applicant information sheet - codot.gov · from a recent boulder county traffic count on n 75th st....

Colorado Safe Routes to School Infrastructure Application FY 2017-18

Colorado Department of Transportation of 30 Safe Routes to School Program

Applicant Information Sheet

Organization (check one): School School District City

County State Other

Project Title: South Heatherwood Intersection and Sidewalk Improvements

2-3 sentence summary of what your project entails: Heatherwood Elementary School is

isolated from much of the surrounding neighborhood by N 75th St., a busy county arterial

road with few controlled crossings for pedestrians. This proposed project would transform

two intersections by shortening crossing distances, providing a pedestrian refuge island,

adding Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons, constructing five new ADA compliant curb

ramps, and complete 639ft of new or reconstructed sidewalk.

Organization: Boulder County

Mailing Address: PO Box 471

City, State ZIP: Boulder, CO 80306

Contact Name: Alex Hyde-Wright

Contact Title: Bicycle Planner/ ETC

Best Phone # to Call: 303-441-4910

Contact E-mail: [email protected]

Contact Fax: 303-441-4594

Project Manager (if different than Contact): Kristine Obendorf

Project Manager Contact E-mail: [email protected]

Best Phone # to Call: 303-682-6774

Total Project Cost: $437,500

SRTS Requested Amount: $350,000

20% Cash Match: $87,500

School District(s): Boulder Valley School District

School Name(s) & Grade(s)): Heatherwood Elementary School, Pre-K to 5th

grade

CDOT Region R1 R2 R3 R4 R5

Congressional District: D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7

See Addendum A if you need help completing this information

received 10/31/17 @ 6/21 via email

mailto:[email protected]


Colorado Department of Transportation of 30 Safe Routes to School Program

l¡ ¡

BoulderCounty

Transportation Department252513th Street, Suite 203 . Boulder, Colorado 80304 . Tel:303.441.3900 . Fax: 303.441.4594Mailing Address: P.O. Box471 . Boulder, Colorado 80306 . www.bouldercounty.org

October 30,2017

Leslie FeuerbornSafe Routes to School Program ManagerColorado Department of Transportation4201F.. Arkansas Ave, Shumate BuildingDenver, Colorado 80222-3 406

RE: South Heatherwood Intersection and Sidewalk Improvements 2017 Safe Routes to SchoolGrant Application

Dear Ms. Feuerborn,

Boulder County is pleased to submit the attached South Heatherwood Intersection and SidewalkImprovemenls infrastructure project application for consideration for FY 2017-18 Safe Routes toSchool funding. We believe that this project will increase the walkability and ride-ability toHeatherwood Elementary School from the surrounding Gunbarrel neighborhood. HeatherwoodElementary has been very successful in leveraging two past SRTS projects to increase the percentageof students walking and biking from l2Yo in 20 l0 Io 55o/o in 2017 , but this progress has hit a plateau,and we are requesting SRTS funding to help us address the last remaining physical barrier to walkingand biking at Heatherwood.

In preparation of this application - and to create the most accurate cost estimate possible - we havetaken existing topological survey of the area and developed a 600/o design for the sidewalk project.This has ensured us that the project can be feasibly constructed completely inside Boulder Countyowned rights-of-way.

While this is primarily an infrastructure project, we recognize the important role that ongoingeducation and encouragement programs play in the success of these projects. We are fortunate topartner with the Boulder Valley School District and the Heatherwood PTA for these portions of theproject. Their relevant experience and enthusiasm will be invaluable in encouraging new walk andbike trips at Heatherwood.

Finally, we understand that beginning this funding cycle applicants are required to provide a20Yolocal match. Should we be selected for funding, we will be prepared to encumber the appropriatefunds from local Transportation Department funding sources. A full budget including recognition ofthis local match can be found inside the application.

Kristine Obendorf, PE, will serve as the project manager for the County and can be reached at anytime via the contact information listed within the application. On behalf of the Boulder CountyTransportation Department, I thank you for the opportunity to submit our application.

S

ÇGeorge GerstleBoulder County Transportation Director

Cindy Domenico eounty Commíssioner Deb Gardner County Çommissioner Elise Jones County eommissioner

7received 10/31/17 @ 6/21 via email


Colorado Department of Transportation Page 3 of 30 Safe Routes to School Program

SECTION 1: Problem Identification a. Heatherwood Elementary School is situated at the east end of the Gunbarrel neighborhood in

unincorporated Boulder County, a 1970s suburban development featuring narrow sidewalks,

wide local streets, nonexistent or non-ADA compliant curb ramps, and few safe options to cross

high speed arterial roads. Despite some challenging infrastructure, Heatherwood has a strong

culture of encouraging active transportation: 89% of parents said the school encourages or

strongly encourages walking and biking to school and roughly three-fourths of all students have

asked permission to walk or bike to school. However, students who live farther than .5 miles

from school run into a major barrier: N 75th

St., a high-speed county arterial road with few safe

places to cross. In the May 2017 SRTS Parent Survey open comment section, N 75th

St. was

identified as the single most important factor in parents’ decisions not to let their children walk

or bike to school. More than half of parents surveyed who do not let their children walk or bike

to school cited intersection crossings, traffic volumes and traffic speeds as affecting their

decision. Students who live in the southwest part of the Gunbarrel neighborhood would need to

cross N 75th

St. at Heatherwood Dr. in order to walk or bike to school. This crossing is currently

only a striped crosswalk where students have to cross three lanes of traffic on a road where the

posted speed limit is 40 mph. The impact that N 75th

St. has on walking and biking rates to

Heatherwood Elementary cannot be overstated: 80% of children who live up to 0.5 miles from

the school walk or bike, while only 10% of children that live father than 0.5 miles from school-

those students who would need to cross N 75th

St.- walk or bike.

Pre-evaluation Parent Survey and Student Tally are included as Attachment A.

Boulder County’s MultiModal Transportation Standards are included as Attachment B.

b. N 75th

St. effectively prevents students who live west of the road from walking or biking to

school by themselves. It has a posted speed limit of 40 mph and carries 6,700 cars per day. Data

from a recent Boulder County traffic count on N 75th

St. shows that 38% of drivers exceed the

speed limit, and the median speed of vehicles is 39.3 mph. During school hours, there are school

flashing lights that lower the speed limit to 20 mph, but 93% of drivers exceed the 20 mph

school zone speed limit. During school hours, there are 782 vehicles per hour, or one vehicle

about every 5 seconds. While there is not a history of pedestrian crashes on N 75th

, rather than

indicating this intersection is safe, this is likely because pedestrians are too intimidated to cross.

c. Heatherwood Elementary is one of two elementary schools in unincorporated Boulder County

that have a substantial number of students within walking or biking distance of the school, and

Boulder County recently completed a multi-use path at the other elementary. In 2010, Boulder

County completed a SRTS infrastructure project to improve another walking/biking route to

Heatherwood, but this project would address remaining infrastructure needs in the neighborhood.

d. Heatherwood has had the Bike Ed “BLAST program” for 4th

and 5th

graders, participated in

International Walk to School Day and promoted BVSD’s Bike Week, which the Heatherwood

PTA rebranded as “Walk and Roll Week.” The school has also had a program to teach children

on the autism spectrum how to bike.

e. Demographic chart is included as Attachment C.

f. School District Wellness Policy is included as Attachment D.

g. Enrollment Map is included as Attachment E.

h. Photos of existing conditions are included as Attachment F.



SECTION 2: Tell us about your project.

a. This project will reconnect the southwestern portion of Gunbarrel to Heatherwood Elementary

by creating a safe walking/ biking route across N 75th

St., currently a formidable barrier for

families who live on the west side of this road. The SRTS Parent Survey shows that these

parents feel supported in letting their children walk and bike to school, but they are very

concerned about safety at intersections and the N 75th

St. crossing in particular. This project will

directly address these concerns with infrastructure to improve this crossing.

b. The project will create a median refuge island and install Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons

(RRFBs) for pedestrians and cyclists crossing N 75th

St. at Heatherwood Dr. and decrease the

curb radii at the intersection of Heatherwood Dr. and Ashfield Dr. to improve visibility for

pedestrians. The project will also replace 284ft of a 4ft-wide sidewalk with 6ft-wide sidewalk,

which will allow us to plow the facility in winter, and construct five new ADA compliant curb

ramps, replace 65ft of 4ft-wide sidewalk and 290ft of 8ft-wide sidewalk, which is necessary to

tie into the new curb ramps.

c. In the May 2017 SRTS Parent Survey, parents identified N 75th

St. as a barrier to walking and

biking more often than any other specific hazard combined. Currently, students crossing N 75th

St. at south Heatherwood Dr. have to ensure that three lanes of traffic yield simultaneously.

Navigating this crossing is not something that very many parents of young children are

comfortable letting their children do. This project will allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross N

75th

St. in two stages by creating a pedestrian median refuge island, and the RRFBs will increase

driver’s yield compliance at the crosswalk. The decreased curb radii at Ashfield Dr. will

increase visibility for pedestrians and cyclists entering the crosswalk at this intersection.

d. This project aligns with the Boulder County Transportation Master Plan’s vision for “high

quality, safe, sustainable, and environmentally responsible transportation infrastructure and

services across all modes” that promotes “active living, and associated public health benefits, by

providing infrastructure that enables walking and bicycling.” Our MultiModal Transportation

Standards identify “marked and signed crosswalk[s] with a pedestrian refuge median” and

“pedestrian actuated rapid flash warning signs” as appropriate designs to achieve these goals.

e. Boulder County Transportation Department will maintain the facility. Snow removal will be

handled by our Parks & Open Space Department as part of our Pathways Maintenance list.

f. The project will be constructed entirely within Boulder County’s existing right-of-way.

g. This project will fund the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) Bike Ed program “BLAST”

for 4th

and 5th

graders at Heatherwood Elementary. The school will also promote Walk to School

Day and Bike to School Day, and the PTA has agreed to fund the school’s portion of the Trip

Tracker incentive program.

h. 60% level plans are included as Attachment G.

i. A letter of support from DRCOG, Boulder County’s MPO, is included as Attachment H.

j. A letter from the project manager, Kristine Obendorf, PE, is included as Attachment I.



SECTION 3: Project Timeline

DATE MILESTONE

Summer 2018 Authorization to Proceed - Estimate Only

September 2018 Parent Survey and Student Tally

Active School Neighborhood Checklist with Heatherwood

staff/parents/students, BVSD staff, County staff

October 2018 Education kickoff (Walk to School Day, BLAST Bike Ed)

Initiate Parent Engagement activities (family walks/rides, bike

rodeos)

December 2018 All NEPA requirements completed

September 2018 - March

2019

Project Design Phase

March – August 2019 Advertise and Project Construction

September 2019 Parent Survey and Student Tally

Continue Parent Engagement activities (family walks/rides, bike

rodeos)

October 2019 Bike to School Day and Project Celebration

May 2020 Parent Survey and Student Tally

June 30, 2020 Estimated Deadline for Project Completion



SECTION 4: Project Partners

a. Boulder County regularly hosts “municipal collaboration meetings” with our partners,

including the Boulder Valley School District, to discuss opportunities for collaboration,

including school transportation/ SRTS projects.

Name of Partner/Organization Specific role(s) they will play in your project

Boulder County Transportation

George Gerstle, Director

Kristine Obendorf, Project Manager

Alex Hyde-Wright, Transportation

Planner

George will dedicate staff and financial resources

in the department.

Kristine will serve as the project manager

throughout the design, construction and

implementation of the project. Alex will coordinate

with BVSD and Heatherwood for the educational

components of the project.

Heatherwood Elementary School

Genna Jaramillo, Principal

Beth Cendali, Physical Education

Specialist

Prize distribution for Walk/Bike to School Day

participants at school-wide assemblies. Teachers

will conduct SRTS Student Tally before and after

sidewalk/intersection improvements are

constructed. Promote International Walk to School

Day and BVSD Bike Week. Coordinate with

BVSD for bike rodeo on school grounds.

Boulder Valley School District

Landon Hilliard, TO School Program

Coordinator

Peter Hurst, Trip Tracker Director

Provide BLAST Bicycle Lessons and Safety

Training through 4th

and 5th

grade P.E. classes.

Work with PTA to promote Walk/Bike to School

Days, organize weekend family rides and host bike

rodeo on school grounds.

Manage the Trip Tracker walk/bike/bus incentive

program at Heatherwood.

Heatherwood Parent Teacher

Association

John Street, Amy Thompson

Coordinate Walk to School Day, Walk and Roll

Week Activities and prizes. Work with BVSD to

organize weekend family rides and host bike rodeo.

Fund school’s contribution for Trip Tracker

program, assist with distribution of Trip Tracker

rewards.

Additional letters of support are included as Attachment J:

Genna Jaramillo, Heatherwood Elementary Principal

Beth Cendali, Heatherwood Elementary Physical Education Specialist

Landon Hilliard, BVSD TO School Program Coordinator

Amy Thompson, Heatherwood Elementary Parent Teacher Association



SECTION 5: Evaluation: Measuring Your Success

Program Activities:

What will be done?

Measurable Project

Objectives: What will be

measured?

Evaluation: How and when will it

be measured?

Transform two

intersections by

shortening crossing

distances, providing a

pedestrian refuge island

on N 75th

St., adding

Rapid Rectangular

Flashing Beacons,

constructing five new

ADA compliant curb

ramps, and completing

639ft of new or

reconstructed sidewalk.

Increase the number of

students who walk and bike

to school, especially those

that live farther than 0.5 miles

from school.

Improve the connectivity between Heatherwood

Elementary School and the

surrounding neighborhoods.

Decrease automobile trips used for drop off or pick up

of students.

Annual SRTS Student Tally: We

will expect to see a higher

percentage of children walking and

biking to school.

Annual SRTS Parent Survey: We

will expect to see fewer parents

citing traffic safety and N 75th

St. in

particular as barriers to letting their

children walk and bike to school.

Boulder County Traffic Counts before and after infrastructure

improvements have been

constructed.

Fund the Boulder Valley

School District (BVSD)

Bike Ed program

“BLAST” for 4th and

5th graders, and promote

Walk to School Day and

Bike to School Day. The

PTA has also agreed to

fund the school’s portion

of the Trip Tracker

incentive program.

Create a culture of walking

and biking that students can

bring with them to their next

school.

Participation numbers for

BLAST, Walk/Bike to School

events, family/community events,

bike rodeos and Trip Tracker.

Student Tally, Parent Survey at

Platt MS (Heatherwood is a feeder

to Platt).

d. Heatherwood has been very successful in leveraging two past SRTS projects to dramatically

increase the percent of students walking and biking to school: from 12% to 43% through a 2009

infrastructure project (winning the James L. Oberstar award in the process), and again to 55%

through a 2015 non-infrastructure project (achieving the highest participation for Bike to School

Day in the district in 2017). For close to a decade, Heatherwood has tracked its progress in

encouraging more students to walk and bike to school, however this progress has hit a plateau in

the face of one last, large infrastructure need. Parents’ support of walking and biking events at

school has been critical to their success, and this partnership will only strengthen when an Active

School Neighborhood Checklist is completed prior to the end of design. Heatherwood staff,

BVSD, and Boulder County are committed to the long term success through community events

including family walking/biking practice walks/rides and bike rodeos. This project marks

Heatherwood’s last need for SRTS infrastructure funding.

e. Boulder County will share the successes of this project with the community through press

releases (frequently picked up by the local media), County/school newsletters, and continued

walking/biking audits with parents, students and staff.



SECTION 6: Budget Proposal and Budget Narrative

Budget is included as Attachment K.

CDOT Region 4 Planner and Engineer statement is included as Attachment L



SECTION 7: Previous SRTS Grants

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5

Year Applied 2009 2013 2015 2015 2016

Project Name Heatherwood Platte MS Trip Tracker 2.0 Trip

Tracker

Trip

Tracker

Trends

Project Type Inf Inf Non-Inf Non-Inf Non-Inf

Amount

Requested

$235,000 $238,887 $144,608 $98,107 $69,763

Funded? Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Completed? Yes Yes Yes NA No

On-going? No No No NA Yes.

Major

Accomplishm

ents

Created 0.5 mile

safe walking

route through the

Heatherwood

neighborhood to

Heatherwood

Elementary.

Increased the

percentage of

students

walking/biking

from 12% to 43%

(118 new kids

walking/biking).

Heatherwood

won the 2011

James L Oberstar

award and credits

this SRTS project

for sparking a

culture change.

Created a safe

walking route

from Platt MS to

the neighborhood

to the east by

constructing 970

ft. of new

sidewalk along

Baseline Rd. The

students have

taken ownership

of the new

sidewalk, and a

new sign

proclaims it the

“Wolf Walk.”

While a Student

Tally has not

been completed

since

construction,

previously only

6% of students

walked or biked

to Platt.

Supported

expansion of the

Trip Tracker

program to 6

schools,

provided low

income-specific

outreach, and

funded 4 active

neighborhood

checklists, 4 bike

rodeos, and

communications

and marketing.

Funded for 1

year, but

stretched funding

for 2 years. 43%

of Trip Tracker

participants walk

or bike to school,

compared to

only 19%

overall.

NA Project

has just

begun,

and is

expanding

Trip

Tracker to

2 new

schools

for a total

of 8.

Project

will also

include a

long term

evaluation

, focusing

on

maximizin

g

participati

on.

Is the

program still

continuing?

This past spring

Heatherwood

high the highest

participation in

BVSD for Bike to

School Day.

Yes, the sidewalk

was completed in

summer 2017 and

evaluation is

ongoing.

Yes, Trip

Tracker has been

expanded to 8

schools in

SVVSD for

2017-2018.

NA Yes, the

project

has just

begun.



SECTION 8: Subcontractors

Boulder County will subcontract with a structural engineer for the design of a small retaining

wall. We will select an engineering firm from our existing list of pre-qualified “continuing

services” contractors. Once the project design is completed, the project will be sent out for bid

to acquire the lowest price and the construction contractor will be selected at that time.

We will also subcontract with Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) for Bike Ed/BLAST, the

educational component of this project.

Over the years, BVSD has become an expert in providing bicycling education through its Bike

Ed program, which delivers on-bike, real-world vehicular training to elementary and middle

school students blending education and advocacy with an aim of getting more students on bikes

more often. Certified bicycle education instructors lead classes in coordination with physical

education teachers. In the 2016-2017 school year, BVSD wrapped up its last year of Bike Ed at

Heatherwood Elementary, which was funded through a Non-Infrastructure SRTS grant and

increased the percent of students who walk and bike to Heatherwood from 43% to 55%.

Additional support is needed to continue this program going forward and provide new students

the skills they need to use the new infrastructure confidently and safely.

BVSD has performed work in the following past SRTS projects:

#1 #2 #3

Year Applied 2015 2014 2011

Project Type- Non-Inf Non-Inf Non-Inf

Amount

Requested

$32,673 $92,000 $50,000

Funded? Yes No Yes

Project

Completed?

Yes – data is forthcoming N/A Yes

Project On-going? No N/A No

Major

Accomplishments

Delivered bike education training

to more than 1,000 students in

4th – 7th grades at nine schools.

At Heatherwood Elementary this

increased the percentage of

students walking or biking to

school from 43% before the

project to 55% after, an increase

of about 46 students.

N/A Conducted BLAST cycling

education to 21 schools

in partnership with

Community Cycles.



Attachment A- May 2017 SRTS Parent Survey and Student Tally (with highlights)

Highlight from Student Tally: Heatherwood Elementary School already has a high percentage

of students who walk and bike to school (about 55% combined):

Highlight from Parent Survey: walking and biking rates plummet for students who live farther

than 0.5 miles from Heatherwood Elementary School:

*This chart is not found in the Parent Survey, but it visualizes data from the School Arrival Table

on page 7 of the Parent Survey.



The chart below provides an explanation for why walking and biking rates plummet for students

who live farther away from Heatherwood: their parents do not feel existing infrastructure is

adequate to keep their children safe en route to school:

Parent Survey Report: One School in One Data Collection Period

School Name: Heatherwood Elementary School Set ID: 16185

School Group: BLAST-Bikeology Bicycling Education Program Month and Year Collected: May 2017

School Enrollment: 382 Date Report Generated: 10/09/2017

% Range of Students Involved in SRTS: 0-25% Tags: BLAST,BVSD BLAST

Number of Questionnaires Distributed: 0 Number of QuestionnairesAnalyzed for Report: 51

This report contains information from parents about their children's trip to and from school. The report also reflects parents'

perceptions regarding whether walking and bicycling to school is appropriate for their child. The data used in this report were

collected using the Survey about Walking and Biking to School for Parents form from the National Center for Safe Routes to School.

Sex of children for parents that provided information

Page 1 of 14

Grade levels of children represented in survey

Grade levels of children represented in survey

Grade in School

Responses pergrade

Number Percent

PreK 3 6%

Kindergarten 9 18%

1 8 16%

2 7 14%

3 10 20%

4 8 16%

5 6 12%

No response: 0Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Page 2 of 14

Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school

Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school

Distance betweenhome and school

Number of children Percent

Less than 1/4 mile 5 11%

1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 15 32%

1/2 mile up to 1 mile 8 17%

1 mile up to 2 miles 9 19%

More than 2 miles 10 21%

Don't know or No response: 4Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Page 4 of 14

Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school

Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school

Time of Trip Numberof Trips

Walk Bike SchoolBus

FamilyVehicle

Carpool Transit Other

Morning 48 25% 15% 35% 21% 2% 0% 2%

Afternoon 48 25% 15% 31% 27% 0% 0% 2%

No Response Morning: 3No Response Afternoon: 3Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Page 5 of 14

Typical mode of school arrival and departure by distance child lives from school

Page 6 of 14

Typical mode of school arrival and departure by distance child lives from school

School Arrival

DistanceNumberwithin

DistanceWalk Bike

SchoolBus

FamilyVehicle Carpool Transit Other

Less than 1/4 mile 5 60% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20%

1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 15 53% 33% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0%

1/2 mile up to 1 mile 8 13% 13% 50% 25% 0% 0% 0%

1 mile up to 2 miles 9 0% 0% 67% 22% 11% 0% 0%

More than 2 miles 10 0% 0% 60% 40% 0% 0% 0%


School Departure

DistanceNumberwithin

DistanceWalk Bike

SchoolBus

FamilyVehicle Carpool Transit Other

Less than 1/4 mile 5 60% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20%

1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 15 47% 33% 7% 13% 0% 0% 0%

1/2 mile up to 1 mile 8 25% 13% 38% 25% 0% 0% 0%

1 mile up to 2 miles 9 0% 0% 67% 33% 0% 0% 0%

More than 2 miles 10 0% 0% 40% 60% 0% 0% 0%


Page 7 of 14

Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance

they live from school

Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance

they live from school

Asked Permission? Number of ChildrenLess than1/4 mile

1/4 mileup to 1/2

mile

1/2 mileup to 1

mile

1 mile upto 2 miles

Morethan 2miles

Yes 34 100% 79% 63% 78% 60%

No 12 0% 21% 38% 22% 40%


Page 8 of 14

Issues reported to affect the decision to not allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by

parents of children who do not walk or bike to/from school

Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by

parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school

Page 9 of 14

Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by

parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school

Issue Child does not walk/bike toschool

Child walks/bikes toschool

Safety of Intersections and Crossings 73% 55%

Amount of Traffic Along Route 64% 45%

Speed of Traffic Along Route 64% 55%

Distance 55% 73%

Time 41% 55%

Weather or climate 41% 55%

Adults to Bike/Walk With 36% 36%

Sidewalks or Pathways 32% 73%

Crossing Guards 23% 0%

Convenience of Driving 23% 0%

Child's Participation in After SchoolPrograms

14% 9%

Violence or Crime 9% 45%

Number of Respondents per Category 22 11

No response: 18Note:--Factors are listed from most to least influential for the 'Child does not walk/bike to school' group.--Each column may sum to > 100% because respondent could select more than issue--The calculation used to determine the percentage for each issue is based on the 'Number of Respondents per Category'within the respective columns (Child does not walk/bike to school and Child walks/bikes to school.) If comparing percentagesbetween the two columns, please pay particular attention to each column's number of respondents because the two numberscan differ dramatically.

Page 10 of 14

Parents' opinions about how much their child's school encourages or discourages walking

and biking to/from school

Parents' opinions about how much fun walking and biking to/from school is for their child

Page 11 of 14

Parents' opinions about how healthy walking and biking to/from school is for their child

Page 12 of 14

Comments Section

SurveyID Comment

1541105 We live close by, but there is a lot of traffic along our street...the closer to school start time, the fasterand more erratic/unsafe parents are driving their kids to school. =

1540888 If we were in the neighborhood, and I owned a bike, I'd be open to biking to school with my daughter.

1540901 Please put a crossing guard at 75th and North entrance of heather (the crosswalk). This would ensuremore children to bike or walk to school from the neighborhood west of 75th, which is extremely busy.

1540930 It has more to do with having a younger sibling that can't keep up. Also, it's uphill to school.

1541120 My daughter hasn't participated yet but we hope to next year! Love the program!

1541130 Crossing N. 75th onto Heatherwood Drive is sketchy -- there's a crosswalk from the bike path on N. 75th,but that dumps you into oncoming traffic west on Heatherwood. It's doable, but not easy, and notsomething I'd be comfortable sending a young kid to do. A light or a crossing guard would be good.

1541508 There is heavy traffic and the school crossing lights are often ignored on 75th. Also, there is a largesection of the sidewalk to school that does not get plowed during winter storms forcing us to walk onthe street in that section which is not safe as it is at the intersection of Heatherwood and 75th at the

north entrance on the east side of the safety crossing.

1540855 support health/fitness and the environment with continuing bike/walk to school programs!

1540897 Really appreciate that the school provides bicycle safety education to all students!

1540957 We'd have to ride along a main road to get to school. It's not safe for my children.

1540961 Crossing 75th independently is VERY dangerous. Although there are reduced speeds and caution lights-cars speed and the kids don't always look- rather follow the person in front of the pack. I would let themride if there was a crossing guard or signal light at 75th and Heatherwood Drive. Middle School is too far

and unsafe to bike.

1541132 My 3 children (kindergarten, 2nd & 4th) bike to/from school all year. Besides the occasional snow, ofcourse. Love neighborhood schools!!

1541469 My child's school goes all out for the special events around walking and biking but nothing is said aboutwalking and biking at other times of the school year.

1542235 Typically my student enjoys riding the bus so that is his default choice for getting to school. We do enjoywalking or biking on occasion. We rarely drive, except for the days we are running late. I would not let

my children walk/ride to school without an adult due to lack of sidewalks in my neighborhood andhaving to cross busy 75th.

1542356 We drop our kids off at school on our way to work, and this just makes it quick and easy for everyone.Otherwise, they walk or scooter to school by themselves, which we have no problem with either. They

sometimes walk/scooter home from school but sometimes we pick them up in the car on our way homefrom work. The timing for us just works that way.

Page 13 of 14

1540902 We would absolutely allow walking/biking if we were sure crossing 75th at Jay was safe as well ascrossing Heatherwood Dr (south) on 75th. Also, a sidewalk on the south side of HW drive would be

great so that kids would not have to cross three streets on the way from 75th to the school. Drivers onAshfield, especially, do not tend to look for pedestrian traffic going east and I, myself, have almost been

hit there several times. While we do appreciate the idea behind Walk and Roll week and Walk/Bike toSchool Day, it is a hardship on our family in that we have a middle school student who is home alone onthose days as I have to go with our younger students to HW. Less pressure would be nice, or emphasis

on just one day instead of a whole school week.

1541715 Question on kids walking to school are confusing if you mean with or without an adult. I don't think it islegal for me to let my 2nd grader walk home by herself no matter the circumstances...

1540925 As a household we made a choice that the children would ride to school with a few exceptions. We areless than a mile from the elementary and less than 10 miles to the middle school. There is no problem

for the elementary kids to ride to school. We rode with them for all of Kindergarten and the older stayedwith the younger after that to help if any issue came up. The middle school kid has a few sections she

has to ride on the road for so she only goes with an adult. Also she never rides home, althoughsometimes rides to after school activities. Riding home requires some potentially dangerous streetcrossings that I am not comfortable letting her make the left hand turn from Valmont onto 63rd or

riding down Jay Rd making a left hand turn onto Spine. Most everything else can be on bike trail. TheMiddle school trek is also only done in decent weather. She rode for most late start days. The couple of

road sections, the weather and the massive backpack do make riding more of a challenge.

1540866 We just live too far away along some pretty busy roads to allow our son to ride by himself. And we don'thave time to ride with him.

Page 14 of 14

Student Travel Tally Report: One School in One Data Collection Period

School Name: Heatherwood Elementary School Set ID: 23098

School Group: BLAST-Bikeology Bicycling Education Program Month and Year Collected: May 2017

School Enrollment: 382 Date Report Generated: 10/16/2017

% of Students reached by SRTS activities: 0-25% Tags: BLAST,BVSD BLAST

Number of ClassroomsIncluded in Report: 7

This report contains information from your school's classrooms about students' trip to and from school. The data used in this

report were collected using the in-class Student Travel Tally questionnaire from the National Center for Safe Routes to School.

Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison

Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison

Numberof Trips Walk Bike School

BusFamilyVehicle Carpool Transit Other

Morning 539 19% 36% 32% 10% 0% 0% 3%

Afternoon 547 16% 35% 32% 13% 0% 0% 3%

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Page 1 of 3

Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison by Day

Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison by Day

Number ofTrips Walk Bike School Bus Family

Vehicle Carpool Transit Other

Tuesday AM 175 19% 31% 37% 9% 0% 0% 3%

Tuesday PM 178 16% 30% 37% 13% 0% 0% 3%

Wednesday AM 186 20% 41% 25% 11% 0% 0% 3%

Wednesday PM 186 16% 41% 26% 15% 0% 0% 3%

Thursday AM 178 18% 35% 34% 9% 0% 0% 4%

Thursday PM 183 17% 34% 34% 11% 0% 0% 4%


Page 2 of 3

Travel Mode by Weather Conditions

Travel Mode by Weather Condition

WeatherCondition

Numberof Trips Walk Bike School

BusFamilyVehicle Carpool Transit Other

Sunny 353 19% 33% 36% 9% 0% 0% 4%

Rainy 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Overcast 733 17% 37% 31% 12% 0% 0% 3%

Snow 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%


Page 3 of 3



Attachment B- Complete Streets Policy

In 2012, Boulder County adopted the MultiModal Transportation Standards, our design

guidelines for infrastructure built in unincorporated Boulder County. While we do not use the

term “complete streets,” all of the principles of complete streets are included in this document.

The document in its entirety can be found here:

https://assets.bouldercounty.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/multi-modal-standards.pdf

Excerpt from page 1:

1.0 Introduction

These Multimodal Transportation Standards plan for and implement the goals of the Boulder

County Comprehensive Plan, referred to herein as the Comprehensive Plan, which supports the

provision of high quality transportation facilities and services across all modes to meet the

mobility and access needs of all users.

The Standards provide direction to effectively and sustainably manage the existing and future

transportation infrastructure, both public and private, within unincorporated Boulder County.

Excerpt from page 31:

5.0 Introduction - Application of Design Standards - The planning, design, and construction of

all Multimodal Transportation facilities shall follow the Overall Design Principles while meeting

the design standards contained in this article. The design of private development shall

incorporate these principles and standards.

5.1 Overall Design Principles - General - The design principles described below and the design

standards following are intended to ensure a consistent baseline level of safety, functionality, and

environmental sensitivity throughout all transportation facilities in Boulder County.

5.1.1 Safety Transportation facilities shall be designed and constructed in a manner that ensures

adequate safety for multiple user types. Adequate emergency vehicle access shall be ensured

through consultation with the appropriate Fire Protection District.

5.1.2 Multimodal Mobility Transportation facilities shall be designed and constructed so as to

maximize the mobility of people, goods, and services by multiple transportation modes,

including motorized vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit.

https://assets.bouldercounty.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/multi-modal-standards.pdf

Boulder County Multimodal Transportation Standards

July 1, 2012

iJuly 1, 2012

ARTICLE 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �11.0 Introduction � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 11�1 Title � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 11�2 Purpose � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 11�3 Applicability � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 11�4 Authority � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 21�5 Documents Incorporated by Reference � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 21�6 Amendments � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 21�7 Severability � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 2

ARTICLE 2 - ADMINISTRATION � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �32.0 Introduction � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 3

2�1 The County Engineer � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 32.1.1 Role of the County Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32.1.2 Review of the County Engineer Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

2.2 Transportation System � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 32.2.1 The State Highway System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42.2.2 The County Road System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42.2.2.1 County Road System Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42.2.2.2 The County Road Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42.2.2.3 Acceptance of Public Roads or other Transportation Facilities for Routine Maintenance . . .42.2.2.4 Maintenance and Rehabilitation Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52.2.3 Other Public Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52.2.4 Municipal Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62.2.5 Private Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

2.3 Road System Regulations� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 62.3.1 Legislative Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62.3.2 Traffic Control Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62.3.3 Issuance of Permits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62.3.3.1 Utility Construction Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72.3.3.2 Access Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72.3.3.3 Construction Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72.3.3.4 Oversize/Overweight Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72.3.3.5 Special Event Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

2�4 Enforcement � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 8

2�5 Right-of-Way Management � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 82.5.1 Right-of-Way Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82.5.2 Right-of-Way Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82.5.2.1 Right-of-Way Dedication/Acceptance of Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82.5.2.2 Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

BOULDER COUNTY MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS - TABLE OF CONTENTS

iv July 1, 2012

ARTICLE 5 – DESIGN STANDARDS � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �31

5.0 Introduction - Application of Design Standards� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 31

5�1 Overall Design Principles - General � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 315.1.1 Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315.1.2 Multimodal Mobility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315.1.3 Natural Environment and Surrounding Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315.1.4 Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315.1.5 Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315.1.6 Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315.1.7 Other Considerations and Public Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5�2 Design Elements � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 325.2.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 5.2.1 Terrain Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325.2.2 Road Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325.2.3 Design Speed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325.2.3.1 Roadway Design Speed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

5.3 Facility Design � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 335.3.1 Cross Section Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335.3.1.1 Right-of-Way Width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345.3.1.2 Roadway Width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345.3.1.3 Vehicular Travel Lane Width. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345.3.1.4 Shoulder Width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345.3.1.5 On-Street Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345.3.1.6 Curbs and Gutters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345.3.1.7 Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355.3.2 Typical Cross Section Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355.3.2.1 Crown Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355.3.2.2 Cut and Fill Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355.3.2.3 Horizontal and Vertical Clearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365.3.3 Geometric Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365.3.3.1 Horizontal Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365.3.3.2 Vertical Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385.3.4 Non-Connective Road Alignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395.3.4.1 Connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395.3.4.2 Cul-de-Sacs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395.3.4.3 Stub Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395.3.5 Intersections at Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405.3.5.1 Horizontal and Vertical Curves at Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405.3.5.2 Intersection or Access Approach Width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405.3.5.3 Intersection or Access Approach Radii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405.3.5.4 Channelization Principles and Additional Lanes on Intersection Approaches . . . . . . . . . . 40

BOULDER COUNTY MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS - TABLE OF CONTENTS

1July 1, 2012

Article 1 - General Provisions

1.0 Introduction

These Multimodal Transportation Standards plan for and implement the goals of the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan, referred to herein as the Comprehensive Plan, which supports the provision of high quality transportation facilities and services across all modes to meet the mobility and access needs of all users. The Standards provide direction to effectively and sustainably manage the existing and future transportation infrastructure, both public and private, within unincorporated Boulder County.

1�1 Title

These Standards, together with all future amendments, shall be known as the Boulder County Multimodal Transportation Standards, and will be referred to herein as the Standards. Boulder County, Colorado, will be referred to herein as the County.

1�2 Purpose

The purpose of these Standards is twofold. First, the Standards govern the planning, design, and construction of transportation facilities within unincorporated Boulder County, whether the County, other governmental agencies, or private parties developing land carry out these activities. Second, the Standards provide for the administration of the County transportation system consistent with State law and applicable County resolutions or ordinances, including road system regulation, right-of-way management, and regulation of access to local highway and transportation systems.

1�3 Applicability

These Standards apply to (1) facilities planned, designed, and constructed by the County; (2) facilities planned, designed, and constructed by private parties that provide access from public right-of-way to property proposed for private development; and (3) all other facilities required through the development review process outlined in the Boulder County Land Use Code, referenced herein as the Land Use Code, and these Standards. It is unlawful to undertake any transportation project in unincorporated Boulder County that does not comply with these Standards, unless these Standards are not applicable as specified herein.

These Standards are legally adopted in their entirety into the Land Use Code, which regulates parcel and project-specific decisions. All new transportation facilities and improvements to existing transportation facilities must be consistent with these Standards and applicable provisions of the Land Use Code, with two exceptions. First, if the law of another jurisdiction preempts these Standards, then the County will work in good faith with that entity to ensure compliance to the extent necessary with these Standards through Memorandums of Understanding, Intergovernmental Agreements, or other methods. Second, County projects approved as part of a previous public process such as the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) must be consistent with these Standards, but are not subject to further review under the Land Use Code, with the exception of those projects subject to regulations concerning areas and activities of state interest.

31July 1, 2012

Article 5 - Design Standards

5.0 Introduction - Application of Design Standards

The planning, design, and construction of all Multimodal Transportation facilities shall follow the Overall Design Principles while meeting the design standards contained in this article. The design of private development shall incorporate these principles and standards.

5�1 Overall Design Principles - General

The design principles described below and the design standards following are intended to ensure a consistent baseline level of safety, functionality, and environmental sensitivity throughout all transportation facilities in Boulder County.

5�1�1 SafetyTransportation facilities shall be designed and constructed in a manner that ensures adequate safety for multiple user types. Adequate emergency vehicle access shall be ensured through consultation with the appropriate Fire Protection District.

5�1�2 Multimodal MobilityTransportation facilities shall be designed and constructed so as to maximize the mobility of people, goods, and services by multiple transportation modes, including motorized vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit.

5�1�3 Natural Environment and Surrounding Community Transportation facilities shall be designed and constructed to minimize impacts to the natural environment and surrounding community. These include impacts to trees and vegetation; air, noise, and water pollution; green house gas emissions (GHG), visual and aesthetic impacts; plant and animal species impacts; riparian area and wetlands impacts; wildlife corridor and habitat fragmentation; impacts to community character; and impacts to historic and cultural resources.

5�1�4 MaintenanceTransportation facilities shall be designed to allow for maintenance operations by Boulder County or other entities responsible for maintenance activities.

5�1�5 SustainabilityTransportation facilities shall be designed and constructed to minimize the quantity of materials needed, utilize recycled materials, use local materials, reduce water use, and minimize energy consumption (initial and ongoing).

5�1�6 CostPublic transportation facilities shall be designed to be cost-efficient and cost-effective for construction and maintenance.

5�1�7 Other Considerations and Public AgenciesTransportation facilities shall meet all applicable local, state, regional, and federal design requirements. Whenever a provision of these Standards and a provision of any other law, ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation of any kind, including another provision of these Standards, contain any restrictions covering the same subject matter, the more restrictive shall govern.

July 1, 2012



Attachment C- School Demographics

School

Name

Address

# Students Grad

es

Demo-

graphics*

#

Wal

k

#

Bik

e

# within

1-mile

Busing

Distance

#

Benefit**

*

% F/R

Lunch***

*

Heatherwoo

d

Elementary

7750

Concord

Drive,

Boulder,

CO

80301

347 (as

of

10/02/17)

K-5 AS4%

B1%

C81%

L8%

MR6%

73 13

8

209

student

s

1.5

miles*

*

165

students

10%

*A-American Indian, AS-Asian, B-Black, C-Caucasian, L-Latino, MR – Multi Racial, O-Other,

or specify with note

**BVSD has designated N 75th

St. a “hazard road,” so students who live within 1.5 miles of

school but would need to cross this road are still eligible for school bus service.

***Students who live in southwest Gunbarrel (west of N 75th

St.) will benefit from the new

infrastructure. Students in 4th

and 5th

grade will benefit from the Bike Ed education component.

****Free and Reduced Lunch:

Free = 28 7.82%

Red. = 9 2.51%

Total F&R = 37 10.34% of students



Attachment D- School District Wellness Policy

Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) works to “ensure that students in grades K-12 will

receive … activity-focused physical education that engages all youth, regardless of skill level,

and that teaches the knowledge, attitudes, skills and behaviors students need to adopt to enjoy a

physically active lifestyle.”

Additionally, BVSD “encourage[s] schools to work with the community to create ways for

students to walk, bike, rollerblade or skateboard safely to and from school” and “create an

environment that is safe and supportive of students' physically active commute.”

These statements are included in the following BVSD School Wellness Policy in the Physical

Education and Parent/ Community Involvement sections on pages 5 and 7, respectively.

Boulder Valley School District File: ADF-R Adopted: May 23, 2006 Revised: December 5, 2012, November 16, 2015, August 10, 2016

WELLNESS POLICY: NUTRITION AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

The following recommendations support the goals in Board Policy ADF - Wellness Policy:

Statement of Principles

BVSD recognizes that there is a link between nutrition education, the food

served in schools, and academic achievement.

The Board recognizes the important connection between a healthy diet and a

student’s ability to learn effectively and achieve high standards in school.

The Board also recognizes that it is BVSD’s role, as part of the larger community,

to model and actively practice through policy and procedures the promotion of

family health and good nutrition.

The Board recognizes the critical role of family and school staff in nurturing a

healthy self-esteem and acceptance by others.

BVSD further recognizes that the sharing and enjoyment of food is a fundamental

experience for all people and a primary way to nurture and celebrate our cultural

diversity. These fundamental human experiences are vital bridges for building

friendships, forming inter-generational bonds, strengthening core values, and

promoting the general wellness of our community.

Nutrition Education:

1. All reimbursable meals and snacks will meet or exceed USDA nutrition

regulations. Further, all menus will promote fresh fruits, fresh vegetables and

whole grains, and will reduce and/or eliminate refined sugar, refined flour,

Pages 2-4 of the wellness policy were removed to save file space.

bgraham

Typewritten Text

bgraham

Typewritten Text

bgraham

Typewritten Text

bgraham

Typewritten Text

bgraham

Typewritten Text

bgraham

Typewritten Text

bgraham

Typewritten Text

1

account new research and evidence on health trends, new national and state standards and

guidelines, new state and federal initiatives, local evaluation data, changing district

priorities, and other issues.

Physical Education:

1. Ensure that students in grades K-12 will receive research-based, developmentally

appropriate, activity-focused physical education that engages all youth, regardless of

skill level, and that teaches the knowledge, attitudes, skills and behaviors students

need to adopt to enjoy a physically active lifestyle.

2. Ensure that all physical education and health education teachers meet the

criteria for “highly qualified” as specified in Colorado statute.

3. Ensure that schools provide adequate space, facilities, equipment, supplies, and

operational budgets to achieve the objectives of the physical education program.

4. Ensure that physical education and health classes have a student/teacher ratio

comparable to other classes whenever possible.

5. Ensure that the district provides appropriate physical activity opportunities to students

who have special needs. To the extent it is feasible such students will take part in

regular physical education classes. Occupational therapists, physical therapists, and

paraprofessionals will provide additional support services for students with special

needs.

6. Ensure that students are not restricted from participating in physical education

or recess for the following reasons: as a form of discipline, for incomplete

assignments, to attend other classes, or for testing purposes.

7. Ensure that all students in grades K-12, including students with disabilities, receive at

least the minimum number of allocated instructional minutes in physical education

and health education in accordance with BVSD Board policy.

bgraham

Typewritten Text

5

Physical Activity:

1. Ensure that the school district provides an environment that encourages safe and

enjoyable activity for all students, including those who are not athletically inclined.

2. Ensure that all elementary students receive daily recess. A minimum of 20 minutes of

recess shall be provided in the morning or afternoon, and a minimum of 20 minutes

of recess shall be provided prior to lunchtime whenever possible. Recess for middle

school students shall be highly encouraged.

3. Encourage teachers to plan physical activity breaks into their daily instruction

and integrate physical activity into the academic curriculum where appropriate.

4. Ensure that teachers and other school personnel not use physical activity (e.g.,

running laps, pushups) or withhold opportunities for physical activity (e.g., recess,

physical education) as a form of individual or group discipline.

5. Ensure that physical activity programs are carried out in environments that

reflect respect for body-size differences and varying skill levels.

6. Discourage extended periods of physical inactivity (periods of two or more

hours).

7. Ensure that the school district provides adequate physical activity equipment for

students to use during recess (jump ropes, hula hoops, balls, etc.). Physical activity opportunities will focus on individual activities in addition to competitive and non-competitive team sports.

Professional Development:

1. Ensure that the school district provides ongoing professional training and

development for physical education specialists and other staff (where

appropriate) in the area of physical activity.

2. Ensure that schools provide training to enable teachers, and other school staff to

promote enjoyable, lifelong physical activity among students.

bgraham

Typewritten Text

6

Co-Curricular Activities:

1. Ensure that students are given opportunities for physical activity through a range of

before- and/or after-school programs including, but not limited to, intramurals,

interscholastic athletics, and physical activity clubs.

2. Ensure that elementary, middle, and high schools offer intramural physical activity

programs that feature a broad range of competitive and cooperative opportunities

that allow students to have a choice of activities in which they can participate. Schools

shall allow every student an opportunity to participate, regardless of physical ability

or ability to pay, and allow students to have the opportunity to be involved in the

planning, organization, and administration of the program.

Parent/Community Involvement:

1. Encourage schools to work with the community to create ways for students to walk,

bike, rollerblade or skateboard safely to and from school.

2. Ensure that schools work with the community to create an environment that is

safe and supportive of students' physically active commute to and from school.

3. Encourage parents and guardians to support their children's participation in

physical activity, to be physically active role models, and to include physical

activity in family events. Parents and guardians shall also be encouraged to

model sun-safe behaviors.

4. Ensure that the school district will work with the community to coordinate and

enhance opportunities available to students for physical activity after school.

5. Encourage families and community members to support programs outside of the

school that encourage physical activity.

6. Information shall be provided to families to help them incorporate physical

activity into students’ lives.

7. Encourage parents, teachers, school personnel, and students to serve as role

models in practicing healthy eating and being physically active.

End of File: ADF-R

bgraham

Typewritten Text

7

bgraham

Typewritten Text



Attachment E- Enrollment Map Elementary Students are eligible for bus service if they live farther than 1.5 miles along the

shortest safe walking/biking route.

However, since BVSD has deemed N 75th

St. a “hazard road,” per their “Bus Service in

Hazardous Walking Areas,” (included as Attachment M) bus service is provided to all students

who live west of N 75th

St., including those that live within 1.5 miles walking/biking distance of

the school.



Attachment F- Photos of Existing Conditions

Existing N 75

th St. crosswalk at south Heatherwood Dr.: Pedestrians and cyclists have to

cross three lanes of traffic. Median refuge island and RRFBs will be installed here.

Proposed N 75

th St. crosswalk at south Heatherwood Dr.: A pedestrian median refuge island

will be constructed so pedestrians and cyclists can cross one direction of traffic at a time (above

photo shows improvements from 2009 SRTS Infrastructure project at north Heatherwood Dr.).



Pedestrian-activated Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFBs), shown in this example

photo from the City of Boulder, will be installed for the N 75th

St. crosswalk.

Sample RRFB when pedestrian has pushed the button: warning lights flash to signal drivers to

yield.



Existing south Heatherwood Dr. crosswalk at N 75

th St: Non-ADA compliant curb ramps.

Wide curb radii allow vehicles to turn at high speed.

Proposed south Heatherwood Dr. crosswalk at N 75

th St: ADA compliant curb ramps and

tighter curb radii to prevent vehicles from “cutting the corner” at high speeds (above photo

shows improvements from 2009 SRTS Infrastructure project at north Heatherwood Dr.).



Existing view from southbound motorists’ perspective on Ashfield Dr approaching

Heatherwood Dr.: pedestrians/bicyclists approaching from the right are hidden from view.

Existing view from eastbound pedestrians/bicyclists’ perspective on Heatherwood sidewalk have this approaching Ashfield Dr.: cars are hidden from view until pedestrians/cyclists enter the

intersection. Non-ADA compliant curb ramp near-side, no curb ramp far side, 62 ft crossing

distance.

Project would construct ADA compliant curb ramps, reduce curb radii to improve visibility

around the corner and shorten crossing distance to 45ft.



Existing narrow 4ft sidewalk upheaval by tree. Sidewalk would be replaced with 6ft

sidewalk, which will allow this facility to be plowed in winter.



Attachment G: Drawings

Neighborhood Context Map:



Zoomed in project area map:

The project drawings have been removed to save file space.



Attachment H

Please find attached a letter of support from DRCOG, Boulder County’s MPO.

October 23, 2017

Mr. Shailen Bhatt Executive Director Colorado Department of Transportation 4201 E. Arkansas Ave. Denver, CO 80222

Dear Mr. Bhatt:

On behalf of the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), I am pleased to offer this letter of support for the Safe Routes to School grant application for South Heatherwood Intersection and Sidewalk Improvements Project. This application is being submitted by Boulder County and proposes to transform two intersections by shortening crossing distances, providing a pedestrian refuge island, Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons, bulb-outs, five new ADA compliant curb ramps and 639 feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk to facilitate safe pedestrian and bicycle access to Heatherwood Elementary School.

As the regional planning commission per Colorado state statute, DRCOG prepares the plan for the physical development of the region. For nearly two decades this plan has been known as Metro Vision. The proposed project supports the following desired outcomes of the Metro Vision plan adopted by the DRCOG Board of Directors in January 2017: a transportation system that is safe, reliable and well-maintained; a regional transportation system that is well-connected and serves all modes of travel; and investments in infrastructure and amenities that allow people and businesses to thrive and prosper.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 303-480-6721.

Sincerely,

Douglas W. Rex Executive Director



Attachment I

Please find attached Kristine Obendorf’s letter as the Project Manager.

October 20, 2017

Transportation Department 2525 13th Street, Suite 203 • Boulder, Colorado 80304 • Tel: 303.441.3900 • Fax: 303.441.4594

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 471 • Boulder, Colorado 80306 • www.bouldercounty.org

Cindy Domenico County Commissioner Deb Gardner County Commissioner Will Toor County Commissioner

Leslie Feuerborn Safe Routes to School Program Manager Colorado Department of Transportation 4201 East Arkansas Avenue, Shumate Bldg. Denver, CO 80222

RE: South Heatherwood Intersection and Sidewalk Improvements

Ms. Feuerborn,

Boulder County is pleased to be partnering with Boulder Valley School District in applying for Safe Routes to School funding to improve walking and bicycling infrastructure at Heatherwood Elementary School. In accordance with the Safe Routes to School application Section 2.j), this letter is to confirm that I will be the project manager for the duration of the project. As project manager my roles will include:

Conducting adjacent property owner and community meetings

Development of the construction designs

Demonstration of acceptance to CDOTs Categorical Exclusions

Selection of construction contractor and construction management firm

Coordinating the education and encouragement components

Completing all invoicing and financial requirements.

I bring eight years of experience managing a variety of large capital projects for Boulder County, including past SRTS and CDOT grant projects, including our recently completed Platt Middle School sidewalk project. This is in addition to seven years of experience working on CDOT funded projects while working in the private sector. I have experience from planning, design, and into construction; my involvement with all the phases of projects rounds out experience necessary to manage a solid and successful project.

I, along with the entire Boulder County Transportation staff, am excited about this opportunity to improve walking and biking to Heatherwood Elementary School.

Sincerely,

Kristine Obendorf, P.E. Project Engineer Boulder County Transportation [email protected] (303) 682-6774

mailto:[email protected]



Attachment J

Letters of support are included from the following partners:

Genna Jaramillo, Heatherwood Elementary Principal

Beth Cendali, Heatherwood Elementary Physical Education Specialist

Landon Hilliard, BVSD TO School Program Coordinator

Amy Thompson, Heatherwood Elementary Parent Teacher Association

Heatherwood Elementary 7750 Concord Drive Boulder, CO 80301

720-561-6900

Genna Jaramillo Principal

October 19, 2017

To whom it may concern,

This letter is to express our support for the Boulder County South Heatherwood Intersection and Sidewalk Improvements

SRTS grant application.

Heatherwood has a long history of supporting walking and biking to school in partnership with the SRTS program, Boulder

Valley School District (BVSD), and Boulder County, but in order to increase the number of students who walk and bike to

school further, we need your support to address the challenging pedestrian crossing at south Heatherwood Dr and N 75th

St.

The SRTS infrastructure project that Boulder County completed several years ago resulted in numerous improvements

within the Heatherwood neighborhood and at the north Heatherwood Dr and N 75th St intersection, and now many of our

students who live within .5 miles of school walk and bike. In fact, our commitment to walking and bicycling stretches back

before my time as principal when Heatherwood received the national James L. Oberstar SRTS Award in 2011 for increasing

the number of students walking and biking to school from 12 to 43%. Over the years Heatherwood Elementary, in

partnership with the PTO have championed International Walk to School Day and BVSD’s Bike Week, and we have

rewarded participating students at our school-wide assemblies. We have even had the school buses drop bus riders off a

little ways away from school so these students could walk the last distance and participate in walk to school day. This

spring, we wrapped up another SRTS project that brought the BLAST cycling education course to 4th/5th grade PE classes

for the past two school years and students earned first place honors for their outstanding participation in BVSD’s Bike

Week. This school year, we are also participating in BVSD’s Trip Tracker program, which incentivizes students to walk and

bike to school through monthly rewards.

If this project is awarded funding, Heatherwood Elementary School will support educational and encouragement activities

by coordinating with BVSD to continue Bike Ed at our school during P.E. time. After the project is completed, our teachers

will conduct a SRTS Student Tally and we will work with the district to host several community events, which may include

a bike rodeo and a family/weekend ride for students to practice using the new crossings.

Walking and biking to school is an important tradition at Heatherwood Elementary, and we strongly support this

intersection project which will help more children walk and bike to school safely. If you have any questions or would like

to discuss Heatherwood’s involvement in this project any further, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Genna Jaramillo, Principal

Amy R. Thompson 4660 Kirkwood St. Boulder, CO 80301

October 29, 2017

To whom it may concern,

I am a parent and PTO member at Heatherwood Elementary School, in Boulder, Colorado and I strongly support the most recent Safe Routes to School grant application for our school.

Heatherwood underwent a dramatic transformation several years ago, when a SRTS grant funded a number of safety improvements near the school and on the rural highway, 75th Street, which bisects our attendance area. As a result, the number of children walking and biking to school skyrocketed to 43%, up from a mere 12%, before SRTS programming was introduced to our school. Over the past few years, Heatherwood has received many awards and honors for its efforts to promote active transportation to school including winning first place in the national Clorox Walk to School Challenge and receiving the James L. Oberstar award in 2011.

The parents and staff at Heatherwood have been instrumental in continuing the culture of walking and biking to school. The PTO has hosted bike rodeos, and sponsored both International Walk to School Day in the fall and Bike to School Day in the spring, which Heatherwood had the most participation in of any Boulder Valley School District school this past spring. The PTO and staff also work together to organize Walk and Roll Week every year. This year, we are also adding Winter Bike to School Day in January to coincide with the Boulder Winter Bike to Work Day. Our P.E. teacher also brought the BLAST bicycle education program to her 4th and 5th grade physical education classes, which prepares students for longer rides to our local middle school, Platt Middle School, which is also an active SRTS participant. Our school participates in the Trip Tracker program, run by the BVSD Transportation Department, which rewards students and staff members who walk or bike to school. If this SRTS project is selected for funding, the Heatherwood PTO will continue to support these encouragement activities. We would also like to plan a community ride to highlight newly added safety features in the neighborhood. As with the past grant, the PTO would be happy to work with staff and family to collect any necessary surveys or tallies needed to gauge levels of participation.

While the previous SRTS grant had a huge effect on both the habits and culture in our community around walking and biking to school, there are still safety issues to be addressed. The Heatherwood subdivision has two entrances off the rural highway, 75th St, which runs north/south through our community. The northern entrance was vastly improved with a new crosswalk across 75th St including an island in between the two directions of traffic. The southern entrance to the subdivision has no median or island in the center of the crosswalk, making it far more difficult to cross. Additionally, the streets within the subdivision are unusually wide and the subdivision is situated on a hill. These two factors combined often result in cars

exceeding the speed limit on our residential streets. Also, the subdivision was developed in the 1970’s and many of our sidewalks have no ramps at intersections. Making street crossings safer for kids and the community at large would be a great way to ensure the continuation and growth of walking and biking in the Heatherwood neighborhood.

The Heatherwood community has a proven history of embracing biking and walking to school, our parents welcome this project to make intersections in our neighborhood safer.

Sincerely,

Amy Thompson Heatherwood Parent



Attachment K- Budget Proposal

Organization Name: Boulder County Transportation Department

Project Title: South Heatherwood Intersection & Sidewalk Improvements

Item Quantity Unit

Unit

Price Total

Project Design

Engineering Design 1 LS $28,200 $ 28,200

Project Construction

Remove Concrete 1 LS $31,300 $ 31,300

Erosion Control 1 LS $18,700 $ 18,700

Retaining Wall 1 LS $21,100 $ 21,100

Drainage 1 LS $51,600 $ 51,600

Surfacing

HMA 1 LS $23,900 $ 23,900

Concrete Sidewalk 1 LS $55,600 $ 55,600

Concrete Curb and Gutter 1 LS $17,300 $ 17,300

Misc. - Mobilization, Survey, 1 LS $93,200 $ 93,200

Signing and Striping, Traffic Control 1 LS $59,300 $ 59,300

Force Account - Minor Contract Revisions 1 LS $33,800 $ 33,800

Required Outreach and Education

BVSD education program 1 LS $3,500 $ 3,500

Total SRTS Project Cost (but no greater than $437,500) $ 437,500

Requested SRTS (80% of Total Project Cost but no greater than $350,000) $ 350,000

Cash Match (20% of Total Project Cost) $ 87,500

Overmatch (Amount over 80% CRTS + 20% match) $ 123,400



Attachment K continued- Budget Narrative

Project Design

Based on Boulder County’s construction experience with projects similar to this

project, design fees have typically been 10% of the construction cost.

Construction

Construction quantities are based on 60% design plans developed by county project

engineer. Costs were determined by using 2016 CDOT Cost Data book, as well as

Boulder County Cost Data. Construction items not listed in Cost Data were based on

project experience. Costs were also adjusted for inflation (2 years at 3%).

Education

Boulder Valley School District supplied costs estimates for the education component

based on the cost of recent similar programs.

Match

Boulder County has identified funding from our Road & Bridge fund as the local

match for this project.



Attachment L



Attachment M: BVSD Bus Service Hazardous Rating Policy

Please find attached BVSD’s Bus Service Hazardous rating Policy. According to the Hazardous

Point Values outlined on pages 5-7 of this document, walking or biking from the west side of N

75th

St. scores at least 12 points, meaning that school bus service is provided to students

including those who live less than 1.5 miles away from school.

bgraham

Typewritten Text