Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20100201MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John D. Krueger, Lynn Rumbaugh -Transportation Dept Richard Pryor and Bill Linn -Police Department Tricia Aragon and Tyler Christoff -Engineering Department Jerry Nye -Streets Department Jim True -City Attorney's Office RE: West End Traffic Issues DATE: January 29, 2010 MEETING DATE: February 1, 2010 SUMMARY AND REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL Staff is requesting direction from Council on which traffic mitigation measures should be considered for implementation in Aspen's West End, specifically on Smuggler Street. These measures have been reviewed by the Police, Engineering, Transportation and Streets departments at the request of residents who aze frustrated with vehicles utilizing Smuggler Street to enter and exit town via Power Plant Road. See Attachment C for a matrix of the requests, costs and staff recommendations. Overall, staff suggests three policy underpinnings to keep this traffic deterrence request in context: 1. Traffic mitigation measures should not exacerbate the already heavy congestion on Main Street and Hwy82 during peak periods. 2. The street grid should be used to balance traffic flow and avoid closing streets. 3. Transit mode-shaze and mobility improvements to the Entrance to Aspen segment of SH82 should be aggressively pursued in order to minimize the perceived need to use residential streets during peak periods. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION • In 2005 and 2006, a vaziety of measures were put in place to improve traffic flow and transit competitiveness aspart of the S-Curves Task Force project. These include the construction of the Main Street bus lane, the installation of closures at Bleeker, Hallam and the alley in between, and the seasonal closure of North 7`n Street from 3-6pm. This process included a No Left Turn restriction from Cemetery Lane onto Hwy 82 during peak morning and afternoon traffic periods (7-loam and 3-6pm). • In June 2009, Council approved a peak summer no left turn restriction on Power Plant Road. This experiment was cancelled prior to implementation due to traffic decreases during the recession and construction projects planned on Power Plant Road (see Attachment F). Traffic levels for 2009 were down 2.8% from 2008 and 10.6% below the 1993 community target levels. BACKGROUND High traffic volumes combined with a lack of capacity through the S-Curves often result in congestion and slow moving trafficon Main Street during afternoon peak periods. Some drivers respond to this congestion by diverting through the West End, via Smuggler Street, to Power Plant Road. Traffic counts on Power Plant Road during the afternoon peak period of 3-6pm, heading west (out of town) ranged from a low of 130 to a high of 225 cazs an hour with an average of 175 per hour in July of 2009. The traffic counts build up slowly until 3pm, reach a peak azound Spm, and then drop off quickly after 6pm (see graph). This is similaz to Main Street traffic patterns. The traffic data indicates that 52% of the drivers on Power Plant Road, turn left and return to Hwy 82 via Cemetery Lane, while 48% turn right, many likely continuing out of town via McClain Flats. Smuggler Street currently features six valley drainage pans, which discourage high speeds, between Is` anal 8`n Streets. Also, between ls` and 8`n, drivers on Smuggler experience six stop signs. Traffic accidents aze typically not an issue on Smugger, with only three accidents reported since 2006. Similazly, excessive speeds on Smuggler have not been identified as an issue by the Aspen Police Department. A representative from the Police Department will be on hand at the February 1 work session to further discuss speeds in this area. Residents of the West End are very concerned about the amount of traffic diverting through the neighborhood and recently requested that a number of measures be put in place to discourage this traffic as well decrease vehicle speed and increase compliance with stop signs. Traffic calming measures requested by Smuggler Street residents are described in the Discussion section of this memo. Traffic calming measures generally incorporate a wide range of measures designed to complement each other in speed and volume reduction. Measures are designed to be self-enforcing, although the effectiveness of this varies according to the measures employed. The principle techniques used fall into five azeas: a) Vertical deflections including curbing, bollazds, planters landscaping and speed tables b) Horizontal deflections including traffic circles, chicanes (s-shaped curves), and non- lineaz travel lanes c) Road or lane nazrowing d) Central islands/medians to divide opposing lanes e) Obstructions installed to physically restrict movements DISCUSSION The following traffic mitigation measures have been requested by West End residents. 1. Request: Additional stop signs on Smuggler and Francis Streets Description: Six stop signs aze currently in place on Smuggler Street, between 1S' and 8'h. Residents have requested that additional stop signs be installed. Cost: $400 per intersection for signs and posts Staff Comments: Additional stop signs are not warranted per Institute of Traffic Engineer (ITE) guidelines based on traffic volume and accident data. In addition, stop signs have not been found to reduce traffic or speed. Rather, the placement of unwarranted signs is often associated with increased speeds as drivers tend to speed up between stop signs. Recommendation: Staff does not recommend the addition of stop signs on Smuggler. As an alternative, the application of reflective tape to existing stop signs could draw more attention to the signs at approximately $100/sign. 2. Request: Main Street Signage Description: Residents have requested the installation of Local Traffic Only signs on Main Street entering the West End from 3`d Street to the west. Cost: $450 per location Staff Comments: The installation of Signage on Main Streetlliwy 82 would require the approval of CDOT. This approval is doubtful as current procedures tend toward removing in-roadway Signage for safety reasons. There is no template for this type of Signage in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Code Devices (MUTCD), also making this request unlike]y to receive CDOT approval. Local traffic Signage is typically difficult to enforce. Temporary Signage such as variable message boards can be used, but is considered effective for short periods only as it is associated with construction. In addition, placement of a long term vaziable message sign on Main Street would be difficult for aesthetic reasons. Recommendation: Staff does not recommend the installation of Local Traffic Only signs on Hwy 82. 3. Request: In Street Bollards Description: Installation of removable bollards in the middle of Smuggler Street signed Slow, Children Present or Pedestrian Area Cost: $230 per location Staff Comments: Excessive speeds on Smuggler Street have not been identified by Police as an issue. During afternoon peak hours when cut-through traffic is heaviest, the traffic volume results in very slow traffic speeds. Smuggler Street has not been identified as a Ped/Bikeway in master planning processes and does not directly connect to the trail system. Permanent bollazds create a public safety/emergency access problem, while temporary bollards, such as those in place on Bleeker and Hallam, aze not aesthetically pleasing and are often driven over. Recommendation: Staff does not recommend the installation of bollazds on Smuggler Street. 4. Request: Speed Bumps Description: Residents have requested the installation of speed bumps on Smuggler, similar to those in place on Cemetery Lane. Cost: Approximately $9000 for each treatment. Staff Comments: Excessive speeds on Smuggler Street have not been identified as an issue. Six valley pans and six stop signs are already in place on Smuggler Street between 151 and 8`h. Speed bumps create difficulties for street sweeping and flushing operations. However, temporazy (i.e., movable) speed cushions are a low cost option to determine the effectiveness of speed humps. Estimated cost of speed cushions: $2,700.00 per cushion. Recommendation: Staff does not recommend the installation of permanent speed bumps on Smuggler Street. Should Council wish to test the effectiveness of speed bumps, staff would suggest a trial using temporary speed cushions during a summer season. 5. Request: Increased Enforcement Description: Smuggler Street residents have requested increased speed and stop sign enforcement. Cost: Police time allocation as officers aze available. If council finds that constant police presence is necessazy, additional staffing may be required and funds would be necessazy for overtime or temporary labor. Staff Comments: Three police officers are available for traffic enforcement on weekday afternoons. Officers are most often needed in the more heavily traveled azeas and accident-prone azeas such as along Main Street, the roundabout and the Mazoon Creek Bridge during this time and officers must be available to respond to emergencies. Recommendation: Although the Police Department can do its best to provide additional enforcement along Smuggler, a continuous presence is not possible given current staffing and competing needs. However, portable Your Speed signs are available to be temporazily placed in the West End upon request. 6. Request: Reduced Speed Limit Description: The speed limit on Smuggler Street is currently 25mph. Residents have requested a reduction in that speed limit. Cost: Approximately $30 per sign plus posts. 6 Staff Comments: Excessive speeds on Smuggler Street have no[ been identified by Police as an issue. However, with most traffic traveling below 25mph on Smugger, a reduced speed limit may be appropriate. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the speed limit on Smuggler Street be reduced to 20mph. Should Council request, staff can return with more information on reducing the Unless Otherwise Posted speed limit to 20mph city-wide. 7. Request: Power Plant Road Turning Restriction Description: Residents request that a No Left Turn restriction be put in place on Power Plant Road from 3-6pm on weekdays Cost: Council approved a $22,000 budget for the left turn restriction experiment that was planned for summer 2009 (see Attachment F). This included $15,000 for hiring of a temporazy part-time enforcement officer. Staff suggests a $32,500 budget if a 2010 turning restriction is implemented, to include additional funds for public information, VMS sign rental and engineering analysis. Proposed Budget Enforcement overtime VMS rental: Public information: Engineering analysis: Cones/signs: Total $15,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 500.00 $32,500.00 Staff Comments: Council directed staff to cancel a planned summer 2009 turning restriction trial due to reduced traffic volumes and constmction projects on Power Plant Road. Traffic levels for 2009 were down 2.8% from 2008 and 10.6% below the 1993 community target levels. 7 Additional construction on Power Plant Road will take place in summer 2010. Constant enforcement of a turning restriction would be difficult due to current Police staffing. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council budget for a summer 2010 Power Plant Road turning restriction, including part-time enforcement, extensive public information and VMS sign rental. However, if construction schedules solidify and show that major constmction will close and/or deter traffic, staff would return to Council to reevaluate the necessity of this demonstration. 8. Request: Additional Parking Enforcement Description: Residents have requested additional parking enforcement during major events such as Music Festival concerts. Cost: Parking officer time allocation as officers are available. If additional staffing is required beyond the one officer typically scheduled during special events, funds would be necessary for overtime or temporary labor. Staff Comments: One Pazking Officer is typically scheduled for enforcement during Friday, Sunday and identified high-attendance Music Festival events. Meetings with the Music Festival and Aspen Institute are used to identify these events. Pazking staff has been reduced by 3.5 FTEs due to recent budget reductions. From January-November of 2009, Parking staff issued 19 parking citations on Smuggler Street. For comparison purposes, 33 citations were written on Gillespie and 177 on West End Street during this same period. Recommendation: Staff recommends continued coordination with the Music FestivaUInstitute to indentify/staff high attendance events as well as possible given staffing reductions. The current level of staffing is reasonable and effective. 8 9. Request: Driveway Signs Description: Residents have requested signs that can be used to protect their driveways from being blocked during events. Cost: $50 per kit (including cones and signs) Staff Comments: Driveway protection kits were developed and distributed to West End residents upon request in the summer of 2009. A fee and/or deposit will likely be implemented in 2010. Recommendation: Staff recommends continued distribution of these signs upon request in summer 2010. 10. Request: Traffic Light Synchronization Description: Residents have requested that traffic lights on Hwy 82 be better synchronized to improve traffic flow. Cost: $10,000-15,000 Staff Comments: Every few years, CDOT hires traffic engineering consultants review timing and coordination of al] the signals on Hwy 82 between Glenwood Springs and Aspen. If warranted, changes are made to the signal timing to try to optimize the flow of traffic on the highway. The most recent study was completed in 2002. In 2005 the City asked CDOT to look specifically at the five signals between Cemetery Lane and the AABC intersection. Traffic engineering consultant PBS&J was hired to study the signal timing for this section of the corridor. Changes were made to the signals to optimize the flow of traffic on this section of SH 82 in 2006. The cycles on the traffic signals were changed to enable a morning peak period, a mid day period, and afternoon peak period, and an evening late nigh no peak period. In the fall of 2007, the City hired traffic engineering consultant PBS&J in coordination with CDOT to study the Cemetery Lane and Truscott traffic signals to determine if anything further could be done to improve traffic flow in and out of town. The analysis evaluated if restricting turning movements or re-timing the traffic signals at these two locations would improve the flow of traffic on Hwy 82. PBS&J used Synchro/SimTraffic and Rodel software modeling packages to model and analyze the impacts of different four different scenazios on the traffic on this section of Hwy 82. A report was presented to Council on February 19, 2008. Based on the study and recommendation of PBS&J and CDOT, the cycle length at the Tmscott intersection was doubled during peak periods. This increased the amount of green time for traffic on SH 82. No changes were recommended for the signal at Cemetery Lane because, "The negative impacts to the Cemetery Lane and West End neighborhoods of implementing the tum restrictions or timing modifications outweigh the mazginal benefit that might be obtained by implementing the mitigation". Staff and consultants don't feel that further study or analysis of the traffic signals is required at this time. Recommendation: Continue traffic flow monitoring. FINANCIAL IMPACT The estimated cost of staff's recommendations is as follows: Reduced Speed Limit: $ 300.00 Reflective Tape on stop signs: $ 600.00 Power Plant Road Turning Restriction: 32 500.00 Total: $33,400.00 Staff will return to Council with a supplemental budget request for approved activities. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The above measures are not expected to reduce traffic, but to possibly change travel patterns and/or speeds. 10 RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends the installation of reflective tape on Smuggler Street stop signs and the reduction of speed limit on Smuggler Street from 25mph to 20mph. Staff also recommends summer public information encouraging the use of Main Street during the afternoon commute. Finally, staff recommends that preliminazy planning begin for a summer 2010 no left turn experiment on Power Plant Road, pending a full review of construction schedules as they become solidified. ALTERNATIVES 1. Council could direct staff to move forwazd with other requested measures. 2. Council could direct staff to explore measures not discussed in this memo. 3. Council could direct staff to return with a proposal for a neighborhood traffic calming policy. See Attachment E for an example of such a policy from Fayetteville, Arkansas. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: West End Map Attachment B: Emails requesting West End traffic calming measures Attachment C: Alternatives Matrix Attachment D: Traffic count data Attachment E: Sample Traffic Calming Policy Attachment F: 2009 Power Plant Road turning restrictions memo 11 1~ n~ dy h ~~ ~~ e ti L1 a -o 0 m m z v a x m z D ATTACHMENT B CITIZEN REQUEST EMAILS 1. Here's what we have asked for: * Additional stop signs on Smuggler and Francis in order to further slow cut through traffic down; * Signs on Main Street entering the West End from 3rd Street west (preferably in the middle of the street) which say Local Traffic Only 3 - 6 pm. * Bollards in the middle of the street to slow traffic down...signed on bollards to say "Slow, Children Present" or "Pedestrian Area" as they do on the other side of the West End on the other side of Main Street. I pointed out that the Willets area (which is a cut off from Highway 82 to the City Market in EI Jebel) has done a nice. job of this to slow traffic down and that the City of Aspen might want to consult with the town of Basalt. * Speed bumps similar to those on Cemetery Lane. * Greater enforcement of speeders and of those who run stop signs. We asked for a slower speed limit to be looked at as well. * No left turn on Cemetery Lane to Highway 82 from 3 - 6 pm. * Additional illegal parking enforcement during major events (Sunday and Friday concerts and special events); the Music Festival and the Aspen Institute offered to pay for additional staff during events. * Signs endorsed by the City that neighbors can place in their driveways to keep them free during major events (again, the Music Festival and the Aspen Institute agreed to fund this or facilitate this if necessary). 2. Dear Amy, We understand that you have a meeting with the Aspen City council regarding the traffic on Smuggler Lane. We have lived at 720 W. Smuggler for 6 years and have noticed a great increase in traffic on our street over the last year or so. In fact, any time after 3:00 until 6:00 there are slow-moving or stopped cars in front of our house constantly. This concerns us greatly and we hope that something can be done about it. Yours truly, Neal & Janet Dempsey 720 West Smuggler Aspen 13 ATTACHMENT C ALTERNATIVES MATRIX Request Estimated Cost Staff Recommended Notes Stop sign on Smuggler and Francis $400/sign No Recommend reflective tape at $100/si n Main Street si na a $450/location No Would need CDOT a royal In-street bollards $230/location No Speed bumps $9000 No Temporary speed cushions: a roximatel $2,700 Increased enforcement n/a No Reduced s eed limit $300 Yes 20m his recommended Power Plant Road turning restrictions Includin "Sta on Main" cam ai n $32,500 No Power Plant Road construction in summer 2010 Additional parking enforcement n/a No Recommend continued presence Burin identified events Driveway signs $50/each Yes Recommend continued issuance in summer Signal synchronization $10-$15,000 No 14 iAAFFlC Q[1UNT w 3 ^ N ~ Z C ~ ~ a H 8 8 3 0 r~ ~i .y ;~ ~~ ,c ~~ ~3 2 O z 2 r a n O~ c~ Zya -~ m~ onn 7DZz N~~ Zvv 1 \/ D r m n m m W v v m z z A r D Q a co ~a 0 0 w C v D G~ rn .~ is93 1gg~ ~aao ZaOf 100 ~aa~ ~aa4 ~aa5 ~QOs zuor AAQT N W w Z C ~' r ~~ W .~ a ~' ~~ ~_ a Z ~~ ~~n DTm Q ~ 3 -~~~ o~ 8~~ 0 a n N ~~ oa z e ~ o o a a itAOAM O1~OAM Ot~OAM ~~DAM O6~AM 'G 050 AM Q OG~4AM m Or~cAM ~ Od~OAM ~ 09~OOAM ~ z ~ 10:D0AM m i1~0AM ~ D ~ '~ 12~OPM C ~ 01~OPM ~ 0~2~OPM ~ 03~OPM ~ O 04~0PM ~ 05~OPM A 0600 PM C O7~ FM O4~0PM 09:0 PM m v n ~~ a~° ~ 3 3 ~~w r^ ~ w x~ oa c 0 c z waoo:zi waoo:ta wa04~zo m wY OO~EO ~ waoo:ta z waaa:sa m © wti G0~'90 wa OD~LO wltoa:80 Wtl oQ:60 waaa:ot waaa:tt w~ OO:ii wdo0:t0 0 ~ w~aaaa ~1 Wd OO:EO w~oo:ao w400%50 0 wd OD:90 m m F m ~. ~ Q m~ Nm ~~ ~ "~ . ~ N 0 ~v z C m m r a z m + ~ rt ~~~ s DC~ z~~ v v va x 0 c D T_ n o "s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ATTACHMENT E SAMPLE TRAFFIC CALMING POLICY G4opler6- 1. TRAFFIC CALMING POLICY Key Findings: This chapter of the report outlines the pt•ocedeu+e for a proactive action the City catild take to protect neigbborbood roadways from traffic diverted from congested arteiials• Traffic calming measres mny be appropriate in Fayetteville where there is a documented need io: • Rcducc neighborhood cut through tratTic • Reduce iraiiie apads through neighborhoods Accentuate pedesteian ar bicycle rise • Control intersection tratlic flow The traffic calming policy provides guidelbus for the following activities: • RcgaesisfortrafNccalmingcotBideratlon• • DoctunentationoftratHccalming. • Identification end approval oftref6c calming strategies. • Programming oftmtilc catming improvcmams. • Design of (ratite calming projects. • Evaluation ditrafflc calming projects. INTRODUCTION The encroachment of external traffic arrough neighborhood areas is an issue of wncern to citizens in Fayetteville. This policy addresses a procedure through which neighbodhoods can be considered for filtering external traffic through traffic calming measures. Trett3c calming is the management of traffic through the use of roadway design features. Management of traffic cart include greuping Traffic, diverttng traffic, altering speeds, mid encouraging a change of emphasis in trereportation mods Taafik rnanagament through traffic calming is most effective if the teatimes arc both ivananled and properly designed. Traffic calming solmions may be warranted where (tune is a demonstrated need for Ireffic calming, and where solutions cm be identified that will address the need. Tne needs to manage traffic through trstfic calming devices might include the following: ^ Reduce neighborhood cutthrough traffic ^ Reduu traffic speeds through neighbarhoods q Accentuate pedestrian or bicycle use ^ Control intersection traffic flrnv Not only must the needs be perceived by the neighbodood, but they must also be doctmented to be substantive, la orlon for traffic calming strategies to bo effective, traffic data collection mtd analysis must validate Hutt calming needs are legitimate. These traffic shedies may include: o Speed studies ^ Vehicle acrd pedestrian counts 19 Arftnttsns ^ '1'hralgh-Iraffics.trveys ^ Accidcntxccords ^ Ittterscction ;:apadly analysis Effective solutions for valid nccds also require that the sewxed traffic calming strategy 6e approp^is(c for dsc nocd, o.g., a strategy to reduco tra:7c speed and not to divort traffic should be rased ifthe doeumantad problarn is excessive speed Once an effective strategy fox traftyc calming has been selected, it should be property designed in accordance with the relevant design parametets.'t'F.ese should in:lude consideration ot: ^ Traffic volume ^ Deslgn speed ^ Ame:i:.aiuwilhD'sabiliticsAdmisristratioa(ADA)compliance ^ Tk~ignvehicle:.lt»racte~imics Although warranted and propet~y designed traffic calming suategies can have the desired benefns of managing UafLc, tl~y also can c:cate disndvmdagcs to adjncc~d slruls auJ neighUoiftwds and to the lravding public at large Traffic canning eonld love the potential of shifiing an existing traffic ~roblun to srrathcr street or neighbosfiood. TrefFc canning may also Increase delay for emergency response vchicks, e~ cnn incrcax long term maiurnancc oosb for the CSty, Bcctwx of the ccrnrovorsy and potential disadvantages, traffic calming should ba hnplonerted only wish the majority cexssent of hose directly impacted. This policy therefore pmvictes guidelines frn• the finllnwing tretlic calming »divifia;: O Recueats for tr~fic calming crnsidemtion ^ Documentation of tra~Tic caln'vrg reed ^ ]dcnlification sad approval o U'affic canning strategies ^ Pmgratnmvrgnftrafficralmingimpnrvemcnts ^ DcsignoftrcfFiooal~ningprojecta ^ EvaluxtitmoClm~ucalmingprojecls 20 C1fy ojFayeltevNle, Arkansas 7Y~aJJ7c road TYanspartaNon Slady Caaptrr 6- iMJJic Calming Pdicy REQUESTS FOR TRAFFIC CALMING CONSIDBRATION Traffic calming cauidaration can be initiated in two ways: o City staff may initiate a study to verify if traffic calming is appropriate to solve a specific canteen wlth respect to traffic, pedestrian, ra bicycle safety or operations. 7iria concern may 6e idend6ed tlurougfi staff monitoring, or through citlzen complaints. a Adjacad property owners may hritiato lira request fa a tmtFic calming study, This may be initiated upon receipt by the City Patgineer of a petition signed by et least one member of seventyfrvc pcroent (75%) of the property rnvnerships facing rho street(s) on which Ure traffic calming study is requested. A block shall consist of every developed property having frontage on the street to be studied between successive intersecting stress. A typical uaflic calming petitton shell include, at a minimum, a descriptlon of Sic street or streets wfi [clt are to be included in the calndng study and the signattre of at least 7594 of the property owners on those super(s). Where more than one person is listed es otvar for each properly, only one person shall be cantles to vde or sign a petition. Likewise, If multiple properties are owned by the same person or persons, the owner(s) will only be entitled to one vote or signature on the petitton. This definition of property owner shall apply throughout this policy document The city stafr'essigned to administer trafftc calming studies will review the petllion forvaltdity, and will assess whether other streets may be impacted by implementation of traffic calming strategies. The city stall' will define the area of potential impact trosulting from the Vaffic calming implemematlon on a toss by case basis. DOCUMIINTATION OF TRAFFIC CALIYRNG NlBEPS All traffic celroing atndles shall address at a mhtimmn the follmving issues: o Purpose of the study a Emergencyvehlclarosponse a Lnprovement maintenance o Physical and operational conditions oftfie street(s) ^ Impactatoofhcrstreets Other issues that may aced to be addressed i ncltrde: ^ Traffic speed ^ Traffic volume o Through-trfffic o Accident experience ^ Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts ^ On sired parking Gity sta9'shall be rosponalble for conducting traffic cairnbtg studies.ia accordance with these guidelines tinder the supervision of the City Engineer. If City staff so elects, the study may be outsourced to a queliSed traffic eng{neering consultant. It is estinmted that. a typical traffic calming study will require behveen 50 end i?A manhaars to complete. The traffic data that will be required will include: 21 Arlranrar Trafyfc and 7i Cltapler 6 - ^ 24 timer directimlal heffic :otaeta (conducted by police) a Spot apvcd ell:nples (minimum rogtdred wi:1 be not more then 4 bouts rota sample, ox 100vahicles, whichever comes first), (conducted by police) u Review of tlree~~ears' accident rxurtlsat thn sub.~ecl invasion (cunduclcd by Dolitz) A rating system will to utilized to compare competing local traffic calming ptoJects, Table 6-1 prov}dr;s rating crherEa for local meats, and Table 6.2 provides rating cr;tetfa for coltectar stteets. Table 1.1 Loess Streets Rattng Criteria t.1-itetla :'Points 'baste 5 pts aligned for every inph grease- Shen 5 mph above Speed 0 to a0 the psstec speed !{85'" percentile speed Ilmk - 5 mph - postetl speed Ilmkl s 5 pb] 'Jolume 0 to 40 Alf div(dad a/ 109 Mo 5ldawalks O to 5 > pts it no continuous aldewalk Tralnc Ac[1de~rL, 0 or 5 1 pt for each acrldanVY®nr at ono locatbn School aesstng 0 a 10 10 D~ tt chlMren must cross street [(I get m school Total P71nts Pcsside 190 22 City oJFayefrevllle, Arkansas 7}r{,~7e and 7fwuspoNadan SYrrdy Chepla d-7Mfj7c Cafndng Pdfry Table 1.2 CoNector SUaets Rating Criteria 5 pis assgned for every mph greater than 5 mph above Speed 0 to 36 the posted speed I(65a percentlle speed IirNt - 5 mph - posted speetl Ilmlt) x 5 ptsl Volume 0 to 20 5 pis Ior every 1,000 APT on em/ ane street TrafOC Acddents 0 to 15 1 pt far every Z accklent/year et one bcatlon No Sidewans 0 or 30 10 pis if no mntMuous sidewalk Resldentlal Derslty 0[010 1 pt fa every 50 dweging units/mlie Sctwol Crossing 0 ar 10 SO pis If chNdren mist aoss street to get to school Pedestrian Genera [ors 0 or 5 5 Dts a pedesbian generator Totsl Points P0ttla1! 100 A taffic celmiug study must score a minimum of 60 points in order to be considered for trafTc calming improvements. IDENTIFICATION OF TItAFFtC CALMING STRATEGIES City staff strati present to rho residents living within the arcs of potential impaG the results of the traffic calming stlydy and rating, at a meeting called for that purpose. Where traffic calming may ba appropriate, as determined by a reting 60 or greatee, the City staff atoll present relevant strategies at options for trafge calming, as provided in the attached strategy toolbox. Ttte Appendix C strategy tool box is subdivided into nvo phases. Phase I includes signing, marking, and other enforcormm techniques. Phase II tools includes traffic calming strategies involving designed featwa. 7Le advantages s~ disadvantages of each stm6egy wig be presented aE the meeting. A vote tvID be conducted al the public meeting to identify the preferred strategy. A ballot will be sent otn to ell residents (n the area of potential impact presenting the preferred option for endorsement of tlm preferred strategy. Support of s(xty percent (60%) or more of the property owners in lire area of polantia{ impact Is required before tfie City will give further consideration to trafflc calming implementation 23 Arkairsas IYUOic and PROGRAMMING OF TRAFir[C CAI,:NING IMPROYLMGNTB 6nee each year, City sh[F will prioritize those Lng'ic calming akahgies within the City ;ha: have 6ccn approved within Eheir area of impact. I4io~itization will be bored on the rating ays[em, The City will program priority Gallic calming impmtrementa within the copitnl irnprovemertt budget, err approved by the City Council. Those traffic calming hn~vemen[ locations not selected, will remain fn cortsidemtion for up to three years. DCSIGL\ OF TRAFFIC CAUMllVG PROJECTS The design of tre$lc calming devices must moot the following criteria: ^ The posted speed m€y net ha more than thirty (30) miles per hour. ^ The strcd shalt haoe tut ADT of Icss `hen 4,000. i,imited m streets havingrn y nne latre of thrrargh traf£c in each direction. ~ Streets must not be primary emergency routes. 7 Al the discretion of (lie Chy Engineer, cerlaut trafliu calmhrg utmstres may nut ba used if they would create an unsafe wndition for motorists driving at nrnnnil speeds under average driving conditions. ~ Streets must not be through truck rrnaes unless an acceptable alterrtattve roots Ls idemified anJ approved. Dasigrt of 6'afli~ ankniug fealuros sladl aewtmntxlu~ t sbrgie taut hock, EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECTS Rix mnnths follmving the camnlrtinn of the traffic calming bnprnvemenis, fhe CSty etatF.tvill undermka a follow-up study to determine if the tre[L1c calming feattrres have ec}ueved the sitial purpose ofthe pmjet:t. If unacceptable impacts aro identified, corective meast><es may 6e mkeu. TratTic cabning measures may be removed after the evelaetiat period for wry of the following rtxuons; n Emergency rresponse is significantly impacted. o The problem far which the tcaf5c calming rues implpnerrted has barn trerrsfereed to another street. At least sixty percent (60%) of the property owners in the defined area of impact sign a x6hon to remove the Traffic cabning measures. This option wi0 result in complete removal of all measures. All property owners within the defined neighM•hmd will he accessed for rho rtunnvel of the calmvg measures. This procedure far removing lmffic calming devices will ant be considerec for a minimum ofdtrae years following completion of the consnuctioe. 24 Arkansas Tic and Table 1.2 Collector Streets Ratlnp Criteria Cdterie .°.. Pointe ...Basta 5 pt: esslgngd for every mph greater than 5 mph above Speed 0 lv 30 the posted speed [(a5'" perceMlle speed emit - 5 mph - pos[ed speed Ilmtt) x 5 p[s1 Volume 0 to 20 5 pts for every 1,000 ADT on any one street Traffic AcddeMS 0 to IS 1 pt for every 2 acddengyear a[ one location Na Sidewalks 0 or 10 30 pts M no continuous sidewalk ResWermal Oe natty 0 td IO 1 pt ror every 50 dwelnrg unirsJmfie School Gossln9 D yr i0 10 pts If children must cross street [o get ro school Pedesnlan Generators 0 or 5 5 Pty if pedestrian generator Total Points Possbla 100 A trailic calming study must score a minimum of 60 points in order to be considered for iraft'ic calmbtg improvements. IDENTIFICATION OF T13AFFIC CALMING STRATRGIES City staff shell presem to the residents living tvitliln the area of potential impact the results of the treflic calming study and rating, at a meeting called Tar that purpose. Mtere traffic calming may be appropriate, as determined by a rating 60 or greeter, rite Ciry staff shall pmsent relevant strategies as optiau for traffic calming, as provided in the attached strategy toolbox. Tice Appendix C strategy toot box Ia subdivided into hvo phases, Phasc t irrcludea signings marking, and other alforr:emem techniques. Phase II tools itwludts traffic calming strategres involving designed frahues. The advantages and disadvantages of each strategy will fie presetxed at the mceting, A vote wiU be conducted at the public meeting to identify the preferred strategy. A 6ellot will be sent out m all residents in the area of potential impact presenting the preferred option for endorsement of the preferred stmtegy. Support of sixty pereem (60%) or more of the properly owners in the area of potential impact is required before the City wiil give further constdemdon to traffic calming implentelttation. ATTACHMENT F 25 POWER PLANT ROAD MEMO TO COUNCIL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John D. Krueger, Director of Transportation RE: Power Plant Road & Cemetery Lane PM Peak Left Turn Restriction Trial DATE: Thursday, October 22, 2008 MEETING DATE: October 28, 2008 SUMMARY AND REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL: Staff is requesting direction and funding from Council to conduct a trial program to restrict left turn movements from Power Plant Road onto Cemetery Lane during the afternoon peak period. Staff recommends conducting the trail during the summer of 2009 form 3-6pm on weekdays. If positive direction is given to staff to conduct the trial, funding in the amount of $22,000 will need to be included in the 2009 Transportation budget. Overall, staff suggests three historical policy underpinnings to help keep this traffic deterrence request in context: 4. "Do no harm." Traffic mitigation measures should not exacerbate the already heavy congestion on Main Street and SH82 during peak season peak periods. 5. Use the street grid to help balance traffic flow and avoid closing city streets. 6. Continue to aggressively pursue transit mode-share and mobility improvements to the Entrance to Aspen segment of SH82 in order to minimize the perceived need to use residential streets during peak periods. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: This exact trial has not been approved or conducted previously. But, similaz trials and traffic studies were conducted during the spring and summer of 2005 as part of the S- Curves Task Force study. BACKGROUND: Due to the heavier than normal afternoon peak traffic congestion and turning movements out of the Power Plant Road intersection on to Cemetery Lane during the summer, I have asked Schmueser Gordon Meyer (SGM) to retrieve information from Traffic Studies conducted for the City of Aspen from 2003-2007 pertaining to the S-Curves. During these efforts the traffic engineers focused on the traffic patterns and activities on SH 82 26 but also examined the behaviors on Cemetery Lane. Restricting the left rum movements from Power Plant Road on to Cemetery Lane could have an effect on the cut through traffic in the West End. From the previous studies, Cemetery/Power Plant intersection was analyzed with two potential' possible solutions from a simpler plan of the installation of ground signs, to programmable blackout signs timed to illuminate during restriction periods. Both of these would be associated with increased enforcement measures for abreak-in period and periodically thereafter. To measure the effectiveness of [he implementation of this restriction a trial period should be put in place for three weeks and measured to evaluate its impact on the Cemetery/SH 82 intersection. DISCUSSION: The high traffic volumes leaving Aspen during the summer and the lack of capacity of the S-turns have resulted in congestion and slow moving traffic on Main Street during the afternoon peak period. When Main Street is congested, some of the traffic diverts through the West End Neighborhood to bypass Main Street and use Power Plant Road as an alternate route out of town. This occurs mainly during the afternoon peak commute period. The residents of the West End aze very concerned about the amount of traffic diverting through the neighborhood. The residents suggested that restricting left turns from Power Plant Road onto Cemetery Lane may reduce some of the traffic in the neighborhood during this peak period Staff is suggesting that a trial should be conducted to collect data and measure the results and of the rum restriction on the amount of traffic diverting through the West End. There may be other consequences from the trial as well and staff recommends ffiat the data and observations of these consequences be reported back to Council for their consideration. Council could then make a decision based on these results and analysis whether to continue the restrictions on a seasonal basis or not. Below is a brief description of an implementation plan of installing signs as detailed on the following Figure 1. • Signs and Cones -The less costly of the two solutions the attached Figure 1 of the intersection shows the sign locations. • Additional Traffic Counts - To augment the City counts that are already taken on Cemetery and SH 82 in this vicinity, additional counts will need to be taken on Power Plant and Cemetery Lane north of the Power Plant intersection. With these additional counts both before and during the restriction trial period, there will be data to gauge the effectiveness of the rum restrictions. • Engineering Analysis - SGM would take the data from the baseline counts as well as the trial period and produce findings and recommendations based on the restrictions and present them to the City. 27 Police Enforcement - In ongoing discussions with the Police Department, this commitment of Transportation funds would help offset additional costs in hiring a CSO position specifically for transit and traffic enforcement. • Public Information - To advertise the "Turn Restriction Trial Period" both outreach in the papers as well as spots on the radio would be necessary to inform the traveling public. Fliers would also be necessary to send to adjacent neighborhoods to ensure their full knowledge of the test period and its intent. POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF THE TRIAL The following possible positive or negative consequences could result from the turn restriction trial: POSSIBLE POSITIVE CONSEQUENCES: • May help lessen the amount of traffic in West End leaving town in the afternoon. • May help traffic flow on Main Street / SH 82 by eliminating some of the traffic accessing SH 82 at the Cemetery Lane intersection. • May help RFTA buses on Main Street /SH 82 by reducing merging traffic at the Cemetery Lane Intersection POSSIBLE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES: • May increase the amount of traffic on Cemetery Lane in the afternoon • May increase the amount of traffic turning right from 8`h Street on to Main Street • May increase the amount of traffic turning right at 6`h Street onto Main Street at the merge point for cars and buses on Main Street • May create enforcement issues and unsafe movements on Cemetery Lane by vehicles turning right and then making an illegal u-turn on Cemetery Lane to get back to SH 82 • Residents living in the West End neighborhood will have to go back to Main Street or use 8~ Street to get on SH 82 to go west to get to the school, hospital, ARC, airport, golf course etc. during the restriction. • The Aspen Meadows and Institute will have to use 8`s Street or go back to town to go west on SH 82. • May hinder RFTA buses on Main Street with more vehicles trying to merge from side streets into traffic on Main Street through the bus lane. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The total estimated cost of this turn restriction trial would be $22,000 to conduct the trial evaluate its effectiveness. Funding for this project is currently not available in the 2008 or 2009 budget. If Council directs staff to proceed with the trial, staff will come back with a supplemental request in the amount of $22,000 for the program. The approximate costs for the program are as follows: 28 • Signs and Cones - $500 • Additional Traffic Counts - $1000 • Engineering Analysis - $3000 • Police Enforcement - $15,000 • Public Information - $2,500 Total Cost $22,000 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: If traffic congestion is reduced in the West End from the tum restriction trial an improved environment may result. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct staff to conduct the Power Plant Road & Cemetery Lane PM Peak Left Turn Restriction Trial during the summer of 2009 and approve the associated funding in the amount of $21,000 to conduct the trial. ALTERNATIVES: Council could decide to not to conduct the trial or approve the funding. Council could decide to do conduct the trial in the winter. There aze many challenges with a winter trial. Winter weather, snow covered roads will have to be factored into the analysis and may not present a true picture of the trial. Traffic counts with tubes aze not possible because of snow removal. Traffic counts will have to be done by hand or with cameras, then counted by hand and will probably cost more. There is no baseline in the winter to compaze the trial to. Previous experiments have been done in the summer with base line data that can be used. There aze more enforcement issues to deal with when the roads aze snow covered in the afternoon peak period. Power Plant Road can become slippery and challenging for drivers and it might not be the best time to try something new. The summer has the heavjest traffic volumes and causes the biggest diversion through the West End and causes the biggest problem for the neighborhood. A summer trial would give us the best data and have the biggest impact on traffic. If a winter trial was conducted, staff would recommend that a summer trial be done as well. 29 Q ~~# ~3~ 1 ~ ~~~ D ~ o _~ y~ ~ g: W W a •~~ ao 6 zF ~_~F~ -, g~ ~ WZ 4 W ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ..._ ~.._,,... FW ~ N 4 uY. ... WZ iii ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ J a~ e ~ 6p ~~t ~ a a 30 -•- w d ~ F-- ~t ~ J ~ obi W_ +k'~ Z7'~ to ~ ~ ~ ~J _ . H- 1 . ~ U X D ~ Z d } ~ ~ Y O V R 'Q W 1~ -N m O z Z J t/7 D ~ ~ ~ Z W . °- a _ Ca ~ m ~~.. ~= ~ ~ C/7 _ Q. W ~. ~G J n_ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ -~ .~ N r~ ua cr> 0 W -v c a -v c 0 e.o cii C 3 _G N C °~ o c. -v x -v c c 0 ~ o ~ U 3 m i as ~ -a -~ ~_ d ~ ..~ -~ Q.S C r) ~ .c m v ~ c _C o as m ~ vy a~ a> 'a N ~ ~ ~ p 0 -p ~ v 31 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John D. Krueger, Lynn Rumbaugh -Transportation Dept RE: West End Street Closures DATE: January 29, 2010 MEETING DATE: February 1, 2010 SUMMARY AND REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL Staff is requesting direction from Council regazding the future of the closures in the West End neighborhood at Bleeker, Hallam and the alley in between. Options include eliminating the closures, installing permanent bollards or other treatment(s), or construction of sidewalk type closures. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION • In 2005 and 2006, a variety of measures were put in place to improve traffic flow and transit competitiveness as part of the S-Curves Task Force project. These include the installation of bollazds at Bleeker, Hallam and the alley in between to discourage the use of these streets as cut through entries onto Main StreeUHwy 82. • Additional measures implemented as part of the S-Curves Task Force project include the seasonal closure of North 7~' Street from 3-6pm and the construction of the Main Street bus lane. • Tn February, 2006 City Council rejected an EOTC-funded plan to install sidewalks with rolled curbs as a means of closing the Bleeker/Hallam/Alley locations, opting to utilize less permanent means of restricting access. BACKGROUND High traffic volumes combined with a lack of capacity through the S-Curves often result in congestion and slow moving traffic on Main Street during afternoon peak periods. In the past, drivers often responded to this congestion by diverting through the West End, returning to Main StreeUHwy 82 via Bleeker Street, Hallam Street or the alley in between the two. Based on the recommendation of the S-Curves Task Force, Aspen City Council approved the closure of these access points by the installation of temporazy bollards. DISCUSSION Since their installation, the temporazy bollards have proven problematic for a variety of reasons: • The bollazds aze unattractive. • The bollazds can be driven over, something that neighbors indicate occurs periodically. • Cazs aze often pazked behind the bollards, blocking emergency access. • In the winter, snow is piled against the bollazds, blocking emergency access. A more permanent solution has been difficult to achieve. Following are options that have been considered. Decorative Bollards and Planters A number of decorative bollard and planter options are available. While these options provide an attractive alternative to the current temporary bollazds, they provide a bazrier to emergency access when placed in such a manner as to block traffic. Conversely, when placed in such a manner as to allow emergency access, these options do not discourage general traffic from driving around them. Examples of this type of treatment aze included in Attachment B. 2 Collausible/Removable Bollazds A variety of bollards offer the option of being collapsible and/or removable. These bollards usually offer access via a key, meaning that they are removed or folded after being unlocked. Emergency access is again a problem with this type of treatment, as response times would be increased by the need to exit a vehicle, unlock a bollazd and remove/fold it down. Examples of this type of treatment are included in Attachment C. Sidewalk Installation As part of the S-Curves Task Force process, a sidewallc installation option was brought forwazd as a possible means for closing the Bleeker/Hallam/alley access points. This plan called for a rolled curb which would allow emergency responders to drive over the sidewalk if necessary. See Attachment D for a rendering. FINANCIAL IMPACT Estimated financial impacts of the various options discussed are listed below. The Transportation Fund does not have sufficient monies for these options. Staff would return with a supplemental request based on Council direction. Decorative Bollards or Planters: $200-$600 each (bollazds)/$600+ each (planters) As shown in Attachment A Collapsible/Removable Bollards: $500-$900 each as shown in Attachment B Sidewalk Installation: Estimated at $80,000 based on 2006 pricing. If Council is interested in this option, staff will return with updated costs. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The above measures aze not expected to reduce traffic, but rather continue to discourage cut through traffic in the West End. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends the installation of rolled-curb sidewalk as a more permanent option for closing access to Main StreeUHwy 82 at Bleeker, Hallam and the alley in between. ALTERNATIVES Council could direct staff to return with recommendations for specific decorative or collapsible treatment options and pricing. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Existing condition Attachment B: Decorative Bollard and Planter Samples Attachment C: Lockable Bollazd Samples Attachment D: Sidewalk Installation Alternative 4 ATTACHMENTS a o ~ o x v a ~ z a v~i X W ATTACHMENT B DECORATIVE BOLLARD/PLANTER SAMPLES ATTACHMENT C COLLAPSIBLE/REMOVABLE BOLLARD SAMPLES W H Q Z W H 0 J Q Z Z W ~ ~ a = J ~ a N Q Z Y J a w 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: James R. True -City Attorney's Office RE: West Hopkins Pedestrian Way DATE: January 28, 2010 MEETING DATE: February 1, 2010 Staff is presenting this issue at the request of citizens who work or reside on West Hopkins. Issues that have been raised on West Hopkins aze similar to the issues involved in the West End traffic discussions, although the citizen issues here appear to be the opposite of the citizen issues expressed in the West End discussion. In 1990 West Hopkins was initially designated as part of the Aspen Pedestrian Bikeway system. Several years ago, the City placed signs on West Hopkins during the summer prohibiting thru traffic. Because enforcing the term "thru traffic" is often difficult, last summer, the City institute a limitation of one block for automobile traffic. This limitation was posted on every block and residents were provided with notice. Gary Wright, who has an office on Main Street between 6a' and 7~' has complained. His initial complaint was set forth in a letter dated July 9, 2009. That letter is attached. Numerous discussions followed that letter. Although signs remained up throughout the summer, I do not know if any drivers were ticketed for violating the restriction. Staff does not suggest a change to the one block limitation but did suggest to Mr. Wright that he could bring his issues to the Council. Since the Council was heazing the West End discussions, it seemed appropriate to address West Hopkins at the same time. Gary A. Wright 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-5625 Assistant Police Chief Linda Consuegra Aspen Police Department gob East Main Street, Suite l02 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: West Hopkins Avenue Travel Restrictions Dear Assistant Chief Consuegra: 9 July 2009 I am writing as a concerned citizen who maintains an office that is situated between 6"' and 7a' streets on West Main Street, an area where oHmer-occupied offices-and primary residences predominate. I read with disappointment the article in yesterday's The Aspen Times regarding effectively closing West Hopkins Avenue from t" Street to ~`" Street to motor vehicles. I have also observed new street signs which limit local traffic to a maximum of one block on West Hopkins Avenue. The inescapable conclusion from the implementation of the travel restrictions on West Hopkins Avenue is that little if any attention was paid to the consequences of such a restriction and that there are probably no reports, studies or diligence to back up such an apparently unwise decision.. Iwould-appreciate you directing me as to where I can obtain copies of the engineering and traffic studies that were done prior to maidiig this decision as well as any other due diligence documents. The obvious consequences of restricting travel include the great difficulty in traveling west on West Main Street at certain times of the day as well as the difficulty turning across traffic on West Main Street when traveling west. A traffic light at the corner of 7a' Street and Main Street is now appropriate and I assume that will be installed soon. Now, the only alternate route for traffic south of West Main Street, other than West Hopkins Avenue, is the alley on the south side of West Main Street. In respect for our "Canary Initiative" one must recognize the significant dust (PMlo) that will be created by the increased alley traffic. Consequently, I would expect that the City will promptly undertake paving the alleys between 181 Street and y`s Street, except for the one block that is already paved. Pending the completion of the foregoing obviously necessary actions, I would assume that the Aspen Police Department will rethink its position and hold off enforcement. I would appreciate a response to this letter. Thank you for your consideration. Si rely, Gary A. Wright ~:; Copy to: John P. Worcester, Esq: '- ' Steve Barwick Dwayne Romero Kim Peterson Aspen City Council Work Session Summary MEETING DATE: February 1, 2010 AGENDA TOPIC: 1. West End Traffic Issues 2. Hallam and Bleeker Closures 3. West Hopkins Ped/Bikeway PRESENTED BY: Transportation: John Krueger/Lynn Rumbaugh Engineering: Tricia AragonlTyler Christoff Streets: Jerry Nye Attorney: Jim True Parking: Blake Fitch Police: Richard Pryor COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ireland, Johnson, Romero, Skadron, Torre SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. West End traffic issues Staff presented analysis and recommendations regarding Smuggler Street resident requests for traffic reduction and traffic calming measures. Specific citizen requests included a reduced speed limit, installation of speed humps, the addition of stop signs and the installation of Local Traff c Only signs. Several citizens also provided comment on West End traffic. A matrix of the citizen requests and Council direction is included as Attachment A. 2. Hallam and Bleeker closures At Council's request, staff discussed options for aesthetically pleasing options for the closures at Hallam Street and Bleeker Street in the West End. These closures were put in place as a demonstration during the S-Curves Task Force process in 2006. A sidewalk proposal was brought 1 forth to and funded by the Elected Officials Transportation Committee in 2006, but was ultimately rejected by a previous Council. At this meeting, staff provided Council with examples of bollard and planter options as well as drawings and costs associated with the previously discussed sidewalk proposal. Some Council members did not receive this memo, which has been included as Attachment B. 3. West Hopkins ped/bikeway Staff presented a citizen complaint from Mr. Gary Wright regarding the one-block regulation that took effect in summer of 2009, allowing Aspen Police to cite drivers traveling for more than one block through the designated area. Specifically, Mr. Wright stated that this policy negatively impacts health and safety by generating more traffic through the unpaved alley between West Main Street and West Hopkins Avenue. Residents of the adjacent neighborhoods commented, all in support of retaining the ped/bikeway and the one-block rule. A petition of the same nature was also presented to Council (see Attachment C). POLICY DIRECTION 1. West End traffic issues Council directed staff to return with a plan and budget for a summer demonstration of West End traffic reduction/traffic calming measures. See Attachment A for details. 2. Hallam and Bleeker street closures Council directed staff to return with recommendations and pricing for bollazd closure options. Staff will return to Council on March 15 with a new option that has the support of the Fire Mazshall. 3. West Hopkins ped/bikeway Council directed staff to continue with the one-block enforcement rule in this area. ACTION ITEMS DUE Return to Council with summer West End plan and budget Mazch 15, 2010 Return to Council with bollard options and pricing Mazch 15, 2010 COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS Please note comments/questions or corrections that need to be made to these meeting notes and return to the City Manager. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: West End Options Matrix Attachment B: Bollard Memo Attachment C: West Hopkins PedBikeway Citizen Petition K b a `° Z c W O ~L G 2 O H C Q N d ~3 ~3 ~ ~ ~ •N c c • ~ w L U b_!J .y ~ L }` ! N VI C «' °...' a C_ G_ ~' ¢ . . . ~ ~ 3 0 o y C F 7 ctl .+ O. y ~ «+ C N h ~ ~ O O O ~ ~ a o o ~ ~ ~ ~ v~ w U7 y O Z v~ o ~ o A °' - o .3 O • Y U ~ U w ~ ' t y ~ 5 b O N U p, ~ ~ W L . °' ~ O Ue ~ 'D Y ~ y N d ~ d (~ Q~ S a ti 4 V _ 7 d p, ~ ~ O L V~ .D N d ~ ./~ (y, ~ ro y y O y a W cE 'v U 3 y h U >, y N ~ ~ c ~ c E ~ ~ ~ 'O O ~ O O O O N N O N N N O ~' O N U .~ z z z U x >" a ~" ~" >" z ¢ U E o •o ~ ° W vNS ° ^ ~ T N b U y W ~ ~ ~ 7 , N ~ ~ L p 'k h 7 ' Vi C lE U o O c O E 69 ~' d ^ V N U N L F'C td ~ N G w U ~ m U N ~Ci. .. U ' ~ °' ~ ~, ~o b y ~ ' ~' C 7 C O C 7 C y, ~ O F U O v C G ~ p b N c ~ O v E b .: N ~, ~ O y U c g 7 ~ C V y ~ ~ y ~ a i ~ ' ~ a i E a a E E ~, = E~ ~'. ~ p .T 4 ~ V1 ~' b ~^ 7 ~ ° a a°i o 3 m o o i ~ a x~ y a ~ ¢ a A ~ a x i x F N LL d c ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ o z z z z z y z y z ~. z y z y£ O V N C N ,~ y ~ b A ~ C V y N ~ ^ ~ O = ~ O U 4" y _ ~ a i Y e y ~ ~ °q s ° F ~ D a ~ ^ ~ a ,. ~ ~, o a ~~ ~ c ~, o N b .o o ~ ~ ~ ~, ;; -o L b N „' N ~ O ctl ~' 0. U y 3 y O 'p 7 'v C ~ •~ ~ tC ~ ~ c ~ x 0 a~ ~ ¢ A ~ w3 oa ATTACHMENT B Bollard Memo MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John D. Krueger, Lynn Rumbaugh -Transportation Dept RE: West End Street Closures DATE: January 29, 2010 MEETING DATE: February 1, 2010 SUMMARY AND REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL Staff is requesting direction from Council regarding the future of the closures in the West End neighborhood at Bleeker, Hallam and the alley in between. Options include eliminating the closures, installing permanent bollards or other treatment(s), or construction of sidewalk type closures. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION • In 2005 and 2006, a variety of measures were put in place to improve traffic flow and transit competitiveness as part of the S-Curves Task Force project. These include the installation of bollards at Bleeker, Hallam and the alley in between to discourage the use of these streets as cut through entries onto Main Street/Hwy 82. • Additional measures implemented as part of the S-Curves Task Force project include the seasonal closure of North 7`h Street from 3-6pm and the construction of the Main Street bus lane. • In February, 2006 City Council rejected an EOTC-funded plan to install sidewalks with rolled curbs as a means of closing the Bleeker/Hallam/Alley locations, opting to utilize less permanent means of restricting access. 6 uo?;ells;suI ~I[emap?S •~;uauulaeuy u? papnlau? are;uaugeaz;3o ad,f; s?q;3o saldurexg ~umoP;? PIo3/anouzaz pue pzelloq a ~Iaolun `aIa?qan e;?xa o; paau aq;,iq paseazau? aq plnom sauz?; asuodsaz se `;uauz;eaz;3o ad,i; s?q; q;?m uzalgozd e u?ede s? ssaaae ,iaua8zauzg •pa~laolun ~u?aq zage paplo3 zo panouxaz are ~Caq;;eq; ~u?ueaui `,Ca~I e e?n ssaaae za33o ~Ilensn spzelloq asags •algenouiaz zo/pue alq?sdelloa ~utag3o uo?;do aq; za33o sprellog3o ~a?zen d sPreliog algenouxa21/a[gts ello~ •g;uaunlaeuy u? papnlau? are;uauz;naz;3o ad~i; s?q;3o saldurexg •uzaq; punozs du?n?zp uioz3 ag3nzl Iezauad a~nznoas?p;ou op suo?;do asaq; `ssaoae ,faua~zauxa mope o; se zauueuz e gans u? paaeld uagm `,ilaszanuo~ •aS3ez; ~Iaolq o; se zauuew e Bans u? paae?d uagm ssaaae ~faua~zauia o; za?zreq e ap?nozd ,iaq; `sprelloq ~izezodu~a;;uazma aq; o; an?;euza;Ie an?;aez;;e ue ap?nozd suo?;do asaq; ai?qA1 •aiget?ene are suo?;do za;ueld pue prelloq an?;ezoaap 3o zaqumu d sza;ueld P~ sPreiiog an?;ezoaaQ •pazap?suoa uaaq aneq;eq; suo?;do are ~u?mollod •ana?qae o;;InaS3?P uaaq seq uo?;nlos;uaueurzad azoui ~ •ssaaae ,iaua2zauia ~u?~Iaolq `sprelloq aq;;su?e8e paI?d s? moos `za;u?m aq; uI • •ssaaae ,fauaBzawa du?~Iaolq `spzelloq aq; pu?qaq pa~Ized uago are sze~ ilea?po?zad sznaao a;eacpui szogq~?au;eq; du?q;autos `nano uanup aq uea sprelloq aqs • •an?;aezueun are spzelloq aqZ auoseaz3o ~;a?ren e zo3 a?;eutalgozd uanozd aneq spzegoq ~(zezoduza; aq; `uo?;elle;su? z?aq; aams Nolssn~sla •sprelloq ,izezoduza;3o uo?;eIlE;sot aq; ,iq s;mod ssaaae asaq;3o amsola aq; panozdde I~auno~ ~Cl?~ uadsy `aazo3 ~IseZ sanm~-S aq;3o uo?;epuauzuzoaaz aq; uo paseg ~om; aq; uaam;aq ut ,falle aq; zo;aaz;S ~IIeH `;aaz;S za~Iaalg e?n Z8 ,SmI I~aaz;s u?ey~I o; 3u?um;az `pug lsam aq; g2nonl; ~u?uan?p ,iq uo?;sa~uoa s?q; o; papuodsaz uago szanup `;sed aq; uI spouad Mead uoouzage ~uunp ;aaz;s u?ey~I uo ai33e.r; ~u?nouz cools pue uo?;sa3uoa u?;Insaz uago sanzn~-g aq; q~nozq;,i;?aedea3o ~Iael e q;?m pau?quaoa sauznlon ag3ez; q$?H dNn021J~1~b~8 As part of the S-Curves Task Force process, a sidewalk installation option was brought forward as a possible means for closing the Bleeker/Hallam/alley access points. This plan called for a rolled curb which would allow emergency responders to drive over the sidewalk if necessary. See Attachment D for a rendering. FINANCIAL IMPACT Estimated financial impacts of the various options discussed are listed below. The Transportation Fund does not have sufficient monies for these options. Staff would return with a supplemental request based on Council direction. Decorative Bollards or Planters: $200-$600 each (bollards)/$600+ each (planters) As shown in Attachment A Collapsible/Removable Bollards: $500-$900 each as shown in Attachment B Sidewalk Installation: $80,000 based on 2006 pricing. If Council is interested in this option, staff will return with updated costs. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The above measures are not expected to reduce traffic, but rather continue to discourage cut through traffic in the West End. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends the installation of rolled-curb sidewalk as a more permanent option for closing access to Main Street/Hwy 82 at Bleeker, Hallam and the alley in between. ALTERNATIVES Council could direct staff to return with recommendations for specific decorative or collapsible treatment options and pricing. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Existing condition Attachment B: Decorative Bollard and Planter Samples Attachment C: Lockable Bollard Samples Attachment D: Sidewalk Installation Alternative a o ~ o = U Q ~ Z Q N K W 0 S3ldWtfS 2131N1'/ld/U21b'1108 3n11b210~34 8 1N3WH~b~llt/ ATTACHMENT C COLLAPSIBLE/REMOVABLE BOLLARD SAMPLES ~o W F- a z w 0 J Q ~"' Z Z 0 W ~ ~g a J ~ ~ a ~' z Y J Q 3 w ATTACHMENT C West Hopkins Ped/Bikeway Citizen Petition r~ ~Y« ~ i~e~a counasrsm D~nryn,POmsro eaa,rx~rnen 6mvs 5hadrnn ca,nr~nen oeeek Jenrieon Co1+ne~MMn Torre mixM pam w r+J fews s>e do+msrmi Dors. xamep Address F ' ~. ~r~ ,• `CIS k# ~~+ ~~~_ 31 i ~L~ ~.narti, f ;~y ~,~ ~~/~,~ ~l3 ~'. ~~~rt9,; _.'-CS c~ ~~ 1~~ i~fN~®~ Ja*~-¢.~ 301 k1 ~+~t:+~x ~`~ ?f? (y. 1IPIkH'Y .~4 ~'} /L ~. NGrNaw 4 2 ~ P '~° - J~r+vP 12 ~: ,~~.~ ~~ Caundimen 6arak Jdsuan Cauntlhnen fitre NfC qM UnIMnIiglNd nPMi'+kk01 Mu 8hedbr MaMtYU1 ~ ri0U1011M! b OfgW alt aLMpeN ter Ba MMtMUOkMMPba~%bn6Yo~aM• Mb x+wM Moe forts aaw/dF b Itravs tlW rue aemtunlry nM fe OtoMCbd rnd 1~et awieek krbrWeL Me YMpal Ptb+bw enbo.twedR+e nobsaotor vafede~. orb so wM a0e m tl+e YAery aM argnW d M cAltens whorgNi to Aaro a eab raer- mtmd Otl~ b erd itateM OO++nbrrti an. Narrns: ~~~ ~ r-- )~L =~ ~~/,~}~~f ~ AAdtpi: 3Fa u.ify~•v~' 13 To: Nleyar Mid keiend CA1laYAI111M1 Ogiyn! AGI90f0 C,uamiN~ 8Fsve 8ladran CaurJknen Oaiak.khroon CaMK'~1afl TMfO ., f ,~~Gt yI~ ~.v~oNm fir-rte.. J"oy,~, c.,,~t~~_, ~~ f! C ~:, °7~A~.. ,_ ~