On May 19th, 2022, the Louisville City Council confirmed the planning staff recommendation of proceeding forward with Corridor Alternative 1 as the recommended Alternative for Future 42

• On August 16th, 2022, the Lafayette City Council confirmed the planning staff recommendation of proceeding forward with Corridor Alternative 1 as the recommended Alternative for Future 42

Recommended Alternative: Corridor Alternative 1, One-Way Protected Bicycle Lanes with Intersection Alternative 1, Protected Intersections

The recommended alternative consists of the following four components:Major Intersections

1. Roadway: CO 42 will have two general purpose travel lanes from Arapahoe Road to Hecla Street with a center median/turn lane. CO 42 will have four general purpose travel lanes with turn lanes as needed between just North of Hecla Street to Empire/Lock Street.
2. Bike: the recommended alternative will feature a one-way protected bike lanes on their respective sides of the roadway (northbound on the east, southbound on the west).
3. Pedestrian: the recommended alternative has separated sidewalks from the travel and bicycle lanes throughout the corridor.
4. Intersections: The corridor will have protected intersections at most intersections. At the major intersections (South Boulder Road and Baseline Road) a more traditional intersection with acute angle channelized right turn lanes with raised bicycle and pedestrian crossings is proposed.

As part of the Future 42 project, three alternatives where proposed for each intersection in the study area. Each of these alternatives uses different infrastructure solutions to create safer Protected Intersection intersections for all users. Alternative 1: Consist of 1 vehicle lane in each direction with a turn lane in the center, and a vegetated buffer along the curb to protect the bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks. At the intersections Alternative 1 uses a protected intersection design. Protected intersections provide raised corners to protect waiting pedestrians, no right turn on red lights, bike lanes, crosswalks set back from travel lanes and separate bike signals. Alternative 2: includes four travel lanes, two in each direction, a vegetated median, bike lanes, and sidewalks separated from the street by a vegetated buffer. At intersections Alternative 2 uses a traditional intersection design. Alternative 3: includes two travel lanes bordered by a vegetated buffer, a 2-way bikeway is provided along one side of the road and sidewalks on both sides of the street.

In order to decide on the best solution for Co- 42 each alternative was scored based on four factors. 1. Safety: this was measured by modeling whether speeding would increase when no traffic is present and anticipated reduction in crashes at the intersections. 2. Comfort of the corridor for walking and biking: measured by generating a Streetscore+ value for both walking and biking. Streetscore+ uses 1-4 scoring system with a score of 1 being safe and comfortable for the widest range of people and a score of 4 being uncomfortable for all but the confident of cyclists and pedestrians.

Streetscore+ scoring system

3. Efficient motor vehicle travel: this was calculated by using Intersection Level of Service (LOS), a system that scores intersections on a scale of A-F, with A allowing for free flow of vehicles and F causing traffic to exceed the capacity of the intersection. In addition to LOS, corridor travel time was calculated . 4. Future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): this was calculated in order to determine the capacity for BRT accommodations, the planning team looked at which intersections could accommodate queue jump lanes for future bus service.

Scoring the Corridor

Change in Average Speeds

All three alternatives change the speed at which vehicles could navigate the corridor. Alternative 1, would generate slower speeds along 3% of the corridor. Alternative 2, would cause faster speeds through 27% of the corridor and slower speed for only 3%. Alternative 3. would cause traffic to slow along 36% of the corridor.

Change in Speed

Crash Reduction

All three alternatives would reduce crashes along the corridor. Alternative 1 would lead to 18 fewer crashes, Alternative 2, would see 23 fewer crashes, and Alternative 3, would lead to the largest reduction, with 36 fewer crashes.

Crash Reduction

Bicycle and Walking Comfort

Using Streetscore+ the bicycle and walking comfort was calculated for each of the three alternatives. Alternatives 1 and 3 score the highest for bike comfort with the protected bike facilities receiving a score of 1. Biking comfort for alternative 3 scores a 4. This lower score is due to the lack of vertical buffer or protection along the bike lane. Pedestrian comfort scored a 2 across all three alternatives.

Intersection Level of Service (LOS)

Each of the three alternatives' LOS was measured and compared to current LOS. Two LOS values where calculated, one representing a morning trip and one representing an evening trip.

Alternatives with there LOS Scores

AM and PM Peak Travel Time

Projected travel time in the morning and evening was measured for each of the three alternatives. Alternatives 1 and 3 showed delays caused by right turning vehicles at South Boulder Road, and Alternative 2 showed marginal improvements in travel time.

Peak Travel Times

Intersections That Could Accommodate Transit Queue Jump Lanes

All three alternatives have intersections that could accommodate queue jump lanes for future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along the corridor. Alternatives 1 and 2 have six intersections that could support queue jump lanes, and Alternative 3 has five intersections that could support queue jump lanes.

Intersections that Can Support Future BRT

Scoring the Alternatives

Once all four factors, (safety, comfort for walking and biking, efficient motor vehicle travel, and ability to accommodate future BRT) where modeled, scores for each alternative where complied allowing for a comprehensive view of how et traveling along CO-42 could change with each alternative.

Alternatives scored by Measure of Effectiveness (MOE)