They're requesting $6.5M from DRCOG, the Denver Regional Council of Gov't, for 3 projects. They are a collaborative group who gets federal and state $$ for transportation projects.
Also asking for $1.5M from CDOT or RTD for one of the projects.
Those projects:
- 30th Street Preliminary Design (Arapahoe to Diagonal)
- Broadway + Table Mesa, Broadway + Regent - Transit Priority Intersections
- Baseline enhanced transit stops, bike lanes (30th to Foothills)
More details on each:
30th Street
A 2.5-mile stretch that connects two important Bus Rapid Transit corridors (CO 119 to Longmont and CO 7 to I-25)
Average Daily Traffic greater than 20,000
On DRCOG’s High Injury Network and Critical Corridor
$1M total project cost (for prelim and final design for bike facilities, transit stops)
- $800K requested from DRCOG
- $200K in local funding match
Broadway intersections (Table Mesa + Regent Drive)
Key transit corridor (last 4 miles of Flatiron Flyer, DASH)
Pre-pandemic, northbound carried 37 buses per hour during a.m. peak
But lots of congestion
Southbound: Transit travel times go from 11 min (off-peak) to 19 min (peak)
On-time performance falls from 85% to 70% in p.m. peak
Project will improve 1 intersection to give transit priority and study the feasibility of lane conversion between Table Mesa and 18th Street, again for transit priority.
$4.8M total cost
- $2.46M requested from DRCOG
- $1.5M from CDOT or RTD
- $660K local match
Baseline improvements include:
- Raised median curb separators for protected bike lanes. Travel lanes are 12 feet and could be made skinnier to beef up 5-foot existing bike lanes
- Floating bus stops (on a little island with a bike lane behind it) - bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
- Consolidating bus stops: 0.8-mile stretch has 7 eastbound and 5 westbound stops. Will go to 3-4 in each direction
- Protected bicycle intersections (like at Mohawk Drive)
- Intersection improvements for peds: 30th St is among highest for ped/car collisions
$4M total project cost
- $3.2M requested from DRCOG
- $800K local match
Transportation Advisory Board approved submitting all of these projects.
They did NOT approve submitting this one:
28th St West Side Multi-Use Path (Jay Road - Fourmile Canyon Creek Bridge)
$3.5M cost ($2.8M from DRCOG, $700K local match)
TAB said it was was too expensive and did not benefit all modes of travel. Staff are recommending waiting until the *next* cycle to submit that one.
I should note that this whole process is called TIP: Transportation Improvement Program.
So DRCOG is the Who; TIP is the What
Boulder has been participating in TIP since it started; I wanna say the 90s, but I didn't write that down. (It's in the packet.)
Again, TIP is the primary way federal transportation $$ gets to local gov't. Flows through DRCOG.
100% certain I have accidentally typed DRDOG instead of COG at some point.
You'll recognize many of these projects, bc we got the $$ for them and they're underway now (or will be soon). bouldercolorado.gov/projects/trans…
Some of those are:
- 30th + Colorado bike/ped underpass
- North Broadway reconstruction (Violet to 36)
- 28th St improvements (Iris to Canyon)
- East Arapahoe multi-use path and transit stop enhancements
- Purchase of 6 electric buses, arriving in 2023
Benjamin: What's our typical track record with these TIP requests? How are we batting?
Gerrit Slatter, transportation projects engineer: We've averaged a 50-60% rate over the last few cycles.
Mayor Brockett, who I believe has served on DRCOG for at least a few years: We do better than most cities. Our staff does a great job.
Benjamin and Brockett are both pleased to see our new CAN approach reflected in these requests.
You can read more about that here (despite the funny headline, that's what this story is about): boulderbeat.news/2022/03/12/spe…
I have lost track of how many times council has talked about this. It's a plan for the future of East Boulder: How much housing we can do, where it can go, transportation amenities/facilities/plans, etc.
We had a joint public hearing with Planning Board on this... at some point. I no longer remember.
Planning Board had a couple of big suggestions for changes that we're gonna discuss tonight. Council AND PB have to agree on the exact same thing here.
Annexations have dif requirements for affordable housing. They have to provide more, via either building or cash-in-lieu, than already-in-the-city projects.
The thinking is: You're getting the benefit of city services, so give us the benefit of affordable housing.
Looks like we're adding some $$ to tackle councils' priorities, including housing/human services stuff and wildfire/disaster resilience.
It also includes $2M for more staff: 22.5 Full-Time Employees. The city is still short on workers.
More details on those:
HHS: $612,500
- $375K to rehab existing city facility for “homeless respite center”
- $40K for middle-income down payment assistance pilot
- $70K for 5-yr strategic plan for inclusionary housing
- $7,500 for survey for updating ADU regulations
Council might vote to call up (review) the Diagonal Plaza partial redevelopment again. They already dealt with this project by passing a special ordinance to allow more housing there.
Or you can read more about the plans here. They call for
282 dwellings and 22,917 square feet of ground-floor commercial space on the west and south sides, mostly parking lot today. The ex-Sports Authority and Walgreens are part of that.
Council's not talking about this until next week.
Tonight, we've got
- Vote on East Boulder Subcommunity Plan
- Some interesting development projects
- A quick COVID update
- Adjustments to the 2022 budget
This meeting was *supposed* to be in person, with the public back in chambers, too, but then council members got COVID after an in-person meeting. So we're back virtual.
BoCo has moved into "medium" levels of transmission, according to the CDC. We'll return to that later.
We've talked about this before. TL;DR is that there are First Amendment concerns, bc if someone does something obscene during a live video, staff would want to censor it, but bc it's a government, it's problematic. Or could be.
For this reason, in the past council has always said no to video testimony.