Ralston Corridor Report

Ralston Road Corridor Plan

April 2011 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Produced for: City of Arvada

Produced by: Charlier Associates, Inc. with... Nelson/Nygaard Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Winston Associates

Final Draft: April 2011 CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ES-1 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Project Origin and Vision ...... 1 Stakeholder Involvement Overview ...... 2 Technical and Citi zens Advisory Committ ees ...... 2 Stakeholder Coﬀ ees and Interviews...... 3 The Great 8 ...... 3 Report Elements...... 5

CHAPTER 2 - CURRENT AND FUTURE CORRIDOR ENVIRONMENT ...... 6 Corridor Overview ...... 6 Land Use Summary ...... 7 Pedestrian Environment ...... 8 Transit Service...... 9 Motor Vehicles ...... 10 Public Workshop #1 ...... 14

CHAPTER 3 - CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT ...... 15 Long Range Corridor Objecti ves ...... 15 Corridor Concepts ...... 16 Land Use ...... 16 Transportati on ...... 17 Public Workshop #2 ...... 22 Cross Secti ons...... 22

CHAPTER 4 - CONCEPT EVALUATION ...... 29 Evaluati on Criteria ...... 29 Fatal Flaw Outcomes ...... 29 Final Four Street Cross Secti ons ...... 31 Pedestrian Environment Approach ...... 34 Bicycle Approach ...... 34 Transit Opti ons ...... 34 Concept Evaluati on ...... 38 Streetcar Feasibility ...... 43 Third Public Outreach ...... 46 CONTENTS

CHAPTER 5 - PREFERRED CONCEPT ...... 47 Process Review ...... 47 Overview of Preferred Concept ...... 47 Land Use ...... 48 Flexibility ...... 49 Pedestrian Environment ...... 51 Access Management ...... 54 Wide Landscaped Median...... 56 Improved Connecti vity ...... 57 Bicycle Accommodati on ...... 58 Transit ...... 58 Project Cost Summary ...... 60 Implementati on Plan ...... 61

APPENDIX I - COMMITTEES ...... A-1 APPENDIX II - KEYPAD POLLING ...... A-2 APPENDIX III - CURRENT CONDITIONS (TRANSIT) ...... A-6 APPENDIX IV - CURRENT CONDITIONS (TRAFFIC)...... A-8 APPENDIX V - CONCEPT EVALUATION DATA ...... A-11 APPENDIX VI - SURVEY RESULTS...... A-22 APPENDIX VII - PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION...... A-27 APPENDIX VIII - STREETCAR FEASIBILITY ...... A-31 APPENDIX IX - TRAFFIC PRIMER...... A-78 Executive Summary

Project Origin and Vision The Ralston Road Corridor Plan was initiated in response to two main issues: a desire to assess the feasibility of a streetcar along the corridor, and concerns about the pedestrian environment. In 2008 the Arvada Citizens’ Capital Improvement Program Committee identified Ralston Road sidewalk improvements as one of their top capital improvement priorities. Given the limited right-of-way width along Ralston, sidewalk improvements could not be implemented without first looking into future roadway concepts. Therefore, City Council made funding available for the Ralston Road Corridor Plan to look into roadway design issues as well as potential redevelopment of the land uses that abut the road.

City staff then developed a project study plan outlining the study area, objectives, scope, and a vision statement to guide the process. The charter identified the study area as the 1.5 mile segment of roadway between Olde Town Arvada and Arvada Triangle along Ralston Road, roughly bounded by Brooks Drive/Ralston Creek to the north, Grandview Avenue to the south, Kipling Parkway to the west and Wadsworth Bypass to the east. For the purposes of this planning effort, the study area was divided into three distinct areas - the Triangle, the Connecting Corridor and Olde Town. The Triangle Area spans between Kipling Parkway and Garrison Street; the Connecting Corridor between Garrison Street and Ammons Street; and the Olde Town Area between Ammons Street and Wadsworth Bypass, as illustrated below.

Project Vision: To provide an integrated land use and transportation plan for the Ralston Corridor Study Area that will enhance neighborhood connectivity, improve safety, encourage redevelopment and attract economic development, and provide a pleasant journey along a complete street through the heart of historic Arvada.

Triangle Area Connecting Corridor Olde Town Area

Brooks Drive Ammons Street Independence Street Kipling Parkway

Garrison Street Grandview Avenue

Bypass Arvada Ridge Station

Wadsworth

Olde Town Station ES-1 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Process Overview The planning process for the Ralston Road Corridor Plan (RRCP) is Ralston Road Corridor Planning Process summarized in the chart at right. The process entailed an extensive stakeholder involvement component, including: six Technical Project Expectations Committee meetings and three Citizens Advisory Committee (Risks & Opportunities Exercise) meetings held throughout the planning process; a series of Stakeholder Coffees and Interviews held in December 2009 and Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #1 January 2010; and two public workshops, one held in February and Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting #1 one held in May of 2010.

At the Stakeholder Coffees, participants were asked to think about a great street or urban space that they have visited. Participants Visioning then discussed specific characteristics of these places and how (Great 8 Exercise) these environments compare and contrast to the Ralston Road Corridor. These insights of Arvada residents can be summarized Stakeholder Coffees in eight underlying themes of great urban places and great streets Stakeholder Interviews (the Great 8), discussed in detail in Chapter 1.

At the first public workshop the project team summarized existing conditions and forecasts for traffic, land use and transit service along Base Conditions the Ralston Corridor. Through a keypad polling exercise and “chip (Traffic, Transit & Land Use) game” workshop participants articulated their desire to transform Ralston Road into a “main street” that promotes redevelopment Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #2 while respecting the character of stable, existing neighborhoods. Input from the first workshop was incorporated into draft options and scenarios for redeveloping the corridor and improving its transportation infrastructure. Goals, Objectives & Outcomes

Concept Development Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #3 With the Great 8 and public opinion in mind, the study team Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting #2 developed objectives and minimum expectations (for land use, Public Workshop #1 transportation, and urban design) and corridor options (for land use, pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and traffic). The various options were then combined into six corridor concepts for design of Ralston Road as a multimodal street. These six options were presented at Public Workshop #2 for comment and discussion. Preliminary Concept Evaluation 1. Main Street A 2. Main Street B Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting #3 3. Four Lane Compact Public Workshop #2 4. Four Lane with On-Street Parking 5. Streetcar 6. Ultimate Four Lane

Based on public input and additional technical analysis, the Main Street Final Concept Evaluation A and Ultimate Four Lane concepts were eliminated due to feasibility issues, leaving four final combined concepts designed to achieve the Draft Recommendations City’s land use and multimodal transportation objectives: Streetcar Workshop 1. Main Street A 2. Four Lane Compact 3. Four Lane with On-Street Parking 4. Streetcar ES-2 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

The project team then developed a detailed set of criteria to evaluate the final four concepts. These criteria were based on the work of the committees, priorities gleaned from public input, project objectives, and minimum expectations. Based on this evaluation, the team determined that the “Four Lane Compact” concept would be the best choice for achieving the City’s objectives while keeping implementation costs at a reasonable level.

Preferred Concept The preferred concept includes a plan of action for land use, access management, the pedestrian environment, bicycle accommodation, and transit. The street design elements are based on the “Four Lane Compact” street cross section. Characteristics of this concept are summarized below: • Provide high quality pedestrian environment • Provide four general purpose traffic lanes • Provide left turn bays at selected intersections • Install narrow, raised median to eliminate left turns in and out of other intersections and driveways • Alternate parking bays with a furnishing strip • Stripe traffic lanes at 11 feet in width • Provide space for future streetcar • ROW required: 86’ at midblock - intersections will vary (58’ current average ROW)

Four Lane Compact Variable Median, Variable Pedestrian Realm (Midblock Cross Section*)

Alternating parking lane and planting strip; both provided only in areas with sufficient right-of-way 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height

18 - 30'' 8' 8' 18 - 30'' 8' 11' 11' 3 - 10' 11' 11' 8' building parking lane/ parking lane/ building sidewalk vehicle lane vehicle lane median vehicle lane vehicle lane sidewalk setback planting strip planting strip setback ROW Line ROW Line

Minimum ROW Width: 86’ at midblock

14’ 14’ (Existing ROW Width: 58’ )

* Note: Intersection Layouts Will Vary

The figure above shows a minimum cross section for Ralston at mid-block (between intersections) in areas where the existing right of way is narrow (58 feet). The City would have the option of providing on-street parking where storefront development is anticipated or already exists. The City would also have the option of not providing on-street parking – at least initially – if the current or anticipated development pattern did not indicate a need for it. In that situation, the cross section would provide an eight-foot planting strip between the sidewalk and the street. Where existing parcel depths and building setbacks are sufficient, and on-street parking is deemed appropriate, the City should implement on-street parking, the eight-foot planting strip and at least an eight-foot sidewalk. Flexibility is one of the key strengths of the Four Lane Compact Concept. ES-3 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Land Use: The preferred concept would increase density along Ralston slightly to allow four-story buildings and would reduce front, side and rear minimum setbacks. Allowable land uses would be diversified from current zoning. Off-street parking requirements for redevelopment would be modified to allow shared parking and joint use parking facilities. Parking minimums would be reduced to support transit and pedestrian strategies and to encourage redevelopment. The preferred concept does not preclude further zoning changes in the future. It is possible that the combination of reconstruction of Ralston Road, the arrival of commuter rail at the Olde Town and Arvada Ridge transit centers, and a regional economic recovery could lead to increased redevelopment interest in the Ralston corridor. If this happens, the City could revisit both the streetcar and higher-density zoning.

Median and Access Management: In most sections of the corridor, the preferred concept would provide a ten foot raised, planted median at mid-block, which would become narrower as it approaches intersections to provide space for a left turn lane. The proposed median would eliminate most left turns into driveways and would consolidate left turns at a smaller number of intersections. The combined effect would be to reduce turning movements and lane changes substantially – with significant safety benefits. A median could also improve the capacity and general operations of Ralston Road. Under the preferred alternative, the City would work with property owners and developers to close driveways as redevelopment projects are proposed, but would not attempt wholesale driveway closures as part of the reconstruction of the street.

The City’s ability to install a median in Ralston Road could be limited somewhat by the volume of left turn movements at certain intersections and the spacing between intersections. The project team evaluated which north-south streets serve functions that would make it infeasible to eliminate left turns at their intersections with Ralston. Streets where left turns should be allowed are listed below (west to east). • Kipling • Balsam • Independence • Allison • Garrison • Olde Wadsworth • Estes (southbound) • Wadsworth • Carr (northbound)

The figure below shows these intersections and their spacing. The red overlay indicates where turn lanes would be needed along with their potential length. The gray overlay indicates the sections where a median could be installed. More detailed engineering analysis during final design will be needed to confirm the required turn lane lengths.

Turn Accommodation Under Four-Lane Street Alternatives

Kipling Garrison Carr Allison Wadsworth

420’ 230’ 540’ 820’ 350’ 270’ 230’ 230’ 500’ 230’ 390’

750’ 230’ 230’ 230’ 230’ 470’ 230’ 140’ 230’ 270’ 480’

Independence Estes Balsam Olde Wadsworth

Key Assumptions: LEGEND » Left turns only at essential signals and Estes Street Turn Lanes » Left turn storage = 1’ per one peak hour turning vehicle (50’ minimum) Space Between Turn Lanes » 80’ taper to develop left-turn lane (raised median) » 100’ redirect taper to transition between 10’ and 3’ median width » Total corridor length is about 7,700’ ES-4 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Connectivity: Although the local street connectivity along Ralston Road is reasonably good throughout much of the corridor, the street network falls short in north-south continuity. The low continuity for trips longer than a couple of blocks results in part from the presence of the railroad corridor to the south and Ralston Creek to the north. The lack of “connector” streets in the core part of Arvada leads to unnecessary travel and crowding in parts of the network, including on Ralston Road itself.

The project team identified two north-south corridors where providing a missing connection would improve circulation in the project area and in the core part of Arvada. One of these is Carr Street, which crosses both the railroad line and Ralston Creek, but is discontinuous for a block between Ralston Road and W. 57th Avenue. The other is Garrison Street, which connects W. 57th Avenue with Grandview Avenue to the south and crosses Ralston Creek to the north, but is discontinuous for the block between Ralston Road and W. 57th Avenue. Making these missing one-block connections at Carr and Garrison would improve local circulation and relieve turning movement congestion along Ralston Road. The Garrison connection would also be supportive of the City’s redevelopment objectives in the Triangle area.

During public workshops and committee meetings, it became clear that there is significant opposition to making the one-block Carr Street connection from Ralston Road to W. 57th Avenue because of its location along the school campus. Although it would be physically feasible to extend Carr Street across the block, doing so would divide the school from its associated athletic fields, raising local concerns about safety and the functionality of the school site. For those reasons, the Carr Street connection is not included in the preferred concept at this point in time. If, at any point in the future, the use of this property as a school site changes, this connection should be revisited. In the meantime, the City should coordinate with the school administration on a bicycle-pedestrian pathway connection in what would be the Carr Street alignment to improve non-motorized circulation and safety in this area. The Garrison Street connection is included in the preferred concept as a recommended future street connection project the City should undertake. However, this street segment is not included in the construction costs of the preferred concept, other than costs for the intersection at Ralston Road.

Pedestrian Environment: The preferred concept would include a high quality “pedestrian realm” on both sides of Ralston Road and improved pedestrian crossings of Ralston. This concept would provide an eight-foot wide sidewalk (minimum) separated from the street by either an eight-foot planting strip or by on-street parking. This concept would provide the City with considerable flexibility in finish treatment of the planting strip as shown in the figure below.

Interim Pedestrian Realm Ultimate Pedestrian Realm

ROADWAY PEDESTRIAN ADJACENT ROADWAY PEDESTRIAN ADJACENT CORRIDOR REALM LAND USE CORRIDOR REALM LAND USE X Y Z X Y Z edge of R.O.W. edge of R.O.W. back-of-curb edge of R.O.W. edge of R.O.W. back-of-curb 8’ 8’ clear clear zone zone B B face of building

planting pedestrian frontage planting pedestrian frontage street crossings street crossings strip clear zone zone strip clear zone zone A B C A B C

8’ 8’ variable 8’ 8’ 18 - 30”

16’ total 16’ total

Planting Strip is unpaved, contains fewer amenities Planting strip is paved, contains additional amenities ES-5 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

The “interim pedestrian realm” (on the left side of the figure) would be appropriate along sections of the corridor where older buildings are present and redevelopment is not anticipated soon. The dimensions are the same as those in the “ultimate pedestrian realm,” but the planting strip would not be paved and would contain fewer amenities. Under the preferred concept, along sections of Ralston Road where the right-of-way is close to the 58-foot dimension and parcels are shallow, this area could eventually become on-street parking as redevelopment occurs.

In other parts of the corridor where the existing right-of-way is not as limited and parcels are deeper (e.g. in the Triangle area), the “ultimate pedestrian realm” could be implemented along with on-street parking. Also, because redevelopment may not have occurred in many segments of the corridor under the “interim pedestrian realm” concept, setbacks for some parcels would remain larger than the 18-30” recommended in the “ultimate” scenario. This concept also includes the recommendation to provide safe, convenient pedestrian crossings of Ralston Road and north-south streets where they intersect with Ralston Road at intervals of 330 to 500 feet.

Bicycle Accommodation: The Ralston Road Corridor Plan built on prior access planning for the two new rail stations. The project team evaluated the safety and connectivity of the local and regional bicycle grid. The preferred concept would not include bicycle lanes along Ralston Road, relying instead on W. 57th Avenue, Brooks Drive, Grandview Avenue and the Ralston Creek trail for east-west bicycle circulation.

Signs prohibiting bicycling on Ralston Road would be removed. The City would allow bicycling on the sidewalks of Ralston Road to support local access to the school, civic facilities and commercial sites. The preferred concept also identified a need for bike lanes on Garrison between Ralston and Brooks Drive, which is being implemented as part of Garrison Street reconstruction. Later, when Garrison is extended south to W. 57th, that section should also include bike lanes, thereby making a key connection in the regional bicycle network. Finally, another key north-south connection in the bicycle network could be achieved by providing a multi-use trail in what would be the Carr Street alignment between Ralston Road and W. 57th Avenue.

Transit: Improved transit service within the Ralston Road corridor study area was a major focus of this corridor plan. Three transit service options were considered as part of this study: redeployment of RTD resources (enhanced RTD bus service), a branded bus circulator and a mixed traffic rail streetcar. A streetcar feasibility analysis was conducted as part of the corridor study.

The preferred concept includes a long term transit program that begins with redeployment of RTD resources. By anticipating the redeployment process and bringing a clear idea of local objectives to the table, the City should be able to impact the design and level of resulting RTD transit services. Then in the following years, the City would work to increase transit ridership through marketing and promotion. As part of reconstructing Ralston Road, attractive bus stop areas and bus shelters would be installed to improve access to buses, to improve the passenger experience, and to increase awareness of the presence of RTD routes.

As the transit market builds over time, the City would revisit the potential for a successful branded circulator or streetcar. To justify the capital costs of a streetcar, predicted ridership should be a minimum of 50 boardings per hour and more ideally would exceed 100 boardings per hour. The evaluation of alternatives resulted in forecasts of future ridership on a branded bus circulator of about 20 boardings per hour and for a streetcar of about 30 boardings per hour. However, with increased growth and economic development, the Ralston study area could begin to approach levels of density and economic activity that would support a streetcar. For that reason, the preferred concept is designed to support installation of a streetcar line along Ralston Road in the future. Tracks, overhead wires and other infrastructure would have to be installed, but the cross section of Ralston Road and the placement of utilities would already be designed to accommodate the streetcar.

ES-6 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Project Cost Summary The primary capital cost elements of the reconstruction of Ralston Road are street construction costs, pedestrian facility costs, right-of-way acquisition and engineering. Capital costs of bus stop improvements are also included. One of the opinions consistently expressed by the public over the course of the project was the need to address unsightly overhead utilities. The preferred concept assumes all overhead utility wires would be buried as part of street reconstruction. The existing and necessary right-of-way for the preferred alternative were compared to estimate the amount of land acquisition (square footage of land only) and “total takes” (buying entire parcels including improvements) required, providing the basis for estimated right-of-way costs. A summary of estimated capital project costs is provided below. All items are in 2010 dollars.

Engineering Estimate: Preferred Concept (Four Lane Compact) Capital Investment Cost Street Reconstruction $6,620,000 Engineering (design and construction management) $2,410,000 Contingency $1,500,000 Right of Way $2,328,000 Bury Overhead Utility Wires $770,000 Allowance for Bus Stops (22) $680,000 Allowance for Pedestrian Crossings (11) $880,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $15,188,000

Implementation The Ralston Road Corridor Plan can and should be implemented, but the City will face challenges along the way. The primary challenges will be construction disruption; access management; right-of-way acquisition; utility placement; and, funding. These are discussed below.

Construction Disruption. Ralston Road is a key corridor for local circulation in Arvada. Rebuilding it will disrupt motor vehicle traffic (including RTD bus service) and will affect access to businesses in the core part of Arvada. The Corridor Plan recommends dividing the corridor into three construction projects staged over a three-year period. Having shorter sections under construction at any point in time will help maintain local access and circulation and may make it easier for the City to put funding in place for the project. The proposed phasing (shown in more detail below) would also divide the final design and right-of-way acquisition processes into stages. This will help the City absorb the inevitable staff workload associated with the project. It will also provide the opportunity for the City to learn from each segment as work proceeds. Major construction projects like this typically encounter unanticipated problems – utility surprises, unknown subsurface conditions, etc. Phasing the project will also allow the City to stage work around shopping seasons and winter weather. Finally, the phasing plan avoids having the Olde Town section of the corridor under construction at the same time as final construction work on the Gold Line rail corridor and station areas.

Access Management. Although anyone looking at the corridor can see the potential safety and traffic flow benefits of the proposed center median along Ralston and of closing some of the numerous driveways, this access management aspect of the project will be controversial. The neighborhoods north and south of Ralston will be inconvenienced by having left turns to and from some local streets interrupted. Businesses along the corridor will be concerned about the loss of left turn access into their driveways. The time to address this in detail will be during the concept design phase (leading to completion of 30% plans) starting in 2012 and running into 2013. Care should be taken to maintain the high level of public involvement and awareness about the project that was achieved during the corridor planning phase and to regularly brief City Council as decisions are made. The City should also identify redundant driveways during final design of each segment and close as many of these as possible during construction. However, priority should be placed on first establishing the basic street infrastructure, then closing individual driveways over time as sites redevelop.

ES-7 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Right-of-Way Acquisition. One of the reasons Ralston Road has not been rebuilt already is the challenge inherent in buying right-of-way (ROW) in this corridor. There are a large number of small parcels abutting the street, so the total amount of ROW activity and resulting controversy will be substantial. Many of the parcels are shallow and there are some buildings close to the existing street, so there could be some “total takes” – parcels that must be purchased in their entirety due to the amount of property required along the frontage. The Preferred Concept, based on the “Four Lane Compact” cross section is explicitly designed to minimize the corridor width and the amount of ROW required. The center line can move laterally somewhat to “dodge” existing buildings and tight spots, and flexibility is provided in the cross section to minimize impacts where needed. However, buying the land needed for the project and working out business impacts and relocations will be time consuming and controversial.

Utility Placement. One of the objectives of the Preferred Concept is to leave open the possibility of implementing a streetcar line along Ralston Road at some point in the future. The “Four Lane Compact” cross section is designed to accommodate a streetcar (one track in the outside/right lane each direction) and the pedestrian realm is designed to work for access to improved transit services. One unusual feature of the project will be the need to avoid having any longitudinal utilities (running lengthwise) under the outside/right lanes. This includes water lines, sanitary sewer lines, gas lines, storm sewer pipes, cables and buried wires. Utilities that cross under the future tracks perpendicular to the street are not an issue, but longitudinal utilities should not be allowed under the right lanes. It may be tempting to postpone this until a future date when a streetcar project comes over the horizon, but that would increase the total public cost and could affect the feasibility of a streetcar in the future.

Other potential funding approaches would be to seek authority from the voters to bond existing revenue streams for this project, or perhaps for a set of projects including Ralston and other capital needs the City may have. Finally, the City could consider funding the project through a special district, including the existing AURA agency.

A step-by-step phasing schedule is described below and shown graphically on pg. ES-10. This phasing plan divides the street reconstruction into three corridor segments in the following order: 1. Triangle Section – Independence to Garrison; 2. Olde Town Section – Ammons to Wadsworth Bypass; and 3. Connecting Corridor – Garrison to Ammons.

The proposed sequencing would be to rebuild the Triangle section first, followed by the Olde Town section, with the Connecting Corridor coming last. The Triangle section is the shortest and least expensive of the three and should be closely coordinated with AURA. The Olde Town section will be the most expensive and probably the most difficult due to existing narrow right-of-way, multiple local street intersections and associated design challenges. The Connecting Corridor is the least urgent of the three sections in terms of redevelopment opportunity and can be completed last. Only the Triangle section would be under construction at the same time as the Gold Line commuter rail corridor and stations.

Under the proposed schedule, all of the initial concept design leading up to 30% plans would be done in one project for the entire length of the corridor. However, the final design and ROW acquisition for each segment would then be done separately. Phasing is divided below into major implementation steps (with estimated costs), followed by a work flow graphic showing the proposed schedule.

ES-8 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Major Implementation Steps 1. Capital Programming of All Phases. Program all capital project phases in the City’s CIP using the schedule below. Staff action. No cost. 2. Route Planning with RTD. Work with RTD to determine redeployment route structure and implementation schedule. Staff action. No cost. 3. Preliminary Engineering - All Sections. Develop 30% design concept plans for the entire corridor (Wadsworth Bypass to Independence). If project is to be programmed with federal funds, prepare and obtain FHWA approval of an Environmental Assessment (cost not included in estimate). Consultant contract = $175,000. 4. Triangle Section - Final Design. Develop final design plans and construction bid letting package for section from Independence east to Garrison, including Garrison intersection. Consultant contract = $85,000. 5. Triangle Section - ROW Acquisition. Negotiate and buy land based on final design. Capital phase = $150,000. 6. Triangle Section - Reconstruction. Rebuild Ralston from Independence east to Garrison, including Garrison intersection. Capital phase/construction contract = $912,800; construction engineering contract = $228,000. 7. Olde Town Section - Final Design. Develop final design plans and construction bid letting package for section from Wadsworth Bypass west to intersection with Ammons (including intersection). Consultant contract = $284,000. 8. Olde Town Section - ROW Acquisition. Negotiate and buy land based on final design. Capital phase = $1,536,000. 9. Olde Town Section - Reconstruction. Rebuild Ralston from Wadsworth Bypass west to Ammons, including Ammons intersection. Capital phase/construction contract = $3,064,400; construction engineering contract = $766,000. 10. Connecting Corridor - Final Design. Develop final design plans and construction bid letting package for section from Ammons west to intersection with Garrison. Consultant contract = $236,000. 11. Connecting Corridor - ROW Acquisition. Negotiate and buy land based on final design. Capital phase =$642,000. 12. Connecting Corridor - Reconstruction. Rebuild Ralston from Ammons west to intersection with Garrison. Capital phase/construction contract = $2,642,800; construction engineering contract = $636,000.

Related Implementation Steps – timing to be determined 13. Utilities. Bury all overhead wires and remove posts. (West end of corridor already completed.) $770,000. 14. Bus Stops. Install upgraded bus stops with shelters and amenities. $680,000. 15. Pedestrian Crossings. Install upgraded pedestrian crossings. $880,000. 16. Overall Contingency Allowance. $1,500,000.

ES-9 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Project Phasing Opens Line Gold 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year: Acquisition Design Sections Phases Design Acquisition Calendar Plan All Acquisition –All Design –Final –ROW –Reconstruction of RTD –Reconstruction –Final –ROW –Final –ROW –Reconstruction Financial with Corridor Corridor Corridor Section Engineering Section Section Project Section Section Section Programming Town Planning Town Town Olde Connecting Connecting Connecting Route Triangle Triangle Triangle Capital Develop Olde Preliminary Olde 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

ES-10 Chapter 1 - Introduction

Within the larger corridor study, a Streetcar Feasibility Study was conducted to analyze the viability of a circulator connecting the Gold Line and Olde Town to the Triangle Redevelopment Area. This circulator was envisioned as a way to help reduce single occupancy travel to the Gold Line stations, address community travel needs and attract visitors.

Arvada’s City Council formed the Arvada Citizens’ Capital Improvement Program Committee in September of 2007 to ensure public involvement in decision-making related to the provision of core city services. The 33-member group met over the course of a year to prioritize needed capital improvement projects throughout the community, and presented their findings to the Arvada City Council in October of 2008.

The Citizen’s Capital Improvement Program Committee Report identified Ralston Road sidewalk improvements as one of their top capital improvement priorities. However, given the limited right-of-way width along Ralston, sidewalk improvements could not be implemented without first looking into future roadway concepts that show the number and width of lanes, whether bike lanes were to be included, the desire for a planting strip, set-backs, whether medians made sense, and the actual sidewalk width. Therefore, City Council made funding available for the Ralston Road Corridor Plan to look into these roadway issues, as well as potential redevelopment of the land uses that abut the road.

City staff then developed a project charter outlining the study area, objectives, scope, and a vision statement to guide the process. The charter identified the study area as the 1.5 mile travel shed between Olde Town Arvada and Arvada Triangle along Ralston Road, roughly bounded by Brooks Drive/Ralston Creek to the north, Grandview Avenue to the south, Kipling Parkway to the west and Wadsworth Bypass to the east. A map of the study area is shown below, and a more detailed description of the study area is provided at the beginning of Chapter 2.

Brooks Drive

RaRa Ammons Street

Kipling Parkway

Garrison Street Grandview Avenue

Bypass

Wads- worth

1 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Stakeholder Involvement Overview The planning process for the Ralston Road Corridor Plan entailed an extensive stakeholder involvement component, including the following meetings, workshops and events. These events will be described chronologically throughout the report. • Six Technical Committee meetings held throughout the planning process • Three Citizens Advisory Committee meetings held throughout the planning process • A series of Stakeholder Coffees and Interviews held in December 2009 and January 2010 • Two public workshops, one held in February and one held in May of 2010

Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees The project’s Technical Committee was composed of ten members representing the Regional Transportation District (RTD) and the following City of Arvada departments: Engineering, Traffic Engineering, Planning, Parks, Golf and Hospitality, Economic Development, Arvada Urban Renewal Authority, and the City Manager’s Office. This committee met six times throughout the planning process to brainstorm with the project team, review draft work products, and preview public workshop activities. A list of all Technical Committe members is available in Appendix I.

The project’s Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) served a similar role to the Technical Committee (brainstorming, reviewing work, etc.) but brought a different perspective. The CAC was composed of 15 Arvada residents and business- owners, mainly property owners along or adjacent to the study area corridor. The CAC met three times throughout the planning process. A list of all Citizens Advisory Committe members is available in Appendix I.

During the first Technical and Citizens Advisory Committee meetings the project team facilitated a “Risks and Opportunities” exercise designed to air thoughts, concerns or other pressing issues early in the planning process. The following major themes emerged from the two meetings.

Risks Opportunities Perpetuate status quo (no positive changes) Diversify mode share Corridor lacking identity / no uniform character Improve pedestrian environment High accident rate; losing vehicular travel capacity Accommodate bicycles Increased traffic on residential streets Connect to Gold Line stations; connect destinations w/ transit Harming local businesses Improve safety (all modes) Closed/non-inclusive process Beautify streetscape; bury utilities; improve public perception Limiting solutions to Ralston Road Unique, connected Arvada identity Lack of business support Mixed use, live/work/play destination No money for implementation Neighborhood commercial center; high performing retail Project becomes too large Retain historic aspects/authenticity Additional public spaces/parks Improve sustainability Better access management/fewer driveways Improved traffic flow, connectivity, local circulation

2 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

The project team revisited this list of risks and opportunities throughout the planning process to ensure stakeholder concerns and ideas were being addressed.

Stakeholder Coffees and Interviews A series of coffees and interviews were held with residents and business-owners along the Ralston Road corridor in December 2009 and January 2010. These outreach efforts presented an opportunity for stakeholders to express concerns and ideas in a smaller, more private setting than the public meetings held later in the process.

At the Ralston Road planning coffees held in December 2009, project stakeholders were asked to think about a great street or urban space that they have visited. Responses ranged from many of the small Colorado resort communities to far away destinations such as Waikiki, Hawaii and Brugge, Belgium. Also included were several active urban streets in large cities, such as Michigan Avenue in Chicago, Lake Washington Boulevard in Seattle, and Wynkoop Street in Denver. Participants then discussed specific characteristics of these places and how these environments compare and contrast to the Ralston Road Corridor.

Stakeholder Interviews were also conducted during the last week of January 2010 with several Arvada residents and business-owners who were unable to attend the coffees. Interviews were moderately structured, including seven questions focusing on specific areas of concern, land use and transportation vision over the short- and long-term, redevelopment priorities, and transit, bicycle and pedestrian needs. The final question was an opportunity for interviewees to mention any other ideas, thoughts or concerns about the corridor.

These insights of Arvada residents can be summarized in the following eight underlying themes of great urban places and great streets. As with the Risks and Opportunities exercise, the project team incorporated these themes into the planning process. Arvadans identified the following characteristics of a great street:

The Great 8

1 - Give Me a Great Place to Walk Great streets are great places for pedestrians. They provide an interesting mix of destinations, pedestrian facilities, and amenities that make walking enjoyable, convenient and safe.

Arvada residents have expressed a strong desire for wide sidewalks; a green, attractive streetscape; ample and safe pedestrian crossings; and convenient access to the nearby Ralston Creek Trail. Sidewalk maintenance issues, traffic noise and safety perceptions were cited as factors that make Ralston Road a less than great place to walk.

2 - Steady Traffic Flow: Not too Fast, Not too Slow Great streets provide mobility in a context that is appropriate for their surroundings.

Motorists traveling on Ralston Road desire more consistent movement along the corridor, with vehicles traveling at moderate, not fast speeds. Frequent stops and starts while traveling along Ralston Road are a commonly cited frustration that diverts traffic onto parallel residential streets.

3 - Variety of Places to Live, Work & Play Great places include a vibrant mix of land uses where residents and visitors can live, work, shop and recreate.

Ralston Road is envisioned as a diverse, multigenerational corridor with a mix of land uses to promote the live/work/ play concept – all within walking distance of each other. The corridor should be vibrant enough to strengthen existing businesses while attracting new investment.

3 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

4 - Parking Matters Great places provide an adequate supply of conveniently-located parking to support local businesses, without compromising on urban design.

Arvada residents have expressed a desire for parking that is accessible, convenient and adequate, but also non- intrusive and inconspicuous.

5 - Conveys an Authentic Sense of Place Great streets respect the character of abutting properties and land uses.

Arvada residents and City Staff desire for corridor redevelopment to respect existing design guidelines for Olde Town that reflect the area’s historical context. Proposed plans for the Triangle Area redevelopment envision a newer, more contemporary aesthetic. The community’s vision for the connecting corridor continues to evolve as people wonder if the central section should become a third activity center with a unique identity, or an area to move through in route to the other destinations.

6 - Preserves Auto Travel/Promotes Alternatives Great streets and places encourage multimodalism.

Arvada residents view Ralston Road as an integrated, multimodal corridor that accommodates automobile travel while promoting walking, bicycling, transit and other alternatives. The ability for multiple users to safely and conveniently travel on Ralston Road, on parallel streets, on the Ralston Creek Trail, and on intersecting streets is important to enhance mobility, circulation and access within the study area. Successfully making enhanced connections to the Olde Town and Arvada Ridge stations of the Gold Line located at either end of the study area will be critical for all modes.

7 - Accommodates Neighborhood Needs Great streets and places respect the needs and desires of the people they are intended to serve.

The Ralston Road corridor is envisioned as a place with a mixture of retail, restaurants and recreational opportunities that serves the diverse needs of the community. The potential addition of boutique shopping and upscale restaurants is desired to be balanced with tenants who can serve diverse incomes and provide the daily goods and services needed by the neighborhood. Historically, the corridor has included neighborhood gathering places such as a swimming pool, park and community gardens. Features such as these that create neighborhood identity and social interaction are strongly desired to remain within the corridor.

8. Looks Good/Feels Good Great streets and places are attractive, comfortable and safe for all users.

Arvada residents envision a “green,” attractively landscaped Ralston Road corridor with street trees, ample lighting, interesting store-fronts, and wayfinding signage to guide pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists to community destinations. People desire for motor vehicle traffic to be present, but not be the dominant feature of the urban environment. Other themes that emerged from the Stakeholder Coffees are summarized below:

4 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Stakeholder Coffee Summary - Route bicycles to parallel corridors Bicycle (e.g. 57th Ave. and Ralston Creek Trail) - Plan and design for various bicycle user groups/skill levels - Provide wider, more consistent, detached sidewalks that are free of obstructions and are ADA accessible Pedestrian - Improve and provide additional pedestrian crossing opportunities Multimodal - Enhance wayfinding signage to Ralston Creek Trail Transit - Run a unique, high-frequency circulator between destinations - Retain/create an authentic, small town, Main Street feel Aesthetics & Character - Green corridor with mature street trees desired - Provide a healthy mix of uses, including practical venues for daily shopping needs Land Use Mix - Provide neighborhood amenities, resources and recreation opportunities

Urban Form - Stakeholders have mixed feelings about increasing density along Development Density the corridor but expressed a desire to explore redevelopment opportunities in conjunction with the Gold Line and TOD sites - Desire for improved north-south connectivity Circulation Needs - Want corridor to function both as a conduit and a destination - Consolidate driveway access - Make travel along the corridor more efficient (lane width, signal Traffic Flow & Safety timing, adding or removing signals) Traffic - Some support for converting Ralston and 57th to one-way couplets - Preference for consistent movement, even if speeds are slower Parking - Ensure adequate parking close to destinations/businesses

Early stakeholder involvement activities helped solidify the project vision and shape its objectives moving forward. In particular, the Risks and Opportunities activity conducted with the Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees and the results of the Great 8 (What Makes a Great Street?) exercise from the Stakeholder Coffees were revisited throughout the process to ensure that community and stakeholder objectives were being considered.

Report Elements Chapter 2 of this report provides a description of the current corridor environment and expected catalysts for change in the coming years. Chapter 3 outlines the study’s concept development process, including corridor objectives and concepts for each component of the roadway environment. Chapter 4 explains the concept evaluation process, including evaluation criteria, final concepts and final cross section alternatives. Chapter 5 presents each component of the preferred concept and a plan for implementation.

5 Chapter 2 - Current & Future Corridor Environment

Corridor Overview The Ralston Corridor study area spans 1.5 miles between Olde Town Arvada and the Arvada Triangle, roughly bounded by Brooks Drive/Ralston Creek to the north and Grandview Avenue to the south. The area is bounded by Wadsworth Bypass and Kipling Parkway to the east and west, respectively. For the purposes of this planning effort, the study area was divided into three distinct areas - the Triangle, the Connecting Corridor and Olde Town. The Triangle Area spans between Kipling Parkway and Garrison Street; the Connecting Corridor between Garrison Street and Ammons Street; and the Olde Town Area between Ammons Street and Wadsworth Bypass, as illustrated below. These designations are used throughout the report to refer to specific sections of the corridor.

The section of the corridor between Kipling Parkway and Independence Street was improved during the drainage reconstruction project and other improvements near Kipling Parkway; thus, recommendations for corridor improvements are focused on the section east of Independence Street. Although the section between Kipling and Independence is formally titled W. 58th Avenue, the entire segment will be referred to as Ralston Road in this report for simplicity.

The future Arvada Ridge Gold Line Station is located just west of Kipling Parkway and south of the existing railroad tracks. The Olde Town Station is located between Olde Wadsworth Boulevard and Wadsworth Bypass, just south of Grandview Avenue (also shown below). Triangle Area Connecting Corridor Olde Town Area

RaRa Ammons Street Independence Street Kipling Parkway Garrison Street

Bypass Arvada Ridge Station

Wads- worth

Olde Town Station

6 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Land Use Summary The Ralston corridor is comprised of mainly low-density suburban residential uses along the north-south streets that connect to Ralston Road and neighborhood-serving commercial uses in the form of office and retail along Ralston Road. The existing land use pattern consists largely of buildings setback from Ralston Road, with parking located in front. This pattern is influenced both by zoning requirements related to setbacks, parking, lot coverage and maximum building height.

The current zoning allows retail, personal services, and office uses adjacent to Ralston Road itself, except for mixed-use zoning in the Olde Town Area. All zone districts establish a maximum building height of 35 feet unless a height exception is granted. There is an effort underway to rezone the Triangle Redevelopment Area for mixed-use development. Current land uses reflect the limitations of the existing zoning with the immediate corridor being dominated by retail, office, and personal service uses. As one moves away from Ralston Road, land use is dominated by single family development with some smaller areas developed for multifamily uses or a combination of single family and duplex housing.

Gold Line and Redevelopment Opportunities Land uses surrounding the Olde Town Arvada and Arvada Ridge station areas will change as the Gold Line is constructed. These land use changes are identified in the 2007 Transit Station Framework Plan. Current land uses at Olde Town Arvada include historic retail and residential uses north of the planned station, several schools and parks, an existing park-n-Ride facility, and retail to the station’s south, including a movie theater and several large big box establishments (Lowe’s and Home Depot). The planned land use changes will concentrate higher density mixed uses in the New Town TOD district and medium density mixed uses in the historic Olde Town district. These mixed use districts will feature ground floor office/commercial uses and residential/office uses above. Medium and high density residential uses will be located immediately east of the station area. In addition, Civic/Institutional uses and Open Space will be integrated throughout the station area.

Similarly, Arvada Ridge will see an increase in transit supportive land uses. Current land use includes a regional retail center, single-family housing, a large sports complex, and Red Rocks Community College. In the future, mixed uses will concentrate immediately south of the future rail station and along Kipling Parkway. Another mixed use corridor along Lee Street will link the Arvada Ridge station with the Red Rocks Community College. The other land uses around the station area will consist of medium to high density residential.

Likewise, the Triangle Area redevelopment will bring changes to the existing land use environment. The redevelopment area is the current site of a multi-family housing neighborhood, a church, three big box anchors, and a variety of smaller retail merchants. In an attempt to breathe new life into the area, the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority will decrease retail influence, increase residential space, and add new office space. The area will consist of single story retail, multi-story mixed use, and medium density residential.

Future Growth The Ralston Road corridor has potential for additional housing growth in the future. While current Denver Regional Council of Goverments (DRCOG) projections indicate potential for 880 units outside the Olde Town transit-oriented development area, several factors could increase housing demand. Additional demand could occur if Arvada grows faster than expected or the private marketplace is drawn to the area due to changes in zoning or transit investment.

In terms of retail potential, there is demand for a smaller re-formatted retail center in the Triangle Area and uses such as a drugstore, specialty grocery, boutique retail, and restaurants. Many of these uses are most likely to be attracted to the two activity centers of Olde Town or the Triangle Redevelopment Area rather than the area between the Connecting Corridor.

Demand for new office space will be in the range of 50-60,000 square feet by 2030 and most likely will not occur until the Gold Line transit service is established. Much of the office space demand will likely occur in the vicinity of the Olde Town Station given the benefits of being adjacent to transit and services.

7 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Following national and regional trends, Arvada is going through changes to its demographics which include an aging population, declining household sizes, increasing population diversity and a growing percentage of non-traditional households. These trends have many implications for the city and the Ralston Road Corridor including the need for senior housing and housing types that accommodate non-traditional households.

Pedestrian Environment Concerns about the pedestrian environment along Ralston Road were one of the main driving forces behind initiation of this corridor study. Along most of the corridor, sidewalks are too narrow and too close to fast-moving traffic for pedestrians to walk comfortably. The only exceptions are adjacent to City Hall where wide sidewalks are set back by large concrete planter boxes (shown below, at right) and along the frontage of Arvada Middle School where a wider sidewalk and treelawn are provided. Narrow sidewalks between three and five feet wide are provided immediately adjacent to Ralston Road on each side east of Garrison Street. West of Garrison Street (in the Triangle Area), sidewalks are generally six to eight feet in width, attached to the curb on the north side and detached (with a grass buffer) on the south side.

Sidewalks along Ralston Road are generally narrow and attached to the curb (except the section in front of City Hall).

Landscaping along Ralston Road is often lacking or improperly placed (i.e. separating the sidewalk from buildings rather than providing a buffer between pedestrians and traffic), and existing urban design characteristics include minimal accommodations for shade or shelter. Street trees are absent along most of the corridor, and large, suburban building setbacks also result in a lack of awnings to provide shade. Sidewalks generally run along edges of parking lots rather than near store fronts and building facades. In many locations, street furniture and utilities infringe upon an already narrow pedestrian walkway. Lighting is present, but is less than desirable for pedestrian safety in many areas and is generally not pedestrian-scaled.

Pedestrian crossing opportunities along Ralston Road are an especially significant consideration given the average travel speed, traffic volume, intersection spacing, and number of lanes to cross. There are ten existing pedestrian crossing opportunities along Ralston Road between Wadsworth Bypass and Kipling Parkway. On average, these crossings are spaced at 1065’, with some as close as 550’ and others as far apart as 1,900’. In a pedestrian-supportive environment, crossings should ideally be spaced at intervals of 250 to 330’.

The Arvada Transit Oriented Development Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Plan, completed in November 2009, identified a set of primary north-south and east-west corridors for non-motorized travel in the vicinity of the Sheridan, Olde Town and Arvada Ridge Stations. Primary north-south corridors crossing Ralston Road in the study area and related recommendations include:

8 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

• Kipling Parkway - existing sidepath (missing links to be completed on west side) • Independence Street - future designated shared roadway recommended • Garrison Street - future designated shared roadway north of Ralston Road; future multiuse path to the south. Completion of a 400’ informal, unpaved footpath north of W. 57th Avenue is recommended to improve non-motorized connectivity. • Carr Street - future multiuse path recommended between Ralston Road and W. 57th Avenue; future designated shared roadway recommended south of Ralston Road • Olde Wadsworth Boulevard - future designated shared roadway recommended north of Ralston Road • Connections to Ralston Creek Trail - linkage to Olde Town provided by the new pathway along the east side of the Wadsworth Bypass; constructing porkchop islands with raised speed tables across the right turn lanes and adding wayfinding signage is recommended to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and comfort.

Transit Service The Regional Transportation District (RTD) operates six local and express fixed routes throughout the study area. Multiple routes running in the corridor provide consistent headways between Olde Town and the Triangle Redevelopment Area. Routes 52 and 72 both cover the corridor with peak hour headways of 30 minutes. The routes are offset to provide approximate 15 minute headways between Independence Street and Olde Town Arvada park-n-Ride. A map and summary table of RTD transit routes are provided in Appendix III.

Every major north-south collector crossing Ralston Road has 30 minute all-day service providing good connections to in-corridor service. Within ½ mile of the study area, RTD maintains 90 bus stops, 13 of which include bus shelters. Several express bus routes also provide regional express service from the Olde Town park-n-Ride located on the southeast edge of the study area. While express passengers can currently reach Market Street Station in downtown Denver in approximately 20 minutes during the peak hour, traffic growth in the corridor is expected to increase these travel times to about 27 minutes by 2030.

Although local route bus stops are relatively accessible to pedestrians, express bus service is far less accessible since it is only offered in a limited number of corridors. The table below presents an assessment of transit accessibility for households within ¼- and ½-mile walking sheds within the project study area.

Service Type Proximity Households % Household Access Local 1/4-mile walk 2113 98.8% 1/2-mile walk 2139 100.0% Express 1/4-mile walk 714 33.4% 1/2-mile walk 1774 82.9% Total Households 2139 Source: RTD; City of Arvada GIS; Jefferson County Assessor’s Office; DRCOG and U.S. Census 2007 Estimates

Park-n-Ride The Olde Town Arvada park-n-Ride is the sole transit park and ride lot near the Ralston Road study area. Located at the intersection of Wadsworth Bypass and West 56th Avenue, this lot provides 200 parking spaces, 8 bike lockers, and 4 bike racks—offering several multi-modal commuting options at no charge. Commuters that choose to park here have access to the 52, 55X, 72 and 76 bus routes. Full day parking is offered at no charge with a $1.00 per additional day charge for multiple day stays.

9 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Access-a-Ride Access-a-Ride, RTD’s paratransit service, is offered as a transit alternative for individuals that are unable to complete trips along the fixed route system for accessibility reasons. This is a demand-response service operated by five independent contractors located around the region. Users can submit reservations up to three days in advance; set up reoccurring trips via subscriptions; and request door-to-door service, if needed. Eligibility requirements must be met in order to utilize this service. Fares vary, yet approximately cost double the typical fare for regular RTD transit service.

A-Line Shuttle The A-Line Shuttle provides service between the Olde Town Arvada park-n-Ride and Denver International Airport. Hourly service is provided between 5:00 AM and 8:00 PM. The shuttle operates on the same schedule seven days a week and on all holidays. The A-line shuttle is operated by the non-profit Ride Provide, Inc. and received start-up funding in cooperation with RTD, the City of Arvada, the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority (AURA) and the Arvada Economic Development Authority (AEDA). Ongoing operating support is provided by RTD and in-kind support from the City of Arvada.

Future Rail Transit Projects The Federal Transit Administration’s November 2009 decision to accept the RTD’s Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Gold Line officially kicked off implementation of commuter rail service between downtown Denver and Arvada. Gold Line operation is expected to commence in 2016, however, station locations in the vicinity of the Ralston Road Corridor Plan area are likely to have an impact on bus operations, commute patterns and area development prior to that time.

The planned RTD Gold Line will travel along the BNSF-Union Pacific freight rail right-of-way (now owned by RTD) located in the southern portion of the study area. The line will span 11.2 miles between Wheat Ridge and Denver’s Union Station with three stations in Arvada. Arrival of the Gold Line will be a game-changing event for the City of Arvada. It will increase commute options and opportunities for multimodal travel; minimize travel time along a segregated fixed- guideway while reducing daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the region by 18,221. With 15 minute headways and service frequency of four trains per hour during AM and PM peak periods, the line will serve as an attractive alternative to automobile travel. Projected average daily ridership (number of boardings) at the two planned stations in the Ralston Road corridor (Olde Town Arvada and Arvada Ridge) are 2,028 and 2,041, respectively.

Motor Vehicles Ralston Road currently has five lanes, with two through-lanes in each direction and a center, two-way left-turn lane. The street’s basic cross section is 48 feet from face of curb to face of curb, with nine or ten foot travel lanes (including the gutter pan). The center turn lane is measured at eight feet wide in most locations, creating an uncomfortably narrow refuge. Ralston Road widens sufficiently to provide a raised median at the intersection with Olde Wadsworth Boulevard and between Garrison Street and Independence Street. The roadway widens to 72 feet between Independence Street and Kipling Parkway, with 11 foot travel lanes and a 14 foot center, two-way left-turn lane. Ralston Road is classified as an arterial parkway (and is not a state route).

Ralston Road must serve a variety of traffic functions because of its unique context in Arvada’s roadway network. It is the only continuous east-west arterial roadway through the City in the three-mile band between I-70 to the south and 72nd Avenue to the north (see Appendix IV for a Corridor Context map). Other east-west streets within this band lack the continuity and capacity to efficiently carry large volumes of longer trips. At the same time, Ralston Road must provide access to local businesses and adjacent neighborhoods. The lack of continuity of many of the north-south and east-west streets in and around the study corridor adds to the reliance on Ralston Road for local short-distance trips.

As a result, Ralston Road serves a mix of through and local access traffic. Based on examination of existing traffic counts and the regional travel simulation model, it is estimated that about one third of the vehicles using Ralston Road travel through the study corridor from Kipling Street all the way to Wadsworth Boulevard (or from Wadsworth Boulevard all the way to Kipling Street). These trips have neither a trip origin or destination in the study area. 10 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

The other two thirds of vehicles turn on or off Ralston Road somewhere between Kipling Street and Wadsworth Boulevard to reach a local destination. Looking at a shorter section of the corridor, between Independence Street and Olde Wadsworth, just over half of the traffic is estimated to be through traffic, with less than half entering or exiting Ralston Road in that part of the street.

Parallel Streets Three streets parallel Ralston Road in the study area: Grandview Avenue, W. 57th Avenue and Brooks Drive.

Grandview Avenue: Grandview Avenue is a two lane street extending from Marshall Street (east) to Independence Street (west). The roadway is classified as a minor collector and varies in width from 30.5 to 36 feet. Grandview is one of the two main streets serving Olde Town, and a bridge over Wadsworth Boulevard (SH 121) was recently constructed to maintain this continuity. The roadway closely parallels the BNSF tracks from Marshall Street to Yarrow Street.

Outside of Olde Town, Grandview Avenue serves the residential area east of Wadsworth Boulevard and west of Yarrow Street, with a number of homes fronting the street. From Yarrow Street to Carr Street, the roadway is too narrow to allow on-street parking on the south side. West of Carr Street, parking is allowed on both sides of the street. An integrated, mountable curb, gutter, and sidewalk (5 feet wide) is provided west of Carr Street.

W. 57th Avenue: W. 57th Avenue is a two lane residential street connecting Vance Street on the east with Independence Street on the west. It is classified as a minor collector west of Yarrow Street. This street serves the south side of the Arvada Plaza shopping center to the east of Independence Street. West of Yukon Street, it intersects with a number of local residential streets. There is a fire station located at Zephyr Street, and some homes west of Arvada Middle School front onto W. 57th Avenue.

There are on-street bicycle lanes striped on both sides of W. 57th Avenue west of Yukon Street, and on-street parking is allowed throughout. The street cross section varies in width from 35 to 55 feet. The widest section (55 feet face of curb to face of curb) is adjacent to Arvada Middle School between Balsam Street and Glen Ellen Street. Between Glen Ellen Street and Independence Street, 12-foot travel lanes are provided. Although this segment of W. 57th is almost as wide as Ralston Road, bicycle/parking lanes help calm traffic by creating the appearance of a narrower street. Bicycle lanes range from five feet wide between Allison and Balsam Streets to twelve feet wide adjacent to the Arvada Middle School, where they also function as parking lanes.

Brooks Drive: Brooks Drive is a minor collector located north of Ralston Creek, extending from Olde Wadsworth Boulevard on the east to Ralston Road (diagonal) on the west. This roadway meanders beside Ralston Creek west of Yarrow Street and is adjacent to Hoskinson Park and Ralston Cove Park. Brooks Drive has wide lanes (up to 20 feet) with on-street parking allowed throughout. The street cross section varies in width from 34 to 44 feet. The narrowest section of Brooks Drive is east of Yarrow Street. This section is also used for on-street parking.

Access and Traffic Control There is very little access control along Ralston Road, particularly east of Garrison Street. Ralston Road serves adjacent residential neighborhoods (particularly to the south) and businesses with numerous local street intersections. Many buildings along Ralston Road were originally residences, and now have front yards converted from grass or landscaped areas to asphalt parking lots. In contrast, W. 72nd Avenue between Wadsworth Boulevard and Kipling Avenue and W. 80th Avenue between Sheridan Boulevard and Kipling Avenue have limited access to adjacent properties and fewer signalized intersections. Between Garrison Street and Independence Street, there are several driveways that are limited to right-in/ right-out maneuvers. This restriction improves traffic safety by reducing the number of conflict points, and is enforced using a raised median. There is no access control along Grandview Avenue, W 57th Avenue, and Brooks Drive, which is appropriate considering their roadway classification as minor collectors that are designed to serve adjacent properties.

11 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

There are a total of 14 signalized intersections in the study area: nine of these are along Ralston Road. Two of the signals are in Olde Town along Olde Wadsworth Boulevard - at Grandview Avenue and W. 57th Avenue. The Brooks Drive corridor has signalized intersections at Garrison Street and Ralston Road (diagonal). The final signalized intersection is along Independence Street at the driveway to the Arvada Square Shopping Center.

In addition to the signalized intersections, there is four-way stop control at the intersection of Grandview Avenue and Carr Street and on W. 57th Avenue at Webster, Balsam, and Field Streets. Brooks Drive has two-way stops at Olde Wadsworth Boulevard and Carr Street. See Appendix IV for a diagram of intersections along Ralston Road.

Accident History Five of the intersections along Ralston Road were ranked among the top 25 highest accident locations in Arvada in the three-year period between October 2006 and 2009: Kipling Street (#1); Wadsworth Boulevard (#3); and Garrison Street, Independence Street, and Olde Wadsworth Boulevard (tied for #20). Although the intersections at Kipling Street and Wadsworth Boulevard were recently reconstructed to address safety, capacity and other concerns, the other three intersections remain problematic.

Overall, the accident rate (accidents per million vehicle-miles of travel) along the segment of Ralston Road between Wadsworth Bypass and Kipling Parkway is much higher than that of similar segments of W. 72nd and W. 80th Avenue. Even after removing the accidents at Ralston Road and Kipling Parkway to account for the intersection reconstruction, the corridor’s accident rate is over twice as high as on W. 72nd and three times as high as on W. 80th. The higher accident rate is due in part to less access control (more intersections and driveways) along Ralston Road. The number of sideswipe (same direction) accidents at Olde Wadsworth Boulevard and Independence Street, and the number of broadside accidents at Garrison Street, are also above expected norms, due in part to the narrow lane widths in these segments of the corridor.

Traffic Volumes and Forecasted Growth Daily traffic volumes on Ralston Road currently range from 21,000 to 23,500 vehicles per day (vpd). Typical volume ranges for five-lane Arterial Parkways such as Ralston Road range from 16,000 to 32,000; therefore current volumes are within the normal range and the capacity of the road. Ralston Road’s traffic level is currently toward the lower range of a sampling of 4-lane arterial streets in Arvada and the metro area, but much greater than many of the area’s more congested 2-lane streets (see Appendix IV for summary table).

The corridor’s parallel streets have significantly lower daily volumes, with 3,600 vpd on Grandview Avenue near the Estes-Everett cordon line, 2,900 vpd on W. 57th Avenue and 2,000 vpd on Brooks Drive. These volumes are typical for minor collectors in residential areas and are well within the operational capacity of a two-lane road. The local cross streets surveyed had volumes between 300 and 500 vpd, which is also typical and reasonable for local residential streets. See Appendix IV for a diagram of existing traffic volumes, lane configurations and level of service on study area streets.

The regional travel forecasting model maintained by the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) was used to develop forecasts of future traffic demands on Ralston Road. This model is based on forecasted growth in population and employment that would result in increased travel demand, assuming land use grows as forecasted by DRCOG. Resulting forecasts show about a 40% increase in population and a 30% increase in employment in the immediate vicinity of the study corridor between 2005 and 2035. The DRCOG model accounts for transportation improvements that are included in the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, including the Gold Line commuter rail service.

Using these inputs, the resulting model forecasts for Ralston Road show a 30% increase in traffic volumes in this corridor over the next 25 years. The figure below shows forecasted traffic growth on Ralston Road as a dashed line and the approximate carrying capacity for a two- and four-lane arterial roadway shaded in light green and blue, respectively.

12 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Although the effective capacity of any street is determined by localized factors (intersection turn lanes, turning volumes, lane widths, vehicle types, number of accesses, etc.) the generalized capacity range shown in the figure above helps place corridor traffic forecasts in perspective. The figure shows that the current traffic volumes are below the road’s congested capacity. This would appear to conflict with citizen perceptions that the road is crowded today. However, the street seems – and is – congested today because two critical factors, the narrow lane widths and the numerous driveways, not the number of lanes.

A key conclusion of this corridor study is that four through lanes would be adequate to handle forecast traffic volumes on Ralston Road well into the future (to at least 2035), with the following caveats: • Some widening of traffic lanes would improve safety and alleviate congestion. • Widening lanes also could have the undesirable effect of increasing vehicle speeds. • Introduction of a center median would reduce congestion and accident rates in the corridor by reducing left turns and doing away with the two-way, left-turn lane. • A center median would also mitigate traffic speed increases by creating the appearance of a narrower street from the driver’s perspective.

These issues are addressed in more detail in later chapters.

13 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Public Workshop #1 On February 25, 2010, ninety-two Arvada residents helped to articulate a future vision for the Ralston Road study area.

This Public Workshop provided Arvada citizens with an update of work completed on the project to date. An overview of three preliminary reports (primers) summarizing existing and future conditions relating to traffic, land use and transit service were presented.

Through keypad polling, workshop participants articulated their desire to transform Ralston Road into a “main street” that promotes redevelopment while respecting the character of stable, existing neighborhoods. Polling results showed that 72% of workshop participants desire a strong emphasis on creating a “main street” environment with buildings in front and parking behind; 60% favor two- or three-story future building heights; and 73% support streetscape improvements including wider sidewalks and landscaping. Participants also indicated strong support for making travel lanes wider and more consistent, and establishing a bus circulator to connect Olde Town, the Triangle area, and the future Olde Town and Arvada Ridge Gold Line rail stations. Complete results of the keypad polling exercise are provided in Appendix II.

Workshop participants then engaged in a “chip game” (shown below, at right) to visually identify types of development that may be appropriate within different parts of the study area. Notable themes that emerged from this exercise include: • Introducing mixed-use development that combines retail, office and/or residential uses fronting Ralston Road • Preserving and incorporating green spaces, gardens and urban parks throughout the corridor • Increasing density to support businesses and transit, with mixed-use transit nodes at key locations • Incorporating diverse housing types for mixed income levels, focusing within Olde Town and adjacent to the Ralston Creek Trail • Using multi-story buildings on Ralston Road to buffer residential neighborhoods from traffic and noise • Minimizing spillover parking and traffic onto adjacent neighborhood streets

Input from the February 25 workshop was incorporated into draft options and scenarios for redeveloping the corridor and improving its transportation infrastructure, as described in Chapter 3.

14 Chapter 3 - Concept Development

During the Concept Development phase of the planning process the project team developed Long Range Corridor Objectives to inform the formation of land use and transportation objectives, expectations and options. A fatal flaw analysis was then conducted to eliminate options that did not meet project objectives, and the remaining options were presented at Public Workshop #2 for comment and discussion. The public input received during this stage combined with additional technical analysis informed the subsequent development of a refined set of alternatives (described in Chapter 4).

Long Range Corridor Objectives For the City to achieve its objectives and follow the insights provided by the Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees, transportation choices should be seen as part of an integrated set of strategies, including not just transportation but also economic development and land use. The future appearance of the corridor will be important, as will its relationship to nearby residential neighborhoods and existing commercial properties and businesses. The project team developed an integrated set of long range corridor objectives that were designed to embrace all of these elements and guide development of options and concepts. These also served as the basis for the concept evaluation process. The team reached consensus on the land use, transportation and urban design objectives listed below after several iterative rounds of discussion and evaluation.

Land Use 1. Support Implementation of Triangle/AURA Redevelopment Plan 2. Support Implementation of Olde Town TOD Plan (Olde Town Arvada Framework) 3. Encourage Transition of Ralston Road to a Walkable, Mixed-Use Character 4. Protect Stability and Character of Adjacent Residential Neighborhoods 5. Support Retail and Restaurant Uses Along Ralston Road 6. Encourage Redevelopment of Properties Abutting Ralston Road

Transportation 1. Provide a Safe, Attractive and Convenient Pedestrian Environment Along and Across Ralston Road 2. Provide Convenient Transit Service Connecting Destinations Within the Study Area 3. Improve North-South Connectivity Across Ralston Road for All Modes 4. Provide for Safe, Convenient Bicycle Circulation Within the Study Area 5. Support Implementation of the Olde Town and Arvada Ridge Station Area Framework Plans 6. Improve Traffic Safety 7. Improve Local Traffic Circulation and Access Within Arvada 8. Avoid Major Diversion of Traffic from Ralston Road to Parallel Local Streets 9. Improve Traffic Access Management 10. Preserve Alleys as an Essential Component of Access to Properties Along Ralston Road

Urban Design, Landscape and Character 1. Use Urban Design to Achieve a Walkable, Mixed-Use Character Along Ralston Road 2. Provide an Attractive, Green, Shaded Environment Along Ralston Road 3. Utilize Unified Design Themes to Create a Stronger Sense of Place and Identity 4. Reduce Visual Blight from Utilities and Other Infrastructure 5. Protect and Enhance Authentic Arvada Character Recognizing Corridor History 6. Use Building Design and Layout to Create Attractive Places for Shopping, Walking and Gathering

15 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Corridor Concepts There are numerous possible ways of achieving these land use and transportation objectives. However, the Urban Design, Landscape and Character objectives were straightforward enough to lead to a single approach to achieving them. But, further work was needed on the land use and transportation elements to define “minimum expectations” and a set of “options” to be evaluated. These are described below. Note that in each case the options include “No Action” (not listed) as one possible choice the City could make.

Land Use The land use vision that emerged from work with the Committees and Stakeholders and at the first Public Workshop was consistent enough to be described in a couple of options. Generally, Arvadans would like to see the corridor redevelop and would accept the modest increases in density and other zoning changes needed to encourage that to happen. Citizens were especially interested in having more ground floor retail and restaurants along Ralston.

The team developed a “Walkable, Mixed-Use Corridor District” option with a richer mix of land uses (office + retail + residential) in one- to four-story buildings, coupled with reduced setbacks and landscaped areas and lower requirements for off-street parking. This option would encourage and facilitate redevelopment of and investment in properties along the corridor without creating incompatibility issues with the surrounding residential areas or changing the character significantly. However, that level of density would not support successful implementation of a streetcar line in the study area.

Accordingly, a second “Mid-Rise” option was developed that is the same as the “Walkable, Mixed-Use Corridor District” option except that it would change zoning to allow buildings up to eight stories. This is on the low side of what would be needed to support a streetcar line but on the high side of what people indicated they could support. The final Land Use Objectives are shown again below along with associated Minimum Expectations and Options.

Land Use Objectives 1. Support Implementation of Triangle/AURA Redevelopment Plan 2. Support Implementation of Olde Town TOD Plan (Olde Town Arvada Framework) 3. Encourage Transition of Ralston Road to a Walkable, Mixed-Use Character 4. Protect Stability and Character of Adjacent Residential Neighborhoods 5. Support Retail and Restaurant Uses Along Ralston Road 6. Encourage Redevelopment of Properties Abutting Ralston Road

Minimum Expectations (all options and alternatives, except “no action”) • Develop a plan for burying overhead utilities • Implement consistent “Ralston Road” design theme • Reduce setbacks (front, side, rear) and reduce landscape set-asides • Increase maximum building height (45 ft/4 story or 100 ft/8 story) • Allow mixed use: office, retail and residential • Revise parking requirements (shared parking allowance, reduced off-site minimums) • City actions required to support implementation of Triangle/AURA Redevelopment Plan • City actions required to support implementation of Olde Town TOD Plan

16 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Land Use Options a. Walkable, Mixed-Use Corridor District (Garrison to Wadsworth Bypass) o Reduce setbacks (front, side, rear) and reduce landscape set-asides o Increase maximum building height – 45 ft or 4 story o Allow mixed use: office, retail and residential o Revise parking requirements (shared parking allowance, reduced off-site minimums)

b. Walkable, Mid-Rise Corridor Mixed-Use District (Garrison to Wadsworth Bypass) o Reduce setbacks (front, side, rear) and reduce landscape set-asides o Increase maximum building height – 100 ft or 8 story o Allow mixed use: office, retail and residential o Revise parking requirements (shared parking allowance, reduced off-site minimums)

Transportation The Transportation Objectives are shown again below along with Minimum Expectations, which apply to all transportation options except “No Action.” These Minimum Expectations were derived largely from the “Risks and Opportunities” exercise summarized in Chapter 1 and were central to the evaluation process described in Chapter 4.

Transportation Objectives 1. Provide a Safe, Attractive and Convenient Pedestrian Environment Along and Across Ralston Road 2. Provide Convenient Transit Service Connecting Destinations Within the Study Area 3. Improve North-South Connectivity Across Ralston Road for All Modes 4. Provide for Safe, Convenient Bicycle Circulation within the Study Area 5. Support Implementation of the Olde Town and Arvada Ridge Station Area Framework Plans 6. Improve Traffic Safety 7. Improve Local Traffic Circulation and Access Within Arvada 8. Avoid Major Diversion of Traffic from Ralston Road to Parallel Local Streets 9. Improve Traffic Access Management 10. Preserve Alleys as an Essential Component of Access to Properties Along Ralston Road

Minimum Expectations (all options and alternatives, except “no action”) • Preserve space and make other provisions to ensure future Ralston Road streetcar is possible • Implement rail station access plans • As properties redevelop, reduce number of driveways along Ralston Road • Provide lanes wide enough to accommodate transit service • Strengthen north-south pedestrian and bicycle connections across Ralston Road

To give the City a range of reasonable choices to consider, the team developed a set of options for the pedestrian environment, for bicycling, for public transit and for traffic. These options are described below. Later in the process, the pedestrian and bicycle options were simplified and combined with the “Traffic Options” to form a single list of street cross section choices (see below).

17 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Pedestrian Options Initially, two pedestrian options were developed. Both were designed to achieve a walkable environment that would be safe, convenient and attractive enough to encourage a significant increase in the number of people choosing to walk along and across the Ralston Road corridor. One option – “Suburban Pedestrian Environment” – was intended to reflect a character similar to what is found in Arvada’s residential neighborhoods. The other – “Urban Pedestrian Environment” was designed to be more like a “main street” setting, one of the ideas people liked at the first Public Workshop. These two options were similar, with slightly wider sidewalks, less space in setbacks and the addition of curb extensions at intersections all part of the “Urban” option. These are summarized below:

a. Urban Pedestrian Environment o Develop walkable cross section, including: furnishings strip, walkway and setback » Pave furnishings strip as appropriate and place trees in planters » Landscaped furnishings strip in some areas until redevelopment occurs » Place poles, amenities and vertical infrastructure within furnishings strip o Install walkway of at least 8 feet in width o Allow setback from edge of right of way to vary from 18 to 30 inches o Eliminate parking lots in front of buildings along Ralston Road as redevelopment occurs o Incorporate curb extensions wherever possible

b. Suburban Pedestrian Environment o Develop walkable cross section, including: furnishings strip, walkway and setback » Develop unpaved, landscaped furnishings strip, except for paved bus stop access » Place street trees in unpaved furnishing strip » Locate poles, amenities and vertical infrastructure in furnishings strip o Install walkway of at least 6 feet in width o Allow setback to vary from 8 to 24 feet o Eliminate parking lots in front of buildings along Ralston Road as redevelopment occurs

As part of developing street cross sections (described below), the “Suburban” option was eliminated from further consideration and the “Urban” option was used in all of the cross sections. This was consistent with the advice of the two Committees, comments received at public meetings, and with the original intent of the project to create a strong and desirable pedestrian environment along Ralston Road. This approach also was more consistent with the two land use options described above.

Bicycle Options At the time of the study, bicycling was prohibited along Ralston Road. The two proposed options for bicycle accommodation include providing on-street bicycle lanes on Ralston Road or strengthening and recommending use of parallel corridors. Both options would eliminate the prohibition of bicycling on Ralston Road and include provisions for safe crossings.

a. Provide on-street bicycle lanes on Ralston Road o Eliminate prohibition against bicycling on Ralston Road o Provide bicycle lanes at least five feet wide on Ralston Road

b. Strengthen and recommend use of parallel corridors o Eliminate prohibition against bicycling on Ralston Road o Make improvements, including bicycle lanes and informational signs on parallel streets o Improve connections for bicycles at key locations across Ralston Road

18 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Transit Options It was clear from the Committee meetings and Public Workshops that Arvadans would like to see transit in the Ralston Corridor study area improved. The business community in particular sees a need for this, including especially a need to connect Olde Town, the Triangle area and the emerging new sports complex west of Kipling with frequent, convenient transit service.

The potential choices available to Arvada for transit include: • whether to rely on RTD funding only or to supplement RTD funding with City funds; • whether to attempt to build a streetcar line now, or to preserve the option to do so in the future; and, • whether local transit circulation would work better as a spine corridor on Ralston Road or as a loop using Ralston for part of the route.

These choices were pulled together in the following four Transit Options. Option “a” would require no investment of City funds to augment RTD service. The City would work closely with RTD staff to design new routes once the Gold Line rail corridor is implemented with the intent that the redesigned service would provide connections to the rail stations and at the same time would provide internal circulation with Arvada – something that is not available today. Options “b” and “c” would be bus options, using unique buses “branded” through vehicle design, paint and route name to indicate an Arvada internal circulator. Option “d” would involve attempting to implement a streetcar line, primarily running along Ralston Road, as part of the initial reconstruction of the street.

a. Redeploy RTD Service in Conjunction with Commuter Rail Start-Up o Work with RTD to design new routes and service levels o Orient service to collection/distribution for commuter rail and internal circulation

b. Branded Circulator on Ralston Road o Connect at least three nodes within Arvada including one or more rail stations o Use Ralston Road as principal service corridor o Plan for future streetcar

c. Branded Circulator Loop o Connect at least three nodes within Arvada including rail stations o Develop transit service loop route, using Ralston as appropriate

d. Streetcar Line Along Ralston o Implement streetcar line along Ralston, connecting Olde Town with Triangle; extend to one or more rail stations as feasible o Operate streetcar in mixed traffic in outside lanes o Use conventional streetcar technology: overhead power, steel rail, low speed trolleys

Traffic Options Initially, eight street cross section options were considered, in addition to the No Action option. Early in the process, the study team determined that two of these options had “fatal flaws,” or serious shortcomings that affected their feasibility. These options either failed to meet minimum expectations set for transportation in the corridor or had unacceptably high right-of-way width requirements. Thus, these two cross sections were not included in the first official round of analysis. The remaining options for accommodating traffic were combined with the pedestrian, bicycle and transit options described above to create six (numbered) “Traffic Options” that address possible ways to design the street for all modes.

The public’s interest in seeing Ralston become more like a “main street” are reflected in two possible approaches represented by options 1 (Main Street A) and 2 (Main Street B). Main Street A would not have bike lanes and would have a center two-way, left-turn lane. Main Street B would not have a continuous left turn lane (there would be left turn lanes at certain intersections) but would have bike lanes. 19 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Four options were considered that would provide two general purpose traffic lanes in each direction, along with left turn accommodation at certain intersections. Option 3 is designed to provide four lanes of travel at the narrowest possible width. There is no difference between the cross section of options 4 and 5 – the difference would be that under option 5, the City would implement the streetcar line as part of the initial reconstruction of the street. Option 6 would fully meet all potential transportation functions (including bicycle lanes), but would be more expensive and would require extensive right of way acquisition. Key points of each of the six options studied are summarized below.

1 - Main Street A • Provide a high quality pedestrian environment • Reduce traffic cross section to two general purpose lanes + center two-way left-turn lane • Introduce on-street parallel parking • Stripe traffic lanes at 11 feet in width • Provide space for future streetcar • ROW required: 79’ at midblock - intersections will vary (58’ current average ROW)

2 - Main Street B • Provide a high quality pedestrian environment • Reduce traffic cross section to two general purpose lanes • Left turns at key intersections only • Stripe on-street bicycle lanes • Introduce on-street parallel parking • Stripe traffic lanes at 11 feet in width • ROW required: 79’ at midblock - intersections will vary (58’ current average ROW)

3 - Four Lane Compact • Provide a high quality pedestrian environment • Provide four general purpose traffic lanes • Provide left turn bays at selected intersections • Install narrow, raised median to eliminate left turns in and out of other intersections and driveways • Alternate parking bays with a furnishing strip • Stripe traffic lanes at 11 feet in width • Provide space for future streetcar • ROW required: 86’ at midblock - intersections will vary (58’ current average ROW)

4 - Four Lane With On-Street Parking • Provide a high quality pedestrian environment • Expand curb-to-curb width of street • Provide four general purpose traffic lanes • Provide left turn bays at selected intersections • Install narrow, raised median to eliminate left turns in and out of other intersections and driveways • Introduce on-street parallel parking • Stripe traffic lanes at 11 feet in width • Provide space for future streetcar • ROW required: 100’ at midblock - intersections will vary (58’ current average ROW)

20 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

5 - Streetcar • Provide a high quality pedestrian environment • Expand curb-to-curb width of street • Provide four general purpose traffic lanes • Provide left turn bays at selected intersections • Install narrow, raised median to eliminate left turns in and out of other intersections and driveways • Install rail in outside lanes to implement streetcar service • Introduce on-street parallel parking • Stripe traffic lanes at 11 feet in width • Allow density needed to support streetcar (increase maximum building height to 8 stories/100 ft) • ROW required: 100’ at midblock - intersections will vary (58’ current average ROW)

6 - Ultimate Four Lane • Provide a high quality pedestrian environment • Expand curb-to-curb width of street • Provide four general purpose traffic lanes • Provide left turn bays at selected intersections • Install narrow, raised median to eliminate left turns in and out of other intersections and driveways • Stripe on-street bicycle lanes • Introduce on-street parallel parking • Stripe traffic lanes at 11 feet in width • Provide space for future streetcar • ROW required: 110’ at midblock - intersections will vary (58’ current average ROW)

21 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Public Workshop #2 The second public workshop included four main components: an open house-style display, a brief presentation, a keypad polling exercise and an exercise using play money (“Arvada Bucks”) to prioritize capital investments.

Open House The six roadway cross sections described in the previous section were introduced to the public for discussion and comments at the second workshop. Large boards including a cross section view, 3D visualization and key points for each cross section option were on display at stations throughout the evening. Project team members were available at each station to answer questions and note comments before the presentation and during the last portion of the allotted workshop time.

Presentation/Keypad Polling After the open house, a presentation including a review of the study area, project purpose and approach, schedule, and a summary of the first public workshop was given. The last portion of the presentation was an overview of the proposed options and alternatives for the corridor. The keypad polling exercise following the presentation provided an opportunity for workshop participants to respond to the cross sections, land use and transportation options, and specific components of the options.

Arvada Bucks Exercise At sign-in, each workshop attendee was given ten $10 bills in “Arvada Bucks” to spend as they left the meeting on seven potential priorities for capital investment. A total of $4,660 was returned, with the following results:

Bury Overhead Utilities - $1,350 Wider Sidewalks and Safer Pedestrian Crossings - $1,190 Street Trees and Landscaping - $1,060 New Street Car Transit (rail) - $310 Bike Lanes - $280 Improved Bus Transit - $220 On-Street Parking - $150 Other - $100

This exercise stressed to the project team the importance of addressing corridor aesthetics, and reaffirmed past comments and concerns about the pedestrian environment. The top three outcomes of the exercise all relate to the corridor’s character and appearance directly or indirectly.

Cross Sections The cross section drawings and 3D images used in the Workshop are shown on the following pages. The reaction and advice provided by the public (via keypad polling as well as verbal and written comments) were used to guide the evaluation of the options described in the next chapter.

22 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Main Street A (Midblock Cross Section*) 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height

18 - 30'' 18 - 30'' 8' 11' 11' 8' building 8' 7' 11' 7' 8' building sidewalk planting strip parking lane vehicle lane center turn lane vehicle lane parking lane planting strip sidewalk setback setback ROW Line ROW Line Minimum ROW Width: 79’ at midblock

10.5’ (Existing ROW Width: 58’ ) 10.5’

* Note: Intersection Layouts Will Vary

23 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Main Street B (Midblock Cross Section*) 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height

18 - 30'' 18 - 30'' 8' 8' 5' 11' 11' 5' 7' 8' 8' building 7' building sidewalk planting strip parking lane bike lane vehicle lane vehicle lane bike lane parking lane planting strip sidewalk setback setback ROW Line ROW Line Needed ROW Width: 79’

10.5’ (Existing ROW Width: 58’ ) 10.5’

* Note: Intersection Layouts Will Vary

24 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Four Lane Compact Variable Median, Variable Pedestrian Realm (Midblock Cross Section*) 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height

Minimum ROW Width: 86’ at midblock

14’ 14’ (Existing ROW Width: 58’ )

* Note: Intersection Layouts Will Vary

Note: 3D image shows the 3’ median option, resulting in a street ROW width of 79’. 25 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Four Lane with On-Street Parking Variable Median (Midblock Cross Section*) 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height

18 - 30'' 18 - 30'' 8' 8' 7' 11' 11' 3 - 10' 11' 11' 7' 8' 8' building building sidewalk planting strip parking lane vehicle lane vehicle lane median vehicle lane vehicle lane parking lane planting strip sidewalk setback setback ROW Line ROW Line

Minimum ROW Width: 100’ at midblock

21’ 21’ (Existing ROW Width: 58’ )

* Note: Intersection Layouts Will Vary

Note: 3D image shows the 3’ median option, resulting in a street ROW width of 93’. 26 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Streetcar Variable Median (Midblock Cross Section*) 8 Story / 100’8 Story Bldg. Max Height 8 Story / 100’8 Story Bldg. Max Height

18 - 30'' 18 - 30'' 8' 8' 7' 11' 11' 3 - 10' 11' 11' 7' 8' 8' building building sidewalk planting strip parking lane shared (streetcar) lane travel lane median vehicle lane shared (streetcar) lane parking lane planting strip sidewalk setback setback ROW Line ROW Line

Minimum ROW Width: 100’ at midblock

21’ 21’ (Existing ROW Width: 58’ )

* Note: Intersection Layouts Will Vary

Note: 3D image shows the 3’ median option, resulting in a street ROW width of 93’. 27 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Ultimate Four Lane (Midblock Cross Section*) 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height

18 - 30'' 18 - 30'' 8' 8' 7' 5' 11' 11' 10' 11' 11' 5' 7' 8' 8' building building sidewalk planting strip parking lane bike lane travel lane travel lane median vehicle lane vehicle lane bike lane parking lane planting strip sidewalk setback setback ROW Line ROW Line Needed ROW Width: 110’

26’ 26’ (Existing ROW Width: 58’ )

* Note: Intersection Layouts Will Vary

Note: 3D image shows the 3’ median option, resulting in a street ROW width of 103’.

28 Chapter 4 - Concept Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria During the Concept Evaluation phase of the planning process the project team developed a set of criteria (listed below) to assess the options presented in Chapter 3. A subset of these criteria was also ultimately used to help select a preferred concept (described in Chapter 5) and make recommendations for improvements to the corridor’s pedestrian, bicycle, roadway and land use environments. 1. Right-of-way impacts 2. Capital cost 3. Traffic diversion to parallel routes 4. Forecast level of service on Ralston Road 5. Pedestrian environment 6. Bike connectivity 7. Transit level of service (included in the Streetcar Feasibility Study) 8. City transit operations and maintenance costs 9. Access management 10. Potential land uses and economic development response

This chapter begins with a summary of the outcomes of the second fatal flaw analysis conducted to narrow the six cross section options down to four, followed by a summary of the final four street cross sections, the final three transit options and the final pedestrian and bicycle approach. The middle section of the chapter discusses the concept evaluation process and results, and is organized around the evaluation criteria presented above. The final sections of the chapter outline key considerations and results of the Streetcar Feasibility Study and summarize the project’s third public outreach effort.

Fatal Flaw Outcomes Two of the six corridor concepts shown to the public at the second public workshop were eliminated from further consideration due to “fatal flaws” -- serious shortcomings that affected their feasibility. The shortcomings of the Main Street B and the Ultimate Four Lane options are described below.

Main Street B Main Street B (shown on the following page) was eliminated in part because it failed to meet one of the minimum transportation expectations: “Preserve space and make other provisions to ensure future Ralston Road streetcar is possible.” The Main Street B concept would have provided only one lane of traffic in each direction with left turn lanes only at selected intersections. With this street layout, all motor vehicle traffic moving in both directions would have been in lanes shared with the streetcar (one set of tracks in each direction). This layout can work on a street with low traffic volumes, but with over 25,000 vehicles per day in the corridor, the queues of traffic backed up behind streetcars would reach lengths that would lead to desperate traffic maneuvers (passing streetcars in the opposing lane) and would impede streetcar operations (stop and go traffic).

Also, having only one lane in each direction (except at certain intersections) would effectively eliminate left turn accommodation to driveways and intersections without turn lanes, so vehicles would have to stop and wait to turn left from the through traffic lane, further blocking traffic and preventing efficient streetcar operations.

29 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

The Main Street B concept also included a bicycle lane in each direction, which would have required 10 feet of space — basically the difference between Main Street A and B and the reason Main Street B did not include a left turn lane. The project team felt that east-west bicycle circulation could be well-served using the parallel 57th Street and Brooks Drive facilities as well as the Ralston Creek trail. There was a need to include at least one concept that embodied the public’s interest in having Ralston be more like a main street, but the Main Street A concept seemed to be a better approach to meeting the various objectives and expectations. The functional feasibility of Main Street B was too questionable for it to be considered further.

Main Street B (Midblock Cross Section*) 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height

18 - 30'' 18 - 30'' 11' 11' 5' 7' 8' 8' building 8' 8' 7' 5' building setback sidewalk planting strip parking lane bike lane vehicle lane vehicle lane bike lane parking lane planting strip sidewalk setback

ROW Line ROW Line

Needed ROW Width: 79’

10.5’ (Existing ROW Width: 58’ ) 10.5’

Ultimate Four Lane The Ultimate Four Lane concept (shown on the following page) was designed to test the idea of meeting all possible transportation objectives. Thus, it included two lanes of traffic in each direction with left turns at selected intersections, bicycle lanes each direction, the pedestrian realm described above, a median to improve access management and on- street parking to support economic development. At 100 feet, this would be the widest cross section of any of the concepts. The project team determined that right of way impacts — especially the number of instances where entire parcels would have to be acquired — are much higher for this concept that for any of the others.

Widening Ralston Road from its current width of 58 feet in the narrowest sections would require an additional 25 feet of land on each side of the street. Many of the existing buildings along Ralston Road lie within 25 feet of the street today. Also, many of the parcels along the corridor are shallow enough that the loss of 25 feet of space from the front of the parcel would cause redevelopment of those parcels to be virtually impossible. With this cross section, the improvement of Ralston Road would be extremely controversial because of the sheer amount of right of way cost and the impact to existing businesses. The project team concluded that the Ultimate Four Lane concept would not meet the City’s land use objectives and would be too costly for the City to successfully pursue.

30 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Ultimate Four Lane (Midblock Cross Section*) 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height

18 - 30'' 18 - 30'' 11' 11' 10' 11' 11' 5' 7' 8' 8' building 8' 8' 7' 5' building setback sidewalk planting strip parking lane bike lane travel lane travel lane median vehicle lane vehicle lane bike lane parking lane planting strip sidewalk setback

ROW Line ROW Line Needed ROW Width: 110’

26’ 26’ (Existing ROW Width: 58’ )

Final Four Street Cross Sections The final four street cross sections are summarized in the table below and in the images on the following page. See Chapter 3 for a more detailed description and additional graphic representations of each concept.

Summary of Final Four Street Cross Sections Main Street A Four Lane Compact Four Lane w/ Parking Streetcar Right-of-Way Required 79’ 86’ 100’ 100’ # of Travel Lanes 2 4 4 4 Alternating median Alternating median Alternating median Left Turn Accommodation Center turn lane and turn bays and turn bays and turn bays Alternating with On-Street Parking Throughout Throughout Throughout planting strip Land Use Allow up to 4 stories Allow up to 4 stories Allow up to 4 stories Allow up to 8 stories

31 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Main Street A (Midblock Cross Section*) 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height

18 - 30'' 18 - 30'' 11' 11' 11' 7' 8' 8' building 8' 8' 7' building setback sidewalk planting strip parking lane vehicle lane center turn lane vehicle lane parking lane planting strip sidewalk setback

ROW Line ROW Line

Minimum ROW Width: 79’ at midblock

10.5’ (Existing ROW Width: 58’ ) 10.5’

Four Lane Compact Variable Median, Variable Pedestrian Realm (Midblock Cross Section*) 4 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height

Story

Max

Bldg . Height

18 - 30'' 8' 8' 18 - 30'' 11' 11' 3 - 10' 11' 11' 8' building 8' parking lane/ parking lane/ building setback sidewalk planting strip vehicle lane vehicle lane median vehicle lane vehicle lane planting strip sidewalk setback

ROW Line ROW Line

Minimum ROW Width: 86’ at midblock

14’ 14’ (Existing ROW Width: 58’ )

32 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Four Lane with On-Street Parking Variable Median (Midblock Cross Section*) 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height

18 - 30'' 18 - 30'' 11' 11' 3 - 10' 11' 11' 7' 8' 8' building 8' 8' 7' building setback sidewalk planting strip parking lane vehicle lane vehicle lane median vehicle lane vehicle lane parking lane planting strip sidewalk setback

ROW Line ROW Line

Minimum ROW Width: 100’ at midblock

21’ 21’ (Existing ROW Width: 58’ )

Streetcar Variable Median (Midblock Cross Section*) 8 Story / 100’8 Story Bldg. Max Height 8

Story

100

Max

Bldg . Height

18 - 30'' 18 - 30'' 11' 11' 3 - 10' 11' 11' 7' 8' 8' building 8' 8' 7' building setback sidewalk planting strip parking lane shared (streetcar) lane travel lane median vehicle lane shared (streetcar) lane parking lane planting strip sidewalk setback

ROW Line ROW Line

Minimum ROW Width: 100’ at midblock

21’ 21’ (Existing ROW Width: 58’ )

33 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Pedestrian Environment Approach As described in Chapter 3, two pedestrian options were initially developed for the corridor - an “Urban Pedestrian Environment” and a “Suburban Pedestrian Environment.” Both were designed to achieve a safe, convenient and attractive walking environment along and across the Ralston Road corridor. Based on stakeholder, public and committee input and the overall project vision, the “Suburban” option was eliminated from further consideration during the first fatal flaw analysis. The “Urban” option was used in all of the cross section concepts, with two possible variations (described and illustrated in Chapter 5).

Bicycle Approach As part of developing the street cross sections, the idea of having bicycle lanes at least five feet wide on Ralston Road was dropped from further consideration. The right-of-way width likely to be achievable on Ralston Road without major impacts to abutting properties would not allow for achieving the Minimum Expectations (described in Chapter 3) if bicycle lanes were included in the cross section. A future streetcar could not be accommodated on Ralston Road without at least two general purpose traffic lanes in each direction (because the streetcar would be operating in one lane each direction; without a second lane each direction the streetcar would force all traffic to halt behind it at each transit boarding area). Thus, limited right-of-way width precludes the provision of both bicycle lanes and streetcar.

The question of how much additional right-of-way can be taken from abutting properties before the impacts are too severe for the project to be feasible is one that requires a judgment call, but the team felt that the additional ten feet required for bicycle lanes would be too much. This determination, coupled with the availability of good bicycle corridors parallel to and near Ralston Road led to the decision not to include bicycle lanes in any of the street cross sections. At the same time, the team felt that continuing the prohibition against bicycling on Ralston Road was impractical and unnecessary, and we are thus recommending its removal.

The Arvada Transit Oriented Development Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Plan, described in Chapter 2 (pgs. 8 and 9), recommended use of existing bicycle lanes along W. 57th Avenue between Independence and Yukon Street as an possible alternative to bicycle accommodation on Ralston Road. One street to the south, the future Van Bibber Creek Trail extension/relocation and Grandview Avenue corridor is a slightly longer alternate route running from Marshall Street to Kipling Street, continuing west of the study area boundary. The Ralston Creek Trail provides a parallel route option to the north. The TOD plan recommended filling in two missing links along this corridor to create a continuous bicycle route extending to the north near Kipling Street and connecting to the Clear Creek Trail near Sheridan Boulevard to the east.

Transit Options Three transit service options were considered as part of this study: enhanced RTD bus service, a branded bus circulator and a fixed rail streetcar designed to operate in mixed traffic. All four street design alternatives could physically support any of these transit service options.

Under the first option the City would work with RTD to ensure appropriate connections and adequate connections to the Gold Line. Because these adjustments would most likely occur at no cost to the City, this option is not included in this study’s cost and service evaluations. The remaining two options - bus circulator and streetcar - were evaluated for each of the four Ralston Road street cross sections. The following table shows the transit service levels and design features assumed for each of the four cross sections:

34 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Transit Assumptions for Street Design Circulator + Local Circulator Service Circulator Service Other Corridor Transit Street Cross Section Transit Combined Type Level Service Service Level Branded Bus Every 7.5 minutes Main Street A Every 13-15 minutes RTD local routes Circulator or better Branded Bus Every 7.5 minutes Four Lane Compact Every 13-15 minutes RTD local routes Circulator or better Four Lane with Branded Bus Every 7.5 minutes Every 13-15 minutes RTD local routes On-Street Parking Circulator or better Streetcar Mixed Traffic Rail Every 7.5 minutes Every 13-15 minutes RTD local routes (Variable Median) Streetcar or better

Because transit alternatives need not be tied to selection of the street design alternative, the transit analysis for this report evaluated a range of service design options, differing primarily by route termini and mode. Three route options have each been evaluated for branded bus and streetcar modes. Proposed bus routes and streetcar alignments are illustrated on the following pages.

35 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Proposed Bus Routes ITY OF ARVADA OPERATING & CAPITAL PLAN igure 2 Branded Bus Route Options

C F 36 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Proposed Streetcar Routes Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Page 4 CITY OF ARVADA Figure 3 Streetcar Route Options OPERATING & CAPITAL PLAN 37 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Concept Evaluation The main criteria used to evaluate the final corridor concepts are summarized in the table below. Key points from the evaluation are discussed in the following subsections, with detailed tables and figures provided in Appendix V.

Four Lane Four Lane w/ Evaluation Criteria Main Street A Streetcar* Compact On-Street Parking Street Construction Cost $10,500,000 $11,300,000 $11,900,000 $11,900,000 Land Acquisition 3.6 acres 6.3 acres 11.5 acres 11.5 acres

COST Land Acquisition Cost $660,000 $2,328,000 $4,792,000 $4,792,000 Total Cost $11,160,000 $13,628,000 $16,692,000 $16,692,000 Transit Option Bus Circulator Bus Circulator Bus Circulator Streetcar Transit Capital Cost $2,856,000 $2,856,000 $2,856,000 $167,000,000

TRANSIT SERVICE Annual Transit Operating Cost $1,062,000 $1,062,000 $1,062,000 $1,487,000 Unacceptable Steady Traffic Steady Traffic Steady Traffic Ralston Traffic Conditions Congestion Flow Flow Flow Traffic Impact on Brooks Dr. +47% None None None Traffic Impact on W. 57th Ave. +47% None None None OPERATIONS 2035 TRAFFIC Traffic Impact on Grandview Ave. +47% None None None Intersections w/ Left Turns 24 11 11 11 % of Corridor w/ Medians 10% 43% 43% 43% Pedestrian Environment Supportive Supportive Supportive Supportive Bicycle Connectivity N-S 100% of Plan 100% of Plan 100% of Plan 100% of Plan Land-Use Density Medium Medium Medium Medium CORRIDOR CHARACTER Transit Ridership 154,000 154,000 154,000 257,000 * The roadway cross section for the Streetcar concept is the same as the Four Lane with On-Street Parking concept. The only differences in cost between the two concepts are the Transit Capital and Annual Operating Cost figures.

Right-of-Way Impacts The project team used the process described below to estimate the number of properties along the corridor that would be significantly affected by each cross section concept and corresponding right-of-way requirement. • An aerial photograph of the corridor with the existing right-of-way and parcel lines was used as a base layer. • An overlay of each concept and corresponding right-of-way (79, 86, or 100’) was placed over the base layer. • The team projected these images onto a screen and moved along the corridor parcel by parcel to determine the probability that the additional right-of-way requirement for the cross section would result in a “total take.” Total takes were predicted when the new right-of-way line would: » Cut through an existing building » Necessitate removal of a significant portion of an existing business’s parking » Render the parcel too shallow for development or redevelopment

Potential impacts of the additional right-of-way needed for the final four concepts are summarized below, with additional detail provided in a series of tables in Appendix V. The tables show the number of potential takes, the probability that the new right-of-way alignment will result in a total take for each affected parcel, and square footage/ acreage estimates based on parcel sizes and the probability figures.

38 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

• 79’ option (Main Street A): Although two properties could potentially be affected by this option, the team estimated only a 25 percent probability of a total take for each. Thus, this alternative would likely result in less than one total take. • 86’ option (Four Lane Compact): This option could impact as many as eleven properties, with an estimated eight total takes based on the percent chance assigned to each. • 100’ option (Four Lane with On-Street Parking, Streetcar): This option could impact up to 24 properties, with an estimated 15-16 total takes based on the percent chance assigned to each.

Capital Cost Anticipated project capital costs are summarized in the table below. Detailed street construction cost calculations for the final four cross section options are provided in Appendix V. See the Streetcar Feasibility section (pg. 43) for a discussion of construction and vehicle costs and a comparison with the branded bus alternative.

Capital Cost Summary Four Lane Four Lane w/ Main Street A Streetcar* Compact On-Street Parking Street Construction Cost $10,500,000 $11,300,000 $11,900,000 $11,900,000 Land Acquisition 3.6 acres 6.3 acres 11.5 acres 11.5 acres Land Acquisition Cost $660,000 $2,328,000 $4,792,000 $4,792,000 Transit Option Bus Circulator Bus Circulator Bus Circulator Streetcar Transit Capital Cost $2,856,000 $2,856,000 $2,856,000 $167,000,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $3,526,500 $16,484,000 $19,548,000 $183,692,000

Traffic Diversion to Parallel Routes The Main Street A (three lane) cross section would not be able to accommodate the full existing or future traffic demand on Ralston Road. Daily volumes on Ralston Road currently range from 21,000 to 23,500 vehicles per day (vpd). Without introducing changes to the study area, forecasted growth and development in the vicinity of the corridor are projected to lead to a 30 percent increase in traffic levels over the next 25 years (about 27,000 - 30,000 vpd). The estimated daily capacity of Ralston Road under a three-lane scenario is 18,000 vehicles per day. Demand beyond this level would be expected to divert to other routes. Using the DRCOG regional travel demand model, it is estimated that some traffic would divert to nearby parallel streets including Brooks Drive, W. 57th Avenue and Grandview Avenue, as shown in the table below. See Appendix V for detailed calculations used to arrive at these figures.

Estimated Diversion to Local Streets with 3-Lane Ralston Road Alternative Street Diversion Estimate w/ 3-Lane Ralston Diversion Estimate w/ 3-Lane Ralston Existing Traffic Level 2035 Traffic Level Daily Volume Increase % Increase Daily Volume Increase % Increase Brooks Drive 340 17% 960 47% W. 57th Avenue 490 17% 1,360 47% Grandview Avenue 600 17% 1,680 47% Local Street Total 1,430 17% 4,000 47%

The other three alternatives would each have two through lanes in each direction and would have sufficient capacity to accommodate demand on Ralston Road without significant diversion to parallel routes. Following is a summary of existing and baseline traffic forecasts on local streets and adjusted forecasts with diversion caused by reducing lanes on Ralston Road.

39 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Summary of Traffic Forecasts on Local Streets (rounded to 100’s) Street Existing Daily Existing Traffic Level w/ 2035 Baseline 2035 Forecast w/ Volume 3-Lane Ralston Road Forecast* 3-Lane Ralston Road Brooks Drive 2,000 2,300 2,300 3,300 W. 57th Avenue 2,900 3,400 3,300 4,700 Grandview Avenue 3,600 4,200 4,100 5,800 *The baseline forecast predicts traffic levels on adjacent local streets assuming no changes to the Ralston Road cross section.

Forecast Level of Service on Ralston Road Level of service (LOS) is a common measurement of operational performance for an intersection or corridor. LOS is typically measured on scale from “A” to “F,” where “A” represents excellent level of service and “F” indicates failure. Level of service takes into account vehicular delay, maneuverability, driver comfort, congestion delay, and travel speed. LOS is usually reported for the peak hour of a typical weekday—a.m. or p.m. The City of Arvada tries to maintain a LOS “C” on the roadway system and a LOS “D” for intersection operations (Arvada Comprehensive Plan, 2005). The table below summarizes characteristics of each level of service.

Source: Arvada Comprehensive Plan, 2005

The nine signalized intersections on Ralston Road currently operate at LOS C or better. The intersections with Wadsworth Boulevard, Olde Wadsworth Boulevard and Kipling Street operate at LOS C, while the remaining intersections operate at LOS A or B. The table below shows estimated volume to capacity (V/C) ratios on Ralston Road for the final four concepts. Estimates were derived for 2035 based on forecast land use and planning-level daily capacities for the alternatives.

40 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Estimated LOS for Final Four Street Cross Sections Alternative Forecast 2035 Daily Planning Level Daily 2035 V/C Approximate Level of Traffic Capacity Service Equivalence Main Street A - 3 Lanes 30,000 18,000 1.67 F Four Lane Compact 30,000 39,000 0.77 D Four Lane w/ Parking 30,000 38,000 0.79 D Streetcar 30,000 38,000 0.79 D

Pedestrian Environment Initially, two pedestrian options were developed. Both were designed to achieve a walkable environment that would be safe, convenient and attractive enough to encourage a significant increase in the number of people choosing to walk along and across the Ralston Road corridor. One option – “Suburban Pedestrian Environment” – was intended to reflect a character similar to what is found in Arvada’s residential neighborhoods. The other – “Urban Pedestrian Environment” was designed to be more like a “main street” setting, one of the ideas people liked at the first Public Workshop. These two options were similar, with slightly wider sidewalks, less space in setbacks and the addition of curb extensions at intersections all part of the “Urban” option. Additional details for these two options are provided in Chapter 3.

As part of developing the street cross sections, the “Suburban” pedestrian environment option was eliminated from further consideration and the “Urban” option was used in all of the cross sections. This decision was consistent with the advice of the two Committees and with the original intent of the project to create a strong and desirable pedestrian environment along Ralston Road. This approach also was more consistent with the two land use options described in Chapter 3.

Bike Connectivity At the time of the study, bicycling was prohibited along Ralston Road. The two proposed options for bicycle accommodation (described in detail in Chapter 3) included providing on-street bicycle lanes on Ralston Road or strengthening and recommending use of parallel corridors. Both options would eliminate the prohibition of bicycling on Ralston Road and include provisions for safe crossings.

The conclusion of the concept evaluation process was that bicycle lanes on Ralston should not be recommended. In part this is due to the difficulty of providing adequate right-of-way given the existing street width, but the project team also felt that east-west bicycle circulation could be better served using the parallel W. 57th Street and Brooks Drive facilities as well as the Ralston Creek trail. The Arvada Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Plan confirmed the importance of bicycling as a means of access to the rail stations once the Gold Line commuter rail service starts up and identified key north-south crossings of Ralston for bicycles (and pedestrians).

Transit Level of Service and City Transit Operations and Maintenance Costs Each of the final four street cross section concepts supports either the bus or streetcar transit option. All proposed scenarios would provide a high level of transit service, as described earlier in this chapter under Final Transit Options. Cost estimates for the Branded Bus and Streetcar options are detailed in the Streetcar Feasibility section of the report (pg. 42).

Access Management The Main Street A concept has a center, two-way left turn lane, while the remaining concepts (Four Lane Compact, Four Lane with On-Street Parking and Streetcar) each have a median to control access to driveways and side streets and left turn bays to accommodate turning movements at selected intersections as shown in the following figure. Left turn accommodation is proposed at existing signalized intersections and Estes Street.

41 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Turn Accommodation Under Four-Lane Street Concepts

Kipling Garrison Carr Allison Wadsworth

420’ 230’ 540’ 820’ 350’ 270’ 230’ 230’ 500’ 230’ 390’

750’ 230’ 230’ 230’ 230’ 470’ 230’ 140’ 230’ 270’ 480’

Independence Estes Balsam Olde Wadsworth

The four-lane, median-separated concepts would limit left turns to major intersections. Under these scenarios, left turns would be allowed only at Estes Street and the corridor’s nine signalized intersections (including Kipling Parkway and Wadsworth Bypass). Left turn bays would be provided at these intersections. Turn lane taper and storage requirements are summarized in the Key Assumptions box above. The presence of a center median and limitation of left turns would bring significant safety and congestion benefits.

Conversely, the presence of a center, two-way left turn lane in the Main Street A concept retains access into all driveways and side streets along the Ralston Corridor. However, this option does not provide the safety and congestion reduction benefits of the four lane, median-separated concepts.

Potential Land Uses and Economic Development Response Each of the final four roadway cross section concepts is accompanied by a set of implications for land use. The two most important land use considerations relate to right-of-way impacts and development response.

Right-of-Way: The existing right-of-way along much of the corridor today is 58 feet from flow line to flow line. Right- of-way requirements of the final four cross section concepts are 79 feet (Main Street A), 86 feet (Four Lane Compact) and 100 feet (Four Lane with On-Street Parking and Streetcar). Thus, the wider cross section concepts would have a significant impact on adjacent parcels. In particular, where parcel depths are shallow, the wider concepts would greatly diminish the potential for development or redevelopment. Likewise, the wider concepts would necessitate greater city right-of-way acquisition, increasing overall project costs and delaying implementation.

Development Response: The level of development assumed in both land use concepts considered in this study (the four and eight-story land use options presented in Chapter 3) exceeds DRCOG’s current forecasts. The arrival of the Gold Line (in addition to improvements along the Ralston Corridor) could cause development to exceed anticipated levels. However, the level of development response to these investment remains a point of uncertainty. See the Land Use section in Chapter 2 for more information about the DRCOG model and impacts on future growth.

42 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

The table below shows the potential development response under three land use scenarios. The same growth rate was assumed for all three scenarios between 2005 and 2035 (41 percent for dwelling units and 31 percent for commercial square footage), and was based on the DRCOG model. The four story option assumed 50 percent greater density than the DRCOG model, while the eight story option assumed 50 percent greater density than the four-story scenario (or about 225 percent greater than the DRCOG model).

Potential Growth Response Under Various Scenarios DRCOG 4Story 8Story Existing 2035 2035 2035 DwellingUnits 5,354 7,569 11,324 16,986 CommercialSqFt 1,557,300 2,032,500 3,060,095 4,590,142

Streetcar Feasibility

General Considerations The following general guidelines were used in considering the feasibility of streetcar implementation along Ralston Road: • Density - Investment in a streetcar system requires a minimum population and employment density, typically in the range of 15-20 or more housing units per gross acre and 20+ employees per acre. • Ridership Potential - Streetcars are most appropriate in corridors with high capacity demands. • Major Generators - Ridership is likely to be much stronger when anchors (e.g. a university, hospital, major shopping center, etc.) are present at both ends of a corridor. Strong anchors are just as important as density along a corridor. • Walkability - Good urban form is critical. Streetcars are pedestrian accelerators. • Development Potential and Market Viability - The corridor should have a good supply of developable land. Smaller, infill development is important, but the potential for larger tracts of development is also important.

Cost Estimates A number of key components drive the cost of rail streetcar in an urban environment, including: • Trackwork – costs for trackwork assume that Arvada would use a slab type construction for the entire alignment. Costs are estimated on a per mile basis and include additional costs for switches, crossovers and other special devices/improvements. • Minor roadway and sidewalk modifications – there will be a need to modify streets and sidewalks along the alignment to control traffic flows, improve pedestrian safety and accomplish other required civil engineering requirements related to surfacing, drainage, and stormwater detention. • Platforms – this plan assumes the use of simple station platforms that are basically a 40-foot by 10-foot curb extension of the existing sidewalk. Costs are also included for a basic shelter, bench, schedule holder and trash receptacle. • Catenary system, signals and substations – this line item includes costs for the catenary system (poles and wires), signal modifications and upgrades for a train control system for single-track sections of the alignment. Also included is the cost of streetcar power substations. • Contingencies, soft-costs and taxes – the plan assumes an allowance to cover soft costs and state and local taxes. A state sales tax of 2.9% and City of Arvada sales tax of 3.46% (6.36% total) would apply to construction materials, which are likely to make up under half of the total construction cost. • Engineering and project management – this plan assumes 28% to cover project design and engineering phases as well as costs of administering program start-up. • Vehicles – a range of vehicle types are available for streetcar service. This study does not presuppose a preferred vehicle type, but does assume a cost associated with modern vehicles similar to those used in Portland and Tacoma.

43 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

• Maintenance and storage facility – a new streetcar system would require a new facility designed to house and maintain the rail streetcar vehicles. The maintenance and storage facility should be sited as close as possible to the proposed alignment to reduce the additional trackage needed to transport vehicles to and from the barn. The development of a fully functional storage and maintenance facility would cost in the range of $3 million – $4 million. Arvada could reduce facility costs by developing an agreement with RTD to use their rail maintenance facilities for heavy repairs, and building a new facility with accommodations for minor maintenance and cleaning. • Right-of-way – One advantage of urban streetcars over heavier gauge rail modes is that they can operate in mixed traffic, allowing them to share existing right-of-way with private vehicles. This reduces the need for expensive and often difficult right-of-way acquisition. There are, however, some isolated segments of the proposed corridors that may require the purchase of right-of-way. Due to the limited scope of this study, property acquisition costs are not estimated. • Other major capital improvements – Major capital improvements such as to enable bridges or underpasses are estimated separately and added to the total alignment costs. None would be expected in the Ralston Road corridor, but segments on Olde Wadsworth and Kipling could require more costly infrastructure to deal with grade issues or exclusive right-of-way operating segments. These potential additional costs have not been included in this plan’s cost estimates and analysis.

The project’s cost estimation methodology uses these component costs to develop a generic cost per single-track mile estimate that can be applied to various corridor segments and alignments. As shown in the following table, this equates to $15 million per single-track mile and $30 million per double-track mile, not including vehicles or maintenance facilities. This generic cost includes a per-mile cost for additional improvements needed to overcome physical or operating barriers in segments of the alignment (i.e., trackage on bridges, underpasses, construction of new bridge to cross rail line, etc.), which are highly variable.

Streetcar Construction Costs Per Track-Mile Cost Category Unit Cost Quantity Total Price Trackwork - Track Slab Installation per mile $3,400,000 Catenary Work/Signals/Systems per mile $1,000,000 Civil/Roadway per mile $1,500,000 Utilities - Major Conflicts per mile $2,600,000 Platforms $50,000 avg 5 per mile $250,000 Substations $400,000 avg 2 per mile $800,000 Construction Soft Costs 20.0% of cost $1,900,000 SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $11,500,000 Design and Construction Contingency Cost 30.0% of sub-total $3,500,000 TOTAL ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION COST PER TRACK MILE $15,000,000 Assumptions: • All costs are for single-track miles; double-track cost is twice the amount per mile (except utilities, platforms and substation costs, which are not doubled) • Cost estimates based on Portland (OR) Streetcar projects. • Construction costs increased dramatically in the mid-2000s but have generally declined or stabilized after 2008 due to the economic downturn, although they remain highly variable. These estimates assume inflation based on construction cost index increases. • Utility costs are highly speculative as much more detailed evaluation of underground utilities is required to understand scale of utility work.

These cost estimates are well-aligned with a recent feasibility study completed for the Colfax Streetcar project in Denver, CO, which evaluated streetcar data from five cities, including Portland, and developed an estimated capital cost range of $15-20 million per track mile, and twice as much ($30-40 million) per double-track mile.

44 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Streetcar Vehicle Costs Streetcar vehicles costs vary with modern streetcar vehicles typically costing twice as much as restored historic or replica cars (summarized in the table below). The higher cost for modern vehicles is offset by higher passenger capacities and amenities including low-floor boarding and air conditioning. Project cost estimates for this study assume the use of modern Skoda vehicles at a cost of $3.0 million each, based on purchase prices by several cities that are complying with Buy America rules by purchasing from United Streetcar, a union company in Oregon.

Streetcar Vehicle Costs Historic Streetcar Modern Streetcar Historic Streetcar (replica) Cost per vehicle $1.5-$3.5M $800K-$1.3M $800K to $1M

Branded Bus Capital Costs Implementing a branded bus option would require much less capital investment in the corridor than a streetcar. The primary capital cost elements would include: • Platforms and amenities – The cost to develop station platforms (including shelters and station amenities) similar to downtown streetcar platforms, at $30,000 each is estimated at just over $200,000 per mile (as shown in the table below) assuming an average of five stations per mile. With stations on both sides of the street, these costs range from about $1.6 million to about $5.0 million depending on the scenario. • Vehicles – The cost to acquire five high-end 40-foot transit coaches is estimated at about $400,000 each. Vehicle costs range from $1.2 million to $2.4 million depending on the scenario.

Branded Bus Construction Cost per Mile Cost Category Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Per Mile Platforms and Station Amenities (shelters, benches, etc.) $30,000 avg 5 per mile $150,000 Construction Soft Costs 20.0% of cost $30,000 SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $180,000 Design and Construction Contingency Cost 15.0% OF SUB-TOTAL $27,000 TOTAL ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION COST (2010 DOLLARS) PER MILE $207,000 * Assumes 1000-foot average station spacing

See Appendix V for detailed cost tables including the components of the streetcar and branded bus options (Streetcar Construction Cost by Option and Branded Bus Capital Cost by Option).

Streetcar Feasibility Recommendations Key implementation strategies and recommendations from the Streetcar Feasibility Study (Appendix VIII) include: • Build the market with branded buses • Focus on termini land uses • Improve access to corridor • Create development parcels • Create a walkable Ralston Road • Increase transit service and build the transit market • Preserve the option to introduce streetcar in the future • Do not proceed further with streetcar planning and design at this time

45 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Third Public Outreach The project team conducted a third public outreach effort before selecting the preferred concept. The main component of this effort was a 19-question, online survey designed to determine which of the four remaining concepts best satisfies a range of safety, walkability, economic development and roadway functionality objectives. The survey was open between November 19, 2010 and January 18, 2011 and received 113 responses. The project team also made paper copies of the survey available. Key take-aways from the survey are summarized below. Detailed survey results are provided in Appendix VI. • Respondents indicated that the Four Lane Compact concept would best accommodate pedestrian circulation, create the safest environment for all travel modes, encourage economic development, and best address the corridor’s traffic circulation and access needs. • About half of the survey respondents favored prioritizing improvements to the segment of Ralston Road between Carr Street and Wadsworth Bypass. • The majority of respondents felt that allowing up to four stories was the best option for land use/redevelopment along the corridor. Support for allowing eight to ten story buildings was weak. The team also developed a brochure summarizing the project’s previous public outreach efforts and the analysis that led to selection of the final four cross section concepts. The brochure also included cross section diagrams and a Concept Evaluation Matrix (shown earlier in this section) comparing costs, traffic operations and key elements of the corridor’s character for the remaining concepts, and information on how to access the online survey. The brochure was mailed to just under 2,600 addresses in the study area in November 2010.

46 Chapter 5 - Preferred Concept

Process Review The process of arriving at a preferred concept for the Ralston Road Corridor has been described in Chapters 3 and 4, but will be briefly reviewed here. Through a collaborative process the project team developed objectives and minimum expectations (for land use, transportation, and urban design) and corridor options (for land use, pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and traffic). The various options were then combined into six corridor concepts for design of Ralston Road as a multimodal street: 1. Main Street A 2. Main Street B 3. Four Lane Compact 4. Four Lane with On-Street Parking 5. Streetcar 6. Ultimate Four Lane

The Main Street B and Ultimate Four Lane concepts were eliminated at the “fatal flaw” stage due to feasibility issues described in Chapter 4, leaving four final combined concepts designed to achieve the City’s land use and multimodal transportation objectives: 1. Main Street A 2. Four Lane Compact 3. Four Lane with On-Street Parking 4. Streetcar

The project team developed evaluation criteria based on the “risks and opportunities” work of the committees, priorities gleaned from public input, and also based on the objectives and minimum expectations. The results of the evaluation of the corridor concepts are provided in Chapter 4. The project team determined that the “Four Lane Compact” concept would be the best choice for achieving the City’s objectives (including keeping the option open for future streetcar in the corridor) while at the same time keeping implementation costs at a reasonable level.

Overview of Preferred Concept The preferred concept includes a plan of action for land use (primarily zoning), transit, bicycle accommodation, pedestrian environment and traffic accommodation. The street design elements are based on the Four Lane Compact street cross section. Land use changes would be modest, increasing maximum building height to four stories and implementing other changes to encourage redevelopment.

The preferred concept would include an improved “pedestrian realm” on both sides of Ralston Road and improved pedestrian crossings of Ralston Road. It would not include bicycle lanes along Ralston, relying instead on W. 57th Avenue, Brooks Drive, Grandview and the Ralston Creek Trail for east-west bicycle circulation. However, signs currently prohibiting bicycling on Ralston Road would be removed. Finally, transit service would be improved by working with RTD to reorganize the bus route structure and schedule in connection with opening of the new Gold Line commuter rail transit corridor. The street cross section of Ralston Road in the preferred concept would accommodate introduction of a streetcar line in the Ralston corridor at a later date. Other key characteristics of the preferred concept are described in the following sections. All of these features and characteristics are also recapped in a design checklist provided in Appendix VII.

47 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Land Use The preferred concept is, first and foremost, a strategy intended to lead toward a land use pattern and economic trend in the study area that achieves the City’s economic development objectives and conforms to what the public indicated would be desirable.

There is broad consensus in Arvada around the idea of investing in the Ralston Road corridor to invigorate redevelopment and economic growth. There is general agreement that Arvada would benefit from redevelopment along Ralston that mixes retail, restaurant, office space and residential uses both horizontally and vertically in a manner that enlivens the area and encourages walkability. Clearly, however, redevelopment in the corridor is likely to move slowly without strategic investments in the physical appearance of the corridor and in the transportation functionality of the street itself. Just re-zoning the area would likely have little beneficial impact in the absence of accompanying public sector investments.

The study area includes residential neighborhoods that are suburban in character – low density, single-family homes at three to five units per acre. (See photo on the right of Barbara Ann Drive.) These neighborhoods are well-loved and are in some respects the heart of the City. Protecting them from unintended consequences of transportation decision-making has been a key consideration throughout corridor planning. However, residents attending the public workshops and responding to surveys have indicated acceptance of somewhat higher densities than occur (or are allowed) along Ralston today.

The preferred concept would increase density along Ralston slightly to allow four-story buildings and would reduce front, side and rear minimum setbacks. Allowable land uses would be diversified from current zoning. Off-street parking requirements for redevelopment would be modified to allow shared parking and joint use parking facilities. Parking minimums would be reduced to support transit and pedestrian strategies and to encourage redevelopment. It is important to note that this land use pattern would not be dense enough to support successful implementation of a streetcar line in the corridor. One of the primary differences between the “Streetcar” corridor concept and the other three concepts is its vertical density (eight story).

The preferred concept does not preclude further zoning changes in the future. It is possible that the combination of reconstruction of Ralston Road, the arrival of commuter rail at the Olde Town and Arvada Ridge transit centers, and a regional economic recovery could lead to increased redevelopment interest in the Ralston corridor. If this happens, the City could revisit both the streetcar and higher-density zoning. Selection and implementation of the preferred concept now would not preclude that in the future.

Future Ralston corridor redevelopment could occur in all three of the corridor segments – Olde Town, the Connecting Corridor and the Triangle area. The City and the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority (AURA) have focused their efforts on Olde Town and the Triangle area. At the same time there has been some ongoing private sector interest in low- scale redevelopment in the Connecting Corridor. All of these public and private sector efforts would be significantly enhanced by investments in the appearance and functionality of Ralston Road.

The public expressed an interest in having a “main street” development pattern along Ralston Road. Keypad polling at the first public workshop (February 2010) indicated about two-thirds of those in attendance liked this idea. In part this may have been due to a generally positive association people have with main streets. But this also was in part an expression of support for more retail in the corridor (favored by 75% at the first public workshop) as well as more restaurants.

48 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Many people expressed the opinion that a main street development pattern would improve the appearance of the corridor, which many feel is unattractive today. However, keypad polling at the second public workshop (May 2010) suggested the public might not like the main street idea if it required street narrowing and resulted in significant diversion of traffic from Ralston to other parallel corridors.

The land use pattern envisioned by the “Four Lane Compact” concept would include elements of a traditional main street – buildings close to the street; good sidewalks; on-street parking (eventually); and mixed land uses. The photo on the right shows a downtown sidewalk (Winter Park, FL) that is similar in appearance to the corridor concept for Ralston. At the same time, the preferred concept recognizes that redevelopment of any corridor that is over a mile in length will likely take many years. Thus, the plan for investing in street infrastructure is designed to offer the City flexibility in design to accommodate a gradual redevelopment response and to avoid short term negative business impacts. This idea is described in the following section.

Flexibility An important feature of the “Four Lane Compact” concept is its flexibility and adaptability to site-specific needs over time. The central idea is the City could undertake construction of corridor improvements without initially providing on-street parking along the entire street. The availability of “storefront” parking is an important enabler of commercial development, especially the sort of “main street” storefronts and restaurants that Arvadans indicated they would like to see along Ralston. However, much of the street does not have those land uses today and may not for some years to come. Accordingly, the preferred concept is designed to allow the City to postpone in some areas the implementation of on-street parking, with its higher right-of-way costs and impacts.

Four Lane Compact Variable Median, Variable Pedestrian Realm (Midblock Cross Section*)

Alternating parking lane and planting strip; both provided only in areas with sufficient right-of-way 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height 4 Story / 45’4 Story Bldg. Max Height

ROW Line ROW Line

Minimum ROW Width: 86’ at midblock

14’ 14’ (Existing ROW Width: 58’ )

* Note: Intersection Layouts Will Vary 49 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

In either case, pedestrians on the eight-foot sidewalk would be buffered from traffic either by on-street parking or by the landscaped planting strip. This supports creation of a good pedestrian environment even in sections where existing buildings are close to the street and/or existing parcels are shallow. In such areas the preferred concept would reduce the initial right of way investment the City would have to make to build a new four-lane street and also would reduce the impacts on existing businesses and properties. This approach would be similar to the frontage along City Hall today (see photo).

This concept further allows the City to negotiate with land owners and developers (as redevelopment projects are proposed) to implement a wider right of way with on-street parking, to provide a planting strip, or both. In some areas this would be possible only if more than one adjacent parcel were combined into a redevelopment site to provide adequate space to compensate for loss of land along the frontage. In other sections of the corridor sufficient right of way and deeper parcels are available, allowing for implementation of a wider cross section similar to what is shown in the “Four Lane with On-Street Parking” concept (See Chapter 4). This would be desirable in sections where current or anticipated redevelopment would benefit from on-street parking.

Finally, in the Triangle section of the Ralston corridor, sufficient right-of-way and parcel depth is available to support a full pedestrian realm with at least an eight-foot sidewalk and an eight-foot planting strip, but on-street parking may not be needed. The “shopping center” sites in this area might be better served by on-street parking along internal drive aisles, coupled with surface parking lots within the sites. However, the City and AURA could decide that on- street parking would be beneficial – another case where the cross section could look like the “Four Lane with On- Street Parking” concept. During final design, the City should determine where to include on-street parking and where to provide instead a planting strip based on existing land uses. Where existing parcel depths and building setbacks are sufficient the City should implement the full cross section shown in the “Four Lane with On-Street Parking” concept.

So, while the most ideal cross section for Ralston might be the “Four Lane with On-Street Parking” concept, that design would cause higher right-of-way costs and business impacts and would put the City in the position of building on-street parking along some parts of Ralston years before it would be needed. The preferred “Four Lane Compact” concept provides a way for the City to move toward such a design, with the flexibility to avoid high costs and business disruptions during initial design and construction of street improvements, expanding the cross section to more ideal dimensions over time as redevelopment occurs.

50 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Pedestrian Environment The need for a more walkable environment in the study area was a primary impetus for this corridor planning project. The preferred concept would provide an eight-foot wide sidewalk (minimum) separated from the street by either an eight-foot planting strip or by on-street parking. The preferred concept is designed to create a high quality walking environment that appeals to all types of pedestrians: • people walking to work or to the bus or for errands (utilitarian walking); • people strolling and talking with other pedestrians; • children walking to school; • people attending special events (art fair, farmers’ markets, etc.); and, • recreational walkers and joggers.

Arvada has updated its infrastructure over the years to keep up with minimum design requirements, including those stemming from the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and related regulations. The preferred concept would continue this tradition but would go beyond minimum “ADA compliance” to implement a “universal design” approach. Universal design refers to a design philosophy that leads to facilities and furnishings that are inherently accessible and readily usable by all types of people – seniors, children, people with roller board luggage, and people carrying groceries, as well as people with physical disabilities.

Good pedestrian environments require more than just walking facilities. The urban design of adjacent land uses and the character of the street are critically important to achieving a high quality walking environment. The corridor land uses envisioned by the preferred concept would have “storefront” buildings at the back of the sidewalk with a strong ground floor presence – windows and doors. A mix of land uses would encourage a “park once” environment, where people visit multiple establishments (a restaurant, a store, an office building) from one parking space. The presence of people moving between these land uses would create a “busy” sidewalk, which in itself would attract other people.

Surface parking (other than on-street parking) would be behind the buildings. Eventually, if the corridor thrives, some parking would be in parking structures. The presence of either a planting strip or parked cars (or both) would buffer pedestrians from noise, splash and the threat of injury from motor vehicles. Where a planting strip is provided, pedestrian scale lighting, benches, street trees and other amenities would be located there, keeping the “pedestrian clear zone” free of obstacles and providing further buffering.

The preferred concept would provide the City with considerable flexibility in finish treatment of the planting strip as shown in the figure on the following page. The “interim pedestrian realm” would be appropriate along sections of the corridor where older buildings are present and redevelopment is not anticipated soon. The dimensions are the same as those in the “ultimate pedestrian realm,” but the planting strip would not be paved and would contain fewer amenities. Under the preferred concept, along sections of Ralston Road where right-of-way is close to the 58-foot dimension and parcels are shallow, this area could eventually become on-street parking as redevelopment occurs. In other parts of the corridor where the existing right-of-way is not as limited and parcels are deeper (e.g. in the Triangle area), the “ultimate pedestrian realm” could be implemented along with on-street parking (an outcome similar to what is shown in the “Four Lane with On-Street Parking” concept). Also, because redevelopment may not have occurred in many segments of the corridor under the “interim pedestrian realm” concept, setbacks for some parcels would remain larger than the 18-30” recommended in the “ultimate” scenario.

51 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Interim Pedestrian Realm Ultimate Pedestrian Realm

planting pedestrian frontage planting pedestrian frontage street crossings street crossings strip clear zone zone strip clear zone zone A B C A B C

8’ 8’ variable 8’ 8’ 18 - 30”

16’ total 16’ total

Planting Strip is unpaved, contains fewer amenities Planting strip is paved, contains additional amenities

The pedestrian scale lighting shown in this figure would be important. This would not be street lighting, but rather would be sidewalk lighting in addition to any overhead lights provided for nighttime vehicular traffic. The hooded fixtures would prevent upward light pollution and horizontal glare while focusing just enough light onto the sidewalks to create a pleasant and safe setting for late evening and early morning walkers. Note that the fixtures are shown oriented toward the sidewalk and would be on shorter poles than typical high-intensity street lights.

Under the preferred concept, the City would pursue closing of driveways onto Ralston over time. (See Access Management below.) This will probably take many years to completely accomplish. The large number of driveways is an important factor discouraging walking today – on top of the other congestion and traffic safety issues it causes. Driveways expose pedestrians to danger from vehicles making turns off of Ralston and also have a negative effect on sidewalks, introducing dips and ramps that are especially difficult for wheelchair users to negotiate safely. Also, wherever there is a driveway there cannot be on-street parking or a planting strip to buffer traffic. The photo at right shows a section of sidewalk with numerous driveways along Ralston just east of Olde Wadsworth.

52 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

The “Four Lane Compact” concept would allow some variation in building setbacks as part of a strategy to enable individual land owners, developers and their architects to be creative in design of building frontages. Keeping that variability within a fairly narrow range (18” to 30”) would result in a coherent “street wall” with a strong sense of place, but the variability to avoid a boring conformity in buildings. This is actually an old idea. The photo at right shows one of the major streets in downtown Alexandria, Virginia. The sidewalk is somewhat narrower than what is proposed in the Ralston concepts and the street (North Washington) carries similar traffic volumes. Note that each building has a unique identity and addresses the sidewalk differently, but the overall outcome is a well-defined space with a coherent street wall.

Another key consideration in making the Ralston corridor more walkable will be how to provide for safe, convenient pedestrian crossings of Ralston Road and the intersecting north-south streets where they intersect with Ralston Road. Crossings of the north-south streets at Ralston intersections will require good, modern design of the sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks and signal systems, but there should be no need for unusual or “special” treatments. However, providing for pedestrian crossings of Ralston Road itself will involve addressing challenges and may require unique solutions. The two most important issues to be addressed in final design are the spacing of crosswalks along Ralston Road and the walk distance across the street.

First, to achieve a “pedestrian supportive” environment in the Ralston corridor, crosswalks should be available at intervals of 330 to 500 feet. (Less than 330 feet is not necessary and longer that 500 feet is too far apart.) Along most of Ralston, north-south streets do connect to Ralston at intervals of less than 500 feet, but many of these intersections are not signalized and thus do not have pedestrian crossings. For example, there are no crosswalks along Ralston for several blocks west of Carr. The preferred concept includes the recommendation for a minimum pedestrian crossing frequency along Ralston of 500 feet.

Although the frequency of signalized intersection could increase in the future, it is more likely that achieving crosswalk spacing less than 500 feet will require the City to consider installing crosswalks at intersections that are not already signalized for traffic control purposes. Also, there is one mid-block pedestrian signal today (just east of Garrison) and the possibility of installing others should not be ruled out. The primary options for protecting crosswalks at non- signalized locations include: • Providing crosswalks with advisory signs but no signal protection for pedestrians; • Providing crosswalks with pedestrian crossing signals – flashing yellow lights triggered by pedestrian push buttons (multiple versions are possible); • Traffic signals actuated by pedestrian push buttons.

All of these approaches can be potentially controversial. Given the expected traffic speeds along Ralston, crosswalks without signal protection are not recommended. The City should work to develop a city-wide policy and standard for signal-protected pedestrian crossings of local streets. Because Ralston would be a multi-lane street (more than one lane each direction), there are unique safety issues associated with each of these different potential crossing treatments that should be evaluated prior to final design of the preferred concept.

53 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

The other key pedestrian issue is the length of pedestrian walk distance across Ralston and the relationship between that and traffic speeds. With four through lanes plus a left turn lane at many intersections, a car or truck traveling at 35 mph could travel almost 700 feet during the time it would take a pedestrian to cross the street, assuming a walking speed of about 4 feet per second. And, many pedestrians walk more slowly than that. This preferred concept includes two recommendations to address this issue: • The City should provide mid-crossing pedestrian refuges within the median of Ralston Road wherever possible to provide a stopping place for pedestrians halfway across the street; and, • The City should provide curb extensions at intersections to shorten the walk distance for pedestrian crossings of Ralston.

Access Management Although Ralston Road does not currently experience unreasonably high accident rates for a street of its type, there have been over a hundred accidents each year in the corridor (Wadsworth – Kipling). There are a variety of accident types and causes, but most crashes are associated with turning movements and lane changes. A somewhat high rate of side-swipe accidents is undoubtedly associated with the narrow lanes. A particularly key factor is the narrow, two- way, left-turn lane in the center of the street.

Five-lane streets with two-way, left-turn lanes generally have higher accident rates than four lane streets with left turn bays at intersections – or for that matter almost any other type of urban street. Accordingly, the best strategy for reducing the number of accidents in the corridor would be to eliminate the two-way, left-turn lane and replace it with median-protected left turn bays at intersections. The best way to reduce accident severity (personal injuries and fatalities as opposed to accidents that cause property damage only) would be to slow traffic down between intersections. A median would accomplish both objectives.

The preferred concept would provide a raised median in the center of Ralston Road to improve safety. The proposed median would eliminate most left turns into driveways and would limit left turns at intersections to a smaller number of intersections. The combined effect would be to reduce turning movements and lane changes substantially – with significant safety benefits. The median also would lower travel speeds between intersections. Research has shown that raised medians cause drivers to slow down because the width of the space in which they are driving is perceived as being narrower. The photo of Ralston at the right provides a sense of how the street looks today and how that tends to encourage higher speed driving.

It is important to note that a median and its traffic-slowing effects would have little or no negative effect on the capacity of Ralston Road, for a couple of reasons. First, congested traffic is just that – congested – and already flows slowly. Many personal injury accidents and almost all fatalities occur when traffic is moving freely and at higher rates of speed, and this is generally not during peak congestion periods. The number of “fender bender” accidents during rush hours is high because there is more traffic during those times and stop-and-go traffic leads to numerous low-speed, rear-end crashes. But the severity of accidents has more to do with speed than with congestion. Second, congestion is caused primarily by intersections. The time it takes to travel a certain distance through a corridor is determined primarily by signal timing, not by how fast traffic is moving between intersections. In fact, medians tend to increase the effective capacity of urban streets by reducing the number of lane changes and left turns into driveways.

54 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

However, the City’s ability to install a median in Ralston Road could be limited somewhat by the volume of left turn movements at certain intersections and the spacing between intersections. The project team evaluated which north- south streets serve functions that would make it infeasible to eliminate left turns at their intersections with Ralston. These are listed below (west to east). These are streets where left turns should be allowed.1 • Kipling • Independence • Garrison2 • Estes3 • Carr4 • Balsam • Allison • Old Wadsworth • Wadsworth

Notes: 1 The preferred concept includes removing the signal at Holland and closing off left turns with a median at that location. 2 Garrison connects to the north but is currently a driveway south of Ralston. 3 Estes connects only to the south. 4 Carr connects only to the north.

Turn Accommodation Under Four-Lane Street Alternatives

Kipling Garrison Carr Allison Wadsworth

420’ 230’ 540’ 820’ 350’ 270’ 230’ 230’ 500’ 230’ 390’

750’ 230’ 230’ 230’ 230’ 470’ 230’ 140’ 230’ 270’ 480’

Independence Estes Balsam Olde Wadsworth

LEGEND Key Assumptions: Turn Lanes » Left turns only at essential signals and Estes Street Space Between Turn Lanes » Left turn storage = 1’ per one peak hour turning vehicle (50’ minimum) (raised median) » 80’ taper to develop left-turn lane » 100’ redirect taper to transition between 10’ and 3’ median width » Total corridor length is about 7,700’

55 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Some potential limitations on implementing a center median can be seen in this figure. The first potential problem location lies between Balsam and Allison. These intersections are close enough to each other that it may be infeasible to install a median in that section. Again, this should be analyzed further in final design. Finally, if Carr is ever extended to the south (which is currently not part of the City’s planning), the spacing between Carr and Balsam is so short that a two-way, left-turn lane would probably be the only way to provide adequate length for left turn queues. With the potential exception of these locations, a center median would be feasible along Ralston and is included in the preferred concept.

Overall, travel safety in the Ralston Road corridor for vehicles and pedestrians could be substantially improved by reducing the frequency of driveways to abutting properties. Reducing driveway frequency would also improve traffic flows and reduce congestion. As described in previous sections, the public attending project workshops was interested in seeing Ralston Road take on more of a “main street” or storefront character. That kind of street does not have many driveways.

However, while these are important priorities, they also represent controversial actions. Property and business owners tend to be strongly opposed to driveway closures and this issue could lead to significant project opposition. Under the preferred alternative, the City would work with property owners and developers to close driveways as redevelopment projects are proposed, but would not attempt wholesale driveway closures as part of the reconstruction of the street.

Achieving reductions in driveway frequency as part of development review and approval could take different forms. For example, closing driveways along Ralston could be accomplished in connection with property assembly (buying two or more adjacent parcels to combine into a larger site for redevelopment). In that case the City could require that multiple driveways be consolidated into a single driveway. In other cases access to parcels could be provided from side streets or from rear or side alleys. Over time the City could reduce the number of driveways gradually in connection with redevelopment of the corridor, avoiding the controversy and business impacts of extensive driveway during street reconstruction.

Wide Landscaped Median During the corridor planning process, there was some debate about the design of the center median. While a median is clearly desirable for traffic safety and capacity reasons, some center medians in the Denver region have become eyesores. The starkness of a raised concrete slab in the middle of the street combined with the tendency for trash to collect there would be inconsistent with the objective of beautifying the Ralston corridor.

There has been some interest in the concept of a “parkway” design for Ralston. In fact, at the first public workshop (February 2010) one of the breakout tables drew a wide, tree-filled parkway median like those on Monaco or East Sixth Avenue in Denver. While this could be lovely, providing adequate right of way for such a design would entail extensive land acquisition and significant business disruption. However, the idea of trees in a green median along Ralston has consistently attracted support among the public.

Because Arvada has semi-arid climate, there is a minimum width required to allow trees to thrive in a median. City staff has advised that this minimum is about ten feet. It turns out that building a ten foot “green” median in the center of Ralston would have other merits. First, this would not entail as much right of way acquisition as might be imagined because much of the corridor would require left turn lanes and the wide median would be built only between turn lanes. The preferred concept would provide a ten foot median at mid-block, which would become narrower as it approaches intersections to provide space for a left turn lane. This cross section would avoid the kind of meandering lane striping seen throughout the Denver region where left turn space is achieved by widening streets at intersections. With alternating left turn lanes and medians, the outside curb line of the street and the striping of through lanes would be straighter, with attendant safety benefits.

56 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Another merit of a wide median is the opportunity to use this space in the middle of the street as a pedestrian refuge for pedestrians crossing Ralston. This would be applicable at any mid-block pedestrian crossings in the corridor (discussed above) and at certain other locations, such as just west of Carr at the school. The photo at right (Canyon Street in Boulder) shows how a median provides a pedestrian space in the middle of the street, with some safety benefits.

The potential safety benefits of a wide, landscaped median combined with the opportunity to make the Ralston corridor greener and more attractive led to the inclusion of a median in three of the four final alternative cross sections, including the “Four Lane Compact” cross section for the preferred concept.

Improved Connectivity Although the local street connectivity along Ralston Road is reasonably good throughout much of the corridor, the street network falls short in terms of north-south continuity. The low continuity for trips longer than a couple of blocks results in part from the presence of the railroad corridor to the south and Ralston Creek to the north. The lack of “connector” streets in the core part of Arvada leads to unnecessary travel and crowding in parts of the network, including on Ralston Road itself.

The Garrison Street connection is included in the preferred concept as a recommended future street connection project the City should undertake. However, this street segment is not included in the construction costs of the preferred concept, other than costs for the intersection at Ralston Road. The details of street alignment (horizontal and vertical), drainage, access to the shopping center and disposition of public lands in the area made this needed project too complex to be included in the cost estimates. However, the City could include the Garrison Street connection in the preliminary engineering study described later in this chapter.

57 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Bicycle Accommodation Bicycling in the Ralston Corridor study area will be increasingly important in the future. The opportunity to bicycle for certain trips will make an important contribution to mode choice and flexibility and will also represent a key quality of life characteristic that makes neighborhoods attractive and adds value to property.

A previous study conducted for the City confirmed the importance of bicycling as a means of access to the rail stations once the Gold Line commuter rail service starts up. That study identified key north-south crossings of Ralston for bicycles (and pedestrians).

However, Ralston Road should not be the primary corridor for east-west bicycle trips in the study area. In part this is due to the difficulty of providing adequate right-of-way given the existing street width. Two of the six corridor concepts described in Chapter 3 and two of the final four concepts evaluated in Chapter 4 included bicycle lanes on Ralston. The conclusion of the concept evaluation process was that bicycle lanes on Ralston should not be recommended. The project team felt that east-west bicycle circulation could be better served using the parallel 57th Street and Brooks Drive facilities as well as the Ralston Creek trail.

Transit Improved transit service within the Ralston Road corridor study area was a major focus of this corridor plan. As described in previous chapters, there are RTD bus routes through the area today that connect into downtown Denver. Service levels are modest as is ridership. In the past RTD has operated various shorter routes within the study area that connected into local park and ride lots. These routes performed poorly (low ridership) and were discontinued.

The City of Arvada and its residents and workers would benefit from transit services that are designed to provide for internal circulation within the City – connecting trip origins and destinations locally. For example, a transit line that provided high-frequency, direct connections between Olde Town and the Triangle area would have economic and other community benefits beyond what the longer RTD routes produce today. However, the concept of internal circulation within Arvada raises the issue of funding as well as the related issue of timing.

RTD’s funding today is primarily focused on providing longer “line haul” services as a matter of necessity. When other cities in the Denver region (other than Denver) have felt the need to establish internal circulation transit services, they have had to commit their own local funds to achieve those objectives. The most well- known example of this – although not the only example – is the Boulder “Community Transit Network,” which includes the HOP, Skip and other routes. A photo of the HOP is shown at right. With regional transit priorities likely to remain on FasTracks completion for at least the next decade, RTD’s ability to provide new local services for cities in the region will be limited.

This corridor study has framed the transit analysis around this question: how can the City of Arvada achieve improved transit services for internal circulation within the Ralston study area, given the limitations on regional funding? As described in Chapters 3 and 4, this resulted in identification of three primary potential approaches.

58 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

1 - Redeployment of RTD resources. As the start-up date for the Gold Line commuter rail service approaches, RTD will evaluate how to reconfigure bus routes in the area with the objectives of reducing bus system costs and providing local passenger collection/distribution services connecting to the rail stations. The City could anticipate this process and work with RTD to identify a route reconfiguration plan that provides internal circulation service within the Ralston Road corridor study area. This approach assumes that any resulting transit services would be provided as part of RTD’s services and would not require City funding.

2 - Branded bus circulator. Another approach would be to increase the level of internal circulation transit service available in the study area by implementing a special circulator route, perhaps similar to the HOP that operates in Boulder. Vehicles would be chosen specifically for this service and might not be standard 40 foot urban buses. Some type of unique finish appearance – paint, decals, etc. – would be used to make the vehicles readily identifiable and the route would have a locally-determined name. Service frequencies would be higher and stops would be closer together than those for regular RTD routes. Funding from RTD’s A-line service - which will likely be discontinued after the Gold and East Lines are operational - could potentially be reallocated to partially fund a branded bus circulator. This approach may require commitment of additional City funding, although it is expected that RTD would work with the City on the planning and implementation and it is possible that additional cost- sharing arrangements could be negotiated.

3 - Streetcar. Finally, the City could implement a streetcar using one of the streetcar options described in Chapter 4. This streetcar would operate in mixed traffic with motor vehicles on fixed rail installed in the outside lanes of Ralston Road (one set of tracks each direction). The route options are presented in Chapter 4, but at a minimum would connect Olde Town to the Triangle area using Ralston Road as the primary corridor for the route. This approach would require substantial funding by the City. RTD would work with the City on planning and would be a candidate for operating the streetcar line, but would not be able to provide funding for the capital cost of building the line. The proportion of the operating cost that could come from RTD resources would be negotiated with RTD.

Citizens attending the two public workshops were not strongly enthusiastic about transit in general or about the streetcar. There was some support for improved transit and some support for a streetcar, but the people who live and do business in the area today generally do not place a high priority on transit.

There could be significant turnover in residents and businesses in the study area over the next couple of decades, given the average age of housing and buildings as well as ongoing demographic trends, and it is possible that future stakeholders would place higher priority on transit than current stakeholders do. But interest in improved transit today is at best lukewarm and this is not a good indicator in terms of potential public support for City funding of transit to improve service levels in the study area.

The preferred concept includes a long term transit program that begins with the first approach above – redeployment of RTD resources. By anticipating the redeployment process and bringing a clear idea of local objectives to the table, the City should be able to impact the design and level of resulting RTD transit services. Then in the following years, the City would work to increase transit ridership through marketing and promotion. As part of reconstructing Ralston Road, attractive bus stop areas and bus shelters would be installed to improve access to buses, to improve the passenger experience, and to increase awareness of the presence of RTD routes. Also, concrete bus pads would be installed in the street at bus stops (unless the final design calls for concrete pavement, in which case the pads would not be needed). These would protect the surface of the street from wear associated with heavy buses starting and stopping and would stabilize the relationship between the bus steps or floor and the curb height.

59 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

However, this does not mean a streetcar would never be feasible. With increased growth and economic development, the Ralston study area could begin to approach levels of density and economic activity that would support a streetcar. For that reason, the preferred concept is designed to support installation of a streetcar line along Ralston Road in the future. Tracks, overhead wires and other infrastructure would have to be installed, but the cross section of Ralston Road would already be designed to accommodate the streetcar.

Project Cost Summary The primary capital cost elements of the reconstruction of Ralston Road are street construction costs, right-of-way acquisition and engineering. No transit capital costs other than bus stop improvements are required. The street construction costs assume full reconstruction of the street, including moving the curb lines and associated drains, moving and updating traffic signals, and addressing required utility relocation. (Note that W. 58th Avenue west of Independence was recently rebuilt and is not included in the cost estimates below. Documentation of specific cost elements is provided in more detail in Appendix V).

One of the opinions consistently expressed by the public over the course of the project was the need to address unsightly overhead utilities. The preferred concept assumes all overhead utility wires would be buried as part of street reconstruction. Upgrading bus stops and installing pedestrian crossings at un-signalized intersections also will be important project elements but costs for these improvements cannot easily be estimated until final design is completed. For now, an allowance is included based on costs per location for these items.

Right-of-way costs were estimated using the methodology described in Chapter 4 to arrive at estimates of the amount of land acquisition (square footage of land only) and “total takes” (buying entire parcels including improvements). Costs were based on property assessment records obtained from the Jefferson County Assessor’s on-line data base for properties abutting the corridor. The average assessed value of land along Ralston in late 2010 was $4.22 per square foot. The average assessed value of property including improvements (buildings, etc.) was $50.09 per square foot. The methodology used somewhat overestimates the number of total takes but does not account for business relocation costs, which could be incurred in some cases. These two elements are assumed to be roughly offsetting.

A summary of estimated capital project costs is provided below. All items are in 2010 dollars.

Engineering Estimate: Preferred Concept (Four Lane Compact) Capital Investment Cost Street Reconstruction $6,620,000 Engineering (design and construction management) $2,410,000 Contingency $1,500,000 Right of Way $2,328,000 Bury Overhead Electric Wires $770,000 Allowance for Bus Stops (22) $680,000 Allowance for Pedestrian Crossings (11) $880,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $15,188,000

A rough estimation of the breakdown of these costs by corridor segment, based on segment length, is as follows:

Corridor Segment Length Percent of Corridor Cost Olde Town: Wadsworth Bypass – Ammons 3,600’ 47% $7.1 m Connecting Corridor: Ammons – Garrison 3,000’ 39% $5.9 m Triangle Area: Garrison – Independence 1,100’ 14% $2.1 m

60 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Implementation Plan The Ralston Road Corridor Plan can and should be implemented, but the City will face challenges along the way. The primary challenges will be construction disruption; access management; right-of-way acquisition; utility placement; and, funding. These are discussed below.

Construction Disruption. Ralston Road is a key corridor for local circulation in Arvada. Rebuilding it will disrupt motor vehicle traffic (including RTD bus service) and will affect access to businesses in the core part of Arvada. This report recommends breaking the corridor into three construction projects staged over a three-year period. Having shorter sections under construction at any point in time will help maintain local access and circulation and may make it easier for the City to put funding in place for the project. The proposed phasing (shown in more detail below) would also break the final design and right-of-way acquisition processes into stages. This will help the City absorb the inevitable staff workload associated with the project. It will also provide the opportunity for the City to learn from each segment as work proceeds. Major construction projects like this typically encounter unanticipated problems – utility surprises, unknown subsurface conditions, etc. Phasing the project will also allow the City to stage work around shopping seasons and winter weather. Finally, the phasing plan avoids having the Olde Town section of the corridor under construction at the same time as final construction work on the Gold Line rail corridor and station areas.

Access Management. Although anyone looking at the corridor can see the potential safety and traffic flow benefits of the proposed center median along Ralston and of closing some of the numerous driveways, this access management aspect of the project will be highly controversial. The neighborhoods north and south of Ralston will be inconvenienced by having left turns to and from some local streets interrupted. Businesses along the corridor will be concerned about the loss of left turn access into their driveways. The time to address this in detail will be during the concept design phase (leading to completion of 30% plans) starting in 2012 and running into 2013. Care should be taken to maintain the high level of public involvement and awareness about the project that was achieved during the corridor planning phase and to regularly brief City Council as decisions are made. Priority should be placed on first establishing the basic street infrastructure, then closing individual driveways over time as sites redevelop. The City should also identify redundant driveways during final design of each segment and close as many of these as possible during construction.

Right-of-Way Acquisition. One of the reasons Ralston Road has not been rebuilt already is the challenge inherent in buying right of way (ROW) in this corridor. There are a large number of small parcels abutting the street, so the total amount of ROW activity and resulting controversy will be substantial. Many of the parcels are shallow and there are some buildings close to the existing street, so there could be some “total takes” – parcels that must be purchased in their entirety due to the amount of property required along the frontage. The Preferred Concept, based on the “Four Lane Compact” cross section is explicitly designed to minimize the corridor width and the amount of ROW required. The center line can meander somewhat to “dodge” existing buildings and tight spots, and flexibility is provided in the cross section to minimize impacts where needed. However, buying the land needed for the project and working out business impacts and relocations will be time consuming and controversial.

61 Ralston Road Corridor Plan

Funding. The project capital cost of the Preferred Concept is $15.2 million. Although this is not an “expensive” public works project in today’s world, it is a large project for Arvada and could be difficult to fund, especially given competing priorities. One possible avenue for the City to consider would be to position the project for federal funding. Although this could have a low probability of success, given the need to get the project programmed in DRCOG’s long range plan and regional transportation improvement program – a highly-competitive process, the City should consider pursuing this. As part of this approach, the City would need to resolve the NEPA requirement by preparing an Environmental Assessment and coordinating with CDOT. Conducting an EA during the concept design phase of the project would delay the process and add about $175,000 in costs. Other potential funding approaches would be to seek authority from the voters to bond existing revenue streams for this project, or perhaps for a set of projects including Ralston and other capital needs the City may have. Finally, the City could consider funding the project through a special district, including the existing AURA agency.

A step-by-step phasing schedule has been separately developed for consideration by the City. This phasing plan suggests addressing the street reconstruction in three corridor segments: 1. Triangle Section – Independence to Garrison; 2. Olde Town Section – Ammons to Wadsworth Bypass; and 3. Connecting Corridor – Garrison to Ammons.

Under the proposed schedule, all of the initial concept design leading up to 30% plans would be done in one project for the length of the corridor. However, the final design and ROW acquisition for each segment would be done in three segments.

Design Checklists Three design checklists (provided in Appendix VII) have been created to ensure clear communication about the Preferred Concept and to set the stage for successful design phases.