City transportation officials have released their preferred design for a new bike lane on Iris Avenue, the latest city street to get a makeover to make it safer for cyclists, pedestrians and other road users.
The plan would reduce the number of lanes from four to three, with a middle turning lane. It would also add a 10-foot-wide, two-way bike lane along the north side of the street from Folsom to Broadway. The bike path would be separated from the street with some kind of vertical separation, such as a tall concrete curb like the one installed on Baseline Road last year. Transportation officials chose the north side of the street for the bike lane because it has more sun exposure, which helps melt snow and ice during the winter.
The project is part of a larger effort to make city streets safer for cyclists, pedestrians and those who get around by means of transportation other than an automobile. Transportation advocates have long supported adding a protected bike lane on Iris Avenue, where currently a strip of paint separates cyclists from vehicle traffic.
Iris Avenue is part of the city’s “high-risk network.” About 20,000 drivers pass through the street on a typical weekday, according to city data, and most exceed the 35 mph speed limit. Between 2016 and 2023, cyclists and pedestrians were involved in at least 22 crashes on Iris Avenue between Folsom Street and Broadway, according to the city. The city’s Vision Zero Action Plan seeks to eliminate severe traffic crashes entirely by 2030.
City officials said they have considered emergency response access and evacuation needs in their proposal. The two-way bike lane and the turning lane can serve as vehicle routes during an emergency, according to city officials.
The proposed changes are expected to increase average travel times for drivers up to 46 seconds on the stretch between Folsom Street and Broadway.
Some residents have expressed concerns that the increased travel time might prompt drivers to detour through residential side streets. In response, the city is contemplating adding “traffic calming” measures, such as speed bumps, on streets like Glenwood Drive, Grape Avenue and Kalmia Avenue.
The city has posted a virtual town hall about the project on its website.
The Boulder City Council is scheduled to approve a final design for Iris Avenue in October 2024, following a public hearing. The timeline for construction is yet to be determined.
Correction: A previous version of this story said the city estimates average travel times will increase by about 46 seconds. The story was corrected to indicate average travel times will increase up to 46 seconds.
Well, in Boulder, whatever transportation officials want, transportation officials get.
There were a lot of rude entitled motorists harassing staff at the open house. Reminded me of 2nd amendment folks.
This plan will significantly increase carbon emissions due to slower traffic. No need for an independent environmental impact study. Denying science was once a bastion reserved for the Republican Party. That is no longer the case. One of the highest educated cities in the country has succumbed to faith based traffic engineering.
I have been following the Iris proposal closely. Buried deeply in the Ciy’s planning documents is that about 130 bikes and 16,000 cars use this corridor every day. In other words, the City is proposing to reduce the driving lanes from four to two along with a turn lane to benefit only 130 bikes. That’s just 0.00008125 percent of the daily users!!!
I’m an avid biker, and I use the FAR safer existing bike routes on Hawthorn/Grape and Kalmia which are just north and south of Iris.
I rode my bike on Iris once, and now I use the safe existing alternatives. When I see a bike on Broadway proper, I always assume they are from out of town when 13th St is a block away. Likewise, bikers in the know use Kalmia or Hawthorn/Grape.
If the City wanted to do something to actually benefit bikers and improve traffic safety, build underpasses at Broadway and University, Broadway and Baseline, and Broadway and Table Mesa. Prioritize actual needs over planning aspirations.
Moreover, consider that the City is seriously considering annexing the Area III planning reserve at Jay Rd and 28th Streets adding between 4200 and 6600 units to the Iris corridor. A citizen proposal would convert the airport to housing just down the road from Iris, adding thousands of more units, and hundreds of units are going in at the old Albertsons on Iris and 28th. Reducing the traffic lanes to satisfy a small activist group at the expense of the neighborhood does not make good public policy.
Finally, I don’t want all the frustrated drivers from Iris diverting onto my side streets. The Ciy solution? Put in traffic slowing measures in my neighborhood and further inconvenience the neighborhood.
I went to the open house. It felt condescending being spoon fed what their predetermined plan was without taking meaningful account of the multiple issues local residents raised about this half baked project.
I also saw no information about increased carbon emissions from the backed up cars on Iris and it’s effect on the City’s carbon neutrality policy.
This “project” does not add up. And finally, the City did not even entertain a “do nothing” alternative: the single alternative that most of the neighborhood actually wants.
Check your math.
Well stated, Bob.
It seems like the Open House weblink addressed all your points and then some. A question I had was more information on how the transit stops would interact with bikes and vehicles.
Hmmmm, I wonder why more cyclists don’t use tiny painted bike gutters next to traffic traveling almost 45 mph?
This is a total waste of taxpayer dollars. So we go from a bike lane on each side of the street to a two-way bike lane on one side of the street (that’s not really a difference for us cyclists), and give up an entire lane to handle automobile traffic along a major corridor. Remember “boon-doggling” from the New Deal… “Person A, you go dig a hole… Person B, you go fill it in. Here’s your paycheck.”
Suggest filling in all the potholes instead. If you want to improve safety for cyclists and running, put in more red light cameras.
So well articulated Bob! I was listening for your remarks at City Council Thur.15 Aug.
For the most part, pedestrians obey the law and motorists obey the law. On the other hand, I routinely witness Bicyclists IGNORE the law. You can make all the changes you want, until bicyclists start obeying the laws when riding is when things get more safe for them.
This has been studied extensively, and on average, bicyclists break the law somewhat less than motorists. And, when they do, the consequences tend to be far less deadly. I don’t like anybody using roads and sidewalks in a careless way, but myth that bicyclists are particularly bad about it needs to die.
AMEN
This seems like a good and thought-out proposal. It appears to keep up overall flow of both automotive and cycle traffic while calming some of the more egregious speed issues.
Include Norwood and Quince in on the traffic calming, because a lot of people are not going to want to make that left turn onto Iris from Broadway and will cut over to 19th.
Huge waste of money.
It does seem like this is going to happen regardless of community input. If it has to happen, i wish we could get a five-foot protected lane on each side instead of one 10-foot lane on the north side. Regardless, I think the turn lane is going to be useless because there will rarely be enough of a break in traffic for anyone to get through.
In fact, the average time to drive Iris from one end to the other should increase by between 3 and 46 seconds when Alternative B is implemented. This story misrepresents 46 seconds as the average, when it is the estimated HIGHEST increase for the average end-to-end drive on Iris.
This has been corrected. Thank you. — BRL editors
I find that interesting because being caught at a single light on Iris adds more time than that to my commute, and somehow I don’t see me only hitting one more light cycle with two less lanes.
I ride and commute thousands of miles a year by bike – more than I drive. I don’t know who thinks these changes are necessary, but I think this is a horrible plan. Boulder needs a better way to get through North Boulder in a CAR, not a bike. Trying to go through Boulder and connecting to 36 is some horrific engineering/planning nonsense. There are so many better roads adjacent to Iris. Make a better thoroughfare for cars. This is a worse idea than the resources spent on Baseline – stop bikewashing, start thinking. The commuting infrastructure on Iris is already fine for riding – and even better one block over, just like Broadway adjacent streets. Maybe figure out a way to tell people to go over a block and get off these main drags.
I have lived on 17th for 28 years ,17th St. is a dead end street with the only way in and out which is Iris Ave. Reducing 17th Street to a two lane will back up traffic past 17th Street, causing a problem for residents on 17th Street, resulting in long delays in coming and going to their homes. Also we have elderly folks on this street, reducing the lanes will cause problems for fire and medical ambulances access. This is the same proposal that was bought up in 2015, which was appealed by citizens of Boulder. New people move into Boulder and make suggestion to the city and the city acts with little interest from tax paying long term residents. How much more tax payers money needs to be spent to satisfy a minority of bicyclist that want to bike on Iris? By the way I am a bicyclist myself and I avoid using Iris Ave, and use alternate routes for biking . I mostly use the bike path goes by community gardens on the southside of Iris Ave, along with other less busy side streets.
More madness by by the city of Boulder. Iris is the primary east/west corridor for the northern end of town with traffic from Diagonal highway feeding directly onto Iris. Making it more bicycle friendly is completely unnecessary when cyclists can easily use Grape or Glenwood which run parallel to Iris just a few blocks to the South and are quiet residential streets. I live in the neighborhood and ride a bike almost daily. Even if the bike lane is added to Iris there would be no reason to use it, an opinion shared by many of my neighbors. The likely outcome of the bike lane will not be more bikes on Iris but simply slower travel times for cars and a shifting of traffic to the residential streets to the south. Whats next, does Canyon get reduced to two lanes as well so cross town traffic has zero remaining options for efficient east/west travel?
I’ll save you the pain of scrolling through the comments: Angry boomers don’t like that they might possibly be mildly inconvenienced by an initiative that will enable everyone who lives in the area to make pollution-free commutes/trips across one of Boulder’s most dangerous roads. “Don’t improve the city we will soon die in so you can take your kids to school safely and without a deadly, 2 ton depreciating asset that is gradually destroying our planet! We want to get from 28th St to Broadway 30 seconds faster!”
I think we could pin a version of this to the top of comments for any article regarding bike infrastructure improvements or any other mild inconvenience to cars.
Cyclists don’t need to use tiny painted bike gutters next to fast moving traffic on Iris Avenue because they have convenient easily accessible alternatives. The point being, not every roadway needs to be or should be optimized for bike travel. An anti car agenda is being sold as bike and safety advocacy. Cycling should absolutely be an increased part of our transportation mix but car usage is not going away no matter how inconvenient the city makes it to use them.
The quoted increase in travel time is assuming no change in the number of vehicles using Iris. Based on projected population increases it is unrealistic to assume vehicle counts will not grow. Thus the modest increase in travel time now will be a much larger increase in the future when the modified Iris Avenue does not have the capacity needed for a higher traffic count.
The issue should not be framed as cars verses bikes and other forms of alternate transportation. It should be a matter of how the system is optimized for all users, acknowledging that each mode of transportation is legitimate and needed. To do this it has to be recognized that some roads will be primarily for automobiles and other roads will be made as convenient and safe as possible for bikes and pedestrians. Those roads that serve as primary through corridors such as Iris are ideally suited for high traffic volumes and should be optimized for that. Similar routes include 28th St, Broadway, Canyon Blvd, etc and on up to the larger Foot Hills Highway and the Diagonal. Smaller roads that often parallel the larger corridors are then perfect for use by bikes and pedestrians. These smaller roads can and should be optimized for alternate transportation methods. Good examples are Folsom, 19th/20th St, 9th St, 4th St, Valmont, West Arapaho etc. and on down to the smaller neighborhood routes.
Trying to engineer less car usage by pushing alternate forms of transportation onto the large car routes will not decrease car usage nor will it increase safety. The city has already admitted that similar changes have had no positive impact per their data. These initiatives will only increase travel times and push traffic onto the smaller neighborhood routes. Most of all it will increase the animosity between transportation groups with each believing they are not being treated fairly. And it is this resentment between groups that should be reduced as much as possible and is a primary cause of accidents and crashes.
To increase safety on Iris it makes sense to add speed mitigation measures and additional enforcement via photo red lights. Taking away traffic lanes to add a dedicated bike lane is overkill considering the very minimal number of bike users daily. It would be an instance of pure bike advocacy over smart traffic planning.
Decreasing the number of lanes is a speed mitigation measure. It is difficult to imagine the number of daily bike users on Iris not increasing after these improvements.
All of these complaints over being mildly inconvenienced over a 1.2 mile stretch of road. The project quotes a maximum 46 seconds of additional travel time. Hard to imagine Boulder’s population rapidly increasing at the rate additional housing is built, but even if the additional travel time increased 5x – would the ~4 minutes of additional travel time to drive down Iris ruin Boulder for you?
Lastly – “And it is this resentment between groups that should be reduced as much as possible and is a primary cause of accidents and crashes.” The primary reason for bicycle/peds/vehicle accidents is resentment? Peds and cyclists are moving in front of the path of a vehicle, and drivers are hitting them, out of resentment?
Troy,
I could not have said it better. Traffic design should be driven by data and facts, not wishful thinking. There is a reason that there are regional airports and airports like DIA. The needs of large, high speed commercial aircraft are different than small single engine aircraft. There is a reason that aviation is the safest mode of transportation. These two types of aircraft are kept separate, an not just by a curb.
There will be a BIG problem for cyclists needing to turn south into North-South streets intermediate between Broadway and Folsom.
I can imagine the only “cure” for this will be a traffic light at each North-South street!
Thanks for your concern, Rodger. I don’t see how this issue will be any worse than for any cyclist making a left turn from a one-way bike lane. In fact, the reduction in vehicle travel lanes makes crossing Iris MUCH easier for bikes, pedestrians, and cars alike. The only difference between Alternatives A and B is for eastbound cyclists, and whether they need to cross Iris to go north or to go south.
I live in the surrounding neighborhoods and primarily ride, and if I’m on Iris (which I usually am not — as others have mentioned, Kalmia or Hawthorn are almost always smarter choices for east-west travel) I check carefully before I cross the lanes in the same direction I’m going and then turn left from the left turn lane, just like any other vehicle. Granted, I’m not riding this way during high-traffic time (again, there are other routes, and who wants to inhale that much car exhaust?), but making a left in either direction is no big deal.
Why not focus for a change on fixing potholes and resurfacing streets? In my 25 years here, I’ve never seen our streets in worse shape.
I agree Sally
The city’s transportation improvement projects, such as this one on Iris Avenue, are scheduled to coincide with planned repaving. This happened last year on Baseline, and this year on Moorhead.
Zach- No. Tapering the road for 1.2 miles creates a bottleneck that backs up the traffic behind, then loads it on to already congested Broadway.
But this is nothing compared to what’s coming!
IOW, gridlock. Violating BVCP Jobs/Housing balance. NOBO, Area 3 Planning Reserve, EB sub-community development, Airport housing, Millennium, 2 Hill Hotels, Papellios (@ Folsom/Pearl), Weathervane (58th/Ara), Hyundai at 30th/Glenwood and for jobs: CU South (including housing), massive developments in Life Sciences and CUbitQuantum Initiative with “July 2, 2024, Elevate Quantum, of which CU Boulder is a key partner, announced today that it has received a Tech Hub Phase 2 implementation award from the Department of Commerce, unlocking more than $127 million in new federal and state funding. The award is expected to drive more than $2 billion in additional private capital and cement the Mountain West as a global leader for quantum innovation.”
More housing and congestion for all that.
Let the developer pay.
Epic reply!
Chris – Somebody had to say it.
As a letter carrier, Iris Avenue is the absolute worst sections on my route. Drivers do whatever they want, are always speeding, and often honking at me doing my job. Even when traffic is light they don’t move over lanes. This project is not going to fix anything and I spend more time actually on this street than the people who live and speed on it or turn over double yellows because they’re coming from the opposite directions. What am I going to say to 911 dispatch, Iris ave is unsafe every single time I deliver there? Wait for a supervisor to come check it out every time and the close call already drove away? Nobody understands. Nah, Im changing routes so the PO can get some 20 year old rookie assigned this dumpster fire getting worse not better so I can be safer.
As a driver, cyclist, pedestrian I’m super excited for this proposal. Looking forward to many more road diets along our too wide/dangerous arterials. As a city we should prioritizing the movement of people, not just cars, which are not only the deadliest form of transportation but also the least environmental. Keep up the good work Boulder!
What drives me crazy is the assumption that everybody can ride a bike. Boulder is very elderly and disabled unfriendly already This said a message screw all the physically disabled and elderly people you can just sit in your cars at all the lights and in the congestion that this “improvement” will cause to create by bike lines that we don’t really need. Have fun breathing and all the smog and pollution while you sit in traffic because they eliminated lanes for bicyclists. Boulder has really turned into a stupid place to live
You will still be able to drive your car down Iris after this is implemented. In fact, it will be more efficient with the dedicated left turn lane. In addition, children, exactly none of whom can drive a car, will be able to ride their bicycles on it as well.
Michael,
I live on Iris and have so for 25 years. This is a bad project all the way around. It will cause significant additional greenhouse gases and not deliver any meaningful increase in safety. The majority of residents hate this project and have told the City Counsel so. They no longer represent the majority of residents.
Michele – I drive my car only 5 times a year. I ride my bike everywhere. But I totally agree with you! Thank you.
This project is a bad one and will not deliver any additional safety and will cause significant additional greenhouse gases. There are better alternatives that were rejected. The majority of residents hate this project and approach. The bike traffic should be moved to Kalmia or Hawthorne. The input from most residents was completely ignored. So much for Boulder being green.