Loading...
Minutes - 1998 - City Council - 01/29/1998 - SpecialEAGLE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES January 29, 1998 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: Bastian, Sedlacek, Guerber, present. Merrill absent. A quorum is present. 3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. Bike Lane Policy: The Mayor is requesting Council discussion regarding the requested submission of comments regarding ACHD Bike Lane Policy. (RY) Mayor introduces the issue. Terry Little, Traffic Department, ACHD. ACHD has had a ongoing bike lane policy since 1992. Displays overheads. Discusses Roadway Cross-Section adjustments: Reduce utility strips to 2', sidewalks 7'wide, or 5' wide and 5' setbacks, continue parkway strips where feasible, increase bike lane widths, increase rural shoulder widths, decrease vehicle lane widths and increase outside vehicle lane widths. Miscellaneous Issues: Construction and right-of-way costs, interim accommodation with striping, bike lane features and maintenance. The construction doesn't vary much, $1.40 a square foot. Right-of-way costs range from $.50 per square foot for rural to $8 per square foot for commercial. Recominendations & Costs: More bike lanes, 5 year work program $630,000 based on 19 projects. Wider bike lanes $50,000/yr based on proposed standards. Bike lane detectors $16,000/yr. Increase sweeping $101,000/yr. Increased signing and markings $20,O00/yr. Displays an overhead, The Vision Eagle Area, showing bike lanes and discusses same. Principal arterials are where the controversy is. Bike lanes can add a safe shoulder to the roads. Motorists can park in a bike lane as long as it is not posted no parking. General discussion on the policy and the bike lanes in Eagle. Bastian moves to support the proposed ACItD Bike Lane policy as contained in the draft recommendation to the ACHI) Board and within the City of Eagle detached sidewalks with a planter strip between the street and sidewalks, excluding the sidewalks in the Downtown core, including an updated map. Seconded by Sedlacek. Discussion. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES .................. B. Library Construction Review Board: The Mayor is requesting Council confirm the appointment of five people to review the construction process for the proposed library. (RY) Mayor introduces the issue. The Mayor recommends Stan Bastian, Liz Horn, and Susan Thomas. General discussion. Guerber moves to accept the Mayor's recommendations. Seconded by Sedlacek. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES .............. 4. ADJOURNMENT: Guerber moves to adjourn. Seconded by Bastian. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES... Hearing no further business, thc Council meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, President GARY E. RICHARDSON, Vice President SHERRY R. HUBER, Secretary TO: The Honorable Rick Yzaguirre Mayor of Eaale FROM: Terrtittle, P.E. Traffic Department Ada County Highway District SUBJECT: Bike Lane Policy /. /t '1 January 8, 1998 RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE JAN 1 3 1998 File: Route to`.''\ The Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Commission has scheduled a decision on the Bike Lane Policy for their February 18, 1998 meeting. If the City of Eagle would like to submit any comments, please do so prior to February 4, 1998. If you would like to schedule a joint work session with the ACHD Commissioners on this topic, please let me know as soon as possible so that a meeting can be scheduled. I can be reached at 387-6140. ada county highway district 318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714-6499 • Phone (208) 345-7680 Md cSly Ye7,e_J-1- `72G eery -1 de;uu_dednziree)), What makes a good bicycle program? According to the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Workbook for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Accommodations a regional bicycle/pedestrian plan should include the following elements: 1) Vision and Goal Performance Criteria. For example, a vision could be for the program to provide travelers with new opportunities to ride as bike as part of their everyday life. /' 2) A Goal Statement- Goals to reach the vision, and the time frame for reaching each goal should be spelled out. They should be clear and objectively measurable. An example of the goals might be: To double the percentage of trips taken by bicycling and walking for all transportation purposes, and to reduce by 10% the number of bicyclist injuries and fatalities by the year 2000. Another goal might be to increase the number of cyclist and pedestrians or to increase facility mileage by a certain amount by a given year. 3) Performance Criteria -Examples: Costs, ease of implementation, low number of 4) 5) 6) 7) conflicts with other route users, accessibility, direct Current Levels of Use: Current Crash/Accident Infi Current Transportation Infrastructure Bicycle Parking Facilities y 1 EIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE ration DEC 2 3 1997 File: Route -to( Wt Co Travel Corridors -Identification of desired travel corridors for bike and pedestrian trips. 8) Existing Land Uses and Zoning The Needs Assessment Section of the 2015 Plan (page -12-3) identifies nine needs lacking in Ada County. I will only discuss 3 at this time. 1) Public Involvement -the 2015 Plan states there is a need to develop greater public involvement to identify where improvements are needed. 2) The four E's -Engineering, Education, Encouragement, and Enforcement. 3) Last, but not least is Trip User Statistics -The 2015 Plan states, there is not adequate information on bicycle use in the area. A study would provide information on pathway needs. The 2015 Plan also was a goal of 25% of trips captured by alternative modes of transportation by the year 2015. The Plan needs to determine what % of the 25% is reasonable for bicycle trips. The revised Plans are not what I voted for in 1993, and not what I envisioned the plans becoming or costing. The two documents, Federal Highway Workbook and the 2015 Plan make it pretty clear to me that we need to stop and assess what we are doing with bicycle lanes. When tax dollars are at stake, taxpayers deserve a full debate. Programs such as bike lanes must be open to public scrutiny and debate. There will always be differing views ---those differing view sometimes make the best decisions. It has been disappointing to me to see such an effort to crush any questions or reasonable discussions of bike lanes and their costs. The value judgement of a minority special interest group has been able to shield open information on which people can make rational decisions. If a program has merit and is reasonable, it will survive public scrutiny. My analysis of the 5 Year Work Program shows that $13,481,825 dollars is estimated to be spent on bike lanes in the next 6 years. That is $2,246,971 per year for bike lanes or 5% of the total ACHD 97-98budget. Some might look at the 97-98 construction contract amount of $24,709,400 and consider that $2,246,971 per year for bike lanes is 9% of the total construction contracts. Or a more educated observer might say that of the $24,709,400 in construction contracts, only about 50% of that amount actually goes to building a new road or a new bridge. Then the $2,246,971 per year average for bike lanes is 18% of the construction contracts. Even under the most conservative of analysis $8,631,529 or $1,438,529 per annum for six years is being planned for bike lanes. No matter how you look at the 5 Year Plan, it is clear that ACHD is not planning on spending 1% of the district's budget for bike lane improvements. In fact, we don't even have a budget for bike lanes. Also, the district is spending significantly more than just restriping a roadway for bike lanes. Narrowing travel lanes in a County full of suburbans, 4 wheel drive trucks, motor homes, delivery trucks, etc...all with side mirrors, cellular phones, stereos, and other distractions will create accidents. Narrowing travel lanes or intersection widths also have hidden costs: Loss of roadway capacity, greater idling time, greater use of fuel, to name a few. Nothing is free --not even narrowing lanes. District documentation dated July 1997 confirms bike lanes costs as: 4ft wide bike lane costs range from $80,256 to $397,056 PER MILE 5ft wide bike lane costs range from $100,320 to $496,320 PER MILE 6ft wide bike lanes cost range from $120.384 to $595,584 PER MILE The costs of the lanes are dependent upon location ---whether rural, urban, or commericial areas. The only clear and concise way to calculate bike lane costs is to take the length x the width x the right-of-way costs x the construction costs. Make the formulas as straight forward as possible, so the average citizen will understand it. Any other formula is an attempt to hide the facts. District records support any costs that I have written, or that I have publically stated. The Statesman has misquoted bike lane costs, and others have misrepresented bike lane costs. It is time to put our differences aside, and be realistic about what this County can afford for bike lanes. Remember, this has never been a discussion on my part about NOT building bike lanes. but rather how many can we afford, where do they belong, and who will use them. Bike lanes have become an emotional issue rather than an exhange of ideas and information which would be in the best interest of ALL the taxpayers of Ada County. To move forward, we need to: 1) Do a study to obtain the missing baseline data. 2) We need to have goals and objectives for bike lanes with measurable performance criteria, 3) and last but not least, we need annual budget constraints. Dear Mayor Yzaguirre, /-a3 2a/ I would like to express my appreciation for your continuing effort to obtain right-of-way access on the west side of Eagle Road for a connection between the bicycle/pedestrian underpass and Mace Road. If there is anything I or our staff in District 3 can do to assist your efforts please do not hesitate to ask. I have been informed by District 3 engineer Jack Sparks (334-8956) that the acquisition of right-of-way could come as late as the first of May and still allow the contractor time to grade and pave the pathway. Please keep me informed as to how the process is going as I am on the Treasure Valley Greenway and Trails Foundation and we are now interacting with key players in Canyon County who want to see a continuous pathway system from Lucky Peak to the Snake River. This would be a tremendous asset to the entire valley. Although a small piece in the entire system, your connection is essential to the overall success of this effort. Once again, thank you for your visionary involvement. yno,_11 Mark McNeese ITD Bicycle and Pedestrian Planner 334-8272; FAX 334-432 mmcneese@itd.state.id.us RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE J1 6::-.13 File: Route ti:;-:-'0A,\�..t SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, President GARY E. RICHARDSON, Vice President SHERRY R. HUBER, Secretary TO: ACHD Commissioners FROM: Terry Little, P.E. Manager, Traffic Services SUBJECT: Bike Lanes FACTS AND FINDINGS November 26, 1997 BACKGROUND The Commission directed staff to report back to them with a strategy (1) to put bike lanes on all feasible collectorsand arterials (2) to identify collectors and arterials that are not appropriate for bike lanes and develop a strategy for safety accommodating bicyclists on those streets and; (3) to make bike lanes wider where factors such as speeds and trucks make such widening desirable. Staff was further directed to identify changes necessary to the bike policy section of the ACHD Policy Manual. This report does not attempt to answer whether bicyclists will be accommodated on every street, rather, how they will be.accommodated. For this reason, the benefits of bicycling and the various types of routes are not discussed except as it bears on the issue of how we can best safely accommodate bicyclists on streets in Ada County. Extensive research was done on highway and bikeway design standards but two most important references were found to be in the AASHTO publication - A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1994 and a Federal Highway Administration Report, The Effects of Bicycle Accommodations on Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Safety and Traffic Operations. The FHWA publication is intended to be used in conjunction with the 1991 edition of the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. The FHWA Report does a thorough compilation, comparison, and conclusion on 110 earlier works. Included are the efforts of John Forester who has been discussed previously and the research done in such bicycle friendly cities as Davis, California and Eugene, Oregon. The FHWA document gives a summary on, and draws conclusions with regard to, the extensive research that has been done on bicycle accommodation and safety. ada county highway district 318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714-6499 • Phone (208) 345-7680 The broad conclusion of the FHWA report is: "A complete system of separate bike paths or bike lanes on every street is neither appropriate nor feasible. Specific decisions on the type, location, and design of bicycle accommodations should be made by planners, traffic engineers, and other technically qualified professionals. The important message from casual riders is their description of the conditions they need to use their bicycles more often. There are close to 100 million people of all ages in the United States who own bicycles. The Bicycle Federation of America estimates that less than 5% would qualify as experienced or highly skilled bicyclists. Therefore, as the goal is to increase bicycle use and as new users will be predominantly novice riders, any plans must meet the needs of both experienced and less experienced riders."' The report goes on to recommend accommodating the Group A cyclist by making every significant street bicycle friendly with wide outside travel lanes except -where the Group BIC cyclists should be accommodated. Group BIC cyclists should be provided with a system of bike facilities (bike paths and bike lanes) for key travel corridors.' The report indicates that the Class A, or highly skilled bicyclist, prefers to be on the most direct route with the greatest convenience and comfort. "Group A bicyclists generally prefer unstriped wide curb lanes while group BIC bicyclists prefer bicycle lanes."3 "Wide curb lanes are generally a' better choice on roads where driveways (particularly commercial driveways) are frequent."4 The wide curb lane tends to stay cleaner than a bike lane as vehicles drive in the area more and give the Class A bicyclists more freedom to move freely on the road to avoid hazards such as cars partially entering the roadway from driveways. As a conclusion, the FHWA report states that "Wide curb lanes are generally preferred over road shoulders or bicycle lanes on roadways with frequent intersections and/or commercial driveways."' Some of the local Class A bicyclists have voiced support for bike lanes on every major street, but they have not had much exposure in this county to the wide outside lanes that are recommended for Class A bicycle accommodation on major streets. Very few streets in Ada County have continuous outside lanes that meet the current standard, and FHWA's recommended width of the outside lane is wider than ACHD's current standard. The basic difference is not including the 1.5 wide gutter pan as part of the useable area. 1The Effects of Bicycle Accommodations on Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Safety and Traffic Operations, U.S. Dept. of Transp., Federal Highway Administration, July 1994, p. 4. 2 Ibid., p. 6. Ibid., p. 32. 4 Ibid., p. 19. 5 Ibid., p. 20. 3 Class B/C cyclists are the basic bicyclists (casual, novice and occasional) and children. These groups want well-defined separation of bicyclists and vehicles (bike lanes or paths) but may be accommodated by less direct but comfortable facilities.6 Although the likelihood of some types of accidents may be increased by the provision of bike lanes,' overall, "Bike lanes appear to reduce the accident rates for group B/C bicyclists. In particular, bike lanes reduce the incidenceof accidents resulting from wrong -way bicycle riding, a significant contributor to the generation of bicycle/motor vehicle accidents. Bicycle lanes also tend to attract group B/C bicyclists from sidewalks, thus reducing the potential for driveway/intersection crashes and conflicts, between bicyclists and pedestrians.'8 This attraction of Class B/C riders to ride in the street supports keeping bike lanes off the high speed/highvolume streets where'lt is not desirable to have young riders immediately adjacent to traffic, It is preferable to provide bicycle lanes and thus attract Class B/C riders to moderate traffic volume arterials and collectors. However, in order to provide good continuity of the bike route system, some principal arterials will need to have bike lanes.- Based on previous direction given by the Commission to propose the accommodation of bikes everywhere, staffs conclusion of the technical research is that wide curb lanes should be the standard accommodation on the state highways and other principal arterials and the bike lanes should be the standard accommodation on other arterials and collectors. Exceptions wouldbe rural street sections where shoulders can best accommodate bicyclists, and low speed/low volume streets where bicyclists can be expected to mix well with traffic and/or the likelihood or impacts of a retrofit including bike lanes is impractical or undesirable. Some examples are Irene Street in the North End, Cassia Street near Borah High School, and Main Street (in the neo -traditional downtown of the proposed Hidden Springs development). Designing the major streets for Class A riders is not an indication, that Class B/C riders will not use such streets, especially when they desire to access a destination on those streets. However, it is recognized that Class B/C riders prefer and use alternatives to major arterials for as much of their route as is physically possible including parallel collector and local streets, micro -pathways, schoolyards, parking lots, sidewalks and any other alternative to riding in the street of a major busy arterial. With regard to attracting people to use their bicycles as a transportation mode, the point has been made that the greatest potential is in the B/C range where bike lanes and bike paths are clearly the facility of choice. A study done 15 years ago in Seattle, Washington concluded that "The city's most dramatic increases in bicycle use have been associated with the construction of off-street bicycle facilities which have directly 6 Ibid., p. 5. ' Ibid., p. 25. 8 Ibid., p. 20. enhanced physical bike access and operating space."9 They saw a 75% increase in weekday trips in the area of the University. Bicycle lanes have been shown to attract riders from other, less safe, routes.10 If Class B/C riders are attracted to use the lower volume arterials and collectors in lieu of the principal arterial because of bike lanes, both cyclist safety and congestion relief are most likely served. 4 Although there seems to be little, if any, literature proving that new trips -(as opposed to attracting trips from a parallel route) come with a bike lane (in contrast to,b_ ike path) installation, surveys have indicated a potential for this,.to occur. "A Harris survey of both bicyclists and non -bicyclists suggests that the provision of 'safe bicycle Ianes'would . motivate more people to consider bicycle commuting than financial incentives, the provision of shower facilities and bicycle storage lockers, or a steep rise in the price of gasoline."11 Where system -wide improvements have been made the results have been observed, however. Class A bicyclists generally cause little impedance to traffic and are relative safe riding in wide outside lanes. The.bicycle route system needs to be reasonably direct or many riders, especially college students, will continue to ride the most direct route.12 BIKE PATHS Bike paths are the best and the worst of bicycling. The AASHTO Guide, the California Design Manual, and the Oregon Bicycle Master Plan all extoll the value of separate bike paths for recreation and commuting. These guides point out the necessity of having few crossings of bike paths such as one finds along rivers, canals, railroad crossings, freeways, or naturall'geographic features. The California resource points out the paths can serve as "direct high-speed commute routes if the cross flow by motor vehicles can be minimized."13 The planned path along Federal Way is such a path with no driveway or roadway crossings at all in one two-mile section while vehicles can expect to encounter stops at some of the three to four traffic signals along the route. Access to a pathway is also a consideration, and in the case of the Federal Way pathway, the signal locations will work out fairly well for access from adjacent neighborhoods and businesses. Street crossings are not an issue unique to bike paths as bicyclists using bike lanes typically have to cross the street in one direction, but bike paths sometimes require crossing the street twice. A pathway, such as the one along Chinden, is an example of the worst in bicycle facilities with continuous driveways to cross and occasional obstructions by adjacent property owners. 9lbid., p. 60. 10 Ibid., p. 28. 11 Ibid., p. 11. t2 Ibid., p. 28, 29, 92. 13 Ibid., p. 58-59. J It is only in rare cases that pathways can be logically substituted for on -street bike facilities. Although bicycles or bike lanes are not mentioned in the Idaho Code section establishing a single county -wide highway district, the authority for ACHD to provide for street -related bicyclists logically follows based on the earlier discussion relating the safety and capacity implications of bicycles on streets. As mentioned, the greatest potential to attract riders is separate pathways. Two ACHD employees live between State Street and the Boise River and are Class\B riders who occasionally commute by bicycle to work. Both employees have chosen pathway/local street alternatives over riding on State Street. As one of them put it, "1„would take the greenbelt path over a 10' wide shoulder on State Street.” ROADWAY CROSS-SECTION (Where Can We Cut?) The entire roadway cross-section was put under scrutiny staff in making recommendations regarding bike lanes as other elements are'often`compromised to obtain additional width for bike lanes. Compromises can and should be made in basic design features on retrofit projects where safety permits compromise and where negative impacts or high costs could result from the use of full standards. However, in the planning and design of new roadways, thebasic standards should be provided. The basic standard for roadway design, the AASHTO - Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Green Book) states that "No feature of a highway has a greater influence on the safety and comfort of driving than the width and condition of the surface."'4 Nevertheless, the Green Book's Foreword points out: "The effects of the various environmental impacts can and should be mitigated by thoughtful design processes. This principle, coupled with that of aesthetic consistency with the surrounding terrain and urban setting, is intended to produce highways that are safe and efficient for users, acceptable to non-users and in harmony with the environment."15 The Green Book is under attack in several states for its requirements; however, the major concern with the application of the Green Book appears to be largely related to state departments of transportation not being sensitive to extreme environmental concerns such as historic bridges. Even the harshest critics do not attack its accuracy, only its appropriateness when applied to local conditions and needs.16 '4 Alan Ehrenhalt, "The Asphalt Rebellion", Governing, October 1997, p. 20ff. 15A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials, 1995, p. 333. '6 Ehrenhalt, p. 20ff. 6 VEHICLE (THROUGH) LANE WIDTHS Design exceptions are considered in order to reduce the impact to adjacent properties. One of the more common features considered for a reduction below standard is the width of lanes according to a survey of State Transportation Departments." A reference in a literature review of NCHRP Report 330 and other studies on safety points out that with respect to urban/suburban arterials that although the`general tendency is for accident rates to increase inversely to lane width, "the empirical relationship of lane width to safety is not well established."18 The reduction in capacity with respect to lane width reductions with restricted lateral clearance is well established. The adjustment in saturation flow rate used in the calculation of signalized intersection capacities assigns a 3.33% change in capacity for each one foot of decrease or increase in lane width from the standard 12' lane.19 Therefore, a 9' lane has 10% less capacity than a .12' lane and a 15' lane has 10% more capacity. The AASHTO reference clearly recognizes the need to compromise lane widths as indicated by the following statement: "Although lane widths of 3.6 meters are desirable on both rural and urban facilities there are 'circumstances that necessitate the use of lanes less than 3.6 meters wide. In urban areas where right-of-way and existing development become stringent controls, the use of 3.3 meter lanes is acceptable."20 This is consistent -with what ACHD has done with standard 12' lanes where feasible and 11' lanes where right-of-way is tight and impacts are greatest. Idaho is a state which allows very large trucks and has a substantial farm population which is often characterizedby less experienced, younger drivers with less familiarity with their vehicles. In addition, the outdoor ethic in Idaho and the proximity to great recreational attractions results in more than our share of large recreational vehicles, many with drivers who are inexperienced and unfamiliar with their vehicle. For these and other reasons, ACHD engineers have been reluctant to recommend anything less than what AASHTO identifies as acceptable, especially in the outlying communities where farm traffic is common.. ACHD staff recommends that 12' remain the standard lane width and not be compromised in constrained situations on state highways and other principal arterials where relatively high speeds (45 mph posted speed limit) and trucks are common. In the heavily developed areas with posted speed limits of 40 mph or less, 12' is still the recommended lane width on arterials but could be reduced to 11' where right-of-way impacts are excessive. Minor arterials could be considered for 11.5' lanes as a standard, reflecting the lower percentage of trucks and typically lower speeds than on a principal arterial. This would also take advantage of a slight 17 Effect of Highway Standards on Safety, NCHRP Report 374, Transportation Research Board, 1995, p. 11, 13. 'Effects of Bicycle Accommodations, p. 55. 19 `Signalized intersections', Highway Capacity Manual, p. 9-14. 'Geometric Design, p. 335. 7 narrowing of widths in the conversion to metric standards. We need to remember, however, that ACHD has parted with the desirable standards for median lane widths and yet has a need to place concrete divider islands on the left side of a through traffic lane. This is a compromise that was made in past years and impacts further decisions to compromise on lane widths. Driving speed does not change due to arbitrarily low speed limits as motorists tend to drive the prevailing conditions and will drive at least 45 mph on a straight flat road with traffic signals a half mile._or more apart with little roadside activity. Collector lane widths are recommended for reduction in the standard width to 11' and local streets are already considered 10' wide with 8' wide parking lanes. The curb lane needs to be wider, even without the existence of bicycle traffic. AASHTO recommends that "continuous barrier curbs should be offset at least 0.3 m, and preferably 0.6 m."21 This would make the outside lane_13', or desirably 14', wide to accommodate vehicles, without consideration for bicyclists. Therecent compilation of research by the Federal Highway Administration recommends a minimum 15' wide outside lane to accommodate bicyclists and motorists comfortably,, measured to the face of curb as ACHD measurements are. done. For higher speed routes (45 mph and greater) with heavy trucks, a 15' or 16' lane width (add 1' to 1-1/2' for ACHD's convention of measurement) is recommended. 22 The impact of a bicyclist on capacity can come from (1) the fact that a bicycle may require some capacity as any vehicle in a lane of traffic would and (2) a bicycle may impede right turning motor vehicles at an intersection where the right first effect turning vehicle is a critical movement thus delaying following vehicles. Under the first case, the capacity used by a bicycle in the traffic stream varies from requiring 20% more capacity than a motor vehicle, to having no effect on capacity, depending upon the lane width and type of movement the bicyclist is. performing at an intersection.23 For example, in lanes wider than 14', a bicycle making a typical through movement is considered as requiring zero capacity because the width is sufficient for the bicyclists to stay off to the side of the traffic stream. Through bicycle movement affects capacity because it impedes right turning vehicles at an intersection even if a wide outside lane or bike lane is provided. Intersection level of service (degree of congestion) is figured by considering the number of bicyclists equivalent to pedestrians which also impede traffic flow of critical right turns. The degree of impedance is related to the design, traffic volume, and proportion of critical turning movements at an intersection and no typical percentages are given in the Highway Capacity Manual. 2' Ibid., p. 349. 22 Effects of Bicycle Accommodation, p. 20. 23 "Bicycles", Highway Capacity Manual, p. 14-2. In order to put this in perspective, staff ran a level of service analysis of a typical intersection (without separate right turn lanes) with and without the presence of bicyclists during the pm peak hour. With outside lanes over 14' in width, the "through" cyclists would require no capacity directly but would increase the average vehicular delay. The additional delay of a bicycle was only about 5% of the vehicular delay caused by adding one more car with fairly heavy traffic flow. Delay.caused by a cyclist increased sharply as the traffic flow approached capacity to a point of being equal to the delay of a car. Given the congestion levels at which ACHD intersections typically operate and the tendency of even the most aggressive bicyclists to avoid the most congested intersections at peak traffic hours, we can'assume that the number-of bicyclists that encounter these conditions will never predominate the traffic flow and it is always much preferable capacity-wise to have travelers on bicycles rather than in cars. MEDIAN & LEFT TURN LANE WIDTHS AASHTO specifies desirable standards of a 12' lane and a 6' median (English equivalent measurements) for rural and urban arterials with median.24 Many ACHD streets previously had wider striped center lanes that approximated this width but the space has been reallocated to the outside of the roadway for the benefit of bicyclists. For continuous turn lanes, AASHTO gives a range -of 10' to 16' of width 25 and ITD gives a range of 10' to 14' of width.26 Staff recommends maintaining a 12' center turn lane on all arterial streets with compromises considered for constrained conditions. UTILITY STRIPS Utility poles; guy wires, various underground utilities, light pole foundations, and traffic signs occupy the utility strip. Besides these uses for those facilities, the area generally prevents the District from having to buy a construction easement when the ultimate roadway project is built (sometimes at half the cost of a utility easement), and this area provides a 'shy' distance for travelers of various kinds on sidewalks. Staff concluded that 2' of width would be adequate to handle the standard utility pole and traffic signs and would meet the other needs satisfactorily. The convention has been to round off the cross-section to an even number of feet since this avoids requiring a half foot of right of way in connection with a developing property. Staff recommends continuing this convention with the consideration of compromising under constrained conditions or inordinately expensive right-of-way. The 2' width should be used as a standard with a reduction to 1.5' on two-lane streets and 2.5' on streets of more than two lanes. SIDEWALKS The ACHD standards were changed a few years ago at the urging of APA and some of the cities to allow for parkway strips between the sidewalk and the curb. This is 24 Geometric Design, p. 517. 25 Ibid., p. 335 (English equivalents). 26 State of Idaho Traffic Manual, p. 12-202.5. 9 reiterated in the Destination 2015 Plan.27 The ACHD sidewalk standard on arterials is now either a T wide sidewalk or, where the edge of sidewalk is set back 5' from the back of curb, a 5' wide sidewalk. Staff recently discussed the idea of having the 7' sidewalk as the sole standard and giving the opportunity to the general purpose government in each jurisdiction to procure an easement adjacent to the right=of-way and put the sidewalk in the easement. This would have to be carefully orchestrated relative to building setbacks, if it were to be allowed, because setbacks::from the right- of-way line provide such things as adequate parking in front of'garages'so vehicles do not normally hang over the sidewalk and buffer the impact of traffic. Since,..the issuance of this report in draft form this concept has been discussed with two of the general purpose governments and discussion and further consideration is expected to continue. Staff currently recommends staying with the present standard as it is a functional and safe standard with provisions for aesthetic enhancementwhen a'property owner or one of the cities chooses to provide such a feature. A 5' sidewalk adjacent to the curb can be used in a constrained circumstance especially if bike lanes are adjacent to the sidewalk to separate the pedestrians from the traffic. A 7' sidewalk, however, is still desirable and clearly needed where substantial pedestrian traffic demand is a factor or street furniture such as utility poles, bus benches, planter boxes or mailboxes encroach on the sidewalk and the sidewalk' abuts thecurb. RIGHT-OF-WAY COSTS ACHD's Planning and Development division procures much of the right-of-way for future projects through the development process. The remainder is purchased at the time a project is done. For this reason, both have been working to provide typical right- of-way costs. Typically on a developed road, each action that makes the roadway wider costs disproportionally more because right-of-way impacts are greater due to the proximity to buildings, larger and more established landscaping, signs, etc. The numbers are still preliminary but estimates are $.50 per square foot for rural, $2.50 per square foot for urban, and $8.00 per square foot for commercial. Exhibit #1 has both construction and right-of-way cost estimates. DESIGN COMPROMISES Both the development process and the roadway project development process encounter situations that do not allow for the preferred typical section. As discussed in the introduction, AASHTO acknowledges the need to compromise design standards within reasonable safety limitations where impacts to the roadside environment or extreme costs are encountered. AASHTO specifically mentions the reduction of lanes from 12' to 11' (translated from metric) when rebuilding a divided arterial. 28 27 Destination 2015, p. 12-13. 28 Geometric Design, p. 497. 10 A standard constrained section is recommended for typical cases where the roadside environment along a street requires compromise. This is shown on Exhibit #1 and ACHD design and traffic engineering staff work together in custom designing roadway improvements in a constrained setting. In the case of the Foothills, staff is expected to develop special standards to apply to all similar conditions in order to minimize environmental impacts. This would be used on many development.applications where right-of-way is acquired as currently occurs. Some of these applications are staff approvals and others go to the Commission as consent or separate items. The alternative of specifically designing each section of street at the time each application comes in, or having the entire street system designed ahead of time, is not considered practical or cost effective. In some cases, a compromise may mean not attempting to provide either bike lanes or wide outside lanes because the impacts are too great. .A case in point is Irene Street in the North End. Irene Street is extremely narrow and posted 20 mph. The impact of retrofitting the street for bicyclists would be excessive and the benefits would not be great. Class A bicyclists can ride with traffic at this low, speed; other bicyclists can use one of the many parallel streets for their cycling. CONSTRUCTION COSTS The costs of additional structural cross-section will be included. This cost will not reflect the likelihood that additional widening may necessitate retaining walls or other special features due to geometric constraints from the topography or from longer structures for irrigation or drainage. Also, the additional square footage for bike lanes may add some additional requirement for drainage facilities. SIGNS AND MARKINGS The cost of signs and markings is generally the smallest part of bike lane construction but it is still significant. Generally speaking, most roadways do not require 'No Parking' signs. With bike lanes wider than 6' or with 16.5' outside lanes, parking is likely to be a problem and 'No Parking' signs are likely going to be required along those roadways where parking demand could be anticipated (roughly estimated at half of the roadways). BIKE LANE WIDTH Staff is reporting to the Commission directly about how to accomplish a more widespread application of bike lanes and wider bike lanes where appropriate. Factors that effect the need for additional bike lane width beyond 5' are the percent of trucks, and the speed and volume of traffic. Traffic speed is not artificially created by the placement of speed limit signs. Enforcement will not hold speeds to an unrealistically low speed limit indefinitely. Traffic speed is related to the frequency of traffic signals; the roadside friction based on the number, volume, and design of driveways; and the prevailing geometry such as vertical and horizontal curvature. Because a few land use changes along a roadway may substantially change the 11 number of trucks that use the roadway, at least a moderate amount of trucks should be assumed on a roadway, even if the current truck volume is minimal unless the nature of the roadway and adjacent land uses would dictate otherwise. Therefore, assumptions about lane widths should lean toward the conservative side, and standards should be applied consistently so as to develop a consistent right-of-way width for the construction of the ultimate roadway improvements. Functional classification is probably the best indication of,the appropriate,volume, speed, and truck usage to use in the planning and construction. ofbike lanes. In general, principal arterials will have better signal spacing and better access control, thus higher speeds. In general, principal arterials also have higher traffic volumes and truck volumes than minor arterials and much higher traffic volumes and truck_volumes than collectors. APA's Long Range Transportation and Street Map would be the appropriate document for identification of street status. The following is a recommendation on the width -of bike lanes for various streets measuring from the face -of -curb to the center of the bike lane stripe: Principal Arterial* 7.5' (6' of asphalt concrete (AC)and 1.5' gutter pan) Minor Arterial 6.5' (5' AC) Collector 5.5' (4' AC) * Typically the principal arterial would not have a bike lane but where necessary to provide bike lane continuity (Ridge to Rivers Map), the 7.5' width would apply. The FHWA report referred to repeatedly throughout this staff report summarizes various studies and recommends bike lane widths for 40 combinations based on type of riders (Class A or B/C), the traffic volume range, the speed range, the adequacy of sight distance, and the prevalence of usage by trucks, buses, and recreational vehicles. The current ACHD standard is 5' which satisfies AASHTO (federal standards) where the joint is smooth between -the gutter and the pavement, but is .5' shy of meeting the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) standard which will not allow a portion of the gutter pan to be considered as part of the bike lane. The 7.5' standard has 6' of pavement in addition to the gutter pan and this is the widest bike lane recommended by several reliable sources. Any wider bike lane will have a tendency for drivers to use it as a vehicle lane. ACHD staff translated these combinations into standard widths that cover the general conditions expected on these classifications of roadway, realizing that adjustments may be required for constrained or unusual conditions, in which case, a special engineering evaluation will be done. 12 OUTSIDE LANE WIDTH (Where bike lane not provided ) The following are recommended outside lane widths for various streets measuring from the face of curb to the center of the nearest lane line: Principal Arterial 16.5' Minor Arterial* 15.5' Collector* 14' * Normally a bike lane would be required but where a verycomplex operating environment, a much safer separated and parallel adjacent pathwaj/,,or another unique circumstance exists making bike lanes`undesirable, the.above widths would apply. The FHWA report was similarly used as a primary source in the development of the preceding recommendations. That report has 36 combipations'of conditions - the traffic volume range, the speed range, the adequacy of`sight distance, and the prevalence of usage by trucks, buses and recreational vehicles= dictating what outside lane width is most appropriate for accommodating Class4A bicyclists. Deviations -would require an engineering study as indicated for variancesfrom the standard bike lane widths. Besides cost, a concern in making the outside lane.too wide is that cars will double up. Studies vary from 15' to 17.5' as the width at which this phenomenon occurs.29 One problem with cars doubling up is that one driver may, use the area immediately adjacent to the curb to pass other drivers to make a right turn and may be struck by a driver who stays next to the lane line and then turns. If this becomes a problem, an edge line can be placed to encourage drivers to keep to the left but this takes away some of the advantages that the wide outside lane has over bike lanes. RURAL ROAD BICYCLE ACCOMMODATION Paved shoulders are the appropriate accommodation for bicyclists on rural roads and are generally appropriate on rural roadway sections in the urban area. Again, translating the thorough work referred to earlier into a practical application for rural street standards in Ada County, ACHD staff recommends that the following shoulder and adjacent lane widths be accepted as standards for the various functional categories of roads based on the APA 2005 Street Functional Classification Map: Shoulder Adjacent Lane Width Width Principal Arterial* 8' 12' Minor Arterial 6' 12' Collector 4' 12' Local 3' 11' (Section line or equivalent) 29 Effects of Bicycle Accommodation, p. 14. 13 * Only state highways are principal arterials in rural areas according to state policy and ACHD would only be in advisory role in such situations. ACHD may have some principal arterials where a rural roadway cross-section is used but the minor arterial bike lane width should be adequate in such cases as the speeds and percentage of trucks will typically be lower than on a state highway. Where rural minor arterials are designated as truck routes, the 8' shoulder width should be considered. DOWNTOWN STREETS No overall conclusions were found in the research about bike lanes in the typical downtown area but the issues discussed were the impacts;and cost of providing bike lanes on both sides of one way streets and the problem with heavy bus traffic conflicting with bikes. One study recommended that wide outside vehicle lanes be used in lieu of bike lanes on one-way streets.30 The concept for downtown Boise, with a mixture of major one-way streets and less _important two-way streets, lends itself to providing a network of bike lanes using the lesser streets and accepts the co -mingling of vehicular and bicycle traffic on most of the main one-way couplets. One exception is the 15th/16th Street couplet which has, bike lanes and provides important bike lane continuity from the Foothills to the Central and' West Benches. INTERIM ACCOMMODATION WITH STRIPING In many cases, the opportunity;.to develop a full, standard bike lane on a street where it is desirable may be many years away;° For the last five years, ACHD staff has been striping bike lanes where width permitted it, even though full standard bike lanes widths could not be provided. The current recommendation is to continue this practice and stripe the shoulder in lieu of bike lanes if the area is 50% of the desirable bike lane width and the outside lane width can be reduced to the AASHTO minimum, both, as discussed in earlier sections of this 'report. If the available bike lane width is 2/3 of the desirable bike lane width, the full bike lane treatment of signs, legends, and an 8" bike lane line would be provided. Where feasible, extra width should be provided with pavement resurfacing jobs.to provide up to desirable bike lane widths. DESIGN FEATURES Where right turn lanes exist at an intersection, the continuation of the bicycle lane should be provided by striping it to the left of the right turn lane where the bike lane is to continue beyond the intersection. Where the cross street has bike lanes, staff does not recommend providing a separate bike left turn lane and bike right turn lane as (1) it is 30 Ibid., p. 22. 14 costly and greatly increases the impacts and costs at the intersection where right-of- way costs and impacts are greatest, (2) it increases the crossing distance and thus the exposure time for pedestrians, (3) the increase in pedestrian crossing time can have a negative impact on numerous other intersections area -wide if it requires extending the cycle length for the entire system, and (4) the benefit is very small as the Class BIC users, which are the predominant users of bike lanes, may choose to makeleft turns as pedestrians and are probably safer doing so. Right turns are typically an unimpeded slow movement where the bicyclists can safely share the'lane with traffic. Traffic signal detection is another important issue with regard to the needs of bicyclists. Two issues are the sensitivity of regular vehicle loop detectors to bicycles and the. provision of separate bicycle loops in bike lanes. Where regular loop detectors have been installed by sawing the pavement and filling the joints with crack filler, a bicyclist can normally actuate the detector by placing a bicycle wheel irnmediately above a portion of the loop. Where the loop detector has •been placed under a layer of asphalt, staff will respond to bicyclist complaints by marking the detection location for the bicyclist's benefit. A standard marking and associated sign are proposed by inclusion in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This'process for identifying regular vehicle detectors is appropriate for left turn lanes and outside (right/through) lanes where no bike lane exists. Bike lane detection has been installed in only a few isolated locations in Ada County and has not been used extensively nationwide despite the numerous communities that have constructed bike lanes. A major problem has been the inability of traffic controllers to provide a separate and appropriate phase length for bicyclists. In the last year, a new controller technology has been introduced with features that can accommodate bicycle traffic. The new controller has other advantages over the past generation of traffic controllers, and staff would like to begin phasing in the controllers with new signals and as part of the level of effort traffic signal controller update. Bicycle detectors can be placed about 75' in advance of the crosswalk so as not to be activated by right turning vehicles. Where the bike lane is placed between a through lane and a right turn lane, the bicycle detector would be placed at the stop bar. The cost to retrofit an intersection with bike lane detection on all four approaches is estimated to be $2,400 and the cost to do the same when constructing a new traffic signal is $800. MAINTENANCE ACHD currently uses aggregate of a 3/8" maximum chip size on streets in lieu of the old 1/2" chip. The aggregate cost increased from $7 to $11 per ton as a result of this change, but the smaller aggregate has been more acceptable to bicyclists than what was previously used. The rolling resistance was much greater on the coarser aggregate mix, especially under certain conditions. ACHD's Maintenance and Operations Department also began placing a liquid asphalt coating (fog seal) over the chip seal and this has greatly reduced the problem with loose rocks following the chip 15 seal process. Our maintenance department plans to continue use of both the smaller aggregate and the fog seal. Slurry seals have been requested by some bicyclists but a slurry seal costs 30% more than a chip seal and lasts only 75% as long. No special routine maintenance of bike lanes is currently done beyond what is done for vehicle lanes. However, maintenance has been increased signific'antly in the last few years on all streets. Monthly sweeping is done of all ACHD roadways from April through June and September through November. Most of the' sweepers, are busy with chip seals during July and August and sweep from December through March, the sweepers do sand removal when conditions dictate. The cost'of one,additional sweeping of the approximately 80 miles of bike lane would be $11,200.`•The roadways with extra wide shoulders would generally stay sufficiently debris free so as notto need consideration for additional sweeping. If an edge line is put on the major streets to channelize bike traffic, this would have the effect maintenance=wise of creating a bike lane and a more frequent sweeping would be desirable. The ACHD pavement maintenance program adequately addresses the pavement conditions but sweeping is one activity that should be increased if the number and width of bike lanes is increased. SUMMARY This staff report has been prepared in order to carry out Commission direction to propose standards and a strategy for accommodating bicyclists on all streets. This direction is consistent with the Destination 2015 Plan which called for bikeways "along most roads rather than selected corridors" and the creation of a "fully integrated bicycle/motor vehicle model."' : This report does not go into detail about the side benefits of bike lanesas these have been detailed in previous staff reports and are contained in the Ridge to Rivers Plan and the Destination 2015 Plan. The conclusion of the technical research on the accommodation of bicycles on ACHD streets is compatible with the APA policy. This staff report recommends that bike lanes be planned for minor arterials and collectors and that principal arterials be planned for wider outside lanes (with bike lanes only where critical for regional continuity) to accommodate bicycles.. This is similar to how ACHD has operated in the past but the research bears out that it is highly preferable not to give full credit to the gutter pan as a part of the bike lane and to have wider lanes where speeds and truck traffic are higher. This report also recommends a wider rural standard for the collector and arterial streets, assuming that these are the streets with the heavier volume of truck traffic in the rural area. With an increased emphasis on bike lanes, companion efforts such as bicycle detectors, signs and markings, and increased sweeping are also recommended. 31 Destination 2015, p. 12-2. 16 The current standard typical sections in ACHD's development policy manual identifies arterial cross-sections by the number of lanes with no distinction between the principal arterials and the minor arterials. Since the percent of trucks is higher along with better control of access and thus higher speeds on principal arterials, different standards are recommended in this report for the two types of arterials. This is consistentwith the APA and ACHD efforts to accommodate trucks and encourage trucks on the appropriate class of street. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the expansion of the Ridge to Rivers pathway map to include bike lanes on principal arterials that are currently designated for bike lanes(1996Ridge to Rivers Map), wide outside lanes on all other principal arterials, bike lanes on all minor arterials and all collectors. Exceptions would only be on a case-by-case basis. 2) Approve new street standards (Exhibits#1 and #2) with the following features: Utility strips (dimension may vary .5' to even x -section)'- 2' Parkway strips 5' Bike Lane Width Outside Vehicle Lanes (Inc. gutter pan) Other Vehicle Lanes Principal Arterial* Minor Arterial ,CbIlector/ Principal Arterial Minor. Arterial* `-Collector* Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local 7.5' 6.5' 5.5' 16.5' 15.5' ** 14' 12' 11.51** 11' 10' Rural Shoulders Principal Arterial 8' (Exhibit #3) Minor Arterial 6' Collector 4' Local (Section line) 3' *These would be applications that are exceptions to the rule. **These dimensions allow the cross-section of the most commonly constructed ultimate arterial cross-section to fit in the standard 90' right-of-way that is common in Ada County. 3) Include bike lane detectors in new signal projects with bike lanes and include with level of effort signal retrofit program (assume 5 of each per year) 4) Increase sweeping once per month (9 months) on streets with bike lanes 5) Increase bike lane signing, no parking signs on wide lane arterials, bike detector signing, and supplemental bike lane/detector markings 6) Modify recommendations above 7) Continue with current Ridge to Rivers map with additions -on a.case-by-case basis RECOMMENDATION: Alternatives 1-5 listed above. FISCAL IMPACTS: 1) The numbers given are general and rough"as extensive engineering must occur during the project development process -in order to calculate precise project costs, especially if the costs are to be'assigned to a specific -roadway feature. The costs of providing extra widths forbicycles varies widely depending on the circumstance. For instance, each additional square foot on a bridge structure such as the West ParkCenter Bridge or the Curtis/Ustick crossings of Settlers Canal typically costs between $45 and $65 for construction. On the other hand, the section of Curtis Road through the Winstead Park neighborhood will require the removal of one full lot depth of the subdivision which provides adequate width for bike lanes even with a' future five foot section. The consequences of providing bike lanes on that section ofstreetare more pavement and less landscaping but no extra right-of-way purchase. The remaining portions of both the Park Center Bridge and Curtis/Ustick projects are more typical conditions relative to the costs of accommodating bicyclists. 17 The cost of accommodating bicycles on principal arterials varies widely depending on the decisions made with respect to specific conditions and decisions and compromises made on other design features. ACHD rarely does major widening or new roadway projects on principal arterials as most are fully improved and are just in need of intersection improvements. The Fairview/Cole intersection shows a little of the complexity of giving precise costs for bicycle accommodation. Conditions at the intersection provide an opportunity to combine special bus and bicycle accommodations on the departure side of two legs of the intersection. Also, on the west leg of Fairview, the District already owns adequate right-of-way to accommodate the bike lane and bike/bus lane. The ACHD Commission has not yet approved the design for the intersection so the features and related costs are still unknown. Neither Fairview, nor the stretch of Cole Road north or south of the intersection, are on the 1996 Ridge to Rivers Map so would not receive bike lanes per the proposal of the staff unless 18 determined by the Commission to be streets that merited an exception to the policy. The following is a general idea of the cost of constructing a new lane on a principal arterial street which is the most common intersection improvement. The costs of the wider outside lanes proposed, with the current width bike lanes, and with the proposed width bike lanes for principal arterials in round figures are: ♦ Cost of construction of typical lane addition at an`intersection(12' wide) Commercial area $600,000/mile Urban(non-commercial) $250,000/mile Rural $120,000/mile ♦ Cost of construction of typical two-lane addition along a roadway(24' wide) Commercial area $1,200,000/mile Urban(non-commercial) $ 500,000/mile Rural $` .240,000/mile Cost of proposed wider outside lanes, increase of 4' in ROW and 5' in roadway section (16.5' outside lane, 15' asphalt + 1.5' gutter) Commercial area $200,000/mile Urban(non-commercial) $ 90,000/mile Rural • $ 50,000/mile ♦ Cost of bike lanes. per current standard, increase of 5' in ROW and 6' in roadway section (5' bike lane,'3.5' asphalt + 1.5' gutter) Commercial area $255,000/mile Urban(non-commercial) $110,000/mile Rural $ 60,000/mile ♦ Cost of bike lanes per proposed standard, increase of 10' in ROW and 11' in roadway section (7.5' bike lane, 6' asphalt + 1.5' gutter) Commercial area • $500,000/mile Urban(non-commercial) $215,000/mile Rural $110,000/mile 2) This cost varies depending upon the roadway cross-section being constructed with decreases in cross-section coming from narrowing the utility strip or vehicle lanes and increases from widening the outside lane or bike lane. The impacts on the most common ultimate cross-sections are: Principal arterial street (five -lane) for wider outside lanes, increase of 4' in ROW and 5' in roadway section Commercial area $200,000/mile Urban(non-commercial) $ 90,000/mile Rural $ 50,000/mile 19 ♦ Minor arterial street (five -lane) for wider bike lanes, increase of 2' in ROW and 3' in roadway section Commercial area Residential area $115,000/mile $ 55,000/mile Rural area $ 30,000/mile • Minor arterial street (five -lane), alternative cross-section (with 11.5' through vehicle lanes), no change in ROW and 1'increase `in roadway section All areas - $10,000/mile ♦ Collector Street (three -lane), reduce ROW 2', decrease roadway section" 2' Commercial area decrease $105,000/mile Residential area decrease , $ 45,000/mile Rural area decrease` $ 20,000/mile Nineteen roadway projects in the 1998 budget and draft Five Year Work Program (10/23/97 edition) were given a planning levelreview for costs associated with accommodating bikes per ACHD's current standards and per the standards that are proposed in this report. The projects were those that do not have plans and right-of- way acquisition in progress so that the new standards, if approved, would be applicable. In addition, they are projects that have a fairly straight forward scope and cross-section that allows for a simple evaluation of costs. Following is a summary of the evaluation: Total Estimated Project Cost of 19 projects* Widening cost without bike lanes Widening cost to accommodate bikes lanes per current standard Widening cost to accommodate bikes lanes per proposed standard $25,700,000 $ 7,150,000 $ 9,111, 000 $ 9,266,000 *Total project cost includes many other costs in addition to the right-of-way and construction costs to widen the roadway such as design; reconstruction of the existing roadway; curb, gutter, sidewalk and drainage facilities; traffic controls; utility relocation; mobilization; excavation; bridges and bridge modifications; and mitigation. From the above summary, it is evident that the cost of bike lanes is a substantial (27.4%) increase in the cost of the widening activity and a significant increase (7.6%) in the cost of the overall project, but the difference between the proposed standard with narrowed vehicle lanes and wider bike lanes is small (1.7% increase in the cost of the widening activity and 0.6% in the cost of the overall project). The total cost of the roadway projects in the 1998 budget and draft Five Year Work Program was $49,802,000, roughly twice the $25,700,000 cost estimate for the nineteen projects 20 evaluated. If the projects evaluated are representative of the overall roadway projects, the widening cost to accommodate bikes lanes per current standard is about $630,000 per year and the widening for bike lanes per the proposed standard is about an additional $50,000 per year. These numbers are indicative of improvements on minor arterials and collectors which as was discussed earlier in the report, is the,great majority of the roadway widening work done by ACHD. The cost of bike lanes or wider outside lanes on principal arterials is not reflected in these numbers, and the costs are much greater but Tess frequently incurred. Only one or two projects per year are typically done that involve widening on principal arterials that would involve widening for bike lanes or wider outside lanes. The figures given are indicative of ongoing costs after those projects currently in the design and right-of-way acquisition phase are complete as projects well into the project development phase are not expected to be altered. Some roadway projects do not require extra costs such as those where no widening is occurring; however, this is offset by special features of other projects such as bridges and the advance purchase of right-of-way through the development process. 3) $16,000/year 4) $101,000/year 5) Bike lane signing - $2,500/mile, no parking signs - $2,000/mile, other signs and markings - $3,000/year 6) Varies depending upon modifications 7) At the time the Destination 2015 Plan was approved in 1996, $500,000 per year was estimated as ACHD's additional cost for street -related bikeways in conjunction with planned capital improvements.32 The cost indicated in #2 above ($630,000/year) is the best estimate of what ACHD would expend if the 1996 Map is used as the basis for bike lane installation and compromises are made in the design and right of way acquisition process to address major impacts and costs on projects involving principal arterials. POLICY IMPACTS This report proposes a policy change that is supported by the 1996 Ridge to Rivers Update and the Destination 2015 Plan. The report provides specific recommendations to implement the intent of those broad policies on future development applications and ACHD projects. Funding policy, such as impact fee use for bike lanes, is a separate matter but is related if impact fees are used for bikeway accommodation. 32Ibid., p.12-6. Fde reports\bikelane4 sgiq EXHIBIT #1 7204.6.14 Access Direct access to arterials and collectors is normally restricted. The developer shall try to use combined access points. If the developer can show that the use of a combined access point to a collector or arterial street is infeasible the District may consider direct access points based on the following guidelines: 7204.6.15 7204.6.16 Less than 150' of continuous frontage 1 access point 150-600' of continuous frontage 2 access points Greater than 600' of continuous frontage 3 access points Access points for proposed developments at intersections should be located as far from the intersection as feasible, and in no case closer than as illustrated on Figure 72-F4, unless a waiver for the access point has been approved by the District Commission. Once the access points have been approved, they are to be identified as such on the construction drawings. The remaining frontage along arterial and collector streets shall be identified as having no access. Bike Lanes Bike lanes may will be required on all collector and minor arterial streets and on principal streets that are -as designated by on the Ridge -to -Rivers Pathway Plan Map. Bike lanes -shall be a ::k:num of 4 feet v idc, where :. ;+reef parking is not allowed and 6 feet wide wh re varkimg i3 a113 v d. lane width shall be as specified in the Standard Roadway Component Widths (72-F) or as determined by ACRD. Exceptions will be on a case-by-case basis. Bike Routes Bike routes are not striped lanes on the pavement, but appropriate signage will be installed by the District to identify them in accordance with the Ridge -to -Rivers Pathway Plan. 7204.7 Arterial Streets 7204.7.1 General The Functional Street Classification map identifies two types of arterial streets: Minor Arterial and Principal Arterial. Required improvements to an arterial street will be the same regardless of the type of arterial street located next to the development. Any non -site related improvements required along an arterial street will be compensated for in accordance with Section 7300. 7? -22 N STANDARD ROADWAY COMPONENT WIDTHS H N PIH W Component Type ML2 SL2 RC2 RC3 C2 C3 13 CC3 MA3 MA4 MA5 PA 4 PA5 PA 7 Minor Standard Res. Res Collector Collector Industrial Contin. Minor Minor Minor Principal Principal Principal Local Local Collector Collector Collector Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Vehicle Lane 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11.5 11.5 12 12 12 12 Standard Turn Lane Standard Outside lane (at curb) * * N/A 11 N/A 11 11 11 12 N/A 12 N/A 12 12 10 N/A 14 14 14 14 14 14 15.5 15.5 15.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 Outside Lane (at bike 10 10 11 11 lane) * 11 11 11 11.5 11.5 11.5 12 12 12 Sidewalks 4 4 5 7 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 (at curb) Walks 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 (not at curb) Bike Lanes (IG) (NIG) Parking Lanes * 5.5 * 5.5 * 5.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5) (6) (6) (6) 8 8 8 8 8 Utility Strips (walk to 1.5 1.5 1.5 2/2.5 1.5 2.5 2 2/2.5 2/2.5 2/2.5 2.5 2 2 2 P/L) Planter Strips (at 5 5 5 5 curbs) * All dimensions are in feet. * Not required N/A Not Applicable IG Lane width including gutter NIG Lane width not including gutter ** Utility widths vary to provide even number for overall right-of-way width. 5 * 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1. This chart gives the standard widths to be used for roadways. Exceptions may be approved by ACHD on a case-by-case basis. 2. This chart is a short form of the 2-7 lane charts. See lane charts for more specifics. 3. Top of curb widths are 0.5 feet and need to be included in the overall cross section widths. F:IUSERSIEVONBERG\WORDPIPOLICY\ZWVIDTHS. WPD Revised November 26, 1997 2 LANE - LOCAL, RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR, OR COLLECTOR R�ooaad ! I P�Ik to I Walk I Curb I Park Lana I Thru Lane I Thru lane I Park Lane I Curb I Walk I Palk to ML2 - P1 2 Lane Minor Local (2 thru + 1 parking lane) (no planters or bike lanes) 29/40 11.5 I4 I.5 18 I10 (10 1- I.5 I4 11.5 SL2 - P2 2 Lane Standard Local (2 thru + 2 parking lanes) (no planters or bike lanes) 37/48 1 1.5 14 I .5 1 8 11° 110 1 8 1.5 1 4 1 1.5 RC2 NP 2 Lane Residential Collector (2 thru + no parking) (no planters or bike lanes) 29/42 1 1.5 15 I .5 1--- 114 1 14 1- 1.5 1 5 1 1.5 RC2 - P2 2 Lane Residential Collector (2 thru + 2 parking lanes) (no planters or bike lanes) 39/52 1 1.5 1 5 I .5 1 8 111 111 1 8 I .5 1 5 1 1.5 C2 - NP 2 Lane Collector (2 thru + no parking)(no planters or bike lanes) 29/42 1 1.5 1 5 1 .5 I - 1 14 1 14 1 --- I .5 1 5 1 1.5 C2 - P2 2 Lane Collector (2 thru + 2 parking) (no planters or bike lanes) 39/52 11.5 I5 I.5 I8 I11 I11 I8 I.5 I5 I1.5 All dimensions are in feet. 1. Road widths are measured from back -of -curb to back -of -curb. 2. Utility strips (back -of -sidewalk to P/L) are 1.5' or 2.0' to provide overall right-of-way widths equaling an even number. Wider widths may be required to accommodate utilities. 3. Planter strips are 5' and may be required on collectors or arterials. 4. Design speed shall be 20 mph for minor locals, 25 mph for standard locals, 25 mph for residential collectors, and 30 mph for collectors. 5. Minor local (ML2) section is allowed when no more than 200 trips per day, which is equivalent to serving 20 DU's (dwelling units) for single family or 30 DU's for multi -family. F:\USERS\EVONBERG\WORDP POLICY\2•LANE.COL Revised November 26, 1997 3 LANE - COLLECTORS, IND,. ,TRIAL/COMMERCIAL, AND MINS . , ARTERIALS Road ! R!W Walk Walk Plntr Curb Bike Out- Turn Out- Bike Curb Plntr Wark Walk to P!L Lane side Lane side Lane ' to PL (NIG) Lane Lane (NIG) 3 Lane Residential Collector or Collector (2 thru + 1 turn lane) (no planters or bike lanes) (no parking) RC3 or C3 - NPL -NB 40158 12 RC3 or C3 - PL2-NB 40/64 I 2 RC3 - NPL -B2 45164 1 2.5 RC3 or C3 - PL2-B2 45/70 2.5 CC3 - NPL -NB 40/58 I 2 CC3 - PL2-NB 40/64 I 2 CC3 - NPL -B2 45/64 1 2.5 CC3 - PL2-B2 45/70 1 2.5 13 - NPL -NB 40/58 2 MA3 - NPL -NB 44/62 2 MA3 - PL2-NB 44/68 2 MA3 - NPL -B2 49/68 2.5 MA3 - PL2-B2 49/74 1 2.5 2 3 Lane Residential Collector (2 thru + 1 tum lane) (planters, but not bike lanes) (no parking) 2 3 Lane Residential Collector (2 thru + 1 turn lane) (bike lanes but no planters (no parking) 7 1 --- 1 .5 1 5.5 1 11 I 11 1 11 1 5.5 1 .5 1 --- 1 7 1 2.5 (4) (4) 3 Lane Residential Collector or Collector (2 thru + 1 tum lane) (planters and bike lanes) (no parking) 5 5 .5 1 5.5 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 5.5 1 .5 5 5 2.5 (4) (4) 3 Lane Continuous Collector (2 thru + 1 turn lane) (no planters or bike lanes) (no parking) 3 Lane Continuous Collector (2 thru + 1 turn lane) (planters but no bike lanes) (no parking) I.5 I--- 114 111 114 I- I .5 I5 3 Lane Continuous Collector (2 thru + 1 turn lane) (bike lanes but no planters) (no parking) V I - 11 .5 5.5 11 11 11 5.5 .5 (4) (4) 3 Lane Continuous Collector (2 thru + 1 tum lane) (planters and bike lanes) (no parking) V V .5 1 5.5 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 5.5 1 .5 (4) (4) 3 Lane Industrial/Commercial (2 thru + 1 turn lane) (no planters or bike lanes) (no parking) I 7 3 Lane Minor Arterial (2 thru + 1 turn lane) (no planters or bike lanes) (no parking) 1 7 I- 15 1 --- 115.5 112 115.5 I --- 3 Lane Minor Arterial (2 thru + 1 turn lane) (planters, but no bike lanes) (no parking) 1 5 1 5 I .5 I--- 1 15.5 1 12 115.5 1 --- I .5 1 3 Lane Minor Arterial (2 thru + 1 turn lane) (bike lanes but no planters) (no parking) --- 1 .5 1 6.5 1 11.5 1 12 1 11.5 1 6.5 1 .5 (5) (5) 7 I2 5 7 1 2.5 5 5 1 2.5 I7 I2 --- 7 I2 5 5 I2 7 1 2.5 3 Lane Minor Arterial (2 thru + 1 turn lane) (planters and bike lanes) (no parking) 5 5 .5 6.5 12 11.5 6.5 .5 5 (5) (5) All dimensions are in feet. NIG lane width not including gutter. 5 1 2.5 1. Road widths are measured from back -of -curb to back -of -curb. 2. Utility strips (back -of -sidewalk to P/L) are 2.5' or 2.0' to provide overall right-of-way widths equaling an even number. Wider widths may be required to accommodate utilities. 3. Planter strips are 5' and may be required on collectors and minor arterials. 4. Design speed for residential collectors is 25 mph, collectors 30 mph, industrial/commercial 30 mph, and minor arterials 45 mph. F:\USERS\EVONBERGIWORDP\POLICY\Z3-LANE. PAR Revised November 26, 1997 r F oak. 4 LANE - MINOR ARILMAL Roai17 I Walk to I Walk Plntr Curb Bike Out- Thru Thru Out- Bike I Curb Plntr Walk Walk to RAN PAL Lane side Lana Lane sada Lane PL (NIG) Lane (NIG) MA4 - NPL -NB 4 Lane Minor Arterial (4 thru + no turn lanes) (no planters or bike lanes) 5684 I2 I7 I- I.5 I--- 115.5 I12 112 115.5 I- I.5 I- I7 I2 MA4 - PL2-NB 4 Lane Minor Arterial (4 thru + no tum lanes) (planters but no bike lanes) 56/80 I2 I5 I5 I.5 I-- 115.5 112 112 115.5 I- I.5 I5 I5 I2 MA4 - NPL -B2 4 Lane Minor Arterial (4 thru + no tum lanes) (bike lanes but no planters) 61/80 1 2.5 7 - .5 1 6.5 1 11.5 1 12 11.5 6.5 .5 - 7 2.5 (5) (5) MA4 - PL2-B2 4 Lane Minor Arterial (4 thru + no turn lanes) (planters and bike lanes) 60/64 1 2 5 5 .5 1 6.5 12 12 11.5 6.5 .5 5 5 2.5 (5) (5) 4 LANE - PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL Road / Walk to Walk Pintr Curb Blke R!W PA_ Lane (NIG) PA4 - NPL -NB 58/76 I 2 PA4 - PL2-NB 58/82 I 2 PA4 - NPL -B2 64/82 2 Out. Thru Thru Out- Bike Curb Plntr Walk Walk to side Lane Lane side Lane111 I PL Lana (NIG) 4 Lane - Principal Arterial (4 thru and no turn lane) (no planters or bike lanes) 7 I --- l .5 1 --- 116.5 112 112 116.5 1 4 Lane - Principal Arterial (4 thru and no turn lane) (planters but no bike lanes) I5 I5 I.5 I 116.5 112 112 116.5 I--- 4 Lane - Principal Arterial (4 thru and no turn lane) (bike lanes but no planters) I 7 I - .5 7.5 12 12 12 12 7.5 (6) (6) 5 is 1 2 2 2 PA4 - PL2-B2 4 Lane - Principal Arterial (4 thru and no turn lane) (planters and bike lanes) 64/88 2 5 5 .5 7.5 12 12 12 12 7.5 .5 5 5 2 (6) (6) All dimensions are in feet. NIG lane width not including gutter. 1. Road widths are measured from back -of -curb to back -of -curb. 2. Utility strips (back -of -sidewalk to P/L) are 2.5' or 2.0' to provide overall right-of-way widths equaling an even number. Wider widths may be required to accommodate utilities. 3. Planter strips are 5' and may be required on some arterials. 4. Design speed for minor arterials shall be 45 mph and for principal arterials 50 mph. F:W SERS\EVONBERGIWORDPIPOLICYIZ4-LANE.MAR Revised November 26, 1997 5 LANE - MINOR ARTERIAL Road 1 I Walk Walk Plntr Curb Bike Out- Thru Tum I Thru Out- 1 Bike Curb RIW to P1L Lane side Lane Lane Lane side Lano (NIG) Lane Lano (NIG) MA5 - NPL -NB 5 Lane - Minor Arterial (4 thru + 1 tum lane) (no planters or bike lanes) 67/86 12.5 1 7 I - I .5 I - 115.5 1 11.5 1 12 111.5 1 15.5 I - I .5 MA5 - PL2-NB 5 Lane - Minor Arterial (4 thru + 1 turn lane) (planters but no bike lanes) 67/92 12.5 1 5 1 5 I .5 I - 115.5 111.5 112 111.5 115.5 I - I .5 MA5 - NPL -B2 5 Lane - Minor Arterial (4 thru + 1 turn lane) (bike lanes but no planters) 72/90 2 7 - .5 1 6.5 1 11.5 1 11.5 1 12 11.5 6.5 .5 (5) (5) MA5 - PL2-B2 5 Lane - Minor Arterial (4 thru + 1 turn lane) (planters and bike lanes) 72/96 1 2 5 5 .5 1 6.5 1 11.5 1 11.5 1 12 11.5 6.5 .5 (5) (5) 5 LANE - PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL Plntr 5 5 4/Valk 1 Walk to PL l 7 1 2.5 15 12.5 7 2 5 2 Road 1 Walk Walk Plntr Curb Bike Out- Thru Tum Thru I Out- 1 Bike Curb Plntr Walk Waik to RIW to Lane aide Lane Lane Lane side Lane PL P1L (NIG) Lane Lano (NIG) PA5 - NPL -NB 5 lane - Principal Arterial (4 thru + 1 turn lane) (no planter or bike lanes) 70/88 12 17 1- I'5 1-- 1 16.5 1 12 1121 12 116.5 I 1'S 1 17 12 PA5 - PL2-NB 5 lane - Principal Arterial (4 thru + 1 turn lane) (planters but no bike lanes) 70/94 1 2 1 5 + 5 l .5 1- 1 16.5 1 12 1 12 112 1 16.5 l --- I .5 1 5 1 5 12 PA5 - NPL -B2 5 lane - Principal Arterial (4 thru + 1 turn lane) (bike lanes but not planters) 76/94 1 2 1 7 .5 7.5 12 12 12 12 1 12 1 7.5 1 .5 - 7 2 (6) (6) PA5 - PL2-B2 5 lane - Principal Arterial (4 thru + 1 turn lane) (planters and bike lanes) 76/100 1 2 5 5 .5 1 7.5 1 12 1 12 1 12 1 12 12 7.5 .5 5 5 2 (6) (6) All dimensions are in feet. NIG lane width not including gutter 1. Road widths are measured from back -of -curb to back -of -curb. 2. Utility strips (back -of -sidewalk to P/L) are 2.5' or 2.0' to provide overall right-of-way widths equaling an even number. Wider widths ma be required to accommodate utilities. 3. Planter strips are 5' and may be required on some arterials. 4. Design speed for minor arterials shall be 45 mph and for principal arterials 50 mph. F:\USERS\EVONBERG\WORDP\POLICY\Z5-LANE. PAR Revised November 26, 1997 a 7 LANE - PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS Road / Walk Walk Plntr Curb Blke Out- Thru Thai Tum Thru RNV to PA. Lane side Lane Lane Lane Lane (NIG) Lane PA7 - NPL -NB 94/112 I 2 PA7 - PL2-NB 94/118 I 2 PA7 - NPL -B2 100/118 1 2 7 Lane - Principal Arterial (6 thru + 1 turn lane) (no bike lanes or planters) I.5 1--- 116.5 112 112 112 112 Thru Lane 12 Out- 1 Bike I Curb side Lane Lane (NIG) 16.5 I --- l .5 Walk Walk to PL 7 12 7 Lane - Principal Arterial (6 thru + 1 tum lane) (planter, but no bike lanes) 1 5 1 5 I .5 I --- 1 16.5 1 12 1 12 1 12 1 12 1 12 1 16.5 1 --- 1 .5 1 5 1 5 I 7 Lane - Principal Arterial (6 thru + 1 turn lane) (bike lanes, but not planters) V I - I .5 7.5 1 12 1 12 1 12 1 12 1 12 (6) PA7 - PL2-B2 7 Lane - Principal Arterial (6 thru + 1 turn lane) ( planters and bike lanes) 100/124 1 2 5 5 .5 1 7.5 1 12 1 12 1 12 1 12 1 12 (6) All dimensions are in feet NIG lane width not including gutter 2 12 12 7.5 .5 --- 7 2 (6) 12 12 7.5 .5 5 5 (6) 2 1. Road widths are measured from back -of -curb to back -of -curb. 2. Utility strips (back -of -sidewalk to P/L) are 2.5' or 2.0' to provide overall right-of-way widths equaling an even number. Wider widths may be required to accommodate utilities. 3. Planter strips are 5' and may be required on some arterials. 4. Design speed for principal arterials shall be 50 mph. F:\USERS'EVONBERG\WORDP\POLICY\27-LANE.PAR Revised November 26, 1997 EXHIBIT #3 7203.4.2 Residential Collector Streets If a proposed development abuts a residential collector street and the District believes the scale of the project warrants improvement to the existing facilities, the developer shall dedicate the necessary addi- tional right-of-way and provide for full one-half street improvements, including curb, gutter and sidewalk, plus an additional 12 -foot paved surface beyond the centerline of the street. See Figure 72 -Fl. 7203.4.3 Collector and Arterial Street If a proposed development abuts a collector or . arterial street, the developer shall provide a sidewalk along the paved frontage and dedicate the right-of-way required by the proposed land use and scale of the project. The developer may construct additional improvements as provided in Section 7300. The District will normally make compensation for additional right-of-way dedicated beyond the existing right-of-way, using available impact fee revenue in the appropriate benefit zone. The District may acquire additional right-of-way beyond the site - related needs to preserve a corridor for future capacity improvement, as provided in Section 7300. 7203.4.4 Rural Section Line Roads and Other Roads 1. If a proposed development abuts a paved rural section line road or other paved rural road, or roads, in order to provide for pedestrians, equestrians, bicyclists, disabled vehicles, and other non -motorized users of the roadway, the developer shall provide additional improvements to the road according to the following standards in lieu of constructing concrete sidewalk as otherwise required by Section 7203. 4.1. a. If the areas of the buildable lots in the proposed development average 7.5 acres or less, the developer shall widen the pavement of all roads abutting the development sufficiently to provide a minimum pavement width of 17 -feet from centerline on section line roads and 15 -feet from centerline on other rural roads, plus a 3 -foot gravel shoulder. b. If the areas of the buildable lots in the proposed development average more than 7.5 acres but less than 12.5 acres, the developer shall widen the pavement on all roadways abutting the development 72-10 sufficiently to provide a minimum pavement width of 14 -feet from centerline along section line roads and 12 -feet from centerline along other rural roads, plus a 3 -foot gravel shoulder. c. If the areas of the buildable lots in the development average 12.5 acres or more, the developer will not be required to widen the existing roadway, so long as the existing pavement is at least 16 -feet from centerline along collector roads (2005 Functional Classification Map), 28 -feet in width if the abutting roadway is a section line road and 24 -feet wide if it is not a section line road. d. As an alternative to the above, the developer may be allowed to construct a separated paved pathway at least 5 -feet in width along the roads abutting the development, so long as the existing pavement is at least 16 -feet from centerline along collector roads (2005 Functional Classification Map), 28 -feet in width if the abutting roadway is a section line road and 24 -feet wide if it is not a section line road. e. In the event that a bridge or other structure makes it infeasible, as determined by the District, to add the widening improvements described above, the developer will be allowed to deposit the cost of the widening or pathway improvements to the Public Rights -of -Way Trust Fund for later construction by the District. 2. If a proposed development abuts an unpaved rural road, the developer will be required to improve the abutting road in accordance with the pavement and shoulder standards described in 1. above. 7203.4.5 Exceptions to Usual Performance Reauirements 1. If a proposed development abuts a street that has already been improved to current District standards, the developer will not have any financial requirement for street improvements except as required by Section 7203.6. 2. If a proposed development involves a land use with the potential of generating less than ten additional trips per day, the developer 72-11