Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStudy Session Agenda Packet 05-01-17 STUDY SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge CO May 1, 2017 6:30 p.m. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Sara Spaulding, Public Information Officer 303-235-2877 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. Citizen Comment on Agenda Items 1. Staff Report(s) a) Sign Code Update – Reed v. Gilbert b) JEFFCO Bicycle Wayfinding Project 2. Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan Update 3. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan Update 4. Elected Officials’ Report(s) ADJOURNMENT Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Gerald Dahl, City Attorney Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager DATE: April 19, 2017 (for May 1 City Council study session) SUBJECT: Sign code regulations ISSUE: In June of 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona. This decision, which held the Town of Gilbert's sign code unconstitutional, has a significant impact on all local government sign codes throughout the nation. The purpose of this memorandum is to describe the impact of the Reed case and request Council direction to bring forward amendments to the City's sign code to comply with that decision as well as to consider other minor amendments to the City sign code that Council may deem necessary in an effort to modernize said regulations. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona Sign Code Modifications The sign code regulations of the Town of Gilbert, Arizona, at issue in the Reed case, relied upon a number of techniques, which have commonly been used by local governments throughout the nation, including the City of Wheat Ridge. The specific regulation challenged and held unconstitutional in Reed was a prohibition on signs advertising temporary events (in that case, church services for a church which had no permanent location and thus advertised a different location for its services each week). Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas held that the Gilbert sign code regulated signs on the basis of their content, and was thus a prohibited government regulation of free expression and thus unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. At the heart of Justice Thomas' opinion is the principle that if the regulating authority (typically, a city or county) must refer to the content of the sign, or read the sign, in order to know how it is regulated, then this is a regulation of speech prohibited by the First Amendment, unless the local government could assert a “compelling governmental interest” and there is no other way to achieve the same result. This test is very difficult to achieve and quite likely impossible in the context of sign code regulations. So, under Reed, if the City needs to read a sign to determine what the applicable regulation is, that regulation is unconstitutional. Study Session Memo – Sign Code Regulations May 1, 2017 Page 2 2 Since the Reed decision, cities and counties across the country have been revising their sign codes to remove any content-related restrictions, and to restructure those codes so that the same goals (preventing visual clutter, ensuring traffic safety, restricting the proliferation of signs, etc.) continue to be addressed. Significantly, Reed does not disturb local regulations governing or prohibiting such things as lighting, location, signs with moving parts, size, and other non-content-related sign regulations. Not surprisingly, sign regulations that are on their face regulations of content, such as regulating “political signs," differently than other signs, are clearly prohibited under Reed. In practice, it is not that difficult to revise a sign code to comply with Reed - there are a number of ways to achieve the same goals without having to refer to the content and meaning of the signs themselves. In some cases, the content-related language is simply unnecessary. One key approach is to shift from describing signs (and their associated regulations) from what the sign says to the physical type of sign (monument sign, roof sign, projecting sign, pole sign, etc.) This is a very successful technique. I should also mention that the City can continue to regulate the type and manner of signs located on its own property, such as the recreation center and park properties. In this context, the City is acting more as an owner of property rather than as a regulator of private conduct. Miscellaneous Sign Code Modifications The City has not comprehensively updated the sign code for many years and Staff is not proposing such a review and amendment as part of this Reed update. That said, there are a handful of minor amendments that staff would suggest City Council consider. • Illumination of LED signs. LED signs have become increasingly common and are typically used for changeable copy signs in various zoning districts and locations throughout the City. Please note that billboard signs are not allowed to have changeable copy, so LED signs are not typically seen on billboards in Wheat Ridge. The City does not currently regulate levels of illumination on LED signs. Over the past several years, there have been occasions where complaints have been received about LED signs being overly and unnecessarily bright, particularly during evening hours. LED sign technology typically makes it possible to adjust a signs illumination relative to the ambient illumination; in other words, make the sign less bright when it is dark out and the sign is not competing with ambient light. Staff would recommend incorporating such requirements in this code amendment. • Off-premise business district sign identification. Some business districts, including the West 29th Business District, have expressed interest in accommodating small off-site directional signs on major thoroughfares directing the traveling public toward their business district. These would likely be located in the public right of way. The sign code allows some off-premise signs in the public right of way, generally only for churches and service organizations. Staff requests Council direction whether they desire to allow additional off-premise signs, being mindful of keeping those regulations content-neutral consistent with the Reed decision. Study Session Memo – Sign Code Regulations May 1, 2017 Page 3 3 • Temporary Signs. Sign “spinners” are a somewhat common practice whereby people are used to “spin” temporary signs, either on private property or in some cases in the public right of way. “Flutter flags” are temporary pennant type signs which are often used by businesses to advertise and these too are often located proximate or in the public right of way. Staff requests Council direction whether they desire to further regulate these types of temporary signs. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. In order to bring the City sign code into compliance with the Reed decision, and to accomplish the other revisions described above, staff requests a consensus from City Council to direct that the City sign code, Code Section 26–701 et. seq., be revised and the revised outline draft reviewed with the Council at a future study session. 2. Staff would request additional direction on the 3 categories of miscellaneous sign code amendments noted above and any other additional sign code amendments that Council may determine are needed at this time. NEXT STEPS: 1. Staff has conducted an initial review of the existing sign code (Article VII, Chapter 26) with the City Attorney and anticipates some significant changes to comply with the Reed decision. As such, in moving forward with revisions, Staff will be looking to make Article VII more user friendly for our citizens and businesses. 2. Due to the wide sweeping changes needed, it may be possible that the entirety of Article VII of Chapter 26 (Sign Code) is presented for Council’s consideration as a full repeal and reenactment. 3. As an amendment to Chapter 26, these amendments will also require review and recommendation by the Planning Commission. Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager FROM: Scott Brink, Public Works Director DATE: April 24, 2017 (For May 1, 2017 Study Session) SUBJECT: JEFFCO Regional Bikeways Wayfinding System ISSUE: In late 2014, the City of Lakewood, in cooperation with other Jefferson County municipalities and the county, applied for and received a grant to plan and design a bicycle county-wide wayfinding system. This grant provided a means to hire a consultant and develop a process with stakeholders to develop a regional bicycle wayfinding system. The intent of the wayfinding plan is to provide direction and guidance to bicycle users on a more regional level, while at the same time complementing and working with local municipal wayfinding systems. The process and plan was completed late last year, and wayfinding signs are expected to be installed as early as June, 2017. BACKGROUND AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT: The City of Lakewood and Jefferson County essentially led a plan development process, involving several interactive meetings that included staff from the cities of Wheat Ridge, Edgewater, Golden, Arvada, and Westminster. Representatives of CDOT, DRCOG, BikeJeffCo, and local bicycle and transportation advocacy groups from the respective municipalities were also included in the plan development process. The intent from the beginning of the process was to encourage and develop the following: 1. Signs that provide wayfinding to regional destinations, such as regional trails, rail stations, and individual cities 2. Signs that fit with existing signage and provide additional information 3. Increased ridership through an enhanced wayfinding system, and improved connectivity within Jefferson County and surrounding communities 4. Clear design guidelines to establish uniform signage throughout the region. While providing a standardized design for the regional system, the signs should also provide space for individual city names/logos, so that users know the respective community they may be in at any given time. 5. A wayfinding system that accommodates and assists all bicycle users, including locals, tourists, commuters, recreational cyclists, and families 6. A family of wayfinding signs that can be efficiently and economically manufactured in house (agency sign shops) Study Session Memo – Jefferson County Regional Bicycle Wayfinding May 1, 2017 Page 2 It should be noted that this wayfinding effort was not intended to create new trails or serve the purpose of a bicycle master plan or planning document. The intent of the plan was essentially to provide improved wayfinding and signage along existing routes and regional corridors where present bicycle usage exists. After several meetings and discussions, the stakeholder group agreed to a standardized branding logo. The group then eventually settled on three major bikeway corridors (Priority 1 Routes) spanning the entire width/length of the County as follows: 1. 32nd Avenue: The 32nd Avenue corridor essentially spans the County between Denver and Golden, and currently exists as a bike route for much of its distance. Wayfinding signs would be installed to complement the existing signing and striping, and provide directional signing at key locations, directing users to destinations such as the Clear Creek Trail or the Wheat Ridge Recreation Center. Near the eastern end of this corridor, the regional route will divert to either 29th Avenue or 26th Avenue to allow connectivity to the City of Edgewater and City of Denver bicycle facilities and destinations. 2. W-Line: The W-Line trail corridor also spans the width of the County between south Golden and the City of Denver. The majority of this route presently exists along the rail line as a bicycle trail, connecting many of the rail stations, with links to other regional destinations. This is the only corridor that does not pass through Wheat Ridge. 3. Central Bikeway: The Central Bikeway Corridor is the longest of the three regional corridors, and also the only north-south route spanning the County; from E-470 on the south to U.S. 36 in Westminster on the north. Unlike the other two corridors, this route does not follow a single street or rail corridor, but utilizes several streets such as Kipling St., Garrison St., Carr St., and others as it traverses the County. The Central Bikeway will enter Wheat Ridge from Crown Hill Park, cross 32nd Avenue, and essentially follow the existing signed bicycle route from there to the Clear Creek Regional Trail and eventually connecting to Arvada by use of Garrison and Carr Streets. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The signs will be manufactured and installed by individual agencies in their respective sign shops using standardized design templates. Lakewood has offered to manufacture the signs for Wheat Ridge at a minimal cost that can easily be absorbed in the operations budget. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff plans to begin installing the signs this June to coincide with Colorado Bike Month and Colorado Bike to Work Day (June 28). ATTACHMENTS 1. Jefferson County Wayfinding Map 2. Wayfinding Sign Examples Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager FROM: Scott Brink, Public Works Director DATE: April 21, 2017 (For May 1, 2017 Study Session) SUBJECT: Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan Update ISSUE: The City is nearing completion of an update to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, last completed in 2010. The Plan serves as a guide to plan, construct, enhance and improve bicycle and pedestrian mobility throughout the City. The plan also guides and works in conjunction with the planning of Capital Improvements Projects (CIP) where opportunities arise. In late 2015, it was felt by staff, Council and the community that the plan needed to be updated as a result of changing travel modes, community needs and priorities, and to incorporate the latest industry practices. PRIOR ACTION: After staff completed a standard solicitation and procurement process, the City Council on May 9, 2016, awarded a contract to Toole Design Group to assist the City in updating its Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Work on the plan commenced with the gathering of data and roll out of a public process in the summer of 2016. An update was provided to Council on October 1, 2016. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funding for this work was approved in the 2016 and 2017 Capital Improvement Plan Budget (CIP) for Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan line item 30-303-800-853 in the amount of $60,000. BACKGROUND: The City’s current bicycle and sidewalk network is often described as scattered and incomplete. Sidewalks are either absent, or there are gaps along a number of collector and arterial streets in the City. In addition, the overall bicycle and pedestrian network lacks continuity and/or connectivity to adjacent communities in some locations. Also, connectivity to parks, trails, schools, and other destinations in many areas is often limited. In 2010, the City developed and formally adopted a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The plan provided guidance concerning street right-of-way needs and improvements to be implemented as proposed developments were reviewed and as City projects were designed. Study Session Memo – Bicycle-Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 1, 2017 Page 2 Since adoption of the 2010 plan, the City has implemented bicycle and pedestrian improvements where opportunities have presented themselves and where funding has been available, often in conjunction with other infrastructure improvements or maintenance-related projects. For example, bicycle lanes were installed on 32nd Avenue as part of a mill and overlay project. This work not only improved bicycle safety and mobility within Wheat Ridge, but also improved east-west connectivity with Denver and Jefferson County/Golden. Similarly, bicycle facilities were installed on Pierce Street, providing a vital north-south corridor connection across the City between Lakewood and the Clear Creek Regional Trail. Additionally, construction of the Kipling multi-use trail has improved connectivity and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians needing to reach local destinations such as Crown Hill Park, the Clear Creek Trail, the Wheat Ridge Recreation Center, Discovery Park, Everitt Middle School, other local properties and businesses, and other destinations in adjacent communities within the Kipling corridor. Current design work for Wadsworth Boulevard improvements also includes provisions for future bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Smaller projects to improve safety such as enhanced crosswalks and flashing beacons (particularly near schools), and small sidewalk projects to fill gaps have also been completed over the past few years. In addition to the City’s pavement management program, opportunities to enhance bicycle and pedestrian mobility have also occurred through private redevelopment projects, such as Kipling Ridge (Sprouts) for example. The Master Plan update plays a significant role in guiding the City to implement effective policies and practices to improve bicycle and pedestrian modes as a convenient transportation option. In addition, the plan identifies specific mobility needs such as access to transit and safety enhancement opportunities. The updated plan will also assist in identifying long-term capital needs and costs, prioritizing needs, and developing a long-term capital plan for constructing improvements. Plan Update Activities Over the past several months, the following key steps and courses of action were completed as follows: 1. Compilation of all available mapping and data to summarize existing infrastructure assets, identify existing transportation gaps and safety needs, and provide base mapping for future improvements. 2. The City and the consultant hosted a “Vision and Goals” workshop in August, 2016 with various community stakeholders, including representatives of Jefferson County Schools, the Wheat Ridge Active Transportation and Advisory Team (ATAT), Bike JeffCo, RTD, CDOT, and the senior community. In addition to developing a draft mission and goals statement, the group discussed and identified various needs and issues, such as destinations, gaps, barriers, safety needs, ways to prioritize, and suggestions regarding overall processes and policies. Study Session Memo – Bicycle-Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 1, 2017 Page 3 3. Created a web-site providing information and ways to encourage citizens to provide input for the plan, including an on-line “Wiki-Map;” an interactive map easily accessible on- line where users can click to add suggestions and input directly on to the map. 4. Solicited input through standard City communication channels, including strong promotion through social media. A flyer/handout (in both English and Spanish) was also distributed to encourage participation. In addition, representatives of both the City and the consultant promoted the update and encouraged public input through engagement at community events such as the Carnation Festival and Ridgefest. 5. The City and the consultant hosted two Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings late last year that not only included representatives of the groups previously mentioned, but also neighboring communities such as Lakewood, Arvada, Edgewater, and Jefferson County. This group’s discussion further expanded on the needs and issues discussed at the Vision and Goals workshop, such as connections to neighboring communities, wayfinding, and how the ADA Transition Plan (developed concurrently) should integrate with this plan. 6. A public informational meeting (open house) was held at the Wheat Ridge Recreation Center on October 5, 2016 to provide an opportunity to listen directly to the community and gather additional input. Information regarding the ADA Transition Plan was also provided at this meeting. Turnout for the meeting was strong, with a significant amount of input received on a wide and diverse range of interests. NEXT STEPS AND ACTIONS A draft of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan update has been completed (attached). This draft has been distributed to members of the Technical Advisory Group for further comment, and has been posted on the City website to allow for additional public input. After gathering final input, staff will work with the consultant to finalize the document within the next three to five weeks. A representative of the Toole Design Group will be present to provide a brief overview of the plan at the study session on May 1. Staff and the consultant will be available to answer any questions and/or receive additional input from Council. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update Draft April 2017 - DRAFT Whe AT Ri D ge Bicycle and Pedestrian MAsTeR PlAn Attachment 1 ii  Page intentionally left blank  iii    Acknowledgments    City of Wheat Ridge City Council  Monica Duran  Janeece Hoppe  Kristi Davis  Zachary Urban  Tim Fitzgerald  George Pond  Larry Mathews  Genevieve Wooden  City of Wheat Ridge  Scott Brink  Mark Westberg  Steve Nguyen  Lisa Ritchie  Sara Spaulding     Technical Advisory Committee  City of Wheat Ridge: Public Works, Planning and Zoning   Ken Brubaker, Colorado Department of Transportation  Yelena Onnen, Jefferson County  Wesley Dismore, City of Arvada  John Padon, City of Lakewood  Rachel Hultin, Wheat Ridge Active Transportation Advisory Team  Charlie Myers, Bike Jeffco    Toole Design Group  Jessica Fields  Joe Fish  Geneva Hooten  Jared Draper   Ashley Haire  Kurtis Wall     Photo Credits: Cover: Wheat Ridge Active Transportation Advisory Team; Document: Toole Design  Group, except as otherwise noted.  iv      Page intentionally left blank      CONTENTS   CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION _____________________________________________________________________ 1  Plan Purpose __________________________________________________________________________________ 1  The Wheat Ridge Context  _______________________________________________________________________ 1  Recent Accomplishments ________________________________________________________________________ 2  Public Engagement Process ______________________________________________________________________ 3  Plan Vision and Goals ___________________________________________________________________________ 9  CHAPTER 2: WALKING AND BIKING IN WHEAT RIDGE TODAY _________________________________________ 10  Levels of Bicycling and Walking __________________________________________________________________ 10  Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes __________________________________________________________________ 12  Facilities_____________________________________________________________________________________ 12  Barriers to Walking and Bicycling  ________________________________________________________________ 17  CHAPTER 3: BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROGRAMS _________________________________________________ 19  Current Programs _____________________________________________________________________________ 19  New Program Recommendations ________________________________________________________________ 20  CHAPTER 4: PEDESTRIAN ELEMENT ______________________________________________________________ 27  Introduction _________________________________________________________________________________ 27  Pedestrian Facilities Toolbox ____________________________________________________________________ 28  Priority Pedestrian Routes ______________________________________________________________________ 36  Citywide Pedestrian Recommendations ___________________________________________________________ 37  School Walksheds _____________________________________________________________________________ 38  CHAPTER 5: BICYCLE ELEMENT __________________________________________________________________ 41  Introduction _________________________________________________________________________________ 41  Bicycle Facilities Toolbox _______________________________________________________________________ 41  Bicycle Network Development  __________________________________________________________________ 45  Bicycle Facility Recommendations ________________________________________________________________ 48  CHAPTER 6: IMPLEMENTATION _________________________________________________________________ 52  Prioritization _________________________________________________________________________________ 52  Cost Estimates ________________________________________________________________________________ 56  Implementation Strategy _______________________________________________________________________ 59  Conclusion ___________________________________________________________________________________ 59  APPENDICES  Appendix A: Related Plans  Appendix B: K‐8 School Walkshed Maps  Appendix C: ATAT Pedestrian Priority Routes  Appendix D: Funding Sources  ii                            Page intentionally left blank  1    CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION  Wheat Ridge is a city with strong historical roots, yet it is undergoing  change along with the rest of the Denver region. New residents and  businesses are bringing fresh ideas to the City and strengthening its  character and sense of place. Additionally, the Regional  Transportation District (RTD) will begin rail service to downtown  Denver on the Gold Line in 2017, potentially catalyzing significant  reinvestment along the northern edge of Wheat Ridge. At the same  time, there is a strong commitment to preserving the heritage of  Wheat Ridge and a desire to ensure long‐time residents continue to  feel at home in their city. The 2017 Wheat Ridge Bicycle and  Pedestrian Master Plan provides a blueprint for creating a more  bicycle and pedestrian‐friendly city within this dynamic framework.   Plan Purpose  This Plan serves as an update to the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian  Master Plan, which presented a framework of practical and  comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian facilities that promoted safe,  sustainable, and healthy travel options. Since the previous Plan was  completed, the City has implemented a number of projects to  improve conditions for people walking and biking. The 2017 Plan  builds on these successes and establishes a vision for a complete  and connected network of bicycle facilities and pedestrian routes,  along with recommended policies to support active transportation.  The Plan’s recommendations support the Wheat Ridge community’s  vision for safe, active transportation that is accessible to a wide  range of people, including youth and seniors, families, bicyclists of  varying skill levels, and people with disabilities.   The Wheat Ridge Context   The City of Wheat Ridge is in the west Denver metro area and shares  borders with Denver, Lakewood, Edgewater, Arvada, and Lakeside.  As such, Wheat Ridge plays an important role in regional  connectivity. It is generally bounded by Interstate 70 (I‐70) to the  north and west, Sheridan Boulevard to the east, and West 26th  Avenue to the south.   For its 31,000 residents, the city offers a small town feel with access  to amenities more commonly found in larger cities. Wheat Ridge is  close to the recreational opportunities available in the foothills and  provides easy access to the Rocky Mountains via I‐70. There are also  a large number of City parks and Crown Hill Park, which is owned  and maintained by Jefferson County Open Space.   Plan Organization  This Plan is organized into six  chapters including this one.   Chapter 1 serves as the  introduction to the plan and  includes the Wheat Ridge  context, recent  accomplishments, the planning  process, and Plan vision and  goals.   Chapter 2 provides an overview  of the current status of bicycling  and walking in Wheat Ridge.  Chapter 3 summarizes current  programs related to bicycling  and walking and provides  suggestions for possible future  program efforts.   Chapter 4 represents the  pedestrian element of the Plan,  including the identification of  priority pedestrian routes and  appropriate pedestrian  treatments for implementation  in Wheat Ridge.   Chapter 5 represents the bicycle  element of the Plan, including  recommended bicycle facilities  and associated costs.   Chapter 6 includes prioritized  bicycle and pedestrian projects  to conclude the Plan.  Appendices provide  supplemental detail on topics  such as related plans, priority  pedestrian routes, and funding  sources.   2    The city’s land use and street network patterns greatly influence how people get around today. In the  eastern portion of the city (closer to Denver), the street grid is well connected, but as post‐WWII  development occurred farther west, streets were built with less emphasis on connectivity. This resulted  in high volumes of traffic being funneled onto arterials such as Wadsworth Boulevard and Kipling Street,  which now act as barriers for people walking and bicycling. The city’s main east/west streets ‐ 44th  Avenue and 38th Avenue ‐ provide good connectivity for vehicles, but are less comfortable for bicyclists  and pedestrians. Lower‐volume city streets are often more comfortable for people walking and biking.  However, these streets are generally narrow and lack curbs, creating a character that reflects the city’s  rural heritage but also poses challenges for retrofitting pedestrian and bicycle facilities.    Recent Accomplishments   The City has implemented many of the proposed projects from the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master  Plan. These projects have been constructed through routine street maintenance and dedicated funding  from City Council. Key improvements implemented since 2010 include:    Sidewalk on Wadsworth Boulevard, between 26th Avenue and 32nd Avenue   Bike lane, paved shoulder, and shared lane markings on Pierce Street from 26th Avenue to 48th  Avenue   Bike lane along West 32nd Avenue from Sheridan Boulevard to Youngfield Street   Trail or sidewalk along Kipling Street, from 32nd Avenue to the Clear Creek Trail, including a  bicycle and pedestrian bridge over Clear Creek   Clear Creek Trail trailhead improvements at Kipling Street   Bike lanes on Tabor Street, north of I‐70   Striped shoulder on Miller Street, north of 44th Avenue    In addition to these accomplishments, several important projects are currently under development. In  November 2016, Wheat Ridge residents voted to support Ballot Issue 2E, a 12 year, ½ cent sales tax that  will fund four major projects, three of which will create better conditions for walking and bicycling.  Revenues from the tax will be used to leverage state and federal grants to reconfigure Wadsworth  Boulevard, to fund infrastructure improvements around the 52nd and Ward Gold Line Station, and to  implement infrastructure improvements associated with the Clear Creek Crossing development at  Youngfield Street and I‐70.   The City is currently developing an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan to improve  accessibility to pedestrian facilities. The Transition Plan includes an assessment of existing pedestrian  facilities (i.e., sidewalks and curb ramps) along roadways to document the presence and condition of  these facilities. The Transition Plan will catalog existing barriers to ADA access and include strategies to  address them.   3    Active Transportation Advisory Team (ATAT) fun ride to celebrate the Kipling Street Trail Ribbon Cutting, October 2016. (Photo  Credit: ATAT)   Public Engagement Process  Wheat Ridge residents and stakeholders played a critical role in shaping the 2017 Plan Update. Public  engagement was focused on Wheat Ridge residents and visitors, community stakeholders, the project  Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and City Council to meet the following goals:    To solicit feedback on existing walking and bicycling issues and successes,   To educate the public and stakeholders about pedestrian and bicycle facilities,    To develop proposals for enhancing walking and bicycling in Wheat Ridge,   To build momentum for plan implementation and related efforts, and   To be equitable and balanced across the City.   The workshops, events, and meetings conducted as part of this project’s community engagement  process are discussed in this section of the Plan.          4    Vision and Goals Workshop   The first official meeting for the project was a Vision and Goals workshop held on August 5, 2016. The  purpose of this workshop – held with City staff, stakeholders, advocates, and community members –  was to introduce the project and solicit input regarding the future of walking and biking in Wheat Ridge.  Attendees answered the following questions:  1. What three words best describe bicycling in Wheat Ridge today?   2. What three words best describe walking in Wheat Ridge today?   3. What one word describes your future vision for active transportation in Wheat Ridge?    Responses showed that there are major barriers within the City posed by Interstate‐70 and principal  arterials like Wadsworth Boulevard. However, stakeholders envision a connected, integrated, and  intuitive city for people who walk or bike. Responses gathered at this workshop directly influenced the  Vision and Goals statements.             Online Map‐Based Survey   The project team developed an online interactive map that was available for input between June and  October 2016. Users were asked to identify routes they already use or would use if made safe and  convenient, and any barriers to bicycling or walking (see Chapter 2 for more discussion of the survey  results). The map was available as a link from the project page on the City’s website, and was widely  shared with help from city staff and community members.   August 5, 2016, Vision and Goals Workshop  5           Online interactive map  6    Ridgefest  The project team spoke to approximately 60 people at the Ridgefest event on Saturday, September 10,  2016 in central Wheat Ridge between 3:00 PM and 7:00 PM.1 This free, all‐ages event was an  opportunity for the community to celebrate the heritage of Ridge at 38 through diverse offerings like a  classic car show, an artisan marketplace, beer tasting and food contests, and local bluegrass music.     This event targeted the citizens of Wheat Ridge and provided a forum to introduce the project, advertise  the online interactive map, share information about the RTD Gold Line, and engage in one‐on‐one  dialogue about walking and biking in Wheat Ridge. Using a plotted map with existing bicycle routes and  previously planned facilities, the project team asked people where they lived and places they wanted to  go, sparking discussions about challenging intersections, streets with missing sidewalks, and much more.      The project team discusses potential new bikeways and pedestrian routes at the 38th Avenue RidgeFest, September 2016 (Photo  Credit: ATAT)                                                                 1 Ridge at 38. 2016 RidgeFest. http://ridgeat38.com/event/2016‐ridgefest/   7    Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)   The TAC is composed of City staff and representatives from Jefferson County, the Cities of Arvada and  Lakewood, the Colorado Department of Transportation, and advocacy organizations.   The TAC met twice over the course of the project and played an important role in the development of  this Plan. TAC members guided the overall direction of the project, spread the word about the Plan,  contributed ideas and offered local expertise, and reviewed recommendations.    The first TAC meeting was held in September  2016 at City Hall. In addition to an overview  of the project’s existing conditions and draft  themes, the group discussed pedestrian  network recommendations.   The second TAC meeting was held in  November 2016. The project team  presented key recommendation themes  which had emerged through the Vision and  Goals workshop, meetings with City staff,  and public engagement. The following themes emerged:   Pedestrian Themes   Access to transit   Focus on key destinations (shopping centers, schools, parks, etc.)   Integration with ADA Transition Plan   Serve needs of aging population and younger families  Bicycle Network Themes   Access to Gold Line Stations (Ward Road, Arvada Ridge, Olde Town Arvada)   Access to Clear Creek Trail   Crossing Interstate‐70   Connectivity to neighboring jurisdictions  o 35th Avenue to Denver  o Crown Hill Park to Lakewood  o I‐70 crossings and Gold Line Station areas to Arvada  o Clear Creek Trail to Golden  The team reviewed the online interactive map input which showed that safety concerns at intersections,  heavy traffic, and high vehicle speeds were the most common barriers for both walking and bicycling.  Additionally, priority pedestrian routes for the Plan and sidewalk walksheds around schools were  discussed (see Chapter 4 and Appendix B).         September 22, 2016 TAC Meeting    8    Open House  Over 40 people attended the project open house on Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at the Apex Center  between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM. The team presented information on several topics:    Project schedule   Draft vision and goals for the Plan    Previous planning efforts, including the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and the 2015  Parks & Recreation Master Plan   The ADA Transition Plan   Non‐infrastructure policies and programs in education, encouragement, and enforcement    Bicycle comfort assessment and the level of traffic stress concept    Attendees provided valuable feedback in several areas:    Existing education, enforcement and encouragement programs     Preferred bicycle facility types (e.g., protected bike lanes, sidepaths, trails, and buffered bike  lanes) as they relate to levels of traffic stress    Key bicycle and pedestrian routes between key activity centers within the City   Streets and intersections where infrastructure improvements, improved crossings, traffic  calming, better signal detection for bicyclists, etc. are desired         October 5, 2016 Open House    9    Open House participants were given three voting dots and were asked ‘What’s Most Important to You?’  in each of the following categories: access, facilities, and programs. This exercise was intended as an  introduction to the main themes of the Plan and to gauge priorities going forward. Residents showed  their overwhelming support for the following:    Access to transit, e.g., Gold Line Stations   Better Clear Creek Trail Connections   Connections to neighboring cities   Closing sidewalk gaps   Better street crossings   More encouragement programs  Plan Vision and Goals   A vision statement is an inspirational description of the future that should be realistic, yet ambitious. It  should answer the question, “what will success look like?”. The following vision statement was  developed for the Wheat Ridge Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan based on input received at the  Visioning and Goals Workshop:   The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan envisions Wheat Ridge as a comfortable and safe  place to walk and ride a bike for people of all ages and abilities. The network of bicycle and  pedestrian facilities is connected, intuitive, and integrated with the local and regional context.  The system promotes health, safety, and regional connectivity for all residents.   The following goals support and promote the vision by providing a framework for the development of  the Plan’s recommendations:   1. Complete a connected network of comfortable bicycle facilities.   2. Create a walkable city that is comfortable and safe for residents of all ages and abilities.    3. Improve connections between all types of transportation, especially transit.   4. Increase access to the region’s parks, major destinations, and recreational opportunities.   5. Create a plan that is implementable and sensitive to the Wheat Ridge context.   The vision and goals served as the foundation for the development of plan recommendations.      10    CHAPTER 2: WALKING AND BIKING IN WHEAT RIDGE TODAY  Before making recommendations for the expansion of bicycling and walking programs and facilities, it is  important to understand current conditions. This section provides a summary of bicycling and walking  trends, facilities, and crashes. This baseline assessment was used to inform the development of  recommendations and provide a snapshot for future comparison.   Levels of Bicycling and Walking  Despite have a street network that provides limited connectivity in many areas of the city, there are  encouraging trends related to biking and walking in Wheat Ridge. The number of people who bike to  work increased from around 40 in 2000 (0.3 percent of commuters) to around 200 per day by 2015 (1.4  percent of commuters), a four‐fold increase. By comparison, the statewide average increased from 0.8  percent to 1.3 percent during the same time period. Wheat Ridge had the highest rate of increase  among other nearby cities in the Denver Metro Area (Figure 1).2   Figure 1. Bicycling Commute Rates in 2000 and 2015 for Nearby Cities      Levels of walking in Wheat Ridge have also increased, although less significantly than bicycling rates.  Rates of walking as a share of all work commutes increased from 2.1 percent in 2000 to 2.5 percent by  2015, a 24 percent increase (Figure 2). The statewide average remained constant during this time  period, and among the other nearby cities listed in Figure 2, only Golden showed a higher increase than  Wheat Ridge (27 percent increase). Furthermore, the combined growth in bicycling and walking was  higher in Wheat Ridge than in any other area.                                                                2 US Census. American Fact Finder. Means of Transportation to Work, Census 2000 Summary File 3 and 2011‐2015 American  Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates.   2.3% 1.7% 0.7% 0.5% 1.4% 0.5% 0.3% 1.0% 0.6% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% Denver Golden Lakewood Broomfield Wheat Ridge Arvada Westminster 2000 2015 11    Figure 2. Walking Commute Rates in 2000 and 2015 for Nearby Cities    Despite these increases, the change in commute mode share does not tell the whole story. A survey  conducted for this project shows that Wheat Ridge residents who walk or bike daily are twice as likely to  do so for recreation than for transportation (Figure 3), indicating that levels of bicycling and walking may  be higher than suggested by the commute data.3     Figure 3. Trip Purpose among Survey Respondents Who Walk or Bike Daily                                                                     3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Online Survey.  9.0% 4.5% 2.5% 1.5% 1.0% 1.3% 1.0% 7.1% 4.3% 2.1% 1.5% 1.1% 1.0% 0.9% Golden Denver Wheat Ridge Lakewood Broomfield Westminster Arvada 2000 2015 Recreation 67% Transportation 33% 12    Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes  Between 2011 and 2013, there were 51 reported crashes involving a pedestrian and 36 reported crashes  involving a bicyclist within or adjacent to the Wheat Ridge city boundary. The injury totals for these  crashes are shown in Table 1. Although the overall number of crashes is small compared to the number  of motor vehicle crashes, these crashes often result in injury. Fortunately, there were no reported  fatalities from 2011 through 2013.     Table 1. Crashes Involving Pedestrians and Bicyclists, 2011‐20134  Type Year Crashes Injury Level  No Injury Possible Injury Minor Injury Serious Injury Killed  Pe d e s t r i a n   2011 20  26 5 8 6  0  2012 16 19 2 8 3 0  2013 15  17 2 7 4  0  Bi k e   2011 11 12 1 7 1 0  2012 11  13 2 6 1  0  2013 14 23 4 7 0 0  Total 87  110 16 43  15  0    Facilities  While most streets in the City do not currently have bicycle facilities and many lack sidewalks, bike lanes  have been installed on several important through streets, including 32nd Avenue, 26th Avenue, and  portions of Pierce Street and Tabor Street. Additionally, the Clear Creek Trail provides an important  east/west connection. Residential streets in Wheat Ridge are often very low traffic and may provide a  comfortable bicycling experience without a dedicated facility. Lack of sidewalks is more problematic,  particularly for young children who are not always aware of nearby dangers such as approaching cars, or  for people using wheelchairs or other mobility devices.                                                                4 Denver Regional Council of Governments Regional Data Catalog. Crash Points Shapefiles. Crashes within 250 feet of Wheat  Ridge City Boundaries are included.    13    A neighborhood street is comfortable for riders of all ages and abilities. (Photo Credit: ATAT)  Wheat Ridge currently implements high‐visibility crosswalks on a routine basis in school zones, adjacent  to parks, and at busy intersections. The City has also proactively installed pedestrian crossings in several  locations around the City, including:   Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) on West 44th Avenue at Van Gordon Street, Robb  Street, east of Miller Street, and at Lamar Street (see below).   RRFBs on West 32nd Avenue at Wheat Ridge High School/Crown Hill Park.   Pedestrian signal on West 38th Avenue at Kullerstrand Elementary School.   Pedestrian signal on West 41st Avenue at Wilmore‐Davis Elementary School.    14      Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons provide visibility to pedestrians at crosswalks.   Vehicle speeds have been proven to be the most important  factor in determining the level of comfort a person feels while  biking or walking on a particular street. For this reason,  transportation professionals use a suite of design techniques  known as “traffic calming” to help slow traffic on  neighborhood streets. Traffic calming solutions may include  curb extensions, raised crosswalks, speed humps, or traffic  circles, among others.    Traffic calming strategies have not been widely implemented  in Wheat Ridge, but the City does have an existing  Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) that  allows residents to request traffic calming measures in  response to speeding concerns. The city has implemented a  variety of traffic calming treatments such as curb extensions,  chicanes, and median dividers (e.g., on Teller Street south of  34th Avenue and on 41st Avenue between Brentwood Street  and Wadsworth Boulevard).      Chicane with On‐Street Parking   Curb Extensions Median Divider JOHNSONPARK WR HISTORICALPARK BOYD'SCROSSINGPARKBAUGHPARK APEL-BACHERPARK HOPPERHOLLOW PARKPROSPECTPARKANDERSONPARKHAPPINESSGARDENSPARK RANDALLPARKTOWNCENTERWHEAT RIDGERECREATIONCENTER LOUISETURNER PARK COMMUNITYCENTER PANORAMA PARKLEWISMEADOWSPARK STITESPARKHAYWARDPARK RICHARDS-HARTESTATE MANWARINGATHLETICFIELD PARAMOUNTPARK FRUITDALEPARK YE OLDEFIREHOUSE 37TH& UPHAMPARKDISCOVERYPARK CROWN HILLLAKE PARK West 32nd Avenue West 38th Avenue West 44th Avenue Ralston Road West 48thAvenue Yo u n g f i e l d S t r e e t Mc I n t y r e S t r e e t West 58th Avenue K i p l i n g P a r k w a y Wa r d R o a d Sh e r i d a n B o u l e v a r d Ki p l i n g S t r e e t W a d s w o r t h B y p a s s Wa d s w o r t h B o u l e v a r d West 46th Avenue West 26th Avenue Pa r f e t S t r e e t West 44th Avenue Lo w e l l B o u l e v a r d West 56th Avenue West 27th Avenue Te l l e r S t r e e t Ridge Road Grandview Avenue Mc I n t y r e S t r e e t Y a r r o w S t r e e t West 58th Avenue West 17th Avenue West 20th Avenue West 52nd Avenue B r o oks D r i v e West 32nd Avenue Fie l d S t r e e t W e s t 48th Avenue Ha r l a n S t r e e t Ol d e W a d s w o r t h B o u l e v a r d W est 38th Avenue West 23rd Avenue Ca r r S t r e e t L u t h e r a n P ar k w a y Te n n y s o n S t r e e t W e s t 5 0 t h A v e n u e West 29th Avenue West 41st Avenue West 57th Avenue Ro b b S t r e e t Mi l l e r S t r e e t Q u a i l S t r e e t West 55th Avenue West 54th Avenue West 25th Avenue Al k i r e S t r e e t D e n v e r W e s t P a r k w a y Ta b l e MountainParkway No rth Interstate Highway 70 S ervice R o a d North Interstate Highway 7 0 F r o n t a g e R o a d Pi e r c e S t r e e t West 35th Avenue West 60th Avenue I n d e p e n d e n c e S tr e e t Oa k S t r e e t Wa r d R o a d El d r i d g e S t r e e t La m a r S t r e e t M a r s h a l l S t r e e t Yo u n g f i e l d S t r e e t Ta b o r S t r e e t Pe r r y S t r e e t Ga r r i s o n S t r e e t Du d l e y S t r e e t Al l i s o n S t r e e t Si m m s S t r e e t Figure 4. Existing Pedestrian FacilitiesCity of Wheat Ridge Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Date: 3/31/2017 City Boundary Gold Line Stops Park Existing Facilities Trail Neighborhood Path Sidepath Sidewalk User: jfish Path: H:\B000\B030 Wheat Ridge Bike Ped Plan\PRODUCTION\GIS\mxds\2017_March\WR_Existing_Ped_Facilities_11x17_2017_03_30.mxd 0 0.5 10.25 Miles JOHNSONPARK WR HISTORICALPARK BOYD'SCROSSINGPARKBAUGHPARK APEL-BACHERPARK HOPPERHOLLOW PARKPROSPECTPARKANDERSONPARKHAPPINESSGARDENSPARK RANDALLPARKTOWNCENTERWHEAT RIDGERECREATIONCENTER LOUISETURNER PARK COMMUNITYCENTER PANORAMA PARKLEWISMEADOWSPARK STITESPARKHAYWARDPARK RICHARDS-HARTESTATE MANWARINGATHLETICFIELD PARAMOUNTPARK FRUITDALEPARK YE OLDEFIREHOUSE 37TH& UPHAMPARKDISCOVERYPARK CROWN HILLLAKE PARK West 32nd Avenue West 38th Avenue West 44th Avenue Ralston Road West 48thAvenue Yo u n g f i e l d S t r e e t Mc I n t y r e S t r e e t West 58th Avenue K i p l i n g P a r k w a y Wa r d R o a d Sh e r i d a n B o u l e v a r d Ki p l i n g S t r e e t W a d s w o r t h B y p a s s Wa d s w o r t h B o u l e v a r d West 46th Avenue West 26th Avenue Pa r f e t S t r e e t West 44th Avenue Lo w e l l B o u l e v a r d West 56th Avenue West 27th Avenue Te l l e r S t r e e t Ridge Road Grandview Avenue Mc I n t y r e S t r e e t Y a r r o w S t r e e t West 58th Avenue West 17th Avenue West 20th Avenue West 52nd Avenue B r o oks D r i v e West 32nd Avenue Fie l d S t r e e t W e s t 48th Avenue Ha r l a n S t r e e t Ol d e W a d s w o r t h B o u l e v a r d W est 38th Avenue West 23rd Avenue Ca r r S t r e e t L u t h e r a n P ar k w a y Te n n y s o n S t r e e t W e s t 5 0 t h A v e n u e West 29th Avenue West 41st Avenue West 57th Avenue Ro b b S t r e e t Mi l l e r S t r e e t Q u a i l S t r e e t West 55th Avenue West 54th Avenue West 25th Avenue Al k i r e S t r e e t D e n v e r W e s t P a r k w a y Ta b l e MountainParkway No rth Interstate Highway 70 S ervice R o a d North Interstate Highway 7 0 F r o n t a g e R o a d Pi e r c e S t r e e t West 35th Avenue West 60th Avenue I n d e p e n d e n c e S tr e e t Oa k S t r e e t Wa r d R o a d El d r i d g e S t r e e t La m a r S t r e e t M a r s h a l l S t r e e t Yo u n g f i e l d S t r e e t Ta b o r S t r e e t Pe r r y S t r e e t Ga r r i s o n S t r e e t Du d l e y S t r e e t Al l i s o n S t r e e t Si m m s S t r e e t Figure 5. Existing Bicycle FacilitiesCity of Wheat Ridge Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Date: 3/31/2017 City Boundary Gold Line Stops Park Existing Facilities Trail Neighborhood Path Unpaved Trail Sidepath Bike Lane Shared Lane Marking Shoulder User: jfish Path: H:\B000\B030 Wheat Ridge Bike Ped Plan\PRODUCTION\GIS\mxds\2017_March\WR_Existing_Bike_Facilities_11x17_2017_03_30.mxd 0 0.5 10.25 Miles 17    Barriers to Walking and Bicycling   As part of the 2017 Plan update process, an online map‐based survey was implemented to gain a better  understanding of important network gaps, physical barriers, and attitudes related to bicycling and  walking in Wheat Ridge. The survey was available from the end of July through the middle of October  and was promoted through a project flyer distributed at community events, through the City’s social  media outlets and webpage, by the Active Transportation Advisory Team (ATAT), and at the project  Open House. A total of 99 people participated.   When asked why it is difficult to walk in Wheat Ridge, survey respondents listed lack of sidewalks (27  percent), sidewalk gaps (16 percent), or traffic speeds (15 percent) as the most common reasons (see  Figure 6). This suggests that completing the sidewalk network and focusing on vehicular speed  reductions can improve the pedestrian experience.   Similarly, traffic speeds were the most commonly cited difficulty for bicyclists (Figure 7). These findings  are consistent with a 2015 ATAT survey that revealed 40 percent of respondents believe that biking or  walking in Wheat Ridge is challenging or in need of improvement.    Figure 6. Summary of Responses to 2016 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Survey Question, “Why is  it Difficult to Walk in Wheat Ridge?”    1 5 6 9 11 15 16 27 No existing trail No painted bike lanes No curb ramps Too much traffic Sidewalk in disrepair Traffic too fast Gaps in the sidewalk No sidewalk Why Is It Difficult to Walk? Sample Comments from Online Survey Respondents “Many of the existing sidewalks in Wheat Ridge are too narrow and will barely accommodate my wife's  walker. She has fallen twice when her walker slipped off the edge of the sidewalks. Also, many bushes and  trees extend out over the sidewalks forcing us to walk in the street.”   “No sidewalk, narrow pavement, traffic moving quickly makes it very unsafe for pedestrians.”  “We bike to the Youngfield trailhead to access the Clear Creek bike path. The route is occasionally difficult  and dangerous for a bike, particularly near the Walmart. On Youngfield, we take the sidewalk because we  don't feel comfortable on the street.”   18    Figure 7. Summary of Responses to 2016 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Survey Question, “Why is  it Difficult to Bike in Wheat Ridge?”      In 2010, the Community Assessment Survey for Older  Adults (CASOA™) conducted a statistically valid survey of  residents age 60 years or older in Wheat Ridge.5 In that  survey, 17 percent of respondents reported that the ease of  walking is excellent, while 50 percent reported it as good.  The remainder (32 percent) reported the ease of walking as  fair or poor, suggesting nearly a third of older Wheat Ridge  residents find the walking environment deficient. Given the high number of older residents in Wheat  Ridge, these findings are particularly noteworthy and were a central focus of this planning process. The  report concluded that “the greatest area of resident need [is] civic engagement.” Improving seniors’  mobility choices will greatly benefit their ability to get around and access the various social and  engagement opportunities offered throughout the city and region.                                                                       5 Jefferson County. Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults. Accessed Jan 7, 2017. http://jeffco.us/human‐ services/aging‐well‐project/community‐assessment‐survey‐for‐older‐adults/  1 1 5 10 12 13 Not enough lighting Streets do not connect No existing trail Too much traffic No painted bike lanes Traffic too fast Why Is It Difficult to Bike? Making the city walkable and transit‐ friendly is about more than  transportation. It is a way to ensure  people remain connected to the fabric  of their community as they age.   19    CHAPTER 3: BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROGRAMS   An expanded set of bicycle and pedestrian programs, implemented through strong partnerships and  collaboration, will support the vision of Wheat Ridge as a comfortable and safe place to walk and bike  for people of all ages and abilities.   The League of American Bicyclists (LAB) runs a national program to designate cities as Bicycle Friendly  Communities, based on their facilities, levels of biking, and programs. While Wheat Ridge has yet to  apply for designation as a Bicycle Friendly Community, LAB provided an informal assessment of Wheat  Ridge’s status in 2014. Along with engineering‐related recommendations, the assessment identified  opportunities for improvement in the following broad areas:   Strengthening youth‐focused bike education, recreation, and empowerment programs    Bicycle skills classes for adults   Educational messages for all road users   Encouragement programs such as Open Streets events or other bike‐related community  celebrations   Greater promotion of bicycling to boost the local economy   Participation in the Bicycle Friendly Business program   Employing law enforcement officers on bikes   Wayfinding and maps to promote bicycling within the community   Greater engagement of law enforcement on bicycling issues   Increased data collection and reporting    This chapter documents current programs and presents ideas for new and expanded programs related  to education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation. The recommendations are informed by the  findings of the LAB assessment as well input from City staff and the community, and are focused on  those that will be most effective at helping achieve the 2017 Plan goals.   Current Programs  The majority of bicycle‐ and pedestrian‐related programming in Wheat Ridge is currently conducted by  the ATAT, an important driving force behind changes in the city related to bicycling and walking. The  “mighty ATATs” (members of the ATAT) strive to build a more inclusive community for all Wheat Ridge  residents and visitors through a variety of education and encouragement programs, highlighted in this  section.   Ride for Reading  The Ride for Reading program is an ATAT program that collects and donates books and bikes around  Wheat Ridge to people of all ages. The program is completely volunteer‐run and brings together  neighbors, businesses, and students. For example, ATAT hosts Saturday events around town at local  businesses and, in exchange for donated books and bikes, people are given bags with coupons and other  swag donated by local businesses. Bicycles donated by businesses and community members are  inventoried, repaired, and stored around the City in volunteers’ homes. When the bikes are given out,  ATAT provides a helmet, lock, and light with each bike along with a safety check. This program is a  positive example of community‐led engagement and should be continued, with greater support from  other community partners as possible.  20    A successful Ride for Reading day (Photo Credit: Ride for Reading program)   Community Bike Rides   Community bike rides provide people of all abilities an opportunity to ride together in a safe, social  setting. Currently, ATAT leads two community bike rides. ATAT’s “From Here to There” rides show  people how to go between popular destinations by bike. This program provides novice riders an  opportunity to learn the Wheat Ridge bicycle network with more experienced riders. In summer, ATAT  hosts weekly cruiser rides to connect people who walk and bike with local businesses. These family‐ friendly cruiser rides are advertised as short, slow‐paced and locally‐focused.  Bike Rodeos    Bike rodeos feature bicycle safety skills instruction, bicycle skills practice, equipment inspections, and  helmet fitting for children. ATAT currently hosts bike rodeos in conjunction with other community  events. The rodeos educate children and provide a safe, fun and encouraging environment for biking.  Where possible, bike rodeos should be co‐hosted by elementary schools in Wheat Ridge.   New Program Recommendations  To accomplish the Plan’s goals, additional programs and practices may be needed. These additional  activities would build greater support for bicycling and walking, which is needed to bolster bold  infrastructure investments in the future.   21    Implementing programs through partnerships with community organizations will likely continue to be  the most effective strategy, as nonprofit agencies are often better suited to running education and  encouragement programs than city government. However, there are examples where cities have  initiated programs like those below on their own.   New funding sources (e.g., state, federal or foundation grants) will likely be needed to accomplish these  program recommendations (see Appendix D for a list of potential funding sources). In addition, the City  should work closely with regional partners such as Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG)  and Jefferson County who share similar goals related to active transportation.   Education   The following programs are proposed to enable people of all ages and abilities to develop the skills and  confidence to ride and care for their bikes.   Pedestrian Safety Education Campaign   The City should launch a pedestrian safety education campaign that focuses on both motorists and  pedestrians. Regularly reviewing crash data and adapting the messages to meet the needs will help  improve pedestrian safety.   Example Program: The City of Newark, NJ developed a pedestrian safety‐focused campaign to change  pedestrian and motorist behavior and to reduce the incidence of pedestrian injuries and fatalities on  New Jersey’s roadway. Using the state’s crash and fatality data, the campaign targeted all drivers 20‐49  years of age and all adult pedestrians. Campaign messages were delivered by outdoor advertising, radio,  internet advertising, outreach materials in the street, and social media.   Who: City‐led  Bicycle Mentor Events and Partnerships    Bicycle mentor programs (sometimes called bike buddy programs) partner more experienced bicyclists  with novice riders for daily commutes or recreational rides. Mentorship programs allow people who are  new or novice bike riders to learn more about the bicycle network, rules of the road, and bicycle  etiquette through a peer‐to‐peer, informal social setting. Such rides can happen one‐on‐one or as part  of group rides. Once new riders become more confident, they can mentor new riders.  Example Program: The 511’s Bike Buddy Ridematch service in El Cerrito, CA helps people find other local  bicyclists. As explained on their website, “new bikers will be 'buddied up’ with experienced bicyclists to  gather tips, route information and moral support, while experienced bicyclists can find others to ride  with or novice bicyclists to assist.”6  Who: Community‐led  Bicycle Maintenance Classes    Low‐cost or free bike maintenance classes make it easier for residents with seldom‐used or broken  bicycles to start riding again. Workshops can be held at schools, parks, or multi‐family housing  complexes.                                                               6 City of El Cerrito California. 511’s Bike Buddy Program. Accessed Mar. 29, 2017.  http://www.el‐cerrito.org/index.aspx?NID=535   22    Example Program: Washington State’s Cascade Bicycle Club provides several education classes –  including those related to riding and maintenance – to help community members “build the knowledge,  skills and community support to achieve all your bicycling goals.”7 Their maintenance classes include fix‐ a‐flat; maintenance for every rider; chains and derailleurs; and brakes, wheels and tires. They cost  between $30 and $40, are open to the public, and are easy to find and register for online.   Who: Community‐led  Encouragement  The following programs are proposed to help increase ridership, comfort, and connectivity in Wheat  Ridge.  Encourage Active Commutes within the City of Wheat Ridge    The City of Wheat Ridge and other Wheat Ridge businesses should encourage their employees to walk,  bike, and take transit for daily travel. The City should work to educate people about safe transportation  behaviors, available Transportation Demand Management incentive programs, and opportunities to  become more involved in the culture of walking and biking in Wheat Ridge. There are a variety of ways  to incentivize walking, biking, and transit, including competitions (with transportation or health‐related  prizes), financial incentives, and free transit passes.   Example Program: The City and County of Denver’s employee wellness program includes education  about opportunities for active transportation and wellbeing challenges to incentivize more activity  throughout the day, such as by walking and biking.   Who: City‐led  Create a City Bike Map     City bike maps help people who are new to bicycling or who are less familiar with the routes in an area  to plan their ride. The City should create or partner with Jefferson County to create a bicycle map to  show all routes and highlight the network of comfortable facilities across Wheat Ridge. A map may be  particularly helpful for bicyclists in Wheat Ridge because covering long distances through local streets  often requires the use of indirect routes or navigating offset intersections, which can be confusing.  Online maps using existing platforms are likely to be the easiest and quickest approach for publishing a  bike map for Wheat Ridge. Bike maps work best in conjunction within implementation of a  comprehensive wayfinding system, such as that planned within Jefferson County. Madison, WI and  Austin, TX have exemplary city bike maps.   Who: City‐led with support from Jefferson County  Increase the Online Presence of Walking and Biking of Wheat Ridge   The City could create a homepage for walking and biking on its website. Providing current and easily‐ accessible information about walking and biking including the bike network, new City initiatives, bicycle  parking, and community events will keep residents informed and involved. In addition, the City should  include biking and walking directions to help community members reach city facilities and events.                                                                7 Cascade Bicycle Club. Adult Classes. Accessed Mar 29, 2017. https://www.cascade.org/learn/adult‐classes  23    Example Program: The City of Fort Collins, CO “FC Bikes” program page provides a comprehensive yet  easily‐accessible clearinghouse of information.8 The page includes an overview of bicycle‐related  updates with drop‐down menus highlighting the City’s encouragement and education programs, plans  and projects, and resources.   Who: City‐led  Establish Walking School Buses and Bike Trains   Walking school buses and bike trains are adult‐supervised groups of students walking or biking to  school. They can help alleviate parental concerns about personal security and traffic safety. As the Plan’s  engineering recommendations are implemented, walking and biking routes can be created to direct  students to intersections with adequate pedestrian facilities and crossing guards. Walkshed maps for K‐8  schools in Wheat Ridge are provided in Appendix B.   Example Program: Portland, Oregon’s Safe Routes to School program includes bike trains at  participating elementary schools.9 One element of their program’s success is building bike trains along  the city’s low‐stress residential neighborhood greenways.    Who: Community and school‐led  Provide Bicycle Parking at Community Events   Provision of high‐capacity bicycle parking at community events can be an effective encouragement  strategy.10 Bicycle parking makes the end‐of‐trip process faster and more convenient, and it provides  visibility and legitimacy for biking. Currently, ATAT volunteers provide bike parking at some community  events. However, a more formalized process would ensure that all major events have adequate parking  to encourage more people arrive by bike.   Example Program: The City of Portland, OR provides temporary event bike parking recommendations,  permits for the use of parking lanes, and contact information for local parking providers within the city.    Who: City‐led  Highlight National Bicycling and Walking Events    The City and community advocacy groups should continue to highlight national bicycle events like  National Bike Month, Bike to Work Day, International Walk to School Day, Spare the Air Day, and car‐ free commute challenges. These events encourage people to walk, bike, and take transit in a supportive  context, and potentially develop new, sustainable habits.   Example Program: The City of Boulder, Colorado’s Walk & Bike Month began as a single day of bicycling  events in 1977 and has grown to a month‐long celebration of Boulder’s active transportation culture.11  Walk & Bike Month includes a diverse list of more than more than 60 free events for people of all ages,  including mountain bike rides, running activities, scavenger hunts, historical walking tours, hikes, and                                                               8 City of Fort Colls. FC Bikes. Accessed Mar 29, 2017. http://www.fcgov.com/bicycling/  9 Safe Routes Campaigns. Bike Train. Accessed Mar 30, 2017. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/552063   10 The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals’ Bicycle Parking Guidelines, 2nd Edition, includes a section on event  bicycle parking. For event parking, the Guidelines provide a discussion of three types of parking ‐‐ valet, attended (self‐park),  and unattended ‐‐ and recommendations for suitable rack types.  11 Bike and Walk Month. About Boulder Walk & Bike Month. Accessed Mar. 29, 2017.  http://www.walkandbikemonth.org/about/  24    more.12 Bike to Work Day in June is the main event, with almost 50 breakfast stations around Boulder  serving free food and drink to the estimated 7,000 participants riding or walking to work.   Walk & Bike Month is sponsored by the City of Boulder and Community Cycles, a local nonprofit that  educates and advocates for safe bicycle use, who coordinates activities and volunteers during the  month. The month culminates in Bike to Work Day with more than 60 breakfast and bike service stations  around the city.13   Who: City‐led with community support         Enforcement  The following programs are proposed to increase safety for people walking and biking. However,  enforcement programs require a commitment of resources from the Wheat Ridge Police Department  (WRPD). As resources are limited, this Plan recognizes that infrastructure design is likely to be the most  effective way to encourage and ensure safe behavior on the part of motorists, bicyclists, and                                                               12 Ibid.   13 Bike and Walk Month. Bike to Work Day. Accessed Mar. 29, 2017. http://www.walkandbikemonth.org/events/bike‐to‐work‐ day/  National Bike Challenge encouragement sponsored by the ATAT  (Photo Credit: ATAT)  25    pedestrians. High quality sidewalks, crosswalks, and bicycle facilities should be designed and  constructed so that safe and legal use of these facilities is convenient for people walking and biking.  Nonetheless, targeted enforcement efforts help encourage civility on public streets.   Improve Enforcement Trainings    Provide regular education about holistic enforcement of traffic laws, including the rights and  responsibilities specific to bicyclists and pedestrians, for all officers who conduct enforcement. Consider  similar trainings for school bus drivers.   Example Program: In Fort Collins, CO, the 2011 Bicycle Safety Education Plan recommended that Fort  Collins Police Services provide with training for officers to help them understand typical behaviors, as  well as rights and responsibilities of bicyclists on the road.14 Currently, Police Services offers a two‐hour  course on these topics every two years, which is required of all new recruits and optional for others.  Additionally, Police Services provides officer education every spring and fall regarding rules of the road  and how to cite bicycle infractions.   Who: WRPD‐led  Position Speed Feedback Trailers as Needed    As speeding was a top issue cited by community members during this process, the City should work to  address vehicular speeds through enforcement and education. One potential solution to mitigate  vehicular speeding is to use portable speed feedback trailers to make drivers more aware of their actual  speeds.   Example Program: The City and County of Denver uses smart trailers, portable driver feedback signs  (“your speed is…”), and a stealth system (involving small boxes temporarily attached to poles) to collect  speed data. The stealth stat monitors volume and 85th percentile speed and has been used to monitor  speeds before and after installation of a photo radar system. These are also used on streets where  public works has had difficulty in collecting speed data. All three tools help Denver to dynamically  address speeding issues as they can be repositioned throughout the city.  Who: WRPD‐led  Evaluation   The following programs are proposed to collect valuable feedback to ensure an effective use of public  resources. While national guidance and best practices should be used where possible, collecting data  specific to Wheat Ridge can create a compelling and credible story to support future efforts.    Develop a Strategy for Bicycle and Pedestrian Counting  Wheat Ridge’s current bicycle and pedestrian count data comes from manual counts conducted by  volunteers. A routine counting program would help the City evaluate ridership trends and make the case  for future investments in active transportation infrastructure. The City should conduct pre‐ and post‐ data collection for new bicycle infrastructure projects to determine the effect of different investment  decisions. Behavioral observations, such as compliance with signals or jaywalking can also be performed  along with volume data collection.                                                                14 State of Bicycling in Fort Collins. August 2014.  http://www.fcgov.com/bicycling/pdf/appendix_b_state_of_bicycling_in_fort_collins.pdf?1416526711  26    Example Program: The Colorado Department of Transportation completed a Non‐Motorized Count  Strategic Plan in 2016 to outline strategies for collecting counts of pedestrians and bicyclists, including  counter technologies, location types, data management, and resource needs.    Who: City‐led  Analyze Crash Data on a Periodic Basis     Bicycle and pedestrian crash data is collected by Wheat Ridge Police Department and other law  enforcement agencies that respond to crashes in Wheat Ridge. Periodic analysis of this data may reveal  opportunities for implementing safety projects to reduce pedestrian and bicycle crashes and increase  comfort. In particular, the City should review crashes at locations with higher concentrations of crashes  as well as contributing factors common throughout the City.   Example Program: The City and County of Denver has conducted pedestrian and bicycle crash studies  and is now developing a Vision Zero Action Plan that will include strategies to reduce fatalities and  serious injuries throughout the city, but especially along high injury corridors.   Who: City‐led     27    CHAPTER 4: PEDESTRIAN ELEMENT  Introduction  Walking is the most basic and universal form of transportation, yet the needs of pedestrians are often  overlooked or considered after those of other modes of transportation. Pedestrians are also the most  vulnerable transportation system users. For example, 25 percent of crashes involving a pedestrian in  Wheat Ridge from 2011 to 2013 resulted in a serious injury, compared to only 2 percent of all crashes.    Designing a transportation system that works well for pedestrians requires slowing vehicles and  providing comfortable walking environments through separation from traffic, thoughtful intersection  design, pedestrian amenities, and seamless integration with destinations, including transit facilities. As a  community with a high percentage of seniors, many of whom do not or eventually will not drive,  providing comfortable and convenient walking facilities is extremely important for Wheat Ridge.15  Additionally, Wheat Ridge has a relatively high percentage of commuters who use transit. Transit users  are an important target audience for pedestrian improvements since they often walk to access transit.  Figure 8 shows the combined level of transit and walking as a percentage of all commute trips, across  several geographic areas within Colorado. Although lower than Denver and Golden, the combined  transit and walk mode share is higher in Wheat Ridge than in many other cities in the west Denver  metro area (Figure 8).   Figure 8. Combined Walk and Transit Commute Mode Share for Nearby Cities, 2011‐2015      In this section of the plan, options for improving the pedestrian environment are provided. A Pedestrian  Facility Toolbox, with treatments suitable for implementation in Wheat Ridge, is first presented. The  toolbox includes implementation considerations for pedestrian routes and intersections. These include  sidewalks, paths, pedestrian signals, crosswalk markings, and traffic calming measures. Some of the  recommendations will also improve conditions for bicyclists. To focus Wheat Ridge’s future  implementation efforts on the areas with the greatest need, priority pedestrian routes were also  identified. Finally, policy and project recommendations and proposed.                                                                  15 This Plan incorporates the ADA Transition Plan’s recommendations for improved accessibility and compliance related to  walking, especially pertinent for seniors who use mobility devices.    11.6% 11.3% 6.8% 6.2% 6.1% 5.6% 5.0% 4.8% 3.8% Golden Denver Wheat Ridge Lakewood Colorado Westminster Broomfield Jefferson County Arvada 28    Pedestrian Facilities Toolbox    Sidewalks   Sidewalks are the most common type of  pedestrian facility. They play a critical role in the  function, enjoyment, and accessibility of  neighborhoods, main streets, and other  community destinations. They also provide a  dedicated space with the primary purpose of  accommodating pedestrian travel. In most areas,  sidewalks constitute the majority of the pedestrian  network. Key considerations related to the  comfort of sidewalks include:    Width: Sidewalks less than 5 feet wide do  not allow people to comfortably walk  side‐by‐side. Wider sidewalks are needed  in areas with high pedestrian traffic or  high traffic volumes or speed. In locations  where a significant portion of bicyclists  are likely to ride on the sidewalk instead of on the street, a sidepath may be constructed  instead of a sidewalk to provide adequate space for pedestrians and bicyclists.16   Horizontal separation from traffic: On streets with higher speeds or volumes, a buffer should  be provided between the sidewalks and traffic.   Vertical barrier between sidewalk and traffic:  Street trees, light poles, on‐street parking, or  other vertical barriers provide a sense of enclosure and separation for pedestrians.    Shade: Street trees, awnings, or other shade features create a more comfortable walking  environment in the summer months.   Other Features: Benches, lighting, trash cans, wayfinding, and similar features provide a  necessary service to pedestrians throughout their journey. They are particularly important  around bus stops.                                                                      16 The Shared‐Use Path Level of Service Calculator (2006) and the American Association of State and Highway Transportation  Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities should be referenced for shared use path design guidance.   Urban and suburban neighborhoods often have 5‐foot  sidewalks. It is preferable to have a wide terrace between  the curb and the sidewalk to separate pedestrians from the  road and to provide room for street trees, utility poles, and  other furnishings.  “I walk twice/week to the Walmart /King Soopers center for groceries, lunch, etc. Along my 0.2 mile route, I  have to push my child's stroller onto the street three times because of poor sidewalks or no sidewalks. There  are many folks who walk this route, pushing grocery utility carts, strollers, walkers.”    – Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Survey Respondent  29    Curbless Streets  Many of Wheat Ridge’s original developments did not include sidewalks, but rather were built with  curbless streets and adjacent ditches. This characteristic street type remains prominent today and  widespread construction of sidewalks on such streets is neither feasible (from a financial standpoint) or  desirable to many Wheat Ridge residents. Although sidewalks are the best way to provide separation  from motor vehicles, curbless streets can work well in a residential setting with low levels of vehicle  traffic. This condition is most appropriate for streets that serve short, local trips.   Engineering treatments are needed on curbless streets to ensure that vehicle speeds are appropriate for  interaction with pedestrians and bicyclists. If drivers are allowed to drive fast on shared streets, the  streets will not only be unsafe, but they will discourage people from walking or biking there. Several  treatments can be employed to increase comfort for all people within the street right‐of‐way. In many  cases, a combination of treatments should be applied together in order to achieve the best outcome.       Striped Shoulder/Pedestrian Lane  On streets with adequate width, striping a shoulder  where pedestrians can walk, provides a dedicated  space and visual narrowing of the roadway that may  encourage drivers to slow down. This treatment has  been implemented on Miller Street, north of 44th  Avenue.       Advisory Shoulder  Similar to a striped shoulder, advisory shoulders  create a dedicated space for pedestrians or bicyclists,  but allow motorists to cross the dashed shoulder  marking when pedestrians and bicyclists are not  present, in order to pass an oncoming vehicle. They  may be useful on streets without adequate width to  accommodate a striped shoulder. As a relatively new  treatment type in the US, advisory shoulders should  be accompanied by education to ensure that they are  understood by the public. They also require an  approved Request to Experiment from the Federal  Highway Administration.17                                                                     17 Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices: Experimentations.  https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/condexper.htm  30    Traffic Calming  Traffic calming is the use of physical engineering measures that change the design of streets to reduce  speeds, alter driver behavior, and improve conditions for non‐motorized street users. Traffic calming  aims to slow the speeds of motorists to a “desired speed” (usually 20 miles per hour [mph] or less for  residential streets and 25 to 35 mph for collectors and minor arterials). The greatest benefit of traffic  calming is increased safety and comfort for all users, including drivers and people trying to cross the  street.   Traffic calming is essential to creating a comfortable, multimodal environment. Vertical treatments such  as speed humps, speed cushions, raised crossings, and other similar measures force drivers to slow  down. Horizontal treatments such as chicanes have a similar effect. Although not exclusive to curbless  streets, they can be used effectively in that context to reduce speeding.  Wheat Ridge has an existing Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, which includes criteria for  installation of speed humps and speed radar boards.18 This program creates a strong foundation for  implementation of traffic calming in Wheat Ridge, but could be expanded to address a broader range of  strategies. Additionally, as the current policy relies on residents to raise concerns, a more proactive  approach to traffic calming is needed to promote safe walking and bicycling in Wheat Ridge.                                                                    18 City of Wheat Ridge. Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (4‐28‐14). Accessed March 20, 2017.  http://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us/DocumentCenter/View/160   31    Figure 9. Traffic Calming Examples    Speed Bump Speed Hump Traffic Circle  Chicanes  Chicane with On‐Street Parking  Median Gateway 32    Intersections and Midblock Crossings  Intersections and midblock crossings are a natural point of conflict between all street users. Through  careful design, many of the inherent conflicts associated with these locations can be addressed. In this  section, treatment options that increase pedestrian safety, comfort, and convenience at intersections  and midblock crossings are presented.       High‐Visibility Crosswalks  Crosswalks marked with continental, ladder, or  zebra patterns have been found to be significantly  more visible to motorists19 and to reduce crashes by  48 percent.20 High‐visibility crosswalks are  especially beneficial on multi‐lane streets in  conjunction with additional countermeasures, such  as median refuge islands and rectangular rapid‐flash  beacons. Crosswalks must be a minimum of 6 feet  wide, or the full width of the connecting sidewalk or  sidepath, whichever is wider.     Advance Yield Lines   Advance yield lines, which are composed of solid  white triangles (often referred to as “shark’s  teeth”), indicate where drivers should yield to  pedestrians in crosswalks. They allow pedestrians  to be more easily seen by advancing drivers, whose  view might otherwise be blocked by a vehicle in the  adjacent lane. When applied to midblock  crosswalks, advance yield lines should be 20 to 50  feet from the crosswalk. Wheat Ridge has installed  advance yield lines on West 44th Avenue at Robb  Street.                                                                    19 K. Fitzpatrick, S. Chrysler, V. Iragavarapu, and E.S. Park. Detection Distances to Crosswalk Markings: Transverse Lines,  Continental Markings, and Bar Pairs. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2250.  Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 2011.  20 L. Chen, C. Chen, R. Ewing, C. McKnight, R. Srinivasan, and M. Roe. Safety Countermeasures and Crash Reduction in New York  City—Experience and Lessons Learned. Accident Analysis and Prevention. In print, 2012. Retrieved August 14, 2015.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.05.009  33    Median Refuge Island  Median refuge islands provide space in the middle of  intersections or midblock crossings for pedestrians to  wait and look for oncoming traffic. They make  crossings easier for pedestrians by providing a refuge  area for people crossing the street to wait, rest, or  look for oncoming motorists. Median islands should  be a minimum of six feet in width, which allows for  people using wheelchairs, strollers and bicycles to  use them comfortably. Medians also have a traffic  calming benefit and limit vehicle turning conflicts.       Curb Extension  Curb extensions or “bulbouts” extend the sidewalk  into the parking lane of a street to narrow the  roadway, slow traffic, increase visibility of  pedestrians, and reduce the distance of the street  crossing. Curb extensions can be used at  intersections or mid‐block crossings. Additionally,  curb extensions can be planted with trees or other  landscaping.       Pedestrian Countdown Timer   Countdown timers added to pedestrian signals  inform pedestrians of the amount of time remaining  before the solid “DON’T WALK” phase of the signal  cycle. This tool increases compliance by discouraging  pedestrians from beginning to cross near the end of  the cycle. Reduced crash rates and delays can be  realized through the installation of countdown  signals.  34    Leading Pedestrian Interval   Traditional signal timing often results in pedestrian  signals entering the “WALK” phase at the same time  turning traffic is given the green arrow or straight‐ through traffic is given the green light, allowing right‐ turning traffic to cross the crosswalk. This creates  conflicts between pedestrians in the crosswalk and  turning motorists who either do not see the  pedestrian or believe they can pass through the  intersection before the pedestrian arrives at the  conflict point.  Leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) start the “WALK”  phase three to ten seconds before motor vehicle  traffic is allowed to proceed, allowing pedestrians to  enter the crosswalk before turning motor vehicles  begin moving through the intersection. LPIs may reducing crashes by as much as 60 percent.21  Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon  Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are user‐actuated systems that supplement warning signs  at unsignalized crossing locations. When a pedestrian triggers the system, the lights flash rapidly,  drawing attention to the warning sign and the presence of a pedestrian. RRFBs are only active when  triggered by a pedestrian either actively (i.e., push button) or passively (i.e., sensor). They cost less than  full signals and have been shown to increase driver yielding.22   RRFBs work best in  conjunction with a  median refuge island.  In such cases, a beacon  can be placed in the  median, which  enhances the visibility  of the crossing  significantly. This is  particularly important  for streets with four or  more lanes, as the distance between beacons increases. RRFBs on four lane roads should also be paired  with advanced yield lines to reduce the likelihood of multiple threat crashes, which are not solved by the  presence of an RRFB. A multiple threat crash involves a driver stopping in one lane of a multilane road to                                                               21 A.C. Fayish and Frank Gross. Safety effectiveness of leading pedestrian intervals evaluated by a before–after study with  comparison groups. Transportation Research Record No. 2198 (2010): 15–22.  22 Federal Highway Administration. Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon. May 2009.   https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/conventional/unsignalized/tech_sum/fhwasa09009/fhwasa09009.pdf   35    permit pedestrians to cross while an oncoming vehicle (in the same direction) fails to see or yield to the  pedestrian who is crossing.23   High‐Intensity Activated Crosswalk Beacon   The High‐intensity Activated Crosswalk Beacon (HAWK) is a  type of signal intended to allow pedestrians and bicyclists  to stop traffic to cross high‐volume arterial streets. This  type of signal may be used in lieu of a full signal or at  locations which do not meet traffic signal warrants, but  where assistance is needed for pedestrians or bicyclists to  cross a high‐volume street. HAWK signals should be  considered for all trail crossings if other engineering  measures are found inadequate to create safe crossings.   There are currently no HAWK signals in Wheat Ridge;  however, they may be justified on Sheridan Boulevard,  Wadsworth Boulevard, Kipling Street, 44th Avenue, or 38th  Avenue. Midblock or unsignalized intersection locations  with frequent pedestrian crossings along these streets are  good candidates for HAWK signal installation due to high  traffic volumes, speed, and number of lanes.     Curb Ramps  Curb ramps provide a transition between  sidewalks and crosswalks and must be installed at  all intersection and midblock pedestrian  crossings, as mandated by federal legislation.  They allow people using wheelchairs, strollers,  walkers, crutches, handcarts, bicycles, or who  have mobility restrictions to more easily navigate  the city. They also serve a wayfinding function for  visually impaired pedestrians. Curb ramps should  be installed at each intersection and midblock  crossing throughout Wheat Ridge. These must  include detectible warning surfaces (a yellow,  bumpy pad, also known as a truncated dome).  Wheat Ridge is currently developing an ADA Transition Plan, which provides more detailed information  regarding the highest priorities for implementation of curb ramps. From the standpoint of enhancing  mobility throughout the community, curb ramps along priority pedestrian routes should be considered                                                               23 Federal Highway Administration. “Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations Final  Report and Recommended Guidelines.” Sept. 2005. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04100/03.cfm   36    for replacement to achieve compliance with national guidance. Additionally, curb ramps should always  be evaluated and updated as needed during resurfacing projects.    Priority Pedestrian Routes  Most pedestrian trips are less than a mile in length and are focused around activity centers and in  compact neighborhoods where destinations are close together. This Plan’s analysis of pedestrian needs  and identification of priority routes is based on input from the public received through the project online  interactive map, open house, and the Ridgefest event. It also reflects input from the ATAT, which  identified high priority pedestrian routes for consideration by the project team (Appendix C).   The route identification process began with a GIS‐based demand analysis that incorporated the  following spatial data:   RTD Gold Line Stations and Bus Stops   Schools   City and Regional Parks   Destinations identified by the public through the Online Map‐Based Survey or public events   Other destinations used to develop routes in the 2016 JeffCo [Jefferson County] Regional  Bikeways Wayfinding Guide, a study recently completed by Jefferson County.    Based on these datasets, a demand map was developed to identify areas with the greatest potential for  walk trips (Figure 10). In addition to the demand map, consideration was given to the priority pedestrian  routes provided by ATAT to the project team. The ATAT map divided routes into two tiers indicating  higher and lower priorities.   Building from the demand map and preliminary recommended routes, the project team developed a  refined set of corridors that are recommended as priority pedestrian routes (Figure 11). These corridors  were carefully selected to connect people to important destinations and result in a well‐connected and  comprehensive pedestrian network. In general, the routes follow major streets, as they are the most  likely to serve a higher volume of pedestrians and provide direct access to destinations. However,  additional routes that feed into the Clear Creek Trail, connect directly to schools, or provide a high  degree of connectivity are also included.   The City recognizes that these are not the only places where people walk, or the only places that need  investment to improve walkability. As previously noted, people often walk on residential streets that  lack sidewalks, and in some cases this works fine for most people, but in others sidewalks, crosswalks or  other improvements may be needed.    Recommendations for Priority Pedestrian Routes   The identified pedestrian routes should be considered as the highest priority for implementation of  pedestrian facilities. The following guidelines for implementation should be applied to the priority  pedestrian routes to improve conditions for people who walk:   Infrastructure    Sidewalks ‐ Implement sidewalks on both sides of the street and fill high‐priority sidewalk gaps  along arterials. In some cases, these gaps overlap with gaps in the bicycle network and, as a  37    result, sidepaths are recommended to serve both user groups. Recommended sidewalk projects  are listed in Table 4 and 6 of ‘Chapter 6, Implementation.’   Curb ramps ‐ Prioritize installation of curb ramps along priority routes, especially near transit  stops or other priority destinations identified in the ADA Transition Plan.   Transit amenities ‐ Provide bus shelters and other amenities to increase the convenience and  comfort of pedestrians waiting for the bus.  Increased Separation   Separation ‐ Provide separation from traffic through landscaped buffers and/or on‐street  parking.   Residential streets ‐ Implement striped shoulders on residential streets within the pedestrian  priority route network where adequate width exists. For narrow streets, explore the use of  advisory shoulders.   Crossings    Frequent crossings ‐ Implement designated pedestrian crossings at regular intervals (target:  approximately every 500 feet).     Pedestrian‐focused crossings ‐ Ensure crossings at signals and midblock locations adhere to best  practice guidance.   Speed Management   Signal timing ‐ Implement traffic signal timing modifications to support operating speeds of 30  mph or less, where applicable.   School zones ‐ Proactively implement engineering measures to reduce speeds in school zones.     Traffic calming on residential streets ‐ Pilot traffic calming measures on residential streets  within the pedestrian priority route network, evaluating outcomes such as vehicle speed,  pedestrian and bicycle usage, and resident satisfaction.  Citywide Pedestrian Recommendations  The following pedestrian improvement strategies are intended to improve conditions for pedestrians  across Wheat Ridge.:   Programs and Policies   Expand the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Program to include other treatments such  as chicanes, neighborhood traffic circles, speed cushions, and gateway treatments.    Develop pedestrian crossing guidelines for arterials, including location criteria and treatment  selection.   Crossing Improvements   Pedestrian signals ‐ Upgrade pedestrian signals to include countdown timers where they are not  currently installed. Implement LPIs at locations with a high volume of pedestrians or turning  conflicts.   Advanced stop lines ‐ Add advanced stop lines to existing midblock crossings on multi‐lane  streets where not currently installed.    Enhance pedestrian crossings ‐ Evaluate opportunities to implement HAWK signals on arterials  such as Sheridan Boulevard, Wadsworth Boulevard, Kipling Street, 44th Avenue, or 38th Avenue.      38    School Walksheds  In addition to priority pedestrian routes, the project team created a series of maps to identify potential  locations for implementation of school‐related infrastructure improvements (Appendix B). These maps  highlight the areas that are accessible to the school within a half‐mile walk, based on the existing street  network and trail system. Opportunities to increase levels of walking to school through construction of  sidewalks or trails may exist where there are significant differences between the walking distance and  straight‐line distance.         BOYD'SCROSSINGPARKBAUGH PARK APEL-BACHERPARK HOPPERHOLLOW PARKPROSPECTPARKANDERSONPARKHAPPINESSGARDENSPARKRANDALL PARKTOWNCENTERWHEAT RIDGERECREATIONCENTERLOUISETURNER PARK COMMUNITYCENTER PANORAMAPARKLEWISMEADOWS PARK STITESPARKHAYWARDPARK RICHARDS-HARTESTATE MANWARINGATHLETICFIELD PARAMOUNTPARK FRUITDALEPARK YE OLDEFIREHOUSE 37TH &UPHAMPARKDISCOVERYPARK CROWN HILLLAKE PARK West 32nd Avenue West 38th Avenue West 44th Avenue Ralston Road West 48thAvenue Yo u n g f i e l d S t r e e t Mc I n t y r e S t r e e t West 58th Avenue K i p l i n g P a r k w a y Wa r d R o a d Sh e r i d a n B o u l e v a r d Ki p l i n g S t r e e t W a d s w o r t h B o u l e v a r d W a d s w o r t h B y p a s s West 46th Avenue West 26th Avenue Pa r f e t S t r e e t West 44th Avenue Lo w e l l B o u l e v a r d West 56th Avenue West 27th Avenue Te l l e r S t r e e t Ridge Road Grandview Avenue Mc I n t y r e S t r e e t Y a r r o w S t r e e t West 58th Avenue West 17th Avenue West 20th Avenue West 52nd Avenue B r o oks D r i v e West 32nd Avenue Fie l d S t r e e t West 48th Avenue Ha r l a n S t r e e t Ol d e W a d s w o r t h B o u l e v a r d We s t 38th Avenue West 23rd Avenue Ca r r S t r e e t Te n n y s o n S t r e e t W e s t 5 0 t h A v e n u e West 29th Avenue L u t h e r a n P a r k w a y West 41st Avenue West 57th Avenue Ro b b S t r e e t Mi l l e r S t r e e t Q u a i l S t r e e t West 55th Avenue West 54th Avenue West 25th Avenue Al k i r e S t r e e t D e n v e r W e s t P a r k w a y Ta b l e MountainParkway No rth Interstate Highway 70 S ervice R o a d North Interstate Highway 7 0 F r o n t a g e R o a d Pi e r c e S t r e e t West 35th Avenue West 60th Avenue I n d e p e n d e n c e S tr e e t Oa k S t r e e t Wa r d R o a d El d r i d g e S t r e e t La m a r S t r e e t M a r s h a l l S t r e e t Yo u n g f i e l d S t r e e t Ta b o r S t r e e t Pe r r y S t r e e t Ga r r i s o n S t r e e t Du d l e y S t r e e t Al l i s o n S t r e e t Si m m s S t r e e t Figure 10. Pedestrian Priority AreasCity of Wheat Ridge Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Date: 3/31/2017User: jfish Path: H:\B000\B030 Wheat Ridge Bike Ped Plan\PRODUCTION\GIS\mxds\2017_March\WR_Ped_Demand_11x17_Draft.mxd 0 0.5 10.25 Miles JOHNSONPARK WR HISTORICALPARK BOYD'SCROSSINGPARKBAUGHPARK APEL-BACHERPARK HOPPERHOLLOW PARKPROSPECTPARKANDERSONPARKHAPPINESSGARDENSPARK RANDALLPARKTOWNCENTERWHEAT RIDGERECREATIONCENTER LOUISETURNER PARK COMMUNITYCENTER PANORAMA PARKLEWISMEADOWSPARK STITESPARKHAYWARDPARK RICHARDS-HARTESTATE MANWARINGATHLETICFIELD PARAMOUNTPARK FRUITDALEPARK YE OLDEFIREHOUSE 37TH& UPHAMPARKDISCOVERYPARK CROWN HILLLAKE PARK West 32nd Avenue West 38th Avenue West 44th Avenue Ralston Road West 48thAvenue Yo u n g f i e l d S t r e e t Mc I n t y r e S t r e e t West 58th Avenue K i p l i n g P a r k w a y Wa r d R o a d Sh e r i d a n B o u l e v a r d Ki p l i n g S t r e e t W a d s w o r t h B y p a s s Wa d s w o r t h B o u l e v a r d West 46th Avenue West 26th Avenue Pa r f e t S t r e e t West 44th Avenue Lo w e l l B o u l e v a r d West 56th Avenue West 27th Avenue Te l l e r S t r e e t Ridge Road Grandview Avenue Mc I n t y r e S t r e e t Y a r r o w S t r e e t West 58th Avenue West 17th Avenue West 20th Avenue West 52nd Avenue B r o oks D r i v e West 32nd Avenue Fie l d S t r e e t W e s t 48th Avenue Ha r l a n S t r e e t Ol d e W a d s w o r t h B o u l e v a r d W est 38th Avenue West 23rd Avenue Ca r r S t r e e t L u t h e r a n P ar k w a y Te n n y s o n S t r e e t W e s t 5 0 t h A v e n u e West 29th Avenue West 41st Avenue West 57th Avenue Ro b b S t r e e t Mi l l e r S t r e e t Q u a i l S t r e e t West 55th Avenue West 54th Avenue West 25th Avenue Al k i r e S t r e e t D e n v e r W e s t P a r k w a y Ta b l e MountainParkway No rth Interstate Highway 70 S ervice R o a d North Interstate Highway 7 0 F r o n t a g e R o a d Pi e r c e S t r e e t West 35th Avenue West 60th Avenue I n d e p e n d e n c e S tr e e t Oa k S t r e e t Wa r d R o a d El d r i d g e S t r e e t La m a r S t r e e t M a r s h a l l S t r e e t Yo u n g f i e l d S t r e e t Ta b o r S t r e e t Pe r r y S t r e e t Ga r r i s o n S t r e e t Du d l e y S t r e e t Al l i s o n S t r e e t Si m m s S t r e e t Figure 11. Proposed Pedestrian RoutesCity of Wheat Ridge Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Date: 3/31/2017 City Boundary Gold Line Stops Park Existing Trail Existing Neighborhood Path Existing Sidepath Proposed Pedestrian Facility Existing Pedestrian Facility Pedestrian Priority Route User: jfish Path: H:\B000\B030 Wheat Ridge Bike Ped Plan\PRODUCTION\GIS\mxds\2017_March\WR_Proposed_PED_Facilities_Document_11x17_2017_03_31.mxd 0 0.5 10.25 Miles 41    CHAPTER 5: BICYCLE ELEMENT  Introduction  Wheat Ridge has made substantial progress implementing bicycle facilities since the adoption of the  2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Many of the “quick wins,” such as existing roadway shoulders  that can easily be striped as bike lanes, have already been achieved. However, through implementation  of trail connections, sidepaths along major streets, bike lanes, shared streets, and wayfinding, a well‐ connected, comfortable bicycle network can be developed.   In this section of the plan, a Bicycle Facilities Toolbox is included to provide context and implementation  considerations for treatments that may be appropriate for implementation in Wheat Ridge. Additionally,  a comprehensive network map with recommended projects is provided.   Bicycle Facilities Toolbox  The Plan’s bicycle infrastructure recommendations are categorized into four broad categories: paved  trails, sidepaths and separated bike lanes, bike lanes, and shared streets. Some of these facility types  include variations, such as the addition of a striped buffer to a standard bike lane. Variations and  optional treatments are described in more detail in this section of the plan.  Paved Trail  A paved trail or shared use path is an off‐street  bicycle and pedestrian facility that is physically  separated from motor vehicle traffic. Typically,  shared use paths are located in parks, stream valley  greenways, along a utility corridor, or along  abandoned railroad corridors. Shared use paths are  for bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users,  and other non‐motorized users. They are typically  constructed of concrete or asphalt and play an  important role in the overall bike network.     Design Criteria   Minimum width: 10 feet       Preferred Width: 10‐12 feet    References and Resources   American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the  Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012)    National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide  (2012)   Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTD) (2009)      42    Sidepath  A sidepath is a shared use path located adjacent to a  street. It is designed for two‐way use by bicyclists  and pedestrians. Sidepaths are sometimes created by  designating a wide sidewalk for shared use, or they  may be a segment of a longer path system. The use  of sidepaths should be limited to roadways with  limited points of conflict at intersections and  driveways. Special consideration should be given to  traffic control where sidepaths pass through  signalized intersections. Designating a narrow  sidewalk as a sidepath without making improvements to accommodate a mixture of bike and pedestrian  traffic is not recommended.  Design Criteria   Minimum width: 10 feet       Preferred Width: 12‐14 feet    References and Resources   AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012)    NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2012)    Separated Bike Lane  A separated bike lane, sometimes called a cycle track,  is a bicycle facility that is physically separated from  both the street and the sidewalk. A separated bike  lane may be constructed at street level using street  space, or at the sidewalk level using space adjacent  to the street. Separated bike lanes isolate bicyclists  from motor vehicle traffic using a variety of methods,  including curbs, raised concrete medians, bollards,  on‐street parking, large planting pots/boxes,  landscaped buffers, or other methods.   Separated bike lanes designed to be level with the sidewalk should provide a vertical separation  between bicyclists and pedestrians, or different surface treatments to delineate the bicycle space from  the pedestrian space (such as asphalt versus concrete).     The provision of separated bike lanes should consider the design and function of intersections, which  may require adjustments to signal timing and phasing and/or modifications to pavement and curb  sections.     Design Criteria   Minimum width: 5 feet (one‐way facility); 8 feet (bi‐directional facility)  43     Preferred width: 6.5 feet (one‐way facility) allows for same‐direction passing; 10+ feet (bi‐ directional facility)    References and Resources   Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015)   NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2012)   Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) Separated Bike Lane Planning and  Design Guide (2015)    Bike Lane  Bike lanes use pavement markings to designate a  portion of a street for the preferential or exclusive  use of bicycles. Bike lane markings are sometimes  dashed where vehicles are allowed to cross the bike  lane, such as for right turns or at driveway crossings.  Bike lanes are best suited for two‐way local and  collector streets where there is enough width to  accommodate a bike lane in both directions, and on  one‐way streets where there is enough width for a  single bike lane.    Design Criteria   Minimum Width: 4 feet exclusive of gutter, 5 feet next to parked cars     Preferred Width: 5 feet exclusive of gutter, 6+ feet next to parked cars    References and Resources   AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012)    NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2012)   Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009)    Buffered Bike Lane  Buffered bike lanes are created by striping a buffer  zone between a bike lane and the adjacent travel  lane. Some buffered bike lanes also offer a painted  buffer between the bike lane and an adjacent parking  lane. Buffered bike lanes should be considered at  locations where there is excess pavement width or  where adjacent motor vehicle traffic speeds exceed  35 mph.  Design Criteria   Minimum width: See bike lane minima; 2 feet  for buffer adjacent to traffic         Preferred Width: See bike lane minima; 3‐4 feet for buffer adjacent to traffic   44    References and Resources   FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015)   NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2012)    Shared Lane Markings  Shared lane markings (also known as “sharrows”) are  used on streets where bicyclists and motor vehicles  share the same travel lane. They may be used to  designate a preferred route for bicyclists where there  is not sufficient width for bike lanes. The sharrow  indicates to bicyclists the most appropriate location  to ride. It also provides a visual cue to motorists that  bicyclists may be present and have a right to use the  street. Sharrows should be placed at least 4 feet (on  center) from the face of curb where on‐street parking  is prohibited, or at least 11 feet (on center) from the face of curb where on‐street parking is allowed.  Sharrows should be used only on low‐volume, low‐speed streets and are not appropriate on streets with  speed limits greater than 35 mph.   Design Criteria   Preferred on streets with posted speed limits of up to 25 mph and traffic volumes of less than  4,000 vehicles per day. Maximum posted speed of street: 35 mph   The marking’s centerline must be minimum 4’ from curb where parking is prohibited.   The marking’s centerline must be minimum 11’ from curb where parking is permitted, so that it  is outside the door zone of parked vehicles.    For narrow lanes, it may be desirable to center shared lane markings along the centerline of the  outside travel lane.  References and Resources   AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012)    NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2012)   MUTCD (2009)  45      Neighborhood Bikeway  A neighborhood bikeway is a street with low motorized  traffic volumes and low speeds intended to provide  priority to bicyclists and neighborhood motor vehicle  traffic. Neighborhood bikeways may simply have signs  and shared lane markings, or may include traffic  calming elements consisting of speed humps, traffic  circles, chicanes, or traffic diverters.     Design Criteria   Maximum Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 3,000   Preferred ADT: up to 1,000   Target motorist speeds are typically around 20 mph   Speed differential between bicyclists and vehicles less than 15 mph  References & Resources   NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2012)  Bicycle Network Development  The plan vision and goals served as the overarching framework for development of bicycle network  recommendations. The network, containing both recommended facility locations and types, was crafted  to meet the following Plan goals:    Complete a connected network of low‐stress bicycle facilities.    Improve intermodal connections, especially access to transit.    Increase access to the region’s parks, major destinations, and recreational opportunities.    Create a plan that is implementable and sensitive to the Wheat Ridge context.   Constraints  While Wheat Ridge has substantial opportunities for promoting and increasing bicycling, significant  challenges also exist. Foremost among these is that few streets provide connectivity over long distances.  Opportunities for east‐west connectivity are particularly constrained.  The recommended bicycle  network proposes connections using low‐stress neighborhood streets, but these routes are less direct  than the city’s arterials.     Similarly, the Rocky Mountain Ditch, Lena Gulch, and connections through Lutheran Hospital would  significantly improve overall connectivity, but development of bicycle facilities through these properties  is not viable at this time. Connectivity to the Clear Creek Trail is another substantial challenge,  particularly west of Kipling Street, where the topography is steep and much of the adjacent land has  been developed and occupied.     While the 2017 Plan is focused on shorter‐term, feasible recommendations, opportunities to address  significant connectivity gaps should be explored over the long‐term. As attitudes toward bicycling  change over time, tackling these barriers may become more realistic.  46      Network Development Process  With consideration of the goals and constraints outlined above, the project team began developing the  2017 network recommendations by reviewing the proposed facilities from the City’s previous Bicycle  and Pedestrian Master Plan. These facilities (both location and type) were compared to the input  received throughout the planning process and consideration of best practices, which have evolved over  the last several years. Some facility recommendations were removed, or the facility type  recommendation was modified to better fit the plan goals of developing a connected network of low‐ stress bicycle facilities.   Information reviewed and incorporated into the network development process includes:    Existing and proposed bicycle network data provided by the City.   Input received from the TAC, City staff, and the public at the October open house.   Key activity areas and transit hubs within the City (as noted by the public, the TAC, and the City).   Information regarding planned developments (e.g., the Applewood Development, Ward Road  Station area).   Key online interactive map inputs, including barrier and line data.   Bicycle networks of Arvada, Denver, and Lakewood.   Jefferson County wayfinding network.   Bike Jeffco’s recommendations for north‐south connectivity on Marshall Street and Garrison  Street.    Using this data, the team evaluated streets for their potential in forming a gridded network of bicycle  facilities that are comfortable for a large percentage of Wheat Ridge residents. The resulting network is  shown in Figure 12, along with associated facility recommendations. Recommendations are made for  paved trails, on‐street bicycle facilities (which could include sidepaths, separated bike lanes, or  conventional bike lanes), and neighborhood bikeways.       JOHNSONPARK WR HISTORICALPARK BOYD'SCROSSINGPARKBAUGHPARK APEL-BACHERPARK HOPPERHOLLOW PARKPROSPECTPARKANDERSONPARKHAPPINESSGARDENSPARK RANDALLPARKTOWNCENTERWHEAT RIDGERECREATIONCENTER LOUISETURNER PARK COMMUNITYCENTER PANORAMA PARKLEWISMEADOWSPARK STITESPARKHAYWARDPARK RICHARDS-HARTESTATE MANWARINGATHLETICFIELD PARAMOUNTPARK FRUITDALEPARK YE OLDEFIREHOUSE 37TH& UPHAMPARKDISCOVERYPARK CROWN HILLLAKE PARK West 32nd Avenue West 38th Avenue West 44th Avenue Ralston Road West 48thAvenue Yo u n g f i e l d S t r e e t Mc I n t y r e S t r e e t West 58th Avenue K i p l i n g P a r k w a y Wa r d R o a d Sh e r i d a n B o u l e v a r d Ki p l i n g S t r e e t W a d s w o r t h B y p a s s Wa d s w o r t h B o u l e v a r d West 46th Avenue West 26th Avenue Pa r f e t S t r e e t West 44th Avenue Lo w e l l B o u l e v a r d West 56th Avenue West 27th Avenue Te l l e r S t r e e t Ridge Road Grandview Avenue Mc I n t y r e S t r e e t Y a r r o w S t r e e t West 58th Avenue West 17th Avenue West 20th Avenue West 52nd Avenue B r o oks D r i v e West 32nd Avenue Fie l d S t r e e t W e s t 48th Avenue Ha r l a n S t r e e t Ol d e W a d s w o r t h B o u l e v a r d W est 38th Avenue West 23rd Avenue Ca r r S t r e e t L u t h e r a n P ar k w a y Te n n y s o n S t r e e t W e s t 5 0 t h A v e n u e West 29th Avenue West 41st Avenue West 57th Avenue Ro b b S t r e e t Mi l l e r S t r e e t Q u a i l S t r e e t West 55th Avenue West 54th Avenue West 25th Avenue Al k i r e S t r e e t D e n v e r W e s t P a r k w a y Ta b l e MountainParkway No rth Interstate Highway 70 S ervice R o a d North Interstate Highway 7 0 F r o n t a g e R o a d Pi e r c e S t r e e t West 35th Avenue West 60th Avenue I n d e p e n d e n c e S tr e e t Oa k S t r e e t Wa r d R o a d El d r i d g e S t r e e t La m a r S t r e e t M a r s h a l l S t r e e t Yo u n g f i e l d S t r e e t Ta b o r S t r e e t Pe r r y S t r e e t Ga r r i s o n S t r e e t Du d l e y S t r e e t Al l i s o n S t r e e t Si m m s S t r e e t Figure 12. Proposed Bicycle FacilitiesCity of Wheat Ridge Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Date: 3/31/2017 City Boundary Gold Line Stops Park Existing Facilities Trail Neighborhood Path Unpaved Trail Sidepath Bike Lane Shared Lane Marking Shoulder Proposed Facilities Neighborhood Bikeways Paved Trail On-Street Bicycle Facilities User: jfish Path: H:\B000\B030 Wheat Ridge Bike Ped Plan\PRODUCTION\GIS\mxds\2017_March\WR_Proposed_Facilities_11x17_2017_03_30.mxd 0 0.5 10.25 Miles 48    Bicycle Facility Recommendations  In this section, brief descriptions of the facility recommendations shown in Figure 12 are provided.  Specific projects are also listed in Tables 4 and 6 of ‘Chapter 6, Implementation.’   Paved Trails  The Clear Creek Trail forms the spine of Wheat Ridge’s bicycle network and attracts bicyclists of all ages  and abilities. It is an important regional corridor for transportation and recreation and provides a  comfortable means of biking to Golden or Denver.   The strong desire to access the Clear Creek Trail was reaffirmed at every stage of the public engagement  process. There are many existing access points, but most are informal and unpaved. Additionally,  wayfinding to trail access points has not been consistently implemented. Consistent with  recommendations from the 2015 Wheat Ridge Parks and Recreation Master Plan, this plan recommends  formalizing the connections to the Clear Creek Trail and providing amenities such as benches, trash cans,  and informational kiosks (including  wayfinding maps) at access points. In  addition to trailhead amenities, these  locations will require a short length of trail  to connect to adjoining streets.   Formalized connections to the Clear Creek  Trail are recommended at the following  locations:    Tabor Street (north of trail)   Oak Street (south of trail)    Iris Street (north of trail)   Hoyt Court (north of trail)   Garrison Street (north of trail)     A typical concept for trail access is shown in  Figure 13.    In addition to connections to Clear Creek  Trail, paved trails are recommended for  implementation as part of the Clear Creek  Crossing development, southwest of the I‐ 70/CO 58 interchange. The exact alignment  of those trails is to be determined in the  development review process. The Clear Creek Trail near Wadsworth Boulevard  49    Figure 13. Typical Clear Creek Trail Trailhead Diagram             50    Sidepaths and Separated Bike Lanes  The recently completed sidepath along Kipling Street provides a great connection between two  important bike routes – West 32nd Avenue and the Clear Creek Trail. Sidepaths are appropriate for such  high‐volume, high‐speed streets and are recommended on other arterials as discussed below. These  projects provide connectivity for bicyclists and also fill important gaps in the pedestrian network.  Potential sidepath projects are listed in Table 4.  Bike Lanes  Bike lanes provide delineated space for bicyclists. For the purposes of this plan, this recommendation  category includes standard bike lanes and buffered bike lanes. The appropriate variation or treatment  type for each recommendation should be investigated in more detail during the development of a  specific project. In cases where a lower‐stress variation (such as a wider or buffered bike lane) is  feasible, it should be implemented to provide greater comfort. Bike lanes are proposed for several  corridors, as listed in Table 4.   Neighborhood Bikeways  Neighborhood bikeways encompass a range of strategies intended to increase comfort for bicyclists and  pedestrians on streets without dedicated facilities. They are an important part of the overall bicycle  network in Wheat Ridge and are especially important because of the lack of connectivity in the street  network in many areas, and the limited right‐of‐way on most streets in the city.  A comprehensive network of neighborhood bikeways is proposed in this plan, in combination with off‐ street facilities and bike lanes as previously discussed. The proposed network takes advantage of the  City’s residential streets, which are generally low‐volume, low‐speed streets with on‐street parking. To  promote the use of this network, the City can implement pavement markings, signage, traffic calming  measures where needed (i.e., where vehicular speeding is high or believed to be an issue), crossing  improvements, and wayfinding. Many of the treatments discussed in the curbless streets section of  Chapter 4, ‘Pedestrian Element,’ also contribute to an improved environment for bicycling. Potential  neighborhood bikeways are listed in Table 4.  Wayfinding  The 2016 Jefferson County (JeffCo) Regional Bikeways Wayfinding Guide serves as a toolkit for the  development of a regional wayfinding network.24 When implemented, the wayfinding signs will form a  core component of a more intuitively navigable regional bikeway network. The wayfinding project  establishes graphic standards and a framework for implementation, as well as first, second, and third  priority wayfinding routes across the County. Within the City of Wheat Ridge, two routes ‐ 32nd Avenue  and a north‐south route that passes through Crown Hill Park to Arvada by way of Independence Street –  are identified as Priority 1 Routes. The regional wayfinding network informed the development of  bicycle network recommendations within this Plan as to ensure that bicyclists traveling both within the  City and throughout the County are safe and comfortable.  The intent of the JeffCo Wayfinding Guide is for regional routes to be implemented simultaneously, even  though many of them cross jurisdictional boundaries. Therefore, the City of Wheat Ridge should                                                               24 Jefferson County. Transportation and Engineering. http://jeffco.us/transportation‐and‐engineering/transportation‐ plans/bicycle‐and‐pedestrian‐plan/   51    continue coordinating with Jefferson County, Arvada, Lakewood, Westminster, and Golden, to ensure  the signage is fabricated and installed in concert.   Wayfinding is also needed on routes that fall outside the recommendations of the Jeffco Wayfinding  Guide. In particular, the following types of wayfinding are needed in Wheat Ridge:   Signage directing bicyclists to the Clear Creek Trail from feeder streets   Routes that cross offset intersections   Sidepaths that cross streets   Signage from bike facilities to key destinations, such as the Wheat Ridge Recreation Center,  Crown Hill Park, other city parks, libraries, schools, and other activity centers     For wayfinding that falls outside the regional priority routes, the City should use the wayfinding  standards outlined in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards.      52    CHAPTER 6: IMPLEMENTATION  The infrastructure recommendations described in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Elements of this Plan will  help Wheat Ridge become a more bicycle‐ and pedestrian‐friendly city. This chapter provides guidance  for the City in the selection and funding of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure projects. The  implementation approach focuses on completing gaps in the pedestrian priority route network,  improving access to the Clear Creek Trail, and developing a citywide low‐stress bike network that is  comfortable for all riders.   Prioritization  The recommended pedestrian and bicycle facilities were evaluated across six categories related to the  overall goals of the community. For each category, up to four points were awarded based on the criteria  described in Table 2.   Table 2. Prioritization Criteria  Local vs. Regional Regional routes are classified as routes or streets that provide clear and  direct bike or pedestrian access into neighboring communities.  Proposed  facilities along these routes receive 4 points while local proposed facilities  receive 2 points.  Access to School Access to school was determined with the use of ½ mile network  walkshed. Proposed facilities that provide a direct connection to a school  receive 4 points, while proposed facilities that do not provide a direct  connection but are within the ½ mile walkshed receive 2 points.  Proposed  facilities outside of the ½ mile walkshed received zero points.  Geographic Priority Areas Proposed facilities along the corridor or directly within a Geographic  Priority Area (as defined in the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)  receive a score of 4 points. Facilities that intersect or cross a corridor  identified as a Geographic Priority Area receive 2 points.  For example, a  proposed neighborhood bikeway along Depew Street crosses 38th Avenue  between Wadsworth and Sheridan (a geographic priority area) and  receives a score of 2 points.  Serves Multiple User Types Paved trails and sidepaths are given 4 points because these facilities are  used by both bicyclists and pedestrians. Detached sidewalks, bike lanes,  and neighborhood bikeways are given a 2 score of 2 points.  None of the  proposed facilities received a score of zero points.  Connectivity with Other Modes Proposed facilities within ½ mile of a Gold Line stop receive 4 points and  proposed facilities within ¼ mile of a bus stop are given a score of 2  points.  There were very few projects that score a zero due to the number  of bus stops within the community.  Completes a Gap or Extends  Existing Route/Trail  Proposed facilities that complete a gap and connect existing facilities on  each end receive 4 points. Proposed facilities that extend existing facilities  receive 3 points. Proposed facilities that intersect, but do not connect to  existing facilities on either end receive 2 points.      53    The prioritization criteria were applied to 118 potential projects, including construction of sidewalks,  trails, sidepaths, bike lanes, and neighborhood bikeways. These projects are ranked separately for  sidewalks and bicycle facilities (trails, sidepaths, bike lanes, and neighborhood bikeways).   Sidewalks  Sidewalk improvements should be focused along priority pedestrian routes as these corridors were  carefully selected to connect people to important destinations and establish a comprehensive  pedestrian network. Table 3 shows the ranking of sidewalk projects needed to fill gaps in the pedestrian  priority network (see also Figure 11).   Table 3. Proposed Sidewalk Projects  Rank Proposed Route From To Score 1 Ward Road25 49th Avenue 52nd Avenue 22 2 Kipling Street 35th Avenue 38th Avenue 18 3 32nd Avenue Garrison Street Dudley Street 14 4 41st Avenue Miller Street Kipling Street 14 5 Ridge Road Tabor Street Parfet Street 14 6 Tabor Street 49th Avenue 52nd Avenue 14 7 Tabor Street Clear Creek Trail 48th Avenue 14 8 38th Avenue Routt Street Moore Street 12 9 44th Avenue Youngfield Street Existing sidewalk to the West 12 10 52nd Avenue Taft Court Tabor Street 12 11 Garrison Street 45th Avenue 46th Place 12 12 Garrison Street 42nd Avenue 44th Avenue 12 13 Pierce Street 29th Avenue 32nd Avenue 12 14 Youngfield Street Clear Creek Trail 44th Avenue 12 15 48th Avenue Wadsworth Boulevard Upham Street 10 16 48th Avenue Pierce Street Clear Creek Trailhead 10 17 Dover Street 38th Avenue 44th Avenue 10 18 Dudley Street 32nd Place 34th Avenue 10 19 Eldridge Street 44th Avenue 48th Avenue 9 20 29th Avenue Jay Street Ingalls Street 8 21 48th Avenue Harlan Street 51st Street 8                                                                   25 The Ward Road sidewalk gap overlaps with a high‐priority sidepath recommendation for bicyclists. To  accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclists, a sidepath is recommended for Ward Road.    54    Bicycle Facilities  Since the existing bicycle facility network is less developed than the sidewalk network, there are more  recommendations for new bicycle facilities to be implemented than sidewalks. These recommendations  are shown in Table 4, ranked by priority.   Table 4. Proposed Bicycle Facility Projects  Rank Proposed Route From To Facility Type Score  1 Kipling Parkway 44th Avenue 51st Place Sidepath 21 2 Ward Road 44th Avenue 52nd Avenue Sidepath 20 3 44th Avenue Eldridge Street Harlan Street Sidepath 19 4 32nd Avenue Zinnia Court Youngfield Street Bike Lane 17 5 38th Avenue Youngfield Street Kipling Street Bike Lane 17 6 Ridge Road Ward Road Miller Street Bike Lane 17 7 CC Trail Moore Street Kipling Street Paved Trail 17 8 CC Trail Connector 44th Avenue Youngfield Service Road Paved Trail 17 9 Wadsworth Boulevard 32nd Avenue 48th Avenue Sidepath 17 10 Independence Street 49th Avenue 51st Avenue Bike Lane 15 11 35th Avenue Kipling Street Independence Street Neighborhood Bikeway 15 12 35th Avenue Parfet Street Kipling Street Neighborhood Bikeway 15 13 CC Trail Connector Wheat Ridge Rec Center 38th Avenue Paved Trail 15 14 Pierce Street 36th Avenue 38th Avenue Bike Lane 14 15 41st Avenue Dover Street Wadsworth Boulevard Neighborhood Bikeway 14 16 41st Avenue Reed Street Sheridan Boulevard Neighborhood Bikeway 14 17 High Court 38th Avenue 39th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 14 18 Youngfield Street 32nd Avenue 42nd Avenue Sidepath 14 19 Tabor Street Ridge Road 52nd Avenue Bike Lane 13 20 35th Avenue Teller Street Pierce Street Neighborhood Bikeway 13 21 Independence Street 35th Avenue 37th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 13 22 CC Trail Connector Iris Street/42nd Avenue Clear Creek Trail Paved Trail 13 23 CC Trail Connector Hoyt Court Clear Creek Trail Paved Trail 13 24 CC Trail Connector Garrison Street Clear Creek Trail Paved Trail 13 25 Tabor Street Clear Creek Trail 48th Avenue Bike Lane 12 26 35th Avenue Wadsworth Boulevard Upham Street Neighborhood Bikeway 12 27 Parfet Street Clear Creek Trail I‐70 Frontage Road South Neighborhood Bikeway 12 28 Parfet Street 32nd Avenue 41st Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 12 29 Upham Street 38th Avenue 44th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 12 30 Harlan Street 38th Avenue 44th Avenue Sidepath 12 31 Garrison Street Clear Creek Trail 44th Avenue Bike Lane 11 32 Miller Street 50th Avenue Ridge Road Bike Lane 11 33 35th Avenue Cul‐de‐sac Simms Street Neighborhood Bikeway 11 34 Holland Street 37th Avenue 38th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 11 35 Moore Street Clear Creek Trail 44th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 11 36 29th Avenue Ward Court Vivian Street Paved Trail 11 37 50th Avenue Miller Street Independence Street Bike Lane 10 38 34th Place Upham Street Teller Street Neighborhood Bikeway 10 39 39th Avenue High Court Reed Street Neighborhood Bikeway 10 40 Depew Street 26th Avenue 41st Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 10 41 Independence Street 44th Avenue 48th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 10 42 Teller Street 26th Avenue 38th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 10 43 29th Avenue Wadsworth Boulevard Sheridan Boulevard Neighborhood Bikeway 9 44 48th Avenue Wadsworth Boulevard Pierce Street Neighborhood Bikeway 9 45 Miller Court 38th Place 41st Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 9 46 Ward Court 29th Avenue 32nd Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 9 47 Oak Street 41st Place Clear Creek Trail Paved Trail 9 48 43rd Avenue Vance Street Upham Street Bike Lane 8 49 49th Avenue Miller Street Garrison Street Bike Lane 8 50 Garrison Street 44th Avenue 51st Avenue Bike Lane 8 51 I‐70 Frontage Road South Swadley Street Garrison Street Bike Lane 8 52 41st Avenue Parfet Street Oak Street Neighborhood Bikeway 8 55    Rank Proposed Route From To Facility Type Score  53 41st Avenue Oak Street Miller Court Neighborhood Bikeway 8 54 45th Avenue Teller Street Harlan Street Neighborhood Bikeway 8 55 Balsam Street 41st Avenue 44th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 8 56 Balsam Street 38th Avenue 41st Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 8 57 Depew Street 41st Avenue 43rd Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 8 58 Dudley Street 32nd Avenue 38th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 8 59 Fenton Street 26th Avenue 32nd Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 8 60 Iris Street 42nd Avenue 44th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 8 61 Lutheran Parkway 32nd Avenue 38th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 8 62 Marshall Street 38th Avenue 44th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 8 63 Marshall Street 32nd Avenue 35th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 8 64 Marshall Street 35th Avenue 38th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 8 65 Miller Street I‐70 Frontage Road North 50th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 8 66 Miller Street 32nd Avenue 35th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 8 67 Morningside Drive Rangeview Drive 32nd Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 8 68 Otis Street 48th Avenue Clear Creek Trailhead Neighborhood Bikeway 8 69 Robb Street I‐70 Frontage Road North Wheat Ridge city limit Neighborhood Bikeway 8 70 Twilight Drive 26th Avenue Rangeview Drive Neighborhood Bikeway 8 71 Union Street 32nd Avenue 32nd Drive Neighborhood Bikeway 8 72 48th Avenue Clear Creek Trail Harlan Street Bike Lane 6 73 37th Place Moore Street Miller Court Neighborhood Bikeway 6 74 42nd Avenue Youngfield Street Xenon Street Neighborhood Bikeway 6 75 45th Avenue Garrison Street Everett Street Neighborhood Bikeway 6 76 46th Avenue Tabor Street Swadley Street Neighborhood Bikeway 6 77 46th Avenue Everett Street Carr Street Neighborhood Bikeway 6 78 47th Avenue Balsam Street Wadsworth Boulevard Neighborhood Bikeway 6 79 47th Avenue Pierce Street Harlan Street Neighborhood Bikeway 6 80 Balsam Street 44th Avenue 47th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 6 81 Dover Street 38th Avenue 44th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 6 82 Jay Street 44th Avenue 47th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 6 83 Jay Street 41st Avenue 44th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 6 84 Miller Court 35th Avenue 37th Place Neighborhood Bikeway 6 85 Moore Street 37th Place 38th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 6 86 Oak Street 41st Avenue 41st Place Neighborhood Bikeway 6 87 Rangeview Drive Twilight Drive Morningside Drive Neighborhood Bikeway 6 88 Robb Street 44th Avenue I‐70 Frontage Road South Neighborhood Bikeway 6 89 Simms Street 35th Avenue 38th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 6 90 Swadley Street 46th Avenue I‐70 Frontage Road South Neighborhood Bikeway 6 91 Teller Street 44th Avenue 45th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 6 92 Upham Street 34th Place 35th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 6 93 Xenon Street 42nd Avenue 44th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 6 94 50th Avenue Oak Street Miller Street Neighborhood Bikeway 4 95 Carr Street 46th Avenue 48th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 4 96 Oak Street I‐70 Frontage Road North 50th Avenue Neighborhood Bikeway 4      56    Cost Estimates  Implementation of the pedestrian and bicycle facility recommendations described above would require  a significant capital investment over the course of several years. To accomplish this, Wheat Ridge would  need to dedicate local funding and secure federal funding or funding from other sources.   Planning‐level typical bicycle and pedestrian facility cost estimates are shown in Table 5. These are  order‐of‐magnitude estimates and do not include right‐of‐way acquisition or other unforeseen costs  that may be incurred. Actual costs will vary based on the ultimate project scope (i.e. potential  combination of projects, or use of city staff) and economic conditions at the time of construction.    Table 5. Bicycle Facility Planning‐level Cost Estimates  Facility/Treatment Type Typical Cost Range Prevailing  Typical Cost Low High  Paved Trail $800,000 per mile $1.5 million per mile  $1 million per  mile  A concrete trail in an  independent alignment like  a greenbelt or former  railroad.   Example: An 8‐foot wide  connector trail linking a  neighborhood to a Greenbelt  Spine Trail.  Example: A 12‐foot wide trail  long a wooded greenbelt with  undulating topography and  numerous drainage crossings.  May include boardwalk  sections and small bridges.  Sidewalks and Sidepaths  $450,000 per mile $1.25 million per mile  $1 million per  mile A concrete sidewalk or path  along a roadway.   Example: An 8‐foot wide  connector sidepath along a  roadway as part of a larger  reconstruction project with  existing cleared and graded  right‐of‐way.  Example: A 12‐foot wide  sidepath with multiple grade‐ separated roadway crossings  and built in uncleared right‐ of‐way requiring grading.  Separated Bike Lane  $250,000 per mile $1 million per mile  $750,000 per  mile  Also known as a cycle track,  these can be one‐way or  two‐way. Separated from  the street by vertical  elements (e.g., flex posts,  bollards, medians, planters.).   Example: Reconfigure a  roadway to include a two‐ way flex post‐separated bike  lane on existing pavement as  part of a resurfacing project.  Example: Widen a roadway  by 14 feet independent of a  larger roadway project  expressly to add a pair of one‐ way median‐separated bike  lanes.   Bike Lanes $20,000 to $40,000 per mile  $650,000 per mile  $25,000 per  mile  Includes variations of bike  lanes, wide bike lanes, and  buffered bike lanes.  Significant savings can be  realized by constructing as  part of a larger roadway  project.  Example: Add bike lanes as  part of a resurfacing project  requiring no additional  pavement, but including  additional pavement  markings and signs. Lower‐ end estimates do not include  resurfacing.  Example: Widen a roadway  by 14 feet independent of a  larger roadway project  expressly to add buffered bike  lanes.   Shared Street $10,000 per mile $50,000 per mile  57    Low‐cost, strategically‐ placed pavement markings  (e.g., sharrows) and signage  along bike routes.  Example: Add bike route  signs or simple wayfinding  signs to an existing low‐ stress bikeway.  Example: Restripe a roadway  to provide a wide outside  shared lane with sharrows as  a stand‐alone project.   $20,000 per  mile  Neighborhood Bikeways  $100,000 per mile $500,000 per mile  $200,000 per  mile  Streets with various  combinations of traffic  calming, traffic diversion,  high‐visibility pavement  markings and enhanced  signage (depending on  context).  Example: Add bicycle  boulevard signs, shared lane  markings, and minor traffic  calming such as rubberized  speed cushions.  Example: Reconfigure or add  traffic signals at major  intersections and add  significant traffic calming  features, such as curb  extensions, mini traffic circles,  traffic diverters, and raised  crosswalks.   Shared Lane Markings  $10,000 per mile $50,000 per mile  $20,000 per  mile  Low‐cost, strategically‐ placed pavement markings  (e.g., shared lane markings)  and signage along bike  routes.   Example: Add Bikes May Use  Full Lane signs or simple  wayfinding signs to an  existing street.  Example: Restripe a roadway  to provide a wide outside  shared lane with shared lane  markings as a stand‐alone  project.     In Table 6, the top 10 sidewalk and top 10 bicycle facility projects are listed, along with order of  magnitude costs.      58    Table 6. High Priority Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Projects26  Category Description Cost  Sidewalk Construct sidewalk on the west side of Kipling Street from 32 nd Avenue to north of  35th Avenue (south of Sprouts Market) $$  Sidewalk Construct sidewalk on 32nd Avenue from Garrison Street to Dudley Street $$  Sidewalk Construct sidewalk on 41st Avenue from Miller Street to Kipling Street $$  Sidewalk Construct sidewalk on Ridge Road from Tabor Street to Parfet Street $$$  Sidewalk Construct sidewalk on Tabor Street from 49th Avenue to 52nd Avenue $$  Sidewalk Construct sidewalk on Tabor Street from Clear Creek Trail to I‐70 Frontage Road27 $$$  Sidewalk Construct sidewalk on 38th Avenue from Routt Street to Moore Street $$$  Sidewalk Construct sidewalk on 44th Avenue from Youngfield Street to existing sidewalk to  the west $$$  Sidewalk Construct sidewalk on 52nd Avenue from west of Taft Court to Tabor Street $$  Sidewalk Construct sidewalk on Garrison Street from 45th Avenue to 46th Place $$  Sidepath Construct sidepath on Kipling Street, from 44th Avenue to 51st Place $$$  Sidepath Construct sidepath on Ward Road from 44th Avenue to 52nd Avenue $$$  Sidepath Construct sidepath on 44th Avenue from Eldridge Street to Harlan Street $$$  Bike Lane Implement bike lanes on 32nd Avenue from Zinnia Court to Ward Court $  Bike Lane Implement bike lanes on 38th Avenue from Youngfield Street to Kipling Street $  Bike Lane Implement bike lanes on Ridge Road from Ward Road to Miller Street $  Paved Trail Extend the Clear Creek Trail from 43rd Avenue to Kipling Street $$  Bike Lane Implement bike lanes on Independence Street from 49th Avenue to 51st Avenue $  Neighborhood  Bikeway  Implement neighborhood bikeway treatments on 35th Avenue from Kipling Street  to Independence Street $  Neighborhood  Bikeway  Implement neighborhood bikeway treatments on 35th Avenue from Parfet Street  to Kipling Street $$                                                                 26 Sidepath along Wadsworth Boulevard from 32nd Avenue to 48th Avenue and paved trail through the Clear Creek  crossing development are also highly ranked, but are not listed here because these facilities will be implemented in  conjunction with other planned projects.    27 The northern portion of this project may not be feasible within the constraints of the current Tabor St. bridge  over I‐70. Bike lanes are also proposed for this section and could provide a minimal level of pedestrian  accommodation until the opportunity for implementation of a sidewalk is presented.  59    Implementation Strategy   Given resource constraints, it is recommended that Wheat Ridge focus its effort on implementing the  high priority projects in the near term. However, the city should take advantage of opportunities to  implement other proposed projects by leveraging routine maintenance projects, other capital  improvement projects, or private funding through new development or redevelopment. The City should  remain flexible in elevating the priority of lower‐ranked projects, as all the proposed projects would  offer a benefit to Wheat Ridge residents.  Appendix D summarizes potential federal, state, regional, and locally‐administered funds for bicycle and  pedestrian infrastructure. Included within each category are a description of the funding source,  eligibility requirements, and direction to additional information where available.  Conclusion  This plan update has confirmed the Wheat Ridge community’s interest and dedication to providing a  more comfortable and inviting environment for people who walk or bike. Building from the existing base  of support and enthusiasm for active transportation, there are several strategic opportunities for the  City to make walking and biking more attractive, comfortable, and convenient for all of Wheat Ridge.   Strengthening the base of programs to encourage and educate residents is a low‐cost way to improve  walking and across the City. In addition, building the network through engineering strategies will  improve the City’s bicycle and pedestrian network. However, while this Plan outlines several projects for  implementation, greater investment in bicycling and walking facilities is needed to complete the  network and encourage people of all ages and abilities to get outside and enjoy Wheat Ridge by foot or  bike.            APPENDICES     Appendix A: Related Plans  The city, state, and region have adopted a number of plans that include evaluation and  recommendations related to walking and bicycling. This section summarizes the relevant  recommendations from existing plans that informed this Plan.    Recent planning efforts, including the 2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, envision a Wheat Ridge in  which residents are connected to every park, trail and open space system with routes designed for  biking, walking and active transportation. The City is building on these previous efforts by developing  the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.   This Plan relates to the Strategic Prioritized Goals for the 2009 Five‐year Strategic Plan. These goals  address the challenges confronting the community and recognize the valuable community and city  assets that can be utilized to successfully meet those challenges. A walkable and bikeable city can help  attract and retain a fully engaged workforce (Goal 1: City Services). The goals of this Plan are consistent  with the Strategic Plan’s goal of Sustainable Growth by promoting the integration of multimodal  transportation systems and f the city as a steward of public resources by pursuing activities that support  environmental equity and health for all citizens.   Supporting active transportation investments supports and develops “thriving neighborhoods and  commercial centers” (Goal 4: Economic Vitality). Finally, this relates to Goal 5: Quality of Life by  preserving environmental resources, enhancing Wheat Ridge’s small town values, providing a safe  environment, and promoting opportunities for citizens to engage in an active lifestyle. It also promotes  civic engagement (Goal 6) by enhancing the sense of community.   Jefferson County – Countywide Transportation Plan (1998, amended 2002 and 2014)  Jefferson County’s Countywide Transportation Plan identifies four primary policy areas to guide bicycle  and pedestrian investments in the County, including:   Coordination ‐ All agencies involved with the planning and implementation of pedestrian and  bicycle facilities should work together to develop a coordinated effort to complete a project  which is safe and convenient for alternative modes.   Maintenance ‐ It is recommended that the Cities and County evaluate how issues such as citizen  concerns, regular maintenance and snow/sand removal are addressed. If deficiencies exist,  appropriate departments would set up programs to meet the needs of people using alternative  mode facilities.   Right‐of‐Way ‐ The inclusion of the acquisition of Right‐of‐Way (ROW) for the construction of  safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle facilities is needed when building new roadways.    Funding ‐ There should be coordinated efforts to actively compete for alternative mode funding  sources through the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) and the Colorado  Department of Transportation (CDOT).   2      Jefferson County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2012)  The Jefferson Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan supports the goals and policies identified in the Jefferson  Countywide Transportation Plan and County Comprehensive Master Plan, and outlines a long‐term vision  for the County by providing details about future transportation investments to help the County achieve  its goal of increasing the number of bike and walk trips. A regional approach that focuses on bicycle and  pedestrian accommodations that are continuous and consistent throughout the cities, towns, and  unincorporated areas of Jefferson County is also identified.  The JeffCo Regional Bikeways Wayfinding Guide (2016)   The JeffCo Regional Bikeways Wayfinding Guide serves as a toolkit for the development of a regional  wayfinding network. When implemented, the wayfinding signs will be a core component of the well‐ used, more intuitively navigable, and memorable JeffCo Regional Bikeway network. Through this Guide,  a clearer visual language and universal graphic standards were created to guide residents and visitors  along regional bikeways and to destinations throughout the county. The signage includes tier one, two,  and three tier destinations with mileage, distance, and travel time estimates. The Central Corridor  (Chatfield Reservoir, Kipling Street, US‐285, to Estes connection to Lakewood will pass through Wheat  Ridge and 32nd Avenue).            Appendix B: K‐8 School Walkshed Maps      å PROSPECT VALLEYELEMENTARYSCHOOL 41ST AV 33RDAV 31ST AV 36THPL 27THAV 30TH AV 28T HCDS A V P A R F E T C T UR B A N DR TA F T C T 39TH CI 39TH PL D A W N C T UN I O N S T 38TH PL TA B O R ST 40TH CI SI M M S S T OW E N S C T 33RD PL QU E E N ST 31ST P L RANGEVI E W PL QU A I L ST PI E R S O N ST OAK ST PA R F E T ST OA K S T NE L S O N ST MO O R E ST MI L L E R ST 38TH AV 39TH PL 38TH AV 36THPL TA B O R C T RO L F E C T 39THAV 38THPL 37THPL 35TH AV BEN T H A V E N DR 34THPL 34THPL 33RDPL 31STAV 33RDAV TAB O R S T MO O R E C T 34THAV 34THAV 36THAV 36THPL 30THPL QU A I L CT LE E S T 31STAV QU A I L S T MO O R E ST 35THPL RO U T T ST UN I O N ST 37THAV TA F T C T KL I N E ST 30THAV 34TH PL 31ST AV 35TH AV 32ND PL PI E R S O N CT 31ST P L 29TH AV MOU N T A I N SHA D O W S D R 37TH PL 36TH AV 37TH PL 36TH AV 37TH AV 27TH DR 39TH AV 39TH PL M O O R E C T 32ND AV NE W M A N S T 38TH PL OW E N S C T TA F T C T 29TH AV 26TH AV 27TH PL UN I O N C T 35TH AV 26TH PL 31ST AV MOR N I N G S I D E D R CIRCLE D R OW E N S S T PI E R S O N S T OW E N S S T OH A Y R E C T 40TH AV UN I O N C T UN I O N S T TA F T S T 28TH PL 36TH AV PI E R S O N S T RO U T T S T QU A I L S T 35TH PL NELSO N D R PARA M O U N T P Y DA W N C T 27TH AV 29TH P L TABOR D R QU A I L S T 28TH AV 29TH AV 31ST AV MO O R E S T 41ST PL 41ST AV 34TH PL 31ST PL NE L S O N S T 28TH P L RO U T T S T TA B O R C T 30TH AV OA K S T RANGEV I E W D R 28TH PL OA K S T SKY L I N E D R 32ND PL KL I N E S T P I E R S O N W Y 33RD AV LE W I S S T MI L L E R C T SI M M S C T MO O R E S T R O B B S T MO O R E S T SW A D L E Y S T SWADL E Y D R 41ST AV SI M M S S T PA R F E T S T 34TH AV ROUTT CI 30TH P L MI L L E R C T SI M M S S T SI M M S S T NE L S O N S T MI L L E R S T PAR F E T D R M I L L E R S T TWILI G H T D R HILLS I D E D R APPLEW O O DKNOLL D R ROBB CI å Focus School n Other K-8 SchoolSidewalk TrailWalkable Network1/2 Mile Walking Area1/2 Mile Buffer Date: 1/27/201700.250.125 Miles User: jfish Path: H:\B000\B030 Wheat Ridge Bike Ped Plan\PRODUCTION\GIS\MXDs\2017_January\2017_DRAFT_WR_School_Walksheds.mxd K-8 SchoolWalking Distance PROSPECT VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL å KULLERSTRANDELEMENTARYSCHOOL 33RD PL 31ST AV 30THAV SIM M S DR 35TH AV 39TH CI 39TH PL UN I O N S T 38TH PL 40TH CI 36TH PL 37TH PL VI V I A N C T WA R D R D 40TH AV 39TH PL 29THPL 42NDAV 36THPL VI V I A N C T TA B O R C T RO L F E C T 39THAV 38THPL UR B A N S T WR I G H T C T RO B B ST 42NDAV 33RDPL 33RDAV 34THAV 33RDAV 29THAV 29THAV RO U T T ST UN I O N ST TA F T C T 30TH P L UR B A N CT ZI N N I A CT 29TH PL 37TH PL 40TH AV 36TH AV 37TH PL 36TH AV 37TH AVWR I G H T C T 32ND AV VI V I A N C T WR I G H T S T W R I G H T S T 28TH P L UR B A N S T 38TH AV 28TH PL TA F T C T 44TH AV UN I O N C T 35TH AV Z I N N I A C T VA N GO R D O N S T UN I O N C T ZI N N I A S T UN I O N S T XE N O N S T ZI N N I A C T RO U T T S T 29TH P L TABOR D R WR I G H T S T 32ND DR 31ST AV 42ND AV 31ST AV 30TH DR MOU N T A I N SHA D O W S D R RO U T T S T TA B O R C T 32ND PLAL K I R E C T SI M M S C T R O B B S T WR I G H T C T WR I G H T S T 31ST PL SW A D L E Y S T SWADL E Y D R 38TH DR SI M M S S T VI V I A N S T ROUTT CI AL K I R E S T YO U N G F I E L D S T 30TH P L XE N O N S T SI M M S S T WA R D C T VI V I A N S T SI M M S S T TA B O R S T 31ST AV VIVIAN D R SIM M S S T 34TH PL 43RD AV ROBB CI YO U N G F I E L D S E R V I C E R D å Focus School n Other K-8 SchoolSidewalk TrailWalkable Network1/2 Mile Walking Area1/2 Mile Buffer Date: 1/27/201700.250.125 Miles User: jfish Path: H:\B000\B030 Wheat Ridge Bike Ped Plan\PRODUCTION\GIS\MXDs\2017_January\2017_DRAFT_WR_School_Walksheds.mxd K-8 SchoolWalking Distance KULLERSTRAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL n n nn å CHILDREN'SDAYPRESCHOOL T E L L E R S T AM M O N S S T 39TH AV38TH PL WE B S T E R S T 42ND AV 41ST AV41ST AV NEWLAND CDS ST 39TH AV RE E D S T NEWLANDCDS ST Z E P H Y R S T Q U A Y S T SA U L S B U R Y CT RE E D S T 35TH AV NEWLANDCDS ST 33RD AV 45THAV 36TH PL 44THPL 31STAV 34THPL 38TH AV 30THAV 33RD AV AM M O N S S T 35THPL UP H A M C T 39THAV 34TH P L 44THPL 34THPL 31ST AV 33RD AV 31ST PL 39TH AV 43RD PL 45TH AV 29TH PL 40TH AV 30TH AV AL L I S O N ST UP H A M S T QU A Y S T WE B S T E R ST RE E D S T HI G H C T AL L I S O N S T VA N C E S T AM M O N S CT BA L S A M S T MELROSE D R QU A Y S T 43RD AV 45TH AV OT I S S T HI G H C T 36TH PL 37TH AV VA N C E S T 36TH AV YU K O N C T 34TH DR 3 ACRE LN BA L S A M S T CO D Y S T YA R R O W C T YA R R O W S T QU A Y S T 33RD AV UP H A M S T VA N C E S T VA N C E S T QU A Y S T 45TH AV 37TH AV 42ND AV 43RD AV YA R R O W S T OT I S S T YA R R O W C T 30TH AVVA N C E S T OT I S S T PI E R C E S T 45TH AV 45TH PL WE B S T E R S T NE W L A N D S T UP H A M S T VA N C E S T YU K O N C T BR E N T W O O D S T ZE P H Y R C T 31ST AV 30TH AV RE E D S T CA R R S T 34TH AV NE W L A N D S T 35TH AV 32ND AV SA U L S B U R Y S T 44TH AV 44TH PL YAR R O W S T TE L L E R S T SA U L S B U R Y S T YA R R O W S T ZE P H Y R S T AL L I S O N S T BA L S A M S T BR E N T W O O D S T NE W L A N D S T 35TH AV TE L L E R S T OT I S S T AL L I S O N C T 45TH AV 32ND PL MA R S H A L L S T QU A Y S T BA L S A M S T BR E N T W O O D S T AL L I S O N S T UP H A M S T CA R R S T å Focus School n Other K-8 SchoolSidewalk TrailWalkable Network1/2 Mile Walking Area1/2 Mile Buffer Date: 1/27/201700.250.125 Miles User: jfish Path: H:\B000\B030 Wheat Ridge Bike Ped Plan\PRODUCTION\GIS\MXDs\2017_January\2017_DRAFT_WR_School_Walksheds.mxd K-8 SchoolWalking Distance CHILDREN'S DAY PRESCHOOL n n n n å EVERITTMIDDLESCHOOL 38TH PL 41ST AV 38TH AV JO H N S O N S T GA R R I S O N S T 43RD A V IN D E P E N D E N C E C T 39THAV 45TH AV 44TH PL JE L L I S O N CT 45TH PL 33RD PL 44TH AV 31ST P L 38TH AV 36TH AV 36TH AV I R I S C T OA K S T 37THPL 43RDAV 42NDAV 34THPL 31STAV MO O R E C T J E L L I S O N S T 34THAV IN D E P E N D E N C E CT GA R R I S O N S T 36THAV 36THPL LE E S T MO O R E ST 35THPL MI L L E R S T 37THAV 44TH PL KL I N E ST 34TH PL 37TH PL 35TH AV 32ND PL 45TH AV 32ND AV 39TH AV HO Y T C T 39TH PL M O O R E C T OW E N S C T NE W M A N S T OH A Y R E C T OA K S T M O R N I N G S I D E D R PA R F E T S T 39TH AV SKYLINE DR OW E N S S T 37TH AV IR I S C T FIE L D S T IR I S C T HO L L A N D C T 39TH AV OW E N S S T OW E N S S T MO O R E C T HO Y T S T OA K S T GA R L A N D S T HO L L A N D S T FL O W E R S T 36TH AV HO Y T S T LE E S T HILLSI D E D R 35TH PL 41ST AV 41ST PL MO O R E S T FL O W E R S T 35TH AV 34TH PL 31ST PL MO O R E S T PA R F E T S T NE L S O N S T I N D E P E N D E N C E C T OA K S T KL I N E S T 33RD AV HO Y T S T LE W I S S T HO L L A N D S T MI L L E R C T HO Y T C T 37TH AV 36TH AV MO O R E S T 35TH AV GA R L A N D S T MO O R E S T JE L L I S O N S T IR I S S T IN D E P E N D E N C E S T GA R L A N D S T 41ST AV HO L L A N D S T PA R F E T S T 34TH DR GA R R I S O N S T GA R L A N D S T MI L L E R C T IN D E P E N D E N C E S T 46TH AV GA R R I S O N S T GA R L A N D S T NE L S O N S T MI L L E R S T M I L L E R S T 34TH AV FIEL D D R GA R R I S O N S T å Focus School n Other K-8 SchoolSidewalk TrailWalkable Network1/2 Mile Walking Area1/2 Mile Buffer Date: 1/27/201700.250.125 Miles User: jfish Path: H:\B000\B030 Wheat Ridge Bike Ped Plan\PRODUCTION\GIS\MXDs\2017_January\2017_DRAFT_WR_School_Walksheds.mxd K-8 SchoolWalking Distance EVERITT MIDDLE SCHOOL n n nn åWHEATRIDGE 5-8 OT I S ST TE L L E R S T JA Y S T 46TH AV T E L L E R S T AM M O N S S T 39TH AV 38TH AV WE B S T E R S T 42ND AV 41ST AV NEWLAND CDS ST 39TH AV RE E D S T NEWLANDCDS ST Z E P H Y R S T 42ND AV Q U A Y S T Q U A Y S T SA U L S B U R Y CT RE E D S T NEWLANDCDS ST SA U L S B U R Y S T 45THAV 36TH PL 44THPL 46THPL 46THCI 41ST AV 34THPL RE E D ST 46THAV 33RD AV AM M O N S S T 39THAV 35THPL 39THAV 34TH P L 44THPL 43RDAV 34THPL 31ST AV 33RD AV 39TH AV 31ST PL 39TH AV WE B S T E R S T 43RD PL AL L I S O N ST RE E D S T HI G H C T AL L I S O N S T AM M O N S CT MELROSE D R QU A Y S T 43RD AV OT I S S T HI G H C T WE B S T E R S T VA N C E S T SA U L S B U R Y ST PI E R C E S T 33RD AV NE W L A N D S T LA M A R S T 36TH PL KE N D A L L S T 37TH AV VA N C E S T 36TH AV YU K O N C T 40TH AV 31ST AV 34TH DR 3 ACRE LN BA L S A M S T 46TH AV YA R R O W C T YA R R O W S T 33RD AV UP H A M S T VA N C E S T VA N C E S T JA Y S T 45TH PL QU A Y S T 46TH AV 45TH AV 37TH AV 42ND AV KE N D A L L S T 43RD AV YA R R O W S T M A R S H A L L S T OT I S S T LA M A R S T YA R R O W C T OT I S S T NE W L A N D S T QU A Y S T 45TH AV 45TH PL JA Y S T ZE P H Y R C T MA R S H A L L S T 32ND AV 31ST AV LA M A R S T LA M A R S T 34TH AV NE W L A N D S T YU K O N C T 35TH AV YAR R O W S T 35TH AV TE L L E R S T 35TH AV OT I S S T AL L I S O N C T 45TH PL UP H A M S T 45TH AVVA N C E S T 44TH PL 32ND PL MA R S H A L L S T KE N D A L L S T LA M A R S T QU A Y S T MA R S H A L L S T AL L I S O N S T 45TH AV KE N D A L L S T YA R R O W S T ZE P H Y R S T AL L I S O N S T SA U L S B U R Y S T UP H A M S T 44TH AV BA L S A M S T å Focus School n Other K-8 SchoolSidewalk TrailWalkable Network1/2 Mile Walking Area1/2 Mile Buffer Date: 1/27/201700.250.125 Miles User: jfish Path: H:\B000\B030 Wheat Ridge Bike Ped Plan\PRODUCTION\GIS\MXDs\2017_January\2017_DRAFT_WR_School_Walksheds.mxd K-8 SchoolWalking Distance WHEAT RIDGE 5-8 n n n å STS PETERAND PAULSCHOOL 41ST AV 39TH AV 43RDAV 44TH AV 39TH AV IN G A L L S S T 46THAV WE B S T E R S T NEWLAND CDS ST 41ST AV 35TH AV RE E D S T NEWLANDCDS ST 42ND AV Q U A Y S T SA U L S B U R Y CT RE E D S T WE B S T E R ST VA N C E ST T E L L E R S T PI E R C E S T JA Y S T LA M A R ST IN G A L L S ST KE N D A L L ST JA Y ST NEWLANDCDS ST HA R L A N ST GR A Y S T SA U L S B U R Y S T IN G A L L S S T HA R L A N C T 36TH PL FE N T O N ST 34THPL 33RD AV OT I S S T IN G A L L S S T 39THAV 35THPL 39THPL 34TH P L 44THPL IN G A L L S S T 43RDAV 34THPL 33RD AV 39TH AV FE N T O N CT 46TH PL TE L L E R S T 46TH PL 43RD PL RE E D S T HI G H C T QU A Y S T 43RD AV IN G A L L S S T OT I S S T HI G H C T 40TH AV39TH PL39TH AV 39TH AV 33RD AV 36TH PL 37TH AV VA N C E S T 36TH AV YU K O N C T 40TH AV 47TH AV 3 ACRE LN 35TH AV 38TH AV IN G A L L S S T UP H A M S T VA N C E S T 37TH PL VA N C E S T JA Y S T WE B S T E R S T 45TH PL QU A Y S T 46TH AV GR A Y S T 45TH AV 37TH AV 42ND AV 46TH PL KE N D A L L S T 43RD AV YA R R O W S T M A R S H A L L S T OT I S S T LA M A R S T OT I S S T NE W L A N D S T QU A Y S T 45TH AV 45TH PL GR A Y S T 34TH AV GR A Y S T JA Y S T 43RD AV 46TH AV 37TH AV MAR S H A L L S T I N G A L L S C T LA M A R S T LA M A R S T 34TH AV NE W L A N D S T YU K O N C T 35TH AV HA R L A N S T TE L L E R S T OT I S S T 32ND AV JA Y S T 46TH PL 45TH PL 45TH AV 44TH PL 32ND PL MA R S H A L L S T FE N T O N S T KE N D A L L S T IN G A L L S S T LA M A R S T QU A Y S T JA Y S T MA R S H A L L S T KE N D A L L S T UP H A M S T VA N C E S T UP H A M S T SA U L S B U R Y S T 45TH AV å Focus School n Other K-8 SchoolSidewalk TrailWalkable Network1/2 Mile Walking Area1/2 Mile Buffer Date: 1/27/201700.250.125 Miles User: jfish Path: H:\B000\B030 Wheat Ridge Bike Ped Plan\PRODUCTION\GIS\MXDs\2017_January\2017_DRAFT_WR_School_Walksheds.mxd K-8 SchoolWalking Distance STS PETER AND PAUL SCHOOL n n n n åSTEVENSELEMENTARYSCHOOL T E L L E R S T 39TH AV IN G A L L S S T WE B S T E R S T 42ND AV 41ST AV NEWLAND CDS ST 39TH AV 41ST AV RE E D S T NEWLANDCDS ST Z E P H Y R S T 42ND AV Q U A Y S T 47TH AV SA U L S B U R Y CT 48TH CI RE E D S T NEWLANDCDS ST SA U L S B U R Y S T 45THAV IN G A L L S S T 36TH PL 44THPL 46THCI 46THPL 40THAV 34THPL 39THAV VA N C E S T U P H A M S T 46THAV I N G A L L S S T OT I S S T IN G A L L S S T 39THAV 35THPL BALSAMST 34TH P L 44THPL 43RDAV 34THPL 39TH AV 39TH AV 46TH PL 38TH AV 46TH PL 43RD PL OT I S S T LA M A R S T M A R S H A L L S T JA Y S T RE E D S T MA R S H A L L ST HI G H C T AL L I S O N S T MELROSE D R QU A Y S T 33RD AV 43RD AV 47TH AV IN G A L L S S T OT I S S T HI G H C T 46TH AV 36TH PL 37TH AV 36TH AV YU K O N C T 40TH AV 34TH DR 3 ACRE LN 46TH AV YA R R O W C T YA R R O W S T IN G A L L S S T 33RD AV UP H A M S T VA N C E S T VA N C E S T JA Y S T WE B S T E R S T 45TH PL QU A Y S T 46TH AV 45TH AV 37TH AV 42ND AV 46TH PL KE N D A L L S T 43RD AV YA R R O W S T YA R R O W C T OT I S S T QU A Y S T PI E R C E S T 45TH AV 45TH PL JA Y S T ZE P H Y R C T MA R S H A L L S T I N G A L L S C T 48 T H A V YA R R O W S T 33RD AV LA M A R S T LA M A R S T 34TH AV 48TH AV NE W L A N D S T YU K O N C T 35TH AV KE N D A L L S T 35TH AV TE L L E R S T OT I S S T AL L I S O N C T 47TH PL JA Y S T 46TH PL 45TH PL 45TH AV 44TH PL 32ND PL MA R S H A L L S T KE N D A L L S T IN G A L L S S T LA M A R S T QU A Y S T JA Y S T MA R S H A L L S T NE W L A N D S T AL L I S O N S T 47TH AV YA R R O W S T ZE P H Y R S T 35TH AV TE L L E R S T VA N C E S T AL L I S O N S T UP H A M S T 45TH AV 44TH AV UP H A M S T SA U L S B U R Y S T å Focus School n Other K-8 SchoolSidewalk TrailWalkable Network1/2 Mile Walking Area1/2 Mile Buffer Date: 1/27/201700.250.125 Miles User: jfish Path: H:\B000\B030 Wheat Ridge Bike Ped Plan\PRODUCTION\GIS\MXDs\2017_January\2017_DRAFT_WR_School_Walksheds.mxd K-8 SchoolWalking Distance STEVENS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL n n nåWILMORE DAVISELEMENTARYSCHOOL CODY CT T E L L E R S T 41STAV AM M O N S S T 39TH AV 47THPLCA R R ST 38TH PL WE B S T E R S T 45TH PL 42ND AV 41ST AV UP H A M ST 39TH AV RE E D S T Z E P H Y R S T 47TH AV DU D L E Y S T SA U L S B U R Y CT RE E D S T EV E R E T T S T SA U L S B U R Y S T 35TH AV 45THAV EV E R E T T S T 36TH PL 44THPL 46THCI 46THPL 34THPL 46THAV 48TH CI FIELDDR AM M O N S S T 37THPL 35THPL 39THAV 34TH P L 44THPL 34THPL FIELD DR 39TH AV39TH AV 46THAV 43RD PL EVERETTDR 40TH AV RE E D S T HI G H C T AL L I S O N S T 46TH PL MELROSE D R 33RD AV 34TH AV 43RD AV HI G H C T DO V E R S T 33RD AV 32ND PL 38TH AV YU K O N C T EV E R E T T S T 36TH AV 37TH AV 34TH DR 3 ACRE LN BA L S A M S T CO D Y S T 46TH AV YA R R O W C T YA R R O W S T 44TH PL 33RD AV UP H A M S T VA N C E S T VA N C E S T WE B S T E R S T 45TH PL 46TH AV 45TH AV 42ND AV 46TH PL 43RD AV YA R R O W S T YA R R O W C T YA R R O W S T 45TH AV EVERETT D R 45TH AV BR E N T W O O D S T ZE P H Y R C T EV E R E T T S T CA R R S T EV E R E T T S T EVERETT DR CO D Y S T 48TH A V CA R R S T 34TH AV 48TH AV YU K O N C T 35TH AV DO V E R S T 35TH AV 35TH AV TE L L E R S T AL L I S O N C T ES T E S S T DU D L E Y S T BR E N T W O O D S T BA L S A M S T DO V E R S T CO D Y S T BR E N T W O O D S T AL L I S O N S T 47TH AV 44TH AV EV E R E T T S T ES T E S S T YA R R O W S T ZE P H Y R S T 46TH AV TE L L E R S T VA N C E S T AL L I S O N S T EV E R E T T C T UP H A M S T BA L S A M S T UP H A M S T ES T E S S T DU D L E Y S T SA U L S B U R Y S T CA R R S T å Focus School n Other K-8 SchoolSidewalk TrailWalkable Network1/2 Mile Walking Area1/2 Mile Buffer Date: 1/27/201700.250.125 Miles User: jfish Path: H:\B000\B030 Wheat Ridge Bike Ped Plan\PRODUCTION\GIS\MXDs\2017_January\2017_DRAFT_WR_School_Walksheds.mxd K-8 SchoolWalking Distance WILMORE DAVIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL n n n n åCOMPASS MONTESSORI- WHEAT RIDGECHARTER SCHOOL LE E S T 41ST AV JO H N S O N ST 44TH AV 43RD A V IN D E P E N D E N C E C T 39THAV 44TH PL 43RD AV 38TH AV I R I S C T 45TH AV 39THAV 38TH AV 37THPL 43RDAV 42NDAV M I L L E R S T QU A I L CT MILLER C T MI L L E R S T 37THAV 44TH PL 37TH PL QU A I L S T PI E R S O N CT PA R F E T S T OW E N S ST NE L S O N ST 47TH PL MI L L E R ST OA K S T MO O R E ST IN D E P E N D E N C E ST HO Y T S T 47TH AV 46TH PL QU A I L S T 39TH AV HO Y T C T 39TH PL NE W M A N S T PA R F E T S T HO L L A N D S T 38TH PL 45TH AV 50TH AV 48TH NORTHAV - FRN I-70 NE L S O N S T 50TH AV 40TH AV OW E N S S T IR I S C T IN D E P E N D E N C E S T KI P L I N G S T 39TH AV PI E R S O N S T 47TH AV MO O R E C T PI E R S O N S T OA K S T PI E R S O N S T 48TH AV LE E S T 47TH PL 47TH AV 41ST PL 41ST AV 48TH NORTHAV - FRN I-70 MO O R E S T PA R F E T S T IR I S S T 49TH AV 48TH SOUTHAV - FRN I-70 OA K S T 49TH AV HO Y T S T OA K S T HO Y T S T HO L L A N D S T MI L L E R C T HO Y T C T MO O R E S T JE L L I S O N S T IR I S S T 41ST AV 46TH AV 47TH AV NE L S O N S T 50TH AV PA R F E T S T IN D E P E N D E N C E S T å Focus School n Other K-8 SchoolSidewalk TrailWalkable Network1/2 Mile Walking Area1/2 Mile Buffer Date: 1/27/201700.250.125 Miles User: jfish Path: H:\B000\B030 Wheat Ridge Bike Ped Plan\PRODUCTION\GIS\MXDs\2017_January\2017_DRAFT_WR_School_Walksheds.mxd K-8 SchoolWalking Distance COMPASS MONTESSORI - CHARTER SCHOOL n n n n åNORMA ANDERSONPRESCHOOL 41ST AV 44TH AV 43RD A V 39THAV 44TH PL 43RD AV PA R F E T S T 39THPL 40THCI MO O R E ST MI L L E R ST LE E ST 38TH AV SW A D L E Y ST 39TH PL RO L F E C T 39THAV 38THPL RO B B S T M I L L E R S T SI M M S CT QU A I L CT MI L L E R S T 44TH PL PI E R S O N CT 47TH PL OA K S T QU A I L S T 38TH AV 39TH AV 39TH PL 49TH AV NE W M A N S T PA R F E T S T 45TH P L 46TH AV 38TH PL 45TH AV 50TH AV 48TH NORTHAV - FRN I-70 NE L S O N S T OW E N S S T PI E R S O N S T 47TH AV 40TH AV KI P L I N G S T MO O R E C T PI E R S O N S T OA K S T PI E R S O N S T 48TH AV 46TH AV 47TH AV LE E S T 46TH PL 47TH PL 50TH AV 41ST PL 41ST AV 41ST AV SW A D L E Y S T MO O R E S T SI M M S S T PA R F E T S T 49TH AV 50TH AV RO U T T S T RO U T T S T OA K S T 49TH AV OA K S T MI L L E R C T SI M M S C T MO O R E S T R O B B S T JE L L I S O N S T RO B B S T SI M M S S T 46TH AV 47TH AV NE L S O N S T PA R F E T S T 48TH SOUTHAV - FRN I-70 å Focus School n Other K-8 SchoolSidewalk TrailWalkable Network1/2 Mile Walking Area1/2 Mile Buffer Date: 1/27/201700.250.125 Miles User: jfish Path: H:\B000\B030 Wheat Ridge Bike Ped Plan\PRODUCTION\GIS\MXDs\2017_January\2017_DRAFT_WR_School_Walksheds.mxd K-8 SchoolWalking Distance NORMA ANDERSON PRESCHOOL n n n å ALPINEVALLEYSCHOOL 41ST AV 43RD A V 44TH PL 43RD AV 39TH CI 39TH PL 40TH CI 39TH PL RO L F E C T 39THAV 38THPL RO B B S T MIL L E R S T SI M M S CT MI L L E R S T 44TH PL RIDGE RD 47TH PL OA K S T QU A I L S T 39TH AV 39TH PL NE W M A N S T PA R F E T S T 45TH P L 38TH PL SI M M S P L 45TH AV 50TH AV 48TH NORTHAV - FRN I-70 NE L S O N S T OW E N S S T SW A D L E Y S T PIE R S O N S T 47TH AV 40TH AV MO O R E C T PI E R S O N S T TA B O R S T OA K S T PI E R S O N S T 48THNORTH AV - FR N I-70 RO U T T S T 48TH AV 46TH AV 47TH AV LE E S T 46TH PL 47TH PL 49TH AV 44TH AV 46TH AV SI M M S C T OA K S T 50TH AV ROB B S T 41ST PL 41ST AV SW A D L E Y S T MO O R E S T SI M M S S T PA R F E T S T RO U T T S T S I M M S S T 49TH AV OA K S T PA R F E T S T MI L L E R C T MO O R E S T NE L S O N S T RO B B S T 46TH AV 47TH AV 41ST AV TA B O R S T 50TH AV 48TH SOUTHAV - FRN I-70 PA R F E T S T å Focus School n Other K-8 SchoolSidewalk TrailWalkable Network1/2 Mile Walking Area1/2 Mile Buffer Date: 1/27/201700.250.125 Miles User: jfish Path: H:\B000\B030 Wheat Ridge Bike Ped Plan\PRODUCTION\GIS\MXDs\2017_January\2017_DRAFT_WR_School_Walksheds.mxd K-8 SchoolWalking Distance ALPINE VALLEY SCHOOL n n n å PENNINGTONELEMENTARYSCHOOL 41ST AV KIP L I N G CT 43RD A V IN D E P E N D E N C E C T 39THAV 41ST AV O A K S T 50TH AV GA R R I S O N S T 48THAV 43RDAV JE L L I S O N ST HO Y T ST 42NDAV MIL L E R S T JE L L I S O N CT JO H N S O N ST51ST PL 51ST AV KI P L I N G S T 45TH PL MI L L E R S T 44TH PL 46TH AV HO Y T S T 47TH PL NE W M A N S T FL O W E R CT 44TH AV FI E L D C T 50TH AV HO Y T C T 51ST AV HO Y T C T 39TH AV NE W C O M B ST 45TH AV 48TH NORTHAV - FRN I-70 NE L S O N S T IR I S C T FIE L D S T IN D E P E N D E N C E S T EV E R E T T S T 48TH AV 47TH PL 9F HO L L A N D S T 39TH AV MO O R E C T EVERE T T D R LE E S T 45TH AV 47TH AV GA R L A N D S T EV E R E T T S T FL O W E R S T G A R R I S O N S T MO O R E S T IR I S S T EV E R E T T S T FI E L D S T MI L L E R C T NE L S O N S T MO O R E S T FLO W E R S T 49TH AV ES T E S S T EV E R E T T S T HO Y T S T HO Y T S T HO Y T C T JE L L I S O N S T IR I S S T 41ST AV 46TH PL 49TH AV 49TH PL 48TH SOUTHAV - FRN I-70 47TH AV 46TH AV GA R L A N D S T 48TH NORTHAV - FRN I-70 49TH AV 50TH AV GA R L A N D S T HO L L A N D S T GA R R I S O N S T EV E R E T T C T IN D E P E N D E N C E S T FIEL D D R å Focus School n Other K-8 SchoolSidewalk TrailWalkable Network1/2 Mile Walking Area1/2 Mile Buffer Date: 1/27/201700.250.125 Miles User: jfish Path: H:\B000\B030 Wheat Ridge Bike Ped Plan\PRODUCTION\GIS\MXDs\2017_January\2017_DRAFT_WR_School_Walksheds.mxd K-8 SchoolWalking Distance PENNINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL     Appendix C: ATAT Pedestrian Priority Routes         Appendix D: Funding Sources   Summarized here are potential Federal, State, regional, and locally‐administered funds for bicycle and  pedestrian infrastructure. Included within each category are a description of the funding source, some  eligibility requirements, and direction to additional information where available.  Federal Funding   In December 2015, President Obama signed the newest transportation authorization bill, Fixing  America’s Surface Transportation Act (the FAST Act), into law. The FAST Act streamlines some programs  but is not expected to substantially affect program eligibility or funding requirements at the local level.  As with any new legislation, it is possible that some of the individual components of specific programs  will change in the near future. Therefore, the City of Wheat Ridge should use up‐to‐date information,  regulations, and requirements when pursuing grant money.   Transportation Alternatives   The FAST Act replaced the former Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) with a set‐aside of funds  under the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG). For administrative purposes, the Federal  Highway Administration (FHWA) will refer to these funds as the TA Set‐Aside. The TA Set‐Aside  authorizes funding for programs and projects defined as transportation alternatives, including on‐ and  off‐road active transportation facilities, infrastructure projects for improving non‐driver access to public  transportation and enhanced mobility, recreational trail projects, and safe routes to school projects.  Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Grant   TIGER grants fund a broad array of road, rail, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects. The program  focuses on capital projects that generate economic development and improve access to reliable, safe,  and affordable transportation, especially for disadvantaged communities. TIGER grants only fund  projects that have gone through preliminary design and there is typically preference given to projects  with broad stakeholder support. Applicants are required to demonstrate that project benefits outweigh  costs. Projects in urban areas, such as in Wheat Ridge, must request at least $10 million with a minimum  20 percent match.   Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program  This program is intended to enhance mobility for seniors and persons with disabilities by providing funds  for programs to serve transit‐dependent populations beyond traditional public transportation services  and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit services (this program  consolidates New Freedom eligible projects). Bicycle and pedestrian improvements that provide access  to an eligible public transportation facility and meet the needs of the elderly and individuals with  disabilities can receive funding.  Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program  The Section 402 program provides grants to states to improve driver behavior and reduce deaths and  injuries from motor vehicle‐related crashes. The program is jointly administered by the National  Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) at the  federal level and by State Highway Safety Offices at the state level. Funds may be used to reduce  impaired driving, reduce speeding, improve pedestrian and bicycle safety, and reduce school bus deaths  and injuries, among other activities. Child and adult bicycle safety education is eligible for funding.   2    State‐Administered Funding   This section describes State‐administered funding sources, including those that use Federal funds and  those that use state‐generated revenue:    Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS)   Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Trails Program    Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)    Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP)    Land and Water Conservation Fund    Safe Sidewalk Program   Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS)   This program provides funding for education, enforcement, evaluations, and infrastructure  improvements near elementary and middle schools that promote students walking and biking to school.  Currently, the SRTS program is administered by CDOT. Interested communities can apply for  infrastructure and non‐infrastructure projects through a competitive application process.   Recreational Trails Program (RTP) Funds  CPW’s Trails Program receives RTP funds through FHWA. Eligible grant applicants for this funding include  local, state, and federal agencies, non‐profits, clubs, recreation and metro districts.   Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)   HSIP funds are available for safety projects aimed at reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries. Bike  lanes, roadway shoulders, crosswalks, intersection improvements, underpasses, and signs are examples  of eligible projects. Projects in high‐crash locations are most likely to receive funding. Colorado has  identified bicycle and pedestrian safety as Emphasis Areas and is more likely to fund bicycle and  pedestrian safety projects as a result.  Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Trails Program   CPW receives four types of grant funds which are distributed annually to successful trail grant  applicants: Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) Local Government matching grants, Great Outdoors  Colorado (GOCO) State Parks matching grants, Federal Recreational Trails Program (RTP) Funds, and  Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF).  Regionally Administered   This section describes funding sources administered by the Denver Region Council of Governments  (DRCOG), including several Federal funding programs. In the descriptions below, the programs are  referred to by their new names under the FAST Act:    Surface Transportation Block Grant Program    Surface Transportation Block Grant Program Set‐Aside    Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program    Community Services Block Grant Program (CSBG)    Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH)    Surface Transportation Block Grant Program   The STBG Program is the new name for the Surface Transportation Program. This flexible program may  be used by States and localities for projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance on  3    any Federal‐aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on any public road, pedestrian and bicycle  infrastructure anywhere, and transit capital projects, including intercity bus terminals. Eligibility includes  bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways, ADA sidewalk modification, recreational trails, and any  activity eligible under the Set‐Aside program (see below). DRCOG and the State control funds which they  can spend or distribute within the region.   Surface Transportation Block Grant Program Set‐Aside   This Set‐Aside, established in the FAST Act, replaces the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP).28  Funding through the Set‐Aside can be used for the construction of sidewalks, walkways or curb ramps;  bike lane striping, bike parking and bus racks; traffic calming; off‐road trails; bike and pedestrian bridges  and underpasses; ADA compliance; acquisition of railroad rights‐of‐way; and planning, design and  construction of multiuse trails and rail‐with‐trail projects. Larger Metropolitan Planning Organizations,  such as DRCOG, control a share of the funds to distribute locally through a competitive process.   Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program   The CMAQ program supports surface transportation projects, like those for active transportation  projects, due to their linkage to air quality improvements. Because Wheat Ridge is within the larger  Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas that are not in compliance with the National Ambient Air  Quality Standards, projects to improve air quality via active modes could be eligible for CMAQ funding.  Local Funding   This section describes locally‐administered funding sources:    General Fund    Bond Financing   Impact Fees    Special Assessment or Taxing Districts    Development‐driven Projects    General Fund   General funds, like those used for maintenance and some capital improvement projects, can be  leveraged to enhance bicycle and pedestrian access. For example, streets identified for reconstruction  or repaving should be evaluated for their potential to complete or augment the existing bicycle and  pedestrian networks.   Bond Financing  Bond financing is a long‐term borrowing tool used to provide funds for capital projects. Bond measures  are approved by voters and can authorize specific projects, including transportation improvements  identified through the legislative process.   Impact Fees   Impact fees are paid by the developers to fund a fraction of the improvements that are required  because of the new growth. Impact fees can be instituted to fund bicycle and pedestrian projects, such  as trails. Impact fees are typically tied to trip generation rates and traffic impacts produced by a                                                               28 The TAP included the former Transportation Enhancements Program, the Safe Routes to School Program, and  the Recreational Trails Program.    4    proposed project. Establishing a clear nexus between the impact fee and the project’s impacts is critical.  Impact fees may be considered at a citywide scale or for new developments within the city.    Special Assessment or Taxing Districts   Special districts are organized to fund a specific project that benefits an identifiable group of properties.  They are designated areas within which property owners are assessed a charge to defray the costs of  capital improvements that can benefit the properties within the district. The costs of improvements are  generally divided among property owners within a specified area. The contribution by owner can be  allocated based on property frontage or other methods such as traffic trip generation. Transportation  Development Districts (TDD) are one example of these districts used to finance transportation  improvements, such as bicycle and pedestrian amenities. A TDD has the power to issue a bond to pay for  the construction of projects that can benefit the district. Special districts may be considered for some  areas within the study area; especially within downtown cores.   Development‐Driven Projects  Developers construct the local streets within subdivisions and may participate in the construction of  collector/arterial streets and trails adjacent to their properties  Other Sources   This section describes other potential funding sources:    The Kresge Foundation    The Conservation Fund   People for Bikes    The Walmart Foundation   Robert Wood Johnson Foundation   Bike Shop Sponsorships   Home Owners’ Associations   Crowdfunding     The Kresge Foundation   The Kresge Foundation provides grants to nonprofit organizations and government agencies seeking  financial assistance for projects that contribute to improving health at the community level. The goal of  these grants is to create a comprehensive system that improves health outcomes, promotes health  equity, reduces per‐capita health costs, remove barriers to health, and offers the greatest promise for  adoption on a larger scale. Active transportation facilities may be competitive for this funding.   The Conservation Fund  The Conservation Fund provides loans for land acquisition to support the creation of bicycle and  pedestrian facilities.  Their loan program offers flexible financing as well as sustained and expert  technical assistance to organizations aiming to protect key properties in their communities.  People for Bikes   People for Bikes supports bicycle infrastructure projects and advocacy initiatives that make it easier and  safer for all people to ride. Their grant funds are awarded to infrastructure projects such as bike paths,  lanes, trails, bridges, and end‐of‐trip facilities such as bike racks, bike parking, and bike storage. Some  examples of People for Bikes grants in the Denver region.  5     Denver‐Boulder Bikeway – In 2001, a $10,000 grant to Bicycle Colorado to ensure the US‐36  bikeway was included as the preferred alternative.    BikeDenver – In 2009, BikeDenver received $10,000 to implement a bike share program and  improve city infrastructure and policies related to bicycling. Similarly, in 2011 they received  $2,500 to launch their first Viva Streets event in August 2011.   Walmart Foundation  Walmart Foundation provides significant funding for projects that align with their key focus areas:  Opportunity, Sustainability and Community. In addition, staff are encouraged to participate in volunteer  projects and can provide smaller levels of financial support.     Robert Wood Johnson Foundation    The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation provides grants for projects that improve community health and  the health care system with a focus on non‐infrastructure projects.  Most grants are awarded through  calls for proposals (CFPs) available on their website. Brief proposals for projects that suggest new and  creative approaches to solving health and health care problems can be submitted at any time.    Bike Shop Sponsorships  Trail and bicycle programs have a positive effect on the economy.  Many of those who benefit would like  to give back.  Bike shops are often willing to donate a portion of their proceeds towards community  events or the completion of a particular project.    Home Owners’ Associations  As more and more communities recognize the benefits of biking and walking, they are willing to support  extensions of existing systems or connections to their neighborhood.  Home Owners Associations and  other neighborhood groups are often willing to fund all or part of a project to hasten its completion.  Crowdfunding   Crowdfunding focuses on raising money for projects through many small donations. Websites, such as  gofundme.com, ioby.com, and indiegogo.com, allow fundraising campaigns to be easily established. In  2014, Memphis raised $70,000 through crowdfunding to build a separated bicycle lane. In 2015, Denver  launched a crowdfunding campaign focused on corporate donors for the planning and design of a  protected bike lane in downtown. Crowdfunding can be a creative approach to using community‐based  donations to leverage public funding.       Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager FROM: Scott Brink, Public Works Director DATE: April 21, 2017 (For May 1, 2017 Study Session) SUBJECT: ADA Transition Plan Update ISSUE: The City of Wheat Ridge is required, under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and 28CFR35.105, to perform a self-evaluation of its current transportation infrastructure and to develop policies, practices, and programs to address this mandate (development and adoption of an ADA Transition Plan). In cooperation with staff, the City’s consultant, Alfred Benesch and Company, has completed a draft plan. PRIOR ACTION: Staff completed a standard solicitation and procurement process, and on May 23, 2016, the City Council awarded a contract to Alfred Benesch & Company, Denver, CO., to assist the City in developing, adopting, and implementing an ADA Transition Plan. After an extensive amount of data collection, and the initiation of a public process, staff provided an update to Council on October 3, 2016. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funding for the ADA Transition Plan was approved in the 2016 Capital Improvement Plan under line item 30-303-800-861 in the amount of $43,247. BACKGROUND: The City has engaged in the process of addressing the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which applies to the operations of state and local governments, specifically related to providing mobility in the public street right-of-way. In 2010, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a final rule in order to adopt enforceable accessibility standards under the ADA. These standards ensure that state and local government services do not discriminate against individuals on the basis of disabilities and require state and local governments to make their programs and services accessible to persons with disabilities. These requirements focus on providing accessibility by addressing and eliminating structural barriers associated with public facilities. Study Session Memo – ADA Transition Plan May 1, 2017 Page 2 The development of an ADA Transition Plan addresses this mandate. The plan will cover access in public rights-of-way, including sidewalks, intersections, and street crossings. The plan also provides guidance for public rights-of-way to address various issues, such as access for individuals with disabilities, access to on-street parking, and various constraints posed by space limitations, including roadway design practices, slope, and terrain. The new guidelines will cover pedestrian access to sidewalks and streets, including crosswalks, curb ramps, street furnishings, pedestrian signals, transit stops, and other components of public rights-of-way. The City’s purpose in developing these guidelines is to ensure that access for persons with disabilities is provided wherever a pedestrian way is newly built or altered, and that the same degree of convenience, connection, and safety afforded the public generally is available to pedestrians with disabilities. Prior to engaging with the consultant last year, staff completed a substantial amount of survey work on curb ramps. This data, an essential component of the plan, was evaluated and utilized by the consultant as part of the plan development, including categorizing for use in long-term capital planning. As previously stated, this plan is necessary in order for the City to adhere to federal and state compliance requirements of the ADA. The scope of the plan addresses and includes the following required elements: • A self-evaluation that reviews all services, programs and activities that identify any architectural barriers, policies, or practices that may limit or exclude participation by people with disabilities. The City has already completed this work for City-owned facilities such as municipal buildings and parks through an earlier process. • A public notification and information system that is accessible to the public, including people who have disabilities. • Identification of an ADA compliance coordinator who will be available to the public. This person is responsible for implementing the transition plan and providing information related to accessibility programs and services. • Adoption of a formal grievance procedure for filing of complaints. • Development of a multi-year program to correct deficiencies, based in part on a prioritization method, condition, and available funding. Completed Activities The following activities and tasks have been completed to date as part of the draft ADA Transition Plan document: 1. Staff completed an inventory of existing right-of-way facilities and conditions. 2. The consultant conducted a review and verification of the survey data collected by the City by conducting spot verifications for accuracy, identifying additional needed mapping, and compiling other data and information as required. This effort also included working with Public Works and IT staff to complete all mapping needed for the plan. Study Session Memo – ADA Transition Plan May 1, 2017 Page 3 3. A public process was initiated that included a significant amount of outreach through a public informational meeting on October 3, 2016, solicitation of public input through an on-line survey, and additional promotion of the plan development through other communication outlets such as social media channels and the City website. 4. The consultant completed a policy and procedure draft in accordance with the requirements as described in the plan scope. 5. After reviewing the completed inventory and condition assessment of curb ramps and associated facilities, the consultant developed a tiered grouping, based on specific categories of accessibility (meets standard, does not meet and level of deficiency, etc.). Based on specific priorities and needs, these categorized groupings were then utilized to develop a proposed multi-year improvement program, based on certain amounts and years of funding levels. This will be explained by the consultant further at the Study Session. Next Steps and Actions The project manager from Alfred Benesch and Company will provide a brief presentation to Council on May 1, describing the plan, recommendations, and possible funding and improvement scenarios for Council consideration. Any questions, comments, and input provided by Council at this time will be welcome and appreciated. Upon the receiving of additional input, staff and the consultant desire to move forward with finalizing the plan and commencing implementation. ATTACHMENTS: 1. ADA Transition Plan Draft 2. Transition Plan Draft Presentation for May 1, 2017 3. Proposed Alternative Schedules and Budgets 4. Classifications and Costs Americans with Disabilities Act   Transition Plan  DRAFT  April 2017  Attachment 1 Original Plan Prepared in 2017  This publication has been prepared by Alfred Benesch & Company in partnership  with the City of Wheat Ridge.  All information contained herein is expressly prepared for the sole use of the City  of Wheat Ridge.  Should any portion of this publication be duplicated elsewhere,  we request appropriate attribution for such usage.  Acknowledgements  Many individuals were involved with the development of the ADA Transition Plan and other  accessibility improvements within Wheat Ridge.  The active participation of City staff from the  Public Works and Engineering Divisions, the City Council and Leadership, and other  stakeholders within the community indicates the level of engagement and commitment to  improving accessibility in our Community.  This assignment could not have been completed  without the efforts and cooperation from these the following:    City of Wheat Ridge City Council  City of Wheat Ridge Public Works Department – Engineering Division    Prepared By:    Alfred Benesch & Company       iii    TABLE OF CONTENTS  Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1  Transition Plan .............................................................................................................................................. 2  1. Introduction & Project Background ................................................................................................. 2  2. Federal, State, and City Legal Responsibilities ................................................................................. #  3. Policies and Practices ....................................................................................................................... #  3.1 Design Standards ....................................................................................................................... #  3.2 Accessibility Practices ............................................................................................................... #  3.3 Program Access and Effective Alternative Communication ...................................................... #  4. ADA Coordinator Role & Responsibilities ........................................................................................ #  5. Public Involvement .......................................................................................................................... #  6. Self‐Evaluation ................................................................................................................................. #  6.1 Programmatic Accessibility ....................................................................................................... #  6.2 Physical Accessibility ................................................................................................................. #  6.2.1 Method for Evaluations, Data Collection, and Processing ........................................... #  6.2.2 Overview of Findings .................................................................................................... #  7. Prioritize and Identify Goals, Strategies, & Schedules ..................................................................... #  7.1 Goals for the Program ............................................................................................................... #  7.2 Prioritization of Barriers ............................................................................................................ #  7.3 Strategies to Improve Accessibility ........................................................................................... #  7.4 Implementation Schedule ......................................................................................................... #  7.5 Implementation Strategy .......................................................................................................... #  7.6 Funding ...................................................................................................................................... #  8. Public Information Sharing & Grievance Procedure ........................................................................ #  8.1 Public Information Sharing ........................................................................................................ #  8.2 Grievance Procedure ................................................................................................................. #  9. Monitoring Progress & Updating Plan ............................................................................................. #  Appendices  A. Glossary of Terms  B. City Policy Regarding the ADA  C. Design & Construction Exception Form   D. ADA Coordinator Contact Info  E. Public Outreach Materials & Results    iv    F. Internal Staff Questionnaire  G. Area of Public Facilities Assessed  H. Overview of Assessment Attributes/Parameters   I. Assessment Findings  J. Barrier Removal Schedules & Budgets  K. Future Training Program  L. Grievance Procedure & Form  M. Summary of Work Completed towards Transition Plan Implementation      1    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY    While the City has been improving accessibility within their corporate limits for years, in 2016, the City’s  Engineering Division continued the process of developing a published ADA Transition Plan.  The purpose  of this Plan is to provide formal guidelines and goals to improve accessibility throughout the City’s  transportation network, and serve as a means of formal documentation of the procedures and progress  already taken place in accordance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  Enacted in  1990, the ADA mandates equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities.  The current self‐evaluation focused on pedestrian facilities within the City’s transportation network  maintained by the Engineering Division.  These facilities include curb ramps and pedestrian pushbuttons  within the public right‐of‐way (ROW) throughout the City.  In 2017, the City anticipates beginning the  process to assess sidewalk accessibility within the public ROW.  In conjunction with the sidewalk  assessment efforts, the City will also update their GIS database to document those pedestrian facilities  with improved accessibility based upon work performed since the last assessment.  The past and  anticipated future evaluations will provide a basis for a more robust assessment of accessibility in and  along City facilities; allow for planning and prioritizing removal of barriers; and develop a road map for  any remaining assessments needed.  This Transition Plan addresses proposed timelines and anticipated  costs associated with the removal of barriers and completing the remaining assessments.  Along with the assessment of pedestrian facilities in the City’s transportation network, the self‐ evaluation also reviewed the Engineering Division’s programs, procedures, and policies.  This process  included meetings with different department staff and disseminating an internal staff questionnaire.   Public outreach and involvement was also a conducted consisting of public meetings, user surveys, and  an online website.  This Transition Plan is a living document intended to be regularly monitored and updated.  Updated  versions will incorporate future findings from the actions identified above as well as advancements  made towards improving accessibility, implementation of the Plan, and progress towards identified  goals.       2    1. Overview  The purpose of this Transition Plan is to provide guidance to improve accessibility to the City of Wheat  Ridge’s transportation network in accordance to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The  ADA requires a public entity to modify its policies, practices, or procedures, within reason, to avoid  discrimination against people with disabilities.  This Plan will assist the City’s Engineering Division to  identify both physical and non‐physical barriers to accessibility and to develop solutions to increase the  opportunity of accessibility to all individuals.  The main components included:   Performing a self‐evaluation of the City’s current practices, guidelines, standards, policies,  and/or procedures or recommended for future use to minimize or eliminate barriers to  accessibility within the City of Wheat Ridge public ROW.     Designating the Department’s ADA Coordinator and their role and responsibilities.   Developing a formal ADA complaint procedure.   Performing Public Involvement to seek input on the Transition Plan and accessibility issues.  This Plan describes the process the City used to perform a self‐evaluation and provides  recommendations and goals identified as a result of the self‐evaluation.  The Plan also addresses  training provided regarding guidelines, standards, policies, procedures, and/or practices to minimize or  eliminate barriers to access within the City.  The City of Wheat Ridge elected officials and staff believe promoting an accessible environment for all  persons is essential to good customer service and in line with the quality of life that its residents desire.  The Plan is a living document, subject to review and update periodically.  2. Federal, State, and City Legal Accessibility Requirements  The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), enacted on July 26, 1990, is a civil rights law prohibiting  discrimination against individuals on the basis of disability.  The ADA consists of five titles outlining  protections in the following areas:  • Title I ‐ Employment  • Title II ‐ State and local government services  • Title III ‐ Public accommodations  • Title IV ‐ Telecommunications   • Title V ‐ Miscellaneous Provisions  Title II of ADA pertains to the programs, activities, and services public entities provide and extend the  application of the ADA to include those provided by all state and local government entities.  Title II  regulations expand upon the general prohibitions of discrimination established under Section 504 of the  Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  As such, policies, practices, and programs, must comply with the appropriate  sections of the ADA.    The ADA requires the City operate their programs so that, when viewed in their entirety, the programs  are accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities.  This includes making reasonable    3    modifications in policies, practices, and procedures that deny equal access to individuals with disabilities  unless it would result in a fundamental alteration in the program.  The City can provide services or  benefits to individuals with disabilities through programs that are separate or different such that the  separate or different measures are necessary to ensure that benefits and services are equally effective.  A large part of the effectiveness of increasing accessibility and complying with the ADA is taking  appropriate steps to ensure that communications with persons with disabilities are as effective as  communications with others.  This also includes establishing a grievance procedure to provide prompt  and equitable resolution of complaints.   Title II of ADA, 28 CFR.  Part 35 Sec. 35.105 and Sec. 35.150 requires agencies to conduct a self‐ evaluation of its facilities, policies, practices, and programs and develop a Transition Plan to outline how  reasonable accessibility improvements for individuals, when needed, will be addressed.  This Plan  includes the findings of the self‐evaluation and addresses areas of potential improvement as they  pertain to public ROW within and maintained by the City.  This Plan also identifies alternative methods  of service delivery permissible under 28 CFR Part 35. l 50(a) and (b ).    Once a Transition Plan is developed, it must be submitted for public review before final approval and  adoption.  At a minimum, a Transition Plan shall include the following elements:  • Identify ADA Coordinator  • Identify Physical and Programmatic Barriers  • Schedule and Method to Mitigate Barriers  • Complaint & Grievance Procedure  • Provide Public Participation Opportunities During Development  While the ADA requires agencies to reasonably modify its policies, procedures, and facilities to avoid  discrimination towards persons with a disability, it is not required to remove all barriers in all situations.  The ADA does not require the City to undertake any action that would fundamental alter the intent of a  program or activity, create a hazardous condition, or result in an undue financial burden.    3. Policies and Practices  3.1  Design Standards  The ADA Standards and Specifications described in this section are intended to apply to all construction  of city streets and the transportation network within the City of Wheat Ridge required to adhere to City  requirements under the Engineering Division’s jurisdiction.  Pedestrian facilities within the City’s parks  and trails network adhere to the Parks and Recreation Department’s standards.  Currently the City utilizes the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) and  portions of the 2011 Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right‐of‐Way (PROWAG)  as the basis for transportation facilities.  The City maintains standard construction details for  transportation facilities intended to provide accessibility within the transportation network.   Additionally, the City utilizes Colorado Department of Transportation requirements for some projects.      4    For public ROW adjacent to private property, the Streetscape Design Manual was adopted by City  Council on March 28, 2011, through Ordinance 1481.  This document establishes streetscape design  requirements (such as sidewalks and street trees).  The City’s Engineering Standard Construction Details are available at:  http://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us/71/Standard‐Construction‐Details  CDOT standards are available at:  https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/standard‐plans/2012‐m‐standards‐plans/2012‐m‐standards‐pdfs/   The Streetscape Design Manual is available at:  http://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us/431/Guiding‐Documents   In an effort to account for construction tolerances and to avoid exceeding listed thresholds, designers  and construction crews shall target specified slopes and dimensions below the maximum or above the  minimum requirements stated in these standards while maintaining positive drainage to the maximum  extent possible.  In alterations to existing facilities, where compliance with applicable standards and specifications is  technically infeasible or result in undue burden, the alteration shall conform to standards to the  maximum extent possible.  Such exceptions shall be documented on the ADA Design and Construction  Exception Form contained in Appendix C and submitted to the ADA Coordinator for documentation.  All future enactments and revisions to legally applicable Federal, State, or City accessibility codes,  standards or guidelines, shall be incorporated into these ADA Codes and Standards to the extent that  such enactments or revisions exceed the requirements contained herein. Nevertheless, such  enactments or revisions shall not decrease any requirement as contained herein.  3.2 Accessibility Practices  The City strives to improve accessibility by leveraging many of its existing and programs.  While most of  these programs listed below are not intended to specifically address accessibility, they often result in  accessibility upgrades or improvements to some extent. These programs include the following:   Street Resurfacing Program   Capital Investment Program    Traffic Signal Maintenance    Targeted Accessibility Projects   Private Development Review  Section 7 further explains the implementation and scope of these programs as they relate to  accessibility improvements.  The City’s goal is to provide an accessible route throughout the transportation network whenever  possible.  This does not require the City to construct sidewalk where it does not currently exist or  remove physical barriers to all existing pedestrian facilities as long as they provide and identify an  accessible route to individuals with disabilities, however, the City is working towards improving  connectivity and accessibility.  Under this concept, the City may choose not to install curb ramps or    5    sidewalks at some locations (or to install them as a lower priority later), as long as a reasonable path of  travel is available even without those pedestrian facilities.  Installing new sidewalk within residential  areas which do not have existing sidewalks is the responsibility of the property owners.   3.3 Program Access and Effective Alternative Communication  The City makes every effort to provide access to its programs for all citizens.  Beyond physical access,  this includes program access.  In order to effectively communicate with individuals with disabilities, the  City provides alternative effective communication methods to its staff members and the public when  requested and possible.  The following statement is currently included in all City Council Meeting  agendas and will be included in public notifications from the Engineering Division:  “Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of  Wheat Ridge.  Contact the Public Information Officer at least one week in advance of a meeting if you  are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance.”  The ADA does not require the City to undertake any action that would result in a fundamental alteration  in the intent of its program or activity, would create a hazardous condition, or would represent an  undue financial and administrative burden.  If such a situation should arise, the City will make sure  proper documentation is provided as outlined in the ADA and explore potential accommodations that  may be appropriate for providing program accessibility in lieu of making actual physical changes in an  effort to make their programs and services as accessible as possible.  The majority of the programs the Engineering Division are involved with are Public Meetings.  Public  Meetings are typically conducted as close to the specific project’s location as possible in an accessible  facility.  Accommodations and alternative forms of effective communication are made available to the  public upon request.  4. ADA Coordinator Role & Responsibilities  The ADA requires public entities with fifty (50) or more employees to designate one or more individuals  as responsible employees for monitoring compliance with and investigating potential violations of the  ADA.  This individual(s) is the primary point of contact for individuals with disabilities to:  • Request auxiliary aids and services, policy modifications, and other accommodations;  • File a complaint with the City regarding accessibility to City programs, activities and services;  and/or  • Address ADA concerns from the general public and from other departments and employees  of the public entity.    In addition to providing public service, an ADA Coordinator is a valuable resource for City as well. They  provide a specific contact person knowledgeable with the ADA to answer questions and provide  support.  The ADA Coordinator also provides consistent feedback on reasonable accommodations,  undue burden decisions, and potential accessibility measures.    The ADA does not require the City to undertake any action that would result in a fundamental alteration  in the intent or nature of its program or activity, would create a hazardous condition, or would  represent an undue burden.  Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense when considering    6    the nature and cost of the accommodation in relation to the size, resources, and facility of the specific  operation.  Undue burden is determined on a case‐by‐case basis and shall include concurrence of the  ADA Coordinator and must be accompanied by a statement citing the reasons for reaching the  conclusion.  The determination that undue burdens would result must be based on an evaluation of all  resources available for use in the programs.  The Engineering Division currently has a Department ADA Coordinator to serve in this role.   A  Departmental ADA Coordinator system is anticipated to be implemented in the future to address the  needs of employees and citizens with disabilities for the programs and facilities each department is  responsible for within the City.  A single ADA Coordinator may be designated in the future for the entire  City with each Department ADA Coordinator handling their respective departments.  If implemented,  this system will identify a Departmental ADA Coordinator within each department who will collaborate  with the City’s ADA Coordinator regarding the needs of their department and the programs their  department is responsible to manage.  The benefit of having a Departmental ADA Coordinator for each  department is it provides a subject matter expert and someone with knowledge of department  operations and budgets for the ADA Coordinator to work.  The City’s ADA Coordinator, or designee, will  follow‐up with each Departmental ADA Coordinator to coordinate the implementation of plans,  programs, policies and procedures and to determine any undue burden specific to that department.  Appendix D identifies the office, address, and telephone number of the Engineering Division’s ADA  Coordinator.  5. Public Involvement  The City provided several opportunities to receive and encourage the public, advocacy groups, and other  stakeholders to provide input and identify areas of concern during the development of this Plan.  The City utilized several different methods of public outreach and involvement including public meeting  and open houses, informational handouts, online surveys, and press releases.  A Transition Plan  webpage was also provided within the City’s website specifically intended for providing updates and  soliciting input.  A public open house was held at the Wheat Ridge Recreation Center, a fully accessible facility, on  October 5, 2015.  Notifications for the event were disseminated on multiple platforms including the  City’s webpage, social media outlets, a press release, and flyers to various City facilities and community  living centers. The public open house was for both the ADA Transition Plan and the Bicycle & Pedestrian  Master Plan Update projects in an effort to increase public turn out and because of the synergies  between the two projects.  The open house provided an opportunity for interested parties to visit with  the Plan development team, provide input on areas of concern, and a handout regarding the Plan’s goals  and objectives.    Another method of soliciting input for the Transition Plan was through a public survey made available in  a variety of formats (paper, online, audio, etc.).  The purpose of this survey was to help identify specific  accessibility issues as well as potential areas of improvement throughout the City overall.  Input received  from the survey and meetings was evaluated and included in the Transition Plan.      7    A second public open house was held at the same Wheat Ridge Recreation Center, on May ## 2017.   Notifications for the event were disseminated on multiple platforms including the City’s webpage, social  media outlets, a press release, and bi‐lingual flyers.  The open house included a presentation of the  Transition Plan draft and findings from the self‐evaluation.  The open house also provided an  opportunity for interested parties to visit with the Plan development team and provide input on the  draft Transition Plan.    A draft version of the Plan was made available to the public through the project webpage for a period of  30 days.  Feedback received was evaluated and the Plan modified as deemed appropriate by the Plan  development team.    Appendix E shows the different forms of public involvement used during the development of the  Transition Plan described in this section.  6. Self‐Evaluation  There are two kinds of accessibility, program accessibility and physical accessibility.  The City must  provide both types of accessibility in order to be free of discrimination.  In addition to physical access,  programmatic accessibility also includes all of the policies, practices, and procedures allowing people  with disabilities an equally effective opportunity to participate in programs and services.  Physical  accessibility requires a facility provide for an accessible path free of barriers.    6.1 Programmatic Accessibility  The ADA requires the City to evaluate current policies and practices to identify and correct any barriers  inconsistent with the intent of the law.  Representatives from the Engineering Division have examined  current practices and policies related to the ADA, and identified gaps in information or training to  address in the Transition Plan.  To further refine and understand accessibility issues needing to be  addressed, the City administered a questionnaire to department staff in order to provide information on  the following:   Overall accessibility of the City’s facilities and programs,    Level of staff training and understanding of the ADA,    Accommodations made for individuals with disabilities to access these services, and   Encounters with physical obstructions and staff disabilities.    A sample of the questionnaire and an overview of the responses are in Appendix F.  6.2 Physical Accessibility  The Engineering Division is responsible for maintaining the City’s transportation network defined as all  roadways, sidewalks, on‐system shared‐use trails, curb ramps, bridges, and other pathways designated  for public transportation within City limits and owned by the City.  This Plan intends to address  accessibility adjacent to or crossing roadways and bridges and accessibility on facilities designated for  shared‐use or non‐vehicular public transportation.  The transportation network does not include  facilities maintained by or owned by other agencies or private entities within the jurisdictional  boundaries of the City.    8    The ADA requires the City to address accessibility across all public facilities under the jurisdiction of the  City.  For the purpose of this Transition Plan, the Engineering Division focused on the following  categories within the public ROW:   Curb Ramps   Sidewalk   Pedestrian Pushbuttons  Accessibility issues related to other City facilities will be addressed under a separate plan(s).    6.2.1 Method for Evaluations, Data Collection, and Processing  As part of the self‐evaluation, the City outlined a comprehensive evaluation strategy consisting of  physical review and measurement of curb ramps and sidewalks and other pedestrian transportation  assets adjacent to or crossing roadways and bridges.  At the time of this Plan, the City has evaluated  curb ramps and pedestrian pushbuttons and are implementing the evaluation strategy for sidewalks.  These evaluations are based on the 2011 Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public  Right‐of‐Way (PROWAG) published by the United States Access Board. The PROWAG document has not  been adopted or approved. PROWAG is recognized as a best practice and has been recommended for  use by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Compliance or non‐compliance as noted herein, is  in reference to PROWAG, assuming it is the standard by which accessibility should be measured.  The City cataloged all existing curb ramps and pedestrian pushbuttons utilizing their Geographic  Information System (GIS) database.  In 2015 and 2016 the City performed field evaluations and  documented a variety of attributes for these assets to determine compliancy.  The attributes evaluated  generally include the following:  • Curb ramp configuration, geometry, grades, vertical discontinuities, and condition  • Detectable warnings panel presence, geometry, and contrast  • Clear space location and geometry  • Turning space geometry and grades  • Pedestrian pushbutton presence, location, accessibility, and audible features  • Pedestrian signals presence and audible features  • Adjacent street grades and stop control presence  The City is currently populating its sidewalk network in its GIS database and evaluating segments for  compliancy.  The attributes being evaluated generally include the following:  • Sidewalk presence, material, geometry, grades, and condition  • Presence of vertical faults, horizontal gaps, obstructions of width, or non‐compliant driveway  crossings  To be compliant under PROWAG, these features must satisfy established criteria specific to each asset  type and purpose.  If one criteria of an asset is non‐compliant, the asset technically does not meet    9    accessibility requirements even though it may be substantially compliant.  Appendix G provides  information related to the assets surveyed.  This information is maintained in the City’s GIS database for  easy reference and query for internal staff.  It should be noted, all information related to the findings is  based upon the self‐evaluation performed in 2015 and 2016 for curb ramps and pedestrian  pushbuttons.  6.2.3 Overview of Findings  The City has approximately 1,707 locations under their jurisdiction with curb ramps present and  constructed to old or non‐compliant standards.  These locations, while not fully compliant, provide some  degree of accessibility.  Based upon the self‐evaluation field survey, approximately 3% of the curb ramp  locations were fully compliant and provided compliant accessibility.  Approximately 1,354 locations did  not have an acceptable detectable warning panel present.  The most prevalent issues with non‐ compliant curb ramps included improper landing slopes and/or dimensions (80%); improper cross slope  or geometry along the ramp or at the curb drop (52%); and/or running slope of the ramp (63%).        Based on the self‐assessment, the City has approximately 153 locations with pedestrian pushbuttons  under their jurisdiction throughout the transportation network.  Based on the self‐assessment, only 10%  of the pushbuttons meet accessibility requirements (excluding audible features and distance from curb  ramp not previously required under PROWAG or ADAAG).  The most prevalent issues encountered on  non‐compliant pushbuttons included improper mounting height, improper location (distance) relative to  the curb, and/or no clear space along the travel path.  These issues either singularly or in combination  were present on approximately 68% of the segments assessed.  Approximately 118 pushbutton  3% 80% 52% 63% Curb Ramp Findings Fully Compliant Landing Space Issues Ramp Cross Slope Ramp Running Slope   10    locations were not equipped with audible features1.  Currently, audible features are not mandates at all  pedestrian signals and should be evaluated on a case‐by‐case basis.  Based on the self‐assessment, the City has approximately 162 locations with pedestrian signals under  their jurisdiction throughout the transportation network.  Of the 162 locations, 9 did not have  pedestrian pushbuttons present.  Based on the self‐assessment, approximately 72% of the pedestrian  signals were not equipped with audible features.    It should be noted for locations with non‐compliant curb ramp, pedestrian pushbuttons and/or  pedestrian signals, an accessible route may exist within reasonable proximity to some of these locations.    At the time of this Plan, it is estimated the City has approximately and 150 miles of sidewalk.  Summaries  of findings will be updated once existing accessibility reviews have been analyzed and additional field  surveys have been conducted.    Appendix I provides a summary of curb ramp and pedestrian signal findings.  7. Transition Plan Implementation  7.1 Goals for the Program  The overall goal of the Transition Plan is to improve accessibility to the programs, activities, and services  provided by the Engineering Division.  In order to achieve this goal, the City prioritized the list of  identified barriers, identified potential strategies and methods to remove barriers within fiscal  constraints, and provided additional guidance to City staff and the public on the requirements of the  ADA and the City’s approach to improve accessibility.  The City also developed a realistic schedule based  on estimated available budget for the removal of barriers and identified potential funding sources and  opportunities to remove identified barriers.  7.2 Prioritization of Barriers  Currently, the City primarily addresses identified accessibility issues on a case‐by‐case basis as  determined by the department responsible for the facility and based on available resources.  The  Engineering Division assesses and updates curb ramps as necessary adjacent to street segments  included in their annual Street Resurfacing Project.  Due to differing levels of severity regarding impacts to accessibility and fiscal constraints, the City  developed a system to classify, prioritize and schedule implementation of accessibility improvements  and barrier removal.  This system consists of proximity to public facilities and public transit, level of use  by the public, severity of barriers, geographic distribution, and cost.    Considering these factors, along with due consideration of the often conflicting nature of these  challenges, the City anticipates utilizing the following criteria to assist staff in prioritizing  implementation of accessibility improvements.  1. Locations where adjacent roadway or infrastructure improvements are taking place.                                                               1 MUTCD, ADAAG, or PROWAG did not require pedestrian signals/pushbuttons be audible prior to 2012.   Upgrading the controller, software, or replacing the pedestrian signal heads may require updating the pedestrian  signals to include audible features.    11    2. Locations in close proximity to public facilities and high pedestrian traffic areas such as schools,  hospitals, City owned facilities, churches, and group living communities.  3. Locations having a higher degree of non‐compliance or more significant barriers to accessibility.  4. All other locations not listed above as funding and resources are available.  The Intersection Prioritization Tool provided through the link and available from the Traffic Operations  Division was recreated from National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 3‐62 research.  The worksheets are a product of NCHRP 3‐62 and are published in the Transportation Research Record,  Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1982, pp. 13‐20, entitled “Development of an  Intersection Prioritization Tool for Accessible Pedestrian Signal Installation”. The Intersection  Prioritization Tool consists of two worksheets.   To prioritize installing accessible pedestrian signals, the City will analyze traffic volumes, current traffic‐ signal patterns and the complexity of the intersection's geometry. The City will utilize the Intersection  Prioritization Tool criteria created by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 3‐62  research and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to evaluate and prioritize each intersection  under consideration, including new traffic signal installations.  The Intersection Prioritization Tool  provides a method of scoring individual crossings for relative crossing difficulty to visually impaired  individuals. This provides a method to compare crossings for priority for installation of accessible  pedestrian signals.  The worksheets and detailed instructions on completing the worksheets are located  at http://www.apsguide.org/appendix_d.cfm.  While the City intends to use these criteria as a guide for prioritization, project level decisions to  improve accessibility or modify existing pedestrian facilities will be based on a variety other contributing  factors including efficiency of construction efforts and budget, upcoming infrastructure projects which  may impact pedestrian facilities, program and master planning input, etc.    Locations identified from the grievance process will be addressed and prioritized on a case‐by‐case basis.  7.3 Strategies to Improve Accessibility  Implementing physical changes to the City’s infrastructure will take time and resources to properly plan,  design, and upgrade existing facilities and remove identified barriers.  Beyond targeted barrier removal  projects, the City incorporates improving accessibility on capital improvement projects.  These projects,  both public and private, currently require ADA compliance and review by City staff or designated  representatives.   Additionally, the City plans to include annual budgetary allotments for projects targeting accessibility on  top of what is currently programmed, with emphasis given to the removal of barriers based on the  Transition Plan priorities.  Where access cannot immediately be provided, interim measures will be  explored and potentially implemented in order to provide programmatic access to persons with  disabilities to the extent feasible pending the remediation of physical barriers.  Recently, the City completed its Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan Update.  This effort helped identify  specific locations and corridors throughout the City where the public desires increased connectivity.   This update will afford the City the benefit of improving accessibility in these highly desired locations  during the implementation of the improvements identified.  Improving accessibility and potentially    12    expanding the pedestrian facilities network may be done in coordination with the guidance of this  master plan.  7.4 Implementation Schedule  The City plans to address and remove barriers to accessibility based upon the priorities outlined in this  Transition Plan systematically based on established program priorities and standard City processes and  procedures.  The City reserves the right to modify barrier removal priorities in order to allow flexibility in addressing  reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities, community requests, changes in City  programs or facility usage, funding availability and constraints, and opportunities with similar capital  improvement projects.  For the development of this Transition Plan, the City based programming costs of the different project  components on a per ramp, per linear foot of curb and gutter, and per each pedestrian pushbutton and  signal basis.  These programming costs include an allowance for different elements typically associated  with the specific improvements and severity of non‐compliance.  Examples of these components include  additional adjacent sidewalk or curb and gutter required to construct curb ramp, retaining walls,  landscaping, pavement patching, and ROW. The estimated programming costs also include contingencies  for engineering design, construction and surveying.  Because of the unknown nature of future capital  improvement program projects and budgets, private development and re‐development, federal grants,  and general operating budgets; the City cannot accurately predict available future annual spending  towards improving accessibility. Estimated costs and potential timelines to address the findings of the  self‐evaluation are provided in Appendix J.  7.5 Implementation Strategy  In general, accessibility improvements along the transportation network addressing curb ramps and  sidewalks occur as part of contracted construction projects and activities.  The City has legal authority to  require new sidewalks and accessible ramps being constructed or existing facilities with a demonstrated  need within the public ROW meet current accessibility requirements.    It is anticipated the majority of the accessibility improvement will be performed in conjunction with  other projects and activities occurring within the City.  The following illustrates the most anticipated  efforts and how each may improve accessibility:   New Construction Projects: Work involving constructing new pedestrian or transportation  features in locations within current or future public ROW shall provide accessible features in the  project that meet current ADA design standards.  New Improvements Projects: Work involving improving existing public ROW transportation  features will provide new or necessary upgrades to existing accessible features in the project  area to meet current ADA design standards. Such projects may include road widenings as part of  the Capital Improvement Program with associated sidewalk improvements or connectivity  projects identified in the Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan Update.  Major Maintenance and Rehabilitation Projects: Work involving any alteration or major  maintenance activity performed on transportation assets in the existing public ROW shall    13    provide or upgrade accessible features in, or immediately adjacent to, the project to meet  current ADA design standards to the extent feasible.  Such projects shall include any project  requiring pavement reconstruction, major pavement rehabilitation, sidewalk improvements, or  the reconstruction of accessibility facilities caused by private permitees.  Minor or routine  maintenance activities (patching, sealing, etc.) will include accessibility improvements when  required by the ADA or when such improvements are consistent with the scope of the activity  being performed.  Routine Maintenance & Repair Projects: Work that is limited to specifically repairing spot areas  in the public ROW directly affecting accessibility shall provide new or necessary upgrades to  impacted existing accessible features to meet current ADA design standards.  Training & Education Projects: The City may provide training, formal or informal, to staff,  contractors, engineers, developers, partners, and the general public as deemed appropriate for  the purpose of educating and training individuals and entities on ADA requirements,  construction standards and processes, and City expectations for projects within the  transportation network.  7.6 Funding  Funding is an important component for improving accessibility within the transportation network.  The  City endeavors to responsibly fund efforts to improve accessibility whenever practical.  It is anticipated  funding for improvements and mechanisms for project delivery may come from the following sources:   Annual Capital Improvement Program Projects   Federal Aid or Grants2 – State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Highway Safety  Improvement Program (HSIP), Safe Routes To Schools (SRTS), Congestion Mitigation and Air  Quality Improvement (CMAQ), Surface Transportation Program (STP), Colorado Office of  Transportation Safety (OTS) grants, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),  Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Road Diet Projects, Multi‐Modal  Transportation Programs, Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA), Transportation  Alternatives (TA), Railway‐Highway Crossing Program (RHC), and other pedestrian, mobility,  development grants   Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with neighboring jurisdictions   Bonding   Reallocation of departmental budgets (e.g. dedicating more from General Fund)   Creation of Taxing Districts ‐ Tax Increment Financing District (TIF), Community Improvement  District (CID), Tax Allocation District (TAD)   Adoption of Fees to fund an Enterprise associated with Accessibility    The ADA does not require the City to undertake any action that would result in a fundamental alteration  in the intent of its program or activity, would create a hazardous condition, or would represent an undue  financial and administrative burden. This determination shall include concurrence of the ADA Coordinator  and must be accompanied by a statement citing the reasons for reaching the conclusion. The                                                               2 NOTE: Many of these programs or types of programs are competitive type grants, therefore, agencies aren’t guaranteed to  receive these funds. The City will need to monitor these programs and decide whether to pursue the funds.    14    determination that undue burdens would result must be based on an evaluation of all resources available  for use in the programs.  The following outlines the anticipated process for addressing accessibility barriers within the City’s  transportation system:  Coordinated/Included with another Project(s):  1. Annually review planned projects and compare project locations to locations of known  accessibility issues.  2. Review project areas to identify or confirm and quantify accessibility barriers.  3. Identify available funding to allocate towards accessibility improvements.  4. Develop necessary Contract Document changes to incorporate proposed improvements into the  overall project.  5. Inspect constructed improvements and document resolution of accessibility barrier(s).    Standalone Project(s):  1. Review documented accessibility barriers and identify locations without undue burdens to target,  consistent with the Plan priorities, construction economics and other environmental factors, and  available funding.  2. Identify available funding to allocate towards accessibility improvements.  3. Develop necessary Contract Document changes to incorporate proposed improvements into the  overall project.  4. Inspect constructed improvements and document resolution of accessibility barrier(s).    Prior to initiating the formal development of the Transition Plan, the City commenced efforts to improve  accessibility.  These efforts are ongoing and will be re‐focused as needed to maintain consistency with the  vision of the Plan.  In an effort to provide a better understanding of the ADA and its requirements, the City is developing and  will be providing two different ADA training measures. The first training measure will address City specific  items such as the Departmental ADA Coordinator, requirements and best practices for public meetings,  standardized language for public outreach and correspondence, and ADA support provided by the City.  The second training measure will address issues more technical in nature such as current ADA standards  and specifications; requirements for providing an accessible route; reasonable accommodations; and the  design, construction, maintenance, and inspection of accessible improvements.  The measures provided  may focus on a combination of these elements or single elements depending on the intended specific  purpose or audience.  Additional details of the anticipated training program are provided in Appendix K.  8. Public Information Sharing & Grievance Procedure  8.1 Public Information Sharing  The City makes information available to all applicants, participants, beneficiaries, and interested persons  regarding the provisions of the ADA and its applicability to the services, programs or activities of the  City.    15    The City is committed to sharing information with the public regarding efforts to improve accessibility  throughout the City.  Information sharing occurs mostly through contact with the ADA Coordinator, the  City’s webpage, press releases and other public notifications, and other typical public outreach  methodologies.  The Transition Plan will continuously be available by contacting the ADA Coordinator or on the City’s  website http://co‐wheatridge3.civicplus.com/1543/ADA‐Transition‐Plan.   8.2 Grievance Procedure  The City of Wheat Ridge has a formal grievance procedure in place to provide citizens with a way to file  complaints regarding accessibility and a documented method for the City to handle complaints.  Appendix L identifies the City’s grievance procedure and responsibilities towards filing, investigating,  and initiating a response and the complaint form.  In the event available funds are insufficient for responding to grievances that request barrier removal or  structural modifications, improvements will be prioritized and scheduled, as resources are available.  9. Monitoring Progress & Updating Plan  The ADA Transition Plan is a living document.  The City will review the ADA Transition Plan on a periodic  basis and update it as deemed appropriate to address progress towards improving accessibility and  provide for any Plan modifications.  The Department ADA Coordinator and appropriate staff will review  the Plan to identify updates and incorporate new information pertaining to accessibility and the ADA  into the Plan.  Public comments or suggestions received will be incorporated as deemed appropriate.   City staff or representatives will monitor barrier removal and remediation periodically in the field.  Their  goal is to ensure alterations and newly constructed facilities meet ADA Codes and City Standards.  City  ADA guidelines will be made available to contractors prior to performing any work.  Field inspections  may be performed both during and after work is performed.  As new facilities are constructed or re‐constructed such as curb ramps, sidewalks, or pedestrian  pushbuttons and signals; the Engineering Division will update their GIS database to reflect these  improvements.    Updating the GIS database will allow the City to monitor accessibility in specific areas, as well as the  City’s overall transportation network.  The GIS database can also be used to re‐prioritize and allocate  budget appropriately.  The database is intended to be a tool to assist the City with accessibility  improvements and not the sole method for determining accessibility improvement projects.  The  Department ADA Coordinator will be available to the general public to provide updated monitoring and  status reports upon request.      APPENDIX A – Glossary of Terms    Accessible Pedestrian Signal – An integrated device that communicates information about the pedestrian  walk phases in non‐visual formats.  Accessible Route – a continuous, unobstructed path connecting all accessible elements and spaces  including public transportation facilities, parking access aisles, curb ramps, crosswalks at vehicular ways,  walks, ramps and lifts.  ABA – means and refers to the Architectural Barriers of 1968 which requires facilities designed, built,  altered, or leased with funds supplied by the United States Federal Government be accessible to the  public.  ADA – means and refers to the Americans with Disabilities Act as contained and explained in Title 42,  Chapter 126 of the United States Code.  ADAAG – Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, codified at Appendix A to 28 Code of  Federal Regulations Part 36 and at Appendix A to 49 Code of Federal Regulations part 37.   Auxiliary Aids and Services – services and devices promoting effective communication or allowing access  to goods and services as defined by Titles II and III of the ADA.   Complaint – a claimed violation of the ADA.  Curb Ramp – a short ramp cutting through a curb or built up to it.  Detectable Warning – truncated domes, typically pre‐fabricated and installed or stamped into a walkway,  providing a tactile surface at the transition from a curb and the street or other hazardous vehicular  crossings, assisting pedestrians with vision disabilities in determining when they enter the street.  Disability – a physical or mental impairment substantially limiting one or more of the major life activities  of an individual as defined by the ADA.  Facility – All or any portion of buildings, improvements, elements, and pedestrian or vehicular routes  located on a site or in a public right‐of‐way.  Impairment – any physiological disorder, or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss  affecting one or more body systems or any mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation,  organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.  Pedestrian Rights‐of‐Way (PROW) – sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks serving such sidewalks, and any  other designated routes or pathways used by pedestrians along public rights of way.  Program Accessibility – The City’s services, programs, or activities, when viewed in their entirety, must  be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.  PROWAG – Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right‐of‐Way. At the time of this  Initial Plan the most current version of the PROWAG is the 2011 Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian  Facilities in the Public Right‐of‐Way published by the United States Access Board.  This document provides  guidelines for public rights‐of‐way addressing various issues, including access for blind pedestrians at      street crossings, wheelchair access to on‐street parking, and various constraints posed by space  limitations, roadway design practices, slope, and terrain.  Reasonable Accommodation – changes or adjustments providing, without undue burden, means for an  individual with a disability to perform the duties or tasks required.  Where existing physical constraints  make it impractical for altered elements, spaces, or facilities to fully comply with new construction  requirements, compliance is required to the extent practicable within the scope of the project. Existing  physical constraints include, but are not limited to, underlying terrain, right‐of‐way availability,  underground structures, adjacent developed facilities, drainage, or the presence of a notable natural or  historic feature. See 2011 PROWAG and 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7).  Undue Burden – excessive or disproportionate financial and administrative burdens associated with  modifying an existing facility and incurred by a covered entity, likely due to factors including, but not  limited to, the nature and cost of the action; the overall financial resources of the owner(s); the number  of persons employed at the site; the effect on expenses and resources; legitimate safety requirements  necessary for safe operation, including crime prevention measures; or any other impact of the action on  the operation of the site; the geographic separateness, and the administrative or fiscal relationship of the  site or sites in question to any parent corporation or entity; if applicable, the overall financial resources  of any parent corporation or entity; the overall size of the parent corporation or entity with respect to the  number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and if applicable, the type of  operation or operations of any parent corporation or entity, including the composition, structure, and  functions of the workforce of the parent corporation or entity           APPENDIX B – CITY POLICY REGARDING THE ADA    NOTICE UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT  In accordance with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), the  City of Wheat Ridge will not discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities on the basis of  disability in its services, programs, or activities.   Employment:  It is the policy of the City of Wheat Ridge not to unlawfully discriminate on the basis of  race, color, religion, creed, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, national origin, ancestry,  disability, or any other characteristic protected by law. The City of Wheat Ridge will consider reasonable  accommodations for employment to qualified applicants UPON REQUEST to the Human Resources Office  Effective Communication:  Anyone desiring or requiring an auxiliary aid or service for effective  communication, or a modification of policies or procedures to participate in a program, service, or activity  of the City should contact the ADA Coordinator identified in Appendix C of the Plan as soon as possible  but no later than seven days before the scheduled event.  Modifications to Policies and Procedures: The City of Wheat Ridge will make all reasonable modifications  to policies and programs to ensure that people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to enjoy all of  its programs, services, and activities.  For example, individuals with service animals are welcomed in City  of Wheat Ridge facilities, even where pets are generally prohibited.  The ADA does not require the City of Wheat Ridge to take any action that would fundamentally alter the  nature of its programs or services, or impose an undue financial or administrative burden.   Complaints that a program, service, or activity of the City of Wheat Ridge is not accessible to persons with  disabilities should be directed to the ADA Coordinator.          APPENDIX C –ADA DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION EXCEPTION FORM     ADA Design and Construction Exception Form  Please fill out this form completely if an element of new construction or alteration to an existing facility seemingly  cannot meet the ADA requirements or creates undue financial or administrative burden and return to the ADA  Coordinator at:  City of Wheat Ridge  7500 W. 29th Avenue  2nd Floor – Engineering Division  Wheat Ridge, CO  80033  This form applies to facilities located in public right‐of‐way of the City of Wheat Ridge or property owned by the City.  Project:   City Project No.: Location/Intersection:   New Construction:   Alteration to Existing Facility:     ADA requirement seemingly not being satisfied or creating undue burden:           Reason for perceived non‐compliance:             Reasonable accommodation provided:                              Sketch of area (if needed) or indicate if attached □  City Representative/Title:_____________________________________________ Date: __________________  If you have questions about this form please contact the ADA Coordinator at (303) 235‐2866 or  krosson@ci.wheatridge.co.us.      APPENDIX D – ADA COORDINATOR CONTACT INFO    City of Wheat Ridge   Engineering Department  ADA Coordinator    Kelly Rosson, ADAC  City of Wheat Ridge City Hall  7500 W. 29th Avenue  Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033    Phone: 303‐235‐2866  Email: krosson@ci.wheatridge.co.us    Hours  Monday ‐ Friday  8:00 a.m. ‐ 5:00 p.m.  (Excluding City holidays)             APPENDIX E – PUBLIC OUTREACH MATERIALS AND RESULTS          AD A T R A N S I T I O N P L A N PR O J E C T U P D A T E AB O U T T H E P R O J E C T Th a n k y o u f o r y o u r i n t e r e s t i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e C i t y ’ s Am e r i c a n s w i t h D i s a b i l i t i e s A c t ( A D A ) T r a n s i t i o n P l a n P r o j e c t . Th e C i t y s t r i v e s t o p r o v i d e a n a c c e s s i b l e e n v i r o n m e n t f o r a l l o f it s c i t i z e n s a n d v i s i t o r s . E a r l i e r t h i s s u m m e r , t h e C i t y c o n t r a c t e d wit h A l f r e d B e n e s c h & C o m p a n y t h r o u g h a q u a l i f i c a t i o n s - b a s e d se l e c t i o n p r o c e s s t o a s s i s t w i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a n A D A Tra n s i t i o n P l a n f o r t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n n e t w o r k w i t h i n t h e C i t y ’ s Pu b l i c R i g h t - o f - W a y . To d e v e l o p t h e T r a n s i t i o n P l a n , w e a r e : • D o c u m e n t i n g E x i s t i n g P e d e s t r i a n F a c i l i t i e s w i t h i n t h e C i t y ’ s T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P u b l i c R i g h t o f W a y • S o l i c i t i n g I n p u t f r o m I n t e r e s t e d P a r t i e s • C a t e g o r i z i n g A c c e s s i b i l i t y C h a l l e n g e s • I d e n t i f y i n g P o t e n t i a l S t a n d a r d s , G u i d e l i n e s , a n d T r a i n i n g P r o g r a m s t o I m p r o v e A c c e s s i b i l i t y • I d e n t i f y i n g P o t e n t i a l S t r a t e g i e s t o A d d r e s s A c c e s s i b i l i t y C h a l l e n g e s GE T I N V O L V E D ! OP E N H O U S E We d n e s d a y , O c t o b e r 5 t h , 5 : 0 0 t o 7 : 0 0 p m Wh e a t R i d g e R e c r e a t i o n C e n t e r 40 0 5 K i p l i n g S t r e e t , W h e a t R i d g e , C O Th i s o p e n h o u s e i s i n t e n d e d t o p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e pl a n d e v e l o p m e n t p r o c e s s a n d g o a l s , a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e Tra n s i t i o n P l a n , a n d p r o v i d e i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s m e a n s o f p r o v i d i n g in p u t t o w a r d s p l a n d e v e l o p m e n t o r p r i o r i t i z a t i o n o f a d d r e s s i n g ex i s t i n g a c c e s s i b i l i t y c h a l l e n g e s o r i s s u e s . Th e C i t y h a s e s t a b l i s h e d a n i n i t i a l p r o g r a m fo r p r o v i d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t o a n d a c c e p t i n g in p u t f r o m i t s c i t i z e n s a n d o t h e r i n t e r e s t e d pa r t i e s . T h i s p r o j e c t i n c l u d e s : • T r a n s i t i o n P l a n W e b s i t e ( C o m i n g S o o n ! ) • P u b l i c M e e t i n g s • T a r g e t e d O u t r e a c h & S u r v e y s • F o r m a l A c c e s s i b i l i t y C o n c e r n / Co m p l a i n t R e p o r t i n g a n d T r a c k i n g Pr o c e s s CO N T A C T U S Ru s s e l l H i g g i n s Wh e a t R i d g e Pr o j e c t M a n a g e r rh i g g i n s @ c i . w h e a t r i d g e . c o . u s 75 0 0 W . 2 9 t h A v e n u e Wh e a t R i d g e , C O 8 0 0 3 3 - 8 0 0 1 (3 0 3 ) 2 3 5 - 2 8 6 9 Je s s H a s t i n g s Be n e s c h Pr o j e c t M a n a g e r jh a s t i n g s @ b e n e s c h . c o m 79 7 9 E . T u f t s A v e n u e , S u i t e 8 0 0 De n v e r , C O 8 0 2 1 0 (3 0 3 ) 7 7 1 - 6 8 6 8 @ AD A T R A N S I T I O N P L A N PR O J E C T U P D A T E AB O U T T H E P R O J E C T Th a n k y o u f o r y o u r i n t e r e s t i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e C i t y ’ s Am e r i c a n s w i t h D i s a b i l i t i e s A c t ( A D A ) T r a n s i t i o n P l a n P r o j e c t . Th e C i t y s t r i v e s t o p r o v i d e a n a c c e s s i b l e e n v i r o n m e n t f o r a l l o f it s c i t i z e n s a n d v i s i t o r s . E a r l i e r t h i s s u m m e r , t h e C i t y c o n t r a c t e d wit h A l f r e d B e n e s c h & C o m p a n y t h r o u g h a q u a l i f i c a t i o n s - b a s e d se l e c t i o n p r o c e s s t o a s s i s t w i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a n A D A Tra n s i t i o n P l a n f o r t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n n e t w o r k w i t h i n t h e C i t y ’ s Pu b l i c R i g h t - o f - W a y . To d e v e l o p t h e T r a n s i t i o n P l a n , w e a r e : • D o c u m e n t i n g E x i s t i n g P e d e s t r i a n F a c i l i t i e s w i t h i n t h e C i t y ’ s T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P u b l i c R i g h t o f W a y • S o l i c i t i n g I n p u t f r o m I n t e r e s t e d P a r t i e s • C a t e g o r i z i n g A c c e s s i b i l i t y C h a l l e n g e s • I d e n t i f y i n g P o t e n t i a l S t a n d a r d s , G u i d e l i n e s , a n d T r a i n i n g P r o g r a m s t o I m p r o v e A c c e s s i b i l i t y • I d e n t i f y i n g P o t e n t i a l S t r a t e g i e s t o A d d r e s s A c c e s s i b i l i t y C h a l l e n g e s GE T I N V O L V E D ! OP E N H O U S E We d n e s d a y , O c t o b e r 5 t h , 5 : 0 0 t o 7 : 0 0 p m Wh e a t R i d g e R e c r e a t i o n C e n t e r 40 0 5 K i p l i n g S t r e e t , W h e a t R i d g e , C O Th i s o p e n h o u s e i s i n t e n d e d t o p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e pl a n d e v e l o p m e n t p r o c e s s a n d g o a l s , a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e Tra n s i t i o n P l a n , a n d p r o v i d e i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s m e a n s o f p r o v i d i n g in p u t t o w a r d s p l a n d e v e l o p m e n t o r p r i o r i t i z a t i o n o f a d d r e s s i n g ex i s t i n g a c c e s s i b i l i t y c h a l l e n g e s o r i s s u e s . The City has established an initial program for providing information to and accepting input from its citizens and other interested parties. This project includes:• Transition Plan Website (Coming Soon!)• Public Meetings • Targeted Outreach & Surveys • Formal Accessibility Concern /Complaint Reporting and Tracking Process CO N T A C T U S Ru s s e l l H i g g i n s Wh e a t R i d g e Pr o j e c t M a n a g e r rh i g g i n s @ c i . w h e a t r i d g e . c o . u s 75 0 0 W . 2 9 t h A v e n u e Wh e a t R i d g e , C O 8 0 0 3 3 - 8 0 0 1 (3 0 3 ) 2 3 5 - 2 8 6 9 Je s s H a s t i n g s Be n e s c h Pr o j e c t M a n a g e r jh a s t i n g s @ b e n e s c h . c o m 79 7 9 E . T u f t s A v e n u e , S u i t e 8 0 0 De n v e r , C O 8 0 2 1 0 (3 0 3 ) 7 7 1 - 6 8 6 8 @ WE L C O M E Pl e a s e t a k e a m o m e n t t o s i g n i n . AD A T R A N S I T I O N P L A N PU B L I C O P E N H O U S E ADA TRANSITION PLAN PROJECT UPDATE Th ank you for your interest in the development of the City’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan Project. Th e City strives to provide an accessible environment for all of its citizens and visitors. Earlier this summer, the City contracted with Alfred Benesch & Company through a qualifi cations-based selection process to assist with the development of an ADA Transition Plan for the transportation network within the City’s Public Right-of-Way. Th is open house is intended to provide information about the plan development process and goals, answer questions about the Transition Plan, and provide interested parties means of providing input toward plan development or prioritization of addressing existing accessibility challenges or issues. To develop the Transition Plan, we are: • Documenting Existing Pedestrian Facilities within the City’s Transportation Public Right of Way • Soliciting Input from Interested Parties • Categorizing Accessibility Challenges • Identifying Potential Standards, Guidelines, and Training Programs to Improve Accessibility • Identifying Potential Strategies to Address Accessibility Challenges Data has been collected and is being analyzed on the existing sidewalk and curb ramps throughout the City. Primary data being captured or confi rmed includes: Sidewalks • Width • Longitudinal and Transverse (Cross) Slope • Presence of Tripping or Navigation Hazards Pedestrian Push Buttons • Location Relative to Sidewalk/Curb Ramp • Compliant Sidewalk Area Adjacent to Button Curb Ramps • Confi guration and Orientation • Dimensions and Slopes • Landing Dimensions • Presence of Tripping or Navigation Hazards • Presence of Compliant Dome Panels ADA TRANSITION PLAN PROJECT UPDATE Th e City has established an initial program for providing information to and accepting input from its citizens and other interested parties. Th is program includes: • Transition Plan Website (Coming Soon!) • Public Meetings • Targeted Outreach and Surveys • Formal Accessibility Concern / Complaint Reporting and Tracking Process A key component of the Transition Plan will be analyzing the information gathered on the existing facilities and developing potential strategies to improve accessibility. Th ese strategies may include improvements constructed as part of future projects; additional training and education of design and construction personnel; and/or modifi cation of City ordinances, policies, or requirements. We thank you again for your interest in this important project. We look forward to hearing your thoughts and concerns. CONTACT US Russell Higgins, PE Wheat Ridge Project Manager rhiggins@ci.wheatridge.co.us 7500 W. 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 (303) 235-2869 Jess Hastings, PE Benesch Project Manager jhastings@benesch.com 7979 E. Tuft s Avenue, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80210 (303) 771-6868 @ If you are willing, please provide your complete contact information to allow us to follow- up with you on any questions or concerns: Name: Street: City, Zip: Email: Phone: Thank you for your interest and participation! Do you have any comments or questions about the ADA Transition Plan? If so, we would like to hear from you. Please write your comments in the space below and return them to Alfred Benesch & Company. You can drop this form off on your way out, or you may take it with you and mail it later. Thank you for your participation! ADA Transition Plan Public Open House Wheat Ridge Recreation Center 4005 Kipling Street, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Wednesday, October 5th, 2016 Comment Form Russ Higgins, PE City of Wheat Ridge 7500 W 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 phone: 303-235-2869 email: rhiggins@ci.wheatridge.co.us Jess Hastings, PE Alfred Benesch & Company 7979 E. Tufts Avenue, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80237 phone: 303-771-6868 email: jhastings@benesch.com Jess Hastings, PE Alfred Benesch & Company7979 E. Tufts Avenue, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80237 Place Stamp Here Fold       Page 1 of 2CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE MUNICIPAL BUILDING 7500 W 29TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 60033-8001 p. 303.234.5900 f.303.234.5924 email: info@ci.wheatridge.co.us www.ci.wheatridge.co.us Wheat Ridge, Colorado - ADA Transition Plan SurveyThe City of Wheat Ridge is performing a public outreach program toward the development of an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan (Plan). The purpose of this Plan is to eliminate pedestrian facilities barriers within public right-of-ways in the City of Wheat Ridge. Barriers are typically eliminated by adding or correcting sidewalks and curb ramps. One component of the public outreach program is this survey. It will be used to help document concerns and locations of needed improvements to accommodate disabled users RISHGHVWULDQIDFLOLWLHVLQWKH&LW\:KLOHH΍RUWVZRQȇWLPPHGLDWHO\UHVXOWLQLPSURYHPHQWV the resulting Plan will provide the City a document that will provide guidance to making DFFHVVLELOLW\UHODWHGLPSURYHPHQWVDVIXQGLQJDOORZV ΖWLVWKH&LW\ȇVSUHIHUHQFHWKDWWKLVVXUYH\EHWDNHQRQOLQHDWKWWSVZZZVXUYH\PRQNH\FRPU wradatransitionplan to help reduce misinterpretation of information and data entry errors and UHGXFLQJSDSHUFRQVXPSWLRQ+RZHYHULI\RXUHTXLUHWKLVVXUYH\LQDQDOWHUQDWHIRUPDW SDSHUODUJHIRQWDXGLR SOHDVHFRQWDFW-HVV+DVWLQJVDWRUMKDVWLQJV#EHQHVFKFRP We would like your contact information to allow the ADA Transition Plan team to keep you up to date via email on Plan progress and follow up. Any information provided will remain FRQȴGHQWLDODQGZLOOQRWEHSRVWHGVKDUHGRURWKHUZLVHPDGHDYDLODEOHWRDQ\RQHRXWVLGHthe ADA Transition Plan team. Only comment summaries will be documented in the ADA Transition Plan. Thank you for your input! )LUVW1DPH /DVW1DPH  DQGRU%XVLQHVV1DPH  6WUHHW$GGUHVV &LW\6WDWH =LS 3KRQH1XPEHU (PDLO$GGUHVV (BCC distribution emails only) 1. Have you experienced physical barriers or constraints on a pedestrian path you currently use or would like to use?  +DYH\RXHQFRXQWHUHGPLVVLQJVHFWLRQVLQDFFHVVLEOHORFDWLRQVRUSRRUFRQGLWLRQVUHODWHG to Sidewalks? If yes, please provide the location and any general comments to describe your concerns: Yes No Yes No Page 1 of 2CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE MUNICIPAL BUILDING 7500 W 29TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 60033-8001 p. 303.234.5900 f.303.234.5924 email: info@ci.wheatridge.co.us www.ci.wheatridge.co.us Page 2 of 2 Have you encountered areas where curb ramps are missing or inaccessible? If yes, please provide the location and any general comments to describe your concerns:  +DYH\RXHQFRXQWHUHGVWUHHWRULQWHUVHFWLRQFURVVLQJVZKHUHODFNRIFXUEUDPSVSHGHVWULDQ FURVVLQJVLJQDOVRUPHGLDQVD΍HFW\RXUDELOLW\WRFURVVWKHVWUHHW" If yes, please provide the location and any general comments to describe your concerns:  +DYH\RXHQFRXQWHUHGDQ\SK\VLFDOREVWUXFWLRQVOLNHWUHHVORZKDQJLQJEUDQFKHVEXVKHV UHWDLQLQJZDOOVVLJQVRUȴUHK\GUDQWV" If yes, please provide the location and any general comments to describe your concerns: Are there any City programs or services you would like to participate in or utilize but cannot due to accessibility challenges? Do you have any general comments or items that you feel the ADA Transition Plan team should be aware of related to pedestrian facilities? 1DPH :KHDW5LGJH&RORUDGR$'$7UDQVLWLRQ3ODQ6XUYH\(continued) Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Thank you for participating in this survey! Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 77 . 8 % 7 22 . 2 % 2 9 4 Wh e a t R i d g e A D A T r a n s i t i o n P l a n S u r v e y sk i p p e d q u e s t i o n Ha v e y ou ex p e r i e n c e d ph y si c a l ba r r i e r s or co n s t r a i n t s on a pe d e s t r i a n pa t h y ou cu r r e n t l y us e o r w o u l d l i k e t o u s e ? An s w e r O p t i o n s Ye s No a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n Ha v e y o u e x p e r i e n c e d p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s o r c o n s t r a i n t s o n a p e d e s t r i a n p a t h y o u cu r r e n t l y u s e o r w o u l d l i k e t o u s e ? Ye s No Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 10 0 . 0 % 9 0. 0 % 0 8 9 4 Nu m b e r R e s p o n s e D a t e If y e s , p l e a s e pr o v i d e t h e lo c a t i o n a n d an y g e n e r a l co m m e n t s t o de s c r i b e y o u r co n c e r n s : Ca t e g o r i e s 1 De c 13 , 20 1 6 9: 5 2 PM 2 De c 5, 20 1 6 7: 3 6 PM 3 De c 5, 20 1 6 7: 2 6 PM wa d s w o r t h fr o m 32 a v e to 38 t h av e ba d wa l k w a y , 44 t h av e to 45 t h av e ca n t pa s s 4 De c 3, 20 1 6 3: 4 6 AM 5 De c 3, 20 1 6 12 : 1 8 AM 6 De c 2, 20 1 6 11 : 2 7 PM 7 De c 2, 20 1 6 11 : 1 0 PM 38 t h we s t to Yo u n g fi e l d fr o m Ki p l i n g Ma n y ot h e r va r i o u s ar e a s of Wh e a t Ri d g e 8 De c 2, 20 1 6 10 : 2 3 PM A ll ov e r th e ci t y . Ma n y ar e a s ha v e no si d e w a l k s . 29 t h A v e n u e b e t w e e n F e n t o n a n d G r a y . I u n d e r s t a n d t h i s w i l l b e r e m e d i e d f o l l o w i n g t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e As h l a n d R e s e r v o i r p r o j e c t , b u t t h e c u r r e n t w o r k h a s m a d e i t w o r s e a n d e v e n m o r e d a n g e r o u s . In s o m e a r e a s I h a v e e x p e r i e n c e d i n c o m p l e t e s i d e w a l k s t h a t e n d a t a p r o p e r t y l i n e r a t h e r t h a n a s t r e e t . I h a v e ex p e r i e n c e d t r i p p i n g h a z a r d s w h e r e s e c t i o n s o f s i d e w a l k s h a v e h e a v e d o v e r t i m e . I h a v e e n c o u n t e r e d d e b r i s i n do w n h i l l r a m p s t h a t m a k e i t v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o n a v i g a t e w i t h a s t r o l l e r . In g e n e r a l , p e o p l e p u t t i n g g a r b a g e c a n s o n p i c k - u p d a y o n t h e s i d e w a l k s ; s n o w a n d i c e o n 4 4 t h m a k i n g i t n e a r l y im p o s s i b l e t o g e t t o a b u s s t o p i n t h e w i n t e r . On 3 8 t h A v e n u e b e t w e e n R o u t a n d K i p l i n g . T h e w o r s t s e c t i o n s a r e o n t h e s o u t h s i d e o f 3 8 t h w h e n p a r t o f t h e st r e e t h a s b e e n t a k e n u p w i t h a t u r n l a n e . N e a r M i l l e r a n d 3 8 t h t h e r e i s j u s t a f e w f e e t t o g e t b y o n t h e s o u t h s i d e of t h e s t r e e t , r i g h t n e x t t o t h e m a i n l a n e o f t r a f f i c . Ea s t Wh e a t Ri d g e ha s al o t of ar e a s wi t h o u t si d e w a l k s . Ma k e s pu s h i n g a st r o l l e r di f f i c u l t and we have seen parents wa l k i n g i n t h e s t r e e t t o b e a b l e t o p u s h t h e i r s t r o l l e r . O n e n e i g h b o r i n a w h e e l c h a i r h a s t o w h e e l d o w n t h e m i d d l e of D e p e w g o i n g n o r t h b e c a u s e t h e r e a r e n o s i d e w a l k s f r o m 3 3 - 3 8 t h . V e r y d a n g e r o u s h i l l t o s t o p o n . G r a v e l a t s i d e of r o a d i s a l s o a n i s s u e . W e h a v e w a t c h e d a f a t h e r w i t h a t t o d d l e r p u s h i n g h e r s t r o l l e r i n s t r e e t w i t h c a r s w h i z z i n g by . sk i p p e d q u e s t i o n NoHa v e y ou en c o u n t e r e d mi s s i n g se c t i o n s , in a c c e s s i b l e lo c a t i o n s or po o r co n d i t i o n s re l a t e d to S i d e w a l k s ? a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n Ye sWh e a t R i d g e A D A T r a n s i t i o n P l a n S u r v e y If y e s , p l e a s e p r o v i d e t h e l o c a t i o n a n d a n y g e n e r a l c o m m e n t s t o d e s c r i b e An s w e r O p t i o n s Ha v e y o u e n c o u n t e r e d m i s s i n g s e c t i o n s , i n a c c e s s i b l e lo c a t i o n s o r p o o r c o n d i t i o n s r e l a t e d t o S i d e w a l k s ? Ye s Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 85 . 7 % 6 14 . 3 % 1 6 7 6 Nu m b e r R e s p o n s e D a t e If y e s , p l e a s e pr o v i d e t h e lo c a t i o n a n d an y g e n e r a l co m m e n t s t o de s c r i b e y o u r co n c e r n s : Ca t e g o r i e s 1 De c 13 , 20 1 6 9: 5 2 PM 29 t h Av e we s t of Fe n t o n do e s n ' t ha v e mu c h in th e wa y of si d e w a l k s , so th e r e is no pl a c e fo r curb ramps. 2 De c 5, 20 1 6 7: 2 6 PM wa d s w o r t h an d sh e r i d a n 3 De c 3, 20 1 6 12 : 1 8 AM 38 t h av e n u r e , be t w e e n Ro u t an d Ki p l i n g - bo t h sid e s of th e st r e e t . 4 De c 2, 20 1 6 11 : 2 7 PM Se e an s w e r ab o v e . 5 De c 2, 20 1 6 11 : 1 0 PM So r r y , ca n ' t th i n k of ex a c t sp o t s ri g h t no w . Mo r e ju s t mi s s i n g si d e w a l k s . 6 De c 2, 20 1 6 10 : 2 3 PM Ma n y ar e a s of cit y ha v e no n e sk i p p e d q u e s t i o n NoHa v e y o u e n c o u n t e r e d a r e a s w h e r e c u r b r a m p s a r e m i s s i n g o r i n a c c e s s i b l e ? an s w e r e d q u e s t i o n Ye sWh e a t R i d g e A D A T r a n s i t i o n P l a n S u r v e y If y e s , p l e a s e p r o v i d e t h e l o c a t i o n a n d a n y g e n e r a l c o m m e n t s t o d e s c r i b e An s w e r O p t i o n s Ha v e y o u e n c o u n t e r e d a r e a s w h e r e c u r b r a m p s a r e m i s s i n g o r in a c c e s s i b l e ? Yes No Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 37 . 5 % 3 62 . 5 % 5 3 8 5 Nu m b e r R e s p o n s e D a t e If y e s , p l e a s e pr o v i d e t h e lo c a t i o n a n d an y g e n e r a l co m m e n t s t o de s c r i b e y o u r co n c e r n s : Ca t e g o r i e s 1 De c 13 , 20 1 6 9: 5 2 PM 2 De c 5, 20 1 6 7: 3 6 PM Ne a r 38 t h an d Mi l l e r th e r e is a pe d e s t r i a n cr o s s i n g si g n a l th a t ha s no re a l ar e a to la n d a wh e e l c h a i r or wait when activating the 3 De c 2, 20 1 6 11 : 2 7 PM No t me pe r s o n a l l y bu t se e #2 26 t h A v e . b e t w e e n S h e r i d a n a n d P i e r c e c o n s t i t u t e s a l m o s t e x a c t l y o n e m i l e w i t h o u t a n y d e s i g n a t e d p e d e s t r i a n c r o s s i n g s . A s mo r e t r a f f i c u s e s 2 6 t h A v e n u e , i t c a n s o m e t i m e s b e d i f f i c u l t t o c r o s s . sk i p p e d q u e s t i o n NoHa v e yo u en c o u n t e r e d st r e e t or in t e r s e c t i o n cr o s s i n g s wh e r e la c k of cu r b ra m p s , pe d e s t r i a n c r o s s i n g s i g n a l s o r m e d i a n s a f f e c t y o u r a b i l i t y t o c r o s s t h e s t r e e t ? an s w e r e d q u e s t i o n Ye sWh e a t R i d g e A D A T r a n s i t i o n P l a n S u r v e y If y e s , p l e a s e p r o v i d e t h e l o c a t i o n a n d a n y g e n e r a l c o m m e n t s t o d e s c r i b e An s w e r O p t i o n s Ha v e y o u e n c o u n t e r e d s t r e e t o r i n t e r s e c t i o n c r o s s i n g s w h e r e l a c k of c u r b r a m p s , p e d e s t r i a n c r o s s i n g s i g n a l s o r m e d i a n s a f f e c t y o u r ab i l i t y t o c r o s s t h e s t r e e t ? Yes No Response Percent Response Count 77.8%7 22.2%2 6 94 Number Response Date If yes, please provide the location and any general comments to describe your concerns: Categories 1 Dec 13, 2016 9:52 PM 2 Dec 5, 2016 7:36 PM Yes, branches and bushes are frequently covering portions of sidewalks. 3 Dec 5, 2016 7:26 PM 4 Dec 3, 2016 3:46 AM 5 Dec 2, 2016 11:27 PM 6 Dec 2, 2016 10:23 PM Tree overhang approx 35th Newland. Huge wheeping willow tree I don't know the city requirements for landowner snow removal, but what sidewalks do exist in southeast Wheat Ridge can get dicey in the winter, particularly when we get a thaw/freeze cycle like we have recently. bradleys gas station doe not have a ramp for wheel chairs they wont cooperate hung phone up on me would not give me phone number for main office. i ride all over wheatridge and there are many areas that dont comply with ada. i am sory but i cant write or spell very good. There's a stretch on 44th from about Allison going east. That sidewalk has some obstructions and getting to the corner of 38th and Wadsworth is really ridiculous. Also, check the shrubs on the Northwest corner of WW and 38th by the muffler shop. 37th Pl is very dangerous to walk along going east between Fenton and Eaton. No sidewalk, lots of grape vines bend over to make street even narrower. skipped question No Have you encountered any physical obstructions like trees / low hanging branches, bushes, retaining walls, signs or fire hydrants? answered question Yes Wheat Ridge ADA Transition Plan Survey If yes, please provide the location and any general comments to describe Answer Options Have you encountered any physical obstructions like trees / low hanging branches, bushes, retaining walls, signs or fire hydrants? Yes No Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 12 . 5 % 1 87 . 5 % 7 2 8 5 Nu m b e r R e s p o n s e D a t e If y e s , p l e a s e li s t p r o g r a m s o r se r v i c e s b e l o w : Ca t e g o r i e s 1 De c 5, 20 1 6 7: 2 6 PM 2 De c 2, 20 1 6 11 : 2 7 PM NA ju s t t r y i n g t o g o t o t h e g r o c e r y s t o r e i n m y p o w e r c h a i r w o u l d b e g r e a t . j u s t g o i n g f r o m 3 8 t h a v e d o w n wa d s w o r t h t o 4 4 t h a v e i s a n i t e m a i r . t h r r i d i n g a w h e e l c h a i r a r o u n d t h i s c i t y a n d y o u w i l l s e a l l t h e pi t f a l l s . sk i p p e d q u e s t i o n NoAre th e r e an y Ci t y pr o g r a m s or se r v i c e s yo u wo u l d li k e to pa r t i c i p a t e in or ut i l i z e bu t ca n n o t du e t o a c c e s s i b i l i t y c h a l l e n g e s ? a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n Ye sWh e a t R i d g e A D A T r a n s i t i o n P l a n S u r v e y If y e s , p l e a s e l i s t p r o g r a m s o r s e r v i c e s b e l o w : An s w e r O p t i o n s Ar e t h e r e a n y C i t y p r o g r a m s o r s e r v i c e s y o u w o u l d l i k e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n o r u t i l i z e bu t c a n n o t d u e t o a c c e ss i b i l i t y c h a l l e n g e s ? Ye s No Re s p o n s e Co u n t 5 5 8 Nu m b e r R e s p o n s e D a t e Re s p o n s e T e x t Ca t e g o r i e s 1 De c 5, 20 1 6 7: 3 6 PM 2 De c 5, 20 1 6 7: 2 6 PM fe l l on wh e a l ch a i r on wa d s w o r t h do w n in ba n k m o n t ha d to ca l l 91 1 3 De c 3, 20 1 6 12 : 1 8 AM 4 De c 2, 20 1 6 11 : 2 7 PM 5 De c 2, 20 1 6 10 : 2 3 PM Wh e n w e s e e o u r n e i g h b o r s i n m o t o r i z e d w h e e l c h a i r s g o i n g d o w n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e s t r e e t b e c a u s e o f t h e ma n y n a r r o w a n d h a r d t o n a v i g a t e s e c t i o n s o f s i d e w a l k , i t m a k e s m e s a d . A l s o , t h e r e a r e m a n y p e o p l e w h o co n s i s t e n t l y p a r k t h e i r v e h i c l e s a c r o s s s i d e w a l k s a n d e i t h e r a r e u n a w a r e o r u n c a r i n g i n t h e i m p a c t s t h i s h a s on n e i g h b o r s n e e d i n g t o w a l k o r w h e e l c h a i r r o l l p a s t t h e p r o p e r t y . 38 t h a v e n u e b e t w e e n R o u t a n d K i p l i n g i s v e r y h a z a r d o u s f o r a p e d e s t r i a n . I t i s m a d e w o r s e b y t h e a d d i t i o n of c a r t u r n l a n e s , w h i c h p u s h t h e f a s t m o v i n g t r a f f i c c l o s e r t o t h e s i d e s o f t h e s t r e e t - o f t e n l e a v i n g j u s t a f e w fe e t f o r a p e d e s t r i a n t o g e t t h r o u g h . I t i s r e a l l y a d i s g r a c e . Af t e r c o n s t r u c t i o n o r e v e n t s , b a r r i e r s o f t e n g e t l e f t a l o n g 3 8 t h f o r n o r e a s o n , e s p e c i a l l y a r o u n d H a r l a n S t . so u t h s i d e b o t h c o r n e r s . Ba s e d o n n u m e r o u s a r e a s i n W h e a t R i d g e , I b e l i e v e i t w o u l d b e c o s t p r o h i b i t i v e t o a d d s i d e w a l k s t o a l l th e s e a r e a s o r t a k e m a n y y e a r s . M a n y c i t i z e n s d o n ' t w a n t t o s e e s i d e w a l k s i n a r e a s w h e r e t h e y d o n t e x i s t , as t h e y f e e l i t w o u l d r u i n t h e r u r a l f e e l o f t h e i r a r e a Wh e a t R i d g e A D A T r a n s i t i o n P l a n S u r v e y Do y ou ha v e an y g en e r a l co m m e n t s or it e m s th a t y ou fe e l th e AD A Tr a n s i t i o n P l a n t e a m s h o u l d b e a w a r e o f r e l a t e d t o p e d e s t r i a n f a c i l i t i e s ? An s w e r O p t i o n s a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n     APPENDIX F – INTERNAL STAFF QUESTIONAIRE AND RESULTS     ADA Transition Plan – City Staff Survey As part of the development of the City’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan, this internal survey was developed to help identify specific areas of improvement for overall understanding and knowledge of the City’s approach to accessibility and available resources. The City strives to provide access to its programs, services, and facilities. Part of providing an accessible environment includes providing the necessary resources and training for its staff to handle accessibility issues that may arise and understanding the proper protocol to address any issues which may arise. In addition to providing staff with the proper resources, encouraging a welcoming environment, free from discrimination of persons with disabilities and an accessible workplace, is very important. The purpose of this survey is not to identify shortcomings or single out specific issues, but rather to identify opportunities to improve accessibility through new or revised programs, policies, and training as resources allow and to provide employees with opportunities to offer suggestions for ways to make the City a more welcoming and inclusive place for persons with disabilities. Any personal information provided through this survey will remain confidential. This survey can be made available in paper copy, in a larger font size and in audio format. To receive this survey in an alternate format, please contact Jess Hastings with Alfred Benesch & Co. (ADA Consultant) at 720-473-7576; or jhastings@benesch.com. 1. How would you rate the overall accessibility of the City’s facilities and programs? Poor Fair Good Very Good 2. How would you describe your understanding and knowledge of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as it pertains to your day to day job duties? Poor Fair Good Very Good 3. Have you been provided any ADA training by the City or others for working with people with disabilities or the technical aspects related to complying with the ADA (if applicable)? Yes No 4. Is there a specific type(s) of ADA related training you would be interested in not currently being offered? Yes No If yes, please provide the type of training and any general comments to describe: 5. Do you know what a reasonable accommodation is and how to handle a request for a reasonable accommodation? Yes No 6. Do you know where to find the rights of persons with disabilities and the responsibilities for accessibility at the City? Yes No 7. Do you believe the City is generally accepting/accommodating of persons with disabilities? Yes No 8. Have you encountered or observed any discrimination towards persons with a disability? Yes No 9. Do you feel your supervisor(s) is knowledgeable regarding the ADA and supports a welcoming environment? Yes No 10. Have you encountered any physical obstructions which prevent you from performing your job or accessing the workplace? Yes No If yes, please provide the location and any general comments to describe the obstruction(s) (i.e. bathrooms, doors, sidewalks, etc.): 11. Are there any City programs or services you believe persons with disabilities would like to participate in or utilize but cannot due to accessibility challenges? Yes No If yes, please provide the program or service and any general comments to describe the accessibility challenge(s): 12. Do you have a disability? Yes No If yes, do you feel generally accepted at the workplace? ADA Transition Plan – City Staff Survey ADA Transition Plan – City Staff Survey (continued) 13. Have you self-identified your disability to your supervisor? Yes No If you have not self-identified your disability, please provide the reason: I do not want anyone to know I do not know the procedure to do so I do not need special treatment or accommodations I am concerned of negative effects I do not want to be treated differently I do not believe my supervisor would be receptive to accommodating my disability Other: 14. Do you have any general comments or items that you feel the ADA Transition Plan team should be aware of related to pedestrian facilities? Information about the ADA Transition Plan will be provided on the project webpage at http:// co-wheatridge2.civicplus.com/1543/ADA-Transition-Plan or may be obtained by contacting Jess Hastings with Alfred Benesch & Co. (ADA Consultant) at 720-473-7576; or jhastings@benesch. com. If you wish to receive information directly or would allow us to contact you regarding any follow-up questions related to your concerns please include your contact information below. Any information shared will remain confidential and will not be posted, shared, or otherwise made available to anyone outside the ADA Transition Plan team. Only comment and question summaries will be documented in the ADA Transition Plan. Thank you for your input! Name: Department: Position: Email Address: Phone Number: Response Percent Response Count 0.0%0 16.7%1 33.3%2 50.0%3 6 0 How would you describe your understanding and knowledge of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as it pertains to your day to day job duties? Very Good Poor skipped question Wheat Ridge ADA Transition Plan Staff Survey Good Answer Options answered question Fair How would you describe your understanding and knowledge of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as it pertains to your day to day job duties? Poor Fair Good Very Good Response Percent Response Count 0.0%0 0.0%0 66.7%4 33.3%2 6 0 How would you rate the overall accessibility of the City’s facilities and programs? Very Good Poor skipped question Wheat Ridge ADA Transition Plan Staff Survey Good Answer Options answered question Fair How would you rate the overall accessibility of the City’s facilities and programs? Poor Fair Good Very Good Response Percent Response Count 40.0%2 60.0%3 5 1 Wheat Ridge ADA Transition Plan Staff Survey skipped question Have you been provided any ADA training by the City or others for working with people with disabilities or the technical aspects related to complying with the ADA (if applicable)? Answer Options Yes No answered question Have you been provided any ADA training by the City or others for working with people with disabilities or the technical aspects related to complying with the ADA (if applicable)? Yes No Response Percent Response Count 16.7%1 83.3%5 1 6 0 Number Response Date If yes, please provide the type of training and any general comments to describe: Categories 1 Dec 9, 2016 10:06 PM Traing at FHWA site with state and federal input skipped question No Is there a specific type(s) of ADA related training you would be interested in not currently being offered? answered question Yes Wheat Ridge ADA Transition Plan Staff Survey If yes, please provide the type of training and any general comments to Answer Options Is there a specific type(s) of ADA related training you would be interested in not currently being offered? Yes No Response Percent Response Count 100.0%5 0.0%0 5 1 Wheat Ridge ADA Transition Plan Staff Survey skipped question Do you know what a reasonable accommodation is and how to handle a request for a reasonable accommodation? Answer Options Yes No answered question Do you know what a reasonable accommodation is and how to handle a request for a reasonable accommodation? Yes No Response Percent Response Count 83.3%5 16.7%1 6 0 Wheat Ridge ADA Transition Plan Staff Survey skipped question Do you know where to find the rights of persons with disabilities and the responsibilities for accessibility at the City? Answer Options Yes No answered question Do you know where to find the rights of persons with disabilities and the responsibilities for accessibility at the City? Yes No Response Percent Response Count 100.0%6 0.0%0 6 0 Wheat Ridge ADA Transition Plan Staff Survey skipped question Do you believe the City is generally accepting/accommodating of persons with disabilities? Answer Options Yes No answered question Do you believe the City is generally accepting/accommodating of persons with disabilities? Yes No Response Percent Response Count 0.0%0 100.0%6 6 0 Wheat Ridge ADA Transition Plan Staff Survey skipped question Have you encountered or observed any discrimination towards persons with a disability? Answer Options Yes No answered question Have you encountered or observed any discrimination towards persons with a disability? Yes No Response Percent Response Count 83.3%5 16.7%1 6 0 Wheat Ridge ADA Transition Plan Staff Survey skipped question Do you feel your supervisor(s) is knowledgeable regarding the ADA and supports a welcoming environment? Answer Options Yes No answered question Do you feel your supervisor(s) is knowledgeable regarding the ADA and supports a welcoming environment? Yes No Response Percent Response Count 0.0%0 100.0%6 0 6 0skipped question No Have you encountered any physical obstructions which prevent you from performing your job or accessing the workplace? answered question Yes Wheat Ridge ADA Transition Plan Staff Survey If yes, please provide the location and any general comments to describe Answer Options Have you encountered any physical obstructions which prevent you from performing your job or accessing the workplace? Yes No Response Percent Response Count 0.0%0 100.0%6 0 6 0skipped question No Are there any City programs or services you believe persons with disabilities would like to participate in or utilize but cannot due to accessibility challenges? answered question Yes Wheat Ridge ADA Transition Plan Staff Survey If yes, please provide the program or service and any general comments to Answer Options Are there any City programs or services you believe persons with disabilities would like to participate in or utilize but cannot due to accessibility challenges? Yes No Response Percent Response Count 16.7%1 83.3%5 1 6 0 Number Response Date If yes, do you feel generally accepted at the workplace? Categories 1 Dec 9, 2016 10:06 PM a temporary disability, which should end soon skipped question No Do you have a disability? answered question Yes Wheat Ridge ADA Transition Plan Staff Survey If yes, do you feel generally accepted at the workplace? Answer Options Do you have a disability? Yes No Response Percent Response Count 20.0%1 80.0%4 5 1 Wheat Ridge ADA Transition Plan Staff Survey skipped question Have you self-identified your disability to your supervisor? Answer Options Yes No answered question Have you self-identified your disability to your supervisor? Yes No Response Percent Response Count 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0 0 6 Wheat Ridge ADA Transition Plan Staff Survey I do not need special treatment or accommodations answered question Answer Options I do not want to be treated differently I do not know the procedure to do so Other: If you have not self-identified your disability, please provide the reason(s): I am concerned of negative effects skipped question I do not want anyone to know I do not believe my supervisor would be receptive to If you have not self-identified your disability, please provide the reason(s):I do not want anyone to know I do not know the procedure to do so I do not need special treatment or accommodations I am concerned of negative effects I do not want to be treated differently I do not believe my supervisor would be receptive to accommodating my disability Response Count 1 1 5 Number Response Date Response Text Categorie s 1 Dec 12, 2016 4:40 PM Increase their availability Wheat Ridge ADA Transition Plan Staff Survey Do you have any general comments or items that you feel the ADA Transition Plan team should be aware of related to pedestrian facilities? Answer Options answered question skipped question Response Percent Response Count 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0 6skipped question Contact Information Email Address Name answered question Wheat Ridge ADA Transition Plan Staff Survey Position Answer Options Phone Number Department Contact Information Name Department Position Email Address Phone Number     APPENDIX G – AREA OF PUBLIC FACILITIES ASSESSED         APPENDIX H – OVERVIEW OF ASSESSMENT ATTRIBUTES/PARAMETERS             I. Curb Ramp Assessment Elements    1. Is Curb Ramp present?    2. Is a sidewalk present?    3. Is there a marked crosswalk?    4. Is there intersection stop or yield  controlled?    5. What is the adjacent street grade?    6. What type of curb ramp configuration  is present?    7. Is the ramp free of any vertical  discontinuities >0.5" from the curb lip  to the top of the ramp?    8. Is the area at the base of the ramp  clear of parallel vehicle traffic?     9. What is the ramp width?    10. What is the ramp length?    11. What is the cross slope of the ramp?     12. What is the running slope of the ramp?      13. Are compliant wings present?     14. Are there prefabricated domes panels  present?    15. Does the dome panel have the correct  placement and orientation?    16. Does the dome panel color contrast  with the surrounding material?     17. Is the dome panel 2' long and the full  width of the ramp?     18. Is there a defined turning space with  the proper minimum dimensions?     19. Does the defined turning space have a  max slope less than 2%?     20. What is the general condition of the  curb ramp?    II. Pedestrian Pushbutton & Signal Assessment Elements    1. Are pedestrian pushbuttons or signals  present?    2. Are pedestrian pushbuttons in an  accessible location on the pole or  mounted surface and along an  accessible path?    3. What type of pedestrian pushbutton is  present?           4. What is the distance between the  pedestrian pushbuttons?    5. Are the pedestrian pushbuttons and  signals equipped with audible features?          APPENDIX I –ASSESSMENT FINDINGS         CURB RAMPS  Presently, there are 1,707 corner, midblock or median crossing locations within the City of Wheat  Ridge where curb ramps exist.  The following identifies the existing ramp configuration present.    Parallel ...................... 19% Combination ................. <1%   Perpendicular ............ 12% Island/Median ................ 2%  Diagonal .................... 66%      The following provides other data on the existing curb ramps present.   RUNNING SLOPE OF RAMPS  < 5.0%........................ 20% 8.3 –12.0% ................. 33%   5.0 – 8.3% .................. 37% > 12.0% ...................... 10%     WIDTH OF RAMPS  < 4’ ............................ 17% 5’ – 6’ ......................... 11%   4’ – 5’ ........................ 39% > 6’ ............................. 33%     OTHER CURB RAMP PROPERTIES YES NO  Ramp is Fully Compliant .......................................... <1% ........... >99%  Profile is Free of Obstructions ................................ 82% ............ 18%  Base of Ramp Clear of Parallel Traffic ..................... 95% ............. 5%  Maximum Cross Slope is <2% ................................. 48% ............ 52%  Compliant Flared Sides ........................................... 84% ............ 16%  Compliant Dome Panel(s) ....................................... 21% ............ 79%  Compliant Landing Area .......................................... 20% ............ 80%    PEDESTRIAN PUSHBUTTONS  Pedestrian pushbuttons are currently installed at 9% of the curb ramp locations.  For the locations  having pedestrian pushbuttons, 10% are in accessible locations.   PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS  Pedestrian signals are currently installed at nearly 10% of the curb ramp locations.  For the  locations installed, 94% have pedestrian pushbuttons and 72% are not audibled.            ESTIMATED COSTS TO CORRECT ACCESSIBILITY CHALLENGES3  The following provides present day cost estimates and annual budgets to construct or reconstruct  pedestrian transportation assets to improve accessibility.  Market forces and packaging may result  in these costs varying.   ESTIMATED YEARS YEARS YEARS  ASSET ELEMENTS COST 1 – 20 21 – 30 31 – 50  Curb Ramps $3.8 million $TBD $TBD $TBD  Sidewalk $TBD $TBD $TBD $TBD  Pedestrian Pushbuttons $TBD $TBD  $TBD    $TBD   Total $TBD $TBD $TBD $TBD                                                                    3 Estimated costs include planning, engineering, and construction costs.  Due to the large volume of sidewalk  infrastructure and the need to prioritize funds, it is not reasonable or feasible to remove and replace all sidewalk  segments with global, linear issues as a targeted standalone project or projects.  Because of this, when considering  a long term strategy to improve accessibility, targeting single point or small area issues initially and address linear  issues under a future initiative or as part of other infrastructure improvement projects as opportunities become  available is recommended.          APPENDIX J – BARRIER REMOVAL SCHEDULES & BUDGETS         APPENDIX K –FUTURE TRAINING PROGRAM     City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Public Works – Engineering Division Training Program While the ADA does not mandate a specific program of training for Title II ADA practices and  principles, Title II entities are expected to comply with ADA requirements.  Formalized training  improves knowledge, promotes a culture of commitment to improving accessibility, and more  effectively improves accessibility within the City.  Formal ADA compliance training educates City  staff, and the contractors and consultants they work with, on the following:     ADA guidelines and legal requirements,    Understanding physical barriers and strategies to mitigate them,    Common issues and pitfalls to be aware of, and   City‐specific policies and procedures, grievance procedures, and the overall Transition  Plan for meeting ADA requirements.      Continued education and staff development will assist the City in meeting ADA requirements and  improving accessibility going forward.  It is advisable for the ADA Coordinator to conduct a yearly  training of at least one or more employees to review ADA responsibilities, review common  practices affecting ADA compliance, and identify areas for improvement or if additional training  or more focused training may be beneficial towards satisfying the City’s goals for accessibility and  overall ADA compliance.  The City should also provide all employees with periodic notifications  and reminders regarding ADA requirements and updates along with internal and external  resources for additional information or questions.    During the self‐evaluation phase of the ADA Transition Plan development, the City identified an  intent to provide formal training for the Engineering staff involved with the implementation of  the City's Transition Plan.  The following identifies some steps to enact a formal ADA training  program and to identify specific focus topics to improve the immediate impact of a program.     An ADA training program should be tailored to address the needs or high priority target areas  identified by the ADA Coordinator or the Engineering Division.  The following are potential  training topics for the various individuals or organizations involved with the implementation of  the Transition Plan.     All Employees   Common ADA Issues and Requirements   Overview of the City’s ADA Transition Plan(s)   Procedures for handling requests for reasonable accommodations    Procedures for filing or receiving grievances including those from the public or  from City staff   Methods to provide effective alternative communication or readily available  resources or assistance to provide effective alternative communication   Overview of emergency evacuation routes or plans for individuals with disabilities  within City facilities      Supervisors/Managers    Standard ADA notices for public notices and advertisements   Facility and meeting location requirements to provide for accommodation to  public or internal meetings   Requirements for providing interpreters, multi‐lingual communications, alternative  communication or other reasonable accommodation for routine City business   Expectations and resources available to evaluate accommodations associated with  special City meetings or atypical business operations   Expectations for ADA requirements to be addressed or required when contracting  for services, equipment, or supporting functions   Transition Plan monitoring and progress updating expectations    Technical Staff   Overview of PROWAG and ADAAG with specific focus on sections pertaining to the  Transition Plan for pedestrian facilities along the transportation network   City Design Standards, Exception Form, and guidelines for initiating the exception  process   Identifying proper scope and limits of construction during project development   Pedestrian accessible route definition and critical elements to evaluate   Requirements for alteration of existing pedestrian facilities versus new or full  reconstruction projects   Protocol for reviewing plans or overseeing construction activities for ADA  compliance   Using and updating the GIS Database when considering or performing activities or  projects affecting mobility or accessibility along the transportation network    Contractor / Consultant / Field Personnel Training   Common ADA requirements to consider when constructing pedestrian facilities   City expectations regarding contractor or consultant supervisor and staff  knowledge of ADA requirements   Proper techniques and tolerances for constructing a curb ramp including means to  verify or document compliance   Process for identifying a potential ADA exception and  the formal approval process  for allowing an exception   Performing accessibility reviews and quality control procedures to verify  constructed elements satisfy ADA requirements      APPENDIX L –GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE & FORM     City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Grievance Procedure This Grievance Procedure is established to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"). Complaints that a program, service, activity, or facility of the City of Wheat Ridge is not accessible to persons with disabilities should be directed to the ADA Coordinator located in Appendix D. Employment-related complaints of disability discrimination are governed by the City's Personnel Policies Manual through the Human Resources department and can be found at http://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us/135/Human-Resources. Persons Eligible to File: Any individual or group of individuals, or entity who believes that he or she or any specific class of persons has been subjected to discrimination or retaliation prohibited by any of the Civil Rights authorities based upon race, color, sex, age, national origin or disability may file a written complaint. Step 1 - Filing of Complaint Complaints may be filed by the affected individual or a representative of that individual. Complaints must be in writing and contain as much information as possible about the alleged discrimination. The City has prepared a Complaint Form to be used for the convenience of the complainant. The Complaint form may be obtained by visiting or contacting the ADA Coordinator located at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 or by telephone at 303‐235‐2866. The written complaint should include: a. Complainant’s name, address and telephone number b. A detailed description of the name of the organization that has allegedly discriminated, its address and telephone number and any other identifying information (dates, times, etc.) c. A detailed description of the allegedly discriminatory action that are the basis for the complaint (dates of the actions, names of those who allegedly discriminated, and any witnesses) d. Name and job titles of individuals perceived as parties in the complaint Upon request, reasonable accommodations will be provided in completing this form. Complaints received by telephone will be reduced to writing and provided to complainant for confirmation or revision, and signature before processing. Completed forms should be returned to the ADA Coordinator. A complaint should be filed as soon as possible but must be no later than sixty (60) calendar days after an incident or the receipt of information of such alleged non-compliance, unless the time for filing is extended by the designated agency for good cause shown. Step 2 – Conduct Investigation The ADA Coordinator, or other authorized representative, will contact the complainant within fifteen (15) working days to: a. Acknowledge receipt of the complaint by the investigator, b. Confirm the complainant wishes to go forward with the complaint, and c. Confirm there are allegations that need to be investigated and resolved. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the receipt of the complaint, the ADA Coordinator or authorized representative will commence the investigation into the merits of the complaint. If necessary, the ADA Coordinator or other authorized city associate will contact the complainant directly to obtain additional facts or documentation relevant to the grievance. Step 3 – Written Response to Complaint The ADA Coordinator or other authorized city representative shall prepare a written decision, after full consideration of the merits of the grievance, no later than sixty (60) calendar days following the receipt of the grievance. A copy of the written decision shall be mailed to the complainant no later than five (5) working days after preparation of the written decision. The response will explain the position of the City and offer options for substantive resolution of the complaint when appropriate. The resolution by the City of any one grievance does not constitute a precedent upon which the City is bound or upon which other complaining parties may rely. Step 4 – Appeal to the ADA Coordinator (if required) If the complainant is dissatisfied with the written decision or the City’s handling of the complaint at any stage of the process, he or she may file a written appeal to the City ADA Coordinator no later than thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the mailing of the decision. The appeal must contain a statement of the reasons why the complainant is dissatisfied with the written decision, and must be signed by the complainant or by someone authorized to do so on the complainant's behalf. The City ADA Coordinator will act upon the appeal no later than thirty (30) calendar days after receipt, and a copy of the City ADA Coordinator’s written decision shall be forwarded to the complainant no later than five (5) working days after preparation of the decision. Dismissal of Complaint A complaint may be dismissed for the following reasons: a. The complaint is untimely filed. b. The complaint does not allege a basis covered by the statutes for which the City of Wheat Ridge is responsible. c. The complaint does not allege any harm with regard to covered a program, service, activity or facility. d. The complainant requests the withdrawal of the complaint. e. The complainant fails to respond to repeated requests for additional information needed to process the complaint. f. The complainant cannot be located after reasonable attempts. The ADA Coordinator shall maintain the confidentiality of all files and records relating to grievances filed, unless disclosure is authorized or required by law. Any retaliation, coercion, intimidation, threat, interference, or harassment for the filing of a grievance, or used to restrain a complainant from filing, is prohibited and should be reported immediately to the City ADA Coordinator. Filing a complaint with the City ADA Coordinator does not preclude a complainant from filing a grievance directly with the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) or other appropriate state or federal agency. All written complaints received by the ADA Coordinator and responses will be retained by the City for at least three (3) years. Please fill out this form completely and return to the Public Works ADA Coordinator’s Office at:  City of Wheat Ridge  7500 W. 29th Avenue  2nd Floor – Engineering Division  Wheat Ridge, CO  80033  This form applies to services, programs, and facilities located in public right‐of‐way of the City of Wheat Ridge or property  owned by the City.  Individual, Group of Individuals, or Entity Name (Complainant):      Street Address:   Neighborhood (if applicable):   City: State:  Zip:   Email Address:   Phone Number:      Person(s) thought to be discriminated against (if other than the Complainant):     _____________________________________________  Location and/or individual believed to be responsible for the discrimination (Name, Address, Telephone Number):     Reason for Grievance/Complaint:             When and where (if not stated above) did this discrimination occur:          Do you require an alternative form for any written follow‐up communication:       Signature: Date:   If you have questions about this form, need an accommodation, or a different format, please contact the ADA  Coordinator at 303‐235‐2866 or krosson@ci.wheatridge.co.us.  Please allow up to fifteen (15) business days to respond  to your complaint.  ADA Complaint Form       APPENDIX M – SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION WORK COMPLETED     AD A T r a n s i t i o n P l a n DR A F T   PL A N   PR E S E N T A T I O N   TO   CI T Y  CO U N C I L MA Y   20 1 7 At t a c h m e n t 2 In t r o d u c t i o n s CI T Y O F W H E A T R I D G E RE P R E S E N T A T I V E S Sc o t t B r i n k , P E St e v e N g u y e n , P E Ru s s H i g g i n s , P E Ke l l y R o s s o n , A D A C (A D A C o o r d i n a t o r ) AL F R E D B E N E S C H & C O RE P R E S E N T A T I V E S Je s s H a s t i n g s , P E Je f f S o c k e l , P E AD A C o m p l i a n c e Wh y i s i t I m p o r t a n t ? o AD A  im p r o v e s  in c l u s i o n  of  ev e r y o n e  in   so c i e t y o Ov e r  20 %  of  po p u l a t i o n  qu a l i f y  as   di s a b l e d o Mo b i l i t y  an d  ac c e s s i b i l i t y  ar e  ke y  to   ma j o r  li f e  ac t i v i t i e s o It  is  fe d e r a l l y  ma n d a t e d o DO J  ‐ > FH W A  ‐ > St a t e  & Lo c a l  Ag e n c i e s Wh a t i s t h e G o a l ? o Pr o v i d e  a  sa f e ,  usable, and   pr e f e r a b l y  co m p l i a n t  route o In t e g r a t e  ac c e s s i b l e  pedestrian   fa c i l i t i e s  in t o  th e  transportation   ne t w o r k o Ad d r e s s  an d  do c u m e n t  technical   in ‐fe a s i b i l i t y  (w h i l e  staying  within   th e  sc o p e  of  wo r k ) o Do  th e  mo s t  po s s i b l e  to  provide   re a s o n a b l e  ac c e s s  and  mobility Ba c k g r o u n d o n t h e A D A  En a c t e d o n J u l y 2 6 , 1 9 9 0  Ti t l e I I a p p l i e s t o S t a t e a n d L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t S e r v i c e s  Ex p a n d s u p o n g e n e r a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n u n d e r S e c t i o n 5 0 4 o f t h e Re h a b i l i t a t i o n A c t o f 1 9 7 3  Re q u i r e d t o p e r f o r m a s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n a n d s c h e d u l e t o mi t i g a t e b a r r i e r s  Es t a b l i s h a c o m p l a i n t p r o c e d u r e  Id e n t i f y A D A C o o r d i n a t o r Tr a n s i t i o n P l a n G o a l s  Fo r m a l D o c u m e n t f o r t h e E n g i n e e r i n g D e p a r t m e n t  Co m p l y w i t h T i t l e I I f o r P e d e s t r i a n F a c i l i t i e s i n t h e P u b l i c R O W  Do c u m e n t E x i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s  Es t a b l i s h a F r a m e w o r k f o r R e c e i v i n g , E v a l u a t i n g , a n d Ad d r e s s i n g G r i e v a n c e s  Es t a b l i s h S t a n d a r d s , G u i d e l i n e s , a n d T r a i n i n g M e c h a n i s m s t o Im p r o v e A c c e s s i b i l i t y  Id e n t i f y P r o j e c t S t r a t e g i e s t o I m p r o v e A c c e s s i b i l i t y Tr a n s i t i o n P l a n O v e r v i e w  De s i g n S t a n d a r d s & S p e c i f i c a t i o n s  AD A C o o r d i n a t o r  Pu b l i c I n v o l v e m e n t  Se l f E v a l u a t i o n P r o c e s s & F i n d i n g s  Pr i o r i t i z e a n d I d e n t i f y G o a l s , S t r a t e g i e s , & S c h e d u l e s  Pu b l i c I n f o r m a t i o n S h a r i n g & G r i e v a n c e P r o c e d u r e  Mo n i t o r i n g & U p d a t i n g P l a n De s i g n S t a n d a r d s & P o l i c i e s  De f i n e E n g i n e e r i n g D e p a r t m e n t ’ s Ne t w o r k  Re v i e w o f E x i s t i n g S t a n d a r d D e t a i l s  Fo r m a l l y A d o p t i n g C u r b R a m p P o r t i o n o f PR O W A G  Al t e r n a t i v e E f f e c t i v e C o m m u n i c a t i o n AD A C o o r d i n a t o r R o l e  Mo n i t o r i n g C o m p l i a n c e & Im p l e m e n t a t i o n  In v e s t i g a t i n g G r i e v a n c e C o m p l a i n t s  Ad d r e s s i n g A D A C o n c e r n s & Q u e s t i o n s  Ac c e s s i n g U n d u e B u r d e n & R e a s o n a b l e Ac c o m m o d a t i o n s  Up d a t i n g P l a n Pu b l i c O u t r e a c h  Tr a n s i t i o n P l a n W e b s i t e  Us e r S u r v e y  Pu b l i c O p e n H o u s e  In t e r n a l S t a f f S u r v e y  Fo r m a l A c c e s s i b i l i t y Co n c e r n / C o m p l a i n t Re p o r t i n g a n d T r a c k i n g Pr o c e s s Se l f E v a l u a t i o n C o m p o n e n t s  Pr o g r a m m a t i c A c c e s s i b i l i t y  Ex t e r n a l a n d I n t e r n a l S u r v e y s  Le v e l o f S t a f f T r a i n i n g  Re a s o n a b l e A c c o m m o d a t i o n s Pr o g r a m m a t i c v e r s u s P h y s i c a l A c c e s s i b i l i t y Se l f E v a l u a t i o n C o m p o n e n t s  Ph y s i c a l A c c e s s i b i l i t y  Cu r b R a m p C o n f i g u r a t i o n & S l o p e s  De t e c t a b l e W a r n i n g P a n e l L o c a t i o n & C o n t r a s t  Cl e a r S p a c e O r i e n t a t i o n  Tu r n i n g S p a c e C o n f i g u r a t i o n & S l o p e s  Pe d e s t r i a n P u s h B u t t o n a n d S i g n a l H e a d Lo c a t i o n & A c c e s s i b i l i t y Pr o g r a m m a t i c v e r s u s P h y s i c a l A c c e s s i b i l i t y Cu r b R a m p F i n d i n g s  1, 8 0 0 C u r b R a m p s L o c a t i o n s  3% a r e F u l l y C o m p l i a n t  80 % h a v e I m p r o p e r L a n d i n g s  50 % h a v e I m p r o p e r C r o s s S l o p e o r Ge o m e t r y A l o n g t h e R a m p o r a t t h e Cu r b D r o p  60 % h a v e I m p r o p e r R u n n i n g S l o p e Pe d e s t r i a n S i g n a l F i n d i n g s  15 0 P e d e s t r i a n P u s h B u t t o n Lo c a t i o n s  70 % I m p r o p e r H e i g h t o r Lo c a t i o n  10 % M e e t A c c e s s i b i l i t y Re q u i r e m e n t s ( e x c l u d i n g au d i b l e c o m p o n e n t s ) Si d e w a l k E v a l u a t i o n s  Cu r r e n t l y U n d e r w a y  In v e n t o r y T o t a l L e n g t h o f Ex i s t i n g S i d e w a l k  Ru n n i n g a n d C r o s s S l o p e  Wi d t h  Ve r t i c a l o r H o r i z o n t a l G a p s  Dr i v e w a y C r o s s i n g s Im p l e m e n t a t i o n P r i o r i t i e s 1. L o c a t i o n s W h e r e A d j a c e n t R o a d w a y o r I n fr a s t r u c t u r e I m p r o v e m e n t s a r e P l a n n e d / O c c u r r i n g 2. L o c a t i o n s i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o p u b l i c f a c i l i t i es a n d h i g h p e d e s t r i a n t r a f f i c a r e a s . L o c a t i o n s h a v e be e n c l a s s i f i e d i n t o t h e f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o r i e s : Hi g h – W i t h i n a f e w b l o c k s o f h o s p i t a l s , s c h o o l s , C i t y o w n e d f a c i l i t i e s , c h u r c h e s , & g r o u p l i v i n g c o m m u n i t i e s Me d i u m – W i t h i n m u l t i p l e f a m i l y r e s i d e n t s z o n i n g b l o c k s , c o m m e r c i a l z o n i n g b l o c k s , a n d p a r k s Lo w – W i t h i n s i n g l e ‐fa m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l o r i n d u s t r i a l a r e a s t h a t d i d no t f a l l i n t h e “ H i g h ” o r “ M e d i u m ” p r i o r i t i e s 3. L o c a t i o n s H a v i n g a H i g h e r D e g r e e o f N o n - c o m p l i a n c e o r M o r e S i g n i f i c a n t B a r r i e r s t o A c c e s s i b i l i t y 4. A l l O t h e r L o c a t i o n s N o t L i s t e d A b o v e as F u n d i n g a n d R e s o u r c e s a r e A v a i l a b l e NO T E : L o c a t i o n s I d e n t i f i e d f r o m t h e G r i e v a n c e P r o c es s W i l l B e P r i o r i t i z e d o n a C a s e - b y - C a s e B a s i s Im p l e m e n t a t i o n P r i o r i t i e s Mi t i g a t i o n C o s t s Pr i o r i t y  Le v e l Cu r b R a m p s Si d e w a l k Pe d e s t r i a n   Si g n a l s T o t a l Lo w $1 , 4 4 5 , 7 5 0   TB D $ 5 2 , 5 0 0 $1,498,250 Me d i u m $1 , 1 2 7 , 8 0 0   TB D $ 8 2 , 5 0 0 $1,210,300   Hi g h $1 , 1 4 7 , 2 5 0   TB D $ 8 5 , 0 0 $1,232,250   No n e $8 6 , 1 5 0 T B D $ 7 , 5 0 0 $93,650 To t a l $3 , 8 0 6 , 9 5 0   TB D $ 2 2 7 , 5 0 0 $ 4 , 0 3 4 , 4 5 0   Im p l e m e n t a t i o n S c h e d u l e Op t i o n 1 – F i x e d S c h e d u l e As s e t T o t a l  Co s t A n n u a l  Bu d g e t   Years Cu r b  Ra m p s $3 , 8 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 7 6 , 0 0 0 * 5 0 Si d e w a l k TB D TB D T B D Pe d e s t r i a n  Pu s h b u t t o n $ 2 2 8 , 0 0 0 $ 6 , 6 0 0 3 5 * Fo r c u r b r a m p s , t h i s a n n u a l b u d g e t i n c l u d e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 p e r y e a r t o ad d r e s s c u r b r a m p s a s p a r t o f t h e a n n u a l r e s u r f a c i n g p r o g r a m a n d c a p i t a l p r o g r a m Im p l e m e n t a t i o n S c h e d u l e Op t i o n 2 – F i x e d C o s t As s e t An n u a l  Bu d g e t   Ye a r s  1  –2 0 An n u a l  Bu d g e t   Ye a r s  21  –5 1 Cu r b  Ra m p s * $6 8 , 6 0 0 $ 8 0 , 0 0 0 Si d e w a l k TB D TB D Pe d e s t r i a n  Pu s h b u t t o n $ 1 1 , 4 0 0 ‐ * Fo r c u r b r a m p s , t h i s a n n u a l b u d g e t i n c l u d e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 p e r y e a r t o ad d r e s s c u r b r a m p s a s p a r t o f t h e a n n u a l r e s u r f a c i n g p r o g r a m a n d c a p i t a l p r o g r a m Im p l e m e n t a t i o n S c h e d u l e Op t i o n 3 – P r i o r i t y B a s e d As s e t Hi g h  Pr i o r i t y Bu d g e t  Ye a r s   1  –1 5 Me d i u m  Pr i o r i t y   Bu d g e t  Ye a r s   16  –3 0 Lo w  Priority**  Bu d g e t  Years  31  –50 Cu r b  Ra m p s $1 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Si d e w a l k TB D TB D TBD Pe d e s t r i a n  Pu s h b u t t o n $ 8 5 , 0 0 0 $ 8 3 , 0 0 0 $ 6 0 , 0 0 0 To t a l  An n u a l  Bu d g e t * $ 8 5 , 7 0 0 $ 7 8 , 9 0 0 $ 7 8 , 0 0 0 * F o r c u r b r a m p s , t h i s a n n u a l b u d g e t i n c l u d e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 p e r y e a r t o a d d r e s s c u r b r a m p s a s pa r t o f t h e a n n u a l r e s u r f a c i n g p r o g r a m a n d c a p i t a l p r o g r a m ** A l l a c c e s s i b i l i t y i s s u e s i d e n t i f i e d w i t h o u t a g e o g r a p h i c p r i o r i t y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n p r o v i d e d w e r e i n c l u d e d i n th e L o w P r i o r i t y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n Po t e n t i a l S t r a t e g i e s - P r o g r a m s  Tr a i n i n g a n d E d u c a t i o n o f D e s i g n a n d C o n s t r u c t i o n P e r s o n n e l  Mo d i f i c a t i o n o f C i t y P o l i c i e s o r C o n s t r u c t i o n R e q u i r e m e n t s Po t e n t i a l S t r a t e g i e s - P r o j e c t s  Ro u t i n e M a i n t e n a n c e P r o j e c t s  Ta r g e t e d A c c e s s i b i l i t y Im p r o v e m e n t P r o j e c t s  Ad d r e s s a s P a r t o f O t h e r P r o j e c t s  Ne w C o n s t r u c t i o n P r o j e c t s  Re c o n s t r u c t i o n P r o j e c t s  Ma j o r R e h a b i l i t a t i o n P r o j e c t s Po t e n t i a l F u n d i n g O p t i o n s  An n u a l C a p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t P l a n & M a i n t e n a n c e Pr o j e c t s  Fe d e r a l A i d o r G r a n t s (e . g . , S T I P , H S I P , S R T S , C D B G , C M A Q , T E A )  In t e r g o v e r n m e n t a l A g r e e m e n t ( I G A )  Bo n d i n g  Re a l l o c a t i o n o f D e p a r t m e n t a l B u d g e t s  Cr e a t i o n o f T a x i n g D i s t r i c t s (e . g . , T a x I n c r e m e n t F i n a n c i n g D i s t r i ct ( T I F ) , C o m m u n i t y I m p r o v e m e n t Di s t r i c t ( C I D ) , T a x A l l o c a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( T A D ) )  Ad o p t i o n o f F e e s t o f u n d A c c e s s i b i l i t y I m p r o v e m e n t s Gr i e v a n c e P r o c e s s 1. C o m p l a i n t f i l e d b y a n A f f e c t e d I n d i v i d u a l o r T h e i r De s i g n a t e d R e p r e s e n t a t i v e 2. I n v e s t i g a t i o n b y t h e C i t y A D A C o o r d i n a t o r o r D e s i g n e e 3. W r i t t e n R e s p o n s e t o C o m p l a i n t f r o m A D A C o o r d i n a t o r to E x p l a i n t h e F i n d i n g s a n d / o r M e a s u r e s B e i n g T a k e n 4. A p p e a l t o t h e A D A C o o r d i n a t o r ( i f r e q u i r e d ) NO T E : C o m p l i a n t D i s m i s s a l a n d D o c u m e n t a t i o n Re t e n t i o n G u i d e l i n e s a r e a l s o I d e n t i f i e d Go i n g F o r w a r d …  Pr o a c t i v e l y I m p r o v e A c c e s s i b i l i t y  Ad d r e s s G r i e v a n c e s w h e n I d e n t i f i e d  Pe r i o d i c R e v i e w a n d U p d a t e o f t h e P l a n  Up d a t e S t a n d a r d D e t a i l s  Ca p t u r e A p p r o v e d D e s i g n E x e m p t i o n s Th a n k Y o u Qu e s t i o n s ? 4/19/2017 | Alternate Schedules and Budgets| 1 TO: Russ Higgins, PE FROM: Jess Hastings, PE – Alfred Benesch & Company SUBJECT: Alternate Schedules and Budgets for Accessibility Improvements DATE: April 19, 2017 We have proposed three different approaches for the City to improve accessibility using the data analyzed as  part of the self‐evaluation. These alternate approaches consisted of 1) set timeframes for each type of asset; 2)  set annual budgets; and 3) classifying and addressing assets based on proximity to Level 1 facilities and  accessibility issues.  Approach #1 – Fixed Schedule  The two different assets assessed during the self‐evaluation were curb ramps and pedestrian pushbuttons. The  City is currently evaluating their sidewalk assets. A timeline‐based goal to address identified accessibility issues  was set for each of the completed assets. The intent of establishing such a goal for each asset is to provide the  County with a target timeframe to address accessibility issues identified in the self‐evaluation and to allow the  County to project annual budgets. The following table represents the total cost to address accessibility issues,  the annual budget required in present day value, and the target goal for each asset.  Asset Total Cost Annual Budget  Years  Curb Ramps $3,800,000 $76,000* 50  Sidewalk TBD TBD TBD  Pedestrian Pushbutton $228,000 $6,600 35  *For curb ramps, this annual budget includes approximately $20,000 per year to address curb ramps as part of the annual resurfacing program and capital program Approach #2 – Fixed Budget  The second alternative utilizes a fixed annual budget of $80,000 per year to address accessibility issues  identified during the self‐evaluation. Distributing the annual budget across each asset category and prorating to  complete the pedestrian pushbutton improvements in the first 20 years generated the following annual  spending for each asset class:  Asset Annual Budget  Years 1 – 20  Annual Budget  Years 21 – 51  Curb Ramps* $68,600 $80,000  Sidewalk TBD TBD  Pedestrian Pushbutton $11,400 ‐ *For curb ramps, this annual budget includes approximately $20,000 per year to address curb ramps as part of the annual resurfacing program and capital program Attachment 3 4/19/2017 | Alternate Schedules and Budgets| 2 For the purposes of this exercise, annual budgets remained constant at present day values and do not account  for inflation. Additionally, accessibility issues and projects stemming from complaints are not included in the  annual budget.    Approach #3 – Classification Based    The third approach evaluated builds upon the recommended classification system outlined in the Technical  Memorandum dated 03‐28‐17 regarding “Curb Ramp Classification and Cost Estimate for Accessibility  Improvements.” This involved categorizing curb ramps based on the field data collected during the self‐ evaluation considering the geographic proximity to higher pedestrian volume facilities throughout the City. Since  the pedestrian pushbutton accessibility issues are more straightforward, we did not recommend categorizing  any issues with accessibility but only their location to high priority facilities.    To prioritize installing accessible pedestrian signals, the City should analyze traffic volumes, current traffic‐signal  patterns and the complexity of the intersection's geometry. The City can utilize the Intersection Prioritization  Tool criteria created by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 3‐62 research and the  Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to evaluate and prioritize each intersection under consideration,  including new traffic signal installations. The Intersection Prioritization Tool provides a method of scoring  individual crossings for relative crossing difficulty to visually impaired individuals. This provides a method to  compare crossings for priority for installation of accessible pedestrian signals. The worksheets and detailed  instructions on completing the worksheets are located at http://www.apsguide.org/appendix_d.cfm.     While the City intends to use these criteria as a guide for prioritization, project level decisions to improve  accessibility or modify existing pedestrian facilities will be based on a variety other contributing factors including  efficiency of construction efforts and budget, upcoming infrastructure projects which may impact pedestrian  facilities, program and master planning input, etc. Locations identified from the grievance process will be  addressed and prioritized on a case‐by‐case basis.    Under this approach, we recommend addressing the locations with closer proximity to the high priority level  facilities and then moving on to the locations further away. Assigning schedule goals to each category produced  annual budgets as follows:    Asset High Priority  Budget Years   1 – 15  Medium Priority  Budget Years   16 – 30  Low Priority**  Budget Years  31 – 50  Curb Ramps $1,200,000 $1,100,000 $1,500,000  Sidewalk TBD TBD TBD  Pedestrian Pushbutton $85,000 $83,000 $60,000  Total Annual Budget* $85,700 $78,900 $78,000  * For curb ramps, this annual budget includes approximately $20,000 per year to  address curb ramps as part of the annual resurfacing program and capital program  ** All accessibility issues identified without a geographic priority classification provided  were included in the Low Priority classification     Note:  Some locations classified as Medium or Low will be addressed during adjacent targeted accessibility  projects focused on High priority facilities.   4/19/2017 | Classifications and Cost Estimates | 1 TO: Russ Higgins, PE  FROM: Jess Hastings, PE – Alfred Benesch & Company  SUBJECT: Curb Ramp Classification and Cost Estimate for Accessibility Improvements  DATE: April 19, 2017  We have reviewed the curb ramp data collected by the City in 2015. After consideration of the nature of the  issues and cost estimating methodology, we recommend the City categorize curb ramps to determine  anticipated quantities of work and projected costs associated with improving accessibility by addressing each  category. In addition to utilizing the physical accessibility issues identified below, the proximity to Level 1  facilities should also be taken into consideration when classifying curb ramps. Due to the criteria pertaining to  pedestrian pushbutton being largely best practice recommendations and not firm requirements, we recommend  categorizing them by their proximity to Level 1 facilities and compliance with certain fundamental best practices  for accessibility.   Level 1 facilities identified by the City during the self‐evaluation included hospitals, schools, city owned facilities,  churches, and group living communities. Utilizing the City’s GIS database, pedestrian facilities were classified  into three different priority levels based upon their proximity to these Level 1 facilities and various zoning areas  throughout the City. “High” priority was assigned to pedestrian facilities located on a direct route within a few  blocks. Pedestrian facilities not already classified as “High” priority located within multiple family residents  zoning blocks, commercial zoning blocks, and parks were assigned “Medium” priority. “Low” priority pedestrian  facilities were all those in single‐family residential or industrial areas that did not fall in the “High” or “Medium”  priorities.   CURB RAMPS  For Curb Ramps, we recommend classifying accessibility issues the following categories:  Category CR‐1:  Locations where curb ramps are present with no identified accessibility issues.  Category CR‐2:  Locations having curb ramps with one or both of the following accessibility issues:  Running (longitudinal) slope less than 5% Detectible Warning Panel not present or lacking sufficient color contrast with surrounding materials Category CR‐3:  Locations having curb ramps with any of the Category CR‐2 accessibility issues and/or  one or more of the following accessibility issues:  Running (longitudinal) slope exceeding 8.3% but less than 12% Cross slope exceeding 2% Improper flared sides (wings) for the transition to the surrounding surfaces Improperly sized or sloped landing/maneuvering area at the sidewalk‐curb ramp intersection Category CR‐4:  Locations where curb ramps are needed but not present or locations having curb ramps  with any of the Category CR‐2 or CR‐3 accessibility issues and/or one or more of the following  accessibility issues:  Attachment 4 4/19/2017 | Classifications and Cost Estimates | 2  Running (longitudinal) slope exceeding 12%   Width less than 4 feet   Faulted joints or cracks exceeding 1/2 inch along the travel path   Receiving area at the base of the ramp not clear of parallel traffic    The following table identifies the number of curb ramp locations for each category and the level of priority.    Table 1  Curb Ramp Accessibility Issues Breakdown    Priority  Total Category Low Medium High None Assigned  CR‐1 7 3 2 0 12  CR‐2 62 40 27 2 131  CR‐3 323 244 258 30 855  CR‐4 264 216 220 9 709  Total  656 503 507 41 1,707    The following table identifies the anticipated overall costs of curb ramp locations for each category and the level  of priority.    Table 2  Curb Ramp Accessibility Issues Costs Breakdown      Priority  Total Category Low Medium High None Assigned  CR‐1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0  CR‐2 $89,900 $58,000 $39,150 $2,900 $189,950  CR‐3 $629,850 $475,800 $503,100 $58,500 $1,667,250  CR‐4 $726,000 $594,000 $605,000 $24,750 $1,949,750  Total Cost $1,445,750 $1,127,800 $1,147,250 $86,150 $3,806,950    Note:  Curb ramp costs are based on 2017 unit prices varying between categories based on anticipated complexity to  address issues.    SIDEWALK  Because sidewalk segments are linear, there are three potential situations to address:  linear issues, small area  issues, and single point or spot location issues. For sidewalks, we recommend classifying accessibility issues the  following categories:    Category SW‐1:  Sidewalk segments present with no identified accessibility issues.    Category SW‐2:  Sidewalk segments with one or more of the following accessibility issues:   Cross (transverse) slope between 2% and 4%   Running (longitudinal) slope not paralleling a street and greater than 5%   Nominal width of 3 feet to 5 feet    Category SW‐3:  Sidewalk segments with any of the Category SW‐2 accessibility issues and/or one or  more of the following accessibility issues:  4/19/2017 | Classifications and Cost Estimates | 3  Cross (transverse) slope exceeding 4%   Nominal width less than 3 feet    Category SW‐4:  Sidewalk segments with one or more of the following localized (small area or single  point) accessibility issues:   Faulted joints or cracks along the travel path having a vertical differential exceeding 3/8 of an  inch    Horizontally separated joints or cracks   Sections with a cross (transverse) slope exceeding 2%   Poles, posts, vegetation, or other above ground obstructions resulting in a reduced sidewalk  width of 3 feet or less    PEDESTRIAN PUSHBUTTON  Pedestrian pushbutton (PPB) issues are primarily associated with either the location of the pushbutton or the  lack of audible capabilities. While the MUTCD provides guidance on the location of pushbuttons relative to the  curb ramp, cross walk, and other pushbuttons on new construction, retrofitting existing facilities does allow for  some tolerances. The attributes used to identify potential targeted accessibility projects for the City to remove  barriers identified include providing a clear space at the PPB, accessible pedestrian route to the PPB, cross slope  of the accessible route to the PPB, and the height and reach to the PPB. Table 3 provides a summary of the total  number of pedestrian signal heads present throughout the City as well as how many signals have PPB present or  audible features. Table 4 identifies the number of locations with PPB installed, number of PPB with an issue on  one of the accessibility attributes identified above, number of PPB with audible features, and the number of PPB  not meeting the various distance guidelines outlined in the MUTCD; all with the respective geographic priority  level.    Table 3  Pedestrian Signals Summary     Present w/ PPB w/ Audible  Pedestrian Signal Head 162 153 36    Table 4  Pedestrian Pushbutton Accessibility Breakdown     Priority  Total Low Medium High None  Total Number of PPB 8 61 60 24 153  Accessible Pushbuttons 8 28 26 0 62  Accessibility Issues Present 21 33 34 3 91  Audible Feature Present* 5 21 9 0 35  Distance from Ramp and PPB** 14 19 16 0 49  * MUTCD, ADAAG, or PROWAG did not require pedestrian signals/pushbuttons be audible prior  to 2012. Upgrading the controller, software, or replacing the pedestrian signal heads may  require updating the pedestrian signals to include audible features.  ** MUTCD establishes recommended guidance regarding the location of the PPB.    The following table identifies the anticipated overall costs to address the identified PPB accessibility issues by  priority level.  4/19/2017 | Classifications and Cost Estimates | 4 Table 5  Pedestrian Pushbutton Accessibility Issues Cost Breakdown     Priority  Total Low Medium High None  Accessibility Issue Present $52,500 $82,500 $85,000 $7,500 $227,500    SUMMARY  The following table summarizes the total costs to address issues identified in the Self‐Evaluation by area.      Priority Level  Curb  Ramps    Sidewalk  Pedestrian   Pushbuttons    Total  Low $1,445,750  TBD $52,500 $1,498,250  Medium $1,127,800  TBD $82,500 $1,210,300   High $1,147,250  TBD $85,00 $1,232,250   None $86,150 TBD $7,500 $93,650  Total $3,806,950  TBD $227,500 $4,034,450