East of Conestoga .................................................................. 7
Figure 5 Missing Segment of Multi-Use Path ....................................................................................... 8
Figure 6 Foothills Parkways and Arapahoe Avenue Westbound JUMP Stop .............................. 9
Figure 7 Inaccessible Bus Stop Landing .............................................................................................. 10
Figure 8 Average Daily Traffic & Travel Time 1987-2014* ........................................................ 12
Figure 9 Additional Employee Potential ............................................................................................ 14
Figure 10 Increase in Workers Commuting to Boulder from Places in the Region, 2002-
2014.......................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 11 Increase in Workers Commuting from Boulder to Places in the Region, 2002-
2014.......................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 12 Origin-Destination Pairs in the Region (Projected Change 2010-2035) .................... 16
Figure 13 Boulder In-Commute Mode Share ....................................................................................... 17
Figure 14 Intersection Density, Downtown Boulder and East Boulder ............................................. 18
Figure 15 Climate Commitment Inventory of VMT and GhG Emissions, 2013 .............................. 21
Figure 16 Housing and Transportation Affordability (H+T) Index, 2014 ..................................... 23
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 1
1 PURPOSE OF THE PLAN
Today, the East Arapahoe Corridor is one of the city’s busiest regional travel corridors. As we plan for the
future, exponential growth in surrounding communities will likely place additional demands on the
corridor’s existing transportation system. From people commuting into Boulder for work or school,
traveling to Boulder for healthcare services, or simply accessing recreational and shopping amenities –
forecasted regional transportation demands on the East Arapahoe Corridor will change how the corridor
functions today.
Coupled with increased regional transportation demand are the changing local travel needs for people
working, living and accessing services within the East Arapahoe corridor itself. East Arapahoe is no longer
seen as a “pass through” corridor for in-commuters; and has, in fact, become one of Boulder’s largest
employment centers. People are looking for safe and convenient ways to travel between destinations along
Arapahoe and other areas of the city. From students traveling between university campuses, to employees
wanting to grab lunch – the need for people to move safely and conveniently via walking, biking, transit,
ride sharing, and driving changes how we think about travel and transportation options in this
transitioning area of the city.
Recognizing these changing regional and local conditions, the East Arapahoe Transportation Plan will be
a long-range plan that considers a number of potential transportation improvements within the East
Arapahoe corridor, including walking and biking enhancements, improved regional and local transit,
efficient vehicular travel, as well as urban design features that work hand in hand with mobility
improvements to truly transform the corridor. Importantly, transportation improvements will support the
goals and objectives of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the Transportation Master Plan (TMP)
and the city’s Sustainability Framework.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 2
2 DOCUMENT ORGANIZIATION AND
STUDY AREA OVERVIEW
The next sections of this document describe the goals and objectives of the East Arapahoe Transportation
Plan and are organized as follows:
Section 3: Summarizes the Plan goals and objectives, which are categorized by the Boulder 2014
Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Focus Areas, including Complete Streets, Regional Travel,
Transportation Demand Management (TDM), Funding and Sustainability. While organized by
Focus Area, each goal and associated objective is interrelated and needs to be mutually
supporting to have the greatest benefit.
Section 4: Further describes each plan goal and associated objectives, including the rationale
each objective will address in order to attain the goals.
Figure 1 illustrates the East Arapahoe Transportation Plan study area, which is focused primarily on
Arapahoe Avenue between Folsom Street and 75th Street.
Figure 1 East Arapahoe Transportation Plan Study Area
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 3
3 SUMMARY OF PLAN GOALS &
OBJECTIVES
In support of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the Boulder Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and
the city’s Sustainability Framework, a series of draft goals and related objectives have been drafted and
will guide the development of the East Arapahoe Transportation Plan.
Goal 1. Complete Streets: Provide Complete Streets in the East
Arapahoe corridor that offer people a variety of safe and reliable
travel choices.
Objective 1.a. Provide safe travel for all modes using the East Arapahoe corridor, including
supporting the “Vision Zero” effort to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries from traffic
collisions.
Objective 1.b. Improve the ease of access and comfort for people walking in the East Arapahoe
corridor, and ensure the vision contributes to placemaking.
Objective 1.c. Broaden the appeal of bicycling along the East Arapahoe corridor to people of all
ages and bicycling abilities.
Objective 1.d. Make transit a convenient and practical travel option in the East Arapahoe corridor.
Objective 1.e. Move drivers efficiently through the East Arapahoe corridor.
Goal 2. Regional Travel: Increase the number of
person trips the East Arapahoe corridor can carry
to accommodate local transportation needs and
projected changes in surrounding communities.
Objective 2.a. Improve local travel options within the East
Arapahoe corridor for residents, employees, and visitors.
Objective 2.b. Improve regional travel options between Boulder and
communities to the east for work and other regional trips.
Goal 3. Transportation Demand Management
(TDM): Promote more efficient use of the
transportation system and offer people travel
options within the East Arapahoe corridor.
• Goal 3.a. Improve first and final mile connections to help people
conveniently and safely walk and bike to and from transit.
Goal 3.b. Promote the use of multiple transportation options in East
Boulder by residents and workers.
What is Transportation
Demand Management
(TDM)?
TDM promotes more
efficient use of the existing
transportation system by
influencing the time, route,
or mode selected for a
given trip. TDM strategies
increase travel choices and
examples include:
• Incentives such as Eco
Passes
• Modal strategies such as
ridesharing, carsharing,
vanpools, and
teleworking
• First- and Final-Mile
solutions such as
bikesharing
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 4
Goal 4. Funding: Deliver cost-effective transportation solutions for the
East Arapahoe corridor that can be phased over time.
Objective 4.a. Coordinate with public and private entities, including adjacent land owners, to
implement cost-effective transportation improvements.
Goal 5. Sustainability: Develop transportation improvements in the
East Arapahoe corridor that support Boulder’s Sustainability
Framework (desired outcomes include a community that is Safe, Healthy &
Socially Thriving; Livable, Accessible & Connected; Environmentally
Sustainable; Economically Vital; and provides Good Governance).
Goal 5.a. Reduce greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions and air pollution from vehicle travel within the
East Arapahoe corridor.
Goal 5.b. Improve travel options that promote public health for residents and workers along the
East Arapahoe corridor.
Goal 5.c. Provide access to affordable transit and other travel options to low- and moderate-
income residents and workers along the East Arapahoe corridor.
Goal 5.d. Preserve and improve economic vitality in the East Arapahoe corridor.
Goal 5.e. Promote and improve water quality, and reduce the urban heat island effect through
roadway and landscape design.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 5
4 DESCRIPTION OF PLAN GOALS &
OBJECTIVES
Goal 1. Complete Streets: Provide Complete Streets in the East
Arapahoe corridor that offer people a variety of safe and
reliable travel choices.
Objective 1.a. Provide safe travel for all modes using the East Arapahoe
corridor.
The City of Boulder works to provide a safe transportation system for people using all modes of travel and
“Vision Zero” is the city’s effort to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries from future traffic collisions.
Arapahoe Avenue is one of the higher speed (posted speed limits between 35 and 45 mph) and higher
volume roadways within the city. An analysis of crash data from 2012-2014 shows that crashes affect all
modes of travel along Arapahoe Avenue and that several intersections have particularly high crash rates.
The data indicates a need to minimize conflict points, including intersections and driveways, and identify
and mitigate safety issues for people walking, biking, and driving in the corridor.
The need to provide safe travel for all modes is further described here:
High Crash Intersections
Between 2012 and 2014, three intersections in the corridor had over 100 crashes: Arapahoe Avenue and
28th Street, 30th Street, and Foothills Parkway. The predominant crash type for all three was rear end.
These high-crash intersections are located in the part of the East Arapahoe corridor that also sees the
most bicycle and pedestrian traffic.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes
There were 40 crashes in the corridor that involved bicycles and eight that involved pedestrians in the
2012-2014 time period. The vast majority (85%) of the bicycle crashes occurred at intersections. The
intersection of Arapahoe Avenue and 30th Street had twice as many bicycle crashes as any other
intersection and was the site of half of all pedestrian crashes. Of the six bicycle-involved crashes that
occurred between intersections, five of them were driveway access-related. About a third of the total bike
crashes along the corridor involved conflicts between eastbound bicycles on the north multi-use path and
southbound vehicles turning right from side streets or driveways.
Figure 2 illustrates crash data at intersections in the corridor, categorized by type of crash.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 6
Figure 2 Crashes at Intersections along Arapahoe Avenue, 2012-2014
Source: City of Boulder
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 7
Objective 1.b. Improve the ease of access and comfort for people
walking in the East Arapahoe corridor.
The Boulder 2014 TMP prioritizes walking as the fundamental way to travel and aims to increase the
share of residents living in complete neighborhoods to 80% by 2035. Currently, only 26% of Boulder’s
population lives in 15-minute walking neighborhoods, which means they can walk to a variety of
destinations, like grocery stores, restaurants and transit stops in 15 minutes. With the East Arapahoe
corridor becoming home to more and more destinations, linking residential, commercial and employment
areas with continuous and safe pedestrian infrastructure is taking on even more importance. Increasing
the number of complete neighborhoods within the corridor will help change long trips into short ones,
making walking a reasonable option for a greater share of trips.
The need to improve the ease of access and comfort for people walking is further described here:
Insufficient Crosswalk Spacing
Several segments of the East Arapahoe corridor lack conveniently-spaced pedestrian crossings, which are
about two-thirds of a mile apart between Cherryvale and 55th Street and about a third of a mile apart in
several other locations. As a result, many destinations, including bus stops, are not in proximity to a safe
crossing.
Gaps in the Sidewalks and Multi-Use Path Network
There are sections of Arapahoe Avenue with missing
pedestrian facilities, particularly east of 55th Street, including a
section without a sidewalk or path on either side of the street.
Parallel and connecting streets, such as Marine Drive to the
south, also lack sidewalks. In sections where the sidewalk
and/or multi-use path are missing, bus stops are not
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible.1 Enhanced
facilities are needed to address challenges facing people
traveling in the corridor by foot or with mobility devices.
Pedestrian facilities on connecting and parallel streets also
need to be completed.
Proximity of Vehicles to Pedestrians
Many parts of Arapahoe Avenue lack a buffer that separates
vehicle travel lanes from pedestrians. For example, on the
south side of Arapahoe Avenue between Foothills Parkway
and 55th Street, sidewalks narrow to 4 feet and lack a buffer
from the roadway. Vehicle speeds over 25 mph affect the
perceived safety for pedestrians without such buffers. There is
a need to enhance the comfort and attractiveness of pedestrian
facilities along Arapahoe Avenue in the study area. For
example, street trees planted between the sidewalk and the
roadway physically protect pedestrians and provide shade,
create a visual enclosure that encourages drivers to slow down,
while also providing environmental benefits.
1 City of Boulder, Sustainable Streets and Center Report, 2013
Figure 3 Sidewalk Abruptly Ends by Flatirons Golf
Course
Figure 4 Vehicles Close to Sidewalk, East of
Conestoga
Source: City of Boulder
Source: City of Boulder
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 8
Lack of a “Sense of Place”
Transportation networks should balance both placemaking as well as the movement of people – or “to”
and “through” functions. While Arapahoe Avenue carries a large number of people through the corridor
each day, the street itself lacks features that could promote its “to” function as an inviting place to travel
and spend time. Higher traffic speeds, large parking areas fronting the street, narrow sidewalks, a lack of
landscaping, and signage were all issues noted by community members who participated in a walk audit
of the corridor in 2014. Each of these features makes it less attractive for people to bike, walk, and take
transit in the corridor. As transportation improvements are considered for the corridor, it will be
important to incorporate those urban design features that work hand in hand with mobility improvements
to truly transform the corridor. From comfortable and enhanced transit stations, to landscaping, signage
and public art, placemaking elements can enhance the travel experience for all users of the corridor,
whether by walking, bicycling, transit or car.
And, as the East Arapahoe corridor changes, it will be important to identify land use patterns that support
an improved transportation network. By coordinating the East Arapahoe transportation planning process
with the ongoing Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update, the city can identify opportunities for
integrated urban design, land use, and transportation planning.
Objective 1.c. Broaden the appeal of bicycling along the East Arapahoe
corridor to people of all ages and bicycling abilities.
Public outreach for the Boulder 2014 TMP indicated that people who are “interested but concerned” about
riding a bicycle do not feel comfortable or confident sharing busy roads with motor vehicles. Community
input gathered in 2015 and early-2016 for the East Arapahoe Transportation Plan further underscored
this concern, emphasizing that much of Arapahoe Avenue does not feel safe, comfortable or convenient
for bicycle travel. Streetscape and facility improvements are needed to enhance safety for people riding
bikes, particularly in areas where there are known conflict points, and to make a broader segment of the
community feel comfortable traveling by bicycle along the East Arapahoe corridor.
The need to broaden the appeal of bicycling is further described here:
Gaps in the Bicycle Network
The East Arapahoe corridor includes several locations
where there are gaps in the bicycle network or difficult
crossings; and bicycle infrastructure varies widely
through the corridor. For instance, there is no on-street
bicycle facility on Arapahoe Avenue west of 55th Street,
but there are bicycle lanes on a portion of the corridor
between 55th and 63rd Streets. And, there are multi-use
paths along both sides of the corridor that have several
missing segments. The high frequency of driveways also
contributes to several points of conflict for bicyclists.
Figure 5 Missing Segment of Multi-Use Path
Source: City of Boulder
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 9
Lack of Infrastructure for Long Distance Bicycle Travel
The existing multi-use path generally does not meet the needs of people commuting and traveling by
bicycle for longer-distance trips along Arapahoe Avenue. These needs are similar to people driving along
the corridor and include a direct, safe, and time-efficient route. There are several issues with using the
multi-use path for longer-distance travel, including the lack of a continuous path on one side of the street
and the lack of specialized treatments at intersections, where bicyclists must interact with pedestrians and
turning vehicular traffic.
Objective 1.d. Make transit a convenient and practical travel option in
the East Arapahoe corridor.
Making transit an attractive travel option for all residents and visitors is the foundation of the Boulder
2014 TMP and the Renewed Vision for Transit. A complete transit system is one that provides both high-
quality transit service and high-quality transit facilities, such as stops/stations that are well coordinated
with land use, pedestrian and bicycle access, and other supportive programs like EcoPasses.
Approximately 10,000 people travel via regional or local
bus through the East Arapahoe corridor each day. The
JUMP is the primary east-west bus route and is one of
the city’s most heavily used bus routes, connecting
destinations such as Boulder High School, Downtown
Boulder, Twenty Ninth Street, CU East Campus, the
Boulder Valley School District - Arapahoe Campus with
and Lafayette and Erie to the East. To provide quality
service to these existing bus passengers and attract new
transit riders to the East Arapahoe corridor, transit must
be perceived as safe and comfortable, with reliable
service and travel times that are competitive with the
private automobile.
The need to make transit a convenient and practical
travel option is further described here:
Limited Regional Transit Ridership
High housing costs in Boulder combined with a strong and growing job base have dramatically increased
the level of in-commuting in recent years. The Boulder 2014 TMP update set a goal of reducing the
number of trips made by one person driving alone in a car (called “single occupant vehicle” mode share,
or SOV) to 60% of work trips for nonresidents. While Boulder has achieved a remarkably high mode share
for non-single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips for local travel, in-commute travel remains primarily SOV. In-
commute travelers are still estimated to be driving alone at a mode share of approximately 80%.
Given the projected growth in travel demand and increased development along the East Arapahoe
corridor between Boulder and Brighton, there is a need to attract more regional transit riders to the
corridor. This will entail close coordination with Boulder County’s SH 7 BRT Study and with the Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) to proactively develop a holistic plan for the overall SH 7 corridor
to provide fast and reliable transit travel times in the corridor, appropriate bus service hours, and
convenient first-and-last-mile travel options.
Source: City of Boulder
Figure 6 Foothills Parkways and Arapahoe
Avenue Westbound JUMP Stop
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 10
Shortage of Bus Stop Amenities
There is a need within the corridor to ensure safe
access to bus stops, for both directions of travel;
enhance transit amenities to provide a comfortable
passenger experience at bus stops and highly legible
signage to other bus routes and first-and-last-mile
travel options. As shown in Figure 7, safely
accessing bus stops can be challenging along
Arapahoe Avenue, since many of the stops are
located a distance from convenient street crossings
and accessible sidewalks. Transit stops also need to
include amenities such as shelters to protect people
from the elements, seating to make waiting for the
bus more comfortable, and trash cans to help
maintain cleanliness. Within East Arapahoe
corridor, the JUMP serves 57 stops of which only 26% have a shelter, 44% have a bench, and 21% have a
trash can.2 Another consideration is that bicycling is an important transit access mode. As most buses
allow a maximum of two bicycles per bus, bike parking at stops enables more bicyclists to park their bike
securely when biking to transit. Currently, 23% of the 57 JUMP stops along Arapahoe Avenue have bike
parking.3
Limited Real-Time Bus Information
As part of the Boulder 2104 TMP update, community members were asked how they would improve
transit and prioritize transit investments. Real-time bus arrival information was prioritized as the most
important enhancement needed. Real-time information gives passengers the comfort of knowing exactly
when the next bus will arrive. Passengers can look online, on their cell phones, or at a digital sign at the
stop or station to know exactly how long they have to wait. In 2016, RTD implemented a pilot real-time
information system for local buses – including the JUMP – that can be accessed via the Transit App
smartphone application. Expanding real-time information data to regional buses will be an important
next step in addressing this need within the corridor and throughout Boulder and the region.
Objective 1.e. Move drivers efficiently through the East Arapahoe
Corridor.
Arapahoe Avenue is an important east-west vehicle travel corridor serving downtown Boulder, CU,
Boulder Community Health, other major employers, and adjacent neighborhoods. Because there are only
a few major east-west and north-south roads in East Boulder, there are limited alternative routes for
many trips through and within the East Arapahoe corridor. This only underscores how important it is to
increase safety, reliability and the overall person-carrying capacity of Arapahoe Avenue for all vehicle trips
in the corridor. This need is also true for trucks serving the businesses in the corridor, and/or carrying
freight between Boulder and the communities to the east. In most cases the trucks have no choice but to
utilize Arapahoe Avenue.
The need to move drivers efficiently is further described here:
2 City of Boulder
3 City of Boulder
Figure 7 Inaccessible Bus Stop Landing
Source: City of Boulder
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 11
Disconnected Street Pattern
Development east of 28th Street along the East Arapahoe corridor is laid out in a fashion markedly
different from downtown Boulder. Much of the north side of Arapahoe Avenue is dominated by
commercial or light-industrial uses on larger lots, while the area to the south is a mix of similar larger lot
commercial or light-industrial uses and suburban-style residential development. The result is a
disconnected street pattern with relatively few through streets and lack of a well-established street grid.
This style of development means that many local vehicular trips have few alternatives to using Arapahoe
Avenue. Because Arapahoe Avenue then carries both local vehicle trips and regional through-traffic, the
safe and efficient movement of vehicles becomes more important.
This disconnected street pattern and lack of an efficient roadway grid is particularly impactful to
emergency service providers. Fire trucks have few response route choices except Arapahoe Avenue, and
ambulances accessing the hospital have no choice at all but to use Arapahoe, as the hospital is located
directly on the corridor. For this reason, it will be critical to anticipate and accommodate emergency
service providers when considering alternatives for improving Arapahoe Avenue.
Corridor Travel Times
The City of Boulder 2014 Drive Time Analysis showed that peak period vehicle travel times along
Arapahoe Avenue between 23rd Street and 75th Street have remained reasonably steady since 1987.4 As
shown in Figure 8, this has occurred even as traffic volumes on the east end of the corridor have
increased. Traffic volumes on the west end have remained relatively steady over time, consistent with
relatively flat growth in overall vehicle travel in Boulder, despite growth in population and employment.
Considering the trend of increasing traffic volumes on the east end of the corridor (as observed at 75th
Street) it will become increasingly important to create an efficient transportation network that maintains
efficient vehicle travel in the corridor for both local and regional trips.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 12
Figure 8 Average Daily Traffic & Travel Time 1987-2014*
Note: *The City of Boulder assumes that 2001 and 2003 travel time increases were due to two contributing factors. First, changes in data
collection methodology resulted in long observed travel periods. Second, construction at the Broadway & Arapahoe Avenue intersection likely
contributed to increased travel times.
Source: City of Boulder Traffic Count Data and Drive Time, 2014
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2010 2014 Corridor Travel Time (Minutes)Average VehiclesDaily Vehicles, Arapahoe West of 23rd Street Daily Vehicles, Arapahoe East of 75th Travel Time
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 13
Goal 2. Regional Travel: Increase the number of trips the East
Arapahoe corridor can carry to accommodate local
transportation needs and projected changes in surrounding
communities.
Objective 2.a. Improve local travel options within the East Arapahoe
corridor for residents, employees, and visitors.
One of the Boulder 2014 TMP objectives is to increase transportation alternatives commensurate with the
rate of employee growth. This is particularly relevant to the East Arapahoe corridor as it is becoming
home to a number of regional employment centers and destinations. Recent and ongoing development at
Boulder Community Health Foothills Hospital campus, CU East Campus, and other regional employers in
East Boulder are increasing the number of employees, and demand for travel, along the East Arapahoe
corridor. The area has experienced a surge in new development over the past several years and
employment in East Boulder is expected to continue to grow. East Boulder has more capacity to
accommodate commercial development than other areas of the city that has reached zoning capacity. It is
not surprising then that the area is expected to experience 19% employment growth between 2015 and
2040 – one of the highest employee growth rates in the city.5
The need to improve local travel options is further described here:
Growing Local Transportation Demand
Development along the Arapahoe Avenue corridor is already growing significantly.6 Of the 2,200
development review applications in the City of Boulder in 2015, nearly 25% were within one-half mile of
Arapahoe Avenue. And this trend is expected to continue. Figure 9 shows the potential for employee
growth within the East Arapahoe corridor.7 By 2040, it is expected that most areas of the city will be at
90% or more of their employment capacity. By comparison, employment projections show that East
Boulder will be at 61% of its employee zoning capacity in 2040 – indicating the tremendous potential for
commercial growth in East Boulder and along the East Arapahoe corridor. With this employment growth,
comes increasing demands on the transportation network and the need to develop an interconnected,
multimodal travel network in East Boulder that enables safe and efficient access for people walking,
biking, riding transit and driving.
5 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, 2015-2040 Projections. https://www-
static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/BVCP_Projections_Summary_Formatted_082815-1-201508281637.pdf.
6 https://bouldercolorado.gov/open-data/city-of-boulder-open-development-review-cases/
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan 2015-2040 Projections. https://www-
static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/BVCP_Projections_Summary_Formatted_082815-1-201508281637.pdf
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 14
Figure 9 Additional Employee Potential
Source: City of Boulder, Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan 2015-2040 Projections, Figure 2. https://www-
static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/BVCP_Projections_Summary_Formatted_082815-1-201508281637.pdf
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 15
Objective 2.b. Improve regional travel options between Boulder and
communities to the east for work and other regional trips.
Regional growth is likely to increase future congestion on the limited number of regional facilities
connecting Boulder with neighboring communities, including Arapahoe Avenue.8 As previously
mentioned, the Boulder 2014 TMP update set a goal of reducing the number of SOV trips to 60% of work
trips for nonresidents. Yet, regional travel is still highly dependent on SOVs. In order to achieve this goal,
a larger share of future trips between Boulder and surrounding communities will need to be
accommodated by alternative travel choices that are appealing, convenient, and reliable.
The need to manage regional travel demand is further described here:
Growth in Communities to the East
The past fifteen years have already seen large increases in the number of commuters traveling between
Boulder and communities to the east, as well as to and from other places in the region. Between 2002 and
2014, there was a greater increase in workers commuting to Boulder from the east than from any other
direction (Figure 10), but also growth in commuting from Boulder to the region (Figure 11).9 Regional
projections shown in Figure 12 indicate significant increases in projected person trips to and from Boulder
between 2010 and 2035. Figure 12 shows that trips are expected to increase significantly between Boulder
and Erie (104.7%), Broomfield (38.5%), and Lafayette (15.9%) by 2035.10 This is based on the growing
population of these communities and the growing interconnectedness of the region.
Figure 10 Increase in Workers Commuting to Boulder
from Places in the Region, 2002-2014
Figure 11 Increase in Workers Commuting from
Boulder to Places in the Region, 2002-2014
Notes: * Comparison is not possible due to data limitations
Source: US Census LEHD, 2014.
Place 2002 2014 Net
Increase
%
Increase
Longmont 7,158 8,382 1,224 17%
Broomfield * 4,461 * *
Lafayette 2,994 3,985 991 33%
Erie 891 2,230 1,339 150%
Superior 1,035 1,602 567 55%
Frederick 263 782 519 197%
Firestone 208 650 442 213%
Place 2002 2014 Net Increase % Increase
Denver 2,652 3,838 1,186 44.7%
Louisville 617 1,009 392 63.5%
Westminster 503 839 336 66.8%
Lakewood 470 724 254 54.0%
Aurora 334 579 245 73.4%
Lafayette 283 499 216 76.3%
Longmont 923 1,137 214 23.2%
Broomfield * 891 * *
Notes: * Comparison is not possible due to data limitations
Source: US Census LEHD, 2014.
8 Travel Forecasts based on Regional Travel Demand Model, 2040
9 US Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics
10 Boulder Transportation Master Plan, 2014. Analysis of DRCOG Regional Model, 2010-2035.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 16
Figure 12 Origin-Destination Pairs in the Region (Projected Change 2010-2035)
Source: City of Boulder Transportation Master Plan, State of the System Report 2014, Figure 3-22. Data from DRCOG 2010-2035 projections.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 17
Increasing SOV In-Commute Trips
Approximately 55% of Boulder workers are estimated to travel into
Boulder for work. While Boulder has achieved a low SOV mode share
for local travel (approximately 48% for commute trips), in-commute
travel remains primarily SOV at nearly 80% (See Figure 13). Regional
travel demand projections from the Denver Regional Council of
Governments (DRCOG) indicate growth in traffic volumes of 20% or more
along the corridor by 2040, and over 30% on the eastern end of the
corridor (east of 55th Street). If future regional travel maintains this 80%
SOV mode share as traffic volume grows, the East Arapahoe corridor will
see increasing congestion and will be able to carry fewer trips. Due to the
distances of regional trips and the need to maintain and expand the
number of trips that the East Arapahoe corridor can carry, future travel
will need to be balanced among automobiles, transit, and strategies
such as ridesharing and first-and-last-mile connections for transit
riders.
Goal 3. Transportation Demand Management: Promote more efficient
use of the transportation system and offer people travel options
within the East Arapahoe corridor.
Objective 3.a. Improve first and final mile connections to help people
conveniently and safely walk and bike to and from transit.
A “trip” is a journey from an origin to a destination. A transit trip most often involves a walking, biking, or
other type of trip on one or both ends – in addition to the transit portion of the trip. The first and last
miles of a transit trip can be challenging, especially in suburban communities and areas like East Boulder
that were originally designed for motor vehicles. If walking or biking to a transit stop is too far, or
connections are limited, travelers tend to avoid transit. First-and-last-mile strategies help people
comfortably, conveniently, and safely bridge these gaps with solutions like bike sharing, covered and
secure bike parking, shuttle and car share services and mobility on demand services like Lyft or Uber.
The 2014 Boulder TMP recommends developing “mobility hubs” throughout the city to better integrate
these services, including at several locations along Arapahoe Avenue. The goal of a mobility hub is to
provide seamless access between transit, pedestrian and bicycle networks, car/rideshare programs, and
context-appropriate parking supply. Mobility hubs emphasize excellent pedestrian infrastructure within a
quarter to half-mile of transit stops and connections to the bicycle network. A well-connected system
brings people near the locations they wish to access and ensures a comfortable and safe walk to the places
they wish to go.
The need to improve first-and-last-mile connections is further described here:
Lack of Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections
Due to the disconnected street grid and large blocks along East Arapahoe, it takes longer and is less
convenient to walk or bicycle to destinations and access bus stops. The average block size east of Foothills
Parkway is 15 acres, and the area has around 51 intersections per square mile, making for relatively few
paths between destinations. For comparison, downtown Boulder has 321 intersections per square mile
(see
Figure 14).
Figure 13 Boulder In-Commute
Mode Share
Source: Source: Census Transportation Planning
Products (CTPP). 2006 – 2008 American
Community Survey “Journey to Work.” Boulder TMP State of the System Report 2014, Figure ES-10
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 18
Additionally, very limited signage and wayfinding in the corridor mean that walking or biking to transit or
other destinations can be challenging. To overcome these barriers, it will be essential to provide complete
pedestrian and bicycle connections and provide clear signage to transit stops, a particularly important
consideration as properties redevelop in the corridor.
Figure 14 Intersection Density, Downtown Boulder and East Boulder
Intersection density, or the number of street intersections per square mile, is a measure of street connectivity and walkability.
Source: Boulder Transportation Master Plan, State of the System Report, p. 3-6.
Objective 3.b. Promote the use of multiple transportation options in East
Boulder by residents and workers.
The City of Boulder’s transportation demand management strategies, such as the EcoPass, have proven to
be effective. Expanding the appeal of non-drive alone travel options in East Boulder requires policies and
programs to expand access to bike and car sharing, manage the parking supply effectively, coordinate land
use, and encourage use of enhanced pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities and services.
The need to encourage the use of multiple travel options is further described here:
Limited EcoPass Distribution
The EcoPass, a discounted annual transit pass purchased through group organizations, allows users
access to all RTD services. City of Boulder surveys have found that people with an EcoPass are four to
seven times more likely to use transit than those without a pass. The changes in travel behavior associated
with access to an EcoPass translate into significant reductions in vehicle trips and mobile emissions. For
work trips, Boulder employees with an EcoPass travel less than half the annual vehicle commute miles
compared to employees without a pass. In 2012, 69,425 people who live, work, or study in Boulder had
access to EcoPasses. Currently, only 25% of employees in the East Arapahoe corridor have access to an
EcoPass. 11
11 Based on EcoPass data as of May 2016 and employment from US Census LEHD, within ½ mile of the corridor between Folsom
Street and 75th Street.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 19
Limited Bike Share and Care Share Options
Transportation options to support first-and-last-mile trips in Boulder include Boulder BCycle and eGo
CarShare. In 2014, over 43,000 BCycle trips were made by approximately 7,000 riders, averaging 118
trips per day.12 Currently, BCycle has three stations along Arapahoe Avenue in the study area – at 26th,
38th, and 48th Streets, as well as at 33rd Street & Fisher (less than ¼ mile north of the corridor). While the
East Arapahoe BCycle stations do not have the highest usage from a systemwide basis, there is likely to be
an increased demand as the density of employment and other destinations increases. Car sharing in
Boulder is available through eGo CarShare, a nonprofit based in the Denver area. Cars are reserved
hourly, and can be accessed at a home location. eGo CarShare is available at multiple locations throughout
the City, including one location on Arapahoe Avenue at 48th Street.
Expanded bike share and car share options in the East Arapahoe corridor can help people overcome one
of the primary concerns with commuting via transit – which is not having a car to access destinations
throughout the city. These types of shared use mobility options have the potential to play an important
role in bridging some of the existing transportation network gaps as well as encouraging people to use
multiple transportation modes. Typically, bike share and car share are transit supportive by providing
local mobility options for people who choose to use transit for longer distance commutes. For example, an
employee on East Arapahoe Avenue who commutes in from Erie by transit may opt to use eGo CarShare
to get to a lunchtime meeting.
Goal 4. Funding: Deliver cost-effective transportation solutions for the
East Arapahoe corridor that can be phased over time.
Objective 4.a. Coordinate with public and private entities, including
adjacent land owners, to implement cost-effective transportation
improvements.
The Boulder 2014 TMP’s Complete Streets investment strategy focuses on developing the city’s system of
ten multimodal corridors, which includes Arapahoe Avenue. It also calls for expanding fiscally-viable
transportation options for all Boulder residents and employees, including older adults and people with
disabilities. The City of Boulder focuses on delivering cost-effective transportation solutions, leveraging
resources from regional, state, federal and/or private sector partners, and doing best-value construction
by investing once for multiple modes.
The need for cost-effective transportation improvements is further described here:
Lack of Corridor Vision
Currently, there is no community “vision” for planned transportation improvements in the East Arapahoe
corridor, which precludes coordinated public and private investment. As property along East Arapahoe
redevelops, there is a need to help property owners and developers understand planned transportation
improvements and the required commitment for infrastructure improvements along the corridor.
Communicating a plan for short-term enhancements and Boulder’s long-term community vision for the
corridor to mobility service providers and Boulder’s potential funding partners will also be important to
ensure efficient and coordinated efforts.
BBoulder BCycle 2014 Annual Report
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 20
Limited Funding Resources
Implementing effective multimodal transportation investments in the East Arapahoe corridor will require
a significant and sustained effort by the City of Boulder, other jurisdictions, and agency partners to
identify, secure, and efficiently utilize new and creative sources of funding. Regional, state, and federal
funding sources are, and appear likely to continue to be, increasingly scarce and competitive. Securing
additional resources for transportation given this challenging funding environment will require
heightened effort, creativity an likely project phasing. Strong partnerships with RTD, Via, CU, Colorado
Department of Transportation, Boulder County, neighboring jurisdictions, community institutions, non-
profits, private sector partners, and other stakeholders will be essential to leverage the city’s limited
resources and secure needed funding for improvements.
Goal 5. Sustainability: Develop transportation improvements in the
East Arapahoe corridor that support Boulder’s Sustainability
Framework (desired outcomes include a community that is Safe,
Healthy & Socially Thriving; Livable, Accessible & Connected;
Environmentally Sustainable; Economically Vital; and provides Good
Governance).
Objective 5.a. Reduce greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions and air pollution
from vehicle travel within the East Arapahoe corridor.
The City of Boulder has established a goal of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions by
2050, which will require a multifaceted strategy. The challenge of the 80% reduction goal requires that
the community increases mode shift, transitions to cleaner fuel sources for both the personal vehicle and
transit fleets, houses more of our workers, and creates mixed use neighborhoods where more destinations
are closer together and can be reached by walking. As one of the city’s largest regional travel corridors,
transportation improvements in the East Arapahoe corridor can play a pivotal part in reaching this goal.
The need to reduce GhG emissions and air pollution is further described here:
Meeting Boulder’s Climate Commitment
Currently, Boulder residents account for 38% of transportation-related emissions while non-residents
account for 23% of emissions. To reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), the City of Boulder’s Climate
Commitment Analysis anticipated reducing resident SOV mode share to 20% of all trips and non-resident
mode share to 60% of all trips by 2035.
Achieving the Boulder 2014 TMP goal of reducing VMT by 20% from current levels implies reducing daily
VMT from the current 11.2 miles per capita to 7.3 miles per capita for residents, and from 14.3 miles per
capita (one-way work trip distance) to 11.4 miles per capita for non-resident employees. Achieving these
reductions will require reducing SOV travel among all transportation sectors, as shown in Figure 15, and
increasing walking, biking, ride sharing, and transit use.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 21
Figure 15 Climate Commitment Inventory of VMT and GhG Emissions, 2013
Source: Boulder Transportation Master Plan, 2014, Figure 3-1.) Data from Climate Commitment Analysis, 2013.
Objective 5.b. Improve travel options that promote public health for
residents and workers along the East Arapahoe corridor.
Use of active transportation, like walking and biking, can provide health benefits for people of all ages,
helping reduce the occurrence of conditions such as obesity, asthma, and heart disease. While adults in
Boulder County are currently very active, the obesity rate for children is higher than the state as a whole
and the health and transportation needs of older adults is changing as their share of the population
increases.13 Transportation facilities combined with urban design and development that supports walking,
cycling, and safe access to transit can encourage East Arapahoe corridor residents and employees of all
ages to stay healthy and active.
The need to improve travel options that promote public health is further described here:
Rising Obesity Rates, Aging Population and Air Pollution
Bicycling, walking, and reduced automobile traffic through neighborhoods are associated with a variety of
health benefits. Increased opportunities for active transportation in the East Arapahoe corridor would
provide these benefits for residents, especially children and the elderly. These include:
Almost 90% of adults in Boulder County reported participating in physical activity in their leisure
time, and, as in the rest of Colorado, adult obesity rates are low. However, the obesity rate for
children ages 2 to 14 in Boulder County is 21%, higher than the state as a whole. Low-income pre-
school aged children in Boulder County are more likely to be obese than in the state as a whole.14
The population of adults over the age of 65 in Boulder County is expected to increase from 13 to
20% by 2030. The 2012 Travel Diary found that older adults were far more likely to drive than
any other age group. Heart disease is the second leading cause of death for Boulder County
residents.15
Proximity to major roads is associated with an elevated risk of asthma, which is the leading cause
of preventable hospital visits for children. Encouraging other modes of transportation on East
13 Boulder County, Trends: The Community Foundations Report on Key Indicators, 2015-2016
14 Boulder County TRENDS Report 2015
15 Boulder County Environmental Sustainability Plan, 2012
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 22
Arapahoe could reduce the exposure of nearby residents to the ambient air pollutants that are
associated with asthma.16
Objective 5.c. Provide access to affordable transit and other travel
options to low- and moderate-income residents and workers along the
East Arapahoe corridor.
High housing costs in Boulder contribute to in-commuting from neighboring communities, and longer
commutes have higher transportation costs for workers. Added to that, nearly 55% of the jobs within a
half-mile of the corridor between downtown Boulder and Brighton are considered low and moderate-wage
jobs that pay less than $3,333 per month.17 By comparison, Boulder’s median household income is about
$4,800 per month.18 Providing access to convenient, frequent transit service along the corridor, including
early morning and later evening hours, that is integrated with well-timed transit transfers and access to a
variety of first-and-last-mile mobility options, can increase access to jobs, reduce commuting costs, and
improve livability for low and moderate income workers.
The need to provide affordable travel options is further described here:
Large Proportion of Low-and-Moderate Income Workers
There are over 26,000 low income jobs within a half-mile of the corridor, which is 54.7% of the total jobs
in that area. Of the workers who live within a half-mile of the corridor 51% are within the two lowest
income brackets. Just under 2,000 low income workers both live and work within a half-mile of the
corridor, which represents about 23% of the corridor’s total low-income residents. This illustrates that low
income workers are making longer trips to their place of employment and likely spending larger amounts
of their budget on transportation costs.
High Housing and Transportation Costs
Data from the Center for Neighborhood Technology Housing and Transportation (H+T) Affordability
Index for 2014 shows that the average cost of housing and transportation can be a significant burden on
households within the East Arapahoe corridor. The blue shaded areas in Figure 16 below are those with
combined housing and transportation costs of over 45%, which is considered the affordability threshold.
High-quality public transit and other convenient travel options serving the corridor would provide
affordable transportation access for low- and-moderate income workers who live and/or work in the East
Arapahoe corridor.
16 Asthma exacerbation and proximity of residence to major roads: a population-based matched case-control study among the
pediatric Medicaid population in Detroit, Michigan, 2011
17 US Census Bureau, Longitudinal Household Employer Dynamics (LEHD), 2013. The LEHD classifies low-to-moderate income jobs
as those paying less than $3,333.
18 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2014.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN |Appendix B: Purpose & Goals
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | 23
Figure 16 Housing and Transportation Affordability (H+T) Index, 2014
Source: Housing and Transportation Affordability Index (H+T), 2014
Objective 5.d. Preserve and improve economic vitality in the East
Arapahoe corridor.
A transportation system that provides convenient, reliable, and affordable travel options for business
employees and patrons is vital to supporting and retaining the growing number of local and regional
businesses within the East Arapahoe corridor. Corridor projects that enhance the streetscape and improve
multimodal access and connectivity have been demonstrated in cities around the country to improve
economic vitality, including attracting more investment to the corridor, increasing commercial activity,
and improving access to jobs.
The need to support economic vitality is further described here:
Employee Access to Travel Options
Boulder’s workforce is drawn to employment areas with a wide variety of amenities, services (e.g.
restaurants, retail), recreational amenities, the arts, enhanced walkability, and increased access to public
transportation, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. While the East Arapahoe corridor has seen a
diversification of amenities and services in the last several years, there remains an enormous opportunity
to provide more travel options in the corridor. In dozens of conversations with businesses in the area,
employers stress the importance of providing convenient, reliable and affordable travel options for their
employees as an essential component of their economic vitality.
EAST ARAPAHOE (SH 7) TRANSPORTATION PLAN
APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
February 2018
2 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
INTRODUCTION
This document provides preliminary evaluation
results for a set of draft alternatives that were
developed for the East Arapahoe corridor.
Each alternative is a package of design and
management elements that can help achieve the
stated purpose and goals of the East Arapahoe
Transportation Plan within each character district.
Preliminary alternatives were developed using
the results of an initial screening of potential
corridor design and management elements.
The preliminary alternatives were refined
based on input received at the East Arapahoe
Transportation Plan Community Working Group
(CWG) Meeting #5 on December 5, 2016. The
alternatives were evaluated using criteria that
measure how well the draft alternatives meet the
Plan goals and objectives.
The following sections describe the draft
alternatives and preliminary evaluation results:
• Character Districts. Summarizes the five
character districts, their existing conditions,
and the vision for each developed with input
from the Community Working Group.
• Alternatives. Describes the No-Build and
Build alternatives (packages of design and
management elements) for the corridor. It
includes revised cross-section drawings for
each district.
• Plan Goals and Evaluation Areas.
Summarizes the Plan Goals and Objectives
and lists the evaluation areas and measures.
• Evaluation Results. Provides preliminary
evaluation results, with an emphasis on the
Vehicular and Transit areas and including
parts of the Safety and Sustainability areas.
As described on p. 20, the evaluation results
were presented at CWG Meetings #6 and
#7 in March and April 2017, respectively.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 3
EAST ARAPAHOE CHARACTER DISTRICTS
A B C ED 75th St30th St55th StPearl St
Folsom StArapahoe Ave
17th StColorado Ave 63rd StWalnut St
Westview DrCherryvale Rd20th
S
t
33rd StBaseline Rd
Valmont Rd
38th
48th St3628th StBro
a
d
w
a
y
Canyon Blvd
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
kw
y
Twenty-Ninth Street Retail Center Boulder Community Health
University of Colorado Boulder ValleySchool District
NaropaUniversityFlatironBusiness Park
JewishCommunity CenterFlatironsGolf Course
Ball Aerospace& Engineering
ValmontReservoir
BaselineReservoir Folsom - Boulder Creek
Land Use:
Higher density
retail and mixed
use
Auto:
• 6 travel lanes +
turn lanes
• ADT: 28,300
Bike/Ped:
Multi-use path
with small gaps
Transit:
Queue jumps for
buses at selected
intersections
E. of Foothills - E. of 55th
Land Use:
Medium density
institutional &
light industrial
Auto:
• 6 travel lanes +
turn lanes
• ADT: 31,300
Bike/Ped:
Multi-use path
incomplete on
south side
Transit:
No special transit
treatments
Boulder Crk.-E. of Foothills
Land Use:
Riparian wetland
Auto:
• 6 travel lanes+
2-3 turn lanes
• ADT: 32,100 (W)
31,300 (E)
Bike/Ped:
Multi-use path
Transit:
Queue jumps at
intersection
C E. of 55th - Westview
Land Use:
Low density
office, light
industrial & retail
Auto:
• 5 travel lanes +
turn lanes
• ADT: 26,200
Bike/Ped:
• Multi-use path
incomplete on
both sides
• On street bike
lanes
Transit:
Transit lanes east
of 63rd
Westview - 75th
Land Use:
Open space /
farmland with
clusters of other
land uses
Auto:
• 2 travel lanes +
center turn lane
Bike/Ped:
• Multi-use path on
north side only
• On-street bike
lanes or wide
shoulders
Transit:
No special transit
treatments
A B C D E
Proposed Character Districts - DRAFT
October 18, 2016 - DRAFT
4 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
EAST ARAPAHOE CHARACTER DISTRICT VISION
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 5
ALTERNATIVES
The project team developed four alternatives
for the East Arapahoe corridor that will be
evaluated both end-to-end and within in each
character district. This would allow “mix-and-
matching” of alternatives along the corridor (e.g.,
Alternative 3 in Districts A-D and Alternative 2
in District E) and/or options within each district
(e.g., Alternative 4 pedestrian/bike option
with Alternative 3 transit option in District A) to
identify a preferred alternative for the corridor.
The alternatives consist of (1) a transit and
vehicular option and (2) pedestrian/bike option.
NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
Alternative 1 represents the future “No-Build”
condition, which assumes improvements that are
likely to be realized in the year 2040 without the
project being considered (Build alternatives). The
No-Build alternative includes a completed multi-
use path and/or sidewalk and a continuation of
existing transit service along Arapahoe Avenue:
• Vehicular. The No-Build alternative maintains
the existing designations of travel lanes
(no changes to existing lanes available for
general-purpose travel).
• Transit. The future No-Build conditions for
transit are assumed to be the existing bus
service (RTD Short and Long JUMP routes)
with some enhancements to frequency
(additional midday service on the Long JUMP
and additional weekend service) and service
span (additional late night service) with
existing bus stop facilities.
• Pedestrian/Bike. The future No-Build
conditions for the pedestrian/bike realm are
assumed to be a completed multi-use path
and/or sidewalk network along Arapahoe
Avenue, and the existing bike lanes (or wide
shoulders) in Districts D and E. This includes:
- Completing gaps in the sidewalk network
along Arapahoe Avenue at 33rd Street
(south side), at Old Tale Road (north side),
and between 55th Street and Cherryvale
Road (south side).
-Completing gaps in the multi-use path
between 30th Street and the Boulder Creek
Greenway (south side), between MacArthur
Drive and 48th Street, and between
Eisenhower Drive and 55th Street.
BUILD ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 pair Enhanced Bus
service, Side-Running BRT, and Center-Running
BRT, respectively, with a pedestrian/bike option.
Each pedestrian-bike option is included in at least
one alternative. The following sections describe
the assumptions for the options.
6 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
BUILD ALTERNATIVE ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS
TRANSIT/VEHICULAR
Enhanced Bus (Alternative 2) maintains all
existing general-purpose travel lanes and
assumes transit service operates in mixed-traffic
with the following types of enhancements:
• Enhanced vehicles with all-door boarding
• Enhanced shelters, benches, and other
passenger amenities at stops
• Off-board fare payment and real-time
arrival information
Enhanced Bus primarily differs from the BRT
alternatives in that there is no dedicated right-of-
way allocated to transit (as there is in Alternatives
3 and 4).
Side-Running BRT (Alternative 3) re-purposes
the existing travel lane closest to the curb as a
business-access and transit (BAT) lane that allows
vehicle access for right-turns.
Center-Running BRT (Alternative 4) re-purposes
the center travel lanes as dedicated transit-only
lanes.
ENHANCED BUS OR SIDE-RUNNING BRT - EXAMPLE CROSS-SECTION
CENTER-RUNNING BRT - EXAMPLE CROSS-SECTION
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 7
BUILD ALTERNATIVE ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS
PEDESTRIAN, BIKE &
TRANSITION ZONE
Pedestrian/bicycle options include a combination
of the following elements:
• Bicycle Facility
-Raised bicycle lane, inside of the curb at
the level of the sidewalk or multi-use path
(see illustrations at top left and right)
-Street-level bicycle lane, outside of the
curb, separated from travel lanes by a
painted or vertical buffer
(see illustrations at bottom left and right)
• Amenity zone: 5 to 6 feet with shrubs, or
8 feet with street trees. The amenity zone
provides separation between other facilities
and is able to accommodate other uses such
as transit stops and seating.
• Sidewalk: 6 to 12 feet or more, based on
context.
• Multi-use path: 10 to 12 feet, shared by
people walking and biking.
CURBSIDE RAISED PROTECTED BICYCLE LANE
Separated from the sidewalk/multi-use path by an
amenity zone.
(Example cross section - Option 1)
CURBSIDE AMENITY ZONE WITH RAISED
PROTECTED BICYCLE LANE
Separated from both the travel lanes and the
sidewalk/multi-use path by an amenity zone.
(Example cross section Option 2)
STREET-LEVEL PROTECTED BICYCLE LANE
Separated from travel lanes by a physical barrier.
(Example cross section - Option 3)
STREET-LEVEL BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE
Separated from travel lanes by a striped buffer.
(Example cross section - Option 4)
8 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
ALTERNATIVES FOR EVALUATION
Pedestrian/Bike/Transition Zone Option
Alt 1 (No-Build)Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
Transit/Vehicular Alternative
Existing Bus
(Mixed Traffic)
Enhanced Bus
(Mixed Traffic)
Side-Running BRT
(BAT Lane)
Center-Running BRT
(Dedicated Lane)
Existing Travel Lanes Existing Travel Lanes Repurposed Lane Repurposed Lane
District A: 29th Street District (3 vehicle lanes/direction)
Option 0: Completed multi-use path (No-Build)X
Option 1a: Curbside raised protected bike lane with amenity zone and multi-use path X
Option 2: Curbside amenity zone with raised protected bike lane separated from sidewalk X X
District B: Transition Zone (3 vehicle lanes/direction)
Design options to be determined based on preferred facilities in Districts A and C TBD TBD TBD TBD
District C: Innovation & Health District (3 vehicle lanes/direction)
Option 0: Completed multi-use path (No-Build)X
Option 1a: Curbside raised protected bike lane with amenity zone and multi-use path X X
Option 3: Street-level protected bike lane with amenity zone and multi-use path X
District D: Industry & Education District (2-3 lanes/direction)
Option 0: Existing bike lanes and multi-use path (No-Build)X
Option 1a: Curbside raised protected bike lane with amenity zone and multi-use path X X
Option 3: Street-level protected bike lane with amenity zone and multi-use path X
District E: Gateway District (1-2 vehicle lanes/direction)
Option 0: Existing bike lanes and/or multi-use path (No-Build)X
Option 1b: Curbside raised protected bike lane with amenity zone and sidewalk X
Option 4: Street-level buffered bike lane with curbside amenity zone and sidewalk (south) or
existing multi-use path (north)X X
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRANSIT/VEHICULAR ALTERNATIVE AND PED/BIKE OPTION WITHIN EACH CHARACTER DISTRICT
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 9
DISTRICT A CROSS SECTIONS
This section provides cross-section illustrations for Character District A.
ALTERNATIVE 2 WITH
PED/BIKE OPTION 2
Enhanced bus,
curbside amenity zone
with raised protected
bike lane separated
from sidewalk
Attachment H provides renderings of
the alternatives.
10 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
ALTERNATIVE 3 WITH
PED/BIKE OPTION 2
Side-Running BRT,
curbside amenity zone
with raised protected
bike lane separated
from sidewalk
ALTERNATIVE 4 WITH
PED/BIKE OPTION 1a
Center-Running
BRT, curbside raised
protected bike lane
with amenity zone and
multi-use path
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 11
DISTRICT C CROSS SECTIONS
This section provides cross-section illustrations for Character District C.
ALTERNATIVE 2 WITH
PED/BIKE OPTION 3
Enhanced bus,
street-level protected
bike lane with amenity
zone and multi-use
path
Note: Cross-sections have not yet been
developed for Character District B, which will
be a transition zone between Districts A and C.
12 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
ALTERNATIVE 3 WITH
PED/BIKE OPTION 1a
Side-Running BRT,
curbside raised
protected bike lane
with amenity zone and
multi-use path
ALTERNATIVE 4 WITH
PED/BIKE OPTION 1a
Center-Running BRT,
curbside raised
protected bike lane
with amenity zone and
multi-use path
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 13
DISTRICT D CROSS SECTIONS
This section provides cross-section illustrations for Character District D.
ALTERNATIVE 2 WITH
PED/BIKE OPTION 2
Enhanced Bus,
street-level protected
bike lane with amenity
zone and multi-use
path
14 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
ALTERNATIVE 3 WITH
PED/BIKE OPTION 1a
Side-Running BRT,
curbside raised
protected bike lane
with amenity zone and
multi-use path
ALTERNATIVE 4 WITH
PED/BIKE OPTION 1a
Center-Running
BRT, curbside raised
protected bike lane
with amenity zone and
multi-use path
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 15
DISTRICT E CROSS SECTIONS
This section provides cross-section illustrations for Character District E.
ALTERNATIVE 2 WITH
PED/BIKE OPTION 2
Enhanced Bus,
street-level buffered
bike lane with amenity
zone and sidewalk
(south side) or multi-
use path (north side)
16 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
ALTERNATIVE 3 WITH
PED/BIKE OPTION 2
Side-Running BRT,
street-level buffered
bike lane with amenity
zone and sidewalk
(south side) or multi-
use path (north side)
ALTERNATIVE 4 WITH
PED/BIKE OPTION 1b
Center-Running BRT,
curbside raised
protected bike lane
with amenity zone
and sidewalk (south
side) or multi-use path
(north-side)
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 17
PLAN GOALS
Plan goals and objectives were developed to
guide development of the plan. They are based
on analysis of existing and projected conditions
for the East Arapahoe corridor, and City of
Boulder plans and policies (e.g., Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan, Boulder Transit Master Plan,
Boulder Sustainability Framework, etc.). The Plan
goals were refined based on input received at
Community Working Group Meeting #2 on June
15, 2016.
Goal 1. Complete Streets: Provide Complete
Streets in the East Arapahoe corridor that offer
people a variety of safe and reliable travel
choices.
• Provide safe travel for all modes using the
East Arapahoe corridor, including supporting
the “Toward Vision Zero” effort to eliminate
fatalities and serious injuries from traffic
collisions.
• Improve the ease of access and comfort
for people walking in the East Arapahoe
corridor, and incorporate “placemaking” and
urban design features that make the corridor
an inviting place to travel and spend time.
• Broaden the appeal of bicycling along the
East Arapahoe corridor to people of all ages
and bicycling abilities.
• Make transit a convenient and practical travel
option in the East Arapahoe corridor.
• Move drivers efficiently through the East
Arapahoe corridor.
Goal 2. Regional Travel: Increase the number
of trips the East Arapahoe corridor can carry to
accommodate growing local transportation needs
and projected growth in surrounding communities.
• Improve local travel options within the East
Arapahoe corridor for residents, employees,
and visitors.
• Improve regional travel options between
Boulder and communities to the east for work
and other regional trips.
Goal 3. Transportation Demand Management
(TDM): Promote a more efficient use of the
transportation system and offer people travel
options within the East Arapahoe corridor.
• Improve “first-and-last-mile” connections to
help people conveniently and safely walk,
bike, or make shorter car trips to and from
transit.
• Promote the use of multiple transportation
options in East Boulder by residents and
workers.
Goal 4. Funding: Deliver cost-effective
transportation solutions for the East Arapahoe
corridor that can be phased over time.
• Coordinate with public and private entities,
including adjacent land owners, to implement
cost-effective transportation improvements.
Goal 5. Sustainability: Develop transportation
improvements in the East Arapahoe corridor
that support Boulder’s Sustainability Framework
(desired outcomes include a community that
is Safe, Healthy & Socially Thriving, Livable,
Accessible & Connected, Environmentally
Sustainable, and Economically Vital Community
and provides Good Governance).
• Reduce greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions and
air pollution from vehicle travel within the
East Arapahoe corridor.
• Improve travel options that promote public
health for residents and workers along the
East Arapahoe corridor.
• Provide access to affordable transit and
other travel options to low- and moderate-
income residents and workers along the East
Arapahoe corridor.
• Preserve and improve economic vitality in the
East Arapahoe corridor.
• Promote and improve water quality, and
reduce the urban heat island effect through
roadway and landscape design.
18 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
EVALUATION AREAS AND CRITERIA
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Comfort and Access
• Perceived ease of access or comfort for walking along or across the
corridor
• Perceived ease or comfort for bicycling along/across the corridor
Safety • Safety Evaluation
• Access Management
Travel Mode Share • Estimated pedestrian, bicycle, transit, auto mode share
Transit Operations
• Transit Travel Time, Service Reliability, and Service Quality
• Transit Ridership in Corridor
• Transit Operating Costs
Vehicle Operations
• Auto Travel Time and Level of Service (LOS)
• Auto Vehicle Miles Traveled
• Freight Impacts
Capital Costs/Implementation
• Capital Costs and Right-of-Way
• Cost-Effectiveness
• Ability to Phase Improvements / Complexity of Implementation
Community Sustainability • Streetscape Quality
• GhG Emissions from Transportation
Evaluation criteria were developed to analyze how well the alternatives
meet the Plan goals and objectives within the following evaluation areas:
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 19
L
O
C
A
L
A
C
CESSA
N
D
S
A
F
E
T
YT RAVEL MODESHARE
TR A N S IT
VEHICULARCAPITAL COSTS
/IMPLEMENTATI
ONS
U
STAINABILITY
P
U
B
LIC REALM
S
T
R
E
ETSCAPE AND SA F E T Y
(BIK E /P E D )BICYCLE ANDPEDESTRIANSUSTAINABILITY(GHGs)PART 2
(APRIL)
PART 1
(MARCH)
Revisit assumptions
and corridor function/
regional mobility EVALUATION
RESULTSCORRIDOR FUN C T IO N /R E G I O N A L MOBILITY
EVALUATION RESULTS
PRESENTATION APPROACH
The project team discussed results with
the Community Working Group over two
meetings in Spring 2017:
• The March meeting was used to
present vehicular and transit results.
• The April meeting focused on the
bicycle/ pedestrian environment and
public realm.
• The project team and the Community
Working Group then circled back
to revisit assumptions and assess the
overall corridor function and regional
mobility given the evaluation results.
20 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
Alternatives are scored on a -3 to 3 scale relative
to existing conditions. Scores of -3 through -1
indicate that the alternative is worse than existing,
0 means the alternative has a neutral effect, and
scores of 1 through 3 signify an improvement over
existing conditions.
Auto Operations Transit Operations Bicycle and Pedestrian
Comfort and Access
Auto Level
of Service
Auto Travel
Time
Transit
Travel Time
Transit
Ridership
Operating
Costs
Lifecycle Cost
per Rider Walking Biking
2015Existing
Existing Bus
Existing Travel Lanes
Existing Multi-use Path
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2040Alt 1: No-Build
Local Bus (Mixed Traffic)
Existing Travel Lanes
Completed Multi-use Path
+20% Traffic Growth2
-1
+20% Traffic Growth2
-2
+20% Traffic Growth2
-1
+
1
3
1
1
2040Alt 2
Enhanced Bus (Mixed Traffic)
Existing Travel Lanes
Typically Street-Level PBL (2,3,4)
+20% Traffic Growth2
-1
+20% Traffic Growth2
-2
+20% Traffic Growth2
1 2 1
3
Assumes substantial intersection enhancements
3
2040Alt 3
Side-Running BRT
Curbside lanes repurposed as
BAT lanes (right-turns allowed)
Typically Raised PBL (1a,2,4)
0%/20% Traffic Growth1,2
0 -2
0%/20% Traffic Growth1,2
-1 -2
0%/20% Traffic Growth1,2
22
3
2
3
Assumes substantial intersection enhancements
3
2040Alt 4
Center-Running BRT
Center lanes repurposed as
dedicated transit lanes
Typically Raised PBL (1a/1b)
0%/20% Traffic Growth1,2
-3-1
0%/20% Traffic Growth1,2
-2 -3
0%/20% Traffic Growth1,2
23
3
2
3
Assumes substantial intersection enhancements
3
EVALUATION SUMMARY
X X [2] 20% Traffic Growth
(Regional model projection)
[1] 0% Traffic Growth
(Historic Trends)321-1-2-3 0SCORE
Worse Better
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 21
EVALUATION SUMMARY
Alternatives are scored on a -3 to 3 scale relative
to existing conditions. Scores of -3 through -1
indicate that the alternative is worse than existing,
0 means the alternative has a neutral effect, and
scores of 1 through 3 signify an improvement over
existing conditions.
Travel Mode
Share Safety Community Sustainability Capital Costs/Implementation
Transit, Bike,
Ped Trips
Bicycle/
Pedestrian Transit Auto Streetscape
Quality
GhG
Emissions
Capital
Costs
Ability to
Phase
2015Existing
Existing Bus
Existing Travel Lanes
Existing Multi-use Path
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2040Alt 1: No-Build
Local Bus (Mixed Traffic)
Existing Travel Lanes
Completed Multi-use Path
1 1 0
0 1
+20% Traffic Growth2
-2 0
2040Alt 2
Enhanced Bus (Mixed Traffic)
Existing Travel Lanes
Typically Street-Level PBL (2,3,4)
2
2
0
0 3
+20% Traffic Growth2
-2 -1
2040Alt 3
Side-Running BRT
Curbside lanes repurposed as
BAT lanes (right-turns allowed)
Typically Raised PBL (1a,2,4)
3
2
1
1 3
0%/20% Traffic Growth1,2
0 -1 -2
2040Alt 4
Center-Running BRT
Center lanes repurposed as
dedicated transit lanes
Typically Raised PBL (1a/1b)
3 2 1 1 2
0%/20% Traffic Growth1,2
0 -1 -3
X X [2] 20% Traffic Growth
(Regional model projection)
[1] 0% Traffic Growth
(Historic Trends)
321-1-2-3 0SCORE
Worse Better
22 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
VEHICLE OPERATIONS: AUTO LEVEL OF SERVICE & VOLUMES
Key Findings
• There are 14 signalized intersections in the
corridor. The “big five” (28th, 30th, Foothills,
55th, and 63rd) are the most influenced by
geometric changes in the alternatives. The
remaining nine intersections with smaller side
street traffic loads are typically less impacted
from a Level-of-Service (LOS) perspective
(except as noted below).
• The map on the following page summarizes
LOS at the five key intersections for the
different analysis horizons, alternative
configurations, and low/high traffic volume
forecasts.
• Without BRT in the future, if traffic grows
by approximately 20% (as predicted by
DRCOG models), the PM peak hour LOS at
key intersections typically degrades by one
to two letter grades (from C to D or E).
• With a lane repurposed for side-running
BRT in the 0% traffic growth scenario, the
peak hour LOS is typically the same as
today, except at Foothills where the PM peak
degrades from D to E.
• With a lane repurposed for center running
BRT in the 0% traffic growth scenario, the PM
peak hour LOS at 4 of the 5 key intersections
degrades by a letter grade.
• With a 20% increase in traffic, the addition
of side-running BRT results in a letter
grade reduction in LOS at only the Foothills
intersection, which degrades from E to F.
• With a 20% increase in traffic, the addition
of center-running BRT results in one or two
letter degradation in LOS at the 30th,
Foothills, and 55th intersections.
Key Assumptions
• 2040 +0% traffic growth scenarios assume
that BRT has been implemented along
with additional Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) measures, allowing the
traffic volume along East Arapahoe to remain
approximately the same as today.
• 2040 +20% traffic growth scenarios are
based on the DRCOG regional travel model
which predicts a 20% growth in traffic in the
corridor.
• In the 2040 +20% traffic growth scenarios,
it is assumed that BRT service will result in
reducing daily traffic along Arapahoe by
between 3,400 and 3,700 vehicles per day
along the corridor.
• Side-running BRT lanes are repurposed from
the existing outside travel lane (typically) and
this lane is shared between buses and right-
turning vehicles.
• Center-running BRT lanes are repurposed
from the inside travel lanes and are used
exclusively by BRT vehicles. However, it
is assumed that left-turning automobiles
cross over the BRT lanes upstream of the
intersections to allow left-turning traffic to do
so from the center of the roadway.
VEHICLE OPERATIONS
Attachment A provides additional
detail on vehicle operations analysis.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 23
VEHICLE OPERATIONS: AUTO LEVEL OF SERVICE
AUTO LEVEL OF SERVICE, PEAK HOUR, ALL DIRECTIONS, 2040
A B C ED
Iris Ave
55th St30th StRegent DrP e a r l S t
Valmont Rd
28th StFolsom StWalnut St
Baseline Rd63rd StBaseline Rd
Colorado Ave 47th StP e a rl P kwy
V a l m o n t R d
P in e S t
Cherryvale RdMoorhead Av
e 75th St61st St33rd StWestview Dr36
Arapahoe Ave
Valmont
Reservoir
Leggett Owen
Reservoir
Hillcrest
Lake
Sombrero
Marsh
Baseline
Reservoir
Hayden
Lake
University of
Colorado
Flatirons
Golf CourseFoot
hi
l
l
s
Pk
w
y
0 0.5 1
Miles
Existing, 2015
Alt 1 No Build 20% Traffic Growth, 2040
Alt 2 Enhanced Bus with 20% Traffic Growth, 2040
Alt 3 Side-Running BRT with 0% / 20% Traffic Growth, 2040*
Alt 4 Center-Running BRT with 0% / 20% Traffic Growth, 2040*
AM PM
E C C
1 C D
2 C D
3 C/C C/D
4 C/C D/D
AM PM
E C C
1 C D
2 C D
3 C/C C/D
4 C/C D/E
AM PM
E C D
1 E E
2 E E
3 C/E E/F
4 C/E E/F
AM PM
E C C
1 D D
2 D D
3 C/D C/D
4 C/D D/F
AM PM
E B C
1 B E
2 B E
3 B/B C/C
4 B/B C/C
20% Traffic Growth Scenario
(Regional model projection)
* 0% Traffic Growth Scenario
(Historic Trends)X/X
24 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
VEHICLE OPERATIONS: AUTO LEVEL OF SERVICE
AUTO LEVEL OF SERVICE, PEAK HOUR, EAST-WEST PEAK DIRECTION ONLY, 2040
A B C ED
Iris Ave
55th St30th StRegent DrP e a r l S t
Valmont Rd
28th StFolsom StWalnut St
Baseline Rd63rd StBaseline Rd
Colorado Ave 47th StP e a rl P kwy
V a l m o n t R d
P in e S t
Cherryvale RdMoorhead Av
e 75th St61st St33rd StWestview Dr36
Arapahoe Ave
Valmont
Reservoir
Leggett Owen
Reservoir
Hillcrest
Lake
Sombrero
Marsh
Baseline
Reservoir
Hayden
Lake
University of
Colorado
Flatirons
Golf CourseFoot
hi
l
l
s
Pk
w
y
0 0.5 1
Miles
Existing, 2015
Alt 1 No Build 20% Traffic Growth, 2040
Alt 2 Enhanced Bus with 20% Traffic Growth, 2040
Alt 3 Side-Running BRT with 0% / 20% Traffic Growth, 2040*
Alt 4 Center-Running BRT with 0% / 20% Traffic Growth, 2040*
AM PM
E D D
1 D D
2 D D
3 D/D D/D
4 D/D E/F
AM PM
E A B
1 A B
2 A B
3 A/B B/C
4 B/C D/F
AM PM
E B E
1 C F
2 C F
3 C/C F/F
4 C/C F/F
AM PM
E C D
1 D D
2 D D
3 D/D D/D
4 C/E E/F
AM PM
E B C
1 B F
2 B F
3 B/B C/D
4 B/B C/D
20% Traffic Growth Scenario
(Regional model projection)
* 0% Traffic Growth Scenario
(Historic Trends)X/X
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 25
VEHICLE OPERATIONS: AUTO VOLUMES
AUTO VOLUMES, AVERAGE DAILY, FOLSOM TO 75TH STREETS, 2040
A B C ED
Iris Ave
55th St30th StRegent DrP e a r l S t
Valmont Rd
28th StFolsom StWalnut St
Baseline Rd63rd StBaseline Rd
Colorado Ave 47th StP e a rl P kwy
V a l m o n t R d
P in e S t
Cherryvale RdMoorhead Av
e 75th St61st St33rd StWestview Dr36
Arapahoe Ave
Valmont
Reservoir
Leggett Owen
Reservoir
Hillcrest
Lake
Sombrero
Marsh
Baseline
Reservoir
Hayden
Lake
University of
Colorado
Flatirons
Golf CourseFoot
hi
l
l
s
Pk
w
y
0 0.5 1
Miles
28th 30th Foothills 55th 63rd
Screenline
Existing, 2015
Alt 1 No Build, 2040
Alt 3&4 0% Traffic Growth, 2040
Alt 3&4 20% Traffic Growth, 2040
E 28,000
1 30,000
3/4 28,000
3/4 26,600
E 30,000
1 37,000
3/4 30,000
3/4 33,600
Folsom
E 28,400
1 34,000
3/4 28,400
3/4 30,600
E 31,700
1 38,500
3/4 31,700
3/4 35,000
E 31,700
1 38,000
3/4 31,700
3/4 34,500
E 25,300
1 29,500
3/4 25,300
3/4 25,800
E 26,600
1 31,500
3/4 26,600
3/4 27,800
E 19,800
1 22,800
3/4 19,800
3/4 19,800
E 18,600
1 21,600
3/4 18,600
3/4 18,600
E 11,800
1 13,000
3/4 11,800
3/4 12,500
E 15,800
1 20,000
3/4 15,800
3/4 19,500
E 49,200
1 59,000
3/4 49,200
3/4 58,500
E 50,100
1 60,000
3/4 50,100
3/4 60,000
E 23,000
1 27,000
3/4 23,000
3/4 26,500
E 40,000
1 48,000
3/4 40,000
3/4 47,500
E 37,100
1 44,500
3/4 37,100
3/4 44,000
E 24,000
1 28,500
3/4 24,000
3/4 28,500
26 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
AUTO TRAVEL TIMES, FOLSOM TO 75TH STREETS, 2040
VEHICLE OPERATIONS: AUTO TRAVEL TIME
Key Findings
• Travel times are projected to increase in the future in Alt 1 (No-Build) where
corridor traffic increases by approximately 20% (see chart at right).
• Alt 1 and Alt 2 will likely function the same with travel times determined by
the projected 20% increase in traffic in the corridor.
• In Alt 3 (Side-Running BRT) with the future 0% traffic growth scenario, the
travel times are longer than today, but typically lower than the future 20%
traffic growth scenario without BRT, particularly in the direction of peak flows
(westbound in the AM and eastbound in the PM).
• Alt 4 (Center-Running BRT) with the 0% traffic growth scenario is also
projected to result in shorter auto travel times in peak-hour, peak-directional
flows when compared to the 20% traffic growth scenario without BRT (Alt 1).
• In the 20% traffic growth scenario, the peak-direction travel times with side-
running BRT are also less than the No-Build scenario without BRT.
• The influence of center-running BRT operation in the 20% traffic growth
scenario results in automobile travel time that is longer in all cases.
Key Assumptions
• The travel time on Arapahoe Avenue has been relatively constant based on
historic data collected by the City of Boulder. The existing travel time and
the calculated increase or decrease in future intersection delay (from the LOS
model for each alternative) were utilized to project future travel time.
• Auto travel times will be impacted by future increases in traffic volume and
congestion, and by any potential lane utilization changes at signalized
intersections for BRT.
• BRT scenarios include lane repurposing, which takes away some of the
through auto capacity at intersections, but BRT ridership reduces auto traffic,
which can have a balancing effect on travel time.
0 5 10 15 20 25
Westbound
(PM peak)
Westbound
(AM peak)
Eastbound
(PM peak)
Eastbound
(AM peak)
Travel time (minutes)
Existing
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Existing
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Existing
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Existing
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Existing
Alt 1 No-Build
Alt 2 Enhanced Bus
Alt 3 Side-Running BRT
Alt 4 Center-Running BRT
0% Trac
Growth Scenario
2040
20% Trac
Growth Scenario
2040
20% Trac Growth Scenario, 2040
20% Trac Growth Scenario, 2015
0% Trac
Growth Scenario
2040
20% Trac
Growth Scenario
2040
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 27
DAILY AUTO VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL AND PERSON MILES OF TRAVEL IN AUTOS, FOLSOM TO
75TH STREETS (BOTH DIRECTIONS), 2040
Alternative Vehicle Miles of
Travel (VMT)
Person Miles of
Travel in Autos
Auto Person Miles of
Travel Comparison to
Existing (% Increase)
Existing (2015)110,500 127,075 n/a
Alt 1: No-Build
with 20% Traffic Growth 130,100 149,615 17.7%
Alt 2: Enhanced Bus
with 20% Traffic Growth 130,100 149,615 17.7%
Alt 3 and 4 Side or
Center-Running BRT
with 0% Traffic Growth
111,300 127,995 0.7%
Alt 3 and 4 Side or
Center-Running BRT
with 20% Traffic Growth
116,000 133,400 5.0%
Source: Estimated based on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) data and tendency for commuting trips in the corridor.
VEHICLE OPERATIONS: VMT
Key Findings
• There are 2.5 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
citywide as of 2015. This is 8% higher than 2012
(2.3 million) but 10% lower than the peak level in
2002 (2.8 million).1
• Future 20% traffic growth projections (Alts. 1 &
2) result in VMT estimates that are approximately
18% higher than existing.
• As expected, the future year 0% traffic
growth scenarios with BRT result in VMT that is
approximately equal to today’s corridor VMT.
• BRT ridership in the 20% traffic growth scenarios
is successful in reducing VMT growth such that the
corridor VMT is only 5% more than existing.
Key Assumptions
• Vehicle miles of travel by automobile is a useful
measure in determining corridor mobility and
differences between alternatives, impacts on air
quality, success toward TMP goals, etc.
• Person miles of travel by automobile also allows
a measure of total person trip mobility in the
corridor when combined with estimates of travel
by transit, bicycle and as pedestrians.
• An auto occupancy factor of 1.15 was used to
convert from auto miles of travel to person miles of
travel in automobiles.
• The 0% traffic growth scenario is based on historic
trends (similar to today.1 https://bouldercolorado.gov/boulder-measures/vehicle-miles-of-travel
28 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
VEHICLE OPERATIONS: FREIGHT
Key Findings
• The East Arapahoe corridor serves much of Boulder’s service commercial and light industrial uses.
In this context freight access by truck is important.
• Trucks on Arapahoe typically represent only 3% to 4% of the daily traffic according to CDOT
data.
• Traffic access control will be a key component of implementing multi-modal improvements in the
corridor. Access control measures will need to consider maintaining efficient truck access. With
narrower travel lanes, trucks will need to make slower right turns into driveways, potentially slowing
corridor travel times.
QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF FREIGHT OPERATIONS
Alternative Character Districts A, B, C, D, and E Overall Assessment
Alt 1: No-Build Freight access similar to today Little change in
freight access
Alt 2: Enhanced Bus Freight access similar to today
Little change in
freight access
unless access control
measures are
implemented
Alt 3: Side-Running BRT with
outside lane repurposed as a
BAT lane (right-turns allowed)
Trucks will make right-turning access from
BAT lane. Will need to mix with BRT and
local buses.
Less friction with
turning trucks than
today
Alt 4: Center-Running BRT with
inside lane repurposed as a
dedicated transit lane
Trucks will make right turns from
congested through-right turn lanes, but
interaction with BRT is minimized. Local
buses likely to continue to operate in
curbside lane in many parts of the
corridor.
Most congested
access for right
turning trucks in to
driveways along the
corridor
Key Assumptions
• It is likely that multi-modal improvements
and traffic access control measures will result
in continuous medians between signalized
intersections, which will restrict unsignalized
left-turn access.
• Driveway consolidation between adjacent
parcels is likely to minimize motorized
crossings of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
• Access control measures will minimize crashes
and enhance safety in the corridor.
• Side-running BRT will allow right-turning
trucks to access driveways from the outside
business-access-and-transit (BAT) lane with
less interaction with through traffic but buses
and trucks will have to mix in the outside lane.
• Center-running BRT will allow buses to avoid
most interaction with trucks in the corridor.
However, now trucks will need to interact with
through traffic in the busy outside through-
right-turn lanes.
• In this context, it will be important to
still allow efficient truck access to the
businesses along the East Arapahoe corridor.
Intersections and driveways will need to be
designed to accommodate the turning paths
of the truck traffic serving the corridor.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 29
TRANSIT OPERATIONS: SERVICE SPAN AND FREQUENCY
Key Assumptions
• Existing JUMP bus service in the Arapahoe/
SH 7 corridor within Boulder runs every 10
minutes during peak hours and midday and
every 30 minutes in the evenings, between
approximately 5 AM and midnight (varies
depending on travel direction).
• A potential operating plan for Enhanced
Bus or BRT in the Arapahoe corridor would
connect the Downtown Boulder Transit Center
(TC) on the west end with I-25 and Brighton
on the east end.
• The Long JUMP is assumed to operate
between the Downtown Boulder TC and
Erie/Lafayette in all alternatives with
enhancements to midday and weekend
frequency. The Short JUMP (Downtown
Boulder TC to 65th Street) is eliminated in
the Build alternatives (2, 3, and 4). The Long
JUMP would continue to operate every
30 minutes to Erie and every 30 minutes to
Lafayette, resulting in a combined 15 minute
headways at non-BRT stops in Boulder.
• BRT and local buses would run every 6 to 7.5
minutes during the day and every 15 minutes
in the early mornings and evenings. Service
would run slightly later than existing service,
approximately 1 AM.
BRT OPERATING PLAN ASSUMPTIONS - HEADWAY (MINUTES)*
Alternative AM Midday PM
Early
AM/
Evening
Existing: Existing Bus ----
Alt 1: No-Build ----
Alt 2: Enhanced Bus 10 15 10 30
Alt 3: Side-Running BRT 10 15 10 30
Alt 4: Center-Running BRT 10 15 10 30
LOCAL BUS (JUMP) OPERATING PLAN ASSUMPTIONS - HEADWAY (MINUTES)*
Local JUMP Pattern AM Midday PM
Early
AM/
Evening
Long JUMP to Erie
(All Alternatives)30 30 §30 60
Long JUMP to Lafayette
(All Alternatives)30 30 30 60
Short JUMP to 65th St
(Existing & No-Build Only† )30 30 30 -
Notes: * Headway is the amount of time between bus arrivals in each direction. § There is no existing
midday service to Erie. † The Short JUMP is assumed to be eliminated in the Enhanced Bus and BRT
alternatives; the Long JUMP would maintain service at least every 15 minutes at local bus stops in Boulder.
TRANSIT OPERATIONS
Attachment B provides additional
detail on transit evaluation measures.
30 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
TRANSIT OPERATIONS: CONCEPTUAL STATION LOCATIONS
Key Assumptions
• BRT or Enhanced Bus stations would be
located at least a quarter-mile apart
and preferably between a third of a
mile and a half-mile (or more) from
adjacent stops.
• The project team assumed six stations
with a minimum half-mile distance
between Folsom and 75th Streets:
-29th Street
-38th Street
-48th Street
-55th Street
-Cherryvale Road
-63rd/65th Street
• Criteria for siting station areas include
the presence of major generators (such
as the 29th Street Mall), important
transit and multimodal connections (such
as US 36 BRT), land use, right-of-way
feasibility, existing ridership, and stop
spacing considerations.
• Local buses would continue to serve
existing stops.75th St30th St55th StValmont Rd
Folsom St47th StBaseline Rd
76th StPearl PkwyMo
o
r
h
e
a
d
A
v
Colorado Ave 63rd StWalnut St
Westview DrCherryvale RdIris Av
61st St33rd StBaseline Rd
Valmont Rd
48th St28th StArapahoe28th StreetF
oo
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
kwy
Diagonal Hwy
Arapahoe
Diagonal Plaza
Foothills Hospital
University of Colorado(East Campus)
Univ. of Colorado(Main Campus)
Flatirons Golf Course
Arapahoe RidgeHigh School
JewishCommunityCenter Boulder ValleySchool District
NaropaUniversity
Gerald StazioSoftball Fields
Boulder MunicipalAirport
Valmont Reservoir
Sombrero Marsh
63rd/65th38thCherryvale48th55th29th
Valtec
East Arapahoe Corridor
Existing JUMP Stops
Proposed Park & Ride"P
Proposed BRT Station Areas in Boulder
Other Potential BRT Station Areas
East Arapahoe Corridor
Multi-use path or trail
Shorter BRT Station Spacing Scenario (1/3 Mile)
Proposed General Station Locations
0 0.50.25 0.75 1.0Miles
East Arapahoe Corridor
Multi-use path or trail
BRT Station Location Opportunities:
East Arapahoe Corridor
Proposed Park & RideP
Existing JUMP Stop
P
General Station Locations
West end BRT routing options Boulder County SH 7 Bus Rapid Transit study area extending east of I-25 to Brighton
Quarter-Mile Station Area
Future Commuter Rail Station
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 31
TRANSIT OPERATIONS: TRAVEL TIME AND RELIABILITY
Key Findings
• No-Build alternative: Peak period transit travel times between Folsom and 75th
Streets increase by up to 14% (eastbound PM Peak).
• Alt 2, Enhanced Bus: Travel times decrease by slightly less than a minute or 6%
(eastbound PM peak) relative to No-Build bus service, due to limited stops and
reduced dwell time.
• Alt 3, Side-Running BRT: Travel times decrease by up to 2.5 minutes or 22%
(eastbound PM peak, 0% traffic growth scenario) and 3 minutes or 27%
(eastbound PM peak, 20% traffic growth). Local buses would operate in the
curbside BAT lane. Congestion from right-turning vehicles could reduce reliability
compared to center-running BRT.
• Alt 4, Center-Running BRT: Travel times decrease by up to 3 minutes or 27%
(eastbound PM peak, 0% traffic growth scenario) and 3.5 minutes or 30% (20%
traffic growth scenario). Local buses would likely run in the curbside mixed-traffic
lane. In the 20% traffic growth scenario, longer travel times are projected to
slightly increase local bus operating costs and vehicle requirements.
Key Assumptions
• Enhanced Bus and BRT would have station and vehicle features that reduce dwell
time at stations—off-board fare payment and all-door boarding.
• Enhanced Bus would operate in mixed-traffic with existing transit priority (e.g.,
queue jumps at Foothills Parkway and a transit-only lane between approximately
63rd Street and 65th Street).
• Side-running BRT would operate in a curbside business-access-and-transit (BAT)
lane that is shared with right-turning vehicles.
• Center-running BRT would operate in dedicated lanes in the roadway median.
• BRT is assumed to use transit-signal priority (TSP) to reduce delay at intersections.
• Transit priority features implemented east of 75th Street would provide travel
time savings that are included in ridership projections and end-to-end operating
costs estimates.510152025Travel time (minutes)Existing, 2015
Alt 1 No-Build
Alt 2 Enhanced Bus
Alt 3 Side-Running BRT
Alt 4 Center-Running BRT
Notes: *Denotes minimal dierence between 0% and 20% trac growth scenarios
Existing
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4*
Existing
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Existing
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4*
Existing
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3*
Alt 4*
Westbound
(PM peak)
Westbound
(AM peak)
Eastbound
(PM peak)
Eastbound
(AM peak)
0 5 10 15 20 25
0% Trac Growth
Scenario, 2040
20% Trac Growth
Scenario, 2040
20% Trac Growth Scenario, 2040
20% Trac Growth Scenario, 2040
0% Trac Growth
Scenario, 2040
20% Trac Growth
Scenario, 2040
ONE-WAY TRANSIT TRAVEL TIMES,
FOLSOM TO 75TH STREETS, 2040
32 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
TRANSIT OPERATIONS: TRAVEL TIME AND RELIABILITY
ONE-WAY TRANSIT TRAVEL TIMES COMPARED TO AUTO TRAVEL TIMES,
FOLSOM TO 75TH STREETS, 2040, EASTBOUND PM PEAK51015 2025Travel time (minutes)
Existing, 2015
Alt 1 No-Build
Alt 2 Enhanced Bus
Alt 3 Side-Running BRT
Alt 4 Center-Running BRT
Existing
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Transit
Auto
Transit
Auto
Transit
Auto
Transit
Auto
Transit
Auto
0 5 10 15 20 25
0% Trac Growth
Scenario, 2040
20% Trac Growth
Scenario, 2040
20% Trac Growth Scenario, 2040
20% Trac Growth Scenario, 2040
0% Trac Growth
Scenario, 2040
20% Trac Growth
Scenario, 2040 510152025Travel time (minutes)
Existing, 2015
Alt 1 No-Build
Alt 2 Enhanced Bus
Alt 3 Side-Running BRT
Alt 4 Center-Running BRT
ExistingAlt 1Alt 2Alt 3
Alt 4
TransitAutoTransitAutoTransitAutoTransitAuto
Transit
Auto
0 5 10 15 20 25
0% Trac Growth
Scenario, 2040
20% Trac Growth
Scenario, 2040
20% Trac Growth Scenario, 2040
20% Trac Growth Scenario, 2040
0% Trac Growth
Scenario, 2040
20% Trac Growth
Scenario, 2040
Key Findings
• All of the Build alternatives reduce the amount
of time it takes to ride transit in the corridor
compared to driving.
• Alt 3 (Side-Running BRT) and Alt 4 (Center-
Running BRT) reduce transit travel times in the
corridor to within 1 to 3 minutes of auto travel
times in the Eastbound PM peak.
• In the 20% traffic growth scenario, Center-
Running BRT provides shorter travel times than
auto travel in the Eastbound PM Peak.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 33
TRANSIT OPERATIONS: RIDERSHIP IN CORRIDOR
Key Findings
• Existing ridership on the JUMP is about 2,400
daily boardings, and about 3,400 boardings
are projected in Alt 1.
• Side and center-running BRT ridership is
projected to be from 7,000 to 10,000 daily
boardings (combined BRT and local), with
either Alt 3 or 4 within in a +/– 10% margin,
regardless of the traffic growth scenario.
• Ridership would be lower in the Enhanced Bus
scenario (4,500 to 6,000 daily boardings),
with limited stop service and enhanced
vehicles, stations, and amenities, but without
exclusive right-of-way.
Key Assumptions
• Ridership estimates are end-to-end, from
Downtown Boulder to Brighton east of I-25
for Alts 2, 3, and 4. No-Build ridership is
based on the existing JUMP route between
Downtown Boulder and Lafayette/Erie.
• Build alternative ridership includes both
Enhanced Bus or BRT and local JUMP service.
• “Sketch-level” ridership estimates are based
on existing JUMP ridership, adjusted for
population and employment growth, travel
time improvements, and increased service
levels
• Up to 1,700 new boardings are projected
on the new service east of Boulder, based
on analysis of trips to within 1/2 mile of the
Arapahoe corridor in Boulder (from regional
model travel pattern data and Census
employment data) and assumptions for mode
shift to new/extended regional service.
• The high-end ridership estimate is based on
analysis of the potential of transportation
and land use policy changes to reduce vehicle
trips and attract new riders (e.g., providing
transit passes, parking management, etc.).
PROJECTED WEEKDAY DAILY BOARDINGS, DOWNTOWN BOULDER TO BRIGHTON, 2040
Source: Sketch-level local ridership model. RTD ridership data for JUMP, January 2015. DRCOG regional travel demand model data,
2013/2035. US Census Longitudinal Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2014.Weekday Daily Boardings (thousands)No-Build (2015)Enhanced Bus Side-Running
BRT
Center-Running
BRT
0
5
10
15
Alt 4Alt3Alt 2Alt 1Existing
Low Estimate High Estimate
2,400
3,400
4,500 - 6,000
7,000 -
10,000
7,000 -
10,000
34 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
COMPARISON OF TRANSIT AND AUTO TRAVEL TIMES
TRANSIT OPERATIONS: SAMPLE TRAVEL TIMES
Approximate departure times are:
AM peak: 8 am; Midday: noon; PM peak: 5 pm
Transit travel times assume an average wait time of 1/4 of headway, and a walk
time of 8 minutes from Flatiron Business Park to Arapahoe Ave & 55th Street
Bus Rapid Transit travel times assume side-running BRT
A trip along Arapahoe from the University
of Colorado (CU) campus at Folsom to the
Naropa University Campus at 63rd St.
during the evening rush hour takes . . .
• 9 minutes driving or 18 minutes on transit
in 2015
• 12 minutes driving or 20 minutes on bus in
2040 in the No-Build scenario
• 12 minutes driving or 18 minutes on
Enhanced Bus in 2040
• 12 minutes driving or 14 minutes on Bus
Rapid Transit in 2040
36 75th St30th St55th StArapahoe Ave
Westview DrCherryvale Rd61st St33rd St48th St28th StFoothills PkwyS. Boulder Rd
East Arapahoe Corridor
University of Colo
r
adoNaropa Universi
t
yA trip along Arapahoe from the Flatiron
Business Park on 55th St. to the Twenty-Ninth
Street Retail Area around lunch time takes .
. .
• 6 minutes driving or 18 minutes on transit
in 2015
• 6 minutes driving or 18 minutes on bus in
2040 in the No-Build scenario
• 6 minutes driving or 17 minutes on
Enhanced Bus in 2040
• 7 minutes driving or 16 minutes on Bus
Rapid Transit in 2040
36 75th St30th St55th StArapahoe Ave
Westview DrCherryvale Rd61st St33rd St48th St28th StFoothills PkwyS. Boulder Rd
East Arapahoe Corridor
Flatiron B usiness Park29th Street
Transit time less than or
equal to drive time
Transit time 2 to 3x greater
than drive time
Transit time 1.1 to 1.5x
greater than drive time
Transit time 1.6 to 2x
greater than drive time
From
US 287
A trip along Arapahoe from US 287 to
Boulder Community Health at 48th St. during
the morning rush hour takes . . .
• 14 minutes driving or 22 minutes on transit
in 2015
• 17 minutes driving or 25 minutes on bus in
2040 in the No-Build scenario
• 17 minutes driving or 23 minutes on
Enhanced Bus in 2040
• 17 minutes driving or 19 minutes on Bus
Rapid Transit in 2040
36 75th St30th St55th StArapahoe Ave
Westview DrCherryvale Rd61st St33rd St48th St28th StFoothills PkwyS. Boulder Rd
East Arapahoe Corridor
Boulder Com munity
Health
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 35
Origin Destination Scenario*Time Period**Driving (Min)Transit (Min) ***Transit to Drive Time Ratio
CU (Folsom &
Arapahoe)
Naropa University
Nalanda Campus
(63rd and
Arapahoe)
Existing, 2015
PM Peak
9 18 2.1
Alt 1 - No Build, 2040 12 20 1.7
Alt 2 - Enhanced Bus, 2040 12 18 1.5
Alt 3 - Side Running BRT, 2040 (20% Traffic Growth)12 14 1.2
Alt 4 - Center Running BRT, 2040 (20% Traffic Growth)17 13 1.1
US 287 &
Arapahoe
Boulder
Community
Health (48th and
Arapahoe)
Existing, 2015
AM Peak
14 22 1.5
Alt 1 - No Build, 2040 17 25 1.5
Alt 2 - Enhanced Bus, 2040 17 23 1.3
Alt 3 - Side Running BRT, 2040 (20% Traffic Growth)17 19 1.1
Alt 4 - Center Running BRT, 2040 (20% Traffic Growth)17 17 1.0
Flatiron Business
Park (55th &
Central)
Twenty Ninth
Street Retail Area
Existing, 2015
Midday
6 18 3.0
Alt 1 - No Build, 2040 6 18 2.9
Alt 2 - Enhanced Bus, 2040 6 17 2.7
Alt 3 - Side Running BRT, 2040 (20% Traffic Growth)7 16 2.3
Alt 4 - Center Running BRT, 2040 (20% Traffic Growth)7 15 2.3
COMPARISON OF TRANSIT AND AUTO TRAVEL TIMES
TRANSIT OPERATIONS: SAMPLE TRAVEL TIMES
* 0% Traffic Growth is the historic trend, 20% Traffic Growth is the regional model projection
** Approximate departure times are:
AM peak - 8 am, Midday - noon, PM peak - 5 pm
*** Transit travel times assume an average wait time of 1/4 of headway, and a walk time of 8 minutes from Flatiron Business
Park to Arapahoe Ave
36 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
TRANSIT OPERATIONS: TRANSIT SERVICE QUALITY
Key Findings
• Existing transit service along the East
Arapahoe corridor is very frequent (every 10
minutes during the day) and all segments in
all alternatives score “C” or better.
• The No-Build score is slightly lower in some
cases, e.g., due to higher traffic volumes.
Key Assumptions
• A transit Level of Service (LOS) measure
(analogous to auto LOS letter grade
scores) was calculated to assess overall
service quality in the corridor, based on
a methodology adapted from the Transit
Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd
Edition (TCRP Report 165).
• Inputs address various factors related to
transit service quality such as frequency, level
of amenities, and quality of the pedestrian
environment:
-Transit frequency by alternative, including
local bus, Enhanced Bus, and/or BRT trips.
-Factors that affect perceived travel time,
including:
»Presence of existing shelters and benches,
and new shelters/benches at Enhanced
Bus and BRT stations
»Transit travel speed by street segment.
»Excess waiting time, based on RTD data
for scheduled and actual bus departure
times and transit priority assumptions for
each alternative
-Pedestrian environment factors including
peak-direction, mid-block vehicle volume
in the outside lane for each alternative
and vehicular travel speeds. In Alt 3, the
curbside BAT lane carries only buses and
right-turning vehicles.
Scenario Frequency Perceived
Travel Time
Transit
Travel
Speed
Excess
Wait Time
% of
Stops with
Benches
% of
Stops with
Shelters
Cross-
Section
Adjustment
Traffic
Volume
(outside
lane)
Average
Traffic
Speed
Pedestrian
Environment
Score
Existing,
2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alt 1:
No-Build 0 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 -1 2 -1
Alt 2:
Enhanced
Bus
2 1 1 -1 0 0 2 -1 2 1
Alt 3: Side-
Running BRT 2 2 1 3 0 0 2 2 2 2
Alt 4:
Center-
Running BRT
2 3 3 2 0 0 2 -2 3 1
TRANSIT LEVEL OF SERVICE SCORING MATRIX FOR 29TH AND ARAPAHOE, 2040
• Enhanced Bus increases quality of service
and facilities to a “B” or better. Both BRT
alternatives score “A” along the full corridor.
• The map on the following page provides
scores at the locations of proposed BRT
stations along the corridor. The matrix
below illustrates the component scores for a
particular point along the corridor.
321-1-2-3 0
SCORE
Worse Better
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 37
TRANSIT OPERATIONS: SERVICE QUALITY
A B C ED
Iris Ave
55th St30th StRegent DrP e a r l S t
Valmont Rd
28th StFolsom StWalnut St
Baseline Rd63rd StBaseline Rd
Colorado Ave 47th StP e a rl P kwy
V a l m o n t R d
P in e S t
Cherryvale RdMoorhead Av
e 75th St61st St33rd StWestview Dr36
Arapahoe Ave
Valmont
Reservoir
Leggett Owen
Reservoir
Hillcrest
Lake
Sombrero
Marsh
Baseline
Reservoir
Hayden
Lake
University of
Colorado
Flatirons
Golf CourseFoot
hi
l
l
s
Pk
w
y
0 0.5 1
Miles
TRANSIT LEVEL OF SERVICE, 2040
29th 38th 48th 55th Cherryvale 63rd/65th
Potential Station Location
Existing, 2015
Alt 1 No Build, 2040
Alt 2 Enhanced Bus, 2040
Alt 3 Side-Running BRT, 2040
Alt 4 Center-Running BRT, 2040
E C
1 C
2 B
3 A
4 A
E B
1 C
2 B
3 A
4 A
E B
1 B
2 B
3 A
4 A
E B
1 B
2 B
3 A
4 A
E B
1 B
2 A
3 A
4 A
E B
1 C
2 A
3 A
4 A
38 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORTAnnual Operating Cost (millions)No-Build Enhanced Bus Side-Running
BRT
Center-Running
BRT
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
BRT Line within BoulderBRT Line Outside
of Boulder & Local Bus
Alt 4Alt3Alt 2Alt 1Existing
$3.2 M
$4.9 M
$17.9 M
$14.8 M
$14.2 M
(2015)
TRANSIT OPERATIONS: OPERATING COSTS
Key Findings
• Approximately $5 million of the annual cost of
operating Enhanced Bus or BRT is associated with the
Boulder portion of the line (based on service hours).
• Enhanced Bus (Alt 2) is likely to be the most expensive
to operate (nearly $18 million annually end-to-end);
longer travel times require more vehicles and operators.
• End-to-end operating costs are slightly higher for Side-
Running BRT (Alt 3) (nearly $15 million) compared to
Center-Running BRT (Alt 4) (over $14 million).
• Local bus service hours and costs are likely to increase
slightly in Alt 4 due to longer travel times in the mixed-
traffic lanes.
Key Assumptions
• Operating costs are end-to-end (Boulder to Brighton),
based on the operating plan assumptions (hours
and frequency) and conceptual station locations.
Approximately a third of Enhanced Bus or BRT service
hours are in Boulder.
• Hourly costs for Enhanced Bus and BRT are based on the
2016 RTD Regional BRT cost of $135, adjusted to $151
per service hour including security and fare enforcement
costs. A station maintenance cost is also assumed.
• Hourly costs for local buses are based on the 2016 RTD
marginal local operating cost of $101, adjusted to $104
per service hour.
• Operating costs are adjusted to 2017 dollars.
• Layover assumed to be 15% of base travel time.
ANNUAL TRANSIT OPERATING & MAINTENANCE COSTS, BOULDER-BRIGHTON, 2040
(IN 2017 DOLLARS)
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 39
TRANSIT LIFECYCLE COSTS (WITHIN BOULDER) PER TRANSIT RIDER, 2040
(ANNUAL OPERATING & ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COST, 2017 DOLLARS)
COST-EFFECTIVENESS: LIFECYCLE TRANSIT
OPERATING & CAPITAL COSTS WITHIN BOULDER
Key Findings
• Alt 2 has the highest transit lifecycle cost
compared to side-running and center-running
BRT (Alts 3 and 4) due to higher operating
costs (see transit travel time measure), a
larger number of vehicles required, and lower
projected ridership.
Key Assumptions
• Transit capital costs are only for Enhanced
Bus or BRT in the City of Boulder portion
of the Arapahoe Corridor (Districts A-E).
This calculation includes only costs that are
directly transit-related. For this measure, costs
are spread over a 30-year period, except for
vehicles (12 years).
• Annual transit operating and maintenance
costs and vehicle capital costs are for a share
of the end-end Enhanced Bus or BRT service
in Alts 2, 3, and 4 (estimated based on the
proportion of service hours in Boulder).
• Ridership is end-end for a transit project
operating between Boulder TC and Brighton.Lifecycle Cost per Rider(Dollars)No-Build Enhanced Bus Side-Running
BRT
Center-Running
BRT
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
Alt4Alt3Alt 2Alt 1Existing
N/A N/A
$3.80
$2.30 $2.40
Alternative
Annual Operating and
Annualized Capital Cost
for Enhanced Bus or BRT
Annual Transit
Riders
Annual Lifecycle
Cost Per Transit
Rider
Existing (2015)N/A 720,000 N/A
Alt 1: No-Build N/A 1,020,000 N/A
Alt 2: Enhanced Bus $6.0 M 1,575,000 $3.80
Alt 3: Side-Running BRT $5.8 M 2,550,000 $2.30
Alt 4: Center-Running BRT $6.2 M 2,550,000 $2.40
Appendices B and G provide additional
detail on the cost-effectiveness measure.
40 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE COMFORT AND ACCESS
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The four proposed active transportation
options were analyzed using a Streetscore+
methodology*, which reflects the following
factors.
For people walking:
• Sidewalk width, quality and accessibility
• Landscape buffer and street streets
• Number of roadway lanes
• Roadway prevailing speed
• Lighting
• Heavy vehicles
For people biking:
• Bikeway type (bike lane, protected bike
lane, shared-use path, etc.)
• Bikeway width
• Vertical separation from roadway lanes
• Horizontal separation from roadway lanes
• Visibility at minor streets
• Roadway prevailing speed
• Conflicting turn treatments
• Bikeway blockage (by vehicles)
*StreetScore+ methodology is similar to Level of Traffic
Stress (LTS) but incorporates new methodologies to
quantify level of stress on separated bikeways, bikeways
on neighborhood streets, and pedestrian facilities.
EXPLANATION OF PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SCORES (1 TO 4) AND EXISTING EXAMPLES IN BOULDER
Jean Sanson May 1, 2017 Page 2 of 12 which is the same tool previously used to analyze existing conditions. This tool accounts for the following primary factors: For people biking: •Bikeway type (bike lane, protected bike lane, shared-use path, etc.) •Bikeway width •Vertical separation from roadway lanes •Horizontal separation from roadway lanes •Visibility at minor streets •Roadway prevailing speed
•Conflicting turn treatments
•Bikeway blockage (by vehicles)
For people walking: •Sidewalk width, quality and accessibility •Landscape buffer and street streets •Number of roadway lanes •Roadway prevailing speed •Lighting •Heavy vehicles
Streetscore provides a score of 1 to 4 that indicates the level of comfort provided to people walking
or people biking as shown below.
Some examples of bikeways that provide each level of Streetscore:
•Streetscore 1 – Boulder Creek bike path
•Streetscore 2 – Folsom Street from Arapahoe Avenue to Pearl Street
•Streetscore 3 – 55th Street from Arapahoe Avenue to Valmont Road, Valmont Road from
Folsom Street to Foothills Parkway
•Streetscore 4 – existing portions of East Arapahoe Avenue where bike lanes are provided
(55th Street to Westview Drive)
Boulder Creek Path 19th Street
(Iris-Balsam)
9th Street
(Balsam-Canyon)
55th Street
(Arapahoe-Valmont)
Valmont Road
(Folsom-Foothills)
Existing bike lanes on
Arapahoe (55th-Westview)
Attachment C provides additional detail
on pedestrian and bicycle measures.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 41
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE COMFORT AND ACCESS:
OPTIONS ANALYZED BY CHARACTER DISTRICT
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE OPTIONS EVALUATED BY CHARACTER DISTRICT
DISTRICT A DISTRICT C DISTRICT D DISTRICT E
Option 1a : Curbside Raised Protected Bicycle
Lane with Amenity Zone and Multiuse Path
Option 1a : Curbside Raised Protected Bicycle
Lane with Amenity Zone and Multiuse Path
Option 4: Street-level Buffered Bicycle
Lane with Curbside Amenity Zone
and Sidewalk (south side) or Existing
Multiuse Path (north side)
Note: A variation of Option 1a was initially
developed for District E. Based on Community
Working Group input, the project team focused
on developing an option that better fit the
character of District E. This resulted in Option 4,
which was evaluated as part of both groups.
Option 2: Curbside Amenity Zone with
Raised Protected Bicycle Lane Separated from
Sidewalk
Option 3: Street-level Protected bicycle Lane
with Amenity Zone and Multiuse Path
The table below shows the Build options that were
evaluated within each Character District.
The maps on the following pages illustrate the
analysis results for pedestrian facilities, on-street
bicycle facilities, and off-street bicycle facilities.
42 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE COMFORT AND ACCESS
Key Findings - Pedestrian
• The Build options equally increase pedestrian
comfort in the corridor.
• There is less improvement in Character District
E due to high vehicular speeds.
• The maps on page 43 illustrate the
pedestrian analysis results.
Option Score
Existing (2015)0
No-Build 1
Build Options 3
Option Score
Existing (2015)0
No-Build 1
Build Options -
with Minimal Enhancements at Intersections 2
Build Options -
with Substantial Enhancements at Intersections 3
PEDESTRIAN RESULTS, 2040 BICYCLE RESULTS, 2040
Key Findings - Bicycle
• The Build options provide on-street protected
bike facilities in Districts A through D. In
District E buffered bike lanes are proposed.
• The maps on page 44 illustrate anaysis results
for on-street bicycle facilities.
• Off-street bicyle facilities (i.e., multi-use
paths shared by people walking and biking)
are more comfortable for some users. A
tradeoff with shared facilities is the potential
for increased conflicts betweeen bicyclists
and pedestrians, and between autos and
bicycles crossing driveways in the opposite
direction as traffic.
• Off-street bicycle facilities are proposed in
all options/districts except as noted below:
-Option 2, considered in District A, includes
a sidewalk instead of a multi-use path.
-Option 4 includes a sidewalk instead
of a multi-use path on the south side of
Character District E (east of Westview Dr.).
• The maps on page 45 illustrate the analysis
results for off-street bicycle facilities.
• Enhancements at intersections are critical to
achieiving a high level of user comfort. Two
scenarios were considered and can apply to
any of the Build options.
-Minimal enhancements, i.e., no significant
changes to intersection geometry or signals
(e.g., protected right or left turns) would not
significantly increase delay for vehicles, but
generally result in lower levels of bicyclist
comfort.
-Substantial enhancements would include
whatever intersection geometry or signal
operations improvements are necessary to
achieve a high level of bicyclist comfort,
but these changes may result in increased
intersection delay for vehicles.*
University of
Colorado28Th St38Th
St
48Th StCommerce StConestoga StValmont Rd
Independence Rd
Baseline Rd
Valmont Rd
Moorhead
Ave
Baseline Rd
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
kw
y
Arapahoe Ave
Pine St
Pearl St 47Th StFolsom StRegent Dr 61St StWalnut St
30Th St33Rd St63Rd StCherryvale Rd55Th StPearl
Pk
w
y
Colorado Ave
WestviewDr75Th StValmont
Reservoir
Leggett Owen
Reservoir
Hillcrest
Lake
Sombrero
Marsh
Baseline
Reservoir
HaydenLake
Flatirons
Golf
Course
East Arapahoe Corridor
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Pedestrian StreetscoreExisting Conditions
Existing Conditions Pedestrian Streetscore
Not Included2
3
1
4
No Facility Provided
University of
Colorado28Th St38Th St
48Th StCommerce StConestoga StValmont Rd
Independence Rd
Baseline Rd
Valmont Rd
Moorhead
Ave
Baseline Rd
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
kw
y
Arapahoe Ave
Pine St
Pearl St 47Th StFolsom StRegent Dr 61St StWalnut St
30Th St33Rd St63Rd StCherryvale Rd55Th StPearl
Pk
w
y
Colorado Ave
WestviewDr75Th StValmont
Reservoir
Leggett Owen
Reservoir
Hillcrest
Lake
Sombrero
Marsh
Baseline
Reservoir
Hayden
Lake
Flatirons
Golf
Course
East Arapahoe Corridor
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Pedestrian Streetscore
With Build
With Build Pedestrian Streetscore
Not Included
2
3
1
4
No Facility Provided
321-1-2-3 0
SCORE
Worse Better
Note: *Individual intersection improvements and their
benefits/impacts are not analyzed as part of this plan. It
is assumed that they will be considered on a case-by-case
basis going forward.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 43
University of
Colorado28Th St38Th
St
48Th StCommerce StConestoga StValmont Rd
Independence Rd
Baseline Rd
Valmont Rd
Moorhead
Ave
Baseline Rd
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
kw
y
Arapahoe Ave
Pine St
Pearl St 47Th StFolsom StRegent Dr 61St StWalnut St
30Th St33Rd St63Rd StCherryvale Rd55Th StPearl
Pk
w
y
Colorado Ave
WestviewDr75Th StValmont
Reservoir
Leggett Owen
Reservoir
Hillcrest
Lake
Sombrero
Marsh
Baseline
Reservoir
HaydenLake
Flatirons
Golf
Course
East Arapahoe Corridor
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Pedestrian StreetscoreExisting Conditions
Existing Conditions Pedestrian Streetscore
Not Included2
3
1
4
No Facility Provided
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE, EXISTING
PEDESTRIAN COMFORT AND ACCESS
University of
Colorado28Th St38Th St
48Th StCommerce StConestoga StValmont Rd
Independence Rd
Baseline Rd
Valmont Rd
Moorhead
Ave
Baseline Rd
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
kw
y
Arapahoe Ave
Pine St
Pearl St 47Th StFolsom StRegent Dr 61St StWalnut St
30Th St33Rd St63Rd StCherryvale Rd55Th StPearl
Pk
w
y
Colorado Ave
WestviewDr75Th StValmont
Reservoir
Leggett Owen
Reservoir
Hillcrest
Lake
Sombrero
Marsh
Baseline
Reservoir
Hayden
Lake
Flatirons
Golf
Course
East Arapahoe Corridor
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Pedestrian Streetscore
With Build
With Build Pedestrian Streetscore
Not Included
2
3
1
4
No Facility Provided
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE, BUILD ALTERNATIVES (2, 3, AND 4)
University of
Colorado28Th St38Th
St
48Th StCommerce StConestoga StValmont Rd
Independence Rd
Baseline Rd
Valmont Rd
Moorhead
Ave
Baseline Rd
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
kw
y
Arapahoe Ave
Pine St
Pearl St 47Th StFolsom StRegent Dr 61St StWalnut St
30Th St33Rd St63Rd StCherryvale Rd55Th StPearl P
k
w
y
Colorado Ave
WestviewDr75Th StValmont
Reservoir
Leggett Owen
Reservoir
Hillcrest
Lake
Sombrero
Marsh
Baseline
Reservoir
Hayden
Lake
Flatirons
Golf
Course
East Arapahoe Corridor
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Pedestrian Streetscore
Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions Pedestrian Streetscore
Not Included
2
3
1
4
No Facility Provided
University of
Colorado28Th St38Th St48Th StCommerce StConestoga StValmont Rd
Independence Rd
Baseline Rd
Valmont Rd
Moorhead
Ave
Baseline Rd
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
kw
y
Arapahoe Ave
Pine St
Pearl St 47Th StFolsom StRegent Dr 61St StWalnut St
30Th St33Rd St63Rd StCherryvale Rd55Th StPearl
P
k
w
y
Colorado Ave
WestviewDr75Th StValmont
Reservoir
Leggett Owen
Reservoir
Hillcrest
Lake
Sombrero
Marsh
Baseline
Reservoir
Hayden
Lake
Flatirons
Golf
Course
East Arapahoe Corridor
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Pedestrian Streetscore
With Build
With Build Pedestrian Streetscore
Not Included
2
3
1
4
No Facility Provided
4-Worse
3
2
1-Better
No Facility Provided
4-Worse
3
2
1-Better
No Facility Provided
Not included in analysis
44 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
University of
Colorado28Th St38Th St
48Th StCommerce StConestoga StRegent Dr
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
kw
y
Arapahoe Ave
Pine St
Pearl St
Folsom St61St StWalnut St
30Th St33Rd St63Rd StCherryvale Rd55Th StPearl
P
k
w
y
Colorado Ave
WestviewDr75Th StValmont
Reservoir
Leggett Owen
Reservoir
Hillcrest
Lake
Sombrero
Marsh
Flatirons
Golf
Course
0 0.5 1Mile
East Arapahoe Corridor
University of
Colorado28Th St38Th St
48Th StCommerce StConestoga StF
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
kw
y
Arapahoe Ave
Pine St
Pearl St
Folsom St61St StWalnut St
30Th St33Rd St63Rd StCherryvale Rd55Th StPearl
P
k
w
y
Colorado Ave
WestviewDr75Th StValmont
Reservoir
Leggett Owen
Reservoir
Hillcrest
Lake
Sombrero
Marsh
Flatirons
Golf
Course
East Arapahoe Corridor
0 0.5 10.25 Mile
0 0.5 10.25 Mile
Bicycle Streetscore
Existing Conditions - On-Street Facility
Existing Conditions Bikeways Streetscore
Bicycle Streetscore
Existing Conditions - Off-Street Facility
Not Included
2
3
1 4
No Facility Provided
Not Included
2
3
1 4
No Facility Provided
University of
Colorado28Th St38Th St48Th StCommerce StConestoga StRegent Dr
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
kw
y
Arapahoe Ave
Pine St
Pearl St
Folsom St61St StWalnut St
30Th St33Rd St63Rd StCherryvale Rd55Th StPearl
P
k
w
y
Colorado Ave
WestviewDr75Th StValmont
Reservoir
Leggett Owen
Reservoir
Hillcrest
Lake
Sombrero
Marsh
Flatirons
Golf
Course
0 0.5 1Mile
East Arapahoe Corridor
University of
Colorado28Th St38Th St48Th StCommerce StConestoga StF
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
kw
y
Arapahoe Ave
Pine St
Pearl St
Folsom St61St StWalnut St
30Th St33Rd St63Rd StCherryvale Rd55Th StPearl
P
k
w
y
Colorado Ave
WestviewDr75Th StValmont
Reservoir
Leggett Owen
Reservoir
Hillcrest
Lake
Sombrero
Marsh
Flatirons
Golf
Course
East Arapahoe Corridor
0 0.5 10.25 Mile
0 0.5 10.25 Mile
Bicycle Streetscore
With Build - On-Street Facility
Bicycle Streetscore
With Build - Off-Street Facility
With Build Bikeways Streetscore
Not Included
2
3
1 4
No Facility Provided
Not Included
2
3
1 4
No Facility Provided
BICYCLE COMFORT AND ACCESS: ON-STREET
BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS, ON-STREET, EXISTING
BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS, ON-STREET, BUILD ALTERNATIVES (2, 3, AND 4)
4-Worse321-Better
No Facility Provided
4-Worse321-Better
No Facility Provided
Not Included in Analysis
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 45
University of
Colorado28Th St38Th St48Th StCommerce StConestoga StRegent Dr
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
kw
y
Arapahoe Ave
Pine St
Pearl St
Folsom St61St StWalnut St
30Th St33Rd St63Rd StCherryvale Rd55Th StPearl
Pk
w
y
Colorado Ave
WestviewDr75Th StValmont
Reservoir
Leggett Owen
Reservoir
Hillcrest
Lake
Sombrero
Marsh
Flatirons
Golf
Course
0 0.5 1Mile
East Arapahoe Corridor
University of
Colorado28Th St38Th St48Th StCommerce StConestoga StF
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
kw
y
Arapahoe Ave
Pine St
Pearl St
Folsom St61St StWalnut St
30Th St33Rd St63Rd StCherryvale Rd55Th StPearl Pk
w
y
Colorado Ave
WestviewDr75Th StValmont
Reservoir
Leggett Owen
Reservoir
Hillcrest
Lake
Sombrero
Marsh
Flatirons
Golf
Course
East Arapahoe Corridor
0 0.5 10.25 Mile
0 0.5 10.25 Mile
Bicycle Streetscore
With Build - On-Street Facility
Bicycle Streetscore
With Build - Off-Street Facility
With Build Bikeways Streetscore
Not Included
2
3
1 4
No Facility Provided
Not Included
2
3
1 4
No Facility Provided
University of
Colorado28Th St38Th St 48Th StCommerce StConestoga StRegent Dr
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
kw
y
Arapahoe AvePine St Pearl StFolsom St61St StWalnut St30Th St33Rd St63Rd StCherryvale Rd55Th StPearl Pkwy
Colorado Ave
WestviewDr75Th StValmontReservoirLeggett OwenReservoir HillcrestLake
Sombrero
Marsh
Flatirons
Golf
Course
0 0.5 1Mile
East Arapahoe Corridor
University of
Colorado28Th St38Th St
48Th StCommerce StConestoga StF
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
kw
y
Arapahoe Ave
Pine St
Pearl St
Folsom St61St StWalnut St
30Th St33Rd St63Rd StCherryvale Rd55Th StPearl
P
k
w
y
Colorado Ave
WestviewDr75Th StValmont
Reservoir
Leggett Owen
Reservoir
Hillcrest
Lake
Sombrero
Marsh
Flatirons
Golf
Course
East Arapahoe Corridor
0 0.5 10.25 Mile
0 0.5 10.25 Mile
Bicycle StreetscoreExisting Conditions - On-Street Facility
Existing Conditions Bikeways Streetscore
Bicycle Streetscore
Existing Conditions - Off-Street Facility
Not Included
2
3
1 4
No Facility Provided
Not Included2 314No Facility Provided
BICYCLE COMFORT AND ACCESS: OFF-STREET
BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS, OFF-STREET, EXISTING
BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS, OFF-STREET, BUILD ALTERNATIVES (2, 3 AND 4)
4-Worse321-Better
No Facility Provided
4-Worse321-Better
No Facility Provided
Not Included in Analysis
46 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
TRAVEL MODE SHARE: PEOPLE ON TRANSIT,
IN VEHICLES, ON BICYCLES, AND WALKING
Key Findings
• Each of the Build alternatives would reduce
auto mode share and increase transit,
pedestrian, and bicycle mode share, moving
the city closer to its TMP goal of reducing
single occupant vehicle travel to 20% of all
trips for residents and to 60% of work trips
for non-residents. For example, of trips on
Arapahoe at 30th Street, 92% of all trips are
made in autos today. In 2040, with the BRT
Alternatives, the auto mode share is reduced
to 82%, the share of trips made by people
walking or biking increases from a current
mode share of 3% to 6% and transit trips
increase from 5% to between 10-12% of all
trips.
• BRT (Alts. 3 & 4) would increase transit
mode share the most, while there would be
a more moderate increase in transit use with
enhanced bus (Alt 2).
• All of the pedestrian and bicycle Build
options would approximately double trips by
biking and walking compared to the No-Build
condition, which assumes a completed multi-
use path.
ARAPAHOE AND 30TH
Vehicle
Transit
Ped
Bike
30th Ave
Existing
91%
Vehicle
Transit
Ped
Bike
30th Ave
Alt 1 No Build
91%
Vehicle
Transit
Ped
Bike
30th Ave
Alt 2 Enhanced Bus
88%
Vehicle
Transit
Ped
Bike
30th Ave
Alt 3&4 BRT (average)
82%
EXISTING MODE SHARE, 2015 ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO-BUILD) MODE SHARE, 2040
ALTERNATIVE 2 (ENH. BUS) MODE SHARE, 2040 ALTERNATIVE 3 & 4 (BRT) MODE SHARE, 2040*
*Transit mode share is average of low and high-end BRT
ridership and 0% and 20% traffic growth scenarios.
TRAVEL MODE SHARE
Attachment D provides additional detail
on the travel mode share measure.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 47
TRAVEL MODE SHARE: PEOPLE ON TRANSIT,
IN VEHICLES, ON BICYCLES, AND WALKING
ARAPAHOE AND 55TH
Vehicle
Transit
Ped
Bike
55th Ave
Existing
95%
Vehicle
Transit
Ped
Bike
55th Ave
Alt 1 No Build
95%
Vehicle
Transit
Ped
Bike
55th Ave
Alt 2 Enhanced Bus
91%
Vehicle
Transit
Ped
Bike
55th Ave
Alt 3&4 BRT (average)
86%
EXISTING MODE SHARE, 2015 ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO-BUILD) MODE SHARE, 2040
ALTERNATIVE 2 (ENH. BUS) MODE SHARE, 2040 ALTERNATIVE 3 & 4 (BRT) MODE SHARE, 2040*
*Transit mode share is average of low and high-end BRT
ridership and 0% and 20% traffic growth scenarios.
Key Assumptions
• All-day trips by people on transit, in
vehicles, on bicycles, and walking were
estimated at several “screenlines” along
Arapahoe, including 30th and 55th Streets.
• An auto occupancy factor of 1.15 was used
to convert from vehicles to persons traveling
in automobiles (person trips).
• Transit travel patterns (boardings and
alighting) were estimated based on existing
RTD ridership data for the JUMP. Trips on
BRT are projected to be within +/- 10% for
either Side-Running or Center-Running BRT.
• Bicycle and pedestrian trips were projected
based on count data along Arapahoe and
other locations in Boulder with similar types
of facilities.
48 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
TRAVEL MODE SHARE: CHANGE IN TRIPS BY PEOPLE IN
VEHICLES, ON TRANSIT, WALKING AND BIKING
CHANGE IN TRANSIT TRIPS BY ALTERNATIVE, 2040
Transit TripsChange from ExistingNo-Build Enhanced Bus BRT
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Change
Alt 3&4Alt 2Alt 1
30th
+ 200
(13%)
+ 1,200
(75%)
+ 2,600 - 3,100
(163% - 194%)
ARAPAHOE AND 30TH
CHANGE IN BICYCLE TRIPS BY ALTERNATIVE, 2040
Bicycle TripsChange from ExistingNo-Build Enhanced Bus BRT
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Alt 3&4Alt 2Alt 1
30th
+ 370
(59%)
+ 980
(156%)
+ 980
(156%)
CHANGE IN AUTO TRIPS BY ALTERNATIVE, 2040
Pedestrian TripsChange from ExistingNo-Build Enhanced Bus BRT
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Alt 3&4Alt 2Alt 1
30th
+ 190
(21%)
+ 190
(21%)
+ 190
(21%) Auto TripsChange from ExistingNo-Build Enhanced Bus BRT
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Alt 3&4Alt 2Alt 1
30th
+ 6,600
(20%)
+ 6,600
(20%)
+ 0 - 1,600
(0% -5%)
CHANGE IN PEDESTRIAN TRIPS BY ALTERNATIVE, 2040Weekday DailyTripsWeekday DailyTripsWeekday DailyTripsWeekday DailyTrips
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 49
TRAVEL MODE SHARE: CHANGE IN TRIPS BY PEOPLE IN
VEHICLES, ON TRANSIT, WALKING AND BIKING
CHANGE IN TRANSIT TRIPS BY ALTERNATIVE, 2040
Transit TripsChange from ExistingNo-Build Enhanced Bus BRT
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
HighChange
Alt 3&4Alt 2Alt 1
55th
-200
(-15%)
+ 1,000
(77%)
+ 2,100 - 2,400
(162% - 185%)
ARAPAHOE AND 55TH
CHANGE IN BICYCLE TRIPS BY ALTERNATIVE, 2040
Bicycle TripsChange from ExistingNo-Build Enhanced Bus BRT
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Alt 3&4Alt 2Alt 1
55th
+ 680
(1,360%)
+ 1,130
(2,260%)
+ 1,130
(2,260%)
CHANGE IN AUTO TRIPS BY ALTERNATIVE, 2040
Pedestrian TripsChange from ExistingNo-Build Enhanced Bus BRT
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Alt 3&4Alt 2Alt 1
55th
+ 50
(23%)
+ 210
(95%)
+ 210
(95%) Auto TripsChange from ExistingNo-Build Enhanced Bus BRT
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Alt 3&4Alt 2Alt 1
55th
+ 10,200
(34%)
+ 10,200
(34%)
+ 0 - 6,300
(0% - 21%)
CHANGE IN PEDESTRIAN TRIPS BY ALTERNATIVE, 2040Weekday DailyTripsWeekday DailyTripsWeekday DailyTripsWeekday DailyTrips
50 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
TRAVEL MODE SHARE: CHANGE IN TRIPS BY PEOPLE IN
VEHICLES, ON TRANSIT, WALKING AND BIKING
PEOPLE ON TRANSIT
Alternative 30th 55th
Existing (2015) 1,600 1,300
Alt 1: No-Build
with 20% Traffic Growth 1,800 1,100
Alt 2: Enhanced Bus
with 20% Traffic Growth 2,800 2,300
Alt 3 & 4 Side or
Center-Running BRT
0%-20% Traffic Growth
4,200 -
4,700
3,400 -
3,700
PEOPLE IN VEHICLES
Alternative 30th 55th
Existing (2015) 32,500 30,100
Alt 1: No-Build
with 20% Traffic Growth 39,100 40,300
Alt 2: Enhanced Bus
with 20% Traffic Growth 39,100 40,300
Alt 3 & 4 Side or
Center-Running BRT
0%-20% Traffic Growth
32,500 -
34,100
30,100 -
36,400
PEOPLE ON BICYCLES
Alternative 30th 55th
Existing (2015)630 50
Alt 1: No-Build
with 20% Traffic Growth 1,000 730
Alt 2: Enhanced Bus
Alt 3 Side-Running BRT
Alt 4 Center-Running BRT
1,610 1,180
PEOPLE WALKING
Alternative 30th 55th
Existing (2015)900 220
Alt 1: No-Build 1,090 270
Alt 2: Enhanced Bus
Alt 3 Side-Running BRT
Alt 4 Center-Running BRT
1,090 430
WEEKDAY DAILY TRIPS BY MODE AND SCREENLINE, 2040
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 51
SAFETY
Key Findings
• The City of Boulder works to provide a safe
transportation system for people using all
modes of travel. “Toward Vision Zero” is the
city’s effort to eliminate fatalities and serious
injuries from future traffic collisions.
• Arapahoe Avenue is one of the higher speed
(posted speed limits between 35 and 45 mph)
and higher volume roadways within the city.
• An analysis of crash data from 2012-2014
showed that crashes affect all modes of
travel along Arapahoe Avenue. Several
intersections (28th St., 30th St., and Foothills
Pkwy.) have particularly high crash rates. The
data indicates a need to minimize conflict
points, including intersections and driveways,
and identify and mitigate safety issues for
people walking, biking, and driving.
• In general, the vehicular, bicycle, and
pedestrian infrastructure changes required
to implement the build alternatives would be
expected to provide safety benefit or have a
neutral impact to safety (see table at right).
• Dedicated bicycle facilities are expected
to improve safety compared to no facilities
or multi-use paths (see table on following
page). The design of bicycle facility crossings
at intersections and driveways will be an
important aspect of the final design to
ensure positive safety impacts. Examples of
treatments are provided on page 53.
Key Assumptions
• Left-turns would not be prohibited in the
center-running BRT alternative. Vehicles
would be allowed to cross over the center bus
lane in advance of an intersection to enter the
left-turn lane.
Alternative Safety Considerations*
Alt 1: No-Build
Alt 2: Enhanced Bus
with Existing Number of
GP Lanes
-Increased traffic congestion likely to result in more rear-end crashes
+Increased traffic congestion may also reduce travel speeds which could
improve safety overall.
Alt 3: Side-Running BRT
with Curbside Lanes
Repurposed as BAT Lanes
Alt 4: Center-Running
BRT with Center Lanes
Repurposed as Dedicated
Transit Lanes
+Bus priority measures: use of queue jumps and transit signal priority shown
to have positive safety impacts.
+BAT lanes and center-lane busways remove transit vehicles from mixed
traffic.
-
BAT lanes and center-lane busways change the interaction between buses
and left-turning vehicles (BAT lanes) or left-turning vehicles (center-lane
busway).
-Lane repurposing may increase congestion which could result in more rear-
end crashes
+Lane repurposing may also reduce travel speeds which could improve
safety overall.
* Safety Considerations Rating Key:
+ = likely positive impact - = potential concerns
AUTO AND TRANSIT SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS
Attachment E provides additional
detail on the safety evaluation.
52 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
SAFETY
OPTION #1: CURBSIDE RAISED PROTECTED
BICYCLE LANE WITH AMENITY ZONE AND
MULTI-USE PATH
KEY CONSIDERATIONS*
OPTION #2: CURBSIDE AMENITY ZONE
WITH RAISED PROTECTED BICYCLE LANE
SEPARATED FROM SIDEWALK
KEY CONSIDERATIONS*
+ On-street bicycle
facility: dedicated bicycle
facility expected to
improve safety compared
to no facilities or multi-
use path.
- Potential bike/
ped conflicts: multi-use
path shared by people
walking and biking.
+ On-street bicycle
facility: dedicated bicycle
facility expected to
improve safety compared
to no facilities or multi-use
path.
+ Sidewalk provides
separate facility for people
walking.
OPTION #3: STREET-LEVEL PROTECTED
BICYCLE LANE WITH AMENITY ZONE AND
MULTI-USE PATH
KEY CONSIDERATIONS*
OPTION #4: STREET-LEVEL BUFFERED
BICYCLE LANE WITH AMENITY ZONE AND
SIDEWALK OR MULTI-USE PATH
KEY CONSIDERATIONS*
+ On-street bicycle
facility: dedicated bicycle
facility expected to
improve safety compared
to no facilities or multi-
use path.
- Potential bike/
ped conflicts: multi-use
path shared by people
walking and biking.
Applied only in District E
- Buffered bicycle lane is
not a protected facility.
- Potential bike/ped
conflicts: north-side multi-
use path shared by people
walking and biking.
- Bikes against traffic
on north-side multi-use
path: bikes more likely to
be involved in crashes with
vehicles at driveways/
intersections when traveling
against traffic.
* Safety Considerations Rating Key:
+ = likely positive impact - = potential concerns
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS BY OPTION
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 53
The intersection treatments described below
can be implemented along with any of the
alternatives in the East Arapahoe corridor to
increase pedestrian and bicyclist comfort, and
potentially safety, at signalized intersections.
There may be reductions in intersection capacity
associated with changes to signal phasing and
turn permissions.
DIRECTIONAL CURB RAMP
• This treatment is recommended at all
intersections consistent with standards and
best-practices for accessible design.
CHANNELIZED RIGHT-TURN LANE WITH SPEED
TABLE
• Channelized right-turn lanes shorten effective
crossing distances by adding a pedestrian
refuge island, and can reduce turning speeds.
Speed tables further reduce turning speeds
and increase yield compliance. This treatment
typically requires more space than non-
channelized right-turn lanes.
• The City of Boulder has already successfully
SAFETY:
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN INTERSECTION TREATMENTS
implemented several channelized right-turn
lanes with speed tables on the East Arapahoe
Avenue corridor and elsewhere in the City.
ADD SPEED TABLE TO EXISTING
CHANNELIZED RIGHT-TURN LANE
• This treatment is recommended at existing
locations with channelized right-turn lanes
that do not feature speed tables. The only
East Arapahoe Avenue location where this
applies is at 75th Street.
SEPARATE RIGHT-TURN SIGNAL PHASING
• Separate right-turn signal phasing reduces
conflicts between right-turning vehicles and
bicyclists proceeding straight through the
intersection in the protected bike lane. It is
recommended at intersections where the peak
hour right-turning volume is greater than 150
vehicles per hour.
NO RIGHT-TURN ON RED
• This treatment is recommended at
intersections where neither a channelized
right-turn lane /speed table nor a protected
right-turn signal phase is feasible. Prohibiting
right-turns on red increases pedestrian
comfort by decreasing driver encroachment
into crosswalks during the “Walk” phase.
TWO-STAGE TURN QUEUE BOX
• Turn queue boxes are recommended at
intersections with protected bike lanes (either
in-street or raised), particularly where people
on bicycles turn to access other bike facilities
or a major destination. Two-stage turn
queue boxes provide a dedicated space for
bicyclists to wait outside of the flow of traffic
until it is safe to cross traffic lanes and turn
left.
PROTECTED LEFT-TURNS
• Protected left-turns eliminate potential
conflicts between left-turning automobiles
and people using the crosswalk by giving
each a separate signal phase. This is
especially recommended at multi-use path
crossings.
54 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Key Findings
• Based on regional projections for 20% traffic
growth, the No-Build and Enhanced Bus
alternatives are likely to increase emissions
relative to existing conditions.
• The BRT alternatives would reduce emissions to
near existing levels if they can help maintain the
historic trend of 0% traffic growth.
• BRT with the 20% traffic growth scenario would
still increase emissions moderately relative to
existing.
Key Assumptions
• VMT converted to GhG emissions based on
0.000367 Metric Tons CO2e per mile.
• Assumes 2013 vehicle inventory and average
fuel efficiency/emissions.
DAILY AUTO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, 2040
GhG Emissions(metric tons)No-Build Enhanced Bus BRT
0% Trac
Growth Scenario
BRT
20% Trac
Growth Scenario
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Alt3&4Alt3&4Alt 2Alt 1
+ 7.2 + 7.2
+ 0.3
+ 2.0
INCREASE IN DAILY GHG OVER EXISTING, 2040
GhG Emissions(metric tons)No-Build Enhanced Bus BRT
0% Trac
Growth Scenario
BRT
20% Trac
Growth Scenario
0
10
20
30
40
50
Alt 3&4Alt 3&4Alt 2Alt 1Existing
40.5
47.7
40.8 42.6
47.7
(2015)
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY
Attachment F provides additional
detail on the GhG analysis.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 55
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY: STREETSCAPE QUALITY
Key Findings
• All Build alternatives would designate a
larger percentage of street right-of-way
to streetscaping features than the No Build
condition.
• Alternatives 2 and 3 create the most
streetscaping space (see charts on the
following page).
• The bike/pedestrian option has the most
significant effect on the streetscape space.
These options can be “mixed and matched”
with the various BRT alternatives to create
different results. The table below provides
the conceptual width of the bike/pedestrian
option for each alternative by Character
District.
• In Character District E, Alternatives 2 and
3 create less streetscaping space than
Alternative 4 (this reflects Community
Working Group feedback to avoid excessive
landscaping due to the rural character of this
part of the corridor).
• In every alternative, except District E
Alternatives 2 and 3, the curb-to-curb
pedestrian crossing distance is shorter than
existing conditions.
• Examples of amenity zone treatments are
provided on p. 57.
Key Assumptions
• Elements of the conceptual design
considered for this analysis are roadway
(asphalt or concrete, lanes for autos and
transit), medians, and the space at the street
edge which contains pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure, and amenity zones.
• Medians and roadway cross-sections may
change near intersections based on the
preferred alternative. This analysis assumes
that 14’ landscaped medians would be
reduced to 4’ concrete medians approaching
major intersections to accommodate left turn
lanes. Landscaped medians may be reduced
further in the final design.
• Center-Running BRT may reduce the size
of the landscaped median based on more
detailed design; this would reduce the
streetscape space estimated for Alt 4.
• The analysis assumes that many driveways
would be consolidated, and breaks in the
median would be removed. It includes
driveways in the “bicycle/pedestrian/
landscape” category for existing conditions,
and the No-Build and Build alternatives.
• The analysis assumes reconstruction of the
roadway from Cherryvale Avenue east
to 75th Street. If the recently built multi-
use paths are maintained in their current
configuration (adjacent to the roadway curb
with no amenity zone), this would reduce
streetscape space assumed in Alt 2, 3, & 4.
• For purposes of this analysis, Character
District A runs between 28th Street and
Foothills Parkway. Character District C
begins at Foothills Parkway. Because of this,
Character District B is summarized as part of
Character Districts A and C.
STREETSCAPE WIDTH BY CHARACTER DISTRICT, ALTERNATIVE, AND BIKE/PED OPTION
Scenario A C D E
Existing (2015)43’39’23’10.5’
Alt 1 - No Build N/A N/A N/A N/A
Alt 2 - Enhanced Bus 67’
Option 2
61’
Option 3
61’
Option 3
27’
Option 4
Alt 3 - Side Running BRT 67’
Option 2
61’
Option 1a
61’
Option 3
27’
Option 4
Alt 4 - Center Running BRT 61’
Option 1a
61’
Option 1a
61’
Option 1a
47’
Option 1b
Attachment F provides additional
detail on the streetscape analysis.
56 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
District A District C District D District E Score
Existing (2015)
• Existing Bus• Existing Travel Lanes• Existing Multi-use Path
58%42%
50%50%
47%53%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
31%
69%
68%
32%
51%49%
52%48%
59%41%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
58%42%
50%50%
47%53%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
31%
69%
68%
32%
51%49%
52%48%
59%41%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
75%
25%
71%
29%
41.5%58.5%
42%58%
80%
20%
64%
36%
46%54%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
80%
20%
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
75%
25%
71%
29%
41.5%58.5%
42%58%
80%
20%
64%
36%
46%54%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
80%
20%
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
0
Alt 1: 2040 No Build
• Local Bus (Mixed Traffic)• Existing Travel Lanes• Completed Multi-use Path
58%42%
50%50%
47%53%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
31%
69%
68%
32%
51%49%
52%48%
59%41%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
58%42%
50%50%
47%53%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
31%
69%
68%
32%
51%49%
52%48%
59%41%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
75%
25%
71%
29%
41.5%58.5%
42%58%
80%
20%
64%
36%
46%54%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
80%
20%
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
75%
25%
71%
29%
41.5%58.5%
42%58%
80%
20%
64%
36%
46%54%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
80%
20%
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
1
Alt 2: 2040 Enhanced Bus
• Enhanced Bus (Mixed Traffic)• Existing Travel Lanes• Typically Street-Level
Protected Bike Lane (Options
2,3,4)
58%42%
50%50%
47%53%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
31%
69%
68%
32%
51%49%
52%48%
59%41%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
58%42%
50%50%
47%53%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
31%
69%
68%
32%
51%49%
52%48%
59%41%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
75%
25%
71%
29%
41.5%58.5%
42%58%
80%
20%
64%
36%
46%54%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
80%
20%
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
75%
25%
71%
29%
41.5%58.5%
42%58%
80%
20%
64%
36%
46%54%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
80%
20%
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
3
Alt 3: 2040 Side Running BRT
• Curbside lanes repurposed
as BAT lanes (right-turns
allowed)• Typically Raised Protected
Bike Lane (Options 1a,2,4)
58%42%
50%50%
47%53%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
31%
69%
68%
32%
51%49%
52%48%
59%41%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
58%42%
50%50%
47%53%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
31%
69%
68%
32%
51%49%
52%48%
59%41%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
75%
25%
71%
29%
41.5%58.5%
42%58%
80%
20%
64%
36%
46%54%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
80%
20%
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
75%
25%
71%
29%
41.5%58.5%
42%58%
80%
20%
64%
36%
46%54%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
80%
20%
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
3
Alt 4 - 2040 Center Running BRT
• Center lanes repurposed as
dedicated transit lanes• Typically Raised Protected
Bike Lane (Options 1a/1b)
58%42%
50%50%
47%53%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
31%
69%
68%
32%
51%49%
52%48%
59%41%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
58%42%
50%50%
47%53%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
31%
69%
68%
32%
51%49%
52%48%
59%41%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
75%
25%
71%
29%
41.5%58.5%
42%58%
80%
20%
64%
36%
46%54%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
80%
20%
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
75%
25%
71%
29%
41.5%58.5%
42%58%
80%
20%
64%
36%
46%54%
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
80%
20%
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
Roadway
Streetscape
Features
2
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY: STREETSCAPE QUALITY
ROADWAY AND STREETCAPE BY CHARACTER DISTRICT AND ALTERNATIVE 321-1-2-3 0
SCORE
Worse Better
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 57
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY: STREETSCAPE QUALITY
Methodology
• The alternatives were evaluated
at a conceptual level using GIS to
provide an order-of-magnitude
assessment of the street right-
of-way allocated to streetscape
features.
CHARACTER DISTRICT A STREETSCAPE EXAMPLES
0 50 100 150 20025Feet ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features
88’Aprox.
131’
0 50 100 150 20025Feet ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features
76’143’
EXISTING
CONCEPTUAL:
ALTERNATIVES 2 & 3
58 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY: STREETSCAPE QUALITY
CHARACTER DISTRICT C STREETSCAPE EXAMPLES
0 50 100 150 20025Feet ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features
86’Aprox.
125’
0 50 100 150 20025Feet ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features
76’137’
EXISTING
CONCEPTUAL :
ALTERNATIVES 2 & 3
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 59
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY: STREETSCAPE QUALITY -
AMENITY ZONE ELEMENTS
The elements described below can be
implemented in the amenity zone in any of the
alternatives for the East Arapahoe corridor.
STREET LIGHTING
WAYFINDING
PLANTERS/LANDSCAPING
SEATING
PUBLIC ART
BICYCLE PARKING
60 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
CAPITAL COSTS/IMPLEMENTATION
Key Findings
• The capital costs include constructing the
transit and bicycle/pedestrian/streetscape
alternatives as well as other long-term
infrastructure needs, identified for the
corridor in the TMP and other studies, that
could be implemented in phases.
• Transit Costs:
-Enhanced bus (Alt 2) would be the least
expensive transit alternative to construct
(only stations and vehicles); side-running
BRT (Alt 3) is moderately more expensive.
-Center-running BRT (Alt 4) is likely to be the
most expensive transit alternative due to
median reconstruction.
-Transit vehicle costs are lowest for side-
running and center-running BRT, due to
shorter travel times that make transit more
efficient to operate, and are the highest for
enhanced bus.
• Bicycle-Pedestrian and Streetscape:
-All protected bike lane options are assumed
to be generally comparable in cost (with
the exception of the buffered bike lane
option in District E).
-Right-of-way costs are most significant in
District A.
Key Assumptions
Transit:
• Construction of transit stations a half-mile
(or more) apart within Boulder for Alts 2, 3,
& 4. Stations include branding, enhanced
shelters, real-time information, off-board
fare payment, and other amenities.
• Vehicle capital costs include BRT-type
vehicles for Alts 2, 3, and 4
• Transit signal priority is assumed for Alts 3
and 4.
• Median reconstruction is assumed to be
required for the length of the corridor for
Alt 4. This is required for center-running
BRT, but also facilitates streetscape
improvements.
Bike/Pedestrian/Streetscape:
• Costs to complete sidewalk and/or multi-
use path gaps along Arapahoe Avenue are
assumed in the No-Build alternative:
-Character District A: 38th Street –
Boulder Creek (south side)
-Character District C: East of Foothills
Parkway – 55th Street (south side)
-Character District D: 55th Street –
Cherryvale Road (north and south side)
• Full curb demolition and reconstruction is
assumed for raised protected bike lanes in
Districts A through D.
• A concrete barrier is assumed for costing
purposes for street-level protected bike lanes
in Districts A through D.
• An allowance for amenity zone elements is
included in the costs (e.g., benches, bicycle
parking and trash bins).
General:
• Order-of-magnitude cost estimates are
based on unit costs from other projects,
including recent projects in Boulder such
as the Diagonal Highway Transportation
Improvements Project, and the Arapahoe
Avenue Reconstruction Report, 28th-
Cherryvale Road (2014).
• Various construction items (clearing,
excavation, landscaping, traffic control,
utility contingencies, etc.), and project
development and administration are assumed
on a percentage basis consistent with the
Arapahoe Avenue Reconstruction Report,
which based these elements on the Boulder
TMP cost model.
• 40% contingency on construction costs is
assumed at this highly conceptual level of
design.
• Costs for all build alternatives include bridge
widening/replacement and traffic signal
replacement as identified in the Arapahoe
Avenue Reconstruction Report, as well as
communications infrastructure.Attachment G provides additional
detail on capital costs.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 61Capital Costs(Millions of Dollars)No-Build Enhanced Bus Side-Running BRT Center-Running BRT
$0 M
$20 M
$40 M
$60 M
$80 M
$100 M
$120 M
Alt4Alt3Alt 2Alt 1
$2 M
$91 M
$111 M
$90 M
CAPITAL COSTS, FOLSOM - 75TH STREETS, 2040 (IN 2017 DOLLARS)
* Alt 2, 3, and 4 assume a share of the total vehicle costs to operate Enhanced Bus or BRT service between Downtown Boulder and Brighton
(east of I-25), based on the proportion of service hours required to operate between Downtown Boulder and 75th Street.
CAPITAL COSTS/IMPLEMENTATION:
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
62 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT
Alternative Site Work Bridge
Replacement
Bike/Ped/
Streetscape
Traffic Signals /
Communications
Transit
Running Way
Transit
Stations Vehicles*Right-of-Way
Adminis-
tration /
Services
Contingency
Total
Capital
Cost
Cost Per
Mile
Alt 1: No-Build $0 M $0 M $1.1 M $0 M $0 M $0 M $0 M $0 M $0 M $0.6 M $1.7 M $0.6 M
Alt 2:
Enhanced Bus $15 M $3 M $11 M $5 M $0 M $3 M $5 M $8 M $17 M $24 M $90 M $30.1 M
Alt 3: Side-
Running BRT $16 M $3 M $10 M $5 M $1 M $3 M $4 M $8 M $17 M $24 M $91 M $30.3 M
Alt 4: Center-
Running BRT $21 M $3 M $10 M $5 M $5 M $4 M $4 M $8 M $22 M $29 M $111 M $37.1 M
CAPITAL COSTS BY CATEGORY, FOLSOM TO 75TH STREETS, 2040 (IN 2017 DOLLARS)
CAPITAL COSTS/IMPLEMENTATION:
NON-VEHICLE AND VEHICLE CAPITAL COSTS
* Alt 2, 3, and 4 assume a share of the total vehicle costs to operate Enhanced Bus or BRT service between Downtown Boulder and Brighton
(east of I-25), based on the proportion of service hours required to operate between Downtown Boulder and 75th Street.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY REPORT | 63
COMPLEXITY OF IMPLEMENTATION/PHASING
Key Findings
-The overall right-of-way requirement
compared to available right-of-way
drives need for phased implementation of
improvements.
-In developing a phasing plan for the
eventual preferred alternative, some
improvements (such as signal timing
or transit signal priority) could be
implemented shorter-term without need for
expanding the public right-of-way (i.e.,
through dedication or easements).
-Side-running transit alternatives (Alt 2 and
Alt 3) will likely be easier to implement
in phases than center-running BRT (Alt 4).
Center-running BRT could more easily be
implemented on the far eastern portion of
the corridor, which generally does not have
a separated median.
-The phasing plan can consider where
spot improvements are most feasible and
beneficial, such as peak-direction transit
lanes in Alt 3 (side-running BRT).
-There is likely to be little variance between
bicycle/pedestrian alternatives, and they
offer the greatest opportunity to work
towards implementation as redevelopment
occurs.
-District A has the most limited right-of-way
compared to what would be required.
Key Assumptions
Considerations include:
• Availability of right-of-way relative to what is
required to implement each alternative
• Major constraints:
-District B: Bridge over Boulder Creek
-District D: Bridge over South Boulder Creek
-District E: Railroad bridge (likely affecting
Alt 4 only)
-Overhead electric transmission lines
between Foothills Parkway and Cherryvale
Road (south side)
-Potential for underground contamination
from old gas station and/or industrial uses.
• Ability to implement improvements in a
phased approach
4 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES: SUMMARY REPORT
EAST ARAPAHOE (SH 7) TRANSPORTATION PLAN
APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - ATTACHMENTS A-H
February 2018
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment A City of Boulder
ATTACHMENT A VEHICLE OPERATIONS
This attachment provides detailed traffic operations analysis methodology and results to supplement the
evaluation results that are provided in the East Arapahoe Transportation Plan Evaluation of Alternatives
Report. The vehicle operations analysis area develops metrics related to current and projected traffic
forecast for the Arapahoe corridor, and includes estimates of travel time, intersection level-of-service,
auto vehicle-miles traveled, and freight impacts.
OVERALL ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCES
Travel forecasts from DRCOG for 2040 are one of the key inputs to the vehicle operations analysis. The
base DRCOG projections indicate an approximately 20 to 30% increase in automobile traffic volumes
along Arapahoe by 2040. An alternative 2040 scenario, grounded in historic trends over the past decade
or more in Boulder, assumes that transit and land use policies included in the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan would reduce the projected increase in vehicle trips and that traffic volumes will be
maintained near current levels (historic traffic trend). These scenarios will be used to provide bookends
for evaluating the alternatives, i.e., the DRCOG 20% increase scenario would be used to develop high-end
estimates of traffic volumes, travel times, etc., while the alternative transit/land use policy historic trends
scenario would be used to develop low-end estimates of traffic volumes, travel times, etc.
INTERSECTION LOS FOR AUTOMOBILES
Analysis Overview
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) is an important metric used to compare the impacts of the multimodal
improvement alternatives on automobile travel in the corridor. The number and type of automobile
travel lanes, and the extent to which lanes are shared between through vehicles, right turning vehicles,
and buses or BRT vehicles all have an impact on the LOS for automobiles.
The LOS metric calculates the amount of delay to motorists as they pass through an intersection. This
analysis is typically focused on the AM and PM peak hours of the day when automobile traffic is highest
and commuting patterns are most pronounced. The delay to motorists is calculated for each approaching
movement to an intersection (left, through, right) and then averaged for the intersection overall. To help
communicate the LOS concept, the delay to motorists is assigned a letter grade, much like a report card,
with LOS A indicating a delay of less than 10 seconds, LOS B between 10 and 20 seconds, LOS C between
20 and 35 seconds, LOS D between 35 and 50 seconds, LOS E between 55 and 80 seconds, and LOS F
more than 80 seconds.
The LOS calculation utilized analysis techniques from the Federal Highway Administration’s Highway
Capacity Manual (Synchro software) that was then applied to the projected peak hour traffic at the 13
signalized intersections in the corridor for each alternative. Traffic volumes incorporated into the
analysis, key assumptions, and the resulting LOS findings are detailed below.
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | A-1
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment A City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | A-2
Figure A-1 Intersection Level of Service Analysis Summary Table
Peak Hour Auto Traffic Volumes and Level of Service
Metric AM and PM peak traffic volumes and Level of Service (LOS) - letter grade and average
intersection delay (seconds/vehicle)
Purpose Describe the impact of the alternatives on delay to vehicles at intersections along the corridor and
the level of congestion that can be expected.
Analysis
Methodology
Level of service is an output of the Synchro LOS model which uses Highway Capacity Manual
procedures.
Data Source Peak hour traffic volumes derived for signalized intersections from daily traffic volume estimates
(adjusted DRCOG 2040 Travel Demand Model and historic trends data) and existing peak hour
traffic patterns, then incorporated into Synchro LOS model
Assumptions
Year 2040 Low traffic (+ 0% traffic growth) scenarios assume that BRT has been implemented
along with additional TDM measures, allowing the traffic volume along East Arapahoe to remain
approximately the same as today.
Year 2040 High traffic (+ 20% traffic growth) scenarios are based on the DRCOG regional travel
model which predicts a 20% growth in traffic in the corridor.
Under peak hour traffic conditions, the saturation flow rate of traffic in the corridor is 2,100
vehicles per lane per hour.
Side running BRT lanes are repurposed from the existing outside travel lane (typically) and this
lane is shared between buses and right turning automobiles.
Center running BRT lanes are repurposed from the inside travel lanes and are used exclusively by
BRT vehicles. However, it is assumed that left turning automobiles cross over the BRT lanes
upstream of the intersections to allow left turning traffic to do so from the center of the roadway.
In the 2040 High traffic scenarios, it is assumed that BRT service will result in reducing daily
traffic along Arapahoe by between 3,400 and 3,700 vehicles per day along the corridor. In the
2040 Low traffic scenarios, it is assumed that the automobile traffic has already been reduced as a
means of achieving the 0% increase in traffic by 2040.
Evaluation Results
Key Findings
There are 14 signalized intersections in the corridor. The “big five” (28th, 30th, Foothills, 55th, and
63rd) are the most influenced by geometric changes in the alternatives. The remaining nine
intersections with smaller side street traffic loads are typically less impacted from a LOS
perspective (except as noted).
The traffic volumes at the five key intersections are illustrated on the attached Figures 1 – 4 for
the different analysis horizons, alternative configurations, and low/high traffic volume forecasts.
The attached Table 1 provides a summary of the LOS at the five key intersections.
Without BRT in the future, if traffic grows by approximately 20% (as predicted by DRCOG
models), the PM peak hour LOS at key intersections typically degrades by one to two letter grades
(from C to D or E).
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment A City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | A-3
With a lane repurposed for side running BRT in the 0% traffic growth scenario, the peak hour
LOS is typically the same as today, except at Foothills where the PM peak degrades from D to E.
With a lane repurposed for center running BRT in the 0% traffic growth scenario, the PM peak
hour LOS at 4 of the 5 key intersections degrades by a letter grade.
With a 20% increase in traffic, the addition of side running BRT results in a letter grade reduction
in LOS at only the Foothills intersection, which degrades from E to F.
With a 20% increase in traffic, the addition of center running BRT results in one or two letter
degradation in LOS at the 30th, Foothills, and 55th intersections.
Figure A-2 PM Peak Hour LOS Results
Alternative District A –
30th Street
District B – Foothills Parkway
District C
55th Street
District D
63rd Street
District E
No Signals
Existing LOS C LOS D LOS C LOS C N/A
Alt 1 High – LOS D High – LOS E High – LOS D High – LOS E N/A
Alt 2 Low – LOS C
High – LOS D
Low – LOS D
High – LOS E
Low – LOS C
High – LOS D
Low – LOS C
High – LOS E N/A
Alt 3 Low – LOS C
High – LOS D
Low – LOS E
High – LOS F
Low – LOS C
High – LOS D
Low – LOS C
High – LOS C N/A
Alt 4 Low – LOS D
High – LOS E
Low – LOS E
High – LOS F
Low – LOS D
High – LOS F
Low – LOS C
High – LOS C N/A
Figure A-3 Auto Level of Service Evaluation Score
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment A City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | A-4
Figure A-4 Auto Level of Service, Peak Hour, All Directions, 2040
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment A City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | A-5
Figure A-5 Auto Level of Service, Peak Hour, East-West Peak Direction Only, 2040
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment A City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | A-6
Figure A-6 Auto Volumes, Average Daily, Folsom to 75th Streets, 2040
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment A City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | A-7
Figure A-7 Existing Vehicle Volumes and Level of Service at Key Intersections
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment A City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | A-8
Figure A-8 No Build 2040 Vehicle Volumes and Level of Service at Key Intersections with 20% Traffic Growth
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment A City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | A-9
Figure A-9 Alts 3 and 4 (BRT) 2040 Vehicle Volumes and Level of Service at Key Intersections with 0% Traffic Growth
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment A City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | A-10
Figure A-10 Alts 3 and 4 (BRT) 2040 Vehicle Volumes and Level of Service at Key Intersections with 20% Traffic Growth
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment A City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | A-11
Figure A-11 Level of Service Summary for Key Intersections
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment A City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | A-12
Figure A-12 Level of Service Details – Key Intersections
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment A City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | A-13
Figure A-13 Level of Service Details – Minor Intersections
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment A City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | A-14
CORRIDOR TRAVEL TIME BY AUTOMOBILE
Analysis Overview
The City of Boulder has been monitoring travel time across town in the Arapahoe corridor for many years.
This historic data has illustrated that the travel time on Arapahoe has been relatively constant over time.
The existing travel time in the corridor has been used as the basis for projecting future travel times. The
calculated increase or decrease in intersection delay in the future from the Level of Service (LOS) model
for each alternative has been utilized to project changes in future travel time in the corridor.
Figure A-14 Automobile Travel Time Analysis Summary Table
Auto Travel Times
Metric Auto travel time along Arapahoe, AM and PM peak periods by direction
Purpose Describe how the alternatives would affect the time required to travel through the corridor
during peak hour conditions.
Analysis
Methodology
Folsom Street to 65th Street end-to-end auto travel time along Arapahoe and travel time for
sample origin-destination subsets. AM Peak is defined as 7:30 to 8:30 AM and PM Peak is
defined as 4:30 to 5:30 PM.
Data Source Historic City of Boulder travel time runs by direction in the corridor, used in conjunction with
projected intersection delay calculated for each alternative by the Synchro LOS model.
Assumptions
Automobile travel times will be impacted by future increases in traffic volume and congestion,
and by any potential lane utilization changes at signalized intersections for BRT.
Alternative 1 (No Build) and Alternative 2 (Enhanced Bus) will likely function the same with
travel times determined by the projected 20% increase in traffic in the corridor.
BRT scenarios include lane repurposing, which takes away some of the automobile through
capacity at intersections, but BRT ridership causes a reduction in automobile traffic, which can
have a balancing effect on travel time.
Evaluation Results
Key Findings
Travel times are projected to increase in the future in the Alternative 1 (No Build) scenario where
corridor traffic increases by approximately 2o% (see Table 5 below)
In the future 0% traffic growth scenario with side running BRT, the travel times are higher than
today, but typically lower than the high growth future without any BRT, particularly in the
direction of peak flows (westbound in the AM and eastbound in the PM).
Center running BRT in the 0% growth scenario is also projected to result in shorter automobile
travel times in peak hour peak directional flows when compared to the high volume scenario with
no BRT (Alt.1).
In the high growth scenario (+20%), the peak direction travel times with side running BRT are
also less than the No Build scenario without BRT.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment A City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | A-15
The influence of center running BRT operation in the high growth scenario does result in
automobile travel time that is longer in all cases.
Figure A-15 Automobile Travel Time Folsom to 75th by Direction and Peak Hour
Figure A-16 Auto Travel Time Evaluation Score
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment A City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | A-16
Figure A-17 Automobile Travel Time Comparison
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment A City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | A-17
Figure A-18 Bus Travel Time Compared to Existing Automobile Travel Time
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment A City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | A-18
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL
Analysis Overview
Vehicle miles of travel by automobile is a useful measure in determining corridor mobility and differences
between alternatives, impacts on air quality, success toward TMP goals, etc. Person miles of travel by
automobile also allows a measure of total person trip mobility in the corridor when combined with
estimates of travel by transit, bicycle and as pedestrians.
Figure A-19 Vehicle Mile Traveled Analysis Summary Table
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Metric Daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
Purpose Describe the impact of the alternatives on the amount of vehicle travel in the corridor
Analysis Methodology VMT is calculated based on the average daily traffic output of the travel demand modeling
(described above). It is calculated as the number of daily vehicle trips in each corridor segment
multiplied by the average distance of each segment and summed for all segments.
Data Source DRCOG 2040 Travel Demand Model (adjusted with local model refinement) and historic traffic
trends, coupled with physical roadway segment lengths
Key Assumptions
Low growth traffic projections are similar to today by definition.
An auto occupancy factor of 1.15 was used to convert from auto miles of travel to person miles of
travel in automobiles.
Evaluation Results
Key Findings
Future no-build High traffic projections (Alts. 1 & 2) result in VMT estimates that are
approximately 18% higher than existing.
As expected, the future year low growth scenarios with BRT result in VMT that is approximately
equal to today’s corridor VMT.
BRT ridership in the High traffic scenarios is successful in reducing VMT growth such that the
corridor VMT is only 5% more than existing.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment A City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | A-19
Figure A-20 Vehicle Miles of Travel and Person Miles of Travel in Automobiles – Folsom to 75th, both directions
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment A City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | A-20
FREIGHT IMPACTS
Analysis Overview
Arapahoe Avenue is an important east-west vehicle travel corridor serving downtown Boulder, CU,
Boulder Community Health, other major employers, and adjacent neighborhoods. Because there are only
a few major east-west and north-south roads in East Boulder, there are limited alternative routes for
trucks serving businesses in the corridor, and/or carrying freight between Boulder and the communities
to the east. This measure provides a qualitative assessment of considerations for freight using the
corridor.
Figure A-21 Freight Analysis Summary Table
Freight
Metric Anticipated impacts on freight
Purpose Describe the impact of the alternatives on freight movements along the corridor
Analysis Methodology Qualitative assessment based on traffic analysis, existing and forecast freight volumes, likely
freight access routes, and anticipated geometric design. The analysis will identify any geometric
design impacts that would affect freight movements.
Data Source CDOT vehicle classification information and projected traffic volumes
Key Assumptions
It is likely that multi-modal improvements and traffic access control measures will result in
continuous medians between signalized intersections, which will restrict unsignalized left turn
access.
Driveway consolidation between adjacent parcels is likely to minimize motorized crossings of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Access control measures will minimize crashes and enhance safety in the corridor.
Side running BRT will allow right turning trucks to access driveways from the outside BRT lane
with less interaction with through traffic but buses and trucks will have to mix in the outside lane.
Center running BRT will allow buses to avoid most interaction with trucks in the corridor.
However, now trucks will need to interact with through traffic in the busy outside through-right
turn lanes.
Evaluation Results
Key Findings
The East Arapahoe corridor serves much of Boulder’s service commercial and light industrial
uses. In this context freight access by truck is important.
Trucks on Arapahoe typically represent only 3%to 4% of the daily traffic according to CDOT data
Traffic access control will be a key component of implementing multi-modal improvements in the
corridor. Access control measures will need to consider maintaining efficient truck access.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment A City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | A-21
In this context, it will be important to still allow efficient truck access to the businesses along the
East Arapahoe corridor. Intersections and driveways will need to be designed to accommodate
the turning paths of the truck traffic serving the corridor.
Figure A-22 Freight Access Evaluation Results
Measure District A District B District C District D District E Overall
Existing
Alt 1 Freight access
similar to today
Freight access
similar to today
Freight access
similar to today
Freight access
similar to today
Freight access
similar to today
Little change
in freight
access.
Alt 2 Freight access
similar to today
Freight access
similar to today
Freight access
similar to today
Freight access
similar to today
Freight access
similar to today
Little change
in freight
access
unless
access
control
measures
are
implemented
Alt 3 Trucks will
make right
turning
access from
BRT lane.
Will need to
mix with
buses.
Trucks will
make right
turning
access from
BRT lane.
Will need to
mix with
buses.
Trucks will
make right
turning
access from
BRT lane.
Will need to
mix with
buses.
Trucks will
make right
turning
access from
BRT lane.
Will need to
mix with
buses.
Trucks will
make right
turning
access from
BRT lane.
Will need to
mix with
buses.
Less
friction
with
turning
trucks
than
today.
Alt 4 Trucks will
make right turns
from congested
through-right
turn lanes, but
interaction with
buses is
minimized.
Trucks will make
right turns from
congested
through-right
turn lanes, but
interaction with
buses is
minimized.
Trucks will make
right turns from
congested
through-right
turn lanes, but
interaction with
buses is
minimized.
Trucks will make
right turns from
congested
through-right
turn lanes, but
interaction with
buses is
minimized.
Trucks will
make right
turns from
congested
through-right
turn lanes, but
interaction with
buses is
minimized.
Most
congested
access for
right turning
trucks in to
driveways
along the
corridor.
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-1
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
ATTACHMENT B TRANSIT OPERATIONS
This attachment provides detailed transit operations analysis methodology and results to supplement the
evaluation results that are provided in the East Arapahoe Transportation Plan Evaluation of Alternatives
Report.
OVERALL ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCES
Station Locations
Six conceptual Enhanced Bus or BRT station locations were assumed in Boulder, between 28th Street and
75th Street. These station locations were based on a station spacing scenario targeting a minimum distance
of approximately a half-mile between stations. The scenarios were identified based on past City of Boulder
staff discussions, internal workshops, and public and stakeholder outreach, and include potential station
locations assumed in the Northwest Area Mobility Study (NAMS). Conceptual stations locations were
identified based on major generators, important transit and multimodal connections, land use, right-of-way
feasibility, existing ridership and stop spacing considerations. Figure B-1 lists the station locations and the
approximate distance from the previous station. Figure B-2 is a map of the station locations.
Figure B-1 Conceptual Station Locations within City of Boulder Study Area, Folsom – 63rd/65th Streets
Assumed
Station Location
Approximate Station
Spacing (Miles)
29th St -
38th St 0.50
48th St 0.62
55th St 0.50
Cherryvale Rd 0.65
63rd/65th St 0.34 to 0.65 *
* Depends on final location
Attachment B.1 provides additional background on station spacing and scenarios.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-2
Figure B-2 Conceptual Station Locations
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-3
“West End” Alignment and Station Location Options
A high level assessment of alignment and stop location options was conducted for the West End of the
East Arapahoe corridor (defined as areas west of 28th Street), where multiple alignments could be
selected for BRT or Enhanced Bus service. Figure B-3 identifies four potential West End alignments that
were identified for BRT or Enhanced Bus service on the Arapahoe corridor:
Arapahoe: Arapahoe Avenue, 14th Street (inbound), and 17th Street (outbound)
Canyon via 28th: 28th Street and Canyon Boulevard
Canyon via Folsom: Folsom Street and Canyon Boulevard
Canyon via 28th/Folsom: 28th Street (inbound), Canyon Boulevard, and Folsom Street
(outbound)
Based on a high-level evaluation of these options (summarized in Attachment B.2), the East Arapahoe
Transportation Plan includes preliminary assumptions about the West End (e.g., transit travel time), but
does not recommend a specific West End alignment or station locations. It also assumes that the
Downtown Boulder Transit Center (TC) will be the western terminus of the Arapahoe Corridor BRT,
recognizing that an alternate terminus may be desirable based on a future, detailed assessment of transit
markets. Terminal options and detailed routing, facility capacity, and costs, etc., would need to be
developed during a later study phase, and coordinated with other studies including the Canyon Boulevard
Complete Street Study and future studies of BRT service between Longmont and Boulder.
Attachment B.2 provides additional background on “west end” alignment and station location options.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-4
Figure B-3 West End Alignment Options
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-5
Service Span and Frequency
Service along Arapahoe will operate at different frequencies based on the time of day, day of the week, and
whether it is BRT or local service. Figure B-4 lists the headway by hour and day of the week. Local service
frequency is for service within Boulder (west of 65th Street). BRT and local service combine for an
effective frequency of up to every five minutes (peak) and 7.5 minutes (off-peak) at common stops.
Figure B-4 BRT and Local Bus Headway Assumptions by Hour and Day of the Week, 2040
Hour BRT
Weekday
Local
Weekday
BRT
Saturday
Local
Saturday
BRT
Sunday
Local
Sunday
4 AM - - - - - -
5 AM 30 10 - - - -
6 AM 10 10 30 15 30 15
7 AM 10 10 15 15 30- 15
8 AM - 10 10 15 15 15 15
9 AM 15 15 15 15 15 15
10 AM 15 15 15 15 15 15
11 AM 15 15 15 15 15 15
12 PM 15 15 15 15 15 15
1 PM 15 15 15 15 15 15
2 PM 15 15 15 15 15 15
3 PM 10 10 15 15 15 15
4 PM 10 10 15 15 15 15
5 PM 10 10 15 15 15 15
6 PM 10 10 15 15 30 15
7 PM 30 30 30 30 30 30
8 PM 30 30 30 30 30 30
9 PM 30 30 30 30 30 30
10 PM 30 30 30 30 30 30
11 PM 30 30 30 30 30 30
12 AM 30 - 30 30 30 -
1 AM - - - - - -
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-6
TRAVEL TIME AND RELIABILITY
This section describes the evaluation methodology, assumptions, and additional results for the travel time
results provided on pages 31-32 of the Evaluation of Alternatives Summary Report.
Analysis Overview
Figure B-5 Transit Travel Time Analysis Summary Table
Transit Travel Time
Metric Transit travel time along Arapahoe, AM and PM peak periods, average of both directions
Purpose Describe how the alternatives would affect the speed of transit travel in the corridor, and how
transit travel time compares to driving
Analysis Methodology Transit travel times include the base time for a bus to travel along the corridor and the time
needed to make stops. Time at stops will be based on a single set of conceptual stop locations
that would be developed for each alternative, industry-standard parameters for boarding/alighting
time based on the type of transit vehicle, BRT features, and boarding policies, and estimated
ridership at each stop. End-to-end transit travel time along Arapahoe and travel time for sample
origin-destination pairs
Transit travel time assumptions and data sources for 2040 outside of the Folsom – 65th traffic
analysis area to be based on the SH 7 BRT Study.
Data Source Base transit travel time from traffic operations analysis, for AM and PM peak periods, by direction.
Figure B-6 Service Reliability Analysis Summary Table
Service Reliability
Metric Reliability of transit travel times
Purpose Describe how the alternatives would affect the variability or consistency of transit travel times
along the corridor
Analysis Methodology Qualitative assessment based on transit priority features included in each alternative. (It is
assumed that a traffic simulation model such as VISSIM will not be used in this phase of analysis
for the East Arapahoe Transportation Plan; in a future phase, such a model could be used to
develop a quantitative measure of transit travel time reliability.)
Data Source Transit travel time analysis, based on travel demand model
Methods and Input Data
Automobile travel time estimates from FTH from the study traffic analysis were used as the basis for
transit travel time estimates. These estimates were developed by scenario, direction, segment and time of
day. To estimate travel time for transit, estimates for dwell time, acceleration, deceleration, savings from
transit signal priority (TSP), and/or savings from queue jumps were added to the vehicular travel times.
The total corridor transit travel time is the sum of travel times for each segment within a single time
period, direction and scenario.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-7
Figure B-7 FTH Travel Time Outputs (Hourly Bus), in seconds
Source: Fox Tuttle Hernandez
Assumptions used to adjust the base bus travel times to include stops and other elements included:
Figure B-8 Additional Travel Time Assumptions
Assumption Value Source/Notes
Dwell time – standard 30 seconds SH 7 BRT Study. Applied to Enhanced Bus and BRT. In future
work, this could also be adjusted based on projected
passenger volumes at stations. Dwell time with off-board fare collection 18.6 seconds
Transit Signal Priority 10 seconds Consistent with SH7 BRT Study. Applied at signalized
intersections for BRT alternatives. This could be refined based
on more detailed study.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-8
For travel time estimates east of 75th, the project team used travel times from the SH 7 BRT study. Base
travel times for existing and No Build were derived from the “Auto” scenario, side-running BRT with low
traffic increase used the “Managed Lane” scenario, Center-running BRT with low traffic increase used the
“Dedicated Lane” scenario, and both side- and center-running BRT with high traffic increases used the
“Managed Lane” scenario. Figure B-7 shows the travel time outputs for segments west of 75th Avenue.
Figure B-9 shows the travel time outputs for segments east of 75th Avenue.
Figure B-9 SH 7 BRT Travel Times by Segment, in minutes
Source: SH7 Bus Rapid Transit Study, 2017
Evaluation Results
Figure B-10 shows the estimated total travel times for transit in each Character District by direction, time-
of-day, and scenario.
Figure B-11 compares the automobile and transit travel times for travel between Folsom and 75th by
direction and time-of-day in each scenario to the travel times in Alt 1 – No Build. The final two columns
show the ratio of transit to automobile travel times and the change from Alt 1 – No Build.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-9
Figure B-10 Transit Travel Time (in minutes), by District
Scenario West of Folsom A B C D E East of 75th Boulder
[A]
AM Peak (Eastbound)
2015 Existing 5.6 3.9 1.2 3.8 5.4 2.0 - 21.92
Alt 1 - No Build 5.6 4.0 1.2 4.0 5.4 2.1 62.2 22.33
Alt 2 - Enhanced Bus 5.2 3.4 1.0 3.6 4.8 2.0 61.0 20.05
Alt 3 - Side Running BRT (+0% Traffic) 4.7 3.3 0.7 3.7 4.8 1.7 43.1 18.85
Alt 3 - Side Running BRT (+20% Traffic) 4.7 3.5 0.7 3.7 4.8 1.8 43.1 19.17
Alt 4 - Center Running BRT (+0% Traffic) 4.7 3.2 0.7 3.3 4.8 1.7 38.7 18.29
Alt 4 - Center Running BRT (+20% Traffic) 4.7 3.2 0.7 3.3 4.8 1.8 38.7 18.40
AM Peak (Westbound)
2015 Existing 5.6 4.9 1.3 3.3 6.9 2.2 - 24.15
Alt 1 - No Build 5.6 5.0 1.3 3.4 7.9 2.2 62.2 25.38
Alt 2 - Enhanced Bus 5.2 4.4 1.1 3.0 7.4 2.0 61.0 23.10
Alt 3 - Side Running BRT (+0% Traffic) 4.7 4.7 0.8 2.8 6.3 1.9 43.1 21.22
Alt 3 - Side Running BRT (+20% Traffic) 4.7 5.1 0.8 2.8 6.5 1.9 43.1 21.68
Alt 4 - Center Running BRT (+0% Traffic) 4.7 4.3 0.8 2.8 6.0 1.9 38.7 20.38
Alt 4 - Center Running BRT (+20% Traffic) 4.7 4.2 0.8 2.7 5.9 1.9 38.7 20.02
PM Peak (Eastbound)
2015 Existing 6.6 5.2 2.1 4.4 6.0 2.0 - 26.22
Alt 1 - No Build 6.6 5.4 3.1 5.2 6.0 2.7 62.2 28.98
Alt 2 - Enhanced Bus 6.2 4.8 2.9 4.8 6.0 2.5 61.0 27.20
Alt 3 - Side Running BRT (+0% Traffic) 5.7 4.5 1.0 3.7 5.5 1.6 43.1 21.96
Alt 3 - Side Running BRT (+20% Traffic) 5.7 4.9 1.0 3.7 5.5 2.4 43.1 23.08
Alt 4 - Center Running BRT (+0% Traffic) 5.7 4.1 1.0 3.4 5.5 1.6 38.7 21.28
Alt 4 - Center Running BRT (+20% Traffic) 5.7 4.1 1.0 3.4 5.5 2.4 38.7 22.05
PM Peak (Westbound)
2015 Existing 6.6 6.2 1.3 3.1 5.4 1.7 - 24.20
Alt 1 - No Build 6.6 6.3 1.3 3.2 5.4 1.7 62.2 24.59
Alt 2 - Enhanced Bus 6.2 5.8 1.1 2.8 4.9 1.5 61.0 22.31
Alt 3 - Side Running BRT (+0% Traffic) 5.7 5.9 0.9 2.4 5.0 1.4 43.1 21.24
Alt 3 - Side Running BRT (+20% Traffic) 5.7 6.0 0.9 2.4 5.0 1.4 43.1 21.37
Alt 4 - Center Running BRT (+0% Traffic) 5.7 5.5 0.9 2.3 4.7 1.4 38.7 20.33
Alt 4 - Center Running BRT (+20% Traffic) 5.7 5.5 0.9 2.3 4.7 1.4 38.7 20.44
Notes: [A] Boulder includes Districts A through E and West of Folsom.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-10
Figure B-11 Travel Time Comparison, Folsom to 75th
Scenario
Auto Travel Time (min)
% Change
[A]
Transit Travel Time (min)
% Change
[A]
Transit- to-Auto Travel Time Ratio
% Change
[A]
AM Peak (Eastbound)
2015 Existing 7.9 16.3 2.1
Alt 1 - No Build 8.4 6% 16.7 3% 2.0 -3%
Alt 2 - Enhanced Bus 8.4 0% 14.8 -11% 1.8 -11%
Alt 3 - Side Running BRT (+0% Traffic) 8.1 -3% 14.1 -16% 1.7 -13%
Alt 3 - Side Running BRT (+20% Traffic) 8.4 0% 14.5 -14% 1.7 -14%
Alt 4 - Center Running BRT (+0% Traffic) 8.3 -1% 13.6 -19% 1.6 -18%
Alt 4 - Center Running BRT (+20% Traffic) 8.6 2% 13.7 -18% 1.6 -20%
AM Peak (Westbound)
2015 Existing 10.2 18.6 1.8
Alt 1 - No Build 11.4 15% 19.8 8% 1.7 -4%
Alt 2 - Enhanced Bus 11.4 0% 17.9 -10% 1.6 -10%
Alt 3 - Side Running BRT (+0% Traffic) 10.6 -7% 16.5 -17% 1.6 -11%
Alt 3 - Side Running BRT (+20% Traffic) 11.6 2% 17.0 -14% 1.5 -16%
Alt 4 - Center Running BRT (+0% Traffic) 10.8 -5% 15.7 -21% 1.4 -17%
Alt 4 - Center Running BRT (+20% Traffic) 12.8 12% 15.3 -23% 1.2 -31%
PM Peak (Eastbound)
2015 Existing 11.2 19.6 1.8
Alt 1 - No Build 16.9 72% 22.4 17% 1.3 -21%
Alt 2 - Enhanced Bus 16.9 0% 21.0 -6% 1.2 -6%
Alt 3 - Side Running BRT (+0% Traffic) 13.1 -23% 16.3 -27% 1.2 -6%
Alt 3 - Side Running BRT (+20% Traffic) 15.8 -7% 17.4 -22% 1.1 -17%
Alt 4 - Center Running BRT (+0% Traffic) 14.4 -15% 15.6 -30% 1.1 -18%
Alt 4 - Center Running BRT (+20% Traffic) 20.6 22% 16.3 -27% 0.8 -40%
PM Peak (Westbound)
2015 Existing 10.1 17.6 1.7
Alt 1 - No Build 10.5 5% 18.0 2% 1.7 -1%
Alt 2 - Enhanced Bus 10.5 0% 16.1 -11% 1.5 -11%
Alt 3 - Side Running BRT (+0% Traffic) 10.7 2% 15.5 -14% 1.5 -16%
Alt 3 - Side Running BRT (+20% Traffic) 11.3 8% 15.7 -13% 1.4 -20%
Alt 4 - Center Running BRT (+0% Traffic) 11.1 6% 14.6 -19% 1.3 -23%
Alt 4 - Center Running BRT (+20% Traffic) 12.6 21% 14.7 -18% 1.2 -32%
Notes: [A] Percent change in travel time from Alt 1 – No Build. For Alt 1 – No Build, values represent percent change from 2015 Existing
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-11
Figure B-12 Transit Travel Time Evaluation Score
RIDERSHIP IN CORRIDOR
This section describes the evaluation methodology, assumptions, and additional results for the ridership
results provided on page 33 of the Evaluation of Alternatives Summary Report.
Analysis Overview
Figure B-13 Ridership Analysis Summary Table
Ridership and New Transit Trips
Metric Total and new weekday daily boardings
Purpose Describe how the alternatives would affect total transit ridership along the corridor and estimate
the anticipated increase in transit ridership, relative to the baseline alternative
Analysis Methodology Ridership was estimated using a localized transit ridership model (see next row), incorporating
estimated travel times for each alternative (see Travel Time metric) and a conceptual operating
plan with a single set of conceptual stop locations (see overall .assumptions section above).
Data Source Localized transit ridership model based on existing JUMP ridership (Spring 2015, stop-level, from
RTD) and industry-standard adjustments for service quality improvements. Future ridership growth
will incorporate the projected change in future population/employment, from the DRCOG regional
model from 2013 to 2035 (2035 and 2040 are assumed to be comparable for the purposes of this
analysis). East of existing JUMP service, between approximately US 287 and Brighton, ridership
is estimated based on transit mode share assumptions applied to total projected trips to/from
Boulder from the DRCOG travel demand model. The mode share assumptions are based on the
existing transit mode share, adjusted for the type of transit included in each alternative.
Ridership along Existing Arapahoe Transit Corridor (Boulder-Erie/Lafayette)
Sketch-level ridership estimates were based on existing stop-level ridership data from RTD. The analysis
pivots on existing stop-level ridership (or ridership generated by similar land use conditions where no
current service exists), adjusted for population and employment growth and adjustments to service type
and quality (e.g., service levels, travel times, etc.) between the No-Build and Build scenarios. The key
adjustments were:
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-12
Changes in projected land use between 2015 and 2040.
Service levels for each alternative based on the operating plan assumptions.
Travel times for each alternative based on the traffic analysis and transit travel time assumptions.
Figure B-14 describes elasticity of ridership and other assumptions used.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-13
Figure B-14 Elasticity and Other Ridership Estimation Assumptions
Variable Data Value or Adjustment Factor/Range Source and Methodology Notes
Base Ridership Route and Stop-Level Stop-level ons and offs by route within four daily periods (AM, PM, Midday,
and Evening). Evening is not in the base data but is calculated as total ons
and offs minus the sum of AM, PM, and Midday ons and offs.
Network Buffer Size 3/8 mile (walking
distance)
Used for calculating population and employment (total and density) for each
corridor.
A 3/8 mile (straight-line distance) catchment area was assumed for the
Boulder TMP analysis. (This varies by application – in some cases a ½ mile
buffer is assumed for BRT or rail stations and a ¼ mile (straight-line)
catchment is assumed as a minimum catchment area for local bus service.)
Population and
Employment Growth
and Population
Density
0.23 (base elasticity)
Up to 1
Based on elasticities developed for MTC and SACOG (2004) for direct
ridership modeling approaches, applied to the sum of population and
employment growth.
This factor is applied to base ridership at the stop-level, based on growth in
the surrounding Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs).
The base factor implies that for a 100% change in population and
employment, existing transit ridership grows by 23%, i.e., a decrease in transit
trips per population and employment. However, in some areas a higher
response could be expected. For local TAZs, up to constant growth in
ridership per capita was assumed (elasticity of 1).
Additional 0.04 to 0.34
based on changes in
population density
In addition, research and surveys indicate non-linear increases in transit use
as population density increases. The assumptions used in this analysis are
based on Seattle region household travel survey data, which indicated greater
rates of transit use in areas of higher population density. This relationship is
similar to the one found in the San Francisco Bay Area, analysis of the
National Personal Transportation Survey, and other research/data.
In the Boulder application the maximum bonus was 13%.
Service Level –
Service Hours
-0.5 Based on national research, the elasticity of transit use with respect to
headway averages 0.5.
Travel Time (and
Reliability), including
User Experience
Benefits (Real-Time
Information, etc.)
10% to 45% benefit
(varied by service type
and corridor)
Elasticity of -0.5 to -0.7
(-0.7 was used)
Constrained by national data and specific case studies.
Urban Form /
Accessbility
Up to 10% adjustment Recent national meta-analysis (Ewing and Cervero)5 shows that destination
accessibility or the ability for direct access to destinations (including transit
stations) has the highest correlation to reduced SOV trip making of a number
of factors related to transportation services, design, and built form. The model
could use either intersection density or another measure of network quality to
represent this factor. The Ewing and Cervero meta-analysis found that
intersection density is a more significant variable than street connectivity.
Transit Use
Propensity
Up to 10% adjustment Demographic groups including low-income and carless households along with
seniors and youth have higher rates of transit use.
An index of demographic groups is used to assume a greater ridership
response based on concentrations of these groups.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-14
Variable Data Value or
Adjustment Factor/Range
Source and Methodology Notes
Transit in areas with
new service
Generally, based on route
segments with
comparable land use and
density. East of existing
service along Arapahoe,
additional data analysis
was used to generate an
estimate (see next
section).
As a minimum value, new service in a community with no previous service is
considered to achieve 3 to 5 annual rides per capita.
Where local comparisons are available, base ridership levels applied based on
peer productivity given local comparisons of land use and service level.
Alternatively mode capture assumptions can be used to estimate new riders.
Notes/Sources:
1. The Factors Influencing Transit Ridership: A Review and Analysis of the Ridership Literature, Brian D. Taylor and Camille
N.Y. Fink. UCLA.
2. Portland Metro Primary Transit Network Study, Nelson\Nygaard
3. Direct Ridership Forecasting, Fehr and Peers
4. California Air Quality Resource Board Urban Air Quality Emissions Model Trip Generational Element, Nelson\Nygaard
5. Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis, Ewing and Cervero. JAPA 2010.
6. TCRP Report 95: Traveler Responses to Transportation System Changes
7. MTC, Bay Area Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Study
8. VTPI, Transportation/Transit Elasticities
Base Ridership Estimate
Figure B-15 summarizes the resulting ridership estimate for the portion of the corridor with existing
transit service (downtown Boulder TC to Erie/Lafayette). These results do not include assumptions for
the extension of the corridor beyond the eastern edge of existing service – to Brighton – described in
more detail below and added into the final estimate.
In the No-Build alternative (Alt 1), there would be an estimated 42% increase in ridership on the
JUMP route based on population and employment growth, and minor enhancements to service
hours.
The Enhanced Bus alternative (Alt 2) is estimated to increase ridership by approximately 65% of
the estimated BRT ridership in Alt 3 and 4.
Modeling of the BRT options (Alts 3 and 4) varied primarily based on differences in transit travel
time, related to the underlying traffic scenarios (including assumptions for 0% to 20% growth in
future traffic) and likely differences in transit service reliability with a side-running or center-
running BRT alignment. The differences in ridership are estimated at +/- 10%.
Figure B-15 Base Ridership Estimate, Existing Arapahoe Transit Service Corridors
Scenario Avg Weekday Daily Boardings
Low High
Existing (2015) 2,400
Alt 1 – No Build (2040) 3,400
Alt 2 – Enhanced Bus (2040) 4,500
Alt 3/4 – Side-Running BRT with 0% or 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 7,000 7,800
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-15
Travel Patterns at Screenline
Figure B-16 describes the existing travel patterns of JUMP riders across four screenlines along the
corridor. For example, over 70% of trips on the JUMP either crossed or got off/on the bus at 30th Street.
The patterns of existing riders were the basis for assumptions about future transit travel patterns.
Figure B-16 Distribution of Transit Trips at Screenlines
Scenario 28th 30th Foothills 55th
Existing (2015) 63% 70% 59% 49%
Land Use Sensitivity Analysis
In 2014, existing and future land use scenarios were analyzed with and without the addition of arterial
BRT service in the Arapahoe corridor. Results indicated an increase in the number of people moving
through the corridor and within the area around the corridor using all modes, particularly increasing use
of transit, walking, and biking modes. The results of this analysis was used to inform the high-end of the
ridership estimate range:
2,300 additional transit trips were assumed on BRT (Alts 3 and 4).
1,500 additional transit trips were assumed for Enhanced Bus (Alt 2), 65% of the Alt 3/4 level,
based on the overall ratio of estimated ridership for Alt 2 compared to Alt 3/4.
Travel patterns were assumed to be similar to the existing JUMP.
East End Ridership
The localized transit ridership model described above pivots off of existing transit ridership and was used
to estimate ridership along the existing JUMP route. This method is not possible east of existing JUMP
service between Boulder and Erie/Lafayette. This section describes the analysis used to develop a high-
level estimate of potential ridership into Boulder from the eastern SH 7 corridor, extending out to
Brighton as is currently being considered in the Boulder County SH 7 BRT Study. The analysis utilizes
regional model travel pattern data and Census employment data and assumptions for mode shift to
new/extended regional service.
Figure B-19 illustrates zones that were defined to represent the catchment area for BRT or other enhanced
transit service between Boulder and areas east of Boulder for this analysis. They represent a half-mile
walking distance around BRT stations and a three-mile distance around potential BRT park-n-ride
facilities outside of Boulder; these stations and park-n-ride locations were based on the conceptual
locations identified in the RTD Northwest Area Mobility Study (NAMS) completed in 2013. Key findings
include:
Existing (2015) JUMP ridership to existing stops east of Boulder is approximately 700 transit
trips. This represents approximately 7% of all trips between a half-mile walking buffer of those
existing stops and a half-mile walking distance of the Arapahoe corridor in Boulder (Downtown
Boulder TC – 75th Street). The percentages is based on trips by all modes and purposes, in the
current year (2015) travel demand projections from DRCOG.
There are approximately projected 25,000 trips (all trip purposes) in 2035 between the assumed
transit catchment area in the east end of the SH 7 corridor (based on a half-mile walking distance
around BRT stations and a three-mile distance around potential BRT park-n-ride facilities) and
within a half-mile walking distance of the Arapahoe corridor in Boulder (Downtown Boulder TC –
75th Street).
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-16
Given an assumption that future transit service (e.g., BRT) captures the same share of all future
trips as today (7%), approximately 1,750 trips would be attracted to this service from locations in
the station and park-n-ride catchment area. Subtracting the estimate of existing trips there would
be 1,050 new daily trips into Boulder from the east end of the corridor.
An additional analysis was conduct to estimate the numbers of work trips between Boulder and the far
end of the corridor (I-25/Brighton), based on US Census Bureau LEHD data from 2013, and develop an
order-of-magnitude assumption for number of these trips that could be attracted to a BRT-type service
to/from Boulder. Key findings include:
There are approximately 4,000 current total work trips between the far east zones shown in
Figure B-19 (zones 6-11), a zone covering the corridor between I-25 and 75th Street (zone 4), and
the zones in Boulder (zones 1, 2, 3, and 5).
Assumptions were made to account for the additional share of these trips that would be attracted
to BRT service to/from the far east end of the corridor, including a park-n-ride in Brighton. The
assumed mode share ranged from 2% for outlying areas (zone 10), 5% (zones 8, 9, and 11), and
10% (zones 6 and 7). The assumptions were scaled based on distance and travel time to access
service in the corridor.
A rough assumption of 1% average annual growth was used to account for future employment.
The resulting estimate was for an approximately 450 trips between the far east end zones (zones
6-11) and Boulder (zones 1, 2, 3, and 5) and approximately 200 additional trips between the 75th
Street – I-25 portion of the corridor (zone 4), a total of 650 new transit trips.
Based on the results of both analyses, a total 1,700 new transit trips were assumed. Figure B-17
summarizes the analysis.
Figure B-17 Order-of-Magnitude Ridership Analysis for East of End of Arapahoe Corridor
Portion of Corridor*
(Analysis Zone) Potential Trips Mode Capture
Assumption
Total Trips
Assumed
Existing Transit
Trips (on JUMP)
Net New
Trips
I-25 - 95th Street (4) All Trips - 25,000 [1] 7% 1,750 700 1,050
Brighton – I-25 (6-11) Work Trips - 4,000 [2] 2% to 10%** 450 - 450
I-25 – 95th Street (4) 10% 200 - 200
Total 2,400 700 1,700
Notes: * ½ mile walking distance or 3 mile park-n-ride access distance. ** Scaled based on distance & travel time.
Sources: [1] DRCOG Travel Demand Model, 2035. [2] US Census Bureau, LEHD, 2013 (latest data as of 2015).
These trips were assigned to screenlines along the corridor based on the analysis zones shown in Figure
B-19. The screenlines are used in developing mode share estimates at these locations.
Figure B-18 East End Ridership, Assigned to Screenlines
28th 30th Foothills 55th
520 520 700 1,110
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-17
Figure B-19 Analysis Zones for East End Ridership Analysis
Modal Distribution of Trips
Order-of-magnitude estimates were developed for the distribution of ridership between BRT or Enhanced
Bus and local bus service on Arapahoe based on analysis of existing stop boarding patterns and proximity
of conceptual BRT stations locations to existing stops; this was done primarily to inform a passenger load
analysis (described below). Slightly less than two-third of boarding would be expected to occur at the BRT
or Enhanced Bus stations while approximately one-third of boardings would occur at local stops. Transit
riders are typically assumed to walk up to approximately a half-mile to access high quality service.
Although any possible effects were not quantified, Enhanced Bus and Side-Running BRT service would
share curb-side stops with local buses; while center-running BRT would stop in the median and it may not
be feasible for local service to share the median stops. This would depend on final transit designs for the
corridor and whether there are local stops between potential center-running BRT stations. If center-
running BRT and local buses do not share stops, at common stop locations passengers who could use
either service would need to decide whether to wait for the bus at the median or curb-side station (e.g.,
based on real-time arrival information at both sets of stops).
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-18
Time Distribution of Trips
Figure B-20 summarizes the time distribution of existing ridership patterns on the JUMP. Future service is assumed to have similar
characteristics. Key findings include:
Westbound ridership comprises nearly 60% of the AM peak period, while eastbound ridership comprises nearly 55% of the PM peak
period.
The maximum average ridership by time period occurs in the eastbound PM peak (10%).
A peak hour factor was calculated (ratio of average to maximum ridership) for purposes of assessing capacity of vehicles to accommodate
estimated ridership. This resulted in an adjusted peak ridership percentage of 14% in the eastbound PM peak.
Figure B-20 Assumed Time Distribution, Percentages Based on Existing JUMP Ridership, January 2015
Time Period By Direction % in Period Per Hour Average % in Hour Peak hour
factors [1]
Adjusted Peak Hour
Category Hours WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB TOTAL WB EB WB EB
All-Day 17 1,184 1,186 50% 50% - - - - - - - - - -
AM Peak 3 290 205 59% 41% 96.7 68.3 8% 6% 14% 161% 155 110 13% 9%
Midday 6 433 461 48% 52% 72.2 76.8 6% 6% 13% - - - - -
PM Peak 3 308 366 46% 54% 102.7 122.1 9% 10% 19% 138% 142 169 12% 14%
Evening 5 153 154 50% 50% 30.5 30.8 3% 3% 5% - - - - -
Notes: Calculated as the ratio of maximum to average load in the AM and PM Peak periods, to account for variation in average daily ridership.
Source: Analysis of RTD Ridership Data, January 2015
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-19
Passenger Loading Analysis
A high-level analysis of passenger demand was conducted. Key assumptions and findings include:
It is assumed articulated buses are not feasible, based on operational constraints in downtown
Boulder.
Assuming vehicle capacity of 75 people in a 40-foot BRT-style vehicle, the conceptual frequency
and vehicles could support projected daily ridership is in the lower end of ridership estimate
range (7,000 – 10,000 daily boardings) and peak-hour distribution of daily ridership, but
depending on factors including the number of riders trying to use the line in the peak hour and
the share of ridership demand met by BRT (as opposed to local) service, additional peak
frequency and vehicles could be needed to support the future passenger load. Figure B-21 provide
results of the calculations for several different scenarios.
This analysis should be updated and refined in later stages of planning and design.
Figure B-21 Passenger Loading Sensitivity Analysis
Average Weekday
Daily Ridership
Peak-Hour and Peak-
Direction Boardings % using BRT (vs.
Local)
Current Peak Frequency
Assumption
With Additional Peak
Frequency
% Daily Boardings Peak Hour Boardings
BRT Headway (Vehicles / Direction / Hour)
Persons / Vehicle
BRT Headway (Vehicles / Direction / Hour)
Persons / Vehicle
Low-End
of Range 7,000 10% 700 60% 6 70 8 53
Median 8,500 12% 1,020 60% 6 102 8 77
High-End
of Range 10,000 14% 1,400 65% 6 152 8 114
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-20
Evaluation Results
Figure B-22 provides the overall ridership estimate, which includes both the base ridership estimate
(pivoting off of existing stop-level transit ridership) and the additional east end ridership estimate (east of
existing JUMP service). The high-end of the estimate range for the Build scenarios accounts for both the
variability of different BRT options and traffic growth scenarios, and the potential of transportation and
land use policy changes to reduce vehicle trips and attract new riders (e.g., providing transit passes,
parking management, etc.). Key findings include:
Side and center-running BRT ridership is projected to be from 7,000 to 10,000 daily boardings
(combined BRT and local), with either Alt 3 or 4 within in a +/– 10% margin, regardless of the
traffic growth scenario.
Ridership would be lower in the Enhanced Bus scenario (4,500 to 6,000 daily boardings), with
limited stop service and enhanced vehicles, stations, and amenities, but without exclusive right-
of-way.
The primary factors that differentiate between the Enhanced Bus alternative (Alt 2) and the Side
and Center-Running BRT alternatives (Alts 3 & 4) are travel time, travel time reliability, and the
increased visibility of transit service.
Figure B-22 Ridership Estimate, Weekday Average Daily Boardings, Downtown Boulder - Brighton
Scenario Total Boardings
Low High
Existing (2015) 2,400
Alt 1 – No Build (2040) 3,400
Alt 2 – Enhanced Bus (2040) 4,500 6,000
Alt 3/4 – Side-Running BRT with 0% or 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 7,000 10,000
Notes: Ridership estimates for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are from Downtown Boulder to Brighton and include local JUMP service. Alternative 1
(No-Build) ridership is based on the existing JUMP route between Downtown Boulder and Lafayette/Erie.
Source: Sketch-level local ridership model. RTD ridership data for JUMP, January 2015. DRCOG Regional Travel Demand Model data, 2013/2035. US Census
Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2014.
Figure B-23 Transit Ridership Evaluation Score
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-21
OPERATING COST
This section describes the evaluation methodology, assumptions, and additional results for the ridership
results provided on page 38 of the Evaluation of Alternatives Summary Report.
Analysis Overview
Figure B-24 provides an overview of the operating cost analysis, including the methodology and data
sources.
Figure B-24 Operating Cost Analysis Summary Table
Operating Cost
Metric Total and new transit operating costs, annual
Purpose Describe the ongoing cost of operating transit service in the Arapahoe corridor under each
alternative
Analysis
Methodology
Develop a conceptual operating plan for transit service in the Arapahoe corridor in each
alternative, including the frequency and hours of operation. Calculate the annual vehicle hours
required to operate each alternative, based on the estimated travel times and a single set of
conceptual transit stop locations (average 1/3 to ½ mile spacing). Multiply service hours by the
average hourly transit operating cost.
Data Source Base service cost of $123.96 (2015) from RTD for Boulder Regional service. Adjustments for
BRT, if applicable, based on peer data or industry standard factors.
Figure B-25 provides the total annual operating hours for BRT and JUMP services in each of the
scenarios. The values are based on the operating plan above.
Figure B-25 Annual Operating Hours
JUMP
Scenario BRT Erie Lafayette To 65th Total
Existing (2015) 0 NA NA NA 33,100
Alt 1 – No Build (2040) 0 19,264 20,694 7,140 47,100
Alt 2 – Enhanced Bus (2040) 88,400 19,264 20,694 - 128,400
Alt 3 – Side-Running BRT with 0% Traffic Growth (2040) 66,900 19,264 20,694 - 106,900
Alt 3 – Side-Running BRT with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 67,900 19,264 20,694 - 107,900
Alt 4 – Center-Running BRT with 0% Traffic Growth (2040) 62,400 19,264 21,714 - 103,400
Alt 4 – Center-Running BRT with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 62,400 20,284 21,714 - 104,400
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-22
Figure B-26 lists the number of vehicles that would be required for BRT and JUMP services in each
scenario, based on the operating plan peak headway and travel time estimates. A spare ratio of 20% was
assumed for BRT vehicles. BRT vehicle requirements are for Boulder-Brighton service, while JUMP
vehicle requirements are for the JUMP alignment from Boulder to Erie and Lafayette.
Figure B-26 Vehicle Requirements
BRT JUMP Total Vehicles Scenario Base Spares Erie Lafayette To 65th
Existing (2015) 0 0 NA NA 0 10
Alt 1 – No Build (2040) 0 0 4 4 2 10
Alt 2 – Enhanced Bus (2040) 20 4 4 4 0 32
Alt 3 – Side-Running BRT with 0% Traffic Growth (2040) 15 3 4 4 0 26
Alt 3 – Side-Running BRT with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 16 3 4 4 0 27
Alt 4 – Center-Running BRT with 0% Traffic Growth (2040) 14 3 4 5 0 26
Alt 4 – Center-Running BRT with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 14 3 5 5 0 27
Figure B-27 lists the operating cost assumptions for cost per hour, and BRT station maintenance costs.
Figure B-27 Operating Cost Assumptions
Assumption Value
BRT operating cost per hour $151
Local operating cost per hour $104
BRT station maintenance cost $21,000
Note: The hourly operating cost assumption for Enhanced Bus or BRT service was based on the hourly operating costs for Boulder regional
service from RTD in 2016 (provided by RTD in January 2017). As of January 2017, RTD does not have a comparable service cost for arterial
BRT. Therefore, the total assumed hourly operating cost includes an additional cost assumption for security/fare enforcement (on a per-hour
basis), based on a 2012 Arterial Transitway Corridor Study from Metro Transit in Minneapolis-St. Paul. A maintenance cost assumption per
station was also assumed based on the Metro Transit study. All costs were escalated to 2017 dollars assuming a 3% inflation rate.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-23
Evaluation Results
The estimated operating costs provided in Figure B-28 and Figure B-29 are the basis for the operating
costs reported in the Evaluation of Alternatives Summary Report.
Figure B-28 Annual Operating Cost, Boulder-Brighton, 2017 Dollars
JUMP
Scenario BRT Erie Lafayette To 65th Total
Existing (2015) 0 NA NA NA $3.2 M
Alt 1 – No Build (2040) $0.0 M $2.0 M $2.2 M $0.7 M $4.9 M
Alt 2 – Enhanced Bus (2040) $13.3 M $2.0 M $2.2 M - $17.5 M
Alt 3 – Side-Running BRT with 0% Traffic Growth (2040) $10.1 M $2.0 M $2.2 M - $14.3 M
Alt 3 – Side-Running BRT with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) $10.3 M $2.0 M $2.2 M - $14.4 M
Alt 4 – Center-Running BRT with 0% Traffic Growth (2040) $9.4 M $2.0 M $2.3 M - $13.7 M
Alt 4 – Center-Running BRT with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) $9.4 M $2.1 M $2.3 M - $13.8 M
Figure B-29 Total Annual Operations & Maintenance and Vehicle Capital Costs, Boulder-Brighton, 2017 Dollars
Scenario
Annual
Local
Bus O&M
Annual
BRT
O&M
Annual
Station
O&M
Annual
TSP O&M
Total
Annual
O&M
Vehicle
Capital
Costs
Existing (2015) $3.2 M $0.0 M $0 $0 $3.2 M $4.7 M
Alt 1 – No Build (2040) $4.9 M $0.0 M $0 $0 $4.9 M $4.7 M
Alt 2 – Enhanced Bus (2040) $4.2 M $13.3 M $340,000 $0 $17.9 M $21.6 M
Alt 3 – Side-Running BRT with 0% Traffic Growth (2040) $4.2 M $10.1 M $340,000 $102,000 $14.7 M $17.2 M
Alt 3 – Side-Running BRT with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) $4.2 M $10.3 M $340,000 $102,000 $14.9 M $17.9 M
Alt 4 – Center-Running BRT with 0% Traffic Growth (2040) $4.3 M $9.4 M $340,000 $102,000 $14.1 M $16.9 M
Alt 4 – Center-Running BRT with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) $4.4 M $9.4 M $340,000 $102,000 $14.2 M $17.4 M
Figure B-30 Operating Cost Evaluation Score
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-24
COST-EFFECTIVENESS (LIFECYCLE OPERATING AND CAPITAL COSTS
PER RIDER)
This section describes the evaluation methodology, assumptions, and additional results for the cost-
effectiveness results provided on page 39 of the Evaluation of Alternatives Summary Report.
Analysis Overview
Figure B-31 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Summary Table
Cost-Effectiveness
Metric Lifecycle operating and capital cost per user
Purpose Describe the return on operating and capital investment in terms of transit riders using the facilities
and services provided.
Analysis
Methodology
Calculated from transit operating costs, capital costs, and ridership
Data Source See Operating Costs, Capital Costs, and Ridership
Assumptions
Transit capital costs are only for Enhanced Bus or BRT in the City of Boulder portion of the
Arapahoe Corridor (Districts A-E). This calculation includes only costs that are directly transit-
related. For this measure, costs are spread over a 30-year period, except for vehicles (12 years).
Figure B-32 lists assumptions for years of useful life.
Annual transit operating and maintenance costs and vehicle capital costs are for a share of the
end-end Enhanced Bus or BRT service in Alts 2, 3, and 4 (estimated based on the proportion of
service hours in Boulder).
Ridership is end-end for a transit project operating between Boulder TC and Brighton.
Figure B-32 Years of Useful Life for Capital Elements
Capital Cost Element Years of Useful Life
Transit Facility 30
Transit Facility - Station 30
Traffic Signals/Communications 30
Vehicles 12
Administration/Services 30
Methods
Lifecycle costs were calculated as the sum of annual operating costs and annualized capital costs (i.e., total
cost for each element divided by years of useful life), divided by the total number of transit riders.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-25
Evaluation Results
Figure B-33 provides the cost-effectiveness measure results provided in the Evaluation of Alternatives
Summary Report, along with intermediate calculations.
Figure B-33 Annual Lifecycle Cost with Intermediate Costs and Calculations
Measure Annualized Capital Cost
[1]
Annual Transit O&M Cost
[1]
Total Annualized
Cost [1]
Daily Riders
[2]
Annual Riders [2]
Annual Lifecycle Cost
per User [3]
Existing (2015) $0.0 M $0.0 M $0.0 M 2,400 720,000 $0.00
Alt 1 – No-Build $0.0 M $0.0 M $0.0 M 3,400 1,020,000 $0.00
Alt 2 – Enhanced Bus $0.8 M $5.2 M $6.0 M 5,250 1,575,000 $3.81
Alt 3 – Side-Running BRT $0.9 M $5.0 M $5.8 M 8,500 2,550,000 $2.29
Alt 4 – Center-running BRT $1.3 M $5.0 M $6.2 M 8,500 2,550,000 $2.44
Note: [1] Costs are in 2017 dollars.
[2] Ridership estimates are for 2035/2040.
[3] Users are transit riders; currently does not include people walking or bicycling.
Key Findings
Alt 2 has a higher lifecycle cost compared to side-running and center-running BRT (Alts 3 and 4)
due to higher operating costs (see transit travel time measure), and the higher number of vehicles
required.
Figure B-34 Lifecycle Cost per Rider Evaluation Score
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-26
TRANSIT SERVICE QUALITY
This section describes the evaluation methodology, assumptions, and additional results for an analysis of
transit service quality (not included in the Evaluation of Alternatives Summary Report). The purpose of
calculating this measure was to provide a complementary evaluation for transit to the evaluation of
vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle level of service.
Analysis Overview
The Transit Service Quality measure is based on a transit Level of Service (LOS) measure. This is
calculated based on a methodology adapted from the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd
Edition (TCRP Report 165). The inputs to the transit LOS address various factors related to transit service
quality such as frequency, level of amenities, and quality of the pedestrian environment:
Transit frequency by alternative, including local bus, Enhanced Bus, and/or BRT trips.
Factors that affect perceived travel time, including:
− Presence of existing shelters and benches, and new shelters/benches at Enhanced Bus and
BRT stations
− Transit travel speed by street segment
− Excess waiting time, based on RTD data for scheduled and actual bus departure times and
transit priority assumptions for each alternative
Pedestrian environment factors including peak-direction, mid-block vehicle volume in the outside
lane for each alternative and vehicular travel speeds. In Alt 3, the curbside BAT lane carries only
buses and right-turning vehicles.
Figure B-35 Service Quality Analysis Summary Table
Service Quality
Metric Quality of transit (Transit Level of Service)
Purpose Describe how the alternatives would affect the quality of all aspects of a transit trip. This includes
quality of the pedestrian environment for access to the stop, measures of the wait at a transit stop
(service frequency and reliability and amenities), and the on-board satisfaction (crowding and
speed).
Analysis
Methodology
Qualitative assessment based on GIS analysis and calculations source from TCRP Report 165.
Data Source Travel time and volume estimates from FTH; RTD; City of Boulder; Google Earth and Google
Street View;
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-27
Assumptions
All BRT stops would have benches and shelters. Local stops without benches and shelters would
remain that way in all scenarios.
Transit travel time was adjusted from base transit travel times for each scenario, estimated as part
of the traffic analysis for this study data: No-Build increased by 10%, Enhanced Bus reduced by
5%, Side-Running BRT reduced by 10%, Center-Running BRT reduced by 20%.
Center and Side BRT scenarios assumed two vehicle lanes in each direction in Districts A, B and
C, and one lane in each direction in Districts D and E. The Enhanced Bus scenario assumed three
lanes in each direction in Districts A, B, and C, two lanes in District D, and one lane in District E.
(The actual number of lanes transitions through District D.)
Bike lanes would range between 6 and 10.5 feet and sidewalks would range between 6 and 12 feet
in the Enhanced Bus and BRT scenarios.
Volume per lane is based on the peak hour volume in the outside lane (see Figure B-36). For
segments where there was no data, the average of the two closest data points were used.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-28
Figure B-36 Peak-Hour Traffic Volume in Outside Lane
Between 2016 Existing
2040 Low with BRT (Side Running)
2040 Low with BRT (Center Running)
2040 High without BRT (Background)
2040 High with BRT (Side Running)
2040 High with BRT (Center Running)
AM Peak (Eastbound)
Folsom Street 26th Street 363 365 365 435 398 398
26th Street 28th Street 272 200 390 325 230 430
28th Street 29th Street 97 10 360 115 5 383
29th Street 30th Street 196 125 378 235 145 410
30th Street 33rd Street 93 5 390 116 5 420
33rd Street 38th Street 105 20 383 127 20 415
38th Street Foothills Parkway 220 130 358 261 150 393
Foothills Parkway 48th Street 252 95 543 284 95 578
48th Street Commerce Street 159 25 438 193 30 465
Commerce Street Conestoga Street 170 45 425 204 50 443
Conestoga Street 55th Street 139 70 318 167 80 328
55th Street Cherryvale Road 257 260 260 308 275 275
Cherryvale Road 63rd Street 479 485 485 575 505 505
63rd Street 65th Street 401 405 405 480 425 425
AM Peak (Westbound)
Folsom Street 26th Street 413 418 418 498 455 455
26th Street 28th Street 406 40 408 488 45 445
28th Street 29th Street 204 205 205 225 220 220
29th Street 30th Street 568 60 555 680 65 598
30th Street 33rd Street 340 145 523 407 170 570
33rd Street 38th Street 368 145 583 443 170 635
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-29
Between 2016 Existing
2040 Low with
BRT (Side
Running)
2040 Low with
BRT (Center
Running)
2040 High
without BRT
(Background)
2040 High with
BRT (Side
Running)
2040 High with
BRT (Center
Running)
38th Street Foothills Parkway 752 485 863 901 565 955
Foothills Parkway 48th Street 651 390 683 780 455 758
48th Street Commerce Street 509 134 782 598 130 838
Commerce Street Conestoga Street 462 90 743 556 105 788
Conestoga Street 55th Street 448 65 745 537 75 783
55th Street Cherryvale Road 555 350 271 668 415 289
Cherryvale Road 63rd Street 1,077 30 1,085 1,290 30 1,125
63rd Street 65th Street 1,191 1,195 1,195 1,430 1,255 1,255
PM Peak (Eastbound)
Folsom Street 26th Street 601 603 603 723 660 660
26th Street 28th Street 478 395 625 572 460 695
28th Street 29th Street 128 10 603 153 10 648
29th Street 30th Street 366 235 595 440 275 653
30th Street 33rd Street 175 15 600 214 15 648
33rd Street 38th Street 203 20 685 246 20 745
38th Street Foothills Parkway 638 370 773 764 435 860
Foothills Parkway 48th Street 517 140 898 595 135 958
48th Street Commerce Street 455 85 853 547 100 905
Commerce Street Conestoga Street 462 85 868 554 100 910
Conestoga Street 55th Street 462 285 785 556 335 830
55th Street Cherryvale Road 928 933 933 1,113 1,003 1,003
Cherryvale Road 63rd Street 1,276 1,285 1,285 1,535 1,340 1,340
63rd Street 65th Street 1,446 1,450 1,450 1,735 1,510 1,510
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-30
Between 2016 Existing
2040 Low with
BRT (Side
Running)
2040 Low with
BRT (Center
Running)
2040 High
without BRT
(Background)
2040 High with
BRT (Side
Running)
2040 High with
BRT (Center
Running)
PM Peak (Westbound)
Folsom Street 26th Street 486 490 490 583 538 538
26th Street 28th Street 468 120 470 560 135 513
28th Street 29th Street 304 305 305 335 330 330
29th Street 30th Street 954 195 860 1143 225 935
30th Street 33rd Street 454 185 643 544 215 700
33rd Street 38th Street 467 140 735 559 155 795
38th Street Foothills Parkway 435 105 720 520 120 788
Foothills Parkway 48th Street 720 480 705 864 565 788
48th Street Commerce Street 362 26 681 440 25 730
Commerce Street Conestoga Street 336 10 640 405 10 675
Conestoga Street 55th Street 282 25 518 340 25 540
55th Street Cherryvale Road 350 170 221 422 205 235
Cherryvale Road 63rd Street 643 15 650 770 10 670
63rd Street 65th Street 672 680 680 805 710 710
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-31
Excess wait time is based on the average time that JUMP buses arrived at a stop late based on
RTD’s ridership report (see Figure B-37) . This value was increased by 20% for No Build and 15%
for Enhanced Bus. BRT was assumed to have no excess wait time. However in scenarios where the
JUMP was assumed to still operate in mixed traffic, the transit LOS accounts for the excess wait
times of both services. In Side-Running BRT there is no excess wait time because both JUMP and
BRT vehicles use transit lanes. But in Center-Running BRT, only BRT vehicles have a dedicated
transit lane, while JUMP vehicles continue to use the curb lane. Therefore the overall excess wait
time for the Center BRT scenario is higher than Side-Running scenario.
Figure B-37 Excess Wait Time (minutes)
Segment AM Early AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Evening PM Late Other
Eastbound
Boulder Station to
Arapahoe Ave/30th St
NA - - - - - NA
Arapahoe Ave/30th St to
Arapahoe Ave/Marine St
NA - - - - - NA
Arapahoe Ave/Marine St
to Arapahoe Ave/55th St
NA - - - - - NA
Arapahoe Ave/55th St to
Arapahoe Ave/63rd St
NA 0.8 0.1 - - 0.2 NA
Arapahoe Ave/63rd St to
VoTech
NA 0.8 0.1 - - 0.2 NA
Arapahoe Ave/63rd St to
Arapahoe/65th St
NA 0.5 - - - - NA
Arapahoe Ave/65th St to
Arapahoe Rd/Dagny Way
NA - - - - - NA
Westbound
Boulder Station to
Arapahoe Ave/30th St
0.6 1.9 0.6 2.0 - - -
Arapahoe Ave/30th St to
Arapahoe Ave/Marine St
- 2.7 0.5 1.7 - - -
Arapahoe Ave/Marine St
to Arapahoe Ave/55th St
- 1.5 - 1.2 - - -
Arapahoe Ave/55th St to
Arapahoe Ave/63rd St
- 1.5 - 1.2 - - 0.3
Arapahoe Ave/63rd St to
VoTech
- 1.7 - 1.2 - - 0.3
Arapahoe Ave/63rd St to
Arapahoe/65th St
- 2.3 0.5 1.4 - - -
Arapahoe Ave/65th St to
Arapahoe Rd/Dagny Way
- 1.6 - 1.2 - - -
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-32
Travel times are based on peak travel directions (eastbound during PM peak, and westbound
during AM peak). See the Travel Time and Reliability Section.
Methods
Using a combination of GIS and Excel, the transit LOS score for each district in each scenario was
calculated by combining two different scores: the transit wait-ride score and the pedestrian environment
score. The transit wait-ride score is a measure of headway and perceived travel time. The pedestrian
environment score is a measure of the quality of the pedestrian environment in proximity to the stops.
The analysis was completed for each roadway segment in each direction. The scores were aggregated to
get individual scores at each station location.
Figure B-38 Transit Level of Service Methodology
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-33
Evaluation Results
Overall Results and Key Findings
Figure B-39 Transit LOS, by Segment and Scenario
Figure B-40 Transit LOS, by Sub District and Scenario
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-34
Figure B-41 Transit LOS, by District and Scenario
Key Findings
Existing transit service along the East Arapahoe corridor is very frequent (every 10 minutes
during the day). As a result, overall service quality is rated all segments in all alternatives score
“C” or better.
The No-Build score is slightly lower in some cases, e.g., due to higher future traffic volumes.
Enhanced Bus increases quality of service and facilities to a “B” or better.
Both BRT alternatives score “A” along the full corridor.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-35
Individual Components
Figure B-42 Pedestrian Environment Score and Transit Wait-Ride Score
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-36
Figure B-43 Transit Frequency and Perceived Travel Time
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-37
Figure B-44 Cross-Section Adjustment Factor and Vehicular Volume Adjustment Factor
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-38
Figure B-45 Average Traffic Speed and Bus Stops with Benches
Figure B-46 Bus Stops with Shelters
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B-39
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B.1 City of Boulder
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B.1-1
ATTACHMENT B.1 TRANSIT OPERATIONS:
STATION LOCATION BEST PRACTICES
AND ANALYSIS
This attachment provides additional detail on station location assumptions.
STATION SPACING BEST PRACTICES
BRT station locations are typically determined based on existing transit ridership, potential transit
markets, corridor land use, and transfer opportunities. Stations provide access to residential and
employment areas, major demand generators, and connecting transit services. A half-mile is commonly
considered the distance people will walk to a BRT or rail station. As illustrated in Figure B-1.1, closely
spaced intersections and a well-connected local street network increase the catchment area of a BRT
station.
Figure B.1-1 Stop Spacing Factors
Source: Nelson\Nygaard
There are tradeoffs between station spacing, land use access, and BRT speed. Closer spacing reduces BRT
travel speed but increases access, while wider spacing increases BRT speed but reduces access.
Station spacing helps determine whether underlying local bus service will be required along the BRT
corridor. Stations a quarter to a third of a mile apart may not need a local underlay, assuming a well-
connected street network. BRT stations spaced greater than a half-mile apart would typically require a
local route to serve stops between BRT stations. With station spacing between a third of a mile and a half-
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B.1 City of Boulder
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B.1-2
mile, the need for local service depends on land use, specifically the level of density and number of
demand generators, and spacing of streets and pedestrian facilities providing access to the corridor.
BRT station spacing is flexible and may vary by segment of a BRT corridor. A BRT line serving regional
travel needs (i.e., longer trip distances between cities) could be designed with wider station spacing and
local underlay service that serves local stops between stations. A BRT line serving travel needs in more
urbanized corridor (i.e., shorter, more localized trips to/from activity centers) may warrant closer station
spacing and local underlay service may not be necessary. Some transit corridors, including Arapahoe
Avenue, are comprised of both urbanized and less urban segments, and serve both regional and more
localized travel markets. In this case, a mix of wider and shorter stop spacing could be employed for
different corridor segments.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B.1 City of Boulder
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B.1-3
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL STATION LOCATIONS IN BOULDER
This section provides an assessment of potential BRT station locations for the Arapahoe corridor. This
assessment will be used to identify alternative station spacing scenarios. These scenarios will be
incorporated into operating alternatives that will be evaluated for a range of metrics. The evaluation of
these alternatives will help staff, elected officials, stakeholders, and the public evaluate tradeoffs between
station spacing and BRT speed, access, and cost, and shape a BRT alternative for the Arapahoe Corridor
that best meets Boulder’s goals and objectives.
Figure B.1-2 illustrates the proposed Arapahoe BRT corridor, between Boulder Transit Center and I-25,
along with potential station locations identified along the alignment. These station locations include those
assumed in the Northwest Area Mobility Study (NAMS) as well as those identified by the City of Boulder
project team based on staff discussions and internal workshops.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B.1 City of Boulder
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B.1-4
Figure B.1-2 Arapahoe Corridor Extent
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B.1 City of Boulder
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B.1-5
Station Location Assessment
The left portion of Figure B.1-3 provides a high-level assessment of potential station locations. This assessment
includes major ridership generators, land use, right-of-way constraints, connectivity and access for people walking
and riding bicycles to/from BRT stations, connections to other transit routes, and planned Mobility Hub
locations.1 The assessment informed the development of several stop spacing scenarios, identified in the right
portion of Figure B.1-3. The following section describes these scenarios and the iterative process by which they
were developed.
Station Selection Process and Spacing Scenarios
The selection process resulted in three stop spacing scenarios, with stations preferably located no closer than a
quarter-mile and between a third of a mile and a half-mile from adjacent stops. The process for selecting station
locations was iterative. The project team first identified general station areas along the corridor that would be
important to serve based on the presence of major generators (such as the 29th Street Mall) and important transit
and multimodal connections (such as US 36 BRT). The team then identified more specific station locations
considering factors including land use, right-of-way feasibility, existing ridership, and stop spacing
considerations.
The right portion of Figure B.1-3 identifies the station locations included in each scenario.
Scenario 1: Longer spacing targeting a minimum approximately half-mile distance between
stations. Figure B.1-4 illustrates this scenario, which includes six stops between Folsom and 75th: 29th,
38th, 48th, 55th, Cherryvale, and either 63rd or 65th. Compared to Scenario 2, it does not include a station at
32nd Street (between 29th and 38th Streets) and includes only one station at 63rd or 65th.
Scenario 2: Moderate spacing – average of about 0.4 miles. Figure B.1-5 illustrates this scenario,
which includes two additional stations relative to Scenario 1 (nine total): 29th, 32nd, 38th, 48th, 55th,
Cherryvale, and both 63rd and 65th.
Scenario 3: Shorter spacing – average of about a third of a mile. Figure B.1-6 illustrates this
scenario, which includes three additional stops relative to Scenario 2 (12 total): 29th, 32nd, 38th, 48th,
Eisenhower/Commerce, 55th, Cherryvale, both 63rd and 65th, and Valtec Drive.
Additional details on the station selection considerations are provided below Figure B.1-3.
Figure B.1-7 provides a more detailed listing of all existing stops (including existing ridership) and proposed
stations. It includes the BRT stations proposed in the NAMS study and provides the distance between stops.
Figure B.1-8 illustrates existing ridership on a map.
1 Mobility hubs are a concept included in the City of Boulder TMP. Mobility hubs facilitate transit connections outside of the primary transit
centers and include pedestrian and bicycle improvements and other sustainable modes (e.g., car or bike sharing) designed to connect transit
passengers to adjacent neighborhoods and nearby land uses.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B.1 City of Boulder
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B.1-6
Figure B.1-3 Station Location Assessment and Spacing Scenarios (within City of Boulder)
Location Station Assessment Recommended BRT Station Scenario
Major Generators Land Use Environment Right-of-Way Constraints Ped/Bike Connections Transit Connections Mobility Hub Long Moderate Shorter Primary Rationale Notes
28th 29th Street
Mall Urban, Mixed Use Dual left-turn lanes
in both directions Multi-Use Path US 36 BRT Proposed - - - Constrained ROW A
29th 29th Street
Mall Urban, Mixed Use N: Bike Lanes
S: Bike Route
S (EB);
1 block from
US 36 BRT, S
(SB), BOUND
- X X X
Proximity to both 28th
Street and US 36
BRT, and 30th Street
and BOUND
A
30th 29th Street
Mall Urban, Mixed Use Multi-Use Path &
Bike Lanes
S, BOUND,
STAMPEDE - - - - Stop Spacing A
32nd CU East
Campus Urban, Mixed Use - J, S,
STAMPEDE - - X X Stop Spacing A
33rd CU East
Campus Urban, Mixed Use - J, S - - - - Stop Spacing A
38th CU East
Campus Urban, Mixed Use
Boulder Creek Multi-
Use Path;
Underpass; Future
CU bus/bike bridge
J, S,
STAMPEDE - -X X X Major Generator,
Ped/Bike Connections A
Foothills - Highway
Interchange
Dual or triple left-
turn lanes Underpass (east) J, STAMPEDE - - - *
* Mid-block 48th station
east of MacArthur in
shorter stop spacing
scenario
B
MacArthur Boulder
Comm.
Hosp. (BCH)
Urban, Lower-
Density
Residential (S),
Institutional (N)
Stated demand for
crossing (none
existing)
S - - - *
* Mid-block 48th station
east of MacArthur in
shorter stop spacing
scenario
B
48th BCH; Ball
Aerospace
Urban, Lower-
Density
Residential (S),
Institutional (N)
N: Boulder Creek
Path (0.25 mi)
S: Bike Route (0.2
mi)
206 (0.2 mi) Proposed X X X Major Generator,
Highest Ridership B
Eisenhower/Commerce BCH; Ball
Aerospace S: Bike Route 206 - - X B
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B.1 City of Boulder
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B.1-7
Location Station Assessment Recommended BRT Station Scenario
Major Generators Land Use Environment Right-of-Way Constraints Ped/Bike Connections Transit Connections Mobility Hub Long Moderate Shorter Primary Rationale Notes
55th Retail
(various)
Medium Density
Mixed Use/Light
Industrial (N),
Residential (S)
- Bike Lanes 206, 208 - X X X
Stop Spacing,
Multimodal
Connections, Land
Use
C
Flatirons
Golf Course
Flatirons
Golf Course
Light Industrial (N)
Golf Course (S) -
Golf course limits
access and
connectivity to south
- - - X Low Ridership D
Cherryvale
New Jewish
Community
Center
Institutional, Auto
Dealerships, Low
Density
Residential
-
Pedestrian
undercrossing at S.
Boulder Creek Path
(0.1 mi)
- - X X X Future Major
Generator E
63rd
Naropa
Planned
Expansion;
Sports
Facility
Institutional, Light
industrial -
Bike lane and
multimodal path
connection to north
- - - X X Stop Spacing, Major
Generator F
65th
BVSD;
Resource
Yard/Edge
Parking
Institutional, Light
industrial - - - - X X X Major Generator F
Valtec Tech Center Institutional, Rural - - - - - X Stop Spacing G
75th Rural - Good bike facility - Future X X X Park & Ride
Notes: A: 28th – 29th – 30th – 32nd/33rd – 38th: 28th Street would be an optimal location for transfers to/from US 36 BRT, however the project team felt that limited right-of-way would constrain the station footprint. The team
therefore targeted a station at 29th for relatively close proximity to US 36 BRT stations on 28th Street. A station at 29th would provide relatively close access to the BOUND route along 30th Street. Although 30th
Street has the highest ridership of this set of stops, stop spacing with 29th would be very short. 29thand 38th Streets are about a half-mile apart. In the shorter and moderate stop spacing scenarios, a station at 32nd
Street (east of 30th and west of 33rd) is approximately equidistant between 29th and 38th and provides closer connections to the BOUND than 33rd. A station at 32nd or 33rd would provide improved connections to
CU East Campus. B: Foothills – MacArthur - 48th – Eisenhower: 48th Street has the higher existing ridership than either the MacArthur Drive and Eisenhower Drive stops, although all three stops have high ridership. The addition
of an Eisenhower station in the shorter spacing scenario would serve employment east of 48th including Ball Aerospace, but would result in very short spacing between a 48th Street station located at the 48th
intersection. However, a mid-block station located west of 48th and east of MacArthur Drive (see proposed design concept in Chapter 3) would balance the distance between stops with an Eisenhower station. A
station was also considered at Foothills Drive in the shorter spacing scenario, but would be only a short distance from the proposed mid-block location between MacArthur Drive and 48th Street. Foothills Drive has
lower ridership than the other three existing stops. C: 55th: Conestoga Street has higher ridership than 55th Street, however these two streets are only 0.14 miles apart. Land use south of Arapahoe & Conestoga is primarily residential while there is more of a
residential/employment mix south of Arapahoe & 55th. A proposed design concept for the 55th station could be located mid-block between these streets. D: Flatirons Golf Course. Low existing ridership, but included in the shorter stop spacing scenario. This could be considered in conjunction with an alternative with no/infrequent local underlay service.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B.1 City of Boulder
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B.1-8
E: Cherryvale: A new Jewish Community Center is planned on the southeast corner of Arapahoe and Cherryvale. F: 63rd/65th: 65th has higher existing ridership than 63rd, and is included in the longer stop spacing scenario. However, both station areas have major attractors and are included in the moderate and shorter stop
spacing scenarios. G: Valtec: Low existing ridership, but included in the shorter stop spacing scenario. This could be considered in conjunction with an alternative with no/infrequent local underlay service.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B.1 City of Boulder
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B.1-9
Figure B.1-4 East Arapahoe BRT Station Areas: Scenario 1 – Longer Stop Spacing
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B.1 City of Boulder
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B.1-10
Figure B.1-5 East Arapahoe BRT Station Areas: Scenario 2 – Moderate Stop Spacing
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B.1 City of Boulder
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B.1-11
Figure B.1-6 East Arapahoe BRT Station Areas: Scenario 3 – Shorter Stop Spacing
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B.1 City of Boulder
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B.1-12
Figure B.1-7 Station Location Scenarios Detailed Characteristics
Stop/Station Location Miles
[1]
Existing JUMP
Stop
Existing JUMP
Ridership
Proposed NAMS 1: Longer Stop Spacing
(Avg 1/2 mile)
2: Moderate Stop
Spacing (Avg 0.4 mile)
3: Shorter Stop Spacing
(Avg 1/3 mile)
Station
Park &
Ride
Miles from
Previous
Station [1]
Stations
Included
Miles from
Previous
Station [1]
Stations
Included
Miles from
Previous
Station [1]
Stations
Included
Miles from
Previous
Station [1]
Arapahoe/28th St 0.00 X 188 X
Arapahoe/29th St 0.13 X 138 X 0.13 X 0.00 X 0.00 X 0.00
Arapahoe/30th St 0.25 X 475 X 0.12
Arapahoe/32nd St 0.33 X 0.20 X 0.20
Arapahoe/33rd St 0.44 X 86
Arapahoe/38th St 0.63 X 93 X 0.38 X 0.50 X 0.30 X 0.30
Arapahoe/Foothills Pkwy 0.94 X 51 X 0.31
Arapahoe/MacArthur Dr 1.08 X 107
Arapahoe/48th St 1.25 X 139 X 0.62 X 0.62 X 0.62
Arapahoe/Eisenhower Dr 1.40 X 112 X 0.15
Conestoga St 1.61 X 210
Arapahoe/55th St 1.75 X 113 X 0.81 X 0.50 X 0.50 X 0.35
Arapahoe/Flatirons Golf Course 2.01 X 13 X 0.26
Arapahoe/Old Tale Rd 2.27 X 18
Arapahoe/Cherryvale Rd 2.41 X 92 X 0.66 X 0.66 X 0.66 X 0.40
Arapahoe/62nd St 2.66 X 32
Arapahoe/63rd St 2.75 X 60 X 0.34 X 0.34 X 0.34
Arapahoe/6400 Block 2.96 X 5
Arapahoe/Vo Tech Dr (65th St) 3.06 X 109 X 0.65 X 0.31 X 0.31
Arapahoe/Valtec Ln 3.80 X 16 Future -- Future -- X 0.74
Arapahoe/75th St 4.27 X 17 X X 1.52 X 1.21 X 1.21 X 0.47
Arapahoe/Willow Creek Dr 4.88 X 2
Arapahoe/East Boulder Trail 5.23 X 0
Arapahoe/Marshallville Ditch Rd 5.59 X 0
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B.1 City of Boulder
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B.1-13
Stop/Station Location Miles
[1]
Existing
JUMP
Stop
Existing
JUMP
Ridership
Proposed NAMS 1: Longer Stop Spacing
(Avg 1/2 mile)
2: Moderate Stop
Spacing (Avg 0.4 mile)
3: Shorter Stop Spacing
(Avg 1/3 mile)
Station
Park &
Ride
Miles from
Previous
Station [1]
Stations
Included
Miles from
Previous
Station [1]
Stations
Included
Miles from
Previous
Station [1]
Stations
Included
Miles from
Previous
Station [1]
Arapahoe/Park Lane Dr 5.94 X 4
Arapahoe/Wicklow St 6.29 X 19
Arapahoe/Cross Creek Dr 6.60 X 35
Arapahoe/95th St [3] 6.76 X 27 X 2.49 X 2.49 X 2.49
Arapahoe/Forest Park Dr 6.92 X 15
Arapahoe/Yarrow St 7.25 X 7
Arapahoe/101 St St 7.57 X 0
Arapahoe/10300 Block 7.98 X 3
Arapahoe/Stonehenge Dr 8.17 X 13
Arapahoe/107th St (US 287) 8.26 X X 3.99 X 1.50 X 1.50 X 1.50
Baseline/107th St (US 287) 9.28 X X 1.02 X 2.52 X 2.52
Baseline/111th St 9.79 X X 0.51 X 0.51 X 0.51
Baseline/119th St 10.79 X X 2.53 X 1.00 X 1.00 X 1.00
Baseline/County Line Rd 11.53 X X 0.74 X 0.74 X 0.74
Baseline/Lowell Blvd 12.78 X X 1.25 X 1.25 X 1.25
Baseline/Sheridan Pkwy 14.32 X X 3.53 X 1.54 X 1.54 X 1.54
Baseline/Huron St 14.89 X X 0.57 X 0.57 X 0.57
Baseline/Washington (I-25) 16.15 X X 1.83 X 1.26 X 1.26 X 1.26
Notes: [1] Distances based on cross-street centerline. [2] Assumes moderate stop spacing (approximately ½ mile). [3] Shorter stop spacing option (approximately 0.3 to 0.4 miles), for evaluation of alternatives
without a local underlay service. [3] This station was not identified in NAMS reports/maps (January 2014), but was identified by RTD as a park & ride location along SH 7.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B.1 City of Boulder
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B.1-14
Figure B.1-8 Existing JUMP Ridership, Weekdays, January 2016
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B.2 City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B.2-1
ATTACHMENT B.2 WEST END ALIGNMENT
AND STATION LOCATION OPTIONS
This attachment provides a high level assessment of alignment and stop location options for the West End
of the East Arapahoe corridor (defined as areas west of 28th Street).
WEST END ALIGNMENTS
There are multiple alignments that can be selected for BRT or Enhanced Bus service west of 28th Street.
Figure B.2-1 identifies four potential West End alignments that were identified for BRT or Enhanced Bus
service on the Arapahoe corridor:
Arapahoe: Arapahoe Avenue, 14th Street (inbound), and 17th Street (outbound)
Canyon via 28th: 28th Street and Canyon Boulevard
Canyon via Folsom: Folsom Street and Canyon Boulevard
Canyon via 28th/Folsom: 28th Street (inbound), Canyon Boulevard, and Folsom Street
(outbound)
Based on the high-level evaluation summarized in this section, the East Arapahoe Transportation Plan
includes preliminary assumptions about the West End (e.g., transit travel time), but does not recommend
a specific West End alignment or station locations. It also assumes that the Downtown Boulder Transit
Center (TC) will be the western terminus of the Arapahoe Corridor BRT, recognizing that an alternate
terminus may be desirable based on a future, detailed assessment of transit markets. Terminal options
and detailed routing, facility capacity, and costs, etc., would need to be developed during a later study
phase, and coordinated with other studies including the Canyon Boulevard Complete Street Study and
future studies of BRT service between Longmont and Boulder.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B.2 City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B.2-2
Figure B.2-1 West End Alignment Options
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B.2 City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B.2-3
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL WEST END ALIGNMENTS
Figure B.2-2 identifies the key factors for each of the four alignments that will impact the quality of
service, speed and cost, among other factors.
Figure B.2-2 Qualitative Assessment of Routing Options
Arapahoe 28th – Canyon Folsom – Canyon 28th/Folsom - Canyon
Right-of-Way Narrow roadway with one
lane in each direction, and
generally a center left-turn
lane (east of 11th Street)
Canyon Blvd has two general travel lanes in each direction with a center
median/left turn lane
28th Street has three travel lanes in each direction with dual left-turn
lanes at both Canyon Blvd and Arapahoe Avenue
Folsom Street has two travel lanes in each direction, with dual left-turn
lanes at both Canyon Blvd and Arapahoe Avenue
Arapahoe west of 28th
Street is not a state
roadway
Canyon Blvd west of 28th Street is a State roadway
28th Street is a State
roadway
N/A 28th Street is a State
roadway
Multimodal Connectivity
Connections to US 36 BRT
service (FF4 and FF6)
stops at 28th & Arapahoe
(NB/SB), or to FF1 at the
downtown Boulder TC
Connections to HOP along
9th Street, at Folsom Street,
or at the downtown Boulder
Transit Center (TC)
Connects with other existing transit routes along Canyon Blvd, including
the BOLT route (Longmont-Boulder)
Canyon Blvd is a proposed alignment for BRT service from Longmont.
Connections to US 36 BRT service (FF4 and FF6) stops at 28th &
Arapahoe (NB/SB), Canyon (NB), and Walnut (NB), or to FF1 at the
downtown Boulder TC
Connections to HOP along Canyon (Folsom – 28th) or at the downtown
Boulder TC
Proposed Mobility Hubs at 28th & Canyon and 2th & Arapahoe
Generally short spacing
between pedestrian
crossings, and a relatively
short crossing distance
Pedestrian crossing signal
between 21st and 22nd St
Long distance between
21st/22nd crossing and
Folsom St
Enhanced pedestrian
crossings at Canyon
Blvd and 19th St and
21st St
Long distance
between crossings of
Canyon at 21st and
Folsom St.
Pedestrian
crossing beacons
on Folsom St
Enhanced
pedestrian
crossings at
Canyon Blvd and
19th and 21st Sts.
Enhanced pedestrian
crossings at Canyon
Blvd and 19th St and
21st St
Long distance
between crossings of
Canyon at 21st and
Folsom St.
Transit Markets Serves University of
Colorado’s northern edge
Serves Boulder High
School
Densification of CU student
housing
Fewer destinations than
Canyon Blvd
Serves new hotels
The closest stations
to University of
Colorado would be
along Canyon Blvd,
0.20 miles away
Close proximity to
shopping centers
Close to University
of Colorado and
Folsom Field
No bi-directional
station at Folsom St
and Arapahoe Ave.
The closest inbound
station would be
along Canyon Blvd.
Urban Design
Opportunities
Coordinate BRT alignment option on Canyon with Civic Center planning process (design between 9th and
17th Streets), and Canyon Boulevard Complete Street Study
Limited space to install
specialized stations or
amenities, except for Civic
Center area.
Greater opportunity along Canyon based on upcoming corridor planning
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B.2 City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B.2-4
Arapahoe 28th – Canyon Folsom – Canyon 28th/Folsom - Canyon
Transit
Operations
BRT vehicle could get stuck
behind JUMP
Verify turning radius allows
for both standard and
articulated buses
Challenging to get
from Canyon to SB
left onto Arapahoe
Queue jump could
be installed on EB
Arapahoe at 28th
St
Easy through
movement on
Arapahoe at 28th
St
N/A
Traffic
Operations
Traffic congestion at
Boulder High School
Does not pass through any
intersections with a LOS of
E or F.
Has three turn
movements at
locations with a LOS
rating of E or F
Has a single turn
movement with a
LOS rating of E or
F
Has three turn
movements at
locations with a LOS
rating of E or F
Station Siting Options
BRT or Enhanced Bus stations would be strategically located to serve high ridership areas, important
destinations, and to provide passengers with access to connecting routes. The station spacing for each
option ranges from an average of 0.23 miles with the Arapahoe option, to 0.42 miles with the 28th-
Canyon option. Figure B.2-3 identifies the average stop spacing and the list of potential station locations
for each option.
Capital Costs Assessment
A high-level analysis was conducted of potential capital costs of the four options. Of the cost components
included in Figure B.2-3, the options have approximately the same length and would pass through
approximately the same number of traffic signals. The Arapahoe alignment has more potential station
locations per direction than options along Canyon, but less potential for station development (limiting
cost). Canyon has more potential for developing transit priority treatments (which could potentially be
shared with other BRT projects, e.g., service on SH 119 between Boulder and Longmont).
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B.2 City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B.2-5
Figure B.2-3 Characteristics by Option
Option
Average station spacing (miles) Potential Station Locations
Number of One-Way Stations
Round Trip Length (miles)
Auto Travel Time (min)[2] Number of Existing Traffic Signals
Potential for Transit Only Treatments Westbound Eastbound
Arapahoe 0.23
Arapahoe/23rd (IB/OB)
Arapahoe/21st (IB/OB)
Arapahoe/17th (IB/OB)
Arapahoe/14th (IB)
Boulder TC
Canyon/17th (OB)
9 [1] 2.27 5 4-5 12
EB queue jump
at Arapahoe &
28th
28th-Canyon 0.42
Canyon/Folsom
Canyon/19th
Boulder TC
5 2.33 4 4-6 11
EB queue jump
at Arapahoe &
28th
Potential transit-
only lanes on
Canyon
Folsom-Canyon 0.32
Folsom/Arapahoe
Canyon/Folsom
Canyon/19th
Boulder TC
7 2.32 4 5 12
Potential transit-
only lanes on
Canyon
28th/Folsom-
Canyon 0.36
Canyon/Folsom (IB
and/or OB)
Canyon/19th
Boulder TC
Arapahoe/Folsom (OB)
6 2.33 4 5 12
Potential transit-
only lanes on
Canyon
[1] Limited potential for station development based on right-of-way. Stations could be consolidated.
[2]Travel times from Google Maps, between 4 and 7 pm MDT (Thursday and Monday), 2015.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B.2 City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B.2-6
Transit Operations and Traffic Assessment (Speed and Reliability)
Google Maps was used to compare travel times for each alignment and provide a high-level assessment of
congestion. The auto travel times and distances between the Downtown Boulder Transit Center and the
east side alignment at 28th Street and Arapahoe Avenue have little variation between the four
alternatives. The round trip distance ranges between 2.27 and 2.33 miles, and round trip auto travel time
ranges between 8 and 10 minutes (see Figure B.2-3 above). An average of this estimate was assumed in
developing the conceptual Enhanced Bus and BRT alternative operating plans and operating cost
estimates.
Traffic at Boulder High School in the morning and when classes are dismissed in the afternoon could be a
potential issue for a BRT alignment due to congestion, delay, and increased travel times, particularly for
the Arapahoe option given that Arapahoe Avenue has only one travel lane per direction west of Folsom
Street. The use of 17th Street as the southbound connection between Canyon and Arapahoe in the
Arapahoe alignment option is intended to minimize this impact.
Additionally, some of the alignment options would use intersections and turning movements that
currently have an intersection level-of-service (LOS) of E or F. These are listed in Figure B.2-4 and Figure
B.2-5. The first option, service along Arapahoe Avenue, does not have a turning movement with an LOS
lower than D. The 28th-Canyon and 28th/Folsom-Canyon alternatives would each have three turning
movements with an LOS of E or F. Another concern is the potential difficulty for BRT vehicles to make
right turns onto 28th Street given queues from the upstream intersections. This applies in either option
using 28th Street to make a left turn onto Arapahoe Avenue (eastbound) and/or turn left onto Canyon
Boulevard (westbound). The Folsom-Canyon option has two movements with a LOS of E or F.
Figure B.2-4 Turning Movements with LOS of E or F, with Route Options Affected
Arapahoe 28th – Canyon Folsom – Canyon 28th/Folsom - Canyon
NB Folsom St, left onto Canyon Blvd - - AM/Noon/PM -
SB Folsom St, left onto Arapahoe Ave - - AM/PM AM/PM
WB Arapahoe Ave, right onto 28th St - AM/Noon/PM - AM/Noon/PM
SB 28th St, left onto Arapahoe Ave - AM - -
WB Canyon Blvd, through traffic at Folsom St - AM - AM
Total 0 3 2 3
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment B.2 City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | B.2-7
Figure B.2-5 Delay and Level of Service Data, 2015
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment C City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | C-1
ATTACHMENT C PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE
COMFORT AND ACCESS
This attachment provides detailed methodology for pedestrian and bicycle comfort and access analysis
and supplements the evaluation results that are provided in the East Arapahoe Transportation Plan
Evaluation of Alternatives Report.
OVERALL ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCES
Assumptions
Fehr & Peers analyzed four primary Active Transportation options for the East Arapahoe corridor:
Option 1a: curbside raised protected bike lane with amenity zone and multiuse path
Note: Option 1b (curbside raised protected bike lane with amenity zone and sidewalk) was also originally
considered in Character District E but was dismissed based on Community Working Group feedback.
Option 2: curbside amenity zone with raised protected bike lane separated from sidewalk
Option 3: street-level protected bike lane with amenity zone and multiuse path
Option 4: street-level buffered bike lane with curbside amenity zone and sidewalk (south side) or
existing multiuse path (north side)
Figure C-1 shows the Character Districts in which each option was analyzed.
Figure C-1 Options Analyzed by Character District
District A District B District C District D District E
Options
Analyzed Option 1A Option 2 N/A Option 1A Option 3 Option 1A Option 3 Option 4
Data Sources and Methods
Each group of options was analyzed at the street segment level according to the level of comfort provided
to people walking and people biking using the Streetscore+ tool, which is the same tool previously used to
analyze existing conditions. Streetscore+ provides a score of 1 to 4 that indicates the level of comfort
provided to people walking or people biking as shown in Figure C-2 below. For a detailed explanation of
the Streetscore+ tool and methodology, see Attachment C.1.
Beyond user comfort on street segments between intersections, achieving a high level of user comfort at
intersections is critical. Fehr & Peers analyzed each intersection and provided recommendations to the
City as to intersection enhancements for people walking and biking that will achieve at least a Streetscore
2 for all users. For a description of recommended intersection treatments see Attachment C.3.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment C City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | C-2
Figure C-2 Streetscore+ Scoring
PEDESTRIAN COMFORT AND ACCESS
Analysis Overview
Figure C-3 Pedestrian Comfort and Access Analysis Summary Table
Perceived ease of access or comfort for walking along or across the corridor
Metric Walking access/comfort along corridor.
Purpose Describe how the alternatives may affect the ease of access or perceived comfort of walking along
Arapahoe
Analysis Methodology Streetscore+ tool using the following factors:
Sidewalk width, quality and accessibility
Landscape buffer and street streets
Number of roadway lanes
Roadway prevailing speed
Lighting
Heavy vehicles
For a detailed explanation of factors see Attachment C.2
Evaluation Results
Key Findings
The With Build scenario will significantly improve conditions for pedestrians over the existing condition.
In the existing condition there are many locations where no pedestrian facility (sidewalk or multi-use
path) is provided; additionally, where pedestrian facilities are provided many segments score at
Streetscore 4 for pedestrians which suggests a relatively low comfort level. The With Build condition
achieves Streetscore 2 from Folsom Street to Westview Drive and Streetscore 3 from Westview Drive to
75th Street.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment C City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | C-3
Figure C-4 Pedestrian Comfort Evaluation Score
BICYCLE COMFORT AND ACCESS
Analysis Overview
Figure C-5 Bicycle Comfort and Access Analysis Summary Table
Perceived ease of access or comfort for bicycling along or across the corridor
Metric Bicycling access/comfort along corridor.
Purpose Describe how the alternatives may affect the ease of access or perceived comfort of bicycling
along Arapahoe
Analysis
Methodology
Streetscore+ tool using the following factors:
Bikeway type (bike lane, protected bike lane, shared-use path, etc.)
Bikeway width
Vertical separation from roadway lanes
Horizontal separation from roadway lanes
Visibility at minor streets
Roadway prevailing speed
Conflicting turn treatments
Bikeway blockage (by vehicles) For people walking:
Sidewalk width, quality and accessibility
Landscape buffer and street streets
Number of roadway lanes
Roadway prevailing speed
Lighting
Heavy vehicles
For a detailed explanation of factors see Attachment C.2
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment C City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | C-4
Evaluation Results
Key Findings
The With Build scenario will also significantly improve conditions for people biking.
For people biking in the on-street facility (in the existing condition either a shared lane or bike lane and in
the With Build condition a protected bike lane or buffered bike lane), Streetscore in the With Build
condition improves to Streetscore 2 from Folsom Street to 38th Street and Streetscore 3 from 38th Street
to Westview Drive (compared to no facility provided or Streetscore 4 in the existing condition). Although
the segment of East Arapahoe Avenue in the With Build scenario is Streetscore 4 this represents a
significant improvement over the existing condition where no facility is provided.
For people biking in the off-street facility, Streetscore in the With Build condition improves to Streetscore
2 from Folsom Street to Westview Drive. East of Westview Drive the Streetscore is unchanged from the
existing condition (Streetscore 3). Note that consistent with Community Working Group feedback no
multi-use path is proposed on the south side of East Arapahoe Avenue east of Westview Drive.
Additionally, a multi-use path may not be proposed west of 38th Street depending on Community
Working Group and other public or decision maker input.
Figure C-6 Bicycle Comfort Evaluation Score
$ttachmentC.1
Streetscore+: Comfort and Level of Traffic Stress
Scoring Methodology for Bicyclists and Pedestrians
Streetscore+: Comfort and Level of
Traffic Stress Scoring Methodology for
Bicyclists and Pedestrians
Prepared for City of Boulder
East Arapahoe Transportation Plan
April 2017
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
1
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 3
BACKGROUND & DOCUMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 4
Bicycling Comfort and Level of Traffic Stress ........................................................................................................... 4
Cycle Tracks ................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Bicycle Boulevards ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
Pedestrian Comfort ............................................................................................................................................................. 5
Sidewalk Environment ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Uncontrolled Crosswalks .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Signalized Crosswalks ................................................................................................................................................ 7
PEDESTRIAN STREETSCORE+ METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 8
Pedestrian Links .................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Sidewalk Width, Accessibility, and Quality ........................................................................................................ 9
Landscape Buffer and Street Trees .................................................................................................................... 10
Travel Lanes, Speed, and Heavy Vehicles........................................................................................................ 10
Lighting......................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Crosswalk Frequency ............................................................................................................................................... 10
Pedestrian Streetscore+ at Signalized Intersections .......................................................................................... 10
Uncontrolled Crosswalks ............................................................................................................................................... 12
BICYCLE STREETSCORE+ METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................14
Shared-USe Path – Links ................................................................................................................................................ 15
Shared-Use Paths at Signalized Intersections ....................................................................................................... 15
Cycle Track – Links ............................................................................................................................................................ 16
Raised Cycle Tracks with Parking ....................................................................................................................... 16
Two-Way (Raised and In-Street) Cycle Tracks with Parking .................................................................... 17
Raised Cycle Tracks without Parking ................................................................................................................ 18
Two-Way (Raised and In-Street) Cycletrack Without Parking ................................................................ 19
In-Roadway Cycle Tracks with Parking ............................................................................................................ 20
In-Roadway Cycle Tracks without Parking ..................................................................................................... 21
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
2
Cycle Tracks at Signalized Intersections .................................................................................................................. 22
Separation ................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Bicycle Left-Turns ..................................................................................................................................................... 24
Conflict Left-Turn Treatments ............................................................................................................................. 24
Cycle Tracks at Stop-Controlled and Uncontrolled Intersections ................................................................. 24
Bicycle Boulevard – Links ............................................................................................................................................... 25
average daily traffic (ADT) ..................................................................................................................................... 25
Speed ............................................................................................................................................................................ 26
Number of Stop-Controlled Intersections per Mile.................................................................................... 26
Bicycle Boulevards – Major Street Crossings ......................................................................................................... 26
List of Tables
Table 1 Streetscore+ Criteria Sidewalks in Urbanized Areas ............................................................................................. 9
Table 2 Streetscore+ Criteria Signalized Intersection crosswalks in Urbanized Areas ......................................... 12
Table 3 Streetscore+ Criteria Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing ................................................................................... 13
Table 4: Streetscore+ Criteria Bike Paths/Shared-Use Paths in Roadway Right-of-Way (sidepaths) .............. 15
Table 5: Streetscore+ Criteria Bike Paths/Shared-Use Paths in Roadway Right-of-Way (sidepaths) and
Two-Way Cycletracks at Signalized intersections ........................................................................................ 16
Table 6: Streetscore+ Criteria Raised Cycle Track with Parking ...................................................................................... 17
Table 7: Streetscore+ Criteria Two-Way (Raised and In-Street) Cycle Track with Parking................................... 18
Table 8: Streetscore+ Criteria Raised Cycle Track without Parking .............................................................................. 19
Table 9: Streetscore+ Criteria Two-Way (Raised and In-Street) Cycle Track without Parking ............................ 20
Table 10: Streetscore+ Criteria In-Roadway Cycle Track with Parking ....................................................................... 21
Table 11 Streetscore+ Criteria In-Roadway Cycle Track without Parking ................................................................. 21
Table 12 Streetscore+ Criteria Cycle Tracks at Signalized Intersections ..................................................................... 23
Table 13 Streetscore+ Criteria Cycle Tracks at Stop-Controlled and Uncontrolled Intersections ................... 24
Table 14: Streetscore+ Criteria Bicycle Boulevard Links ................................................................................................... 25
Table 15 Streetscore+ Criteria Bicycle Boulevard Major Street Crossing ................................................................... 28
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
3
INTRODUCTION
As jurisdictions are faced with increasingly complex transportation issues, the need for effective, low-data
intensity, and customizable analysis tools to convey trade-offs and design alternatives to public and
agency stakeholders is ever more apparent. Some existing tools, such as the Level of Traffic Stress
methodology, better fit these needs and can be expanded to better meet the needs of bicycle and
pedestrian planners. Other tools, such as the Highway Capacity Manual’s Multi-Modal Level of Service
methodology, are data intensive and onerous from a practitioner perspective and often feature complex
calculations and outputs that are difficult to explain to non-transportation stakeholders. To address this
need on active transportation and complete streets studies, Fehr & Peers prepared a quick-response tool
–Streetscore+ – that allows jurisdictions to quickly and effectively compare design alternatives and
convey project benefits to stakeholders.
Streetscore+ is an Excel-based tool that allows users to calculate comfort based indices for active
transportation projects. For bicycle facilities, this builds off of the Level of Traffic Stress methodology
developed by Mekuria, Furth, and Nixon (2012) with targeted enhancements to address shared use path,
cycle track and bicycle boulevard comfort, making the methodologies consistent with the National
Association of City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO’s) Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2nd edition. For
pedestrian facilities, Streetscore+ is calculated based on best practice guidance documentation, such as
the NACTO Urban Streets Guide and safety research. Streetscore+ uses best practice guidance to
measure bicycle and pedestrian comfort at links and intersections in urbanized environments.
Streetscore+ easily and accurately assesses bicycle and pedestrian project benefits and trade-offs,
assisting community and agency stakeholders in making informed decisions about complete streets
projects, and assisting project development as a sketch-planning tool to ensure that key comfort
considerations are included in bicycle and pedestrian designs.
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
4
BACKGROUND & DOCUMENTATION
BICYCLING COMFORT AND LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
Mekuria, Furth, and Nixon’s 2012 Low Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity report (also
Transportation Research Board Annual Compendium of Paper, 2016) opened the door to the Level of
Traffic Stress (LTS) methodology that has been the focus of practitioners for the last four years. The
report takes a practical approach to defining and describing user tolerance along a given bikeway,
balancing typically available data against a “weakest link” methodology informed by sound engineering
judgment. Streetscore+ takes a the same approach but incorporates methodologies for bicycle boulevard
and cycle tracks.
CYCLE TRACKS
With the current LTS methodology, off-street facilities and cycle tracks receive a LTS score of 1, indicating
that they are ideal for bicyclists of all ages and abilities. Recent research and best practice guidance from
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Separated Bikeway Guide; NACTO Urban Bikeway Guide, 2nd
edition; and similar publications, has demonstrated that cycle track design is complex and worthy of more
rigorous LTS assessment.
To document a refined comfort methodology for separated bikeways, the NACTO Urban Bikeway Guide,
2nd edition was used to reference best practices in raised and in-roadway cycle track design, both with and
without parking. NACTO differentiates between required and recommended features, which were either
incorporated into Streetscore+ or were treated as assumptions. For example, the raised cycle track
requirement of “bicycle lane word, symbol, and/or arrow markings (MUTCD Figure 9C-3) shall be placed at
the beginning of a cycle track and at periodic intervals along the facility based on engineering judgment”
is assumed to be present. By contrast, buffer space guidance is incorporated as a Streetscore+ variable.
The three foot minimum buffer space between the cycle track and parking lane is assumed to represent a
Streetscore+ of 3, as more than 3 feet will be more comfortable for pedestrians and enhanced
accessibility for users for mobility impairments, which would instead return a Streetscore+ of 1. If the
required elements are missing or deficient, then a Streetscore+ of 4 is typically received. Missing,
deficient, or minimum dimension recommended features receive a slightly more lenient decrease in score,
typically a Streetscore+2 or 3 depending on the importance of the design element for comfort and safety.
The NACTO Urban Bikeway Guide also includes two-way separated bikeways or side paths. The
Streetscore+ methodology does not currently include those facility types, but these can be incorporated
into future updates to the methodology.
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
5
BICYCLE BOULEVARDS
The NACTO Urban Bikeway Guide, 2nd Edition also proposes specific criteria for best practices in bicycle
boulevard design, helping practitioners distinguish from potentially high-stress bicycle routes – with high
auto volumes and speed – from true bicycle boulevards that are traffic calmed through low auto volumes
and speeds and are truly appropriate for all ages and abilities. Academic research from Jennifer Dill and
others have reinforced this distinction in terms of low-stress bikeways’ ability to attract new ridership from
the “Interested but Concerned” cohort.
The NACTO Guide states that bicycle boulevards “should be meet strict targets of fewer than 3,000 motor
vehicles per day (1,500 preferred) and an 85th percentile speed of no more than 25 mph (20 mph
preferred).”1 Bicycle boulevard components such as connectivity and route identification/wayfinding,
which are critical elements of successful implementations, are assumed in the bicycle boulevard
Streetscore+ criteria. While these are key design elements, they are not considered to be major drivers of
comfort. As a result, bicycle boulevards with 1,500 vehicles per day or less and speeds below 20 mph
received a Streetscore+ of 1 while bicycle boulevards with over 3,000 vehicles per day and speeds above
25 mph received a Streetscore+ of 3 or 4.
The bicycle boulevard design elements at minor streets document bicycle travel time considerations with
and without frequent stop signs at intersection with minor streets. While the NACTO Guide does not
present a particular rule, it notes that giving right-of-way to the bicycle boulevard should be considered at
all minor intersections.
PEDESTRIAN COMFORT
SIDEWALK ENVIRONMENT
The NACTO Urban Streets Design Guide (USDG) and engineering judgment provide the basis for
pedestrian Streetscore+. The USDG provides critical, recommended, and optional parameters for the
pedestrian environment consistent with best practices and documents supporting guidance and literature.
Additional considerations of comfort are informed by practitioner and best practice experience.
The USDG specifically addresses the following topic areas:
1 NACTO Urban Bikeway Guide, 2nd edition. “Bicycle Boulevard Route Planning” http://nacto.org/publication/urban-
bikeway-design-guide/bicycle-boulevards/route-planning/
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
6
•Usable Sidewalk Space: A desired minimum through zone of six feet, with an absolute minimum
of five feet, is listed as a critical strategy. Where sidewalk directly adjacent to moving traffic, the
desired minimum is eight feet, providing a two-foot buffer for street furniture and utilities.
•Driveways: Maintaining sidewalk at-grade through driveways is describe as a critical strategy. As
a result, frequent driveway curb cuts that impact the sidewalk zone, receive a Streetscore+ of 4.
•Pedestrian-Scale Lighting: This is a recommended strategy, resulting in sidewalks with only
roadway lighting not receiving a Streetscore+ higher than 2.
•Street Trees and Landscaping: Street trees and tree wells that minimally impact sidewalk
structure are a recommended strategy.
•Speed: Additional comfort measures, such as going beyond minimum dimensions for sidewalk
and providing landscape buffer, are noted as important as speed increases. Design speed is also
referenced as an overall safety consideration for urban streets, linking crash severity with
increases in speed.
Other criteria that influence comfort that are not specifically addressed in the USDG include:
•Sidewalk Quality: Smooth, even surface is important from an accessibility perspective and
creating great streetscape environments.
•Number of Travel Lanes: Increasing the number of travel lanes generally decreases the comfort
and enjoyment of walking on that street.
•Heavy Vehicle Volumes: High volumes of heavy vehicles in the outside curb lane can create
uncomfortable walking conditions for pedestrians even with buffer from the street.
•Crosswalk Frequency: In urban environment, having frequent marked crossing opportunities is
important designate preferred crossing areas for pedestrians and to signal their presence to other
roadway users.
UNCONTROLLED CROSSWALKS
Engineering considerations about when to install and enhance crosswalks based on pedestrian safety
considerations have evolved significantly in the last ten years. Published in 2005, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalk at Uncontrolled Locations
(2005) report identified where marking crosswalks may lead to an increased safety risk based on average
daily traffic volumes (ADT), speed, number of travel lanes, and presence of a median. Since then, case
study research has focused on the efficacy of specific types of lighted enhancements that could be used
to address crash risk, such as rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) and pedestrian hybrid beacons
(PHBs). Case studies have documented PHB efficacy in the 98th percentile 2 and RRFBs in the 80th
2 Fitzpatrick, Turner, Brewer, et al. “Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings,” NCHRP 562 (2006).
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
7
percentile.3 RRFBs continue to have interim approval in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD), and PHBs, along with a warrant for their use, are included in the MUTCD.
SIGNALIZED CROSSWALKS
Signalized crosswalk criteria employ best practices and engineering judgment to determine comfort at
crosswalks that already have a high level of traffic control given their location at signals. As a result, key
variables may include:
•Crossing Distance: Lower crossing distance can reduce pedestrian exposure to vehicles and
makes crossing easier for those with mobility impairments as well as seniors and students.
•Accessibility: While many signalized crosswalks have basic ADA requirements, additional
consideration can be given to push buttons and curb ramps to better address the comfort of
those with visual, auditory, and mobility impairments.
•Right-Turn Slip Lanes: In some environments, channelized right-turn lanes may be provided at
intersections, which frequently allow for free or yield-controlled right-turn across crosswalks.
Controlling speeds at these locations is important for pedestrian comfort.
•LPI or Scramble: Leading pedestrian interval (LPI) and pedestrian scramble should be considered
as signalized pedestrian improvements in urbanized areas. To recognize the need for their
consideration, these are included as a variable but not have no effect on the ultimate
Streetscore+.
3 FHWA, “Effects of Yellow Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons on Yielding at Multilane Uncontrolled Crosswalks”
(September 2010).
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
8
Example of the Weakest
Link Methodology
A roadway with good quality
sidewalk of ample width,
landscaping, and buffer from the
roadway (Streetscore+ 1) adjacent
to a travel lane with high-speed
traffic and no lighting (Streetscore+
4)results in a composite
Streetscore+ of 4.
PEDESTRIAN STREETSCORE+ METHODOLOGY
The Pedestrian Streetscore+ has a parallel structure to the Level of Traffic Stress approach for bicyclists,
using a 1-4 scale:
●Streetscore+ 1: Highly comfortable, pedestrian-friendly, and easily navigable for pedestrians of
all ages and abilities, including seniors or school-aged children walking unaccompanied to school.
These streets provide an ideal “pedestrian-friendly” environment.
●Streetscore+ 2: Generally comfortable for many pedestrians, but parents may not feel
comfortable with children walking alone. Seniors may have concerns about the walking
environment and take more caution. These streets may be part of a “pedestrian-friendly”
environment where it intersects with a more auto-oriented roadway or other environmental
constraints.
●Streetscore+ 3: Walking is uncomfortable but possible. Minimum sidewalk and crossing facilities
may be present, but barriers are present that make the walking experience uninviting and
uncomfortable.
●Streetscore+ 4: Walking is a barrier and is very uncomfortable or even impossible. Streets have
limited or no accommodation for pedestrians and are inhospitable and possibly unsafe
environment for pedestrians.
Like bicycle comfort, pedestrian comfort is based on a variety of
factors, not just one variable, on both links and at intersections.
Multiple variables ranging from the quality and presence of sidewalk
to the conditions of the adjacent roadway (speed, number of travel
lanes, and frequency of trucks) influence the pedestrian Streetscore+
methodology. Each variable is scored 1 through 4, with the highest
stress (lowest comfort) condition resulting in the composite score.
The weakest link approach accounts for the important role of
intersections and gaps in the pedestrian environment, parallel to the
Mekuria, Furth, and Nixon methodology for Level of Traffic Stress.
The Streetscore+ methodology is intended for use in urban and
developed suburban areas. In highly urbanized areas or more rural
areas, the tables should be contextualized to the local environment.
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
9
PEDESTRIAN LINKS
Pedestrian Streetscore+ link criteria are presented in Table 1 and discussed in the section below.
TABLE 1 STREETSCORE+ CRITERIA
SIDEWALKS IN URBANIZED AREAS
Criteria Streetscore+ 1 Streetscore+ 2 Streetscore+ 3 Streetscore+ 4
Usable Sidewalk >=8 feet 7 to 6 feet <6 feet No Sidewalk
Sidewalk Quality Even, Smooth
Surface (no effect) (no effect) Cracks, Failing
Pavement
Sidewalk
Accessibility
Driveway Curb Cuts
Out of the Sidewalk
Zone
(no effect) (no effect)
Frequent Driveway
Curb Cuts into the
Sidewalk Zone
Landscape Buffer
and Street Trees Yes, Continuous Yes, Discontinuous1 No Landscaping (no effect)
# of General Purpose
Lanes 2-3 4-5 (no effect) 6+
Prevailing Speed <=30 MPH 31-50 MPH (no effect) >50 MPH
Lighting Pedestrian-Scale Roadway Lighting (no effect) No Lighting2
Heavy Vehicle3 <=5% 5-8% with no buffer
OR >8% with buffer (no effect) >8% with no buffer
Crosswalk
Frequency4
Crosswalks Spaced
400 feet or Less (no effect) Crosswalks Spaced
> 400 feet (no effect)
1. Discontinuous is defined as not having a consistent effect on street life. Regularly spaced street trees may still feel like a
“continuous” buffer and should receive a score of 1.
2. No lighting also includes ineffective roadway lighting.
3. Consider the percentage of heavy vehicles operating in the curbside travel lane as data is available.
4. In urbanized areas where pedestrians are expected, crosswalk frequency should be taken into consideration where there is
demand based on land use and densities. As a general rule of thumb, consider marking a crosswalk if 20 pedestrians in a
given hour may cross at that location.
Note: Same as the Mekuria, Furth, and Nixon (2012) methodology, “no effect” signifies that there is no further
decrease in comfort for that variable.
SIDEWALK WIDTH, ACCESSIBILITY, AND QUALITY
Three variables are used to assess the sidewalk environment. First, sidewalk width is considered to ensure
that pedestrians can comfortably walk side-by-side and pass each other. These dimensions are intended
to be minimum standards for roadways in urbanized areas and may require modifications in highly dense
areas or in lower-density contexts. Consistently deteriorated sidewalk quality scores an automatic
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
10
Streetscore+ 4, as a result of issues such as tripping hazards and accessibility. Similarly, sidewalk
accessibility targets continuity of the walking experience through maintaining the sidewalk at grade
through driveways, with minimal interference from driveways, curb cuts and slopes. Where driveways are
frequent and do not maintain sidewalk grades through driveways, a Streetscore+ of 4 is received.
LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND STREET TREES
Street trees provide both buffered protection from through vehicles as well as shade for the pedestrian
environment. Where this dual benefit is most pronounced is when street trees are spaced such that
collectively they are perceived as a continuous buffer against vehicular traffic. As a result, a continuous
buffer receives a Streetscore+ of 1. Where street trees are present but spacing is not as frequent or there
are gaps in the landscaping, a Streetscore+ of 2 is received.
TRAVEL LANES, SPEED, AND HEAVY VEHICLES
The number of travel lanes, the prevailing automobile speeds, and the percentage of heavy vehicle traffic
describe roadway conditions immediately adjacent to the pedestrian environment. The number of travel
lanes is used as a way to describe the amount of automobile traffic on a roadway. Heavy vehicle
percentage in the curbside travel lane should be input where data is available.
LIGHTING
Adequate visibility for pedestrians serves both security and safety functions. Lighting that is specifically
designed for pedestrians receives a Streetscore+ of 1, with general roadway lighting receiving a
Streetscore+ 2. No roadway lighting - or where roadway lighting is spaced so infrequently as to be
rendered ineffectual for pedestrians - receives a Streetscore+ of 4.
CROSSWALK FREQUENCY
In urbanized areas with pedestrian traffic, crosswalks should be spaced every 400 feet or less to ensure
adequate crossing opportunities. Where demand is present but crossing opportunities are limited, a
Streetscore+ of 3 is assigned.
PEDESTRIAN STREETSCORE+ AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Table 2 presents the Pedestrian Streetscore+ criteria for signalized intersections. Given the large safety
and comfort benefit offered by full traffic signals, the criteria focuses on crossing distance, accessibility,
and intersection conflicts, as described below:
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
11
●Crossing Distance: Crossing distance is measured based on the number of travel lanes on the
crosswalk approach. Narrower streets of 2-3 lanes received a Streetscore+ of 1, and roadways
with 4-5 lanes received a Streetscore+ of 2. Wider roadway receives a score of 4. Medians do not
receive additional consideration at signalized locations, as pedestrians are assumed to cross the
street in one pedestrian phase.
●Accessibility: The presence of accessible elements, such as vibrotactile/audible push buttons at
signals, are important to serving those with auditory and visual impairments. Signals that have
auditory-only push buttons that meet ADA requirements, received a Streetscore+ of 2, and
standard push buttons meeting ADA requirements received a Streetscore+ of 3. Accessibility is
also assessed in terms of curb ramps. Directional curb ramps – two per corner – are desired to
assist those with mobility and visual impairments, directing them into the crosswalk and receive a
Streetscore+ of 1. One ramp per corner receives a Streetscore+ of 2, and if any of the curb ramps
are missing, a Streetscore+ of 4 is received.
●Channelized Right-Turns: Right-turn slip lanes lengthen the distance that a pedestrian must
cross to get from one side of the roadway to the other. As such, even when they are signal-
controlled, they receive a Streetscore+ of 2. Pedestrian comfort decreases as right-turn lane slip
lane control becomes yield (Streetscore+ 3) or becomes a free right-turn receiving a Streetscore+
of 4.
•LPI or Scramble: Leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) and pedestrian scrambles give pedestrians
priority at the intersection. Where these are present with no right-turn on red restrictions,
Streetscore+ 1 is received. However, there is not a penalty for signals that do not incorporate LPIs
or scrambles, so there is no overall effect on the total score from this variable.
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
12
TABLE 2 STREETSCORE+ CRITERIA
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CROSSWALKS IN URBANIZED AREAS
Criteria Streetscore+ 1 Streetscore+ 2 Streetscore+ 3 Streetscore+ 4
Crossing Distance 2-3 general purpose
lanes
4-5 general purpose
lanes (no effect) 6+ general purpose
lanes
Pedestrian Signal
Accessibility
Vibrotactile/ Audible
Push Buttons1
Auditory Push
Button Only
Standard Push
Button Only
Missing Countdown
Signals, Push
Buttons Do Not
Meet ADA
Standards
Accessibility Directional Curb
Ramps
Diagonal Curb
Ramps (no effect) Missing Curb Ramps
Right-Turn Slip
Lanes No RTOR Signalized Slip Lane
or Speed Table Yield Control No Control
LPI or Scramble Yes with no RTOR (no effect) (no effect) (no effect)
1.Signal may still operate on recall, but the push buttons allows for those with visual and/or auditory impairments to know when the
signal phases change. Use of this at all signals is consistent with the Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-
of-Way (PROWAG).
2.LPI or Scramble: Leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) and pedestrian scrambles give pedestrians priority at the intersection. Where
these are present with no right-turn on red restrictions, Streetscore+ 1 is received. However, there is not a penalty for signals that
do not incorporate LPIs or scrambles, so there is no overall effect on the total score from this variable.
Note: Same as the Mekuria, Furth, and Nixon (2012) methodology, “no effect” signifies that there is no further decrease in comfort
for that variable.
UNCONTROLLED CROSSWALKS
Table 3 presents uncontrolled pedestrian crossing Streetscore+ criteria. This method builds on Safety
Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalk at Uncontrolled Locations (FHWA, 2005) and adapts those
findings to include specific recommended enhancements with the latest industry standards on flashing
beacons. Based on available documentation of the efficacy of different types of beacons and practitioner
perspective on maintenance, only rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) and pedestrian hybrid
beacons (PHBs) are considered as lighted crosswalk enhancements. Table 11 from the FHWA report is
adapted to designate RRFBs specifically as an enhancement if a marked crosswalk is assumed to have a
possible increase in pedestrian crash risk without enhancements, and to include PHBs and signals, if
warranted, as the substantial crossing improvement required in order to mark a crosswalk if the location is
designated as marked crosswalks alone are insufficient, as pedestrian crash risk may be increased by
providing marked crosswalks alone. Geometric enhancements should always be considered.
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
13
The Streetscore+ is calculated by comparing Table 3 against what the user has input regarding travel
lanes, ADT, speed, median refuge, and crosswalk enhancements. If the input roadway characteristics and
crosswalk enhancements, if any, match the recommended roadway characteristics and crosswalk
enhancements, if any, then a Streetscore+ of 1 is received. If the recommended crosswalk enhancements
do not match based on the roadway characteristics, then a Streetscore+ of 4 is received. The purpose of
the binary scoring system is that the crosswalk either does or does not meet best practices in
uncontrolled crosswalk safety. Therefore, if the existing or proposed crosswalk enhancements match the
level of enhancements required based on speed, volumes, and number of travel lanes, then the
Streetscore+ is considered to be “good” and received a Streetscore+ of 1. If not, then the Streetscore+ is
considered to be “poor” or Streetscore+ 4.
TABLE 3 STREETSCORE+ CRITERIA
UNCONTROLLED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
Roadway
Type
Vehicle ADT
<9,000
Vehicle ADT
>9,000 to 12,000
Vehicle ADT
> 12,000 to 15,000
Vehicle ADT
> 15,000
30
mph
35
mph
40
mph
30
mph
35
mph
40
mph
30
mph
35
mph
40
mph
30
mph
35
mph
40
mph
Two Lanes A A B A A B A A C A B C
Three
Lanes A A B A B B B B C B C C
Multilane
(4 lanes
with raised
median)
A A C A B C B B C C1 C C
Multilane
(4 lanes
without
raised
median)
A B C B B C C1 C C C1 C C
Notes:
A=Level A, Signing and Striping Only;
B=Level B, Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB);
C=Level C, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) or Signal.
Geometric treatments should also be considered prior to the implementation of recommended enhancement.
1.Depending on site observation, driver yielding rates, and other engineering considerations, RRFBs could be considered.
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
14
BICYCLE STREETSCORE+ METHODOLOGY
The Streetscore+ methodology for bicycle facilities builds on the Mekuria, Furth, and Nixon LTS
methodology, with updates provided based on the NACTO Urban Bikeway Guide, 2nd edition
documentation. As discussed in the literature review, two specific bicycle facility were identified in the
existing LTS methodology when it comes to evaluating innovative bicycle facilities: cycle tracks and bicycle
boulevards. Because both bikeway types hold a high potential to increase the number of bicycling trips,
accurately assessing how their designs, which can vary greatly in level of protection and traffic calming,
influence bicycle comfort is critical. The Streetscore+ methodology uses the LTS methodology as a base
with the following modifications:
•Bike Paths/Shared-Use Paths – Bike paths and shared-use paths are automatically scored LTS 1
in the LTS methodology. The Streetscore+ methodology incorporates design criteria from the
AASHTO Bike Design Guide, CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic and California Highway
Design Manual (HDM) to account for best practices in bike paths at the link and intersection level.
•Cycle Tracks (or “separated bikeways”) – Off-street bikeways and cycle tracks are automatically
scored LTS 1 in the LTS methodology. The Streetscore+ methodology incorporates design criteria
from the NACTO Urban Bikeway Guide, 2nd edition to account for best practices in cycle track
design at the link and intersection level.
•Bicycle Boulevards – Bicycle boulevards are treated as bicycle routes in the LTS methodology
and do not include special consideration of traffic calming, volumes, or speeds. The Streetscore+
methodology incorporates design criteria from the NACTO Urban Bikeway Guide, 2nd edition to
account for best practices in bicycle boulevards design on links and for major street crossings.
The Streetscore+ scoring methodology is intended to be fully parallel to the Mekuria, Furth, and Nixon’s
LTS methodology with a 1-4 scale. Four Types of Cyclists prepared by Roger Geller, Bicycle Coordinator
for Portland Office of Transportation, describes these scales in detail and is attached for reference:
•Streetscore+ 1 - The lowest level of traffic stress and the design goal for a network that truly
accommodates people of all ages and abilities. This level of traffic stress would allow children
trained in traffic safety to bicycle to school by themselves as well as people “interested but
concerned” about bicycling.4
•Streetscore+ 2 - The highest level of acceptable traffic stress for the “interested but concerned”
segment of the population. This is the threshold for a “low traffic stress” bicycle network that
truly accommodates people of all ages and abilities.
4 Geller, “Four Types of Cyclists,” Undated. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/237507
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
15
•Streetscore+ 3 - This level of traffic stress accommodates a much smaller segment of population -
Geller’s “enthused and confident” segment of the population - who are excited and more familiar
with biking and will therefore accept a higher level of traffic stress.
•Streetscore+ 4 - This is a very high level of traffic stress that does not work for approximately 99%
of the population according to Geller’s classification scheme. Only the “strong and fearless”
cohort will feel comfortable riding on these facilities.
SHARED-USE PATH – LINKS
The width of a bike path is specified in both the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities and California Highway
Design Manual (HDM). AASHTO specifies that a two-directional bike path should be at least 8 feet, with 8
feet being acceptable in rare circumstance. CA HDM suggests that bike paths be at least 8 feet, with 10
feet preferred. AASHTO and CA HDM also recommend a horizontal separation of at least 5 feet. Similar to
cycle tracks with parking, NACTO acknowledges that driveways and minor street crossings create potential
visibility issues between bicyclist and drivers. As a result, it recommends that parking be prohibited 30
feet from either side of an intersection to improve driver-bicyclist sight lines.
TABLE 4: STREETSCORE+ CRITERIA
BIKE PATHS/SHARED-USE PATHS IN ROADWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY (SIDEPATHS)
Criteria Streetscore+ 1 Streetscore+ 2 Streetscore+ 3 Streetscore+ 4
Shared-use path
width ≥12’ ≥10-12’ ≥8-10’ <8’
Horizontal
separation ≥5’ (no effect) <5’ (no effect)
Visibility at Minor
Streets
Parking prohibited
≥30’ from
intersections
(no effect)
Parking prohibited
<30’ from
intersections
(no effect)
Prevailing Speed <=30 MPH or less 31 MPH – 50 MPH (no effect) >50 MPH
SHARED-USE PATHS AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
CROW addresses conflicting right and left-turn treatments in stating that “sub-conflicts between motor
vehicles and bicycles are not recommended if…a two-way cycle track is involved, as some of the cyclists
will then appear from an unexpected direction.” Right turn slip lanes are scored similarly to crosswalks at
signalized intersections, with a Streetscore+ of 2 due to a lengthened crossing distance. Signalized
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
16
intersections in particular require consideration of protected intersection treatments, protected signal
phasing, and consideration of left- and right-turn auto movements across the cycle track.
TABLE 5: STREETSCORE+ CRITERIA
BIKE PATHS/SHARED-USE PATHS IN ROADWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY (SIDEPATHS) AND TWO-WAY
CYCLETRACKS AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Criteria Streetscore+ 1 Streetscore+ 2 Streetscore+ 3 Streetscore+ 4
Conflicting right-
turn treatment
Protected-only
conflicting right-
turns1
Right-turn slip lane
with speed table2
Permissive
conflicting right-
turns1
(no effect)
Conflicting left-
turn treatment
Protected-only
conflicting left-turns1 (no effect) (no effect)
Permissive (or
protected-
permissive)
conflicting left-turns1
Bicyclist turns3 Protected
intersection
Painted treatments:
two-stage turn
queue box or bike
box
Crosswalks/curb
ramps with
pedestrian push
buttons
(no effect)
CYCLE TRACK – LINKS
NACTO guidance details separate methodologies for raised cycle tracks versus in-roadway cycle tracks as
the designs differ. Parking is another critical variable that affects design elements, as a result with and
without parking criteria are presented for each. For each set of criteria, it is assumed that the cycle track is
a direct route with clear wayfinding signs and pavement legends to help guide bicyclists of all ages and
abilities on the corridor.
RAISED CYCLE TRACKS WITH PARKING
NACTO states a preferred dimension of 6.5 feet for a raised cycle track riding surface to allow bicyclists to
travel side-by-side or to pass other bicyclists with a minimum of 5 feet. Adjacent to parking a minimum 3
foot buffer is required to allow passenger loading and protect bicyclists from dooring incidents. NACTO
acknowledges that driveways and minor street crossings create potential visibility issues between bicyclist
and drivers. As a result, it recommends that parking be prohibited 30 feet from either side of an
intersection to improve driver-bicyclist sight lines.
Blockages to the cycle track, such as with double-parked vehicles, may be enabled if mountable curb or a
cycle track at half the curb height is used. If the cycle track design specifies designated loading zones that
are attractive for commercial and/or passenger loading or if the design physically prevents the cycle track
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
17
from being blocked by vehicles, a Streetscore+ of 1 is received. If the design does not address curb
management or if the cycle track can be blocked by vehicles, a Streetscore+ of 3 is received. Table 4
presents the methodology.
TABLE 6: STREETSCORE+ CRITERIA
RAISED CYCLE TRACK WITH PARKING
Criteria Streetscore+ 1 Streetscore+ 2 Streetscore+ 3 Streetscore+ 4
Buffer Width >3 feet (no effect) 3 feet <3 feet
Bicycle Lane Width >=6.5 feet 5 to 6.5 feet (no effect) <5 feet
Visibility at Minor
Streets
Parking prohibited
>=30 feet from
intersections
(no effect)
Parking prohibited
<30 feet from
intersections
(no effect)
Cycle Track
Blockage
Vehicle loading is
accommodated
through design
(no effect)
Vehicle loading is
not accommodated
through design and
blockages are
expected
(no effect)
Same as the Mekuria, Furth, and Nixon (2012) methodology, “no effect” signifies that there is no further decrease in comfort for that
variable.
TWO-WAY (RAISED AND IN-STREET) CYCLE TRACKS WITH PARKING
NACTO states a desired minimum buffer dimension of 3 feet for two way cycle tracks; greater than or
equal to 4 feet is preferred. A solid or raised buffer is the most comfortable, receiving a Streetscore+ of 1
and a painted buffer with a vertical element reducing the Streetscore+ to at most a 2. The NACTO Urban
Bikeway Design Guide recommends a desired minimum cycle track width of 12 feet, with a minimum of 8
feet in constrained conditions. The NACTO guide recommends that a no-parking area is 30 feet from each
side of the crossing.
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
18
RAISED CYCLE TRACKS WITHOUT PARKING
Raised cycle tracks without parking generally use the same criteria as raised cycle tracks with parking
except that adjustments are made to the horizontal separation criterion and a speed criterion is
introduced. Separation can be provided by either a mountable curb with a desired 4:1 slope or a
furnishing zone buffer separating the cycle track from the travel lane per NACTO. The highest score that
the cycle track with mountable curb can receive is Streetscore+ 2. Raised cycle tracks with mountable
curbs less the NACTO-recommended minimum one (1) foot buffer receive Streetscore+ 3. Where a
furnishing zone buffer of at least 3 feet is provided, raised cycle tracks receive Streetscore+ 1.
With no parked cars to buffer the cycle track from the travel lane, speed is introduced to account for
traffic stress associated with riding adjacent to fast moving vehicles. The Streetscore+ is balanced against
the network-planning desire to site cycle tracks on higher speed roads, such as arterials. As a result,
Streetscore+ of 1 still allows for a prevailing speed of up to 30 MPH.
Operable cycle track surface width, cycle track blockages, and visibility at minor streets are still included.
Because parking is not included, the visibility at minor streets is instead defined by the sight triangle
between the driver and the bicyclist. Table 5 presents the methodology.
TABLE 7: STREETSCORE+ CRITERIA
TWO-WAY (RAISED AND IN-STREET) CYCLE TRACK WITH PARKING
Criteria Streetscore+ 1 Streetscore+ 2 Streetscore+ 3 Streetscore+ 4
Buffer Width1 >=4 feet >=3-4’ (no effect) <3 feet
Buffer Type
Solid/raised
(includes raised two-
way cycle tracks)
Painted + some
vertical elements (no effect) (no effect)
Two-way Cycle
Track Width2 ≥12’ ≥10-12’ ≥8-10’ <8’
Visibility at Minor
Streets and
Driveways3
Parking prohibited
≥30’ from
intersections
(no effect)
Parking prohibited
<30’ from
intersections
(no effect)
Cycle Track
Blockage
Vehicle loading is
accommodated
through design
(no effect)
Vehicle loading is
not accommodated
through design and
blockages are
expected
(no effect)
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
19
TABLE 8: STREETSCORE+ CRITERIA
RAISED CYCLE TRACK WITHOUT PARKING
Criteria Streetscore+ 1 Streetscore+ 2 Streetscore+ 3 Streetscore+ 4
Separation
Mountable
Curb with
4:1 Slope
(no effect) >= 1 foot <1 foot (no effect)
Furnishing
Zone Buffer >=3 feet (no effect) <3 feet (no effect)
Speed Limit or
Prevailing Speed <=30 MPH or less 31 MPH – 35 MPH 36 MPH – 45 MPH >45 MPH
Bicycle Lane Width >=6.5 feet 5 to 6.5 feet (no effect) <5 feet
Visibility at Minor Streets
Design
accommodates 20
feet for sight
triangle to the
cycle track from
minor street
crossings and 10
feet from driveway
crossings
(no effect) Sight triangles
<20 feet / 10 feet (no effect)
Cycle Track Blockage
Vehicle loading is
accommodated
through design
(no effect)
Vehicle loading is
not
accommodated
through design
and blockages are
expected
(no effect)
Same as the Mekuria, Furth, and Nixon (2012) methodology, “no effect” signifies that there is no further decrease in comfort for that
variable.
TWO-WAY (RAISED AND IN-STREET) CYCLETRACK WITHOUT PARKING
NACTO states a desired minimum buffer dimension of 3 feet for two way cycle tracks; greater than or
equal to 4 feet is preferred. A solid or raised buffer is the most comfortable, receiving a Streetscore+ of 1
and a painted buffer with a vertical element reducing the Streetscore+ to at most a 2. The NACTO Urban
Bikeway Design Guide recommends a desired minimum cycle track width of 12 feet, with a minimum of 8
feet in constrained conditions. Given the lack of parking buffer, this facility is sensitive to the prevailing
speed on the roadway.
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
20
IN-ROADWAY CYCLE TRACKS WITH PARKING
Parking-protected in-roadway cycle tracks have similar Streetscore+ criteria to raised cycle tracks, but
include additional details on the operable cycle track lane width as well as the type and width of buffer.
Per NACTO, the desired width of the operable cycle track area is 7 feet in uphill portions or where bicycle
volumes are higher and is otherwise 6 feet, allowing for a Streetscore+ of 1. A minimum width of 5 feet is
required, resulting in a Streetscore+ of 2.
While parking is assumed in this scenario, buffer type offers an additional level of protection for the cycle
track. If the buffer is solid or raised, the maximum Streetscore+ of 1 is received. If the buffer is painted
and has some vertical elements, such as soft-hit posts or rubber curb, a Streetscore+ of 2 is calculated.
While the highest score a paint-only cycle track can receive is 3. Likewise, the desired minimum
dimension for parking and the parking-side buffer is 11 feet with a minimum 3 foot buffer. Parking
widths of 7 feet that still provide the 3 foot buffer receive a score of 3 to account for added friction and
more constrained cross-section. Table 6 presents the methodology.
TABLE 9: STREETSCORE+ CRITERIA
TWO-WAY (RAISED AND IN-STREET) CYCLE TRACK WITHOUT PARKING
Criteria Streetscore+ 1 Streetscore+ 2 Streetscore+ 3 Streetscore+ 4
Buffer Width1 >=4 feet >=3-4’ (no effect) <3 feet
Buffer Type
Solid/raised
(includes raised two-
way cycle tracks)
Painted + some
vertical elements (no effect) (no effect)
Two-way Cycle
Track Width2 ≥12’ ≥10-12’ ≥8-10’ <8’
Visibility at Minor
Streets and
Driveways3
Parking prohibited
≥30’ from
intersections
(no effect)
Parking prohibited
<30’ from
intersections
(no effect)
Speed Limit of
Prevailing Speed ≤30 MPH >30 MPH – 35 MPH >35 MPH – 40 MPH >40 MPH
Cycle Track
Blockage
Vehicle loading is
accommodated
through design
(no effect)
Vehicle loading is
not accommodated
through design and
blockages are
expected
(no effect)
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
21
TABLE 10: STREETSCORE+ CRITERIA
IN-ROADWAY CYCLE TRACK WITH PARKING
Criteria Streetscore+ 1 Streetscore+ 2 Streetscore+ 3 Streetscore+ 4
Bicycle
Lane
Width
Uphill or
High
Volume
>=7 feet <=6 feet (no effect) (no effect)
Otherwise >=6 feet <=5 feet (no effect) (no effect)
Buffer Type Solid/Raised Painted + Some
Vertical Elements1 Painted Only (no effect)
Parking + Buffer
Width
>=11 feet, with >3
feet buffer (no effect)
10 feet total, with
minimum 3 feet
buffer
<10 feet total or
buffer <3 feet
Visibility at Minor
Streets
Parking prohibited
30 feet from
intersections
(no effect) Sight triangles <30
feet (no effect)
Cycle Track Blockage
Vehicle loading is
accommodated
through design
(no effect)
Vehicle loading is
not accommodated
through design and
blockages are
Expected
(no effect)
1.Such as soft-hit posts, landscape planters, and other vertical elements that provided additional protection but do not
provide a continuous raised barrier.
Note: Same as the Mekuria, Furth, and Nixon (2012) methodology, “no effect” signifies that there is no further decrease in comfort
for that variable.
IN-ROADWAY CYCLE TRACKS WITHOUT PARKING
In-roadway cycle tracks without parking includes the same criteria as in-roadway cycle tracks with parking,
but also includes the speed criteria to account for the lack of parking buffer. Visibility at minor streets
focuses on sight triangles since parking is prohibited in this condition. Table 7 presents the methodology.
TABLE 11 STREETSCORE+ CRITERIA
IN-ROADWAY CYCLE TRACK WITHOUT PARKING
Criteria Streetscore+ 1 Streetscore+ 2 Streetscore+ 3 Streetscore+ 4
Bicycle
Lane
Width
Uphill or
High
Volume
>=7 feet <=6 feet (no effect) (no effect)
Otherwise >=6 feet <=5 feet (no effect) (no effect)
Buffer Type Solid/Raised Painted + Some
Vertical Elements1 (no effect) (no effect)
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
22
Buffer Width >=4 feet 3 feet <3 feet (no effect)
Visibility at Minor
Streets
Design
accommodates
sight triangle of 20
feet to the cycle
track from minor
street crossings and
10 feet from
driveway crossings
(no effect)
Sight triangles less
than 20 feet and 10
feet
(no effect)
Speed Limit or
Prevailing Speed <=30 MPH or less 31 MPH – 35 MPH 36 MPH – 45 MPH >45 MPH
Cycle Track
Blockage
Vehicle loading is
accommodated
through design
(no effect)
Vehicle loading is
not accommodated
through design and
blockages are
Expected
(no effect)
1.Such as soft-hit posts, landscape planters, and other vertical elements that provided additional protection but do not
provide a continuous raised barrier.
Same as the Mekuria, Furth, and Nixon (2012) methodology, “no effect” signifies that there is no further decrease in comfort for that
variable.
CYCLE TRACKS AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Intersections are a very sensitive design area for cycle tracks and have a high potential to provide a weak
link in an otherwise robust facility. Signalized intersections in particular require consideration of protected
intersection treatments, protected signal phasing, and consideration of left- and right-turn auto
movements across the cycle track. The Streetscore+ methodology for cycle tracks is calculated by
intersection approach, similar to the LTS methodology. It is assumed that clear wayfinding and pavement
legends provide guidance to bicyclists through these intersections. Table 8 presents the Streetscore+
criteria for cycle tracks at signalized intersections.
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
23
TABLE 12 STREETSCORE+ CRITERIA
CYCLE TRACKS AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Criteria Streetscore+ 1 Streetscore+ 2 Streetscore+ 3 Streetscore+ 4
Separation
Separate signal
Phasing1 for cycle
track with barrier2 at
intersection
approach
Barrier and good
sightlines but
permitted turns (RT
<150 vph) during
cycle track green
phase
Barrier and good
sightlines but
permitted turns (RT
>150 vph) during
cycle track green
phase OR
No barrier
separation i.e.,
mixing zone or
striped bike lane
with right-turn
pocket (RT<150 vph)
No barrier
separation i.e.,
mixing zone or
striped lane with
right-turn pocket
(RT >150 vph)
Bicycle Left-Turns Protected
Intersection
Painted Treatments:
Two-Stage Turn Box
or Bike Box
Break in
separation/barrier
for bikes to merge
out
(no effect)
Conflicting Left-
Turn Treatments Protected Left-Turns (no effect) Permissive Left-
Turns (no effect)
1.Either with protected right-turn phase or dedicated bicycle only phase that does not overlap with permitted turning autos
or opposing auto movements.
2.Barrier would be a solid, raised elements (curb, landscape-buffer, etc) or a protected intersection that remain up until the
intersection.
Same as the Mekuria, Furth, and Nixon (2012) methodology, “no effect” signifies that there is no further decrease in comfort for that
variable.
SEPARATION
A variety of methods can be used to separate conflicts between turning vehicles and through bicyclists at
signalized intersections. Separate signal phasing between through bicyclists and turning vehicles entirely
remove the conflict, therefore receiving a Streetscore+ of 1. This treatment should include a solid barrier
up to the intersection to reinforce the cycle track protection.
The protected intersection treatment alone substantially reduces the potential and impact of conflict,
putting bicyclists ahead of turning vehicles and reducing the speeds of right-turning vehicles; however,
they do not remove the conflict all together. Where these treatments are implemented with right-turn
vehicle volumes per hour less than 150, a Streetscore+ of 2 is provided. Where right-turn volumes are
higher than 150 vehicles per hour or where mixing zones or striped bike lanes with low right-turn volumes
are striped, a score of 3 is received. This accounts for the real drop in protection of the cycle track.
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
24
BICYCLE LEFT-TURNS
Cycle track designs should accommodate left-turns out of the cycle track. Streetscore+ 1 is reserved for
protected intersections, which facilitate two-stage turns with a raised barrier and full protection from the
roadway. Painted facilities allowing bicyclists to cross in two stages – two stage turn boxes and bike
boxes – received a Streetscore+ of 2. Breaks in cycle track barriers or similar treatments requiring bikes to
confidently move out of the cycle track and merge across lanes receive a Streetscore+ of 3.
CONFLICT LEFT-TURN TREATMENTS
While right-hook conflicts are the commonly discussed conflict for bicyclists, auto left-turns across the
cycletrack should also be considered. Protected vehicular left-turns which fully remove the bicyclist-auto
conflicts receive a Streetscore+ of 1. Permissive left-turns receive a Streetscore+ of 3, as that phasing
does not mitigate the conflict.
CYCLE TRACKS AT STOP-CONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLED
INTERSECTIONS
Cycle tracks at stop-controlled or uncontrolled intersections have different needs than signalized
intersections which are likely to have higher traffic volumes and more turning conflicts. The focus of stop-
controlled and uncontrolled is on conflicts with right-turn vehicles and maintaining good sightlines.
Table 9 presents the methodology.
TABLE 13 STREETSCORE+ CRITERIA
CYCLE TRACKS AT STOP-CONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS
Criteria Streetscore+ 1 Streetscore+ 2 Streetscore+ 3 Streetscore+ 4
Approach
Geometry -
Separation or barrier
with permitted right
turns <150 vph
Through bike lane
and right-turn lane
OR mixing zone with
<150 vph
Through bike lane
and right-turn lane
OR mixing zone with
>150 vph
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
25
Visibility at Minor
Streets
Design
accommodates sight
triangle of 20 feet to
the cycle track from
minor street
crossings and 10
feet from driveway
crossings. If
parking, prohibited
30 feet from
Intersection
(no effect) Sight triangles less
than 20 feet /10 feet (no effect)
Same as the Mekuria, Furth, and Nixon (2012) methodology, “no effect” signifies that there is no further decrease in comfort for that
variable.
BICYCLE BOULEVARD – LINKS
The Streetscore+ methodology incorporates design criteria from the NACTO Urban Bikeway Guide, 2nd
edition to account for best practices in bicycle boulevard design at the link-level. The Mekuria, Furth, and
Nixon LTS methodology evaluates a bicycle boulevard using the same criteria – speed and travel lanes –
as any other bicycle route. Given the sensitivity of bicycle boulevards to average daily traffic (ADT) and
speeds, Streetscore+ for bicycle boulevards requires ADT and posted speed limit (ideally prevailing speed)
and incorporates a higher sensitivity to those two factors for designated bicycle boulevards. To account
for bicyclist delay on bicycle boulevards, the frequency of controlled intersection was also introduced to
account for less desirability associated with losing momentum when stopping/starting at controlled
intersections. Table 10 presents the methodology.
TABLE 14: STREETSCORE+ CRITERIA
BICYCLE BOULEVARD LINKS
Criteria Streetscore+ 1 Streetscore+ 2 Streetscore+ 3 Streetscore+ 4
ADT on Link <1,500 1,500-3,000 3,000-6,000 >6,000
Speed <=20 MPH Up to 25 MPH (no effect) >25 MPH
Number of Stop
Signs per Mile 2 4 6 >6
Same as the Mekuria, Furth, and Nixon (2012) methodology, “no effect” signifies that there is no further decrease in comfort for that
variable.
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
Bicycle boulevards are typically located on two-lane residential streets. As such, the number of travel
lanes does not provide substantial differentiation in the traffic stress on the facility. As a result, only ADT is
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
26
used. NACTO states that 1,500 ADT is desirable, with up to 3,000 allowed on limited section of the
corridor. As a result, these were assigned to Streetscore+ 1 and 2, respectively.
SPEED
The NACTO Urban Bikeway Guide recommends that bicycle boulevards should have a target speed of 20
MPH to maximize bicycle comfort and safety. Where speed is higher than 20 MPH, speed management
strategies should be used to lower the 85th percentile speed. Given this target speed, bicycle boulevards
with 20 MPH or slower speeds are given a Streetscore+ of 1, upt to 25 MPH a Streetscore+ of 2, and
greater than 25 MPH is Streetscore+ 3.
NUMBER OF STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS PER MILE
The NACTO Urban Bikeway Guide states that at intersections with local streets and minor collectors,
bicycle boulevards should have right-of-way priority to reduce or minimize delay by limiting the number
of stop signs along the route. Segments of at least one half mile with continuous travel i.e., no stop sign
controls are desirable. A metric of the number of controlled intersections per mile was developed to
account for bicycle boulevard priority and bicyclist delay. The metric considers stop-control on the bicycle
boulevard and not signalized intersections.
BICYCLE BOULEVARDS – MAJOR STREET CROSSINGS
The bicycle boulevard major street crossing methodology proposes a parallel approach to uncontrolled
crosswalk locations. While the efficacy of RRFBs and PHBs are better documented for pedestrians, many
cities are beginning to utilize these enhancements on bicycle boulevards. Given the sensitive nature of
these crossings for bicyclists of all ages and abilities, the needs are assumed to be similar to that of a
pedestrians at uncontrolled crosswalks at major streets. As detailed in the Pedestrian Streetscore+
section, this method assumes a three-tiered level of crossing enhancements:
●A: Crosswalk Enhancements with Signing and Striping Only
●B: Crosswalk Enhancement with Signing, Striping, and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
(RRFBs). Note that this assumes bicyclists would be able to actuate the RRFB through a separated
push button located adjacent to the travelway.
●C: Crosswalk Enhancement with Signing, Striping, and Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) or Traffic
Signal. Note that this assumes bicyclists would be able to actuate the PHB or signal through
bicycle detection.
The Streetscore+ for bicycle boulevard crossings therefore defines the minimum recommended design
elements based on ADT, number of travel lanes, and speed, as presented in Table 11. Based on user input
regarding the presence of signing and striping only or beacons, Streetscore+ delivers a score of 1 if the
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
27
level of treatment matches the recommended treatment, and a score of 4 if the existing/proposed
treatments input by the user do not match recommended treatments. In addition to the signing, striping,
and beacon and/or signal enhancements, users should also examine the feasibility of geometric
improvements at the crosswalk, such as curb extensions or median refuges.
Streetscore+ White Paper
April 2017
28
TABLE 15 STREETSCORE+ CRITERIA
BICYCLE BOULEVARD MAJOR STREET CROSSING
Major
Street
Criteria
Vehicle ADT
<9,000
Vehicle ADT
>9,000 to 12,000
Vehicle ADT
> 12,000 to 15,000
Vehicle ADT
> 15,000
30
mph
35
mph
40
mph
30
mph
35
mph
40
mph
30
mph
35
mph
40
mph
30
mph
35
mph
40
mph
Two
Lanes A A B A A B A A C A B C
Three
Lanes A A B A B B B B C B C C
Multilane
(4 lanes
with
raised
median)
A A C A B C B B C C1 C C
Multilane
(4 lanes
without
raised
median)
A B C B B C C1 C C C1 C C
Notes:
1.Depending on site observations, driver yielding rates, and other engineering considerations, RRFBs could be considered.
Geometric treatments should also be considered prior to the implementation of recommended enhancement.
A=Level A, Signing and Striping Only
B=Level B, Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB)
C=Level C, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) or Signal
Same as the Mekuria, Furth, and Nixon (2012) methodology, “no effect” signifies that there is no further decrease in comfort for that
variable.
Conclusion
The Streetscore+ methodology builds on Mekruia, Furth, and Nixon’s LTS methodology to incorporate a
finer grain understanding of bicyclist comfort on cycle tracks and bicycle boulevards and creates a parallel
methodology to measure pedestrian comfort on streets and at intersections. This methodology is
intended to be easy-to-use with the typical datasets that transportation practitioners utilize on corridor
studies and active transportation projects. As a result, transportation practitioners can use this tool in a
sketch planning capacity to further active transportation designs and more accurately understand the
impacts of design decisions on comfort and stress tolerance for people who walk and bike. Where data
may not be available or local conditions may warrant adjusted criteria, the tool is intended to be flexible
and customizable.
$ttachmentC.2
Detailed Description of Factors Affecting StreetScore
Attachment C.2 – Detailed Description of Factors Affecting
StreetScore March 1, 2017
Page 1 of 16
BACKGROUND
This technical appendix summarizes the analysis of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
improvements for two proposed alternatives—Option 1 and Option 2—for East Arapahoe Avenue
from Folsom Street to 75th Street. For each option, the proposed multimodal improvements
(pedestrian, on-street bicycle, and off-street bicycle) are analyzed for each segment and
intersection. This analysis consists of a level of comfort rating and a list of infrastructure components
included for each. Bicycle intersection improvements are divided into low traffic impact and high
traffic impact improvements, with low traffic impact representing no major changes to the
intersection geometry and signal operations and high traffic impact representing changes to
intersection geometry and signal operations necessary to achieve the project’s bicyclist comfort
goals.
Level of comfort for both links and intersections of pedestrian, on-street bicycle, and off-street
bicycle infrastructure was measured using Fehr & Peers StreetScore+ tool and methodology,
described in the Scoring Methodology section and in Appendix A.
Typical elements included in each option include:
Pedestrian
•Sidewalk: six to twelve feet based on surrounding context; for pedestrians only.
•Multiuse path: ten to twelve feet, shared by people walking and people biking.
On-Street Bicycle
•Raised Protected Bike Lane: bicycle facility inside of the curb at the level of the sidewalk
or multiuse path; separated from both the travel lane and the sidewalk/multiuse path by
an amenity zone.
•In-Roadway Protected Bike Lane: bicycle facility outside of the curb at street level,
separated from travel lanes by a vertical buffer such as a concrete curb.
•Buffered Bike Lane: bicycle facility outside of the curb at street level, separated from travel
lanes by a painted buffer.
Attachment C.2 – Detailed Description of Factors Affecting
StreetScore March 1, 2017
Page 2 of 16
Off-Street Bicycle
•Multiuse path: a facility shared by people walking and people biking intended for two-
way travel, ten to twelve feet wide, and seperated from travel lanes.
See Figure 1a for the existing pedestrian facilities, on-street bicycle facilities, and off-street bicycle
facilities along the western portion of corridor (west of Flatirons Golf Course), as well as connections
from the surrounding area. See Figure 1b for the same information in the eastern portion of the
corridor (east of Flatirons Gold Course).
Attachment C.2 – Detailed Description of Factors Affecting
StreetScore March 1, 2017
Page 3 of 16
SCORING METHODOLOGY
Fehr & Peers’ StreetScore+ methodology and tool quickly and effectively calculates the bicycle and
pedestrian level of comfort for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Calculations for the bicycle
facilities were derived from the Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) methodology developed by Mekuria,
Furth, and Nixon (2012), the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO’s) Urban
Bikeway Design Guide (2nd edition), and Roger Geller’s (Bicycle Coordinator for Portland Office of
Transportation) “Four Types of Cyclists”. Pedestrian facilities were calculated using best practice
guidance documentation from the NACTO Urban Streets Guide and other safety research.
The scoring methodology for StreetScore+ considers and builds upon these resources, as well as
best practice data for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Each input is scored one through four,
with a score of four as the highest stress (lowest comfort). The various criteria used to determine a
score applies the “weakest link” approach. That is, a segment or intersection receives the score of
its lowest scoring criteria. For example, even if a good quality sidewalk has ample width,
landscaping, and buffer, if the sidewalk is also adjacent to a travel lane with high-speed traffic and
no lighting, it would be rated as a StreetScore 4 (also called “Pedestrian LOS 4” or “Bicyclist LTS 4”).
Descriptions of the StreetScore+ methodology can be found below in Table 3 for each of the
improvement types. The white paper outlining this methodology is in Appendix A.
Attachment C.2 – Detailed Description of Factors Affecting
StreetScore March 1, 2017
Page 4 of 16
TABLE 3: STREETSCORE+ RATING DESCRIPTION PER INFRASTRUCTURE TYPE
Pedestrian On-Street Bicycle Off-Street Bicycle
1
Highly comfortable, easily
navigable for pedestrians of all
ages and abilities, including
unaccompanied children
walking to school.
Presents little traffic stress and
attractive enough for a relaxing
bike ride that is suitable for
cyclists of all ages and abilities,
including children.
Intersections are easy to
approach and cross.
Lowest level of traffic stress,
accommodates people of all
ages and abilities, including
children and those that are
“interested but concerned”
about bicycling.
2
Generally comfortable for
many pedestrians, but parents
may have concerns letting
children walk alone or seniors
needing to take caution.
Suitable to most adult cyclists
but not ideal for children or
those with other abilities.
Crossings are not difficult for
most adults.
The highest level of acceptable
stress for the “interested but
concerned” population, and
represents the lowest
threshold for accommodating
all ages and abilities.
3
Walking is uncomfortable bus
possible, barriers are present
that make the walking
experience uninviting or
uncomfortable.
Presents more traffic stress,
though still less than riding in
mixed traffic, and is still
suitable for most adults.
Crossings are still acceptably
safe to most adults.
Accommodates a much smaller
segment of population and
includes only the “enthused
and confident” cyclist that is
more familiar with biking.
4
Walking is a barrier and is very
uncomfortable or even
impossible. Streets are
inhospitable and possibly
unsafe environment for
pedestrians.
Very high level of stress that
does not accommodate a
majority of the adult
population except for the
“strong and fearless”.
Does not work for
approximately 99% of the
population and accommodates
only the “strong and fearless”
cohort.
Sources: Mekuria, Furth, and Nixon (2012); NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2nd edition; and Roger Geller’s “Four
Types of Cyclists”
Attachment C.2 – Detailed Description of Factors Affecting
StreetScore March 1, 2017
Page 5 of 16
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE
Existing pedestrian facilities along East Arapahoe Avenue include at minimum a sidewalk of five feet
to a maximum of a 12-foot multiuse path. To the west of Foothills Parkway, most sidewalks or
multiuse paths have a buffer; east of Foothills Parkway, most facilities do not have a buffer. There
are gaps in the existing sidewalk and multiuse path network.
All signalized intersections along the corridor include push buttons and countdown signals. Most
also include directional curb ramps and, where right-turn slip lanes exist, speed tables at the
pedestrian crossings. Existing crossing distances include five general purpose through lanes from
Folsom Street to 29th Street, six lanes from 29th Street to 55th Street, five lanes from 55th Street to
63rd Street, and two lanes from 63rd Street to 75th Street. Gaps that exist for crossing infrastructure
along East Arapahoe include diagonal or missing curb ramps at four intersections and free-flowing
right-turn slip lanes at 75th Street.
See Figure 2 for a map illustrating the pedestrian level of service (LOS) rating of the existing
conditions for each pedestrian facility segment and intersection.
BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE
On-Street
Existing on-street bicycle infrastructure includes a bike lane both eastbound and westbound from
55th Street to Westview Drive and a bike lane or wide shoulder both eastbound and westbound
from Westview Drive to 75th Street. Intersection treatments along this segment consist of mixing-
zones at right-turn pockets. No designated on-street bicycle facilities exist west of 55th Street.
Off-Street
Existing off-street infrastructure includes a 12-foot multiuse path along much of the north side of
East Arapahoe Avenue and a noncontiguous multiuse path along portions of the south side which
fluctuates between a sidewalk and a multiuse path. A 12-foot multiuse path exists from Folsom
Street to 30th Street and continues between Foothills Parkway and 55th Street with large gaps. The
eastern part of the corridor consists of either a sidewalk or a 10-foot multiuse path. The multiuse
Attachment C.2 – Detailed Description of Factors Affecting
StreetScore March 1, 2017
Page 6 of 16
path west of Foothills Parkway has an amenity zone, while the majority of the multiuse paths to the
east do not have an amenity zone. The crossing treatments at multiuse paths along the corridor are
either right-turn slip lanes with a speed table or crosswalks/curb ramps with pedestrian push
buttons. There are a number of intersections with protected permissive and permissive turning
movements (right and left) creating conflicts for bicyclists traveling along the corridor.
See Figure 3 for a map illustrating the bicyclist LTS rating of the existing conditions for each bicycle
facility segment and intersection.
Attachment C.2 – Detailed Description of Factors Affecting
StreetScore March 1, 2017
Page 7 of 16
OPTION 1
PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE
Segments
The proposed pedestrian improvements and associated pedestrian LOS along segments for Option
1 are:
•Folsom Street to Westview Drive: 12-foot multiuse path with a 17 to 18-foot buffer (in the
form of an amenity zone and bicycle facility).
o Pedestrian LOS 2: Key contributing factors are the amenity zone, four general
purpose thru-lanes, and a posted speed limit of less than 45 mph.
•Westview Drive to 75th Street: 10-foot multiuse path with an 18-foot buffer (in the form of
an amenity zone and bicycle facility).
o Pedestrian LOS 4: The key contributing factor is the posted speed limit greater than
45 mph.
A pedestrian LOS 1 for pedestrian facilities is not achievable for East Arapahoe Avenue due to the
number of general purpose through lanes and high posted speed limit. The high posted speed limit
of 50 mph in the eastern section of the corridor is the determining factor that prevents this segment
from a pedestrian LOS 2.
Intersections
Proposed pedestrian intersection improvements for Option 1 are:
•Directional curb ramps at all intersections.
•Where a right-turn slip lane exists, the lane will be signalized or feature a speed table.
The pedestrian LOS at intersections in this proposed scenario range from a pedestrian LOS 2 to
pedestrian LOS 4. The only intersection with a pedestrian LOS 4 is 28th Street in the eastbound and
westbound directions due to the six general purpose through lanes. All other intersections have a
pedestrian LOS 2, given the presence of push buttons and countdown signals, a crossing distance
of five or less general purpose through lanes, and a signal or speed table at all right-turn slip lanes.
Attachment C.2 – Detailed Description of Factors Affecting
StreetScore March 1, 2017
Page 8 of 16
No intersection obtained a pedestrian LOS 1 because there are not any no right-turn-on-red (RTOR)
controls recommended at intersections in this scenario.
See Figure 4 for a map illustrating the pedestrian LOS of all proposed pedestrian improvements
under Option 1.
BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE
Segments
On-Street
Proposed on-street bicycle improvements and bicyclist LTS scores for segments in Option 1 are:
•Folsom Street to 38th Street: Seven-foot raised protected bike lane with a three-foot
buffer.
o Bicyclist LTS 2: Key contributing factors are the three-foot buffer, protected bike lane
width greater than five feet, and 35 mph posted speed limit.
•38th Street to Boulder Creek (immediately west of Foothills Parkway): Seven-foot raised
protected bike lane with a three-foot buffer.
o Bicyclist LTS 3: Though similar infrastructure is proposed as the westernmost
segment, the bicyclist LTS is lowered because the posted speed limit is 45 mph.
•Foothills Parkway to Westview Drive: Six-foot raised protected bike lane with a three-foot
buffer.
o Bicyclist LTS 3: Though similar infrastructure is proposed as the westernmost
segment, the bicyclist LTS is lowered because the posted speed limit is 45 mph.
•Westview Drive to 75th Street: Seven-foot in-roadway protected bike lane with a three-
foot concrete curb.
o Bicyclist LTS 4: Though similar infrastructure exists as the segments to the east, the
bicyclist LTS is lowered because the posted speed limit is greater than 45 mph.
A bicyclist LTS 1 was not achieved for the easternmost segment because the posted speed limit is
greater than 30 mph. The 38th Street to Westview Drive segment satisfied all of the criteria for
bicyclist LTS 2, except for a posted speed limit of 45 mph, which caused the segment to be bicyclist
LTS 3. The easternmost segment receives a bicyclist LTS 4 due to the posted speed limit of 50 mph.
Attachment C.2 – Detailed Description of Factors Affecting
StreetScore March 1, 2017
Page 9 of 16
Off-Street
Proposed off-street bicycle improvements and bicyclist LTS scores for the off-street bicycle facilities
in Option 1 are:
•Folsom Street to Westview Drive: 12-foot multiuse path with a 17 to 18-foot buffer (in the
form of an amenity zone and bicycle facility).
o Bicyclist LTS 2: Key contributing factors are the 12-foot multiuse path, horizontal
separation greater than five feet, and a posted speed limit between 35 and 45 mph.
•Westview Drive to 75th Street: 10-foot multiuse path with an 18-foot buffer (in the form of
an amenity zone and bicycle facility).
o Bicyclist LTS 4: Though similar infrastructure exists as the segments to the west, the
bicyclist LTS is lowered because of a narrower facility and a posted speed limit
greater than 45 mph.
A bicyclist LTS 1 was not achieved for the easternmost segment because the posted speed limit is
greater than 30 mph. The easternmost segment receives a bicyclist LTS 4 due to the posted speed
limit of 50 mph; aside from the posted speed limit, this segment met all of the criteria for a bicyclist
LTS 2.
Intersections
Bicycle intersection improvements are divided into low traffic impact and high traffic impact
improvements, with low traffic impact representing no major changes to the intersection geometry
and signal operations and high traffic impact representing changes to intersection geometry and
signal operations necessary to achieve the project’s bicyclist comfort goals.
In order for the intersection of a protected bike lane to achieve a bicyclist LTS 1, it needs to have a
protected intersection. Protected intersections are a relatively new bicycle treatment in the United
States with only a few applications. They require substantial investment. Boulder should consider a
protected intersection demonstration project on this corridor to determine if a permanent
implementation of this treatment is appropriate.
See Appendix C for a comprehensive list of treatments proposed at each intersection.
Attachment C.2 – Detailed Description of Factors Affecting
StreetScore March 1, 2017
Page 10 of 16
Low Traffic Impact Improvement & Bicyclist LTS Rating
On-Street
Proposed on-street low traffic impact improvements to intersections for bicyclists all achieve a
bicyclist LTS 3 or bicyclist LTS 4 (except for a bike box at Folsom street resulting in bicyclist LTS 1)
due to the following factors:
•Bicyclist LTS 3 intersections:
o Conflicting right turn volume less than 150 vehicles per hour.
o No barrier separation – mixing zone or striped bike lane with right-turn pocket.
o Break in separation/barrier for bikes to merge out during left-turns.
o Maintain existing left-turn phasing (permissive, protected permissive).
•Bicyclist LTS 4 intersections:
o Conflicting right turn volume greater than 150 vehicles per hour.
o No barrier separation – mixing zone or striped bike lane with right-turn pocket.
o Break in separation/barrier for bikes to merge out during left-turns.
o Maintain existing left-turn phasing (permissive, protected permissive).
Off-Street
The proposed low traffic impact infrastructure improvements for bicyclists at intersections for off-
street facilities will not change the existing infrastructure or signal timing, and thus maintains the
same bicyclist LTS as in the existing conditions.
High Traffic Impact Improvement & Bicyclist LTS Rating
On-Street
Proposed on-street high traffic impact improvements for bicyclists at intersections all achieve a
bicyclist LTS 2 due to the following factors:
•Bicyclist LTS 2 intersections with conflicting right-turn volume less than 150 vehicles per
hour:
Attachment C.2 – Detailed Description of Factors Affecting
StreetScore March 1, 2017
Page 11 of 16
o Barrier and good sightlines but permitted right-turns during protected bike lane
green phase.
o Painted treatments: two-stage turn box or bike box.
o Protected left-turns where volumes require.
•Bicyclist LTS 2 intersections with conflicting right-turn volume greater than 150 vehicles
per hour:
o Separate signal phasing for protected bike lane with barrier at intersection approach.
o Painted treatments: two-stage turn box or bike box.
o Protected left-turns where volumes require.
To achieve a bicyclist LTS 1, an intersection needs a protected bicycle intersection.
Off-Street
Proposed off-street high impact improvements for bicyclists at intersections all achieve a bicyclist
LTS 2 due to the following factors:
•Right-turn slip lane with speed table.
•Protected-only conflicting left turns.
•Painted treatments, in the form of either a two-stage turn queue box or bike box.
To achieve a bicyclist LTS 1, an intersection needs protected-only right-turns, protected-only left-
turns, and a protected intersection.
See Figure 5 for the bicyclist LTS of all on-street low traffic impact and high traffic impact
improvements for bicyclists, and Figure 6 for all off-street low traffic impact and high traffic impact
improvements for bicyclists for Option 1.
Attachment C.2 – Detailed Description of Factors Affecting
StreetScore March 1, 2017
Page 12 of 16
OPTION 2
PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE
Segments
Proposed pedestrian improvements include:
•Folsom Street to Boulder Creek (just west of Foothills Parkway): 12-foot sidewalk with a
20-foot buffer (in the form of an amenity zone and bicycle facility).
o Pedestrian LOS 2: Key contributing factors are the amenity zone, four general
purpose through lanes, and a posted speed limit of less than 45 mph.
•Foothills Parkway to Westview Drive: 10-foot multiuse path with an 18 foot buffer (in the
form of an amenity zone and bicycle facility).
o Pedestrian LOS 2: Key contributing factors are the amenity zone, four general
purpose through lanes, and a posted speed limit of less than 45 mph.
•Westview Drive to 75th Street: Six-foot sidewalk on the south side and 10-foot multiuse
path on the north side with a 13.5 foot buffer (in the form of an amenity zone and bicycle
facility).
o Pedestrian LOS 4: The key contributing factor is the posted speed limit greater than
45 mph.
A pedestrian LOS 1 is not achievable for East Arapahoe Avenue due to the number of general
purpose through lanes and high posted speed limit. The high posted speed limit of 50 mph in the
eastern section of the corridor is the determining factor that prevents this segment from a
pedestrian LOS 2.
Intersections
Proposed improvements and pedestrian LOS scores for intersection infrastructure are the same as
explained in Option 1 described previously. See Figure 7 for a map illustrating the pedestrian LOS
rating of all proposed improvements under Option 2.
Attachment C.2 – Detailed Description of Factors Affecting
StreetScore March 1, 2017
Page 13 of 16
BICYCLE
Segments
On-Street
Proposed on-street bicycle improvements and bicyclist LTS scores for segments in Option 2 are:
•Folsom Street to Boulder Creek (immediately west of Foothills Parkway): Six-foot raised
protected bike lane with an eight-foot amenity zone.
o Bicyclist LTS 2: Key contributing factors are the minimum three-foot buffer,
protected bike lane greater than five feet, and 35 mph speed limit.
•Foothills Parkway to Westview Drive: seven-foot in-roadway protected bike lane with a
three-foot concrete median.
o Bicyclist LTS 3: Though similar infrastructure is proposed as the westernmost
segment, the bicyclist LTS is lowered because the posted speed limit is 45 mph.
•Westview Drive to 75th Street: 6.5-foot, in-roadway protected bike lane with a two-foot
striped buffer.
o Bicyclist LTS 4: Key contributing factors are the lack of vertical or solid/raised buffer,
less than three-foot buffer, and a postedspeed limit greater than 45 mph.
A bicyclist LTS 1 was not achieved for the westernmost segment because the protected bike lane is
less than 6.5-feet in width and the posted speed limit is greater than 30 mph. The Foothills Parkway
to Westview Drive segment satisfied all of the criteria for bicyclist LTS 2, except for a posted speed
limit of 45 mph, which caused the segment to be bicyclist LTS 3. The easternmost segment receives
a bicyclist LTS 4 due to the posted speed limit of 50 mph.
Off-Street
There are no proposed off-street bicycle infrastructure improvements from Folsom Street to
Foothills Parkway under Option 2.
Proposed off-street bicycle infrastructure improvements for the remaining segments are:
•Foothills Parkway to Westview Drive: 10-foot multiuse path with an 18-foot buffer (in the
form of an amenity zone and bicycle facility).
Attachment C.2 – Detailed Description of Factors Affecting
StreetScore March 1, 2017
Page 14 of 16
o Bicyclist LTS 2: Key contributing factors are the 10-foot multiuse path, horizontal
separation greater than five feet, and a posted speed limit greater than 30 mph.
•Westview Drive to 75th Street: 10-foot multiuse path with a 13.5-foot buffer on the north-
side only.
o Bicyclist LTS 4: They key contributing factor is the posted speed limit is greater than
45 mph.
The easternmost segment receives a bicyclist LTS 4 due to the posted speed limit of 50 mph; aside
from the posted speed limit, this segment met all of the criteria for a bicyclist LTS 2.
Intersections
Bicycle intersection improvements are divided into low traffic impact and high traffic impact
improvements, with low traffic impact representing no major changes to the intersection geometry
and signal operations and high traffic impact representing changes to intersection geometry and
signal operations necessary to achieve the project’s bicyclist comfort goals.
As described in Option 1, in order for the intersection of a protected bike lane to achieve a bicyclist
LTS 1, it needs to have a protected intersection. Protected intersections are a relatively new bicycle
treatment in the United States with only a few applications. They require substantial investment.
Boulder should consider a protected intersection demonstration project on this corridor to
determine if a permanent implementation of this treatment is appropriate.
See Appendix C for a comprehensive list of treatments proposed at each intersection.
Low Traffic Impact Improvement & Bicyclist LTS Rating
On-Street
Proposed on-street low traffic impact improvements to bicycle intersections all achieve a bicyclist
LTS 3 or bicyclist LTS 4 (except for a bike box at Folsom street resulting in bicyclist LTS 1) due to
the following factors:
•Bicyclist LTS 3:
o Conflicting right turn volume less than 150 vehicles per hour.
o No barrier separation – mixing zone or striped bike lane with right-turn pocket.
Attachment C.2 – Detailed Description of Factors Affecting
StreetScore March 1, 2017
Page 15 of 16
o Break in seperation/barrier for bikes to merge out during left-turns.
o Maintain existing left-turn phasing (permissive, protected permissive).
•Bicyclist LTS 4:
o Conflicting right turn volume greater than 150 vehicles per hour.
o No barrier seperation – mixing zone or striped bike lane with right-turn pocket.
o Break in seperation/barrier for bikes to merge out during left-turns.
o Maintain existing left-turn phasing (permissive, protected permissive).
Off-Street
The proposed low traffic impact infrastructure improvements for bicyclists at intersections for off-
street facilities will not change the existing infrastructure or signal timing, and thus maintains the
same bicyclist LTS scores as in the existing conditions.
High Traffic Impact Improvement & Bicyclist LTS Rating
On-Street
Proposed on-street high traffic impact bicycle intersections all achieve a bicyclist LTS 2 due to the
following factors:
•Bicyclist LTS 2 intersections with conflicting right-turn volume less than 150 vehicles per
hour:
o Barrier and good sightlines but permitted right-turns during protected bike lane
green phase.
o Painted treatments: two-stage turn box or bike box.
o Protected left-turns where volumes require.
•Bicyclist LTS 2 intersections with conflicting right-turn volume greater than 150 vehicles
per hour:
o Separate signal phasing for protected bike lane with barrier at intersection approach.
o Painted treatments: two-stage turn box or bike box.
o Protected left-turns where volumes require.
Attachment C.2 – Detailed Description of Factors Affecting
StreetScore March 1, 2017
Page 16 of 16
To achieve a bicyclist LTS 1, an intersection needs a protected bicycle intersection.
Off-Street
Proposed off-street high traffic impact improvements to bicycle intersections all achieve a bicyclist
LTS 2 due to the following factors:
•Right-turn slip lane with speed table.
•Protected-only conflicting left turns.
•Painted treatments, in the form of either a two-stage turn queue box or bike box.
To achieve a bicyclist LTS 1, an intersection needs protected-only right-turns, protected-only left-
turns, and a protected intersection.
See Figure 8 for the bicyclist LTS of all on-street low traffic impact and high traffic impact
improvements, and Figure 9 for all off-street low traffic impact and high traffic impact
improvements for Option 2.
$ttachmentC.3
Bicycle and Pedestrian Intersection Treatments
Attachment C.3 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Intersection Treatments
March 20, 2017
Page 1 of 7
The following table identifies intersection treatments that will increase pedestrian and bicyclist
comfort, and potentially safety, at East Arapahoe Avenue study area signalized intersections. These
intersection treatments should be considered through the implementation of the East Arapahoe
Avenue Transportation Plan.
NO RIGHT-TURN ON RED
This treatment is recommended for consideration at approaches where a neither a channelized
right-turn lane with speed table nor a protected right-turn signal phase is recommended or feasible.
Prohibiting right-turn on red increases pedestrian comfort by decreasing driver encroachment into
crosswalks during the pedestrian “Walk” phase. There may be an associated reduction in
intersection capacity when right-turn on red is prohibited.
DIRECTIONAL CURB RAMP
This treatment is recommended at all intersections consistent with standards and best-practices for
accessible design.
CHANNELIZED RIGHT-TURN LANE WITH SPEED TABLE
This treatment is recommended at approaches to increase pedestrian and off-street bicyclist
comfort. When appropriately designed, channelized right-turn lanes can reduce effective shorten
crossing distances by reducing the number of lanes that must be crossed in any single crossing and
can reduce turning speeds. Speed tables further reduce turning speeds and increase yield
compliance of pedestrians or bicyclists crossing the right-turn lane. Channelized right-turn lanes
with speed tables typically require more space than non-channelized right-turn lanes are may not
fit within right-of-way where recommended.
The City of Boulder has already successfully implemented several channelized right-turn lanes with
speed tables on the East Arapahoe Avenue corridor and elsewhere in the City.
Attachment C.3 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Intersection Treatments
March 20, 2017
Page 2 of 7
ADD SPEED TABLE TO EXISTING CHANNELIZED RIGHT-TURN LANE
This treatment is recommended at existing locations with channelized right-turn lanes that do not
feature speed tables. The only East Arapahoe Avenue location where this condition exists is at 75th
Street.
TWO-STAGE TURN QUEUE BOX
Some East Arapahoe alternatives recommend protected bike lanes (either in-street and raised).
With protected bike lanes, it is difficult (and in some cases impossible) for bicyclists to transition
out of the protected bike lane and into a left-turn pocket. Additionally, weaving across multiple
general purpose lanes is uncomfortable for many bicyclists. Two-stage turn queue boxes provide
infrastructure so that bicyclists in the protected bike lane can turn left without exiting the protected
bike lane or weaving across multiple general purpose lanes. There may be an associated reduction
in intersection capacity where two-stage turn queue boxes require the prohibition of right-turn on
red.
PROTECTED LEFT-TURNS
Where off-street bicyclists cross at intersections, they will typically cross at the same time as
corresponding through vehicles. Where permissive left-turns exist, left-turning drivers will have to
judge for gaps in oncoming traffic and for pedestrians and bicyclists in the crosswalk/multi-use
path crossing. It is particularly difficult to judge for bicyclists in the multi-use path crossing due to
their high approach speed relative to pedestrians. Protected left-turns eliminate these potential
conflicts by providing a left-turning phase that is exclusive from the corresponding through phase
(when pedestrians and off-street bicyclists will cross). There may be an associated reduction in
intersection capacity where permissive left-turns are converted to protected left-turns.
SEPARATE RIGHT-TURN SIGNAL PHASING
Where protected bike lanes approach an intersection they typically enter a mixing zone where
through bicyclists and right-turning vehicles mix. This mixing activity can reduce bicyclist comfort
in these zones especially where right-turn volumes are high. Dutch bikeway design guidance (the
CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic), by which North American best-practices including the
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design are influence, recommends separate right-turn signal phasing when
Attachment C.3 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Intersection Treatments
March 20, 2017
Page 3 of 7
the peak hour right-turning volume is greater than 150 vehicles per hour. Separate right-turn signal
phases are recommended where existing peak hour right-turning volume is greater than 150
vehicles per hour. As the East Arapahoe Transportation Plan is implemented, the City should use
this 150 vehicles per hour threshold in consideration of new traffic counts or future traffic forecasts
to determine whether or not a separate right-turn signal phase is appropriate. There may be an
associated reduction in intersection capacity where separate right-turn signal phasing is
implemented.
At many locations on the corridor there are channelized right-turn lanes with speed tables at
locations with high right-turning volumes. While these treatments provide increased comfort for
pedestrians and off-street bicyclists, they would not serve bicyclists in protected bike lanes and
would not be necessary if a separate right-turn signal phase is provided. The City will need to
evaluate the applicable considerations associated with removing channelized right-turn lanes with
speed tables and replacing them with separate right-turn signal phases.
1
Character
Zone Intersection Pedestrian Bicycle
Northbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Southbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box
Eastbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Westbound none
Two-stage turn queue box;
Separate right-turn signal phasing;
Protected left-turns
Northbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Southbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Eastbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Westbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Northbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box
Southbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box
Eastbound none Two-stage turn queue box;
Separate right-turn signal phasing
Westbound none Two-stage turn queue box;
Separate right-turn signal phasing
Northbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Southbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Eastbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Westbound none
Two-stage turn queue box;
Separate right-turn signal phasing;
Protected left-turns
A
A
Proposed Intersection Treatments
Folsom Street/East Arapahoe
26th Street/East Arapahoe
28th Street/East Arapahoe
29th Street/East Arapahoe
A
A
2
Character
Zone Intersection Pedestrian Bicycle
Northbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box
Southbound none
Two-stage turn queue box;
Separate right-turn signal phasing;
Protected left-turns
Eastbound none
Two-stage turn queue box;
Separate right-turn signal phasing;
Protected left-turns
Westbound none
Two-stage turn queue box;
Separate right-turn signal phasing;
Protected left-turns
Northbound Directional curb ramps;
No RTOR
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Southbound
Directional curb ramps;
No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Eastbound Directional curb ramps;
No RTOR
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Westbound none Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Northbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible none
Southbound none none
Eastbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Westbound none
Two-stage turn queue box;
Separate right-turn signal phasing;
Protected left-turns
Northbound none none
Southbound none none
Eastbound none Two-stage turn queue box;
Separate right-turn signal phasing
Westbound none Two-stage turn queue box;
Separate right-turn signal phasing
Northbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible none
Southbound none none
Eastbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
A
A
A
C
C
38th Street/East Arapahoe
Foothills Parkway/East Arapahoe
48th Street/East Arapahoe
33rd Street/East Arapahoe
30th Street/East Arapahoe
3
Character
Zone Intersection Pedestrian Bicycle
Westbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Northbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible none
Southbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible none
Eastbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Westbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Northbound
Directional curb ramps;
No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Southbound
Directional curb ramps;
No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Eastbound
Directional curb ramps;
No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Westbound
Directional curb ramps;
No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Northbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Southbound none
Two-stage turn queue box;
Separate right-turn signal phasing;
Protected left-turns
Eastbound none
Two-stage turn queue box;
Separate right-turn signal phasing;
Protected left-turns
Westbound none
Two-stage turn queue box;
Separate right-turn signal phasing;
Protected left-turns
Northbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Southbound
Directional curb ramps & crosswalk;
No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Conestoga Street/East Arapahoe
D
C
C
Commerce Street/East Arapahoe
55th Street/East Arapahoe
Cherryvale Road/East Arapahoe
D
4
Character
Zone Intersection Pedestrian Bicycle
Eastbound Directional curb ramps & crosswalk
Two-stage turn queue box;
Separate right-turn signal phasing;
Protected left-turns
Westbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Northbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Southbound none Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Eastbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Westbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Northbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Southbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Eastbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Westbound No RTOR OR channelized RT lane with
speed table if feasible
Channelized RT lane with speed table;
Two-stage turn queue box;
Protected left-turns
Northbound Add speed table to channelized RT Two-stage turn queue box;
Separate right-turn signal phasing
Southbound Add speed table to channelized RT Two-stage turn queue box;
Separate right-turn signal phasing
Eastbound Add speed table to channelized RT
Two-stage turn queue box;
Separate right-turn signal phasing;
Protected left-turns
Westbound Add speed table to channelized RT
Two-stage turn queue box;
Separate right-turn signal phasing;
Protected left-turns
*Treatments based on volume assumption - turning movement counts currently not available.
D
E
75th Street/East Arapahoe*
D
D
63rd Street/East Arapahoe
65th Street/East Arapahoe
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment D City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | D-1
ATTACHMENT D MODE SHARE
This attachment provides detailed mode share analysis methodology and results to supplement the
evaluation results that are provided in the East Arapahoe Transportation Plan Evaluation of Alternatives
Report.
Mode share is the percentage of people using a particular means of transportation to travel from one point
to another. The City of Boulder Transportation Master Plan (TMP) includes goals to reduce the single-
occupant vehicle mode share, to help meet the city’s transportation, livability, and Climate Commitment
targets for reducing GhG emissions.
OVERALL ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCES
Estimates of mode share for people driving, riding transit, biking, and walking provide a comparison of
how the alternatives would influence use of these modes for trips that include travel along Arapahoe
Avenue. Mode share was estimated separately for each mode, at the following four “screenlines” along the
corridor:
Arapahoe & 28th
Arapahoe & 30th
Arapahoe & Foothills
Arapahoe & 55th
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment D City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | D-2
AUTO MODE SHARE
Analysis Overview
Figure D-1 Auto Mode Share Analysis Summary Table
Change in Auto Mode Share
Metric Trips by people in autos
Purpose Describe how the alternatives may affect the percentage of all trips that are made by people in
vehicles
Analysis
Methodology
This metric compares outputs from the travel demand mode: total trips by people in vehicles and
total trips. Vehicle trips are converted to trips by people using a vehicle occupancy rate of 1.15
(FTA standard assumption).
Data Source DRCOG 2040 Travel Demand Model (adjusted with local model refinement)
Evaluation Results
Figure D-2 lists person trips in vehicles by screenline. Person trips were converted from vehicle trips using
an average auto occupancy factor of 1.15 to account for vehicles with multiple occupants, i.e., on average
each vehicle carries 1.15 people.
As described in Attachment B:
The 2040 No-Build and Enhanced Bus scenarios assume 20% traffic growth (based on regional
projections).
The 2040 BRT scenarios (side-running or center-running) that assume 0% growth in traffic
(based on historic trends), assumed that automobile traffic has already been reduced as a means
of achieving a 0% increase in traffic by 2040.
The 2040 BRT scenarios (side-running or center-running) that include 20% growth in traffic
(based on regional projections) assumed that BRT service will result in reducing daily traffic
along Arapahoe by between 3,400 and 3,700 vehicles per day along the corridor.
Figure D-2 Person Trips in Vehicles, Daily Weekday
Alternative 28th 30th Foothills 55th
Existing (2015) 35,700 32,500 36,000 30,100
Alt 1 – No-Build with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 43,100 39,100 44,300 40,300
Alt 2 – Enhanced Bus with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 43,100 39,100 44,300 40,300
Alt 3/4 – BRT with 0% Traffic Growth (2040) 35,700 32,500 36,000 30,100
Alt 3/4 – BRT with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 38,600 34,100 39,900 36,400
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment D City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | D-3
TRANSIT MODE SHARE
Analysis Overview
Figure D-3 Transit Mode Share Analysis Summary Table
Change in Transit Mode Share
Metric Trips by people riding transit
Purpose Describe how the alternatives may affect the percentage of all trips that are made by transit riders
Analysis Methodology This metric relates ridership at key locations along the corridor (an output from the transit ridership
estimate) to total trips by people at these locations (an output from the travel demand model)
Data Source Localized transit ridership model based on existing JUMP ridership and industry-standard
adjustments for service quality improvements
Evaluation Results
Figure D-4 lists trips by people using transit by screenline. Transit person trips at the screenlines were
estimated as part of the transit ridership estimates (described in Attachment B):
Average weekday daily transit boardings were assigned to screenlines based on existing transit
travel patterns along Arapahoe, from existing RTD ridership data for the JUMP.
Trips on BRT are projected to be within +/- 10% for either Side-Running or Center-Running BRT
with either 0% or 20% traffic growth assumptions.
Figure D-4 Trips by People on Transit, Daily Weekday
Alternative 28th 30th Foothills 55th
Existing (2015) 1,500 1,600 1,500 1,300
Alt 1 – No-Build with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 1,600 1,800 1,500 1,100
Alt 2 – Enhanced Bus with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 2,500 2,800 2,500 2,300
Alt 3/4 – BRT with 0% or 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 3,800 - 4,300 4,200 - 4,700 3,700 - 4,200 3,400 - 3,700
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment D City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | D-4
WALK AND BICYCLE MODE SHARE
Analysis Overview
Figure D-5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Mode Share Analysis Summary Table
Change in Bicycle and Pedestrian Mode Share
Metric Trips by people bicycling and walking
Purpose Describe how the alternatives may affect the percentage of all trips that are made by people
bicycling and walking
Analysis
Methodology
Bicycle:
A multivariable regression analysis was used to produce AM and PM peak bicyclist forecasts for
East Arapahoe based on count locations on other roadways with on-street bike lanes in Boulder;
existing bicyclist volumes on Arapahoe are low given the lack of comfortable facilities along the
corridor, therefore it was not possible to “factor up” existing counts on Arapahoe:
Broadway from US 36 to Iris Avenue
Iris Avenue from Folsom Street to Broadway
Folsom Street from Iris Avenue to Pine Street
Valmont Road from Airport Road to Folsom Street
Since none of these corridors had high-comfort, protected bike lanes as envisioned on East
Arapahoe, before-and-after effects observed in other communities upgrading to protected bike
lanes were used to factor up existing counts (by 61%).
Pedestrian:
A regression model could not be developed to predict future pedestrian volumes based on the
data available, therefore pedestrian forecasts were developed by applying an overall ratio of
pedestrians to bicyclists from the observed (count) data.
Both Bicyclist and Pedestrian:
Demographic forecasts from DRCOG were used to adjust for future population and employment
growth.
AM and PM peak estimates were then adjusted to daily levels (comparable to auto and transit
estimates) based on multiple sources for the time distribution of trips. In the absence of local daily
counts for bicyclists and pedestrians along Arapahoe,1 PM peak trips were assumed to represent
9% of daily trips, which was relatively consistent among the various data sources:
The City of Boulder Arterial Count Program provides 24-hour vehicular counts, which indicate
that the PM peak hour represents approximately 8.7% of daily traffic.
Ridership data for the JUMP aggregates the PM peak to a 3-hour period that represents a total
of 28.5% of daily ridership. Assuming a straight average, the PM peak hour represents about
9.5% of daily ridership.
Based on data from automatic counters in Denver, peak hour bicycle and pedestrian trips
represented about 9% of daily trips.
Mode share was calculated by comparing existing counts and future forecasts to the number of
total trips by people from the travel demand model.
See Attachment D.1 for additional details.
Data Source Bicycle counts at intersections or facilities in study area and on other comparable facilities, City
of Boulder and national studies and research.
DRCOG, TAZ-level population and employment projections for 2040.
Notes: [1] The City of Boulder is planning to conduct more detailed bicyclist and pedestrian counts along Arapahoe and this data could be used
to confirm and refine the methodology in the future.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment D City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | D-5
Evaluation Results
All future alternatives including No-Build support increased bicycle and pedestrian trips in the corridor,
however the proposed facilities in any of the Build alternatives would enhance bicycle and pedestrian
comfort the most (see Attachment C). Figure D-6 and Figure D-7 list bicycle and pedestrian trips by
screenline, respectively.
For bicyclists, population/employment growth along with improvements in the 2040 No-Build
alternative (completion of gaps in the existing multi-use path network) account for increased
bicycle trips in the corridor relative to the existing condition. Improvements in the Build
alternative account for increase bicycle trips relative to the 2040 No-Build alternative.
For pedestrians, population/employment growth along with improvements in the 2040 No-
Build alternative (completion of gaps in the existing multi-use path network) account for
increased pedestrian trips in the corridor relative to the existing condition. There is assumed to be
no quantifiable difference in the number of pedestrian trips between any of the future-year
alternatives (No-Build or Build) on the west end of the corridor (28th and 30th Streets). Further
east (Foothills Pkwy and 55th Street) the improvements proposed in the Build alternative are
assumed to increase bicycle trips relative to the 2040 No-Build alternative.
Figure D-6 Trips by People On Bicycles
Alternative 28th 30th Foothills 55th
Existing (2015) * 10 * 630 20 50
Alt 1 – No-Build (2040) 1,200 1,000 730 730
Alt 2 – Enhanced Bus (2040)
Alt 3/4 – Side or Center-Running BRT (2040) 1,940 1,610 1,180 1,180
Notes: Counts were conducted in April 2013 and April 2014. Intersections were counted on a separate days. *Although existing counts at 28th
Street are significantly lower than 30th Street, counts at Folsom Street are higher than at 30th Street, suggesting that the low bicycle count a 28th
Street may have been related to adverse conditions (e.g., weather) on the day that sample was taken.
Figure D-7 Trips by People Walking
Alternative 28th 30th Foothills 55th
Existing (2015) * 170 900 20 220
Alt 1 – No-Build (2040) 750 1,090 270 270
Alt 2 – Enhanced Bus (2040)
Alt 3/4 – Side or Center-Running BRT (2040) 750 1,090 430 430
Notes: Counts were conducted in April 2013 and April 2014. Intersections were counted on a separate days.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment D City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | D-6
OVERALL MODE SHARE
Figure D-8 lists mode share estimates for all modes and alternatives, calculated based on the tables above.
Figure D-8 Mode Share Results
Alternative 28th 30th Foothills 55th
Auto
Existing (2015) 96% 91% 96% 95%
Alt 1 – No-Build with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 92% 91% 95% 95%
Alt 2 – Enhanced Bus with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 89% 88% 92% 91%
Alt 3/4 – BRT with 0% Traffic Growth (2040) 84% 81% 86% 85%
Alt 3/4 – BRT with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 86% 83% 88% 86%
Transit
Existing (2015) 4% 4% 4% 4%
Alt 1 – No-Build with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 3% 4% 3% 3%
Alt 2 – Enhanced Bus with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 5% 6% 5% 5%
Alt 3/4 – BRT with 0% Traffic Growth (2040) 10% 12% 10% 10%
Alt 3/4 – BRT with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 8% 10% 8% 10%
Bicycle
Existing (2015) 0.0% 1.8% 0.1% 0.2%
Alt 1 – No-Build with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 2.6% 2.3% 1.6% 1.7%
Alt 2 – Enhanced Bus with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 4.0% 3.6% 2.4% 2.7%
Alt 3/4 – BRT with 0% Traffic Growth (2040) 4.5% 4.0% 2.8% 3.3%
Alt 3/4 – BRT with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 4.3% 3.9% 2.6% 2.8%
Pedestrian
Existing (2015) 0.5% 2.5% 0.1% 0.7%
Alt 1 – No-Build with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 1.6% 2.5% 0.6% 0.6%
Alt 2 – Enhanced Bus with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 1.6% 2.4% 0.9% 1.0%
Alt 3/4 – BRT with 0% Traffic Growth (2040) 1.8% 2.7% 1.0% 1.2%
Alt 3/4 – BRT with 20% Traffic Growth (2040) 1.7% 2.7% 1.0% 1.0%
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment D City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | D-7
Figure D-9 Travel Mode Share Evaluation Score
CARRYING CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Analysis Overview
The estimates for auto, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian travel were also used to analyze the impact on the
corridor’s carrying capacity—in terms of the number of people that can be accommodated—at two
screenlines (30th and 55th Street). Carrying capacity can be used to assess the benefits of repurposing auto
lanes to increase capacity for other modes.
The analysis is based on the following assumptions:
Vehicles: Modeled traffic volumes (both through and right-turn movements) during the peak
commute hour and direction (where demand for travel is highest) under the 20% traffic growth
scenario (regional 2040 projection) are assumed to represent a practical limit for efficient vehicle
travel along the corridor. At 30th Street, projected volumes are highest in the westbound direction
in the PM peak.; at 55th Street, projected volumes are highest in the eastbound direction in the PM
peak.
Transit: Transit capacity is based on the number of people that could be accommodated on
transit in the peak commute hour and direction (same direction as for vehicles). This was
calculated as the number of buses per hour (6 existing and No-Build, every 10 minutes; up to 12
with BRT, every 5 minutes) multiplied by the number of people that could be carried on each bus
(40 seated, not including people standing).
Biking and Walking: Biking capacity assumes the projected number of trips by people on bikes
(in one direction); see Figure D-6. Walking capacity assumes the projected number of trips by
people walking (in both directions); see Figure D-7. Actual capacity to accommodate bicycle and
pedestrian trips does not have a practical limit but is not easily quantified.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment D City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | D-8
Evaluation Results
Total capacity of the corridor to carry people increases under all scenarios, as shown in Figure D-10.
Compared to existing conditions, carrying capacity increases even in the No-Build alternative,
based on increased auto volumes and completion of the multi-use path and sidewalks that is
assumed in that alternative. The Build alternatives further increase capacity compared to existing
conditions, by enhancing transit service and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Comparing the future Build and No-Build alternatives, carrying capacity stills increases, but by a
smaller amount.
Figure D-10 East Arapahoe Carrying Capacity (Number of People), 30th and 55th Streets, Peak Hour and Direction
Mode
Existing
(2015)
No-Build (Alt 1 w/20% Traffic
Growth, 2040)
Build (Alt 2/3/4 w/20%
Traffic Growth, 2040)
% Change
No-Build
vs. Existing
Build vs.
Existing
Build vs.
No-Build
30th Street – Westbound PM Peak
Auto 1,507 1,747 1,647 16% 9% -6%
Transit 240 240 480 0% 100% 100%
Bike 14 23 36 59% 156% 61%
Walk (both directions) 41 49 49 21% 21% 0%
Total 1,802 2,059 2,213 14% 23% 7%
55th Street – Eastbound PM Peak
Auto 1,825 2,191 1,885 20% 3% -14%
Transit 240 240 480 0% 100% 100%
Bike 8 19 31 154% 310% 61%
Walk (both directions) 25 31 34 21% 36% 12%
Total 1,939 2,259 2,312 17% 19% 2%
Notes: Projected auto, bike, and walk trips compiled from above tables; transit capacity calculated based on planned frequency and capacity
(Attachment B).
$ttachmentD.1
Bicyclist and Pedestrian Count Methodology
621 17th Street | #2301 | Denver, CO 80293 | (303) 296-4300 | Fax (303) 296-4300
www.fehrandpeers.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 17, 2017
To: Jean Sanson, City of Boulder
From: Charlie Alexander & Carly Sieff, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Bicyclist & Pedestrian Forecasts for East Arapahoe Avenue
DN16-0519
INTRODUCTION
Fehr & Peers used a multivariable regression to produce bicyclist and pedestrian forecasts for East
Arapahoe Avenue. This technical memorandum summarizes the data used to develop that
multivariable regression and the resulting 2040 forecasts for East Arapahoe Avenue.
METHODOLOGY
Broadly speaking, any bicyclist and pedestrian forecasting methodology for East Arapahoe Avenue
should be sensitive to the future infrastructure and land use changes on the corridor.
Currently, the East Arapahoe Avenue corridor provides such a low comfort level for people biking
and people walking that the existing number of people biking and walking on the corridor is very
low. This prohibits the application of methods that would “factor up” existing counts. Other more
robust methods, such as activity-based model applications, have yet to prove successful based on
the models available in the Denver region.
Given the inability of “factoring up” existing counts on the corridor, Fehr & Peers applied a
multivariable regression to develop forecasts for the corridor.
How Does a Multivariable Regression Work?
A multivariable regression establishes a mathematical relationship between a dependent variable
(in this case counts of bicyclists and pedestrians on other Boulder-area corridors) and a variety of
independent variables.
Bicyclist & Pedestrian Forecasts for East Arapahoe Avenue
July 17, 2017
Page 2 of 6
Multivariable Regression for East Arapahoe Avenue
For Bicyclist Forecasts
Fehr & Peers developed a multivariable regression for East Arapahoe Avenue using available
bicyclist count information (AM and PM peak hour) for four corridors in Boulder:
• Broadway from US 36 to Iris Avenue
• Iris Avenue from Folsom Street to Broadway
• Folsom Street from Iris Avenue to Pine Street
• Valmont Road from Airport Road to Folsom Street
A key challenge to this analysis was that, in the count years available (2013-2015), none of these
corridors had high-comfort protected bike lanes as envisioned on East Arapahoe Avenue. Instead,
these corridors had on-street bike lanes. Fehr & Peers researched before-and-after effects observed
in other communities (Austin, TX; Chicago, IL; Portland, OR; and San Francisco, CA) when upgrading
bike lanes to protected bike lanes and found, on average, a 61 percent increase in bicyclist counts
(Monsere et al., Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the U.S.). Therefore,
Fehr & Peers factored bicyclist counts on these corridors up by 61 percent to account for the
expected infrastructure on East Arapahoe Avenue.
Fehr & Peers tested different independent variables to develop a multivariable regression that had
a reasonably high explanatory power but also had variables that would seem reasonable according
to engineers and planners. The multivariable regression uses four independent variables:
• HH+EMP/mi – Total number of households and employees within ½ mile of the corridor,
divided by the corridor’s length in miles. This was derived from 2015 DRCOG TAZ data for
TAZs within ½ mile of the corridor and that are likely to load trips onto the corridor.
Dividing the total households and employees by the corridor’s length adjusts for corridors
that are longer than one another.
• Int HH + EMP – Total number of households and employees within ½ mile of the
intersection. This was derived from 2015 DRCOG TAZ data for TAZs within ½ mile of the
intersection and that are likely to load trips onto the corridor near the intersection.
• Mi from Downtown – Distance in miles from the intersection to Downtown Boulder
(assumed to be the Broadway/Canyon Boulevard intersection) when travelling the shortest
path along the network.
Bicyclist & Pedestrian Forecasts for East Arapahoe Avenue
July 17, 2017
Page 3 of 6
• Direct Connect? – A binary variable describing whether the route offered a direct
connection to the Downtown Boulder area or not (1 if the corridor does, 0 if it does not).
The resulting regression equation achieved an R2 value of 0.76 which suggests that these variables
explain 76 percent of the variation in the observed data. While not especially high by statistical
standards, this was the highest R2 value that could be achieved with the available data. The resulting
regression equation is:
AM+PM PkHr 2-Way Bikes =
-13.4 + (0.0039 x HH+EMP/mi) + (0.019 x Int. HH + EMP) + (-19.7 x Mi from Downtown) + (129.6 x Direct Connect?)
For Pedestrian Forecasts
Fehr & Peers tested several independent variables for pedestrians including all of the variables used
for the bicyclist regression and also including buses stopping each day within ½ mile of the
intersection and pre-Kindergarten through 12th grade school enrollment. No combination of these
independent variables resulted in a reasonably high R2 value; therefore, we developed pedestrian
forecasts by applying an overall ratio of pedestrians to bicyclists from the observed data. Where
existing pedestrian counts exceeded these forecasts, we increased existing pedestrian counts by
the ratios of 2040 population/employment to 2015 population/employment.
Converting Peak Hour to Daily and With Build to No Build
Analysis of Boulder traffic counts showed that PM peak hour traffic accounts for 9.3% of daily traffic;
therefore, this same ratio was applied to convert PM peak hour bicyclist/pedestrian forecasts to
daily forecasts.
With Build forecasts were converted to No Build forecasts by inverting the 61 percent increase in
bicyclist counts when upgrading bike lanes to protected bike lanes previously assumed to account
for the less comfortable infrastructure in the No Build scenario.
In some cases where the model did not perform as expected relative to existing counts or between
scenarios, manual adjustments were applied accounting for growth in population and employment
or the difference in comfort levels between the existing, with build and no build scenarios.
Bicyclist & Pedestrian Forecasts for East Arapahoe Avenue
July 17, 2017
Page 4 of 6
2040 EAST ARAPAHOE AVENUE FORECASTS
Table 1 shows 2040 bicyclist and pedestrian forecasts for East Arapahoe Avenue. There forecasts
represent the expected daily number of bicyclist and pedestrians travelling along East Arapahoe
Avenue near each study intersection. Fehr & Peers applied 2040 DRCOG TAZ data so that the
forecasts would account for expected population and employment growth on the corridor. The
observed count data had already been factored up to account for the high-comfort infrastructure
expected on East Arapahoe Avenue.
Fehr & Peers produced two separate regressions: one for East Arapahoe Avenue west of 55th Street
and another for East Arapahoe Avenue east of 55th Street. Applying two separate regressions affects
the HH+EMP/mi variable (total number of households and employees within ½ mile of the
corridor, divided by the corridor’s length in miles) and recognizes that the character of the corridor
is very different west and east of 55th Street.
Bicyclist & Pedestrian Forecasts for East Arapahoe Avenue
July 17, 2017
Page 5 of 6
TABLE 1 BICYCLIST AND PEDESTRIAN FORECASTS
Location
Existing 2040 With Build 2040 No Build
Daily Bikes Daily Peds Daily Bikes Daily Peds Daily Bikes Daily Peds
East Arapahoe Ave. at
Folsom St. 450 1,130 1,940 1,370 1,200 1,370
East Arapahoe Ave. at
28th St. 10 170 1,940 750 1,200 750
East Arapahoe Ave. at
30th St. 630 900 1,610 1,090 1,000 1,090
East Arapahoe Ave. at
Foothills Pkwy. 20 20 1,180 430 730 270
East Arapahoe Ave. at
55th St. 50 220 1,180 430 730 270
East Arapahoe Ave. at
Cherryvale Rd. 30 40 650 320 400 200
East Arapahoe Ave. at
63rd St. 0 30 650 320 400 200
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017
Bicyclist & Pedestrian Forecasts for East Arapahoe Avenue
July 17, 2017
Page 6 of 6
LIMITATIONS
A multivariable regression is only as good as the data available for both the dependent variables
(observed data) and the independent variables. Potential criticisms of this methodology include:
• Bicyclist and pedestrian count data only included one day of data, the days were not the
same across all intersections and the weather conditions on the day of the counts is
unknown.
• The multivariable regression could have been improved if count data for additional
corridors were available; as developed, the multivariable regression is only based on 16
observations and is not statistically significant.
• Additional independent variables that were not tested may have increased the
multivariable regression’s explanatory power.
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | E-1
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment E City of Boulder
ATTACHMENT E SAFETY
This attachment provides more detailed discussion of the safety implications of vehicle, transit, and non-
motorized transportation alternatives considered in the East Arapahoe Transportation Plan Evaluation of
Alternatives Report.
ASSUMPTIONS
The implementation of any of the alternatives under consideration would be accompanied by some level of
infrastructure change. The main infrastructure elements with potential safety impacts are summarized
below. A discussion of the anticipated safety impacts for each element follows in the Evaluation section.
Enhanced Bus
Queue jumps
Transit signal priority (TBD)
Potential BAT lane sections
Side-running BRT
Transit signal priority (TBD)
Lane repurposing
BAT lanes
Center-running BRT
Transit signal priority (TBD)
Lane repurposing
Center-lane busway
Left-turns would not be prohibited in the center-running BRT alternative. Vehicles would be
allowed to cross over the center bus lane in advance of an intersection to enter the left-turn lane.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalks
Multi-use paths
On-street bicycle facilities
Protected/raised bicycle facilities
Amenity Zones
Street trees
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment E City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | E-2
EVALUATION RESULTS
Improving transportation safety for all modes of travel along the East Arapahoe corridor is a priority for all
alternatives under consideration. The primary mechanism for providing safe travel for all modes and
supporting the “Toward Vision Zero” effort to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries includes a
comprehensive review of crash history and identification of countermeasures to address crash trends. Care
will be taken when advancing any alternatives to ensure their implementation will not compromise the
safety of the corridor. Industry research and case studies also provide some insight into how the various
elements of the alternatives may impact safety.
Research on the safety impacts of implementing bus rapid transit (BRT) in the developing world is
somewhat limited or offers mixed findings. The implementation of center-running BRT has generally
proven to reduce traffic crashes in many Latin American cities. Likewise, the use of bus priority systems,
such as signal priority and dedicated lanes, has also demonstrated positive safety impacts in countries like
Australia. Less research is available on the safety impacts of BRT in the United States. The magnitude of
these crash reductions varies widely by location and is heavily dependent on the characteristics of the
individual corridors. Comprehensive research on the traffic safety impacts of bus priority systems
(including bus rapid transit) in the developing world suggests that the safety impacts are more a result of
the street infrastructure changes made to implement the bus priority systems than the type of bus system
being implemented.
Similarly, the safety impacts of providing specific types of bicycle facilities is not well understood.
Research on the benefits of dedicated bicycle facilities has yielded mixed conclusions. However, as the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program’s Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle
Facilities points out, the “prevailing argument is that enhanced facilities—bike lanes, bikeways, and special
intersection modifications—improve cyclist safety.” Crash analysis within the City of Boulder shows that
most crashes involving bicyclists or pedestrians occur at intersections. Thus, the safety of a facility
depends heavily on the way it interacts with intersections and driveways.
Queue Jumps and Signal Priority
The use of bus priority measures, such as queue jumps and transit signal priority, has been shown to have
positive safety impacts in Australia. A study that evaluated the effects of bus priority on road safety in
Melbourne’s SmartBus network found that bus priority treatments resulted in a statistically significant
reduction of crashes. Bus priority lanes were found to yield higher safety benefits compared to signal
priority at intersections.
References:
Goh, K., et al., “Road Safety Benefits from Bus Priority – An Empirical Study.” Transportation Research Record -
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2013.
Business-access-and-transit (BAT) Lanes
The safety impacts of curbside bus lanes (that are also used by right-turning vehicles) have been explored
using real world data and experimental microscopic traffic simulation modeling and are generally positive.
A study tested two configurations of a curbside bus priority lanes on a three-lane divided arterial in
Melbourne: reallocation of an existing lane for buses and the addition of a new lane for buses. The results
showed that in either configuration, BAT lanes reduced conflicts at intersection approaches and bus stop
locations. These reductions came from fewer rear-end and sideswipe crashes, as BAT lanes remove buses
from mixed traffic and provide space for right-turning vehicles. At the corridor level, conflicts increased in
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment E City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | E-3
the lane reallocation scenario. However, this finding was not consistent with real world before and after
data.
References:
Goh, K. C. K., G. Currie, M. Sarvi, and D. Logan. "Investigating the Road Safety Impacts of Bus Priority Using
Experimental Micro-Simulation Modelling." Paper presented at the Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual
Meeting, Washington DC., 2013.
Lane Repurposing
Understanding the safety impacts of repurposing a travel lane for transit is a complex issue, as different
aspects may have different effects depending on the conditions of the corridor. For example, reducing the
number of lanes for motor vehicles could lead to more congestion and an increase in rear-end crashes. On
the other hand, reducing the number of lanes reduces the number of conflict points and can also result in
slower speeds, both of which have positive safety impacts. An analysis if the safety impact of common
infrastructure changes made when implementing bus priority systems in Latin America found that
removing a traffic lane resulted in fewer total and severe crashes. The range of traffic volumes present in
the cases analyzed is unknown.
References:
Duduta, N., C. Adriazola, D. Hidalgo, T. Lindhau, V. John, and C. Wass. Traffic Safety on Bus Priority Systems.
EMBARQ, Washington, D.C., 2014.
Center-lane Busway
Research on bus priority corridors in Latin America suggests that center-lane bus systems provide greater
safety improvements than curbside systems. However, the implementation of center-lane systems in these
cases often involves infrastructure and operational changes such as prohibiting left-turns, adding a central
median, and shortening crosswalks. While the detailed operational changes for East Arapahoe have not yet
been determined, prohibiting left-turns along Arapahoe Avenue or restricting access from side streets
would likely not be recommended. Therefore, the safety impacts of a center-running BRT are not expected
to be as significant as in Latin American case studies. Instead, vehicles may be allowed to cross over the
center transit lane in advance of an intersection to enter the left-turn lane. This could result in conflicts
between buses and vehicles, but due to the lower occupancy rate of the transit lane, these crashes would
likely be infrequent.
References:
Duduta, N., C. Adriazola, D. Hidalgo, T. Lindhau, V. John, and C. Wass. Traffic Safety on Bus Priority Systems.
EMBARQ, Washington, D.C., 2014.
Sidewalks
Changes to the pedestrian facilities in the alternatives under consideration include completing missing
sidewalk links or providing wider sidewalks. Providing sidewalks along urban arterials reduces the risk of
“walking along roadway” pedestrian crashes, though these types of crashes are not common along
Arapahoe Avenue. Nevertheless, sidewalks are not expected to have a negative effect on safety. Per the
Boulder Revised Code, bicycling would be allowed on sidewalks in residential and park zones, and a lack of
a dedicated bicycle facility could encourage more riding on sidewalks.
References:
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment E City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | E-4
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Highway Safety Manual (1st Edition).
Washington, D.C., 2010.
Multi-use Paths
Multi-use paths are already present along much of Arapahoe Avenue and are included in many of the
alternatives under consideration. Multi-use paths can improve perceived safety for bicyclists, but may
decrease perceived safety for pedestrians, as conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians are more likely to
occur. Few crashes of this type have historically been reported along Arapahoe Avenue’s existing multi-use
paths. Local crash data does show, however, that bicyclists riding on multi-use paths (or sidewalks) in the
opposite direction of traffic are more likely to be involved in crashes with vehicles. Providing multi-use
paths on both sides of a street may reduce these occurrences, but travel patterns are also influenced by
land use. Care should be taken to increase the visibility of bicyclists riding against traffic on paths at
intersections and driveways. Limited published research is available on the safety impacts of multi-use
paths.
References:
City of Boulder 2016 Safe Streets Boulder Report, May 2016.
On-street Bicycle Facilities
A 2009 literature review of the impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and crashes
found limited studies on the effects of bicycle facility type on safety, but concluded based on existing
research that dedicated bicycle-only facilities, such as bike lanes, bike paths, or cycle tracks, provided
greater safety benefits compared to no facilities or facilities shared with pedestrians. Furthermore, the
Highway Safety Manual suggests that providing dedicated bicycle lanes or separate bicycle facilities
reduces conflicts between vehicles and bicycles along roadway segments, but the magnitude of the crash
effect is not certain.
References:
Reynolds, C., M. Harris, K. Teschke, P. Cripton, M. Winters. "The impact of transportation infrastructure on
bicycling injuries and crashes: A review of the literature". Environmental Health, 2009.
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Highway Safety Manual (1st Edition).
Washington, D.C., 2010.
Protected/Raised Bicycle Facilities
As mentioned above, bicycle-only facilities in general, whether on-street or separated, are expected to
improve safety compared to no facilities or multi-use paths. A study of six separated bicycle facilities (cycle
tracks) in Montreal found that cycle tracks have either lower or similar injury rates compared to
comparable streets without bicycle facilities. Even though separated facilities may improve perceived
safety for bicyclists, the crash effects appear to be similar to bicycle lanes. The crossing of separated
facilities at intersections can result in more conflicts between vehicles and bicycles, according to one study.
Therefore, the design of separated bicycle facility crossings at intersections and driveways will be an
important aspect of the final design to ensure positive safety impacts.
References:
Reynolds, C., M. Harris, K. Teschke, P. Cripton, M. Winters. "The impact of transportation infrastructure on
bicycling injuries and crashes: A review of the literature". Environmental Health, 2009.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment E City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | E-5
Lusk, A. C., P. Furth, P. Morency, L. Miranda-Moreno, W. Willett, J. Dennerlein, "Risk of injury for bicycling on
cycle tracks versus in the street". Injury Prevention, 2010.
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Highway Safety Manual (1st Edition).
Washington, D.C., 2010.
Street Trees
The alternatives with amenity zones of at least eight feet can accommodate street trees, which may positive
safety benefits. A pilot study using a simulated environment to evaluate both urban and suburban
landscapes with and without curbside street trees yielded a proof of concept for the safety benefits of street
trees. The results indicated that curbside street trees improve drivers’ perception of safety, especially in
urban landscapes, and reduce driving speeds in suburban landscapes. Other research has concluded that
streetscape improvements, including street trees, can reduce the frequency and severity of crash rates.
References:
Naderi, J.R., B. S. Kweon, P. Maghelal. “The Street Tree Effect and Driver Safety”. ITE Journal on the Web,
February 2008, pages 69-73.
Rosenblatt, J. and G. Bronfman-Bahar. “Impact of Environmental Mitigation on Transportation Safety: Five Toronto
Case Studies.” International Road Federation, World Conference Proceedings, 1999.
Access Management
Literature Review
Access management or the consolidation of driveways may be utilized in conjunction with any of the
alternatives. Decreasing access point density on urban and suburban arterials is expected to reduce crash
frequency, as documented in multiple studies. While an access management plan can be developed
regardless of the alternative, implementation of a center-running BRT alternative is expected to have the
greatest impact on access, since left-turns would likely not be permitted across the median BRT lanes. This
would impact existing full-access movements which are most frequent in District D.
References:
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Highway Safety Manual (1st Edition).
Washington, D.C., 2010.
Analysis Overview
The project team developed an inventory of existing driveways in the study area. Driveway locations were
mapped and driveway cuts were classified into four types:
A = Right-in, Right-out; private driveway
B = All turns allowed; private driveway
C = Fully signalized; private driveway
D = Right-in, Right-out; minor public street.
Assumptions
Any intersection that has both a traffic signal, and public right-of-way extending away from
Arapahoe was not counted as a driveway.
Minor public right-of-ways that restrict turning access were counted as driveway type D.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment E City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | E-6
Signalized intersections that serve as access to a private property or parking lot were counted as
driveway type C
Evaluation Results
Figure E-1 summarizes the inventory of existing driveways.
Maps that illustrate the access management analysis can be found in Attachment E.1 Access Management.
The maps also identify locations along interior lot lines where parcels that have access onto or off of
Arapahoe have interior vehicular circulation already established with a neighboring property.
Figure E-1 Existing Driveway Inventory
Driveway Type (Existing) Overall District A District B District C District D District E
A = Right-in, Right-
out; private driveway 57 24 N/A 17 15 1
B = All turns allowed;
private driveway 26 3 N/A 1 19 3
C = Fully signalized;
private driveway 8 4 N/A 1 3 0
D = Right-in, Right-
out; minor public
street
4 1 N/A 2 1 0
Figure E-2 provides qualitative ratings for the impact of the alternatives on driveways by district.
Figure E-2 Driveway Impact Rating
Overall District A District B District C District D District E
Existing 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alt 1 (No-Build) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alt 2 (Enhanced Bus) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alt 3 (Side-Running BRT) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alt 4 (Center-running BRT) 0 to -2 -1 0 -1 -2 -1
Key: -3 = greatest impact, 0 = neutral, +3 = greatest benefit
Key Findings
The management alternatives for the East Arapahoe corridor may include access management, or
the consolidation of driveways. Minimizing the number of access points is expected to reduce the
frequency of crashes, as noted above.
District A has 32 driveway cuts, District C has 21, District D has 37, and District E has 4.
The “all-turns allowed” access category is most likely to be impacted in Alternative 4 (Center-
running BRT), since left-turns would likely not be permitted across the median BRT lanes. There
are relatively few of these types of driveways in Districts A, C, and E, but there are 19 in District D.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment E City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | E-7
OVERALL KEY FINDINGS
The City of Boulder works to provide a safe transportation system for people using all modes of
travel. “Toward Vision Zero” is the city’s effort to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries from
future traffic collisions.
Arapahoe Ave is one of the higher speed (posted speed limits between 35 and 45 mph) and higher
volume roadways with the city.
An analysis of crash data from 2012-2014 shows that crashes affect all modes of travel along
Arapahoe Avenue. Several intersections (28th St, 30th st, and Foothills Pkwy) have particularly high
crash rates. The data indicates a need to minimize conflict points, including intersections and
driveways, and identify and mitigate safety issues for people walking, biking, and driving.
In general, the vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure changes required to implement the
build alternatives would be expected to provide safety benefits or have a neutral impact on safety.
Dedicated bicycle facilities are expected to improve safety compared to no facilities or multi-use
paths.
The design of bicycle facility crossings at intersections and driveways will be an important aspect
of the final design to ensure positive safety impacts.
Figure E-3 Safety Evaluation Score
Tables summarizing the safety evaluation for vehicles, transit, and people walking and biking can be
found in the East Arapahoe Transportation Plan Evaluation of Alternatives Summary Report, page
51-52.
ATTACHMENT E.1 DRIVEWAY ACCESS MAPS
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C: Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment E.1
City of Boulder
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
¯
Pearl St
Arapahoe Ave
30th St28th St55th StFoothills
Pkwy63rd St75th StBoulder
Community Health
CU East Campus
Flatirons
Golf Course
BVSD
Naropa
Multi-Use Path
Sidewalk
Parcel Boundary
Landmark
2 Mile1.60.80.4
Ball
Aerospace
Flatiron
Business Park
JCC
East Arapahoe Corridor Map
Folsom St1.2
Xcel
Power Plant
Valmont Rd
Baseline Rd
Pearl Pkwy
Cherryvale RdCity Limits
Twenty-Ninth
Street
Map Number1
Figure E.1-1 Location Map
28THFOLSOMARAPAHOE 29TH26THCULVERGOSS
OLSON
MARINE
GROVE
CORDRY23RDMatchline
¯
Miles
0.250.20.150.10.05
Parcel Boundary
Existing Access
Between Lots
City Limits
Right-in, Right-out
All turns allowed
Right-in, Right-out
Public ROW
Fully Signalized
Private Drive
1
2
3 6
54
7
8
Figure E.1-2 Map 1 - Character District A
ARAPAHOE 30TH28THMARINE 33RD29THCULVERCORDRYMARINE
MatchlineMatchline
¯
Miles
0.250.20.150.10.05
Parcel Boundary
Existing Access
Between Lots
City Limits
Right-in, Right-out
All turns allowed
Right-in, Right-out
Public ROW
Fully Signalized
Private Drive
9 10 11
12 13 14
15
16
17 18 19
20
21
22
23 24 25 26
Figure E.1-3 Map 2 - Character District A
ARAPAHOE
38TH
33RDEXPOSITIONMARINE Boulder Creek Matchline Matchline
¯
Miles
0.250.20.150.10.05
Parcel Boundary
Existing Access
Between Lots
City Limits
Right-in, Right-out
All turns allowed
Right-in, Right-out
Public ROW
Fully Signalized
Private Drive
27 28 29 30
Figure E.1-4 Map 3 - Character District A
Boulder Cree
k
FOOTHILLS
38TH
MACARTHURARAPAHOE Bear CreekMatchline Matchline
¯
Miles
0.250.20.150.10.05
Parcel Boundary
Existing Access
Between Lots
City Limits
Right-in, Right-out
All turns allowed
Right-in, Right-out
Public ROW
Fully Signalized
Private Drive
31 32
33 34 35
Figure E.1-5 Map 4 - Character District B
RANGEPATTONGANDHICOMMERCEEISENHOWER CONESTOGARIVERBEND
ARAPAHOE48THMatchline Matchline
¯
Miles
0.250.20.150.10.05
Parcel Boundary
Existing Access
Between Lots
City Limits
Right-in, Right-out
All turns allowed
Right-in, Right-out
Public ROW
Fully Signalized
Private Drive
36 37 38
39 40 41
Figure E.1-6 Map 5 - Character District C
55TH56THCONESTOGATOBYS LODGEARAPAHOE
Matchline Matchline
¯
Miles
0.250.20.150.10.05
Parcel Boundary
Existing Access
Between Lots
City Limits
Right-in, Right-out
All turns allowed
Right-in, Right-out
Public ROW
Fully Signalized
Private Drive
42 43 44 45 46 47
48
49 50 51
52 53 54 55 56 57 58
59
Figure E.1-7 Map 6 - Character District C
OREGOLD TALECHERRYVALEARAPAHOE
S
o
u
t
h
B
o
u
l
d
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
Matchline Matchline
¯
Miles
0.250.20.150.10.05
Parcel Boundary
Existing Access
Between Lots
City Limits
Right-in, Right-out
All turns allowed
Right-in, Right-out
Public ROW
Fully Signalized
Private Drive
60 61 62 63 64
65
66
Figure E.1-8 Map 7 - Character District D
OREG 63RDBENARAPAHOE
Matchline Matchline
¯
Miles
0.250.20.150.10.05
Parcel Boundary
Existing Access
Between Lots
City Limits
Right-in, Right-out
All turns allowed
Right-in, Right-out
Public ROW
Fully Signalized
Private Drive
67 68
69 70 71 72
73
74 75
76 77
Figure E.1-9 Map 8 - Character District D
ARAPAHOE
MEADOWLARK
Matchline Matchline
¯
Miles
0.250.20.150.10.05
Parcel Boundary
Existing Access
Between Lots
City Limits
Right-in, Right-out
All turns allowed
Right-in, Right-out
Public ROW
Fully Signalized
Private Drive
78
79 80
81 82
83 84 85 86 87
88
89
Figure E.1-10 Map 9 - Character District D
WESTVIEWMEADOWLARK
ARAPAHOE
Matchline Matchline
¯
Miles
0.250.20.150.10.05
90
Parcel Boundary
Existing Access
Between Lots
City Limits
Right-in, Right-out
All turns allowed
Right-in, Right-out
Public ROW
Fully Signalized
Private Drive
Figure E.1-11 Map 10 - Character District D - E
VALTEC
ARAPAHOE
Matchline Matchline
¯
Miles
0.250.20.150.10.05
Parcel Boundary
Existing Access
Between Lots
City Limits
Right-in, Right-out
All turns allowed
Right-in, Right-out
Public ROW
Fully Signalized
Private Drive
9391
92
Figure E.1-12 Map 11 - Character District E
75THARAPAHOE
Matchline
¯
Miles
0.250.20.150.10.05
Parcel Boundary
Existing Access
Between Lots
City Limits
Right-in, Right-out
All turns allowed
Right-in, Right-out
Public ROW
Fully Signalized
Private Drive
94
Figure E.1-13 Map 12 - Character District E
Character District A: Total = 32
1 A
2 A
3 C 26th Street, private shopping center main entrance
4 C 26th Street, private shopping center main entrance
5 A
6 A
7 A
8 D Culver Court
9 A
10 A
11 A
12 C 29th Street, shopping center entrance
13 A
14 A
15 A
16 A
17 A
18 A
19 A
20 A
21 A
22 A
23 A
24 A
25 C 33rd Street intersection
26 A
27 B
28 B
29 A
30 A
31 B
32 A
Character District C: Total = 21
33 A
34 A
35 A
36 A Riverbend Road
37 A
38 A
39 D Patton Drive
40 A
41 C Conestoga; entrance to shopping center
42 A
43 A
44 A
45 A
46 A
47 A
48 A
49 A
50 A
51 A
52 D 56th Street
53 B
Character District D: Total = 37
54 A
55 B
56 B
57 B
58 B
59 B Flatirons Golf Course main entrance
60 A
61 A
62 A
63 B
64 B
65 A
66 C Cherryvale - north side; entrance to car dealerships
67 A
68 A
69 A Boulder JCC Entrance
70 B Ben Place
71 A
72 A
73 A
74 A
75 A
76 B
77 B
78 B
79 B
80 B
81 B BVSD West Entrance
82 C 65th Street; BVSD main entrance
83 C 65th Street north
84 B
85 B
Character District D: Total = 37
86 B
87 D
88 B BVSD East Entrance
89 B
90 B
Character District E: Total = 4
91 B Legion Park Entrance
92 B
93 B
94 A
Legend
A = Right-in, Right-out; private driveway
B = All turns allowed; private driveway
C = Fully signalized; private driveway
D = Right-in, Right-out; minor public street
Figure E.1-14 Driveway Inventory Summary Tables
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment F City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | F-1
ATTACHMENT F COMMUNITY
SUSTAINABILITY
This attachment provides additional details on analysis methodology and results to supplement the
community sustainability measures that are provided in the East Arapahoe Transportation Plan
Evaluation of Alternatives Report.
STREETSCAPE QUALITY
This section describes the evaluation methodology, assumptions, and additional results for the streetscape
quality results provided on pages 55-59 of the Evaluation of Alternatives Summary Report.
Analysis Overview
Figure F-1 Streetscape Analysis Summary Table
Opportunity to Improve Streetscape
Metric Opportunity to increase public space and landscaping
Purpose Describe how alternatives could affect the amount of public space and landscaping available
along the corridor. Increasing public space and landscaping could make Arapahoe a more
pleasant place to walk and bike; street trees can improve safety by visually narrowing the street
and encouraging lower traffic speeds.
Analysis Methodology Qualitative assessment of design alternatives
Data Source Concept plans for design alternatives and industry research/case studies, City of Boulder, County
of Boulder
Methodology
This analysis was conducted using ESRI ArcMap. Polygons were constructed representing the existing
medians and sidewalk/multi-use path infrastructure. The lines were drawn from the roadway curb to the
back of the sidewalk or multi-use path. Next, polygons were constructed representing the cross-sections
of each of the proposed build alternatives. These were broken up by Character District, and the cross-
section differences between Character Districts were included. Rough boundaries for intersections were
sketched in to account for cross-streets.
Next, the square footage of each polygon was totaled to produce rough totals of the amount of land that
would be allocated to the Roadway, the Bike/Pedestrian/Landscaping on the side, and to Medians.
Medians and Bike/Pedestrian/Landscaping were added to produce the total amount of “Streetscape
Features,” and a final percentage breakdown generated. This number is rounded to account for margin of
error, and should be used as a qualitative measure and not to plan-level of accuracy. Changes in the
design of intersections and/or the median may still influence the final streetscape.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment F City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | F-2
Assumptions
Figure F-2 lists the streetscape width by alternative. This is based on the conceptual alternatives
for each district (see pages 5 to 16 of the Evaluation Alternatives Summary Report for a
description, along with a detailed listing of right-of-way assumptions in Attachment G.
Analysis for this measure is intended to provide a high level, order-of-magnitude comparison of
the alternatives. Elements of the conceptual designs for each alternative were drawn in GIS to
estimate the proportions of each element present. These elements are the roadway (asphalt or
concrete, lanes for automobiles and transit), medians, and the space at the street edge which
contains pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and amenity zones.
Medians and roadway cross-sections may change near intersections based on the preferred
alternative and subsequent more detailed design for the corridor. This analysis assumes that 14’
landscaped medians would be reduced to 4’ concrete medians approaching major intersections to
accommodate left turn lanes. Further reductions to landscaped medians may be required pending
final design. Center-Running BRT may also reduce the size of the landscaped median based on
more detail design, and so it can be assumed that space reserved for streetscaping in Alternative 4
may be smaller than these numbers reflect.
The analysis assumes that many driveways, except for the very largest, would be consolidated,
and breaks in the median would be removed. It includes driveways in the
“bicycle/pedestrian/landscape” category for existing conditions, and the No-Build and Build
alternatives.
The analysis assumes reconstruction of the roadway from Cherryvale Avenue east to 75th Street. If
the recently built multi-use paths are maintained in their current configuration (adjacent the
roadway curb with no amenity zone), this segment will not allocate as much land to streetscaping
as illustrated in the Build alternatives.
For purposes of this analysis, Character District A runs between 28th Street and Foothills
Parkway. Character District C begins at Foothills Parkway. Because of this, Character District B
is summarized as part of Character Districts A and C.
Figure F-2 Streetscape Width by Alternative
Alternative District A District B District C District D District E
Existing 43’ N/A 39’ 23’ 10.5’
Alt 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Alt 2 67’ N/A 61’ 61’ 27’
Alt 3 67’ N/A 61’ 61’ 27’
Alt 4 61’ N/A 61’ 61’ 47’
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment F City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | F-3
Evaluation Results
For detailed maps of evaluation results for the streetscape measure, see Attachment F.1. One set of maps
is provided for Alternatives 2 and 3, since the right-of-way assumptions and streetscape calculations are
nearly identical, and another for Alternative 4. Figure F-3 provides a key map illustrating the 12 sheets
comprising the full corridor.
Figure F-3 Streetscape Analysis Key Map
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment F City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | F-4
Key Findings
Figure F-4 summarizes results of the analysis.
All “build” alternatives will designate a larger percentage of land to streetscaping features.
Alternatives 2 and 3 tend to create more streetscaping space that Alternative 4. In Character
Districts C and D, this difference is very small, but is still present.
The bike/pedestrian option has the largest effect on the numbers. This space can still be mixed
and matched with the various BRT alternatives to create different results. See the below table for
the width of the bike/pedestrian option for Alternatives in each Character District.
Alternatives 2 and 3 create less streetscaping space than Alternative 4 in Character District E.
This can be viewed as a positive however, because this reflects Community Working Group
feedback to avoid excessive landscaping in this rural character district.
In every alternative, except District E Alternatives 2 and 3, the curb-to-curb pedestrian crossing
distance is shorter than existing conditions.
Figure F-4 Roadway vs. Streetscape Space by District and Alternative
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment F City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | F-5
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This section describes the evaluation methodology, assumptions, and additional results for the
Greenhouse Gas Emission results provided on page 54 of the Evaluation of Alternatives Summary Report.
Analysis Overview
Figure F-5 Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis Summary Table
Change in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Metric Change in GhG emissions and progress towards City of Boulder goals
Purpose Describe how alternatives affect transportation GhG emissions, e.g., due to shift from vehicle
travel to other modes, and evaluate progress towards the city’s Transportation Master Plan and
Climate Commitment goals for reducing emissions
Analysis Methodology Calculate emissions from vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which is an output from the travel demand
model
Data Source Based on VMT data output from travel model and Transportation Master Plan GhG methodology
Assumptions
VMT converted to GhG emissions based on 0.000367 Metric Tons CO2e per mile.
Assumes 2013 vehicle inventory and average fuel efficiency/emissions.
Transit vehicle emissions are not included in the analysis.
Evaluation Results
Figure F-6 provides a table with detailed results from the GhG analysis.
Key Findings
Based on regional projections for 20% traffic growth, the No-Build and Enhanced Bus alternatives
are likely to increase emissions relative to existing conditions.
The BRT alternatives would reduce emissions to near existing levels if they can help maintain the
historic trend of 0% traffic growth.
BRT with the 20% traffic growth scenario would still increase emissions moderately relative to
existing.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment F City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | F-6
Figure F-6 GhG Analysis Results
Alternative Traffic Scenario
Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) Average Auto Occupancy**
Person Miles
of Travel in Automobiles (APMT)
Automobile Person Miles of
Travel
Comparison to Existing (% increase)
2013 Vehicle
inventory GHG in LBS/Mile
LBS to Metric Ton
GhG Auto
Emissions in Metric Tons
GhG
Avoided in
Metric Tons (vs Existing)
Existing Existing 110,500 1.15 127,075 n/a 0.809 2204.623 40.548663 n/a
1
2040 + 20% Traffic
(Regional Projection)
Without BRT
130,100 1.15 149,615 17.70% 0.809 2204.623 47.741005 7.1923421
2 2040 + 20% Enhanced
Transit 130,100 1.15 149,615 17.70% 0.809 2204.623 47.741005 7.1923421
3&4 Low
2040 + 0% Traffic
(Historic Trend) With
BRT
111,300 1.15 127,995 0.70% 0.809 2204.623 40.842228 0.293565
3&4 High
High 2040 + 20% Traffic
(Regional Projection)
With BRT
116,000 1.15 133,400 5.00% 0.809 2204.623 42.566922 2.0182593
Source: City of Boulder, TMP GhG Emissions Model
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment F City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | F-7
Figure F-7 GhG Emissions Evaluation Score
ATTACHMENT F.1 STREETSCAPE MAPS
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C: Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment F.1
City of Boulder
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
¯
Pearl St
Arapahoe Ave
30th St28th St55th StFoothills
Pkwy63rd St75th StBoulder
Community Health
CU East Campus
Flatirons
Golf Course
BVSD
Naropa
Multi-Use Path
Sidewalk
Parcel Boundary
Landmark
2 Mile1.60.80.4
Ball
Aerospace
Flatiron
Business Park
JCC
East Arapahoe Corridor Map
Folsom St1.2
Xcel
Power Plant
Valmont Rd
Baseline Rd
Pearl Pkwy
Cherryvale RdCity Limits
Twenty-Ninth
Street
Map Number1
Figure F.1-1 Location Map
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-2 Alternatives 2 and 3 - Map 2A Character District A
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-3 Alternatives 2 and 3 - Map 2B Character District A
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-4 Alternatives 2 and 3 - Map 3A Character District A
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-5 Alternatives 2 and 3 - Map 3B Character District A
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-6 Alternatives 2 and 3 - Map 4A Character District C
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-7 Alternatives 2 and 3 - Map 4B Character District C
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-8 Alternatives 2 and 3 - Map 5A Character District C
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-9 Alternatives 2 and 3 - Map 5B Character District C
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-10 Alternatives 2 and 3 - Map 6A Character District C
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-11 Alternatives 2 and 3 - Map 6B Character District C and D
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-12 Alternatives 2 and 3 - Map 7A Character District D
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-13 Alternatives 2 and 3 - Map 7B Character District D
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-14 Alternatives 2 and 3 - Map 8A Character District D
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-15 Alternatives 2 and 3 - Map 8B Character District D
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-16 Alternatives 2 and 3 - Map 9A Character District D
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-17 Alternatives 2 and 3 - Map 10A Character District D
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-18 Alternatives 2 and 3 - Map 10B Character District D to E
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-19 Alternatives 2 and 3 - Map 11A Character District E
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-20 Alternatives 2 and 3 - Map 11B Character District E
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-21 Alternatives 2 and 3 - Map 12A Character District E
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-22 Alternatives 2 and 3 - Map 12B Character District E
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-23 Alternative 4 - Map 2A Character District A
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-24 Alternative 4 - Map 2B Character District A
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-25 Alternative 4 - Map 3A Character District A
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-26 Alternative 4 - Map 3B Character District A
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-27 Alternative 4 - Map 4A Character District C
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-28 Alternative 4 - Map 4B Character District C
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-29 Alternative 4 - Map 5A Character District C
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-30 Alternative 4 - Map 5B Character District C
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-31 Alternative 4 - Map 6A Character District C
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-32 Alternative 4 - Map 6B Character District C and D
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-33 Alternative 4 - Map 7A Character District D
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-34 Alternative 4 - Map 7B Character District D
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-35 Alternative 4 - Map 8A Character District D
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-36 Alternative 4 - Map 8B Character District D
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-37 Alternative 4 - Map 9A Character District D
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-38 Alternative 4 - Map 10A Character District D
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-39 Alternative 4 - Map 10B Character District D to E
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-40 Alternative 4 - Map 11A Character District E
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-41 Alternative 4 - Map 11B Character District E
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-42 Alternative 4 - Map 12A Character District E
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles ¯Roadway
Streetscape Features Parcels
Figure F.1-43 Alternative 4 - Map 12B Character District E
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment G City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | G-1
ATTACHMENT G CAPITAL COSTS AND
IMPLEMENTATION
This attachment provides detailed capital costs and implementation analysis methodology and results to
supplement the evaluation results that are provided in the East Arapahoe Transportation Plan Evaluation of
Alternatives Report. This analysis area considers capital and annualized transit capital and operating costs
of the alternatives, and evaluates the potential to implement the improvements in phases.
CAPITAL COST
This section describes the evaluation methodology, assumptions, and additional results for the capital cost
results provided on pages 60-62 of the Evaluation of Alternatives Summary Report. Capital cost estimates
are high-level, order-of-magnitude costs for the purpose of comparing alternatives and would be refined in
future design phases.
Analysis Overview
Figure G-1 Capital Cost Analysis Summary Table
Capital Cost
Metric Total capital cost
Purpose Describe the one-time capital costs of constructing the improvements and facilities included in
each alternative, including right-of-way acquisition, if any
Analysis Methodology Apply FTA-standard cost category methodology to estimate costs for alternatives, by category.
Cost will be high-level order-of-magnitude cost based on unit costs from comparable projects.
Major cost items, e.g., bridges, will be identified.
Data Source Unit costs from comparable projects; GIS analysis based on concept plans
Overall Assumptions
The Arapahoe Avenue Reconstruction Report, 28th-Cherryvale Road (2014), developed engineering
concepts to evaluate and scope the required improvements and the associated project costs of roadway
reconstruction for Arapahoe Avenue between 28th Street and Cherryvale Road—a significant portion of the
study area for the East Arapahoe Transportation Plan. The purpose of this study was to “replace the aging
infrastructure of Arapahoe Avenue within the project limits; improve mobility and corridor operations for
pedestrians, cyclist, transit, and automobile users; and minimize impacts to adjacent properties and existing
landscape features based on the following needs:
Integration of other corridor studies and master planning projects
Poor pavement conditions
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment G City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | G-2
Deteriorated curb and gutter with insufficient hydraulic capacity
Segments of narrow sidewalks, missing multi-use path segments,and lack of ADA compliant curb
ramps and access driveways
Lack of storm drainage catchments and conveyance system
For consistency with this highly relevant study, the cost methodology for various construction items
(clearing, excavation, landscaping, traffic control, utility contingencies, etc.), and project development and
administration were assumed on a percentage basis consistent with the Arapahoe Avenue Reconstruction
Report, which based these elements on the Boulder TMP cost model.
Secondary Construction Items
The total cost of secondary construction items is assumed to be 140% of the primary construction costs.
Assumptions for individual items can be found in Figure G-2.
Figure G-2 Secondary Construction Items
Item Percent of Total Costs
Clearing and grubbing 2.5%
Removals and resets 20.0%
Excavation and embankment 8.0%
Erosion Control/Stormwater management 5.0%
Landscaping and topsoil 12.0%
Environmental health and safety 0.5%
Drainage 20.0%
Permanent water quality 5.0%
Lighting 5.0%
Construction surveying 4.0%
Mobilization 15.0%
Permanent signing and striping 5.0%
Flagging 8.0%
Traffic control management 5.0%
Traffic control inspection 1.0%
Construction zone traffic control 5.0%
City utility contingencies 10.0%
Forestry charges 1.0%
Wetland mitigation 1.0%
Flood mitigation 2.0%
Urban design features 1.0%
Miscellaneous 5.0%
Total Secondary Construction Items 141.0%
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment G City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | G-3
Administration and Services
45% of construction costs are assumed for administration and services.
Contingency
40% contingency on construction costs is assumed at this highly conceptual level of design.
Transit
Data Sources
Transit costs draw from two sources: the 2014 Northwest Area Mobility Study (NAMS) conducted by RTD,
and previous work assessing BRT costs in other regions. Unit costs were inflation-adjusted to the current
year, 2017.
Assumptions
Build Alternatives
Several capital cost assumptions are consistent across all three of the alternatives that involve transit
enhancements (Alternative 2, 3 and 4).
Construction of transit stations a half-mile or more apart within Boulder. Stations include
branding, enhanced shelters, real-time information, off-board fare payments, and other amenities.
Six stations are assumed within the City of Boulder study area, between Foslom – 75th Streets.
East of 75th Ave, 11 stations are assumed at the locations identified by the NAMS Study. This
includes two major and four minor station, one major Park and Ride (PnR), and four minor PnRs.
Minor stations include the same amenities as major stations except for an information kiosk.
Enhanced BRT-type vehicles.
Alternative 2 (Enhanced Bus) costs include only stations (similar to Alternative 3) and vehicles (no running
way or TSP improvements).
Alternative 3 (Side-running BRT) includes the construction of two curb side station platforms at all BRT
station locations. These stations would be shared with local buses, which would continue to serve existing
local bus stops for which no improvements are assumed. Side-running BRT will also require roadway
shoulder improvements and striping.
Alternative 4 (Center-running BRT) includes the construction of two center station platforms per station,
with additional pedestrian access improvements. The center running busway includes median
reconstruction.
Alternatives 3 and 4 assume transit signal priority will be implemented at all 14 signalized intersections
along the portion of the corridor within Boulder. This is a conceptual design assumption, which will be
refined later in the planning process.
For unit costs used in the analysis, see the tables below.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment G City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | G-4
Unit Costs
Figure G-3 Busway Cost Assumptions, 2017 Dollars
Item Unit Cost
Queue Jump Lanes with mixed flow traffic Mile $1,050,625
Queue Jump Controller Each $11,557
Transit signal priority Each $98,574
Fiber installation for TSP Mile $429,087
TSP Intersection Improvements Each $14,971
TSP System Software Each $125,024
Traffic Signal Modification Each $91,404
Dedicated Curb Lane Mile, both directions $233,239
Center Running Busway Mile, both directions $1,050,625
Figure G-4 Station Cost Assumptions, 2017 Dollars
Item Unit Cost
Major Shelter Each $32,307
Shelter concrete footing Each $10,769
Shelter Installation (Mfg.) Each $2,692
Shelter installation (Site Contractor) Each $2,154
Information Kiosk Each $26,922
Information Kiosk installation (Site contractor) Each $2,154
Bicycle parking at station Each $10,241
Ticket Vending Machine Each $36,772
Real Time Arrival Sign Each $6,094
Side Station Construction (Bus Bulb/Boarding Platform) Each $136,581
Center Station Construction Each $265,808
Major Park and Ride Each $1,050,625
Minor Park and Ride Each $262,656
Figure G-5 Vehicle Cost Assumptions, 2017 Dollars
Item Unit Cost
40 Foot BRT Bus Each $990,000
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment G City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | G-5
Bike, Pedestrian, and Streetscape
Data Sources
Bike, Pedestrian and Streetscape costs are based on estimates from recent projects in the city of Boulder.
The Diagonal Highway Transportation Improvements Project included construction of an off-street
protected bike lane and multi-use path along the SH-119 corridor. The design of those facilities closely
matches the vision for the East Arapahoe corridor: raised protected bike lanes with sidewalks and raised
protected bike lanes with multi-use path options, which were evaluated for some or all of the character
districts in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. A per mile cost was estimated based on the total cost of the off-street
bike and pedestrian facilities for the Diagonal Highway project. Demolition costs were also taken from the
estimates for this project.
Assumptions
No Build Alternative
The majority of the East Arapahoe corridor study area has an existing multi-use path. The No-Build
alternative includes only the cost of constructing a new multi-use path in the areas where gaps exist:
Character District A: 30th Street – Foothills Parkway (south side)
Character District C: East of Foothills Parkway – 55th Street (south side)
Character District D: 55th Street – Cherryvale Road (north and south side)
The No-Build alternative does not include construction of pedestrian facilities on the south side of Arapahoe
Avenue east of Westview Drive in Character District E.
The City of Boulder Capital Improvement Program estimated the following costs for multi-use path
completion in May 2017.
Figure G-6 Multi-Use Path Completion Cost Estimates
Location Character District Project Type Cost
South side of Arapahoe, Boulder Creek crossing A Multi-use path upgrade $120,225
South side of Arapahoe, Eisenhower to Patton C Multi-use path upgrade $253,539
South side of Arapahoe, McArthur to 48th St C Multi-use path upgrade $282,716
South side of Arapahoe, adjacent to Flatiron Golf course D New multi-use path $300,712
South side of Arapahoe, South Boulder Creek to Cherryvale D New multi-use path $100,000
North side of Arapahoe, west of South Boulder Creek D New multi-use path $54,800
City of Boulder Capital Improvement Program Cost Estimates, May 2017
Build Alternatives
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 assume that additional right-of-way will be required to accommodate all of the street
elements, and/or that existing right-of-way space will be re-allocated (between Folsom and Westview). The
cost of all of the bike and pedestrian options includes curb and sidewalk demolition and the installation of
new curbs, gutters, and facilities for the length of Character Districts A through D. For all alternatives, it is
assumed that the existing multi-use path on the north side of Arapahoe in Character District E will remain
in place. A more detailed analysis of design options will be required to refine these costs.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment G City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | G-6
Elements of the street-level protected bikeway include striping, signage, a 1 foot wide concrete buffer and
pavement markings.
The raised protected bike lane options are based on a 7 foot bikeway width and a 12 foot sidewalk or multi-
use path.
An allowance for amenity zone elements such as benches, bicycle parking, and trash bins is included in the
cost for each alternative.
For unit costs used in the analysis, see Figure G-5.
Figure G-7 Bike and Pedestrian Facility Unit Costs, 2017 Dollars
Item Unit Cost
Buffered Bike Lane with concrete buffer Mile, per direction $207,371
Multi-use path Mile, both directions $1,050,625
Raised PBL and Sidewalk/MUP Mile, both directions $1,575,938
Demolition (sidewalk, curb, gutter) Mile, per direction $64,719
Curb and Gutter Construction Mile, per direction $137,280
Amenity Zone Items (12 each benches, bicycle
parking, and trash bins per side per mile) Mile, both directions $127,336
Right-of-Way
Data Sources
Land values were provided by the City of Boulder for parcels west of 55th Avenue (Districts A, B and C).
Parcel boundary data was provided by both the City and County of Boulder. The assumed right-of-way
needed for each alternative was overlaid with the existing right-of-way to calculate a high-level estimate of
the area and cost of private land that would be acquired to implement each alternative.
Assumptions
No Build Alternative
No right-of-way acquisition will be necessary to complete the gaps in the existing multi-use path and
sidewalk network along Arapahoe.
Build Alternatives
In cases where the Boulder County and City of Boulder parcel boundary data do not align, the more
conservative boundary was used.
The land value was calculated for every portion of a privately owned parcel that falls within the right-of-way
(ROW) needed for one of the alternatives. In practice, much of the pedestrian infrastructure along the
corridor lies on private easements. For parcels east of 55th Avenue, where unit land cost assumptions were
not provided by the assessor, a cost of $15 per square foot was assumed.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are assumed to require the same amount of ROW. Alternative 4 is assumed to require
more ROW than 2 or 3, e.g., due to the center-running busway design, which requires additional space in
the median for stations. For detailed cross section assumptions, see Figure G-8 to Figure G-11below.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment G City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | G-7
Figure G-8 District A and B Cross-Section Assumptions (Widths in Feet)
Alt 1 SW AZ CURB GP GP GP Median GP GP GP CURB AZ MUP
10 6 0.5
12 11 12 18 12 11 12
0.5 14 12
Alt 2 SW AZ BIKE AZ CURB GP GP GP Median GP GP GP CURB AZ BIKE AZ SW
12 6 7 8 0.5 11 10 10 14 10 10 11 0.5 8 7 6 12
Alt 3 SW AZ BIKE AZ CURB BAT GP GP Median GP GP BAT CURB AZ BIKE AZ SW
12 6 7 8 0.5 11 10 10 14 10 10 11 0.5 8 7 6 12
Alt 4 MUP AZ BIKE BUFFER CURB GP GP BRT Median BRT GP GP CURB BUFFER BIKE AZ MUP
12 8 7 3 0.5 11 10 11 14 11 10 11 0.5 3 7 8 12
Figure G-9 District C Cross-Section Assumptions (Widths in Feet)
Alt 1 AZ SW AZ CURB GP GP GP Median GP GP GP CURB MUP
7 12 4.5 0.5 12 11 12 16 12 11 12 0.5 14.5
Alt 2 MUP AZ CURB BIKE CURB GP GP GP Median GP GP GP CURB BIKE CURB AZ MUP
12 8 0.5 7 3 11 10 10 14 10 10 11 3 7 0.5 8 12
Alt 3 MUP AZ BIKE BUFFER CURB BAT GP GP Median GP GP BAT CURB BUFFER BIKE AZ MUP
12 8 7 3 0.5 11 10 10 14 10 10 11 0.5 3 7 8 12
Alt 4 MUP AZ BIKE BUFFER CURB GP GP BRT Median BRT GP GP CURB BUFFER BIKE AZ MUP
12 8 7 3 0.5 11 10 11 14 11 10 11 0.5 3 7 8 12
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment G City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | G-8
Figure G-10 District D Cross-Section Assumptions (Widths in Feet)
Alt 1 AZ SW AZ CURB GP GP GP Median GP GP GP CURB MUP
7 12 4.5 0.5 12 11 12 16 12 11 12 0.5 14.5
Alt 2 MUP AZ CURB BIKE CURB GP GP GP Median GP GP GP CURB BIKE CURB AZ MUP
12 8 0.5 7 3 11 10 10 14 10 10 11 3 7 0.5 8 12
Alt 3 MUP AZ BIKE BUFFER CURB BAT GP GP Median GP GP BAT CURB BUFFER BIKE AZ MUP
12 8 7 3 0.5 11 10 10 14 10 10 11 0.5 3 7 8 12
Alt 4 MUP AZ BIKE BUFFER CURB GP GP BRT Median BRT GP GP CURB BUFFER BIKE AZ MUP
12 8 7 3 0.5 11 10 11 14 11 10 11 0.5 3 7 8 12
Figure G-11 District E Cross-Section Assumptions (Widths in Feet)
Alt 1
SHOULDER GP Median GP BIKE
CURB MUP
12 12 13 17 6.5
0.5 10
Alt 2 SW AZ CURB BIKE BUFFER BAT GP
Median
GP BAT BUFFER BIKE CURB AZ MUP
6 5 0.5 6.5 2 11 10
12
10 11 2 6.5 0.5 5 10
Alt 3 SW AZ CURB BIKE BUFFER BAT GP
Median
GP BAT BUFFER BIKE CURB AZ MUP
6 5 0.5 6.5 2 11 10
12
10 11 2 6.5 0.5 5 10
Alt 4 SW AZ BIKE BUFFER CURB
GP BRT Median BRT GP
CURB BUFFER BIKE AZ MUP
6 5 7 3 0.5
11 11 12 11 11
0.5 3 7 5 10
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment G City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | G-9
Figure G-12 Right-of-Way Acquisition Estimated Area and Costs (Conceptual)
Measure District A District B District C District D District E
Alt 1 No Cost No Cost No Cost No Cost No Cost
Alt 2 148,800 SqFt
$6,980,000.00
N/A 59,700 SqFt
$1,080,800.00
12,300 SqFt
$184,400.00
1,100 SqFt
$17,600.00
Alt 3 148,800 SqFt
$6,980,000.00
N/A 59,700 SqF
$1,080,800.00
12,300 SqFt
$184,400.00
1,100 SqFt
$17,600.00
Alt 4 133,300 SqFt
$6,317,100.00
N/A 65,600 SqFt
$1,190,000.00
14,600 SqFt
$218,800.00
2,600 SqFt
$38,300.00
For maps of approximate right-of-way needs see Attachment F.1 Streetscape Maps. The analysis is based on
a conceptual overlay of the alternatives within the street right-of-way and does not reflect refinement of a
preferred alternative during actual design. Figure G-13 provides a key map illustrating the 12 sheets
comprising the full corridor.
Figure G-13 Streetscape Analysis Key Map
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment G City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | G-10
Evaluation Results
Figure G-14 summarizes costs by district and Figure G-15 summarizes costs by cost category.
Key Findings
Transit Costs:
− Enhanced bus (only station construction) would be the least expensive transit alternative to
construct. Side-running BRT would also require construction of a business-access-and transit
(BAT) lane and traffic signal changes.
− Center-Running BRT (Alt 3) is likely to be the most expensive transit alternative due to median
reconstruction.
− Transit vehicle costs are lowest for side-running and center-running BRT (Alts 3 and 4), due to
shorter travel times that make transit more efficient to operate. Vehicle costs are the highest for
Enhanced Bus because additional vehicles will be needed to operate the service at the assumed
frequencies.
Bicycle-Pedestrian and Streetscape:
− All protected bike lane options are generally comparable in cost
− Right-of-way costs are most significant in District A.
Right-of-way costs are most significant in District A.
Figure G-14 Total Non-Vehicle Capital Costs, City of Boulder Districts A-E Only (2017 Dollars)
Alternative District A District B District C District D District E Overall Per-Mile (District A-E)
Alt 1 (No-Build) $0.2 M $0.0 M $0.8 M $0.6 M $0.0 M $2 M
Alt 2 (Enhanced Bus) $19 M $6 M $11 M $39 M $4 M $81 M
Alt 3 (Side-
Running BRT) $21 M $6 M $11 M $39 M $4 M $82 M
Alt 4 (Center-
running BRT) $24 M $8 M $14 M $45 M $10 M $101 M
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment G City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | G-11
Figure G-15 Capital Cost by Cost Category, Including Vehicles for End-End Operation (2017 Dollars)
Alternative Site Work Bridge Replacement / Widening
Bike/Ped / Streetscape
Traffic Signals / Communications
Transit Facility
Transit Facility - Station Vehicles Right-of-Way Administration / Services Contingency TOTAL
Alt 1 (No-Build) 0 0 $1M 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.56 M $1.67 M
Alt 2 (Enhanced
Bus)
$15 M $3 M $11 M $5 M $0 M $3 M $5 M $8 M $17 M $24 M $90 M
Alt 3 (Side-
Running BRT) $16 M $3 M $10 M $5 M $1 M $3 M $4 M $8 M $17 M $24 M $91 M
Alt 4 (Center-
running BRT) $21 M $3 M $10 M $5 M $5 M $4 M $4 M $8 M $22 M $29 M $111 M
Figure G-16 Capital Costs Evaluation Score
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment G City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | G-12
PHASING/COMPLEXITY OF IMPLEMENTATION
This section describes the evaluation methodology, assumptions, and additional results for the qualitative
assessment of complexity of implementing and phasing the improvements associated with each alternative,
provided on pages 63 of the Evaluation of Alternatives Summary Report.
Analysis Overview
Figure G-17 Phasing and Implementation Analysis Summary Table
Ability to Phase and Complexity of Implementation
Metric Potential to implement improvements in phases
Purpose Describe the ability to implement each alternative in a phased, incremental approach
Analysis
Methodology
Qualitative assessment of phasing potential and complexity of each alternative.
Data Source Conceptual plans for each alternative
Assumptions
Considerations include:
Availability of right-of-way relative to what is required to implement each alternative
Major constraints:
o District B: Bridge over Boulder Creek
o District D: Bridge over South Boulder Creek
o District E: Railroad bridge (likely affecting Alt 4 only)
Ability to implement improvements in a phased approach
Additional Methodology Details
See Capital Cost Assumptions and Methodology Details (above) for a right-of-way assumptions
matrix.
Key Findings
The overall right-of-way requirement compared to available right-of-way drives need for phased
implementation. In developing a phasing plan for the eventual preferred alternative, some
improvements (such as signal timing or transit signal priority) could be implemented shorter-term
without need for expanding the public right-of-way (i.e., through dedication or easements).
Side-running transit alternatives (Alts 2 and 3) will likely be easier to implement in phases than
center-running BRT (Alt 4). Center-running BRT could more easily be implemented on the far
eastern portion of the corridor, which generally does not have a separated median
The phasing plan can consider where spot improvements are most feasible and beneficial based on
traffic impacts, such as peak-direction transit lanes in Alt 3 (side-running BRT).
There is likely to be little variance between bicycle/pedestrian alternatives, and they offer the
greatest opportunity to work towards implementation as redevelopment occurs.
District A has the most limited right-of-way compared to what would be required.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment G City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | G-13
Figure G-18 Ability to Phase Evaluation Score
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C: Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment H
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | H-1
ATTACHMENT H RENDERINGS OF
EVALUATION ALTERNATIVES
This appendix includes renderings of the alternatives that were evaluated for the East Arapahoe Corridor.
Figure H-1 summarizes the alternatives. This table is organized into sub-sections for each character
district.
Each column of Figure H-1 identifies the four transit options considered end-end for the
corridor. Each transit option is associated with vehicular assumptions (e.g., number of lanes
available for general purpose travel).
Each row of Figure H-1 identifies the proposed pedestrian/bike options for the district.
In the cells of the table, each alternative is identified by its character district letter, transit option
number, and pedestrian/bike and transition zone option number. For example, A.2.2 is includes
character district A, transit option 2 (enhanced bus), and ped/bike option 2 (raised protected bike
lane).
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C: Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment H
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | H-2
Pedestrian/Bike/Transition
Zone Option
Alt 1 (No-Build)Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
Transit/Vehicular Alternative
Existing Bus
(Mixed Traffic)
Enhanced Bus
(Mixed Traffic)
Side-Running BRT
(BAT Lane)
Center-Running BRT
(Dedicated Lane)
Existing Travel Lanes Existing Travel Lanes Repurposed Lane Repurposed Lane
District A: 29th Street District (3 vehicle lanes/direction)
Option 0: Completed multi-use path
(No-Build)[A.1.0]
Option 1a: Curbside raised protected bike
lane with amenity zone and multi-use path [A.4.1a]
Option 2: Curbside amenity zone with raised
protected bike lane separated from sidewalk [A.2.2][A.3.2]
District B: Transition Zone (3 vehicle lanes/direction)
Design options to be determined based on
preferred facilities in Districts A and C TBD TBD TBD TBD
District C: Innovation & Health District (3 vehicle lanes/direction)
Option 0: Completed multi-use path
(No-Build)[C.1.0]
Option 1a: Curbside raised protected bike
lane with amenity zone and multi-use path [C.3.1a][C.4.1a]
Option 3: Street-level protected bike lane
with amenity zone and multi-use path [C.2.3]
District D: Industry & Education District (2-3 lanes/direction)
Option 0: Existing bike lanes and multi-use
path (No-Build)[D.1.0]
Option 1a: Curbside raised protected bike
lane with amenity zone and multi-use path [D.3.1a][D.4.1a]
Option 3: Street-level protected bike lane
with amenity zone and multi-use path [D.2.3]
District E: Gateway District (1-2 vehicle lanes/direction)
Option 0: Existing bike lanes and/or multi-use
path (No-Build)[E.1.0]
Option 1b: Curbside raised protected bike
lane with amenity zone and sidewalk [E.4.1b]
Option 4: Street-level buffered bike lane with
curbside amenity zone and sidewalk (south)
or existing multi-use path (north)
[E.2.4][E.3.4]
[character district letter].[transit option number].[pedestrian/bike option number]
Figure H-1 Alternatives Evaluated, by Ped-Bike-Transition Zone and Transit Options
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C: Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment H
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | H-3
16-111 A.1.0 042217.jpg
NEW East Arapahoe Renderings 042217Figure H-2 District A - Alt 1 No Build with Multi-Use Path (A.1.0)
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C: Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment H
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | H-4
16-111 A.4.1a 042217.jpg
NEW East Arapahoe Renderings 042217Figure H-3 District A - Alt 4 Center-Running BRT with Raised Protected Bike Lane and Multi-Use Path (A.4.1a)
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C: Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment H
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | H-5
16-111 C.1.0 042217.jpg
NEW East Arapahoe Renderings 042217Figure H-4 District C - Alt 1 No Build with Multi-Use Path (C.4.0)
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C: Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment H
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | H-6
16-111 C.2.3 042217.jpg
NEW East Arapahoe Renderings 042217Figure H-5 District C - Alt 2 Enhanced Bus with Street-level Protected Bike Lane and Multi-Use Path (C.2.3)
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C: Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment H
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | H-7
Figure H-6 District C - Alt 3 Side-Running BRT with Raised Protected Bike Lane and Multi-Use Path (C.3.1a)
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C: Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment H
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | H-8
16-111 D.1.0 042217.jpg
NEW East Arapahoe Renderings 042217Figure H-7 District D - Alt 1 No Build with Multi-Use Path (D.1.0)
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C: Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment H
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | H-9
16-111 D.3.1a 042217.jpg
NEW East Arapahoe Renderings 042217Figure H-8 District D - Alt 3 Side-Running BRT with Raised Protected Bike Lane and Multi-Use Path (D.3.1a)
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C: Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment H
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | H-10
16-111 E.1.0 042217 no stencils.jpg
NEW East Arapahoe Renderings 042217Figure H-9 District E - Alt 1 No Build with Existing Bike Lane and/or Multi-Use Path (E.1.0)
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C: Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment H
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | H-11
16-111 E.1.0 042217.jpg
NEW East Arapahoe Renderings 042217Figure H-10 District E - Alt 2 Enhanced Bus with Street-level Bike Lane and Sidewalk or Multi-Use Path (E.2.4)
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | Appendix C: Evaluation of Alternatives – Attachment H
City of Boulder
City of Boulder, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, and Fehr & Peers | H-12
16-111 E.3.4 042217.jpg
NEW East Arapahoe Renderings 042217Figure H-11 District E - Alt 3 Side-Running BRT with Street-level Protected Bike Lane and Multi-Use Path (E.3.4)
EAST ARAPAHOE (SH 7) TRANSPORTATION PLAN
APPENDIX D: ADDITIONAL VISION ELEMENTS
March 2018
Intersection Treatments
Long-Term Vision
The City of Boulder will design intersections
to increase comfort and safety for people
approaching and crossing intersections on
protected bicycle lanes and multi-use paths.
The appropriate design for each intersection
will vary depending on the available right-
of-way, traffic volumes, and the bike or
pedestrian facility at the location. The city
will develop and analyze designs as part of
10-15% corridor design.
Elements
Directional Curb Ramp
Curb ramps are recommended at all
intersections to be consistent with best
practices for accessible design.
Channelized Right-Turn Lane with
Speed Table
Channelized right-turn lanes shorten
effective crossing distances by adding a
pedestrian refuge island, and can reduce
turning speeds.
Speed tables further reduce turning
speeds and increase yield compliance. This
treatment typically requires more space
than non-channelized right-turn lanes. The
City of Boulder has already successfully
implemented several channelized right-
turn lanes with speed tables on the East
Arapahoe Avenue corridor and elsewhere in
the City.
Separate Right-Turn Signal Phasing
Separate right-turn signal phasing reduces
conflicts between right-turning vehicles and
bicyclists proceeding straight through the
intersection in protected bike lanes, where
peak-hour right-turning volumes are high.
No Right-Turn on Red
A “no right-turn on red” treatment can
be used at intersections where neither a
channelized right-turn lane / speed table
nor a protected right-turn signal phase
is feasible. Prohibiting right-turns on red
increases pedestrian comfort by decreasing
driver encroachment into crosswalks during
the “Walk” phase.
Two-Stage Turn Queue Box
Raised protected bike lanes on Arapahoe
Avenue should be accompanied by
intersection treatments that allow people on
bikes to make comfortable, safe left-turns
onto intersecting bike facilities, and from
intersecting facilities onto Arapahoe. Turn
queue boxes allow bicyclists to make left-
turns in two stages by providing a dedicated
space to wait outside of the flow of traffic
until it is safe to cross all lanes of traffic and
continue on the intersecting street. They
should be prioritized where bike facilities
intersect, and could also be considered near
major destinations.
Protected Left-Turns
Protected left-turns eliminate potential
conflicts between left-turning automobiles
and people walking or using off-street
bicycle facilities by giving each a separate
signal phase at intersections.
D-1 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN APPENDIX D
First and Final Mile Connections
Long-Term Vision
Improved transit service on East Arapahoe
will directly serve many important
destinations, but there are also major
employers, shopping districts, and
residential areas that lie further from the
corridor. In the long-term vision, people
traveling in the East Arapahoe corridor use
a variety of easily accessible transportation
options to connect to BRT stations. Better
access to transit leads to higher ridership.
The City of Boulder coordinates with
neighboring jurisdictions, bicycle and
pedestrian planning efforts, and private
transportation providers to provide these
options.
Elements
• Pedestrian and bicycle connections
and improvements are prioritized within
one-mile of stations, drawing from
previous planning efforts such as the
Boulder Bicycle and Pedestrian Modal
Plans, the East Arapahoe Transportation
Network Plan (2004 Draft), and the
transportation element of the CU East
Campus Master Plan. Specific types of
projects include:
–New multi-use path connections
parallel to and connecting to
Arapahoe, including to a future multi-
use path along the BNSF railroad line
–Grade-separated crossings of
the BNSF railroad line, including
connecting to Flatiron Business Park
–Grade-separated crossings for
existing multi-use paths that intersect
Arapahoe
–On-street bike facilities or multi-
use paths on streets that intersect
Arapahoe
• Supportive bicycle facilities and
infrastructure serve people of all ages
and abilities biking in the corridor,
including bike share stations, bicycle
parking, and wayfinding (see also
Mobility Hubs).
• Microtransit serves major employers
and education centers (see Advanced
Mobility)
• Transit connections such as the planned
HOP Refresh, are easy to navigate
thanks to real-time arrival information
and wayfinding (see Mobility Hubs)
• Car share and ridehailing services are
easily accessible from transit stations
GRADE-SEPARATED MULTI-USE PATH CROSSING OF BASELINE RD
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN APPENDIX D | D-2
Lane Management
Long-Term Vision
The City of Boulder will manage the
curbside business access and transit lanes
to ensure efficient and reliable movement of
transit through the corridor.
Elements
Potential criteria and principles to help the
City of Boulder manage BAT lanes along the
East Arapahoe corridor include:
• Person Throughput: Restricting use
of the lane is justified if the shift from
general purpose travel lanes to transit-
only or BAT lanes increases the total
number of people that can be carried
through a corridor and/or provides more
person throughput than an arterial traffic
lane during the peak hour or peak period
of travel.
• Traffic Volume: Sharing the lane with
other vehicles can ensure that a transit
lane never looks “empty” and that the
lanes move more people during an hour
than a general purpose traffic lane.
High-occupancy vehicles with 2+ or 3+
persons could be allowed to the extent
that they do not reduce the transit travel
time benefit of the lane.
• Mode Share: The BAT lane handles X%
peak period transit mode share in the
corridor (target TBD).
• Speed: The TOL or BAT lane provides
4-6 mph transit speed increase (or 40 –
50% average operating speed increase)
over the distance of the lane.
• Decreased Running Time: Per treatment
(approach to signalized intersection):
–Per intersection: Bypasses at least half
signal cycle at station intersections
–Per segment: Saves at least a quarter
of the headway of the route using it
• Increased Reliability: Reduces travel
time variation (e.g., to below 25% of
mean travel time given 50% or greater
variation from mean travel time without
the transit lane).
D-3 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN APPENDIX D
Driveway Consolidation
Long-Term Vision
Consolidation of driveways provides safety
benefits for all users by decreasing the
number of potential conflict points where
motor vehicles cross the multi-use path
and protected bicycle lanes and they enter
and exit the roadway. Minor public streets
leading to parking lots and businesses can
also be consolidated. Accident rates are
dramatically higher where the number of
driveways per mile is higher along urban
arterials.1
1 National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Report 3-52.
Elements
• In the short-term time frame of the
Plan, the city will develop an Access
Management and Connections Plan,
which includes consolidation of existing
driveways and a framework for access to
future development and redevelopment.
• New driveways are subject to a permit
process through CDOT due to Arapahoe
Avenue’s status as a state highway.
• Adjacent parcels with access
between parking lots may provide
the first opportunities for driveway
consolidation. Appendix C, the East
Arapahoe Transportation Plan Evaluation
of Alternatives Report, includes a survey
of driveways and minor public streets
in the corridor, and identifies those that
have off-street connections between
them. A summary of the results of the
driveway survey and maps can be found
in Appendix C Evaluation of Alternatives
Report, Attachment E: Safety and
Attachment E.1: Driveway Inventory
Maps.
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN APPENDIX D | D-4
EAST ARAPAHOE (SH 7) TRANSPORTATION PLAN
APPENDIX E: DETAILED ACTION PLAN
March 2018
Planning and Design
Area ID Element Action Potential
Funding
Key
Partners
Time
Frame
Corridor
Design
D.1 Local Corridor Design
• Based on plan vision, advance corridor design and refine cost estimates to
facilitate early implementation actions, right-of-way needs and multimodal
safety improvements. With 10-15% corridor design concept:
–D.1.A Design intersection configurations and traffic signal practices to enhance
safety
–D.1.B Develop Right-of-Way Plan for City Council adoption. Plan should
integrate right-of-way needs into development review process to secure ease-
ments/right-of-way
–D.1.C Develop Access Management and Connections Plan to consolidate drive-
ways and improve access points for existing land use, new development and
redevelopment opportunities
–D.1.D Conduct a study to resolve the configuration of the Foothills Parkway
intersection to accommodate the plan vision
City, TIP/
CDOT
CDOT,
Boulder
County,
RTD, SH 7
Coalition
Short-
term
D.2 Regional Corridor
Design
• As part of SH 7 Coalition between Boulder and Brighton:
–Participate in a regional Environmental Assessment to advance design and en-
vironmental clearance for a regional multimodal corridor with high quality-high
frequency bus rapid transit (BRT), a regional bikeway, pedestrian improvements
and first and final mile supportive infrastructure and strategies
–Pursue local, regional, state, and federal funding for multimodal improvements
City, TIP/
DRCOG,
CDOT
CDOT,
Boulder
County,
RTD, SH 7
Coalition
Ongoing
Integrated
Land Use
Planning
LU.1 Mobility Hubs/
Corridor-wide
• Refine station area design concepts, including mobility hub planning, in
coordination with broader land use planning along the corridor
City, TIP/
DRCOG,
RTD
CDOT,
Boulder
County, RTD
Ongoing
LU.2 Mobility Hubs/55th &
Arapahoe Area Plan
• Prioritize and coordinate mobility hub planning with the 55th and Arapahoe
Area Plan, expected to be initiated in 2019 City, RTD
CDOT,
Boulder
County, RTD
Short-
term
LU.3 Streetscape
• Develop a streetscape plan for the corridor, including an arts and aesthetics
plan with a 1% public art set-aside in accordance with city policy; a gateway
element concept for the east end of the corridor; signage to improve wayfinding
and safety; and pedestrian scale lighting
City
CDOT,
Boulder
County, RTD
Short-
term
Policy
Guidance PG.1 Transportation Master
Plan
• Incorporate the East Arapahoe Transportation Plan into the TMP as part of
the 2018/19 update and integrate corridor elements into the TMP Capital
Improvement Program
City City, CDOT,
RTD
Short-
term
Plan
Monitoring PM.1 Metrics/Monitoring • Establish and implement multimodal metrics and monitoring program to regularly
measure progress toward plan goals City City, CDOT,
RTD Ongoing
E-1 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN APPENDIX E
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Area ID Element Action Potential
Funding
Key
Partners Time Frame
Pedestrian
P.1 Crosswalks • Develop pedestrian crossings where needed, consistent with the City of
Boulder’s Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines City, CDOT CDOT Ongoing
P.2
Americans with
Disabilities Act
(ADA)
• Upgrade existing intersections to be ADA compliant City, CDOT CDOT Ongoing
Pedestrian/
Bicycle
BP.1 Multi-Use Path • Reconstruct multi-use paths and amenity zones, as needed, to plan
specifications; south-side sidewalks could be upgraded to multi-use paths
City/Infill &
Redevelopment,
CDOT
CDOT Ongoing
BP.2 Multi-Use Path
• Complete missing multi-use path links to plan specifications with a goal to
create separate space between pedestrians and cyclists:
–South side intermittently 30th-55th; 55th-Cherryvale, east of 63rd Street
–North side multi-use path segment north of golf course
City, TIP/
DRCOG, Infill &
Redevelopment,
CDOT
CDOT Short-term and
ongoing
BP.3 Ped/Bike
Underpass
• Coordinate with S. Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project to implement
new underpass in conjunction with floodway/drainage improvements
(approximately 200 feet east of 55th Street)
City, TIP/CDOT CDOT, FEMA Mid- to Long-
term
Bicycle
B.2
Interim
buffered bike
lanes
• Investigate options to enhance existing bike lanes using striped buffers
where feasible given existing ROW, e.g., east of 55th Street, as an interim
condition
City, CDOT CDOT Short-term
B.1 Protected
bicycle lane • Implement protected bicycle lanes per the plan vision City, TIP/
DRCOG, CDOT CDOT Mid- to Long-
term
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN APPENDIX E | E-2
First and Final Mile and TDM
Area ID Element Action Potential
Funding Key Partners Time Frame
First and
Final Mile
FFM.1 First and Final
Mile/Bicycle
• Explore and expand bike share partnerships to activity centers and
employment concentrations along the corridor in coordination with
mobility hub planning, e.g., Flatiron Business Park, CU, and other major
employers. Partnerships could include Boulder BCycle, e-bikes, potential
dockless systems
City, Regional,
State, Federal
Major employers
(CU, Flatirons
Business Park),
Boulder BCycle
Ongoing
FFM.2
First and Final
Mile/Pedestrian
& Bicycle
• Identify gaps in the connecting ped/bike network within 1-mile of
station areas and improve multi-use path connections to the corridor
City, Regional,
State
Infill &
Redevelopment Short-term
FFM.3 First and Final
Mile/Transit
• Explore transit partnerships to activity centers and employment
concentrations along the corridor, e.g., Flatiron Business Park, CU, and
other major employers. Partnerships could include microtransit/shuttles,
mobility on demand, mobility as a service, fixed route transit
City, Regional,
State, Federal
Major employers
(CU, Flatirons
Business Park),
RTD, Via, TNCs
Ongoing
FFM.4 First and Final
Mile/Transit
• Coordinate East Arapahoe transit service with Boulder's Renewed
Vision for Transit fixed route network, including regional BRT network
connections
City, RTD RTD, Via, Boulder
County Ongoing
FFM.5
First and Final
Mile/Satellite
Parking
• Explore park-and-ride locations in conjunction with other regional
transit corridors
City, RTD,
Boulder County
RTD, SH 7
Coalition
Short- to Mid-
term
TDM
TDM.1 Employer TDM
Programs
• Work with area employers to encourage use of parking management
and transportation options by fostering ridesharing, transit, vanpooling
and other transportation demand management programs like parking
cash out programs, Business EcoPasses, Boulder BCycle memberships,
alternative work schedules, and telework.
City, Regional,
State
Employers,
Boulder
Chamber, BTC,
Commuting
Solutions, RTD
Ongoing
TDM.2 Neighborhood
TDM Programs
• Promote transit service and other travel options along the corridor to
area residents, including expansion of Neighborhood EcoPass program.
Work with multi-family residential properties to manage and unbundle
parking. Provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to
transit and commercial destinations.
City, Regional,
State
Employers,
Boulder
Chamber, BTC,
Commuting
Solutions, RTD
Ongoing
TDM.3 District TDM
Programs
• Work with area property owners to explore the potential for new
access (parking/TDM) districts per AMPS action items. Property taxes
collected by access districts provide a sustainable and scalable source
of funding to manage on- and off-street parking and resident and
employer based TDM programs.
City, Regional,
State
Employers,
Boulder
Chamber, BTC,
Commuting
Solutions, RTD
Ongoing
E-3 | EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN APPENDIX E
Transit and Vehicular
Area ID Element Action Potential
Funding
Key
Partners Time Frame
Transit
T.1 BRT • Implement regional BRT service in cooperation with SH 7 Coalition partners,
including phased service options
City,
Regional,
State,
Federal
RTD, SH 7
Coalition
Mid- to
Long-term
T.2 Local Transit • Enhance existing transit service in the corridor through transit priority, frequency
and quality improvements
City,
Regional,
State,
Federal
RTD, SH 7
Coalition Ongoing
T.3
West End
Routing &
Stations
• Refine west end terminus, alignment, and stations, coordinated with other street
and transit projects connecting 28th Street to Downtown Boulder (e.g., SH 119,
Canyon, and Downtown Boulder Transit Station Study)
City, RTD RTD, SH 7
Coalition Short-term
T.4 Stations & Stop
Improvements
• Implement stop improvements and refine BRT station design concepts to maximize
passenger and pedestrian access, comfort and safety (amenities, mobility hubs,
BCycle stations, etc.)
City, RTD RTD, SH 7
Coalition Ongoing
Transit/
Vehicular
TV.1 BAT Lanes
• Consistent with the plan vision, implement transit priority measures for local and
regional transit, including BAT lanes for priority direction and time of day in key
segments, including HOV 2 or 3+, emergency vehicles and evolving technologies
City,
Regional,
State,
Federal
RTD, CDOT Mid- to
Long-term
TV.2 Communication
Technology
• Evaluate need for advanced communication technology to support advanced
mobility (bus priority, autonomous vehicles, etc.)
City,
Regional,
State,
Federal
RTD, CDOT Ongoing
Vehicular
V.1 Lane Striping • Where feasible and appropriate, restripe lanes consistent with plan vision.
Phasing elements should be coordinated with potential future roadway repaving CDOT CDOT Ongoing
V.2 Signal Timing • Incorporate findings of future city-wide signal timing and progression analysis, as
appropriate City, CDOT CDOT Ongoing
V.3 Speed Limit
Evaluation
• Evaluate posted speeds with CDOT, coordinated with corridor improvements,
safety considerations, and community vision for the corridor City, CDOT CDOT Short- to
Mid-term
V.4 Lane
Configuration
• East of 55th Street, where existing traffic lanes transition from three to two lanes
per direction, evaluate where the future transition from two traffic lanes to one
traffic lane per direction should occur
City, CDOT CDOT Short-term
EAST ARAPAHOE TRANSPORTATION PLAN APPENDIX E | E-4