Loading...
Mou/Moa - 2025 - State Street/Idaho 44 Transit Corridor Implementation Coordination - 11/17/2025 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING STATE STREET/IDAHO 44 TRANSIT CORRIDOR IMPLEMENTATION COORDINATION Between ADA COUNTY ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT CAPITAL CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CITY OF BOISE CITY OF EAGLE CITY OF GARDEN CITY COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT This Memorandum of Understanding("MOU") is entered into this n day of Vl 2025, by and between Ada County, Ada County Highway District, Capital City Development Corporation, City of Boise, City of Eagle, City of Garden City, Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho, Idaho Transportation Department, and Valley Regional Transit. Collectively, these entities are referred to herein as "Agencies" or individually as "Agency." BACKGROUND The State Street and State Street/Idaho 44 Corridor (the "Corridor") is identified in the regional long-range transportation plan, Communities in Motion 2050, as a regionally significant corridor with a strong transit emphasis,The Corridor is divided into three segments: Downtown Boise to Whitewater; Whitewater to Glenwood; and Glenwood to Highway 16. The Agencies have worked collectively toward the vision of State Street as a designated transit corridor defined in 2004 in the State Street Corridor Strategic Plan Study. Building upon the original vision, the State Street Transit and Traffic Operations Plan (TTOP) completed in 2011 outlined near, medium and long-term planning and implementation for transit, traffic, and land use. Additional studies and projects are underway. The original State Street Corridor Implementation Agency MOU (the "Original MOU") was executed in January 2006 and was updated every five-years by the Agencies with the current MOU expiring on December 31, 2026. The primary purpose of this document is to ensure the Agencies, which are parties to this MOU, continue their cooperation and collaborative efforts in support of the long-range transit vision of the Corridor. 1. PURPOSE; TERM; DEFINITIONS. A. This MOU does not require the signing Agencies to make any financial commitments or appropriations of specific funds.The parties to this MOU agree that failure of any party to appropriate or otherwise commit to fund any of the activities described herein will not be deemed a violation of this MOU, and no party shall have any legal recourse against another party's failure to make such financial commitments or expenditures. B. The purpose of this MOU is to set forth process for coordinating planning and projects for the Corridor, and to delineate roles and responsibilities of agencies to support the coordination. C. The term of this MOU shall be five(5)years, and will begin January 1, 2022 and expire December 31, 2026. D. Definitions used herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in Attachment 1. 2. AGENCY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. Each party to this MOU agrees to assign one member each to the Executive Team and the Technical Team. Each Agency to this MOU agrees to apply its best efforts to contribute support to the activities mentioned or implied in the Procedures and Implementation of this MOU section within the limits of available funds and resources. Specific assignments will be determined when each activity is funded and a work plan is prepared. A. The key functions of the Executive Team are: • Collaborate and align efforts among corridor partners. • Identify barriers and challenges and propose solutions or steps for resolutions to coordination affecting corridor development and project implementation. • Provide leadership and guidance to support the coordination of the technical work provided by the partners' staffs. • Review technical information relevant to policy concerns. • Coordinate work efforts and, when possible and appropriate,funding amongst partner organizations to support reviews, updates, and the implementation of the annual work plan. B. The key functions of the Technical Team are: • Provide and maintain data supporting the performance measurement system • Complete technical tasks as assigned by Executive Team • Participate in project teams and provide technical support on corridor activities and projects. • Produce recommendations and progress reports as assigned • Produce an Annual Report 3. ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN. The Agencies will establish a performance measurement system, including baseline data before the end of the first year of the MOU. The Goals and Objectives defined in 2 Attachment 2 establishes the foundation for the performance system. The Technical Team will produce an annual report including: Measures and Outcomes Progress Report; Inventory of investments and completed projects from the previous year; and recommendations for corridor activities. The Agencies will consider any adjustments to metrics and outcomes on an annual basis by consensus of the Agencies. The Executive Team is responsible to review Annual Report and establish an Annual State Street Corridor Coordinated Work Plan. The work plan will include: scope, deliverables, schedule and responsible agencies for completing each of the agreed upon activities. 4. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITIES. Subject to Article 1(A) herein, it is anticipated that each party to this MOU will use its best efforts to take advantage of funding opportunities and pursue funding to execute the activities referenced in this MOU. In order to facilitate multi-year projects and provide for funding priority, each Agency will support the execution of the Annual Work Plan described herein to the best of their abilities. The Corridor is integrated into the region's long-range transportation plan ("Communities in Motion") and local Comprehensive Plans. The parties agree to apply for funds in the appropriate Capital Improvement Plan, Transportation Improvement Plan ("TIP"), and other outside funding in an effort to obtain the necessary funding to execute the projects on or before the MOU schedule. Interagency agreements will be considered, as appropriate,to support the implementation of future projects. 5. PROCEDURES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS MOU. All parties to this MOU agree that the following activities are essential to the success of the State Street Project implementation and will participate in the execution of these activities: A. Program Coordination. The Agencies acknowledge that program coordination is needed to ensure the Agencies are working closely together to achieve common project goals and objectives. B. Periodic Meetings. The Agencies will continue to participate in periodic meetings as described above. C. Annual Status Report. An annual MOU status report as described in Article 2(B) shall be made available to policy makers of all parties to this MOU as part of regular updates. D. Coordination with Other Studies. The Agencies will continue to coordinate to implement ongoing and future studies. It is anticipated this coordination will both make adjustments to the direction of the Corridor implementation and have an impact on the other studies to better incorporate the goals and objectives of the State Street Corridor Program. 3 E. Initial Steps Following Execution of this MOU. The Agencies agree to immediately begin the following initial activities upon signing the MOU: 1. Develop a list of agreed upon projects to support building out the corridor. 2. Begin to pursue funding for the agreed upon projects and program these projects in the annual TIP and in the participating Agencies' annual budgets as feasible. 3. Complete Performance Measurement System with baseline data. 4. Prepare Annual Corridor Work Plan, with full participation from appropriate agencies, to support the activities described within and coordinate timing and implementation of specific activities. 6. LIMITATIONS. Nothing in this MOU between the Agencies shall be construed as limiting or expanding the statutory or regulatory responsibilities of any involved individual in performing functions granted to them by law; or as requiring either entity to expend any sum in excess of its respective appropriation. Each and every provision of this MOU is subject to the laws and regulations of the state of Idaho and of the United States. Nothing in this MOU shall be construed as expanding the liability of either party. In the event of a liability claim, each party shall defend their own interests. Neither party shall be required to provide indemnification of the other party. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This MOU shall become effective upon the last signature date among the Agencies. 8. METHOD OF TERMINATION. This MOU shall remain in force unless formally terminated by any Agency after thirty (30) days written notice to all of the other Agencies. 9. AMENDMENTS. Amendments to this MOU shall become effective upon mutual agreement and written approval by all Agencies. This Memorandum of Understanding("MOU") is entered into this day of 2024, is an amendment to adopt and recognize revisions to the State Street Traffic and Transit Operational Plan through an Addenda found in Attachment 3: Attachment 3: State Street Traffic &Transit Operational Plan: TTOP Addenda End of MOU - Signatures Appear on Following Page 4 WHEREFORE, the Parties have hereunto fixed their signatures as indicated below. Date: Chairman Board of Ada County Commissioners Date: President Ada County Highway District Date: John Brunelle Executive Director Capital City Development Corporation Date: Lauren McLean Mayor, City of Boise Date: 1 I 119)I25 Brad Pike Mayor, City of Eagle Date: John Evans Mayor, City of Garden City Date: Matthew J. Stoll Executive Director, COMPASS Date: Jason Brinkman District 3 Engineer Idaho Transportation Department Date: Elaine Clegg CEO,Valley Regional Transit 5 Attachment 1: DEFINITIONS. The following words and phrases when used in this MOU shall have the meanings respectively given herein. "State Street/Idaho 44 Corridor" (sometimes referred to herein as the ("Corridor") defines the portion of State Street from Main Street Station west to Idaho 16 - with the State Street Corridor west of Glenwood Boulevard to Idaho 16 being designated Idaho 44. "State Street Project"for purposes of this MOU shall mean a coordinated effort by the Agencies to implement various steps to transform State Street/Idaho 44 Corridor into an integrated high capacity transit corridor. This integration requires the implementation of land use policies, roadway and multi-modal improvements, and significant enhancements to the transit system. "State Street Corridor Strategic Plan Study" (referred to herein as the ("Study") refers to the Study sponsored by ACHD and Boise City, and prepared by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates,dated February 2004,that defines State Street's future vision as a transit corridor. "State Street Transit and Traffic Operational Plan"("TTOP"),describes the components to achieve an integrated corridor concept which incorporates multimodal infrastructure, a high-capacity transit system, and transit oriented development. "Communities in Motion" ("CIM") is the regional long-range transportation plan adopted by the COMPASS Board of Directors. The most recent update, Communities in Motion 2040 2.0, was adopted on December 17, 2018. "Transportation Improvement Program" ("TIP") is the regionally approved and fiscally constrained 5-year Program listing transportation projects programmed for the Treasure Valley region.The TIP identifies the Agency responsible for funding the approved projects,with associated funding by year. Potential future projects that are unfunded or scheduled are identified in a category called "Preliminary Development." "State Street Right-of-Way and Alignment Study" refers to a project that has preliminarily defined the alignment of the 120 foot cross section needed to implement the Corridor,and the extent and location of the right-of-way required to achieve the complete cross section from 23rd Street west to Glenwood Street. While not formally adopted,this information will be used to preserve the needed right-of-way, assist the land use agencies in making land use and development decisions, and eventually purchase the needed land as part of individual implementation projects. 6 WHEREFORE,the Parties have hereunto fixed their signatures as indicated below. Date: Chairman Board of A a County Commissioners U47 J , Z Date: � Z y exis i ering, President Ada County Highway District Date: John Brunelle Executive Director Capital City Development Corporation Date: Lauren McLean Mayor,City of Boise Date: Brad Pike Mayor, City of Eagle Date: John Evans Mayor, City of Garden City Date: Matthew J.Stoll Executive Director, COMPASS Date: Jason Brinkman, District 3 Engineer Idaho Transportation Department Date: Elaine Clegg CEO,Valley Regional Transit 5 WHEREF,RE, the Parties e hereunto fixed their signatures as indicated below. ATTEST: 1 �q,21 hairman Board of Ada County Commissioners Trent Tripple,Ada County Clerk Date: President Ada County Highway District Date: John Brunelle Executive Director Capital City Development Corporation Date: Lauren McLean Mayor, City of Boise Date: Brad Pike Mayor, City of Eagle Date: John Evans Mayor, City of Garden City Date: Matthew J.Stoll Executive Director, COMPASS Date: Jason Brinkman District 3 Engineer Idaho Transportation Department Date: Elaine Clegg CEO, Valley Regional Transit 5 WHEREFORE, the Parties have hereunto fixed their signatures as indicated below. Date: Chairman Board of Ada County Commissioners Date: President Ada County Highway District V Date:MARCH 11, 2024 J. n Brunei e Ex- • • mire • Capital City Development Corporation Date: Lauren McLean Mayor, City of Boise Date: Brad Pike Mayor, City of Eagle Date: John Evans Mayor, City of Garden City Date: Matthew J. Stoll Executive Director, COMPASS Date: Jason Brinkman District 3 Engineer Idaho Transportation Department Date: Elaine Clegg CEO, Valley Regional Transit 5 WHEREFORE, the Parties have hereunto fixed their signatures as indicated below. Date: Chairman Board of Ada County Commissioners Date: President Ada County Highway District Date: John Brunelle Executive Director Capital City Development Corporation Date: Lauren McLean Mayor, City of Boise Date: Brad Pike Mayor, City of E gle Date: -72- .202 Jo Evans ayor, City of Garden City Date: Matthew J. Stoll Executive Director, COMPASS Date: Jason Brinkman District 3 Engineer Idaho Transportation Department Date: Elaine Clegg CEO, Valley Regional Transit 5 WHEREFORE, the Parties have hereunto fixed their signatures as indicated below. Date: Chairman Board of Ada County Commissioners Date: President Ada County Highway District Date: John Brunelle Executive Director Capital City Development Corporation Date: Lauren McLean Mayor, City of Boise Date: Brad Pike Mayor, City of Eagle Date: John Evans Mayor, City of Garden City Date: Matthew J. Stoll Executive Director, COMPASS 0C...:31"—St'46-j---. Digitally signed by Jason D Brinkman Date: 2025,10 06 16:51:53-06'00' ate: Jason Brinkman District 3 Engineer Idaho Transportation Department Date: Elaine Clegg CEO, Valley Regional Transit 5 8.0'Green Space or 8.0'Green Specs or 10.0'Passenger Amenity Zone 10.0'Passenger Amenity Zone Note 2 Note 2 _— / /2.0'Standard Curb&Gutter 1.0'Hartlecape Buffer 20'Raised Curb 8 Gutter Adjacent To Passenger Amenity Zone 11,0' 11.0' 11.0' 129' L/// 11.0' Ito' 11.0' H.0' / 12.0• Mulls-Modal Medan Multi-Modal Shared Use Peke -Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Shared Use Path Travel Lane Or Loll TurnLana Travel Lane Note 1 Note 3 Note 3 Note 3 Note 4 Note 3 Note 3 Note 3 Note 1 t 1 'r- �i'If: t r ii - =�1\ .w a Ilk II `1 I :i. i e..1/. I IIIII I , v l b. ACHD Typical Roadway Section 127'ROW PJwatedDmPadN s elteer Seven(7)Lane ConfgurNwn N.T.S. Typical Section Notes: 1.The desired width of the Shared Use Path is 12-feet.However,the width of Shared Use Path may be reduced to 10-feet where physical or right-of-way constraints exist.Alternately,the Shared Use Path may be omitted and replaced with a sidewalk of appropriate width as approved during design review of detailed construction plans tot State Street improvements. 2.A minimum Green Spice width of B-feet is required for tree planting or can be extended to 10 feet for larger street trees per ACHD policies.It may be necessary to reduce the Green Space width due to physical or tight-of-way constraints.Planting of trees,shrubs or grass le the Green Space may be prohibited due to vision sight triangle requirements at driveways and intersections,unavailability of irrigation,drainage concerns,utilities in the Green Space area or space constraints. 3.All travel lanes shown on the typical section are intended to be-general use lane'available for all vehicle types.Typical lane widths are 11-feet.Narrower lane widths will require special approval from ACHD.Wider lanes may be used where space is available or where the existing road width or travel lanes are already wider.Additional lanes may be incorporated into the typical section to accommodate turn lanes at intersections. 4.The 'lane may be used to accommodate left turn lanes at intersections,a two-way-kft-turn lane where kit turn movement to/from adjacent properties are allowed,or may be constructed as a raised median to prohibit left turn movements. Where a raised median is constructed,the width of the center lane`maybe reduced to help alleviate space constraints or right-of-way impacts.Planting of trees,shrubs or grass in the raised median maybe prohibited due to unavailability of irrigation,drainage concerns,utilities in the raised median area or space constraints if the raised median is narrowed. Attachment 1: State Street Typical Section_ACHD Attachment 2: State Street Corridor Collaboration Goals and Objectives Goals: 1. Maximize the movement of people within the physical constraints of corridor 2. Minimize the cost of travel in the corridor(including person delay, reliability, household costs spent on transportation, etc.) 3. Support the development of vibrant, livable communities thus enabling the mobility of residents of all abilities, maximizing the development opportunities along the corridor, an facilitating the development of high-quality public spaces. Objectives: A. Establish measurable criteria that support the vision of the goal statement B. Establish processes for coordination of activities scheduled to occur as the corridor is developed. C. Address concerns and policy questions that address concerns emerging from the implementation and review of the TTOP. D. Establish processes for engaging governing bodies of the organizations that lead to effective collaboration in the corridor's development. E. Make decisions that optimize existing investments in the corridor. 7 1.0' 2 0' Hardscape Buffer Adjacent L Raised Curb&Gutter To Passenger Amenity Zone I _ — I 10.0' 12.0' 12.0' 12.0' 12.0' 12.0' Existing 6.0' 12.0' Passenger Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Shared Use Amenity 12 0' Travel Travel Left Turn Travel Travel Paved 3.0' Path _ Zone Bus Bay ( Lane Lane Lane I Lane Lane Shoulders A I I I I . > Large Wood Power Transmission Pole(Relocated ' t Where Necessary To Construct I Standard Wood Bus Bay) I Power/Communication Pole r I (Retain 8 Protect Where NNW Boise Valley Canal ( Possible) (Pipe Canal Where Necessary To Construct Bus Bay) I ONO I State Street Corridor Bus Stop Example Plan View (Example Location West Of N. Bogart Ln.) IP 70.0' 4„ \f,••••'. Right-of-Way \ 1.0'Hardscape Buffer Adjacent1: '�'' // To Passenger Amenity Zone 2.0'b Raised 9 Y 10.0' Curb 8 Gutter 12.0' 12.0' 12�.0' 12.0' 12.0' 6.0' I Passenger Existing 12.0' Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing AmenityPaved 3.0'I Shared Use 12.0' Travel Travel Left Turn Travel Travel 10 0 10 20 Path Zone I Bus Bay Lane Lane Lane _ Lane Lane Shoulder SCALE 1IN=20FT r I * Of :, .A ' la mot'. ,.. tom-=1i1 Section A-A Drainage System For Curb 8 Be Gutter Section To Be Determined StreetCorridorBus State Stop Example le Cross Section During Design Phase Based On Site Specific Conditions. Notes: 1. The example location shown in this exhibit may not be representative of all portions of W State Street,from N.Glenwood Street to State Highway 55.The improvements being shown outside the existing 5-lane roadway&the 70'half right-of-way width will have significant impacts to private property&private infrastructure. 2.The desired width of the shared use path is 12-feet.However,the width of shared use path may be reduced to 10 feet where physical or right-of-way constraints exist.Alternately,the shared use path may be omitted and replaced with a sidewalk of appropriate width as approved during design review of detailed construction plans for State Street improvements. 3.All travel lanes shown(except the"Bus Bay")are intended to be"general use lanes"available for all vehicle types. 4.The"Bus Bay"is intended to be a bus only lane adjacent to the bus boarding&alighting area,allowing the bus to stop outside the travel lane.Appropriate roadway widening transitions&merge lane tapers are required before&after the bus stop location. ATTACHMENT 2:Example Section A-A_ITD Attachment 3 BUILDING A BETTER g State Street elplo Addenda: State Street Transit and Traffic and Operation Plan (TTOP) Revision Date: October 30, 2023 Recommendation/Request The State Street Transit and Traffic Operational Plan (TTCP) has guided coordinated action along State Street for the last 11 years. Cver the years State Street partners have made progress on various elements of the TTOP. Implementation of the TTOP has also required partners to consider updates to specific elements in the plan. The Transit Operational Analysis (TQA is one of those planning projects that results in recommending an update to the TTOP. The technical team and State Street executive team met and recommended the following changes. Changes Summary -NOV lane changed to Multi-modal Lane -7 Lane ACHD Cross-Section -5 Lane ITD Example Cross Section -Update long range transportation reference maps -TOO development to happen before to drive transit improvements -In-Lane stops replace bus pull-outs Description State Street Widened to Seven Lane Cross-Section (ITCP page 24 &39, Figure 18&24). The seven-lane configuration has reconfigured the HOV lane as a multi-modal curbside travel lane, that will accommodate a broad range of uses including right turn traffic, business access, in-lane bus stops and other potential transit priority spot treatments. The State Street Corridor operational Analysis identified that transit priority spot treatments such as right turn only except bus restrictions at intersections or queue jumps can be utilized to benefit transit operations without degrading general purpose traffic. These strategies used in combination with off-board payment, near-level boarding, routing bike lanes behind the bus stops, transit signal priority, and strategic bus stop consolidation can all work together to deliver a strong multi-modal corridor. The typical cross section is also updated to show a buffered multi-use path rather than on street bicycle lanes. The cross section continues to show trees in the median and in pedestrian buffers to create the desired pedestrian experience and streetscape. It is recognized that trees may not be possible in all locations. Cross-section widths are 127 feet as shown on the diagram and are considered desirable but may be reduced depending upon available right-of-way, or utility conflicts. Traffic lane widths may also vary between 11 and 12 feet depending on site specific needs. Two revised cross sections have been created one for ACHD and one for ITD. The ACHD cross-section shows an 11' foot lane width, a tree in the median and a shared-use pathway. The ITD cross-sections are shown as examples to provide guidance in specific areas where it OO tir;y �� ''� „alley ACHD 7 AGLF ! _ ��� u��. CK�ikiv'�ii'Y �:�� trO tlSlt BUILDING A BETTER M 2 State Street was unclear how facilities would integrate. Example Section A-A is a 5-lane highway at an intersection with a bus stop and utilizing the additional lane as a bus bay. Example Section B-B is a 5-lane highway includes the shared use pathway and how that could be integrated with ACHD sections with a shared use pathway. Notes have been provided with the new cross sections which illustrate changes and identify exceptions, see attachments 1-3 below. Note: From 23rd to Gary Lane, a road widening project to 7 lanes has been identified in the medium-term improvements (Fig. 23)see Attachment 1:ACJ-ID below. From Gary Lane to Eagle Road, a road widening project to 7 lanes is identified in the long- term improvements(Fig. 25)in the TTGF but plans have not been developed. See Attachments 2-3: lTD below for guidance on 5 lanes. Low&High Transit Network Maps(DTCP Pages 19-20, Figures 8-9) The TTOP envisions low and high transit networks for the horizon year of 2035, which were developed at the time of the plan in 2011. Since that time two long range plans for transportation and transit have built upon the low and high networks. COMPASS has completed Communities in Motion 2050, which outlines a funded and unfunded network. Moving forward, the CIM 2050 funded network or its successor should be referenced for the low transit network and the unfunded network or its successor for the high transit network. In addition, Valley Connect 2.0 also outlines a growth scenario network or its successor that should be referenced and maybe more accurate for the 2035 horizon. The GM 2050 unfunded network provides more routes connecting between Middleton to Meridian and outlying areas to the south and north than VC 2.0 but is 15 years further down the timeline (2050). As long-range transportation plans are updated the newest network map should be referenced. See attachments 4-6 below. Medium&Long-term improvements(TCP Pages 56&60) Medium and Long-term improvements are outlined for the corridor and identify thresholds of ADT> 43,000, transit ridership of 1500-3000 riders/day and TOD site development in specific locations before installation of improvements. This update acknowledges that the transit improvements will benefit existing riders, support the TOD site development and are part of the strategy to grow ridership to the target levels of 1500-3000 daily riders. Land development within the TOD nodes should be developed as far ahead as possible to begin building ridership for transit. The development of multi-family residential and businesses requiring higher number of employees will especially drive ridership, as well as park and ride lots at either end will accommodate ridership as outlying areas develop. Transit Treatment(fUP, Pages 55, 57 Figure 22-23,and throughout the document) As mentioned above, the State Street Corridor Operational Analysis identified in-lane bus stops will result in significant travel time savings for transit compared to bus pull-outs. Henceforth, references to bus bays and pull-outs are to be replaced with in-lane bus stops as described in the TCA and are recommended for speeds under 45mph. Further more,the .J' OO rL , vauey LE �:' .A CH) u o s corms! EAG Cant L l` ,116,,. ..._._ i -�;=_I ��� 4,' transit BUILDING A BETTER g • • State Street priority transit treatments identified in the TO4 replace those specifically called out in the TTOP. More Information Attachments: 1. State Street Typical Section ACHD 2. State Street Example Section A.A_ITD 3. State Street Example Section B-B_ITD 4. Communities in Motion 2050 funded network 5. Communities in Motion 2050 unfunded network 6. Valley Connect 2.0 Links: 1. State Street TTOP 2. State Street TG4 State Street Technical Group: Stephen Hunt. Valley Regional Transit Kate Dahl, Valley Regional Transit Joseph Guenther,Valley Regional Transit Lila Klopfenstein, COMPASS Tom Laws,Ma County Highway District Mark Vlfasdahl, Idaho Department of Transportation Zach Piepmeyer, Capital City Development Corporation Bre Brush, City of Boise Jenah Thornborrow, Garden City Nichoel Baird-Spencer, City of Eagle Brent Moore, Ala County Stacey Yarrington,Ma County • ���� -r.:y �� __� valley ACHD �© r n t r ( ) fa ogionoi = D O C. M PASS G 31"V transit di BUILDING A BETTER Se a) State Street eisks Addenda: State Street Transit and Traffic and Operation Plan (TTOP) Revision Date: October 30, 2023 Recommendation/Request The State Street Transit and Traffic Operational Plan (TTOP) has guided coordinated action along State Street for the last 11 years. Over the years State Street partners have made progress on various elements of the TTOP. Implementation of the TTOP has also required partners to consider updates to specific elements in the plan.The Transit Operational Analysis (TOA) is one of those planning projects that results in recommending an update to the TTOP. The technical team and State Street executive team met and recommended the following changes. Changes Summary -HOV lane changed to Multi-modal Lane -7 Lane ACHD Cross-Section -5 Lane ITD Example Cross Section -Update long range transportation reference maps -TOD development to happen before to drive transit improvements -In-Lane stops replace bus pull-outs Description State Street Widened to Seven Lane Cross-Section (TTOP page 24 &39, Figure 18 &24). The seven-lane configuration has reconfigured the HOV lane as a multi-modal curbside travel lane,that will accommodate a broad range of uses including right turn traffic, business access, in-lane bus stops and other potential transit priority spot treatments. The State Street Corridor Operational Analysis identified that transit priority spot treatments such as right turn only except bus restrictions at intersections or queue jumps can be utilized to benefit transit operations without degrading general purpose traffic. These strategies used in combination with off-board payment, near-level boarding, routing bike lanes behind the bus stops,transit signal priority, and strategic bus stop consolidation can all work together to deliver a strong multi-modal corridor. The typical cross section is also updated to show a buffered multi-use path rather than on street bicycle lanes. The cross section continues to show trees in the median and in pedestrian buffers to create the desired pedestrian experience and streetscape. It is recognized that trees may not be possible in all locations. Cross-section widths are 127 feet as shown on the diagram and are considered desirable but may be reduced depending upon available right-of-way, or utility conflicts. Traffic lane widths may also vary between 11 and 12 feet depending on site specific needs. Two revised cross sections have been created one for ACHD and one for ITD. The ACHD cross-section shows an 11' foot lane width, a tree in the median and a shared-use pathway. The ITD cross-sections are shown as examples to provide guidance in specific areas where it ©O 1 .. '. valley ACHD ;re ionol ""s' cur��si EAGLE c, :� . 0;1.,. y 0 O I =_I \;,, � +�.' ! transit 11110 BUILDING A BETTER State Street was unclear how facilities would integrate. Example Section A-A is a 5-lane highway at an intersection with a bus stop and utilizing the additional lane as a bus bay. Example Section B-B is a 5-lane highway includes the shared use pathway and how that could be integrated with ACHD sections with a shared use pathway. Notes have been provided with the new cross sections which illustrate changes and identify exceptions,see attachments 1-3 below. Note: From 23rd to Gary Lane, a road widening project to 7 lanes has been identified in the medium-term improvements (Fig. 23)see Attachment 1:ACHD below. From Gary Lane to Eagle Road, a road widening project to 7 lanes is identified in the long- term improvements (Fig. 25) in the TTOP, but plans have not been developed. See Attachments 2-3: ITD below for guidance on 5 lanes. Low&High Transit Network Maps(TTOP Pages 19-20, Figures 8-9) The TTOP envisions low and high transit networks for the horizon year of 2035, which were developed at the time of the plan in 2011.Since that time two long range plans for transportation and transit have built upon the low and high networks. COMPASS has completed Communities in Motion 2050, which outlines a funded and unfunded network. Moving forward,the CIM 2050 funded network or its successor should be referenced for the low transit network and the unfunded network or its successor for the high transit network. In addition, Valley Connect 2.0 also outlines a growth scenario network or its successor that should be referenced and maybe more accurate for the 2035 horizon.The CIM 2050 unfunded network provides more routes connecting between Middleton to Meridian and outlying areas to the south and north than VC 2.0 but is 15 years further down the timeline (2050).As long-range transportation plans are updated the newest network map should be referenced. See attachments 4-6 below. Medium&Long-term improvements(TTOP Pages 56&60) Medium and Long-term improvements are outlined for the corridor and identify thresholds of ADT > 43,000,transit ridership of 1500-3000 riders/day and TOD site development in specific locations before installation of improvements.This update acknowledges that the transit improvements will benefit existing riders, support the TOD site development and are part of the strategy to grow ridership to the target levels of 1500-3000 daily riders. Land development within the TOD nodes should be developed as far ahead as possible to begin building ridership for transit. The development of multi-family residential and businesses requiring higher number of employees will especially drive ridership, as well as park and ride lots at either end will accommodate ridership as outlying areas develop. Transit Treatment(TTOP, Pages 55,57 Figure 22-23,and throughout the document) As mentioned above,the State Street Corridor Operational Analysis identified in-lane bus stops will result in significant travel time savings for transit compared to bus pull-outs. Henceforth, references to bus bays and pull-outs are to be replaced with in-lane bus stops as described in the TOA and are recommended for speeds under 45mph. Further more,the Be • �aikY ACHD j'A(�LI; �� �; .ram'' �� )regiono� B'_ D O COMPASS I ....' trimsiT flf BUILDING A BETTER M State Street priority transit treatments identified in the TOA replace those specifically called out in the TTOP. More Information Attachments: 1. State Street Typical Section_ACHD 2. State Street Example Section A-A_ITD 3. State Street Example Section B-B_ITD 4. Communities in Motion 2050 funded network 5. Communities in Motion 2050 unfunded network 6. Valley Connect 2.0 Links: 1. State Street TTOP 2. State Street TOA State Street Technical Group: Stephen Hunt,Valley Regional Transit Kate Dahl, Valley Regional Transit Joseph Guenther,Valley Regional Transit Lila Klopfenstein, COMPASS Tom Laws,Ada County Highway District Mark Wasdahl, Idaho Department of Transportation Zach Piepmeyer, Capital City Development Corporation Bre Brush, City of Boise Jenah Thornborrow, Garden City Nichoel Baird-Spencer, City of Eagle Brent Moore, Ada County Stacey Yarrington,Ada County A ACHD 0113 • } rz -avik. ° for valley i ATM D COMPRSS 6�/ ` ' transit 60 Green Space or 30 Green Space or 10.0'Passe nger Amway zone 10.0 Pmapsr Amerity Zone Nae z Note z 2.0 Standard Curb 6 Goner 1.0'Hardacape Buffer 20'Raised Curb 6 Gumsr Adjacent To Pmenyer Arne.y Zone 11.0' 110' 11a 12.0• 11.0 11.0' MU 11.7 odei \ , / se 120• Um i-w—Shared U Pan f in naval taro 7ravtl lxro—�f Raised urn Lane Medan , Tttraf LaneTravel Lane Shared U Path—..+ Note 1 Traver Note 3 Note 3 Nate 3 I O r Left Note a Now 3 foots 1 Travel Note 3 ?i Note 1 ItLoli c _:-.1aft mesa WWI �� u_emu = loath �� tttttttt�� •••••,�.. ettttt> •. i, .11113 .. 1 =MB I ••u Rased Curb. 1 ACHD Typical Roadway Section 127'ROW Elevated Bus Pad 6 Shelter Seven(7)Lana Conliguralion N.T.S. Typical Section Notes: 1.The desired width of the Shared Use Path is 12-feet.However,the width of Shared Use Path may he reduced to 10-feet where physical or right-of-way constraints exist.Alternately,the Shared Use Path may be omitted and replaced with a sidewalk of appropnate width as approved during design review of detailed construction plans for State Street improvements. 2.A minimum Green Space width of a-feet is required for tree planting or can be extended to 10 feet for larger street trees per ACHD policies.It may be necessary to reduce the Green Space width due to physical on right-of-way constraints.Planting of trees,shrubs or grass in the Green Space may be prohibited due to vision sight triangle requirements at driveways and intersections,unavailability of irrigation,drainage concerns,utilities in the Green Space area or space constraints. 3.All travel lanes shown on the typical section are intended to be'general use lane'available for all vehicle types.Typical lane widths are 11-feet.Narrower lane widths will require special approval from ACHD.Wider lanes may be used where space is available or where the existing road width or travel lanes are already wider.Additional lanes may be incorporated into the typical section to accommodate turn lanes at intersections. a.The center lane'may be used to accommodate left turn lanes at intersections,a two-wapfeft-turn lane where left turn movement to/from adjacent properties are allowed,or maybe constructed as a raised median to prohibit left turn movements. Where a rased median is constructed,the width of the center'lane'may be reduced to help alleviate space constraints or right-of-way impacts.planting of trees,shrubs or grass in the raised median may be prohibited due to unavailabihty of irrigation.drainage concerns.utilities in the raised median area or space constraints if the raised median is narrowed. Attachment 1: State Street Typical Section_ACHD to 2.0' Horoscope Buffer Adjacent • Raised Curb 8 Gutter I k Tc Passenger Amenity Zone WO 1 10.a 12.0' 12.0' 12.0' 12.0' 12.0' 6'0 12.0' Passenger Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing i Shared Use Amenity 12.0' Travel Travel Left Turn Travel Travel Paved 3 G' Path Zone Bus Bay Lane Lane 1 Lane Lane Lane Shoulder i A I I Large Wood Power I I Transmission Pole(Relocated Where Necessary To Construct I Standard Wood •+-• Bus Bay) I v. ( Power/Communication Pole (Retain&Protect Where Boise Valley Canal I Possible) • f ' c (Pipe Canal Where Necessary To Construct Bus Bay) 1 I State Street Corridor Bus Stop Example Plan View (Example Location West Of N. Bogart Ln.) 41) 70.0' Q \Go"' Right-of-Way --***1)\ 1.0'Hards�pe Buffer Adjacent 2.0'Raised To Passenger Amenity Zone 10.0' Curb 8 Gutter 6.0' 12.0' 12.0' 12.0' 12.0' 12.0' Passenger Existing 12.0' Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing 3.0' Shared Use Amenity 12.0' Travel Travel Left Turn Travel Travel Paved 10 0 10 20 _ Path Zone Bus Bay Lane Lane _ Lane Lane Lane Shoulder l. SCALE 1 i 1 i 1 IN=20 FT T. eF :Ng. �k * M Section A-A Drainage System For Curb& Gutter Section To Be Determined State Street Corridor Bus Stop Example Cross Section During Design Phase Based On Site Specific Conditions. Notes: 1.The example location shown in this exhibit may not be representative of all portions of W State Street,from N.Glenwood Street to State Highway 55.The improvements being shown outside the existing 5-lane roadway&the 70'half right-of-way width will have significant impacts to private property&private infrastructure. 2.The desired width of the shared use path is 12-feet.However,the width of shared use path may be reduced to 10 feet where physical or right-of-way constraints exist.Alternately,the shared use path may be omitted and replaced with a sidewalk of appropriate width as approved during design review of detailed construction plans for State Street improvements. 3.All travel lanes shown(except the"Bus Bay")are intended to be"general use lanes"available for all vehicle types. 4.The"Bus Bay"is intended to be a bus only lane adjacent to the bus boarding&alighting area,allowing the bus to stop outside the travel lane.Appropriate roadway widening transitions&merge lane tapers are required before&after the bus stop location. ATTACHMENT 2:Example Section A-A_ITD 3 1 Large Wood Power Transmission Pole l g 4 (Retain&Protect Where Possible) I •Standard Wood I I Power/Communication Pole (Retain&Protect Where Possible) I I _ 1 IS. 1 1 '.,,....1:-.........'1.-' I I --:1414 I I 3 12.0' 6.0' 6.0' 12.0' 3 Shared 8.0' : 8.0' Existing 12.0' 12.0' 12.0' 12.0' 12.0' Existing 8.0' " 8.0' Shared 3 Use Green:, Buffer Paved Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing paved Buffer ;Green. Use ?ath Space; (Note 1)Shoulder Travel Lane Travel Lane TWTL Travel Lane Travel Lane Shoulder(Note 1) ;Space: path ' 6.0' 171 I : / .. I I Boise t y Canal able) 8 i Protect Where Possible) State Street Corridor Example Plan View (Example Location±600'West Of N. Bogart Ln) t Right-of-Way Right-of-Way /9 12.0' 8 0' 6.0' 12.0' 12.0' 12.0' 12 0' 6'0' 8.0' 12.0' Shared 8.0' Existing ExistingExistin 12.0' ExistingExistin Existing8.0' Buffer 9 9 Buffer Shared Green Paved Paved Green 10 0 10 20 1. (Note 1) Travel Travel Existing Travel Travel (Note 1) Use 6.0' Use S ace ShoulderShoulder Space 6.0' Path P Lane Lane TWTL Lane Lane P _ Path '� ! SCALE I I 1 ! 1)N=20 FT •�� � . 1 . ' tier, 'T. 41. ..1. * A t I. Section B-B State Street Corridor Example Cross Section Notes: 1.The 8.0'buffer shown on each side of the roadway coincides with the approximate location of existing power transmission&power distribution/communication poles. 2.The example location shown in this exhibit may not be representative of all portions of W State Street,from N.Glenwood Street to State Highway 55.The improvements being shown outside the existing 5-lane roadway&the 140'right-of-way width will have significant impacts to private property&private infrastructure. 3.The desired width of the shared use path is 12-feet.However,the width of shared use path may be reduced to 10 feet where physical or right-of-way constraints exist.Alternately,the shared use path may be omitted and replaced with a sidewalk of appropriate width as approved during design review of detailed construction plans for State Street improvements. 4.A minimum green space width of 8-feet is required for tree planting&tree trunks within the clear zone must be less than 4"in diameter.It may be necessary to reduce the green space width due to physical or right-of-way constraints.Planting of trees,shrubs or grass in the green space may be prohibited due to vision sight triangle requirements at driveways and intersections,unavailability of irrigation,drainage concerns or utilities in the green space area. 5.All travel lanes shown are intended to be"general use lanes"available for all vehicle types. ATTACHMENT 3:Example Section B-B_ITD iniori -------' 2050 Funded Public Transportation System \ - "`'' ��\ I , \ [_.—j r ,,, Milli "17.:;6--.„<1.. 41,14 ■ , .ll ri■JN11 1 . ..., .v4 iil ■ 1-_1 LiI _, i ..:) .___. 7 1 - f1 1 � I r 1 I I 3 j ' i I N Existing Route ., A Anticipated Route \��� Attachment 4: Funded Network 0 Miles t ---- C OM P A S S 2050-Unfunded-PublicTransportation-System------- 1 -•`/ )\(‘ rNs t \• 1 \� ilim Ai . _� _______J 'alNill I t•%.% k, 411 k • MO■_r��MI Mall ■nt• I ,.�� lir. '""�w�iia.1. -.-----...----.\ I i •1111Tripp l IIIMONINMEN ' _._ hi. "■A 'it N ', 1 A Nib. 1• , ,._ r. , lis Route Type (1 r - Premium - Express t‘ .i . �`_. - Frequent `.� Secondary - Regional Rail `,\ i Attachment 5: Unfunded Network y 1Miles FIGURE 11. ValleyConnect 2.0 Growth Scenario Conceptual Network Parma Notus Middleton Star __ _... _ E -C-_- Wilder Grsanl.at Caldwell LI Boise .( \ , N ,,`+t Nampa i— i FREQUENT I D SECONDARY rf ru () 3' 3 CD .* IT I Ern.HC-AE,Gann.O ODmnSb el.s.mtineuva,and the GIS sow arnmmnn w -c n 0 7 D rD . tI n .r N O