September 11, 2023 — Transportation Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Read our rules for the meeting. Yeah. So thank you. Everyone for attending the Transportation Advisory Board meeting to strike a balance between meaningful, transparent engagement and online security. The following rules will be applied for this meeting. This meeting has been called to conduct the business of the city of Boulder activities that disrupt delay or otherwise interfere with the meeting are prohibited. The time for speaking or asking questions will be limited to 3 min. No person shall speak except when recognized by the person presiding, and no person shall speak for longer than the time allotted. Each person shall register to speak at the meeting, using that person's real name. No video will be permitted except for city officials, employees, and invited speakers or presenters. All others will participate by voice. Only person presiding at the meeting shall enforce these rules by meeting anyone who violates any rule. The Q. And a function is enabled, and it will be used for individuals to communicate with the host. It should only be used for technical online platform related questions, and only the host and individuals designated by the host will be permitted to share their screens during this meeting.

[1:17] Great thanks, Sydney. Next on the agenda we have approval of on the August minutes. Does anybody have any edits or comments on the August minutes. Alright, is there a motion to approve the minutes? Then I move to approve? Thanks, Jeannie. Second all in favor. Alright, by a unanimous vote. We approve the August minutes. Thank you. And then next up we have public comments. Those of you would like to speak. Please raise your virtual hand, and Sydney will call on you

[2:11] alright. It looks like when I'm going to unmute you, and you can unmute yourself. Why couldn't I get on? Why couldn't I get on? Can you hear me? Yes, yes, Blynn, we can hear you. Why could I not get on? I don't know if you're on. Now go ahead, go ahead, Lynn. but the question is, why could I not get on? We don't know. I had to go through, Browser. I had to go through a whole bunch of things. Why, that's taking away from my time right now.

[3:02] I guess it's nice you don't have to hear anything from me. But there are problems with your system. and I'm asking why I couldn't get on the the other city meetings. I click, and I'm on yours. It said, go to Browser, then go to another thing, then enter in this way. Why was that problem. Lynn? I'm sorry this is Tila. I'm not trying to interfere with your time, but we can hear you now. We're not aware of any problem hearing you. So go ahead. Yes, but I'm concerned about how I get on to the meetings. I'm more concerned about the process than I am about all the problems with congestion in Boulder and all the problems with the potholes and all the threats of me to my bike when when I'm 70 years old, and trying to drive around and go past the Whittier neighborhood, with with crossing streets all over the place, to get around all the construction all over town, and the huge paddles that are very dangerous to bikes. That's what I want to be talking about. But instead, I have to talk about the process. So how do I get on easily? Can you please help me.

[4:12] then, to not take away from your time? This is Natalie is simply the director of Transportation mobility. You can reach out to me directly after the meeting, and we can help troubleshoot for you. Let's just do it right now, Natalie. I don't know. I don't have the answer. I'm sorry. Well, I don't know, either, and I need to be able to get on to these meetings at Planning board last week I was 2 min late, and that cost me my open comment. So that's a problem for me. And I was able to get on. I just came in 2 min late and they hadn't played the stuff that warns people about how they need to testify first, or else I would have been able to get on, and could have been 2 min late.

[5:00] so this time I got here on time. But I can't get here. I can't get on the system. If it's something at my end. Tell me about it. I don't have time to deal with it net later, Natalie. I've got the siding falling off of my house. I've got plenty of other issues. and I'd like to be able to testify at Tab without interference from even being able to log on. So you listen to nothing. That's what you get from your public hope. You're happy. That's the leader of your chairman. Is there anyone else that would like to speak during public comment? I just would like to say, Thank you, Natalie, for offering to help those very kind of you.

[6:05] Thank you, Natalie, and thank you, Lynn. If we don't have anybody else. We will go ahead and move on to our next item on the agenda. right over on the other side. So our next item is, a staff update and have feedback on the Chatwa access management plan or camp ordinance updates. So I'll turn it over to Chris. Thank you. Need to. There we go. Thank you, Becky. My name is Chris Hagel. I'm principal planner with the Transportation and Mobility department here to give an update on the Chautauqua Access management program. I'm joined today by devin Johnson, of the Transportation Mobility Department, the Ops team

[7:14] and Sam Bromberg of community vitality. Francis Bolding. I'm not sure if she's on. She wasn't on when I just shared my screen, but she is also on the project management team from open space and mountain parks. I think it's very important to acknowledge. that this evaluation is a multi departmental effort under the amps, umbrella, or the access management and parking strategy umbrella of programs. which is a set of programs that that we do across the city with multiple departments to look at. How do we manage access and and develop innovative parking strategies? Amps is one of the the many guiding documents that affects our work. You've seen some recent projects under am, such as the performance based pricing and the curbside management program and camp is just another one of these projects. So just like to acknowledge the the great support we have from multiple departments across the city. On working on programs like that.

[8:20] I'd also like to acknowledge the support and guidance of our leadership team, our directors from open space Dan Burke, Natalie Stiffler, and also Valerie Watson from transportation, mobility and Chris Jones from community vitality. They've been integral throughout the the evaluation of providing guidance and support to the project team camp was initiated initially in 2,017, and really to manage parking demand around the Park, and how it affected the neighborhood to the North after the pilot year, and the first full year an ordinance will is created to run this program until 2023, and then Staff was directed by Council to reevaluate the program and and present a recommendation to council on whether or not to continue the camp program.

[9:19] The purpose of the evaluation project is to evaluate the camp program compared to the original goals of managing, parking demand and also improving liveability in the neighborhood. To the north the purpose is really to develop a staff recommendation based on data analysis and stakeholder input and provide those that recommendations to boards and ultimately city council on whether or not to continue the camp program. And if we are to continue the camp program, what changes or modifications could we make to that program? If we are asked to continue the program and directed by Council following our October study session. Then we will need to do some ordinance updates

[10:06] as well. Following those ordinance updates, the project team can work on developing an implementation framework based on council guidance and then also weave this into a larger, more holistic ongoing program of trail access management, which is yet again under the amps. Umbrella the camp program itself had many different elements in order to manage that demand and increase livability and it, it basically took place on the weekends and holidays between Memorial Day and Labor Day. And what we did is, we started to have manage and paid parking at Chautauqua. We established a neighborhood parking program in the North Chautauqua neighborhood because we're charging for parking the city also

[11:00] created a free shuttle system from remote lots in partnership with Bbsd, and see you we also had a great partnership with visit boulder formerly the the Boulder visitors and convention Bureau to run an ambassador program to help people coming to Chautauqua to deal with paying to Park, using the mobile apps how to use the shuttle, the regulations around it during Covid, everything. We owe a lot of gratitude to visit Boulder for helping make this program successful. We also developed a transportation demand program for the employers and employees that actually work at Chautauqua on a day to day basis. And and during the summer, during the camp season. You know, while I mentioned that this is a multi departmental effort, from community vitality, open space and transportation mobility. We also had a number of key stakeholders.

[12:00] Throughout the the years of this project, including the Colorado Chautauqua Association visit border, as I mentioned via mobility, who provides the shuttle service Cu and Vbsd, who provide the remote lots the residents of the neighborhood to the north, all the Park visitors, and then also those Chautauqua employees and employers from the various businesses there, and including city staff, who who work at the park as well. Basically what we've seen in terms of visitation to the Chautauqua trail heads is that it's been fairly stable since 2,019 and basically, what we do see is that between the months of April to October is where we see average daily visits of over a thousand people to the park. Of course, the highest months of visitation are under the current camp season from that Memorial day to Labor Day today. Most of the visitors that we're seeing as

[13:07] at the Chautauqua trailhead are residents of Boulder and the most frequent days of visitation are on Saturdays and Sundays to this day the majority of visitors do arrive by vehicle but we do have about one in 4 arrive by bike or by foot. The Park to Park Shuttle, which was the official name of the of the Free Shuttle. From the remote lots at Cu and Bbsd. We we saw a tremendous ridership at the at the beginning of the program that really was impacted by Covid. And we are starting to see it rise again after Covid. But we're still seeing that it's it's still about half of what it was in it in the early years of the camp program. So we're still seeing a rebound of the use of that shuttle over the same time. The shuttle operational cost increase by about 22, but because of some reductions and the rental cost

[14:10] of those remote lots. The overall cost of the camp project to operate has only really increased by 7 in terms of shuttle operation. In terms of parking management. We we saw many key findings just for a little background the the price for parking at Chautauqua and and in the neighborhood in the Npp is $22 and 50 cents per hour today we are seeing most people are using the park mobile app in general, we see the Ranger lot and the parking spaces along baseline completely fill. At most times during the camp season we see a lower utilization at the Chautauqua Green, and also at the clintock lots. Tila. Yes, you had a question.

[15:04] Yes, thank you, Chris. I was looking at the 2 50 an hour. I remember when we were after the first 2 or 3 years of this we were talking about maybe having parking at a lower base rate and then increasing it for longer stays. Was there a conscious decision to abandon that idea? And then is there through the park? Mobile is there and cut off period. Is there a maximum parking time? Yeah. I just answer the the latter part. There is no maximum part in time. People can park as long as they want. That was an issue we resolved very early on, because many of the climbing groups, as one example are, are there for long periods of time. So there is no time. Limitation. We did not. Over the course of the of the project. Change the parking in terms of any graduated pricing over time. Although one of the considerations, as you know from the memo, is that you know whether or not we should implement performance based pricing at Chautauqua to raise pricing on those higher, utilize things so that may be another path to the same thing to help better manage demand.

[16:20] You're welcome. typically, we see parking sessions last between 2 to 3 h. One thing that's important to note, and was in the memo is that the the parking revenue, which in the 2022 was $170,000 more than covers the cost of providing the shuttle operational service and the renting of the lots, and even covers the extra cost of enforcement. Because we are having people work on weekends and holidays. There is additional cost to that parking enforcement but we're pleased to to know that the the revenue from parking and from citations combined exceed the costs to operate the program

[17:06] in terms of the Nvp. In North Chautauqua the parking permits are $10 per camp season and then also starting in 2022 we also sold visitor permits to those residents for $5 each, as you can see the the resident permits, and visitor permits and declined a bit, but generally remained pretty stable in terms of utilization along baseline and along the the streets in the neighborhood that are directly across from the main entrance. That's where we see the highest utilization. During the camp season. But overall there is still availability during the camp season. on many of the blocks in the residential area. In terms of the Tdm programs we work with the the dining Hall and the Colorado Music Association and the Colorado Chicago Association themselves to develop some Tdm programs.

[18:10] There is. There are employer-provided parking passes, although the amount of parking available to employees at Chautauqua is is lower than the number of of employees that are typically working there on a weekend during the camp season. So we do see some people still parking in other areas, or using other modes of transportation. There were, in addition to the employer, provided parking passes, parking cash out, benefits were provided. Carpool benefits. A telework option and secure bicycle parking when meeting with the employers and talking through every employer said yes, camps should be continued. What they would like to see is that camp the camp season be extended in terms of the months and possibly days of operation. Most of all, I think they would really like to see direct transit access to Chautauqua, especially for their employees to provide them an alternative to having to arrive by automobile.

[19:15] They would also like to see some additional opportunities for for parking permits in the neighborhood for employees in general. They're very excited about some future developments in terms of micro mobility, access to Chautauqua in terms of employee travel behavior. just like in the city of Boulder. In general, less than half of the employees are boulder residents. We are seeing about half of the employees who work at Chautauqua. Do drive alone at about a quarter car pool. We do have some that also walk and bike. These are mostly musicians from the Colorado Music Festival, since they are housed with families oftentimes in nearby areas

[20:03] most who drive are able to to park it to talk with a parking pass. But there's still a quarter of those that drive that do park for free in the surrounding neighborhood, so meaning that they are parking beyond the neighborhood parking permit area. we we did do some questionnaires with the the residents of the Npp. Oh, sorry. Have that an Np, but it's Npp, basically. The respondents to the questionnaire said, yes, they do purchase permits. They in general find it easier to park, and that liveability has increased during the camp season. I think the issue they have is that outside of the camp season, really on those shoulders is where they see the issues of livability and and parking management's impacting them.

[21:07] And that that's because at the you know, outside that camp season is when it's a free for all for parking in those neighborhoods. So most would most of those residents want camp to continue and they also wanted to see it expanded in terms of the months of the year, and possibly even days of the week. Most mostly Friday is the big day, or any day that there's a major event at Chautauqua. They also would like to see more electric shuttles used in order to cut down noise within the neighborhood. Also half of the respondents that they'd be willing to pay more for their Mpp permits. If these changes could be made in terms of expanding the season and expanding the parking, the paid and parking enforcement period. We also did a general public questionnaire on be heard boulder, and we had QR. Codes throughout Chautauqua and on the shuttles and on the hop to Chautauqua, and so we did get a a number of respondents to that questionnaire most of the respondents to that questionnaire are residents of the city or the county and they generally come about 10 times a year to Chautauqua.

[22:22] a about half reported driving to Chautauqua in some way and 1718%. Used either the hop to Chautauqua or the Park to Park Shuttle, and I think the High. The high numbers of this is that the QR. Codes were in the shuttle. And so we had a lot of respondents who are actually sub shuttle users compared to the open space data that is looking at. Just all visitors in general those who responded to the general public questionnaire. Who who do drive most of them do park at Chautauqua or in the Mpp. And pay for parking but also a good portion of them also try and find free parking in their surrounding neighborhood. In general. Most people said that the the city charging for parking has not changed the frequency of their

[23:14] visitation. But there are a portion that say that they in general visits should talk with less. And typically, it's about the level of crowdedness and the difficulty in finding parking, not necessarily having to pay for it. In addition, those that use the shuttle rate it very highly in terms of the service. Most of the respondents did want to see the shuttle service expanded and the frequency of the shuttle service also improve, and the use of electric shuttles the Va. The very the vast majority of respondents also said that they want camp to continue but they would like to see some modifications the number one of providing direct transit access to Chautauqua, also expanding the camp season again to that April October timeframe using the electric shuttles and even thinking about possibly the Friday or event days as well for expanding service.

[24:14] We also worked with our race racial equity team throughout this whole evaluation process, working with that team and and getting input from our community connectors our surveys were available in English and Spanish, and we did some special outreach so to some different groups who are in the outdoors arena. We also have one more event, the fiesta festival del soul coming up where we're gonna continue to do some some outreach there at Chautauqua. The majority of of visitors who respond to the survey, who are non white our boulder residents. They generally come 2 to 5 times a year. The majority do arrive in car and mostly in groups. It's a group activity. And about one in 5, said, they haven't used the park to park or hop to Chautauqua shuttle at some point.

[25:14] Really, the having to pay for parking has has not in general impacted the frequency of their visitations. Again, like the general public survey, it is crowds, and the difficulty in finding parking, not necessarily having to pay for it. There is a high desire to continue camp, and again the central themes of expanding camp by month and providing direct transit service. They were also very keen on providing micro mobility access via b-cycle or line scooters. So that kind of goes over kind of the data and the input that we received from our stakeholders and from our questionnaires. So based on that input and the data analysis staff, you know, essentially comes up with 2 scenarios. One is discontinue camp, the other is to continue camp with some of the anticipated changes that we see that we we know that are gonna happen. And then, with some possible minor modifications the staff recommendation is to continue camp knowing that we're gonna have some of these anticipate changes.

[26:22] And then we would certainly like the Board's input and ultimately, Council's input on some of these possible modifications. In terms of those anticipated changes we're looking at providing lime, scooter access and dedicated line scooter parking Aka line groves at Chautauqua. I think we have one area identified right now for a line growth, but we probably think we need at least 2 we are looking forward to a permanent B cycle station at Chautauqua, one that is by located by the dining hall was recently approved by landmarks. So we're just gonna work with B cycle on getting that station up and running. We also may consider some changes to the hop to Chautauqua route. Given that we've had some interesting developments that may wanna

[27:10] we may want to hit, such as like the CPU hotel and conference center. There we will be doing some updates to the parking signage to to improve clarity as well. And then we do have another issue that we may have to deal with. And that is that there is some construction at New Vista High School that is scheduled for 2024, which may impact our access to to them. something we've been eye on and and continue to work with our partners over the Thebsd. Some of the possible modifications to the program that we could consider as we move forward with camp is the pricing. Well, this is similar to what we are doing in our other managed parking areas. We're based on parking utilization

[28:05] raised in increments of 50 cents. In those highest demand areas we also are looking at of being a commuter. Permit parking program for employees in the North Chautauqua neighborhood given that many of the blocks are under utilized during the camp and provide some closer parking for those employees that do have to drive. since there really is no direct transit access and top poverty makes it difficult and challenging for some to reach it by other modes than driving one of the other interesting things we could do, knowing that we have revenue that exceeds our operational cost is, how can we reinvest that revenue into some additional Tdm benefits for those Chautauqua employees.

[29:01] One of the the larger questions that we have is kind of beyond moving beyond the current camp model and doing research on. how how can we, under kind of a trailhead access management program and the amps umbrella, look at a new way of providing access to Chautauqua. That goes beyond that park and ride model. Essentially the park and ride model and the use of the Cu and Bbsd lots. Kind of put some constraints on us on our ability to expand the camp season by month or by day of year. While we have access to those lots during the the summer time on the weekends having access to those lots, or is gonna be difficult if we were to gonna try to expand. So one of the ideas that staff would like to get the Board's input on is basically giving support for a future project to really do a feasibility study moving beyond that park and rattle model. And how can we provide direct transit or micro transit access to Chautauqua? This would enable us to expand the camp season and our parking management strategies

[30:19] and to possibly serve more destinations we see trailhead access as as a new work program within and and partnered possible in partnership with Boulder County. They also already are running the elder shuttle and the Hesse shuttle. So how could we work with them and coordinate with them to create this more holistic program to provide direct transit access. we also wanna look at the use of the parking and citation revenue to fund this micro transit efforts. So we would really need to connect conduct conduct. A larger financial analysis. Really, looking at the

[31:09] is any cause? Everyone's? Are we good? You were frozen for me for a second. Oh, for a couple of minutes. Should I start back at this slide it? I think you're on. You got you got to more destination, more destinations. You covered that. Yeah. Okay. So I think I was, I was, gonna talk about the the the use of the parking and citation revenue to fund this new model of direct micro transit service. We know, if we currently the parking revenue exceeds the operational cost. If we were to expand it, that means there would be additional revenue but we'd have to do a feasibility study to see, what type of direct micro transit or transit service we could provide to Chautauqua and have it paid, be paid for through that parking revenue.

[32:17] There's also been a lot of interest in expanding shuttle service to flags at that, concludes my presentation. So in general, what staff is requesting from tab is feedback on the camp program in terms of staff recommendation to continue camp knowing that there are some anticipated changes and some potential modifications to the program and the future analysis to move beyond the park and bride model as well. So we're

[33:00] essentially, as on the recommendation to continue. and also to do future work, to have a holistic feasibility study looking at providing direct transit. Access to Chicago. Thank you. Great thanks, Chris. Tila, do you have a question or feedback? Thank you, Becky. Yeah. Chris, this is lovely. I'm really happy to see that every time we come back and study camp we are getting more and more positive feedback. particularly from the residents, but also this time seems much more from the users that people are finding it. Feasible, usable. Helpful. I love the data that people are doing it in groups as a group activity. One question I had was when residents were in the area in the camp area we're supporting.

[34:05] continuing and saying that they would potentially pay more if we did. XYZ. And all the XY. Z's made sense to me. What are they paying now? And do we have a sense of how much more they would want to pay or be willing to pay. Yeah. So right now they are paying $10 for the camp season for their permit. Freaking bargain. Go ahead, Chris. Yeah. So so it is just $10. We did not. Darn. I've lost you. I ask you. can you hear me now I can hear you now. You did not advertise. Maybe you did not. We did not ask them if

[35:00] or or how much more they would be willing to pay, would they be willing to pay more? That's perfectly fair. And then, in terms of expanding one question that I had kind of looking at this ahead of time. I know that we had to do camp on. It's not quite emergency, but there was some like temporary alterations to the city code about parking near trailheads. Because, you know, 30 years ago, roughly, and a different kind of line of thinking ago. a City Council decades ago said, but kind of made a decision that people should not be charged for accessing these public lands. and I definitely understand the rationale behind that. But at the same time we, in the meantime, as a a society, have learned that people who parked for free

[36:06] are imposing a kind of cost to society that perhaps can be reflected in this kind of short term. Parking access that camp represents. And so I guess my other question is. has the relative success, popularity, and support of Camp made staff and or council, and or the City managers office more amenable to parking. pricing for access around trail heads in places other than Camp bearing in mind that Chautauqua is by and large the biggest one. But last time we talked about this we also talked about senitis, and there are other ones. There's Flagstaff. There's no places so has Staff learned enough to sort of in in

[37:01] advise, counsel, or advise the city manager's office that we ought to be looking at better parking, pricing, and parking management at other trailheads. Yeah, well, I think that would be part of. You know this kind of new program of the Trailhead access management program under the amps of taking that holistic look. I would say that from, you know, Staff's perspective, that we see that charging for parking is an effective means of managing demand. You know we have not gotten. I don't think direct communication from from council or the city manager's office, of of their desire to continue that or to expand that. But I think this is kind of the purpose of this evaluation is to for staff just to recommend to them that yes, this is an effective means of managing demand. We also heard from the public that having to pay for parking is not

[38:05] You know what impacts their frequency of visitation, the being too crowded and the difficulty in finding parking, not paying for it. So I think that also shows support for that. But but I'm not aware of any, you know conversations at the higher level about about it, but that certainly will be, you know, part of the study session with Council in October is demonstrating the effectiveness of of charging for parking to manage demand terrific. Thank you. thanks, Tila Ryan. I saw your hand next. Thanks, Becky. I have a couple of questions and comments. Should I do all of that together, or should I just do the questions? First questions my questions, and then make my comments? Are we just doing questions?

[39:04] II think we can do both. Since this is an item we vote on. Is that right? Meredith, does it? Okay? Yeah, I think you? Okay. Great. I'll fine. I'll I'll just proceed. I have 2 questions, Chris. Thanks. This is this is great, and it's exciting. I have 2 questions you mentioned early on in the slides. Something about ordinance changes that you'd be potentially presuming ordinance changes. Can you see more? Say more about that? What would they be sure, so essentially the the ordinance that would need to be updated is the ordinance that allows us to manage and charge for parking at Chautauqua. It is what we would need to update in terms of the ordinance itself is really eliminating the the sunset date. So our recommend the recommendation from our city attorney's office would to have no sunset date. If Council directs us to continue camp. It would be.

[40:05] he continued, and there there wouldn't be another sunset and another evaluation that we would have to go through instead. It would just happen in perpetuity until they, you know, chose to chose to do it. Most of the operational details of camp really occur in the city manager rules in terms of you know what are actually the components that we're providing since the ordinance is really focused on the parking management at Chautauqua and the and the charging for parking. Great. Okay, thank you. And then my second question is, I think I'm a big fan of of going forward and expanding, but I'd like to ask to be thorough. On the recommendation, the staff recommendation to continue can you just give some kind of a sort of plus minus pros and cons like. What would. What would you know if if what would the case, for example, of of not going forward? Discontinue? Yeah, II think if if we were to discontinue this program. I think.

[41:14] ending having to pay to park in both at both Chautauqua and the neighborhood would have significant negative impacts at Chautauqua in the neighborhood in terms of of the the demand for parking and that's what really created the liveability issues and the issues, for you know the people who work at Chautauqua as well. That called for camp. In the first place, it it ultimately was, how do we manage demand to to in increase live ability in the area because of the the number of vehicle trips that were being generated. And so I think if we discontinued it, we're gonna see that parking demand increase and increase, and we'll have the the liveability issues in the neighborhood. So I think that would be the number one impact that we'd see. We'd be right back to where we were in (272) 016-2017, when we started trying to address that issue.

[42:18] Thank you for that. And then a follow up question by Tila in the chat is can you just say more about the sunset day. Wh, what does that mean? And then let's see. So it the the current ordinance says that the Chautauqua program, if we don't do anything the Chautauqua program would end at the end of this year. The ordinances that allow us to charge for parking at the Park sunset on December 30, first 2023. So the the actual ordinance change. If if Council directs us to continue camp, the actual ordinance change is fairly straightforward and simple. It's it's really getting rid of the sunset date and then, in terms of any operational changes we would make based on some of those, you know, anticipated changes and the potential modifications. That's where you know that those changes would occur in the city manager rules.

[43:18] Thank you, Chris Tia, are you satisfied? Or do you want to add up? Go ahead. Well, I just wanted to point out I absolutely everything Chris said was correct. It's just that, because there's sort of a baseline assumption in our like municipal ordinances that the public has free, open, unfettered access to areas around specifically around trailheads. That camp was enacted and had been re authorized, I think twice. So it was like a pilot program, and then a pilot program, and then a pilot program. I think this is, it's third iteration, but because it was always a pilot program, with an exception to that kind of like, everybody can drive up for free and park as close as they possibly can.

[44:09] it was enacted as like a test pilot that had an end date. And so what Chris is saying is that the staff recommendation is to say this is successful enough. that we don't have to treat it as a pilot anymore, and that's why he's saying we would just remove the the sunset. That was if that's the period at which the pilot would end. And so it seems like Staff is recommending. We just say this has been successful enough. We're going to proceed sort of as is without having to re authorize this stuff year after year. That does not mean we can't continue to tinker with it, but it means we can stop reauthorizing it every 2 or 3 years. Fair enough. Yes, very fair.

[45:03] Okay. Thanks to you. Thanks, Chris. Becky, can I? I'll make my comments now, if that's okay. Okay. Great. So. On the question. Question number one. Yes, I I support make moving forward, and also with Telus helpful clarification. It sounds like to really emphasize that, or I guess the just clarify that this is to make it a full program. You know, it sounds like that's maybe better. So. So let me guess on that. and then on question number 2, I'm also yes, and I'd like to say 2 things about that. I I'm really enthusiastic about the idea of serving more destinations and at least getting some analysis on what that might look like financials. And etc., I would be optimistic that something like this could be. We could do a lot with something like this in a on an expanded basis. That would be self funding. And I would be really excited to see the

[46:00] horse power of Chris, of your of your shop on this. What we could do through tdm. I think it's really. I mean, I just feel like this is really this, like in this, like the spirit of boulders, is giving people ways to get around outside the outdoor destinations. Without having to drive a car and I think it's consistent with the sustainability, equity, resilience, framework. That's the kind of thing we should be moving towards. So I'm I'm extremely excited about that. And I you know, I sort of maybe have a a a dream that like this is the beginning camp is the beginning of of some much, much greater expanded version, or at least in exploration. The other thing, I would like to add is and I'm Greg grateful, Tila, for you, clarifying that So sort of ordinance issues here. and I guess I would like to put some make sure we can sort of provide the feedback to council here. Is that

[47:02] you. You know we have some some. Sometimes the the transportation projects can kind of come piecemeal. We make changes here and there, but when we make like a big package of things that that can be when we really get momentum, I think can is an example of that where there was. You know, we got real sort of political momentum to move things forward. And so we're talking now about parking ordinance change. We have a couple of other items today. I think both under board matters. We're gonna talk about parking ordinance changes, and I would be really excited about for giving some kind of presentation to council, that is, about the a package of parking reforms that could make this be something bigger than just camp. But, like, you know, a a strategic, some kind of a plan. And you know, I I've been. I'm just thinking that might include things like adding Vmt reduction to ordinance as as part of what or or mode, shift and or vision 0 but just being thoughtful about, we've got a number of things we need to counsel on. Ordinance changes around parking.

[48:05] Is there a way to package that as something bigger, or at least like considerations for council to make as it goes forward. So that's that's the end of my feedback. But I'll just conclude by saying, thanks to Chris and team, I think this is really exciting. Thanks, Ryan. Training. Thank you. So I kind of echo what Ryan saying? I think it's super exciting to have more options and to expand the way we move around our city. And I was looking up the hop. So, Chris. There was already like a hop program that you like III saw that as hop to Chautauqua auditorium curtain. Would you guys be tapping into that again. Cause that that that seems like like a no brainer to me. yeah, for sure. I you know, I think you know one way you could look at

[49:05] at the future expansion beyond that park and ride model is to think about taking the hop to Chautauqua model and and expanding it to serve more destinations, more areas, you know. The hop to Chautauqua is very effective at bringing people to the special events at Chautauqua, the music at Chautauqua and so you could kind of perceive of this. You know, future exploration is like, how do we expand that hop to Chautauqua Aqua program to provide that. you know, frequent direct access to Chautauqua that would serve visitors. It would serve the employees and it would serve you know, help continually manage that parking demand at at at the Park. Yeah, I think that would be great. And I just wanted to to say that I'm a huge fan of the of the the cycle station there as a permanent

[50:10] choice. Yeah. Glad we got it through landmarks. And that's it. Thank you, Chris. You're welcome. Thanks. Trinity. I have a couple questions and comments. I think on the first item I'm you know, excited to see the success of this program and the positive feedback that's great and supportive of continuation, as well as the changes that have been proposed. The the possible modifications, especially those that help employees working in the Chautauqua area. So I don't have any. I don't think I have any questions on that first one but on the on the second regarding expansion. I'm I guess. What I haven't quite figured out is

[51:02] like, I understand that the program's been popular, and there's interest in expanding it. But I'm not sure. It seems like it's been successful, so I guess I'm not sure what sort of problem is like. The expansion would be solving that hasn't been solved by the existing program. And potentially, it's modifications. so I guess maybe I'll so I'll stop there. And yes. yeah. So what I think you know, the main issue is that it has been successful. And but it's been successful. From Memorial Day to Labor Day. On the shoulders of of the camp what we call the camp season you still have high visitation and if you look at the Chautauqua trailhead counts, I mean, that's where you're seeing that, you know, although for sure, the majority, the the highest months, or or June and July. But you still have over 1,000 visitors per day in April and October and in May and in September. So and that's

[52:15] where you know. So we're still seeing high demand. And once, you know, right before the camp season begins, and right under after the camp season ends on those shoulders. That's where you see. You know the impact on the neighborhood in terms of the availability of parking. Because. you know, before we're charging for parking, people are parking all over in the neighborhood, creating liveability issues. And the same thing right after ends. People no longer have to pay to park. And you know. So I think the expansion is how we're still seeing high demand. All basically April through October. So should we expand it to those months to carry, you know, to cover the highest demand thing demand months because, you know, during the wintertime you have much lower demand and you're not. You're not seeing those impacts on the neighborhood or the massive parking demand at the park itself. So I think that's the main thing it would solve. It's just, you know, kind of those shoulders, the issues on those shoulders of the season.

[53:22] Okay, thank you. That's that's helpful. Guess I was part of my kind of confusion about it was because if I if I'm understanding, definitely correct me if I'm wrong, like the highest occupancy, for instance, in the neighborhood, would be 70% of spots used, which still means that even at the highest point outside of the season. and like there's still almost a third of parking spaces are open in the neighborhoods. And while I'm I'm not. I'm sip supportive of managing the parking, and you know I'm I'm not against paying charging for the parking. At other times. I'm wondering if an expansion given the many, the different parts potentially in this expansion, could get to a point where the like, including the shuttle

[54:15] and or expansion of transit service. I guess I'm wondering if you would get to a point where it would maybe help address some of that extra parking utilization, but would might also lose the fact that it's currently covering its costs. Is that a risk that it wouldn't cover its costs with an expansion of the program? Yeah. Well, I think we'll have to do a you know, a full feasibility study of that and also just look at the capacity of even providing the service with our current provider. I think the you know what what we see in terms of the parking utilization in the Mpp. During the camp season we see the lower utilization because we are charging to park.

[55:01] And so the issue is on those shoulders where you're still have high demand at the Park. But we're not charging part, then utilization really, skyrockets in that surrounding area. So what it shows is that kind of the overall 70%, you know. As you said, utilization. That's during the camp season that just shows the effectiveness of of charging for parking and and managing that demand so that you can increase live ability in in the community. But when when you're not charging for it, then you see the utilization go up and the liveability issues remain. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I guess you know I would be supportive if it didn't cost more if it didn't result in a sort of cost. You know. Expansion. Because this kind of gets to something. I was interested in our last meeting about. Might not have heard this, but about the East Aurora neighborhood

[56:01] parking program. Was that I'm I'm always. I'm a little concerned when there's a lot of effort going into like one area in terms of city resources and time if it doesn't benefit, you know a large like when when that could, you know, be benefiting another portion of the city. And I understand this is a the park is a resource that lots of people use. So it's not just the residents who benefit from this program. But that's just kind of where I'm coming out, where I'm weighing. Well, what is that sort of investment of city resources and doing more in this area versus other things, you know, on the very kind of full plate of items that there are to work on, and that's where I'm just not not. I'm not totally sure, for instance, providing more transit to help employees get there. If most employees don't live in boulder than more local transit isn't going to help them. It's just like those kinds of I know. That's where I'm kind of weighing. Yeah, no, yeah, I certainly understand that perspective. Ii think you know, in general, since we're seeing

[57:03] that the revenue is covering the cost of providing the shuttle, renting the lots, providing the extra parking. Ii would think that if we expanded the camp season and continued and managed parking for a much larger timeframe. And still pro, you know, providing that service you know whether it's on the weekends or or expanded. II would think that managing the parking and the revenue from that. you know, likely would would cover those operational costs. Again, you know. Not. Not for sure we would. You know, that's part of that future research would be that feasibility study of okay. If we were to provide this level of service. you know what would be the estimated cost, and then, if we were to expand the parking management by this timeframe. What do we anticipate the revenue to be knowing the levels of visitation that are happening? And that's why, you know, it's

[58:11] to to do that. It's it's gonna you know it. It wasn't really in the scope of this evaluation. But it's it's a much larger project to to do that holistic feasibility study. But I think we'll we'll likely find that that we're gonna be earning enough parking revenue that we should. We should cover the costs But we'll we'll have to really look at that. Okay, thank you. Yeah. But I guess II would say. my summary is like very supportive. And number one, and I have some reservations about number 2, both not just the program cost, but also just the cost of staff time given other department priorities. But I know you all, but much better view of that than I do. So yeah. So so that kind of sums up. My comments Tila, you had another comment.

[59:13] Tila, here, are you? Trainee? How about you? Go ahead? Yeah. Thanks. So I just wanted to add about the hop. I mean, yeah, obviously, it's local. But for people that are traveling from out of town, I mean, they can just go to the either to the Central station in boulder downtown, or they can go to table mesa and do a park and ride. So I think it does kind of resolve issues especially with the employees. Cause. I've heard Chris mentioned time and time again that that is a really really big problem for them that there's really like physically, there's not enough spaces for the employees that work there to park. Yes, correct. You know, the the average daytime

[60:01] workforce is is way more than the number of parking spaces that are available on site for them. The employers have a you know. They've each developed a system to divvy out those parking spaces. But then, you know, a lot of employees are are are left to to find other means. you know not the easiest place to bike to. Now with electric bikes that's changing, you know. And so that's why I think the B cycle is. They're all very excited about the the potential for A. B cycle station. But you know, virtually all the respondents who work at Chautauqua in the summertime they they would just really love to see direct transit access and even though you know less than half live in the city it would still maybe provide the ability to take transit, you know, and and get off it at Broadway and and Baseline, and and take a you know, a a bus the rest of the way up or from Table Mason Park and ride, for example. So I think it could also help those who don't live in Boulder

[61:04] yeah. And I. Another thing, I just wanted to like, emphasize. I believe that I mean Chautauqua, and not only the trails, but like the the Ampi theater and the the diner, and everything that Chaka has to offer. I believe it's like one of our biggest tourist attractions. Right? I mean, yeah. So we do want to make sure that people have a good way to get there and effective way to get there. So I am highly supportive. Yeah. And and that's why you know, think about you know this direct transit service also, having stops at our, you know, our largest hotels. For visitors, you know of more direct access. Yeah. no, thank you. Chris. Yeah, thanks, Jeannie and II agree I would be very supportive of providing more transit access. I just would want to know that it's really

[62:03] transit that would help transit access that would help. And I feel like a lot of times when II would love to take a bus to some part of the city, and I live in in the city, of course, but like, because I have to transfer buses, it'll take me an hour to go somewhere. That is 10 to 15 min drive. And then I'm not gonna use a bus. So knowing like that, it would be the route that would actually be in place would be valuable to employees, would be much more like versus just the idea of more transit access, which I think we'd all love more, transit access all the time, but knowing it would, in fact, be an investment that would support that population is kind of where I'm you know. I would just wanna wanna know that that would be worthwhile versus the many other areas we would like to invest in, you know, more transit access for reaching all sorts of. and I mean, maybe I'm wrong. But I believe the Hop doesn't really have that many stops, and adding one, I'm very familiar with that route. So going from like Euclid and and Sixteenth, which is the other main where where you can transfer buses just going up that sixteenth to Baseline, I mean, I don't think it would be that

[63:15] problematic, and they've already done it, not reinventing the wheel, as they say. But but yeah, I think it's a really easy fix like I don't think it. They'd have to invest much. But anyway. that's all I have to say. Thanks, Jeannie. Tila. Did you have anything else you wanted to add, yeah, I know I got super frustrated. I been having technical difficulties. So one thing I was really curious about when Chris is talking about expanding the camp program on the shoulder seasons to address. let's say.

[64:00] resident concerns about accessibility. I don't know how to assess those resident concerns, because, of course, those residents are living in a very desirable section of the city, because they live next to this awesome place, and so I have my own biases about how legitimate the concern is about others who wanna come from far away and can't do. I mean, I disagree with Chris, saying it's not a very bikeable or not. An easy place to bike to cause. Billions of people do bike there. but to the extent that that's correct, and people feel that they need to drive there, especially if they're going in groups. II have trouble with crediting full force the people who live nearby within steps. 5 min walk to say that other people are impeding their access

[65:04] to either their homes where they have one or 2 garage spaces or driveway spaces under city code. and so it feels a little bit a bit like othering. I think that so far Camp has been able to avoid some of that. But I guess my other question is, well, my main question is, if we were to extend it to shoulder seasons, would we be looking at? Maybe altering and lowering the price. If if we're trying to offer an on ramp or an off ramp to the demand, would we have our pricing reflect slightly less or slightly more demand closer to the peak season or away from the peak season. Well, I think you know one of the questions that we. you know, wanted some feedback on is, should the city

[66:07] implement their performance based pricing program to, you know, be consistent with our other managed areas so that those blocks that are showing the highest demand, those that parking price would increase to continually help manage that demand absolutely. And that's why I asked about how this might relate to other trailheads like, I'm I'm very cognizant of that and I think it's a good thing that you have in mind, I'm just kind of wondering how our actions and our pricing models are gonna reflect that yeah, and I think that's what we'll have to see you know, in terms of visitation. I know. You know Chautauqua is by far the number one visited area, and probably sanitas is number 2. But there's not beyond those 2 trail heads. There's not, you know, a number of other areas that have the huge

[67:05] parking demand. And then, you know. The, you know, impacts on the neighborhoods in terms of livability. So there may only be a couple other areas where we would consider managing parking demand by pricing. I guess I'm wondering what kind of impacts on live ability you're talking about. You know. I think you know what what I've heard from the residents of North to talk with. Some of them are older homes that don't have driveways, that they are parking their their vehicles on the street, and if they leave on a weekend. you know, like on a Saturday morning to go do something, and when they come back that you know they can't park anywhere near their home. So you know that that's usually what I hear. I also hear a lot of complaints that people are blocking people's driveways, you know. So many cars are trying to park in those areas that they're consistently having their driveways blocked.

[68:08] buy vehicles that are, you know, kind of wedge their their car into a space that's not big enough. And so there's impeding gotcha, yeah, gotcha and I. And I was wondering, like our owners blocking their own driveways, because that would be a a way around it. I'm just curious. Is there any sort of attempt to empirically verify these? What you're telling me is basically very hearsay kind of certainly is, you know, the the reports and the you know, the complaints that we get in the you know the they said, yes, we want to form an Mvp. Because, there issues that are impacting their lives. We have not, you know, gone out and done. You know we've done counts in terms of measuring utilization by block.

[69:08] So you know, we do have data on that of what blocks are the highest utilized at different times of the year outside and inside of the camp season. And so we do have empirical data on that. Okay, thank you. Can can I add something? I know from conversations or from. I just remember a lot of information that Chris shared when I did the bike tour with Nakto with him. And I mean, one thing that we do have to be cognizant of is that a lot of people that live around the those neighborhoods are are elderly citizens. So so that's another thing to consider. I mean, I don't know that. I'm sure that's really easy to have access to. But yeah, I mean. Then, like Chris said, they'd leave go out of town and then come back and can't have access to their homes.

[70:03] Sorry I apologize for my dog. Thanks, Jeannie Teal. I did have some some similar feelings to be looking at the survey data, mainly because I mean, it wasn't a a huge number of people, but those half of the people who responded said. a lot of people wanted to expand it. I think half said they didn't want to pay more for a permit can recall correctly. Yeah. So half said they'd be willing to pay more than $10 for a permit and half didn't. So II kind of got mixed messages like. On the one hand, there's a lot of enthusiasm for expansion, but if only half of people are willing to pay more than $10 for a permit. That's like, not sort of, you know, not putting the money where the sentiment is, and you know you pay for things you value. So II wasn't totally sold, you know. I think it's easy to say

[71:01] you want something when it's just going to be provided, and it doesn't cost you anything more. I mean, I don't dispute real liveability. Some of these concerns that Chris cited, but I do think some of the survey data. It was a small again, a small sample, but it does. I think it does kind of for me raise questions over. You know, the real need that in addition to the, you know a lot of times when parking is, you know, never, never higher than 70%, but often lower. Thank you, Becky. I hadn't picked up on that. That's great. Anyone else have any other questions or feedback. Okay, well, thank you so much. Chris. Right? Thank you. Everybody. Thanks for your feedback. Okay, great. So our next item on the agenda is

[72:03] staff update and tap feedback on Colorado. 7 Arapaho from May 20 eighth to 60 Third Street, and we have Gene Sanson, and also folks from Cdot here to join us. so I'll turn it over to them. Hi, good evening, Tab, and thanks for having us this evening. I'm Jean Sanson, City of Boulder transportation planning, and I am joined by Mitch Beckett, who is the project manager for the CO. 7, Preliminary engineering and environmental project, and Chris, proud with Hdr. Who is a consultant project manager on the project. So I'm just going to very briefly. if we introduce the project and provide a little bit of context, much of which was in your memo but, as many of you know, East Arapaho, Colorado, 7 is Passion Project for me. We have been working on plans and designs for this quarter for many years, most notably the Easter Rapahoe Transportation Plan, which we, the city, adopt

[73:08] did in 20 18, which really set the State. The vision concept of the Easter Rapahoe transportation plan, and I think, as as most. it's not so. The real frames rapid transit. hey, Jane? I don't know if everyone else is the same. But you are breaking up for me for your audio. Yeah. please interrupt me if I'm breaking up again. Okay, what I was saying is that the framework for the Easter Rapahoe transportation plan is really a multimodal concept whereby we introduce regional bus, rapid transit, which is high frequency,

[74:01] high frequency transit between Boulder i. 25, and Brighton, as well as many multimodal improvements, such as protected bicycle facilities and pedestrian facilities and landscape enhancements on the corridor itself. And what I wanna say here is that you know our segment of the Colorado 7 Corridor, which is a 29 mile corridor, is the western end of the corridor, and taken as one piece of a much larger initiative, which is part of the Colorado 7 coalition, made up of all the jurisdictions between Brighton and Boulder. When we think into the future of implementing all of these multimodal and safety improvements, we can expect to see pretty great regional benefits. And so CD has forecasted what some of those benefits might look like. Can you all still hear me? I got some feedback. Okay, thanks, Ryan. You know everything from you know. A large order of magnitude and reduction of annual traffic crashes to re reductions in vehicle. Miles traveled and then resulting greenhouse gas emissions. And what's really exciting about this stage of where we are in preliminary engineering for this project, specifically, is that it's laying the foundation for a lot of work that's coming in the very near future. Everything from

[75:21] the multi-use path and transit stop project which will go into construction next year to the bus Rapid Transit starter service, which is expected to begin operations in 2,026 next slide. Chris. So just a little bit of more context related to this project. Specifically, you know, it's very much built on the Easter Apo transportation plan which looks to address future existing and future transportation needs. We think about this part of town. It's an area that's transforming very quickly, as we know, as we adopted the East Boulder sub community plan. And we see a lot of land use changes happening out there. Almost daily.

[76:06] And so what we're doing in designing these multimodal improvements is designing improvements that work for the people who are there today, who are living and working in the quarter, and those who work living and working there in the future, not just within boulder. But importantly, for those commuters who are coming into town. Tila, I think. Yeah, thank you. Okay, so desired outcomes. Very important. Obviously, we're looking at things like enhancing safety by providing a stronger multimodal network looking to move people. Which includes private vehicles. But really highlights all modes of travel in this corridor. And you know, by doing this improving things like air quality and reductions on in our on climate impact. So I am going to stop talking now. And I'm going to hand this over to Mitch and Chris, who are going to share the details of this project, and we really look forward, Tab, to hearing your input this evening. So thank you.

[77:12] Great thanks, Jean. I appreciate that. As Gene mentioned. My name is Chris Proud. I am a consultant. I'm working with Cdot and with our partner with the city of Boulder. On this effort. I will just note before I get a dive into it. Here. I'm working on my laptop screen tonight. So forgive me, I can't kind of see everyone in the video piece, etc. So if if I cut out or there any problems, please, just chime in and let me know one way or another. but I'll open it up for the presentation, and then hand it back to Mitch for some information here, but just to set things up for you all we do. Wanna thank you all, first, for the opportunity to come and present tonight and just give you information. And you actually are the first group that we're working within, at least through this particular round of public engagement that we're going to be doing on the effort. So in in essence. You're a little bit of a test for us to see how the questions and things go tonight, and we may shift some things up. What we, as we learn from from talking with all of you.

[78:14] But as far as the presentation that we have, Mitch is going to present a little bit of context here to make sure that we give you additional background, and I know many of you have been involved in working on this corridor for a very long time. So so many of you are are quite familiar. But just to make sure that it's a level playing field for all. then I'm gonna come back and talk a little bit about the different concepts that we're looking at, as far as design is concerned, and we'll run through those options with you to make sure that you're clear on those. And then the final piece is really, we have a series of questions that we'll go through at the end with you all and seek to get some feedback. So what we'd like to do because we do have a fairly meaty presentation here is to try and get through everything in the presentation, and then we'll deal with those questions and any clarifying things at the very end, and we can, of course, always slip back to any slides that we need to, that you might have questions on as we go through them.

[79:05] So, Mitch, I'm gonna throw it over to you. Do you want to start with the context piece? And then same thing as Gene did? Just tell me next slide, and I'll advance for you when you're ready. Sure, I can do that. Can you hear me? Just fine. Yeah. Thumbs up perfect. So once again, my name is Mitch Beckett. I am the Cdo project manager for all things. CO. 7, and like Gene said, this is a segment a. That we're calling. It is is just one piece of the puzzle. For entire corridor of CO. 7 this is a multi agency multi region project that was successful with the doctor, cog, tip, grant. And all of these projects are progressing to about 15% design. And so this project goes all the way from Brighton and extend all the way into boulder. And how what you see on the screen is how this has been divided up into segments. We did letters for segments A, B and C, which are all in region 4. And then the segments from D to M are the segments that are in C dot region one. So this is a multi effort with a lot of individuals involved with local agencies from Brighton, Adams County.

[80:21] Thor in Broomfield, Erie Wafayette, Boulder County, and of course the city of Boulder next slide. So, to give a little bit of context of where we are in this project. So our project is going from that planning stage into that design phage. So up until now we've had Easter capital transportation plan that we're working on and building our efforts. And now our goal is to take that plan and kind of extend it, and find the feasibility, and make sure that we understand some of the constraints and make sure that we have a working plan in order to be able to progress our design. So we call it. About the 5% design is where we initially started and trying to get this to that, about 15% design in order to progress it in order to find additional funding for design in the future as well as construction into the future as well.

[81:16] Next slide. So like, I said, this is a very collaborative effort for segment a. And we keep calling it segment A and the limits of segment. A is from Twenty-eighth Street to 60 third. So the areas that are inside of the city of Boulder limits. In particular. There are a lot of different aspects for this project, which include the bicycle protected facilities as well as multimodal and transit and so I'm trying to like, Jean said, trying to move people in around the corridor from the goods and services to bike pedestrians and to progress that design to to a conceptual, or even that 15% to plan sets in particular this area is one of the most heavily travel traveled commuter corridors.

[82:13] We see that a lot of the ridership actually comes from Wafa yet. So it's Lafayette and Am. And PCM peak period periods. And our goal is to try to figure out how best to manage that heavily commuter traffic for the future. This section is considered urban and is, considered congested in its current existing stage. Thanks, Chris. So our project for the segment. A kind of preliminary engineering is to advance the preliminary engineering design for multimodal concept study. Like, I said, from the Easter Appeal transportation plan and to address. The existing feature. Transportation needs local and regional and to facilitate the safe travel and access. Like I said, like walking, biking transit as well as driving for goods and services

[83:09] next slide so there are a lot of near term improvements that we're doing so specifically working with cdot design for the transit incorporation into a resurfacing project that is scheduled for construction next year. So 2024 and, like Jean said, there is also the the Regional Transportation Service, the regional Transit service that is going to be designed in 2025 and operational in 2026. Like, I said, it is regionally funded with multiple local agencies from Brighton to boulder, and continuing that culture of transit in the corridor itself. This is a ongoing collaboration with the CO. 7 Coalition and all of the local agencies we have meetings to to give them updates. And how the project is going on a regular basis, and our goal is to continue that efforts in that designing place

[84:15] phase next slide. Next, I'll kick it off to Chris to the discuss some of the concept plans that we have home great. So Mitch and Gene teed it up a little bit here with some background, and hopefully that gives you at least a basic context kind of moving into our discussion of potential options. And and what I wanna give you a sense of first before we actually get into the details are just how we created those options, and how we sort of compared and contrasted them against one another, and really it's it's certainly not a done deal at this point. I mean, we are still early in the process, and the whole idea is that we are are going out to public engagement and talking with groups like yourselves to get feedback. That's gonna potentially influence how these designs are are ultimately put together.

[85:04] But we've mentioned multiple times. I think, that we're building on that past planning, particularly the Easter Rapahoe transportation plan and the vision and the concepts that were included there. There's a whole host of other plans that that have been examined and and advanced along the corridor over the years as well that we're we're making sure that we we consider all of those as we've been putting options together. I think one of the key things is that our job on the design side is to, you know, take that vision and figure out, how do we actually make that a reality? And and I think you can understand that it. It's not always as simple as just, you know, saying, Okay, this is exactly what we want here. It works on the ground. There's always constraints and challenges that we're gonna deal with. But one of the key tenants going into this is really making sure that all of those essential mobility elements that have been identified in Easter, Rapahoe, and and other plans, the transit component, the bike component, the ped, the pedestrian component

[86:01] roadway goods movement all of those things that in whatever options we put forward we're making sure that all of those things are included in a safe and comfortable way as well, so that's really one of our basic tenants. but III think I kinda said this before we're we're making sure to refine the multi modal concepts that came out of the past plans to make sure that they fit and work on the ground. A couple of other things that we're working on simultaneously is to really kind of understand what are the space needs that we have to incorporate this? And does it go outside of either the property that C. Dot has, or the potential for easements beyond that and so would there be the need for for property acquisition. In order to make some of these things happen. And then, finally, what's the overall cost? And as best we can estimate the cost at this sort of early 15% design level? Now, we are also looking at these options and trying to make sure that we're we're considering them from a variety of different perspectives. And it's really kind of an iterative process. We, we do some work, we get some feedback, we tweak it and and so on.

[87:07] But we're thinking about things clearly, like safety, maintenance, bike, comfort and safety, pedestrian comfort and safety environmental the Brt and and the bus operations, and how that would work on the corridor. So all of those things have to go into our thinking as we're pulling these designs together. So what I'd like to do now is move into the actual options, and we kind of have 4. I guess 5 actually of slides here that that I'm going to step through, and I'll probably spend a little bit more time on this very first one. just to make sure that the elements of it are actually clear. And then you'll see when we get to some of these others after this, but they're actually all quite similar. They're just slight variations in them that I'll be pointing out to you. But we wanted to take you through each of them, just to be, you know, completely transparent here. As to to what we're looking at and what we're putting together. and I know most of you are quite familiar with with Rappaho and really thinking about

[88:07] 50. Fifth. It's it's it's sort of a different setup from 50 fifth to the east, and 50 fifth to the west. So our options actually reflect that here we have sort of different amount of space. We have different Lane configurations, and 50 Fifth is somewhat of that dividing line. So we elected to use that and develop different options, either east or West to 50 fifth. So there's a very first one that we're looking at is actually west of 50 Fifth. And what you see here, I'm just gonna kind of walk through. This is clearly a cross section, and I know you all deal with this with transportation stuff all the time. But it's, you know, basically just like a cut. If we're standing in the street and looking at what this, the elements that would be included here. And you can see west of 50 Fifth, we do currently have 3 travel lanes in each direction, and you can see that we are repurposing one of those travel lanes for brt, or in this case what we call bat or business access and transit lanes.

[89:03] Then this, this actual, this cross section is actually probably most similar to the the Easter Rapahoe Transportation. Pardon me. Easter, Rapaho transportation plan, information that you all are are quite familiar with as well. But then I'll talk a little bit about those, the space sort of outside of the the travel lanes themselves, and this kind of behind the curb element. And what you're looking at here is where this light pole is. And hopefully, you guys can see my cursor here moving. There's a bit of separation between the the bus access and transit lane. Then there's the raised protected bike Lane that's located there. Then there's a landscaper or an amenity zone, as we call it, which could be landscaping. It could be benches. It could be a variety of different things. but it does also then separate from a multi use path. and that would is mirrored on both sides, but in essence is is very similar to to what was put forward in the Easter Rappah transportation plan, and it really is focused on, you know, creating safe space for all users, whether that's the transit component, the bike, the pad, or even the roadway users, and that we have the ability to do that

[90:17] some of the differences here that you'll see as we we move into it is the location of this amenity zone. It will shift around. You'll see in later slides. But right now it is between this race protected Bike Lane and the multi-use path. Now there's some benefits, I would say to that, and we're going to ask you for your feedback in a little bit here, on, on that configuration. But one of the challenges it does present for us, and we have to think about every aspect of this, but from a maintenance perspective as we clear snow off the road from this from the Bat Lane or the the Brt lane. The snow storage could possibly move into the bike plane, which we would then have to to clear

[91:01] and that we would have to clear the bike and the multi-use path separately. So it's not a fatal flaw, I would say, but it's just something to be aware of that. There is additional maintenance that we would need to consider along these. It is overall kind of the widest option that we have. So where we have the space to achieve this where we would really be looking to advance this as it is the the the a vision that came out of past planning. So let me move on. Sorry. Sorry. Interrupt question, I think. Yeah, thank you. Becky, I so my my main question is, I understand you're here as an information item tonight. You're not asking for any action by Tab. What? What's the plan going forward for us? And commenting on these plans like, I appreciate you walking through this stuff. But if we have actually substantive feedback, what is the timeline or process for us doing that? Yeah, no, it's a it's a good point. So I do have a slide a little bit later, just to kind of talk about the the public engagement and the cadence of that as well.

[92:14] So again tonight you're right. It's for for you. All this is an informational piece, and we wanna make sure you're fully up to speed and understand what we're putting together. There, will be actually questions at the end of this. And we're looking for that feedback from you now as well, even though there's not formal action. And there's sort of 2 key rounds of public engagement, both now and then, a little bit later in the process. As we actually take the input that we receive through this phase and incorporate it into our design and then release that final the final 15% or preliminary design that we do. So there'll be sort of 2 pieces one tonight where we could take your feedback. Then we are going to be opening to the general public just beyond the kind of one on one that we're doing here. And we're doing these one on ones with a variety of different like neighborhood groups and advocacy groups, etcetera, just trying to talk directly with them. But then we are

[93:08] coming up here in October. We're gonna be opening an somewhat of an online public engagement where we'll have this presentation with a voiceover associated with it to give people that background. And then we are gonna have a poll with a variety of different questions, some of them open ended so that people can kind of throw out their whatever they're thinking. So there'll be opportunity there as well. And then. Jean, I might kinda ask you if there would be additional sort of formal request for action from this particular group. If that's planned. Yeah, Chris, thank you for that question. I was just. I was just asking that very question in a chat. To Valerie, because I actually and and I would defer to Natalie. But I don't believe through this process given that it's a C. Dot led project that we would be asking for a formal action from Tab. But now, if that's not the case, please let me know.

[94:10] That is that is the case, Gene. And oh, yes, sorry. I'm not sure who was just talking. Was that you, Tila? Of course. Okay, we. The so the Easter apple transportation plan, you know, went through tab and council for approval. And and with that kind of guiding this work. That's kind of the level at which we had kind of tab and Council's approval. And now we're we're moving on implementation. If that makes sense. Okay, thank you. Great a good question. Good clarification. so I'll keep moving through. And now we had talked about our our first option that I showed you, and then this is that was first west of 50 Fifth Street, and this is east of 50 Fifth Street. And I will say again, we're showing you this for full transparency. But the the really

[95:10] are not any significant differences with this. The only difference that you're seeing is the difference in the the travel lanes. In this case, once we get east of 50 Fifth, the number of travel lanes actually do change. We have sort of 3 in one direction and 2 in the other in the eastbound direction. And really we're repurposing 2 of those existing travel lanes still for the bad, so that just narrows that east eastbound direction to one general purpose, travel lane. But the remainder of these elements as to how the areas behind the curb are put together are pretty much exactly the same. And our key focus here, as always, is on safety. But again, we just wanna make sure that we're being true to exactly what the configuration is along the corridor. So of course. this is basically what it feels to me like, the configuration is currently east of sixty-third or so

[96:07] is that is that fair to say, like, it's like the configuration. 6, sixty-third is now moving west to about 50. Fifth. Yeah, I think that's fair. Yes, because you do have some of the bus lanes that exist as you get closer to 60. Third, and you've got the wider area, and the lanes are configured slightly differently, so that in in essence, what we're doing is is implementing that brt, or bad, or transit lane all the way through to 28 so, but that that configuration, at least in portions of the corridor, does actually exist today. But it is true that 50 Fifth is kind of a dividing line, and when you get east of that, it does change in terms of the number of lanes and the amount of space that we have to work with basically. does that help? No. But my question is, isn't this kind of what it looks like right now, east of Sixty-third? Oh, correct. Yeah. Where the where we pick up the bus lanes. That is correct.

[97:04] And so 50, fifth and so ideally. Eventually, we will dial this. those configuration back versus the thirtieth and 28. Or that's correct. Yeah, I think that that's fair. Now, what you don't have sort of at sixty-third at this point is sort of exactly this configuration behind the curb with the race protected bike lane, etc. You've got the on street facilities and such. Yeah, correct. So let's move into option number 2, and and what we're doing is looking at these different options to see the on the ground conditions and what the spaces that we have available to us, and what the right configuration might be. So this is actually a variation on what we were just looking at. I would say all of the roadway. And the transit elements basically remain the same. The only difference that you see here is sort of that back of curb piece again. And what we're doing is actually reorganizing it in a in a slightly different way. Instead of having that race protected Bike Lane directly adjacent to the transit lane. We actually have the the amenity zone or the landscaped area there and then we have the protected bike facility as well as the

[98:20] multi use path or or bikeable side walk adjacent to one another, and what that provides us with there would be, or could be, some level of differentiation between those. So that it's quite clear this is for biking. This is for multi use path use with some kind of physical demarcation, whether that's through paint or or other kinds of materials, but that's something that would be determined as the design actually goes on. And we'll we'll kind of ask you a question about that a little bit later on your preferences. But again, one of the benefits that this provides us, I would say, is that from that maintenance perspective. If you can imagine with these areas of the bike and the multi use path together for as far as clearing snow and ice, we're able to do that jointly through those 2 facilities being next to one another. And then also this landscape area between the roadway and the bike and Ped facilities

[99:16] actually gives us some location where we could store snow. When we have snow events. Wh. Whether it's coming from the road or from clearing snow off the bike and ped facilities. So those that's really the the key difference. But it does because it actually the way that this is organized. It is a little bit more narrow, so it gives us a little bit more space to play with when we're in areas where you know we have, you know, along this corridor we have tight spots where there are historic resources that we're gonna need to figure out how to avoid. We have certain environmental resources that we're gonna need to try and minimize those impacts on or parkland. That we'll be working with. So this allows us a little bit more space. I think there are a couple hands raised, maybe.

[100:05] I want to. Yeah, thanks. Chris. Trini. yeah, I have a quick question, Chris. And and and well, thank you for bringing this to our community, because this is like the dream and I just have a question. So in option 2, where the landscaping is gonna be? Is that gonna be waste as well? Or is it gonna be at the level of the cars, which may be like a silly question, but it just implies more protection, I think, for the people on the other side of the tree. Certainly. Yeah. And and no silly questions. I mean, I understand. I mean, we live and breathe this stuff, and we think we put it forward in a way that people can understand. But it's helpful to have that feedback. But yes, it's raised up at curb level, just like your sidewalk is today, or your you know your landscape area that that abuts the the roadway. So it's it's similar to to that situation. So all of this, at least again, hopefully, you're seeing my cursor here, the landscape, the bike and the pedestrian facilities would all be at the same level, and that is, then there'd be a curb here that would go down into the gutter area that receives the drainage, and then the roadway itself is slightly lower than everything else.

[101:22] and like how many I know that here because of our weather. It's challenging to upkeep. I mean, are you thinking of just putting trees up? I mean, I know these are just details that you'll think of later, but that to me this is protection for cyclists and people that are on the side. So again, I mean, if you just have like a little curve, and like someone's distracted, and they can just jump the curve. And you know, suddenly they're in the bike lane. whereas the other choice was protected, you know. See? So if maybe if we could add something to that curve

[102:01] in order to make sure that car stay where they're supposed to be. Well, this is the bus, right? I mean, there's a lot of buses that are going to be out there, but it's not continuous traffic, as you might have in some of the other lanes. Nonetheless. And you have trained drivers that are. They're driving those buses as well, I mean buses. yeah, alright, I mean, I will say, and it'll probably come up in the discussion where we have the the race protected Bike Lane that's here, and this is, I'm going back to the the option number one. where this bike facility is a little bit closer to the bus lane or the transit lanes that are there. it's yeah. What we're looking at are are, you know, potentially kind of different types of cyclists, because cyclists frankly, could be on the multi use path as well, and they may be people making short trips within the corridor, and the folks that are in the actual bike facility or the race protected. Bike lane may be people commuting or going through and trying to go faster. Frankly.

[103:05] So, there are some considerations around that type of user as to the different kind of configuration, which is why, you know, just having sort of visible separation might be a positive thing if we do have them next to one another adjacent, so I don't wanna digress too much here. I'd rather get to your your additional comments and questions. Thank you. Was there? Was there, Becky? Let me ask if there was another. Yeah, Tila, do you have another question to your hand there, or is that from before? Hmm. I think. tia. I think that was from before. Okay, yeah, we're all set. Keep rolling here because we do have one option that I wanna clarify with you. And there are. I mean, I think you can recognize that we have some tight spots that we're gonna have to deal with out here. And one of the key things, as I mentioned in the very beginning is that our you know, one of our key tenants is to make sure that we are incorporating all of the mobility elements that were identified within

[104:09] the East Arapaho plan and all of the past planning. So making sure we get that transit lane, making sure we get the bike and the pad component. However, we have some real significant constraints. Again, whether it's because of a a historic site or park land, etc., that we have to try and minimize impacts on or mitigate all impacts on frankly. So we are looking at this option number 3 that we could use at strategic locations where we have these really tight elements. And what this really does, I mean at this is just an example of how it might be applied in a strategic location. So this is the rest of the grayed out cross section, or typical cross-section that we have here. Is is similar to the others that we've shown you. But then the box just shows that we could implement all of these mobility elements. But really, what you're doing is removing that landscaped or or

[105:08] amenity zone that we had in the previous ones to try and minimize it as much as possible. And we do have to do that potentially in some areas. And we are still working on figuring out exactly where we would need to do that. And what that layout would look like but again, we're we're hoping to to focus these in in the areas where where we truly need them, and then still provide the the full cross section and others looks like there's a hand raised there, Becky. Tila. Same question. Yeah, II did reason on purpose this time. Sorry. Okay. I've been thinking a whole lot about this kind of stuff recently. And to me it is shocking that we do not consider whether we restrict

[106:02] transit lanes. Motor vehicle lanes. But when something has to give, we have to decide whether the protected bike lane or the multi-use path or the sidewalk has to go. And you know, I'm sorry, Chris, that I'm I'm gonna like, begin this conversation with you on this particular subject. But why is it that the most vulnerable road users have to potentially give up their own space. so that there is throughput for giant vehicles traveling large distances because they cannot be inconvenienced for quarter of a mile. Yeah, well, II understand the comment. And you know it's a comment that I make as well. So II understand where you're coming from, and one of the things that we're trying to do is balance that as well. And so we are looking at

[107:04] the amount of people that the the transit lane could actually move through the corridor. And we're looking at making sure that we can accommodate for all of the other uses in the corridor, like I was saying with the protected Bike lane as well as the multi-use path. So we're trying to balance all of those things out as best we possibly can. But it is. It does come down to, really, you know, trying to make it all work and make it all fit. Given the amount of congestion that we do have in the corridor as well from a traffic perspective. we are trying to balance all of those things. I would say, and well, it's looking to me like things like the amenity zone and the the buffer in the middle of the row, the median. Those are given as constants, and I think that the fact that I'm looking right now at, you know, dotted orange area around our most vulnerable road users on the eastbound section of traffic is telling me we're not actually considering

[108:10] them as equal participants of the roadway. Well. II understand the comment. There are some technical challenges. I mean, again, if we were to try and utilize that space in the center, for example, from a design perspective, what we want to do is make sure that we're being consistent across all of this as well, and not sort of shifting too much and and changing that. So there are some, some other technical details that'll, you know. really allow us to make sure that that these elements within the roadway are as consistent as they possibly can be from a safety perspective, too. But I guess II mean, I'm not trying to go sort of point for point with you, because II don't disagree with your comment, and it is really one of the things that we are constantly, you know, struggling with and trying to work with, to make sure that we can balance it out. But I it's yeah. III don't necessarily disagree with your comment, yeah, no doubt I'm not. I'm not really trying to go point for point. But honestly.

[109:15] you know, the amenity zone with the with the plants in the middle strikes me as less critical than preserving the consistency of a raise protected bike lane and or a multi use path. I think it's a point well taken, and it's one that we can take back and and really consider as a project team and try and see. You know what the opportunities really are there because we show you this cross section, but it's not as black and white as this, either. We have to look at those exact locations as to where we might need to use this and try and minimize it as well. No, no question. But when I, when I hear things and I see visuals like this where there is a dotted orange line around. This is optional and the median amenity zone with the plants is not optional, and I'm I'm honestly I'm a serious plant person.

[110:08] I want it all I want. Yes, and but if I had to choose I would give up the plan. Zone and the Median Island to preserve through pit and consistency for that protected bike lane, protective multi-use path protected vulnerable user facility. So if there's if if that if that's a way to summarize the input from me in a new event, that's how I would summarize it. Great! Can I jump in there? And that kind of echoes my sentiment as well, and I guess what we're trying to convey is that if there's ever a choice to eliminate anything we should never be considering vulnerable road user. Safety. So whatever it is that has to be kind of adjusted, at least, for you know, places where we are going to find more vulnerable road users because you have the bus right there, for example. But anyway.

[111:09] so I just wanted to echo my support. And for Tua. That's helpful. Thank you. So we are. Gonna get to. Oh, I'm sorry I've got some actual questions, Ryan. I mean, if you want to hold for a sec, and and we can get to those, and we'll we'll come back as as much as we need to to to talk about this. I'm not gonna cut anything off here. But I do have just a couple of closeout things, just so that we get through the full presentation just thinking about. We mentioned, I think Tila's original comment about just kind of how the stakeholder engagement, or at least how you all would be engaged thinking about. And I mentioned before that coming up in October, we are, gonna have this online a presentation with a voice over and then a a virtual questionnaire, and what we'd like to ask of you all, as well as to to get your help as we put together our collateral materials and promotional materials for this

[112:09] to send that to all of you as well, so that you can, you know, utilize it yourself, but also send it out to the people that you're connected with and the constituents that you all represent. So we'd like to use you to help promote that and get as much feedback as we possibly can as we go forward. Just thinking overall about schedule here. I mean, we're working on working through this into a little bit into next year. But I we really need to get this feedback here in October to understand and get the pulse of what stakeholders are thinking, and how that might influence some of the work that we're doing, but it could push us a little bit further into 2024, I think, as we start to refine this schedule. We are, in addition to just doing the options. The information that I've given you here, the Optione we are going to be doing, then the actual design work, at least laying it out in a plan view at about the the 15. So plan view is, if you're looking at it at a map from above.

[113:06] And then, finally, we have been doing some environmental scan on the corridor, as well to try and prepare ourselves for the next phase, and the goal here really is going to be. How do we set ourselves up as best possible for future funding, because our goal is to to help implement this and and get it really moving forward each time we move from one plan to the next. We're trying to to advance it. Just that little bit more so that we can get full funding and ultimately realize this. So I think that was the final slide that we have. And then we do have some formal questions. And these are going to be part of that online questionnaire that I was mentioning that we'll release in October as well, but we thought we'd go through these with you also. and you know, as we think about and Becky, I might want to go back to you as to how you know you're I want to be respectful of your process here. How do you want us to go through these one by one. How would you like us to facilitate them?

[114:08] And that's a good questions, my first time sharing the meeting. So II don't have a strong feeling. I mean, I'm happy to keep doing it if if you're I just again did want to overstep. Oh, thank you. yeah, I mean, I think if it's more helpful to go one by one for you for feedback, we can. We can certainly do that, or just, or if it's more helpful to have each person speak to any of these things that they have a comment on. Becky. I have a suggestion, Tila, here. I think we could probably do a straw poll on Number one and then go through. You know, 2 and 3 people raising their hands. If they have something. I think Ryan is correct. We should probably do questions first, like clarifying questions versus sort of

[115:02] you know, feedback and responses. But I think in terms of. If if we just wanted to do. does anyone have questions? Clarifying questions not clear on stuff? Let's do that first. Then I would suggest number one alone scraw Poll. and then 2 and 3 would be kind of where we have more substantive discussion. And honestly, for we're likely gonna have exposed all of those ideas in the consideration of 2 and 3. That's my suggestion, madam. Chair. Yeah, I think that's great deal. Yeah. Happy to move ahead with that. If that works for Chris. Yeah, I'm good with that. And let's go to general questions and clarifying things first. Great, thank you. see, does anybody have a general clarifying questions for Chris. Yeah, Ryan. Chris, I have 2. Thank you. First, I just wanna make sure I've got the the option the way the options work. Right? My understanding is you've you've got 2 different options or sorry 3 different options, and those options represent

[116:13] different like archetypes that will work along the corridor. We're not choosing one option to is this, we're not getting you not eventually gonna get the single option for the whole, the whole quarter. This is about like you're gonna use. All 3 of these new feedback on are these are 3 like sort of tools that, right or exactly, it's you're you're right. These are all kind of variations on sort of the the ideal vision that was created in the East to wrap a whole plan. And now again, we're trying to make them fit and work. And there are some variations on that. And there are different contexts that we might use these in for example, where you know, you have, like large mature trees along the corridor, for example, we might use some of these to try and avoid taking those trees out, of course, etc. So yeah.

[117:02] together, you're asking. Not necessarily. But it is, you know, if there are options to if we have the choice to use one over another in a particular location, it would be helpful to understand where there are preferences. Great. Thank you. And then my second question, Chris Hegel, and inspired me earlier on, talk talking about city code proposing Co. Co. Changes, and I'm just wondering like. are there. You know, Tila was discussing the the ideal of not encroaching on the physical safety of our people outside of vehicles. Are there any cases in which city code that you can obviously name is is standing in the way of of better technical solutions. That would be, you know, fuller and more accessible. I it might be too hard, I mean, I don't want to be on the spot. So maybe this wasn't studied. But I'm just sort of curious, if there's any anything obvious is standing out where we're like, there's elephant in the room here is like, well, there's a city code matter that makes this more technically challenging.

[118:03] We've been working. I'm gonna throw this to the city to to really speak about that. And and Gene, you might want to call on either yourself or others, but I mean, we have been developing as part of our design design standards. And what that requires is that we go through the city standards, the State standards, you know, national best practice all of these things to try and understand. How would we, or should we design this? And to make sure that we're being consistent with all the rules and Regs that are out there. So that is part of our job to figure that out, II will say, off the top of my head. I honestly don't know whether At this moment, in time there's anything that would need to change in order to make some of these things happen. Gene, can I throw it to you? I don't know if there's other thoughts that the city would have on that. Yeah, actually, Gara's going to respond to that question. Thanks. Good evening. Garrett Slater. Capital projects manager for the Transportation and Mobility Department. And to answer that question, Ryan. The city code generally speaks to

[119:07] requirements and laws at a higher level, and doesn't get into the particulars of design standards, and the document and the city that pertains to that type of regulatory content would be the design and construction standards which we've presented to you with various updates over the years. And so that would be the the city reference that we would turn to for a question on how to approach the design here of CO. 7 in our Arapahoe. But, as Chris has also noted, because this is a C dot facility, we also have to give consideration to the set of standards that the State has, and their standard is called the M. And S. Standards. And so that's also something that has to be considered as this design continues to evolve. Got it. Thanks very much, Gary and Chris, that's all I have for questions.

[120:04] Great Ryan Tila, do you have? Another question. I see your hand. I wasn't sure if that was from before or not. I'm not hearing you, Tila, but if you do have a question feel free to. I'm having a hard time with the technology tonight. Sorry? No, that was from before. Okay, Gotcha. Thanks. I have one question about intersections is that part of this is that a later phase of this process or no intersections are definitely part of this. Now there are some specific intersections along the quarter that the city can probably speak to that are going to be handled slightly differently, but the majority of intersections along the corridor are part of our effort of design. And what we're looking at are you know

[121:09] how particularly how the bike and the ped components intersect at both intersections, so signalized intersections or unsignalized intersections as well as private access points also. So just entrances into, you know, businesses, etc. And we are looking for the bike and pedestrian piece of those protected intersections that were envisioned in the East Arapaho transportation plan. And you'll see that as right now, what we're showing, all of you are these typical cross sections. So we kind of start here on, you know, are these cross sections generally acceptable? Do they generally work? What are the tweaks we need to make to them? And then, once we have some buy off on that, we then move to that actual layout design in a plan view like a map, basically. And we start to lay out all of that, all of those intersections, all of those crossings, etc., to make sure that they are safe, and they are visible so that

[122:06] cyclists can see cars coming through and and people driving can see the cyclists coming through, etc. So we have to think about all of those details, but the intersections are included in here. Other than some of the other major intersections that could be funded and designed separately from ours. Got it? Thank you. So any other questions for Chris. okay, for real. I did raise my hand on purpose this time. Go ahead. Yeah, thank you. I am curious. What interaction you have had with the developers of, I think, was formally called watershed waters something but for developers who are working on transit oriented development along Arapaho Avenue now, and in the next 10 years. What kind of coordination is there? What kind of support is there for such development? What kind of restrictions are there that we should be aware of and thinking about

[123:13] in terms of how the city is regulating this kind of stuff, certainly, and I'll make a few comments. And then again, Gina, I'll put you on the deck also, because I'm you probably will need to follow up from the city's perspective on this, because a again, I don't want to speak for the city here, but as far as coordination, and I think it's called Weather Vane. Now I can't remember the name of the development, but II think so we have connected with them directly, and they've gone through a pretty extensive because they're actually in the process. They're designing, and they're they're getting approvals. And and II believe maybe they have approvals at this point. But they're a little bit unique because they're in the middle of all of this. They're not coming later on down the road, once our work is complete. But

[124:02] as it stands today, they've been going through a process of getting their approvals. So we are kind of responding to the things that have already been in approved for them, which includes bike and pedestrian facilities, and was taking into account many of these things, so their their design may not look exactly like the cross sections that I'm showing you. But we have been laying in what's been approved for their site as sort of the condition that might happen in front of that particular development. In the future. Once our design is complete. Then that actually continues to give the city more ability to work with future developers that come in to make sure that whatever design they are doing on the frontage of their new development meets the design that we expect and that we've laid out. So then they'll start to respond to us once we're done. does that make sense? Yeah, that does. Thank you very much. Sure. And then, Gene, I don't know if there's more you want to say about how that typically works?

[125:01] Yeah, no, Chris, I think you answered that really well, and you know, just specifically, Tila and and all the tab members. You know this is such an important step in the process for us, because, you know, one of the things that we, the city, needs to have in place to require things like these. Specific infrastructure pieces, or even just reservation of right of way or easements. is a right of way plan which we will have from this 15% design, we will know how much right of way we need, and really have sort of the plan of the profiles. so that when developers come in and and as we know, we all know, this area is changing quickly, we're able to make those exact? Well, not exactions. But we're able to negotiate. That space or those infrastructure elements from them. Thank you so much. That's really helpful.

[126:00] So do we want to move to our questions here now. Yeah. I think good timing. So on the sorry I gotta find space on my computer working off my little laptop here, and I have no space to see anything. so for the very first one, you know, considering the existing conditions, I mean, you know that we have some constraints along the corridor. I, you know, do you generally agree with the 3 typical design cross-sections that we've put forward? And maybe that is one that you know folks can just kind of speak to, or more straw poll. However, you want to do it. It's kind of up to you for 2 and 3. I do have some graphics that we can flip to to help you understand those a little better, too. So great. Yeah, let's let's go ahead and start with one do a straw poll. If anybody has any additional comments, though, I wanna give you that offer opportunity. Speak. Does anyone have any additional comments for for Number One? Or we can go ahead and just

[127:02] to struggle? Yeah. correct. I think my only comment. Would be. You know I've had some deep soul searching lately about what our kind of default road design is. and so this is no worse than any of them. and I think giving a thumbs up to this entire plan is not going to make my future or our future work any more difficult. So I'm I'm I'm willing to give this a thumbs up. Thanks, Tila. I'm also general in in general agreement with the direction of the study and the cross-sections offered here. Ryan, and trainee me too. I would agree with your both of your eloquence.

[128:04] Great right, Chris, should we move on to the next one in terms of the design options that we showed you of option one and 2 I I'm we are curious. If you have any particular thoughts on. you know, which might best achieve the safety and comfort goals, and really the the big difference. And and we can flip back and forth to these, if we need to, is that location of the the landscape amenities zone in essence. Is either separating and having the multi use path separated from the race protected Bike Lane and the race protected Bike Lane adjacent to the the transit lane. So to maybe help. With that a little bit. This is just sort of comparing the those elements behind the curb kind of side by side. As I was talking about. So the difference here is this raised protected bike lane. All of this space, as we were talking about before, is raised up above the curb, you know, at the curb. Basically. So all of this is higher than the transit lane.

[129:09] However, this bike facility is closer to the transit lane. As opposed to here, where you do have that separation space associated with a landscape amenity zone. But the trade off to that is that you have, you know, bikes adjacent to the multi use path which allows bikes as well, but probably at a little bit slower pace, we would expect, because it's probably a different kind of user. So I guess I we're curious. Do you think either of these present something that might feel either more comfortable or safe in your opinion at least? Thank you so much for that question, and for pulling that out. I, in particular, am in favor of consolidating the vulnerable road users, so I would like option. 2.

[130:02] because to me, the the bigger dangers I mean, there are conflicts at the intersections, and that's not what we're showing. We're showing kind of a mid block cross section. But in general. what I have observed, and this this looks kind of like the Broadway multi use path here. Is concentrating the vulnerable road users. Let's them negotiate their shared space at a lower speed and sort of a lower level of potential catastrophe. So that's kind of where I would leave that it's helpful. Can I chime in? I I favor option one because of multiple reasons. One has to do with the fact that everything's race. So I think that that if for whatever reason, a car happens to veer into the transit lane and then eventually onto the path, I think there's there's a a physical barrier, right? And I do believe that with.

[131:16] you know, faster traffic of cyclists like you were referring to and eat bikes. I think that it's very smart to separate, you know, pedestrians and cyclists. I think the dream is to have each. So each of us has a way to get there safely. And also I don't know how much of this the actual greenery that would be dividing, you know, on option 2. I don't know how much of that we could actually upkeep. I know it's challenging because of the weather, like I said earlier. I know it presents a challenge for snow removal, but at the same time, and we we do have an amazing system here. II see that during you know, high snow season. Most of the paths are are beautifully plowed. So

[132:11] that's my 2 cents. I appreciate that. But I do want to just make sure. I clarify one thing to make sure. I understand, if you don't mind, because and II your point is one that we're we've talked about a lot in terms of the speed and ebikes and things like that. So that makes good sense to me. However. when we think about a buffer between these, it seems, at least in our opinion, as we've been talking about it as a project team, that option 2, and having that actual, you know, 8 foot of space that physically separates between the the lane of travel or the transit lane here and these facilities is really acting as that buffer where this II guess I with. Then these cyclists are then closer to the actual lane of travel.

[133:03] and that but that would be your preference. Is that fair? Just because they're kind of a different kind of user. Is that kind of a logic there? Yes and no, because I feel that option. One would actually have a buffer like a physical, not just up the curb, but because that's what I understood right? I mean, that would be a protected bike lane. Or am I just hallucinating that? No, no, no, yeah, I think I might not have explained it completely clearly. So my apologies. But so the raised protected bike lane, like the difference that we're talking about when we say raise protected bike lane is actually probably the level of both option one and option 2 are basically the same but the when we say raise protected Bike Lane, it's the difference between like an on street painted bike lane, or one that's actually part of the asphalt that's out, you know. Part of the asphalt edits out here in the lane near the lane of travel versus one that's actually at the same level as a sidewalk. So that's really the difference between a raised protected bike lane and and just a standard bike lane that's painted in. Does that make sense?

[134:09] Yeah. So then I'm with Tila. Then I would move the cyclists as far as possible from any car interaction, and I know we have the transit lane there. But I'm just thinking of worst case scenario. And yeah, I think it's less likely for pedestrians and cyclists to have you know any sort of fatal interaction. Then? Right? Thank you, Chris, for yeah, like I said, we, we live and breathe it and think everybody understands this stuff. So good questions. Ryan, did you have thoughts on this? I was thinking it through. Yeah, I think I agree with that. I was just sort of imagining that, like in in the scenario, where the the relative car speed is lower and the bike speed is higher, because there's not. There's not a lot of you know, breaks in the road intersections. Then it is, you know, there's an advantage to keeping the bikes away from pedestrians.

[135:07] So I was kind of following Cheney. But II think I think I'm I'm happy with option. 2. So yeah, I'm happy with option. 2. Yeah. And I kind of similar. II don't think I started with strong feelings. They both are very appealing changes to the roadway, but, you know, agree with the comments that Tila and Trini made, and about some of the benefits of option. 2. And also, I think, as mentioned, the right of the reduce need for right away, and in some places that additional benefit as well. So glad to hear it so sounds like tab feedback is unanimous. that is helpful. So let's move on to Number 3, and I think it'll build on what we were just talking about, actually. But which configuration where we're talking about the adjacent bike and pedestrian facilities. Should it be, you know, physic? marked or Demarc have a demarcation in some way or not, and I'm using these images, and they're not perfect. So forgive me. But the

[136:14] it gives you a sense of this is a raised on the the left hand side. Here. This is a raised protected bike lane, and then with an adjacent sidewalk, and you just get the point that you know there's a space that's clearly identified for bikes. And there's a space adjacent to it that's clearly identified for multi use paths, sidewalk, etc.? Or would your preference be to allow people to, you know, basically police themselves and and be safe and understand. You know that that both bikes and pedestrians share this space and not have that kind of demarcation. So I think it's worth a little bit of discussion here, too. I think that, you know, thinking long term. We don't know exactly what's gonna happen as far as Ebikes and how fast we're gonna be moving. And and we do want to encourage people to commute. And so II am, for I don't like how that is divided I feel that's kind of

[137:12] not very aesthetically policing, but I do believe that if there was some delineation of where cyclists were meant to go and separate. Pedestrians. I think that would be the ideal situation. I appreciate that. And the look of this. Yeah, please don't assume that this is exactly how we would necessarily do it. It is something that would need to follow the the city standards, and would be determined at the time of, you know, kind of final design and and field construction. So but we were hoping to at least get the point across with the image. Thank you. Tila. Thank you. So again, I'm a little frustrated that it's like either Ori here.

[138:02] which which left over after thought, space shall commuting cyclists occupy because I can see the value of the mixed space picture for lesser less, less less brave, less experienced younger cyclists, and I think we should honestly be building spaces for them. And then the quote defined, a space is also not a attractive to someone like me like I am. I am more confident in traffic like this, and I'm actually sitting right now across the table from my Brazilian exchange student. and it was quite clear 3 weeks ago he was not experienced in cycling, and he's made dramatic increases. And I'm cool with it. My husband's not like we're we're honestly, we're on different sides of the same, like he is safe to ride to school funds.

[139:14] And so I'm frustrated that we have to say, like which leftover version of the street scape shall we dedicate to the vulnerable road users? So I love that you've transitioned back to option one and option. 2. Because I think both of those and in particular option, 2. Or catering to the less skilled, less used to negotiating high speed. Commercial traffic like we need to be building a more resilient and more forgiving transportation network. And it is not those 2 pictures that you showed me.

[140:04] I think we have a good response for you here, because in in in Boulder no, no? Well, we're working on it, I mean, you know, to some extent it's it's incremental I'll give you. But nonetheless, in this image. So what we were trying to show you were was option 2. And you know, how would you set up option? 2. Would all of this just be gray, and everyone could sort of be in exactly or do you? Do you physically separate up. Now, this gray part that's over here, even though it's not physically marked as a bike space. It is a multi use path or a bikeable sidewalk in boulder. The both of those spaces actually allow for bikes to use them. And you were kind of spot on. I mean the gray areas likely for those people either doing short trips within the corridor, or maybe those less confident cyclists that would wanna go slower. Yeah. And then the others that are commuters, or more confident, or whatever would be in that outer, faster lane, etc. So it's exactly the scenario that.

[141:09] Well, let's talk about that, though I am, I am a commuter and more confident writer, and in many places I will choose to use the multi-use path and other places where the multi use path is more occupied by the less capable, the younger the wobblier. I will go over in the road. and I have every right to do so under the law. but, as the saying goes, the law forbids the rich and poor from sleeping under bridges. Right? I am relegated to a dangerous, uncomfortable. inequitable section of the road, even though I have every legal right to be there.

[142:03] I think the dream Tila, is to have that be protected. And so if we had that alternative be completely safe. I am with you like, if that that should be all right. But unfortunately it's gonna take time to get there. And in the meantime, if we're gonna build something, we should be thinking long term. And II mean a a hundred percent. I think that there are people that have different abilities, that all have to share the same space. And that's kind of my hesitation, I mean, because there should be a protected bike lane, you know, for those who are commuting. But until that happens we have to kind of make space for them and and maybe this is their space, you know. I mean, it's kind of a a very tricky place to be. I love it, Trini, and you know we I think we're saying the same thing like option 2 is preferred. But then we hear Chris saying, You know it's it's preferred, and we'll do it where we can. But when a push comes to shove, when it gets difficult.

[143:07] that bike lane and that vulnerable user space is going to disappear. Because. as a matter of policy. We have decided the throughput for the motor vehicles. It reigns supreme. Well, that has to change because our goal is 0, and if we prioritize we won't get there any response. Chris. Natalie! Anybody. II would say that we'll keep moving forward with, you know, pushing on this particular subject and also taking into account the the feedback that we receive here, and see how we can address. You know the concerns that are here. You know, we are working within a constrained environment. at. But at the same time, I mean, we came to you today to to try and hear what you had to say, and and we'll give some additional thought to it and see what we can work through.

[144:01] Ii do think it's an incremental process of change here, too. So that's III wish I could, you know, commit to to making you know some of the the bigger more substantive kind of changes to network as a whole that that you're bringing up. But I mean, that really is is your role as as Tab is to help push those things as well. So II appreciate thoughts and and we'll keep. I just want to add. And the fact that we're having this conversation alone is huge. I think that that just demonstrates everybody's kind of eagerness to to reach the same goal. And II understand that you guys have barriers. But with our help, perhaps we can help. you know. Get through those barriers easier like you said. I mean, that is what we're here for. Great

[145:00] Ryan Ryan. Thanks. II had a little bit of a different take on the feedback. I agree with everything, Tila said. But II guess I when Chris is asking the question I was thinking of, the question was sort of like imagining the difference between, like on Boulder Creek Path, where I think it's about around Thirteenth, we're east of Thirteenth. It's a mixed space. And west, like approaching, the library becomes the defined space where it's clear that there's a there's bike path and a pedestrian path to me that I thought was more. The question is being asked like this, assuming a given amount of of with. So Chris, is that like? Well, it it was really kind of a preference of, you know. Would we? Would you want them to be separated throughout or physically denoted throughout versus to be combined throughout. Exactly. Yeah, yeah, exactly. So, so, looking at that option, too, it's like, how would you actually physically denote the different spaces? Or would you just have them be one large space, and allow individuals to make the choice? You know as to how they act in that area. Then it sounds like the example I'm I'm giving, I think, is the example. I, although maybe on on Boulder Creek when it gets west.

[146:20] But it's about 13. Maybe it gets wider. So it's not. It's not a perfect example. But to me it seems like a a factor here is if there's if there's just a lot more traffic, if it's a lot more it's just like a lot more going on with with both bikes and pedestrians. Then the defined space tends to make more sense. If if it's less, you know, if if it's less I guess if there's less pedestrian, or if it's more, either more bike or more pedestrian, I don't know. Like like Foothill Parkway or Goose Creek, it's more mixed. I think it works fine, so I don't know. It seems like there to me that this question of like, what's the density or the throughput happening? Cause less throughput, less density would suggest a nick. Space is better to me, but II don't feel strongly about it, but I just thought it after that.

[147:07] Yeah, it's a fair point, and I mean one of the things that we understand about this particular corridor is that it is a fairly significant commuter corridor for cyclists. So you do have those competent faster cyclists that are coming through on on commute necessarily, and I don't know to what extent Covid, etc., has sort of changed some of that. But just just a thought. Hello! Follow up on on Ryan's comments. I? Yeah, I definitely like the defined space. I think II also thought of Boulder Creek Path, and just how chaotic it is, and it's as beautiful as it is is kind of a frustrating experience for people walking and biking because they're fighting for space because it's so popular. So it's a good problem to have. But yeah, I just think you separate by speed and bikes go faster. So and really also, just for the sake of.

[148:00] if you know, in wanting people to feel comfortable using different modes. I think a lot of people learn not to bike and scooter and use a scooter because they don't like as a pedestrian the experience of being mixed in with people biking in on scooters because it feels unsafe to them to be kind of have people starting around them. And so I just think anytime we can avoid that scenario. You know, the best in class thing to do is to separate And it's, you know I love that we have the the ability to do that on this corridor. So I'm really excited to see that as as what's being shown in the in the cross-sections here. Great! Why don't we move on to Oops? Sorry I need to go back to question here the final one. It's pretty open ended here, and and that was intentional to allow folks to, you know, kind of make sure that they're getting out their particular thoughts. But for this particular phase of work, you know we are at this 15% design. You know. So we're not in final design. We're not in construction yet. So just keeping in mind where we're at you know. Are there other design considerations that that we should be making, or things that you all can think of, that we should put in the mix.

[149:19] I think I just want to reiterate what we were speaking about earlier, that if anything has to go it should never be where pedestrians are more vulnerable. Road users are, gonna be we should have the space to feel safe and to get from point A to Point B always safely. So we have this amazing opportunity right now to create this new with moving around. So let's just in my my personal ask is that you guys keep that in mind always, and unfortunately, yes, if plans have to go, they have to go. But you know, I mean, that's one thing and and I guess if if there's a there's a possibility, then to have protected bike lanes. And so then we we expand that area right? So then we have

[150:10] a a way that commuters can move around and you know, do it at a speed that they need to go at and and then that have the space for people that don't feel as comfortable and is, and still separated from pedestrians, because Becky raises a really really good good point. I mean now with scooters, and III do. When I'm writing, I do feel, and I am. I try to be as kind and as you know, I approach people slowly. But I see that not everybody does, you know. So so yeah. But anyway, well, that's my input. Appreciate it. Ryan. My only thought now is on other design considerations, so that we've looked mostly at least the pictures mostly at the mid block.

[151:04] are we intersections a part of this discussion at this point, or this is really about. Do you want feedback on that, too? Or there was as it stands right now, I mean, as the intersections are concerned. It's a a kind of mentioned this a little bit earlier, but that we are going to be looking at intersections right now. We're at this sort of cross section level. If we can get general buy off on. These are the the basic cross sections that we want to try and apply. Of course, you know there were going to be variations in the quarter, but and then at the intersections, we are looking to apply the protected bicycle intersections that were envisioned within the East Arapaho transportation plan. and also really thinking about safety and particularly visuals at Crossings, where, you know, you have private access points, or or you know, non signalized intersections. For example, we're gonna be thinking we're thinking about that as well. But that is sort of the next phase that we move into. As we go into design, we'll start to take those cross sections and then lay them out in that plan view in the actual design, and be able to to demonstrate exactly how those protected intersections would work.

[152:09] There are, you know, some intersections, some of the major ones that like foothills, for example, where there's sort of separate projects around those that will be separate from the work that we do. But the majority of intersections would be included within our project. Great? Okay, thanks for that. Yeah. I'm I feel I feel happy, for now I just will associate my comments with with Tila. She's been very eloquent. And then when it comes to intersections, yeah, that'll be. That'll be good to talk about. Yeah, just like a lot with that. So thank you for your work on. I'll tag along. My! My one thought was just also on intersections, and I'll just have one comment on that which is my one fear would be that there would be really long crossing distances without any kind of like. I know there's the I this sort of Central Median in the Cross section, but I'd be afraid that that would turn into one or 2 turning lanes. And suddenly pedestrians are crossing

[153:14] 7 lanes of traffic with no, you know, no media, no island, nothing that. So II hope that can really be avoided as much as possible, those, those really long crossing distances. That's my my hope for the intersection. That's a good point. And some of the things that we're doing, because we are thinking about that as well, you know, with by E. Remember that throughout the corridor we are sort of repurposing. Some existing travel lanes into the transit lanes. And I think that helps some, because those transit lanes are not gonna have consistent traffic throughout. Now those transit lanes can also be utilized for turning traffic into private businesses and things like that. They're not completely separated, but they are primarily for the the buses.

[154:01] And we are trying to think about the the again, the protected intersections, particularly for the bike and the pedestrian connections across. So it's a really good point. And we're going to be looking at that in more detail as we start to actually lay this out. But it's a it's definitely helpful. Great, thank you. Does anyone else have any other comments on additional design considerations. Nope, okay. Well, thanks. Chris. This was really informative, and it's a really exciting project. So appreciate you coming here and sharing it with us and answering all our questions. Thanks for your time. Right? I think we are on to our next agenda. Item. Now, which is matters from staff. Hi, Becky, we have a few tonight. And I think we're gonna try to go through them quickly, since we're just a little bit behind

[155:08] and our first one tonight Garrett's going to provide an update on the sidewalk upgrades conversation that we've been having with you all. Hello again. So you might recall from our bicycle tour a few weeks back. when we stopped on Cedar and around Fifteenth Street to take a look at the sidewalk repairs that took place as part of the pavement management program, that we had some conversation about the right way to implement sidewalk, and in particular the curb type adjacent to sidewalk as to whether they should be mountable or vertical curve treatments with the issue being that some vehicles are inclined to to not understand the barrier between a mountable curve and thinking that they should put their wheels up on the sidewalk, where a vertical curve prevents that behavior from happening, and keeps the vehicles off the sidewalk. So

[156:09] II also thought it might be helpful for you to understand that if I didn't emphasize this on the tour that it would be helpful to understand. There are 2 mean 2 means by which we repair sidewalks in a major way. One is the sidewalk repair program and the other is through the pavement management program, where, when we find sidewalk adjacent the streets that we're going to be repaving, we go in and upgrade curb ramps to bring them into compliance with Ada standards, and also repair sidewalks to bring them into our own standards. With respect to horizontal and vertical joint displacement. So having consulted the city staff and the construction crews that we typically contract with. Because we don't still perform this work. We don't have the resources or the in house expertise to do this type of work. So we rely exclusively on our external contractor partnerships, and

[157:07] we had had a few meetings with them, and also talked amongst ourselves. About the desires. Excuse me and what we have concluded is that we'd like to moved forward with a modification to the sidewalk repair. Why do I get the frog right when it's time to talk? With that we should move forward with an experimental approach to implementing vertical curb treatment as part of the pavement management and the sidewalk repair program. When we have a run that's longer than 100 feet. and the issue you might recall from our bike tour is that many of the sidewalk repairs are replacing just a single section, or a or single slab or stone, which might vary in length from 6 feet to 8 feet. Sometimes you'll see a a couple of sections adjacent to one another. And so what we don't want is to have this continuous back and forth to vertical treatment along a single block.

[158:17] And so we would like to try to have a uniform section for drainage and accessibility purposes to driveways as as much as possible and also make it as easy as possible for our contractors to to be able to build, and so with an average block length in the city, being between 400 feet to 600 feet we arrived at for next year's program. We would like to work with a number of 100 feet. When we have a replacement section longer than a hundred feet, that we will. Transition to a vertical curve. Section a a in those areas even where there are driveways present that will transition back. But work to try to create that better delineation between the the vehicle parking space and the pedestrian walking space. So that's the the update on what our next steps are. And we'll be eager to see how it plays out on the construction side and see what your feedback is as we work to implement that into the program.

[159:23] Thanks, Gary. Any questions from Tab before we keep going. I was just gonna say, thank you for your follow up on that and let me know about the change, and looking into that I'll appreciate it. Thank you. agreed. Thank you. Alright. Our next update, I think either Jean or Valerie is here to speak to there's just a request. This one, a brief update. Yeah, Natalie, I'll go ahead and cover this one. Hi, yeah, so I'll keep it brief. Thanks. So just introducing a a planning project that is just getting underway and is being sponsored by the Denver Regional Council of Governments or Dr. Cog. They are funding a couple of Co. Pilot

[160:18] corridor planning projects, and we, the city of Boulder, Boulder County, Lewisville, Lafayette, were selected as a pilot project to develop a corridor plan for the South Boulder Road corridor, connecting all of our communities. And so the purpose of the South Boulder Road corridor plan is to develop a vision for for that quarter a multimodal vision. You know much in the way that we started with either the Easter Rapaho plan, or the 1 19 Corridor South Boulder Road is one of the North West area. Mobility study corridor. So it is a nam's quarter. And it's actually the last of the nams quarters for us to begin thinking about how to identify improvements, to enhance multimodal connectivity between the community. So this is really the start of developing that vision for the corridor, and Dr. Cog is putting together a steering committee. And the role of that steering committee will be to recommend ideas, develop partnerships, goals, vet recommendations, and act as ambassador

[161:24] for the project for respective communities and interest groups. And so we have put forward a number of organizations that we think would be appropriate for that steering committee, such as members of community Cycles Center for people with disabilities. See you, Bbsd, and we also think that having a member of tab on the steering committee would be a really great addition to the steering committee, and so the commitment would be to attend between 4 and 6 meetings over the course of the next year. They're hoping to schedule their first meeting in early October, and we're putting that to tab this evening to ask if one of you might be interested in serving on that steering committee.

[162:12] I would love to do that if nobody else wants to. You need a what's it called primary announcement, Jean, or do you? What are you? What are you asking for? I think. Yes, they haven't asked for an alternate, but I think it would be a good idea for us to propose an alternate as well. Thanks, I don't. I don't need to be either. I just wanted to ask. Oh, come! But, Ryan, you spoke up so just wanted to let Becky. And do you know, if they had a shot to raise their hand? Otherwise, Alex, we can. We can name Alex. Thanks. Diane. Yeah, Tanya, I'm I'm happy for you to to be the representative, and I'm also happy to serve as an alternate as needed.

[163:03] Yeah. that's wonderful. Trainee. And Becky. Thanks very much. We really appreciate that, and we'll be in touch with more information. Awesome. Thank you. Thanks. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Okay. Our next item that we had under matters can also be brief. I just wanted to make sure that you all saw a message. That I sent was probably couple weeks ago. Now, just providing an update on the 2024 2029 transportation cip And I'll just mention Mark Wolf from our budget office is actually here this evening. She he hung in with us through the meeting. So he's here to help answer any questions. As well, so I will just kind of provide a quick recap of the information that was shared, and that was just that we made a couple of revisions to the cip that came to you the the draft that came to you back in July we made a couple of revisions to after

[164:11] as a city. We completed kind of our budget process. The city manager's office had the the draft final budget that is moving forward to city council. Included a couple of revisions, and those were primarily those were around. are pavement management program, and we also added an additional project for Violet Avenue Bridge. And and this was really due to. There was a need for us to look at trans additional transportation funding to meet these needs. Originally, we thought that they would kind of be able to live within the community culture, resilience and safety fund allocation. And just as the city kind of took a look at citywide needs, it was recognized that there was much more need than the fund the Ccrs fund had available.

[165:09] And so we were able to kind of take a more holistic look at what the Transportation Fund could potentially take on from these needs. And that's where the addition of the payment management program additional funding around just being able to bolster our payment management program that was added in. And then the Violet Avenue bridge was added in as well. And I'll just note that Violet Violet Avenue bridge funding. When you look at the cip, it's you know, pretty minimal in the 2024, 2025 timeframe, because we're really looking at just some funding around furthering design over the next couple of years there will potentially be a more significantly need in those out years around Violet Avenue Bridge. Assuming we can't find any other funding sources city wide, we will be looking for the transportation fund to help fund that project. And Garrett Slater is also, of course, here this evening. So if there's questions about those projects, he can help answer those questions, too. But I think that about some set up

[166:24] but feel free to just ask any questions of any of us here tonight. Thank you. Can I? Just a quick, clarifying question. Natalie. III missed the part you said the transportation fund will be potentially required to cover what? Exactly so Violet Avenue Bridge. If you I should have put a slide, because that probably would have been a bit easier. But when you look at the cip you'll see. Vile Avenue Bridge is now in the cip for the Transportation Fund. but it's only like

[167:00] a million and a half, I think, off the top. My head in the 2425 timeframe. So you don't see a huge kind of significant investment in those out years in the cip for violet app. But assuming we can't find any other funding sources city wide. We will be looking to the Transportation fund. I think it's likely that transportation fund is probably going to need to take care of a big piece of that in the out years around construction. But we may have some other potential funding partners even within the city. That could help us out with that. Okay, thanks. Anything to add. There, Garrett Mark. I think you covered it. Okay. we mostly just felt like, you know it was good to kind of provide that update. Given that. What you saw in July was a bit different than what we submitted. And didn't want you all to just be surprised that what was in Council's packet this this week later this week?

[168:07] Thanks, Natalie. Becky. I don't know if you were doing comments or questions on this one? Or may may I offer? Yeah, yeah, go ahead. Okay. Mainly. I'm talking to Mark, because, Mark, it's good to have you here and just to reiterate something I said previously. We looked at last, which was. I mean, I trust, the the work of the staff on this. I don't have any questions about the substance of it. But I am very interested in the way we package the the story to our to our city council. in. In this, in the sense that we have it. we. We have initiatives in transportation that if if we do them right. Like, according to the best scholarly work and practitioner evidence. we are Nic cost negative. If we can give, if we can create a transportation system, where we let people escape car dependence, and and they can walk and bike freely, and they have transit that comes frequently so that they don't have to, you know, do the other stuff, and we make land use work well to enable all that we save money. It's it's it's it's a positive. It's a positive investment. And

[169:22] I don't think that's a very popularly understood thing with with just, you know, with counsel, with the public and I just think, you know, we're in a climate crisis. You look at intergovernmental panel on climate change and what they say about cost measures and and transit, and but and biking is one of the few cost measures of all that's like. That's negative. If if you do right, nothing, it's easy. But like it's, it's it's a question of financing is is is what we need to be figuring out. And so I just I just get really uneasy when we let these conversations go by about like, oh, transportation doesn't have enough money, and I don't want to suggest that like transportation is more important than other things. But I do think that we have work to do to educate our elected body and our and the public

[170:08] about the need to figure out financing strategies for transportation so that we can save money because we're right now locked into a problem that's that's costing us a lot of subsidies that we don't need to pay for. So not an easy thing to just like take take forward. But I would just would love to see when we go to council with this like. Oh, we don't have enough money for transportation that we're really. We're really talking about this. If you need a guest speaker, I'm sure somebody from Tala volunteer to come. Talk about it. So in any case, thanks for your work. And I know this isn't. This is an easy stuff. So appreciate it. Yeah, thanks for that, Ryan, and good to be with everybody tonight. Ii would just say that we've got a lot of work to do and kind of telling our story across the board, and especially as it relates to something you're pointing out with pulling in data to support our overall goals and objectives. Right? Where are we doing well? Where do we need to do better? And and we're kind of in the middle of that process, from a budgeting perspective, moving towards an outcome based approach. So

[171:09] granted, we're early in that. But I but I hear you in in that. There's a lot of work to do to make sure that we're we're able to measure the impact of what we're doing from an investment standpoint. And one of those in particular and and definitely interested in in this metric. And what? Where are we recovering cause? We're potentially benefits to the investments where we're we're making beyond kind of the more obvious outcome. So point taken. And II just know that we're we're certainly thinking about that across the city. And how we can do a better job in in measuring our outcomes and our impact going forward. Great thanks for that. And also, I'm glad about I'm really excited about the outcome based system. We'll see where it all goes. But yeah, it seems like, that's a really positive direction. So thanks for that and thanks for visiting. And please come again.

[172:01] Tila, did you have a question or comment? I do indeed. Thank you. I am definitely looking at the last years and next year's and previous year's budget. And honestly, in my 10 year on Tab. I have recognized that that's probably one of the most impactful things that we as a board can do is advise Staff about what money they seek. what money they plan for, what money they plan to spend it on. And III honestly think this is one of the more impactful things we can do. I'm also mindful recently about sort of the national and state, wide and regional impact of traffic violence.

[173:08] And I have been looking up, for instance, recently, how many people perish in fires? Versus how many people perish! And parks and Rec. and I am struck that we are spending, you know, 40,000 this next year, maybe 28,002 years ago, 55,000 on fire rescue to avert maybe 4 deaths like we have, we, we have. It's a similar kind of like lightning strike death situation. However. the numbers of people who are killed and maimed or seriously injured on our roads are far more

[174:10] like dwarf the numbers and the risks. per 1,000 people, 100,000 people 10,000 people that are killed and maimed on our highways. And I'm really struck that we don't have a robust system other than some verbal wishy, washy commitment to vision 0 that we are not achieving. And we have not been achieving. If we dedicated the amount of resources that we do to fire and rescue and parks and rack

[175:00] or community vitality that we do to the fire department. I honestly think we might be able to stem some of the carnage and serious injuries were you seeing seeing on our roads? And so I would really love, and I have been talking to the last several heads of transportation and mobility to ask for far more resources. And far more robust programs for stemming particularly speed related injuries. But injuries and deaths on our roadways, in our city and on our county roads. And I think this is an opportunity to really treat this like the public health emergency that we thought that Covid was that that Covid really was. So I am underwhelmed. And how much

[176:03] this budget tracks last year's budget tracks the previous budget we're really making almost incremental improvements for a what I consider a public health crisis. And I would really like more public reconciliation and recognition our road violence, traffic violence problem here in the city. in the county, in the State, and I would love for Boulder to lead the way in stemming that problem. I'll just say, you know, thanks, Tila, and definitely hear you. I think you know we. The one thing that comes to mind is the safe streets and roads for all applications that we submitted.

[177:03] Kind of being that really big breaking the status quo right as far as investment goes. And you know. Who knows if we're going to be aboard at that? But I think that was a step in the right direction as as far as trying to make an effort to kind of break the mold and certainly there's opportunity to think about how we can do more. But I think that kind of comes to mind as 1 one step in the right direction, and we'll see if we're successful in that for real Natalie. If if you were as important as the fire department. you would have a lot more money available. Do some some real change around town. and I've I've you know I've talked to the last 4 or 6 directors about this.

[178:07] and I have faith in you. and I would like you to try to go to Bat to treat this as the public health crisis. It is well, I just add, here makes me think of our our retreat item, to work on. One of them was for Tab to work on. I think Alex and Trini are looking at this to work on. You know. What additional funding sources can we put forth as a board to counsel to help support, you know, and accelerate our our movement towards our transportation goals. So I mean, I just think we can be definitely participants and supporters and advocates on that to help to help move that forward. So

[179:02] anyway. So I look forward to that as we move along with our with those retreat priorities, and particularly that that funding piece as well. Becky, can I just add one thing that I hesitate to try cause. Tila that was, that was very well said, and I agree with it. I just wanted to to track to the budget discussion and think, you know, this is when I hear you talk like I, what I think about is like, this is less about a transportation problem. And this is about a problem for the whole city. And so in the context of a city budget. If we look at a bar chart of deaths, of deaths at namings that transportation is is is high. I mean, I'd like to see the data. I think that to me that was part of the point is like if we had in our budget. I don't know. It's a pie chart. It's a bar chart, or whatever, but but showed where are people dying in the city, and or I guess, in which ways are people dying? And then and then how would you allocate those deaths and injuries to departments.

[180:05] it would probably jump out that there are a few departments that are that are being under under resourced compared to the rest. and this is, of course, one of these things that that is people have learned to just not see it, because it's a steady drip that just keeps happening. And you know, we we're we're more interested in unusual deaths. So I think this is, this is a call apart for to the Budget office, and and thinking about how how we present overall the data of like, what are we getting for the things we're spending? We're getting a lot of deaths, and they do come from, you know, some some places. So anyway. Thanks for raising Antila. Thanks, Ryan. And I just wanna add that it is a national crisis. It's not just regional, absolutely trainee. And that was kind of like one like like like flag about what Ryan said.

[181:02] And this is kind of where I'm I'm coming from in general in my work these days, but it's it's a national health crisis and treaty. You know that better than anybody. It is not up to the city or the State like we are ill-equipped to address it. But until we start sounding the alarm. no one's going to step up. I do think that there is additional funding, and that we are in a place that maybe I'm very romantic about it. But but I do see that there are things being done at a federal level, and it's starting to like trickle down, and those that funding is starting to become available. I think this is the second year for that. Grant that Natalie was speaking to, which is the safe streets for all. And you know the National Roadway safety strategy was announced last year, and with it came 5 billion additional dollars

[182:08] exclusively for complete streets. So the funding's there. It's just kind of. you know. tapping into it and realizing that yeah, that this is a crisis and that we can't continue to allow people to die because we know how to fix things. we have the resources potentially. And it's just reaching out to the right people. But yeah, and I think Natalie and her team are doing a really really good job. But perhaps yes, if we have to prioritize to the city that this is what we need to put money behind, or more money behind. Right? So yeah, thank you for that. I appreciate it. and thank you for bringing up. I see a few hands up here, but I don't. I don't know if any of you have any more some comments?

[183:04] And I know we are running behind, so I don't wanna cut anybody off. But if if we're good. Here, then we maybe move on to the last item under matters enters that. Yup. Thank you, Mark and Garrett, on that one. Okay, we do have just a actually very brief update. I just wanted to make sure you all had a chance to provide feedback through the survey from Hrq. Around board and Commission evaluation, the program evaluation, that Council? It's really a council-led initiative. Obviously, we have consultants working on it. Hopefully, you all got that message and had a chance to provide some feedback. Okay? Or at least a few of you did. Natalie. I think I did, but I don't know how to confirm whether I did. We can probably get a head count on that. I imagine the consultant on their end is probably tabulating who they're getting feedback from so

[184:09] well, if if they didn't give big back, it's not cause I didn't care. I think I did it, but II might not have like successfully submitted it. Okay, well, I actually have a meeting with the consultant. I think next week, or something, so there will be a chance for me to kind of check in on that. And could we have access to the document again. please? I'm not sure about that. I can look into it and see if it can be made available again. Thank you. I'm sorry. Okay. And then just one final thing to note and acknowledge we did see. Staff received a message from community cycles just shortly before this meeting about Grand View. We have not had time to really kind of fully dive into what was addressed in there. But we'll be following up and probably doing a field assessment or something to kind of see what's going on. And we'd be happy to kind of report back when we

[185:10] meet again. Thank you. thank you, natalie, we have from staff. Yeah, thank you. thanks. so we have matters from the board, Ryan. I know you had an item for us. Yeah, I can go unless you want to know you. I think you might have something to do, Becky. Either order is fine with me. Yeah, go for it. Okay, so I sent an email earlier today. Trini and Tila, did you, can you raise your hand or tell me if you saw that or know what I'm talking about? Okay. Tila, yeah, yeah, I saw it. That'd be great. Okay? So you saw it. Okay? So I guess, for the benefit of everybody here. So

[186:03] I'm just following up on at our last meeting had planned. We we had discussed my sending an email or a correspondence to city Council to as a kind of companion to the minutes from our July meeting, in which we voted to as as part of the East Aurora neighborhood parking permit matter. Also tell council we think that city code is standing in the way of being able to do more. On, on parking and standing in the way of us being able to do more on our transportation goals we care about. So I sent a draft email or sorry a draft of the memo today that you that you all have that we could look at in a moment. If if that makes sense. But before I do that I'll just say that II think the the process is is such that I if there's any feedback today, so as to get into a point where we agree that it should go go forward. Then I think the

[187:03] the the next step would be to wait until the Council has the minutes from July on their agenda, and I don't know the exact which week it's coming which week it'll be. But I know that the June Minutes tab just went to council last week, so it is presumably within the next few weeks. I know there's other things coming with parking to to council. and I had previously imagined sending it to sending it to council just sort of more, more quickly, but I think it works better to send it along with the minutes that they're getting, so that it's a highlight for those minutes. So maybe the first thing to say is, are there any thoughts or questions on the sort of like process? More we should do? And then, secondly, does anybody want to weigh in on the text which which I can? I can pull up so step one process where we are any thoughts or questions on that.

[188:05] Just let's say I didn't. I didn't know they're like that timing. So it's it's useful to hear that. Thanks for doing that digging. Okay, I didn't mean I sort of figured it out. But yeah, okay, and great. And I should clarify. Becky is weighed in on this, so we that we could just as well call this from Ryan and Becky and then also curfew and Planning Board gave some technical advice on this. So so I guess the other maybe sort of like sub, like 1 one B on this is, I know there's some other parking things we're talking about, too, that Becky's gonna present. So III think this is the right way to go, and just to keep it kinda attached to the minutes. And not try to get to. I try to. I don't know integrate more than that, but I'm my mind's open. If, like anybody wants to do something else. So just maybe, like going once, going twice, any anything else on process? Or does that sound good to just okay? Then the second question is, does anybody want to call up the actual document and make any edits? Or you see the document? Now, would you like to suggest edits to it. or anything along the lines of provisions.

[189:12] It's not happy to just take a nod or hands or voter. I need a I need a moment to go to look at it again. Thank you. Also. I just close that window. Hang on, hey, Brian? Well, I do just wanna and bear with it jump in here, too, if I forget something wrong. We had some like just technical glitches when we tried to put in the minutes from the July meeting into Council's packet. Were you aware of that already? Okay. Well, anyway, we are working those out. But it was like missing. I think a page at the end of the minutes, or something. So I believe now the September 20, first packet is going to have the full. Is that what we're looking at Meredith. Okay is gonna have the full minutes included in there with like the sign to page and everything. So

[190:12] that might matter. Since you're gonna reference it. bye. anything. Last week Meredith reached out to us and let us know that they were missing a page, and so once we found that out. We pulled them so that we could crack the error. When when did the first version go? Do you know it was in the preliminary packet, I believe is that right? There it is correct. The technology would not accept the docusign

[191:03] minutes, and Alex's signature is required for them to be final minutes. Okay, got it. So it was a preliminary version. That's why I didn't see it, because I was just looking on the public online stuff. Okay, cool. Great. So then I'll yeah. Then it that sounds straightforward. Then, okay, hang on. So we're talking about the document called memo to City Council on per game in city code from Tab. Yeah. Okay? So because it has extensive reference to the July 10 meeting that I was not at. I don't think that I can sign on to it, and I'm not sure how that matters. It's not that I disagree with anything that I've read here. It's just that I was not part of that discussion. Okay.

[192:02] I am happy to re review it once you have, you know, attained sign off or not sign off, or whatever consensus from the other people who are on that meeting about this letter. But II cannot join it because I was not there at the relevant meeting that you are. Ostensibly, you know that you're you're summarizing here. Okay. I think that's I think that's fine. And I think the I guess in some ways I've I've already been given direction at the last meeting to to go to, to send this to council. So really, this is a note saying, Hey, counsel, you know this explains what's in the memo. So which the minutes have already, you know, been recorded for. So I don't think that's really a problem. Yeah. So folks have any. You know, members have any. Just, you know, look at this. And you'd like to see any changes, I guess, suggested otherwise. Think I have the mandate to

[193:02] that Trani. Anything from you? No, I hold on. Am I muted? No, no, no! I looked it over. No, it all looks good, so great. Thank you. And, Becky, you're you're still okay. Alright. And I think that's that's fine. Okay, that's all. That's all. Then thanks everybody for your work on this. And, Becky, I look forward to the next item on. Thank you. Looks terrific. Thanks, Ryan. I will try to make this brief. I emailed the I felt tab members about the retreat item related to Off street parking that Yup agreed to as one of our retreat priorities. So I'm really trying to get rolling on it. And basically my email, I just outlined the sort of 3 main points of the ask effectively for council for their work plan for next year. And I just wanted to get a make sure everyone was okay with that? Ask, as I had outlined it. Before I go to other boards and ask them to endorse that ask. So I'll just name those 3 components here. One. So remember, this is a this is ultimately a request to counsel current, and but really for the next council, so that includes people who will be elected in the coming election.

[194:24] So item one, we ask that they add an item to the 2024 work plan to revise our off street, parking ordinances number 2, requesting that they eliminate off street parking mandates from city code and number 3, that they also consider implementing off street parking maximums and adopting a Tdm ordinance to further support our parking management. And overall goals. So those are kind of the 3 pieces. I'm trying to keep it simple, since they will be talking to people of various other boards that don't necessarily spend as much time on parking in their work. But those are sort of the 3 pieces, and I just wanted to make sure that Tab.

[195:06] you know, doesn't have any objections to them before I ask others to support them. So you can give me feedback here, or you can give me feedback via email. But I do need to kind of get rolling on talking to other boards, so please let me know within a day or 2. If you if you want great thanks Toa excellent and then also just let you know the sort of boards I prioritize for outreach are planning board, Boulder Junction commissions. housing, board, environmental board and Water Resources Board, because I think they're sort of the most direct connection to off street parking. And then some of the other boards might be related, but maybe are a little more secondary in in my mind. But if you have feelings otherwise, let me know, and by by secondary I mean, I will invest less of my time in reaching out to them. Maybe send an email, but not, you know. Try to do as much direct engagement versus those main boards I mentioned, where I'll I'll really try to talk to to the members, all the members of the boards. So that's my thinking again, open to feedback. Feel free to email me, or if you have a point of a conversation about it, let me know. But I am gonna start doing that. That outreach throughout the course of the coming month.

[196:21] Becky, am I recalling that you were also asking whether city staff had any feedback on this effort? Not at this time. But if we want to have any further conversations. You know I'm of course, happy to engage. So does city the city staff have any feedback on this effort. so I don't think so at this time we did have a I know. Becky chatted with one of our staff or a couple of our staff. For a little bit, just to kind of have some of the background.

[197:00] And you know we're happy to. If if there's a desire for us to weigh in some more, we're happy to do that. My my thinking is that you know, as getting this on the work plan will mean there's then a good amount of time, and when there will be. you know, some more analysis and conversation, and so we'll certainly want all the expertise, and that that staff has, including past work done on this issue. It'd be included then, before anything is finalized in in a change to the ordinances. Okay, thank you, Becky. II really like that approach. Becky. I just said 1 one thing to make sure. We're all buttoned up here. I'm really excited about this initiative, and I'm ready for you to go forward, but I just wanted to. make sure. So

[198:00] you know we have this clause in the city code for tab or tabs duties, or it says the Board should not involve itself in any review under the land use legislation. Blah blah fail? 9 and II don't. I think I think we have the jurisdiction and move forward on this, based on what came from our our our offsite. But and relatedly, we have a we have a special relationship with planning board also in like our our charter. So I don't. I guess maybe this. I don't know this question for Natalie, but I just wanted to make sure that everybody feels like we're good here. II think that we're good here, but I just would hate to go down the road, and somebody says, Hey, but Tab doesn't. We can't like proactively do land use stuff. So we all feel good with this. So I guess I mean, I think it'll kind of depend on just what you end up putting forward as like a recommendation to counsel?

[199:00] because my understanding is that at least what you had been working on was kind of within the domain of Tabs Charter, though the charter is kind of big, but it seemed within that domain. And so, if you plan to advise council on, you know, policy issue within that domain. I think that's appropriate for the work to do. Great. Thank you. Yeah, thanks, Natalie. And it's a great question, Ryan, I think. since these reviews are there, are these reviews coming to us for site reviews, for places that are asking for exceptions to the off street parking. That seems to me that it like is further links our work to the Off street parking code. If those. you know reviews are coming to us already. Yeah, I'll and I'll just say, I mean, I think this is the type of feedback, and just like helpful information for Hrq. As they're doing the ports and commission and kind of program update. Because I think these are the types of questions that are in that gray area right now that

[200:10] seem, there seems to be a need for a little bit more clarity about board's roles and responsibilities in these areas. Yeah, that's not sense. Yeah, I think yeah. So I didn't mean to accomplish anything. I think I think it's pretty straightforward that we're yeah. We're we're in balance. And also this came from our are are off-site, and I think it's straightforward consequence of that. So both part of thanks. Any other matters from the board. Okay. Then I think we are onto future agenda topics? October that includes. Do I just read this, or is this, is this United at this point? But we'll have.

[201:17] We'll have probably more to add to that, and we'll go over that as general setting in a week or so. Great and great sounds good, so we'll have update on the snow and ice program that is on the list. But more to come. And that is the end of our agenda. Thank you. Everyone for helping me chair in this meeting. And I will ask, is there a motion to adjourn? I move that we adjourn. Wait a second. All those in favor.

[202:00] Hi. yeah. Great So as unanimous with 4 votes. So we are adjourned. Thanks everyone, Becky. Thanks. Everyone.