transportation advisory boardfiles.meetup.com/562910/111416 tab packet.pdf · railroad crossings at...

AGENDA - TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2016, 6:00 – 8:00 P.M.

TWIN SISTERS CONFERENCE ROOM, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CENTER 385 KIMBARK STREET, LONGMONT, CO 80501

TAB members - please contact Bob Ball at (303) 651-8323 or [email protected] if you cannot attend this meeting.

CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVE MINUTES OF PRECEDING MEETING – September 12, 2016 Meeting Minutes * COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF

• City Council Approved the 2017 Budget & Capital Improvement Program funding, which included Transportation projects, Free Bus Program, and 1st & Emery Intersection Improvements that were recommended by TAB. *

PUBLIC INVITED TO BE HEARD OLD BUSINESS

• Draft Longmont Sustainability Plan (Lisa Knoblauch) * NEW BUSINESS

• Transportation Safety Open Discussion (Mike Bell, Lauren Greenfield, Bob Ball, Phil Greenwald, Nick Wolfrum) *

COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTS FROM CITY COUNCIL LIAISON ITEMS FOR UPCOMING AGENDAS (Next scheduled meeting is December 12, 2016)

• RTD Update • 2017 TAB Work Plan

ADJOURN TAB Meeting *Attachments

IF YOU NEED SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT MELANIE ACKERMAN AT (303) 651-8309 PRIOR TO THE MEETING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS

mailto:[email protected]

ACTION MINUTES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD

September 19, 2016

1. CALL TO ORDER The September 19, 2016 Transportation Advisory Board meeting was called to order by Chairperson Bob Lee at 6:01 p.m. in the Twin Sisters Conference Room in the Development Services Center located at 385 Kimbark Street. 2. ROLL CALL Board Members present were: Bob Lee, Buzz Feldman, Gary Graca, Scott Conlin and Erin Hutchinson. Mike Jarvis and Michelle Wade-Mabie were absent. City staff present were: Bob Ball, Nick Wolfrum, Becky Doyle, Phil Greenwald, Micah Zogorski, Tom Street, Tyler Stamey and Recording Secretary, Melanie Ackerman. Council Liaison, Joan Peck, was also present. 3. APPROVE MINUTES OF PRECEDING MEETING CHAIRPERSON BOB LEE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 8, 2016 MEETING MINUTES AS WRITTEN. BUZZ FELDMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF

• None.

5. PUBLIC INVITED TO BE HEARD Chairperson Bob Lee opened public invited to be heard. Jared Hall of 2525 13th Street, Suite 303, in Boulder works with the Boulder County Transportation Department commented that TAB should highly consider continuing the Free Bus Program and urges TAB to consider Option 1, recommending that City Council include funding for the Free Bus Program in the 2017 Operating Budget. Barb Hau of 1379 Charles Drive, A-8, in Longmont wants to advocate for more signage and education regarding proper use of bike lanes. Ms. Hau states the bike lanes end about one block before some intersections such as Hover, Longs Peak and Kimbark. She sees a thru lane, a left-turn lane and a right-turn lane and the bike lane has disappeared. Ms. Hau makes the assumption that she needs to go into the correct traffic lane depending on what direction she is going. On Martin Street, she just noticed a sign that says “bike lane - traffic please yield to bikers” and the bike lane was dotted. She feels it gives traffic an opportunity to see cyclists. Ms. Hau would like to see more of this type of signage and more education for bicyclists. Chairperson Bob Lee closed the public invited to be heard.

6. NEW BUSINESS • 1st & Emery Intersection and Railroad Crossing (Tyler Stamey, Nick Wolfrum) (Project Information

& Recommendation to City Council) – Tyler Stamey presented a PowerPoint and discussed CIP project, TRP127, 1st Avenue and Emery Street Intersection Improvements. This project was identified to improve the existing at-grade rail crossing on Emery Street north of 1st Avenue. Improvements are to include updates to the rail track circuitry, adding crossing gates, and installing a traffic signal at the intersection. The improvements that would be installed would include the required supplemental safety measures to create a quiet zone at this railroad crossing, but because of the spacing of adjacent railroad crossings at Main Street, Kimbark Street and Terry Street, a quiet zone cannot be created until all of those crossings have quiet zone improvements installed. City Council requested that staff seek options of either proceeding with the improvements to this intersection, or as a second option, closing

Transportation Advisory Board September 19, 2016 Meeting Minutes Page 2

the railroad crossing and having Emery Street end in a cul-de-sac on the north side of the BNSF railroad tracks. Staff prepared information on the two options, of keeping the crossing open and closing the crossing to create a cul-de-sac and that information is presented on the City’s web site. Additionally, City staff sought public input during an Open House held on Monday September 12th and also received feedback from a web page on the 1st & Emery Intersection that was created on the City’s website in late August: http://longmontcolorado.gov/departments/departments-n-z/transportation-/capital-projects-road-bridge-construction/1st-emery-intersection. Between August 30 and September 13, an online comment system was open on the website to allow public input on this topic. Staff recommends Option 1 – Enhance intersection and keep it open. Move forward with planned intersection as identified in CIP TRP127, 1st Avenue and Emery Street Intersection Improvements.

BUZZ FELDMAN MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE OPTION 1. BOB LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

• Proposed 2017 – 2021 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Free Bus Program (Nick Wolfrum, Becky Doyle, Tom Street, Micah Zogorski, Phil Greenwald) – A PowerPoint was presented by Becky Doyle, Micah Zogorski, Tom Street and Nick Wolfrum detailing the funding, scope of work of funded projects and an overview of unfunded projects. CIP Recommendation Options for the TAB include: 1. Recommend City Council adopt the funding from the Street Fund as presented by staff in the Draft 2017 – 2021 CIP. 2. Recommend City Council adopt the funding from the Street Fund as presented by staff in the Draft 2017 – 2021 CIP with revisions recommended from the TAB. BOB LEE MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF THE CIP AS PRESENTED BY CITY STAFF. GARY GRACA SECONDED THE MOTION. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

• Free Bus Program – In addition to the 2017 – 2021 CIP, the option of continuing funding for the Free Bus Program will be presented to City Council. This funding is addressed in the Operating Budget, not in the Capital Improvement Program budget. The Regional Transportation District (RTD) has identified that the cost of continuing the program in 2017 will be approximately $275,000. We have no commitment from RTD at this time for long term costs, but staff assumes that those cost could increase over time. The question of whether the public would support a 0.14% sales tax increase to fund this service was included in the 2016 Customer Satisfaction Survey. The City will receive these results in October. Funding for this was not included in the Operating Budget that was presented to City Council for the Street Fund, but that option will be presented to Council at an upcoming meeting. The initial results from the 2016 Customer Satisfaction Survey are expected to be available for City Council review prior to final action on the Operating Budget. Free Bus Program Recommendation Options for the TAB include: 1. Recommend City Council include funding for the Free Bus Program in the 2017 Operating Budget. 2. Recommend City Council do not include funding for the Free Bus Program in the 2017 Operating Budget. 3. Other recommendations. GARY GRACA MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL TO INCLUDE FUNDING FOR FREE BUS SERVICE IN THE 2017 OPERATING BUDGET. SCOTT CONLIN SECONDED THE MOTION. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

7. OLD BUSINESS • None.

Transportation Advisory Board September 19, 2016 Meeting Minutes Page 3 8. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Scott Conlin stated that he feels there is a gap regarding sharing information to the public people about when things are opening and going on. He suggested putting more packaged information to the public. 9. COMMENTS FROM CITY COUNCIL LIAISON Council Liaison Peck wanted to make the Board aware that equipment doing work on the project on Airport Road and Dry Creek are blocking the bike lane. Ms. Peck also mentioned that VIA, Special Transit is requesting that council approve an increase of funding for Special Transit from $135K to $150K due to increased services in Longmont. 10. ITEMS FOR UPCOMING AGENDAS

• Bus Rapid Transit update • 1st & Main Transit Station update

THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 7:48 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Bob Lee TAB Chairperson /ma

Public Works & Natural Resources Engineering Services 385 Kimbark Street Longmont, CO 80501 (303) 651-8304 ∙ Fax (303) 651-8352 ∙ http://www.longmontcolorado.gov

Memorandum

TO: Mayor and City Council Members CC: Harold Dominguez, City Manager FROM: Dale Rademacher, General Manager Public Works & Natural Resources

Nick Wolfrum, Public Works & Natural Resources Director of Engineering Services Phil Greenwald, Transportation Planner

DATE: September 20, 2016 RE: Transportation Advisory Board Meeting Action on September 19, 2016 _______________________________________________________________________________________ At their September 19, 2016 meeting, the Transportation Advisory Board made the following recommendations to City Council: 1st Avenue & Emery Street Intersection Improvements (TRP127) Recommend City Council Enhance intersection and keep it open. Move forward with planned intersection as identified in CIP TRP127, 1st Avenue & Emery Street Intersection Improvements. Motion passed unanimously. 2017 – 2021 Capital Improvement Program Recommend City Council adopt the funding from the Street Fund as presented by staff in the Draft 2017 – 2021 CIP. Motion passed unanimously. Free Bus Program Recommend City Council include funding for the Free Bus Program in the 2017 Operating Budget. Motion passed unanimously.

Attachment H

S-55

TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD COMMUNICATION

Meeting Date: November 14, 2016 Subject: Draft Longmont Sustainability Plan Type of Item: Old Business Time for Presentation: 10 minutes Presented By: Lisa Knoblauch, Sustainability Coordinator Suggested Action: Board Recommendation and Endorsement to Council Staff will briefly present and answer questions about the Draft Longmont Sustainability Plan that was recently presented to you at our July meeting. Staff is requesting that the Board endorse this Sustainability Plan in advance of the November 29, 2016 City Council meeting, at which this Plan will be presented to Council. Attached is a copy of the Transportation portion of this Draft Sustainability Plan, and a Draft Board Endorsement letter for the Board’s consideration.

Transportation

OVERVIEWTransportation is the connector of a city, moving goods and people from one place to another. A sustainable transportation system is one that is accessible to all residents, reduces energy and resource use, and minimizes environmental impacts. In cities, transportation systems are becoming more integrated and multimodal to provide travel choices between bicycles, cars, pedestrian, rail and buses. This allows residents of all ages, abilities, and incomes to access services, shops, programs, leisure activities, and other daily needs.

When making transportation choices, active modes such as biking and walking where possible can have the greatest benefits for individual as well as community health. Furthermore, a sustainable transportation system supports community resiliency by providing options for mobility including alternative routes and options to get around during hazard events.

The economic implications of transportation are significant in Longmont. According to the Center for Neighborhood Technology Housing and Transportation Fact Sheet (H+T Fact Sheet), transportation accounted for 19% of a Longmont household’s income in 2015 and average annual transportation cost per household was $12,813. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recommends that no more than 15% of an individual or household’s income be spent on transportation.

Longmont’s plan for transportation systems includes a mix of transportation modes to enhance mobility and health benefits and also provides for affordable, accessible options while minimizing negative impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas and other transportation-related environmental impacts.

The following transportation priorities were identified to address in the Sustainability Plan:

• Air quality linkages• Transportation affordability and accessibility• Active transportation

Linking to Envision LongmontGuiding Principle Goals

GP2A complete, balanced and connected transportation system

2.1 Integrate land use and transportation planning to enhance to overall quality of life in the City.

2.2 Provide a transportation system that offers safe, healthy, and reliable mobility for people of all ages, income levels, and abilities.

2.3Enhance the transportation system in a manner that improves the economic vitality of the City, while being responsible stewards of limited resources.

GP4 Support a safe, healthy, and adaptable community

4.1 Support healthy and active lifestyles among residents of all ages.

4.3 Ensure residents have access to health and human services.

4.5 Minimize risks to property, infrastructure, and lives due to natural disasters and other natural or man-made hazards.

Related Topics

BE PART OF THE SOLUTION

Sustainable transportation solutions are generally better for your health as well as the environment. Some ways to take action include:• Walk, bike, skate, or scoot instead of driving• Take the bus or carpool when possible• Consider mix modes for travel such as walking

or biking to a Park-n-Ride to take public transit• Organize car trips around things located close to

each other• Purchase an electric or alternative fuel vehicle• Offer rides to friends and neighbors, especially

those who can’t drive• Advocate for increased transportation options

CITY IN ACTION

The City of Longmont has installed four publicly available electric vehicle charging stations including one fast charging station at the Longmont Museum. The City purchases and services a variety of compressed natural gas (CNG) and all electric fleet cars and service vehicles (including trash trucks, bucket trucks, and passenger vehicles). Many private businesses across Longmont have also installed electric vehicle charging stations.

The Ride Free program is jointly sponsored by the City of Longmont and Boulder County, and allows Longmont residents to access local bus routes operated by the Regional Transportation District (RTD) without payment or passes. This program has been well utilized, especially by low income residents, students, and elders in the Longmont community, and provides a means for people to access services, employment, and basic needs without having to find additional money to do so.

80 Transportation

ENVISION LONGMONT MULTIMODAL AND COMPREHENSIVE PLANThe Envision Longmont Multimodal and Comprehensive Plan, was developed to accommodate future growth and provide an integrated transportation system that offers residents, employees and visitors multiple means of efficient travel. Bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and automobile modes of travel are addressed, as well as travel demand management programs to reduce traffic congestion and support alternative modes.

Increasingly, attention is moving away from building new streets and looking at the full realm of transportation options as well as land use decisions to enable a better overall transportation system for mobility and accessibility.

REGIONAL TRAIL PLANNING AND CONNECTIONSWork and progress continues to be made towards developing Longmont’s trails and greenways as part of regional trail systems. The completion of the St. Vrain Greenway and the Spring Gulch #2 Greenway are the highest priority greenway projects in the Parks, Recreation and Trails Master Plan, as are numerous off-street trail connections. LoBo Regional Trail is a 12-mile partially constructed trail that will connect the trail systems in Gunbarrel, Niwot, City of Boulder Open Space, and County Open Space Properties connecting the City of Boulder with the City of Longmont. Longer term, the LoBo trail and the St. Vrain River Trail would connect to a larger effort to create a Colorado Front Range Trail connecting the New Mexico border to Wyoming.

COMMUNITY IN ACTION

Saint Vrain Safe Routes to SchoolSt. Vrain Safe Routes to School is made available with the support and collaboration of LiveWell Longmont, the City of Longmont, Colorado Department of Transportation, Boulder County and the Safe Routes to School National Partnership.

St. Vrain Safe Routes to School programs have a presence in most elementary schools in Longmont. The program encourages and enables children to walk or bike to school each and every day, introducing healthy habits, and bringing a greater number of smiles to classrooms throughout the community.

Objective: Invest in an efficient transportation system that enhances mobility, equitably supports multiple modes of transportation, reduces environmental impacts, and supports a healthier community.

TargetsAddress service and infrastructure gaps to increase transit and active transportation options, with a focus on underserved communities

Improve air quality related to transportation systems (baseline to be defined)

Reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions (baseline to be defined through greenhouse gas inventory)

CITY IN ACTION

In 2012, the City of Longmont launched an employee bike share program as part of the City’s wellness program to promote active transportation options to employees during the work day. There are currently 13 bikes stationed at six of the City’s campuses. Each bike is equipped with a helmet, basket, lock, bell, light, and odometer. The City is also exploring a community bike share program.

The City of Longmont, in coordination with regional partners, is currently studying bus rapid transit service along the Diagonal Highway (SH-119) from Boulder to Longmont, and along the US-287 corridor.

81

StrategiesImmediate

T-1: EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE FUNDING STREAMS TO CONTINUE THE RIDE FREE TRANSIT PROGRAMThis strategy focuses on identifying funding options to continue the Ride Free bus transit program to help reduce annual transportation costs for Longmont households.How

• Explore additional funding streams (e.g., grants, advertising, sponsorships, partnerships) to support continuation of the program

• Secure funding for at least two more years of operation of the current program• Expand services and include free options or alternative ride sharing if Ride Free is unavailable

WhoLead: Planning and Development ServicesSupport:

• Public Works and Natural Resources • Community Services• Finance

ResourcesNeeds funding:

• Ride Free transit program funding

Near-term

T-2: COORDINATE WITH RTD TO EXPAND SERVICE AND HOURS TO KEY COMMUNITY LOCATIONS Community members routinely suggest improvements to expand or refine transit service in Longmont, such as extended hours to certain destinations (e.g., evening service to Front Range Community College), new routes to serve high-demand areas, and commuter rail. While Longmont is not the transit service provider, this strategy focuses on coordination with the Regional Transportation District (RTD) to better understand needs and prioritize service improvements.How

• Survey the community about priority schedule/service expansion needs• Review existing service schedules and routes and develop a prioritized list of changes for RTD

consideration• Work with RTD to review priority list and determine next steps

WhoLead: Planning and Development ServicesSupport:

• Community Services• Regional Transportation District (RTD)• Public Works and Natural Resources

ResourcesLikely accomplished with existing resources:

• Community surveying and prioritization• Coordination with RTD

82 Transportation

T-3: DEVELOP A FLEET EFFICIENCY AND ALTERNATIVE FUELS PLANThis strategy is for the City of Longmont to continue to incorporate more efficient and alternative fuel vehicles into its fleet, develop supporting infrastructure, and model the way for other large institutions and the public to transition to these vehicles over time.How

• Partner with Clean Cities Coalition to develop a plan to support increased use of electric and alternative fuel vehicles throughout the community including City fleet vehicles and other large vehicle fleets (e.g., school district)

• Review fleet purchasing practices and vehicle replacement plan to ensure continued integration of electric/compressed natural gas (CNG) or other alternative fuel vehicles

• Install a CNG fueling station as an opportunity to use a waste stream and switch to a cleaner source of fuel for sanitation and other fleet vehicles

• Coordinate with other organizations with large fleets to review purchasing practices and vehicle replacement plans to increase adoption of electric and alternative fuel vehicles

WhoLead: FleetSupport:

• Public Works and Natural Resources (Transportation, Environmental Services)• Shared Services• Clean Cities Coalition• Saint Vrain Valley School District• Regional Transportation District• Regional Air Quality Council

ResourcesLikely accomplished with existing resources:

• Staffing for plan development

T-4: COORDINATE WITH REGIONAL PARTNERS ON PUBLICIZING CAR/VAN POOLINGAccording to the 2014 American Community Survey, only 13% of Longmont workers carpool to work and 73% drive alone. Across the region, car and van pooling and shared vehicle service options continue to grow, and this strategy focuses on sharing latest options and information with commuters to continue to increase participation in these activities.How

• Research how other cities and transportation authorities are partnering together on car and van pooling programs and communications

• Develop informational resources to publicize latest optionsWhoLead: Planning and Development Services Support:

• Regional Transportation District• Regional Air Quality Council• Major employers• Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG)• Public Works and Natural Resources (Environmental Services)


• Staffing for coordination and communications (estimated at 0.1 FTE)

83

T-5: SUPPORT GROWTH IN ACTIVE TRANSPORTATIONAccording to the 2014 American Community Survey, only 2% of Longmont workers walk to work, and less than 1% bike to work. This strategy focuses on continuing to expand options for and infrastructure to support active transportation modes such as bicycling and walking. It includes promotion of programs such as Safe Routes to School, Bike to Work, following safety best management practices, and expanding amenities for active transportation users such as storage and shower facilities. Promoting active transportation has profound public health impacts through increased physical activity, as well as reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.How

• Coordinate with existing groups and efforts to review priority needs and program expansion plans• Develop informational resources and encourage employers to provide supporting facilities (e.g.,

showers and bike storage)WhoLead: Planning and Development Services and Public Works and Natural Resources (Environmental Services, Planning and Development Services)Support:

• Safe Routes to School• Local bicycle groups• Major employers• LiveWell Longmont• St. Vrain Valley School District


• Infrastructure improvements on public property• Staffing for expanded program offerings and/or materials (estimated at 0.25 FTE)

Likely accomplished with existing resources:• Staffing for coordination and communications

Mid-term

T-6: AUDIT ALL TRANSIT STOPS TO EVALUATE ACCOMMODATION NEEDS OF ALL RESIDENTS AND PRIORITIZE IMPROVEMENTSBuilding on the first and last mile connections and complete streets that are specified in the Envision Longmont Multimodal and Comprehensive Plan, this strategy focuses on identifying gaps and enhancing the accommodations at transit stops to support transit use, with particular focus on prioritizing improvements for under-served areas and populations.How

• Work with neighborhood groups to complete a detailed inventory of all transit stops and assessment of accommodation needs (e.g., lighting, benches, shelters, signage, ADA accessibility, and restrooms when possible)

• Based on the inventory and assessment, categorize the transit stops into classifications of good, fair, poor (or similar ranking system)

• Integrate the findings of the audit and priority improvements into future Transit Improvement Plan updates

Who

84 Transportation

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATIONActive transportation includes walking, bicycling, and other human-powered modes of travel (e.g., skateboarding, scooters, etc.). According to the Partnership for Active Transportation, communities that prioritize active transportation tend to be healthier by enabling residents to be more physically active in their daily routines and by having cleaner air to breathe. Active transportation systems also foster economic health by creating dynamic, connected communities with a high quality of life that catalyzes small business development, increases property values, sparks tourism, and encourages corporate investment that attracts a talented, highly educated workforce.

AGE WELL BOULDER COUNTYCompleted in 2010, Age Well Boulder County encourages and enables all to age well in Boulder County. Transportation is one goal identified in the plan to improve, specifically in the areas of: affordability, accessibility, flexibility, reliability, safety, and ease to arrange.

Several recommendations are made to achieve this goal including programs to improve safe driving; providing an interconnected, countywide system of transportation services; customer-friendly scheduling; and a comprehensive review of all transportation resources and needs.

These recommendations related to transportation improvements, however, are not unique to Longmont’s older adult demographic. Many residents in Longmont would greatly benefit from transportation improvements, particularly in the area of accessibility and affordability. Each of the recommendations represent a challenge and opportunity for creating and sustaining a vibrant, healthy community for all.

Lead: Planning and Development Services Support:

• Community Services • Neighborhood Group Leaders Association• Public Works and Natural Resources (Environmental Services)• RTD


• Staffing to support audit documentation and assessment (estimated at 0.25 FTE)

Likely accomplished with existing resources:• Neighborhood group engagement and training• Staffing for coordination with the Transit Improvement Plan

Future Areas of Emphasis• Car sharing options and program expansion• Ride-share information consolidation• Providing a local transit system or circulator• Bicycle share programs• Northern region bus transit system• Expanded network of snow routes for bikes• Other power-driven mobility devices (OPDMDs)

85

TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD ENDORSEMENT FOR SUSTAINABILITY PLAN

TO: City Council

FROM: Transportation Advisory Board

RE: Sustainability Plan recommendations

DATE: October 6, 2016

The Transportation Advisory Board has been a key stakeholder in the development of Longmont's Sustainability Plan as a member of the Sustainability Advisory Committee, providing input throughout the development of the draft plan to ensure alignment with the recently adopted Multi-Modal Transportation Plan, as well as TAB priorities and goals.

The TAB endorses Longmont's Sustainability Plan as a guiding document to help create a more sustainable community that promotes and invests in an efficient transportation system that enhances mobility, equitably supports multiple modes of transportation, reduces environmental impacts, and supports a healthier community.

The TAB recommends adoption of the Sustainability Plan and looks forward to continued collaboration in the implementation of the Plan.

Sincerely,

Bob Lee

Transportation Advisory Board Chair


Meeting Date: November 14, 2016 Subject: Transportation Safety Open Discussion Type of Item: New Business Time for Discussion: 45 minutes Presented By: Mike Bell, Police Sergeant Lauren Greenfield, Traffic Safety Coordinator Phil Greenwald, Transportation Planner Bob Ball, Traffic Engineering Administrator Nick Wolfrum, PWNR Director of Engineering Services Suggested Action: No Action This is planned to be an open discussion of Transportation Safety topics and issues, where Board members can ask questions and discuss topics of interest. Officer Mike Bell and Lauren Greenfield will also be present to answer questions and participate in the discussion. Staff does not have a formal presentation, so after a brief introduction Board members can ask questions of staff or raise topics of interest for staff and Board members to discuss. Attached is copy of the 2011-2015 High Crash Location Summary that staff presented to the Board at our April meeting. There is no action requested.


Meeting Date: April 11, 2016 Subject: 2011-2015 High Crash Location Summary Type of Item: New Business Time for Presentation: 20 min Presented By: Bob Ball, Traffic Engineer, 303-651-8323 Suggested Action: Staff summary and discussion – No Action INTRODUCTION PWNR staff maintains a database of traffic crash records for crashes on City public streets reported by the Longmont Police Department. This database includes over 46,000 crashes dating back to 1990. PWNR staff reviews these records to ensure that data is as complete, accurate and consistent as possible before entry into the database. Staff will present this information and respond to questions or comments. OVERALL CRASH TRENDS Figure 1 summarizes crashes by year and severity in Longmont from 1990-2015. In 2015 there were 2,230 crashes, which is the most crashes in one year in Longmont. Higher crash levels in the past 3 years have followed some of our lowest crash levels ever in the preceding years. Fatal crashes have been increasing statewide and nationally as well. In 2015, Colorado fatal crashes increased about 13%, and nationwide fatal crashes increased about 9%. These fatal crash rate increases are consistent with Longmont’s 14% increase in total crashes in 2015. Following are some likely factors for crash increases in the past few years:

• Improved economy, lower gas prices • Increased driving

o Boulder County Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) increased 4.3% in 2014 o Colorado VMT increased 5% in 2014 o National VMT increased 3.5% in 2015 o Estimated Longmont VMT increased 3.8% in 2015

• More weather (snow, ice) related crashes in Longmont • Increased road / utility work along roadways (XCEL Gas along Airport Rd, Ken Pratt Blvd,

other locations, City along Ken Pratt Blvd and other locations, Mall along Hover Street) National crash data has shown a direct relationship between traffic fatalities and:

a) economic vitality - crashes have decreased during the past 3 recessions, and b) fuel prices - crashes have decreased in years when gas cost more than $3 / gallon.

2011-2015 Longmont High Crash Location Summary April 11, 2016 Transportation Advisory Board meeting

page 2

Figure 2 summarizes crash rates, measured as crashes per 1,000 population in Longmont. In 2015 there were 24 crashes per 1,000 population, which is the highest crash rate since the 2005. The 2015 injury crash rate was 2.6 crashes per 1,000 population. These values have increased since a few years ago when we had our lowest crash rates for total crashes (2012) and injury crashes (2013).


page 3

BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, MOTORCYCLE CRASHES Figure 3 shows total and injury bicycle crashes reported by Longmont Police. Bicycle crashes have been higher the past two years, but have generally remained steady over the years with short term fluctuations. About half of reported bicycle crashes result in injury.

Figure 4 illustrates where bicycle crashes occurred during the past 5 year period from 2011 to 2015. Crashes are shown at the intersection nearest to the crash location, meaning mid-block bicycle crashes are shown at the nearest intersection. Main Street between 9th and 21st Avenue has the highest frequency of bicycle crashes. Bicycle crashes are otherwise fairly well distributed along other arterials and some collector streets.


page 4

Figure 5 shows total and injury pedestrian crashes reported by Longmont Police. Pedestrian crashes increased the past two years; 36 pedestrians were involved in crashes in 2015, which was the most in any one year in Longmont. Pedestrian crashes had been trending down since their previous peak in 2001. More than half of all crashes involving pedestrians result in injury. There were 3 pedestrian fatalities in 2015 after there were none the previous two years. Figure 6 illustrates where pedestrian crashes occurred during the past 5 years. Most pedestrian crashes occurred along arterials, especially along North Main Street. There were also several pedestrian crashes along collectors such as Mountain View Avenue, and a few along local streets.


page 5


page 6

Figure 7 shows total and injury motorcycle crashes in Longmont. Motorcycle crashes have been consistent over the past 5 years. Over half of all motorcycle crashes result in injury.

Figure 8 shows crash rates (by 1,000 Longmont population) for bicycle, pedestrian and motorcycle crashes. The bicycle crash rate is lower than during the 1990s, and has been relatively consistent since the year 2000. The pedestrian and motorcycle crash rates have had short term peaks and valleys, but overall they have also been relatively flat over the past 25 years that data is available.


page 7

OTHER CRASH FACTORS Figure 9 summarizes crashes that occur when road conditions are snowy / icy / slushy. The past two years there have been 294 and 271 crashes during snowy / icy conditions, which are two of the highest years since 1990. In many recent years there has been a good correlation between changes in total crashes and snowy / icy crashes. Longmont averages about 5 to 6 crashes per day, but it’s common to have 20 or more crashes on snowy / icy days.

Figure 10 shows the number of young and old drivers involved in a crash, though not necessarily at fault, that were either 18 years or younger, or 65 years or older. Crashes involving younger drivers have increased the past few years, but are still well below levels 10 to 25 years ago. Until the past few years, younger drivers had been involved in significantly fewer crashes in the past 10 years or so. Several safety laws aimed at younger drivers, including Graduated Driver Licensing laws in 2002, have been introduced recently in Colorado:

• Teens with instruction permits supervised 12+ months (50+ hours driving time) • No driving midnight-5:00am for most young drivers during first year of license • Passenger limits for younger inexperienced drivers • Cell phone usage prohibited for drivers under 18 years • Zero tolerance for drinking & driving • Seatbelts required for all occupants under 18 years

The number of elderly (65+ years) drivers involved in crashes has increased in recent years, including a record high of 409 crashes in 2015. Elderly were involved in over 18% of all crashes in 2015, compared with less than 9% in 1990.


page 8

Figure 11 shows the number of crashes with a driver at fault that involved Driving Under the Influence (DUI) of alcohol / drugs, as well as drivers that were under medication, asleep, or fatigued. DUI crashes have been relatively consistent in recent years, and have generally been lower in the past 10 years. Crashes involving drivers under medication, asleep, or fatigued continue to steadily increase, reaching new highs in the past two years.


page 9

Figure 12 illustrates where crashes occurred that involved Drivers Under the Influence (DUI) of alcohol and/or drugs during the past 3 years. The highest frequency occurred along major arterials, especially some of our major intersections such as Ken Pratt Boulevard & Hover Street. There were also many DUI crashes scattered among Longmont’s collectors and local streets.


page 10

Figure 13 illustrates where crashes occurred because drivers ran Stop signs. In recent years we have installed about 25 oversized stop signs and stop bars for intersection approaches where we have had multiple crashes of this type. We will continue to evaluate these types of crashes and add oversized stop signs and stop bars where they occur.


page 11

Figure 14 illustrates where crashes occurred because drivers ran red lights at traffic signals. Most high frequency locations were along arterials, especially at busy intersections.


page 12

Figure 15 shows the number of crashes with a driver at fault that involved Distracted Drivers since 1990. Distracted driver crashes have generally been higher since since 2007, and have steadily increased during the past three years.


page 13

HIGH CRASH LOCATIONS This review of crash data helps identify locations with a relatively high number of crashes. These locations can then be further evaluated and targeted for improvements. The following methodology is used to identify high crash locations:

• Compile all reported crashes on public streets during the years 2011-2015, • Separate intersection related crashes from non-intersection crashes, • Stratify into Classes based on signalization and volumes (Intersection Crashes), or average

daily traffic volumes (ADT) and Facility Type (Non-Intersection Crashes), • Calculate Composite Crash Index based on Crash Frequency (# crashes), Crash Rate

(crashes per volume/vehicle miles of travel), and Weighted Crash Rate (Crash Rate weighted by crash severity)

High crash locations have a Composite Crash Index greater than 1.0, which means that intersection or street section has a significantly higher crash index than average for their respective Class. All indexes (Composite Crash, Crash Frequency, Crash Rate, and Weighted Crash Rate) greater than 1.0 are shown in bold. Intersection Crashes Intersection crashes are directly related to an intersection, regardless of where the crash occurs. For example, if a rear end crash occurs 500 feet from a signalized intersection between two cars at the back of the queue, that crash would be considered an intersection crash. Similarly, a sideswipe crash that occurs at an intersection might not be considered an intersection crash. When intersection traffic control, intersection geometry, or intersecting traffic movements contributed to the crash, then the crash is identified as an intersection crash. Table 1 lists high crash intersections with a Composite Crash Index greater than 1.0, based on 2011-2015 crash data. Most of the signalized high crash intersections are at high volume arterial / arterial intersections, with congestion and queueing contributing to the high number of crashes.


page 14

Intersection

Entering Daily

Volume (veh/day in 000s)

Total (All)

Property Damage

OnlyPossible

Injury

Evident Non-Incap Injury

Incap Injury Fatal

Crash Frequency

Index

Crash Rate

Index

Weighted Crash Rate Index

Composite Crash Index

Hwy 119 & Main St 66.1 301 222 62 12 5 0 9.45 2.05 1.89 3.47Hover St & Hwy 119 64.3 246 175 59 7 5 0 7.73 1.72 1.63 2.88Hover St & Nelson Rd 52.4 167 123 32 7 5 0 5.24 1.40 1.35 2.15Hwy 119 & Pratt Pk 47.3 152 111 33 6 2 0 4.77 1.40 1.30 2.0317th Av & Main St 47.2 148 109 27 7 4 1 4.65 1.37 1.36 2.02Main St & Pike Rd 30.5 104 63 19 12 10 0 3.27 1.41 1.90 1.98County Line Rd & Hwy 119 45.0 117 75 24 7 11 0 3.67 1.13 1.39 1.74Hwy 66 & Main St 48.4 127 93 22 7 5 0 3.99 1.14 1.15 1.71Emery St & Hwy 119 38.7 103 81 11 6 5 0 3.23 1.13 1.10 1.54Hwy 119 & Martin St 37.9 86 51 22 8 5 0 2.70 0.96 1.20 1.419th Av & Main St 44.5 93 61 25 3 4 0 2.92 0.90 0.97 1.33Bowen St & Hwy 119 46.0 94 61 25 6 2 0 2.95 0.89 0.95 1.3217th Av & Hover St 43.6 89 59 18 7 5 0 2.80 0.88 1.01 1.32Main St & Mountain View Av 38.1 75 45 15 11 4 0 2.36 0.84 1.08 1.249th Av & Hover St 52.4 88 51 23 9 4 1 2.76 0.74 0.96 1.23Clover Basin Dr & Hover St 45.1 80 52 21 3 4 0 2.51 0.77 0.84 1.153rd Av & Main St 42.6 85 72 11 1 1 0 2.67 0.86 0.66 1.14Bent Way & Hover St 34.7 64 42 14 4 4 0 2.01 0.77 0.90 1.073rd Av & Hwy 119 37.4 69 54 11 2 2 0 2.17 0.78 0.70 1.03

9th Av & County Line Rd 9.9 30 18 10 1 0 1 0.94 1.35 1.60 1.379th Av & Pace St 16.1 37 19 9 3 6 0 1.16 1.13 1.69 1.369th Av & Francis St 16.4 39 24 11 3 1 0 1.22 1.18 1.27 1.223rd Av & Pace St 12.9 29 16 7 4 2 0 0.91 1.06 1.40 1.1617th Av & Francis St 21.6 38 22 5 5 6 0 1.19 0.92 1.32 1.14Francis St & Mountain View Av 16.4 29 16 4 8 1 0 0.91 0.87 1.21 1.02

3rd Av & Alpine St 16.9 21 10 2 4 4 1 0.66 1.96 4.02 2.529th Av & Martin St 16.4 21 15 6 0 0 0 0.66 2.00 1.78 1.65Clover Basin Dr & Dry Creek Dr 13.0 16 12 2 0 2 0 0.50 1.79 2.05 1.64Jersey Av & Main St 30.0 20 11 5 1 3 0 0.63 1.24 1.75 1.3218th Av & Hover St 20.7 21 20 1 0 0 0 0.66 1.70 1.04 1.23Grand Av & Main St 29.7 19 11 5 1 2 0 0.60 1.18 1.53 1.2117th Av & Harvard St 14.9 11 5 4 1 1 0 0.35 1.12 1.68 1.1917th Av & Terry St 16.4 12 7 2 2 1 0 0.38 1.15 1.62 1.189th Av & Deerwood Dr 13.0 9 5 1 1 2 0 0.28 1.01 1.74 1.153rd Av & Emery St 13.9 9 4 2 2 1 0 0.28 0.96 1.65 1.10

2nd Av & Pratt St 8.0 32 18 10 3 1 0 1.00 2.94 3.97 2.96Alpine St & Mountain View Av 9.0 29 18 4 2 5 0 0.91 2.46 3.91 2.735th Av & Lashley St 8.7 22 11 6 1 3 1 0.69 1.91 3.57 2.33Collyer St & Mountain View Av 10.7 27 18 6 0 3 0 0.85 2.02 2.60 2.022nd Av & Bowen St 4.3 13 7 3 3 0 0 0.41 1.82 2.78 1.9215th Av & Collyer St 5.0 15 9 4 1 1 0 0.47 1.91 2.66 1.92Collyer St & Longs Peak Av 3.9 15 13 1 1 0 0 0.47 2.22 2.00 1.78Clover Basin Dr & Fordham St 9.4 19 10 4 3 2 0 0.60 1.56 2.57 1.776th Av & Kimbark St 3.9 12 9 1 2 0 0 0.38 1.77 2.08 1.62Gay St & Mountain View Av 9.3 19 14 2 0 3 0 0.60 1.57 2.08 1.5819th Av & Terry St 5.2 12 8 2 2 0 0 0.38 1.47 1.86 1.4117th Av & Airport Rd 10.1 18 10 7 0 1 0 0.57 1.40 1.81 1.40Lefthand Dr & Sunset St 5.1 9 4 2 3 0 0 0.28 1.12 1.97 1.29Gay St & Longs Peak Av 4.0 8 4 3 0 1 0 0.25 1.17 1.87 1.2621st Av & Terry St 10.9 18 13 3 1 1 0 0.57 1.33 1.52 1.2523rd Av & Francis St 4.5 8 4 2 2 0 0 0.25 1.08 1.72 1.17Kimbark St & Longs Peak Av 5.2 9 6 2 0 1 0 0.28 1.11 1.48 1.0921st Av & Spencer St 7.2 11 7 2 2 0 0 0.35 1.09 1.42 1.07Monarch Dr & Mountain View Av 3.4 4 1 1 0 2 0 0.13 0.65 1.90 1.053rd Av & Bowen St 8.3 12 8 3 0 1 0 0.38 1.07 1.32 1.0315th Av & Gay St 3.4 6 4 0 2 0 0 0.19 0.98 1.48 1.02Emery St & Mountain View Av 8.0 9 4 2 2 1 0 0.28 0.83 1.53 1.00

8th Av & Rees Ct 0.2 4 4 0 0 0 0 0.13 1.98 1.63 1.475th Av & Bross St 1.0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0.06 0.44 2.38 1.14

TABLE 1 - High Crash Intersections by Class (2011-2015)

Intersection & Volume Crashes by Severity Crash Indexes

Class 1A - Signalized, Avg Daily Traffic 25,000+ veh / day

Class 1B - Signalized, Avg Daily Traffic < 25,000 veh / day

Class 4 - Unsignalized, Avg Daily Traffic < 3,000 veh / day

Class 3 - Unsignalized, Avg Daily Traffic 3,000 - 11,999 veh / day

Class 2 - Unsignalized, Avg Daily Traffic 12,000+ veh / day


page 15

Non-Intersection Crashes Non-intersection crashes are unrelated to intersections, again regardless of where the crash occurs. For example, a sideswipe crash might be non-intersection related even though it occurs in the vicinity of an intersection as long as the intersection did not play a role in the crash. Table 2 lists high crash (non-intersection) street sections with a Composite Crash Index greater than 1.0, based on 2011-2015 crash data. Main Street continues to have a high number of non-intersection crashes, comprising the majority of high crash locations for high volume Arterial roadways (Class 5).

2011-2015Location, Volume and Length

Street

Approx Length

of Section

Est. Average

Daily Traffic

(veh/day in 000s)

Total (All)

Property Damage

OnlyPossible

Injury

Evident Non-Incap Injury

Incap Injury Fatal

Crash Frequency

Index

Crash Rate

Index

Weighted Crash Rate Index

Composite Crash Index

MAIN ST 3RD - LONGS PK 0.48 25.5 146 126 11 7 2 0 5.24 3.51 2.96 3.64MAIN ST 15TH - 17TH 0.25 31.4 52 33 16 3 0 0 1.87 1.80 2.00 1.89MAIN ST 9TH - 15TH 0.77 32.3 83 58 14 7 4 0 2.98 1.10 1.25 1.53MAIN ST HWY 119 - 1ST 0.55 31.5 67 49 10 6 2 0 2.41 1.21 1.30 1.48HWY 119 BOWEN - MAIN 0.50 36.7 64 43 15 3 3 0 2.30 1.10 1.24 1.40HOVER ST NELSON - 3RD 1.01 41.4 94 62 21 5 6 0 3.37 0.79 0.92 1.36MAIN ST 1ST - 3RD 0.25 28.5 39 33 5 1 0 0 1.40 1.45 1.19 1.34HWY 119 NELSON - BOWEN 0.25 44.9 45 32 11 0 2 0 1.62 1.16 1.21 1.27MAIN ST 17TH - 19TH 0.25 30.8 31 19 9 2 1 0 1.11 1.09 1.33 1.19MAIN ST LONGS PK - 9TH 0.23 29.0 30 24 4 1 1 0 1.08 1.18 1.14 1.1517TH AV GAY - MAIN 0.42 15.8 29 21 6 2 0 0 1.04 1.15 1.17 1.1417TH AV MAIN - LASHLEY 0.74 15.6 43 36 5 1 1 0 1.54 1.09 0.95 1.12

COFFMAN ST 3RD - 9TH 0.70 6.7 33 28 5 0 0 0 1.18 1.76 1.50 1.543RD AV TERRY - MAIN 0.14 14.5 15 11 3 0 1 0 0.54 1.46 1.78 1.41LASHLEY ST 3RD - 9TH 0.70 9.5 27 22 4 0 1 0 0.97 1.10 1.08 1.079TH AV COLLYER - LASHLEY 0.51 12.9 20 10 5 3 2 0 0.72 0.82 1.43 1.04

KIMBARK ST 3RD - 9TH 0.71 3.2 43 34 3 4 1 1 1.54 2.16 2.99 2.3715TH AV MAIN - COLLYER 0.25 2.0 9 8 0 0 1 0 0.32 1.33 1.69 1.27LONGS PEAK AV MARTIN - ALPINE 0.53 0.7 8 7 1 0 0 0 0.29 1.47 1.41 1.21BENT WAY DRY CREEK - HOVER 0.09 2.9 6 5 1 0 0 0 0.22 1.31 1.36 1.11COLLYER ST 3RD - 9TH 0.70 1.7 13 10 2 1 0 0 0.47 1.05 1.26 1.02

Class 6 - Non-Intersection, Remaining Arterials & Collectors w/ Avg Daily Traffic 6,000-13,999 veh / day

Class 7 - Non-Intersection, Collectors with Avg Daily Traffic < 6,000

TABLE 2 - Non-Intersection High Crash Locations by Class

Crashes by Severity Crash Indexes

Class 5 - Non-Intersection, Avg Daily Traffic 14,000+ veh / day or Major Arterial


page 16

POTENTIAL SYSTEM WIDE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS There are relatively low cost improvements that can improve safety where a high number of various types of crashes occur. Following are some examples of improvements that staff will continue to evaluate and implement: Signs & Markings:

• Oversized Stop Signs & Stop Bars – fail to stop right angle crashes • Cross Traffic Does Not Stop Signs – fail to yield right angle crashes • Oversized Speed Limit Signs – speeding related crashes, or where speed limit is reduced • Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrian Signs – crashes involving turning vehicles and

pedestrians or bicycles in crosswalks at signalized intersections • Advance Intersection Signs – crashes at intersections along rural / higher speed roadways

Traffic Signals:

• Leading Pedestrian Interval – crashes involving turning vehicles and pedestrians or bicycles in crosswalks at signalized intersections; pedestrian WALK signal begins about 3 seconds before the side street green light for traffic

• Left Turn Phases – fail to yield right angle crashes, usually with high left turn / opposing thru volumes; implement protected - permissive left turn phases, change from protected – permissive to protected only left turn phases, or implement longer left turn green time

• Corridor signal timing – rear end or right angle crashes; evaluate offsets or other signal timing parameters to improve traffic progression and reduce sudden stops (rear end), or increase gaps along major corridors for side street traffic at unsignalized intersections between signals (right angle)

Fixed Object Crashes:

• Delineator signs on islands, poles, or signs – fixed object crashes involving raised islands, poles, or signs

• Restrict parking near intersection corners – fail to yield right angle crashes where driver visibility is limited by parked vehicles, or fixed object crashes where turning vehicles hit parked cars

transportation advisory boardfiles.meetup.com/562910/111416 tab packet.pdf · railroad crossings at...

Documents