Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation System Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arvada releases draft Transportation System Plan; identifies 71 projects and prioritization framework
Summary
City planners and consultants presented a draft Transportation System Plan (TSP) that ranks roughly 87 unconstrained projects into a prioritized list of about 71 actionable projects, ties projects to funding buckets including a new TSP implementation allocation, and proposes implementation tools such as signal timing optimization and corridor‑level
Kelly Van Breggen, Arvada’s transportation planning manager, and consultants from Kimley‑Horn presented the city’s draft Transportation System Plan (TSP) to the council on July 8, describing a 20‑year framework that identifies capacity, safety and multimodal projects and proposes funding and implementation approaches.
Why it matters: The TSP is intended to guide investments across all transportation modes, prioritize projects based on eight goals and 27 objectives, and align future grant applications and capital programming with a single, council‑adopted list of priorities.
Scope and process: Van Breggen said the plan began with an unconstrained list of about 87 potential projects developed from prior plans, public engagement and technical analysis. The study used quantitative and qualitative evaluation criteria, assigned weights to the eight goals, and produced a prioritized list that staff will use to match projects with likely funding sources. The plan covers citywide needs for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit and was developed over roughly two years with input from the Transportation Advisory Committee, stakeholder groups and public events.
Priority findings and costs: Thomas Shaw, a traffic engineer on the project team, said the highest‑priority projects address network gaps, safety (including locations with higher crash rates), intersection operations and multimodal access. The draft includes a top 30 list of high‑priority projects with planning‑level cost estimates and suggested next implementation steps. Consultants and staff reported 71 projects in the final project listing that will feed into the city’s capital improvement plan and grant applications.
Funding strategy and implementation tools: Curtis Roe and Mike Griffith (Kimley‑Horn) described a funding approach that treats the TSP as a seeding document for studies, preliminary design and grant applications rather than a funding source for full construction of all projects. Staff proposed moving a portion of existing collector and arterial improvement CIP allocations into a TSP implementation bucket so the city can pay for scoping, planning and matching funds. Staff also highlighted near‑term implementation opportunities that do not require major construction, including signal timing and coordination improvements, corridor progression, and targeted policy updates.
Equity and disadvantaged communities: Council members asked how the plan defines and prioritizes investments in disadvantaged communities. Staff described a GIS‑based approach that maps demographic indicators (income, populations of concern and other metrics) and integrates those spatial data into the prioritization score. Staff noted the “enhance and prioritize services to disadvantaged communities” objective has its own weighting in the evaluation framework and pointed to supporting mapping and a travel‑demand refinement memo in the draft report for detail.
Connections to other plans: Van Breggen said staff intentionally aligned the TSP with the city’s bicycle master plan, ADA transition plan, comprehensive plan and sustainability action plan. The presentation noted that completing the TSP is intended to strengthen future grant applications and that staff have already begun matching TSP projects to current grant opportunities such as the newly announced federal Safe Roads program.
Council discussion and next steps: Council members asked for clarifications about the weighting for disadvantaged communities, how projects will reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse‑gas emissions, and how the city will coordinate with regional partners and other agencies (CDOT, Adams County, DRCOG) on projects that cross jurisdictions. Staff said the TSP includes tools and models — including a city‑wide traffic model and corridor analyses — that can simulate project impacts and that they will provide additional detail to council on modeling outcomes and metrics tied to other city plans. Staff said they will close out the draft in August after addressing final comments and then begin implementation conversations with internal teams and regional partners.
What was not decided: Council did not vote to adopt the TSP at the workshop. Staff said a final draft will be returned for adoption after revisions and additional internal coordination. Funding reallocations proposed for the CIP and the proposed TSP implementation bucket will require further council review and future budget decisions.
Ending note: Staff said the TSP is intended to be an actionable, living document to guide Arvada’s transportation investments and to support grant applications; they will return with a final draft and additional implementation materials, including an update on ADA transition plan integration.
