Transportation & Mobility Advisory Board City Of

Transportation & Mobility Advisory Board

TRANSPORTATION & MOBILITY ADVISORY BOARD CITY OF LITTLETON AGENDA

LOCATION: Zoom Webinar ID: 937 2223 7565

Dial-In for Public Comment: 1-301-715-8592

Thursday August 27, 2020 6:30 PM – 8:30 PM

o Call to Order o Roll Call o Adopt July 2020 Meeting Minutes o Public Comment - 10 minutes o Overview of 5-year CIP(focus on 2020 to 2022) - 30 minutes o Review & Approve of TMB Value Statement - 30 minutes o Discuss Dates for remaining 2020 TMB Meetings - 15 minutes o Board, Staff Comments - 15 minutes o Adjourn

1 Transportation & Mobility Board (TMB) – City of Littleton Meeting Minutes - July 23, 2020

Board Member Attendees • Kent Bagley (Chair) • Dan Radulovich (Vice Chair) • Dan Flynn • Tom Grant • Kelly Honecker • Jonathan Buck • Geoffrey Selzer Not Present: • David Pulsipher • Christopher Lillie

Staff Attendees Aaron Heumann, Keith Reester, Shane Roberts, Brent Thompson, Jenn Henninger Other Panelist • Jerry Valdes (Littleton Mayor) • Brian Welch (RTD) • Holly Buck (FHU, Consultant for RTD Projects) Legend • S – Staff member • B – Board member • C – City Council member • FHU – FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG, a consulting firm • RTD – Regional Transportation District • Bullet - Indicates an important note or point of discussion • Bold Bullets – Indicates info related to a motion/action that was made • Highlighted Bullet - Indicates an action item for the Board or Staff

Call to Order: Kent Bagley (Chair) 6:33 PM

Adoption of June 23, 2020 Minutes • June 2020 Minutes were adopted unanimously by 7-0 vote

Public Comments

Note: The below notes are reflective of the comments themselves, not the accuracy of any claims made in the public comment period. • Staff Notification: Until further notice Transportation and Mobility Advisory Board (TMB) meetings will take place virtually using Zoom. Call-in coverage will be available for each meeting. Call-in information will be provided to the public on the agenda posted to the City of Littleton’s Official Calendar. • No attendees raised their hand (by dialing *9) to make public comment.

Presentation: Brian Welch (RTD) on Broadway BRT Feasibility Study • Staff to send Final BRT Feasibility Study to Board Members. • Brian Welch (RTD) gave an overview of RTD’s BRT Feasibility Study specifically as it relates to Broadway. Brian covered the process RTD undertook to select corridors that they feel are most competitive for future BRT. • Tom Grant (Board Member) asked for ballpark numbers on the cost per mile for each form of transit. • Brian Welch (RTD) will send the cost per mile information to Staff (Shane Roberts) and staff will send to Board Members. • Across the US jurisdictions are going to BRT over LRT because of the cost and constraints of LRT and other fixed guideway systems. • Shane Roberts (S) will forward Brian’s presentations to the TMB members and post as part of August 2020 meeting materials. • Kelly Honecker (B) asked about the criteria for a corridor being a candidate for federal transit funding? • Brian Welch (RTD) explained the two primary factors: 1, can the applicant demonstrate they have the financial capacity to run whatever they propose? 2, What is the cost effectiveness of the investment? Essentially comparing the number of riders to the cost of the project. Brian feels Broadway BRT would be a competitive project if it were considered for federal funding based on other national projects that have already been funded. • Keith Reester (S) asked what kind of land uses lend themselves to a successful BRT corridor? • Brian Welch (RTD) explained that a threshold of density is needed to support BRT—3 stories of residential, 3 to 4 stories of office or mixed use. In addition, destinations or nodes that attract people are needed as well. • Geoff Selzer (B) asked what can Littleton do to move forward with BRT on Broadway?

• Brian Welch (RTD) explained that the incorporation of the possibility of BRT into planning documents and future projects is what RTD would prefer. At the very least, not precluding BRT in a project would be key. • Geoff Selzer (B) asked about what plans Littleton already has for BRT, and what the cost to Littleton would be? • Keith Reester (S) explained that the TMP plans for BRT on Broadway and staff is accounting for possible BRT in projects on Broadway. • Brain Welch (RTD) shared that RTD would not expect a financial contribution for BRT, but would expect in-kind contributions (through permitting) and collaboration on projects while having realistic expectations. • Dan Radulovich (B) asked how many stations were planned for Littleton’s portion of Broadway? • Brian Welch (RTD) explained that, generally speaking, stations will be less than a mile apart and may even be at a ½ mile frequency. Brian also said he would follow up with information regarding potential station locations. • Dan Radulovich (B) asked how the COVID-19 Pandemic might impact transit ridership, and if RTD had begun to forecast those impacts? • Brian Welch (RTD) explained that this is the biggest question the transit industry is trying to answer, and he would touch on RTD’s approach in his second presentation.

Presentation 2: Brian Welch (RTD) on Reimagine RTD • Prior to the pandemic RTD was already planning on service cuts due to the number of operator vacancies. • By the time RTD was back to full staffing, the pandemic hit, and demand decrease significantly impacted ridership which impacted revenue. • With the decrease in revenue and ridership, RTD is proposing a new service plan to take effect in January 2021. The RTD Board will vote on the plan in October of 2020, and there will be plenty of opportunities for public input prior to the October vote. • RTD is trying to strike a balance between Social Equity, Service Quality, Geographic Coverage, and Cost Efficiency while maintaining a balanced budget. • The System Optimization Plan will consolidate lines that offer duplicative service, and instead rely on quick transfers. For example, riders going from Mineral Station to Union Station will no longer have non-stop service under this optimization plan. They will need to transfer at one of the 5 stations between Auraria and Broadway. • This change in service will also help reduce maintenance costs. • Next steps on the Reimagine RTD Process: th o RTD Board of Directors – August 25 3

th o Technical Working Group – August 26 th o Advisory Committee – August 27 o Anyone can offer input at www.rtd-denver.com/reimagine • Dan Radulovich (B) asked if RTD is considering working with taxi companies or ride share companies to supplement service? • Brian Welch (RTD) explained RTD is getting ready to conduct pilot programs with Metro Taxi and Uber to provide a mix of services. • Dan Radulovich (B) asked how will RTD be collecting feedback on reimagine RTD? • Holly Buck (FHU) explained RTD will be conducting in-person surveys, hosting a website, and conducting online surveys. Board member are encouraged to reach out to FHU or RTD with feedback, and contact info from interested groups. RTD will provide a summary of ways for people to provide input. • Kelly Honecker (B) expressed going to organizations that already have connections within the communities RTD wants to reach as a great way to garner feedback. • Jen Henninger (S) offered to connect RTD and FHU with some of the organizations working with vulnerable populations via email. • Jon Buck (B) mentioned a number of organizations for RTD and FHU to connect with regarding feedback on Reimagine, including: Love Inc., Littleton Public Schools, North Littleton Promise, and The Life Center. FHU/RTD will reach out to these organizations. • RTD’s proposed service cuts will provide about 40% of the service in place before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Littleton 2020 Value Letter & 2019 Annual Report • Tabled until future meeting.

Final Discussion on Elati Restriping • Kent Bagley (B) as well as other board members would like to eventually see the bike lane extended north to Shepperd Avenue. • Jon Buck (B) had concerns about the asphalt and concrete condition near the traffic circles • Jon Buck (B) recommended reflective paint, signage for when the bike lane transitions across pavement and gutter pans, and flex posts on the stretch of Elati from Euclid to Ridge. • Brent Thompson (S) explained funding for this project has not been release. Once it is the City will proceed with the project. It is tentatively scheduled for this fall. • Dan Flynn (B) explained he thinks that this project should be tabled given the budget crisis the City is in, and that it’s not appropriate to consider the extra expenditure. 4

• Kent Bagley (B) expressed he didn’t think the Board was talking about budgetary issues with the project, but rather what is appropriate to do when budget allows. • The total project cost is about $150k, the additional work (removing islands, and striping bike lanes) is about $20k - $25k. • Geoff Selzer (B) made a motion to recommend the Elati Bike Lane project (which includes the resurfacing of Elati Street and striping of bike lanes) move forward as funds are available with as many recommendations from Board Members and Staff as feasible. • Tom Grant (B) seconded the motion • The motion passes 6-1 with Dan Flynn (B) descenting o Staff to write up recommendation in a memo and send to City Council

Discuss ULUC Phase II Amendments • Each Board member was asked to provide their thoughts about the ULUC Phase II Amendments. A summary of those comments are below: • Jon Buck (B): None • Dan Flynn (B): Doesn’t feel the Board has adequate time to discuss all of the proposed changes, and expressed this process seems like rubber stamp approval since it seems slated to be approved regardless of what the TMB says. o The Phase II Amendments are focused on Downtown, so changes should be limited to the 2 sections that are focused on Downtown not for general application throughout the City. o Revisions to other areas of the document are concerning. • Kent Bagley (B): Since this Board focuses on transportation and mobility, it makes sense that the board focuses on these items in providing comments on the Phase II Amendments (parking, bicycle parking, vehicle parking in Downtown). • Jenn Henninger (S) clarified that with code, the Phase II Amendments are focused on Downtown, but that the codes applies to the entire City. • Tom Grant (B): None • Kelly Honecker (B): There wasn’t much reference to making Downtown accessible for all. o Is this something that should be called out more? Should accessibility be further clarified in the document? o There is not much concerning mirco-mobility, which was very impactful prior to the pandemic. How do we account for this? o On bicycle parking, do we have standards for what that looks like and how the standards are met?

• Dan Radulovich (B): The sections on parking and access areas seem largely untouched, will this be addressed later? o Incentivizing long-term bike parking by reducing vehicle parking is a good idea. o Why are we setting a parking maximum on developments? o Reducing parking for buildings that provide RTD passes to employees is a good idea. o Leary of parking reductions based on 700’ proximity to RTD stations, perhaps this should be something you can apply for and be approved for rather than an automatic reduction. o Leary of parking reductions for participation in DRCOG’s Way2Go program— as Dan is unfamiliar with the program. • Geoff Selzer (B): Likes the idea offering incentives for bike parking and encouraging transit use. o How do we integrate the idea that we’re trying the get more bicycle parking in buildings with trying to get more bike friendly traffic flow through Downtown? How do we get the TMP and Land Use Code to talk to each other? o As far as the parking Downtown, when it comes to residential spots hold firm (maintain the number of required spots), when it comes to business spots let things be looser (fewer spots could be required). • Kent Bagley (B): Understands that changes will apply to the whole City and thinks that parking is generally appropriately defined. o Likes the idea of secure bike parking to incentivize bike riding Downtown. o Parking spaces per bedroom is a really important metric to look at. o With the current pandemic, parking credits may be difficult to achieve given the state of transit. o Section 10-4-18, further definition may be needed on concealment of cars in structured parking. • Open Discussion on Phase II Amendments below: • Kelly Honecker (B) was wondering why mixed use has a lower requirement for parking? During the pandemic this could be an issue since there is likely to be less turn over in parking. • Dan Radulovich (B) there seems to be little mention of anything relate to pedestrians. o Will there ever be an incentivization for pedestrian breezeways?

o How can developers be incentivized to allow public parking in a portion of required parking for their developments? • Board member comments will be captured in the minutes and sent to the Board via email for review by staff. • Dan Flynn (B) wants to make it clear that changes in definition and changes in the general document will apply to the entire City once they are adopted. Dan feels it paints the Board into a corner that as a result of Downtown discussions, community- wide definitions get put into place. Those definitions may well come into play when the Board talks about other parts of the City, and it turns out maybe that isn’t such a good definition. There is a Downtown section and any changes to the definitions should be put in those sections. Dan has a fear of a “Trojan Horse” that there can be language slipped in under the guise of a Downtown Phase II which really is affecting the decisions made further out. An easy way to do that is to make sure there are not changes to the document other than in the sections specific to Downtown. • Dan Flynn (B) made a motion to recommend that any changes to the Phase II Amendments be limited to the sections that are specific to Downtown. No changes should be made to the other parts of the document. This motion was prompted specifically by the sections regarding Vehicles Sales and Service and how it is proposed to be redefined in the Phase II Amendments, as well as how required parking is counted (or not counted) toward development totals. • Tom Grant (B) seconded the above motion. • Tom Grant (B) cautioned against introducing things that make sense in Downtown into other areas of the City. As an example, Tom brought up the Marathon Oil Property redevelopment on Broadway and the issues at the development with parking availability and snow freezing on the sidewalk after not getting sun exposure. Tom suggested the Board look for some counterexamples and discuss further. • Jennifer Henninger (S) explained that code is based on character areas that are identified in Downtown and that more character areas will be developed as the process moved to other areas of Littleton. However, the code will apply to all of the City of Littleton. • The motion failed 2-4 with Dan Flynn and Tom Grant affirming. o Note: Jon Buck had to leave prior to the vote.

Board, Staff Comments • Kent Bagley (B) expressed interest in focusing on the Santa Fe PEL for the August TMB Meeting.

o Keith Reester (S) expressed that focusing on the PEL now would be premature as the consultant team is currently in the data collection and existing conditions phase. This may be more appropriate in January 2021 or later. • Kent Bagley (B) there were applications for the RTD Accountability Board. 75 people applied and 11 were selected. Kent applied but was not selected. The RTD Accountability Board will likely address some of the issues Brian Welch discussed this evening. • Kent Bagley (B) expressed that he has not had enough time to completely read through the ULUC Phase II Amendments, and this was largely the motivation for his “no” vote on the motion from Dan Flynn (B). • Mayor Valdes (C) thanked staff and board members for being a part of the board and helping to steer Littleton’s future. The Board and Commissions Appreciation Dinner is tentatively rescheduled for September. He also expressed that he was impressed with the staff at the City of Littleton and the City Manager for being the catalyst for brining in the current staff. • Mayor Valdes (C) also posed 5 questions to the board to be answered later by staff: o Will there be info available on traffic patterns during Weekends on Main (WOM)? o Are traffic numbers available for the major arterials during the COVID-19 time frame? o Are there projections in the changing traffic and user patterns from COVID- 19? o Do we know where people are riding bikes in Littleton and where more bike infrastructure is needed? o Do we know how often bike racks are being used, specifically in Downtown? • Dan Flynn (B) thanked Chairman Bagley for bringing his concern to a vote, and Board Member Grant for seconding it. He also thanked the Board and expressed there were no hard feelings on his end. • The November and December 2020 meeting dates will need to be rescheduled due to the holidays.

Consolidated List of Action Items (from above): • Staff will send Final BRT Feasibility Study to Board Members. • Brian Welch will send the cost per mile information to Staff (Shane Roberts) and staff will send to Board Member.

• Shane Roberts (staff) will send Brian’s presentations to TMB members and post as part of August 2020 meeting materials. • Brian also said he would follow up with information regarding potential station locations. • Board members are encouraged to reach out to FHU or RTD with feedback, and provide contact info from interested groups. • RTD will provide a summary of ways for people to provide input. • Jen Henninger (S) offered to connect RTD and FHU with some of the organizations working with vulnerable populations via email. • Jon Buck (B) mentioned several organizations for RTD and FHU to connect with regarding feedback on Reimagine, including: Love Inc., Littleton Public Schools, North Littleton Promise, and The Life Center. FHU/RTD will reach out to these organizations. • Staff to write up recommendation on Elati Street Project and send to City Council. • Board member comments will be captured in the minutes and sent to the Board via email for review. • Mayor Valdes (C) also posed 5 questions to the board to be answered later by staff: o Will there be info available on traffic patterns during Weekends on Main (WOM)? o Are traffic numbers available for the major arterials during the COVID-19 time frame? o Are there projections in the changing traffic and user patterns from COVID- 19? o Do we know where people are riding bikes in Littleton and where more bike infrastructure is needed? o Do we know how often bike racks are being used, specifically in Downtown? • The November and December 2020 meeting dates will need to be rescheduled due to the holidays.

Broadway/Lincoln Corridor Evaluation Results & Recommendations Littleton Transportation and Mobility Advisory Board July 23rd, 2020 Regional BRT Plan Outcomes

• Development of a Regional BRT Network • Assessment of the viability of pursuing Small Starts funding • Identification of opportunities to leverage existing investments • Identification of next steps and partnerships to move projects forward • A set of potential funding mechanisms

2 Evaluation Process

3 Proposed Regional BRT Network

Broadway/Lincoln was one of the eight corridors identified as most promising for FTA funding

4 Proposed Regional BRT Network

Note: BRT routes along Colfax Avenue and SH 119 are included in DRCOG’s 2040 fiscally constrained Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan. As such, they were assumed to be part of the regional BRT network and did not receive further evaluation during this study.

5 6 Recommended BRT Infrastructure & Service Plan

7 Tier 4 Evaluation Results

8 Corridor Travel Time Comparisons

9 BRT Operating Plan

10 O & M Cost Estimate

11 Capital Cost Estimate

Unit BRT Treatment Costs BRT Station Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Removal of Asphalt SY 95 $ 7.50 $720 Reset Sidewalk SY 35 $ 110.00 $3,850 Excavation CY 60 $ 25.00 $1,500 Aggregate Base Course TON 55 $ 40.00 $2,200 Concrete Platform & Bus Pad SY 160 $ 75.00 $12,000 Canopy EACH 1 $ 250,000.00 $250,000 Route Sign (w/ map & schedule) EACH 1 $ 4,000.00 $4,000 Bench EACH 2 $ 2,000.00 $4,000 Security Camera EACH 1 $ 2,000.00 $2,000 Bike Rack EACH 4 $ 1,000.00 $4,000 Trash Can EACH 2 $ 400.00 $800 VMS Board EACH 1 $ 3,000.00 $3,000 Ticket Kiosk EACH 1 $ 75,000.00 $75,000 Landscaping LS 1 $ 3,000.00 $3,000 Construction Cost $365,000

Queue Jump Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Removal of Asphalt SY 275 $ 7.50 $2,070 Reset Curb and Gutter LF 50 $ 50.00 $2,500 Unclassified Excavation CY 100 $ 35.00 $3,500 Aggregate Base Course TON 85 $ 40.00 $3,400 Reset Concrete Curb Ramp SY 5 $ 200.00 $1,000 Concrete Pavement SY 275 $ 80.00 $22,000 Construction Cost $34,000 Contingency 25% $8,500

BAT Restriping (per mile) Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Removal of Pavement Marking LF 26400 $ 0.50 $13,200 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (6") LF 21120 $ 2.00 $42,240 BRT Lane Symbols EACH 40 $ 275.00 $11,000 Bus Only Sign EACH 20 $ 340.00 $6,800 Construction Cost $73,000

New Sidewalk Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Excavation CY 1175 $ 25.00 $29,380 ABC TON 1050 $ 40.00 $42,000 Concrete Sidewalk SY 3520 $ 65.00 $228,800 Construction Cost $300,000 $85.23

Sidewalk Widening/Reconstruction Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Removal of Sidewalk SY 1760 $ 20.00 $35,200 Excavation CY 1000 $ 25.00 $25,000 ABC TON 1050 $ 40.00 $42,000 Concrete Sidewalk SY 2900 $ 65.00 $188,500 Construction Cost $291,000 $100.34

Broadway/Lincoln BRT Conceptual Costs by Segment

Mobility Hubs Stations Station Improvements TSP Queue Jumps Corridor Name Segment Name Communities Length Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Highlands Ranch Pkwy: Ridgeline to Broadway Highlands Ranch, Douglas County 0.31 2 $1,600,000 0 $0 0 $0 2 $20,000 0 $0 Broadway: Highlands Ranch Pkwy to County Line Highlands Ranch, Douglas County 1.26 0 $0 2 $800,000 0 $0 3 $30,000 0 $0 Broadway: County Line to Mineral Littleton, Arapahoe County 0.52 2 $1,600,000 0 $0 0 $0 3 $30,000 0 $0 Broadway: Mineral to Caley Littleton, Centennial, Arapahoe County 2.03 0 $0 6 $2,400,000 0 $0 8 $80,000 0 $0 Broadway: Caley to Belleview Littleton, Englewood, Arapahoe County 1.47 2 $1,600,000 2 $800,000 0 $0 5 $50,000 0 $0 Broadway/Lincoln Broadway: Belleview to Arizona Englewood, Arapahoe County, Denver 4.88 4 $3,200,000 10 $4,000,000 0 $0 16 $160,000 4 $140,000 Englewood Pkwy: Broadway to Englewood Station Englewood, Arapahoe County 0.54 0 $0 2 $800,000 2 $400,000 1 $10,000 0 $0 Broadway: Arizona to Ohio Denver 0.50 2 $1,600,000 0 $0 0 $0 4 $40,000 2 $70,000 Lincoln: Ohio to 6th Denver 1.66 1 $800,000 2 $800,000 0 $0 6 $60,000 0 $0 Lincoln: 6th to Colfax Denver 0.94 0 $0 1 $400,000 1 $200,000 6 $60,000 0 $0 Broadway: Colfax to Ohio Denver 2.60 1 $800,000 3 $1,200,000 1 $200,000 12 $120,000 0 $0 Sidewalk Widening (not in road) New Sidewalk BAT Signing & Striping Quantity (SY) Cost Quantity (SY) Cost Quantity Cost $0 0 $0 0.31 $23,250 $0 0 $0 1.26 $94,500 $0 0 $0 0.52 $39,000 $0 0 $0 2.03 $152,250 1615 $161,500 250 $22,500 1.47 $110,250 $0 0 $0 0.00 $0

$0 0 $0 0.00 $0 $0 0 $0 0.50 $37,500 $0 0 $0 1.66 $124,500 $0 0 $0 0.00 $0 $0 0 $0 0.00 $0

Item Cost Contingencies Design/Env. Total Cost Cost/Mile Corridor Cost Corridor Cost/Mile $1,643,000 $526,000 $434,000 $2,603,000 $8,396,774 $925,000 $296,000 $244,000 $1,465,000 $1,162,698 $1,669,000 $534,000 $441,000 $2,644,000 $5,084,615 $2,632,000 $842,000 $695,000 $4,169,000 $2,053,695 $2,744,000 $878,000 $724,000 $4,346,000 $2,956,463 $7,500,000 $2,400,000 $1,980,000 $11,880,000 $2,434,426 $39,337,000 $2,354,099.34 $1,210,000 $387,000 $319,000 $1,916,000 $3,548,148 $1,748,000 $559,000 $461,000 $2,768,000 $5,536,000 $1,785,000 $571,000 $471,000 $2,827,000 $1,703,012 $660,000 $211,000 $174,000 $1,045,000 $1,111,702 $2,320,000 $742,000 $612,000 $3,674,000 $1,413,077 From: Holly.Buck To: Shane Roberts; Welch, Brian Cc: Keith Reester; Jennifer Henninger; Brent Thompson; Aaron Heumann; Tim Weaver; Julie Skeen Subject: RE: [EXT] July TMB Follow Up Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 6:42:37 PM Attachments: RTD Regional BRT Broadway Cut Sheet.pdf

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Shane,

I’ve attached the Broadway cutsheet for your reference as well as the info sent by Matthew. The cut sheet includes potential mobility hub locations but does not call out all potential stop locations. It is likely that as BRT on this corridor moves forward you would consider the possibility of stop consolidation to improve travel time and reliability. No stop consolidation analysis was completed as part of the Regional BRT study, however.

Here are two different ways to provide input for the Reimagine RTD process: 1. Map based commenting tool here - https://fhueng.mysocialpinpoint.com/reimaginertd/map#/ 2. More traditional comment form here – https://fhueng.mysocialpinpoint.com/reimagine-rtd- map/contact-us

Julie Skeen from our team will be reaching out to discuss other opportunities for providing input.

Thank you for your engagement in the process! Holly

D. Holly Buck, PE, PTP Principal office: 303.721.1440 x8985 cell: 303.917.3885 6400 S. Fiddlers Green Circle, Suite 1500, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 [email protected] www.fhueng.com

From: Shane Roberts Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 11:21 AM To: Welch, Brian ; Holly.Buck Cc: Keith Reester ; Jennifer Henninger ; Brent Thompson ; Aaron Heumann ; Tim Weaver Subject: [EXT] July TMB Follow Up

Hey Brian & Holly, Thank you both again for attending Littleton’s Transportation & Mobility Advisory Board last month. I was writing to follow up on a few action items from the meeting—as you’re able can you help us out with these? 1. Cost per mile data on BRT (we discussed this briefly but any resources comparing BRT to LRT cost would be helpful) 2. Information on potential BRT stations on Broadway (if this is included in the Final BRT document, please disregard) 3. Any other resources on providing input on Reimagine RTD (if there are any others than what we discussed)

Thank you,

Shane Roberts Transportation Planner Public Works 2255 W. Berry Ave Littleton, Colorado 80120 303-795-3830 (office) 303-795-3863 (department) littletongov.org Twitter | Facebook | YouTube

The Littleton Center is open to the public by appointment only. Bemis Library and the Littleton Museum are open on a reduced schedule. Many city transactions can be conducted online or by phone. Visit littletongov.org/covid- 19 for further information, call 303-795-3700, or subscribe to Littleton eConnect to receive updates by email.

* Sender and receiver should be mindful that all incoming and outgoing emails may be subject to the Colorado Open Records Act, S 24-72-100.1, et seq.

* Sender and receiver should be mindful that all incoming and outgoing emails may be subject to the Colorado Open Records Act, S 24-72-100.1, et seq. Littleton Transportation and Mobility Advisory Board July 23, 2020 Agenda

• Safety Moment • Welcome and Introductions • Reimagine RTD Overview • System Optimization Plan Scenario Recap • Guiding Principles and Network Development • Outreach and Engagement Overview www.RTD-Denver.com/Reimagine

2 REIMAGINERTD Reimagine RTD: Short-Term and Long-Term Objectives

• Reimagine RTD is a two-year process to answer “what’s next” for RTD o System Optimization Plan: Redesign RTD’s services to balance short- and mid-term regional mobility needs and fiscal limitations (to be implemented in 2021) o Mobility Plan for the Future: Identify long-term strategies (i.e., between now and 2050) to address the future mobility needs of the region

3 REIMAGINERTD How Does it All Fit Together?

4 REIMAGINERTD Remaining 2020 TWG and AC SOP Schedule

August 26/27 September 16/17 October 7/8 December 9/10 (new meeting) • Draft SOP Review • Draft 2021 COVID • 2021 COVID • Final SOP Constrained Service Constrained Service • Adopted by RTD Plan Plan Board of Directors • To RTD Board of • Initiate Mobility Directors (Oct 27th) Plan for the Future

5 REIMAGINERTD Resource Allocation Scenarios

• Scenarios provide an opportunity to evaluate tradeoffs while constrained to available dollars • Ultimate objective is to find an appropriate balance between alternative approaches to resource allocation

6 REIMAGINERTD Evaluate Scenarios to Understand Tradeoffs

8 REIMAGINERTD Evaluate Scenarios to Understand Tradeoffs

8 REIMAGINERTD Resource Allocation Scenarios to Understand Tradeoffs Key Takeaways • Service Quality results in the: • Most boardings • Lowest cost per boarding • Best travel time ratio • Social Equity results in the: • Most social equity population service by 15-minute or better service • Highest bus boardings per service hour • Service Productivity results: • Similar to social equity in most categories • Geographic Coverage results in the: • Most population and employment served • Fewest boardings • Lowest equity population served by 15-minute or better service • Highest cost per boarding

9 REIMAGINERTD System Optimization Plan DRAFT Guiding Principles and Network Development

10 REIMAGINERTD DRAFT SOP Network Design Guiding Principles

1. Prioritize a regionally-connected, high-quality transit backbone of services 2. Deliver strong connectivity to social equity communities and transit supportive land use corridors 3. Create a network that reflects financial constraints and travel demand 4. Embrace enhanced partnerships with local agencies to bolster local connectivity to the regional transit backbone and geographic coverage

11 REIMAGINERTD System Optimization Plan - Rail

• Service provided south of Lincoln is more than warranted • Rail capacity provided along R line is more than required – two-car trains required because of SCADA software limitations • Desire to break trains in low-demand periods to better match service to demand • Five independent train lines merging at I-25/Broadway results in 20 train trips/hour – high risk of train delays in this segment • Ridership drop-offs in fringe periods • Reported train congestion at RidgeGate in peak periods (12 train trips/hour) • Need for longer overnight maintenance window

16 REIMAGINERTD 2019 LRT Rail Patterns

Weekday Peak Period

20 trains/hour north of I-25/Broadway 16 trains/hour on California & Stout 12 trains/hour at DUS

17 REIMAGINERTD 2019 LRT Rail Patterns

Weekday Midday Period

12 trains/hour north of I-25/Broadway 12 trains/hour on California & Stout 8 trains/hour at DUS

18 REIMAGINERTD System Optimization Plan - Rail

Weekday Boardings by Rail Line

20,000 18,403 18,678 18,000 15,735 16,000 13,423 14,000

12,000 10,502 10,061 10,000 8,000 6,569 6,000 4,000 2,295 2,000 0 C D E F H R W L Average Weekday LRT Ridership = 95,666 (Aug-Dec 1019 APC Data)

20 REIMAGINERTD SOP Rail Service Concepts (initial)

Weekday Peak and Midday Periods 6 trains/hour north of I-25/Broadway 6 trains/hour on California & Stout 4 trains/hour at DUS

23 REIMAGINERTD SOP Rail Service Concepts (ultimate)

Weekday Peak and Midday Periods

18 trains/hour north of I-25/Broadway 16 trains/hour on California & Stout 10 trains/hour at DUS

25 REIMAGINERTD System Optimization Plan - Rail

Other Service Modification Concepts

Train Consist Size Reductions • Train consist reductions proposed in evening time periods

Span of Service Modifications Evaluated to Improve Maintenance Windows • Start of service pushed back by 30 to 60 minutes • Slight reduction on weekend late W Line service

27 REIMAGINERTD System Optimization Plan - Rail

Transfer Impacts C Line • 4,621 existing riders impacted with new transfer (riders between Evans- Mineral interacting with stations between Auraria West and DUS) F Line • 5,112 existing riders impacted with new transfer (riders from Belleview- Lincoln interacting with stations between Auraria and 18th/Stout) R Line • 3,055 existing riders impacted with new transfer (riders from Peoria- Dayton interacting with stations between Belleview-Lincoln)

29 REIMAGINERTD Source: RTD 1015/2019 on-board survey data System Optimization Plan – Rail Plan Benefits Reliability • Reduces rail lines north of I-25/Broadway station from 5 to 3 lines • Reduces hourly train volumes from 20 to 18 trains per hour • Reduces train volumes at RidgeGate (from 12 to 10 trains per hour) • Improved on-time performance Service • Provides more robust weekday midday service (which helps with employer COVID-driven staggered work hours) • Reduces train consists in evening periods to better match demand • Enhanced safety (less congestion/conflicts) Maintenance • Slight improvement in overnight maintenance window

30 REIMAGINERTD Simplification SOP Bus • Well-defined corridor routes Consistency Design • Fewer irregular trip patterns Objectives • Consistent service spans Reliability • Elimination of long routes

34 REIMAGINERTD Next Steps

• RTD Board of Directors – August 25th • Technical Working Group – August 26th • Advisory Committee – August 27th

• Recommended System Optimization Plan

43 REIMAGINERTD Reimagine With Us

Stay Connected By Visiting www.RTD-Denver.com/Reimagine

Questions?

44 REIMAGINERTD BRTRegional BRT Feasibility Study Broadway/Lincoln TIER 4 Evaluation

Colfax Ave Existing Peak Service Plan Colfax BRT S W-Line p e e r B 8th Ave l 1.9 miles vd 6th Ave Existing DENVER 0.7 miles I-25/ transit Repurpose

Broadway Freq Freq lanes existing Route Segment Pk Wkdy Mid Wkdy Sat Sun Alameda Ave through N. of I-25/Broadway 7.5 10 15 15 Broadway Lincoln St Lincoln lanes 0 0 N. of Englewood 15 15 15 15 0L N. of Highlands Ranch 30 30 30 30 N. of I-25/Broadway 7.5* DENVER

0L St Downing Englewood N. of Arapahoe 30* Mississippi Ave *Peak direction frequency Louisiana Ave S ou 2017 Average Weekday Boardings: 9,420 Blvd Federal th ea st Line Evans Ave

Highlands Ranch 5.4 miles 25 Speed & Yale Ave reliability

improve- Dartmouth Ave Blvd University Proposed Peak Service Plan ments ENGLEWOOD

0.6 miles Hampden Ave Speed & reliability CHERRY improvements HILLS Freq

I-25/ Freq Route Segment Pk Wkdy Mid Wkdy Sat Broadway Sun VILLAGE N. of I-25/Broadway 5 5 15 15 BRT N. of Englewood 10 10 15 15 Belleview Ave N. of Highlands Ranch 15 15 15 15

Englewood N. of I-25/Broadway 15 30 30 30 Southwest Line GREENWOOD 0 N. of Highlands Ranch 30 30 30 30 3.7 miles Repurpose Littleton Blvd VILLAGE existing area within curb, a CENTENNIAL combination Ridge Rd of through Broadway Arapahoe Rd Highlands Ranch lanes, ARAPAHOE parking, COUNTY auxiliary LITTLETON LEGEND lanes, Dry Creek Rd Existing BRT Lanes Mobility Hub & median Available for BRT Mineral Ave Transit Signal Priority (TSP) space Existing & Funded Bi-Directional Queue Jump with TSP Rapid Transit Line and Station One-Way Queue Jump 1.25 miles C470 with TSP Planned Rapid Transit Repurpose Line and Station existing Speed & Reliability DOUGLAS Rapid Transit through Improvements Projects in Fiscally s Ranch COUNTY lanes nd Pk Dedicated Transit Constrained Plan la wy h Lane with TSP Existing BUSTANG Station ig H Existing Bus Network Planned BUSTANG Station NORTH BRT Arterial Study 16-408 06/26/19

- -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Appendices 1. Introduction ...... 1 Appendix A Stakeholder and Public 1.1 Regional Bus Rapid Transit Engagement Feasibility Study ...... 2 Appendix B Existing Conditions Report 1.2 Evolution of Transit in the Region ...... 4 Appendix C Tier 2 Route Evaluation Summaries 1.3 RTD Family of Services ...... 7 Appendix D Community Policy Summaries 1.4 Bus Rapid Transit ...... 10 Appendix E Tier 3 Route Evaluation 1.5 Regional Benefits of Bus Rapid Summaries Transit ...... 11 Appendix F Tier 4 Corridor Service Plan 2. Stakeholder & Public Engagement .. 13 Profiles 2.1 Stakeholder Engagement ..... 14 Appendix G Tier 4 Modeling 2.2 Public Engagement ...... 16 Appendix H Tier 4 Cost Estimates 3. Evaluating the Region’s Potential Appendix I BRT Route Next Generation for BRT ...... 17 Technology Readiness Evaluation 3.1 Regional BRT Study Process . 18 Appendix J RTD Bus Rapid Transit Equity 3.2 Goals, Outcomes, and Analysis Guiding Principles ...... 20 Appendix K Tier 4 Analysis Economic 3.3 Tiered Evaluation ...... 23 Development Metric 3.4 Tier 1 – High Demand Travel Appendix L FTA Competitiveness Analysis Corridors ...... 26 Appendix M BRT Funding Opportunities 3.5 Tier 2 – Congestion and/or Delay...... 32

3.6 Tier 3 – Viability of Capital Investment ...... 39 3.7 Tier 4 – Final Evaluation ...... 47 4. Building a Regional BRT Network ...... 77 4.1 Regional BRT Network ...... 78 4.2 Implementation Considerations ...... 80 4.3 Conclusion ...... 87

List of Figures List of Tables Page Page Figure 1 Annual and Projected Ridership Table 1 RTD Minimum Service Growth ...... 2 Frequency ...... 9 Figure 2 2019 Regional Transit Network .... 5 Table 2 BRT Feasibility Metrics ...... 21 Figure 3 Benefits of Bus Rapid Transit ...... 12 Table 3 Metrics for Candidate Corridor Identification ...... 26 Figure 4 Tiered Evaluation Process ...... 24 Table 4 Corridors Identified for BRT Figure 5 Routes with more than 1 Million by Other Studies ...... 27 Annual Boardings ...... 26 Table 5 Tier 1 Evaluation Criteria and Figure 6 Tier 1 Candidate Corridors for Guiding Principles ...... 29 Evaluation ...... 28 Table 6 Tier 2 Route Descriptions ...... 34 Figure 7 Tier 1 Evaluation Results by Corridor Segment ...... 31 Table 7 Tier 2 Evaluation Criteria and Guiding Principles ...... 36 Figure 8 Tier 2 Routes for Evaluation ...... 33 Table 8 Tier 3 Evaluation Criteria and Figure 9 Tier 2 Route Scoring ...... 37 Guiding Principles ...... 39 Figure 10 Tier 2 Route Performance ...... 38 Table 9 Community Policy Support for Figure 11 Tier 3 Routes for Evaluation ...... 40 Tier 3 Routes ...... 45 Figure 12. Physical Viability for Dedicated Table 10 Tier 3 Route Evaluation Transit Lane by Route ...... 42 Summary ...... 46 Figure 13 Community Support for BRT – Table 11 Tier 4 Evaluation Criteria and Summary of Findings ...... 43 Guiding Principles ...... 49 Figure 14 Tier 4 Routes for Evaluation ...... 48 Table 12 Implementation Considerations 81 Figure 15 Estimated 2040 Travel Time Savings ...... 59 Figure 16 Tier 4 Modeling Results ...... 60 Figure 17 Facility Capital Costs ...... 61 Figure 18 Fleet Capital Costs ...... 61 Figure 19 Next Generation Technology Readiness...... 62 Figure 20 Households in Poverty ...... 63 Figure 21 Economic Development Potential ...... 64 Figure 22 2019 Bus Incident Map ...... 65 Figure 23 Small Starts Competitive Analysis Summary Score ...... 67 Figure 24 Regional BRT Network ...... 79 Figure 25 2040 Jobs and Population Density ...... 83

iii

Acknowledgements

Project Technical Consultant Team

Advisory Committee • FHU, Prime Consultant

• Brian Welch, RTD—Project Manager • CTG, Transit Planning • Doug Monroe, RTD • APEX, Technology Assessment • Jeff Becker, RTD • Parsons, Small Starts Assessment • David Krutsinger, CDOT • EPS, Economic Analysis • Matthew Helfant, DRCOG • Headwaters Economics, Social Equity Analysis • Peter Koonce, Technology Assessment

¨ ¨ - ¨ ¨ - -– -

- - - - - - - - ¨ ¨ ¨

- - - -- - -

-- - -- -- -- -

–

–-

–

–-

–- -

–---

–-

--–

–

– – –

–

– — — —

—

- -

- -- - -

-- -

¨ - - ¨ - ¨ - - -- ¨ - - - - - ¨ ¨

- - - - --

- - -

- -

- – - · · · · · · · · · · ·

- -

- ¨ – ¨ – ¨ – ¨ – - -

–

Þ Þ Þ

- -

–

Þ – Þ - Þ

¨ - ¨ ¨

–

¨ ¨ -- -- ¨ - - - - –-

- ¨ ¨ ¨ -- - ¨ - ¨ - - ¨ ¨ ¨ -- - ¨ ¨ - ¨ - ¨ -- - - ¨ -- ¨ - - - - ¨ -- ¨ -- - ¨ - ¨ - ¨ -- - - ¨ - - ¨ ¨ - ¨ -

- ¨ - ¨ - ¨ - ¨

- ¨ - ¨ ---- - ¨ - - ¨ - ¨ --

- ¨ - ¨ ¨ ¨ --- - ¨ - ¨ - - ¨ - ¨ ¨ - ¨ - ¨ - ¨ - ¨ - ¨ - - ¨ ¨ - - ¨ - ¨ ¨ -- - ¨ - ¨ -- - ¨ ¨ ¨ - ¨ -- - ¨ - ¨ -- - ¨ ¨ ¨ -- - - ¨ - ¨ ¨ ---- - - ¨ ¨ - ¨ -- - ¨ ¨ - ¨ --

- Þ -- Þ - Þ

- ¨ -– - ¨ -- – ¨ – - - -

---

–

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ - ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

-- Þ Þ - Þ Þ

- - -

- -- - - -- - - -

¨ -- ¨ ¨ - ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

---- -- --

¨ ¨ - - -- --

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

–

¨ - ¨ -- ¨

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ - ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

- -- - -

- - --

— ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ - ¨ ¨

- ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ - ¨ ¨ - - ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

Þ Þ Þ Þ - Þ -- Þ - Þ Þ Þ

¨ ¨ - - ¨ ¨ - - - - -- - - - - - -

BRTRegional BRT Feasibility Study North I-25 TIER 4 Evaluation

Existing Peak Service Plan

7 Freq Freq Route Segment Pk Wkdy Mid Wkdy Sat Sun

120X 120th to DUS 7.5* 30 30 na PARKWAY

122X 120th to Civic Center 5 na na na *Peak direction frequency WESTMINSTER 2016 Average Weekday Boardings: 4,750 THORNTON 144th Ave

136th Ave Proposed Service Plan 12 miles e d A v Peak Midday Use 2n planned 1 3 128th Ave managed lane Huron St Huron 120th Ave

Modify tunnel to I-25 for southbound 112th Ave Blvd Colorado buses NORTHGLENN NORTHGLENN 25 104th Ave Center/inline 100th Ave transit station Federal Blvd Federal 92nd Ave THORNTON THORNTON 88th Ave

F la 84th Ave N-Line

Freq t Freq i ro Route Segment Pk Wkdy Mid Wkdy Sat Sun n Fly N I-25 1 SH 7 to DUS er 10 10 15 30 ADAMS ADAMS N I-25 2 120th to Civic Center 3 na na na COUNTY 36 76 72nd Ave COUNTY 1. In peak period, long pattern from SH 7 operates at 10-min frequency and short pattern operates at 3-min frequency B- 2. 136th and 144th are on-line and walk-up stations Lin 5.8 miles e 270 3. Peak period short pattern from Wagon Rd makes same stops downtown as 122X Use existing St Peoria toll lane in G-Line LEGEND peak travel Broadway Existing & Funded Mobility Hub direction/ Rapid Transit Line DENVER DENVER Transit Signal Priority (TSP) and Station use existing Bi-Directional Queue Jump general

Planned Rapid Transit St Washington with TSP Line and Station purpose in 70 One-Way Queue Jump o -peak 44th Ave A-Line with TSP Rapid Transit travel Projects in Fiscally 38th Ave Constrained Plan direction Existing & Planned Existing BUSTANG 32nd Ave Station Managed Lanes e n 26th Ave i Planned BUSTANG L Existing Bus Network - Station W NORTH

BRT Arterial Study 16-408 06/26/19 BRTRegional BRT Feasibility Study Federal Blvd TIER 4 Evaluation WESTMINSTER Existing Peak Service Plan 120th Ave

112th Ave N-Line Freq Freq

Route Segment Pk Wkdy Mid Wkdy Sat Sun 1.5 miles 29 Evans to Littleton 30 60 60 60 104th Ave Repurpose CBD Colfax to Evans 15 30 30 30 existing 30 Evans to Wadsworth/ na 60 60 na Hampden FEDERAL turn lanes, Wadsworth/Hampden 36 median, 30L 30 na na na HEIGHTS to CBD 9.0 miles 92nd Ave & right of FRCC to Evans 30 30 30 60 Repurpose WESTMINSTER way outside US 36/Sheridan to 31 30 30 30 60 existing of curb Evans 84th Ave 31L 104th to CBD 30 na na na shoulder, Federal/Evans to turn lanes, 80th Ave 36 Littleton 60 60 60 60 25 & median Fl 36L Littleton to CBD 30 na na na atir on Flye 2017 Average Weekday Boardings: 10,025 72nd Ave r ADAMS B- Lin e COUNTY 76 Proposed Peak Service Plan G-Line Two BRT Patterns - each operating at 10 minutes DENVER 50th Ave N-Line Pecos St Pecos 70 Freq

Freq 3.0 miles 44th Ave Route Segment Pk Wkdy Mid Wkdy Sat Sun Speed & A-Line Wagon Rd to B-Line 10 10 15 15 38th Ave BRT B-Line to Federal/Evans 5 5 7.5 15 reliability Evans to Englewood 10 10 15 15 improve- 32nd Ave 29 Evans to Littleton 30 30 60 60 ments 26th Ave Federal/Evans to & median Blvd Federal 30 Wadsworth/ 30 30 30 30 CBD Hampden 17th Ave Colfax Ave 31 US 36/Sheridan to FRCC 30 30 30 30 via B-Line 2.0 miles W-Line Colfax BRT Federal/Evans to 36 30 30 60 60 Repurpose Littleton through 6th Ave DENVER

Wadsworth/ lanes Hampden 25 Alameda Ave 1.5 miles Exposition Ave Repurpose S

Sheridan Blvd o Mississippi Ave u two-way th e LEGEND le turn lanes Florida Ave as e t L n i Existing & Funded i n e L Mobility Hub 2.0 miles Rapid Transit Line DENVER t s Transit Signal Priority (TSP) and Station Repurpose e Evans Ave w

h Bi-Directional Queue Jump Planned Rapid Transit existing t with TSP u turn lanes & o Line and Station Yale Ave S One-Way Queue Jump access control ENGLEWOOD with TSP Rapid Transit ARAPAHOE Dartmouth Ave Projects in Fiscally COUNTY Speed & Reliability Constrained Plan Improvements Existing BUSTANG Station Hampden Ave SHERIDAN Dedicated Transit Planned BUSTANG Station 1.9 miles 85 NORTH Lane with TSP Speed & reliability Existing Bus Network improvements BRT Arterial Study 16-408 07/30/19 06.26.19 DRAFT BRTRegional BRT Feasibility Study Park/38th TIER 4 Evaluation

A-Line WHEAT RIDGE DENVER 38th Ave

Blake St L-Line WHEAT RIDGE Pecos St Pecos 32nd Ave St Navajo Larimer St DENVER Lawrence St Stout St DENVER Park Ave Wadsworth Blvd Wadsworth Sheridan Blvd 26th Ave Downing St Downing CBD 22nd Ave 20th Ave 25 18th Ave 17th Ave Blvd Federal 17th Ave

Colfax Ave Colfax BRT W-Line 0.25 miles Speed & reliability DENVER improvements NORTH 1.5 miles 2.8 miles 2.5 miles Speed & reliability Repurpose existing lanes Repurpose existing lanes & improvements on-street parking 1 mile Repurpose Existing Peak Service Plan Proposed Peak Service Plan existing Wadsworth through lanes

Applewood Freq Freq Freq 38 Freq Route Segment Pk Wkdy Mid Wkdy Sat Route Segment Pk Wkdy Mid Wkdy Sat Village Sun Applewood Sun 38 Applewood Village to CBD 30* 30 30 30 Village BRT Wadsworth to Colfax 10 10 15 15 *Supplemental trips in peak period, peak direction 38 Applewood Village to 30 30 60 30 2017 Average Weekday Boardings: 1,952 Wadsworth

Colfax

LEGEND Rapid Transit Existing & Funded Projects in Fiscally Speed & Reliability Improvements Mobility Hub Rapid Transit Line Constrained Plan and Station Transit Signal Priority (TSP) Dedicated Transit Lane with TSP Existing BUSTANG Station Planned Rapid Transit Queue Jump with TSP Existing Bus Network Line and Station Planned BUSTANG Station BRT Arterial Study 16-408 06/26/19 BRTRegional BRT Feasibility Study Speer/Leetsdale/Parker TIER 4 Evaluation

Peoria St

DENVER Mississippi A 6th Ave Quebec St Havana St Colfax Ave Colorado Blvd ARAPAHOE COUNTYFlorida Ave Ili Ave Steele St Leetsdale Dr Parker Rd CBD Alameda Ave AURORA Monaco Pkwy 83

Speer Blvd 1st Ave University Blvd Evans Ave

Lincolnv Downing St 225 DENVER Broadway GLENDALE NORTH 25

1.0 miles 3.2 miles 2.7 miles 1.0 mile 2.5 miles Use existing Repurpose existing Repurpose center Repurpose Speed & reliability transit only through lanes turn lane center improvements lanes on median & Broadway/ right Lincoln turn lanes

1 mile Existing Peak Service Plan Proposed Peak Service Plan Repurpose Civic 5 trips/hour Civic 6 trips/hour Center

Center Freq Freq existing 83L Freq BRT Freq Route Segment Pk Wkdy Mid Wkdy Sat Route Segment Pk Wkdy Mid Wkdy Sat through lanes Sun Sun 83D Nine 83L Civic Center to Nine Mile 20 30 20 30 83D Nine BRT Civic Center to Nine Mile 10 10 15 15 Mile 83D Civic Center to Nine Mile 30 30 60 na Mile 83D Nine Mile to Florida 30 30 60 na 2017 Average Weekday Boardings: 4,133

LEGEND

Mobility Hub Speed & Reliability Improvements Existing Bus Network Rapid Transit Projects in Fiscally Transit Signal Priority (TSP) Existing & Funded Dedicated Transit Lane with TSP Constrained Plan Rapid Transit Line Bi-Directional Queue Jump and Station Existing BUSTANG Station with TSP Reversible Transit Only Lane Existing BRT Lanes Available Planned Rapid Transit One-Way Queue Jump Planned BUSTANG Station with TSP for BRT Line and Station BRT Arterial Study 16-408 06/26/19

ve BRTRegional BRT Feasibility Study Broadway/Lincoln TIER 4 Evaluation

Colfax Ave Existing Peak Service Plan Colfax BRT S W-Line p e e r B 8th Ave l 1.9 miles vd 6th Ave Existing DENVER 0.7 miles I-25/ transit Repurpose

0L St Downing Englewood N. of Arapahoe 30* Mississippi Ave *Peak direction frequency Louisiana Ave S ou 2017 Average Weekday Boardings: 9,420 Blvd Federal th ea st Line Evans Ave

Highlands Ranch 5.4 miles 25 Speed & Yale Ave reliability

improve- Dartmouth Ave Blvd University Proposed Peak Service Plan ments ENGLEWOOD

0.6 miles Hampden Ave Speed & reliability CHERRY improvements HILLS Freq

I-25/ Freq Route Segment Pk Wkdy Mid Wkdy Sat Broadway Sun VILLAGE N. of I-25/Broadway 5 5 15 15 BRT N. of Englewood 10 10 15 15 Belleview Ave N. of Highlands Ranch 15 15 15 15

70 A-Line Freq Freq Route Segment Pk Wkdy Mid Wkdy Sat Sun

60th/Dahlia to 30 30 30 30 40th/Colorado DENVER 40 40th/Colorado to 15 15 30 30 Colrado Station Bruce Randolph Ave Colorado Station to 30 30 30 30 Southmoor MLK Blvd 2017 Average Weekday Boardings: 4,856 29th Ave

23rd Ave

Colfax Ave Colfax BRT

Proposed Peak Service Plan 6.5 miles Repurpose existing 8th Ave through lanes 6th Ave Freq Freq Route Segment Pk Wkdy Mid Wkdy Sat Sun BRT Full 10 10 15 15 DENVER 40 Full 30 30 30 30 Colorado Blvd Colorado Monaco Pkwy Monaco

University Blvd University Alameda Ave L eetsd ale A DENVER ve Ohio Ave C h e r ry Mississippi Ave C re ek D Station r S

LEGEND GLENDALE Existing & Funded Mobility Hub Rapid Transit Line 25 Transit Signal Priority (TSP) and Station Bi-Directional Queue Jump Planned Rapid Transit with TSP Evans Ave Line and Station One-Way Queue Jump with TSP Rapid Transit Projects in Fiscally Speed & Reliability Constrained Plan Improvements Existing BUSTANG Station NORTH Dedicated Transit Planned BUSTANG Station Lane with TSP Existing Bus Network

BRT Arterial Study 16-408 06/26/19 BRTRegional BRT Feasibility Study Alameda Ave TIER 4 Evaluation LAKEWOOD CBD Colfax Ave Colfax BRT W-Line DENVER 8th Ave 225 6th Ave 6th Ave

1st Ave AURORA Broadway Colorado Blvd Colorado 25 St Lincoln Wadsworth Blvd Wadsworth

Downing St Downing Alameda Ave

1.3 miles Repurpose AURORA S

Pierce St Pierce Morrison Rd o 0.3 miles u existing through lanes

th No recommendations R-Line LAKEWOOD e (Speer/Leetsdale a s DENVER t Corridor Improvements) Lin e GLENDALE University Blvd University Sheridan Blvd Federal Blvd Federal NORTH Pkwy Monaco Havana St Havana Sable Blvd Rd Chambers Peoria St Peoria Quebec St Potomac St Potomac 2.6 miles 1.9 miles 2.0 miles 4.1 miles 2.75 miles Speed & reliability Repurpose Speed & reliability Repurpose existing median Repurpose existing improvements existing through improvements & through lanes through lanes lanes & two-way le turn lanes

Existing Peak Service Plan Proposed Peak Service Plan Freq Freq Freq Freq Route Segment Pk Wkdy Mid Wkdy Route Segment Pk Wkdy Mid Wkdy 3L Sat Sun Sat Sun West of Alameda 15 30 30 30 BRT Full 10 10 15 15 3 3 East of Alameda 30 60 60 60 3 Full 30 30 30 30 3L na 15* *Peak direction frequency 2017 Average Weekday Boardings: 3,878

LEGEND Mobility Hub Rapid Transit Transit Signal Priority (TSP) Existing & Funded Projects in Fiscally Speed & Reliability Improvements Rapid Transit Line Bi-Directional Queue Jump Constrained Plan and Station with TSP Dedicated Transit Lane with TSP Existing BUSTANG Station Planned Rapid Transit One-Way Queue Jump with TSP Existing Bus Network Line and Station Planned BUSTANG Station BRT Arterial Study 16-408 06/26/19 BRTRegional BRT Feasibility Study Havana/Hampden TIER 4 Evaluation Existing Peak Service Plan

A-Line 0.6 miles Repurpose DENVER parkway & MLK Blvd median space MLK Blvd Freq Freq 29th Ave

Route Segment Pk Wkdy Mid Wkdy Sat Sun 1.0 mile 4 trips/hour Central Park to 15 15 15 30 Repurpose Southmoor Blvd Park Central 105 existing 23rd Ave Southmoor to 30 30 30 30 Ulster-/Tus through Montview Blvd 2017 Average Weekday Boardings: 5,457 lanes AURORA Colfax Ave Colfax BRT AURORA 11th Ave 2.8 miles Speed & reliability 6th Ave Pkwy 6th Ave improvements Lowry Blvd

Proposed Peak Service Plan Alameda Ave 0.9 miles L Repurpose ee tsd existing al e through lanes Dr DENVER Havana St Havana

Freq Mississippi Ave Freq Sun Route Segment Pk Wkdy Mid Wkdy Sat 6 trips/hour Central Park to BRT Southmoor 10 10 15 15 1.6 miles AURORA Q Florida Ave Speed & u e Parker Rd reliability b Monaco Pkwy Monaco Quebec St ec improve- W ay ments AURORA Ili Ave 1.0 mile Repurpose Service between Southmoor & Yale Ave Ulster/Tus maintained with Route 63 existing through lanes DENVER LEGEND Existing Bus Network Mobility Hub 25 Existing & Funded Hampden Ave Transit Signal Priority (TSP) S Rapid Transit Line o u Bi-Directional Queue Jump t and Station h 225 e with TSP a s Planned Rapid Transit t R-Line One-Way Queue Jump L i 0.9 miles with TSP Line and Station n e Repurpose Funded Project future Rapid Transit 0.3 mile Projects in Fiscally 2.0 miles through lane Speed & Reliability Repurpose Constrained Plan Repurpose existing le turn Improvements existing Existing BUSTANG Station lane & right of way Dedicated Transit through lanes outside of curb Lane with TSP Planned BUSTANG Station NORTH BRT Arterial Study 16-408 06/26/19

- -- - - -

¨ – ¨ – ¨ –

- - --- -

- - -

-- - - - -

· – · – · – ¨ · · ·

- - -- ¨ · – · – - · –

¨ · – · – ¨ · – - ¨ · –-

¨ ¨ · · — - - -

¨ - ¨ -

- ¨ - - - ¨ - ¨ - - ¨ · ·

- -

- - ¨ - - ¨ - - - ¨ - ¨ · ·

- - - - - - ¨ - ¨ - - ¨ - ¨ · ·

-- --- ¨ ¨ - ¨ · ·

- - - ¨ ¨ - - ¨ · ·

- - - - - ¨ - - ¨ - · - · -- ·

¨ ¨ · · -

- ¨ -- - -- ¨ ¨ - - - - - - --

-- - -

· - · · - · – · · -

-- - -

-- - -- · · · · · · --

-- --

- -- - - - · · · - -

· - · - · · · -

- - - - -

From: Aaron Heumann To: Shane Roberts Cc: Keith Reester; Brent Thompson; Tim Weaver Subject: TMB Responses to Mayor Valdes Questions Date: Thursday, August 20, 2020 6:45:19 PM

Shane,

At the last TMB meeting, Mayor Valdes posed five questions that I have drafted responses for below. Please let me know if there is anything you or the rest of the team thinks we should include with these responses.

1. Will there be info available on traffic patterns during (WOM)? No count data was collected during the Weekend on Main events. However, staff did observe traffic during the first Friday of the Weekend on Main and a couple times during later weekends in order to identify any congestion or conflict points. The anticipation was that closing Main Street on Friday afternoons prior to the evening rush hour may result in some congestion and driver confusion, while Saturdays and Sundays were not expected to result in any issues. Fortunately, the advanced messages warning drivers of the closure and signed detour routes, along with the lower volumes due to the pandemic, resulted in minimal issues observed.

2. Are traffic numbers available for the major arterials during the COVID-19 time frame? We now operate GridSmart cameras, which provide both vehicle detection as well as data collection, at 11 locations around the city. As a result, we are able to pull traffic volume data from a date prior to the start of the pandemic and various dates throughout the pandemic to compare how the vehicle level have varied over the past six months of COVID-19. The arterials along which these cameras are located include Santa Fe Drive (at Prince Street, Bowles Avenue and Mineral Avenue), Broadway (at Littleton Boulevard and Mineral Avenue), Belleview Avenue (at Federal Boulevard and Prince Street), Bowles Avenue (at Platte Canyon Road, Federal Boulevard and Santa Fe Drive), and Mineral Avenue (at Platte Canyon Road, Santa Fe Drive, Jackass Hill Road/Long Avenue and Broadway).

3. Are there projections in the changing traffic and user patterns from COVID-19? We do not have any projections but, as stated in the previous response, we do have the ability to compare volumes and vehicle patterns from prior to the pandemic to the current conditions. The general findings when comparing counts from January 31, 2020 to last week (August 13, 2020) include the following:

· The daily volumes on average are still about 10-15% lower compared to the pre- COVID-19 conditions, with a range from 83% to 94% of the previous volumes. The Santa Fe Drive intersections are slightly closer at only 10% lower volumes compared to the other intersections on average at 14% lower.

· The AM peak hour is still substantially lower at more than 30% down on average compared to the pre-COVID-19 conditions, with a wide range from only 54% up to 87% of previous volumes. The biggest difference is that the Santa Fe Drive intersections are only about 24% lower compared to the other intersections that are almost 40% lower on average.

· The midday peak hour is right about at the pre-COVID-19 conditions, with a range from 10% lower to 7% higher.

· The PM Peak hour is still about 20% lower compared to pre-COVID-19 conditions, with a range from 75% to 88% of the previous volumes.

· The pattern throughout the day is for the volumes to start lower than previously in the morning and build throughout the day through the evening peak before dropping off for the night. Previously the normal was for substantial peaks in the morning and the evening, with a minor peak midday.

4. Do we know where people are riding bikes in Littleton and where more bike infrastructure is needed? This is an area that we focused on when preparing the Transportation Master Plan last year. While we did not conduct any bicycle counts, we do have a general sense of where Littleton residents are riding bicycles. The short answer and good news is that bicycles are observed riding everywhere throughout the city, and the easier to answer question is probably where are bicycles not riding. Bicycles are, for obvious reasons, primarily concentrated on the off-street paths and trails (i.e., Mary Carter Greenway, Mineral Trail, High Line Canal, Lee Gulch Trail, Little’s Creek Trail, and Community Trail), around schools (i.e., ACC, LHS, HHS, and all of the middle and elementary schools), at the light rail stations, and near the larger employment centers (i.e., Dish, CenturyLink, Littleton Adventist Hospital). The TMP built off the previous Bike and Ped Master Plan to further identify bike priority streets (TMP Figure 25). The city recently acquired bike counters that we are just now beginning to test out. If there are certain trails, roadways, intersections, or specific locations that are desired to obtain bike counts, please let us know and we can collect data for you.

5. Do we know how often bike racks are being used, specifically in Downtown? We do not have any information on the frequency or duration the bike racks in downtown are utilized. When the city moves forward with a downtown streetscape and mobility study, this could certainly be included in the data collection process if desired. Otherwise, our only other source right now may be to inquire with business owners and employees in the downtown area for observations.

Aaron Heumann, PE, PTOE Transportation Engineering Manager Public Works 2255 West Berry Avenue Littleton, CO 80120 303-795-3867 (office) Littletongov.org Twitter | Facebook | YouTube

* Sender and receiver should be mindful that all incoming and outgoing emails may be subject to the Colorado Open Records Act, S 24-72-100.1, et seq. Littleton Volume Comparisons

January 31, 2020 Intersection Daily AM Peak Midday Peak PM Peak 1 Santa Fe Drive & Prince Street 68,850 5,238 4,402 5,889 2 Santa Fe Drive & Bowles Avenue 80,317 6,584 5,155 7,095 3 Santa Fe Drive & Mineral Avenue 79,409 6,250 4,772 6,783 4 Broadway & Littleton Boulevard 50,193 4,637 3,286 4,096 5 Broadway & Mineral Avenue 54,128 4,090 3,661 4,680 6 Belleview Avenue & Federal Boulevard 41,582 3,887 2,524 4,154 7 Belleview Avenue & Prince Street 41,077 3,584 2,618 3,816 8 Bowles Avenue & Platte Canyon Road 44,575 3,732 2,704 4,037 9 Bowles Avenue & Federal Boulevard 39,948 3,546 2,584 3,524 10 Mineral Avenue & Platte Canyon Road 36,388 3,250 1,890 3,392 11 Mineral Avenue & Jackass Hill Road/Long Avenue NA* NA* NA* NA* * Note: The camera at Mineral Avenue & Jackass Hill Road/Long Avenue was not installed until June 202 August 13, 2020 Percent Change Daily AM Peak Midday Peak PM Peak Daily AM Peak Midday Peak PM Peak 64,947 4,539 4,255 5,176 94% 87% 97% 88% 70,243 4,496 4,655 5,325 87% 68% 90% 75% 70,852 4,625 4,631 5,797 89% 74% 97% 85% 42,153 2,504 2,970 3,488 84% 54% 90% 85% 48,024 3,014 3,655 4,016 89% 74% 100% 86% 36,118 2,084 2,537 3,215 87% 54% 101% 77% 36,632 2,135 2,743 3,187 89% 60% 105% 84% 36,946 2,359 2,518 3,237 83% 63% 93% 80% 33,877 2,078 2,324 2,838 85% 59% 90% 81% 30,833 2,065 2,031 2,667 85% 64% 107% 79% 23,882 1,487 1,684 2,085 NA* NA* NA* NA* 20. Overall Avg: 87% 66% 97% 82% Santa Fe Drive Avg: 90% 76% 95% 83% Updated: Updated: 8/25/2020 Blue = Annual requirement per City Manager ‐ DO NOT CHANGE Green = Awarded Grants ‐ DO NO CHANGE Purple = Impact Fee Funded Projects

City Project TOTAL 5‐YEAR

002 XX‐08 Admin X Annual Local Street Resurfacing & Maintenance (City Forces w/ Labor) $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ ‐ Acct #34‐306‐7170 003 ‐ Admin X Trailmark Street Maintenance (Contracted) $ 16,000 $ 16,000 $ 16,000 $ 16,000 $ 16,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ ‐ Acct #34‐306‐7171 004 ‐ ADA Program X ADA Transition Plan Implementation (right‐of‐way) Capital (Building Use Tax) $ 100,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 300,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,200,000 Acct #34‐171‐7830 005 ‐ Undergrounding X Undergrounding Master Plan $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 75,000 $ 75,000 Acct # ? 006 ‐ Asset Management X Asset Management Implementation ‐ Grounds & Traffic $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Acct # ? Proposed in Operating Budget, but keep 007 ‐ Asset Management X Asset Management Implementation ‐ Streets here in case$ 40,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ ‐ Acct # ? Traffic Infrastructure Improvements (signal rewiring, traffic management, 008 ‐ Traffic X signal timing) $ 165,000 $ 135,000 $ 135,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 735,000 $ 875,000 $ 140,000 Acct #34‐302‐7891 Centracs System‐to‐System Connectivity (with Centenntial, Englewood, 009 ‐ Traffic Arapahoe County, et al) $ 10,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ ‐ Acct #34‐302‐7891 010 XX‐20 Traffic X Traffic Signal Pole Replacement $ 900,000 $ 200,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 1,550,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 450,000 Acct #34‐306‐7899 011 XX‐20 Traffic X X Traffic Signal System Reconstruction $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Acct #34‐306‐7899

Anticipate CMAQ grant = $589,600 (20% Local Match funded by Impact Fees = Fiberoptic Installation for Traffic Infrastructure ‐ Broadway (Arapahoe to $135,400, Arapahoe County 33% 012 21‐32 Traffic X Powers) contribution to local match = $33,000)$ 758,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 758,000 $ 758,000 $ ‐ Acct #16‐302‐78XX, #34‐302‐7891 CMPI Grant = $214,000 (50% Local 013 18‐17 Traffic X Raised Pedestrian Crosswalks Match) $ 428,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 428,000 $ 550,000 $ 122,000 Acct #16‐302‐78XX, #34‐306‐7899 014 XX‐31 Traffic X X Traffic Calming $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 125,000 $ 250,000 $ 125,000 Acct #34‐302‐7897 Anticipate CMAQ grant (20% Local 015 23‐32 Traffic X Traffic Operations Center Match funded by Impact Fees) $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 150,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ ‐ Acct #16‐302‐78XX, #34‐302‐7891 016 25‐32 Transportation X Transportation Master Plan Update Impact Fees $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ ‐ Acct #25‐171‐XXXX 017 23‐33 Transportation X Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan Update $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 60,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ ‐ Acct #34‐306‐7899 018 ‐ Transportation X Riverfront District Corridor Study $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 150,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ ‐ Acct #34‐306‐7899 019 ‐ Transportation X Transportation Studies as identified in TMP $ ‐ $ 100,000 $ ‐ $ 100,000 $ ‐ $ 200,000 $ 500,000 $ 300,000 Acct #34‐306‐7899 020 ‐ Transportation X Future Corridor Studies $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Acct #34‐ 306‐7899 021 ‐ Transportation X X Prentice Avenue Roundabout Design & Construction $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 180,000 $ 180,000 Acct #34‐302‐7896 Mineral Drive & Platte Canyon Road Intersection Design (2019) & 022 20‐10 Transportation X X Construction (2020) $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Acct #34‐306‐7899 Broadway and Littleton Blvd Intersection Design (2023) & Construction HSIP grant = $1,440,00 (10% Local 023 21‐33 Transportation X X (2024) Match) $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 400,000 $ 1,200,000 $ ‐ $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 $ ‐ Acct #16‐302‐78XX Broadway & Mineral Avenue Intersection Design (2024) & Construction HSIP grant = $1,350,000 (10% Local 024 21‐34 Transportation X X (2025) Match) $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 375,000 $ 1,125,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ ‐ Acct #16‐302‐78XX Ridge Road & Prince Street Roundabout Design (2024) & Construction Anticipate CMAQ grant (20% Local 025 22‐32 Transportation X X (2025) Match) $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 80,000 $ 800,000 $ 880,000 $ 880,000 $ ‐ Acct #16‐302‐78XX, #34‐306‐7899 Church & Prince Intersection Improvements ($30k R/W, $370k 026 18‐14 Transportation X X Construction, $180k Signal) $ 30,000 $ 550,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 580,000 $ 600,000 $ 20,000 Acct #34‐306‐7899

Bowles & Platte Canyon Intersection Improvements ‐ Design (2020) & FASTER grant = $1M (No Local Match, 027 20‐16 Transportation X X Construction (2021) but anticpated $100,000 overage) $ ‐ $ 850,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 850,000 $ 900,000 $ 50,000 Acct #16‐302‐7890, #34‐306‐7899

Mineral & Platte Canyon Intersection Improvements ‐ Design (2020) & HSIP grant = $750,000(No Local Match, 028 20‐15 Transportation X X Construction (2021) but anticpated $100,000 overage) $ 657,588 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 657,588 $ 700,000 $ 42,412 Acct #16‐302‐7890, #34‐306‐7899

SRTS Grant = $119,606 (No Local Match, but anticipated $10,000 overage, $25k 029 20‐17 Transportation X Federal & Berry SRTS design wrap up, $30k CMCI) $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Acct #16‐302‐7890, #34‐302‐7891 030 ‐ Transportation X Future Safe Routes To School Projects SRTS Grant (20% Local Match) $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 150,000 $ ‐ $ 150,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ ‐ Acct #16‐302‐78XX TABOR ($630,000 Construction + 031 18‐13 Transportation X Federal & Bowles TABOR $70,000 CMCI & Testing) $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Acct #34‐302‐7893, #34‐306‐7899 ACOS Grant = $253,564 (25% Local 032 21‐35 Transportation X Slaughterhouse Gulch Park Trail Connection Match) $ 338,085 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 338,085 $ 338,085 $ ‐ Acct #16‐302‐78XX, #34‐306‐7899 DRCOG TIP Grant ‐ $ shown are local 033 20‐23 Capital Improvement X US 85 (Santa Fe) PEL match $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Acct #34‐302‐7897 DRCOG TIP Grant = $1M ‐ Costs shown County Line ‐ Broadway to University (2021 ‐ $100k for R/W + $250k for are City's 50% match, funded by Impact 034 20‐14 Capital Improvement X X Design) (2023 ‐ $1M for Construction) (short $380,000) Fees$ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 270,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 970,000 $ 1,350,000 $ 380,000 Acct #25‐171‐7890 DRCOG TIP Grant = $9,152,000 ‐ Costs Santa Fe & Mineral Intersection (no funding source identified beyond shown are City's 25% match, funded by 035 20‐22 Capital Improvement X X 2020 ‐ short $2,069,000) Impact Fees$ 220,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 220,000 $ 2,289,000 $ 2,069,000 Acct #25‐171‐7890 036 20‐18 Bridges X Main Street & Alamo Ave Bridge Fence Repairs $ 275,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 275,000 $ 275,000 $ ‐ Acct #34 ‐306‐7899 037 23‐21 Bridges X Prince Street Bridge Fence Repairs $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 120,000 $ ‐ $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ ‐ Acct #34‐306‐7899 038 21‐21 Bridges X Minor Bridge Structural Evaluation $ 30,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ ‐ Acct #34‐302‐7895 039 XX‐20 Bridges X Annual Bridge Repairs $ ‐ $ 50,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 50,000 $ 100,000 $ 200,000 $ 100,000 Acct #34‐302‐7895 Rio Grande Bridge over Slaughterhouse Gulch Replacement ‐ Design CDOT/CML, $137,632 carryover from Acct #34‐302‐7895, #16‐302‐7895, #34‐ 040 18‐10 Bridges X (2019) & Construction (2020) 2019, $25,000 from Alexan Escrow $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 306‐7899 Windermere Bridge over Highline Canal Replacement ‐ Design (2022) & 041 22‐21 Bridges X X Construction (2023) CDOT/CML, 20% Local Match $ ‐ $ 300,000 $ 1,855,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 2,155,000 $ 2,155,000 $ ‐ Acct #34‐302‐7895, #16‐302‐7895 042 21‐22 Bridges X Bridge Master Plan $ 50,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 50,000 $ 75,000 $ 25,000 Acct #34‐302‐7895 043 ‐ Bridges X Bridge Reseve buildup $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Acct #34‐302‐7895 City Project TOTAL 5‐YEAR

Project Number Category Planning Construction Maintenance HUTF & CAPITAL RESERVE FUNDED PROJECTS Other Funding Sources 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 5 Yr Total NEEDS UNFUNDED ACCOUNT NUMBERS 044 ‐ Pavement Management X Pavement Management Planning $ 40,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 30,000 $ ‐ $ 70,000 $ 100,000 $ 30,000 Acct #34‐302‐7896 045 ‐ Pavement Management X Pavement Management Design for subsequent year$ 160,000 $ 190,000 $ 170,000 $ 160,000 $ 170,000 $ 850,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 150,000 Acct #34‐302‐7896 046 XX‐01 Pavement Management X X Annual Crack Sealing Project $ 220,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 620,000 $ 750,000 $ 130,000 Acct #34‐302‐7896 047 XX‐02 Pavement Management X X Annual Surface Sealing Project $ 390,000 $ 320,000 $ 300,000 $ 350,000 $ 420,000 $ 1,780,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 720,000 Acct #34‐302‐7896 048 XX‐03 Pavement Management X X Annual Mill & Overlay Project $ 400,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,410,000 $ 850,000 $ 725,000 $ 4,385,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 1,615,000 Acct #34‐306‐7899 Aberdeen Village Neighborhood Reconstruction ‐ Design (2023) & 049 22‐04 Pavement Management X X Construction (2024‐2025) $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 312,000 $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 $ 2,912,000 $ 4,300,000 $ 1,388,000 Acct #34‐306‐7899 Euclid Avenue Reconstruction ‐ Windermere to Gallup ‐ Design (2025) & 050 25‐04 Pavement Management X X Construction (2026 ‐ $350,000) $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 385,000 $ 350,000 Acct #34‐306‐7899 Sterne Park Neighborhood Reconstruction ‐ Design (2025) & Construction 051 25‐04 Pavement Management X X (2026 ‐ $750,000) $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 830,000 $ 750,000 Acct #34‐306‐7899 Littleton Courthouse Neighborhood Reconstruction ‐ Design (2026) & 052 26‐04 Pavement Management X X Construction (2027 ‐ $750,000) $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 85,000 $ 85,000 Acct #34‐306‐7899 053 XX‐05 Pavement Management X X Annual Misc Concrete Project $ 440,000 $ 350,000 $ 450,000 $ 350,000 $ 440,000 $ 2,030,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 970,000 Acct #34‐302‐7896 054 XX‐06 Pavement Management X X Concrete Panel Repair $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 300,000 $ 500,000 $ 200,000 Acct #34‐306‐7899 055 20‐06 Pavement Management X X Mineral Ave Concrete Improvements $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 900,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 100,000 Acct #34‐306‐7899 CDBG Sidewalk Project (Shepperd $240k in 2020) (Bannock $150k in 056 19‐21, 21‐07 Other X 2021) CDBG Grant $ 150,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ ‐ Acct #16‐302‐7890, #34‐302‐7896 057 21‐09 Other X Santa Fe Median Repairs ‐ Concrete & Curb $ 200,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ ‐ Acct #34‐306‐7899 Gallup & Peakview Drainage Improvements ‐ roadway improvements 058 21‐71 Other X associated with drainage project $ 120,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ ‐ Acct #34‐306‐7899 Lee Gulch @ Broadway Headwall/Wingwall ‐ roadway improvements 059 ‐ Other X associated with drainage project $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Acct # 34‐306‐7899

060 ‐ Other X Contingency for Cooperative projects, Developer cost share projects, etc.$ 64,759 $ 63,509 $ 71,018 $ 73,067 $ 70,503 $ 342,856 $ 500,000 $ 157,144 Acct #34‐302‐7896 TOTAL ‐ ALL PROJECTS$ 7,637,432 $ 5,724,509 $ 6,849,018 $ 6,239,067 $ 6,766,503 $ 33,216,529 $ 47,940,085 $ 14,723,556 City Project TOTAL 5‐YEAR

Project Number Category Planning Construction Maintenance HUTF & CAPITAL RESERVE FUNDED PROJECTS Other Funding Sources 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 5 Yr Total NEEDS UNFUNDED ACCOUNT NUMBERS

Green = Awarded Grants ‐ DO NO CHANGE Red = Revenue from Finance Department ‐ DO NOT CHANGE FUNDING SOURCE 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 5 Yr Total Capital Projects Fund (Building Use Tax) $ ‐ $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 100,000 Acct #34‐321‐5013 Capital Projects Fund (Building Use Tax) ‐ Dedicated to ADA INTERNAL Imprvovements $ 100,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 300,000 Acct #34‐321‐5013 FUNDS Capital Projects Fund (HUTF) assumed 1.5% annual increase $ 1,260,630 $ 1,400,700 $ 1,421,711 $ 1,443,037 $ 1,464,683 $ 6,990,761 Acct #34‐171‐5321 Capital Projects Fund (Capital Reserve Account) Increases per ordinance $ 3,158,900 $ 3,148,809 $ 3,211,789 $ 3,239,530 $ 3,304,320 $ 16,063,348 Acct #34‐600‐5901 Transportation Impact Fees $ 705,400 $ 350,000 $ 300,000 $ ‐ $ 150,000 $ 1,505,400 Acct #25‐171‐5340 CDOT/CML Grant $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,240,518 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,240,518 Acct #16‐302‐5310 TABOR $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Acct #34‐302‐7893 FASTER Grant $ ‐ $ 750,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 750,000 Acct #16‐302‐5310 HSIP Grant $ 557,588 $ ‐ $ 360,000 $ 1,417,500 $ 1,012,500 $ 3,347,588 Acct #16‐302‐5310 CMAQ Grant $ 589,600 $ ‐ $ 120,000 $ 64,000 $ 640,000 $ 1,413,600 Acct # 16‐ GRANTS DRCOG ‐ TIP Grant $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Acct # 16‐ DRCOG ‐ CMPI Grant $ 214,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 214,000 Acct # 16‐ SRTS Grant $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 120,000 $ ‐ $ 120,000 $ 240,000 Acct #16‐302‐5310 SB19‐262 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Acct #34‐171‐5321 CDBG Grant $ 114,750 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 114,750 Acct #16‐300‐5310 ACOS Grant $ 253,564 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 253,564 Acct #16‐300‐5310 CONTRIBUTE Escrow from Alexan Apts SIA ‐ Rio Grande Bridge $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Acct # 34‐300‐3660 D CAPITAL Arapahoe County ‐ contribution to Broadway Fiber Project$ 33,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 33,000 Acct # ??? 2019 Carryover ‐ Rio Grande Bridge $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Acct # 34‐302‐7895 CARRYOVER 2019 Carryover ‐ CDBG for Shepperd $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Acct #34‐302‐7896 2019 Carryover ‐ PEL $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Acct #34‐302‐7897 2020 Carryover ‐ Capital Reserve Account $ 650,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 650,000 Acct #34‐302‐7897 TOTAL ‐ Funding Sources$ 7,637,432 $ 5,724,509 $ 6,849,018 $ 6,239,067 $ 6,766,503 $ 33,216,529

FUNDING GAP $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐

US 85/Santa Fe Drive PEL City Council Briefing #3 August 2020

Attached is the latest installment of the City Council briefing on the ongoing US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study.

In this third edition of the briefing, the following content has been provided: • Project committee and task force updates, including summaries of the most recent meeting discussions and progress. • The most recent 8-week look ahead at the project schedule. • The City of Littleton’s responsibilities and involvement in the project. • The project Purpose and Need that is nearing finalization by the Project Management Team.

As a reminder, the CDOT project web page can be viewed at: https://www.codot.gov/projects/santafe-pel

Please reach out to either Keith Reester ([email protected] or 303-795-3866) or Aaron Heumann ([email protected] or 303- 795-3867) with any input or feedback for information you would like included in future briefings.

August 19, 2020

US 85/Santa Fe Drive PEL City Council Briefing #3 August 2020

Project Background

The US 85 (Santa Fe Drive) Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study will investigate the segment from C470 to Alameda Avenue and is expected to take approximately 18 months to complete. This project is led by CDOT with a supporting coalition consisting of Denver, Arapahoe and Douglas Counties, along with the Cities of Sheridan, Englewood and Littleton. The project consulting team that was hired to conduct the study is comprised of HDR and David Evans & Associates, along with a robust supporting list of subconsultants expertise.

The PEL Study is being managed by the coalition of agencies participating on multiple committees and tasks forces. These committees and your Littleton staff representative include: • Project Management Team (PMT) – Aaron Heumann ([email protected]) o Traffic Task Force – Aaron Heumann o Environmental Task Force – Carolyn Roan ([email protected]) o Stakeholder Engagement Task Force – Kelli Narde ([email protected]) o Infrastructure Task Force – Aaron Heumann o Multimodal Task Force – Shane Roberts ([email protected]) • Executive Oversight Committee (EOC) – Keith Reester ([email protected]) • Elected Officials Committee – Scott Melin, Mayor Pro Tem These committees will facilitate reasonable, feasible recommendations for transportation improvements to the Santa Fe Drive (US 85) corridor.

This briefing, as will future editions, lists each of these groups and provides a summary of the work conducted since the previous monthly briefing. In addition, the latest project schedule and specific City of Littleton project tasks are provided.

Project Management Team (PMT) City Representative: Aaron Heumann, Transportation Engineering Manager

Purpose – The PMT is responsible for the primary oversight of the PEL Study providing review of the planning process and technical work involved in producing the major deliverables related to the existing conditions data collection, purpose and need development, alternatives analysis and final PEL report. This group will be responsible for assigning and reviewing the status of action items. They will also guide the development of outreach strategies and communication with the public and stakeholders. There will also be several task forces to supplement the PMT in order to have focused discussions, as needed.

Meeting #1 – April 29, 2020 Meeting #2 – May 27, 2020

1 | Page

US 85 PEL City Council Briefing #3 August 2020

Meeting #3 – June 24, 2020

Meeting #4 – July 22, 2020 Along with task force updates, the focus of the meeting was refining the Purpose and Need, and identifying the project schedule for the next couple of months. In addition to the usual PMT meeting in August there will be an innovation brainstorming workshop. Then in September will be the first Executive Oversight Committee (EOC) meeting. In October, the PMT will begin working on alternatives with another workshop.

Meeting #5 – August 26, 2020 This meeting will focus on establishing an agreement over the Purpose and Need, a summary of the Innovation Brainstorm Workshop, screening criteria discussion, and agreement of the stakeholder engagement plan.

Meeting #6 – September 23, 2020 This meeting will focus on gaining agreement of the screening criteria and the approach for the alternative development and evaluation.

Week of October 12, 2020 – In lieu of an October meeting, there will be an Alternatives Development Workshop.

Meeting #7 – November 18, 2020 This meeting will focus on the Level 1 alternatives evaluation overview and discussion.

Meeting #8 – December 16, 2020 This meeting will focus on gaining agreement of the Level 1 alternatives recommendations.

Meeting #9 – January 27, 2021 This meeting will focus on a review of the public involvement comments and preview/start the Level 2 alternatives evaluation.

In Progress & Completed to Date: • Project Charter – Finalized and signed by each of the agency representatives. • Corridor Vision & Agency Considerations – Littleton’s Perspectives Submitted • No Action Alternative – Submitted and reviewed by PMT. • Story Map – The Story Map will be divided into multiple tabs with different groups of data. Each overarching tab has sub sections. Layers are able to be turned on and off and the base map can be changed from a list of preloaded options. • Corridor Conditions Report – Draft submitted for review by the PMT.

Traffic Task Force (City Representative: Aaron Heumann) Purpose – The Traffic group will assist in establishing the methodology for traffic modeling and discussion of the results of the modeling for the existing conditions, no action and alternatives analysis.

Meeting #1 – May 21, 2020

2 | Page

US 85 PEL City Council Briefing #3 August 2020

Meeting #2 – To be determined

In Progress & Completed to Date: • Safety Analysis and Recommendations Report – Draft prepared and reviewed by the PMT. • Travel Demand Forecasting and Travel Conditions – Methodology and Assumptions Memorandum – Draft prepared and reviewed by the PMT. Furthermore, the project team has completed the 2020 and 2040 base model runs, incorporating Traffic Task Force comments. The next step is looking at transit travel demand methods, alternative scenarios, and a potential increased capacity model to get an idea of how the corridor reacts when there is more capacity and less constraint. • Socio-economic Data Confirmation Report – Draft prepared and reviewed by the PMT.

Environmental Task Force (City Representative: Carolyn Roan) Purpose – The Environmental group will help scope the environmental resources to be evaluated and the methodology for each, and then convene to review the existing conditions report and potentially to review and provide input on the results of the alternatives analysis.

Meeting #1 – May 20, 2020

Meeting #2 – To be determined

In Progress & Completed to Date: • Corridor Visual Quality – A visual quality of the corridor has been developed from a windshield survey conducted. • Story Map – A Historic Resources tab has been added through coordination with local municipalities to include all historic sites known in the area. Known historic resources, locations needing more research, and linear resources (railroads, ditches, or streets) are all identified separately. • Corridor Conditions Report – The draft includes the environmental information and recommendations. There was no Area of Potential Effect (APE) determined for the corridor.

Stakeholder Engagement Task Force (City Representative: Kelli Narde) Purpose – The Stakeholder Engagement group consists of public information personnel from the various agencies involved in order to ensure regular and clear communication is distributed to the public. The Task Force will help provide process and establish protocols during the review of the Public Engagement Plan.

Meeting #1 – June 1, 2020

Meeting #2 – To be determined.

In Progress & Completed to Date: • Social & Political Risk Assessment Report – Draft report completed and reviewed by the PMT. • Stakeholder Interviews – Completed with the exception of a few outstanding contacts. Littleton interviews have included: Kathleen Osher, Police Chief Stephens, Councilor Milliman, Joe Porter of Breckenridge Brewery, Rich Meredith of Hudson Gardens, Dana Barton at the Colorado

3 | Page

US 85 PEL City Council Briefing #3 August 2020

Center for the Blind, and Arapahoe Community College. Interview highlights include west-east connectivity issues, ADA compliance preferred methods, traffic and car crashes, pedestrian safety, lack of consistency of intersections, access turn lane safety, speed of the corridor (posted and real speed). All interviewees are willing to promote the project and provide engagement opportunities with other stakeholders. • Stakeholder and Public Involvement Framework – Underway and will be developed based on the stakeholder interviews. With social distancing requirements and the impacts of COVID-19, the project team will utilize virtual meetings, questionnaires, social media campaigns (including leveraging traffic reporters who have a large social media following), and local news stories that could put a more positive spin on Santa Fe Drive than the usual negative press. Additionally, communication outlets will be leveraged through the stakeholder interviews and the community ambassadors. If conditions start to open up, the project team will go out into the public, such as hosting an event at Breckenridge Brewery. • CDOT Project Website – The project website is up and running and can be viewed at: https://www.codot.gov/projects/santafe-pel • Bi-monthly Project Newsletter – Starting in August there will be a technical newsletter prepared every other month.

Infrastructure Task Force (City Representative: Aaron Heumann) Purpose – The Infrastructure group will assist the PMT in specifically overseeing the preparation of the Corridor Condition Report and identifying projects to be included in the no action alternative.

Meeting #1 – To be determined

In Progress & Completed to Date: • Corridor Condition Report – Draft completed and distributed for review and comments due by September 4, 2020. • No Action Alternative – Draft completed and reviewed by the PMT. • Story Map – A Transportation and Infrastructure tab has been added, which includes safety and operations related information, along with components such as culverts and medians.

Multimodal Task Force (City Representative: Shane Roberts) Purpose – The Multimodal group will focus discussions on pedestrian, bicycle and transit related considerations for the corridor, providing input prior to data collection and for creation of the alternatives.

Meeting #1 – June 22, 2020

Meeting #2 – To be determined.

In Progress & Completed to Date: • Corridor Conditions Report – Pedestrian, bicycle and transit issues have been incorporated into the draft report.

4 | Page

US 85 PEL City Council Briefing #3 August 2020

Executive Oversight Committee City Representative: Keith Reester, Public Works Director

Meeting #1 – September 16, 2020 The focus of the meeting will be to discuss and endorse the Purpose and Need for the project, to review the Stakeholder Engagement Plan and completed interviews, and to review the initial Screening Criteria. In addition, specific topics identify by the PMT will be discussed from the Corridor Conditions Report.

Elected Officials Committee City Representative: Scott Melin, Mayor Pro Tem

Cities in the corridor believe that a more engaged role for elected officials is needed and is a model that has been used in PEL’s completed in CDOT Region 1 over the past few years. The public works directors from participating counties and municipalities submitted a letter to the PEL project leadership asking for a more inclusive role for elected officials. On-going discussions with CDOT are in progress to determine some options for engaging the officials. Ideas being considered include meetings, some one-on-one interviews, and also presentations to each council at a couple points during the PEL process.

City of Littleton Responsibilities • Meeting attendance – as scheduled, on-going • Sign Project Charter – completed • Submit initial vision and corridor PEL concerns – completed • Review and comment on the list of interviewees proposed with Littleton personnel – completed • Complete survey from Engagement Task Force on leveraging local media sources – completed • Provide various data requests – as needed, on-going • Review No Action Alternative – completed • Review Safety Analysis and Recommendations Report – completed • Review Travel Demand Forecasting and Travel Conditions – Methodology and Assumptions Memorandum – completed • Review 2020-2040 Socio-economic Data Confirmation Report – completed • Corridor Conditions Report – draft document under review

Project Next 8 Weeks Look-out • Story Map continuing to be developed by the project team with project information layers continuing to be added. • Finalize Corridor Conditions Report • Public Engagement Plan development summarizing stakeholder interviews. • Finalize Purpose and Need • Develop screening criteria for evaluating alternatives. • Start to identify potential early action projects.

Attachments 1. Purpose and Need (August 17, 2020)

5 | Page

DRAFT PURPOSE AND NEED

August 17, 2020

This segment of Santa Fe Drive (US 85) is located in the south Denver metropolitan area and is an important regional transportation corridor between downtown Denver and Douglas County as well as the other communities located along or served by this corridor. The Santa Fe corridor serves as an important connection for inter-regional travel and a route for commuter and local trips for residents and businesses in the growing area communities.

The study area for the Santa Fe PEL Study is defined as Santa Fe Drive from C-470 in Douglas County to the junction of Alameda Avenue and I-25 in City and County of Denver. The 11-mile highway corridor has a functional classification of Principal Arterial for the entire length of the study area with an access category of Expressway from C-470 to Florida Avenue and Non-Rural Principal Highway north of Florida Avenue. It varies in cross-section, surrounding character, and use, which creates differing issues for travelers that utilize some or all of the various sections of this regional travel corridor.

Purpose The purpose of the recommended transportation improvements from this study is to improve safety for all users, improve operational performance, and enhance multimodal connectivity for the Santa Fe Drive corridor from C-470 to I-25 through Arapahoe County, City and County of Denver, Douglas County, Englewood, Littleton, and Sheridan.

Need Transportation improvements are needed to address:

 Safety • Vehicular o The most common crash types experienced along the corridor are related to congestion. . Over a three-year period from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018, there were 2,282 crashes on Santa Fe Drive from C-470 to Alameda Avenue. Rear end crashes were the most common crash type followed by sideswipe (same direction). These types of crashes are typically related to vehicular congestion. o Crashes along Santa Fe Drive are highly concentrated during the peak commuting periods at the signalized intersections of Mississippi Avenue, Dartmouth Avenue, Oxford Avenue, Bowles Avenue, and Mineral Avenue, due to congestion and queuing. . Over half of all recorded crashes occurred at or near intersections. . Intersections are dominated by rear end and sideswipe crash types that primarily occur on intersection approaches . The Mississippi Avenue intersection has the highest crash rate within the corridor. o Total crash rates on all segments of Santa Fe Drive (2.27 – 3.65 crashes/million vehicle-miles of travel) exceed the CDOT average rate for an expressway facility (1.62 crashes/million vehicle-miles of travel). . North of Dartmouth Avenue, fatal crashes (0.024 crashes/million vehicle-miles of travel) occurred more frequently compared to the CDOT average rate for a principal arterial (0.014 crashes//million vehicle-miles of travel). Ten fatal crashes occurred 23143 Santa Fe PEL (C-470 to I-25) DRAFT PURPOSE AND NEED 2 of 4

along Santa Fe Drive and the majority of those crashes (seven crashes) occurred north of Dartmouth Avenue. • Access o Areas with more frequent direct access driveways and public road intersections along Santa Fe Drive create speed differentials and turning conflicts. . The sections with more frequent direct access driveways and intersections along Santa Fe Drive see an increased proportion of rear end and angle crashes, and an increase in overall crash frequency, such as south of Bowles Avenue, south of Union Avenue, north of Dartmouth Avenue, and Iowa Avenue to Mississippi Avenue.

 Operational Performance • Congestion and Travel Time Reliability o Drivers along the Santa Fe Drive corridor experience substantial delays and queues during commuter peak periods between 6am and 9am northbound, and 3pm and 7pm northbound and southbound. . Travel times during the AM and PM peak hours are up to 40% longer than the travel time to drive the corridor at free flow speeds. o Bottlenecks with congestion and long queues regularly occur at the signalized intersections at Mineral Avenue, Bowles Avenue, Oxford Avenue, Dartmouth Avenue, Alameda Avenue, and Mississippi Avenue, and approaching the I-25 interchange flyover. During peak travel times, congested segments reach up to three miles in length. . Providing pedestrian crossing times at the signalized intersections for the relatively wide roadway creates additional delay for drivers along Santa Fe Drive when pedestrians utilize the at-grade intersections to cross the corridor. A pedestrian crossing Santa Fe at an intersection as wide as Dartmouth increase the red time for Santa Fe traffic by up to one minute. Pedestrian activations also take the signal out of coordination for several cycles, impacting traffic flow up and down the corridor. o Congestion along the Santa Fe Drive corridor is expected to worsen by 2040 with longer recurring periods of delay and slower speeds, as well as new areas of congestion. . Traffic volumes are expected to increase by an average of 13% on the corridor, and up to 30% south of Mineral Avenue, due to local and regional population and employment growth. o Varying geometric characteristics along the Santa Fe Drive corridor, such as inconsistent driveway and intersection spacing, acceleration/deceleration lane design, median treatments, and the number of travel lanes, create traffic disruptions, particularly weaving maneuvers between intersections/interchanges and lane changes to/from the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) express lane during peak hours. o The existing HOV express lane creates operational issues with weaving maneuvers and lane changes due to the need for left turning traffic to utilize the lane, and the need for HOV express lane traffic to stop at the signalized intersections. o Congestion also occurs on Santa Fe Drive outside of typical peak commuting hours during 75% of weekdays with congestion due to community events, crashes, severe weather, freight rail crossing south of Oxford Avenue, and traffic diversion to Santa Fe Drive when other regional corridors (like I-25 and Broadway) experience congestion. • Access o The inconsistent spacing and types of intersections and driveways contribute to operational issues along the Santa Fe Drive corridor. 23143 Santa Fe PEL (C-470 to I-25) DRAFT PURPOSE AND NEED 3 of 4

. An example of this inconsistency, the types of intersection and driveway accesses in two segments of the corridor are: • In the two miles south of Belleview Avenue: 1 grade separated interchange, 4 at grade signalized intersection, and 26 driveway/street accesses (full movement and right-in/right-out) • In the two miles north of Hampden Avenue: 2 grade separated interchanges, 1 at grade signalized intersection, and 9 driveway/street accesses (all right-in/right-out) o Individual private driveways and business accesses on Santa Fe Drive between C-470 and Florida Avenue are inconsistent with the corridor access category classification of Expressway and negatively impact corridor travel and operations with turning conflicts, speed differentials and does not meet the required public road intersection spacing of one mile in some segments. . The lack of a local roadway network to provide property access contributes to the frequency of private driveways and business access on Santa Fe Drive, particularly in Littleton south of Bowles Avenue, as well as on the west side of the corridor south of Union Avenue and north of Dartmouth Avenue in Englewood. • Freight o The Santa Fe Drive corridor is a designated critical freight corridor serving regional freight movements between I-25 in Denver and areas south of C-470, in addition to serving local community freight needs directly along the corridor. . The percentage of truck traffic to the overall daily volume is 7.5% - 9.2%, which is higher thana typical urban principal arterial highway of approximately 2%. . Industrial and commercial land uses adjacent to the corridor between Belleview Avenue and Evans Avenue create heavy truck movements on and off of the corridor at the intersections of Union Avenue, Oxford Avenue, and Dartmouth Avenue, as well as at driveways and minor street accesses. These heavy trucks contribute to poor operational performance at these intersections. o The unreliable or unpredictable travel times along the corridor cause difficulty in trip planning and have negative impacts for freight operators. . Corridor stakeholders like the Colorado Motor Carriers Association express concern with trucks, like other vehicles, experiencing increased delays traveling along the corridor as traffic volumes and the associated congestion increase.

 Multimodal Connections • Pedestrian and Bicycle o Santa Fe Drive lacks adequate facilities to accommodate pedestrian and bicyclist crossings of the highway with connections to area sidewalks, trails, and LRT stations. o With high traffic volumes and speeds plus a width of eight lanes or more, Santa Fe Drive is a barrier for pedestrian and bicyclist travel. . Various land uses along the Santa Fe corridor generate demand for walking and biking trips, including residential areas, LRT stations, Arapahoe Community College, employment centers, non-profit centers, community hubs, and recreational amenities such as the South Platte River, Mary Carter Greenway Trail, South Platte Park and Carson Nature Center, Overland Golf Course, and numerous nearby public parks Because many of the origins and destinations of these trips are on opposite sides of the highway, conflicts occur at intersections due to insufficient pedestrian/bicycle facilities and limited crossing locations. 23143 Santa Fe PEL (C-470 to I-25) DRAFT PURPOSE AND NEED 4 of 4

. The speed and volume of traffic and roadway width, combined with turn lanes, acceleration/deceleration lanes, and the parallel freight rail/LRT, hinder the ability of pedestrians and bicyclists to cross the highway. o Lack of pedestrian and bicycle wayfinding within the Santa Fe Drive corridor area reduces the use and effectiveness of the multimodal facilities. o Traffic congestion and speed combined with the lack of connected pedestrian and bicycle facilities create conflicts and uncomfortable conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the roadway and moving along the roadway where sidewalks exist. • Transit o Lack of sidewalks and pedestrian crossing opportunities impact comfort and safety at bus stops on streets crossing Santa Fe Drive and along Santa Fe Drive such as at County Line Road and Mineral Avenue. o Bicyclist and pedestrian access to adjacent LRT stations is impeded by the lack of connections across the Santa Fe Drive corridor.

Project Goals Additional goals of the recommended transportation projects for the Santa Fe Drive corridor are to: • Consider local community surroundings and context • Support local and regional planning efforts • Minimize environmental impacts as practicable • Balance local access and regional travel with consistent application of the defined access category for Santa Fe Drive • Optimize transit use and multimodal travel opportunities for the travel corridor. • Enhance connections and wayfinding to adjacent pedestrian and bicycle facilities • Provide redundancy for the regional transportation system to accommodate traffic when incidents impact other north-south routes such as I-25, Broadway, or Federal. DRAFT Transportation & Mobility Board: Project Prioritization Of the TMB members offered feedback on the project prioritization in the 7/9 Transportation Master Plan (TMP)

BOARD MEMBER VALUES

Dan F. Dan R. Geoff Jon Kent Kelly

• Studies • High ROI • Non-Auto • Preventative • School Safety • Accident areas • Technology • Contentious • # Of potential care • Partnership • High Public • Low Trade-off Issues beneficiaries • Kid safety Potential Concern projects • Already • Leverageable (biking,/walk- • Downtown / • Alternative • High Benefit o started projects ing) Critical Asset Modes Littleton • High Collabo- Focus • Cost consider- • Downtown rative potential ations Focus

COMMON VALUES

01 02 0403 04 05

SAFETY DOWNTOWN LEVERAGABILITY TECHNOLOGY & ACCESSIBILITY & Projects and Projects that Projects that have a INNOVATION DIVERSITY initiatives that preserve, maintain, high potential to Projects that Projects that increase safety for all or enhance leverage outside provide, or set the increase ADA Littleton residents, transportation to funding, build key stage for, compliance and using various modes and through partnerships, and/or technological provide access to of transportation Littleton’s set the stage for upgrades that transportation for all with a special Downtown future projects improve likely users emphasis on the neighborhood — transportation in regardless of safety of children especially Main St Littleton socio-economic and Alamo Ave status

NOTE: This flow chart represents a point in conversation among the TMB Board Members. These values were not officially adopted as the Board's Common Values.

DRAFT Transportation & Mobility Board: Additional Important Notes from November 2019 Meeting

•Broadway Corridor - Staff noted that prior to any land use changes, a comprehensive corridor study will need to be performed.

DRAFT Transportation & Mobility Board: Project Prioritization Of the TMB members offered feedback on the project prioritization in the 6/9 Transportation Master Plan (TMP)

Dan F. Dan R. Geoff Jon Kent Kelly

COMMON VALUES 01 02 03 04 05 06

SAFETY DOWNTOWN EFFICIENCY COLLABORATION TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATIONAL Projects and Projects that Projects that can be Projects that lean Projects that Projects that are a initiatives that preserve, maintain, executed in such a on other provide, or set the prerequisite for increase safety for or enhance way to expedite organizations and stage for, other all Littleton transportation to progress of the TMP entities to help technological transportation residents, using and through vision, bene t or accomplish a upgrades that projects various modes of Littleton’s advance other common goal or set improve transportation with Downtown projects, and/or of goals transportation in a special emphasis neighborhood — realize cost savings Littleton on the safety of especially Main St children and Alamo Ave

NOTE: This flow chart represents a point in conversation among the TMB Board Members. These values were not officially adopted as the Board's Common Values.

DRAFT Transportation & Mobility Board: Additional Important Notes from November 2019 Meeting

• Broadway Corridor - Sta noted that prior to any land use changes, a comprehensive corridor study will need to be performed.