South Broadway NEPA Process
Consensus Committee Meeting #13
February 15, 2007
Cameron Community Church
6:00 pm – 9:00 pm
Meeting Notes
Next Meeting
March 15th – the Consensus Committee will review screening results for alternatives for the I-25/Broadway interchange; and build consensus on a preferred interchange alternative to take back to constituencies for approval
April 15th – the Consensus Committee will finalize consensus
Discussion Highlights
Trigger Language – The previous language was revised by city agencies including the City Traffic Engineer. There was concern about how problems were “identified” and by whom. The Committee made several suggestions to the language to reflect that what is triggered is a public process to discuss alternatives:
- Add language about the process that will be triggered – provide notice to all impacted parties (RNOs, business districts, HOAs, owners, residents, others) within three months of identification of the problem and assemble those impacted to discuss potential changes.
- Add a sentence about why the trigger was created – to preserve the narrowness of Broadway and the surrounding neighborhoods while not becoming overloaded
- Add – “consistently negative impacts” – the concern was to create language that would address events that create temporary impacts (example, the December snowstorms)
- Add a sentence indicating that notification will be given to those impacted by “critical adjustments” if there is a change to the cross section that is done without prior public notice.
Interchange/White Blob – The Committee was shown several of the possible alternatives, many were variations of the South Broadway process wedge alterative or the Valley Highway preferred alternative. One option was completely new. The “diverging diamond” option leaves all exit/entrance ramps as they are in the Valley Highway preferred alternative but crosses the northbound and southbound Broadway traffic on both sides of the I-25 overpass to allow all the turning movements to be made without conflict from opposing traffic. Please go to http://www.denvergov.org/BroadwayNEPA/HomePage/tabid/379069/Default.aspx to see the image or to http://www.nmite.com/presentations.html and click on Animation - Diverging Diamond Interchange to watch it in action. .
The Valley Highway Preferred alternative will become the baseline or no action alternative for the South Broadway process. The project team will rescreen all the elements using the new no action alternatives.
*Note: Platt Park Peoples Association announced that they no longer support the Committee’s October meeting consensus. 3PA wants a narrower Broadway.
*Note: Platt Park Residents Coalition no longer supports three lanes and a parking lane on Mississippi. They want four traffic lanes on Mississippi.
Meeting Summary
General Updates
The Consensus Committee heard updates on related issues:
- Development – Trammell-Crow is bringing plans to the City for their site at the southwest corner of Broadway and Mississippi and it’s compliance with NEPA plans; Lionstone received approval for their general development plan (GDP), the first project will be a parking structure at Tennessee and Lincoln; McStain chose not to go forward with the contract for the RMU-20 area, Lionstone expects to announce a new contract in sixty days for a similar project.
- Broadway, Arizona to Iowa resurfacing project – there will be a public meeting on February 28th at the Cameron Church; this is not a NEPA process; the expected construction dates are January 2008 – January 2009 and will include reconstruction of the Broadway street surface in concrete, a low planted median, cut-ins for parking and street scraping.
- Valley Highway EIS project – expect the Record of Decision to be signed soon
- Alameda Station Plan – the first public meeting is expected in March
South Broadway NEPA Process Updates
The Consensus Committee heard updates on the South Broadway NEPA process:
- Exposition – met with the Exposition property owners on the west side of Broadway to discuss the best alignment options, redesign of RTD bus bays and further extension of city right of way to connect Acoma to Alameda Station
- Turn lanes – City is looking at the best use of unused space adjacent to the turn lanes at Tennessee and whether there is a short term need for both westbound turn lanes at Mississippi
- Bike lanes – the bike lanes suggested for Broadway and Mississippi will not connect to any other bikes lanes and would only be two blocks so the decision was to create wider parking lanes and not have bike lanes and bicyclists would use Acoma
Trigger Language Discussion
The Consensus Committee discussed changes to new trigger language. The new language included revisions to the October version made by City agencies, including the Traffic Engineer.
Concerns:
- It is very difficult to develop a metric trigger
- Identification of the problem leaves the trigger up to the discretion of the City Traffic Engineer and/or could be instigated by one person’s complaint. Identification would come when a complaint is made and the traffic engineer conducts traffic counts and tests to assess and determine if there is a problem.
- Definition of RNO
- “Other City Traffic Engineer identified needs” leaves it too open to the City
- Difficult to establish specific metrics for the trigger
Suggestions:
- Add “as verified by traffic engineers” to the last paragraph
- Define “consistently” – there are events that spike traffic, like the snow storm, so it is important to define consistently to avoid events triggering a process for changes
- Add the word “adjacent” to address downstream issues
- Add language about the process that will be triggered – provide notice to all impacted parties (RNOs, business districts, HOAs, owners, residents, others) within three months of identification of the problem and assemble those impacted to discuss potential changes
- Add a sentence to remind us why we created the trigger – to preserve the narrowness of Broadway and so the surrounding neighborhoods do not become burdened with cut through traffic
- Add “consistently negatively impacts” – or wording that covers the duration of the problem so the trigger could not be based on an extended event (example, December’s snow storm that impacted traffic for a month and not due to increased traffic)
- Add a sentence indicating that notification will be given to those impacted by “critical adjustments” if there is a change to the cross section that is done without prior public notice.
Question: Will traffic counts be taken now for comparison? What is the base line?
Answer: We did traffic counts a year ago for the modeling. When a problem arises there will be greater nuances based on the new development that may increase traffic but it will not be considered cut-through.
Public Comment
Alison Hunter – It is important to raise the standard on which the traffic engineer can act. The current trigger language leaves it too open to the discretion of the traffic engineer.
Jay McGee – This area was supposed to be a fully integrated transit development. Removing bike lanes from this area does not make sense. How realistic is it to add additional traffic and then retain parking that will slow down traffic as they stop to park?
Interchange Discussion
The project team showed the Consensus Committee four of nine possible alternatives for the I-25/Broadway interchange (3a, 3b, 4a, and 8). All but one of the alternatives were variations on the South Broadway Wedge alternative or Valley Highway Preferred Alternative. The greatest discussion was on the alternative that was completely new, alternative 8. (Please go to http://www.denvergov.org/BroadwayNEPA/HomePage/tabid/379069/Default.aspx to see the image or to http://www.nmite.com/presentations.html and click on Animation - Diverging Diamond Interchange to watch it in action).
Interchange Alternative 8 (Diverging Diamond)
Concerns
- Driver expectancy will create missed turns that will force people to cut through neighborhoods to fix their mistakes
- It is confusing, it will be hard for people to realize they are doing the right thing, going the correct direction
- Because of the confusion people will avoid the intersection
- Lots of islands
- Difficulty for pedestrian crossings – they cannot cross in the middle of the intersection
- Will push north bound I-25 traffic from Ohio (no outlet) to Exposition which is narrower
Comments
- The increase flow of this alternative will outweigh the possible cut through traffic due to driver expectancy
- Would minimize impacts on houses because the ramps are the same as in the Valley Highway EIS
- Could leave the off-ramp at its exiting Ohio location to lessen impact to the houses
- Is better for air pollution because there is less wait time
Interchange Alternative 4a
Question: How does it perform?
Answer: The worst of the group because the second heaviest movement is a left turn – north bound Broadway to north bound I-25.
Other Comments, Questions & Answers about the Interchange Alternatives
Comment - Keep the hook ramp, or include both north bound ramps
Question: How much heart ache is a non-standard ramp for CDOT and FHWA?
Answer: They want to remove non-standard ramps. The hook ramp is trouble for CDOT engineers because of the tightness of the curve, crashes, banking and merging into I-25 traffic.
APPENDIX A
Consensus Committee Members and Alternates in Attendance:
Jim Carlson, West University Community Association
Lee Cryer, Regional Transportation District
Katie Fisher, West University Community Association
Tony Gengaro, Broadway Partnership
Steve Harley, Baker Historic Neighborhood Association
Jim Jones, West Washington Park Neighborhood Association
Steve Kaplan, Lionstone/Kaplan
Donna Krentz, Platt Park Residents’ Coalition
Gloria LeFree, West Washington Park Neighborhood Association
Jason Longsdorf, Denver Public Works
Joan Loughridge, Broadway Area Revitalization District
Doug McKinnon, Lionstone Investments
Shelly Watters, Platt Park People’s Association
Rick Wells, Cherokee
In Attendance:
Charlie Busch, West Washington Park Neighborhood Association
Julie Connor, City Council, District #7
Alison Hunter, Platt Park Resident
Jason Kopecky, Platt Park Resident
Jay McGee, effected property owner
Sharon Withers, Platt Park People’s Association
Project Team in Attendance:
Mike Gill, Carter & Burgess
Facilitation:
Jody Erikson, The Keystone Center